As this review of literature has shown, questions around what policy is, how policy is made and what influences its production, remain as diverse and contested as key concepts such as quality, learning and the value of measuring learning. A key issue is whether SDG4 education policy reflects largely uncontested globalised assumptions and ideas of education or whether it will offer a contesting view. This will both determine its part in perpetuating existing hegemony and its potential to support the kind of radical transformation described in the broader sustainable development agenda.
3.4.1 Conceptual Framework
My research is framed by the theories and concepts explored in the above literature review. It is within this theoretical framework that I consider the influences on the construction and text of SDG4 and its wider interactions. SDG4, as a global policy for education, is produced discursively within specific social, political and economic contexts. Education problems and their solutions are constructed within a particular social imaginary of powerful policy elites, influenced by globalised discourses on education/education policy. Key concepts are undefined and/or reshaped through intertextual interactions (in particular by global indicators designed to measure
progress). SDG4, like all education policies is value-laden and reflect beliefs about society and its citizens.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
In the next chapter I discuss the methodological approach to my research. I discuss my research design and methods and their relevance for my research.
Chapter 4: Methodology
This chapter is focused on the methodological design and provides a discussion of my research approach. It is divided into a number of section and begins with a discussion of my overall research philosophy (4.1); followed by an introduction to my overall
methodological approach (4.2). I go onto discuss the methods of data I used and the rationale for doing so (4.3); and how I analysed my data (4.4.). In the latter half of this chapter I discuss the trustworthiness of my data (4.5) and explain the ethical
considerations and permissions (4.6); and my positionality as research (4.7). I conclude with a discussion of the limitations of my research (4.8) and a brief summary of the chapter (4.9).
4.1: Research Philosophy
An important discussion on research philosophy argues that three fundamental issues locate the researcher within a particular research paradigm: how the form and nature of reality are understood (ontology); the relationship between the would-be-knower (researcher) and what can be known (epistemology); and how the would-be-knower (researcher) can go about finding out what can be known (methodology) (Guba and Lincoln, in Denzin and Lincoln (Eds.), 1994p. 108). These three interconnected areas allow a researcher to define a “worldview” (Ibid). In addition, axiology (the values and beliefs held), together with ontology and epistemology, inform “how we view our
world(s), what we take understanding to be and what we see as the purposes of understanding, and what is deemed valuable” (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007, p.
3). Guba and Lincoln (in Denzin and Lincoln, Eds., 1994) identify a number of research paradigms which they categorise as positivism, post-positivism, critical theory and constructivism. They note that paradigms are human constructs and as such no one paradigm is the “ultimate foundational criteria” (Ibid, 1994, p. 108).
I approach this research through a constructivist lens, however, as Elkind (2005) argues, constructivism does not imply a rejection of the notion that a real world exists outside
of our experience, rather that we have to understand it within our “categories of knowing” (Ibid, p. 328). Elkind’s understanding is that “[c]onstructivism is the
recognition that reality is a product of human intelligence interacting with experience in the real world. As soon as you include human mental activity in the process of knowing reality, you have accepted constructivism.” (Ibid, p. 334). It is in this theoretical space
that I would locate myself and my research. SDG4 exists, in as much as it exists as a text and is recognised as guiding framework for education. Nonetheless, it is shaped by understanding(s) and meaning(s) given to the concepts and ideas it contains and shaped by the historical, social, political and economic context in which it was formulated and operates (see chapter 2). I approach this research with an
understanding that “ [ . . . ] not only is the world socially and historically constructed, but
so are people and the knowledge they possess.” (Kincheloe, 2005, p. 2).
Through this research I provide a critical analysis of the discourse(s) that have influenced this process, exploring and unmasking the forces that have impacted the formulation of this global education policy. Discourse is understood as ideas encoded in language and text, and Bacchi (2000) suggests that for policy-as-discourse-analysts, discourse is understood as providing “meanings that assist particular groups to
maintain positions of influence” (ibid, p. 55). Rather than accepting a view that policies
are neutral, my aim is to understand the political rhetoric of policy that is presented as reality (Diem et al., 2015). Through a critical analysis it is my intention to “[ . . . ] dislodge
hidden mystifications, power, and oppression in political communiqués [ . . . ] (Steinberg
and Kincheloe, 2010). This leads me to adopt a critical perspective, which “aims at
understanding, uncovering, illuminating, and/or transforming how educational aims, dilemmas, tensions and hopes are related to social divisions and power differentials.”
(Griffiths, 2009, p. 1).
In approaching this research, I therefore locate myself within a tradition of critical constructivism, whereby an “expanded idea of constructivism emphasizes
understanding the contingent nature of knowledge to induce a more critical reflection about various educational institutions and practices” (Bentley, Fleury and Garrison,
My choice of research paradigm was informed by existing personal understandings of the world and of how knowledge and meaning are created. As Mir and Watson (2001) note in defending their position on constructivism, there “is intrinsic merit to the
contention that reality is as much a manifestation of our own social construction as it is of natural forces beyond our control and understandings” (Ibid, p. 1173). Critical
constructivism allows for the possibility to take into account macro-level influences on SDG4, as well as micro-level understanding assigned by key informants and the dynamic interplay between them. As Kincheloe suggests, critical constructivism offers an insight into the ‘contact points’ (Kincheloe in Tierney & Lincoln, 1997) between the macro and micro, which will be important in understanding the forces and factors which have/are shaping SDG4. My intention is to "bring together structural, macro-level analysis of [. . .]
education policies and micro level investigation, which [. . .] takes account of people's perception [. . .]" (Ball, 2006, p.10).
4.2: Methodological approach
4.2.1 Qualitative Research
In line with a critical constructivist paradigm, I employ qualitative data collection and analysis methods (see below). In doing so, I am rejecting the hyper-rationalism of the positivist approach that has historically favoured quantitative research methods as the most objective and reliable method of data collection, used so frequently in education policy research.
The concern and focus on interpretation in qualitative research is highly relevant for examining the influences that have informed SDG4 because an “interpretative paradigm
recognises that reality is socially constructed as people’s experiences occur within social, cultural, historical or personal contexts.” (Hennink, Hutter and Bailey 2011, p. 15). The
choice of qualitative research methods is coherent with my ontological and epistemological perspective and the most appropriate for my research questions.
4.2.2. Research Questions
My belief in the transformational power of education and influence of global education policy discourse led me to focus my research on SDG4 formulation and content. My overarching research question (as discussed earlier in this thesis) asks: what influences and discourses shaped the formulation of SDG4 and do they support a transformative vision of global education? My two specific sub-questions are research question 1 (RQ1) which asks how was SDG4 formed?, and question 2 (RQ2) which asks how is
quality education conceptualised in SDG4? Through these questions my research
examines the processes, dynamics and assumptions which shaped SDG4 and critically analyses the final content of the goal and its targets. Understanding the
interconnections between policy process and policy text requires an interrogation of actions, of power and of meaning. It was on the basis of these research questions that I undertook the data collection and analysis detailed below.
The research is not designed to provide a technical analysis to improve effectiveness of existing policy (although I do make some recommendations for policy based on this research in chapter 7), instead it is intended to critically examine the foundational views and beliefs influencing global policy in light of the transformative ambitions of the 2030 agenda. This requires in depth qualitative data, which I considered to be best gained through interviews and discourse analysis. In applying qualitative methods of
interpreting and analysing policy documents and interview data, I am mindful once again of my positionality as a researcher and the ‘double hermeneutic’ whereby I “strive
to interpret and operate in an already interpreted world” (Cohen et al 2011, p.32). This
will inevitably affect my research to some degree (see section on researcher positionality in chapter).