Possibilities and Paradigms in Education Research

Methods and Paradigms
in Education Research
Lorraine Ling
Victoria University, Australia & La Trobe University, Australia
Peter Ling
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
A volume in the Advances in Educational

Marketing, Administration, and Leadership
(AEMAL) Book Series
Published in the United States of America by
IGI Global
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2017 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Ling, Lorraine.
Title: Methods and paradigms in education research / Lorraine Ling and Peter
Ling, editors.
Description: Hershey PA : Information Science Reference, 2017. | Series:
Advances in Educational Marketing, Administration, and Leadership |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016041787| ISBN 9781522517382 (hardcover) | ISBN
9781522517399 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Education--Research--Methodology.
Classification: LCC LB1028 .M4195 2017 | DDC 370.72--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016041787
This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Educational Marketing, Administration, and Leadership
(AEMAL) (ISSN: 2326-9022; eISSN: 2326-9030)
British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Advances in Educational
Marketing, Administration, and
Leadership (AEMAL) Book
Series
Siran Mukerji
IGNOU, India
Purnendu Tripathi
IGNOU, India
ISSN: 2326-9022
Mission EISSN: 2326-9030
With more educational institutions entering into public, higher, and professional education, the educational
environment has grown increasingly competitive. With this increase in competitiveness has come the
need for a greater focus on leadership within the institutions, on administrative handling of educational
matters, and on the marketing of the services offered.
The Advances in Educational Marketing, Administration, & Leadership (AEMAL) Book Series
strives to provide publications that address all these areas and present trending, current research to as-
sist professionals, administrators, and others involved in the education sector in making their decisions.
Coverage
• Academic Administration
• Faculty Administration and Management
IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts
• Students as Consumers
for publication within this series. To submit a pro-
• Educational Marketing Campaigns posal for a volume in this series, please contact our
• Educational Finance Acquisition Editors at Acquisitions@igi-global.com
• Technologies and Educational Marketing or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.
• Consumer Behavior
• Advertising and Promotion of Academic
Programs and Institutions
• Academic Pricing
• Educational Leadership
The Advances in Educational Marketing, Administration, and Leadership (AEMAL) Book Series (ISSN 2326-9022) is published by IGI
Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase
individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please
visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-educational-marketing-administration-leadership/73677. Postmaster: Send all address
changes to above address. Copyright © 2017 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part
of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, record-
ing, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use,
including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.
Titles in this Series
For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: www.igi-global.com
Handbook of Research on Administration, Policy, and Leadership in Higher Education

Siran Mukerji (Indira Gandhi National Open University, India) and Purnendu Tripathi (Indira Gandhi National
Open University, India)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 678pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522506720) • US $295.00 (our price)
Student Experiences and Educational Outcomes in Community Engagement for the 21st Century
Cathryn Crosby (Teachers College Columbia University, USA) and Frederick Brockmeier (Northern Kentucky
University, USA)
Literacy Program Evaluation and Development Initiatives for P-12 Teaching

Salika A. Lawrence (Medgar Evers College, City University of New York, USA)
Community Engagement Program Implementation and Teacher Preparation for 21st Century Education
Cathryn Crosby (Teachers College Columbia University, USA) and Frederick Brockmeier (Northern Kentucky
University, USA)
Systemic Knowledge-Based Assessment of Higher Education Programs

Edgar Oliver Cardoso Espinosa (Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico)
Applied Chaos and Complexity Theory in Education

Şefika Şule Erçetin (Hacettepe University, Turkey)
Promoting Global Peace and Civic Engagement through Education

Kshama Pandey (Dayalbagh Educational Institute, India) and Pratibha Upadhyay (University of Allahabad, India)
Handbook of Research on Organizational Justice and Culture in Higher Education Institutions

Nwachukwu Prince Ololube (Ignatius Ajuru University of Education, Nigeria)
701 E. Chocolate Ave., Hershey, PA 17033

Order online at www.igi-global.com or call 717-533-8845 x100
To place a standing order for titles released in this series, contact: cust@igi-global.com
Mon-Fri 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (est) or fax 24 hours a day 717-533-8661
Table of Contents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xvi
Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xxi
Section 1
Paradigms in Education Research
Chapter 1
Introduction: Employing Paradigms in Education Research................................................................... 1
Peter Ling, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Lorraine Ling, Victoria University, Australia & La Trobe University, Australia
Chapter 2
The Power of the Paradigm: Methods and Paradigms in Education Research...................................... 19
Chapter 3
Research Paradigms Underpinning SoTL Papers: A Comparative Analysis of Two Journals.............. 42
Kym Fraser, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Ekaterina Pechenkina, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Chapter 4
Doctoral Research Supervision: Interpretive, Developmental, Transformative, and Culturally
Adaptive................................................................................................................................................. 53
Margaret E. Robertson, La Trobe University, Australia
Section 2
Patterns and Consistencies
Chapter 5
An Approach to Improving Teaching in Higher Education: A Case Study Informed by the Neo-
Positivist Research Paradigm................................................................................................................. 68
Marcia Devlin, Federation University Australia, Australia

Chapter 6
Observational Research on the Work of School Principals: To Time or Not to Time........................... 88
Katina Pollock, Western University, Canada
David Cameron Hauseman, University of Toronto, Canada
Chapter 7
Investigating School Mathematics Performance and Affect: A Critique of Research Methods and
Instruments........................................................................................................................................... 108
Gilah C. Leder, La Trobe University, Australia & Monash University, Australia
Chapter 8
Scientific Realism and the Study of Higher Education Curriculum and the Student Experience....... 124
Calvin Smith, Griffith University, Australia
Section 3
Interpretation and Transformation
Chapter 9
Teachers’ Ontological and Epistemological Beliefs: Their Impact on Approaches to Teaching......... 144
Mary Kelly, International School of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Chapter 10
Engineering Students’ Approaches to Learning Mathematics............................................................. 167
Samuel Olugbenga King, Coventry University, UK
Chapter 11
A Code of Our Own: Making Meaning Queerly................................................................................. 191
Mark Vicars, Victoria University, Australia
Section 4
Practical Solutions
Chapter 12
Undertaking Commissioned Research in Education: Do Research Paradigms Matter?...................... 206
Kay Livingston, University of Glasgow, UK
Chapter 13
Transnational Education Research and Development: Paradigm Possibilities.................................... 220
Section 5
Shifting Sands
Chapter 14
Paradigm Surfing: Cross-Disciplinary Education-Focused Research.................................................. 234
Catherine Lang, La Trobe University, Australia

Chapter 15
Researching the Learning and Teaching of Writing: A Retrospective Analysis of Paradigms
Employed............................................................................................................................................. 246
Noella Mackenzie, Charles Sturt University, Australia
Chapter 16
Education Research in an Intercultural Context: An Instance of Interpretation, Induction, and
Deduction............................................................................................................................................. 263
Beena Giridharan, Curtin University, Sarawak, Malaysia
Chapter 17
Work-Integrated Learning Praxis: Selecting a Research Paradigm..................................................... 278
Bruce Calway, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Section 6
Supercomplexity
Chapter 18
Researching Supercomplexity: Planes, Possibilities, Poetry............................................................... 291
Ronald Barnett, University College London, UK
Chapter 19
Becoming Comfortable with Supercomplexity: Looking Back, Forward, In, Out, and Shaking it
About!.................................................................................................................................................. 309
Mark Selkrig, Victoria University, Australia
(Ron) Kim Keamy, Victoria University, Australia
Chapter 20
The Black Academy: A Renaissance Seen Through a Paradigmatic Prism........................................ 326
Mark Rose, La Trobe University, Australia
Section 7
Conclusion
Chapter 21
Conclusion: Paradigm Paradiddle........................................................................................................ 345
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 352
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 387
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 394
Detailed Table of Contents
Foreword.............................................................................................................................................. xvi
Preface.................................................................................................................................................. xxi
Section 1
Paradigms in Education Research
Chapter 1
Introduction: Employing Paradigms in Education Research................................................................... 1
The title of this book refers to both methods and paradigms in education research. Both are addressed,
but this book is distinguished from others in that the research paradigm, rather than choice of research
method, is placed front of stage. The related field of study is education. The study of education intertwines
with a range of disciplines in the social sciences so the research issues arising have implications beyond
the education context. The research paradigms addressed in this book include the traditional positivist
and post-positivist—here labelled neo-positivist—paradigms. The interpretivist, transformative and
pragmatic research paradigms, which have also been nominated in existing literature, are included.
A novel supercomplexity paradigm has been added here in acknowledgement of the “supercomplex”
environment in which education research now operates. Following chapters explore issues relating to the
design, implementation and critique of education research in the light of this understanding of research
paradigms.
Chapter 2
The Power of the Paradigm: Methods and Paradigms in Education Research...................................... 19
In this chapter, the six paradigms explored in this book—positivist, neo-positivist, interpretivist,
transformative, pragmatic and supercomplexity—are described and the key elements of each paradigm
are discussed. These key elements are ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology, and outcomes.
The paradigm does not pre-determine the methodology or methodologies to be used. Rather how
qualitative and quantitative methodologies will be used is determined by the paradigm and thus both
available methodologies can and perhaps should be used in all paradigms. The research paradigm is the
focal point because awareness of the paradigm within which the research is undertaken helps to ensure
consistency between elements of the research: the aim; the research question; the appropriate forms of
data and data analysis; and the nature of the outcomes and the conclusions that may be reached.

Chapter 3
Research Paradigms Underpinning SoTL Papers: A Comparative Analysis of Two Journals.............. 42
Kym Fraser, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Ekaterina Pechenkina, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
The authors investigated key paradigms driving contemporary Scholarship of Learning and Teaching
(SoTL) research by analyzing a sample of 84 SoTL articles published in two, highly ranked education
journals that publish SoTL papers. The authors identified the paradigm underpinning each article by
looking at the stated or implied intent of the article’s authors, the drivers of their research (axiology),
the nature of the knowledge/understanding developed from their research (epistemology), the literature
and methods used, and the outcomes of their work. As a result of this exercise, using the classification of
research paradigms employed in this book, the neo-positivist, inductive mode emerged as the dominant
paradigm in both journals, accounting for 60 percent of the papers in the combined sample. These findings
are discussed in terms of their application to future SoTL research.
Chapter 4
Doctoral Research Supervision: Interpretive, Developmental, Transformative, and Culturally
Adaptive................................................................................................................................................. 53
Margaret E. Robertson, La Trobe University, Australia
Supervisors generally recognize the complex capacities needed to complete the doctoral degree. However,
pressures from management practices in universities for rapid completions have time-compressed the
leisurely research experience of a bygone intellectual age. The need for focused supervision strategies
that bridge candidate and supervisor expectations seems clear. At the same time articulating supervision
“pedagogies” poses a philosophical and theoretical conundrum. Whilst supervision expertise can be
intuitive, and often based on personal experience, the research candidate will have different lived
experiences. Their respective world views can be dialectically opposed to that of their supervisor with
the decision making landscapes caught in subjectivities, stubbornness and non-recognition of “other.”
Paradigmatic shifts can be an integral part of the development process. In the context of increasing
internationalization of the doctoral experience “downunder” these arguments are cause for reflection
on how supervisors and candidates can deepen their philosophical, and meaning-making constructs of
“knowing,” and seek transformative intellectual positions.
Section 2
Chapter 5
An Approach to Improving Teaching in Higher Education: A Case Study Informed by the Neo-
Positivist Research Paradigm................................................................................................................. 68
Marcia Devlin, Federation University Australia, Australia
This chapter outlines a case study of the application of the neo-positivist paradigm in the higher education
research field. A small scale evaluative study of an attempt to improve teaching and learning provides the
case study. The neo-positivist paradigm involves the objective investigation of an aspect of reality, providing
a provisional, contemporary understanding of patterns and entities. The ways in which this paradigm
informed the research design, methodology, and the interpretation of results in a small-scale evaluative
study are discussed. The study represents an attempt to conduct a rigorous empirical research project that

incorporated random allocation to intervention and control groups, pre- and post-intervention measures
of teaching and learning and the use of psychometrically sound measurement tools and qualitative data.
The ways in which the ontology, axiology and epistemology of the neo-positivist paradigm impacted
on the study and its findings are outlined.
Chapter 6
Observational Research on the Work of School Principals: To Time or Not to Time........................... 88
Katina Pollock, Western University, Canada
David Cameron Hauseman, University of Toronto, Canada
This chapter, like the others in this book, is designed as a resource for instructors and students studying
education research methods. It provides an example of how one research team worked through social,
political, economic, and research issues to problematize and eventually utilize observations as a data
collection method to study principals’ work. The contribution of this chapter lies in the area of research
method, specifically the use of and the structuring of observation, rather than in the area of research
paradigms. Nevertheless, given the charter of the book, the opportunity is taken to reflect on the research
paradigm that applies and its implications. The chapter is about the study of principals’ work and compares
two different observation approaches.
Chapter 7
Investigating School Mathematics Performance and Affect: A Critique of Research Methods and
Instruments........................................................................................................................................... 108
Gilah C. Leder, La Trobe University, Australia & Monash University, Australia
In this chapter research relating to school mathematics is used as an instance to critique commonly
used methods and instruments employed in educational research to determine performance and single
or multiple aspects of affect. Advances in technology that have enabled the adaption of previously used
instruments are described. Self-report measures, administered face-to-face and on-line, and real-time
and virtual observational methods are discussed in some detail. Illustrative data from specific studies
are provided. Interpreting the different measurement outcomes is, it is argued, far from unproblematic.
This discussion raises issues relevant to research in a range of paradigms but is particularly pertinent to
educational research conducted in the neo-positivist paradigm.
Chapter 8
Scientific Realism and the Study of Higher Education Curriculum and the Student Experience....... 124
Calvin Smith, Griffith University, Australia
This chapter elaborates and exemplifies the use of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) in the analysis
of the effects of curricula designs on student learning and experience in higher education. A brief didactic
account of the origins of structural equation modelling is used to expose and explore fundamental
assumptions, metaphysical and ontological commitments, and alternative views in the field. This is
followed by an exemplification of the method by use of a case study of its application in studying a higher
education curriculum design (work-integrated learning). The chapter argues for the adoption of a realist
account of latent variables on the basis that the constructs they represent are in principle manipulable, even
though experimental manipulation is not typically a feature of research on curricula in higher education.
Section 3

Interpretation and Transformation
Chapter 9
Teachers’ Ontological and Epistemological Beliefs: Their Impact on Approaches to Teaching......... 144
Mary Kelly, International School of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
This chapter documents a case study of the exploration of teachers’ beliefs on the nature of reality
(ontology) and knowledge (epistemology) within an International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program
at the International School of Amsterdam. The study is positioned within the constructivist-interpretive
paradigm and, therefore, allows for the emergence of a holistic and contextualized understanding of
teachers’ beliefs and practices. The chapter includes reflection on the author’s ontology and epistemology
and its impact on the research undertaking. The study attempts to understand whether teachers’ beliefs have
identifiable impacts on their approaches to teaching within this inquiry-based teaching environment where
teachers are encouraged to design their own curricula. Over the course of the research, comprehensive
teacher profiles were generated for three participants, all experienced international school teachers, who
teach Science, English Literature, and Spanish. The findings indicate that the participants’ approaches
to teaching resonate strongly with their ontological and epistemological beliefs.
Chapter 10
Engineering Students’ Approaches to Learning Mathematics............................................................. 167
Samuel Olugbenga King, Coventry University, UK
The purpose of this chapter is to reflect on the influence of the adoption of a combination of research
paradigms on the design, implementation, and outcomes of a research exercise. The research question for
the study was: How may students’ approaches to learning (engineering) mathematics be characterized? The
aim of the exercise was to characterize students’ approaches to learning mathematics on an Engineering
Mathematics course, based on evidence from student interviewees’ transcripts. The individual student
learning approach characterizations were undertaken through the adoption of an integrated framework
comprising the “approaches to learning” theoretical framework and goal theory, with secondary data
analysis, based on the “three worlds of mathematics” framework. The research paradigm employed was
essentially interpretivist/constructivist. The neo-positivist paradigm, inductive mode, was also referenced.
Qualitative research methods were employed with integration of multiple theoretical frameworks for the
design, data collection and analyses, and interpretation of the results of the study.
Chapter 11
A Code of Our Own: Making Meaning Queerly................................................................................. 191
Mark Vicars, Victoria University, Australia
Queerly located inquiry can be disruptive and unsettling, jolting habitual perceptions of what can constitute
a research narrative and narratives of research. Queer work conceptually contests and problematizes
understandings of “I,” “We,” and “Us,” and in doing so destabilizes the concept of identity as a social
and cultural category of belonging. Queer work has critically interrogated the performativity of sexuality
in and across social life, rearticulating textual, historical, and rhetorical understandings of same sex
expressions and representations. This chapter draws on three queerly operationalized research projects
that investigated same-sex sexualities, sexuality-related diversity, equality, and inclusion in educational
domains.

Section 4
Practical Solutions
Chapter 12
Undertaking Commissioned Research in Education: Do Research Paradigms Matter?...................... 206
Kay Livingston, University of Glasgow, UK
The place and challenges of identifying and working with research paradigms in the context of
commissioned research is addressed in this chapter. The characteristics of commissioned research and
commissioned evaluation are discussed. The role of Invitation to Tender (ITT) documents in commissioned
research is explored using a conceptual continuum from looser to tighter specification of parameters.
Consequences for the selection of a research paradigm are considered. The chapter concludes with an
imperative: Communication to develop understanding of each other’s perspectives needs to be better
recognized for its value to all parties in meeting their intended purpose in engaging in a commissioned
research undertaking.
Chapter 13
Transnational Education Research and Development: Paradigm Possibilities.................................... 220
This chapter comprises reflections on a commissioned project entitled “Learning without borders: Linking
development of transnational leadership roles to international and cross-cultural teaching excellence.”
The project was designed to identify key issues for leadership in transnational education and in particular,
the best arrangements for distributed leadership. It had both a research element and a development
element. The research methods employed included observation, document analysis, surveys, focus groups
and interviews. The approach to be taken was specified as action research. The paradigm in which the
research element was to operate was not specified in the project proposal nor was it mentioned in the
project report. The conclusion arrived at in this chapter is that the exercise is best described as falling in
the pragmatic paradigm as various research approaches were adopted and a range of methods employed
in order to provide a useful response to the commissioned task.
Section 5
Shifting Sands
Chapter 14
Paradigm Surfing: Cross-Disciplinary Education-Focused Research.................................................. 234
Catherine Lang, La Trobe University, Australia
This chapter presents the experiences of a researcher conducting education research in the computing
discipline, and in doing so provides evidence of a journey through several paradigms, hence the chapter
title: paradigm surfing. A case-by-case retrospective analysis was conducted on several influential research
projects with reference to the categorization of paradigms presented by Ling and Ling in Chapter 1 of this
book, as well as categorizations presented by other scholars. The chapter provides an understanding of
paradigm shifts influenced by the environment in which the research was conducted, the purpose of the
research and the maturity of the researcher. The reflexive lens used demonstrates how these developmental
research experiences have contributed to a rich understanding of the importance of paradigms and the
nature of interdisciplinary educational research (epistemology). This led to a current identification with
the pragmatic paradigm as the best fit for the author’s axiology.

Chapter 15
Researching the Learning and Teaching of Writing: A Retrospective Analysis of Paradigms
Employed............................................................................................................................................. 246
Noella Mackenzie, Charles Sturt University, Australia
In this chapter, the author reflects on a research journey and the conscious and subconscious application
of paradigms to research design. The chapter is focused on research conducted in her role as research
and teaching academic in the area of literacy learning and teaching. Through the retrospective analysis
of a particular program of research the author concludes that it may not be necessary to articulate a
paradigm in the design stages of research to be strongly guided by that paradigm. The author contends
that a researcher’s theoretical orientation and worldviews about how research should be enacted may
be the key to paradigm “choice.” However, not all researchers have the luxury of determining how and
what they will research, nor the paradigms or methods to be applied, in the world of competitive grants,
commissioned research and multiple research agendas.
Chapter 16
Education Research in an Intercultural Context: An Instance of Interpretation, Induction, and
Deduction............................................................................................................................................. 263
Beena Giridharan, Curtin University, Sarawak, Malaysia
This chapter presents a research framework for a study that focused on the development of a second
language vocabulary acquisition model in a tertiary setting. The study was an investigation of lexical
inferencing strategies specifically employed by second language (L2) learners, and of whether the explicit
teaching of effective vocabulary strategies benefited learners in developing vocabulary. The framework
presented here draws on theories of learning from the fields of education, applied linguistics, vocabulary
development, and cognitive psychology. Several theoretical standpoints on vocabulary development,
including factors such as lexical representation; theoretical constructs in reading comprehension;
vocabulary processing in tertiary L2 learners; and socio-linguistics were considered in the design and
inquiry process of the study, which was set in an intercultural context. The association of components
of this research exercise to research paradigms is discussed.
Chapter 17
Work-Integrated Learning Praxis: Selecting a Research Paradigm..................................................... 278
Bruce Calway, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Education practices, like Work-Integrated Learning, result from a confluence of educational issues, and
contextual and philosophical influences. This chapter commences with an overview of the Work-Integrated
Learning philosophy, the contextual modifiers and the education issues that provide the framework for
Work-Integrated Learning education practices. Issues in investigating or researching Work-Integrated
Learning and research paradigm possibilities are explored. It is contended that adoption of a holistic
research paradigm for future Work-Integrated Learning research projects is needed to avoid simplistic
assessments of Work-Integrated Learning that fail to advance experiential learning (e.g. Dewey, 1938) in
school-to-work and workforce scenarios, in any meaningful way. Selection of the neo-positivist research
paradigm is argued.

Section 6
Supercomplexity
Chapter 18
Researching Supercomplexity: Planes, Possibilities, Poetry............................................................... 291
Ronald Barnett, University College London, UK
A schema is proposed on which basis education research might be advanced. The approach revisits an
earlier idea, that of supercomplexity, and substantially develops it into a supercomplexity mark two. The
discussion is situated in the context of the university and the proposed schema situates the university
on three planes. The planes hold together both ontological and ideational components (the university as
institution and as idea), reveal spaces for emergence, and allow for imaginative thought and action. Two
implications emerge. Firstly, education research should be conducted with an awareness of the total (tri-
planar) space in which an institution such as the university moves, in all its ontological and ideational
aspects. Secondly, writing becomes not an adjunct to research but takes on aspects of creativity and even
poetry. In response to an enquiry about one’s professional occupation, an academic should be happy to
say “I am a writer.”
Chapter 19
Becoming Comfortable with Supercomplexity: Looking Back, Forward, In, Out, and Shaking it
About!.................................................................................................................................................. 309
Mark Selkrig, Victoria University, Australia
(Ron) Kim Keamy, Victoria University, Australia
In this chapter the authors map various lines of flight they have taken that have informed their growing
awareness of supercomplexity as a paradigm appropriate for the current epoch. Rather than concentrating
on being researchers, the authors focus on how they are always becoming researchers, in between, like
a rhizome. Illustrative accounts of the authors’ research biographies are provided. They utilize a semi-
fictional narrative, with images as a way to overlay fact-oriented research with fiction, in order to “play”
with different ways of representing research. In the final section of the chapter, a number of emergent
concerns, challenges and possibilities are considered in relation to working with supercomplexity. These
musings offer the authors, as rhizome researchers with many conceptual tools and practices, a way to
be open to new types of inquiry—a process that could be described as simultaneously knowing but not
knowing.
Chapter 20
The Black Academy: A Renaissance Seen Through a Paradigmatic Prism........................................ 326
Mark Rose, La Trobe University, Australia
The continent nominated by Westerners “Terra Australis Incognita” was land occupied for tens of
thousands of years; home to peoples whose surviving descendants, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people, could claim to have sustained the world’s oldest culture. The colonists occupying the
territory, however, declared it “terra nullius,” a land with no recognized claim. The colonial attitude to
Indigenous culture was similar, treating it as “Intellectual nullius.” From the colonial occupation to the
1980s became the “Dark Ages for Indigenous Knowledge,” in which the trans-generational capability,
engaged in Western knowledge, was rare. In this chapter, this history is revisited on a path to current
contributions of the Black Academy to higher education. These are advanced here as: an Indigenous

perspective; an oppositional approach; integrative Indigenous knowledge; contemporary Indigenous

knowledge; and pure Indigenous knowledge. Reflecting on the research paradigm involved, emerging
contributions of the Black Academy represent a supercomplex renaissance.
Section 7
Conclusion
Chapter 21
Conclusion: Paradigm Paradiddle........................................................................................................ 345
Authors of the chapters of this book have reflected on education research undertakings and research
paradigms applicable to their work. Their writing is revisited here as it links education research in
practice to underpinning understandings of the nature of the aspect of the world investigated, the
drivers of the research and the contributions to knowledge that emerge. Instances that fit within or move
between established research paradigms are addressed first. The case for a new research paradigm—the
supercomplexity paradigm—is then rehearsed and contributions of chapter authors to that concept and
its application summarized. While research reviewed in the chapters covers the full array of paradigms,
the endeavors portrayed are linked by the act of research itself. In this endeavor, whatever the education
research topic, approach and methods employed, being clear about the research paradigm that applies
helps in ensuring the research exercise is coherent and the outcomes appropriate and defensible.
Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 352
About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 387
Index.................................................................................................................................................... 394
xvi
Foreword
TILLING PARADIGMATIC GROUND
Paradigms defined as worldviews or frameworks for higher order of thinking serve to make explicit the
assumptions that guide thinking throughout the research process and to insure that decisions are made
that are congruent with paradigmatic assumptions. Recognizing the power of research is an ethical re-
sponsibility as rigorous ethical reach can lead to improved understandings of problems and identification
of effective solutions, whilst the opposite is true if research is not conducted in a rigorous manner. Given
this assertion, why is it important for researchers to identify the paradigm that they use to frame their
research? Some might argue that researchers can (and do) conduct research without being explicit about
their paradigmatic positioning. However, when a researcher does not explicitly identify with a paradigm,
their work is still being influenced by a paradigmatic stance, albeit without a critical examination of the
implications of that paradigm’s assumptions.
In addition to the ethical responsibility that researchers have to conduct rigorous research, they also
have an ethical responsibility to recognize the power of paradigms and the methodological implications
of paradigmatic choices. These points are addressed in Methods and Paradigms in Education Research.
In this volume, many questions are raised about the role paradigms play in education research and the
challenges that education researchers face. These range from the role and nature of paradigms to the
application of paradigmatic frameworks in the design and conduct of research, as well as in the prepara-
tion of new researchers.
As Ling and Ling make clear, paradigmatic positionality has implications for every step of the research
process — even before a topic is decided for a research study — because research topics can be selected
for many different reasons and by many different processes. Paradigms encourage us to think critically
about the origins of the research topic. Will the research topic be chosen by researchers themselves on
the basis of personal interest and a scholarly literature review? Will the research topic be chosen based
on expressed desire by members of a community about an issue of relevance for them? What will be
the process for modification to the research topic once an area of interest is determined? Will efforts be
made to include diverse members of communities in determining the focus of the research? Answers to
these questions are dependent on the paradigmatic stance of the researcher.
Differences of opinions exist in the education research community about the nature of paradigms
and their role in research studies. For some researchers, paradigms are made up of assumptions that are
consistent with a researcher’s core values, hence a researcher’s paradigmatic position does not change
from study to study. For other researchers, a paradigm is a set of assumptions that is viewed as ap-
propriate for a specific research endeavor. Hence, if the research endeavor changes substantially from

Foreword
study to study, the researcher may shift to a different paradigm. This raises questions about the power of
paradigms discussed in this book. Is it possible for a researcher to hold that there is one reality waiting
to be discovered within a certain level of probability when asked to conduct a study that focuses on this
type of problem and then hold that there are multiple socially constructed realities for another study in
which this assumption seems to be better suited? Or would a researcher view the problem differently
because they hold a specific view of the nature of reality and thus conduct research in ways that are
reflective of that assumption? What are the implications of real world constraints, such as competitive
funding opportunities, on the researcher’s ability to use their chosen paradigm in a research endeavor?
What are education researchers’ ethical responsibilities when they encounter a commissioned research
project that specifies a paradigmatic framework that they do not think is appropriate for this endeavor?
What arguments are possible to influence the commissioners of research that would allow for more
flexibility for paradigmatic choices?
Philosophical assumptions associated with paradigms in education research have been categorized
as axiological (ethics), ontological (reality), epistemological (knowledge), and methodological (system-
atic inquiry) (Mertens, 2015; Mertens & Wilson, 2012). The characteristics of each paradigm that are
discussed in Paradigms and Methods in Education Research provide one way to define each paradigm.
As Ling and Ling acknowledge, there are other opinions about how to characterize each paradigm. For
example, the transformative paradigm arose from concerns raised by members of marginalized com-
munities and their advocates that research either did not include them or included them in ways that
did not accurately capture their experiences (Mertens, 2009). It is designed to raise critical questions
about the status quo and to challenge practices that sustain oppression. The transformative axiological
assumption is determined by members of marginalized communities who express a desire to have their
rights respected and to have research conducted that will contribute to socially just solutions. The out-
come of a transformative study is to increase knowledge and capability to bring about those socially just
solutions for social transformation. It can be argued that transformative researchers conduct their work
with greater impartiality (than is commonly considered in the concept of objectivity) because they make
efforts to be more inclusive of the full range of voices of stakeholders affected by the research. There
are no foregone conclusions before the research is started. The research is conducted in a transparent,
inclusive manner in order to obtain conclusions that would be biased if only the views of the powerful
were included. There is a commitment to inclusion of diverse voices in the research process so that the
powerful do not determine what is to be studied and how it will be studied. Transformative research
is not conducted to support a particular point of view; it is conducted to reveal different versions of
reality and to bring to visibility the consequences of accepting versions of reality that sustain oppres-
sion. Transformative research is solution oriented — people from marginalized groups do not want yet
another researcher coming into their communities to tell them one more time what is wrong with them.
They want effective solutions. In order to get effective solutions, the researcher needs to engage in the
complexity of the context and the phenomenon under study, using a systematic method of data collection
to inform the outcomes. The intent of transformative research is to include the perspectives of a wide
range of stakeholders so that it is not the biases of the researcher that determine the outcomes. Clearly
the way each paradigm is understood and defined has important implications for education researchers.
Choices of paradigms can also be looked at as cultural phenomenon in and of themselves when the
education research community is viewed as a cultural group. Are researchers aware of the history of
educational research and the dominance of particular paradigms over time? What is the power structure
within the academy that supports the use of one paradigm over another? What is the research commu-
xvii
Foreword
nity’s ethical responsibility to diversify its ranks in order to bring different voices into the conversations
about appropriateness of specific paradigms within the education sector? What would be the effect of
having more research methodologists who were representative of marginalized groups? Would that shift
the power balance in terms of paradigms that are viewed as being appropriate for education researchers?
The emergence of mixed methods as a conscious study of research methodology has also served to
raise questions about paradigms (Mertens et al., 2016; Mertens, in press). How can a researcher who
truly believes that there is only one reality waiting to be measured mix quantitative methods with quali-
tative methods? How can a researcher who truly believes that there are multiple socially constructed
realities combine qualitative with quantitative methods that are designed to converge findings into a
single number? This quandary has been raised under the moniker of the incompatibility of paradigm
merger and suggests that researchers must “stay in their lane” rather than merge or cross over. Yet other
scholars suggest that it is possible to include both quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study
and still conduct research that is internally consistent with paradigmatic beliefs, whether that is posi-
tivist, interpretivist, transformative, or pragmatic. Mixed methods thinking has advanced to recognize
that the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches is a methodological decision and that it
is possible to make that choice under any of the paradigms currently in play in the education research
community (Mertens et al., 2016; Mertens, in press). The look of the study will be different because
researchers who align themselves with different paradigms will frame the study differently and seek to
answer different kinds of questions.
This search for the role of paradigms in research is especially timely given the acknowledgement
by the research community that we need to address the concept of complexity if we are to contribute
to understanding the nature of problems and the development of effective solutions in education. Is a
supercomplexity paradigm (Bauman, 2014) necessary or do other paradigms need to integrate concepts
of complexity into their worldviews? What would the integration of concepts of complexity look like
in the different paradigms? Is there a better fit in one or the other of the paradigms for this concept?
How can the complexity and dynamic nature of reality be incorporated into a positivist, neo-positivist,
interpretive, transformative, or pragmatic paradigm? Is it necessary to include the idea of complexity in
all types of research? What are the consequences of over-simplifying understandings that could result
from research that does not incorporate complexity?
Education researchers have long recognized the interdisciplinary nature of education, covering an
age range from infancy to adulthood. Thus, questions that are inclusive of the concept of complexity
seem particularly apropos for education researchers. For example, in education research, questions often
arise about the lack of sufficient student achievement, particularly among children of poverty or from
marginalized groups. This is a perennial question. Research that over-simplifies the nature of the prob-
lem and development of solutions may be considered a waste of time and resources. Multiple variables
contribute to student achievement. These are not limited to what happens in the classroom. Certainly the
quality of teaching, access to appropriate instructional materials, provision of a safe environment, fam-
ily involvement, and good leadership are important considerations. However, school personnel work in
communities that have a historical legacy that also needs to be considered that influences those aspects
of the communities that support or inhibit a student’s ability to learn. Should research focus solely on
the teacher-student interaction as a way to address lack of achievement? How can different paradigmatic
positions help to raise questions about the complexity of the surrounding environment in concert with
what happens in the schools to improve the probability that problems will be better understood and the
effectiveness of potential solutions?
xviii
Foreword
The preparation of new researchers is also a challenge that arises within the context of multiple
paradigms as options in education research. What is the influence of the professor or supervisor’s own
paradigmatic stance on their teaching about paradigms and methods? What teaching strategies can be
used to encourage students to critically examine their own assumptions and to be able to articulate the
assumptions that guide their own choices? What are the risks that students take if their positionality is
not one that is advocated by the mainstream academic set at their university? What are the implications
of cultural and linguistic differences between professor and student? Of differences in terms of status as
a member of a marginalized community or someone who experiences oppression on a daily basis? Of
differences in terms of home country? If students come from and plan to return to a different country,
how is that situation supported in the teaching about paradigms? The questions raised here apply not
only to new researchers, but also to experienced researchers who are in a continuous learning mode.
Perhaps exposure to new ideas can contribute to advancement in research methods by transforming the
professors and other professionals who prepare new researchers as well.
In Methods and Paradigms in Education Research, the contributors provide perspectives about the
concept of paradigms from many different countries. They also provide examples of research studies
that were consciously designed and conducted within specific paradigmatic traditions in some instances
and paradigms that were understood more fully retrospectively. This provides excellent insights into the
implications of paradigm choice in terms of methods, as well as in terms of the types of outcomes that
result. For example, is the use of the transformative paradigm only appropriate when the major focus of
education research is a recognized marginalized population such as the LGBTQ community or racial/
ethnic minorities or women in the sciences? Or, is the transformative paradigm equally important in
research with mainstream communities in order to avoid homogenization of results as interventions
often have differential effects on invisible or unrecognized members of marginalized communities? Is
disaggregation of data under the positivist, neo-positivist, or pragmatic paradigms sufficient to illuminate
the experiences of people who experience discrimination in the educational setting but may not be the
specific focus of a study? These are questions that arise when consideration is given to the identification
and application of paradigmatic frameworks in education research.
Donna Mertens
Gallaudet University, USA
xix
Foreword
REFERENCES
Bauman, Z. (2014). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. NY: Guilford Press.
Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M. (in press). Mixed methods design in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M., Bazeley, P., Bowleg, L., Fielding, N., Maxwell, J., Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Niglas, K.
(2016). Expanding thinking through a kaleidoscopic look into the future: Implications of the Mixed
Methods International Research Associations Task Force Report on the Future of Mixed Methods.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 221–227. doi:10.1177/1558689816649719
Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice. NY: Guilford Press.
xx
xxi
Preface
TARGET AUDIENCE
This book is designed for academics and students taking courses of study on research methods. The book
can be used by academics teaching education research methods to assist their students to:
1. Understand the centrality and power of the research paradigm;

