THESIS LIMITATIONS

The limitations of a study concern the obstacles experienced in the exploration of the thesis, the general barriers to extending such a research project (such as diversifying its authenticity and originality) and, most specifically, the barriers in methodology that may not easily be overcome in such a contained research project. In order to thoroughly grasp the complex dynamics experienced in this thesis, I disrupt my ‘situation’ in my theoretical and abstract reference to discuss certain contexts and approaches that have presented themselves as barriers and obstacles to the resounding fulfilment of a comprehensive thesis.

I found four prominent limitations to this study (and naturally a few minor obstacles that may be expected in the process of completing an extended thesis). I will mention these limitations briefly, and then discuss them separately in a bit more depth. The first major limitation I experienced is a sense of doubt regarding the interrelationship between the topic, the research question, and the research methodology; secondly, the questionable doubt of the appropriate situatedness of conceptual space for the progressive outcome of the research exploration; and thirdly, the inappropriate and contradictory disassociation between forms of inquiry. I will discuss these further individually, with necessary illustrations from my thesis research experience.

The first major obstacle is ostensibly one that may be experienced in many theses and dissertations, namely questioning whether the thesis topic suits the method, and vice versa. As far as a philosophical inquiry is concerned it certainly will be difficult to ask the correct question. Reflecting on the title of this thesis [Contemplative Education as a comprehensive means towards “the eradication of ignorance”] and relating this title to the research questions in Chapter 1: Orientation (Introduction), it may fairly have been assumed that this would be a philosophical exploration on the initial offset; but I wonder whether this abstraction into a field such as contemplative education (that sets itself apart as an approach that recognizes the foundations of intuitive and simplified clarity) does not rather require a pragmatic style of questioning over a conceptual (merely theoretical) style of questioning? This is not only a matter of asking whether the research question meets the method and vice versa, but leads me further to the question whether the title suits the research intention, which consequently influences the formation of the question and methodology. This is a major limitation because it potentially projects the research in a direction that does not reflect the intention of the researcher, consequently undermining the motivation of the research and ultimately distorting the goals and objectives.

The second major limitation is in relation to conceptual space (not to mention the influence of physical space); this means that the thesis is subject to fall sway to a broader theoretical framework

that is perpetuated through the academic murmurings of the most immediate variables. Hence I consider the possibility of an unapparent redirection of my thesis through the conceptual influences of other prominent theoretical discourses. I clarify this context with an example: for instance, I set my intention to explore contemplative education, but not having selected my research methodology, I came into the influence of other immediate thought that proposed a direction for my study; for instance, to analyze the concepts underpinning contemplative education towards an understanding of policy and praxis in institutional culture. This may be interesting, but does this trajectory stay true to the original intention of the thesis? Most probably not, as such a redirection becomes the fuel for a different theoretical paradigm, such as an Analytical Philosophy of Education, but it may be more suited for contemplative education to be approached from either a deeper phenomenological or pragmatic approach. It is a careful matter selecting not only the most appropriate research methodology, but to especially and carefully consider the theoretical influences of the field in which one is situated (i.e. I am situated in the field of several philosophical perspectives, each with its own bold suggestion, but it remains imperative for me to remain true to my vision 1) to build security in my own academic voice, and 2) to keep the thesis sound and grounded on its initial foundation). The third limitation provides further insight into this obstacle to research.

The third major limitation is focused on the inner dynamics of the research topic. Here I need to provide a coherent example in order to carefully and clearly explain the context of this limitation. The reader may recollect from Chapter 4: Findings, that I referred to Naropa University’s description of contemplative education as having three modes of inquiry: 1) third-person inquiry (traditional academics), 2) second-person inquiry (experiential learning), and 3) first-person inquiry (contemplative practices) (see Simmer-Brown n.d.).

The major limitation I have found here is that, in my own research process, I have made is a stark contradiction in approaching contemplative education strictly from a third-person inquiry (i.e. traditional academics). It was my initial hope that, through the hermeneutic phenomenology, I would be able to transcend this disassociation between the abstraction and stratification of concepts into practical applications of meaning; the skullduggery of this situation is in the researcher’s ability to master the topic with the careful and engaged technique of hermeneutic phenomenology. In other words, I first ask myself whether I have been able to successfully apply the methodology of hermeneutic phenomenology to the topic of contemplative education, or whether I have slipped up in my conceptual approach. Not to mention whether I feel I have applied the most appropriate methodology relevant to the subject. My feeling is that, when exploring a first-person inquiry (i.e. contemplative practices in education), I cannot neglect the actual first-person inquiry taking place in myself as a researcher. This gives rise to a grave disassociation from the subject and completely

undermines the trajectory of the thesis toward further study – most importantly, in terms of taking the study further into actual pragmatic dimensions.

The final limitation to this thesis is the lack of any clearly adopted method for phenomenological writing (see Van Manen 2014). This phenomenological writing would consequently form a ‘writing’ chapter, which will give rise to an original contribution that may elevate this thesis for further development.3F

4

In other words, with the inclusion of a ‘writing’ chapter, the thesis would move beyond a mere review of the literature of current research in the field of contemplative education and add to the list of contributions espousing and supporting the establishment and development of contemplative education. This does not say that I have no ‘writing’ in my thesis, not to mention in my Findings, but I do feel that it would require an entire discussion on how I would write about my analysis and interpretation, aided by clear methodological guidelines.

On considering the limitations on a larger scale, I ask how one can be limited to a single model and theory of research. Of course there are the dangers of constructing confusion and illogically outlandish proposals for exploration, but, at the same time, I feel we essentially limit progress when we situate ourselves in fixed ideologies of understanding and engaging with our lifeworld’s. We certainly can no longer carry on with our methods and call them the best or only tools for the job. As we find ourselves in a paradigm of Metamodernism (see Vermeulen & Van Den Akker 2010) we may admit that the deconstructions and critiques of the late 20th century (characteristic of the Postmodern and Post-postmodern era) are losing their relevance in consistency.

What this means for future research is that we cannot limit ourselves to our respective fields and that we need to acknowledge the interactive dimensions of interdisciplinary plurality, i.e. in my mode of contemplation I recognize the need to draw on educational psychology, Art and Aesthetics in Space, Sound and Movement (such as with Architecture, Interior Design, City Planning) Ecological Impact, Economic Diversity, Science Fiction Writing, Film and Media, Community Development, Technology and Digital Space, and so forth. This proposal is equally relevant to drawing on several (seemingly opposing) theorists and theories. In other words, the 21st-century (contemplative) philosopher resonates with the Renaissance person, the Polymath, who is knowledgeable, skilled and integrated into several understandings and modalities.

Considering these major limitations to my thesis leads me directly to the recommendations for further study and research.

4

This may not be so much of a limitation as a suggestion for further study, but it does show that the suggestion is born from the limitation.