Dialogic research methodologies

I am not the first researcher to pursue a methodology for studying enquiry based

learning, teachers’ perceptions and inter-subjectivities or the concepts of dominance and social power, teachers’ professional learning and change. However, there are very few empirical studies which attempt to integrate each of these aspects within the research design. Hermans (2008) offers the concept of the ‘dialogical self’ as a framework for empirical work. This is the starting point for this section. More importantly, however, I am keen to evaluate the empirical literature of others who have sought a ‘dialogic’ approach to research methodology before me since this will inform the decisions I make in terms of my own approach.

3.5.1 Hermans’ (2001b) ‘dialogical self theory’ as a stimulus for empirical work

Hermans (2008) clearly states his intention for ‘dialogical self theory’; concepts of the ‘other-in-the-self’, ‘multiplicity-in-unity’, ‘dominance and social power’, and ‘openness to innovation’ to be used as a stimulus for empirical work using research methods inspired by scientific and interpretivist epistemologies. Indeed, he introduces the ‘Personal Position Repertoire’ (‘PPR’) as a matrix for organising and reorganising personal meanings that are associated with different positions (Hermans, 2001a, p. 323). Hermans (2001a, p.327-8) uses the case of ‘Nancy’ to exemplify prominence ratings of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ positions for further development as part of the therapeutic process. In this example, ‘internal’ positions are placed in rows. ‘External’ positions are in columns (Appendix D, p. 157).

This method is both quantitative and qualitative;

‘The quantitative part of the method enables the researcher or practitioner to compare, on the basis of particular dimensions, the commonality and

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Methodology

quantitative matter. Meaning construction and reconstruction require proper attention to the stories people tell about their lives and to the ways people affectively organize events that are part of their personal and collective histories.’

(ibid., pp. 323-324) Importantly, Hermans (ibid.) makes two key points in relation to the ‘PPR’;

 It is intended to be adapted and revised according to the purposes and needs of the individual researchers or practitioners in their specific settings and

circumstances (ibid., p. 324),

 The method functions as a skeleton, and the flesh around the skeleton is evidence of cooperative enterprise of two parties (ibid., p. 325).

In terms of Bernstein’s (1996) concepts of ‘weak classification’ and ‘weak framing’, the ‘PPR’ is a desirable tool for my study since it is compatible with the theme of change from within the ‘self’. Furthermore, the ‘PPR’ creates patterns of ‘person-world interactions’ (Hermans, 2001a, p. 325). Finally, as an analytical tool for exploring teachers’ developing understanding of enquiry, the ‘PPR’ creates possibilities for identifying examples of where and how teachers’ perspectives shift over time.

3.5.2 Critique

The ‘PPR’ is a helpful tool for recording and exploring multiple dimensions of voices within teachers’ dialogue. However, there are limitations. Firstly, much of Hermans’ research is conducted in the field of psychoanalysis where the ‘PPR’ requires an on- going commitment of psychologist and participant. As the KTP Associate, I was limited to a period of two years in school (Appendix A, p. 154). Secondly, Adams and Markus (2001) question the ‘dialogicality’ of the ‘PPR’, suggesting that positioning reifies personal, social, historical, cultural and political contexts by treating flowing patterns as fixed locations. This means that by placing clients’ positions in matrices and then within circles signifying ‘internal’, ‘external’ and outside’ domains of their

‘dialogical selves’, Hermans interrupts the continuous ‘dialogic’ process of knowledge creation. Thirdly, both Cresswell and Baerveldt (2011) and Lyra (1999) identify flaws in Hermans’ interpretation of the ‘self’. Writing with the intention of presenting an extended view of ‘dialogical self theory’ (Hermans, 2001b) the former are concerned

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Methodology

that the ‘PPR’ neglects embodied experience. For them, Hermans favours the construction of narratives that constitute conceptual knowledge of experienced life rather than experimentally lived life. Lyra (ibid.) offers a definition of dialogue as an epistemology of the human mind along the lines of Bakhtinian thinking (p. 30). She is interested in the concept of historical explanation within ‘dialogical self theory’;

‘the kind of agreement that liberates partners for new developments on the basis of basic understanding – We know each other, so there is no need to spend effort on this topic’.

(Lyra, ibid., p. 483) For Lyra, the extended past plays an important role in understanding new positions. This strongly resembles the concept of ‘relational agency’, which I have already highlighted as a major theme of my work. Finally, in addition to the general ideas of complexity (Cross, 2010; Lyra, 1999), and contingency (Adams and Markus, 2001; Ligorio, 2010; Cresswell and Baerveldt, 2011), other researchers have experienced the empirical challenge of describing and making inferences about dialogic processes implicated in self-innovation and change. For example, Cunha and Gonçalves (2009) are critical of the instability of ‘multivoicedness’ in terms of internal and external subjectivities. In particular, they are wary of the suppressive force of the coalition of two voices or a dominant voice so that a research participant does not fully take part. This concerns concepts of power and control as identified by Bernstein (1996).

3.5.3 Revisiting ethics

Hermans’ (2001a) ‘PPR’ exists as one particular framework for using dialogic theory to conduct research. There are still a number of issues concerning this worldview, which have not yet been resolved either by the wider research community or within this study. It is, therefore, particularly important that I clarify my ethical position, since it affects the extent to which I can be open, honest and truthful. The tone of my thesis so far suggests a real concern for a consistent ontological and epistemological approach to my work. This has arisen because I recognise the need to explore the dynamic

confrontation of teachers’ ‘dialogical selves’ (ibid.) not only for myself, but in order to contribute to the existing knowledge base regarding concepts of enquiry based learning, power and control, and teachers’ professional learning and development in schools.

Teachers developing understanding of enquiry: Methodology

In terms of using Hermans (2001b) ‘dialogical self theory’ as a stimulus for empirical work, some authors have chosen to conduct qualitative studies using interviews as the main method of data collection (Aveling and Gillespie, 2008). Some have used mixed methods (König, 2009). Others have developed innovative approaches using

quantitative methods when sharing findings (Kluger et al., 2008). Although I will address issues relating to analysis and findings in the next chapters (pp. 65-76; pp. 79- 116), my response to ethical dilemmas resides within the context of my research study. My ultimate choice of research design and data collection methods will be influenced by my perception of the most honest and truthful options available to me. This will almost certainly be influenced by the concept of ‘relational agency’ (p. 10).

The concept of ‘relational agency’ facilitates my understanding of ‘dialogical self theory’. It certainly applies to my position as KTP Associate (p. 1) and it is congruent with ‘dialogic’ methodology, where the study of subjective interactions leads to a complex web of human interactions. Some authors question the involvement of their peers in the research process (Clandinin et al., 2009), however, for me, Ligorio’s (2010) findings are too convincing. Within her own context and mine (Reid, 2008), there was a need to influence the research process. From this perspective, research ethics become interactive (Kearns et al., 1998) and decision-making is a process, where actions are ‘aimed for the good of those involved and for the good of humankind’ (Kemmis, 2012, p. 894) in accordance with contextual factors.