2. Describe, locate and compare alternative approaches to education research;
3. Identify their own research interests and motivations and to locate them within a paradigm;
4. Design research proposals and interpret findings;
5. Read and critique research publications and papers.
This book is also designed to inform and support education researchers, post-graduate research stu-
dents and their supervisors, and others engaging in education research, such as academic developers in
universities and teachers in schools.
In this book, the research paradigm takes prime position. The paradigm may be used to inform research
design and implementation. The research paradigm provides a basis for choices about data collection
strategies and data analysis techniques, and decisions about the nature and form of the findings and the
conclusions that can be drawn. That is not to say that a research endeavor needs to start with a paradigm;
the particular research exercise is likely to be initiated by a research interest or research question. What
is contended here is that, whatever initiates a research interest, being clear about the paradigm in which
the research is conducted is critical in ensuring all elements of the research exercise are congruent.
COMPONENTS
The first section of the book, in Chapters 1 and 2, includes the conceptual base for the publication. In
Chapter 1 the concept of research paradigms and the typology employed is introduced. Lorraine Ling,
in Chapter 2, goes on to elaborate a framework for the design, implementation and interpretation of
research in education, based on research paradigms. She discusses elements of research paradigms in
detail. Section 1 of the book includes a chapter by Fraser and Pechenkina (Chapter 3), reflecting on
the research paradigms employed in articles in two education development research journals. The neo-
positivist paradigm in the inductive mode emerged as the dominant paradigm in both journals. Robertson,

Preface
in Chapter 4, suggests how, with better understanding of research paradigms, doctoral candidates and
their supervisors can deepen their philosophical, and meaning-making constructs.
The following sections of the book provide reflections on research methods and research paradigms
in a variety of education research projects or specialist areas. The Sections relate to the paradigm typol-
ogy employed in the book.
Section 2 provides instances of research based on an understanding of patterns and consistencies in
areas of educational practice. Devlin, in Chapter 5, reviews a case study, informed by the neo-positivist
research paradigm, involving an approach to improving teaching in higher education. Pollock and Hause-
man, in Chapter 6, reflect on conclusions that may be reached and issues arising in the use of observation
in an investigation of the work of school principals. In Chapter 7 Leder critiques research methods and
instruments employed in an investigation of school mathematics performance and affect. In Chapter 8
Smith reflects on the use of Structural Equation Modelling for the exploration of the impact of aspects
of curriculum design on student learning and satisfaction.
Reflections on instances of interpretivist research are reported in Section 3. Kelly, in Chapter 9,
reviews her work on teachers’ ontological and epistemological beliefs and the impact of those beliefs
on approaches to teaching. In Chapter 10 King provides a characterization of students’ approaches to
learning mathematics in the context of an engineering mathematics course. He reflects on possible
implications of the study for the teaching of engineering mathematics. Vicars, in Chapter 11, provides
a research analysis that can be seen as relating to the transformative research paradigm. He reviews
“queerly” located enquiry and declares it “a code of our own.” The chapter draws on queerly operation-
alized research projects that involved investigation of same-sex sexualities, sexuality-related diversity,
equality and inclusion in educational domains.
Research commissioned to address practical issues, in a political context, is addressed in Section 4.
Livingston, in Chapter 12, reflects on understandings of the researcher and of commissioning bodies
where education research projects are commissioned by government agencies, and on the consequences
for selection of a research paradigm. In Chapter 13 Peter Ling reports on a commissioned transnational
education research project focused on arrangements for leadership and concludes that the pragmatic
paradigm applied.
Section 5 is entitled “Shifting Sands,” reviewing instances of what Lang, in Chapter 14 refers to as
“paradigm surfing.” Lang reflects on her journey through several paradigms in conducting education
research in the computing discipline. Mackenzie, in Chapter 15, focuses on a research journey and the
conscious and subconscious application of paradigms to research design in researching the learning
and teaching of writing. Giridharan, in Chapter 16, reviews a study she undertook investigating lexical
inferencing strategies employed by second language learners. She notes a paradigm shift as the study
progressed through stages. In Chapter 17 Calway, while arguing for adoption of the neo-positivist research
paradigm, looks at a range of issues and paradigm possibilities in investigating work-integrated learning.
Section 6 relates to the possibilities of a “supercomplexity” research paradigm. Barnett, in Chapter
18, revisits and extends his work on the university in an age of supercomplexity and its implications
for research in education. He refers to planes, possibilities and poetry in researching supercomplexity.
Authors of the two following chapters, upon reflection, place the work they refer to in the supercomplex-
ity paradigm. Selkrig and Keamy, in Chapter 19, refer to becoming comfortable with supercomplexity.
They describe themselves as rhizome researchers with many conceptual tools and practices available to
open new types of inquiry. Rose, in Chapter 20, identifies five categories of contribution by the “Black
Academy” in Australian higher education today and styles the result “a supercomplex renaissance.”
xxii
Preface
USING THE BOOK
Readers are encouraged to start with Chapter 1, which introduces the research paradigm framework
used in the book and its implications for the design and critique of education research, and then to
engage with the more detailed definition of research paradigms provided in Chapter 2. From there you
may wish to peruse chapters where the particular research paradigm or the subject of the research is of
interest to you. Chapters portray practical experience in working through research method and research
paradigm issues. It needs to be acknowledged that applying research paradigms is not all plain sailing
in the practical situation. Nevertheless, the hope here is that reflection on matters addressed in the fol-
lowing chapters will assist in providing a sound platform both for critique of education research and for
ensuring coherence in research design.
Lorraine Ling
Peter Ling
xxiii
Section 1
Paradigms in Education
Research
1
Chapter 1
Introduction:
Employing Paradigms in
Education Research
Peter Ling
Lorraine Ling
ABSTRACT
The title of this book refers to both methods and paradigms in education research. Both are addressed,
but this book is distinguished from others in that the research paradigm, rather than choice of research
method, is placed front of stage. The related field of study is education. The study of education inter-
twines with a range of disciplines in the social sciences so the research issues arising have implications
beyond the education context. The research paradigms addressed in this book include the traditional
positivist and post-positivist—here labelled neo-positivist—paradigms. The interpretivist, transformative
and pragmatic research paradigms, which have also been nominated in existing literature, are included.
A novel supercomplexity paradigm has been added here in acknowledgement of the “supercomplex”
environment (Barnett, 2000a) in which education research now operates. Following chapters explore
issues relating to the design, implementation and critique of education research in the light of this un-
derstanding of research paradigms.
THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
The book is designed for researchers in educational institutions, for students undertaking post-graduate
research and their supervisors, and for academics and students taking courses of study on what is often
referred to as “research methods.” The book can be used by academics teaching education research
methods to advance understanding of the centrality and power of the research paradigm. It can be used
to describe, locate and compare alternative approaches to education research. It can assist students in
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch001
Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Introduction
identifying their own research interests and motivations and locating them within a paradigm. It can as-
sist students and education researchers in the design of research proposals and interpretation of findings.
In approaching research design, implementation and findings, a central consideration is the basis for
choices about the research topic, data collection strategies and data analysis techniques, and decisions
about the nature and form of the findings and the conclusions that can be drawn. The purpose of this book
is to foreground and reflect upon the power of the research paradigm to provide a firm and consistent
basis for the design and implementation of research. In this book, this purpose is achieved through a
variety of researchers reflecting upon their own research in education, and illustrating how the paradigm
has either intentionally, or in some cases, unintentionally, influenced aspects of their research, including
the methodologies selected and the data collection methods used, the data analysis and interpretation
processes, and the types of conclusions reached.
Research methods refers here to the mode of procedure used in a research undertaking including
selection of data, the forms of data gathered and the analytical procedures employed. Method is distin-
guished from methodology in this book, as methodology is regarded as the approach and the rationale
for the research approach adopted; for example whether the research utilizes qualitative, quantitative or
a mixture of both forms of data. The method then refers to the tools for gathering data, analyzing data
and the means by which findings are generated such as surveys, focus groups, observation, or document
analysis.
Paradigm as a term is used here to refer to a world view or to a high-order way of thinking about or
categorizing the approach or logic that underpins all aspects of a research undertaking from the intent
or motivation for the research to the final design, conduct and outcomes of the research. In both research
practice and research literature research paradigms are often not a focal point. Many researchers do not
consider the research paradigm in which they operate or indeed mention it in their research, considering
it sufficient to describe the methodology and/or research methods employed. This book is focused on the
criticality of selecting an appropriate research paradigm that can inform decisions regarding the design
of a research study—including how either or both qualitative and quantitative methodologies will be
used—and ensure consistency in the implementation of the research and in the nature of the research
outcomes. In this book a model and framework for understanding the different research paradigms is
provided, distinguishing underpinning theories from research strategies, data collection techniques and
data analysis tools. Designating the paradigm provides a base for understanding the nature of findings
appropriate to a particular form of research and for critiquing research conclusions. The categorization
of paradigms employed here is presented in Table 1.
This book is focused on the discipline of education and the forms of research that occur within it. In
particular, the paradigms within which the research occurs and the types of methodologies and methods
that are employed are addressed. We use the term “education research” rather than the more often used
“educational research” because the book relates to research in the field of education, where educational
research could be taken to mean research that is in itself educational. Education research focuses on
research in schools, higher education and vocational education, as well as on the history, philosophy,
policy and various discipline areas which contribute to the education field. Education research then
may be based on a number of academic disciplines, may be interdisciplinary, or may be adisciplinary.
In this book, the research paradigm takes prime position. That is not to say that a research endeavor
needs to start with a paradigm; the particular research exercise is likely to be initiated by a research
interest or research question. What is contended here is that, whatever initiates a research interest, being
2

Introduction
Table 1. A categorization of paradigms for research in education
Paradigm Ontology Axiology Epistemology Outcome

Drivers and Theory
Positivist A consistent or ordered Objective pursuit of Knowable objective Knowledge derived
reality. knowledge and truth truth. from affirmation,
based on theory. contradiction or
modification of
contemporary
understanding.
Neo- Deductive Reality may be patterned, Testing of an Knowledge of what A tested or constructed
positivist local and subject to understanding, is not the case. understanding of reality
change over time. dispassionate but Presumptive knowledge that is evidenced,
influenced by the of what is. trustworthy and
researcher. authentic though
contextual, provisional
Inductive Construction or An understanding that
and revisable.
reconstruction of an is constructed and
understanding. provisional.
Pragmatic Reality is not the issue. Determined by practical Veracity of an Evidenced praxis—
The issue is finding what need relevant to the understanding is through the use of
works. researcher. determined by its knowledge.
practical value. A constructed
evidenced, defended
practical solution.
Interpretivist The only understanding Pursuit of an Understandings of A defended, evidenced,
available is based understanding in which elements of the world socially constructed,
on observation and the value position of the are subjective and personal interpretation
interpretation. researcher is inherent. socially constructed. of the subject
researched.
Transformative There are multiple A concern with human Knowledge has a An evidenced
realities. rights and social justice. social and political socially constructed
Some versions are context. Participants’ understanding with
privileged. understandings are potential to support
integral to research empowered action.
undertaking.
Supercomplexity1 Reality is complex and Embracing fragility, Understandings A provisional, defended
dynamic. Frames of insecurity, and are constructed, imagining and complex
reference are shifting. strangeness. multiple, shifting and interpretation of the
Problematizing existing contested. The future is subject researched.
understandings and unknowable.
generating diversity.
clear about the paradigm in which the research is conducted is critical in ensuring all elements of the
research exercise are congruent.
Placing research paradigms front of stage distinguishes this book from those that emphasize research
methods. It runs counter to the tendency in descriptions of education research to focus on whether the
research method is qualitative or quantitative or a mix, rather than on the overarching paradigm within
which the research studies are conducted (For example: Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011; Cresswell,
2014; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006a; Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). In this book, research methods are treated
as one of a number of elements that are influenced by and constitute a research paradigm. Research
methods are not the defining element because there need not be the tight correlation between research
paradigms and research methods that is sometimes supposed; a research exercise undertaken in the posi-
3

Introduction
tivist paradigm need not use quantitative data analysis exclusively; a research exercise undertaken in the
interpretivist paradigm need not use qualitative data and analysis exclusively. In this book pre-eminence
is given to the research paradigm as this addresses a wider range of considerations in the design and
the critiquing of research than can occur through a simple focus on the methods of data collection and
analysis employed. Being conscious of, and overt about, the paradigm adopted helps to ensure that the
research methods employed and the interpretation of the research findings are congruent with the nature
of the study and with the assumptions underpinning the research approach. See Chapter 2 for more on
the relationship between research methods and research paradigms.
In this introduction an outline of the research paradigms employed in the book is provided. The para-
digms are portrayed in a framework distinguishing key elements of each paradigm (see Table 1). The
power of the paradigm in the design and conduct of educational research is expanded in Chapter 2. The
way the choice of research paradigm influences how the research is conducted within the various sub-
disciplines and areas of education is illustrated in subsequent chapters through case studies and examples.
PARADIGMS FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION
The Concept of Paradigms Employed
The Urban Dictionary has declared paradigm to be “the most annoying and misused word in the English
language” (Urban Dictionary, n.d.). At the risk of contributing further to annoyance and misuse, here
is the understanding of paradigm employed in this book. The usage adopted here accords with elements
of the definition of paradigm in several dictionaries (For example: The Macquarie Concise Dictionary,
2000; Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2015). Paradigm here is used to mean a set of concepts that form
a pattern or model; in particular, a set of concepts that reflect a world-view underpinning a particular
subject or pursuit—in this case the pursuit of research relating to education. Paradigm in this book does
not refer, a la Khun (Kuhn, 1970), to dominant or guiding understandings of a particular discipline or
within a particular discipline. Some research method texts also use paradigm in the sense of a dominant
understanding/a conventional wisdom within a discipline [e.g. Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and Patri-
cia Leavy (2006b, pp. xi-xii), though within that publication a chapter by David Morgan does refer to
paradigm in the sense it is employed in the current book (2006, pp. 166-167)]. Paradigm in this book
refers to a world-view or a high order categorization of the assumptions and understandings underpin-
ning a research endeavor, including the researcher’s view of reality (ontology), the intent and values of
the researcher, the drivers of the research (axiology), the nature of the knowledge or understanding that
can be gained from the research (epistemology), methods appropriate to conduct of the research (meth-
odology), and the nature of conclusions that can be reached, whether these elements be explicit or, as
is often the case, implicit. The means of paradigm classification presented here builds on the work of
several authors, particularly Guba and Lincoln (2005), Willis (2007) and Mertens (2015). This broader
conception of what constitutes a research paradigm is particularly pertinent when addressing education
research. The use of paradigm to refer to a conventional wisdom within a discipline does not work for
research in education as education research can and does draw on elements of multiple disciplines.
The categorization of research paradigms in Table 1 portrays “ideal types.” Ideal type is used here,
not to refer to perfect or even preferable, but in Max Weber’s sense of “idea-constructs that help put the
seeming chaos of social reality in order.”
4

Introduction
The ideal type is formed from characteristics and elements of the given phenomena. It is not meant to
correspond to all of the characteristics of any one particular case, . . . but rather to stress certain ele-
ments common to most cases of the given phenomena. (Wikipedia, 2015)
The framework or system of classification of paradigms employed here is not used as a tool or set
of spectacles to reveal a truth but as one understanding of categories that differing forms of education
research could be put in. It allows that there may be alternative understandings, equally defensible.
In practice the boundaries between paradigms can be somewhat permeable and an individual re-
search project may involve more than one paradigm; for instance an over-arching research question may
involve components pursued in different paradigms. If more than one paradigm is employed, however,
care is required to ensure that understandings and assumptions underpinning components of the study
are reconcilable and in line with the nature of the conclusions expected. (See Chapter 16 for an example
and Chapter 15 for some issues emerging.)
The latter point—an obligation to confine a research endeavor to a particular paradigm or have a
rationale for crossing paradigm boundaries—raises the question of how any such obligation arises,
particularly as there are numerous classifications of research paradigms available, along with a variety
of terms used to describe them [compare for instance Guba and Lincoln (2005), Teddlie and Tashak-
kori (2009) and Mertens (2015) with the classification offered in this book]. While the classification
of paradigms that apply to research in the social sciences, including education, may not be uniform,
the broad constitution of a research paradigm is not at issue. The classification of research paradigms
reflects an understanding of distinctions in the ontology, axiology and epistemology (concepts referred
to above) that can underpin research in the social sciences. Paradigms are sometimes also distinguished
by methodology. Understandings of the possible array of these elements, and hence the classification of
paradigms, may differ, but the notion that ontological, axiological and epistemological understandings
are implicit, if not explicit, in research undertakings in the social sciences is consistent. It is from this
base that an obligation for paradigm integrity arises. To adopt more than one ontological, axiological
and epistemological position in the one research exercise may indicate confusion about the constitu-
tion of the particular research exercise and raises the possibility of arriving at conclusions inconsistent
with the underpinnings of the research endeavor. As mentioned above, for many research exercises, the
research paradigm gets no mention in the research proposal or in reporting of the research. Neverthe-
less a paradigm may be retrofitted by analysis of the essentials of the research endeavor—the research
proposal, the research topic and context, the research question, the rationale for the methods employed in
data collection and data analysis, and the nature of the conclusions reached and in some cases of recom-
mendations advanced. Incidentally, where a research paradigm is nominated in a research proposal or in
reporting on research, the same analytical strategy may be employed to see how it fits with a particular
classification of research paradigms. The value of determining the research paradigm applicable to a
particular research endeavor lies then in determining or critiquing the integrity of the research exercise
or, in the case of research design, in ensuring integrity. Defining the research paradigm makes the logic
underpinning a particular research exercise visible and testable. This is the power of the paradigm, which
is further pursued in Chapter 2.
5

Introduction
The Positivist and Neo-Positivist Paradigms
The paradigms addressed in Table 1 include the positivist and neo-positivist paradigms. The term neo-
positivist is adopted in this book rather than post-positivist, which may be found in other literature, for
example Guba and Lincoln (2005), Willis (2007) and Mertens (2010). Lather (2006, p. 37) has raised
the possibility of neo-positivism contributing to education research paradigm possibilities. In the cur-
rent book the neo-positivist paradigm is taken to be extant rather than prospective. “Neo” is used here
rather than “post” because several paradigms are post-positivist in their temporal origin. One is related
to positivism but the others are underpinned by a different ontology, axiology and epistemology. The
neo-positivist paradigm shares with traditional positivism the pursuit of consistencies and patterns in
social phenomena. As Lather indicates in her conclusion, neo-positivism can be seen to be associated
with assertion of “objective truth and value neutral facts as unproblematic research ideals” (Lather,
2006, p. 52). The term “neo-positivist,” then, is used here to connote a similarity with the positivist
paradigm in the endeavor to reveal patterns and consistencies without confusing it with other research
paradigms originating later in time than—that is “post”—the positivist paradigm such as interpretivist
and transformative.
The positivist and the neo-positivist paradigms are essentially distinguished, in the categorization
employed in this book, by an understanding on the part of neo-positivists that research is a human pursuit
subject to human fallibility and the interests of the researcher and that the nature of research findings
is provisional, open to challenge and can be expected to be modified over time. In the categorization
employed in this book the positivist and the neo-positivist paradigms are not distinguished on the basis
of the methodology adopted. Positivism is not portrayed here as being confined to experimental stud-
ies; it includes other means of affirming hypotheses, including analytical methods applied to qualita-
tive data. In the categorization employed here neo-positivist research is not confined to testing null-
hypotheses, which has been advanced as the distinguishing feature of post-positivist research (Willis,
2007). The categorization employed here allows that direct hypothesis testing can be also be classed
as neo-positivist if the pursuit is acknowledged, not only as having boundaries, but as a fallible human
endeavor producing an evidenced but temporary understanding (see also Chapter 2). The neo-positivist
research paradigm, as well as putting existing understandings to the test—classed here as operating in
the deductive mode—embraces research aimed at filling gaps in existing knowledge—classed here as
operating in the inductive mode (see Chapter 2). Note that education research conducted in the neo-
positivist paradigm in the inductive mode may have a conceptual base informed by existing theory but,
where the neo-positivist paradigm in the deductive mode puts such understanding to the test, in the
inductive mode the task is to contribute something new to this understanding or to contribute something
new employing this understanding.
This raises the issue of methods that involve probability, whether using qualitative or quantitative
data or a mixture. If the findings are qualified by acknowledgement of probability the study falls in
the neo-positivist paradigm. If there is no explicit acknowledgement then, using the categories in this
book, despite the fact that the findings arrived at are only probable within a defined range, the paradigm
employed would be classed as positivist. Positivist describes the apparent understandings underpinning
this form of research endeavor; the epistemology and understandings of the nature of the outcomes that
may be derived from the exercise.
One could ask, in the current era, which has been described since the middle of last century as
post-modern (Drucker, 1959) and by implication post-positivist, whether the positivist paradigm is still
6

Introduction
pertinent. Indeed Karl Popper challenged the positivist approach in 1935 (Popper, 1959). It may be sup-
posed that any researcher, particularly any researcher in the social sciences, in the current era proceeds
from an understanding that research findings are qualified, provisional and will be modified over time.
In fact leading authors who list positivism among available paradigms for research in the social sciences
do so with reservation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, pp. 193-194; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009, p. 88) while
Mertens omits positivist from the paradigms she lists (Mertens, 2015, pp. 32-36, 151-152).
The positivist paradigm is included in the categorization used in this book for two reasons. First and
foremost, as stated in introducing the paradigm framework, the categorization portrays ideal types, that
is categories that portray the essential characteristics and elements of the given phenomena. Defining
positivist in the model helps in identifying the distinguishing features of the other paradigms classified,
even if the positivist paradigm were not now employed. But secondly, the positivist paradigm appears
from some contemporary literature in the social sciences, including reports of research in education, to
still have a breath of life. It is possible to find articles that suggests the research endeavor is essentially
undertaken in the positivist rather than the neo-positivist paradigm (see Chapter 3, which reviews journal
articles relating to scholarship of learning and teaching). It may be that, if pressed, the authors of the
research reports would acknowledge limitations on the certainty of the findings but this is not explicit
in the writing. Prima facie the positivist paradigm applies and this may indeed represent the author’s
view of the nature of what can be concluded from the research exercise. As part of the purpose of this
book is to assist students and others in critiquing research it is seen as appropriate to cover the range of
possible paradigms they may encounter.
The Interpretivist and Transformative Paradigms
The paradigms addressed in the model provided here also include interpretivist and transformative
paradigms. These paradigms, or variations of them, are referred to in existing literature, for example in
Guba and Lincoln (2005), Willis (2007), Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) and Mertens (2015).
Where research conducted in the positivist paradigm is designed to uncover the way an element of
the world is, and research conducted in the neo-positivist paradigm is, designed to provide a provisional,
contemporary understanding of patterns and entities, an interpretivist research exercise is not aimed at
uncovering the state of the world—or the bit of it researched—but at providing an evidenced, coher-
ent, subjective understanding of the matter. Interpretivist research is based on an acknowledgement of
the involvement of the researcher in data gathering and analysis, and the notion that in social research,
understandings are socially constructed. In the interpretivist paradigm the research is subject to values
and the interpretation of the particular researcher in interaction with those of the research participants.
There is a distinction between research undertaken in the positivist and neo-positivist paradigms and
research undertaken in the interpretivist paradigm in both the nature of the research exercise and in the
form of conclusions that emerge. In regard to the nature of the exercise, whether the research is under-
taken in the deductive or inductive mode, objectivity is seen as desirable in relation to the neo-positivist
paradigm as it is in the positivist paradigm. A research exercise undertaken in the interpretivist paradigm
on the other hand is subjective in the sense that the understandings/interpretation emerging cannot be
divorced from the researcher/interpreter.
With regard to outcomes appropriate to the paradigm, for research conducted in the positivist and
neo-positivist paradigms the outcomes may be tested through further research and confirmed, refuted
or require modification or qualification. In the positivist and neo-positivist paradigms, if the findings of
7

Introduction
further research differ from the findings of the initial research, some modification to the understandings
emerging from the original research is required. The outcome of research conducted in the interpretivist
paradigm is an interpretation constructed in a social context. Different interpretations of an investiga-
tion of a subject may co-exist, and each be defensible. What distinguishes research in the interpretivist
paradigm from an opinion piece is not a detached objectivity but it is adopting the form of a systematic,
evidenced investigation supported by a coherent argument. (Chapter 10 includes a discussion of the use
of “confirmability” strategies to support findings derived from research in the interpretivist paradigm.)
Transformative research—as proposed by Mertens (2015, p. 33)—has been classed here as a distinct
paradigm in that it “provides a philosophical framework that explicitly addresses issues of power and
justice” (Mertens, 2015, p. 49). The axiology on which it is based is driven by a social justice agenda.
In the case of other paradigms the researcher may also be passionate about the investigation, but is os-
tensibly detached. Ontologically and epistemologically a transformative research endeavor will usually
have underpinnings similar to that of research in the interpretivist paradigm. It is distinguished by an
intent, in conjunction with the subjects of the research, to uncover conditions of power or influence that
serve to sustain or entrench disadvantage or oppression. It is designed to provide a basis for change; to
empower marginalized others and inform transformative action.
The Pragmatic Paradigm
The pragmatic research paradigm pertains to a situation where the research undertaking is driven and
shaped by a search for outcomes of value to the researcher or to the commissioner of a research exer-
cise. Whether pragmatic is a research paradigm, or as Green contends an “a-paradigmatic position,” is
contentious (Greene, 2007). It may draw on approaches that have differing ontological implications. In
this sense it could be described as something of a peri-paradigm—that is, something near, or adjacent
to a research paradigm, rather than constituting a research paradigm in itself. In this book pragmatic
has been included in the categorization of research paradigms employed, as pragmatic research can be
said to be shaped by its own axiology and drivers, though not by a particular ontology or epistemol-
ogy. In one sense pragmatic research could be said to align with an ontological position; not a specific
understanding of the nature of the element of world research, but a position on the nature or inherent
function of research. It is premised on the function of thought (and hence of investigation and research)
as being to facilitate prediction, problem solving and effective action. Pragmatic research can draw on
a variety of research methods and tools to suit the practical purpose. This is not to say that pragmatism
is distinguished by its ability to accommodate qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods, for, in the
understanding of paradigms employed here, mixed methods could be used in any paradigm, including
in a positivist testing or affirmation of a hypothesis (see Chapter 2). What is distinct is the ontological
flexibility of pragmatism. A particular pragmatic research exercise may utilize research approaches whose
ontological underpinnings appear to differ, with some elements based in the assumption of discover-
able consistencies and others elements based in the assumption that understandings emerging from the
research are specific interpretations constructed in a social context.
The Supercomplexity Paradigm
The supercomplexity paradigm, along with the other paradigms, is addressed in more detail in Chapter
2 but, as it is an addition to traditional paradigms, the concept is given some initial elaboration at this
8

Introduction
point. The supercomplexity paradigm is introduced here to take account of the more than complex, or
as Ronald Barnett terms it “supercomplex,” environment in which education research now operates
(Barnett, 2000). Underpinning this paradigm, and drawing heavily on the work of Ronald Barnett (2000
and Chapter 18), is an acknowledgement that reality is supercomplex and dynamic and our traditional
frames of reference are shifting and conflicted. Undertaking research in this paradigm involves embrac-
ing fragility, insecurity, the unknown and strangeness. It involves problematizing and disturbing exist-
ing understandings. Unlike researchers working in traditional paradigms, a researcher working in the
supercomplexity paradigm would be most likely to work toward divergence rather than convergence in
understandings. Understandings are constructed in the moment. Interpretations are multiple, shifting
and contested. The outcome is a provisional, defended imagining and interpretation of the subject. The
methods adopted are those that allow the researcher to explore, imagine and pursue ideas and issues and
to uncover or create more unknowns.
Where Constructivist Fits In
What is missing from the paradigm classification presented here is “constructivist.” As an aside, im-
portant to researchers working in the area of education, constructivist here differs from the use of the
term “constructivist” in the area of learning theory where it means that learners build upon their current
understanding and knowledge to construct new meaning or elaborated meaning. In this regard the use
of the term “constructivist” as applied to learning theory is a positivist notion, in that it represents a
truth about the way learners learn. As the interpretivist paradigm involves a realization that understand-
ings are constructed in a social context and are multiple, interpretivist is often linked with the term
“constructivist” (interpretive/constructivist) in classification of research paradigms. Constructivist is
sometimes nominated as a paradigm in itself (Mertens, 2015, p. 32). Holstein and Gubrium (2005) refer
to the “constructivist approach”:
A constructivist approach emphasizes the studied phenomenon rather than the methods of studying it.
Constructivist grounded theorists take a reflexive stance on modes of knowing and representing studied
life. That means giving close attention to empirical realities and our collected renderings of them and
locating oneself in those realities. (p. 509)
While Holstein and Gubrium’s reference to an emphasis on studied phenomenon and taking a reflex-
ive stance on modes of knowing and representing studied life sits well with the interpretivist paradigm
as portrayed in this book, the notion of empirical realities sits better with the ontology underpinning
the neo-positivist paradigm, in which—in our classification—understandings of the world may also be
constructed. Further, construction of an understanding is also an inherent element in the transforma-
tive paradigm both because the context of the researched is seen as socially constructed and because
the subjects researched are central to and contribute to the research activity. In the current book, then,
constructivist is not treated as a separate paradigm because construction of an understanding is a part of
the process and is reflected in the outcomes of several paradigms—the neo-positivist paradigm in the
inductive mode, the interpretivist paradigm, the transformative paradigm, the supercomplexity para-
digm—in which unknowns are identified and awkwardness constructed—and, arguably, the pragmatic
paradigm. This could be taken to indicate that this range of paradigms could be conflated into a single
constructivist paradigm. That course is not adopted in the classification used here because there are
9

