Habermas’ conception of the practical approach aligns closely with the
interpretative approach to research, which understands reality as a subjective product of “individual meanings that construct and are constructed by interactive
human behaviour” (Usher, 1996: 18). This has implications for the approach that
interpretative researchers take to investigate the social world as they seek to reveal and describe the complexities of human thoughts and actions in a particular
context. This focus means that qualitative research methods, concerned with individual meaning and understandings, are usually favoured (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Researchers such as Hodkinson suggest that:
“it is helpful to view [qualitative] research as contributing to better understanding, in ways that owe more to the quality of interpretations of the data than to the objective purity of any methods used” (Hodkinson, 2004: 9).
At the heart of this research study, was a desire to understand the complexity and diversity of students’, academics’ and senior managers’ experiences and to
consider the complexity of those in relation to the ideologies and imperatives upheld in higher education policy and the literature. In line with the views of Reay and Arnot (2002), my own experience working with students in higher education indicated that there was “no homogenous pupil voice, even in a single working group, but rather a
cacophony of competing voices” and indeed, no single voice of academics or senior
university managers (39). This research study aimed to create a rich picture of this ‘cacophony’ in order to develop an understanding of the complexity of the ideologies and practices around student voice activity, rather than to develop a scientifically generalisable ‘answer’.
The selection of the interpretative paradigm did not mean that the concept of ontological objectivity was abandoned completely. Phillips (1993) argues that:
“‘objective’ seems to be a label that we apply to inquiries that meet certain
procedural standards, but objectivity does not guarantee that the results of inquiries have any certainty” (67)
Yet Phillips, drawing on the work of Popper, does not see this as a reason to abandon the quest for objectivity altogether. Phillips sees the truth as an ‘essential regulative ideal’ which leads us to ask, “how can we hope to detect and eliminate
error?” by limiting subjectivity in research (Popper, 1968 cited in Phillips, 1993:67) .
Striving for objectivity in qualitative research is not, therefore, a baseless exercise. Research that focuses on meaning and individual truth can accept that the ‘truth’ or ‘truths’ uncovered may not be ‘certain’ while applying acknowledged checks and balances to transparently increase research objectivity.
This leads to the idea of ‘procedural objectivity’, which refers to the aspiration which many researchers aim for, to eliminate personal feelings or opinions in the research process. As is illustrated with the example of the NSS, many positivist research studies use methods to detach the researcher from the subject in order to eliminate subjectivity. While these methods may offer a level of generalisability and
replicability, the outcomes may, at times, tell us more about the priorities of those in power than those of the research subjects. Blair (1998) advocates the identification of power relations in the research process and highlights the importance of making values explicit, to enable the evaluation of the impact of power. Blair suggests that researchers who make claims of value neutrality are on dangerous ground ethically, as their position acts to “mask the fact that research interpretations are arrived via
styles of reasoning and deduction which fit particular theories and particular world views” (1998: 244).
Throughout the research period, I worked full-time in an area relating closely to the research conducted. There were times when the values and goals of my employer conflicted with those in which I was engaging in the research. Reflexivity throughout the research process was paramount, not just in terms of identification of personal values, but also as a method for examining and justifying decisions. Techniques such as the triangulation of themes, using a range of data sources, keeping notes to track and justify decisions, critically discussing and analysing data with my
supervisor to explore interpretations, and the sharing of research decisions for critical review by peers, were all measures which were utilised in the research model (Greenbank, 2003). Further to this, the publication of aspects of the research during the period in which it was undertaken (Freeman, 2013), meant that I was able to subject my work to rigorous peer review, thereby providing some verification for the interpretation of the data.
The interpretative approach worked well as an approach for addressing the research aims for the thesis, as it enabled the collection and analysis of data to
inform an understanding of the ways in which individuals experienced and
espoused discourses in relation to student voice. This was informed by Argyris and Schon’s (1996) notion of ‘espoused theories’ and ‘theories in use’, which makes a distinction between the values that people believe inform their practice, and the implicit theories that inform practice in ‘reality’. Silverman (2001) regards qualitative research as a strong approach for “its ability to analyse what actually happens in
naturally occurring settings” (p259). Thereby, the interpretative, practical interest
informed the development of the study to address those questions relating to the lived experience of students, academics and managers, but I also sought to utilise techniques described in the following section, to problematise and move beyond a descriptive analysis of student voice.