I will refer to the term methodology here following not only Blumer (1969: 23), who defines methodology as the “principles that underlie and guide the full process of studying the obdurate character of the given empirical world”, but also in a similar way to Sloman (1999) and Reber (1993). Sloman states that methodology is normally used concerning “the study or description of the methods or procedures used in some activity” (p. 525-6). According to Reber, methodology has an intentional purpose and is concerned with “the methods and procedures by which […] knowledge and
understanding are achieved” (p. 457). Moreover, method, following Blumer (1969),
was defined here as” … instrument(s) designed to identify and analyse … the
empirical world” (p. 27), and procedures and techniques were considered as“precise,
specific programme(s) of action which will produce a standard result” (Checkland, 1999: 162).
Bearing these views in mind, I split the phenomenon of researching into two entities: on the one hand is the agent of research, the knowledge-seeker agent or knowledge-
builder agent, depending on the epistemological perspective; on the other hand is the
phenomenon of study, or the issues towards which the attention and disposition of the
former is directed. In social sciences, when the research adopts a phenomenological approach, a third element is added to the research process: the subjects of research. Subjects of research are those who will provide the fundamental information – oral, written or behavioural – to constitute the data of the research.
This division and the relationship between its parts are seen as problematic and widely criticised, particularly in post-modernist texts (Richardson, 2000). To post-modern
writers, researcher and researched cannot be separated completely. The researcher is a human being; an historic agent who has engaged in this process in the course of his or her life history. Therefore, all that the researcher is; that s/he believes; the things that s/he brings into the process and even what and how s/he defines as the phenomenon of study is culturally influenced and also influences the ways of conducting the research. This makes the phenomenon of study in the social sciences a much more complicated phenomenon than, for instance, in the natural sciences, where, arguably, the object of study may be completely separate from the researcher. Despite this dispute, even among social researchers this division is widely acknowledged and, therefore, I will rely on it in this research.
Methodology, be it a reference to principles of reasoning, formulation of methods and procedures, or a means to the acquisition of knowledge, was defined in this research as any aspect that mediates the relationship between researcher (myself), phenomenon of study (the concept of the Practice Firms Network Learning Environment), and subjects of research (the interviewees). I tried to reflect and act consciously on every
aspect of this relationship, and in all the choices that I had to make to answer my research questions and achieve my research aims. I also tried to justify choices and apply them diligently and consistently because, as Morgan and Smirrnich (1980) argue, the link between all these terms is essential. Social researchers need
to approach discussions of methodology in a way that highlights the vital link between theory and method – between the world view to which the researcher subscribes, the type of research question posed, and the
technique that is to be adopted as a basis for research. All this issues are related in the most fundamental of ways (p. 499).
After considering many methodological possibilities that were available in the literature, I decided to take a phenomenographic approach within this research. I considered phenomenography an appropriate approach for at least three reasons.
Firstly, the birth and rise of the phenomenographic approach is intrinsically connected to educational studies. Phenomenography was first developed by a group of
educationalists at the University of Göteburg, Sweden in the mid 1970’s. “Describing the variation among ways in which phenomena appear has characterised the
phenomenographic project since the term, phenomenography, was adopted” (Dall’Alba, 1996: 8).
Secondly, as Marton and Booth (1997) stated, “at the root of phenomenography lies an interest in describing the phenomena in the world as others see them, and in revealing and describing the variation therein” (p. 111). As I have stated, this is considered important in education because education deals with change in human conceptions. Therefore, understanding the current conceptions which students hold about phenomena in the world facilitates the task of changing or enhancing those concepts. As argued by Dall’Alba (2000),
having knowledge about current and desired understandings is likely to make teaching and educational development more focused and effective. It gives direction to our attempts to bring about change. It also provides
us with a basis for establishing the extent to which we have been successful in encouraging changes in understanding. That is, it gives us an indication of the change we desire and whether that change has occurred (p. 99).
A final point that made me consider phenomenography as an adequate approach was that it does not aim for correct or incorrect views of the world and is not interested in classifying some experiences as more significant than others. The aim of
phenomenography is not “to classify people, nor is it to compare groups, to explain, to predict, nor to make fair or unfair judgments of people” (Marton, 1981: 180). Each experience is considered legitimate in its own right and should be considered equally in comparison to any other experience. In some phenomenographic studies, where a ‘correct’ answer may be expected – for example in physics studies – the presence of a ‘wrong’ answer might draw the attention of the researchers in such a way that they wish to explain how the respondent arrived at that ‘incorrect’ answer or why the respondent thinks that way.
Therefore, in my study, there is not a correct answer to the question “how did you experience the Practice Firms Network learning environment?” Whatever the answer is, I am still interested in mapping and understanding the relationship between the object of experience and the student’s particular way of thinking. Therefore
If we are interested in how people think about [in this case, the concept of Practice Firms Network Learning Environment], then we have to investigate this very problem because the answer cannot be derived
either from what we know …about the general properties of the human mind, or from what we know about the school system, or even from the combination of what we know about both (Marton, 1981: 178).