Introduction
significant ontological, axiological and epistemological distinctions between the paradigms listed as
having an association with construction of an understanding. These distinctions impact on the nature
of the outcomes and conclusions that are consonant with the paradigm in which the research exercise
is conducted.
Research Methods and Paradigms
Examples of broad research approaches and research methods that might sit with particular paradigms
are provided in Chapter 2, Table 1. As stated above there is no one-to-one relationship between research
methods and research paradigms in the model employed here. Various, and indeed, multiple methods
might be employed in any paradigm. Further, the methods to be employed need not necessarily be
pre-determined. The research methods adopted may need to change as the research project evolves and
research tools may need to be created to assist the investigation. This is accommodated in bricolage
research methodology, which allows dynamic multi-theory and multi-methodological approaches to
research (Rogers, 2012.). Bricolage is particularly pertinent to the interpretivist and transformative para-
digms that are underpinned by a socially constructed epistemology and an ontology that acknowledges
the researcher in the researched; that acknowledges research, as it relates to social phenomena such as
education, is an interactive process between the researcher and the subject or subjects researched. While
the bricolage approach is informed by and makes reference to an understanding of the complexity of the
lived world (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004), it has not to date been framed in the context of supercomplexity;
nevertheless it is an approach that could sit well with a research pursuit in the supercomplexity paradigm.
(More on this in Chapter 2 and Chapter 19).
Paradigms, Objectivity and Certainty
The categorization of research paradigms in Table 1 is arranged according to a continuum, indeed con-
tinua, of concepts. This is elaborated in the model in Figure 1, where each paradigm sits on continua:
from knowledge to multiple understandings; from providing certainty to creating uncertainty; from
objective to subjective; and from detached to socially concerned. Detached here refers to not having, or
setting aside, a socio-political agenda during the research process. Socially concerned refers to having
an interest in the socio-political context and consequences of the research.
CRITIQUE OF EDUCATION RESEARCH
A capacity to critique research is an essential element for research supervisors and for examiners of post-
graduate research theses. It can also be helpful to research students. An exercise often employed in units
of study on research methods involves critiquing research reports or other writing on research endeavors.
An understanding of research paradigms can contribute to critique of education research. (See Chapter
3 for an example of classifying research paradigms underpinning published works.)
When it comes to reviewing or critiquing research, the paradigm employed in a research endeavor
may be made explicit in the research brief or research report. If it is not, there are strategies suggested
below that can be employed to identify the paradigm that applies. Even if the paradigm is stated there are
still two issues. There are differing classifications of paradigms available and the research endeavor may
10

Introduction
Figure 1. Education research paradigms model
not fit the classification claimed. In addition, some elements of the reporting of a research undertaking
may fit the paradigm claimed whilst other elements may diverge from it.
Applying a paradigm to a particular research endeavor is a matter of classification so in the first in-
stance the classification system that is to be employed needs to be identified. Table 1, along with Figure
1, represents the broad model presented in this book. There are alternative categorizations of research
paradigms and, while they have things in common, they are not identical so the particular model or
framework to be employed needs to be specified.
Detecting the paradigm employed in the conduct and reporting of a research endeavor is a matter of
determining the assumptions underlying the research, including the ontology, axiology, and epistemol-
ogy that underpins the research endeavor (see Table 1).
The abstract of a report or article may indicate the paradigm into which the research exercise falls.
Otherwise focusing on the beginning and the end of a research report or paper can be a good place to
start in detecting the paradigm employed because the introduction and conclusion can reveal the implicit
ontology, axiology and epistemology.
In the introduction the research task and possibly the research questions may be specified. If the
introduction and/or the research question indicates that the research exercise is designed to contribute
to an understanding of consistencies or patterns in the topic researched it indicates, using the frame-
work presented in this book, a paradigm toward the positivist end of the continuum; that is the research
exercise falls in the positivist or neo-positivist paradigms. In the case of research designed to fill a gap
in existing understandings, the inductive mode of the neo-positive paradigm applies. If it is about test-
ing a hypothesis it may fall in the positivist or neo-positivist paradigm (see Chapter 2 discussion on the
distinction between hypothesis testing in the neo-positivist paradigm against the positivist paradigm). If
11

Introduction
it is about testing a null hypothesis or about adding a provisional understanding that could later be tested
the research undertaking falls in the neo-positivist paradigm. If the introductory remarks indicate that
the research exercise was commissioned to meet a practical need of a sponsor or undertaken to meet a
practical need of the researcher, then the research exercise may be classified as pragmatic. If the nature
of the research exercise is to report a subjective, evidenced understanding and interpretation of a topic of
research, the research falls in the interpretivist category. If the introduction indicates the purpose of the
research undertaking is to provide an understanding of a topic with a view to informing approaches to
and action on a social justice issue, the research may be classed as falling in the transformative paradigm.
The discussion of findings and the conclusion of a research report may also indicate an understand-
ing of the nature of the exercise. If the conclusions are said to confirm or challenge a hypothesis the
research exercise falls in the positivist or neo-positivist paradigm in the deductive mode. If it provides
a new, potentially generalizable, understanding it could also fall in the neo-positivist paradigm in the
inductive mode. Conclusions in this case sometime include a call for further research to test the findings
or improve the potential for generalization. Research in the pragmatic paradigm will usually have conclu-
sions satisfying a practical need for information. It may also provide associated recommendations. If the
conclusion is an account or interpretation of the researcher’s experience and understanding of a subject
of investigation the research may fall in the interpretivist paradigm. Here a call for further investigation
may indicate it would be valuable to have other people’s accounts of the experience or the subject. If the
conclusion leads to recommendations for action on or changes to attitude to a social issue that empowers
participants in the research, it may indicate the research falls in the transformative paradigm.
Other elements of the research project or the account of it may give clues to the applicable research
paradigm, particularly the methodology, if it is explicitly discussed, and the rationale for selection of
research methods is explained. As mentioned above, the nature of the data themselves cannot be taken
to indicate the paradigm. Quantitative or qualitative data or a mix of the two could be used in any para-
digm. The form of data analysis employed, however, can sometimes indicate the paradigm that applies.
If the data analysis method employed is used to identify cause or correlation it suggests the paradigm
is broadly positivist; that is positivist or neo-positivist. Note that inclusion of quantitative data does not
necessarily put the research exercise in the positivist or neo-positivist range. If the quantitative data
are descriptive statistics, for instance demographic statistics, or in the form of statements such as “the
majority of participants …,” then the paradigm employed need not fall in the broadly positivist range.
Some research reporting includes recommendations, not just recommendations relating to further
research, but recommendations for action in relation to the topic researched. The presence of recom-
mendations does not in itself indicate the paradigm that applies to the research. Recommendations for
action are to be expected for research undertakings conducted as a pragmatic exercise. The point of
pragmatic research is to provide a practical solution to a problem. It is not essential that this be in the
form of recommendations for action but providing recommendations is congruent with the purpose of
the research undertaking. Positivist and neo-positivist research exercises can be extended to recom-
mendations for action as a corollary because the research proceeds from the ontological base that there
are consistencies in the behavior of the subject researched and the research has made a contribution to
understanding the nature of these consistencies. This understanding may have implications for action that
could, supported by argument, be spelt out as recommendations. For transformative research the point
of the research exercise is to provide an understanding that can contribute to changing some element
of the social world that causes disadvantage or oppression so recommendations are appropriate. For an
interpretive research exercise, which does not start out with a specific position, recommendations might
12

Introduction
be included. In this case, as the research exercise provides the researcher’s (evidenced) interpretation of
the subject explored, any recommendations are prima facie applicable to people sharing that interpreta-
tion. They may happen to be found useful by others but that goes beyond the argued position. So the
conclusions to research in any paradigm, for differing reasons and with differing force, may be extended
to provision of recommendations.
In identifying the applicable research paradigm one issue is consistency. If the research driver and
research questions fall in one paradigm and the analysis, findings or conclusion fall in another there is
a potential problem. The integrity of the research endeavor may be open to question; it may indicate
inconsistency in the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of elements of the research exer-
cise. If the conclusions go beyond the remit of the exercise as defined by the research question and the
capacity of the research methodology employed there is also a potential problem. This is the value of
the paradigm identification exercise. It has the potential to identify such problems.
The grid in Table 2 below is based on the model of paradigms represented in Figure 1 and is designed
to assist in determining the paradigm that best applies to a particular research pursuit. In Table 2 the
row checked reflects the ontology, axiology and epistemology associated with the paradigm. By way
of explanation, the term “impartial” is intended to convey a notion of being unaffected by self-interest;
uncommitted; open to whatever outcome emerges from the research. The term “partisan” is intended
to convey: affected by self-interest; committed to or predisposed to a particular cause; undertaking the
research with the intent of providing support for a particular point of view.
Table 2. Distinguishing features of research paradigms
Feature Positivist Neo- Neo- Pragmatic Interpretative Transformative Super-

positivist positivist complexity
Deductive Inductive
Approach Detached     
Invested  
Process Objective    
Subjective    
Contribution to Confirm/prove 
understanding or disprove an
understanding
Give (qualified) 
support to
or refute an
understanding
Provisionally 
add (to) an
understanding
Provide a  
perspective/
account
Provide a solution 
Problematize 
or complexify
understanding
13

Introduction
Table 2 is provided as a tool to assist in making a judgment about the research paradigm that applies
in a particular case. In the event it is a matter of making a judgment based on the information available.
The categorization may not be clear-cut. Even in cases where the paradigm that applies is specified
in the text the classification may need to be reviewed. There are varying understandings of research
paradigms available. In addition, varying elements of the research endeavor may be based on differ-
ent ontological, axiological and epistemological positions; that is, sit in different paradigms, (which is
potentially problematic).
An explanation of the rationale for the rows checked follows in the next two paragraphs. Both para-
graphs allude to underlying ontology of the paradigms but the first focuses on axiological issues and the
second on epistemological issues.
Turning first to the axiology and drivers of the research endeavor, the condition of detached/invested
has been separated here from the condition of objective/subjective because it is possible for research to
be seen as an exercise necessarily subject to the interpretation of the particular researcher in interaction
with the subject of research, that is subjective, yet to be undertaken as a disinterested, detached academic
exercise. Here is how this plays out. For the positivist paradigm the detached row is checked as it involves
testing of an understanding—usually through hypothesis testing—and being open to whatever finding
emerges. For the neo-positivist paradigm also, the detached row is checked as the researcher is detached
from the social implications of the research, whether working in the deductive form of the paradigm to
test an understanding or in the inductive form to add to available understandings. For both the positivist
and neo-positivist paradigms objective is checked under the objective/subjective row as the researcher
is seen as capable of being detached from the object of research. For pragmatic research exercises the
pursuit is invested in the sense that there is a given agenda, and while there is no prior commitment to a
particular outcome, there is a commitment to an outcome that provides a practical solution to a problem.
The researcher may employ methods associated with objectivity or with subjectivity or the exercise
may involve both objective and subjective elements. For the interpretivist paradigm the detached row is
checked, as for the positivist and neo-positivist paradigms, because the research exercise is undertaken in
an exploratory manner, being open to whatever finding emerges. In the case of the interpretivist paradigm
the subjective row is checked because, from an ontological point of view, whether or not consistencies
and patterns exist, understandings of the social world are viewed as socially constructed and only avail-
able through the observations of the researcher; findings are a subjective interpretation of the matter
investigated. For the transformative paradigm both the invested and subjective rows are checked because
the research is undertaken with the intent of providing understandings that illuminate social inequities
and provide support for empowered action to address disadvantage. Transformative research is subjec-
tive in that understandings that emerge are those of the particular researcher developed in conjunction
with the subjects of the research. In locating the supercomplexity paradigm on this grid it is a matter of
what might be, rather than what has happened to date. While any research is undertaken with a view to
contributing to current understandings, the research could be undertaken as an open-minded academic
exercise and in that sense detached. Given that the possible outcomes are multiple and a selection must
be made by the researcher, it is best classified as a subjective pursuit.
What is not addressed in Table 2 is the question of certainty versus uncertainty in the determination of
the paradigm employed in a particular research undertaking. In a sense whilst certainty and uncertainty
have different weight in different paradigms, they are both present in every case except in positivism.
In positivism, the researcher is certain that there is a truth. In neo-positivism the researcher using a null
hypothesis can determine what is not the case but cannot be certain about what is the case. Whether in the
14

Introduction
deductive or inductive mode researchers in the post-positivist paradigm acknowledge that understandings
are provisional, subject to challenge, and qualified. In interpretive research the researchers are certain
that understandings of reality are socially constructed and that there are multiple understandings to be
explored. They are uncertain what they will find out and thus cannot be certain of the kinds of outcomes
they will achieve. In transformative research researchers are certain there is inequity and oppression
or a situation to be changed for the better. They are uncertain about aspects of the inequity and about
a course of action to address it hence they undertake the research. They are certain, however, that the
outcome they desire is to empower those who are the subjects of the research—sometimes portrayed as
co-researchers in the endeavor—and to determine action to do this. Pragmatic researchers are certain
they need to find an outcome that is useful in the context of the research but are uncertain about the
way to achieve that and are open to any approaches or methods that allow them to reach the end result
in the given context. A researcher using the supercomplexity paradigm is certain there is uncertainty,
an unknowable future, shifting frames of reference and a world where traditional understandings are
contested. They are certain that their research will lead to further uncertainties and supercomplexities
that further render as problematic traditional understandings, ways of being and ways of undertaking a
research activity itself. Hence the relationship between certainty and uncertainty is movable in all but
the positivist paradigm.
With regard to the epistemology, the contributions to existing knowledge or understandings vary by
paradigm. The term “knowledge” fits the positivist paradigm that tests conventional wisdom, support-
ing or refuting hypotheses. For the other paradigms the term “understanding” may better describe the
epistemology than the term “knowledge” as the outcomes are less definitive. Neo-positivist research
conducted in the deductive mode can refute an understanding or provide support for an understanding.
It can demonstrate that something is not so but it never can prove anything; there are always multiple
possibilities available. Researchers operating in the inductive mode of the neo-positivist paradigm
work to fill a gap in current understanding. As an initial foray into the unknown, the understandings
emerging from research employing an inductive approach are usually seen as provisional, with further
research required. The understanding emerging from induction might provide the basis for a hypothesis
that could be tested. The contribution of an interpretivist study is to provide the researcher’s evidenced
understanding and interpretation of the subject. It provides a perspective rather than definitive knowl-
edge. The contribution of a transformative study is similar but the understanding emerging is intended
to empower the disadvantaged and lead to transformative action. A pragmatic study is designed to
contribute an understanding that meets a practical need. Where the other paradigms, with the exception
of the interpretive paradigm, are convergent in intent, in the sense that they contribute to or lead to a
particular understanding, the super-complexity paradigm is divergent. The role of the researcher in the
supercomplexity paradigm is to problematize and disturb existing understandings and/or to complexify;
to raise multiple novel and imaginative possibilities.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH DESIGN
In designing research, what is recommended here is reflection on the nature of the exercise to be un-
dertaken. This could take into account the paradigm usually employed by researchers working in the
particular area of research. If that is not applicable or apparent, or if there appears to be cause to break
with tradition, then a choice needs to be made based on an understanding of the research exercise and
15

Introduction
of its potential to contribute to knowledge or understanding. The skills and competencies as well as the
philosophical bent of the researcher are also considerations.
It may be appropriate to start at the end; that is with the nature of the conclusion in mind. If the object
is to test current understandings with a view to confirming or refuting them, the exercise is at the positivist
end of the continuum. If the point of the exercise is to fill a gap in knowledge with a proposition open to
testing, the research exercise could take an inductive form and fit in the neo-positivist paradigm in the
inductive mode. If the point is just to come up with a workable solution to a problem, the research exer-
cise can be seen as falling in the pragmatic paradigm. If the exercise is designed to provide a perspective
on, or an interpretation of, a subject or context it could fall within the interpretivist paradigm and if the
conclusions are designed to empower particular groups or individuals and bring about action to change a
state of affairs, it would fit within the transformative paradigm. The distinction then depends on whether
it is an endeavor invested in providing an evidenced understanding that can empower action to remedy
social inequity—as in the case of the transformative paradigm, or a more open-ended exercise, which
applies to the interpretivist paradigm. If the point is to problematize current understandings, imagine
and create new and “strange” ways to conceptualize events or to further complexify, then the research
exercise can be seen as falling in the supercomplexity paradigm.
The methodology and methods of data collection and of data analysis to be employed need to result
in provision of evidence to meet the research intent. There can, and arguably should, be contributions
of quantitative data and qualitative data in any paradigm.
REFERENCES
Barnett, R. (2000a). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Milton Keynes, UK: Society
for Research Into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Barnett, R. (2000b). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4),
409–422. doi:10.1023/A:1004159513741
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London:
Routledge.
Cresswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Drucker, P. F. (1959). The landmarks of tomorrow. New York: Harper & brothers.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging conflu-
ences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp.
191–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006a). Emergent methods in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412984034
16

Introduction
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006b). Introduction. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Emergent
methods in social research (pp. ix–xxxii). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412984034
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2005). Interpretivist practice and social action. In N. K. Denzin & Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ideal Type. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type
Kincheloe, J. L., & Berry, K. S. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing
the bricolage. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in educa-
tion as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.
doi:10.1080/09518390500450144
Merriam-Webster dictionary. (2015). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity
with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Morgan, D. (2006). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications
to health research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Emergent methods in social research (pp.
165–182). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412984034.n8
Paradigm. (n.d.). In Urban dictionary. Retrieved December 1, 2015, from www.urbandictionary.com/
define.php?term=Paradigm
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.
Rogers, M. (2012). Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. Qualitative Report,
17, 1–17.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Paradigm issues in mixed methods research. In C. Teddlie & A.
Tashakkori (Eds.), Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating qualitative and quantitative ap-
proaches in the social and behavioural sciences (pp. 83–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
The Macquarie concise dictionary. (2000). New South Wales, Australia: The Macquarie University Library.
Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (2009). Research methods in education: An introduction (9th ed.). Boston:
Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Willis, J. (2007). World views, paradigms, and the practice of social science research. In J. W. Willis
(Ed.), Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches (pp. 1–23). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781452230108.n1
17

Introduction
ENDNOTE
1
A concept based on the writing of Ronald Barnett on supercomplexity (Barnett, 2000).
18
19
Chapter 2
The Power of the Paradigm:
Methods and Paradigms in
Education Research
Lorraine Ling
ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the six paradigms explored in this book—positivist, neo-positivist, interpretivist, trans-
formative, pragmatic and supercomplexity—are described and the key elements of each paradigm are
discussed. These key elements are ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology, and outcomes. The
paradigm does not pre-determine the methodology or methodologies to be used. Rather how qualitative
and quantitative methodologies will be used is determined by the paradigm and thus both available meth-
odologies can and perhaps should be used in all paradigms. The research paradigm is the focal point
because awareness of the paradigm within which the research is undertaken helps to ensure consistency
between elements of the research: the aim; the research question; the appropriate forms of data and data
analysis; and the nature of the outcomes and the conclusions that may be reached.
INTRODUCTION
The Chapter
In this chapter the underlying themes and issues addressed in the book are detailed. The book is focused
on the discipline of education and the forms of research that occur within it. In particular the paradigms
within which the research occurs and the types of methodologies that are employed are addressed. In
this chapter traditional approaches to education research that are based on supposed methodological
dichotomies are confronted. Researchers are provided with a framework for the design, implementation
and interpretation of research, based on research paradigms. Myths about research—which are commonly
perpetuated through some research courses in universities and colleges, in text books about undertak-
ing research, and in scholarly articles and journals dealing with research—are challenged. Elements of
paradigms that can be employed in education research are described. The elements of paradigms that are
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch002

The Power of the Paradigm
addressed here are the ontology, axiology, epistemology, methodology, and the nature of the outcomes
that are commensurate with each paradigm.
The term research paradigm used throughout the book is taken to mean a world-view or a set of as-
sumptions and understandings about key aspects of the research: the nature of reality or truth (ontology);
the intent, ethics and values of the researcher (axiology); the understanding of the nature of knowledge
and how it may be known (epistemology); the way information is obtained (methodology); and the nature
of the research outcomes. The paradigm underpinning a particular education research project or report
may be implicit rather than explicit.
There are many labels used for the various paradigms that have been discussed in research literature
but in this book five labels that broadly align with paradigm distinctions found in other literature are
used—positivist, neo-positivist, interpretivist, transformative, and pragmatic. What we have styled neo-
positivist is usually referred to as post-positivist. There are two problems with using the prefix “post” as
post describes what something is not rather than what it is, and any of the paradigms, other than positivist,
could be described as post-positivist. There is, however, a paradigmatic approach, generally referred to
as post-positivist, that shares something of the same ontology—the same notions of order and pattern
in the world—as positivism but with a lower level of certainty. In the social sciences this paradigm may
be said to have superseded simple positivism. We therefore use the descriptor “neo.”
A sixth paradigm is advanced in this book—the paradigm of supercomplexity (Barnett, 2000). It
is introduced both to acknowledge the multiple complexities found in the contexts in which education
research is now conducted and to provide for imaginative, creative, divergent research outcomes and for
research that problematizes rather than resolves issues and situations.
The intent is to use these paradigms to discuss the philosophical assumptions and intentions that
underpin each paradigm and to indicate how key elements—ontology, axiology, epistemology, method-
ology, and the nature of the research outcomes—are reflected in each of the paradigms.
One of the key messages put forward is that it is the paradigm within which the research is under-
taken that will allow the researcher to decide on the purpose of the research, for whom it is likely to be
beneficial or valuable, how it may be conducted, from whom or what to obtain data, how the data may
be best gathered and analyzed, the rhetoric or discourse appropriate throughout the research study, and
the action verbs that will describe what it is that the researcher is actually doing, for example: exploring,
inquiring, testing, measuring, confronting, disturbing, uncovering, creating, problematizing. The claim is
made here that for coherence of research design, implementation and conclusions, the researcher needs
to address these decisions and clearly nominate and articulate the paradigm of research within which
the study is to be carried out.
Research Paradigms and Research Methods
Much has been written about the so-called paradigm wars. Bryman (2008), Jones and Kennedy (2011),
and Gage (1989) trace the perceived conflict that has occurred since the 1980s, at least between posi-
tivist advocates and interpretivist advocates, which has caused a tendency to draw battle lines between
the two paradigms. In many instances this was less a war about paradigms than a war between specific
disciplines or philosophical positions. However, the so-called paradigm wars discussions and debates
also confused methodology with paradigm such that what became unclear was whether there was a
conflict between the paradigms (epistemology, ontology, axiology) or just about methodologies (quali-
20

tative versus quantitative). In alluding to a tendency to exacerbate this confected dichotomy Jones and
Kennedy (2011) claim that
By 2009 peace had broken out, but . . . rather than being settled or resolved in favour of a clear winner,
the paradigms of research in the social sciences embedded the distinction between quantitative and
qualitative methods in a way that often implies that they are incommensurate approaches. (p. 21)
As stated in this chapter, any of the paradigms can employ either and both of the methodologies in
ways that enhance and strengthen the research and findings, and to perpetuate a divide between qualita-
tive and quantitative methodologies is to miss the point of research paradigms completely. Researchers
have at their disposal a long list of qualitative and quantitative research methodological approaches and
methods to employ within their research regardless of the paradigm that is chosen. This is one of the
key messages in this book. There is a commonly held view promulgated through research literature and
courses, that specific methodologies are reserved for specific paradigms and that they can only be mixed
in some paradigms and not others. Whilst in positivist studies the predominant methodology employed
will be quantitative, this does not preclude the use of qualitative approaches to enhance and strengthen
the results obtained by quantitative means or even independently to pursue the same positivist axiology.
Likewise, in the interpretivist paradigm it would be common to use predominantly qualitative method-
ological approaches, but the addition of a quantitative dimension could significantly add to and strengthen
the findings and conclusions made. Indeed, in education research for many years, researchers have fixated
on purely qualitative methodological approaches with a preponderance of case studies, narratives and
other discursive methods. Whilst this yields rich data and allows for an in-depth exploration of the focus
of the research, some audiences, such as policy makers and governments, are unlikely to read entire case
studies as a basis for action. In these instances some statistics and quantitative data as well as qualitative
data can assist education researchers to exert a greater influence on policy making in their area.
The methodologies themselves do not inherently signal particular value positions until they are applied
within one or other of the paradigms. When they are applied in a specific paradigm, the purpose and
intent of the researcher will determine the way the methodologies can best be utilized. For example, in
a transformative study where one of the key purposes is to bring about political and social change, some
convincing quantitative data to support descriptive material is likely to be extremely valuable and even
essential. Similarly, in a positivist study, it could be valuable for some audiences and groups that there is
some descriptive element that complements, reinforces and embellishes the statistical facts and figures.
In much of the research literature and academic study, there has traditionally been, and continues to
be, a conflation of methodology with paradigm and we claim that this is severely limiting and blinkered.
If the initial and most important decision of the researcher is the choice of paradigm within which the
research will be conducted, then the purpose or intent of using either or both qualitative and quantitative
data is able to be determined.
The term “mixed method” is commonly used to describe studies where both qualitative and quanti-
tative methods are used together, however it could be seen that this has hindered rather than helped the
argument we are putting forward here as it reinforces a dichotomous situation between qualitative and
quantitative methodologies, such that a whole new so-called mixed methodology needs to be coined.
Research studies undertaken in a variety of disciplines within education will be presented throughout
this book as the vehicle for discussing the centrality of the paradigm choice and what that means for the
ways methodologies can be employed and how they relate to each other in these studies.
21

Research
A researcher is akin to a mystery novelist in many respects. A mystery novelist has a specific plot in
mind and a cast of characters to be developed throughout the novel. As the characters develop and
interact with each other, relationships emerge and the plot can also emerge in ways the novelist may
not have envisaged when they began the writing. Characters can almost take on a life of their own and
take the novelist along with them such that the ending of the story can differ from that which the writer
may initially have expected it to be. Undertaking research shares many of these features in that we have
something that is problematic that we wish to investigate. We have ideas about why we wish to under-
take this research and who or what to involve. We may have certain expectations about outcomes but as
with a mystery novel, we cannot predetermine what the ending will be due to the issues and situations
and relationships which will emerge in the course of the research. Many of these we could not have
been expected or anticipated and thus, as with the ending of a mystery, there may well be a “sting in
the tail” that could not have been predicted at the outset. This is not to say that the process of writing a
mystery novel or undertaking research is haphazard. In both cases there will be an underlying structure
or design for how the project will unfold. There will also be a motivation and intent present which drives
the novelist or the researcher to engage in the project, and they will have a view of why they are doing
this and what they hope to achieve.
Both the mystery novelist and the researcher are in the business of being creative, imaginative, re-
sourceful and open to the unexpected emerging during the course of the project and thus, in a sense,
there is always a spirit of uncertainty, tinged with both excitement and disappointment during the course
of the project. Research as an activity has been defined in many ways but the common characteristics
of previous definitions focus upon it involving systematic inquiry and collection of data according to
a specific choice of methodologies and data collection methods. Data will be analysed and interpreted
according to some specific conceptual framework, and the research will add to the store of knowledge
we have, perhaps also even adding to our theoretical understandings about the topic of the study.
There is a common tendency to confuse the activities of evaluation with research. They do share some
elements in common. Evaluation involves measurement or data gathering of some kind by some form
of systematic collection process; it then involves assessment against some criteria or objective or norm.
Following the measurement and assessment phase, judgments are made regarding the way the outcomes
will be utilized to inform further action. Some of the differences between research and evaluation lie
in the fact that evaluation is not necessarily designed to add to the body of knowledge or theoretical
understandings about an issue and will always be focused upon a specific program or event which the
evaluators have selected to evaluate for a specific purpose. Greene (in Mertens 2015) argues that
what distinguishes evaluation from other forms of social inquiry is its political inherency; that is, in
evaluation, politics and science are inherently intertwined. Evaluations are conducted on the merit and
worth of programs in the public domain, which are themselves responses to prioritized individual and
community needs that resulted from political decisions. Program evaluation is thus intertwined with
political power and decision making about societal priorities and directions. (p. 76)
To a certain extent then, evaluation is constrained by what society, policy makers, governments, funding
bodies, commercial interests and other agencies have already prioritized. Some of the characteristics of
research mentioned in definitions and descriptions of this activity are that it influences theory, establishes
22

relationships between or among constructs, is influenced by the researchers’ theoretical framework, and
generates new knowledge that can potentially be transferred to other settings. Ideally researchers will
critique the contexts within which the research is occurring as distinct from being constrained by them
as is the case with evaluation where the project priorities have already been set.
With regard to research, one of the decisions to be made at the outset of a study is the level of un-
certainty with which a researcher is prepared to operate. This relates to the specific research paradigm
within which we choose to undertake the research. Selecting a degree of certainty we are looking for
in research outcomes indicates the research paradigm possibilities; selecting a research paradigm in
which to work determines the degree of certainty that applies to the research findings. Dependent upon
the paradigm choice we can then determine the structure and design of the research. More of this when
features of the paradigms are discussed below.
Education Research
Education is a hybrid discipline composed of many individual disciplines in their own right, each with
a specific way of knowing and mode of inquiry. The common thread between the disciplines is that they
are being applied within the field of education in areas which include school education, teacher educa-
tion, professional and vocational education, continuing education, adult education, higher education,
and special education. Within these areas of education, the various disciplines are represented as science
education, arts education, mathematics education, language and linguistics education, technology educa-
tion, humanities education, educational psychology, educational sociology, and educational philosophy,
to list but a few. This makes for a rich tapestry of approaches to research in the field of education and
in this book we draw upon this as a basis for the discussion about the paradigms, the methodologies
and the ways these elements are used within research studies carried out in the various discipline areas
that constitute education. The chapters which follow serve to illustrate the use of various paradigms,
methodologies, methods and analytical approaches to draw various conclusions about the research top-
ics being studied. They focus on a variety of areas within education research but the common thread in
each is the place and function of the paradigm within which the research is conducted.
PARADIGM CLASSIFICATION AND FRAMEWORK
In order to further explore the elements which will impact upon our paradigm choices, we will examine
ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodologies and nature of the outcomes in turn. We link the six
paradigms to be explored in this book to each of these elements in order to tease out the major distinc-
tions between the paradigms presented here. The paradigms presented throughout this book have many
different labels dependent upon particular versions or variations of their major conceptual underpinning,
but we have selected to consistently refer to the paradigms as: positivist; neo-positivist (more usually
labelled post-positivist); interpretivist; transformative (sometimes labelled critical) (Mertens, 2005, p.
11); pragmatic; and supercomplexity (Barnett, 2000). As the elements of ontology, epistemology and
axiology are discussed they will be linked with the paradigms, and stances on these elements will be
compared and contrasted through the paradigms themselves, thus leading to a summary of the elements
and methodologies and the way they are reflected in each of the paradigms.
23

Ontology
Education research involves investigation of an aspect of being or existence. A particular research exercise
is underpinned, explicitly or by implication, by the researcher’s understanding of the nature of reality
of the aspect of existence pertinent to the research assignment, and of its accessibility. The ontological
position of the researcher may vary from an understanding that, in the area researched, a discoverable
reality or truth pertains, to an understanding that, whether or not a reality pertains, there are limitations
on the accessibility of any reality or consistency. This is where the level of certainty and uncertainty
we accommodate in our research will be a significant factor in our selection of a particular research
paradigm within which to operate.
Axiology
Here the specific value position, motivations, ethical issues, intentions and drivers or purposes of the
researcher are considered as they relate to each of the paradigm stances. Some consideration of elements
of this are inherent in epistemological and ontological decisions, but further specific consideration is
given here in order to link these concerns more directly with paradigm location of research projects or
endeavors.
Epistemology
Epistemology involves the theoretical perspective(s) we have about how knowledge is constructed, the
views we hold as researchers about the nature of the knowledge obtainable through the research, and
about the relationship between the knowledge or the knower, and the researcher. In the discussion that
follows the word “understanding” is used in some cases rather than “knowledge” as knowledge implies
the existence of an accessible reality. Our epistemological position involves our understandings about
objectivist approaches and subjectivist approaches to constructing knowledge. The roles and actions of
the researcher and the participants or subjects will be influenced by these understandings.
Research Methodology
The research methodology involves decisions about the participants, the data to be collected, data collec-
tion methods and tools, methods of data analysis or interpretation, and the overall style of the approach to
be adopted, for example quasi-scientific approaches, grounded theory, narrative inquiry, phenomenology,
ethnography and case study. Beyond the broad approach are decisions about the type of data to gather
(quantitative, qualitative, artefacts or some mix); the range of the investigation (from the population
of interest, to a sample or a case); the data gathering tools to be used (such as tests, interviews, focus
groups, surveys, and observations); and the forms of data analysis to be employed (such as statistical
analysis, correlation, thematic analysis, categorization, and document analysis). It might be noted here
that, in styling research methodology in this manner, the key point is not determining whether the study
is quantitative or qualitative. The key is rather an understanding of the nature of the research exercise
to be undertaken and the nature of outcome sought—that is, an understanding of the research paradigm
that applies—and the adoption of a compatible broad approach or research strategy. The type or types
of data to be gathered, from whom the data are to be gathered, the tools used to gather the data, and the
24

form or forms of data analysis to be employed, need to be congruent. That is not to say that a research
exercise need be designed in this sequence. Decisions on components may be made interactively and
iteratively. All that is claimed here is that there should be a coherent rationale for the methods selected;
that is a defensible methodology.
If, for example, a research study is designed to provide an understanding of children’s classroom
behavior in a number of contexts, the intent might be to provide an evidenced interpretation of behav-
iors. Here a case study approach might be adopted using a selected case or a few cases. The nature of
the data may be essentially qualitative but with some reference to frequencies—that is it may involve a
quantitative element. Observations and interviews might be employed as data gathering tools. Observed
behaviors might be categorized and instances enumerated. Interviews might be analyzed thematically.
What emerges would be a defensible interpretation rather than a definitive finding.
Another option for a study related to an understanding of children’s classroom behavior in a number
of contexts (say two different contexts to keep the investigation manageable), might be to start with a
theoretical understanding of how children might be expected to behave in these contexts and put a related
hypothesis, or null hypothesis, to the test. (This might need to be done opportunistically. Any such study
involves ethical issues but putting the theory to the test by design would raise more ethical issues.) Again
this might involve detached observation and a means of recording instances of behaviors observed in
the different conditions. It would require a sufficient number of observations in the conditions under
study to provide the possibility of statistically significant correlations between behaviors and contexts to
emerge. The findings could then be in the form of supporting or refuting the hypothesis or, in the case
of using a null hypothesis, challenging the theoretical understanding if the null hypothesis is supported
or, if the null hypothesis is rejected, demonstrating that at least one understanding that runs counter to
the theory was not supported in this case.
Table 1. provides a frame of reference for types of choices and decisions that need to be made in de-
signing a research project. In the table, methodological possibilities are not linked directly to a particular
paradigm, though some methods are traditionally linked to particular research paradigms.
Outcomes
One of the key values in making explicit the research paradigm employed is in the attention this draws
to the consistency of a research undertaking and the alignment of research elements and the outcomes
of the exercise. The nature of the outcomes derived from a research undertaking needs to be consistent
with the understandings—the ontology, axiology and epistemology—that underpin the research en-
deavor. The relationship of outcomes to the research paradigm is indicated in Table 1, Chapter 1 and in
the discussion of each paradigm that now follows.
COMPONENTS OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF PARADIGMS
Positivist Paradigm
The positivist paradigm is distinguished by an underpinning understanding—an ontology—that a con-

sistent or ordered reality exists in the social world and that it is possible to objectively attain knowledge
or an understanding of the way an element of the social world works that is arrived at through affirma-
25

