DIAGNÓSTICO DE LA GESTIÓN DE PROYECTOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN Y

Two major concerns that guided this research design were consideration of how

teachers would directly benefit from engaging in the research and how the design could

emphasise research with teachers, not on them. Thus it was an attempt to avoid the

traditional stereotype of a researcher who comes into a setting, gathers as much data and information as possible, then goes away and makes sense of it all back in an office or university. The research process was also designed as a catalyst for change, a process that supported rethinking and new actions for all involved.

Hopkins (1987) argued for a teacher researcher concept on the basis that traditional educational research has been inadequate in terms of helping classroom teachers to improve their practice. This was backed up by Stake (1987) who found that the results of educational research were often too specific or too general and contained few signposts for action. As a consequence, “teachers often regard educational research as something irrelevant to their lives and see little interaction between the world of the educational researcher and the world of the teacher” (Hopkins, 1987, p. 114). This would appear to hold true for Australian teachers who rated participation in academic research projects towards the bottom of a list of preferred methods to gain or improve teaching or administrative skills (Conners, 1991).

The purpose of this research was to go beyond finding out ‘what’s going on here’, to making more informed decisions about actions and practice that grew out of the

learning that took place. The research design selected therefore included a co-researcher relationship with the teachers participating in the project. Kruger et al. (2001) point out that one impact of post-modern research has been to separate researchers in universities and practitioners in schools, both discursively and practically. Their study developed a methodology around the notion of ‘collaborative practitioner research (CPR)’ where teachers and university researchers came to a ‘co-learning agreement’ (Wagner, 1997). Wagner characterized this relationship as being “reflexive, systematic inquiry,

stimulated in part by ongoing collegial communication between researchers and practitioners” (p. 17).

In a similar vein, this methodology was designed around a core strand of action research which was developed with participatory principles and critical theory in mind. A

complementary strand of social inquiry was also developed with an aim to be both reflexive and respectful. This strand of the research drew upon the philosophical stances of interpretivism/constructivism (see Carr & Kemmis, 1983; Smith, 1989; Lincoln and Guba, 1994); and critical theory (see Freire, 1970; Habermas, 1972; Horkheimer, 1972; Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Carspecken & Apple, 1992; Carr, 1995; McLaren & Giarelli, 1995; Smyth, 1997; Smyth, Hattam & Shacklock, 1997; Crotty, 1998; Kemmis, 2001). The next section outlines the major methodological considerations and attempts to make underlying assumptions and values transparent in an effort to be methodologically reflexive. The specific methods used in the study are also outlined in detail.

Research Paradigms for Social Inquiry

The Concept of Paradigms

A paradigm, according to Kuhn (1970), provides a way of looking at the world or of perceiving reality. Paradigms develop in response to historical and cultural conditions and provide a conceptual framework for seeing and making sense of the social world we create and live in (Maguire, 1987). Social science research paradigms, which shape the form and purpose of investigating social reality, are based upon “different sets of assumptions about the nature of society, the ways in which society should be

investigated, and the kinds of knowledge that it is possible to acquire about the world (Popkewitz, 1984 cited by Maguire 1987).

Thus paradigms shape:

…what we look at, how we look at things, what we label as problems, what problems we consider worth investigating and solving, and what methods are preferred for investigation and action…a paradigm influences what we choose not to attend to; (and) what we do not see. (Maguire, 1987, p. 11)

Paradigms also impact what we see as acceptable forms of knowledge and views as to the uses and purposes of knowledge (Kuhn, 1970; Popkewitz, 1984; Fay, 1975 cited in Maguire, 1987).

Crotty (1998) distinguishes four basic elements of any research process which are generally addressed within a paradigm: epistemology (theory of knowledge), theoretical

perspective (philosophical stance), methodology (strategy, action plan, process or design) and methods (techniques or procedures used to gather data). Guba and Lincoln (1994) add a paradigm’s ontological position (nature of reality or of being in the world) as another element for consideration. They also stress that, as a paradigm is a human construction, it is subject to change as more informed and sophisticated views emerge for analysis and argument. Thus a paradigm shift occurs periodically within fields of knowledge (Kuhn, 1970).

