Interpretive

Until recently, the validity of social science research came by framing it outside of any specific context, a positivist approach (Usher, 1996). Interpretivism takes an opposing approach, believing that the techniques and assumptions appropriate for studying the natural sciences are

inappropriate for the social sciences (Sparkes, 1992) where context is central to social practice (Usher 1996). It "assumes multiple subjective realities that consist of stories or meaning produced or constructed by individuals within their 'natural' settings" (Hesse-Biber, 2010, p. 26), using an "internal-idealist" ontology and a "subjectivist" epistemology (Sparkes, 1992). Rather than "generalisation, prediction and control" it is concerned with "interpretation, meaning and illumination" (Usher, 1996, p. 18), i.e. Habermas' practical knowledge-constitute interest (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).

Interpretive research makes no claims of neutrality, but instead, knowledge is constructed between researcher and researched, and is acknowledged to be partial (Usher 1996). The researcher is "the research instrument" (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983, quoted in Sparkes, 1992 p. 29). The focus on meaning-making means the methods usually used by positivists are

inappropriate for such deep probing (Usher, 1996). Since researchers' own biases and preconceptions are inseparable from the research itself (both researcher and researched are situated), researchers must make them explicit (Usher, 1996). Instead, the researcher's pre- understandings provide a starting place for gaining insight by reflecting on the ways these understandings are reinterpreted in the light of new knowledge developed via the research process (Gadamer, 1975, cited in Usher, 1996). Interpretive researchers rely mostly (but not exclusively) on qualitative, naturalistic inquiry, using methodologies such as ethnography and condensed case study, and methods such as semi-structured/unstructured interviews and

participant observation (Scott, 1996a). The researcher attempts to understand the world from the point of view of participants in as natural a setting as possible (naturalistic research). There are a variety of traditions within interpretive research (Cohen et al., 2000), influenced by the humanistic

traditions of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Hermeneutics is the process of analyzing texts while focusing on "how prior understandings and prejudices shape the interpretive process" (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 27), whereas phenomenology as an interpretive methodology prioritizes "actors' accounts of social reality" (Scott, 1996b, p. 64). The interpretive paradigm includes a variety of traditions/methodologies, including phenomenology, ethnography, ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, and constructivism (Cohen et al., 2000; Sparkes, 1992).18 The research presented in this thesis, as I explain in my positionality and research approach, was not conducted within any particular interpretive tradition, but rather within a general framework of an interpretive approach to research using qualitative research methods. A commonly used metaphor that describes how interpretive researchers choose their methods is that of a quilt-maker or bricoleur (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), where the resulting work of bricolage is "a pieced-together set of representations that is fitted to the specifics of a complex situation" (p. 4). This entails using whichever tools and materials make sense at the time, not necessarily planned in advance, and drawing upon whatever is available and doable in the research setting in order to answer one's research question. The bricoleur recognizes how her own history, gender, ethnicity, etc. Interacts with the people in the setting studied (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

Another metaphor is that of cinematic montage, which

...uses brief images to create a clearly defined sense of urgency and complexity. It invites viewers to construct interpretations that build on one another as a scene unfolds. These interpretations are based on associations among the contrasting images that blend into one another. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 5).

18

Phenomenology is complex and influenced by several scholars, including Husserl, Hiedegger, Satre and Schutz (Denzin & Lincoln 2005). Schutz's "existential phenomenology", based on Husserl's "transcendental phenomenology" (Cohen et al, 2000), suggests that social science should be concerned with how life is experienced by its members, and he cautions that "the safeguarding of [this] subjective point of view is the only but sufficient guarantee that the world of social reality will not be replaced by a fictional non-existing world constructed by the scientific observer" (Schutz 1970 p. 8 quoted in Holstein & Gubrium 2005 p. 485). Social scientists assume that they "intersubjectively share the same reality" with others, and on those terms produce understandings "sustained in and through the shared assumptions of

interaction and recurrently sustained in processes of typification" (Holstein & Gubrium 2005, p. 486). Ethnomethodology is another interpretive tradition which is "concerned with how people make sense of their everyday world" and can be further categorised as either linguistic or situational (Cohen et al., 2000). Symbolic interactionism, another tradition that contains diverse approaches within it, focuses "on the world of subjective meanings and the symbols by which they are produced and represented" (Cohen et al., 2000 p. 25).