Table 1. The research paradigms employed and research method possibilities
Paradigm Elements METHODOLOGY

Positivist Ontology The logic/rationale for the selection
A consistent or ordered reality. of elements of research methods to
Axiology and drivers suit the research task, the paradigm
Objective pursuit of knowledge and truth based on theory. that underpins the research exercise,
Epistemology and the nature of outcome aimed at.
Knowable objective truth.
RESEARCH METHOD
Neo- Ontology
ELEMENTS
positivist Reality may be patterned, local and subject to change over time.
Broad form or approach
Deductive Axiology and drivers e.g.
Testing of an understanding, dispassionate but influenced by the Scientific/quasi-scientific, grounded
researcher. theory.
Epistemology Action research.
Knowledge of what is not. Presumptive knowledge of what is. Narrative inquiry.
Case study.
Inductive Axiology and drivers Ethnography.
Construction or reconstruction of an understanding of reality. Hermeneutics.
Epistemology Emancipative.
An understanding that is constructed and provisional. Data types
Pragmatic Ontology e.g.
Reality is not the issue. The issue is finding what works. Quantitative, qualitative, mixed
Axiology and drivers quantitative and qualitative,
Determined by practical need relevant to the researcher. artefacts.
Epistemology Data gathering tools
Veracity of an understanding determined by practical value. e.g.
Hypothesis testing.
Interpretivist Ontology Interviews.
The only understanding available is based on observation and Focus groups.
interpretation. Surveys.
Axiology and drivers Recordings.
Pursuit of an understanding in which the value position of researcher Observation.
is inherent. Emersion.
Epistemology Data treatment
Understandings of elements of the world are subjective and socially e.g.
constructed. Causal, correlational, factor
Transformative Ontology analysis.
There are multiple realities. Categorical analysis.
Axiology and drivers Thematic analysis.
Uncovering views of reality that lead to and sustain oppression. Concept mapping.
Epistemology Document analysis.
Knowledge has a social and political context. Participants’ Creations such as metaphor.
understandings of their world are integral to research agenda. Compilation.
Supercomplexity1 Ontology
Reality is complex, dynamic. Frames of reference are shifting.
Axiology and drivers
Embracing fragility, insecurity, the unknown and strangeness.
Problematizing existing understandings. Generating diversity.
Epistemology
Understandings are constructed, multiple, shifting and contested. The
future is unknowable.
26

tion, contradiction or modification of theory or contemporary understanding. The method employed is

the testing of a hypothesis or hypotheses related to a theory. Something of this, though not all, can also
apply to the neo-positivist paradigm.
Ontology
In a positivist approach we proceed from a premise that there is a knowable reality, truth or set of rules.
There is, thus, a presumption of the possibility of a high degree of certainty.
Axiology
The purpose of and motivation for the research lies in finding an objectively arrived-at truth or reality.
In searching for the truth about a subject of investigation a researcher will attempt to be as objective
as possible. A positivist researcher is at pains to attempt to be value free rather than value laden. We
could claim that to see a value free position as appropriate or vaguely possible, is itself a value state-
ment. However, a positivist researcher will attempt to eliminate and control bias or value judgments
within the research. Here the participants are the objects of the research and the researcher the doer of
the research. This could be contrasted to the researcher/participant relationship in the interpretivist and
transformative paradigms especially.
Epistemology
A positivist researcher seeks to find the truth and generalizable laws or rules. The positivist paradigm,
then, is underpinned by an understanding that there is a knowable truth about the matter investigated.
This could take the form of discernible patterns or order that represent a truth or knowable state. The
results of the research are, given certain conditions, generalizable.
Methodology
The positivist researcher has the intent of seeking a truth or reality and thus will be most likely to employ
an empirical approach where a hypothesis is tested, where there is some control of variables, where there
is an attempt at objectivity, and which allows a hypothesis about the true situation to either be supported
or refuted. With this as the intent it is most likely that quantitative approaches will be used predomi-
nantly for the design and for the conduct of the research study, and the analysis and interpretation of the
data, which will then either support or refute the hypothesis. However, the intent can still be served and
potentially enhanced with the use of a qualitative descriptive or narrative element, which adds another
dimension to the findings and makes them potentially even more compelling to a broader audience. Here
the qualitative methodology employed is not acting to alter the intent or the outcomes of the research,
but rather to add to its veracity. There is also the possibility that a hypothesis can be affirmed or rejected
using essentially qualitative data such as open-ended surveys, interviews or case studies. The affirmation
or rejection of the hypothesis in this case will depend on a quantitative element in that the researcher
needs to indicate the dominance of particular features of the quantitative data gathered.
27

Outcomes
Working in the positivist paradigm the research outcomes represent a knowable truth derived from the
objective testing of a theory, usually in the form of testing a hypothesis comparing an experimental
group or groups of subjects with a control group or groups. In the social sciences, including education,
this normally involves a quantitative measure of probability; there are conventional standards of what
can be taken to be an acceptable/accepted finding.
Neo-Positivist Paradigm
Researchers in the neo-positivist paradigm, like those in the positivist paradigm, proceed from an un-
derstanding that, in relation to the subject of research, there is a truth or a consistency in patterns of
behavior but, as distinct from research in the positivist paradigm, in the neo-positivist paradigm the hu-
man fallibility and limitations of the researcher are acknowledged, and conclusions reached are seen as
tentative and qualified. The neo-positivist paradigm includes the testing of null-hypotheses and can, in
the paradigm framework adopted here, include the direct testing of hypotheses. An approach to research
directly testing a hypothesis can be classed as neo-positivist rather than positivist if it is clear that the
researcher is working towards an understanding that can only be contextual, provisional and revisable.
Note that a researcher acknowledging limitations to a hypothesis-based study, or indicating that there
is room for further related research, does not of itself place the research endeavor in the neo-positivist
rather than the positivist paradigm.
Neo-Positivist Modes
The term neo-positivist is used here to embrace two forms or modes of research undertaking—a deduc-
tive mode and an inductive mode.
The neo-positivist paradigm in the deductive mode as defined here is more generous in its embrace
than some understandings of the post-positivist paradigm that confine the deductive exercise to the
experimental testing of null hypotheses. Willis (2007) describes “postpositive research” as being theory-
based, employing a falsification approach to testing a hypothesis; that is the testing of a null hypothesis
rather than a hypothesis, with the potential to demonstrate that a condition in opposition to the hypothesis
of interest is false. In the paradigm classification employed in the present book this position is styled
as neo-positivist using a deductive approach. The procedure and the qualified nature of the conclusion
means that the research does not have the capacity to lead to proof of a proposition, only the capacity
to falsify an opposing proposition. This distinguishes the neo-positivist, from the traditional positivist
search for truth. In this book, however, the neo-positivist paradigm using a deductive approach accom-
modates, but is not limited to, testing a null hypothesis; nor is it limited to research adopting a deductive
approach based on quantitative quasi-experimental methods and falsification. It embraces other forms
of study that might, for example, use interviews, observations or open-ended surveys. It is, however,
confined to working from an existing understanding to determine its veracity.
The neo-positivist paradigm as used here also includes research adopting an inductive approach de-
signed to address a knowledge gap. Here the neo-positivist paradigm starts with a want of understanding
of the subject of research and works to construct an understanding. The understanding emerging is often
advanced as contextual, provisional and revisable; it may be seen as a starting point for further research.
28

The understanding is nevertheless advanced as a representation of a reality. This is a form of research

often reported in education journals. (See Fraser and Pechenkina, Chapter 3.)
Whichever the mode adopted in the neo-positivist paradigm, the ontology and axiology are the same.
The research is driven by an attempt to uncover consistency and patterns in an aspect of the social world,
hence their inclusion in the same paradigm.
Ontology
A researcher using a neo-positivist approach would have a view that there is a reality to be explored
but how close we come as researchers to uncovering that reality will be tempered by such things as our
limited capacity to apprehend the truth and in some cases the dynamics of the situation. Thus, while
some possibilities may be eliminated by research, proof of a particular understanding is not possible.
Axiology
Neo-positivists, realizing the pitfalls of trying to be value-free, admit to values and to the limited capacity
of researchers as being influences on research activities and research outcomes. However they will still
strive to limit bias and attempt to be as objective as possible. They will attempt to design the research to
achieve consistency and uniformity in terms of their own behaviors as researchers and the ways in which
they construct knowledge or understanding. Neo-positivists will clearly state the purpose for the research
as well as the ways in which the knowledge will be gained. In the deductive mode this involves working
from a theoretical understanding. In the inductive mode it can contribute to a theoretical understanding;
a result that may be described as grounded theory, that is, theory that arises from the research endeavor.
Epistemology
The neo-positivist paradigm allows that any search for truth will always be limited and imperfect due to
the human element in the research and the influence of human values together with the complexity and
dynamics of research contexts and the potential for understandings to be revised. Researchers may use
quasi-scientific methods to test their hypothesis—or the null version of the hypothesis. This will allow
them to either support or refute their hypothesis or theory. Rather than start with an hypothesis or null
hypothesis based on an existing understanding—a deductive approach, a researcher in the neo-positivist
paradigm may address a gap in current knowledge with a view to constructing an evidenced understand-
ing of the matter investigated—an inductive approach. Whether the approach is deductive or inductive,
objectivity is a central concern of neo-positivists who attempt to eliminate or reduce bias which might
affect the validity and the reliability of their observations or results. The result is an understanding that
is provisional, open to challenge and revisable.
Methodology
The neo-positivist researcher has both methodologies at their disposal as does the positivist but is perhaps
even more likely to gain from a qualitative dimension, given their admission that research cannot be value
free. In attempting to come as close as possible to a position of knowledge of a reality (admitting the
limitations of the researcher and the contextual influences), adding an element that can further explain
29

or describe what can be ascertained by quantitative means, is well within the intent and purpose of the
research in this paradigm. In some cases, the data gathered by one means will be confirmed by the other
whilst in others, data gathered through one methodology may contradict or at least throw into question
some of the elements gathered through the other methodology. Thus confirmation and/or disconfirma-
tion can add much to a study.
Outcomes
The outcome of a research endeavor in the neo-positivist paradigm is an evidenced, trustworthy and
authentic understanding (rather than knowledge) that is contextual, provisional and revisable. The under-
standing may be derived from an investigation of an existing understanding—a deductive exercise—or an
investigation of the subject with a view to filling a gap in existing understanding—an inductive exercise.
The exercise is informed by related literature and theory, based on carefully constructed investigation, and
supported by evidence and logic. The neo-positivist position assumes there are at least tentative patterns
to be discerned and temporal realities to be understood. While the neo-positivist employs interpretation,
the point is to construct an account of the way things are or the way things work in the subject area.
While the understanding constructed is provisional and revisable, the neo-positivist paradigm shares
something of the positivist ontology and epistemology; that is, there is a supposition that regularities or
patterns can be discerned in the subject of investigation.
Pragmatic Paradigm
Pragmatically oriented research aligns with some of the features of other research paradigms; indeed
researchers in the pragmatic paradigm draw upon elements of other paradigms over the course of their
research. The pragmatic paradigm does have a distinct axiology; it has its own driving force. Pragmatic
research is driven by the agenda and practical needs of the researcher and/or those employing the
researcher’s skills. Pragmatic research can be said to have its own epistemological base with the test
of what constitutes knowledge being determined by its practical value, whether that understanding is
viewed as objective or subjective or a mix. Pragmatic research also has its own test of what constitutes
a valid intended outcome. A valid outcome is one that contributes to a solution or further understanding
of the matter addressed by the research problem. A research exercise driven by pragmatism—as is the
case for some commissioned research—differs in some respects from exercises that fall into the other
paradigms we have classified, in that the focal point in the design and implementation of the research is
the valued outcome, represented by the outcomes column in our model Figure 1, Chapter 1. For a par-
ticular pragmatic research exercise what you might put into the ontology column is best determined after
the event as the exercise may call on a range of research models and methods. The point of a pragmatic
research exercise is to find solutions that satisfy the brief. You can work backwards from the valued
outcomes and the research methodology to determine what if any ontology is implicit. Where, in the
case of other paradigms, a research exercise and its related research design can be tested for veracity and
congruity by looking for consistency between the underpinning ontology, the methodology adopted, the
outcomes reported and the nature of the conclusions reached, in the case of pragmatic research ontology
is not pertinent; the issue is finding what works or adds to an understanding of a current issue or need,
including outcomes designed to attract the attention of a target audience. The research exercise is not
30

constrained by a particular view of the nature of reality and it does not have a particular location on the
certainty versus uncertainty continuum.
The ontology which underpins the pragmatic paradigm then is somewhat elusive as it can almost
emerge after the event dependent on what it is that gets the researcher to the valued outcome. However,
it could be contended that this view of truth or reality is in itself an ontological position. Charles Samuel
Peirce (1839-1914) presented seven now famous lectures on pragmatism (Peirce, 1931). In the course
of these lectures he claimed that
pragmatism is a doctrine that every conception is a conception of conceivable practical effects. (Lecture
vii, p. 250)
[Pragmatism] allows any flight of imagination, provided this imagination finally alights upon a possible
practical effect. (Lecture vii, p. 249)
This doctrine of pragmatism then suggests that there is a form of ontology which drives pragmatism
as a research paradigm. This could be seen to be an ontology that sees the value of knowledge as it
serves the practical reality of a valued and sought after outcome or end. Thus reality is ends-related in
that the desired outcome is the researcher’s reality implicit in the research undertaking. The results of
a pragmatic research exercise, then, could inform further research but are in themselves generalizable
only to the boundaries of the research target.
Ontology
For a researcher within the pragmatic paradigm there is not a commitment to one view of reality nor to
a particular approach to the research task. Taking a pragmatic approach the researcher will seek to solve
a problem by borrowing from whatever research methods and paradigms work best in allowing them to
address the problem that is the focus of the research. The ontological position of the researcher in the
pragmatic paradigm is that their reality is reliant on the realization of a valued outcome in a given con-
text. This can result in an understanding of reality arrived at through a process of abductive reasoning.
Abductive reasoning is taken to mean that an observation is extrapolated into a broad understanding or
theory. It amounts to an explanation of best fit rather than one supported by tight logic.
Axiology
Researchers in the pragmatic paradigm will proceed from their own value positions or those of a com-
missioning body, using whatever methods, contexts, strategies and actions that they perceive will bring
about the best outcomes for their research. Their motivations and intentions are to find a solution through
whatever means can most effectively reach the desired outcome, whilst acting within their own value
system or that of the commissioning body. Pragmatic researchers value the fact that their research engages
people in the field in which it is conducted and gains the attention of relevant parties. The relationships
between the researcher and the participants then are eminently revisable and variable dependent on the
way the research emerges and the different twists and turns it takes.
31

Epistemology
In the pragmatic paradigm the beginning point is usually a problem or issue that is the central matter of
importance rather than the methods or relationships used to create knowledge about it. Pragmatists do not
hold with a view that there is any one version of truth or reality or any one way to construct knowledge
(Campbell, 2011). They are concerned with the outcomes of their research and also with the social and
political contexts of the research but will seek to understand those through whatever approaches and
methods work best at the time in providing an answer to the research question or solutions to a research
problem. The result is an understanding peculiar to the circumstance explored.
Methodology
In the pragmatic paradigm it is part of the intent of the researcher that they will use whatever method-
ologies assist in obtaining the best outcome for their research, hence their decision on methodological
choice will stem from whether qualitative or quantitative data and related methods of analysis, or both,
best serve their needs and the purposes of the research at any given time during the research. The justi-
fication for using particular methodologies and methods in particular ways in this paradigm, hinges on
whether it results in the most useful possible outcome. If one methodological approach is not producing
the result desired, the pragmatic researcher would be likely to employ a different methodological approach
at that point. In this way the design and methodologies used in the course of a pragmatic research study
are emergent and changeable. This calls for a high degree of competence on the part of the researcher,
as they need to be competent in a range of methodological approaches and also be able to make sound
judgments about what works and what does not. This paradigm calls for skill on the part of researchers
and is not to be regarded simply as an “anything goes” approach, in fact quite the contrary.
Outcomes
Research undertaken in the pragmatic paradigm is intended to result in an evidenced, defended practical
solution, an understanding of practical value that may be expressed in the form of recommendations for
action. The dilemma of unwanted consequences, discussed later, can also apply to researchers undertak-
ing commissioned research projects and working in the pragmatic paradigm. The findings and conclu-
sions must meet the expectations of the commissioning body and be acceptable and palatable. Indeed
the exercise may be required to conform to the world-view of the commissioning body rather than the
ontology that normally underpins the particular researcher’s work. Here a difficulty faced is that the
researcher’s credibility and reputation may be compromised.
Interpretivist Paradigm
Adopting the interpretivist paradigm the researcher gains a personal insight into, and understanding of
the subject of research. If the exercise is to be classed as research, the outcome is not an arbitrary under-
standing; it is an understanding informed by related literature and theory, based on carefully constructed
investigation, supported by evidence and logic, and producing an understanding of some value to the field
of study. Nevertheless, the outcome is personal and overtly subjective, based on the particular individual’s
understanding arising from the research. The interpretivist researcher works as if painting a picture in
32

the realist genre. It is a picture based on systematic and careful observation that can be recognized by
observers as a legitimate representation of the subject, nevertheless it would not be expected that an-
other artist would come up with the same representation. If another researcher produces an alternative
representation, it need not detract from the first or any other representation; different interpretations
can live alongside each other, and maybe even complement each other. As used in the current book, an
interpretivist paradigmatic approach involves the possibility of multiple discernible realities, multiple
renderings and multiple individual locations, none of which is more or less legitimate.
Ontology
A researcher who chooses to work within an interpretivist paradigm will begin with an assumption
that, whether or not there is an underlying truth or consistency, truth is not knowable in the sense that
a researcher cannot know that an understanding derived from the research is the truth of the matter nor
whether there is a truth to the matter. The best we can do is provide our particular understanding or
interpretation of the matter investigated.
Axiology
Understandings of elements of the world are bound to be socially constructed; that is constructed in
a social context that influences the research endeavor. Within the interpretivist paradigm a researcher
acknowledges the values of the researcher and the participant(s) in shaping the construction of knowl-
edge. There is an inevitable interdependence and interactivity between the researcher and the subjects
or participants. The interpretivist researcher will make clear the values that underpin and inform the
research, as these are seen as central to the conduct of the research. Likewise, the values of participants
are seen as crucial in constructing knowledge. Their context and personal interpretations and perceptions
are essential elements in the research activity. The point of the exercise is to develop an understanding
that is thus co-constructed by the researcher and the participants according to the values, motivation,
intentions and conditions in which they operate.
Epistemology
A subjective stance is adopted here given that research is viewed as being a value-laden activity and
thus subjectivity is part of any research activity within this paradigm. The research can focus specifi-
cally upon an attempt to ascertain and interpret the multiple values and perspectives of the participants.
What emerges then from research is not knowledge in the sense of an understanding of reality but an
individual, evidenced understanding of the subject researched. In the interpretivist paradigm, as in the
case of a work of art in the realist mode, multiple realistic interpretations of a subject are possible. Each
understanding derived from research may be defensible; one need not necessarily contradict another.
Methodology
In the interpretivist paradigm it is likely that qualitative methodological approaches will predominate
as the intent is to explore and investigate a situation, context or issue and to describe and interpret what
is found, bearing in mind that there will be multiple perceptions of the reality of a situation and thus
33

potentially multiple descriptions and interpretations. However, in order to catch the attention of policy
makers or politicians or other bodies or agencies for whom the research can be valuable, adding a quan-
titative element to the thick description, which serves to reinforce and elaborate the findings gained
through qualitative means, potentially amplifies and extends the scope and impact of the research. In
this paradigm also, the ability to confirm or disconfirm data gathered by qualitative means through the
gathering of quantitative data, potentially enriches an interpretivist study significantly.
Outcomes
The outcome of research undertaken in the interpretivist paradigm is a subjective understanding of the
matter investigated. It is the researcher’s understanding, which is distinguished from a personal opinion
in that it is derived from systematic, appropriately structured research, producing a defended, evidenced
interpretation of the subject of research.
Transformative Paradigm
The transformative paradigm, like the interpretivist, is based on an understanding that there are multiple
socially constructed realities that are diverse and depend on social positioning and context. However
in the transformative paradigm the political context of society is seen as playing a major role in the
construction of realities. “Political” here refers especially to the play of power in social relationships.
Policy and political decisions emanating from the political context create situations in which some
groups are privileged over others, and can lead to oppression, inequity and injustices. The transformative
paradigm is designed to use systematic research as a means to involve the participants as co-researchers
in the research in an effort to raise their consciousness of their own situation and its causes, and to thus
empower them to take some control and attempt to overcome the disadvantage or inequities they are
suffering. Mertens (2015) claims
The transformative paradigm directly addresses the politics of research by confronting social oppres-
sion at whatever levels it occurs (Mertens, 2009). Thus transformative researchers consciously and
explicitly position themselves side by side with the less powerful in a joint effort to bring about social
transformation. (p. 45)
Ethnicity, gender, class, disability and all other causes of disadvantage and marginalization are key
elements to be addressed in the transformative paradigm.
Ontology
As with the interpretivist paradigm, a researcher in the transformative paradigm assumes that there are
multiple and socially supportable views of reality available but overlays into their view of reality a strong
political and social justice element that impacts upon views presented and the consequences of those
views for others, especially for marginalized or oppressed groups or individuals.
34

Axiology
Within the transformative paradigm there is an overt value position relating to social justice and to
uncovering and addressing causes of oppressions, marginalization, poverty, and disenfranchisement.
A researcher’s intent is to include as broad a range of stakeholder perspectives as possible so that the
potential biases of the researcher do not pre-empt findings. There is a clear value position adopted in
terms of the kind of action needed to bring about change and reform and to empower groups and indi-
viduals who are participants in the research. The other underlying values, intentions and motivations of
researchers in this paradigm are to interrogate the social, political and economic contexts of participants
and to bring the participants into the research as co-constructors of knowledge and co-actors in bringing
about change and reform. Within this paradigm, researchers attempt to rise above preconceived notions
of the situation they are researching, which may have been promoted in the popular press and the media
or which may have been reinforced through policies and legislation, and to uncover specific views of
reality that entrench or sustain oppression. They attempt to raise social awareness of the situation through
the research and the resulting action(s) for change. Transformative researchers see that the research
activity itself is a means through which to address the oppression or injustice that is being researched
and are motivated by the conviction that through the action of the research, both the researcher and the
participants can be empowered to act to change or reform the circumstances being investigated.
Epistemology
A researcher within the transformative paradigm will begin from a political or socio-political assump-
tion about an issue or social justice concern affecting specific groups or individuals in the social world
or community involved in the research. In this paradigm the researcher and the participants together
construct the knowledge which can lead to transformative action. The subjective views of all parties
involved in the research are important to the success of the research but paralleling this subjectivity is a
shared, common view that there is a political context or agenda that is causing the oppression or social
injustice about which the research is conducted.
Methodology
In the transformative paradigm it is clear that the use of both qualitative and quantitative methodolo-
gies would be likely to lead to the most compelling basis for action in the political and social reform
space. All kinds of evidence and data that can be mustered to support an argument or a case for change
and reform are critical to a successful outcome of the research in this paradigm. It is also likely that for
research studies in this paradigm, researchers may need to interrogate large data bases such as census
records or other historical or social data bases as a starting point for their own research. This will require
them to be competent in the use of statistical methods and also to be competent in making the results of
their interpretive efforts accessible and understandable to a range of audiences. Thus the addition of a
descriptive interpretive element to their statistical findings will potentially facilitate further research and
data gathering on a wider scale. The data gathered by two means can also be used here as a balancing
activity by comparing and contrasting the results of each kind of data.
35

Outcomes
Research outcomes in the transformative paradigm provide an evidenced and defended argument. In
this paradigm, important outcomes include the fact that action is taken to redress the disadvantageous
situation being researched and that the participants are empowered through the research activity itself.
Depending on the context and political volatility of that context, the outcomes and findings of transfor-
mative research may present risks to the researcher and/or to the marginalized groups who may respond
to a raised awareness of their oppression. This can present something of a politico-moral dilemma for
researchers in this paradigm. This is particularly pertinent to extreme situations but it is extreme situations
that call for transformative action; action that may benefit from being informed by rigorous research.
In this context, international research students, for example, sometimes seek to undertake research
about their own developing countries in order to empower those who experience high levels of disadvan-
tage. As a supervisor I ask them to reflect upon the possibility that the findings may not sit well with the
ruling forces of the day and to consider how this may impact on them upon return to their home country.
Supercomplexity Paradigm
Much has been written in research literature regarding the conventional paradigms—positivist, post-
positivist, interpretivist, transformative and pragmatic. However in this book we propose an additional
paradigm, which we have labelled supercomplexity, drawing on the work of Barnett (2000). In order to
elaborate on this paradigm, the era of supercomplexity in which it has its being, will first be discussed.
The title of this paradigm is taken from the writing of Ronald Barnett who postulates that universities,
including their research component, now operate in an age of supercomplexity. The era of supercomplex-
ity has specific defining characteristics.
A supercomplex world is one in which the very frameworks by which we orient ourselves to the world
are themselves contested. Supercomplexity denotes a fragile world but it is a fragility brought on not
merely by social and technological change; it is a fragility in the way that we understand the world, in
the way in which we understand ourselves and in the ways in which we feel secure about acting in the
world. (Barnett, 2000, p. 257)
In a supercomplex world, where the traditional frames of reference are constantly shifting, the future
is unknowable and is characterized by uncertainty, risk, messiness and an absence of universals. It is
an era where risk is what Giddens (Giddens, 2000) refers to as “manufactured.” Giddens distinguishes
between two kinds of risk which he labels “external risk and “manufactured risk”:
External risk is risk experienced as coming from the outside, from the fixities of tradition and nature. I
want to distinguish this from manufactured risk, by which I mean risk created by the very impact of our
developing knowledge upon the world. Manufactured risk refers to risk situations which we have very
little historical experience of confronting. . . . As manufactured risk expands, there is new riskiness to
risk. (pp. 26, 28)
Giddens elaborates the idea that external risk is to some degree assessable or calculable as we have
some traditions and “time series” experience on which to draw. In an era of supercomplexity, however,
36

the traditional frames of reference that we have previously used to calculate and assess risk are themselves
shifting, blurred and fuzzy. Therefore the “fixities of tradition and nature” can no longer be relied upon
to provide us with the basis for the calculation of risk and thus we live with uncertainty, fragility, and the
unknown. Barnett (2005) claims that in such a world we need to develop a comfort with “strangeness.”
In an uncertain and unpredictable world of contestability and challengeability, human capacities are
needed that can flourish amid “strangeness”. A world of supercomplexity, in all its fragility, requires
human subjectivities that not only tolerate strangeness but can even produce it; for, ultimately, the only
way, amid strangeness, to become fully human, to achieve agency and authenticity, is to have the capac-
ity to go on producing strangeness by and for oneself. (p. 793)
In an era of supercomplexity, a researcher will need to be comfortable with strangeness and with
awkward and unexpected and unknown situations. A researcher will also need to expect, accept and even
enjoy, uncertainty, risk, fragility and messiness. Undertaking research within this context will require a
researcher to draw upon their imagination, creativity, flexibility, openness, and ingenuity. The problematic
elements that are the basis for research abound in supercomplexity as never before. All methodological
tools available for a researcher to utilize are likely to be drawn upon in this paradigm in novel and inven-
tive ways and a methodology which has selective synthesis as its basis may develop. The ways in which
both qualitative and quantitative methodologies are used, either separately or in conjunction with each
other, are likely to be novel and perhaps hitherto untried. The means for gathering, analyzing and inter-
preting data are also open to imaginative and creative approaches which take us into largely uncharted
waters. We can utilize a range of linguistic and literary styles and devices as they assist in realizing the
intent of the research. Within this paradigm a researcher may draw on drama, poetry, art, performance,
dance, role play as well as novel technologies and social media for example.
This is not to say that research conducted in the paradigm of supercomplexity is haphazard or without
focus. Rather its raison d’etre is to facilitate research and inquiry in a world where the characteristics of
supercomplexity prevail and to use those characteristics as an integral part of the research design and
approach. As has been outlined earlier in this chapter, as for other paradigms, this paradigm has its own
ontological, epistemological, axiological and intentional basis and research is conducted accordingly.
The ethics of research are still paramount in this paradigm but may lead to a need for new perspectives
and views of what the whole concept of ethics means in supercomplex times when tradition and the
“fixities of nature” can no longer be the basis for actions or interpretations. As the frames of reference
in our world shift and blur so our conceptualizations of what constitutes research will change and blur.
This paradigm is one of opportunity and challenge as well as invention and innovation and thus opens up
new possibilities for research and for researchers who are comfortable with manufactured risk, strange-
ness and uncertainty. In the paradigm of supercomplexity the role of a researcher is to expand the prob-
lematic elements of an issue or a situation that is the focus of the research, and to potentially augment
the riskiness and insecurity by the addition of further problematics and unknowns. Whereas a positivist
would seek to control and contain variables and problematics in order to find a generalizable truth or
best approximation of a truth, a researcher in supercomplexity would seek to open up the problematics
and uncertainties as a means to generate new ways of acting and thinking and of being.
The paradigm of supercomplexity, as with other paradigms, has its own criteria by which to judge
worthwhile research as distinct from what might otherwise be classed as haphazard self-indulgence.
The research question and focus will guide all aspects of the research and will be discerned as a result
37

of an informed perspective—derived from discipline based insights and awareness, literature and past
research—about the value and worthwhileness of the research. Secondly there will be expectations of
outcomes, even though they raise further problematics and risks and uncertainties. These outcomes will,
however, need to be plausible and tenable when viewed against the initial research question or focus. In
terms of the investigative methods they will need to be systematic, even if not tightly prescribed, attuned
to theoretical underpinnings and the research question, despite those underpinnings themselves being
susceptible to shifts and multiple interpretations. The data analysis process, though potentially novel
and innovative, would need to be meaningful, purposeful and tenable. Thus the outcomes of research
within this paradigm will be directly related to the research question and focus, reflective of theoretical
expectations, and be plausible and defensible on the basis of the evidence gathered.
We provide a purely hypothetical piece of research conducted within the paradigm of supercomplex-
ity, as an example to ground this discussion. The research focus in the hypothetical example posed here
is to investigate the aspirations young people in years 9 and 10 of schooling have, regarding what they
would want and expect their schooling to allow them to do in their lives after schooling, and compare
those with the aspirations their teachers have and the aspirations their parents or carers have. If such a
piece of research was conducted within the paradigm of supercomplexity a researcher could open this
up to the unlimited imaginations of these three groups. Each group could be encouraged to imagine
what their aspirations are as to what the desired outcomes of schooling would be and to represent those
imaginings in any form they choose. Some possibilities would be in drawing or artistic representations,
through the use of metaphor expressed as perhaps words and pictures or diagrams, through poetry or
song, through the script of a play, through conventional written prose, as a sculpture or construction
of some kind, a dot point list, or perhaps as a computerized digital collage or video clip. This is by no
means an exhaustive list of the ways the participants could express their imaginings and the possibilities
are limited only by their own imaginations and by ethical and legislative observance.
The results of these imaginings of the students, their teachers and their parents or carers form the
data with which the researcher then has to work, bearing in mind the question and focus of the research
at every step. The researcher then “analyzes” these data by whatever means his/her imagination sug-
gests given the variety of forms and representations of which the data will consist. It may be that the
researcher will try to discern some themes that appear across the various types of data, or some words,
phrases, or expressions that recur, they may look for patterns and correlations across the data such that
there is a statistical dimension to the analysis. The researcher may decide to represent the findings in a
number of forms that perhaps reflect the way that the data were provided. There could for example, be
a written aspect, a statistical result, a visual representation, a metaphorical representation and even a
poetic or musical one. How the findings are presented is a matter for the researcher’s imagination and
innovation. The findings would then be interpreted against the theoretical underpinnings that support
the question and that depict the other research conducted on or around the question.
A key aspect a researcher in this supercomplexity paradigm would interpret and provide would be,
in large part, the additional problematic elements, unknowns, uncertainties and risks that the research
has presented. The purpose of this would be to spark innovative and creative action in relation to the
findings and to elaborate new insights and ways to conceptualize the issue in question.
This is a paradigm that opens up possibilities, opportunities and novel approaches rather than closing
them down or converging them. The supercomplexity paradigm is particularly pertinent to addressing
38

what are currently referred to as “wicked problems”; problems difficult to solve because of changing
or contradictory requirements and/or an interconnectedness of elements in the social context that de-
fies simple remedy. The supercomplexity research paradigm provides a means by which to admit and
embrace changing frames of reference; to embrace insecurity and uncertainty; and to add to possibilities
by uncovering more unknowns.
Ontology
In the paradigm of supercomplexity reality is supercomplex and dynamic, and the future is unknowable.
The frames of reference that have guided our understandings are blurred and constantly shifting and
contested. There is no certainty, no security, no known future.
Axiology
A researcher working in the supercomplexity paradigm not only accepts insecurity, fragility, risk and
the unknown but values and embraces it. In the supercomplexity paradigm a researcher is comfortable
with strange and awkward spaces and situations in research and may create them through the research.
The point of the exercise is to acknowledge supercomplexity in current social situations, to problematize
understandings, and to generate diverse possibilities.
Epistemology
In the paradigm of supercomplexity, where the future is unknowable, knowledge is contested, negotiated
and constructed in the moment. Knowledge is always provisional and dynamic and shifts as our frames
of reference shift. There will be multiple and contesting interpretations of any given situation and any
provisional body of knowledge. The outcome may in fact problematize existing understandings. The
contribution of the research may be to move understandings from certainty to uncertainty; to uncover
more unknowns. Hence our understandings in themselves may be problematic, contested, arguable,
fluid, and messy.
Methodology
In the paradigm of supercomplexity research methodologies associated with qualitative and quantitative
data analysis would be likely to be employed in imaginative and novel ways, both interactively as well as
individually. They would be used as a means to explore and develop ideas, to allow for imaginative ways
to engage in inquiry and exploration of issues and concepts. The relationships between the qualitative
and quantitative elements of the methodology would be limited only by the imagination of the researcher
and the ethical constraints of the research context. In fact, juxtaposing these methodologies in strange
ways may be a feature of a study in this paradigm. The use of scenarios, metaphor, dialogue, poetry
and other cognitive devices and manipulations, such as concept mapping, would allow for qualitative
and quantitative approaches to be used in experimental and imaginative ways to produce new forms of
thought and ideas to inspire action.
39