The Scientific Paradigm

The scientific paradigm has been dominant in Western society and assumes the goal of seeking to discover facts about reality and the laws that guide that reality. It is assumed that clear cause and effect relationships exist in the world and the role of the researcher is to discover the truth about the way things “really are” and “really work” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 108). This is assessed by how well variables affecting the situation have been controlled and how well predictions and generalizations can be made to other similar situations. The human effect is minimized and the research designs attempt to eliminate bias and the scope for personal judgment in the description and appraisal of a state of affairs (Eisner, 1993). Thus it is assumed that all studies should be ‘objective’ and value free and that the results of one study add logically to another. This view has become known as ‘positivism’ (Crotty, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Technical knowledge derived as a result of such inquiry is used to expand power and control over people and the environment (Maguire, 1987).

Within the scientific paradigm, the epistemological position of objectivism (meaning resides in the object of study and is there to be discovered) and the theoretical

perspective of positivism directly influence the choice of methodology and methods and, in particular, the way that they are developed and applied in line with the above beliefs. The ontological position is that there is a ‘real’ reality but shifts within the paradigm to ‘postpositivisim’ suggest that humans can only imperfectly apprehend such reality (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Either qualitative or quantitative methods can be used within this paradigm to construct a methodology, but there is generally a higher value placed on quantitative methods.

Quantitative methods begin with clear questions and hypotheses backed up by existing theory, utilize design methods which identify variables in the situation and set controls

to minimize these effects, and collect data that can be quantified and represented statistically. Reliability in the use of quantitative methods refers to measures that are free from ‘measurement error’ while validity refers to the degree to which a measure assesses what it purports to assess (Fink, 1995). The result of such an inquiry is that a single slice of what is occurring may be accurately reported.

Alternative Paradigms

Kuhn (1970) is one of the key theorists who questioned the objectivity and value-free neutrality of scientific discovery that characterizes the dominant scientific paradigm (Crotty, 1998). This has had implications for social science research, which historically has been strongly influenced by empirical positivism (Maguire, 1987). Alternative research paradigms have gained increasing credibility in social inquiry since the 1960s. These paradigms reject the epistemological stance of positivism (objectivism) and propose constructionism and subjectivism as alternatives. More recently, there have been calls for a new paradigm that takes a participatory world view and integrates aspects of positivism and constructionism, acknowledging both a ‘real’ reality and the paradox of entering the realm of human language and cultural expression as soon as an attempt is made to articulate such reality (Reason & Bradbury, 2001).

Constructionism is defined as the epistemological view that “all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices, being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context.…Meaning is not discovered, but constructed” (Crotty, 1998, p. 42). Crotty contrasts subjectivism (imposing meaning on the object from elsewhere) with positivism (seeing meaning inherent in the object). Constructionism, he states, brings objectivity and subjectivity together in an active relationship.

Moore and Maton (2001) critique the paradigm position and argue that Kuhn’s view of incommensurable paradigms (Kuhn, 1970) causes a communication breakdown within intellectual fields of knowledge as “specialised knowers” develop their own “distinctive and incommensurable language or ‘voice’” (Moore & Maton, 2001, p. 163). They propose that it is more helpful to describe an intellectual field of knowledge as comprising a range of perspectives, with contributing specialists who employ a “language of mediation between levels and approaches” which results in knowledge

integration (pp. 162-63). Constructionism, by considering objectivity and subjectivity in relationship with each other, attempts such mediation.

This constructionist epistemological position was selected as best suiting the context of the purposes of this inquiry. Two theoretical perspectives, which are informed by constructionism, are discussed further: interpretivism/constructivism and critical inquiry.

