The aim of this section is to review the research methods which have been used by a number of scholars mainly in the field of online management learning research. However, the distinctive combination of the asynchronicity of research site, research questions, proposed theoretical framework -as outlined in Chapter Two- and my ontological approach mean that I need to create a methodology that is equally distinctive and fit for the purpose of this study. As such, I will also review research methods from the broad field of management studies, in which participants‟ are perceived as constructing „reality‟ (e.g. change, strategy, emancipatory learning) in their conversations. These studies focus on conversations among participants, echoing the ontological stance taken here.
Previous research in online management learning, in particular online MBA programmes, is predominantly occupied with objectivist methodologies and assumptions (Hodgson and Watland, 2004). In response to Hodgson and Watland‟s (2004) observation, Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich (2004) justify the dominance of objectivist methodologies in terms of the following: the need to test the efficiency and effectiveness of a relatively new educational environment, the nature of research questions, and pressures to publish in high-ranking academic journals favouring quantitative research designs.
Morgan and Smircich (1980) argue that the choice and adequacy of a method is closely related to the assumptions about the nature of phenomena under investigation and the knowledge a researcher seeks to generate. Following from this, this study aims at penetrating the learning process to explore the nature of dialogic, responsive learning, and the role of reflection in it. Thus, an investigation of a dialogic learning cannot be carried using objectivist methodologies, which portray learning as an outcome that can be assessed using some quantitative measures and indicators from the outside (e.g. Alavi et al., 1997; Arbaugh, 2000; 2000b; 2001; 2002; McGorry, 2002; Martins and Kellermanns, 2004; Arbaugh, 2005; Marks et al., 2005; Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich, 2007). Even though students‟ learning may be assessed in terms of engagement or disengagement in reflection, the mode of investigation does not clearly mirror this
68
critical stance. For instance, Hay et al. (2004) investigate aspects of reflective learning in an online learning environment, but share with the above stream the use of objectivist methodologies and the broad interest in the effectiveness of online learning environment. In their study, Hay et al. (2004) collected data using a survey posted to MBA students and run some statistical tests. In their findings, the authors claim that online learning environments promote reflective learning.
Another stream of online management learning research is concerned with gaining an understanding from outside the learning experience (i.e. Aboutness-Thinking approach). For instance, Salmon (2000) sought online tutors and management students‟ perspectives on their online learning/teaching experience. In collecting data from participants‟ written reflections after the online learning experience, Salmon (2000) sought an understanding from the outside of the experience. Another stream (e.g. Stacy, 1999; Yoo et al., 2002; Allan, 2007) uses a „Withness-Thinking‟ approach in analyzing online students‟ texts to generate some themes, answering different research questions. Stacy (1999) describes the attributes which support both the social construction of knowledge and supportive environment for collaborative learning. Yoo et al.‟s (2002) study is concerned with examining the efficacy of collaborative learning using discussion boards, and Allan (2007) explores issues of time vision and management within three online professional development and post-graduate programmes. These studies ignore the relational/dialogic nature of students‟ messages. In analysis, these studies focus on students‟ messages rather than on conversations as a unit of analysis. Accordingly, the relational, responsive element of students‟ learning is not considered. Drawing on Bakhtin‟s (1981) ideas, students‟ messages on a discussion forum are relational; seek to address a particular addressee. This idea of the „relational nature of text‟ is important to this study as it suggests a mode of investigation in which students‟ messages are read from within the flow of a conversation between an addresser and an addressee.
Others presented us with their auto-ethnographic accounts of their own online teaching experience (e.g. Brower, 2003; Ramsey, 2003; Gilmore and Warren, 2007), equally drawing on their assessment of their students‟ learning based on their interaction with
69
students and engagement in the online learning process. These ethnographic accounts seek to develop an understanding of a phenomenon from within its natural setting and so respond to Shotter‟s (2006) „Withness-Thinking‟ approach. However, there was neither an account of the dialogic learning process nor an explicit focus on the potential of online learning environment to promote reflection in virtual management classrooms. Walker (2004) also adopts an ethnographic approach as he observes and analyzes students‟ asynchronous classroom conversations, to explain how online students handle conflicts situations to enable the process of meaning construction to proceed. For Walker, learning is a dialogic, responsive process. His study focuses on students‟ strategies to manage conflict rather than the process of meaning construction. Walker (2004) argues that students‟ strategies include complimenting, generalizing, and agreeing.