Outcomes
In the supercomplexity paradigm a researcher is given permission to add to rather than reduce the pos-
sibilities and unknowns; it raises an expectation that the researcher will generate further problematic
elements in available understandings.
The outcome of research undertaken in the supercomplexity paradigm is something of a provisional,
defended imagining and interpretation of the subject researched. It can be distinguished from an un-
informed imagining of possibilities in that it is based on systematic, appropriately structured research
producing a defended, evidenced array of possibilities and/or demonstrating problematic elements in
previously accepted understandings. It can, then, result in more unknowns, more uncertainties, more
scope for imagining and more awkward or strange places and spaces being created, as well as new tem-
porary understandings and insights to spur on further inquiry and imagining.
IN SUMMARY
In discussing the ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological elements as they apply
within the paradigms we have also alluded to the overall intentions of a researcher working in a particular
paradigm. The motivation and intent of the researcher and the purpose for which the research is under-
taken are at the heart of the choice of paradigm for a researcher. Unless researchers are clear in their own
minds as to why they are undertaking research and what they hope will be the result of undertaking the
research, research cannot be systematic and risks becoming haphazard and unfocused. Once the intent
and purpose of research is clarified, the selection of the paradigm is relatively unproblematic.
It is often a useful exercise for researchers to think through a list of action verbs that best sum up
what they intend to do in the course of the research. For example researchers in the positivist or in the
neo-positivist paradigm could set out to measure, test, experiment with, quantify, correlate, support,
confirm, disconfirm, refute, classify, categorize, hypothesize, compare, contrast, or observe. Research-
ers in the interpretive paradigm may set out to explore, inquire into, investigate, describe and interpret,
observe, discover, or construct. In the transformative paradigm action verbs describing the purpose of
the research could include: uncover, unmask, interrogate, reveal, disturb, interrupt, change, provoke,
confront, and empower. Within the pragmatic paradigm it could conceivably be possible to use any of
the action verbs provided for other paradigms to describe actions throughout the course of the research,
but the overarching purpose of acting in a specific way would be to lead to the best practical outcome
of the research. In the paradigm of supercomplexity the researcher would among other things, imagine,
ponder, explore, conceptualize, trial, invent, risk, brainstorm, conjure up, create, depict, envisage, disrupt,
contest, picture, nurture, spark, envision, visualize, think up, think of.
The starting point for education research can vary. For example it could be sparked by an interest in a
particular topic or research question or a perceived inequity or form of oppression. Whatever the impetus,
there will need to be something problematic identified about which a researcher sets out to find out more.
It is of importance, however, to the coherence of an education research study that there is clarity about
the paradigm into which the particular study fits. The point in presenting a paradigm model here is to
encourage researchers and research students in education to focus on and articulate their paradigmatic
position when undertaking research design and, when reviewing the research of others, to identify the
research paradigm, whether explicit or implied, that underpins the research endeavors. Definition of the
40

paradigm employed in a research exercise reveals the premises on which the research is based and hence
the potential of the research exercise to contribute to understanding of the topic researched. It indicates,
though does not prescribe, the research methods that are appropriate. The relationship between appropriate
research methods and the paradigm adopted is, in the model presented here, not an exclusive one. The
underpinning paradigm also determines the nature of the conclusions that can be legitimately reached.
As such the research paradigm provides both a structure for research design and a tool for critiquing
research exercises and reports of research.
REFERENCES
Barnett, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4),

409–422. doi:10.1023/A:1004159513741
Barnett, R. (2005). Recapturing the universal in the university. Educational Philosophy and Theory,
37(6), 785–797. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00158.x
Bryman, A. (2008). The end of the paradigm wars? In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of social research methods (pp. 13–25). London: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446212165.n2
Campbell, P. L. (2011). Peirce, pragmatism and the right way of thinking. Sandia Report. Albuquerque,
NM: Sandia National Laboratories, United States Department of Energy. doi:10.2172/1022181
Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching
since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.
Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalisation is reshaping our lives. New York: Routledge.
Jones, C., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Stepping beyond the paradigm wars: Pluralist methods for research in
learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19. doi:10.3402/rlt.v19s1/7798
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). The collected papers: Pragmatism and pramaticism (vol. 5). Retrieved from http://
www.textlog.de/peirce_pragmatism.html
Willis, J. (2007). World views, paradigms, and the practice of social science research. In J. Willis (Ed.),
Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches (pp. 1–23). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781452230108.n1
ENDNOTE

1
A concept based on the writings of Ronald Barnett on supercomplexity (Barnett, 2000).
41
42
Chapter 3
Research Paradigms
Underpinning SoTL Papers:
A Comparative Analysis of Two Journals
Kym Fraser
Ekaterina Pechenkina
ABSTRACT
The authors investigated key paradigms driving contemporary Scholarship of Learning and Teaching
(SoTL) research by analyzing a sample of 84 SoTL articles published in two, highly ranked education
journals that publish SoTL papers. The authors identified the paradigm underpinning each article by
looking at the stated or implied intent of the article’s authors, the drivers of their research (axiology),
and methods used, and the outcomes of their work. As a result of this exercise, using the classification of
research paradigms employed in this book, the neo-positivist, inductive mode emerged as the dominant
paradigm in both journals, accounting for 60 percent of the papers in the combined sample. These find-
ings are discussed in terms of their application to future SoTL research.
INTRODUCTION
Teachers who are more likely to be engaging in scholarship of teaching . . . seek to understand teaching
by consulting and using the literature on teaching and learning, by investigating their own teaching from
the perspective of their intention in teaching while seeing it from the students’ position, and by formally
communicating their ideas and practice to their peers. (Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin, & Prosser, 2000,
p. 164)
Ernest Boyer first used the term “scholarship of teaching” in his book Scholarship Reconsidered: Pri-
orities of the Professoriate (1990). He argued that there were four equally important scholarships in
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch003

Research Paradigms Underpinning SoTL Papers
academic work including the Scholarship of Teaching. The word “learning” was later added and the
phrase became—Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL).
The definition of SoTL1 is contested in the literature with clear differences emanating from the United
Kingdom and the United States of America. Healey (2003) reports the following Australian definition
as garnering wide spread support:
The scholarship of teaching involves three essential and integrated elements: engagement with the schol-
arly contributions of others on teaching and learning; reflection on one’s own teaching practice and the
learning of students within the context of a particular discipline; and communication and dissemination
of aspects of practice and theoretical ideas about teaching and learning in general and teaching and
learning within the discipline. (Martin, Benjamin, Prosser, & Trigwell, 1999)
Based on this definition, for the purposes of our chapter we defined SoTL as comprising three elements:
1. Being informed about teaching and learning (by other people or the literature which includes grey
literature i.e. not refereed articles, but blogs, wikis, newspapers, etc.);
2. Inquiring, seeking answers about teaching and learning (based on the literature) and collecting
evidence; and
3. Making that inquiry public.
SoTL therefore is tertiary learning and teaching inquiry that is made public, is grounded in the literature
and is undertaken for a variety of reasons, such as: to improve one’s teaching practice, to contribute to
the literature on ongoing SoTL issues and questions, and to build on or interpret theoretical foundations
of SoTL (Hutchings & Schulman, 1999; Trigwell et al., 2000).
Institutions internationally have worked to develop policies, processes and systems that incentivize
academics to engage in SoTL (Grossman, Haigh, & Jiao, 2009; Hamilton, 2014). This has been achieved,
for example, through promotion requirements, professional development opportunities, the funding of
teaching grants and the provision of teaching excellence awards both at institutional and faculty levels.
The authors of this chapter work within a centrally based SoTL team at Swinburne University of Tech-
nology. Because of our current roles we focused our work for this book on determining what paradigms,
if any, underpin SoTL research publications.
We agree with the Ling and Ling proposition (Chapter 1) that focusing on the paradigm underpinning
a research endeavor is more important in the first instance than focusing on the methods that might be
used—partly not to perpetuate the dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative methods which persists
to this day, and perhaps more significantly, to indicate that a paradigm governs the research, including
the methods. As Table 1 (Chapter 2) demonstrates, each paradigm can include a variety of methods, both
qualitative and quantitative and those in-between, and methods are not always indicative of the paradigm.
If an article reported on research that was designed to solve a particular problem and provide a practical
solution, we classified the article as “pragmatic” in addition to the primary paradigm we had identified
as guiding the research. The latter was determined by looking at the literature framing the research, the
methods and data analysis techniques used, and the conclusions reached.
43

THE PARADIGM THAT UNDERPINS THIS CHAPTER
The authors of this chapter come from the disciplinary fields of education and cultural anthropology,
and in our collaboration on this paper we have used the interpretivist paradigm to underpin our research.
The interpretivist research stance is driven by an understanding of the world and societal phenomena
as being socially, culturally and politically constructed and subjective (Chapter 1; O’Donoghue, 2007).
Grounded methodologically in Geertz’s social science epistemologies (2000) and Denzin’s more recent
reformulations of interpretive interactionism (2001; 2008), our findings and conclusions are our subjec-
tive interpretation, and we understand that other researchers may interpret the same data differently and
draw different conclusions. By engaging in a series of discussions with each other to pinpoint how our
values and scholarly interests affected our analysis and interpretations of data, and by inviting our critical
peers into this discussion, we have endeavored to mitigate our research biases. These discussions were
concurrent with our analysis of the research papers—the process that served as the basis of our method
of inquiry—and allowed for a collegially co-constructed understanding to emerge.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Through the research that underpins this chapter we sought to answer the following questions:
1. Do SoTL authors identify a paradigm on which they base their SoTL research?
2. If a paradigm isn’t specifically articulated in the paper, are we able to detect an underpinning
paradigm from the literature framing the research, from the methods and data analysis techniques
used, and the conclusions reached?
3. If we are able to identify the paradigms underpinning the research, is there a dominant paradigm
that underpins SoTL research?
METHODOLOGY
Choosing Journals and Sample Size
Our literature review suggested that research into the paradigms that underpin SoTL research is unique.
As a first endeavor in this area, and with limited time and resources, we agreed that we could complete
a comparative process involving two journals. Ours is a small-scale study, which is, nonetheless, rigor-
ous in its method.
SoTL is a field within the tertiary education sector (Australian Education Field of Research (FOR)
Codes 1301-1304) and therefore our journal selection focused on those journals publishing tertiary
learning and teaching research. We drew on impact factors and journal rankings, including Google
Scholar metrics and the 2012 Excellence for Research in Australia journal lists, to identify highly ranked
journals in this field. We found that SoTL specific journals rarely had an impact factor. We chose to
analyze papers published in Studies in Higher Education (SHE), a United Kingdom (UK) based journal
with an impact factor of 1.03 (2014), and Higher Education in Research and Development (HERD), an
Australian based journal with an impact factor of 0.991 (2014). Both journals were included in Google
44

Scholar’s Top 20 education journals for 2015-2016 (Google Scholar, 2015) which is further evidence
of their reputation and rigorous peer review processes.
We wanted to analyze the most contemporary articles published by the journals and in June 2015,
when we commenced this research, chose as our population issues over a two-year period from June
2015, back to July 2013. This included:
• HERD: Issues 4, 5 and 6 from 2013, all six issues from 2014 and issues 1, 2 and 3 from 2015,
including one special issue—Leading the Academy—defining the future of leadership in higher
education.
• SHE: Issues covering the second half of 2013 (issues 7-10), 10 issues from 2014 and the first half
of 2015 (issues 1-5).
After book reviews, editorial pieces and points of debate were excluded from the issues, 166 articles
from HERD and 231 from SHE were identified as our population. Both journal-specific groups of papers
were then separately randomized using the Excel RAND function.
We used Piface power analysis software (The University of Iowa, 2015) to determine the number of
papers that was representative of the HERD population, and then analyzed the same number of papers
for both HERD and SHE (Thomas & Krebs, 1997). The Piface calculation determined that 25% was
a representative sample of the 166 HERD papers. We therefore analyzed 42 papers from each of the
HERD and SHE populations.
After randomizing and assigning numbers to the papers from both journals separately, we analyzed
papers from the first paper in each list until we had 42 SoTL based papers from each journal. We then
analyzed the papers in terms of their underpinning paradigms.
Moderation Between the Researchers and with Experts
Each researcher read the same three SoTL papers from the journal samples and identified an underpinning
paradigm for each article. We then discussed and compared our findings, discussed any differences in
ideas and came to agreement. We also sent the three papers to the editors of this book and, as paradigm
experts, asked them to independently determine which paradigms they thought underpinned each paper.
Broad agreement was reached; however, this process confirmed that different researchers could, without
discussion, attribute different paradigms to the same paper.
The authors then analyzed another two papers to ensure that our analyses coincided, which they did.
After that, one researcher analyzed 42 SoTL papers from SHE and the other analyzed 42 SoTL papers
from HERD. Papers were categorized as falling within the positivist, neo-positivist (whether the de-
ductive or inductive mode), transformative, interpretivist or supercomplexity paradigm. We noted that
those papers may also have an underpinning pragmatic paradigm (see Chapter 1), so some papers we
categorized as being underpinned by two paradigms.
Identifying SoTL Papers
As previously noted, not all papers published by SHE and HERD are SoTL based papers. Below we
identify the criteria which we developed to categorize papers as SoTL based or not. We initially defined
papers as SoTL based if they were:
45

• Based in the higher education teaching and learning literature; and

• Reported on research conducted in at least one of the areas of:
◦◦ Teaching practice (including curriculum development, assessment, evaluation);
◦◦ Learning environments (virtual and face to face); and
◦◦ Education experiences and outcomes (including employability outcomes).
Using this definition, we reviewed papers from the two journals until we had three papers that did
not fit our definition of SoTL based, in that they did not fit at least one criterion. One paper reported on
the experiences of the parents of students, another reported on university policy and the third reported
on educational administration. As part of our methodological process we asked two internationally
recognized SoTL experts, one from the UK and one from North America, to provide feedback on our
criteria. We emailed the experts the criteria that we used and the abstracts and links to the papers that
we believed were not SoTL based. We emphasized in our correspondence that we understood that the
concept/definition of SoTL is contested and that colleagues in different countries appear to favor slightly
different conceptions behind SoTL and more broadly there is contestation as to what constitutes research
in teaching (Poole, 2013).
Both experts agreed that the three articles were not SoTL. In light of their feedback we adjusted our
criteria. To be considered SoTL based, papers had to satisfy all of the following criteria:
1. Evidence that the study is informed by existing scholarship2 relevant to the teaching and learning
issues central to its inquiry and goals; and
2. Report on research conducted in at least one of the areas of:
a. Teaching practice (including curriculum development, assessment, evaluation);
b. Learning environments (virtual and face to face); and
c. Education experiences and outcomes (including graduate attributes, employability outcomes).
We then trialed the criteria by reviewing three articles from the HERD population of articles to
determine if the criteria helped us to distinguish between SoTL and non-SoTL papers. We were able to
use the criteria to distinguish between SoTL based and non-SoTL based papers.
FINDINGS
The paradigms underpinning the 42 HERD and the 42 SHE SoTL based papers that were analyzed in
this research are illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1. Paradigms underpinning 42 SoTL articles from each of the HERD and SHE journals
Journal Positivist Neo-Positivist Neo-Positivist Trans Interpret Super Pragmatic* Total*

Deductive Inductive
HERD 2 1 28 8 3 0 10 42
SHE 0 8 22 3 9 0 13 42
Total SoTL papers analyzed 84
*Papers that were categorized as pragmatic also were classified in one of the other paradigms.
46

Sample 1: HERD
The population selected for review included 166 articles, 42 (25%) of which were analyzed. In total the
first 51 articles of the randomized sample of papers were read as eight of the 51 papers (16%) did not
fit within our definition of SoTL. These eight papers covered issues such as: academic gender equity,
representation, and leadership; academic writing groups; leadership; auto ethnographic research; and
supporting the writing of teaching award applications. One paper, while being SoTL based, did not report
any research in the paper and therefore could be described as a development paper in which the authors
reflected on their experience. The paradigms underpinning the HERD SoTL papers are described below.
Positivist Paradigm: 2
The same author of two papers tested hypotheses proving specific predictive relationships.
Neo-Positivist (Deductive Mode) Paradigm: 1
Only one paper in the HERD sample appeared to be underpinned by a neo-positivist (deductive mode)
paradigm. In this paper the authors used a quasi-experimental methodology to determine causation.
Neo-Positivist (Inductive Mode) Paradigm: 28
Two thirds of the papers analyzed were underpinned by the neo-positivist (inductive mode) paradigm in
which the work seeks to construct a provisional understanding of consistencies or patterns where there
is a gap in knowledge.
Transformative Paradigm: 8
One fifth of the papers analyzed appeared to be underpinned by a transformative paradigm in that they
were driven by a social justice agenda. In these cases, the agendas included: improving the academic
participation or success of different equity groups; emancipation; gender equity in career planning; and
recognizing Indigenous knowledge and ways of learning in tertiary education.
Interpretivist Paradigm: 3
Two of the papers which appeared to be underpinned by an interpretivist paradigm used an auto eth-
nographic approach and the third an ethnographic approach. In all papers the authors discussed and
defended their interpretation of the research.
Supercomplexity Paradigm: 0
None of the papers in the sample appeared to be underpinned by this paradigm.
47

Pragmatic Paradigm: 10
These papers sought to find a solution to an issue or challenge. They were all focused on problem solv-
ing and effective action.
Sample 2: SHE
After identifying all articles in the SHE journal within the range described in our methodology section
(hence, establishing our population), these articles were analyzed until 42 SoTL articles were identified
(equivalent to the 25% sample for the HERD journal). The sample was formed after 92 papers in total
were reviewed and 50 papers were removed as non-SoTL based papers.
These non-SoTL papers tended to focus on higher education governance, reform and organizational
change. While published in a higher education journal, these papers technically could have been located
within managerial, business studies, organizational or policy journals.
With regards to the remaining sample of 42 papers, the main paradigm underpinning each paper
was identified using the classification in Table 1 (Chapter 2). A degree of pragmatism has also been
determined as part of this exercise by making a judgment about whether a paper, in addition to investi-
gating a particular SoTL phenomenon, also endeavored to offer recommendations for improvements or
to achieve a pragmatic goal.
Positivist Paradigm: 0
In the SHE sample there were no purely positivist papers; all hypothesis-driven papers (classified by the
authors either as neo-positivist, deductive or neo-positivist, inductive) had an element of subjectivity to
them which allowed room for discussion and contemplation of findings.
Neo-Positivist (Deductive Mode) Paradigm: 8
Neo-positivist papers sub-classified as “deductive mode” endeavored to test a certain understanding

within a specific area of SoTL knowledge. These papers tended to declare their hypothesis-testing goals
early on, sometimes as early as in the title, which could have been shaped as a question or a proposed
assumption to be tested.
Neo-Positivist (Inductive Mode) Paradigm: 22
Neo-positivist papers sub-classified as “inductive mode” had a key purpose that sought to contribute to
or construct a (new) understanding; the authors could have been building their work on an established
hypothesis or a known correlation but were not limited by those, rather putting an emphasis on develop-
ing new knowledge or questioning existing knowledge. Examples of these were papers offering to add
more to our understanding on what contributes to successful learning, effective teaching techniques, or
an evidence-based process of arranging phenomena into hierarchies.
48

Transformative Paradigm: 3
As with the HERD sample, transformative paradigm papers in SHE were driven by a social justice
agenda, and two of these were also classified as pragmatic because they were not only contributing to
the transformative knowledge in the problematic area but offering research-based recommendations on
how to improve the situation. Specifically, transformative paradigm driven papers addressed the issues
of excluded and marginalized groups in higher education (such as students from low socio-economic
status backgrounds and students with disabilities) and investigated possible ways of addressing issues
to move towards equity.
Interpretivist Paradigm: 9
SHE papers driven by the interpretivist paradigm primarily sought to develop a new understanding about
a phenomenon based on existing data. While these papers could also be pragmatic or not, or driven by a
hypothesis, as a rule they did not generate new data but rather offered new answers to existing questions.
Supercomplexity Paradigm: 0
As with the HERD sample, the analysis of the SHE sample did not identify any papers driven by the
supercomplexity paradigm. The articles were instead focused on developing an understanding, testing
an understanding or providing a solution and in some cases recommendations for action. They were not
focused on problematizing or raising multiple possibilities or emphasizing the dynamics surrounding
the subject of investigation. They contributed to certainty or at least convergence rather than creating
uncertainty or divergence.
Pragmatic Paradigm: 13
Of the 42 SHE papers analyzed, 13 were classified as pragmatic. This meant a paper, in addition to es-
tablishing a research question, analyzing data and presenting and discussing findings, also had a practical
agenda of offering a solution to what was presented as a “problem.” This solution more often than not
took the form of recommendations for improvement.
DISCUSSION
In response to our original research questions, we considered whether SoTL paper authors identified
the paradigms underpinning their work; if not, whether we could detect the underpinning paradigm by
analyzing the paper; and finally, if there was a dominant paradigm underpinning our sample of SoTL
based papers.
Our analysis of 84 SoTL papers across the two higher education journals suggested it was unusual for
authors to specify the research paradigm (or paradigms) within which they worked. In only one paper
from the HERD journal sample did the authors state the paradigm which underpinned their work (con-
structivist, which in this book falls within the inductive neo-positivist paradigm). In the SHE sample the
authors of four papers stated their driving paradigms: two papers self-positioned within a socio-cultural
49

and/or socio-constructionist approach; and two other papers self-identified as “phenomenographies,”

inferring an interpretivist paradigm at their core. In each instance when the paradigm underpinning an
article was stated by the authors, the declared paradigm coincided with our own assessment.
When unstated, determining the paradigm that underpinned another author’s work was possible. We
did so by looking at the stated or implied intent of the authors, the drivers of their research (axiology),
and methods used, and the outcomes of their work (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). We acknowledge, however,
that at times elements of more than one paradigm appeared to be represented in a paper. In those cases,
the paper was categorized under what appeared to be, in our view, the dominant paradigm.
With respect to our third research question, whether a dominant paradigm underpinned SoTL research,
the neo-positivist, inductive mode emerged as the dominant paradigm in both journals, accounting for
60 percent of the papers in our combined sample. These studies sought to answer a particular question
in order to build a new, evidence-based understanding, constructing new knowledge via different data
collection methods.
Unlike HERD, the SHE aim and scope specifically states that it publishes research in higher education
policy, and institutional management and performance. These areas of research do not fall within our
SoTL criteria and this likely accounts for the difference in the percentage of non-SoTL papers between
the two journals.
The other main differences between the two journals were that:
• SHE had a higher rate of neo-positivist (deductive) papers;

• SHE had a higher rate of interpretivist papers; and
• HERD had a high rate of transformative papers.
We considered whether a journal editor’s preferences for a particular paradigm could reinforce or
shape the process of peer review (where the reviewers may also preference a particular paradigm in their
research and are selected by the editor of each paper). We emailed the chief editor of each journal and
both confirmed that they did in fact screen papers to determine which papers were within the journal’s
scope and would be reviewed. Future research could elucidate this process further and uncover any hid-
den bias or preferences affecting which papers are reviewed and if papers that are reviewed but rejected
fall within a particular paradigm.
The supercomplexity paradigm, which implies the highest degree of uncertainty in research (Chap-
ter 1), did not appear to underpin any of the papers analyzed. Perhaps the higher education researchers
seek increased certainty through their research in comparison with other knowledge domains, such as
critical (race) theory or various other contemporary postmodernist schools of thought. Over a quarter
of the combined sample were underpinned by the pragmatic paradigm, seeking to offer solutions and
recommendations for the improvement of some aspect of SoTL practice. The vast majority of papers in
the combined sample reflected paradigms that sought certainty. Journal editors might wish to consider
including a special issue specifically inviting SoTL researchers to engage with the supercomplexity
paradigm—and a study could be conducted around this exercise to understand how supercomplexity is
understood by SoTL academics and what the benefits and shortfalls of this approach are.
Further examples of future work that could be conducted include a study in which the authors of
the papers we have analyzed are contacted and asked to identify the paradigm which underpinned the
research in their paper. We could then compare our interpretation with the original intent of the authors.
50

One final future study could look at the area of gender and paradigm selection. Kandlbinder (2014)
concluded that male researchers dominate the higher education literature, and that there is a need for
affirmative action to attract women into this area and properly acknowledge their contributions. In a
future study we could determine the paradigms that underpin SoTL research with respect to the gender
of the researchers to determine if the different genders favor different underpinning research paradigms.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge input and support from Dr Simone Buzwell, Dr Nancy Chick,
Ms Linden Clarke, Emeritus Professor Mick Healy, Adjunct Associate Professor Peter Ling and Profes-
sor Lorraine Ling.
REFERENCES
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from depts.washington.edu/gs630/Spring/Boyer.pdf
Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
doi:10.4135/9781412984591
Denzin, N. K. (2008). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: The politics of interpretation.
Malden, UK: Blackwell.
Geertz, C. (2000). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (3rd ed.). Basic Books.
Google Scholar. (2015). Top publications—Education. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from https://scholar.
google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=soc_education
Grossman, P., Haigh, N., & Jiao, X. (2009). The status of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
in New Zealand universities: Three institutional case studies. Final report to the Ministry of Education
and Ako Aotearoa. National Centre of Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from https://www.re-
searchgate.net/publication/276921881_The_status_of_the_scholarship_teaching_and_learning_SOTL_
in_New_Zealand_universities_-_Three_institutional_case_studies
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging conflu-
ences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp.
191–216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hamilton, D. (2014). Building a culture of pedagogical enquiry: Institutional support strategies for de-
veloping the scholarship of teaching and learning. Advances in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
1(1). Retrieved June 20, 2016, from http://tlc.unisim.edu.sg/research/AdvSoTL/hemilton.html
Healey, M. (2003). The scholarship of teaching: Issues around an evolving concept. Journal on Excel-
lence in College Teaching, 14(1/2), 5–26.
51

Hutchings, P., & Schulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new develop-
ments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10–15. doi:10.1080/00091389909604218
Kandlbinder, P. (2014). Signature concepts of women researchers in higher education teaching and learn-
ing. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1562–1572. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.801430
Martin, E., Benjamin, J., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Scholarship of teaching: A study of the
approaches of academic staff. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving student learn-
ing outcomes (pp. 326–331). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford
Brookes University.
O’Donoghue, T. A. (2007). Planning your qualitative research project: An introduction to interpretivist
research in education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Poole, G. (2013). Square one: What is research? In K. McKinney (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching
and learning in and across the disciplines (pp. 135–151). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
The University of Iowa. (2015). Java applets for power and sample size. Retrieved February 29, 2016,
from http://homepage.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power/index.html#Download_to_run_locally
Thomas, L., & Krebs, C. J. (1997). A review of statistical power analysis software. Bulletin of the Eco-
logical Society of America, 78(2), 126–138.
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher
Education Research & Development, 9(2), 155–168. doi:10.1080/072943600445628
ENDNOTES
1
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
2
“Educational or pedagogical research, the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), discipline-
based educational research (DBER), or learning theory or [learning] science” (http://www.ucalgary.
ca/taylorinstitute/node/30).
52
53
Chapter 4
Doctoral Research Supervision:
Interpretive, Developmental,
Transformative, and Culturally Adaptive
Margaret E. Robertson
La Trobe University, Australia
ABSTRACT
Supervisors generally recognize the complex capacities needed to complete the doctoral degree. However,
pressures from management practices in universities for rapid completions have time-compressed the
leisurely research experience of a bygone intellectual age. The need for focused supervision strategies
that bridge candidate and supervisor expectations seems clear. At the same time articulating supervi-
sion “pedagogies” poses a philosophical and theoretical conundrum. Whilst supervision expertise can
be intuitive, and often based on personal experience, the research candidate will have different lived
experiences. Their respective world views can be dialectically opposed to that of their supervisor with
the decision making landscapes caught in subjectivities, stubbornness and non-recognition of “other.”
Paradigmatic shifts can be an integral part of the development process. In the context of increasing
internationalization of the doctoral experience “downunder” these arguments are cause for reflection
on how supervisors and candidates can deepen their philosophical, and meaning-making constructs of
“knowing,” and seek transformative intellectual positions.
INTRODUCTION
A counterpoint to labeling the theoretical position or paradigm upon which the research study evolves is
consideration of the shifting sand within the supervisor/supervisee dialectic. The proposition is that both
supervisor and candidate are caught in a unique web of meaning making that is philosophically biased
by ontological and epistemological forces—often beyond their immediate field of vision. Starting with
a brief historical overview related to the “downunder” context, consideration is given in this chapter to
the value of holistic approaches based on the work of Kegan (1994), Perry (1999) and Gebser (1985).
Each offers a methodology for interpreting a candidate’s behaviors, which in turn help guide the inter-
pretive process of supervision. In brief, a synthesis of their perspectives offers a strategy for supervisors
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch004

Doctoral Research Supervision
facilitating the meaning-making process of the thesis journey as well as ways for supporting students
from diverse cultural backgrounds to better understand their own process. International students from
non-English speaking backgrounds who are studying in Australian universities are the focal cohort for
this analysis. The focus of discussion is on their lived experience, and how subjectivity in the beginning
stages of the research process is challenged, and at times compelled to make, what can appear to feel like
quite radical changes in world views. At work is a transformative paradigm of self which may or may
not lead to an alignment in the research study undertaken. Nevertheless, the personal insights gathered
are likely to influence the final shaping of the research to be undertaken.
BACKGROUND
In their book series Doctorates Downunder (2006, 2007, 2009) editors Carey Denholm and Terry Evans
mapped the landscape of the doctoral experience in Australia and New Zealand. Their list of contributing
editors represented the who’s who list of graduate supervisors in the region. The series was and arguably
remains a benchmark for bringing together a comprehensive documentation of the issues facing students,
supervisors, faculties and higher education providers contracted in the process. As the title suggests
there may be a difference in the experience for doctoral students within this geopolitical region when
compared with North America or Europe. Both Australia and New Zealand are nations with diminishing
but continuing connections with European traditions. The Bologna process (Walters, 2009), for instance,
is referenced in higher education circles as a guide for global standards related to equity, mobility and
opportunities for international cooperation. Just as countries within the European Union are engaging in
cooperation to achieve more uniformity in standards that will facilitate international credit transfer, many
Ministers of Education around the world are now signatories to that process and committed to aspire to
the same goals of attainment including national qualifications frameworks. This appears to assume that
the Bologna process goals which originated in 1999 within the European Union framework may have a
universality of application. In the context of enhanced mobility options, both in real and online terms,
a “knowledge” standard to which institutions of higher education and ministries of education in diverse
cultural settings can apply has much appeal.
Within this recognized highly competitive global market for higher education the “doctorates dow-
nunder” approach presumed a difference in the programs for Australia and New Zealand. Whilst a valid
assumption, however, the “downunder” view articulated is in need of an update—or a new volume that
better reflects the diversity of candidates who have benefited from the Bologna process and other inter-
national agreements. Connell’s more recent construct of Southern Theory (2007) appears to capture the
problem. Although knowledge may now be produced in a different historical and geopolitical context,
Connell insists that contemporary intellectual practices remain subject to systems of reproduction that do
not allow for diversity to emerge. The times are different, and according to Manathunga (2014), global
marketing has resulted in epistemological landscapes of cultural diversity for supervisors and candidates.
The levels of complexity differ from past landscapes of scholarly exchange.
The direction pursued in this paper relates primarily, although not exclusively, to the changing needs
of supervision required to respond to contemporary patterns of student mobility. One element of the
change relates to the discovery world of social media and digital resources. The other relates to the flows
of students from diverse cultural settings into the “downunder” region and the expectations that they
bring to the task of doctoral studies. Many of the key issues are highlighted in the Australian Education
54