Constructivist and Interpretivist Inquiry

Although differing slightly in concept, constructivist and interpretivist inquiry share a basis of common beliefs and goals. In particular, both types of inquiry have the goal of “understanding the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live in it” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 118). The constructivist paradigm, as conceived by Guba and Lincoln (1994), assumes that there are different ways of looking at the world or multiple realities and that it is not possible to understand what is occurring except in the context of webs of social significance (Ferguson, Ferguson, & Taylor, 1992). Inquiry within this paradigm aims to describe, understand and reconstruct what is occurring, with opportunities for “more informed and sophisticated constructions” occurring over time (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 113). The purpose of such inquiry is therefore not to discover the ‘truth’ but rather to develop shared constructions of reality among the members of a particular group and thus greater understanding of the

comprehensive patterns and relationships that exist in a given situation. Although it is acknowledged that a physical reality exists, there is no pure way of gaining access to that reality and thus no one specified way of conducting an inquiry. It is also assumed that an inquiry will be influenced always by context, interpretation and values. The important thing is to be cognizant of these and aware of how they affect the study. Schwandt (1994) notes that Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) constructivist paradigm and the position of ‘social constructionism’ are examples of constructivist thinking that move away from a focus on individual minds and cognitive processes to “the world of inter- subjectively shared, social constructions of meaning and knowledge” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 127). This position has the focus of the “collective generation of meaning as shaped by conventions of language and other social processes” (p. 127) rather than individual meaning making.

Constructivism draws on the tradition of hermeneutics. According to Crotty (1998), this means that reconstructions tend to consider features such as the intentions and histories of authors, the relationship between author and interpreter and practical relevance for readers. The determination of meaning is “a matter of practical judgment and common sense, not just abstract theorizing” (p. 91). Rundell (1995) notes that, through

hermeneutics, “interpretation has become part of our cultural self-understanding that only as historically and culturally located beings can we articulate ourselves in relation to others and the world in general (p. 10). Skilled hermeneutical inquiry is seen as having the potential to uncover hidden meaning and intentions that ‘authors’ or participants may not have been able to articulate themselves (Crotty, 1998). Crotty

suggests three different ways that hermeneutical inquiry can be approached: empathic,

where we seek to see things from the author’s/participant’s perspective and understand

their standpoint; interactive, where the author/participant and interpreter/researcher

engage in dialogue about what the author has to say; and transactional, where out of

engagement comes new insights (p. 109).

In terms of this study, the constructivist position presented as respectful of the world views and experiences that all participants would bring to the study. By sharing multiple perspectives, the study attempted to come to more informed and sophisticated views or insights. The seeking of multiple perspectives was also considered as a strategy to assist in constructing a view of cultural changes that occurred in teachers’ workplaces and classrooms.

The constructivist or interpretivist tradition of social inquiry does not, however, seek to change a situation, although it is acknowledged that the very presence of the researcher and researcher actions are likely to impact and cause changes. It would only help to explain ‘what is’ rather than assisting understanding of ‘what might be’. Critical theory, with its emphasis on critique, change and transformation, also informed this study’s theoretical position.

Critical Inquiry

Critical inquiry developed from the philosophical position informed by critical theory. Although there is not a unified, agreed upon view as to what critical theory is (Crotty, 1998; Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994), there are a range of beliefs that are generally held in common by critical theorists. Kincheloe and McLaren suggest the following:

• that all thought is fundamentally mediated by power relations that are social and historically constituted.;

• that facts can never be isolated from the domain of values or removed from some form of ideological inscription;

• that the relationship between concept and object and between signifier and signified is never stable or fixed and is often mediated by the social

relations of capitalist production and consumption;

• that language is central to the formation of subjectivity (conscious and unconscious awareness);

• that certain groups in any society are privileged over others and, although the reasons for this privileging may vary widely, the oppression that characterizes contemporary societies is most forcefully reproduced when subordinates accept their social status as natural, necessary, or

inevitable;

• that oppression has many faces and that focusing on only one at the expense of others often elides the interconnections among them;

• that mainstream research practices are generally implicated in the reproduction of systems of class, race, and gender oppression. (p. 139-140)

Kincheloe and McLaren (1994) state that critical research is best understood in the context of the empowerment of individuals and as an attempt to confront injustice. They describe this kind of research as ‘political’ and a transformative endeavour that aims to promote emancipatory consciousness. Critical researchers are clear and unequivocal about their “partisanship in the struggle for a better world” (p. 140). Although they enter into the research situation with their assumptions on the table, Kincheloe and McLaren state that these assumptions may change as they are analysed, particularly if the

researcher recognizes that such assumptions are not leading to emancipatory actions. Critical theorists pose the research itself as a set of ideological practices. Smyth, Hattam and Shacklock (1997) state that a study operating from the worldview of critical theory will be about “uncovering undisclosed interests of power that normally remain shrouded and hidden” and “will proceed in ways that work participatively with the researcher participants to uncover the manner in which broader social, economic and political forces operate on them” (p. 21).

