How I conduct social research is impacted by how I see my social world. My word view and the perspective that is core to much of the literature on adult education are both very much consistent with the humanistic paradigm.
I agree with humanists who argue that individuals are capable of understanding their own behaviour and that the meaning of behaviour is essentially personal and subjective (Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May). This emphasis on subjective meaning is compatible with the use of methods of research that are more qualitative in nature and that allow respondents to explain their realities in their own way. It is true that adult education theories do not all fit neatly in a single paradigm, yet humanistic theory which is often considered the theory of individual growth and development is the predominant paradigm of practice within the literature of adult and continuing education. Humanistic theory includes the theory
144 that learning occurs primarily by reflecting on personal experience. The role of instruction is not to put anything in the mind or repertoire of the learner, but to extract lessons from the learner's insights and experience. Knowles‟ (1973) theory of Andragogy , and the focus of Tough (1989, 1979) and Houle (1961) on self-directed learning are examples of adult education theories that reflect this perspective.
I find that a person-centred philosophy also resonates with a view of the researcher as one who is context sensitive, and flexible (Creswell, 1998). I am therefore able to see a common thread between my worldview, my perceptions of myself as researcher and the kind of approach I take to my research. It is possible to elucidate this common thread in the epistemological and methodological choices as part of the foundation of my research philosophy.
Constructionist Epistemology
Epistemology is concerned with the nature and forms of knowledge, how it is acquired and how it is communicated to other human beings (Cohen et al., 2000). It is important to appreciate that research is not merely the act of collecting data in a technically efficient manner, it is motivated by a desire to understand our world and so how we view the world and what we accept as knowledge about our world are very important. How we „align‟ ourselves profoundly affects how, as researchers, we will go about uncovering knowledge of social behaviour (Cohen et al 2000, p. 6). These perspectives influenced my research repeatedly as I decided how to collect my data, conduct my fieldwork, analyse my data and made choices about the significance of various elements in my analysis.
145 Hitchcock and Hughes (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1995) claim „ontological assumptions give rise to epistemological assumptions; these, in turn, give rise to methodological considerations; and these, in turn, give rise to issues of instrumentation and data collection‟ (p.21). While, Krauss (Krauss, 2005) explains that „ontology involves the philosophy of reality, epistemology addresses how we come to know that reality, while methodology identifies the particular practices used to attain knowledge of it‟ (2005, p.758-9).
Having struggled through the jungle of terms, concepts and perspectives, I found that, although intimidating, they provide labels for processes with which I was already familiar, and I might have instinctively chosen without fully appreciating how they were connected. It is very likely that even before my exposure to the literature; I would have chosen to collect data in a manner that placed the voice of the respondent in the centre. It is likely that I would have chosen to view the data collected as knowledge that is filtered through the experiences and perceptions of respondents and treated that as authentic reality and so I would have valued their subjective view-point.
I appreciate that my position is somewhat subjective as I have not engaged this research issue as an objective outsider. As someone who has worked in the adult education sector I am interested in hearing the voices of practitioners not merely learning what others (non-practitioners) think is important for practitioners. I wanted to find a way of seeing the reality of the context through the eyes of teachers, students and administrators. I found in constructionism an epistemological position that resonated with my perspectives and expectations.
146 The basic contention of constructionism is that, there is no meaning in the world until we construct it, reality is socially constructed by and between the persons who experience it (Gergen, 1999). Reality which is completely subjective is also independent of the person living it. So that reality can be different for each person based on our unique understanding of the world and our experience of it (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). This epistemological view holds that knowledge is contingent on human practices. So knowledge is constructed out of interaction between people (Crotty, 1998). Meaning then is not found in objects but depends on the interpretations of humans, indeed there is no meaning in the world unless we construct it. We give meaning to objects by our naming of them and our using of them in particular ways and the meaning we make is affected by our social interpretations of the thing. So constructionism gives a lot of significance to the lenses through which we view our reality; such as the lenses of culture, background knowledge, assumptions and perspectives.
