Relevance to this study

As a theory of change, SPT is linked to an ideology of power, which operates through empowerment, collaboration, community of practice and collegiality (Boag, 2010). It is at this point where the ‘practice’ of e-assessment by academics

in institutions can be likened to Lave and Wenger’s (1991, 1999) communities of

practice, which many believe are very much commonplace in organisations, providing a useful vehicle to better describe the dynamics and actions of people involved, as well as capturing the tacit knowledge that they produce (de Freitas & Oliver, 2005; McDermott & Archibald, 2010; Wenger, 1998). At the heart of any CoP is the notion of ‘practice’, which Wenger claims is always social in nature:

The concept of practice connotes doing, but not just doing in and of itself. It is doing in a historical and social context that gives structure and meaning to what we do. In this sense, practice is always social practice (1998, p. 47).

Smith (2006) expands on the concept of practice, suggesting that it considers

both the ‘explicit’ – the formal procedures, documents and language - and the

‘tacit’ – the shared world view, intuitions, and underlying assumptions. But

whilst CoPs appear to place more emphasis on the negotiated nature of practice and a learning system, ‘social practice’ is more concerned with how they emerge,

42 and happen, in relation to other practices. Trowler (2014) posits that social practice theory views the social world as ‘ensembles of practices’, describing

them as “regular sets of behaviours, ways of understanding and know-how and

states of emotion that are enacted by groups configured to achieve specific

outcomes through their activities” (p. 21). In the HE domain, such ‘practice’ can

be likened to Trowler and Cooper’s (2002) concept of teaching and learning

regimes (TLR), with individuals actively involved the creation and enactment of ‘culture’, many of which are often invisible since they are often considered to be the norm.

Despite having been adopted in range of contexts, including: organisational studies (Antonacopoulou & Pesqueux, 2010; Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Holtz, 2014; Warde, 2005; Wilkinson & Kemmis, 2014); information literacy and science (Cox, 2012; Moring & Lloyd, 2013); professional practice (Binns, 2015; Lindberg & Rantatalo, 2014) and environmental change (Hargreaves, 2011), there has only been limited application of SPT in HE contexts (Trowler & Knight, 2002), with only a handful of examples considering the use of technology in learning and teaching (Bolldén, 2016; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Goodyear, 1995; Trowler, 2014). Given the similarities of SPT with a number of methodological approaches, including ethnomethodology, phenomenology and structural functionalism (Hopwood, 2010; Knight & Trowler, 2001), SPT provides a “more holistic and grounded perspective on behaviour change processes as they occur

in situ” (Hargreaves, 2011, p. 79), illuminating the difficulties when attempting

to challenge and change ‘practices’; an issue all too familiar in a university context (Binns, 2015; Wilkinson & Kemmis, 2014).

3.6. Summary

The issue of synonymous terminology in the education domain has long been acknowledged for many years, yet there still appears to be a range of terms in

use today to describe technology related practices. Tomas et al.’s (2015) claim

43 assessment rings true in that it has somewhat masked some of the bigger

problems involved in the design and implementation of e-assessment, which are more crucial to solve to ensure its success, rather than whether it has or has not

worked in a particular context. But whilst Gikandi et al.’s (2011) extensive

literature review has indeed served as a starting point to solving some of the

issues surrounding terminology, the exclusion of defining ‘e-assessment’, only

serves to add to the confusion regarding what it actually entails. If we are to move forward as aim for a more aspirational approaches towards enhancing assessment through technology as suggested by Timmis et al. (2016), then it is only right that we examine the terminology used by those involved in the design and implementation of e-assessment, and uncover to what extent the

synonymous use of terminology has impacted on practice.

Whitelock and Brasher’s (2006) early attempts to identify the enablers and

barriers to e-assessment was crucial in identifying the issues impacting on the widespread use of e-assessment, many of which are still evident in practice today: institutional culture; infrastructure; the attitudes and training of staff involved; and, the lack institutional policy to govern the quality, accessibility and reliability of e-assessment. My own earlier work on the challenges for

implementing continuous online assessment reported the evidence of historical practices with regards to assessment strategies (Alston, 2015), but this study was carried out at a small scale and focused on only academics in one

department. Similarly, whilst Tomas et al.’s (2015) institutional level study confirmed the existence a number of these barriers, there is no indication as to the type of institution involved given the differing affiliations of the authors, and only the views of academic staff were represented, without consideration of those in PS roles who often play an important part in the operational aspects of educational technologies. Do academics and PS align/differ in their views with regards to the barriers that impact on the successful design and implementation of e-assessment? Similarly, do they align/differ with regards to the impact of the structures and formal policies on e-assessment?

44 The gap uncovered in this chapter which this thesis aims to contribute to is that more needs to be done to examine the impact of e-assessment on culture, context, communities of practice, and the resulting change processes within HE institutions. To pursue this, social practice theory - which has only seen a limited application within HE and the use of technology in teaching and learning

(Bolldén, 2016; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Goodyear, 1995; Trowler, 2014) – is adopted as a theoretical framework to examine the situated practices of e- assessment within OldU, since they can often contribute to the creation and

enactment of ‘culture’ within institutions (Trowler & Cooper, 2002).

Chapter 4 presents the approach taken to the research study, detailing the rationale for the chosen methodology, the data collection methods, the

participants involved in the study and the data analysis framework. Finally, the quality of the research is considered, with regards to trustworthiness and limitations of the study, concluding with a discussion of the ethical

45

Chapter 4 - Research Design

This chapter describes the qualitative approach taken to this study in terms of the methodology used, the data collection methods adopted, the participants involved, and the approach to analysing the data. It also considers the

researcher's ontological and epistemological assumptions and how they related to the design of the study, whilst also highlighting the issues around insider research. Finally, the quality of the research is considered with regards to the trustworthiness and limitations of the study, concluding with a discussion of the ethical considerations.

The aim of this chapter is not to provide an exhaustive and comprehensive account of the various issues relating to the topics described. Instead, it highlights the key issues central to the approach taken in this study and the potential impact they have on subsequent conclusions.