The HOW is just as important as the WHAT
The HOW is just as important as
the WHAT
Introduction
Successful doctoral work based learning depends on
practitioner researchers recognising that to achieve a doctoral award the work
that they do must make a contribution on two fronts - I describe these two
fronts as ‘what’ and ‘how’. Others, who I will refer to below, are able to
describe this far more eloquently but for me the ‘what’ of your doctorate is
your area of knowledge or content contribution and the ‘how’ of your doctorate
is your methodological contribution. These two elements crystallise, for me, those
aspects that make doctoral learning different from other learning. To some
degree the ‘what’ and ‘how’ are simply different sides of the same coin - without
an appropriate and well-reasoned ‘method’ there can be no substantive
contribution to knowledge [what].
The ‘how’ of work based learning is an emergent area
of knowledge and those experienced in work based learning have recognised the
development of highly customised forms of ‘how’ that are being developed to
appropriately respond to each different work place and its actors. (Armsby 2000; Costley & Armsby 2007; Lester 2004; Lester & Costley 2010) However, whilst there is no single prescription for a work based
learners approach [the ‘how] it is indisputable that it [the ‘how] must
be sufficiently clear and evident throughout the whole learning journey for the
practitioner’s work to warrant a doctoral award. This note picks up on some
interesting perspectives of ‘how’ that are highly relevant to work based
doctoral learners.
Specifically, I want to highlight the different ways
of describing ‘how’, not in an endeavour for completeness but to highlight how
practitioner researchers need to get comfortable with their own ‘how’ and that
practitioner researchers need to get comfortable with applying a ‘how’ they can
both implement and ‘live with’ during their work based projects. In essence the
practitioner’s ‘how’ can be customised and mixed and bespoke and apposite and
so on, but it must deliver ‘rigour’ - exactly how it delivers that rigour is a ‘moveable
feast’. The menu for this feast is an al a carte one and includes ‘tight
spirals’, ‘models’ ‘thick comparisons’, ‘temporal sequences’ and ‘triangles’.........these
different perspectives will help to show how differently you can achieve rigour
and I will call on the following authorities to provide these perspectives
I intend to allow the original authors to make their
arguments and the reader can start to draw their own conclusions about the
relevance of these perspectives on the ‘how’ for their own work based research.
DICK
Noted action research advocate Bob Dick, in his
contribution to “Write a Doctoral Thesis about Work” tells us that-
A colleague Paul Ledington
(quoting his doctoral supervisor Peter Checkland, I think) defines a thesis as
something 'with a new sentence in it'.
The rest of the thesis is necessary to support the new sentence. In fact, there
will be more than one new sentence. However, I think Paul neatly defines what
theses are required to do: they are supposed to add in some way to the body of
understanding and knowledge. Denis Phillips', quoting John Dewey, claims that
all that research can do is to make a 'warrantable assertion'. Truth is
elusive; but research, well conducted, can provide a warrant, an adequate
assurance, for the assertion, which we eventually offer. We may not be able to
claim that we have pinned down the truth. But if we can say that our
methodology and evidence allow a reasonable claim to be made, then that is as
much as anyone can reasonably demand.
Taken together, these two ideas
define a good doctorate as one, which is:
- Able to claim its methodology as appropriate to the situation, and
- Able to support a claim of some warrantable addition to knowledge.
Further Dick contends that
The purpose of the methodology is
to allow both an assured contribution to knowledge, and successful change. In
the thesis you want to be able to claim that your conclusions, and the data you
base them on, have survived your attempts to disprove them and find other
alternatives. An appropriate methodology is what enables you to make this
claim.
In an article on postgraduate research Dick goes to
note that
For the most part, I have not
found the action research literature particularly concerned with issues of
rigour. Some of the better arguments for rigour are to be found in work that
some would regard as at the margins of action research. 1think here of such
writers as Argyris (1985)) and Checkland {particularly the first half of
Checkland (1981)) among others. The tight
spirals of action research, however, deserve special attention here.
Their main function is to provide flexibility …….. Action research can be
described as a regular cycle of planning, action and review.{[can also be
viewed as Kemrnis and McTaggart ( 1988) explain: "plan, act, observe,
reflect" . You may note its similarity to other cycles, such as that for
experiential learning (for example see Kolb, 1984) or for quality management
(for example see Rothwell et al., 1995) Not all varieties of action research
emphasise its spiral nature which, to my mind, confers on action research
many of its advantages.
