In search of a conceptual framework

As outlined above (Chapter 1.3.2), the methodological position taken in this study fits firmly within an interpretivist perspective which is

underpinned by constructivist ontology, and is principally concerned with meaning, understanding and illumination. The interpretivist approach, in contrast to positivism’s generalisation, prediction and control, which I was familiar with through my professional training, looks for ‘culturally

derived and historically situated interpretations of the social-life world’

(Crotty 1998 p. 67). Usher (1996 p.18) argues that ‘the natural sciences

80

research to the observable and empirical, as a positivist epistemology does, would result in an important dimension within social enquiry, meaning within social interactions, being missed. Since understanding what learning means to students is the core emphasis of this study, a positivist approach (such as from my professional training) would not be appropriate.

Usher goes on to link interpretivism to the underpinning values of

enlightenment, understanding and communication (Usher 1996 p.22) and describes how knowledge-formation is conceived as circular, iterative and spiral rather than the linear, cumulative way represented in positivism. One of the main assumptions underpinning interpretivism is that all knowledge is perspective-bound and partial and is influenced by Gadamer’s 'pre-understandings' and 'tradition' i.e. assumptions,

presuppositions, beliefs and practices (Gadamer 1975 cited in Usher 1996 p.19). Interpretivistic research does not usually attempt to generalise but presents data about the way human beings progressively construct meanings about the world in their lives (Scott 2000 p.54). This study did not aim to generalise but instead aimed to present findings about the way RGU pharmacy students progressively construct meanings about their learning and as a result the knowledge produced would be

illuminative and situated. As a professional doctorate, situated in my own professional practice, this was appropriate.

The perceived lack of generalisability in interpretivistic research can result in a lack of credibility amongst scientific circles and thus there was

81

a need to conduct the research in a robust way and present the findings in a credible and persuasive manner to convince the pharmacy scientific community of its validity. In considering this, Maxwell’s (2005)

explanation of generalisation as internal and external is helpful where

‘internal generalisability refers to the generalisability of a conclusion within the setting or group studied, while external generalisability refers to its generalisability beyond that setting or group’ (Maxwell 2005 cited in

Flick 2007 p.42). Providing the research was conducted in a robust way internal generalisability should be achievable. If the findings were presented in a ‘sufficiently detailed’ way in this thesis the reader would be able to judge whether or not the findings might apply in other similar settings, (Mays and Pope 2000 p.52) hence allowing some external generalisability. In terms of achieving robust and credible data the research was designed using Mays and Pope’s (2000) guidance on clear exposition of methods of data collection and analysis, reflexivity and attention to negative cases (Tonna and Edwards 2013).

The challenging intellectual journey through ontologies and

epistemologies continued during the first year of the research phase of the project. Whilst reading about threshold concepts during this time it was interesting and poignant to read about developing a conceptual framework as a threshold concept in doctoral studies (Trafford 2008) since this was exactly what I was experiencing myself. Trafford’s writing did reassure however that this process is an essential part of doctoral research.

82

In searching for the conceptual framework, although I was assured that the epistemology was firmly interpretivist and that artefacts were to be used in the data collection, the theoretical underpinnings for using these were less clear. A number of perspectives were explored and then

rejected during this search for a conceptual framework and the rationale for this will be briefly discussed here.

Symbolic interactionism (SI) was a perspective that appeared relevant since the use of artefacts in the interview design is a technique that fits within that paradigm. The underpinning philosophy of SI as being about how people create meaning during social interaction (O'Donoghue 2007) appeared to fit nicely with the direction of the project. On further reading around SI however (Crotty 1998) concerns developed about the

criticisms of SI as superficiality (lacking critique) and that it is unable to deal with social structure and macrosociological issues such as power (Ritzer and Goodman 2003) and as a result this perspective was not used to underpin the research.

