DEL OBISPO DE ROMA

The limitations of this research are six fold. Firstly, as previously explained, the purpose of this research was not to produce a full and accurate description of the learning advisor role and learning advising work. Instead, the purpose was to discover

146

what is really going on for learning advisors working in TEOs in New Zealand, to understand the drivers of advisor behaviour, and to build a grounded theory that explains that behaviour. While the grounded theory of tactical enacting has identified and explained the main concern of the learning advisors who participated in the

research and the resolution of that main concern, the grounded theory has been limited to one core category. In being so, the grounded theory does not explain everything about learning advisors working in TEOs, nor does it presume that role performance is the only main concern of learning advisors.

Secondly, although the grounded theory of tactical enacting and the application of an analytical framework related to Foucault’s concept of governmentality to a discussion of the grounded theory is a firm fit with the contemporary TEO within which the research is grounded, there is further work that could be done to refine the grounded theory, enhance understanding of the learning advisor in the contemporary

organisation, and offer suggestions for practice and research to a wider audience. For example, further work may extend the level of conceptualisation to produce a

grounded theory abstract of the people, place and time of this study’s context. In being more abstract, the grounded theory’s usefulness would extend beyond the specific setting of learning advisors working in TEOs in New Zealand.

Thirdly, the application of an analytical framework related to Foucault’s concept of governmentality to a discussion of the grounded theory could be seen as limiting the grounded theory’s scope and potential contribution to practice and research by confining the analytical framework to that concept. Different analytical frameworks – for example, cultural power and domination (Bourdieu, 1986), hegemony (Gramsci, 1971), discursive resistance (Anderson, 2008) or unobtrusive resistance (Scott, 1990) – would yield different results.

The nature of postgraduate research and its attendant time and resource constraints which may have limited the scope of this research is the fourth limitation. While more data could have been gathered over more time and with more resources and constantly compared to generate additional concepts and properties and strengthen the grounded

147

theory, I do not believe the grounded theory of tactical enacting is“linear [or] thin” (Glaser, 1978, p. 116). My decision not to gather more data and modify the grounded theory when the concept of governmentality began to emerge in the grounded theory and extant literature during the research process also may have limited the scope of the research. However, I consider that applying the concept of governmentality to a

discussion of the grounded theory has added to the grounded theory’s integration (Glaser, 1978) and ensured its fit within the context from which it came and in doing so extended its potential utility.

The fifth limitation is my knowledge and experience of research. Even though Glaser (as cited in Evans, 2015) argues “the best grounded theory is done in the hands of beginners” (p. 62), my position as a novice grounded theory researcher will have limited the research to a greater or lesser extent. Research is itself a learning process and grounded theory methodology an experiential learning curve (Glaser, 2009). In addition, understanding Foucault’s concept of governmentality to the extent necessary for the novice researcher to competently apply the concept to a research project takes time. Accordingly, my knowledge, understanding and experience of research, classic grounded theory methodology and Foucault’s concept of governmentality will have had an impact on the research outcome. The quality of that outcome is directly related to the quality of my knowledge, understanding, skills and experience.

Finally, this research may also be limited by the fact that the area under study is familiar to me. My familiarity with the research setting means it is impossible to deny my experiences and my preconceptions will have influenced my perceptions of

learning advisor behaviour. I did not “enter the field as [a] vague and passive being[s]” (Kwok, McCallin & Dickson, 2012, para. 3). In an effort to guard against preconception, I have maintained a critical approach throughout the research process and questioned my assumptions continually. In developing the grounded theory, I have used in vivo labels (learning advisors’ own words) for codes and concepts where possible to maintain close connection to the data and endeavoured to let theoretical sensitivity guide the research (Glaser, 1978). While acknowledging that my perspective cannot be independent of the research findings, grounded theory methodology accounts for

148

researcher bias in so far as the researcher’s perspective is treated as just another source of data. In being just another source of data, my perspective is relevant in as much as it has earned its way into the grounded theory through constant comparison with other data (Glaser, 1998). I believe diligent adherence to classic grounded theory procedures throughout the research process has mitigated researcher bias. Nevertheless, despite these best efforts I do not assert an impartial view; rather, I acknowledge there is an element of myself within this research.