4.3.2.1 Criticisms

There are two main types of criticism of the interpretive paradigm: the first comes from the positivist perspective, critiquing the lack of neutrality and objectivity, lack of rigour in research methods, and difficulties in generalizability and judging validity. However, this positivist ontology/epistemology is incompatible with the worldview and goals of interpretive research, which in my view renders them inappropriate for judging interpretive research. It is generally accepted that any research undertaken, even if from a positivist standpoint, cannot claim complete neutrality or objectivity (Partlett & Hamilton, 1972; Lincoln & Guba, 1986/2007).

Interpretivism is sometimes criticised for its relativism that seems to imply that "anything goes", but this is inaccurate; it merely acknowledges the existence of multiple valid interpretations, and truth can only be judged depending on one's "framework, paradigm or point of view" (Sparkes, 1992, p. 34). Guba (1992) defends relativism as essential to the ontological and epistemological assumptions of constructivist research. He asserts that some subjectivity is inevitable, and that methodologically, constructivist approaches do not adopt an "anything goes" stance, but rather, the stance that there does not exist one ideal methodology, but several different ones that may help advance knowledge, and that researchers can adopt different methodologies depending on which would best serve their purposes at any point in time.

Other criticisms of the interpretive paradigm come from critical researchers who accept the subjectivity of social experience, but question whether interpretive research can really give a full view of reality, given how external factors influence individuals' social experiences and

perceptions. Interpretivism "neglects questions about the origins, causes and results of actors adopting certain interpretations of their actions and social life, and neglects the crucial problems of social conflict and social change" (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 95). By focusing on individual experience, it may display "macro blindness", ignoring how power structures influence social constructions of reality (Sparkes, 1992, p. 39). Moreover, individual interpretations may miss accounting for "unintended consequences" (Carr & Kemmis, p. 95); however, I believe that interpretive researchers who keep an open mind and open agenda may be able to recognize such unintended consequences if their research involves deep and prolonged immersion in the context of their study. Also, it would be naive to assume that participants necessarily allow (intentionally or unintentionally) the researcher to see/hear the full picture of their social context and

interactions. By focusing on individuals' own understandings of their own lived experiences, interpretivism ignores areas influencing them but that are outside of individual consciousness and control (Carr & Kemmis, 1986).

Other paradigms of research that use mostly qualitative methods of inquiry, but have different orientations to that of interpretivism, are critical and postmodern paradigms, which "examine how social life is produced and the privileges given to those in power, with a goal to emancipate and to expose social justice" (Hesse-Biber, 2010, p. 26). Although some texts separate postmodern (Usher 1996) and feminist/poststructural (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) paradigms from critical paradigms, for my purposes, I will include them under the wider umbrella of "critical" research, given similarity in goals and questioning of power, as well as methodologies. In some ways, all postpositivist19 era research displays postmodern tendencies in ontology and epistemology (e.g. in the acceptance of multiple constructed realities; in the way quality is understood in qualitative research - see Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

4.3.3 Critical/Emancipatory

Critical approaches critique both positivist and interpretive modes of research (Usher, 1996), although they are commensurable with constructivism/interpretivism (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Emancipatory/praxis-oriented research "increases awareness of the contradictions hidden or distorted by everyday understandings, and in doing so it directs attention to the possibilities for social transformation inherent in the present configuration of social processes" (Lather, 1986, p. 259). Carr and Kemmis (1986) distinguish critical social science from critical theory in that it aims to transform practice in the world, rather than just transform consciousness; it therefore "goes beyond critique to critical praxis" (p. 144). The term "praxis" involves the dialectical relationship between thought and action which is "always guided by a moral disposition to act truly and justly" (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 33). Critical researchers share the subjectivist-interactive epistemology of interpretive researchers (Sparkes, 1992), but may have either an external-realist or internal- idealist ontology (Sparkes, 1992), and tend to use dialogic/dialectical methodologies. Unlike the previous two paradigms, critical research is interested in changing the status quo for a more socially just world, and is therefore influenced by Habermas' emancipatory interest.