International Lawson Report (Lawson, 2012). Aimed at accessing students’ voices of their experiences as
doctoral students within Australia, the report reminds us that: “International students are not a homogenous
group, and it is important that they not be treated as such” (p. 17). The need for better understanding,
especially of the international student experience, is also a recommendation of the Australasian Survey
of Student Engagement. The report notes several concerns including the “integration of international
learners, and their interactions with institutions and domestic students” (ACER, 2011, p. 2). Interna-
tionalization of the higher education context is well documented (Australian Education International,
2013). Summarized by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014) the participation figures show that:
In 2001, just under one in three (30%) higher education students were born overseas, with the figure
rising to 33% in 2011. Of higher education students born overseas in 2011, over half (60%) were born
in Asia, 16% were born in Europe, and 13% were born in Africa and the Middle East. Specifically,
many international students came from China (19%), England (7%), India (6%), Malaysia (5%) and
New Zealand (4%).
The pressure to find common ground or to build a relationship based on understanding is profoundly
complex for both supervisor and student. At the same time, as well as insights from the reports cited
there is much advice to be gained from published research findings.
RECENT RESEARCH
In part, driven by accountability trends in universities (Marsh, Rowe, & Andrew, 2002) many issues to
emerge “downunder” relate to course evaluation. However, globally, the literature extant related to the
relationship between student and supervision is richly diverse and a source of considerable guidance
for current directions. For instance, the role of mentoring in the relationship considered by Swedish re-
searchers Lindén, Ohlin and Brodin (2013); the power relationship in the supervision process analyzed
by Hemer (2012); ethical issues in the relationship explored by Finnish researchers Löfström and Pyhältö
(2014); or the focus on perspectives of candidates and their reasons for undertaking the doctoral journey
in the first place (Stubb, Pyhältö, & Lonka,, 2014). All appear as valid dimensions in these complex
relationships and give further credence to the view that the process of completing a doctor of philosophy
(PhD) degree requires significant shifts in the ways in which the candidate engages with the world, and
creates meaning from experience.
Universities make assumptions regarding the cognitive capability of potential candidates to complete
the course. Eligibility requirements may vary slightly but generally require evidence of capability to
complete a research project that demonstrates a contribution to new knowledge or theory. Language
ability is measured by the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), and although this
provides a base level indicator of a person’s English proficiency, the reality is that the tasks ahead are
much more nuanced than the test can measure. Illustrative of these assumptions is the Australian govern-
ment’s post-graduate scholarship program. To be eligible the guidelines interpreted at university level
typically state: “Applicants must have completed at least 4 years of tertiary education studies at a very
high level of achievement (that is, first class honours degree or equivalent) at an Australian university
or recognised overseas university” (Latrobe University, n.d.).
55

The problem is that simply stipulating a need for “a very high level of achievement” makes an assump-
tion that all universities measure outcomes with similar expectations. Whilst “achievement” is measured
by results that identify graduates with the highest levels of success, these same results can be based on
diverse pathways. The research of Biggs and Tang (2011), for instance, acknowledges this distinction
by debunking the largely discredited One Grand Theory approach to learning that caught the attention
of psychologists in the mid-twentieth century. They promote the need to consider the learning process
as a unique student experience with similarly unique or multiple pathways towards the end goals or set
outcomes. The diagnostic tool of choice used by Biggs is SOLO taxonomy (the Structure of Observed
Learning Outcomes)—perhaps his biggest contribution to the field of better understandings of learning.
In their book, now in its fourth edition, Biggs and Tang (2011) retain this element as the cornerstone of
understanding assessment. Related applications of SOLO indicate the shifts that take place in a learner’s
grasp of a construct from concrete thinking at the lowest level of understanding to abstract relational at
the upper levels. Learners can revisit the concrete level to make explicit their understandings and connect
with prior learning as a pathway to higher levels of engagement. The process is adaptable for students
of diverse backgrounds and experience to dip back into their linguistic and cultural past as a means of
building bridges with their new experiences.
Making judgments about the quality of the learning outcome are central to the teaching and learning
process (Saljo, 2009). However, the limitation of this assumption is the focus on outcomes that can be
episodic events or small parts of the greater task of completion of the thesis. It is at this point that I have
a point of difference and my argument deflects away from the measurable outcomes to focus on the
learner, and in particular the international doctoral candidate—as a developing person both at student
and supervisor level, and between students within the doctoral program. Recognizing that the doctoral
process is part emotional, part cognitive and part cultural required a shopping list for pedagogical tools
that might help explain the process as a journey of thought development. What follows is a brief overview
of the knowledge making propositions made by influential thinkers of the twentieth century (mostly)
who appear to influence thought and actions within the contemporary “downunder” university context.
Included is a synthesis of their ideas and strategies used to examine the processes undertaken in our
supervision experiences. The strategies identified are documented as having assisted the epistemological
journeys of doctoral candidates from domestic and international backgrounds, including many Asian
and European countries.
ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL CHANGE
The literature reviewed suggests that the doctoral process is far from unidirectional; it relies on reciprocity
between the supervisor and the candidate, and the end point is perceptually muddied. Particularly in the
context of ethnically diverse students from equally varied cultures there is ongoing cause for reflection
on strategies that can facilitate “successful” or agreed outcomes. A more holistic understanding was
needed. To achieve this bigger picture approach, attention turned to scholars whose ideas on learning,
knowledge development and higher order skills acquisition are multi-disciplinary—including philosophy,
psychology, sociology, critical theory and education. The field is rich with options and for the purposes
of the argument a narrow selection is cited: John Dewey (1916), Michel Foucault (1994), Alfred North
Whitehead (1962), Antonio Gramsci (Ekers, Hart, Kipfer, & Loftus, 2013); Ludwig Wittgenstein (Mul-
hall, 2007), and Jean Gebser (1985). Despite the breadth of the field, recurring concepts within the
56

writings sampled are “place,” “nature,” “environment,” “language,” “time” and “mind.” This suggests
some common ground options. By way of summary whilst reviewing Anthony Giddens’ contribution
to the discipline of sociology, Craib (2011) concludes that the social theory extant provides an omelet
of options, and the mix can be bad or smooth. Being mindful of the complexity of concurrent tradi-
tions, the pathway chosen for this chapter draws together ideas considered to best represent the breadth
of conceptual thinking needed to underpin our recommendations for supervision in the contemporary
university “downunder.” This may have a bad mix for some apologists. The risk is to avoid thinking
based on assumptions or prior expectations and remain “in the cave.”
First, John Dewey, the education reformist who continues to provide benchmark thinking concerning
learning as personal experience intersecting with cognition and nature. A proponent of constructivism
born in the US state of Vermont in 1859, Godfrey-Smith (1998) summarizes of Dewey: “He believed
that thought and theory have a role in the construction of the world” (p. 159). However, coupled with
this is the view that change involves some action. In Dewey’s words “intelligence is incarnate in overt
action, using things as means to affect other things” (1929, p. 129). If we assume that at the heart of
the doctoral process is the construction and testing of theories, then the outcome is a result of change in
individual thought that brings together action and environment. Moving on, action implies the power to
act (Foucault, 1994), and/or an ability to influence one’s environment. Like Dewey, Foucault’s influence
on educational practice endures. So too does that of Alfred North Whitehead. On education, for instance,
Whitehead proposes a development process of rhythmic cycles from childhood to adult “wisdom.” In
his view “Freedom and discipline are the two essentials of education” (1962, p. 47). Whitehead, the
scientist, sees rationality in thought as a learned process and at university level the focus should be on
the “cultivation of mental power” (1962, p. 47). Each perspective contributes to fundamental elements
of educational theory. At the same time additional insights directed to background culture are needed to
apply the pedagogical principles. Insights require some discipline outreach to broader fields of sociology
and philosophy. Writings on post-colonialism, neoliberalism, and “new” globalization and development
at personal and cultural levels add this missing dimension.
To begin, because higher education “downunder” has post-colonial connections there is merit in
reflecting on intellectual traditions that show the evolution and fluidity of ideas. Illustrative are the ar-
guments of Gramsci (Ekers et al., 2013). Although framed in the context of twentieth century European
Marxism, Gramsci’s views of cultural influence on institutions and therefore individual freedoms have
attracted renewed attention in the twenty-first century context of the spatial turn associated with globalized
economics. As Castree (2006) notes, we seem to be experiencing a “detour of critical theory” (p. 266)
to a “new left” perspective typified in the writings of David Harvey. The simmering presence of a kind
of intellectual turn is not unusual in scholarly discourse. As Castree further observes: “Academics are,
of course, principally producers of new knowledge—philosophical, theoretical and empirical” (p. 266).
Part of the process is our ability to be reflective and review our positions in contemporary universities.
When dealing with international students from different cultural backgrounds and traditions, reflection
inevitably leads to the role of language and prior learning. Noting the contribution of Wittgenstein in
this regard along with the complexity of his thesis, the linguistic turn of the mid 1950s is again perti-
nent for this review process. These are prompts for seeking alternate ontologies of meaning (Giddens,
1991). So doing brings us full circle back to Whitehead’s distinction between “reality” and “actuality”;
the latter of which is fundamental as an ontological proposition. Language then is a vehicle for subtly
shifting consciousness, or subjective knowing, to a higher order status where the knowing is perceived
as fact. Accepting this proposition we can argue that language can offer access to new understandings
57

whilst at the same time prohibit our ability to reach for the next level of complexity in the discourse of
ideas. Knowing self is part of the journey of discovery. However, arriving at the point of knowing can
be problematic. In Gidden’s (1991) view significant changes in thinking are painful transition points.
These are: “Fateful moments . . . when individuals are called upon to take decisions that are principally
consequential for their ambitions, or more generally their future lives” (p. 112).
To end this mix of ideas one additional “turn” needs to be acknowledged. This relates to the com-
modification of knowledge. As Castree states (2006, pp. 266-267), “where they [academics] were once,
perhaps, special in this regard, today they are just one of many knowledge producers in late capitalist
societies.” Part of this cultural reorganization of power, wealth and influence we can attribute to coun-
tercultures and the unfolding phenomenon of counter-knowledges made possible through social media
(Jenkins, 2006). The field of ideas in the digital world of communication and instant access to “knowl-
edge” offer an added component that the developing person can use effectively and in scholarly ways.
At the same time this freedom of access to the world of infinite ideas can become a trap that deflects
the focus from the discipline of scholarship.
Self as Actor
What can be interpreted from these writings is that the conscious self is an actor in the process of
mediating between unconscious perceptions and events in the present. In order to get a grip on this
current or perceived reality, past wisdom of acknowledged scholars seems to demand a deeper level of
consciousness. The work of Jean Gebser was selected for the task. Gebser’s focus on the whole person
including mythical and spiritual pasts seemed to complement the profiles of our international doctoral
cohort. Gebser argues “a man’s [sic] coming to consciousness is inseparably bound to his conscious-
ness of space and time” (1985, p. 2). The supervision reality is that the consciousness of supervisor and
doctoral candidate can be widely divergent and will likely require shifting ground from both sides of the
relationship. For international students studying for their doctorates in a foreign language and culture,
this can be a major hurdle to overcome early in the process.
Hence, for universities “downunder” the final piece of the wisdom is recognition that for post-colonial
nations the norm is not of necessity European in cultural connection. Edward Said’s (1979)Orientalism
set the stage for this reappraisal of perspectives. Along with writings from Bhabha (1994) and Nandy
(2005) we can gain a much stronger understanding of the constructs of “other,” “self,” and cultural influ-
ence on cognitive development in a post-colonial context. Hence, to conclude, the Bologna process may
not provide the answers needed for our purposes “downunder.” The quest for a deeper understanding
of the supervision process is how to take the past wisdom, wrapped in the present university context
of policies and normative practices, and find practical guidance for the times in which we live. Two
sources guided this part of the puzzle. These are William Perry’s scheme for intellectual development in
the college years (1999) and developmental psychologist Robert Kegan’s levels of meaning making. An
interpretation follows with examples drawn from a small sample of doctoral candidates “downunder.”
TOWARDS A SCHEME FOR “DOWNUNDER”
Perry’s (1999) reissued book was first published in 1968. In that he set out a scheme for recognizing
the “ethical and intellectual development” of students in their college years. At that reissue time Perry
58

asked the question whether his scheme could have relevance in the “unsilent times” of student behavior
when compared to the “silent generation” of students in earlier decades. The test is in its application
today. Basically, Perry’s research led him to propose nine “positions” in students’ development. Starting
from Position 1 where the student perceives in terms of absolutes or “polar terms” of right and wrong or
good and bad, the next step is the beginnings of perceptions of opinion followed by an increasing sense
of “relativism” to a point of recognition of the need for “orienting himself in a relativistic world” (p.
11). Then comes “personal commitment” and finally “the affirmation of identity” (p. 11). During this
process conditions of “delay, deflection and regression” (p. 11) are possible and provide reminders of the
limitations of any construct which attempts to reduce the experience to “positions.” In our increasingly
large cohorts of post-graduate international students within Australian universities, Perry’s positions
are recognizable. Consider for instance, the journey from a Saudi Arabian higher education post to an
Australian university. The mix of genders, informality of interactions between students and teachers,
focus on discussion and group work, and above all, no right answers, are often the antitheses of prior
experience. The need for constant checking with the supervisor and seeking affirmations for the “right
response” can be frustrating for the student who seeks a simple factual response, and for the teacher or
supervisor who seeks independent learners with the capacity for autonomous decision making (Robert-
son & Al Zahrani, 2012). A heavy reliance on trust building to overcome the apparent risk taking and
steps into the foreign world of the new learning environment are fragile times early in the relationship.
Perhaps, not surprisingly, regression and delays are likely events along the pathway. Perry’s set of “posi-
tions” guides the supervisor to in turn help the student to work through these steps.
Whilst Perry’s approach has application in the “downunder” context, the relationship between candidate
and supervisor seemed to demand a more sophisticated approach. To attain this state of being a theory
was needed that would marry the process approach of Perry with the states of consciousness approaches
of Gebser. The theory chosen for this analysis is based on Kegan’s construct of epistemological change.
Kegan’s approach in the field of adult learning and professional development demonstrates a way to
recognize the signs students are using, and how to encourage them to engage with qualitatively more
complex processes of thought. This evolving “self” approach to meaning making brings together both
constructivist and developmental fields of discourse (Kegan, 1994, pp. 198-199). Essentially Kegan’s
approach identifies five developmental orders that help us assess where a student is in their thinking. First
order thinking is aligned with unrelated perceptions. Second order thinking often embraces a defensive
stance, such as “my question for my thesis is right. If you, as the supervisor do not agree, then you are
the wrong supervisor for me.” For doctoral students the latter three orders are most useful. It is within
these stages that the object of thinking shifts from concrete simple associations to abstract thought and
connections much aligned with the relational levels of SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Tang, 2011). Transi-
tions from second order to third order generally require the candidate to experience and learn to value
points of view of other people; to develop the capacity to hear; to listen to the other person, and to engage
in the meaning of what they are saying. Pedagogical examples to develop such a capacity are “jigsaw
groups” where each participant is personally responsible for listening to multiple views around a specific,
defined topic and then representing the views of these others to an interested third party.
To illustrate, post-graduate students enrolled in a unit (within one Australian University) titled Peda-
gogical Principles are required to engage in a group work process initiated in the first meeting of the
class. The majority of the mixed gender group of students are recent arrivals in Australia from countries
including: Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Nepal, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and
Peru. From the first encounter, individuals in the class face language and cultural differences along with
59

psychological and emotional challenges. Recognizing these significant differences in prior learning and
meaning making processes, the course design seeks to disturb the past consciousness each person brings
to their studies with the aim of developing new meanings about teaching and learning. To do this, on
day two of the class, students are randomly assigned to groups with a task to research and present find-
ings in a class presentation scheduled four weeks ahead. All group members are expected to participate.
For many participants the unexpected nature of the activity is both stressful and challenging. The risk
involves treading into the unknown with limited scaffolding for the individual apart from the imposed
dynamic of the internal workings of the group. Reflective comments suggest this process is quite con-
fronting for students. At the same time the process is successful in raising the levels of consciousness
beyond culturally embedded habits and challenging “self” to think of “other.”1
It was good experience working in a multicultural group representing east and west. Every member was
reflecting professional and flexible attitudes realizing each other’s situation. Each of the group members
shared their practical field experience increased cross personal knowledge and help for the enrichment
of our presentation. The task distribution from group formation to performance was well managed. The
group was also not on choice based but the understanding was constructed with passage of time. - Amir
from Saudi Arabia
I had fun working in this group, even though it was both challenging and frustrating at times. That is
the nature of group-work. We had some colliding opinions, and we discussed our way through it to
reach a decision everyone was comfortable with (or willing to compromise to). It was a wide learning
experience for me, I learned not only more about the different learning approaches we chose, but also
a lot about school systems and classroom management in the eastern countries. I also got to know some
great people. - Judith from Australia
At this level past identity appears ready to be challenged. The catalyst for successful transition to
doctoral candidate, where meaning making from multiple realities is expected and cognitive preferences
can be justified has been attained.
The fourth order in Kegan’s developmental stages of consciousness identifies moments when the
candidate is able to incorporate multiple theories. We see emergence of a coherent sense of self, which
allows the candidate’s writing to have a sense of personal voice rather than just randomly exploring the
theories of others. The voices of the theories are filtered and explored through the self-authoring voice
of the candidate. In the case of international students this phase is often linked with increasing language
confidence and a transition away from the need for direct translation from their mother tongue. For Abdul
this occurred when he stopped translating every word into English and started to write directly in English.
As if to switch channels in thinking, this moment of recognition was the trigger for a spurt of growth
in confidence. The voice of the integrated independent thinker broke through the barrier and success
followed. The object could be embraced without the other voice intruding. This is usually identified as
the area in which a doctorate is established. A candidate who is capable of exploring their thesis in this
order will generally attain their goal.
A basic question underpinning all of this is how we encourage transition from one order to the next.
Kegan and others (including Perry, 1999) note that this process in itself is complex and unpredictable.
In his analysis of “self and society in the late modern age” Giddens (1991) seems to capture this process
as a shifting from “ontological security” to “existential anxiety.” Careful to distinguish anxiety from fear
60

he states: “Anxiety has its seeds in fear of separation from the prime caretaking agency” (pp. 45-46). As
illustrated in the first example of the post-graduate group work process, any support strategies designed
to transition students from one order to the next needs to happen early in the process of candidature,
preferably when multiple students can attend class together. With doctoral group seminars, particularly
where the emphasis is on problem solving, developing a sense of shared learning “space” through regu-
lar meeting times and mutual commitment contributes to powerful learning. As reported by Robertson
(2010), the group can become an important anchor for friendship and intra-group mentoring. The group
dynamics provide an effective development channel for doctoral candidates to test new thinking, take
risks in a safe space, and flirt with new ideas. For new candidates this group space can also become an
important place for orientation. The economic, cultural and emotional risks for doctoral candidates are
acknowledged as substantial. Self-doubt and anxiety can be the enemy for any candidate. Reflecting on
their experience of meeting regularly every two weeks (see Robertson et al., 2013), candidates observed:
The basic difference in teaching and learning philosophy between our home country and Australia is
the most serious heart stroke. Coming from Vietnam and China (I am not sure about other countries in
Asia), we are accustomed to discussing a problem and listening to the RIGHT answer from the teachers.
There may be other alternatives but the one from our teachers is the best and everyone should employ it
in his/her studies. Therefore, we always expect a RIGHT answer from our supervisors for our problems.
- Vietnam male, aged 31 years
Discussion among research group members allows researchers to share their projects and expand upon
the issues among a group of people who although perhaps at different stages, with different projects and
from a range of cultural backgrounds are able to offer new insights into the topic. I believe such discus-
sions with fellow researchers, familiar with a range of topics may be able to give new ideas or challenge
current issues in the research. All the group members were active and contributed to the discussion in a
friendly manner. As a result, I have discovered many new ideas which have benefited my research from
these group discussions and interactions. - Saudi male, aged 34 years
From the supervisor’s perspective, one of the crucial elements in this dynamic interactive group pro-
cess was, and remains, the learning about other ways of culturally-specific knowing. As Freire stresses
(1972) meaningful dialogue is a two-way process. We need to better understand the steps through which
the learner is travelling in their meaning making if we are to scaffold effectively in the Vygotskian sense
the next step in the journey (1978). There is a sense that candidates and their supervisors both need to
lay bare their views and ideas—both must be ready for robust discussion, defense of positions, and a
willingness to adapt or seek solutions to what may appear at times to be an impasse. Perhaps the more
important element is for the candidate and supervisor to share in the problem solving of how to achieve
personal self-efficacy in the doctoral process—that is, a pathway through the ontological and epistemo-
logical landscapes in which the thesis data collection is likely to take place and agreeing passage to the
final production phase of the thesis.
Overcoming significant hurdles is part of the process and they continue throughout the journey.
Regression can occur at any stage. If events cause a period of stalemate to occur in the final stages of
completion of the doctorate the problem may remain undiagnosed for some time. Within the group con-
text surrounded by convivial colleagues the signs can go unnoticed. Terry, for example, is Indonesian
and deeply respectful of his supervisors. His background in higher education has instilled a reluctance
61

to question authority and/or seek help when needed. Close to the deadline for final submission, Terry
appeared to “disappear.” The thesis manuscript needed to be written and submitted for checking and
editing. Some weeks passed with no contact despite efforts from supervisors. His supervisors, recog-
nizing a collision of purposes in the making, were compelled to instruct him to a meeting. The meeting
revealed he had been “paralyzed” in his actions and too anxious to seek advice. At this late stage in
the process, the candidate seemed unable to take ownership of the task and shift into the final stage of
development. At this point his supervisors stepped in to set targets and provided guidance to complete
the process. Although the outcome was successful completion of the doctorate, this very late period
regression from autonomy to dependency was a reminder of the continuing role of the supervisor to the
end. His cognitive development shift to the higher order stage needed, demonstrated both fragility and
reluctance to accept responsibility for his emergent identity as a researcher with an independent voice.
From Knowing to Research: Finding “Self”
If we assume that the doctoral outcome will be a contribution to the literature or knowledge extant in
the field of choice, then how we come to “know” is an important beginning step in the self-awareness
process and decision making related to the research study, including the adopted paradigm. Having shifted
through this process of self-awareness successfully with or without regression and associated anxiety,
candidates and supervisors are likely to have moved into Kegan’s fourth order of thinking. At this stage
the real progress in the candidature process is most likely. However, as illustrated in Terry’s case, there
is always a risk of regression, or period of inertia. The final example we use shows the relevance of
Kegan’s system of orders of consciousness and cognition from beginning to end.
Mohammed, for instance, came to Australia to study for his doctorate with a strong cultural sense of
Saudi Arabia. Mohammed expected that the professor assigned to supervise his doctoral journey would
offer guidance and authority as would be expected in Saudi Arabia. When they first met, Mohammed
addressed his supervisor as Professor Smith whose response was to say, “Just call me Jack.” Mohammed
was thoroughly confused. The authority did not tell him what to do; did not guide him or direct him. Jack
listened to Mohammed and fed back to him what he heard him say. It took many months for Mohammed
to adapt his expectations to the approach Jack was using. He felt psychologically uncomfortable in his
relationship because he did not understand the rules of the interaction. Nor did Jack tell him. To add to
his confrontation experiences Mohammed also attended a class called “the Person-Centred Approach,”
which was presented by a female academic in the Education Faculty’s post-graduate program. The class
was mixed-gender, multicultural and responsive to student needs—the antithesis of his prior learning and
knowing. This pedagogical approach opened Mohammed’s eyes to a new way of learning. Mohammed
showed signs of Kegan’s readiness to reach for Level 4 or that stage where accepting “others” is viable.
At the same time he continued to draw back from taking that ultimate test of accepting this new way of
thinking. For shifting the awakening awareness of “other” in the early phase, and reaching that level of
development noted by Kegan as transformation, was a critical test of self-belief, student and supervisor
power relations, and a willingness to accept ontological change. These are the rituals and myths deeply
embedded in our sub-conscious (Gebser, 1985). For transformation to take place there is a need for
change in behavior. Some of these assumptions we are aware of, others we are not, but they accompany
us throughout the doctoral process.
62

Owning the Research: Kegan’s Fifth Order Arrives
The hard slog of doing the research or gathering data and information can provide a great sense of
satisfaction for candidates. The process involves complex negotiation through multiple systems for
ethical approval and access to sample populations or documents including policies and agencies. This
is a potentially dangerous time when a sense of achievement may cloud the path ahead. That is, taking
all the documentation and results related to the research questions, and then converting the findings to
publishable materials—either through journal articles or a thesis. At this point the candidate can be-
come complacent with the time available. For international students, particularly, who have their time
limited by visa arrangements, this potential lapse of concentration can be catastrophic. This was in part
the problem faced by Terry. Terry’s inertia required unanticipated supervision intervention. Hence, the
role of the supervisor needs to be vigilant during this process to overcome any post-data collection leth-
argy. The other element for the supervisor to consider during the write-up phase is the need for much
more one-on-one time. For international students who have “found their other voice” this may lead to a
protective self-confidence related to the thesis writings produced. The potential for friction during this
period includes how and what is reported; the analyses and arguments presented, as well as how well
the “new knowledge” sits within the broader research field. These decisions can become a final battle
ground for the supervisor who considers him or herself to be the expert on how the final thesis or article
should appear. The fifth order of thinking has arrived and the candidate–supervisor peer relationship
reaches mutuality.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
In summary, an understanding of the power-knowledge relationship associated with the doctoral super-
vision process affirms a number of core principles or beliefs. First, context does matter. The context
“downunder” in this chapter has been the Australian university sector with limited reference to New
Zealand universities. Second, the outcome of recognizing the importance of context means old narratives
based on past traditions in the candidate-supervisor relationship (see Denholm & Evans, 2009) are in
need of upgrade to recognize the dynamic, diverse and sometimes confused context of the millennium
culture. Third, piecemeal approaches reliant on structural reforms at macro levels are not going to assist
what is essentially a deeply personal developmental process associated with getting a doctorate. Finally,
holistic approaches appear to offer the flexibility needed for nurturing quality candidate–supervisor part-
nerships, which not only guide the candidate to the finish line but nurture enduring friendships, research
collaboration and expanding goodwill within the university community of scholars. Well before the
final decision is taken on the research paradigm to be adopted in the research process there is a wisdom
in knowing self; recognizing prior convictions; acknowledging alternate approaches; and being willing
to trust, listen and learn. Interpretive and transformative, the process of paradigm discovery within the
millennial culture “downunder” appears to be increasingly complex. Then again hybridity and the melt-
ing pot of ideas have always been at the heart of intellectual endeavor—including education research.
63

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Writing this chapter emerged from conversations with colleagues related to research supervision. Dr
Tricia McCann’s contributions to the shaping of this chapter, including reflections on personal supervi-
sions, are considerable and include early section drafts modified for this chapter and included in adapted
form with her permission.
So too are the contributions of research candidates consulted for their reflections and personal insights
to the research supervision process. Shifts in thinking and changing directions in the research process
adopted, including decisions related to the preferred paradigm have been integrally connected with the
researcher–supervisor relationship
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Hitting the books: Characteristics of higher education students.
Retrieved December 12, 2015 from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main
+Features20July+2013#p2
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2011). Australasian survey of student engagement: Re-
search briefing (vol. 9). Retrieved from www.acer.edu.au/files/AUSSE_Research_Briefing_Vol9.pdf
Australian Education International. (2013). AEI international student enrolment data 2013. Retrieved
from https://aei.gov.au/research/International-Student-Data/Documents/INTERNATIONAL%20STU-
DENT%20DATA/2013/2013Jan_0712.pdf
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th
ed.). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
Castree, N. (2006). The detour of critical theory. In N. Castree & D. Gregory (Eds.), David Harvey: A
critical reader (pp. 247–269). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9780470773581.ch13
Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Cambridge,
UK: Polity.
Craib, I. (2011). Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge.
Denholm, C., & Evans, T. (2006). Doctorates downunder. ACER Press.
Denholm, C., & Evans, T. (2007). Supervising doctorates. ACER Press.
Denholm, C., & Evans, T. (2009). Beyond doctorates downunder. ACER Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Ekers, M., Hart, G., Kipfer, S., & Loftus, A. (Eds.). (2013). Gramsci: Space, nature and politics. Oxford,
UK: John Wiley and Sons.
64

Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things. An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage
Books.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin.
Gebser, J. (1985). The ever-present origin (N. Barstad & A. Mickunas, Trans.). Ohio University Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (1998). Complexity and the function of mind in nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Hemer, S. R. (2012). Informality, power and relationships in postgraduate supervision: Supervising PhD
candidates over coffee. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 827–839. doi:10.1080/072
94360.2012.674011
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Latrobe University. (n.d.). Research scholarships. Retrieved from http://www.latrobe.edu.au/research/
future/scholarships/research-scholarships---downloads/APA2010.pdf
Lawson, C. (2012). Student voices: Enhancing the experience of international students in Australia.
Canberra, Australia: The Australian Government.
Lindén, J., Ohlin, M., & Brodin, E. (2013). Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in PhD
education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 639–662. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.596526
Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Ethical issues in doctoral supervision: The perspectives of PhD
students in the natural and behavioral sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 24(3), 195–214. doi:10.1080/1050
8422.2013.830574
Manathunga, C. (2014). Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining time, place and knowledge.
Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.
Marsh, H., Rowe, K., & Andrew, M. (2002). PhD students’ evaluations of research supervision. The
Journal of Higher Education, 73(3), 313–348. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0028
Mulhall, S. (2007). Wittgenstein’s private language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nandy, A. (2005). Exiled at home. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Perry, W. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A scheme. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Robertson, M. (2010). Expectations and “deliverables”—not always a happy match. In F. Waugh & L.
Napier (Eds.), Internationalising learning and teaching in academic settings (pp. 133–148). Sydney:
Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney.
65

Robertson, M., & Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2012). Self-efficacy and ICT integration into initial teacher educa-
tion in Saudi Arabia: Matching policy with practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
28(7), 1136–1151. doi:10.14742/ajet.793
Robertson, M., Dang, T. T., Al Zahrani, A., Santosa, H., Alsharidah, M., & Mohammed, R. et al. (2013).
A “beehive” approach to the research supervision journey. In T. Lê & Q. Lê (Eds.), Conducting research
in a changing and challenging world. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Saljo, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 44(3), 202–208. doi:10.1080/00461520903029030
Stubb, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2014). Conceptions of research: The doctoral student experience
in three domains. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 251–264. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.651449
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walters, C. (2009). Bologna process- Conference of the European ministers responsible for higher
education- Bologna policy forum. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/ho-
geronderwijs/bologna/forum/Bologna_Policy_Forum_Australian_statement.pdf
Whitehead, A. N. (1962). The aims of education and other essays. London: Ernest Benn Ltd.
ENDNOTE
1
To maintain confidentiality all names reported in this paper are substitutes for real names.
66
Section 2
68
Chapter 5
An Approach to Improving
Teaching in Higher Education:
A Case Study Informed by the Neo-
Positivist Research Paradigm
Marcia Devlin
Federation University Australia, Australia
ABSTRACT
This chapter outlines a case study of the application of the neo-positivist paradigm in the higher edu-
cation research field. A small scale evaluative study of an attempt to improve teaching and learning
provides the case study. The neo-positivist paradigm involves the objective investigation of an aspect
of reality, providing a provisional, contemporary understanding of patterns and entities. The ways in
which this paradigm informed the research design, methodology, and the interpretation of results in
a small-scale evaluative study are discussed. The study represents an attempt to conduct a rigorous
empirical research project that incorporated random allocation to intervention and control groups,
pre- and post-intervention measures of teaching and learning and the use of psychometrically sound
measurement tools and qualitative data. The ways in which the ontology, axiology and epistemology of
the neo-positivist paradigm impacted on the study and its findings are outlined.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on higher education research. Higher education is not a discipline, per se, but a
field of professional practice and a field of inquiry. There are a large number of disciplinary backgrounds
applied to higher education research. These include a number one might expect, such as psychology,
sociology, philosophy, linguistics, politics and management, as well as those that might not be obviously
applicable, such as economics, anthropology and biology (Tight, 2004). There is, in fact, no barrier to
the application of a disciplinary perspective to higher education research, other than that it has relevance
to the investigation being undertaken and that this relevance is articulated.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch005

An Approach to Improving Teaching in Higher Education
Research in higher education is focused across a wide range of themes and topics. Much of it falls
into the following categories:
• Teaching and learning;

