PASO SUPERIOR 0.96 SUB.1 ESTRIBOS

The aim of the research is to explore the challenges of managing blended learning courses to see what that exploration has to say about the new managerialism—collegiality debate. The purpose of the case studies is to

75

“illuminate the general by looking at the particular” (Denscombe, 2014, p. 54). The case studies illuminate the general by focussing on one or a few

instances of a phenomenon and looking in-depth at the processes, people and experiences (Denscombe, 2014). The decision to opt for a multiple case study, as opposed to a single case study, is based on the desire to gain generalisable applicable results. However, the real value of case studies is to “unravel the complexities of a given situation” (Denscombe, 2014, p. 55), so a balance is being struck between delving sufficiently in-depth to view the

complexities of a situation while countering the argument that case studies are too subjective or too site specific by looking at more than one case.

Gray (2009) suggests that case studies are particularly useful when the researcher is trying to expose “the relationship between a phenomenon and the context in which it is occurring” (2009, p. 247). With this research, the phenomenon is the management of the development and delivery of blended learning courses and the context is the new managerialism—collegiality debate. Therefore the research questions are:

1. How are blended learning courses managed as activity systems in selected Irish HEIs?

2. What are the challenges of managing the development and delivery of blended learning courses as identified as contradictions in the analysis of the three ASMs?

3. What possible resolutions and implications for managing blended learning course development and delivery in the future can be concluded?

4. How do the responses to these contradictions, as seen in changes to HEI practices, structures and staff relationships, inform the debate about new managerialism and collegiality in HE?

5. What new understandings of CHAT as a theoretical framework can be garnered from applying the ASM to blended learning course management in HE?

An exploration of the people, processes and tools behind the development and delivery of blended learning courses' activity system (BLAS) is required in

76

order to explore the management of that activity, so some of the more specific questions arising from the research are:

 Who manages BLAS course development and delivery?

 What strategies are employed by such managers?

 Does managing a BLAS course differ from managing a face-to-face course?

 What is the nature of the subject of the BLAS?

 Who is involved in the development and delivery of BLAS courses?

 What processes are followed in BLAS?

 What tools are utilised by the people involved to support the BLAS processes?

 How are those people, processes and tools managed?

 What are the challenges in managing a BLAS?

The research questions, methods and tools for analysis are summarised in table 3.1.

Research Question Method Analysis 1. How are blended learning courses

managed as activity systems in selected Irish HEIs? Interviews and Document Review AODM-ASM

2. What are the challenges of managing the development and delivery of blended learning courses as identified as

contradictions in the analysis of the three ASMs?

Interviews and Document Review

ASM and Manifestations of Contradictions

3. What possible resolutions and implications for managing blended learning course development and delivery in the future can be concluded?

Interviews and Document Review

ASM and Manifestations of Contradictions and blended learning management typology

4. How do the responses to these contradictions, as seen in changes to HEI practices, structures and staff

relationships, inform the debate about new managerialism and collegiality in HE?

Interviews and Document Review

ASM and Blended learning management typology

5. What new understandings of CHAT as a theoretical framework can be garnered from applying the ASM to blended learning course management in HE?

Interviews and Document Review

ASM and Blended learning management typology

77

3.4.1 ASM and AODM

The ASM was designed as a conceptual mechanism for analysing activity (Engeström, 2015) by breaking down activity into elements and modelling how those elements might relate to each other.

Fig. 3.1 Activity Systems Model (Engeström, 2015)

In doing so, the ASM approach calls on the researcher to structure the activity, the relationships between elements of the activity system, the objective of the activity and the mediating role of artefacts, rules and regulations, community and the division of labour on the activity. In the literature review above, it was shown how CHAT was used to frame research concerned with a number of subjects in organisational studies of HE. The practical research rationale as to why CHAT was used in those studies included its value as a theoretical lens (Benson & Whitworth, 2007; Karasavvidis, 2010), to frame questions to explore (Joyes & Chen, 2007), as a mechanism to guide analysis (Netteland et al., 2007; Oliver, 2012; Osorio et al., 2012, McAvinia & Oliver, 2004), to conceptualise people’s behaviour (Mwanza & Engeström, 2003; Karasavvidis, 2009), to describe processes in more detail (Mwanza, 2002; McAvinia & Oliver, 2004) to identify tensions and contradictions (Prenkert, 2006 Netteland et al., 2007) and to analyse seemingly contradictory discourses (McNicholl &

Subject Object Outcome

Community

Rules _{Division of Labour}

78

Blake, 2013). This research is concerned with breaking down and exploring an activity, the management of the development and delivery of blended learning courses, that is taking place in the midst of two seemingly

contradictory discourses, new managerialism and collegiality. Therefore, CHAT appears to be an appropriate theoretical framework to adopt for such research.

The AODM is a toolkit to guide the researcher in the process of structuring an activity. The toolkit consists of four aspects: an eight step model; an activity notation; a technique of generating research questions, which are used to identify contradictions, and a technique of mapping operational processes. The conception and operational structure of AODM is based on the

acceptance of Engeström’s (2015) expanded model of human activity as a representation that captures and unifies key fundamental principles of activity theory (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006) into a unified whole. Engeström’s approach, suggests that tensions are commonplace within distributed work systems and that these paradoxes, incoherencies and conflicts provide a potential driving force for change (Blackler, 1995). The methods of AODM provide an analytic scheme for identifying the essential elements of an activity and for examining their interrelationships (Greenhow & Belbus, 2007). The AODM has been widely used to investigate technology enhanced learning and design

(Mwanza, 2011). The toolkit, or aspects of it, has also been used to

investigate collaborative knowledge building practices among course design teams and their students (Greenhow & Belbus, 2007) and for categorising learning experiences (Mwanza, 2011). Although the AODM does not appear to have been used to explore BLASs, it does offer a potential roadmap for research into HE organisational processes that can guide data collection and analysis and, in doing so, operationalise the use of CHAT as a theoretical framework in this context. As noted above, Mwanza’s (2011) use of AODM does not clearly distinguish between contradictions and their manifestations, neither does Greenhow & Belbus’s (2007) study, which also utilised AODM. For that reason, the aspect of the analysis that involves the search for

79

guided by Engeström & Sannino’s (2014) Types of Discursive Manifestations of Contradictions (p. 375), which defines four types of manifestations—double bind, conflict, critical conflict and dilemma—and their linguistic cues.