19

I say postpositivist era, because Denzin & Lincoln 2005 use the term postpostivism to imply a slightly modified positivism which has a critical realist (recognizes reality can only be approximated) rather than naive realist ontology

This involves ideology critique, "the unmasking of ideologies that maintain the status quo by restricting the access of groups to the means of gaining knowledge and the raising of

consciousness or awareness about the material conditions that oppress or restrict them", in order to empower people to take action to overcome these oppressive conditions (Usher 1996 p. 13). Critical research may follow specific influences such as feminist, ethnic, Marxist, cultural studies and queer theory (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).

According to Harvey (1990, cited in Sparkes, 1992, p. 41), critical researchers may use

methodologies associated with the interpretive paradigm, such as ethnography, but take a critical approach on one of three levels (from weakest to strongest):

1. Consider the broader social context in analysis and interpretation 2. Examine how the wider structural context mediates social processes

3. Conduct a "dialectical analysis" (Sparkes, 1992, p. 41) where social processes are

understood in relation to social structures. This final approach foregrounds the structural relationships before undertaking the ethnography, whereas the first two conduct the study then situate it within a critical framework.

For some authors, it is important for the subjects of inquiry to be participants in the study itself, if the end is to empower them (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Lather, 1986). However, participatory

approaches and critical approaches to research are not synonymous (Guba & Lincoln, 2005), meaning that some emancipatory research is not participatory, and vice versa. Not all action research is the same, either. Whereas Lather (1986) suggests praxis-oriented research uses a priori theory-building, Carr and Kemmis (1986) suggest critical research should be grounded in the practice of teachers/educators. These are not opposing views, but differences in emphasis, since Lather's conception of critical research involves the participants fully in the research process, and Carr and Kemmis would not deny the impact of theory on the researcher's stance.

4.3.3.1 Criticisms

The major criticism of critical approaches comes from postmodernists20, especially work influenced byFoucault, and from poststructuralist feminism (e.g. Ellsworth, 1989; Gore, 1993)

20

Some scholars consider postmodernism a fourth research paradigm. One of the concepts of postmodernity is "scepticism about the grand narratives of the European enlightenment" (Lyotard quote in Usher 1996 p. 24). Usher

which highlight how the practice of emancipation may in itself create new conditions and relationships of oppression and repression (Usher, 1996). Moreover, emancipation is not an automatic outcome of action research or ideology critique; it is something which needs to be empirically tested rather than logically concluded (Morrison, 1995a cited in Cohen et al., 2000). Another important issue discussed extensively by Lather (1986) is the risk of the researcher imposing his/her theories on the subject, rather than gathering it from evidence. Moreover, attempting to overcome this via dialectical theory-building and involving participants can result in problems of "false consciousness". These issues are complicated to deal with, but in section 4.6, I discuss how scholars have proposed to address these criticisms in order to judge the quality of their research.

4.3.4 Positioning myself in relation to these paradigms

When I started conducting this research, I aligned myself to an interpretive approach to

educational research, as I had an affinity with qualitative approaches. I gradually started leaning towards a critical research approach. In what follows, I outline my positionality, and how my views of educational research evolved. I then clarify my research paradigm before moving on to describe my research approach.

(1996) describes the postmodern research paradigm as one that embraces uncertainty and awareness of complexity, and foregrounds the importance of self-reflexivity in science. It challenges epistemology and discourse of positivist and interpretivist research, and calls for questioning and challenging all kinds of dominant epistemological discourse. It eschews any set of fixed validity criteria, and any fixed traditions (its main tenets are to challenge such traditions and remain self-reflexive). Postmodernists deny the existence of one externally knowable truth, and recognized the complexity, diversity, and uncertainty of the world; instead, it is concerned with understanding the "textualised" versions of the world (Usher 1996 p. 31). Based on Usher's preceding understanding of the postmodern research paradigm, I have decided not to include it as a separate paradigm. First, because many prominent writing on educational research paradigms (e.g. Lincoln & Guba's work) does not treat it separately. Second, because it seems in its ontology, epistemology, and methodological diversity, to overlap with interpretive/critical paradigms. It has elements of the relativism and subjectivity of interpretive approaches, and elements of the questioning of underlying power in critical approaches. For Denzin & Lincoln (2005), postmodernism is" a contemporary sensibility, developing since World War II that privileges no single authority, method, or paradigm" (p. 27), and as such, I believe the philosophy of it has infiltrated the philosophy of researchers who already locate themselves within critical or interpretive camps. Poststructuralism, on the other hand, sometimes combined with a critical approach (as in feminist poststructuralism), contends that "language is an unstable system of referents, thus it is impossible ever to capture completely the meaning of an action, text, or intention" (Denzin & Lincoln 2005 p. 27).

