Principles for interpretative field research adapted for this study

4.5.3.1Summary of the seven principles for interpretative field research

The seven principles in the ‘Summary of Principles for Interpretative Field Research’ (Klein & Myers 1999, Table 1, p.72), presented below in Table 4, which guide the steps cited in Figure 2, in sub section 4.5.2 above, are as follows:

Table 4: Summary of Principles for Interpretative Field Research

(Klein & Myers 1999, Table 1, p. 72).

Table 1. Summary of Principles for Interpretative Field Research The Fundamental Principle of the Hermeneutic Circle.

This principle suggests that all human understanding is achieved by iterating between considering the interdependent meaning of parts and the whole that they form.

The Principle of Contextualisation

This principle requires critical reflection of the social and historical background of the research setting, so that the intended audience can see how the current situation under investigation emerged.

The Principle of Interaction between the Researchers and the Subjects.

This principle requires critical reflection of how the research materials (or “data”) were socially constructed through the interaction between the researchers and the participants.

The Principle of Abstraction and Generalisation.

This principle requires relating the idiographic details revealed by the data interpretation through the application of principles one and two to theoretical, general concepts that describe the nature of human understanding and social action.

The Principle of Dialogical Reasoning.

This principle requires sensitivity to possible contradictions between the theoretical preconceptions guiding the research design and actual findings (“the story which the data tell”) with subsequent cycles of revision.

The Principle of Multiple Interpretations.

This principle requires sensitivity to possible differences in interpretations amongst the participants as are typically expressed in multiple narratives of stories of the same sequence of events understudy.

The Principle of Suspicion.

This principle requires sensitivity to possible “biases” and “systematic distortions” in the narratives collected from participants

However, these guiding principles have been further adapted for this study by accessing the interpretative frameworks referenced in Section 4.3 of this chapter. These frameworks are firstly, the Foucauldian interpretative framework, and secondly, the policy and governance frameworks provided by Olssen (2002) and Rivzi & Lingard

108

(2011) which document governance and policy shifts in education. In addition, I have described below how the seven ‘Principles for Interpretative Field Research’ (Klein & Myers 1999, p.72) apply to this study.

4.5.3.2Expanded version of the seven principles for interpretative field research

1. The fundamental principle of the hermeneutic circle

The notion that ‘we come to understand a complex whole from the preconceptions about the meaning of its parts and their interrelationships’ is expressed in the first principle as ‘a meta-principle upon which the following six principles expand’ (Klein & Myers 1999, p. 71). For example, this notion involves the circular process of constantly checking of the parts with the whole and vice a versa ‘which in turn gives us the lead toward a better, fuller more specific reconstruction of totality’ (Bauman 2010, p. 17). Therefore, as ‘The cognitive mind sets higher ends for itself; it obviates the limitations imposed by naturalistic attitude; it does not settle for the mere description of things as they are’, the researcher needs to bring a critical interpretative dimension to the study, in a bid ‘not to settle for a mere description’ of the phenomena (Bauman 2010, p. 20). As a result of this advice, I am applying the three interpretative frameworks, described in sub sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 of this chapter, in order to assist draw out the ‘truth’ of the documented lived experiences and, thereby, offset the limitations of the phenomenological research process. For example, by applying a Foucauldian interpretative framework to the hermeneutic phenomenological research process, I am able to identify from the individual exemplars of the documented experiences and the emerging themes, the extent to which these exemplars and themes reflect either strategic or local power relations. Therefore, the component parts are visited and revisited from the vantage point of the range of strategic and local mechanisms, at play, in normalizing discourses. These include the ‘multiplicity of organisms, forces, energies, materials, desires, thoughts etc.’ which subjugates the individual (Foucault 1980, p. 97). The cycle of enquiry in the hermeneutic phenomenological research process, is assisted by reference to the policy and governance frameworks provided by Olssen (2002) and Rivzi & Lingard (2011). The manner in which these frameworks contextualise this study is explained below.

109

2. Principle of contextualisation

This principle ‘requires critical reflection of the social and historical background of the research setting, so that the intended audience can see how the current situation under investigation emerged’ (Klein & Myers 1999, p. 72) as well as recognise that the situation is also ‘constantly changing’ (Klein & Myers 1999, p. 73). For example, Table 1 (Rivzi and Lingard 2011, p. 13) provides a comparative policy framework for framing the interpretation of the experiences of the participants in terms of the degree of shift from social liberal to neoliberal policy in education in Australia. Whereas Table 2 (Olssen 2002, p. 45), provides a comparative governance framework for framing the interpretation of the experiences of the participants in terms of the degree of shift from social liberal to neoliberal governance. As a result of applying a range of interpretive filters, my findings will be based on both the participants’ perspectives and my ‘own interpretation’ (Creswell 2007, p. 43) filtered through the interpretative frameworks referred to above. In addition, the study will be further contextualised by reference to higher education documents published by both higher education and institutional stakeholders. These include:

• Recent Australian Federal Government policy documents and key reports on higher education policy directions and recommendations

• National audit policy documents such as TEQSA policy and recent reports

• University level governance documents such as current Mission Statements and Strategic Plans

• Union surveys and reports related to governance issues

• Other documents which emerge as relevant during the study.

