CASO CONCRETO

Critical realism is the meta-theoretical framework of this research project (Bhaskar, 1978; Sayer, 1992, 1997; Collier, 1994; Archer, 2000; Scott, 2000, 2005; Maxwell, 2012; Fletcher, 2016).

Critical realism is a theoretical paradigm for understanding the nature of reality that emphasises ontology before epistemology: ‘knowledge follows existence, in logic and in time; and any philosophical position which explicitly or implicitly denies this has got things upside down’ (Bhaskar, 1978, p.39). Critical realism posits that human knowledge of the world is fallible and not absolute; there is a world that exists regardless of us and our knowledge of it is limited to what we have perceived and what we can perceive. According to Sayer,

The crucial point to remember is that social phenomena are concept- dependent. Unlike natural (i.e. non-social objects) they are not impervious to the meanings ascribed to them. What the practices, institutions, rules, roles or

relationships are depends on what they mean in society to its members (1992, p.30).

Critical realism recognises the importance of human perception for epistemology and that, unlike the natural world, social phenomenon is entirely constructed, and its meaning is entirely dependent on the meaning we prescribe to it. This consideration of ontology is mirrored in this study’s understanding of the dialectical relation between structure and agency; the perceptions of undergraduates and academics, as social agents, are real and meaningful, but this study seeks to better understand the socially structured causal mechanisms that have shaped those perceptions.

The theoretical framework of systemic power and constitutive power employed in this study marries with the central concern of critical realists: ‘the central relation of social reality is that between agency and structure’ (Scott, 2005, p.640). As Bates describes,

Within a stratified social ontology, the structural and agential realism are recognizable and distinct in their own right but, at the same time, do not and cannot exist independently of each other. The structural and agential realms are related in and through time by a constantly fluid interpenetration (2006, p.157).

The dialectical relationship between systemic and constitutive power considered in this study is reflective of this critical perspective; structure and agency are separate, but inseparable, phenomenon and cannot be considered without reference to each other when studying social phenomena. Remembering the construction of social phenomenon in critical realist thought, it ‘can provide a framework for better understanding the relationship between actors’ perspectives and their actual situations’ (Maxwell, 2012, p.20); this has been given primary consideration in my research design. Given the subject matter of this study, critical realism allows for a thorough analysis of the relationship between structure and agency in determining social reality for individuals:

Within social structures there are particular “positions” associated with certain roles. It is particularly important to distinguish the occupant of a position from

the position itself. One of the most pervasive illusions of everyday thinking derives from the attribution of the properties of the position, be they good or bad, to the individual or institution occupying it. Whatever effects result, it is assumed that particular people must be responsible; there is little appreciation that the structure of social relations, together with their associated resources, constraints or rules, may determine what happens, even though these structures only exist where people reproduce them (Sayer, 1992, pp.92–3).

This notion is reflected in my theoretical framing of the dialectical relationship between systemic and constitutive power, it provides an understanding of the construction of social roles and their perpetuation through individual adherence. Critical realism serves my research aims for this study; it allows me to go beyond the surface relationships between undergraduates and academics and to explore how power is systemically structured and manifested in particular social contexts, i.e. how and why certain roles have the capacity to exercise power and how this impacts on the perceived experience of undergraduates. I am researching within an open system in which events can present irregularities or overlap and people can change (Brown, Fleetwood and Roberts, 2002; Danermark, 2002) and thus, I am focusing on explanation rather than predictability, which would not be possible in an open system. In order to adequately explain the social phenomena in my research, I am applying the three stages central to critical realist thought.

The first of these stages is abstraction. According to Sayer,

In order to understand [concepts’] diverse determinations we must first abstract them systematically. When each of the abstracted aspects has been examined it is possible to combine the abstractions so as to form concepts which grasp the concreteness of their objects (1992, p.87).