Openness about the researcher's positionality in qualitative research is considered essential given the partiality and situatedness of text and knowledge: researcher detachment and objectivity are "barriers to quality, not insurance of having achieved it" (Lincoln, 1995, p. 280).

I am an “insider” to AUC as a former student and teaching assistant (TA), and current staff member and adjunct faculty. I earned my Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science in 2001 from AUC, and I currently work at the Center for Learning and Teaching (CLT) in the university, where I help promote excellence in teaching at AUC via the professional development of faculty (i.e. instructors), what some UK universities call an “academic developer” position. I am a part of AUC instructors’ lives, and I became “one of them” in 2008 when I started teaching at the Graduate School of Education. I also worked part-time as the TA in the course “Scientific Thinking” several times, where the instructor and I conducted some research on students’ online discussion. I have conducted several educational/pedagogical studies, often in collaboration with other faculty at AUC (several cited here such as Bali & Bossone, 2010; Bali & Carpenter, 2009; Bali & Balkenbush, 2009). While doing this research, I took a non-degree graduate course, so I was again a student at the university. All of these experiences have influenced my perceptions of the university and the research subjects, many of whom I will have interacted with closely in the past – I am therefore intimately familiar with the campus culture for both students and faculty/instructors. I also have ongoing access to insider information and details not normally available to researchers who would enter campus for time-limited data collection.

I am an “insider” to US education through my undergraduate studies, my current work, and a brief teaching experience at Rice University; however, my previous schooling was mostly British (all except for 3 years of Egyptian education, which shaped my understanding of it), my M.Ed. was from the UK and this PhD is currently being undertaken in a UK university. This has influenced my perceptions about education and the values I place on different aspects of education and

Finally, I am an “insider” to Egypt by virtue of being Egyptian and having lived in Egypt since 199621. However, I was born and educated in Kuwait until just before joining university. But my non-Egyptian (and considerably elitist) education renders me an “outsider” to Egyptian education. Much of the small-scale research and assessments I conduct as part of my work at CLT has

reinforced my views that a positivist approach to educational research is not appropriate for understanding the depth of learning in a classroom, or for providing useful knowledge for other educators to use in their own context. Much of my personal teaching experiences have reinforced my views on the importance of context in pedagogy, and has deepened my understanding of the complexities of developing CT.

I therefore started my PhD research as an interpretive researcher, believing that the most valuable knowledge about education lies with the subjective knowledge of the individuals involved in the process, and that a rich understanding of context was essential to understanding the educational situation (based on the first few educational research projects I conducted, where contextual, interpretive findings were more meaningful than quantitative, generalizable findings : for example, Bali, Ellozy & Thompson (2006) conclude that focusing on pre/post tests hides valuable knowledge about student motivation and engagement). My understanding evolved as I progressed in the thesis to incorporate elements of critical research in two ways: first, I found myself concerned with issues of social justice, I cared about whether there were inequalities of access and privilege in educational settings; I also started to recognize how individuals' subjective experience may sometimes be distorted by external factors over which they have no control (e.g. the prevalent Egyptian views on the superiority of everything Western). AUC's move to the new campus (mentioned later here) enhanced this criticism as it brought it to the foreground.

In questioning why we do educational research, Peterson (1998) emphasizes the importance of the researcher integrating her multiple roles and identities within her research. This both motivates our choices and informs our approach and strategies. My interest in education stems from my experiences trying different educational systems and my multiple roles within AUC. Throughout my writing, I draw upon my various roles as ex-student, staff member, teacher, faculty developer, and concerned citizen.

21

Returning to my alma-mater as a faculty developer, as a teaching assistant, I interacted with groups of students and noticed differences in their level of critical thinking. Since CT was one of the most important goals for AUC, I found it important to question how (and how well) this goal is attained at AUC, and how this occurs for diverse students. Taking an interpretive approach that