Research Methodologies

I haven’t posted anything for a month! For some of that time I’ve been wrestling with an essay that I need to write in the next few weeks which should prove to be really important for my doctoral research. The purpose of the assignment is for me to show that I have a good understanding of research methodologies used in educational research and in particular the one that I plan to use for my thesis (a comparative study considering the beliefs about the purposes and practices of primary teaching held by Malaysian and New Zealand pre-service teachers).
It sounds easy enough, but once again it has left me exploring the meaning of life – well, the nature of reality. I have figured that I need to align my methodology with a consistent world view. So I went back to all my readings on the ‘paradigm wars’ and the various research paradigms: positivism (post-positivism); constructivism; subjectivism and poststructuralism. The problem is the readings are messy and the authors all seem to disagree on just about everything!
However, they have brought me to a position where I recognise that while I do believe in realist ontology – (reality does exist out there) - I would side with the critical realists and agree that because we are limited by our humanity, we can never truly perceive reality. Consequently, I sympathise, but disagree with the relativists who see reality as being multiple and existing in people’s minds (For anyone not used to the jargon, ignore the paragraph and read, ‘I’m sitting on the fence’!).
The problem with me assuming a critical realist ontology is that leads to an objectivist epistemology and a positivist or post-positivist theoretical framework, which I think is deeply flawed as it assumes that I can be objective as a researcher – I can’t; I bring all sorts of baggage with me and will design the study and interpret the results in the light of such theory. Even with the use of quantitative data, that data will be selected and interpreted subjectively.
So at this epistemological level, I find constructivism (we construct meaning through engaging with the object) more reasonable. The other alternative, subjectivism (meaning is placed on the object by the subject) is still less convincing – it seems to imply that we create meaning independently of the essence of the subject – mmm!
Just in case anyone is still reading... having ruled out positivism, I am left with a choice between interpretism and critical inquiry in their many guises. The nature of my study lends itself to the former rather than the latter as I intend to collect and interpret data rather than emancipate anyone (though I do hope that the research will benefit people in a number of ways).
Within this constructivist perspective, a number of research methodologies are open to me including ethnography and phenomenological research. However, I have been most impressed by the theoretically impure, but pragmatic mixed methods methodology. If I build a study using both quantitative and qualitative instruments, it might prove to be richer and convincing to a wider audience. Using data from questionnaires I might be able to portray a bigger picture of attitudinal difference between New Zealanders and Malaysians in regard to their beliefs about teaching. However by using semi-structured interviews, I should be able to provide a richer account of those differences. As I begin to write the essay I will explore all the alternatives in more detail, framing my study in each of them – it will be interesting to see if I change my mind!

A Pedagogy of Hope

I have been thinking a bit more about this idea of what a good teacher is, does and seeks to achieve. I’ve talked about it a little in the comments in response to Dave Peters. It seems that however hard I try to explore a question, I keep coming back to the meaning of life. This week has seen me reading up on existentialism and nihilism and finding hope in psychology and potentially a partial answer to the question.

In the last posting, I talked about Korthagen’s work on belief and teacher education, with an emphasis on the importance of key values and not just the topical key skills. This led me to think about likely beliefs of pre-service teachers, be they explicit or implicit. Starting with the worst-case scenario, what if people hold a nihilistic view that there is no meaning to life? Why would you even get out of bed in the morning, never mind teach? But then there is a deterministic view that we are merely the result of DNA or our social conditioning, which is also a bit depressing as it can also be devoid of hope and potentially damaging in the classroom. The existentialist promise of man defining himself seems to be a much healthier starting place and is inclusive of both theists (Kierkegaard) and atheists (Jean-Paul Sartre). Following in this tradition, Victor Frankl’s, Man’s Search For Meaning teaches, that while we cannot always control what is done to us, we can indeed control our response. Frankl’s experiences as a prisoner in Dachau, add authenticity to his arguments (his book really is a must read!)

So I would argue that in order to teach we should be possession of a belief that there is meaning to life and that we as teachers and learners have the power to engage with our own destiny and make meaning.