3 ‘The principle of Interaction between the researcher and the subjects’

I am reminded by this principle that I need to be mindful of the fact that the manner in which interact with the subjects has some influence on the outcome (Klein & Myers 1999, p. 81). This is because I bring my own experience and understanding of how neoliberal governance has operated in Australia since 1983, to the study. For example, due to my management experience in both education and engineering since then, I am

110

conscious of bringing alternative management baselines to the study. This is because engineering organizations are accredited to the ISO (International Standards Organization) management standards which are not used to assure the managerial discourse in higher education in Australia. In contrast, I observed that universities were self-accrediting quality assurance institutions until the advent of TEQSA in 2009 and, therefore, audited by external agencies only against internally developed standards. This awareness led me to provide the participants in this study with a full Curriculum Vitae (CV) which documented my extensive management and auditing experience in quality management in engineering organizations as well as in education.

My CV generated discussion with some participants due to some thinking that my understanding and objectivity may have been limited by my quality assurance background in industry. For example, two full professors requested that I submit a written statement of my understanding of Foucault’s analysis of the role of discourses in power relations prior to both of them consenting to being interviewed. However, due to my extensive reading on Foucault, I was able to satisfy these objectivity and knowledge tests. In addition, other participants wished to know if the lines of enquiry would be sufficiently open ended to ensure that my knowledge and experience of the subject matter did not predetermine the direction of their responses. However, as the lines of enquiry had been carefully formulated under the supervision of the Chief Investigator of this research, and trialled in mock interviews, prior to being finalised, this issue had already been considered in the design phase of this study. However, my considerable experience and extensive qualifications in education offset the fear by some participants that I might be a management consultant employed to report on them.

4 The principle of abstraction and generalization

As Klein and Myers (1999, p. 75) state that ‘unique circumstances can be related to ideas and concepts that apply to multiple situations’, I am applying Foucault’s analytical framework to analyse and interpret data collected from interviews in this study. This framework, which is described fully in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of Chapter 2 of this thesis is summarised below:

I. Power does not emanate from only one source. The modern liberal state is conceptualised as a type of meta-power ‘in relation to a whole series of

111

power networks’ with whom it shares a ‘conditioning-conditioned relationship’ (Foucault 1980, p. 122). Therefore, power neither represents ‘the domination of one individual over others, or of one class over others’ (Foucault 2004, p. 29).

II. Modern rationalities of government are more productive than repressive as they involve ‘obtaining productive service from individuals in their concrete lives’ (Foucault 1980, p. 125). Therefore, the ‘conduct of conduct’ always involves trying to guide the responses of individuals amid a range of possibilities’ (Foucault 1982, p. 220).

III. Power is embedded in social practices and power relations are sustained through discourse. Power produces and draws on normalised discourses which are in turn the source of power/knowledge in the management of the population (Foucault 1988).

IV. Although individuals are constituted by power, they have the capacity to act in liberal governmentality as they are not in the same category as slaves who are physically restrained (Foucault 1982).

As a result of being fully conscious of the complexities of power relations in all forms of liberal governmentality, the reader can ‘follow how the researcher arrived at his or her theoretical insights’ (Klein & Myers 1999, p. 75).

5 The principle of dialogical reasoning

This principle requires the researcher to ‘make the historical intellectual basis of the research (i.e. its fundamental philosophical assumptions)’ clearly apparent to both the reader and themselves (Klein & Myers 1999, p. 76). As a result of the extensive literature review of the evolution of both liberalism and neoliberalism in relationship to higher education, documented in both Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of this thesis, I am equipped to apply both an historical and intellectual dimension to this study. For example, I am conscious that although neoliberalism has core principles (Cahill 2010), which are widely advocated by global policy makers like the International Monetary Fund (Rivzi and Lingard 2009 & 2011), neoliberalism in practice, is also shaped by local cultural and social history. As a consequence, neoliberalism represents more of a social imaginary than a rigid ideology as concepts and practices, drawn from a global neoliberal social imaginary, are normalized at a local level through discourses

112 associated with power/knowledge.

6 The principle of multiple interpretations

This principle requires the researcher to both collect and confront multiple experiences of the phenomena experienced. This means the researcher may have to adjust or revise their understanding, where required, in order to explain the causes of multiple viewpoints (Klein & Myers 1999, p.77). For example, as some of the participants, interviewed in this study, have only ever experienced the neoliberal managerial discourse, it is possible their interpretation of it may differ to others in the study due to them not having experienced the preceding social-liberal managerial discourse. It is also possible that those participants interviewed at professorial level, may have more options available to them for engaging in and responding to the managerial discourse than the non-professorial participants interviewed. Consequently, I am mindful that the participants, who consented to be interviewed for this study, have widely varying experiences of the managerial discourse, due to their hierarchical positional status, tenure, and length of employment in higher education. In addition, I am equally mindful of my own biases due to having spent most of my career in in engineering and vocational education and not in universities.

7 The principle of suspicion

This principle requires sensitivity to possible “biases” and “systematic distortions” in the narratives collected from participants (Klein & Myers 1999). For example, I am aware from the literature review documented in Chapter 3 of this thesis, that responses to novel circumstances, in late modernity, are characterized by a high level of autonomous reflexivity in which economic self-interest is a prime consideration (Archer 2012). Therefore, as I am conscious that decision making often reflects personal self-interest as opposed to the interests of the collective, I am equally aware of the need to be mindful of the motivations underpinning my own decision making in an environment in which the reflexive imperative now dominates (Archer 2012).

Overall, the critical phenomenological hermeneutic methodology, adopted in this research, enables me to achieve the descriptive and analytical outcomes associated with a phenomenological method as well as the interpretative outcomes associated with a critical hermeneutical method. This is because this method ‘combines the rigour of phenomenology

113

with the cyclical enquiry and development of understanding that is the hallmark of the philosophy of enquiry of hermeneutics’ (Lukaitis 2013, p. 5).

4.5.4 The phenomenological hermeneutical interpretative research process