An important aspect of abstraction in critical realism is to not only analyse abstractions from concrete objects, but to then return to an analysis of the concrete. This dialectical relation is pertinent to CDA: ‘a critical realistic discourse analysis is not merely concerned with languages and orders of discourse; it is equally concerned with texts as

(elements of) processes, and with the relations of tension between the two’ (Fairclough, 2005, p.923). Implementing this method meant that I abstracted specific aspects in the form of texts, looking at individual grammar and vocabulary in the discourses of the data, so that I could better understand their formation when relating them back to the concrete, or the social practice they arose from; through abstraction I analysed the dialectical relationship between the abstract analysis of texts and the concrete analysis of the texts as social practices, events or processes.

The second stage of critical realist thought is abduction, or theoretical redescription, which is when the empirical data is redescribed through theoretical concepts. According to Fletcher, this stage ‘raises the level of theoretical engagement beyond thick description of the empirical entities, but with an acknowledgement that the chosen theory is fallible’ (Fletcher, 2016, p.188). Abduction uses a theoretical frame of interpretation of the data to form a new interpretation of the concrete phenomenon under study; we can form a conclusion. However, in critical realism any conclusion formed is far from absolute truth and is considered more as a reasonable interpretation. Despite this though, abduction is useful in increasing knowledge on a particular topic as it can lead to deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study. Once textual aspects had been abstracted from the discourses, I reconstructed them through the lens of systemic- constitutive power to form a new interpretation of the data. I interpreted the abstracted elements in terms of how they were influenced by, or aided the perpetuation of, power relationships at both constitutive and systemic levels.

The next, and final, stage is retroduction. Although abstraction and abduction are useful for their own reasons, they do not allow for an understanding of causal relationships.

Retroduction, though, is the stage where causal mechanisms and conditions are examined; the goal is ‘to identify the necessary contextual conditions for a particular causal mechanism to take effect and to result in the empirical trends observed’ (Fletcher, 2016, p.189). Retroduction is important for understanding why things are as they are in particular contexts;

Merely knowing that “C” has generally been followed by “E” is not enough; we want to understand the continuous process by which “C” produced “E”, if it did. […] [Retroduction is the] inference in which events are explained by postulating (and identifying) mechanisms which are capable of producing them (Sayer, 1992, p.107).

Retroduction is particularly useful for understanding the dialectical relationship between structure and agency; it allows for an understanding of why individual agents act in certain ways in certain contexts. As Sayer describes:

Even though social structures exist only where people reproduce them, they have powers irreducible to those of individuals […] Explanation of the actions of individuals often therefore requires not a micro (reductionist) regress to their inner constitution (though that may be relevant too) but a “macro regress” to the social structures in which they are located (1992, p.119).

By using CDA as my method, this stage allowed me to explain the textual data as a social practice, analysing the underlying causal mechanisms of systems of belief, social relations and social identities that influenced the production of the text. I analysed the ways in which the discursive abstractions were influenced by, or perpetuated through, established social practices – whether beliefs, relations or identities – constituted through the dialectical relation between systemic and constitutive forms of power. Retroduction was utilised when interpreting undergraduates’ perceptions of the behavioural expectations of the traditional learner subjectivity. For example, the undergraduates’ expectation of deference was understood through the causal mechanism of the teacher identity and its established characteristic of authority over knowledge. A table outlining the ways in which critical realism and CDA are aligned

is shown in Table 5.2. These stages of thinking were utilised alongside the three- dimensional model of CDA throughout the data analysis.

Critical realism stage one: Abstraction

Critical realism stage two: Abduction

Critical realism stage three: Retroduction Critical

Discourse Analysis

(Text): Analysing the

data through analysis of the text (abstract), but understanding it as a discursive practice and a social practice (concrete)

(Discursive Practice):

Reconstructing discourses, that have been deconstructed in the analysis, through a systemic and

constitutive theory of power

(Social Practice):

Understanding the data as a form of social practice, that is,

examining the necessary social conditions for the data, or texts, to exist

Table 5.2 Alignment of Critical Realism and CDA