• Curriculum and course design;
• The student experience;
• Academic work;
• Institutional management;
• Quality; and
• Policy (Adapted from Tight, 2004).
This is by no means an exhaustive list but it provides an indication of the areas where much higher
education research is undertaken. The two most common genres of higher education research identified
by Tight (2004) are the small-scale evaluative study and the descriptive policy analysis or critique. These
are often the genres in which higher education research students’ work.
There are many paradigms, or worldviews or sets of assumptions and understandings, that can be
and are used in higher educational research. This chapter focuses on one of these—the neo-positivist
paradigm. This paradigm involves the objective investigation of an aspect of reality. Neo-positivism
provides a provisional, contemporary understanding of patterns and entities and is distinguished from
positivism, which uncovers the way an element of the world is.
The ways in which this paradigm informed the research design, methodology, and the interpretation
of results in a small-scale evaluative study are discussed. A case study of the PhD thesis of the author
(see Devlin, 2007), which also led to a number of peer refereed papers, is presented to illustrate the ap-
plication of this paradigm in a higher education research student context. It is hoped that this illustration
might serve to assist both instructors and students in education research methods and researchers and
research students engaged in education research, and those who supervise them.
A common challenge in undertaking higher education post-graduate research is determining the nature
of the study to be pursued, the most appropriate research paradigm for the study, and the methods, data,
forms of analysis, and nature of conclusions appropriate to progressing a topic of interest. This chapter
provides higher education researchers, research supervisors and research students with one framework
to consider when working to locate research interests in a paradigm and in determining a research design
congruent with the paradigm.
The PhD study to be used as a case study was about teaching in higher education. It was concerned
with improvement in the teaching of individual university academic staff. The author’s disciplinary back-
ground is Psychology and the PhD involved the application of an adaptation of a psychological approach
to a higher education teacher context and the determination of the impacts of that approach on teaching.
A particular approach to improving individual teaching based on, and adapted from a psychological tech-
nique, Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT), was examined to determine the effects of this approach
on the development and improvement of higher education teaching. In effect, the study was around an
educational intervention—a focus of wide interest across a range of higher education research topics.
Designing and conducting research to determine the effects of educational interventions is a chal-
lenging endeavor (Devlin, 2008). There is a paucity of rigorous examination of the outcomes of at-
tempts to improve higher education teaching and the PhD study on which this chapter is based sought
to contribute to knowledge and the literature in this area. The study represents an attempt to conduct
69

a rigorous empirical research project that incorporated random allocation to intervention and control
groups, pre- and post-intervention measures of teaching and learning and the use of psychometrically
sound measurement tools. In addition, qualitative data were incorporated into the design to add depth and
breadth to the findings. This represents the application of a neo-positivist paradigm with both qualitative
and quantitative methodologies.
As is the case throughout the book, “paradigm” here is used to mean a set of concepts that form
a pattern or model; in particular a set of concepts that reflect a world view underpinning a particular
subject or pursuit—in this case the pursuit of research relating to higher education.
As outlined in Chapter 1 of this book, a paradigm is the high order categorization of the assumptions
underpinning the research endeavor, including the view of reality (the ontology), the intent and values
of the researcher, the drivers of the research (the axiology), the nature of the knowledge or understand-
ing that can be gained from the research (the epistemology), the methods appropriate to conduct of the
research (methodology), and the nature of conclusions that can be reached.
A neo-positivist paradigm ontology posits that reality may be subject to change over time. While
“over time” may be taken to refer to a timeframe that stretches beyond an individual research exercise,
it is an assumption that could also be applied within a particular research exercise. In the example dis-
cussed in this chapter, it was assumed that teaching might change over the period of the study and the
hypothesis being tested was that the teaching of the experimental group might show greater change than
that of the control group.
The axiology of the neo-positivist paradigm is that the pursuit of knowledge is based on theory but
that this pursuit takes place in the context that there are multiple and sometimes conflicting understand-
ings of reality. While a dispassionate pursuit of knowledge is the aim, the value position of the researcher
always influences such an aim. The question of how effective teaching is defined and understood, and on
those bases, measured, becomes critical to the examination of the research questions in the case study.
The epistemology of the neo-positivist paradigm suggests knowledge is provisional and revisable.
Certainly, the matter of how one knows that teaching has improved and in what specific ways it had
improved was central to the research used as the case study and discussed in this chapter.
BACKGROUND
Increasingly, across the globe, attention is being paid to the quality of teaching and learning in higher
education and there are requirements for greater accountability and efficiency in the context of greater
student diversity and reduced funding. As higher education teaching becomes more professionalized,
some countries are setting up university teaching accreditation bodies. Most universities now allocate
budgets towards the improvement of teaching and learning and academic staff are paying increasing
attention to their teaching and their students’ learning (Goodyear & Hativa, 2002). The PhD study took
place in the context of these global trends.
As Kember (2003) notes, “Educational constructs, like those in other social sciences, are . . . complex,
consisting of an array of contextual factors which can interact with each other and the variables under
study” (p. 94). The PhD study examined the impacts of a particular method of teaching improvement.
Hence a control group was employed to attempt to take into account the impacts of any contextual or
other factors that might have impacted on changes in teaching over the period of the study.
70

STUDY DESIGN
The research was conducted in the Faculty of Health Sciences at La Trobe University in Victoria, Aus-
tralia, between 2005 and 2006. La Trobe University was established in 1967 and is a large suburban and
regional university geographically dispersed across seven campuses. Its faculties offer a wide range of
professional and generalist courses, combining classic disciplines with professional and technical fields
(Martens & Prosser, 1998).
A pretest-posttest control group intervention design with random allocation to group was employed
for the study. The design and the rationale for the design are explained below. The intervention group
undertook an individual “solution-focused” program of teaching improvement. The control group was
used to control for variables other than the intervention that may have contributed to changes to teach-
ing over the one-year period of the study. Sixteen Australian university health sciences lecturers were
the participants in the study. Following random allocation to group and some drop out, there were nine
lecturers in the intervention group and seven in the control group.
The impacts of the programs were determined through the use of a number of indicators and measures
incorporating quantitative data on teaching skills and qualitative data on teaching and learning quality.
Data from the following were examined:
• A student evaluation of teaching questionnaire noted for its reliability and validity;
• A teaching staff self evaluation questionnaire, the dimensions of which matched those of the stu-
dent evaluation questionnaire;
• A teaching orientation and focus questionnaire;
• Student learning outcomes; and
• Entries in a journal kept by each teacher in the intervention group.
The broad outline of the study design, including the indicators used, is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Study design
Year 1 Year 1 – Year 2 Year 2

Pre-Intervention Data Examined Solution-Focused Post-Intervention Data Examined
Intervention?
Intervention Group 1. Quantitative student evaluation of YES 1. Quantitative student evaluation of
(9 lecturers) teaching data. teaching data.
2. Qualitative student evaluation of teaching 2. Qualitative student evaluation of teaching
data. data.
3. Self evaluation of teaching data. 3. Self evaluation of teaching data.
4. Teaching foci questionnaire responses. 4. Teaching foci questionnaire responses.
5. Student assessment results. 5. Student assessment results.
6. Journal entries.
Control Group 1. Quantitative student evaluation of NO 1. Quantitative student evaluation of
(7 lecturers) teaching data. teaching data.
2. Qualitative student evaluation of teaching 2. Qualitative student evaluation of teaching
data. data.
3. Self evaluation of teaching data. 3. Self evaluation of teaching data.
4. Teaching foci questionnaire responses. 4. Teaching foci questionnaire responses.
5. Student assessment results. 5. Student assessment results.
71

Defining and Understanding Effective Teaching
There are significant challenges inherent in “measuring” teaching effectiveness. A number of questions
are central: How should “effective teaching” be understood? What instruments or methods should be
used to best determine whether teaching is effective, or has become more effective since an intervention
took place?
The PhD study attempted to provide an understanding of effective teaching, and to employ methods
of determining whether or not teaching had improved that matched this understanding. An understanding
of teaching that incorporated teaching skills, practices, and foci as well as student learning, but did not
directly include, for example, curriculum, assessment per se or teacher decision-making, was chosen.
While it could well be argued that these latter and, indeed, other aspects of teaching are central and
critical to an understanding of teaching effectiveness, the scope of the PhD study did not allow for the
inclusion of a larger number of aspects of teaching. The study, therefore, is an investigation of the effects
of a particular form of academic development on some aspects of teaching and learning. The axiology
of the neo-positivist paradigm allows for multiple understandings of the reality of what effective teach-
ing means and the use of this paradigm enabled investigation of one method of teaching improvement.
Once effective teaching had been defined, determining whether teaching had improved was possible.
Any improvement or development in teaching would be clearly identified as movement toward the par-
ticular understanding of effective teaching adopted for the study. The neo-positivist paradigm enables
one to articulate clearly the understanding on which the study is based.
The Understanding of Effective Teaching Adopted for the Study
Despite the numerous attempts that have been made to identify the characteristics of effective teaching
using a variety of theoretical perspectives and a range of qualitative and quantitative approaches, there
is no universally accepted definition of effective university teaching (Johnson & Ryan, 2000; Paulsen,
2002; Trigwell, 2001).
Berk (2005) proposes a unified conceptualization of teaching effectiveness “whereby evidence is
collected from a variety of sources to define the construct and to make decisions about its attainment”
(p. 49). Drawing on his earlier work (Appling, Naumann, & Berk, 2001), Berk (2005) explains,
By drawing on three or more different sources of evidence, the strengths of each source can compensate
for weaknesses of the other sources, thereby converging on a decision about teaching effectiveness that
is more accurate than one based on any single source. (p. 49)
Saroyan, Amundsen, McAlpine, Weston, Winer and Gandell (2004) suggest that important factors
include the academic’s preparation, organization, clarity and ability to demonstrate knowledge of the
content and stimulation of student interest. However, they add the view that these factors do not provide
the whole picture and suggest that there are unobservable processes such as thinking and decision-making
that should also be included. The scope of the PhD study did not allow for the measurement or examina-
tion of unobservable processes. Instead, focus was placed on the observable processes in lectures and
tutorials that are inherent in the nine dimensions of teaching described below, as well as on teaching
foci. Student learning outcomes were also considered.
72

Theall and Franklin (2000) point out that a complete understanding of teaching and learning situations
requires both quantitative and qualitative data from students, teachers and others. The PhD study used
a psychometrically based questionnaire to gather evidence from students about a range of teaching and
learning related indicators. Self reports from teachers were also used and these too were sought using a
psychometrically sound questionnaire. This data was supplemented with qualitative data on teaching foci.
Evidence of the effect on student learning was also examined through considering average student marks
for the subjects in which study participants were teaching, among other sources of data (Devlin, 2007).
Berk (2005) proposes using multiple sources of evidence when examining teaching effectiveness
“to provide an accurate and reliable base for formative and summative decisions” (p. 48) and further
suggests that multiple sources “build on the strengths of all sources while compensating for the weak-
nesses in any single source” (p. 48). In the PhD study, multiple sources of data were used to determine
the effects of the individual teaching development program used to work toward teaching improvement.
In the PhD study, rather than try to define effective teaching per se, the major components of effective
teaching were outlined and used as a basis for guiding the investigation. Then in determining whether
teaching had indeed improved, pre- and post-intervention data related to three central components of
effective teaching, that is, teaching skills and practices, teacher focus on students and their learning, and
student learning outcomes, were gathered using a range of methods.
In essence, for the purposes of the PhD study and the case study outlined in this chapter, effective
teaching was understood as teaching that:
1. Incorporates appropriate teaching skills and practices;

2. Is oriented to and focused on students and their learning; and
3. Facilitates appropriate student learning outcomes.
Each of these is outlined briefly below.
Appropriate Teaching Skills and Practices
Marsh (1991, 1994) argues that teaching is multidimensional. Any attempt, then, to determine improve-
ment in teaching must take account of this multidimensionality. The PhD study adopted student evalu-
ation of teaching and self-evaluation of teaching instruments that are focused on nine dimensions of
teaching determined by Marsh and colleagues following a thorough and rigorous process. Marsh (1994)
reports that a review of the literature on effective teaching and of student evaluation of teaching forms
in use, along with interviews with staff and students in universities, generated a very large initial item
pool. Students and staff were then asked to rate the importance of these items and student open-ended
comments were examined to determine whether any important aspects had been excluded. Staff were
asked to judge the potential usefulness of the items for feedback on teaching. These criteria, along with
psychometric properties including reliability and validity, were used to select the items that best char-
acterized effective teaching. These nine characteristics were determined to be:
1. Learning/academic value of the subject.

2. Lecturer enthusiasm.
3. Organization and clarity.
4. Group interaction.
73

5. Individual rapport.
6. Breadth of coverage.
7. Examinations/grading.
8. Assignment/reading.
9. Workload/difficulty.
Orientation to and Focus on Students and Their Learning
The second of the components that make up the understanding of effective teaching used in the PhD
study and outlined here as part of the case study was a focus on, or an orientation to, students and their
learning on the part of the teacher.
The literature on conceptions of teaching indicates that effective teaching is that which is oriented to
students and their learning, as well as to teaching and content. This literature also indicates that teaching
development efforts should help teachers to increasingly bring students and learning into their teaching
thinking, planning and practice, alongside teaching performance per se and the content that is being
taught (Devlin, 2007).
Pratt (1992) defines “conceptions” thus:
Conceptions are specific meanings attached to phenomena which then mediate our response to situations
involving those phenomena. We form conceptions of virtually every aspect of our perceived world, and
in so doing, use those abstract representations to delimit something from, and relate it to, other aspects
of our world. In effect, we view the world through the lenses of our conceptions, interpreting and acting
in accordance with our understanding of the world. (p. 204)
Conceptions of university teaching can be understood as specific meanings attached to university

teaching and learning phenomena, which are claimed to then mediate a teacher’s view of, and responses
to, their teaching context (Devlin, 2006).
The PhD study did not examine conceptions of teaching per se. Instead, for reasons of pragmatics and
scope, the orientation or focus of teaching and teachers was examined. In contrast to a student-centered/
learning-oriented conception, which might be likened to a lens through which a teacher views and inter-
prets all teaching-related phenomena, a focus on students and their learning is a simpler awareness of, and
concern for, students and their learning. A focus is not a conceptual framework, necessarily; it may not
be fully articulated by the teacher and, in fact, may not even be conscious. However, in the context of the
PhD study, it was assumed that such a focus would possibly be evident in the pre- and post-intervention
student and self-evaluations of teaching, in teacher responses to a qualitative questionnaire and/or in the
teaching journal entries examined as part of the study (Devlin, 2007).
The teaching development undertaken in the PhD study sought to increase lecturer focus on students
and their learning as one of its objectives and the research design sought to determine changes in this
aspect of teachers and teaching. While the “conceptions of teaching” literature tends to polarize a focus
on teaching/content and a focus on students/learning at opposite ends of a spectrum, the PhD study took
the view that it was possible for teachers to focus on both of these aspects simultaneously. The PhD
study assumed that being concerned about one’s teaching practices was a legitimate accompaniment to
being focused on students and their learning and that this was not an “either/or” decision for a teacher
(Devlin, 2007).
74

While one would expect effective teachers to be concerned with their students and particularly with
their learning, one would also expect a concern for teaching and for the content being taught. So, while
teaching skills and practices were developed and examined in this study, so too was each teacher’s focus
on/orientation to students and their learning. It may be that the development of teaching skills and prac-
tices that focus on their ultimate aim of student learning, and an increase in teachers’ focus on students
and learning, are two sides of the same academic development coin and cannot sensibly be separated
(Devlin, 2006).
Facilitating Appropriate Student Learning Outcomes
The third of the components that make up the understanding of effective teaching in the PhD study, and
outlined for the case study, was facilitating appropriate student learning outcomes. One broad perspec-
tive on effective university teaching, known as “the student learning perspective,” has as its central tenet
that effective teaching is that which results in quality student learning outcomes. This perspective is not
new but has received renewed prominence in recent years.
Ramsden (1992) suggests that there is a growing consensus that effective university teaching is not
just about high quality presentation of content, nor just about the implementation of particular teaching
skills, but instead is essentially about facilitating high quality student learning. Penny (2003) claims that
“the most widely accepted criterion of effective teaching in higher education is student learning” (p. 406).
OVERALL AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The aim of the study used for the case study here was to examine the influences on teaching and learn-
ing of combining the provision of student evaluation of teaching and other feedback with a time- and
resource-efficient approach to individual teaching consultation and development. The specific research
questions of the study were:
What are the effects of a solution-focused individual teaching development program over one year on:
1. Lecturer teaching skills/practices?

2. Lecturer focus on students/learning?
3. Student learning outcomes?
The study design was chosen to control, as far as possible, the variables that might have contributed
to changes in teaching over a year. Specifically, as Mertens (2005) notes, a pretest-posttest control group
intervention design “controls for the effects of maturation, testing [and] instrumentation” (p.131). Both
groups experienced the same maturation gap of one year between pre- and post-tests and completed the
same instruments at pre- and post-intervention collection points.
The neo-positivist paradigm was appropriate for the investigation of the questions of interest in this
PhD study. The neo-positivist paradigm ontology allows for reality to change over time, as the teaching
under consideration was likely to do. In fact, the degree of change over time under particular circum-
stances was the focus of the study. The axiology of the neo-positivist paradigm posits that the pursuit of
knowledge depends on the understanding(s) of reality at play—in this case the understanding(s) of what
constitutes effective and improved teaching. Finally, the epistemology of the neo-positivist paradigm
75

points to the provisional and revisable nature of knowledge and the application of this paradigm enabled
exploration of the notion that improvement in teaching is not a black and white certainty but a phenom-
enon that may or may not occur to a greater or lesser degree depending on the accepted knowledge of
what constitutes effective teaching in a particular context.
METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR THE STUDY
Given the multi-dimensional understanding of effective teaching adopted for the study, it was necessary
to use multiple sources of data to determine baseline and changed measures of each dimension.
Multiple Sources of Data
Sadler (1999) argues that the evaluation of teaching is complex and “requires several sources of informa-
tion and careful analysis” (p. 113). Because no single source will provide “perfect” feedback on teaching
effectiveness, irrespective of the purpose, a robust evaluation of teaching system will include more than
one source of data, as was the case in the PhD study. The most commonly used sources of feedback on
teaching in Australian universities are feedback from students and, to a lesser extent, self-reflection and
feedback from peers.
Robust evaluation of the impacts, successes and limitations of various teaching development ac-
tivities in universities is not widespread. Evaluative evidence that does exist tends to be based on self
reports from teachers rather than on theoretically or psychometrically based questionnaires, evidence
from students, or evidence about impact on student learning, the ultimate focus of teaching development
(Gibbs & Coffey, 2004).
The multiple data sources used in the PhD study are outlined in Table 2.
Each method of data collection is described in turn below.
Student Evaluation of Teaching Questionnaire
A questionnaire called the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality (the SEEQ) was developed in North
America by Marsh and colleagues as outlined earlier in the chapter (Marsh & Dunkin, 1993; Marsh,
1994). The nine scales in the SEEQ match the nine characteristics of effective teaching outlined earlier.
Table 2. Summary of the data sources and collection methods for examination of impact
Source of Data Method of Data Collection

Students. Student evaluation of teaching questionnaire (quantitative data).
Students. Student evaluation of teaching questionnaire (qualitative data).
Staff (intervention and control). Self evaluation questionnaire.
Staff (intervention and control). Teaching foci questionnaire.
Staff (intervention). Journal entries.
University records. Student average grade.
76

Further, it contains open-ended questions about how the teaching being evaluated was helpful to student
learning and how it could be improved.
The SEEQ consists of thirty-five items designed to measure the nine dimensions of teaching, as out-
lined above. According to Marsh and Hocevar (1991), factor analyses of responses by 50,000 groups of
students, providing almost one million SEEQ surveys, offers clear support for the SEEQ factor structure
across disciplines, teacher appointment level and year level of students. Factor analytic support for the
SEEQ is particularly strong, with over 30 published factor analyses of responses to the SEEQ identifying
and therefore confirming the presence of the nine factors that the SEEQ has been designed to measure
(Marsh & Dunkin, 1993; Marsh, 1994). This finding is further supported by studies reported by Marsh
and Roche (1994) that indicate support for the applicability of the nine distinct SEEQ factors from
evidence gathered from Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Papua New Guinea, India, Nepal, Nigeria, the
Philippines, Hong Kong and the USA. Further, Coffey and Gibbs (2001) have validated the SEEQ for
use in the UK and Watkins (1998) confirms that the SEEQ has commendable reliability and validity in
a range of non-western universities (Devlin, 2007).
The ASEEQ
Marsh and Roche (1994) developed an Australian version of the SEEQ, called the Australian Student
Evaluation of Educational Quality (ASEEQ). The PhD study adopted the ASEEQ as the data collection
tool for student evaluations of teaching. The ASEEQ has been systematically evaluated and refined to
make it usable in Australian universities. The original version of the ASEEQ is extremely similar to the
SEEQ with only “minor Australian spelling and usage modifications” (Marsh, 1994, p. 1). On further
examination, it was decided that for the purposes of the PhD study, further minor language and other small
modifications were necessary. For example, for use in the PhD study, “Instructor Enthusiasm” became
“Lecturer Enthusiasm.” Marsh and Roche (1994) report that the ASEEQ has strong reliability scores.
Table 3 outlines the ASEEQ data used to answer each of the research questions.
Self Evaluation of Teaching Questionnaire
In his major review and synthesis of research comparing the overall ratings of university teacher ef-
fectiveness from current and former students as well as from the teachers themselves, Feldman (1989)
concluded that “teachers’ self-ratings and current student ratings are . . . moderately similar” (p. 137).
Table 3. Summary of student evaluation of teaching data contributing to answer each research question
Research Question: ASEEQ Data Examined

What Are the Effects of a Solution-Focused
Individual Teaching Development Program On:
1. lecturers’ teaching skills/ practices. pre- and post-intervention ASEEQ data—specific scales that related to teaching
skills.
2. lecturers’ focus on students and their pre- and post-intervention ASEEQ data—specific scales that related to student
learning. learning.
3. student learning outcomes. pre- and post-intervention ASEEQ Learning and Academic Value scale data.
77

However, Roche and Marsh (2002) argue that little attention has been paid to the nature, measurement
and practical implications of university teachers’ self-perceptions of their own teaching effectiveness.
These researchers developed a multidimensional university teaching self evaluation instrument based
on the ASEEQ and demonstrated the instrument’s good psychometric properties, specifically, factor
structure, reliability and validity (Marsh & Roche, 1993; 1994). The dimensions, scales and items of the
self evaluation instrument are identical to those of the ASEEQ, with the wording of the questions only
slightly changed to refer to the lecturer in the first person. Again, small and minor changes were made
to the self evaluation instrument for use in the PhD study.
Centra (1993) suggests that self evaluations of teaching lack the validity and objectivity necessary for
summative purposes. Combined with data from other sources, however, the validity of self evaluations
in the PhD study was increased, and combined with student evaluations of teaching, the likelihood of
objectivity was increased (Devlin, 2007).
In the PhD study, use was made of the lecturer self evaluation instrument because it was available, is
based on the thoroughly researched, validated and reliable ASEEQ, and provided valuable comparative
data for the feedback to lecturers and a source of data for the research questions. Table 4 summarizes
the self evaluation data used to consider each of the relevant research questions.
The specific scales that related to each of the three questions and from which data were examined
are the same as those for the ASEEQ. Teaching skill data came from the “Enthusiasm,” “Organisation/
Clarity,” “Group Interaction” and “Breadth of Coverage” scales. Student learning outcome data came
from the “Learning and Academic Value” scale, and data on lecturers’ focus on students and their learn-
ing came from responses to the “Learning and Academic Value,” “Group Interaction” and “Individual
Rapport” scales (Devlin, 2007).
Self Report on Teaching
All participants in this study were asked to provide self reports on their teaching foci, and pre- and
post-intervention and intervention group participants were also asked to keep a journal related to their
teaching. Table 5 summarizes the self report data used to consider each of three of the research questions.
As Table 5 shows, journal entries were examined for entries related to teaching skills or practices and
lecturer focus on students and/or their learning. Data from a teaching foci questionnaire were examined
for evidence of lecturer focus (Devlin, 2007).
Table 4. Summary of self evaluation data contributing to answering each research question
Research Question: Self Evaluation Data Examined

1. lecturers’ teaching skills/ practices. pre- and post-intervention Self Evaluation Questionnaire data—specific scales that
relate to teaching skills.
2. lecturers’ focus on students and their pre- and post-intervention Self Evaluation Questionnaire data— specific scales that
learning. relate to student learning.
3. student learning outcomes. pre- and post-intervention Self Evaluation Questionnaire—Learning and Academic
Value scale data.
78

Table 5. Summary of self report data contributing to answering research questions
Research Question: Self Report Data Examined

1. lecturers’ teaching skills/practices. journal entries related to teaching methods and practices.
2. lecturers’ focus on students and their • pre- and post-intervention teaching foci questionnaire data
learning. • journal entries related to teaching/learning foci.
Self Report on Teaching Foci
Devlin (2006) notes that in attempts to help university teachers improve their teaching, there is an
assumed, often central, place for working with these teachers’ conceptions of teaching. Typically, in
studies examining the effects of development interventions or programs, conceptions of teaching are
considered as important indicators of quality and are described according to a set of categories (see for
example, Gibbs & Coffey, 2000; Ho, 2000; Ho, Watkins, & Kelly, 2001). Kember (1997) summarizes
the conception of teaching category schemes into two categories—teacher-centered/content-oriented
and student-centered/learning-oriented. A third category/conception that links or bridges the two major
orientations can be labelled “student-teacher interaction” (Kember, 1997; Kember & Kwan, 2000).
Kane, Sandretto and Heath (2002) note a number of potential problems associated with the use of
multiple-choice-type inventories as methods used to gather data on teacher beliefs and/or foci. They refer
to the work of Richardson (1996), who suggests such methods are constraining and do not provide valid
representations of teachers’ beliefs. The use of a multiple-choice-type instrument to gather data about
teachers’ beliefs may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy where the expectations that the researcher holds
for the participant are fulfilled. The likelihood that the participant will fulfil researcher’s expectations
cannot be ignored when these expectations are built into an instrument used to study the participant
(Kane et al., 2002).
Hativa, Barak and Simhi (2001) argue that studies suggest that teachers’ thinking and beliefs regarding
teaching and students affect their classroom behavior in substantial ways. In the PhD study, lecturers’
foci in relation to teaching and learning were sought as pre- and post-intervention data about lecturers’
focus on students and their learning.
However, as Dinham (2002) notes, research on teacher beliefs is a challenging endeavor as the
beliefs are manifest only as reported by those that hold them. For the purposes of the present study, a
questionnaire to elicit lecturers’ foci around teaching was designed by the researcher and then validated
by four independent experts. A number of modifications were made in accordance with comments and
suggestions from these experts.
Self Report on Teaching Thoughts and Behavior
Members of the intervention group were asked to keep a journal related to their teaching. They were
told, via a journal guidelines handout, that the journal was the place to write down any thoughts, ideas,
feelings, questions, activities, events, musings, jottings and so on in any way related to teaching devel-
opment, planning or practice.
79

Participants were asked to pay particular, but not exclusive, attention to the following areas when
making entries:
1. The skills, strategies and methods they employ in teaching;

2. The reasons they choose to use these skills, strategies and methods in particular teaching situations;
3. What worked well and not so well during particular classes;
4. Any moments of clarity, discovery, or the like they might have in relation to teaching/learning
(“Aha! Moments”).
The journal entries provided data related to teaching practices, and to lecturers’ focus on students
and learning.
Student Learning Outcomes
Greenwood and Ramagli (1980) point out that for more than forty years researchers have been advocat-
ing that the ultimate criterion of university teacher effectiveness is student learning and that, therefore,
in assessing teaching, an emphasis must be placed on student outcomes (see for example, Biddle, 1964;
Hite, 1968; Tyler, 1969). However, as mentioned above and in line with the neo-positivist paradigm that
posits that reality is provisional and revisable, the question of how student learning is best examined or
measured at a particular point in time is open to debate.
The PhD study used four indicators of student learning outcomes. The first was pre- and post-inter-
vention ASEEQ “Learning and Academic Value” scale data and the second, pre- and post-intervention
Self Evaluation Questionnaire “Learning and Academic Value” scale data. The third was the qualitative
ASSEQ data provided through students’ open-ended responses to the questionnaire and the final was
pre- and post-intervention average student grades for the subject, which were determined and compared.
Table 6 summarizes the sources of data used to determine student learning outcomes.
A summary of all the methods and data sources used in the PhD study to examine the research ques-
tions is outlined in Table 7.
The Neo-Positivist Paradigm and Qualitative Data and Analysis
It is sometimes assumed, incorrectly, that certain methodologies are specific to certain paradigms. One
common misconception is that quantitative methodologies are suitable for positivist research and that
qualitative methodologies suit interpretivist research. However, as this case study demonstrates, research
within a positivist paradigm can use both qualitative and quantitative approaches to address the research
Table 6. Summary of student learning outcome data considered
Research Question: Student Learning Data Examined

1. student learning outcomes. • pre- and post-intervention ASEEQ Learning scale data.
• pre- and post-intervention Self Evaluation Questionnaire Learning scale data.
• number and nature of ASEEQ comments.
• pre- and post-intervention average student grade for the subject.
80

Table 7. Summary of methods used for examination of effect of intervention
Research Question: Data Examined

Individual Teaching Development Program
On:
1. lecturers’ teaching skills/practices. • pre- and post-intervention SET data—specific scales that relate to teaching skills.
• pre- and post-intervention Self Evaluation Questionnaire data—specific scales that
relate to teaching skills.
• journal entries related to teaching methods and practices.
2. lecturers’ focus on students and their • pre- and post-intervention SET data—specific scales that relate to student learning.
learning. • pre- and post-intervention Self Evaluation Questionnaire data—specific scales that
relate to student learning.
• pre- and post-intervention teaching foci questionnaire data.
• journal entries related to teaching/learning foci.
3. student learning outcomes. • pre- and post-intervention ASEEQ Learning and Academic Value scale data.
• pre- and post-intervention Self Evaluation Questionnaire Learning and Academic
Value scale data.
• pre- and post-intervention ASEEQ comments.
• pre- and post-intervention average student grade for the subject.
questions. It is the paradigm and the assumptions and understandings inherent in the investigation that
guide the ways qualitative and quantitative methodologies can be best used to gather and analyze data.
Some of the data collected as part of the PhD study, conducted under a neo-positivist paradigm,
required qualitative treatment. The PhD study undertook qualitative analyses on data from:
• ASEEQ open-ended comments;

• Teaching foci questionnaire responses; and
• Journal entries.
Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000) explain that qualitative data analysis can be understood essen-
tially as organizing, accounting for and explaining the data. More specifically, they explain that such
analysis equates to “making sense of the data in terms of the participants’ definitions of the situation .
. . themes, categories and regularities” (Cohen et al., 2000, p. 147).
RESULTS
The following section provides a summary of the findings from the PhD study in relation to the effects
of the teaching development program. Specifically, the results related to teaching skills and practices,
to lecturers’ focus on their students and their learning, and on student learning outcomes, are outlined
in turn. The nature of the conclusions that can then be drawn from these results are outlined.
The Effects on Teaching Skills and Practices
It was evident from the findings of the PhD study that overall, the influences of the individual teaching
development program on lecturers’ teaching skills/practices are somewhat positive. Evidence gathered
81

in this study indicates an improvement in teaching skills and practices for intervention group participants
compared to control group participants. While the differences between the intervention and control group
scores on the relevant ASEEQ scales were not statistically significant, overall, they were in the direc-
tion that indicated the individual teaching development program was successful in relation to improving
teaching skills and practices.
While the gains on the Overall (lecturer) scale were greater for the control group and the gains for
the two groups were the same on the Group Interaction scale, the gains for the intervention group on
Lecturer Enthusiasm, Organisation/Clarity, and Breadth of Coverage were greater for the intervention
group than they were for the control group. The self-evaluation results in relation to skills and practices
were less clear, with many of the relevant scales having lower post-intervention scores than they had
pre-intervention for both the intervention and control groups. Finally, teaching journal entries from
intervention group participants provided indications of the development and implementation of a range
of teaching methods and practices that incorporated the planning and delivery of classes and of the as-
sessment of student learning (Devlin, 2007).
The Effects on Lecturers’ Focus on Their Students/Learning
The results of the study showed that the impact of a solution-focused individual teaching development
program on lecturers’ focus on students/learning were perhaps not as clear as they were in the areas of
teaching skills and practices. While there appeared to be an increased focus on students and their learning
for participants, this increase was evident in both the intervention and control groups across the vari-
ous sources of data gathered and examined. The gains for the intervention group on one of the relevant
ASEEQ scales, that is, Learning and Academic Value, were greater than the gains on the same scale for
the control group. However, the gains for the two groups on Group Interaction were the same and the
control group had a greater gain on Individual Rapport than did the intervention group. The changes to
self evaluation scale scores were mixed. Further, the changes to teaching foci appeared to be slightly
more positive for the control group than for the intervention group. However, journal entries provided
evidence that intervention group participants were consistently considering and reflecting on how their
teaching was affecting their students’ learning (Devlin, 2007).
The Effects on Student Learning Outcomes
The effects of the individual teaching development program on student learning outcomes were mixed.
Both groups had higher average grades post-intervention, with that of the control group slightly larger,
but this was not a statistically significant difference. Although the differences were not statistically sig-
nificant, the gains made in terms of the learning and academic value of the subject they were studying
were greater for students of intervention group participants than for students of control group participants.
In fact, the control group score on the relevant ASEEQ scale (that is, Learning and Academic Value)
was lower post-intervention than it had been pre-intervention. In terms of self-evaluation, the changes
in pre- and post-intervention scores were small. However, while the change for the control group in self
evaluation of learning and academic value was negative, the parallel change for the intervention group was
positive. Qualitative data from the analysis of the open-ended comments from the ASEEQ indicated that
while both groups of students felt an improvement in the teaching and their learning had occurred, this
improvement was much larger for the intervention group than it was for the control group (Devlin, 2007).
82