In social research, the focus of the constructionist researcher is to discover the way respondents interpret meaning. Social researchers are not distinct from their subject matter, they cannot study social life as scientists do in a lab, their interaction with their subjects is itself a key part of the sociological enterprise. Language plays an important role in constructionist research; there is more likelihood that there will be a reliance on the spoken word through conversation, interviews, narrative (Gergen, 2001, Padgett, 2004). Through language we expand on the „what‟ questions asked by positivist research and include „why‟ and „how‟ questions (Darlaston-Jones, 2007), so then there seems a natural relationship between constructionist epistemology and qualitative methods and data is usually collected through unstructured interviews and observation for instance. Constructionist research prefers „methods of enquiry that accept
147 and value the role of the subjective rather than the objective‟ (Darlaston- Jones 2007, p. 21). These methods allow the investigator to discover how the respondent sees the world. So then, epistemological perspectives are both informed by the world views of the researcher and serve to inform the researcher on options that are consistent with that worldview.
In examining the concerns of my research interest, I have wondered whether there exists an objective entity known as „ quality teaching‟ or whether „quality teaching‟ is teaching considered to be good quality by those who participate in that interaction. It seemed to me that my research is interested in the perceptions of quality teaching as held by teachers, students and administrators. I am also interested to hear what these stakeholders think may be workable strategies to improve teaching quality.
If my reality is created out of my subjective view of the world then it does not lend itself to objective analysis and scrutiny because no one can see the world exactly the same way as I do. All that an observer can do is interpret my actions through his or her understanding of what he or she thinks the world is like. Therefore as researchers we must instead utilise methods of enquiry that accept and value the role of the subjective rather than the objective in our attempts to understand phenomena from the idiographic perspective. (Darlaston-Jones, 2007:21) (emphasis in the original). My own interest in enhancing teaching quality through professional development came out of my experience as part of the faculty of an educational institution that identified staff development as an important objective but had only limited success in achieving full participation or in meeting developmental goals. This failure appeared to be due to several factors including the casual nature of the contracts of most of the faculty. Staff development efforts received sporadic support and the quality of teaching as assessed by student evaluation reports was not consistently of a high standard across the board. Some teachers regularly had excellent feedback while others seemed to have difficulty regardless of the subject
148 area. Also, I wondered if there was any appreciable difference in teaching quality between full and part-time faculty. In this institution, there was significant dependence on part-time faculty. However, administrators did not have much control over how part-time faculty delivered content in the classroom nor did they take any action to standardise the teaching product. Part-time faculty in this institution did not have homogeneous characteristics; they had very different levels of training and experience. Some had very little experience teaching but there existed combinations of a number of characteristics; some had credible subject knowledge and professional experience, others were trained to teach children at the primary or secondary level and were making the transition to teaching adults without additional training, and others held full-time jobs in tertiary level institutions. It was general practice that the primary intervention from administrators was to use student feedback to decide whether to renew contracts of part-time teaching staff.
My research is interested in finding ways of improving teaching quality through Continuing Professional Development (CPD) that is helpful for part- time faculty. I believe that against the background of very little training in adult education, most part-time staff are at a disadvantage and would benefit from professional development programmes. I sought to address this issue in my research.
I do assume that my respondents know their reality better than I do, that even if I can make inferences from what I observe I would benefit from their own explanations of their perceptions and interpretations. Therefore, I selected methods usually associated with qualitative research to address my research questions since researchers often choose methods of data collection consistent with their approach (Cohen, 2000).
149 Epistemological positions influence methodological choices. Constructionism is considered an anti-positivist epistemological concept. A positivist approach is likely to lead the researcher to utilise traditional options like surveys and experiments. The researcher would be concerned with analysing relationships and regularities between the factors being studied. This more quantitative approach differs from an anti-positivist approach like constructionism. The constructionist researcher will be likely to select methods such as interviews and observation. Here the principal concern is with understanding the ways in which the world is interpreted by individuals (Cohen et al, 2000). It is this anti-positivist, more qualitative approach that I have chosen in my research since it offers a methodology that „provide[s] the means to seek a deeper understanding and to explore the nuances of experiences not available through quantification‟ (Darlaston-Jones 2007, p. 25).