Materiality and material culture, a body of work which encompasses the complex relationships between people and objects, was another

perspective which appeared to have direct relevance to the use of artefacts within the research. Some of the thinking underpinning this study around practices and learning as dwelling appeared to align closely with the principles underpinning material culture studies in that:

objects exist within networks of relations that serve to define, mediate and order them and which in turn are ‘acted upon’ by such objects and human subjects, affording them purpose and meaning

83

within a system of social relations (Law 2002 cited in Woodward

2007 p.16).

Following in-depth reading around this type of research (Woodward 2007), I realised that the desire to use objects within the research interviews was not because of an interest in researching the relationship of the object with a social phenomenon (in this case learning) but rather to use the object as a means to gain access to the phenomenon. In particular, allowing the student to select an object to bring to the interview may cut across some of the power issues around my

professional relationship with them (see section 3.4.3 below) and would allow them to articulate the abstract concepts this study aimed to

explore. Woodward’s comments that ‘there is some danger in including all

and sundry accounts of material objects within the field of material culture studies, simply because they study objects and artefacts in some way’ (Woodward 2007 p.26) and therefore this theoretical perspective

was not engaged with further within the project. Later reading of Ingold’s work (2000, 2011) re-emphasised that the dwelling perspective and meshwork concept would allow the research to take account of objects and practices in a more fluid, open and less pre-determined way than the

‘standard notion of artefacts as items of material culture’ (Ingold 2000

p.290) would afford.

My concern for the individual student experience, whilst taking account of their learning environment, raised some interesting tensions, for example how to account for the classic dualisms of mind versus body, individual versus social, structure versus agency and also those in the literature on learning around cognitive learning versus situated learning discussed in

84

Chapter 2. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, Hodkinson, Biesta and James’s (2008 p. 30) reflections assured me that there is ‘no reason why

individual learning cannot be addressed from within a broadly situated or socio-cultural perspective’ and Fenwick’s (2010 p.105) assertion that

socio-material approaches have the ability to ‘unsettle categories that

have become problematic conventions’ in learning persuaded me to

continue exploring these approaches.

One of the socio-material approaches explored by Fenwick (2010), in relation to work-based learning, is complexity theory. Reading Haggis’s work (2004, 2008, 2009) and attending a seminar on complexity theory in education led to consideration of whether this may be a perspective which would allow reconciliation of some of the tensions. Haggis (2004 p.335) uses complexity theory to attempt to address ‘some of the

difficulties of trying to approach learning as a complex and situated phenomenon’ and although this perspective did appear to offer an

approach which may be useful, because of Haggis’ and others’ (Davis and Sumara 2006) extensive research into complexity and student learning, there did not seem to be an opportunity for originality. In addition,

complexity theory could have been interesting to apply but I struggled to see how that would translate into a way of developing my own and others practice in pharmacy education. Taking this approach would also have required an in-depth engagement with a particular philosophical position, albeit one which draws on multiple heterogeneous theories (Fenwick 2010), and as noted in 3.1.2 below, I wished to draw on a range of different approaches in my research.

85

Similarly phenomonology (Crotty 1998) was another perspective which appeared to offer something to this study as it seemed to sit well with my position as researcher in a power relationship with my students; I would never fully see things from their perspective. This however may have ‘cut across’ one of the important values underpinning the project of co-

creating the data with students as far as was possible within the

relationship of power. Like complexity theory, I was aware that effective commitment to phenomonology required in-depth engagement with a particular philosophical tradition of inquiry. Given my commitment to an interdisciplinary perspective which drew on anthropology, sociology and art, I was not prepared to make this in-depth engagement.

Having explored and rejected a number of theoretical perspectives over a period of over 12 months, I made the decision to start data collection and continue this iterative process of finding the theory as data collection progressed. During this period of reading about theoretical research positions, an artefact that represented my feeling of ‘floundering in theoretical perspectives’ was the U2 song ‘No line on the horizon’ (U2 2009). I felt that there was no line on the horizon for me at that stage in my research however was reassured, by Flick (2007 p.68) who states that ‘researchers who start a study using qualitative methods … should

carefully plan and decide for a research perspective and do [their]

homework in the planning phase of [the] project’. This reassured me that

the extensive reading and planning would result in a well designed and considered project.

86