Analytical meanders

Without a sociology background, the picking of an appropriate theoretical framework felt extremely daunting. I was amused by the comment of Van Maanen (2011): “In practice, theory choices (the rabbits we pull out of our hats) rest as much on taste as on fit” (p. 223), but still had to make a decision on the theoretical underpinning of my study. Admittedly, theoretical choices and clarity in theoretical approaches are concerns that spread well beyond my own

apprehension (Ashwin, 2012b; Ashwin & Case, 2012).

HE research remains a fairly recent addition to broader domains of study. Because of its nascence, this is a research arena, which, although growing, still remains unstructured (Lucas, 2006) and fairly a-theoretical. Theory is either not used, not made explicit, or not part of a research dialogue with empirical data

16 _{Quote taken from the blog, https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/08/17/louise-bourgeois-}

(Ashwin, 2012b; Tight, 2004, 2012). Tight (2008) describes HE research as a “partially explored territory through which a variety of tribes traverse” (p. 596); this metaphor describes the diversity in disciplinary background, and

approaches of researchers in this area (Tight, 2004). HE research lacks an established theoretical and analytical corpus, making the identification of analytical role models a challenge for educational researchers. Theoretical grounding was significantly absent in much of the literature on postdoctoral researchers when I started this study. As scholars, we need to consider the extent, the type and the way we use or develop theoretical work (Ashwin, 2012b, p. 942). Ashwin (2012b) is concerned with the interrelationship between theory and data; he particularly warns researchers that theories in HE

scholarship often risk to “over-determine the outcomes of empirical research” (p. 942).

When I started analysing my first interviews (Appendix 8), identifying themes about the experience of being and developing as a researcher, and how researchers and academics talked about researcher development, I

experienced what Bourdieu had called the “fermenting confusion” or “the false starts, the wavering, the impasses, the renunciations” in the research process (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 219 and 220). In order to answer my research questions, I needed to identify “a way of seeing” and constructing my object of research (Ashwin, 2012b, p. 943 ). Scholars agree that the process of

conceptualising the research object is a critical element of the research process: “The fundamental scientific act is the construction of the object”

(Bourdieu et al. (1991) in Ashwin, 2012b, p. 943). How could I then characterise my research object: researcher development? Ashwin (2012b, p. 943),

following Bernstein, talks about this process as identifying “the internal language of description”, that is the language of concepts.

Constructing my research object meant bringing together the perceptions, emotions, actions, strategies and practices of researchers and academics, as well as perspectives related to the research environment. It needed to facilitate sense-making about researchers and academics’ work within the context of new policy discourses on researcher development. In the first interviews and

analysis of secondary data, the concepts of structure and agency emerged quite strongly, but my analysis stalled in constructing such a dichotomy. Ashwin (2008) queries “how to account for structure and agency in HE” (p.156), and asks us to consider “what it means to account for structure and agency” (p.153). He describes the relationship as “situationally contingent” (p.152), requiring the relational use of different units of analysis: perceptions, social practices, discourses and systems. I needed to identify theoretical tools that would bring together these two concepts to make sense of researcher development. Jones et al. (2011), in their review of social theories, describe that some social science practices do not bound these concepts in separate territories, but conceptualised a “more dynamic and fluid co-mingling” (p. 148) of actors and structures. Different theoretical frameworks can be used in the analysis of the interplay between structure and agency. For example, Ashwin (2012a) compares the application of four different theoretical approaches (Activity theory, Symbolic-Interactionist, Bernsteinian and Bourdeusian

approaches) to explore the interplay between structure-agency in the context of teaching-learning interactions.

The scholar repeatedly quoted for having defied the dichotomy of these concepts, and who instead mediated structure and agency, is Bourdieu. I had initially been quite reluctant, like other researchers, to engage with Bourdieu’s work, because of the complexity of his writing (Mckenzie, 2015). Also, I had attended a number of seminars during the EdD, where many presenters were referring to Bourdieu’s concepts without creating much clarity in their

application. I was wary of being caught in such “mass adoption” and

“smattering of Bourdieusian concepts” (Grenfell, 2014, p. x), a trend described by others as “intellectual hair spray” (Hey, 2003 in Reay, 2004b, p. 432). A French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu had appeared on the public sphere in France in the mid-90s, during a period of general strikes in the public service (Mounier, 2001). As a scientist living abroad at the time, I had never

encountered Bourdieu until starting on the EdD. I felt that academics on the programme made assumptions about students knowing something of Bourdieu. Because of being French, I experienced a sense of inadequacy, as I knew nothing about this sociologist. I did not belong to the club of those who were

knowledgeable. This frustrated me and acted for a long time as a further barrier to exploring his writing. There is, here, a paradox, considering the political and intellectual positioning of Bourdieu regarding the reproduction of elites

(Bourdieu, 1996b). I greatly valued the work of other scholars in creating entry points to the work of Bourdieu (Costa & Murphy, 2015; Grenfell, 2014; Lucas, 2006). I felt drawn to his commitment towards civic engagement and the role of the sociologist in society17: “to make social relations less arbitrary, institutions less unjust, distributions of resources and opportunities less unbalanced and recognition less scarce” (Hillier & Rooksby, 2005, p. 6). I was moved in the reading of La misère du monde (Bourdieu et al., 1993), by the power of making the voices of the less powerful heard, in their rawness, powerlessness and humanity. These aspects contributed to the start of my engagement with this scholar.