INVERSIÓN EXTRANJERA

how we know what we know’ (2011:3). In other words, an epistemological stance is a way to frame the knowledge that is created through the process of a research inquiry. Hence, Crotty’s view is that an epistemological stance can be categorised into three general forms: objectivism, constructionism, and subjectivism. Crotty acknowledges that these three forms also have their variants. For the purposes of this research objectivism and constructionism will be further explored as epistemological stances.

An objectivist epistemology would assume that the research enquiry is seeking to identify meaning through objects, ‘that things exist as meaningful entities independently of

consciousness and experience that they have truth and meaning reading them as objects’ (Crotty, 2011:5). Objectivism, as an epistemological stance, sits well with complexity theorists in natural sciences. It provides an objective view of system phenomena, often through the creation of simulations and models, which results in the researcher being able to produce knowledge that objectifies a system. A system is treated as an object. When systems are objectified there is a risk of the researcher not taking into account any influences which may occur in the wider ecosystem. This is expressed by Sawyer: ‘…in the 1990s…computer power advanced to the point where societies could be simulated using a distinct

computational agent for every individual in society through a computational technique known as multi-agent systems’ (2005:2). Therefore, Cillers warns, the problem with representations

95

of complexity is that ‘Models of complex systems will have to be as complex as the systems themselves’ (1998:58). Furthermore, Byrne and Callaghan summarise the issues succinctly as, ‘Scientism always seeks to render its abstractions, its metaphors as real’ (2014:43). From this perspective the perceived objectification of a complex system through computational models, or other forms of objectivism, are still metaphors of reality and not simulations of reality.

Importantly, then, when exploring complex social systems they are contextualised within both history and learning. Mitleton-Kelly’s (2003) work on the application of complexity theory to organisations draws on Introna (2003), who argues that social systems cannot be objectified ontologically. Furthermore, Introna suggests that:

Social systems are socially constructed and historically emerging phenomena. To understand what we mean by this, we need to take a close look at two notions central to our understanding of social phenomena - namely historicity and reflexivity.

(ibid:209). These two notions differentiate socially complex adaptive systems from the objectivity

applied to a natural complex adaptive system. Introna states:

Social systems are historical. They are what they are in the “now”. They have no zero state or original position they cannot simply go back to. Once they come into existence, there can never be a clean slate again.

(ibid:209). This notion challenges objective epistemology as the conditions in which positivist research is conducted will not be the state in which a CAS will have remained after the research. The second notion of ‘reflexivity’, referred to by Introna, means that a social system is conscious: ‘In as much as they are observers of themselves, they tend to take a stand on aspects of their history. In taking a stand they intervene in their histories’ (Introna, 2003:210). The issue of decision making is problematic from an objectivist epistemological stance when researching system phenomena. This is an important point as researching social systems requires an awareness of the influence of the researcher in terms of both positive and negative feedback in the system under investigation. A complexity theory-informed researcher cannot ignore the history of the system in reaching its present state. Reflexivity, in a social system context, provides for alternative choices rather than passive acceptance. There is a dynamic interplay

96

which the researcher engages with when entering a social system such as a school. Therefore, Cillers states: ‘Approaching a complex system playfully allows for different avenues to advance different viewpoints, and, perhaps, a better understanding of its characteristics’ (1998:23). Reflexivity in complexity requires acknowledging that social systems make choices in response to the researcher, such as accommodation, validation or defensiveness. Therefore, it is important to recognise how research participants construct and explain their histories and decisions. Then, new opportunities emerge for both participants and researchers to understand bullying and restorative phenomena in a school’s eco-system. The points (historicity and reflexivity) made by Introna with regard to social systems mean that a positivist epistemology was not congruent with the use of complexity theory for the purposes of this research.

