Cutting the Network

Having discussed how the methods adopted in this study were designed to capture QM(s) in different space(-times), and how these strands were then assembled/woven together to craft this account, in this final section we turn to what is often the most contested element of ANT – how the network was cut and shaped.

If we accept that actor-networks are multiple and layered, the first ‘cut’ was to identify which actor-network this study would focus on. This study aimed to explore only Higher Education QM(s), not its forms found in other environments. Given the lack of cross- disciplinary research on QM(s) (Wagner et al., 2011), a practical choice was made to explore the actor-networks present within just one university. While this choice

quietened the voice of the institution as an actor in the actor-network, it allowed greater attention to be given to the voices of the disciplines – similar to Nespor’s study (1994). The institution selected for the study was a research-led, UK university, at that time, home to around 12,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students. It worth noting that undergraduate students studying at the university were required to study a minor subject (one from another department) in their first year, and were all required to complete a dissertation.

The second cut to the network came in the selection of the disciplines included in the study. As previously mentioned this research responded to Wagner et al.’s (2011) call for further research on QM(s) learning-teaching in specifically Social Science subjects, as well as the policy attention given to improving Higher Education quantitative methods

provision. Social Science disciplines were defined according to the ESRC’s definition (2017a), see Section 1.6.4.

The research completed here consisted of an initial pilot study - completed in early 2014 with two departments within the Management faculty - and a second main study. To avoid issues of re-sampling, subjects for the pilot study were chosen specifically as they met the criteria of being Social Science subjects, but were subjects that were unlikely to be included in the main study. For the main study, five disciplines – Criminology, Economics, Geography, Psychology and Sociology - were shortlisted which were felt to represent a broad range of the Social Science subjects taught at the institution. Sociology was eliminated from the study early on as no reply was received to the invitation sent to the Heads of Department to participate in the study, this left a final ‘cut’ of four

disciplines: Criminology, Economics, Geography and Psychology.

While disciplines were selected due to their identification as Social Science subjects, within the university these disciplines were housed within different faculties. Of the four disciplines studied for the main study, only one - Criminology - was found within the Social Science Faculty, see Figure 3.2 on the next page. The three other disciplines were housed either within the Management Faculty or the Science and Technology Faculty - a reminder that these disciplinary boundaries are never fixed or universal.

A third cut came when allocating timings to the study. To allow timely completion of the PhD, the pilot study was completed across one academic term, and the fieldwork for the main study completed over the 2014-15 academic year. This year of fieldwork enabled modules running across the academic year to be included in the study (thus increasing the reach of the actor-networks).

The final cut of the network centred around the enrolment of actors. Given the importance of disciplinary narratives, short (less than 45 minutes) meetings were held with Heads of Department (or an acting representative) to gain consent to complete fieldwork in their departments and to contact other staff members within their departments. In one case, the Head of Department agreed to participate without a meeting, due to their own time constraints.

Figure 3.2 Breakdown of disciplines included in the main study and pilot study by faculty.

After enrolling Heads of Department, a list of relevant modules which offered potential to be enrolled in the study was generated from course handbooks, that were accessed online or via administrative staff. During the meetings with Heads of Department, some recommendations were made to the researcher about courses and staff members that were of relevance to the study. These recommendations were used along with the module lists to generate a list of course convenors to be contacted. This independent identification of relevant courses/staff was completed to ensure that the widest range of modules containing quantitative methods were included in the study.

All staff from these lists were emailed and invited to participate in the study. Following this, short (30 minute) meetings were arranged individually with the staff member to discuss: the project, the modules they taught - to validate the material read online -, and their involvement in the study, e.g. observation, interview, or both. In several cases, an

initial meeting was not requested or organised; these were cases where the staff member agreed to the observation but did not wish to be involved in any other way in the project.

After enrolling staff members, attention turned to enrolling student participants. To access disciplinary narratives, only those students studying on single honours courses in the selected disciplines were initially included in the study. However, given the flexible nature of the Undergraduate programmes some of the students interviewed were registered on joint honours programmes, but in these cases their major discipline was one of the four included in the study.

To ensure that students had been exposed to some of the quantitative methods teaching- learning within their department, students were contacted at different times during the academic year. Final year undergraduate students were contacted at the middle of the first academic term, as in most cases they would have completed quantitative methods modules during their first and second years, however this received no responses. Subsequent repeated invites were sent out to second and final year students during the second term, as this would be either after they had completed any modules running in the first term or started modules in the second term. First year students were contacted mid-way through the second term and into the third term, to coincide with the later timing of quantitative methods modules and the completion of summer examinations.

For postgraduate students, email invitations were less targeted as it was assumed most students would have had quantitative methods modules as part of their Undergraduate degrees, furthermore QM(s) courses ran earlier in the academic year or, in the case of most PhD programmes, were not required to be taken by students. In some cases postgraduate individuals were identified either by the course convenor or during the observation sessions given their roles as general teaching assistants (GTAs) on quantitative methods modules.

Supplementing this specific targeting, the study was also advertised in university newsletters and posters placed around the departments and wider university. This was later accompanied by recruiting students at lectures and seminars. Given the low response rates from these methods snowball sampling was also implemented with the

student participants. This was felt appropriate given the limited risk of any ethical repercussions.

The results of these cuts is shown in Table 3.1. In total, 33 participants across four disciplines, were interviewed, with each drawing a concept map, overall most were from the discipline of Geography. At the time of study, Criminology did not offer any Masters’ programmes and had very few PhD students, hence explaining the lack of postgraduate criminologists in the study.

Discipline Staff Students Total

Undergraduate Postgraduate Criminology 1 3 0 4 Economics 3 2 2 7 Geography 4 4 6 14 Psychology 2 2 4 8 Total: 10 11 12 33

Table 3.1 Breakdown of participants by discipline and level of study. Along with this, as previously mentioned, 16 modules were observed across

Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate programmes, with a full breakdown of the timing and credits of these observed modules being presented in Table 4.2 (page 80). Finally, 64 documents (which included course documentations, degree handbooks, lecture slides, handouts, and Moodle screenshots) were gathered across disciplines, with a breakdown by discipline included in Appendix 12.5.