This then provokes the next question, teach what? What do we want to achieve? A simple answer might be framed in economics; we want a skilled workforce, which is competitive in the world. This is clearly important, but it is only part of the picture. To measure everything in terms of the mighty dollar is hugely shortsighted. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has written some wonderful papers exploring happiness. He has argued against the focus of his fellow psychologists on pathologies and called for exploration of the positive attributes that make life rich and worthwhile. He identifies these as being, “hope, wisdom, creativity, future-mindedness, courage, spirituality, responsibility, and perseverance”. Perhaps educators should be enaging with these themes. While there are economic realities that dictate that we need to have the potential to earn a living, Csikszentmihalyi has argued there is a deeply ambiguous relationship between happiness and income. We might better serve our children by preparing them to live rich and abundant lives as well as providing for themselves materially.

Such an approach may also prove to economically worthwhile as it may act as a preventative medicine for the countless souls who end up shipwrecked into hopelessness and despair in our societies – offering them a pedagogy of hope

What makes a good teacher?

Consciously, we teach what we know; un-consciously, we teach who we are.
Hamachek (1999, p.209) cited in Korthagen (2004).

Occasionally, I read something that really strikes a chord with my thinking and my experience; Professor Fred Korthagen’s (2004) In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach to teacher education, is such an article. It has inspired me in a number of ways. Firstly, it has helped me further focus and justify my doctoral study which was aiming to compare the New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers’ beliefs as to the purpose and practice of primary education. I am consequently considering asking what it means to be a good teacher to those groups of people. Secondly, it gave a voice to concerns I have about the focus on ‘core competencies’ that I have experienced in the UK and New Zealand, and instead calls for more attention to be paid to ‘core values’ – amen! Thirdly his exploration of the power of Gestalts (“an unconscious body of needs, images, feelings, values, role models, previous experiences and behavioural tendencies...” (p.85) and how it these rather than a teacher’s training that often are triggered when responding to a classroom situation, resonated with both my experience as a teacher and teacher educator. Finally, I found his model for reflection extremely practical. I could see myself using it in a number of ways.
So – why not read the article?

Maybe, I should broaden my study, perhaps instead of focussing on just pre-service teachers, I should ask teachers, children, principals, parents and teacher trainers in these two countries, “What makes a good teacher?” Would there be a marked difference between the nations? Or would the roles mark the bigger difference?
By the way, what does make a good teacher?

Power Difference (PD) in Schools

Hofstede (2001) argues that the parent/ child relationship is continued in schools where the teacher/student relationship replaces it. He suggests that this is evidenced in the emphasis on respect in high power difference societies and equality in low power difference societies, suggesting the position and role of the teacher are culturally driven and not universal.

In the New Zealand/UK contexts (a low PD societies), teachers may consider themselves as equals to their students and be comfortable with students disagreeing with them. Students typically might see their teachers as equals and see no need to show respect when meeting them, be comfortable about questioning them and free to disagree with them (Hofstede 2001).

In contrast, high power difference countries might suggest a more typically teacher centred and ordered classroom environment, where pupils are expected to show more respect and not to contradict teachers. Hofstede (2001) also points out that in high power difference societies, education is highly personalised, with the wisdom of the teacher being transferred. This is starkly contrasted by notions of the teacher as facilitator and students as constructors of knowledge as are prominent in the West.
I am currently wondering how transferable the western theoretical frameworks that underpin the content of much that is taught to international students; is there such thing as a universal understanding of what it means to be an effective school teacher and if there is, is she an equal or deserving of special respect?

Michael Wesch’s Presentation to Library of Congress

Will Richardson posted this on his blog saying it was one of the "must views for the year" Michael Wesch explores the cultural significance of You Tube. For those of us interested in education/and or culture, I think we would do well to engage with what he is saying.

Culture Counts

Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another (Hofstede 2007, p. 413).

The concept of culture is hugely problematic. Societies are comprised of diverse individuals and are situated in a world that is: “characterised by increasing degrees of plurality, multiculturalism, interdependence, hybridity and complexity” (Mason 2007, p. 169). Even more problematic is the concept of “national culture” which seeks to describe the culture of often ethnically, religiously and “culturally” diverse people. In response to this, Singh (2005) warns of the: “psychosocial imaginings of absolute differences” (p. 10) and Mason (2007) suggests researchers can: “face accusations of stereotyping of treating culture as monolithic and overstating its influence in a hybrid world characterised by complex interactions and influences” (p. 166).

However, spending time in schools in Russia, South Africa, India, Nepal, UK and New Zealand, has convinced me that the place of culture in teaching and learning must be explored. When it is not understood, it can disrupt communication and easily cause misunderstanding (Prescott & Hellsten 2005). There is a danger that we presume the host culture is somehow neutral and its philosophies are automatically universal. When those from other cultures don’t understand things the way we expect, or thrive in the environment, we blame them seeing their culture as “deficit”. With the huge student mobility in our globalised world, this question needs to be addressed (Countries like Australia and New Zealand have almost 20 percent of tertiary students from overseas).

