A Framework for Reflection

Heron and Reason’s extended epistemology helps me reflect on how

practitioners make meaning of innovative environmental pedagogies in three ways, which I discuss under the subheadings:

 Knowing grounded in experience  Seeking communion

 Knowing through emergence

Knowing grounded in experience

Within their research, Heron and Reason take issue with the privileging of theoretical or propositional knowledge. This concern over privileging ‘intellect as the primary means of knowing’ (Reason, 1994:15) led Heron and Reason to propose their extended epistemology ‘because it reaches beyond … theoretical knowledge’ (Reason 1998:43). This is not to suggest they do not value theoretical knowledge but they consider it to represent one alongside three other, traditionally subjugated, ways of knowing (experiential,

presentational and practical). Crucially, within their 1997 paper, Heron and Reason stress the significance of experiential knowing. They posit that our ‘experiential encounter with the presence of the world is the ground of our being and knowing’ (p.276). Through this ‘felt participation’ (p.277) with an ‘experiential reality’ (p.278), other ways of knowing unfold and emerge. They go on to suggest that:

…while propositional and presentational knowledge are grounded on and symbolize experiential knowledge, experiential knowledge cannot be reduced to either of them (ibid:276).

I consider this acknowledgement of the foundational influence of experiential knowledge important to my research with practitioners. It reminds me of why I must be critically reflexive towards my interpretation of innovative

environmental pedagogies. My understanding of innovative environmental pedagogies has emerged through reflection on scholarly academic literature. In other words, it is informed by propositional knowledge. Drawing on Heron and Reason’s theoretical framework reminds me of the importance of

‘grounding’ this interpretation in the ‘experiential reality’ of the teaching lives of practitioners. If I am to understand the rhetoric-reality gap that I discussed earlier in section 2.3, it is important that I have this framework as it will constantly reinforce the significance of me listening to practitioners’ voices and reflecting on how their lived experiences in teaching might affect their interpretations of innovative environmental pedagogy.

Seeking Communion

Importantly, Heron and Reason (1997) explain that their theoretical framework is informed by a ‘participative worldview’ (p.275), that upholds that differences between people can be understood and reconciled through participation in dialectical engagement. I like this idea of a participative worldview because it helps me consider how, by engaging in dialogue with practitioners and being open to others, we might find ways forward when confronted with an issue. It is a worldview that steers me away from an ‘agentic’ mindset within which I become entrenched in advocating and asserting my own individual

interpretations and one that instead guides me towards seeking communion (Reason, 2006). I interpret communion in this sense to mean the drawing together of people to resolve, through cooperation and collective critical reflexivity, a particular issue or uncertainty (Reason 2006). The uncertainty in this case exists in the interface between theory and practice in EE. By

engaging in communion, both the practitioners and I might modify our own versions of theory and practice and by so doing contribute to the discourse within EE. There is a pragmatic and reconciliatory air then that influences me in Heron and Reason’s (1997) framework, that accords with the

recommendations made by Stables and Scott (2001), Cotton (2006a) and Fazio and Karrow (2013) I referenced earlier in section 2.3.3.

Knowing Through Emergence

Heron and Reason’s (1997) extended epistemology is positioned within an emergent context. They explain how through cycles of critical reflection and action, we gradually come to acknowledge and accommodate different ways of knowing. This emergent context resonates with me strongly. I have experienced it. I have lived it myself, uncomfortably at first, when wrestling with my own construction of innovative environmental pedagogy. I have observed emergence too when working with practitioners. I have seen how they have problematised, initially rejected and then come to reconsider certain approaches within practice. Nicol discusses this emergent context, whilst drawing on Heron and Reason’s theory of epistemological diversity, in his 2013 paper. He posits that the integration into practice of Heron and Reason’s extended epistemology is dependent on a teacher’s ‘readiness’, to internalise, wrestle with and explore each of these ways of knowing (Nicol, 2013:52). I find this notion of knowing through emergence helpful in my research. It reminds me that changes do not happen overnight and thoughts take time to emerge. Importantly I must be receptive to the situations and contexts within which practitioners interact because, as discussed in section three, there might be institutional and/or subjective influences that impede the emergence of particular ways of knowing. More importantly this notion of emergence speaks to me in a language of hope. It encourages me to think that although practitioners might initially reject integrating certain ways of knowing into practice, this does not mean that they will continue to do so. By engaging in ongoing dialogue and through participating in collective critical reflexivity, we might all modify and extend our understanding.