An alternative epistemology identified by Crotty (2011) is constructionism. An epistemology based on constructionism seeks to identify how knowledge is constructed in social

relationships. According to Crotty, ‘meaning is discovered or constructed’ (2011:42). This form of research is most closely identified with qualitative research and is interested in the way in which social interaction produces knowledge at either the individual or group level. There is a flexibility in this epistemology as the researcher can be separate from the research created or may participate in the construction of knowledge to gain further understanding of how participants construct their knowledge.

The challenge with the constructionist epistemological stance, however, is that the focus is primarily on the social. An alternative would be to include other forms of non-human system interaction, the socio-material (Fenwick et al, 2011). This would also include how artefacts produced through system phenomena linked to each other, e.g. a school behaviour policy is created by one group (senior leadership team) as a product (artefact) for use by another group (e.g. pastoral staff) who have no input into its production, and are not mentioned in its

processes. However, whilst recognising the limits of a constructionist epistemology, a salient issue is that it aligns with the characteristics of a CAS. The co-construction of meaning is comparable to the emergence created by the self-organisation of participant interactions. The discovery and construction of meaning by staff participating in this research is useful in understanding what features of restorative approaches emerge as sustainable within educational settings.

97

The breadth and depth of the debate on postmodernism is beyond the scope of this research. This research therefore limits this discussion to the recognition that complexity theory is not a grand narrative seeking to explain a philosophical position. The writings of Lyotard in ‘The Postmodern Condition’ (1984) were the first to articulate postmodernism, which can be defined as ‘incredulity towards metanarratives; (xxiv)’. Furthermore, drawing on the work of Cillers (1998) and his approach to postmodernism as it relates to complexity theory. Both Lyotard and Cillers emphasis diversity, and the local nature of narratives. This presents challenges to the prevailing neoliberal narrative in English education as, according to that narrative, (1) competition in education creates improvement to the overall education system, (2) school improvement programmes are causal to the improvement of a school, and finally (3) change is always for the better. Cillers, who explicitly makes a link between complexity and postmodernism, argues that ‘the proliferation of discourses and meaning described in postmodern theory is not created by wilful and disruptive theorists, but it is an inescapable effect of the complexities of our linguistic and social spaces’ (1998:113). Thus,

postmodernism reflects an alternative to several themes in the literature review such as the whole school approach, which is arguably a replication of hegemonic grand narrative in school communities. For Cillers he summaries Lyotards’ position that:

‘Different groups (institutions, disciplines, communities) tell different stories about what they know and what they do. Their knowledge does not take the form of a logical structured and complete whole, but rather takes the form of narratives that are instrumental in allowing them to achieve their goals and make sense of what they are doing. Since these narratives are all local, they cannot be linked together to form a grand narrative which unifies all knowledge’

(1998:114). From this theoretical perspective features of postmodernism support the analysis of by staff in the focus groups as the construction of local narratives is dynamic and localised. The temptation to generalise is a risk for this research which postmodernism suggests must be resisted. Hence a postmodernist lens is seeking to explore a system and its interactions from a different perspective rather than believing in an ever-progressive neoliberal educational sector. The importance of postmodernism to this research is summarised by Cillers:

98

The world we live in is complex. This complexity is diverse but organised not chaotic...If we model complexity in terms of a network, any given narrative will form a path, or a trajectory, through the network. There is great diversity in such paths. The network is not only complex but dynamic. As we trace various paths through it, it changes.

(1998:13). The narrative of restorative approaches in educational settings adapts as research is conducted

in schools. In recognising the influence of both the researcher and staff participants in research there is a risk of disrupting the existing narrative. The challenge of this research is to ensure that, as much as possible, the sustainability of restorative approaches is due to the local capabilities of the school. Thus, recognising key features identified by Cillers

postmodernism this has also aided contextualisation when conducting data analysis in the field. In drawing on Cillers point of not being overwhelmed by postmodernist narratives by being ‘agnostics of the network’ (1998:119) i.e. whilst recognising multiple connections being ‘less rigid in our interactions with each other and our environments’ (1998:119) this research has selected an appropriate methodology with which to understand such complexity: Phenomenology.