It may be that we as educators face two equal but opposite errors: the first is to stereo-type and imagine that cultures are fixed and that all people fit neatly into boxes; while the second is to imagine that our ways of teaching and learning are based on universal principles and the truth, not realising that the way we make sense of the world is born out of our own cultural constructs.

Now open access for comments

Hi everyone - I have now changed the settngs so that anyone can comment and not need to be signed up to Blogger - sorry about any inconvenience!

Instrumentalism - response to Bob

I started to respond to Bob's question in the comments section and then realised that it was more like a posting than a comment - so I moved it to here.

Bob asked: what do you see as the drivers of instrumentalism in internationalisation? Kerry Kennedy & John Lee (2008) mention governments' desire to combat terrorism, the failure of international bodies such as the UN to coalesce to handle global issues, the fear of disintegration (e.g. the old USSR), the importance attached to TIMSS, PISA and other international league tables, and the rise of business concepts being applied to education (managerialism). Would these match your experiences?

I must admit both my experience and my focus have been quite narrow. Global political trends, such as neo-liberalism, the reduction of state welfare, and the the resulting need for universities to raise revenue has:

"propelled universities to function less as institutions with social, cultural and intellectual objectives and more as producers of commodities that can be sold in the international marketplace" (Naidoo & Jamieson 2005, p.39).

It is this 'managerialism'- selling education to markets that I was thinking of and I have a (very) little experience of. In my previous in institution I was part of group putting together a programme "for the international market" and am currently involved in a project looking to support the learning of international students who will heading in my direction as the result of their government's contract with the University.

While neither of these universities are examples of the more aggressive commercially orientated organisations that see overseas students as “cash cows” and indulge in “crass marketization” (Singh, 2005), their internationalising practices are indicative of global trends.

Bob's question has provoked me to broaden my perspective on this - his question shows how there is more to instrumentalism than economic goals. Of course governments and international bodies can use education as a vehicle to transmit ideologies - while we might think of the Nazis as a really obvious example of this, there are, albeit more subtle examples much closer to home.

A conversation today with Greg about the impact of globalisation at primary and secondary level also got me thinking. The book that Bob quoted above deals with this (by the looks of the blurb I was able to download). Global flows of ideas are impacting education at all levels. Ideas of 'good practice' seem to be jumping borders at amazing speed - but so do their political and philosophical underpinnings. Are such things built upon universal principles, or are they culturally constructed and only locally applicable? Do some ideas travel well, but others not?

Internationalisation of Education

Well here goes, the first post. I hope to be able to use this blog to explore a range of issues relating to education, internationalisation, globalisation, culture and justice. I'm hoping that some of you might engage with me, challenge me, and make me think along the way.

I thought I might start by thinking about the internationalisation of education. Like most things, this means many things to many people. The most helpful definition that I have read comes from Steir, a Norwegian academic who suggested that it is comprised of three ideologies; idealism, educationalism, and instrumentalism. I can see how all three of these fit with my experience. I am an idealist, and I have got to say that for me education is a 'public good' and a right. Education in general and particularly international education should be about working towards a more just, equitable, and harmonious world.

I also identify with the educationalism ideology; some of my most powerful learning has come from travelling and enagaging with other cultures. Without my expereinces in South Africa, I very much doubt I would have become a teacher. Living in Nepal enriched me, and challenged me enormously. This type of experience ties in very closely with Mezirow's theories of adult learning. He explains that new situations can cause us to replace our (ill fitting) meaning schemes or paradigms. Many students and lecturers from Liverpool Hope Uni' attest to the significance of Hope One World placements overseas - for many the word 'transformational' sums up the impact of the experience.

The most topical of the three ideologies is instrumentalism. Its key ideas are explored in the literature under a variety of related though not synonymous labels: commodification; Taylorisation; McDonaldisation, and managerialism These labels all attest to a powerful movement in higher education which is dethroning the notion of education for the public good',and is reshaping it into a commodity to be traded.

If education is a commodity to be traded - as the World Trade Organisation consider it to be, it raises all sorts of ethical and practical questions. I will try to engage with some of those in this blog.

Well I think that is probably enough for the first posting - I don't want this to turn into an essay!