{Dick p163, 2002}
JACKSON
In talking about the application of interpretive
systems methodology Jackson mentions
the following key ingredients
1. There is no assumption that the real-world is
systemic:
2. Analysis of the problem situation is designed to be
creative and may not be conducted in systems terms;
3. Models are constructed which represent some possible
"human activity systems";
4. Models are used to interrogate perceptions of the real-world
and to structure debate about changes which are feasible and desirable;
5. Quantitative analysis is unlikely to be useful except
to clarify the implications of world views;
6. The process of intervention is systemic, is
never-ending, and is aimed at alleviating unease about the problem situation
and generating individual and organizational learning;
7. The intervention is best conducted on the basis of
stakeholder participation
8. Changes that might alleviate the feelings of unease or
contribute to learning are evaluated primarily in terms of
their effectiveness, elegance and ethicality.
Jackson goes on to note that
Since an interpretive systems
methodology can be used in different ways in different situations, and
interpreted differently by different users, each use should exhibit conscious
thought about how to adapt to the particular circumstances. Each use of an
interpretive systems methodology should yield research findings as well as
changing the real world problem situation. These research findings may relate
to the theoretical rationale underlying the methodology, to the methodology
itself and how to use it, to the methods, models, tools and techniques
employed, to the real-world problem situation investigated, or to all of these.
NIEWOHNER
& SCHEFFER
In their book on enthnographic research, Niewowohner
& Scheffer suggest that
Comparison should not be left exclusively to certain social scientific research
traditions and methods. Neither should comparison be simply criticised or
neglected. At the same time comparison
should not be undertaken naively by copying the deductive model of quantitative
analysis. Comparison should
be seen as a challenge, one exceeding both the single case study and the
contrasting of any number of multiple cases. Comparison we believe enriches ethnography and adds to its
aspiration for thick description.
Some scholars therefore have
begun to sketch an alternative to quantitative comparison. According to Fox and Gingrich
(2002), comparison requires a plurality of methods; for Barro Jordan and
Roberts (Barro et al. 1998) it should be thick, explorative and multidimensional;
for others it should resemble an ongoing dialogue between cultures (as Geertz
envisioned in 1986) and it should strive to "'make discoveries rather than
insisting on consciously seeking comparative results
(Yengoyan 2006). This volume argues …… ethnographic comparison should focus on
and explicate the production of comparability. Thick comparison as we refer to
it, takes seriously that objects of comparison-along with ethnographic
fields-are being produced through the research process.
We develop the term 'thick comparison' analogously
to Geertz' thick description (Geertz 1973):In the same way that in Geertz'
thinking a particularly gesture or social fact needs to be situated in its context to make sense. In
the same way ethnographic comparison needs to be situated in its own mode of
production in order to make sense. Objects of comparison are not found 'out
there'. They are not ready at hand. They are produced through thickening contextualisations
including analytical cross-contextual framings that are meant to facilitate
comparison. Thick comparison recognises this process of meaning-production and
engages the ambition to compare as fruitful and instructive-rather than being
paralysed by it. (Neiwohner & Scheffer p4, 2010)
CHARMAZ
In her text on grounded theory, Charmaz proposes that
The classic grounded theory texts
of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1978) provide an explicit method for analysing
processes. I have talked about the research process and studying process, but
what is a process? A process consists of
unfolding temporal sequences
that may have identifiable markers with clear beginnings and endings and
benchmarks in between. The temporal
sequences are linked in a process and lead to change. Thus, single
events become linked as part of a larger whole. Even the most regimented
process may contain surprises because the present arises from the past but is
never quite the same. The present emerges with new characteristics (Mead,
1932). Thus the experience and outcome of a specific process has some degree of
indeterminacy, however small it might be.
Throughout the book, I build on
my earlier discussions of the grounded theory method (see esp. Charmaz, 1990,
2000, 2002a, 2003, 2005) and on a symbolic inter-actionist theoretical
perspective. Grounded theory serves as a way to learn about the worlds we study
and a method for developing theories to understand them. In the classic
grounded theory works, Glaser and Strauss talk about discovering theory as
emerging from data separate from the scientific observer. Unlike their
position, I assume that neither data nor theories are discovered. Rather, we
are part of the world we study and the data we collect. We construct our grounded theories through
our past' and present involvements and interactions
with people, perspectives, and research practices.