Qualitative Methodology
Denzin and Lincoln (1994) define qualitative research:
Qualitative research is multi-method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials; case study, personal experience, introspective, life story interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts-that describe routine and problematic moments and meaning in individuals' lives. Creswell (1994) defines it this way:
Qualitative research is an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting.
I am able to firmly locate my research in this paradigm. This is a paradigm of the discovery of patterns from close observation and careful
150 documentation and analysis. My research questions are such that ask „why‟ questions and require a view of the issues from the perspective of practitioners. This viewpoint is valued so that solutions generated may be more relevant. This focus on practitioner viewpoint is also a focus on context. My study is interested in the peculiarities of practice in the Jamaican context. There is, so far, very little literature on adult education practice in Jamaica and the most popular formal training option available for practitioners in this field is offered in an overseas university. We have found in the context of a small island nation that is still shaking off the vestiges of colonialism that the prescriptions handed down by the north are not always relevant to our context. Therefore this study values the stories of those who have, in their daily work as educators and administrators, attempted to interpret the theories and prescriptions of a foreign context in their own context.
Contextual relevance, usefulness and fitness for purpose are very important. A qualitative study allows individuals to be studied in their natural setting, data can be collected in the words of the respondents, participants are able to give feedback and the study may be adjusted if necessary to better respond to the peculiarities of the context.
Furthermore, as a researcher who has been involved in the context, a qualitative study allows me to take the role of active learner, telling the story from the participants‟ view-point but also reflecting on the process myself.
Researchers that tend towards the more positivist orientation argue that qualitative research is too subjective and so cannot ensure validity. They claim that this kind of research may be at risk because of the subjective role of the researcher who shares in the interpretation of meaning and may
151 experience inaccurate descriptions (not heard, transcribed or remembered inaccurately) or inaccurate inferred meaning- (misrepresented, dismissed or distorted). Further, the risk may arise out of the inability to generalise based on a sample that is too specific or offers only a partial account.
Robert Smith (2000) argues that it is possible to control for these risks by strategies such as:
verifying conclusions with participants and other researchers and ensuring detailed recording, data saturation and comprehensive sampling.
using thick description and the language of participants using triangulation and multiple data collection
using rich descriptions of the settings
ensuring (and documenting) that the context is representative valuing and documenting self-reflection on the research process. Furthermore, qualitative research does offer some advantages over quantitative research. With qualitative research we can address the problem of meaning and operationalization. Since we can never know whether the respondent understands words and phrases in the same way that the researcher intends, the advantage of using a method that allows the researcher to investigate meaning with the respondent is clear. It is also possible for the researcher to explore meaning contradictions since people tend to over report desirable behaviour and under-report undesirable behaviour.
As a researcher I must balance the advantages and the limitations and make an informed choice, conscious that one decision influences the other. I must choose that which is useful and relevant and that which has the
152 ability to meet the goals of my research. Qualitative research may be said to be situational and conditional, rather than trying to find general principles, it focuses on understanding a specific context and specific circumstances. (not looking for general principles but focused on understanding specific circumstances (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), this form of research is suitable for my research questions and my research context. I have been able to find a fit between my theoretical foundation (humanism), my epistemology (constructionism) and my choice of methodology (qualitative research) (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4-1 A Reasonable Fit Humanist Psychology Constructionist Epistemology Qualitative Methodology
I have found this to be a reasonable fit. As the diagram above depicts, the fit is not seamless or exclusive. I do not claim that no other methodology or epistemology would be appropriate. I simply submit that this fit of humanistic theory, constructionist epistemology and qualitative methodology provide a workable fit for me as researcher and one that I think is suitable for my research context and population.
153