Relationships between and within modalities

One of the contributions of the thesis lies in the theory development work that has been done, and I now turn my attention to the theoretical instrument generated in the work.

7.5.1 Relations between modalities: configuring the macro-structure

Up till this point I have treated the different parts of the theoretical framework used in this thesis as autonomous elements: each modality was considered individually in its interaction with the units of analysis. One of the questions left unanswered till this point in the thesis is whether relationships exist between the three modalities, and if so, what the nature of these is. During the data analysis process each data unit was considered in terms of all three knowledge modalities of specialisation, idealisation and normativity, and principal (and secondary where present) modes were assigned to each (refer to Appendix A). A number of observations can be made on the basis of this (note that the discussion follows here is done at the level of the modalities, rather than the modes).

Firstly, the data units coded with the specialisation modality as principal modality display (largely) mono-modal coding: very few secondary modes were identified. The reason for this is that the knowledge considered is largely declarative, and does not display any normative inclination; no explicit or implicit evaluative considerations can reasonably be associated with it. Neither does the data display any idealisation or distortion of reality as such. Accordingly the knowledge concerned is coded largely mono-modally as principally oriented either towards particulars, or towards universals.

Secondly, the data units identified in the specialisation chapter are common across all disciplines, and can therefore possibly be considered to be more ‘fundamental’ or ‘elemental’ than some of the data units in the other modalities that are more emblematic of specific disciplines. Closer scrutiny of the specific themes covered by the units of data in the

specialisation modality chapter strengthens this impression: the data units tend to deal with meta-level information. Examples are the meaning of the term ‘thermodynamics’, overall approach (either classical or statistical-mechanical), prominence of microscopic vs macroscopic detail, prominence of systems and devices in the knowledge, approach to the introduction of the First Law and the accompanying sign convention, and the use of codified information across the topics. The one exception to this is the approach to enthalpy, but even here an argument could chemistry as an ‘impure’ science. This line of thinking was not pursued in this thesis, but would be an interesting further piece of work to explore.

187 Specialisation Idealisation Normativity 1 3 2 4

be made for the more elemental nature of the concept in the bigger field of thermodynamics. Lastly, all of the data with a principal modality code of either idealisation or normativity, also carries a specialisation code.

All of this seems to suggest that specialisation is somehow a larger, perhaps more fundamental modality, possibly at a different level, and encompassing the other two modalities.

The outcome of the coding described above and summarised in Appendix A, suggests that the coding patterns in the data could be presented as a Venn diagram displaying the logical relationships between sets. Note that the Venn diagram is a representation at the level of the modalities, rather than at the level of the modes:

Figure 7-4: The structural configuration of disciplinary knowledge modalities

The diagram represents all of the data under consideration, i.e. all of the thermodynamics knowledge in the textbooks. Specialisation is presented here as the all-encompassing modality, enveloping the other two modalities.

Area 1 represents the principal modality of specialisation of the knowledge; the disciplinary curriculum knowledge here carries a mono-modal coding (either particular or universal). This is most of the knowledge discussed in chapter four, where the knowledge has neither normative nor idealised aspects, and therefore carries no secondary coding. Examples of Area 1 knowledge include broad descriptions of the subject content, the overall approach to the fundamental (First) Law followed in each discipline, and the value placed on either microscopic or macroscopic detail.

188 Data in area 2 and 4 is coded for two of the three modalities: either idealisation or normativity as principal modality, and also for specialisation as a secondary modality. Area 2 represents the knowledge that takes one of the idealisation modes (physical realisability or abstract-ideal theorisation) as the principal mode, with a secondary specialisation modality. The knowledge here results from some form of distortion or approximation of reality, but is largely value- neutral and is therefore not coded for normativity as a principal modality. Examples include control volume analysis (mechanical engineering), statistical mechanics (physics) and the ideal gas (chemistry). Area 4 circumscribes the normative modality as the principal modality, but with a secondary specialisation mode. In this case the knowledge is both normative and

specialised, but distortion of reality is largely absent in the textbooks. Examples are the notions of the theoretical limit of efficiency, and the value of energy in the mechanical and chemical engineering textbooks.

There are cases where some of the knowledge is given two secondary mode codes in addition to the principal mode. Area 3 therefore has all three modalities present: either normativity or idealisation as the principal modality, with both a specialisation modality and another

secondary modality of either idealisation or normativity (depending on which principal mode it took). This is the case, for example, with quantifying the error (normative modality) that results from using an ideal gas to approximate a real gas (idealisation modality) under specific

empirical conditions (specialisation modality). Other examples here are the efficiency of the Carnot heat engine, an idealisation, which is the theoretical maximum possible efficiency against which to compare (a normative concern) real heat engine conditions (specialisation), and also the calculation of the damage done in a mechanical explosion (specialisation) where an approximation (idealisation) is acceptable because it results in an over-estimation of damage, meeting the safety concerns in engineering (normative modality).

The discussion above recounts the way the knowledge modalities relate in terms of the organisation and structuring of the analytical tool developed in this research project. Specialisation is therefore found to be the main configuring modality in its reference to universalising or particularising knowledge in the first instance. Within the specialisation of knowledge, idealisation and normativity are further significant modalities found in the disciplinary knowledge, and there is potential for these modalities to intersect. In addition to the structuring aspects and relations to each other, there is a further capacity for the modalities and modes to mutually influence and shape the actualisation of the modalities. This is discussed in the next section below.