My approach explicitly assumes
that any theoretical rendering offers an interpretive portrayal of the studied
world, not an exact picture of it. (Charmaz, 1995b, 2000; Guba & Lincoln,
1994; Schwandt, 1994). Research participants' implicit meanings, experiential
views-and researchers' finished grounded theories-are constructions of reality.
In keeping with its Chicago school antecedents, I argue for building on the
pragmatist underpinnings in grounded theory and advancing interpretive analyses
that acknowledge these constructions.
Charmaz points out that
For Glaser and Strauss (1967;
Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987), the defining components of grounded theory
practice include:
·
Simultaneous
involvement in data collection and analysis
·
Constructing analytic
codes and categories from data, not from preconceived logically deduced
hypotheses
·
Using the constant
comparative method, which involves making comparisons during each stage of the
analysis
·
Advancing theory
development during each step of data collection and analysis
·
Memo-writing to
elaborate categories, specify their properties, define
relationships between categories, and identify gaps
·
Sampling
aimed toward theory construction,
not for population or
representativeness
·
Conducting the
literature review after developing an independent analysis.
Charmaz contends that
Engaging in these practices helps
researchers to control their research process and to increase the analytic
power of their work (see also Bigus, Hadden & Glaser, 1994; Charmaz, 1983,
1990, 1995b, 2003; Glaser, 1992, 1994; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Stem, 1994b; Strauss,
1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1994). Glaser and Strauss aimed to move
qualitative inquiry beyond descriptive studies into the realm of explanatory
theoretical frameworks, thereby providing abstract, conceptual understandings
of the studied phenomena. They urged novice grounded theorists to develop fresh
theories and thus advocated delaying the literature review to avoid seeing the
world through the lens of extant ideas. Glaser and Strauss's theorizing
contrasted with armchair and logico-deductive theorizing because they began
with data and systematically raised the conceptual level of their analyses
while maintaining the strong foundation in data. Consistent with their
reasoning, a completed grounded theory met the following criteria: a close fit
with the data, usefulness, conceptual density, durability over time, modifiability,
and explanatory power (Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
CRESWELL
In his primer on research methods Creswell picks up on
mixed methods and the use of triangulation
Mixed methods strategies are less
well known than either the quantitative or qualitative approaches. The concept
of mixing different methods originated in 1959 when Campbell and Fisk used
multi-methods to study validity of psychological traits. They encouraged others
to employ their multi-method matrix to examine multiple approaches to data
collection. This prompted others to mix methods, and soon
approaches associated with field methods, such as
observations and interviews (qualitative data), were combined with traditional
surveys (quantitative data; Sieber, 1973). Recognizing that
all methods have limitations, researchers felt that biases
inherent in any single method could neutralize or cancel the
biases of other methods. Triangulating
data sources-a means for seeking convergence across qualitative and
quantitative methods-was born (Jick, 1979). By the early 1990s, the idea of
mixing moved from seeking convergence to actually integrating or connecting
the quantitative and qualitative data. For example, the results from one
method can help identify participants
to study or questions to ask for the other method (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
1998). Alternatively, the qualitative and quantitative data can be merged into
one large database or the results presented side by side to reinforce each
other (e.g., qualitative quotes support statistical results; Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2007). Or the methods can serve a larger, transformative purpose
to advocate for marginalized groups, such as women, ethnic/radical minorities,
members of gay and lesbian communities, people with disabilities
Conclusion
I hope you don’t have indigestion from your meal of
‘tight spirals’, ‘models’ ‘thick comparisons’, ‘temporal sequences’ and
‘triangles’...
For practitioner
researchers the ‘how’ is as significant a learning journey as the ‘what’ -
recognising this sometimes take a while and sometimes may be seen as intrusive
or unnecessary to the business of the organisation for whom the student
researcher works. But, without a well reasoned ‘how’ the work based learners
efforts will not result in sufficient ‘what’ contribution. Knowing ‘what’ you
know and ‘how’ you have come to know it are the fundamental ingredients of all
doctoral learning. Practitioner researchers need to develop and adopt their own
‘how’ and to begin with, just like their subject matter, cannot be fully known.
However, making a commitment towards both applying a ‘how’ and learning
more about the ‘how’ will ensure the work based learning achievements are both
recognised and awarded.
List of References
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, 3rd edn, SAGE, Los
Angeles.
Comments
Post a Comment