Jurgen Habermas, an influential critical theorist whose goal was social critique,

proposed an epistemological tenet for the critical inquiry paradigm, that “human beings constitute their reality and organize their experience in terms of cognitive (or

‘knowledge-guiding’) interests” (Crotty, 1998, p.142). His typology of human

knowledge was based on: technical interests which help to predict and control; practical interests which aim to develop mutual understanding in the everyday conduct of life; and critical interests which aim to bring about emancipation from relations of

dependence (Kemmis, 2001).

Kemmis (2001) sees the above theory as a promising way through debates about explanation and understanding, the relationship between objective and subjective perspectives, the relationship between the individual and social realms of cognitive and cultural realities, and the relationship between theory and practice (p. 91). In particular, he notes that participants cannot be enlightened or empowered by others as this can only occur in their own terms. Kemmis applies Habermas’s theory to the different

approaches to research and practice and identifies: i) empirical-analytic (or positivistic) approaches with a technical or means-end interest in getting things done effectively; ii) hermeneutic (or interpretive) approaches with an interest in wise and prudent decision making in practical situations; and iii) critical approaches which are guided by:

…an interest in emancipating people from determination by habit, custom, illusion and coercion which sometimes frame and constrain social and educational practice, and which sometimes produce effects contrary to those expected or desired by participants and other parties interested in or affected by particular social or educational practices. (p. 92)

These interests clearly have implications for methodological design as they relate directly to the purpose or intent of an inquiry and the nature of knowledge that it hopes to generate. These will be taken up later in specific methodological considerations. Crotty (1998, p. 113) summarizes some of the differences between critical theory and interpretivism, noting the following distinctions:

Table 4: Contrasting Interpretivism and Critical Theory Interpretivism

Research that:

Critical theory Research that:

• seeks merely to understand • challenges

• reads the situation in terms of

interaction and community

• reads the situation in terms of

conflict and oppression

• accepts the status quo • seeks to bring about change

• reconstructs ‘authentic lived

experience’

• interrogates commonly held values

and assumptions

• describes social structures from

multiple perspectives and seeks consensus

• challenges conventional social

structures

(Adapted from Crotty, 1998) The Participatory Worldview

This emerging perspective attempts to break down some of the polarization between the scientific and alternative paradigms and moves forward informed by both. Reason and Bradbury (2001) state that the participatory worldview:

…places human persons and communities as part of their world—both human and more-than-human—embodied in their world, co-creating their world. A participatory perspective asks us to be both situated and reflexive, to be explicit about the perspective from which knowledge is created, to see inquiry as a process of coming to know, serving the democratic, practical ethos of action research … Any account … is culturally framed, yet if we approach our inquiry with appropriate critical skills and discipline, our account may provide some perspective on what is universal, and on the knowledge-creating process which frames this account. (p. 7)

Reason and Bradbury (2001) outline five dimensions of such a participatory view which address techniques, epistemology and ontology (Figure 1):

Figure 1: Dimensions of a Participatory Worldview

(Reason and Bradbury, 2001)

This view stresses interconnections with an “evolutionary, emergent and reflexive” worldview where reality or “the cosmos” is continually self-ordering and self-creating (Reason & Bradbury, 2001, p. 8). Activity and the practical are seen as the starting point for epistemology, with theory developing to guide and illuminate such action and

provide it with meaning. Different ways of knowing are embraced with relational, reflective and representational knowledge all valued (Park, 2001). Representational knowledge aims to provide explanation and identify relationships which enable prediction and control; relational knowledge helps to create other forms of knowledge as it fosters community ties; and reflective knowledge concerns a vision of what ought