Chapter 3 Methodology
3.3 Theoretical Frameworks
My epistemological beliefs (social constructionism) guided my choice of theoretical frameworks which were interpretivism and critical theory. The interpretivist paradigm or hermeneutic approach to researching and
understanding social science was advanced by Peter Winch (1926–1997) and hermeneutic scholars such as Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) and Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002) (Travers, 2007). Dilthey highlighted that the subject matter investigated by the natural sciences was different to the social sciences, where human beings as opposed to inanimate objects can interpret the
environment and themselves (Travers, 2007). In contemporary research practice, this acknowledges that facts and values cannot be separated and that
understanding is inevitably prejudiced because it is situated in terms of the individual and the event (Cousin, 2005; Elliott and Lukes, 2008).
Interpretivists believe that reality is not objectively determined, but is socially constructed (Husserl, 1965). Researchers recognise that all participants involved, including the researcher, bring their own unique interpretations of the world or construction of the situation to the research and the researcher needs to be open to the attitudes and values of the participants or, more actively, suspend prior cultural assumptions (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). I chose interpretivism as one of my theoretical frameworks because I concur with Cousin (2009) that objectivity is impossible in the human sciences and that as the researcher I am part of the setting and not outside it. I wanted to explore the depths of human understanding about what active learning is and I was keen to delve deep into the worlds of my participants, albeit for a very limited time, and therefore I
tried to understand and subsequently interpret what they said and what they did.
Interpretivist research is recognised for its value in providing conceptual depth;
however, it is often criticised in terms of its validity, reliability and generalisability (Kelliher, 2011). In response to this type of critique, it is
arguable that interpretative research using qualitative methods does not require the same levels of validity, instead researchers should be concerned with
understanding (Wolcott, 1994) and trustworthiness (Jones et al, 2006).
Furthermore, the detail and effort involved in interpretive inquiry allows researchers to gain insight into particular events as well as a range of
perspectives that may not have come to light without that scrutiny (MacDonald et al., 2000).
My second theoretical framework was critical theory. I wanted to evaluate active learning in higher education by taking a critical look at underpinning theories that inform our understanding of active learning and how these translate to real-life situations. Originating in the Marxist Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University in Frankfurt in Germany, critical theory is a school of thought that sets out to critique society and culture (Geuss, 1981).
Critical theory contrasts with traditional theory by attempting to not only understand or explain society but to change it. Critical theory is commonly associated with research which is sensitive to questions of power and which also aspires to put research in the service of social justice (Cousin, 2009). Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000) and Crotty (1998) argue that social science research is never value-neutral and critical theory keeps the spotlight on power
relationships within society so as to expose the forces of hegemony and
injustice. Progressive and radical pedagogies are associated with addressing the imbalance of power in the classroom (Brookfield, 1995; Bovill et al. 2008; Freire, 2000).
There exist certain criticisms of critical theory. For example, critical theory makes a sweeping assumption that most neoliberal policies and practices are inherently wrong, whereas in reality nothing is ever that simple. Furthermore, Kincheloe et al. (2011: pp. 163-167) argue that it is difficult to ‘package’ critical theory as it goes against the very nature of its wariness of ‘historical blueprints’.
Lincoln et al. (2011: p.93) suggest that ‘getting mad is no longer enough, we must learn how to act in the world in ways that allow us to expose workings of an invisible universe’. My own reservations about employing critical theory were that in order to meet expectations, this research must result in grand notions of emancipatory and radical action. I was unsure that this research could fulfil any of these notions completely; however, I certainly aspired to critical theories ideals and values. Following the suggestion of Horkheimer (1982) who argued that critical theory is adequate only if it is explanatory, practical, and
normative, this research will explain: how power shapes conditions and practices (such as active learning) within the university classroom; who can act to change it so that power distribution is more equal (i.e. teachers, students, or both); and finally, suggest how transformation can be achieved.
Using both interpretivism and critical theory allows me as the researcher to go in-depth into participants’ understandings of active leaning, but more than this, it uncovers how and why participants’ understandings are shaped and influenced by power structures both inside and outside the classroom. Advocates of
interpretivism and critical theory argue that, in research, facts cannot be separated out from values. This particular point is relevant for research which investigates active learning because active learning only has meaning because people give it meaning; it exists because people attribute their understanding and values to it. Interpretivism and critical theory share a similar goal; to actively challenge interpretations and values in order to bring about change.
This leads to a common criticism of critical research that the aim is to support a political agenda (Hammersley, n.d.). However, Creswell (2003) argues that this is a necessary consequence because politics and inquiry are intertwined or inseparable and, by having an agenda of reform, all participants’ lives can be transformed for the better.
Active learning is often understood to be about changing the dynamics of the classroom so that students may have more say in the content and processes of their learning (O’Neil and McMahon, 2005). In order to achieve this there is a need to address the balance of power between the learner and the teacher. The main aim of this research project is to investigate active learning in the context of higher education, and in investigating this issue the research may possibly uncover how active learning approaches can influence the balance of power
within a university teaching environment or how power within the university teaching environment can influence definitions and practices of active learning.