Conclusiones provisionales.

In development research the researcher is often also the designer. It was pointed out in chapter 1 that, because of the strong interventionist character of development research the roles of researcher (observer) and designer (actor) could interfere. In this study, the researcher was also designer and a member of staff - and, therefore, subject and object during the design, development and implementation of a competence-based curriculum in the Faculty of Education. In his role of staff member the designer was, as member of the Installation Committee (see Chapter 6), co-responsible for the setting up of the Faculty of Education. As member of the Centre for Academic Development (the former STADEP) he participated in the organisation of staff development activities in- and outside the faculty and as lecturer he designed and developed the ICT-courses for the first group of students in the Faculty of Education.

The three roles of designer, researcher and member of staff can be presented in scenarios that lead to different development research approaches. The scenarios are represented in Tables 5.1 – 5.3.

Table 5.1. Roles in the process: Full control and participation

Designer Researcher Staff member

Design + formative +

Development + formative +

Implementation + formative +

Note: '+' means full control or full participation.

In the scenario presented in Table 5.1 the designer has the final word, but also participates fully as member of staff. It represents one extreme on a continuum, where scenario 2 (Table 5.2) represents the other extreme. In terms of development paradigms, Visscher-Voerman, Gustafson and Plomp (1999) identified four perspectives on educational design and development: instrumental, communicative, pragmatic and artistic. In the scenario presented in Table 5.1 the communicative and artistic approach are most appropriate to accommodate the roles of designer and member of staff. In the communicative approach (or deliberative approach to curriculum development [Walker, 1990]) in which consensus amongst stakeholders precedes decision making, the designer can also fully participate as a member of staff. Also in the artistic approach or connoisseurship (Eisner, 1979) in which the designer makes the decisions based on his 'artistic' sense of contexts and situations, the role of fully participating staff member can enrich the knowledge of the situation. The scenario of Table 5.1 is, for the designer and researcher roles, similar to what Richey and Nelson (1996) label a

type I approach. The designer can fully engage in the role of formative researcher, that is, perform all research activities aimed at optimising the quality of the intervention as well as testing design principles (Van den Akker, 1999). The researcher/research team "…deepens its understanding of the phenomenon under investigation while the experiment is in progress" (Cobb et al., 2003, p. 12). In order to communicate findings to the research community a comprehensive and systematic record of data is necessary (Cobb et al., 2003).

In the scenario of Table 5.2 the researcher has no role as designer and is also not involved in the design, development and implementation process as member of staff.

Table 5.2. Roles in the process: No direct involvement

Designer Researcher Staff member

Design - reconstructive -

Development - reconstructive -

Implementation - reconstructive - Note: '-' means no control or no participation.

Richey and Nelson (1996) label this a type II approach to development research. The emphasis is on reconstruction, characterised by research activities during and after the process, aimed at articulation and specification of design principles (Van den Akker, 1999). In some cases the researcher may be called in as a formative evaluator in the process, but often the reports of these external consultants are seen as interventions by the designers and implementers. Because of different beliefs, expectations and experiences designers and implementers 'won't listen'. "Evaluators are trying to reform the reformers! And nobody likes to be reformed, least of all reformers" (Walker, 1997, p. 135).

Often the real scenario lies somewhere between these extremes. And often the scenario may change during the process. The scenario that applies to this study is given below and is further illustrated in Chapters 7 and 8.

The table below shows a (reconstruction of the) diminishing role of the researcher as designer. As will be further explained in Chapters 7 and 8, the design decisions were increasingly taken out of the hands of the designer and got diffused and diluted in the higher and middle level leadership in absence of a clear management structure. As a member of the Installation Committee (pertaining to his role as member of staff) the designer was fully involved in all decisions about the establishment of the Faculty of Education and the development of its curriculum. This was the case during the design phase and, to some extent, during the development phase of the curriculum. Involvement as member of staff during the implementation of the

Research design

149

curriculum was less, because the designer, although responsible for ICT-courses in the educational programmes of the Faculty of Education, did not belong to one of the three subject groups but to the Centre for Academic Development that operated more on the periphery of the Faculty of Education.

Table 5.3. Roles in the process: the Faculty of Education scenario

Designer Researcher Staff member

Design + formative

reconstructive +

Development ± _{reconstructive} formative ±

Implementation - _{reconstructive} formative ±

Legend: '+' : full control or full participation, '-' : no control or no participation,

'±' : indicates a partial control and participation, A smaller font size indicates a diminishing role.

The diminishing influence as designer, coupled with the occurrence of events that could not be foreseen by the researcher-designer make a reconstructive research approach most plausible. This approach is, in the scenario as summarised in Table 5.3, the most appropriate way to describe and analyse the design, development and implementation process. Cobb et al. (2003) use the term 'retrospective analysis' in which the "..historical or retrospective explanation….provides a trustworthy account of the process whereby a series of events …. can be seen as part of an emergent and potentially reproducible pattern". (p.12).

Thus, this study will be mainly reconstructive, telling the story and explaining the how, when and why. Embedded in the reconstructive approach will be accounts of formative evaluations, aimed at keeping the curriculum as close as possible to the ideal curriculum and creating internal and external consistency (see section 5. 5). As depicted in Table 5.3 the contribution of formative research to this study was most outspoken during the earlier phases of the process. Van den Akker (1999), when speaking about the roles of designer and researcher in formative research notes that the role of the 'critical researcher' becomes stronger at later stages of the development process, taking more distance from the process than as 'creative designer' who is much more interventionist. The shift in Table 5.3 towards a more reconstructive approach as development and implementation proceed is in line with Van den Akker's observation.

In section 5.5 the interference of one role with another is discussed as well as the possible danger of bias as researcher, because of the other roles. Triangulation could prevent bias and increase the validity of the conclusions. Triangulation involves the application and combination of several research methodologies or the

collection of various types of data in the study of the same phenomenon (Denzin, 1994). In analogy with the triangulation used by a surveyor to exactly locate the position of a landmark, triangulation in social science research is used to increase the validity of statements (explanations) about a phenomenon.

5.4 A