2.5 Conclusion

My reading of the literature has contributed significantly to my understanding regarding environmental pedagogy and informed my own sense-making, the direction of my study and the research questions. In section 2.1 I reflected on concerns within the literature regarding the prevalence of an anthropocentric worldview that separates humans from the ‘rest of nature’ (Clover et al, 2010:36) and associates natural environments with an instrumental value. I explained how this concern motivated me towards identifying ways in which,

as educators, we might encourage learners to re-evaluate their relationships with nature. It encouraged me to ask the main research question ‘can innovative environmental pedagogies be integrated into the practice of

teaching in the local government adult community education service in which I work?’ At the start of my research though, I did not have a firm conception of what an innovative environmental pedagogy might be. By reading the

literature on liberal-progressive, post-modernist and socially-critical

environmental pedagogies my understanding gradually emerged and I began to think more deeply and critically about how I conceptualise innovative

environmental pedagogies14_{. The literature I discussed in section 2.3 informed} the direction of my study and research questions still further. Until this point I did not consider that institutional influences and personal beliefs might impact on how practitioners make meaning of innovative environmental pedagogies. Reading this literature encouraged me to problematise innovative

environmental pedagogies. Consequently, I asked ‘what problems might practitioners identify with innovative environmental pedagogies?’15

Additionally I asked ‘what notions of nature and approaches to environmental pedagogy are supported by practitioners at the start of the research?’16 _This is because I wanted to explore how beliefs might impact on meanings

associated with innovative environmental pedagogies. Finally, I consider the literature I discuss in section 4, by Heron and Reason (1997) and Nicol

(2002), to be of huge significance to my thinking. Their work provides me with a framework within which I position my interpretation of innovative

environmental pedagogies. Additionally, I find Heron and Reason’s

proposition of a participant worldview and their notion of knowing through an emergent reality to be influential. It encourages me to engage with

practitioners and to explore with them how they make meaning of innovative environmental pedagogies through an interventionist phase of reflection and action. I make reference to this focus on emergence by including the

research question: ‘What environmental pedagogies did practitioners favour

14 _{See section 2.2.}

15 _{Supplementary research question 3.} 16 _{Supplementary research question 1.}

post the period of intervention?’17 _{These references to the notion of an} emergent reality and a participant worldview influence me in my choice of method and methodology which I now discuss.

17 _{Supplementary research question 2.}

Chapter 3: Methodology

Methodology provides a rationale for attaining knowledge. It imparts a framework within which appropriate methods for generating and analysing data are considered (Sikes, 2007). Justification and critical analysis of one’s chosen methodology and methods constitutes an important part of any research (Wellington et al, 2005) and provides credibility for the findings, claims and conclusions made within a project. Within this chapter I introduce, justify and critically reflect upon my methodology and methods.

My research investigates whether innovative environmental pedagogies can be integrated into practice within the local government adult community education service where I work. My research employs an interpretive paradigm and adopts an action research strategy to explore the views and beliefs of eleven practitioners. I carried out two sets of semi-structured interviews and three ‘cooperative inquiry’ (Reason 1994) meetings with the same eleven practitioners to enable me to address my main and

supplementary research questions:

Main: Can innovative environmental pedagogies be integrated into the practice of teaching in the local government adult community education service in which I work?

Supplementary:

1. What notions of nature and approaches to environmental pedagogy are supported by practitioners at the start of the research?

2. What environmental pedagogies did practitioners favour post the period of intervention?

3. Do practitioners identify problems with integrating innovative

environmental pedagogies into practice and if so what might these be?

This chapter consists of five sections. I begin by defining methodology and methods before discussing my methodological stance and reflecting on my positionality. Next, I outline why I focus on action research and justify my choice of research methods. In section 3.2, I explain my data collection

procedures. I discuss my research preparation and sampling, detail my data collection processes and explicate my data analysis. In section 3.3 I reflect on ethical considerations and discuss trustworthiness. In section 3.4 I report on the strengths and limitations of my chosen methodology and methods before concluding in section 3.5.