Other scholars use Bakhtin‟s work to investigate the learning experience in online learning environments, using mainly observation as a method for data collection from within. The importance of these studies lies in the way their research approach is influenced by Bakhtin‟s idea of the relational nature of text and hence, their analysis and interpretation of students‟ messages in relation to those that preceded them, and those that followed them. For instance, Dysthe (2002), who draws on Bakhtin‟s ideas of the dialogic construction of meaning and multi-voicedness, observes text-based conversations to investigate the potential of online learning environment in promoting higher level learning. Yet, she does not present us with an in-depth analysis of her participants‟ conversations in support of her claim that asynchronous classroom discussions contributed to students‟ higher learning. Ferreday et al. (2006) examine the ways in which the nature and the kind of classroom dialogue adopted (whether in online or face-to-face settings) contribute to constructing participants‟ identities within an MA programme. Whilst taking a critical stance, the authors use Bakhtin‟s ideas to show how participants‟ identities are socially constructed and/or negotiated through their relational dialogue. There is also Jones et al.‟s (2008) study which observes two online learning environments that involved educational leaders exchanging ideas with the potential to create knowledge. The study applies a network perspective to characterize the types of
70
links that are made during the process of engagement in and through these two networks. The authors explain how Bakhtin‟s ideas of „many voices in text‟ and the „dialogic nature of utterance‟ were helpful in their investigation, and present their accounts of participants‟ dialogue in light of the adopted network perspective.
The next stream of research is one that broadly belongs to the management field (i.e. organization change, organization strategy, and management education), where authors examine different phenomena in offline settings. What is common in this combination of studies is that authors, according to Shotter and Billig (1998, cited in Cunliffe, 2001), appear to perceive conversations as vehicles in which participants construct meanings responsively and relationally in their interactions with others and their surroundings, and that language is creating rather than representing reality (Cunliffe, 2002a). For instance, Ford and Ford (1995) propose that the production of an intentional change in organizations takes place in members‟ conversations. Using an example of real change programme, Ford and Ford (1995) present their account of four types of conversations, where change is created, sustained, and managed in and by speech communications. Samra-Fredericks (2003a), observes and records strategists‟ every day conversations to show how strategists‟ use of language, forms of knowledge and modes of rationalities can shape strategic direction. Jacobs and Heracleous (2005) explore the role of managers‟ conversations in promoting a fundamental strategic innovation in a group workshop. Rigg and Trehan (2004), in their focus on the extent to which students‟ reflections fit in with the hopes of critical action learning, present an example of a classroom conversation, where students appear to adjust their self-perceptions or perceptions of others.
In this section, I reviewed different methods and approaches adopted in the field of online management learning and management studies in general. I have discussed authors‟ use of methods and approaches in conjunction with my ontological stance, view of learning and the proposed theoretical framework. I have argued that to carry out this investigation, there will be no use of objectivist methodologies which are most frequently used in online management learning research. This study is concerned with understanding and explaining learning as a process of meaning construction. This
71
implies that this study will focus on classroom conversations/dialogue. It is in the stream of research studies that perceive reality as constructed and co-constructed in individuals interactions and conversations (e.g. Ford and Ford, 1995; Samra-Fredericks, 2003; 2003a; Rigg and Trehan, 2004; Walker, 2004; Jacobs and Heracleous, 2005) - that this study positions itself. Also, it is in the steam of research studies which draw on Bakhtin‟s work in investigating online learning (e.g. Dysthe, 2002; Ferreday et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2008) - that this study aims to build on others‟ work. In both streams, the authors (a) used a case study approach to carry out some observations, and (b) analyzed and interpreted participants‟ conversations (in offline or online settings).
In the next section, I construct this study‟s theoretical framework drawing on Bakhtin‟s dialogism. To this end, I explain how the Bakhtinian concepts of authoritative discourse, framing context, rhetoric discourse, and internal dialogism will be used to indicate different forms of reflective learning in online classroom dialogue and so guides the process of data interrogation.
III. Constructing a Framework based on Bakhtin’s Dialogism to Investigate Reflective Learning in an Online Classroom Dialogue
In the Literature Review, I argued that empirical illustrations of what becoming more (or less) critical entails in management classrooms are limited and that currently there is no mention of a rigorous theoretical framework in the literature that would give insights on what to look for in investigating reflective learning from within its natural setting. I drew on Shotter‟s (1996; 2006; 2012) “Withness-Thinking” approach and Cunliffe‟s (2002a) dialogic approach to devise an adequate research approach, where learning is dialogic.
Now, I turn to use two themes in Bakhtin‟s (1981) work, namely polyphony and active understanding, which constitute the overarching themes of the framework constructed in this section. „Active understanding‟ and „polyphony‟ are interrelated themes; the former describes the nature of understanding and the latter describes the setting in which this understanding could be provoked. In the context of online management learning, these
72
themes can help us explain and understand learning as dialogically constructed and where reflective learning occurs as part of it.
To construct the proposed framework, I firstly elaborate on my understanding of Bakhtin‟s (1981) views on the conditions of a polyphonic setting to promote active understanding. Second, I illustrate how the notions of „active understanding‟ and „polyphony‟ mirror scholars‟ perspectives on management learning. Third, I elaborate on my use of Bakhtin‟s concepts of authoritative discourse, framing context, rhetoric discourse to detect different forms of reflective learning from within students‟ text- based classroom conversations.