Research Methodology: Phenomenology

This research recognises that ‘A key feature of constructivist research is “explore”’

(Denicolo, Long and Bradley Cole, 2016:5). Therefore, this research used phenomenological methodology to explore and engage with the construction of knowledge by staff participating in group interviews. In previous research I adopted case study methodology in one secondary school. However, in this research, due to the higher levels of interaction with four secondary schools, a Phenomenological methodology provides a less bounded understanding of the living experience of participating staff members. In effect, this research required a recognition that ‘Constructionists do not believe in a single reality, we believe in multiple realities’ (Denicolo et al., 2016:26). Systems, and complex adaptive systems in particular, are difficult to contain, and finding their boundaries is arguably a subjective decision in social science which requires the ‘playfulness’ identified by Cilliers. Therefore, both the

epistemology and the theoretical perspective appeal to the congruency offered by a

phenomenological methodology. Crotty suggests that, as researchers ‘Lay aside, as best we can, the prevailing understanding of those phenomena and revisit our immediate experience

99

of them, possibilities for new meaning emerge for us or we witness at least an authentication and enhancement of former meaning’ (Crotty, 1996 a). Hence, the researcher had an

opportunity to enter the schools with a sense of uncertainty and curiosity regarding how restorative interventions came about, what they were doing and how they could be. In seeking to identify phenomena there were opportunities to recognise the messiness of systems when seeking change. In doing so, a phenomenology methodology made it possible to explore how staff members in each school constructed or reconstructed meaning regarding the sustainability of restorative approaches. From the phenomenological perspective, ‘these meanings are taught, and we learn in a complex and subtle process of enculturation. They establish a tight grip upon us and, by and large, shape our thinking behaviour throughout our lives’ (Ibid: 79). To what extent staff members in each school were aware of the tight grip of the meanings they had inherited and reconstructed was of interest to the researcher.

Phenomenological methodology required the researcher to ‘set aside all previous habits of thought, see through and breakdown the mental barriers which these habits have set along the horizon of our thinking’ (Husserl, 1931:43). Furthermore, phenomenologists suggest ‘a pristine acquaintance with phenomena unadulterated by preconceptions: it encourages the inquirer to sustain an intuitive grasp of what is there’ (Heron, 1992:164). Finally,

phenomenology as stated by Sadler is an ‘attempt to cover a fresh perception of existence, one unprejudiced by acculturation’ (1969: 377). The essence of phenomenology according to these thinkers is to explore phenomena by taking off the cultural lenses that are implicit in the everyday descriptions of such social activities. These guiding statements were important for preventing the researcher from accepting the participants’ worldviews, opinions and beliefs as the norm within their educational settings without critique.

In this research phenomenological methodology thus offered a perspective which

acknowledged both the pre-existing cultures and present meaning-making in the four schools. In addition, it provided the researcher with opportunities to see systems phenomena with possibilities for new meaning, which could resonate with understanding the complexity of change. For Crotty a major feature is that phenomenologists are able to reflect on and critique the world: ‘It calls into question what we take for granted’ (2011:83).

Phenomenological methodology added to constructivist exploration not only by exploring the phenomena but also by actively engaging with critique of the phenomena under investigation. Hence, critical reflection is an essential element of phenomenological methodology, as stated by Crotty: ‘When the critical spirit is lost, there is the failure to capture new or fuller

100

meanings or a loss of opportunities to renew the understanding we already possess’ (2011:85).

An important aspect of phenomenological research is the double hermeneutic, which is where ‘theories, concepts and ideas developed by the researchers not only describe the social world, but also have the potential to change it’ (Scott and Morrison, 2007:124). In schools the single hermeneutic is the presentation of an idea, concept or theory to staff through training. Yet staff themselves are not able to provide feedback to trainers or the wider field regarding how a concept nests within their settings. The single hermeneutic resonates with the Freirean ‘banking model’. The double hermeneutic, however, can be viewed as a feedback loop (see Diagram 5). Hence, Giddens states:

The Social Sciences operate a double hermeneutic involving two-way ties within the actions of the institutions and those they study. Sociological observers depend on lay concepts to generate accurate descriptions of social processes; agents regularly appropriate themes and concepts of social science within their behaviour, thus potentially changing its character.

(Giddens, 1984:31). Diagram 5: The Double Hermeneutic as a Feedback Loop.

The idea of the double hermeneutic is arguably a recognition of the possibility of feedback, self-organisation and emergence over time. Further issues regarding whether the double hermeneutic acts as a regulating or amplifying process are identified in this research. Scott and Morrison suggest that the double hermeneutic should be ‘understood as an activity that involves interpretations by researchers of interpretations made by individuals in society’

Theory, idea, concept changes perspection of reality reality Changes perspection of theory, idea, concept

101

(2007:124). This research extends this logic and suggests that interpretations can also be made by groups in society. Moreover, the shared lived experiences of those in a system provide a richer understanding of the complexity of that system and the meaning-making which comes from its interplay.

The interplay of phenomenological methodology and the double hermeneutic requires a different frame of reference for recognising the quality of research. Denicolo et al helpfully provide a table juxtaposing positivist and constructivist research (see Table 3 below). Denicolo et al make the important point that:

‘…sound and authoritative constructivist research is demonstrated by showing that its design is robustly appropriate for the phenomena and research purpose and that the techniques used to facilitate access to the meaning provided by participants, that is, it is credible to the data providers and those who view it, rather than valid’

(2016:37). Table 3: Quality Measures in Different Paradigms of Research (Denicolo et al, 2016:37).

Positivist Research Interpretivist Research

Validity Measuring what is

purported

Credibility Appropriateness of

research design

Objectivity ‘Factual’ data Confirmability Supported by other

researchers

Reliability Consistency and accuracy of measurement

Dependability Trustworthiness

Generalisability Reproducibility across settings

Transferability Application to other settings

Good quality phenomenological methodology must provide a credible research design which, ‘recognises influences of contextual and temporal dynamics’ (Denicolo et al, 2016:37) when exploring complex adaptive systems. Consequently, using a complexity-informed theoretical analysis allowed for explicitly recognising the situatedness of staff members participating in their ecosystem, as well as how different forms of temporal dynamics influenced both participants and the researcher. Furthermore, in terms of credibility, this involved the

102

participants, as well as other researchers, recognising and confirming the authenticity of this research. This led to the research characteristic of dependability, based on trustworthiness. Denicolo et al suggest that, ‘this is demonstrated through employing a trustworthy approach, that is, a methodology, delivered with integrity and transparency’ (2016:37). Hence, being explicit regarding the use of phenomenological methodology in seeking to understand the lived experiences of school staff in their systems allowed for greater dependability of the findings, discussions and conclusions generated from this research. The final aspect identified as a criterion for quality research is transferability, which could have been

problematic as the phenomena of complex adaptive systems and the perceptions of them were localised and situated. However, Denicolo et al state:

‘the degree to which the research design, methodology, tools and techniques may be transferred to other settings is an indication of the quality of the research, as are the clues or insights that the findings may provide to help others explore and understand similar situations’

(2016:38). Thus, from a phenomenological methodology perspective transferability of research finding is not focused on the specific outcomes of a specific phenomenon. Rather, quality research is indicated by the processes developed in a qualitative inquiry into a phenomena which can then be used in other settings and systems to further enhance understanding of those

phenomena.