CONCLUSION
Overview of the Results of the Study
Overall, the results of the PhD study indicated that there is some merit in the particular approach to indi-
vidual teaching development used. The results show that the approach can bring about positive changes
to aspects of teaching and learning in a higher education health sciences context. At a time when teaching
in Australian universities has moved into the spotlight, the study outcomes provided valuable guidance
on the potential of one approach to developing and improving individual teaching.
This study sought to determine the effects of a solution-focused individual teaching development
program on lecturers’ teaching skills/practices, lecturers’ focus on students/learning and student learning
outcomes. While not every source of data about each of the research questions provided unequivocal
evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention, there is some evidence of the effectiveness of the ap-
proach. As Berk (2005) suggests is recommended, and in line with the neo-positivist paradigm, evidence
was collected from a variety of sources to both define teaching effectiveness and to determine whether or
not such effectiveness was apparent. Drawing on a number of sources of evidence allows the strengths of
some to compensate for the weakness of others, thereby allowing a more robust decision about changes
in teaching effectiveness (Berk, 2005).
The results of the PhD study show that the intervention employed was somewhat effective in im-
proving specific aspects of the quality of participants’ teaching, as measured by a number of indicators.
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from student evaluation questionnaires was used alongside evidence
from self-evaluations questionnaires, a staff open-ended questionnaire, student grades, and a teaching
journal. As Kember (2003) puts it, “the aim [was] . . . of establishing a claim beyond reasonable doubt
rather than absolute proof or causality” (p. 97). Kember (2003) further suggests that, “If a number of
types of evaluation seeking data from multiple sources indicates that there was a measure of improvement
in the targeted outcome, it seems reasonable to conclude that the innovation was effective” (p. 97). The
targeted outcome in this case was an improvement in the teaching of the intervention group participants
through the use of a particular teaching development program. It would seem reasonable, on the basis of
the data collected in this study, to conclude that the solution-focused individual teaching development
program used was somewhat effective in improving teaching (Devlin, 2007).
The Nature of the Conclusions That Can Be Drawn
The neo-positivist paradigm ontology posits that reality may be subject to change over time. As outlined
earlier, it was assumed that teaching might change over the period of the study. The study design incor-
porating a control group therefore sought to manage that reality while concurrently allowing the research
questions to be explored. Comparing the outcomes for an intervention and control group enabled the
research to take account of the changes in reality over time.
The axiology of the neo-positivist paradigm is that the pursuit of knowledge takes place in the context
that there are multiple understandings of reality. In the case study discussed in this chapter, it was neces-
sary to define effective teaching precisely so it could be measured and changes detected and articulated.
Finally, the epistemology of the neo-positivist paradigm suggests knowledge is provisional and
revisable. It was critical to adopt such an epistemology in order to effectively undertake the research
83

outlined in this case study. Certainly, the matter of how one knows that teaching has improved and in
what specific ways it had improved was central to the research discussed as a case study in this chapter.
The ways in which the neo-positivist paradigm influenced the research design, the selection of data
collection methods, the way the data was analyzed and the particular nature of the conclusions reached
have been outlined. Overall, this paradigm was appropriate for the investigation of the questions of inter-
est in the PhD study used as a case study in this chapter.
REFERENCES
Appling, S. E., Naumann, P. L., & Berk, R. A. (2001). Using a faculty evaluation triad to achieve evidence-
based teaching. Nursing and Health Care Perspectives, 22, 247–251. PMID:15957402
Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48–62.
Biddle, B. J. (1964). The integration of teacher effectiveness research. In B. J. Biddle & W. J. Ellena
(Eds.), Contemporary research on teacher effectiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Centra, J. A. (1993). Self-ratings of college teachers: A comparison with student ratings. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 10(4), 287–295. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1973.tb00806.x
Coffey, M., & Gibbs, G. (2001). The evaluation of the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality ques-
tionnaire (SEEQ) in UK higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 89–93.
doi:10.1080/02602930020022318
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Rout-
ledge Falmer. doi:10.4324/9780203224342
Devlin, M. (2006). Challenging accepted wisdom about the place of conceptions of teaching in university
teaching improvement. International Journal of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2),
112–117.
Devlin, M. (2007). An examination of a solution-focused approach to university teaching development
(Unpublished PhD Dissertation). The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Devlin, M. (2008). Research challenges inherent in determining improvement in university teaching.
Issues in Educational Research, 18(1), 12–25.
Dinham, S. M. (2002). Use of multiple methods in research on college teachers. In N. Hativa & P. Good-
year (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in Higher Education (pp. 321–334). Dordrecht,
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0593-7_14
Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and
student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multi-section validity studies.
Research in Higher Education, 30(6), 583–645. doi:10.1007/BF00992392
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2000). Training to teach in higher education: A research agenda. Teacher
Development, 4(1), 31–44. doi:10.1080/13664530000200103
84

Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training university teachers on their teaching skills, their
approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Educa-
tion, 5(1), 87–100. doi:10.1177/1469787404040463
Goodyear, P., & Hativa, N. (2002). Introduction. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking,
beliefs and knowledge in Higher Education (pp. 1–13). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0593-7_1
Greenwood, G. E., & Ramagli, H. J. J. (1980). Alternatives to Student Ratings of College Teaching. The
Journal of Higher Education, 51(6), 673–684. doi:10.2307/1981172
Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs re-
garding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699–729.
doi:10.2307/2672900
Hite, H. (1968). A model for performance certification. In R. C. Burkhart (Ed.), The assessment revolu-
tion: New viewpoints for teacher evaluation. New York: State University College at Buffalo.
Ho, A. (2000). A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model for programme design.
The International Journal for Academic Development, 5(1), 30–41. doi:10.1080/136014400410088
Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and
learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42(2),
143–169. doi:10.1023/A:1017546216800
Johnson, T. D., & Ryan, K. E. (2000). A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of college teaching.
In K. E. Ryan (Ed.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning: Evaluating Teaching in Higher Educa-
tion: A Vision for the Future (Vol. 83, pp. 109–123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.8309
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the
teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228.
doi:10.3102/00346543072002177
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X
Kember, D. (2003). To control or not to control: The question of whether experimental designs are ap-
propriate for evaluating teaching innovations in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 28(1), 89–101. doi:10.1080/02602930301684
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to concep-
tions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469–490. doi:10.1023/A:1026569608656
Marsh, H. W. (1991). A multidimensional perspective on students’ evaluation of teaching effective-
ness: A reply to Abrami and d’Apollonia (1991). Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 285–296.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.285
Marsh, H. W. (1994). Students’ evaluation of educational quality (SEEQ): A multidimensional rating
instrument of students’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Sydney: The University of Western Sydney.
85

Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional
perspective. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook on theory and research (vol. 8, pp. 143-
234). New York: Agathon.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1991). The multidimensionality of students’ evaluations of teaching ef-
fectiveness: The generality of factor structure across academic discipline, instructor level, and course
level. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(1), 9–18. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(91)90054-S
Marsh, H. W., Overall, J. U., & Kesler, S. P. (1979). Validity of student evaluations of instructional
effectiveness: A comparison of faculty self-evaluations and evaluations by their students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71(2), 149–160. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.149
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. (1993). The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured in-
tervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1),
217–251. doi:10.3102/00028312030001217
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1994). The use of students’ evaluations of university teaching to improve
teaching effectiveness. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Martens, E., & Prosser, M. (1998). What constitutes high quality learning and how to assure it. Quality
Assurance in Education, 6(1), 28–36. doi:10.1108/09684889810200368
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE publications.
Paulsen, M. B. (2002). Evaluating teaching performance. New Directions for Institutional Research,
114(114), 5–18. doi:10.1002/ir.42
Penny, A. R. (2003). Changing the agenda for research into students’ views about university teaching: Four
shortcomings of SRT research. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 399–411. doi:10.1080/13562510309396
Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 203–220.
Quinlan, K. M. (1999). Commonalities and controversy in context: A study of academic historians’ edu-
cational beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(4), 447–463. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00066-3
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203413937
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Roche, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2002). Teaching self-concept in higher education: Reflecting on mul-
tiple dimensions of teaching effectiveness. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, be-
liefs and knowledge in Higher Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0593-7_9
Sadler, R. (1999). Managing your academic career: Strategies for success. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Winer, L., & Gandell, T. (2004). Assumptions
underlying workshop activities. In A. Saroyan & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Rethinking teaching in Higher
Education (pp. 15–29). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
86

Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2000). Creating responsive student ratings systems to improve evaluation
practice. In K. E. Ryan (Ed.), New Directions for teaching and learning: Evaluating teaching in Higher
Education: A vision for the future (Vol. 83, pp. 95–108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.8308
Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: An a-theoretical community of practice? Higher
Tyler, R. W. (1969). The evaluation of teaching. In A. D. Albright & J. E. Barrows (Eds.), Preparing
college teachers. Louisville, KY: University of Kentucky.
Watkins, D. (1998). A cross-cultural look at perceptions of good teaching: Asia and the West. In J. J. F.
Forest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 19–34). New York: Garland Publish-
ing Inc.
87
88
Chapter 6
Observational Research on the
Work of School Principals:
To Time or Not to Time
Katina Pollock
Western University, Canada
David Cameron Hauseman

University of Toronto, Canada
ABSTRACT
This chapter, like the others in this book, is designed as a resource for instructors and students studying
education research methods. It provides an example of how one research team worked through social,
political, economic, and research issues to problematize and eventually utilize observations as a data
collection method to study principals’ work. The contribution of this chapter lies in the area of research
method, specifically the use of and the structuring of observation, rather than in the area of research
paradigms. Nevertheless, given the charter of the book, the opportunity is taken to reflect on the research
paradigm that applies and its implications. The chapter is about the study of principals’ work and com-
pares two different observation approaches.
STUDIES OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ WORK
While many researchers have studied principals’ work, it appears that much of what principals do has
been studied in relation to policy, education issue, or event. For example, in terms of policy, Flessa (2012)
explored how a policy decision regarding reducing the size of primary school classes influenced the
work principals do on a daily basis. Succession planning is an educational issue that has been utilized
as a lens to study what principals do since at least the turn of the century (Mascall & Leithwood, 2010;
Meyer, MacMillan, & Northfield, 2011; Pollock & Hauseman, 2015; Reynolds, White, Brayman, &
Moore, 2008; The Learning Partnership, 2008). Principals’ work has also been studied in relation to
events that occur at the school site; for example, with an emergent line of inquiry exploring the work
principals do in the aftermath of school shootings (Chrusciel, Wolfe, Hansen, Rojek, & Kaminski,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch006

Observational Research on the Work of School Principals
2015; Fein & Issacson, 2009). Limited empirical research has focused solely on all the work of school
principals (see, for example, Cattonar et al., 2007; Horng, Klasik, & Loeb, 2010; Spillane, Camburn, &
Pareja, 2007). We wanted to conduct a study about principals’ work: what they do on a daily basis and
why they engage in this work. This endeavor can be seen to sit in the neo-positivist research paradigm,
being a contribution to understanding the reality of the work of principals. Specifically, this meant in-
vestigating more than the principal’s role: it meant considering what work it is that they do. Historically
the dominant line of inquiry about what principals do centers around “time-on-task” studies where the
type of principals’ tasks are categorized, the frequency recorded and length of time on task is logged
(Bezzina, 1998; Gaziel, 1995; Horng et al., 2010; Kmetz & Willower, 1982; Martin & Willower, 1981;
Martinko & Gardner, 1984, 1990; Tulowitzki, 2013). But understanding what principals do is compli-
cated and as we had a sample of principals who had agreed to be observed (see Table 1), we needed the
most appropriate research method.
Who Was Actually Observed?
Five principals from five different school sites located in five different publicly funded Ontario District
School Boards agreed to participate in this study. Each site was visited for three days of observation, for
a total 15 observational days. During each of these 15 days, two researchers visited the school to conduct
observations. A diverse sample of principals participated in the observations.
Three of the principals observed for this study were male, while two were female. Four of the princi-
pals worked in elementary schools and one was employed at a secondary school. The number of students
at the schools where the observations took place ranged from 254 at the smallest elementary school to
1200 at the secondary school included in the sample. Three of the principals worked at schools located
in urban centers and two participating principals were employed in rural schools. All principals involved
in the observations were classified as experienced as they all had more than four years of experience
in the role. However, one of the principals had 25 years of experience, two were in their sixth year as
a principal, one had been a principal for five years and the final participant had spent four years in the
role. These participants were observed using two different observational approaches that were eventually
selected after reviewing previous attempts to capture principals’ work.
The Decision to Observe
Deciding on the most appropriate method for this inquiry posed a challenge for a number of reasons.
Most of what we know about principals comes from self-reporting through diaries or journaling, and
Table 1. Demographic information about the principals observed
Gender School Type Number of Students Geographic Location Level of Experience

Male Secondary 1200 Urban Six years
Male Elementary 523 Urban Five years
Male Elementary 285 Rural 25 years
Female Elementary 290 Urban Six years
Female Elementary 254 Rural Four years
89

interviews with principals or interviews with other people such as teachers, parents and students, as well
as some observations of principals (Flessa, 2012; Mascall, Leithwood, Strauss, & Sacks, 2009; Pollock
& Hauseman, 2015; Ryan, 2010; Spillane & Lee, 2014; Webber, Scott, Aitken, Lupart, & Scott, 2013).
After considerable deliberation, however, we decided that observations would be the most appropriate
method to study principals’ work.
We chose observing an individual at their work because it has proven to be more revealing than
having participants self-report their tasks after the fact (Earley, 2012; Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Grissom,
Loeb, & Master, 2013; Kurke & Aldrich, 1983; Mintzberg, 1973). As mentioned earlier, observations
of principals’ work are also not uncommon. Observation in scholarly research generally is nothing new
and has been traced as far back as Aristotle and the ancient Greeks (Adler & Adler, 1994; Baker, 2006).
Observations, in their contemporary form, have developed concurrently with ethnography in the late
19th and early 20th centuries (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994; Baker, 2006; Kawulich, 2005). Narrow-
ing observations to education, Mintzberg (1973) executed seminal time-on-task studies concentrating
on the tasks of principals at work. Since Mintzberg’s research, a handful of studies, many of which have
used Mintzberg’s observation methodology, have been performed to investigate principals’ time use in
public education (Gaziel, 1995; Horng et al., 2010; Kmetz & Willower, 1982; Martinko & Gardner,
1990; Sayles, 1964).
Though the existing principal work-studies using observations were able to outline the types, duration
and frequency of tasks, these types of observations also had limitations. The most significant criticism
of the initial observation methods was the lack of interrogation into why leaders engaged in such activi-
ties (Gronn, 1982). As a result, these observation methods did not explore the meaning of tasks. For
example, although the frequency and duration of telephone conversations were observed and documented
in these studies, the nature of the conversation was not (i.e., negotiating with a school board employee,
talking with a parent, seeking advice from a colleague). This approach does not take into consideration
how people make sense of the world, nor does it capture the local contexts in which principals work;
as mentioned earlier and argued elsewhere, context matters (Drysdale, Goode, & Gurr, 2009; Møller,
Vedøy, Presthus, & Skedsmo, 2009).
Observation, Supported by Interviews, as Method
At first glance, conducting observations appears to be quite straightforward. Observations involve look-
ing at what is happening. But observations require a number of decisions that pertain to such things as
who is doing the observing, how the observation is structured, and why and how the observations are
recorded. These decisions are addressed in the following sections.
In social sciences, usually a person is being observed. However, who is observing that person can
vary. For example, the observer can be an individual observing his or her own behavior or the observer
can be someone else who is observing that person. Some refer to this as the participant–observation
continuum (Glesne, 1999).
Box 1.
90

This continuum consists of an observer on one end and a full participant at the other extreme end; in
between is some blend of the observer-participant combination. In the far-left observer end, the observer
has little to no contact with the participant being observed. This provides for an objectivity valued when
working in the neo-positivist paradigm as distinct from the necessarily subjective role of the researcher
operating in the interpretivist research paradigm. In extreme cases the participants do not know they are
being observed (such as in some psychology studies). At the other end of the spectrum, a full participant
is someone who is observing his or her own behaviours, actions and/or responses. Usually the researcher
is a “functioning member of the community undergoing investigation” (Glesne, 1999, p. 44). At this end
of the continuum, researchers tend to be engaged in ethnographic studies. For the study of principals’
work, we gravitated closer to the observer end of the continuum by including observers who followed
a consenting principal (or participant) at their work. In the social sciences, some observation efforts of
this type are often referred to as “shadowing.” McDonald (2005) describes shadowing a manager in a
business setting and attending all events and being present for all activities the manager encountered
during the workday. The process of observing a school principal, however, is not that straight forward. It
is not always possible for the researcher to be present when work is going on. Principals can, at times, be
dealing with sensitive issues pertaining to students who are minors. At other times, parents and teachers
may not want observers present. Some of these challenges were resolved with the supplemental use of
interviews. Our next step was to consider how the actual observations were to be structured. Specifically,
we had to make decisions about whether to employ structured or unstructured observations, and whether
they were to be timed or continuous.
Different Observation Approaches
Before conducting the observations, we had to determine what type of observations would assist in
providing the data that would best answer the questions we were asking. Observation approaches differ
and we had to choose between a combination of the following: structured, unstructured, timed, continu-
ous, or a combination of these.
More Structured and Less Structured Observations
Unstructured and structured observations exist on a continuum. At one extreme end are less structured
observations where the observer attempts to record as many actions and activities conducted by the
participant as possible (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). On the other end of the continuum are more struc-
tured observations (Creswell, 2005). While observations utilize frameworks derived from the study’s
conceptual and/or theoretical framework, it is the degree of freedom the observer has to explore outside
this framework that is of concern. The framework acts as a guide to help the researcher to distinguish
what data to collect that is useful to assist in describing the phenomena being studied. More structured
observations utilize a stricter narrowly defined framework to determine what should be recorded, while
less structured observations allow more “freedom” to explore new possibilities. Which methodological
approach to use in the study of principals work was one tension in this research. We had to decide whether
to observe principals with very broad expectations of what they do and try to record everything in an
effort to capture and fill some of the identified gaps in the literature or to utilize pre-existing frameworks
of principals’ work to see if the nature of this work has changed. Or was there a way to capture both?
Reflecting on the implications for the research paradigm employed here, comparison fits broadly with
91

Table 2. Combining degree of structure with use of time for observations
Timed Continuous
Structured More structured & timed. More structured & continuous.
Unstructured Less structured & timed. Less structured & continuous.
the deductive mode of the neo-positivist paradigm, testing and confirming or modifying an understand-
ing. Further, filling a gap in understanding fits with the neo-positivist paradigm in the inductive mode
(see Chapter 1).
Use of Time
Time is also a part of the observation process. Some observations occur within timed intervals, while
others are considered continuous. During timed observations, the action and activities of the person
being observed are documented during a predetermined time period. This time can consist of intervals
of (for example) 5-, 10-, or 15-minutes. For continuous observations the observers record a new entry
whenever a new action, activity and/or behavior occurs. Combining the degree of observation structure
with the use of time leaves a researcher with four options as demonstrated in Table 2.
• More Structured and Timed: More structured and timed observations are the most restrictive
form of observations. These observations are driven by a very specific framework that observers
use to decide if an activity, event, behaviour or task should be recorded. These observations are
also recorded within strict time periods such as 5-minute or 15-minute intervals. Embedded with-
in these observations is a knowable truth and an ordered reality (Creswell 2005; Guba & Lincoln,
2005; Mertens, 2010). These observations tend to generate quantitative data that can be used to
test hypotheses and engage in other forms of statistical analysis. This is in line with operating in
the neo-positivist research paradigm.
• More Structured and Continuous: Observations that are more structured and continuous em-
ploy specific frameworks that the observer uses to view the phenomena under observation. The
observer records observations continuously until the behaviour, activity and/or event is complet-
ed. For example, an observer may be asked to record the number of times, and the amount of time
a principal spends on the telephone in a given workday.
• Less Structured and Timed: In less structured and timed observations observers still work with-
in a framework, but can choose to record observations more freely within a specified period of
time. The observer is tasked with recording everything they think is relevant during a 5-minute
interval, for example.
• Less Structured and Continuous: Lastly, less structured and continuous observations are the
least restrictive. When utilizing this kind of observation, the observer is provided with broad
parameters around what to record and in most cases the observer is expected or encouraged to
record as much relevant data as possible. This means if an event or activity is being observed and
continues for 25 minutes the observer is free to continue to observe the entire event, activity, or
behaviour until it is finished. Less structured and continuous observations result in an excessive
amount of data, which can be time consuming to clean and prepare for analysis. This mode of data
92

collection could be, but need not necessarily be, consistent with painting a picture or subjectively
interpreting what was happening, which would apply if working in the interpretivist research
paradigm. It can, however, also be applied, as is the case here, as a means of deepening the un-
derstanding of the reality of the work of principals; a methodology consistent with working in the
inductive version of the neo-positivist research paradigm.
Because of the nature of the study, we used two observation types to determine what findings would
be generated: more structured and timed observations and less structured and continuous observations.
Rationale for Using More Structured and Timed and

Less Structured and Continuous Observations
We chose to employ observations that were more structured and timed for a number of reasons. First, we
wanted to be able to compare past findings with our current findings. The way to do this was to employ
an observational approach that had been frequently used in the past—and the more structured approach
had been the most utilized. The second reason we chose to utilize the structured and timed observations
was that we wanted to have findings that could inform public policy and practice. Generally, policy in the
Ontario context is informed by research that is usually quantitative in nature: This observational approach
allowed the opportunity to present quantitative data that policy makers are more willing to consider. We
also engaged in this observation technique because it helped to answer the first question we had: How
do principals spend their time? Numerous research studies document how much time principals devote
to particular tasks. Existing research allowed us to create a strong framework to guide the observations.
Lastly, the study provided us with a unique research opportunity to compare two different observation
techniques that we thought was very meaningful. Each element of this rationale fits with the neo-positivist
paradigm, and comparing findings fits with the deductive mode. Recommendations can be portrayed as
having a more imperative character if the research is seen as revealing or confirming a truth about the
nature of the work of principals, as it is in the neo-positivist paradigm.
We also engaged in the less structured and continuous observations as part of the observation tech-
nique. While we could make claims about possible changes within an existing framework of (positivist)
knowledge we felt that by only utilizing more structured and timed observations we would not be able
to discover work not captured by this framework. Utilizing less structured and continuous observations
would allow more freedom to record everything principals were doing. This is still consistent with
working in the neo-positivist research paradigm, in this case in the inductive mode by adding to exist-
ing understanding.
Observation Technique
It is one thing to choose a method; it is another to figure out how to actually execute that method, that is,
how were observers to record their observations of participants? This also proved to be a challenge when
working with principals in the field. Originally we had thought that the most effective way to observe
principals was through the use of video (Heath, Hindmarsh, & Luff, 2010; Jewitt, 2012). However, this
would have been difficult to work out because it would require consent from all individuals that a princi-
pal comes into contact with. Also it would have been challenging to arrange to have events that involved
93

sensitive issues recorded. With video ruled out, data recording during the observations of principals
was done in two ways. The first was the use of an iPad and the second was the use of pen and paper.
• Electronic Technology: The use of technology, particularly an iPad or tablet, is not common,
but does exist (Bedall-Hill, Jabbar, & Shehri, 2011; Redlich-Amirav & Higginbottom, 2014). In
this case an iPad was used in conjunction with SurveyMonkey, a web-based survey program, to
conduct the more structured observations. The more structured observation protocol was estab-
lished by determining categories and criteria from existing research (see examples previously
mentioned). These categories and criteria acted as the framework for the observer to judge what
should and should not be recorded during the observations. These categories and criteria were
also used to create the question functions within the survey program (see Diagram 1). The more
structured observation protocol was then uploaded to SurveyMonkey. At 15 minute intervals, the
observer opened the SurveyMonkey application and recorded the time when the observation oc-
curred, the location where the principal was working, the activity or event they were participating
in, the purpose(s) behind the principals’ actions, who else was involved in the event or activity,
and whether the principal was interacting with others face-to-face or through the schools’ PA sys-
tem, e-mail, text messaging or other virtual means. For the most part, the structured observations
went smoothly.
Figure 1. Example of a structured question in SurveyMonkey

These positions were pulled from the following sources: Horng et al., 2010; Spillane, Camburn, & Pareja, 2007; Spillane &
Zuberi, 2009.
94

• Pen and Paper: Pen and paper were also utilized. The use of pen and paper is one of the most
common ways to record observations of human participants. In this specific case, less structured
observation data were recorded using a pen and paper. The observers were given the simple in-
struction to use pen and paper to record everything principals did as part of their daily work
throughout the observation days. Once the unstructured observations were complete, the data was
transcribed from pen and paper to a table in a Microsoft Word document. The table (Example
Table 3) included rows allowing the researcher to provide detail about the activity or event that
the principal was participating in, the location, the number (and roles) of the other individuals
involved in the event or activity and who initiated the event or activity. The tables also included
space for the observer to record additional notes about the event or activity, typically used to pro-
vide contextual information. The tables in the Microsoft Word document were utilized in an effort
to organize the less structured observations and prepare the data for analysis.
It should be noted that contrary to other studies where principals self-reported with, for example,
the use of a beeper or cellphone (Camburn, Spillane, & Sebastian, 2010; López, Ahumada, Galdames,
& Madrid, 2012; Spillane & Zuberi, 2009), principals in this study indicated that they did not want to
actively collect data in this manner. We later realized that this reluctance to participate in this manner
was most likely because principals were involved in labour unrest and simply did not have the time. An
online survey of principals’ work conducted a few months after this study indicated that principals in
Ontario’s English-speaking public education system were experiencing the effects of work intensification
(Pollock, Wang, & Hauseman, 2015). During data collection principals were also dealing with teacher
labour unrest in the education sector (Dubinski, 2015; Woudstra, 2015).
Observation (and Interview) Execution
Both types of observations were utilized simultaneously to examine principals’ work. In order to do this,
two researchers observed the same participant at the same time while engaging in different observation
techniques. The results of these observations will be discussed later in this chapter. In the meantime,
though, observations, either structured, unstructured, timed or continuous, still did not get to the “why”
question: Why were principals engaging in the work that the observers witnessed? Regardless of the
observation method employed, these observations could only account for the following:
1. What tasks principals were engaged in,

2. The frequency of these engagements,
3. The duration of these behaviors,
4. The location of these events, and
5. Who was involved.
Table 3. Table used for pen and paper recording
Time Activity Participants Location Activity Notes

Initiator
95

But the observations could not tell the observers “why” the principal chose to engage in these tasks/
actions/behaviors, etc. To better understand what motivated principals to do the work they were doing
we also utilized interviews. Sometimes qualitative approaches such as loosely framed observation and
interviews are aligned with the interpretivist research paradigm but, as indicated in Chapter 2, they can
be adopted in the neo-positivist paradigm. It is a matter of the ontological, axiological and epistemologi-
cal underpinnings of the exercise. If the point is to uncover the reality of the work of school principals,
rather than to portray someone’s subjective view of it, the exercise fits with the neo-positivist paradigm.
Interviews with principals were used to inquire into their motivations for engaging (or not engaging)
in particular tasks. These interviews provided the opportunity for a more comprehensive understand-
ing of why principals do what they do. Because principals’ work is complex and occurs at a fast-pace
(Bezzina, 1998; Gaziel, 1995; Horng et al., 2010; Kmetz & Willower, 1982; Martin & Willower, 1981;
Martinko & Gardner, 1984, 1990), interviews typically took place both at the beginning and end of
each observation day. The interviews conducted in the morning, before the work-day, were designed to
inquire about the nature of the virtual work principals engaged in outside of the school site. Principals
also used the morning interviews to inform the observers about their plans and schedule for the upcom-
ing workday. These morning interviews usually lasted 15 minutes. Principals also participated in an
additional 15 minute interview prior to leaving the school at the end of the workday. Conducting these
short interviews at the end of the workday allowed the observers to ask the principal both about their
desires and motivations for engaging in tasks and activities, as well as the roles and responsibilities of
other individuals at the school. The responses to the interviews were recorded within the observations
so that the interview data could be matched with the observations data.
Observer Interviews
The observers were also interviewed about the utilization of methods as a way of inquiring about the
strengths and challenges of each observational approach. As displayed in Table 4, Cathy, Matt and Paul
(pseudonyms) were involved in completing both types of observations and can compare, contrast and
discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with both types of observation.
Interviews with researchers who observed principals occurred approximately one hour after an ob-
servation day was completed and lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. During these interviews observers
were asked questions about the data collection process, such as the effectiveness of each observation
method, the kind of data that the observation type generates, and what the pros and cons were for each
type of observation technique. During these interviews, observers were also asked to answer questions
related to the principal being observed. These included contextual information about the school where
Table 4. Researchers who observed principals
Observers (C, P, M, Observation Sites

D, A)
1 2 3 4 5 6
C - S&T C - S&T M - S&T M - S&T P - S&T P - S&T
M - U&C D - U&C A - U&C P - U&C C - U&C M - U&C
A—Andrea, C—Cathy, D—Dana, M—Matt, P—Paul
S&T—Structured and Timed, U&C—Unstructured and Continuous
96

the observations took place, what kind of work the principal did outside of the school, and how they
mentored vice-principals and other staff members.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE OBSERVERS
The research observers made a number of remarks about the observation process. The interviews revealed
three general comparisons: degree of detail, pace of observation work, and level of work engagement.
Sample of Observations
As mentioned previously, the chapter’s central data analysis includes comparing two observation tech-
niques; timed & more structured observations and continuous less structured observations. Specifically,
for this book chapter we compare data collected between both observation techniques for one principal
on a particular date and time period (see Tables 5 and 6 for a sample).
Table 5. Less structured observation sample
Time Activity Participants Location Activity Additional

Initiator Notes
12:00pm Walkthrough ends. Molly talks to the PE teacher about student Principal, Hallway Principal
discipline issues regarding some students she teaches. 1 teacher
12:01 pm Molly walks back to her office. She called a colleague at another Principal Principal’s Principal
school to inform him that two of her students will be transferring office
to his school. The other principal was unavailable so she left a
message.
12:02 pm Molly returns a phone message from a parent after playing phone Principal, Principal’s Parent
tag. The purpose of the call is to inform her about her child’s 1 parent office
discipline issues in the classroom and on the school yard. Molly is
simultaneously checking and writing e-mails.
12:04 pm The other principal returns Molly’s call almost immediately after Principal, Principal’s Other
the call with the parent ends. Other principal office principal
She essentially warns the principal that these folks can be difficult (by phone)
to deal with, and gives the principal some information about the
students and the parents transferring to his school so he knows
what he is going to have on his hands.
One of the students has anxiety issues, so Molly plans a field
trip where she will take the students to their new school ahead of
their first day so they can get a sense of the place and develop a
relationship with their new principal
12:08 pm Call ends. Molly then calls the parent of the students that are Principal, Principal’s Principal
transferring schools. She asks the parent if she can show the 1 parent (by office
students around their new school ahead of their first day to ease phone)
their transition. The parent agrees that it is a good idea.
12:13 pm Secretary interrupts with a note sent to the school with a student Principal, Principal’s Secretary
from home. The note is about his ability to stay at the school Secretary office
during second break.
12:13 pm Teacher interrupts. She wants to see if a note she plans to send Principal, Principal’s Teacher
home in a student’s planner is professional and something that 1 teacher office
can be sent home. She was worried it would be viewed as being
too harsh. Molly thought the note was fine given the context
surrounding the student and their attendance / behavior.
continued on following page
97

Table 5. Continued
Time Activity Participants Location Activity Additional

Initiator Notes
12:14 pm Teacher leaves. Molly makes a phone call to the board office to see Principal, Principal’s Principal
if her superintendent will be coming by the school for an afternoon SO admin office
meeting to follow-up on the school improvement plan. During this assistant
conversation Molly recounts the angry parent meetings she had
this morning.
Molly also lets the board staff person know that she may be
receiving a complaint from a parent that someone on her staff
physically assaulted a student. Molly indicates that she has
followed up with the student, teacher, parent and any witnesses and
there is no evidence for the accusation. However, she wanted to
give the secretary a heads up that a complaint might be coming in
related to this issue.
12:20 pm Call ends. Molly invites an ELP teacher in for another one-on-one Principal, Principal’s Principal – Molly mentions
meeting. It follows the same format and structure of the many 1 teacher office scheduled that the teacher
meetings held yesterday. is part-time, so
she had to spend
time getting
her up to date
on information
passed on
during the staff
meeting the
teacher missed
yesterday.
12:38 pm Meeting ends. Molly checks her e-mail after releasing the teacher. Principal Principal’s Principal
office
12:40 pm Molly is speaking with a teacher regarding the behavior of Principal, Principal’s Teacher
a student who was not being safe on the playground. She 1 teacher, office
immediately calls the student’s parent to inform them that their 1 student,
behavior modification attempts do not seem to be working. 1 parent (by
phone)
12:43pm Interruption. Youth counsellor from last year drops by to give Principal, Principal’s Youth
Molly some information about local community agencies that help CYW (last year) office counsellor
students in distress.
12:48pm Molly leaves her office to have a discussion with the secretary Principal, Principal’s Principal
about the student issue that just occurred. Secretary office
12:48 pm Molly begins a walkthrough. Principal Hallway Principal
12:52 pm Molly walks back to her office. Stops at the staff washroom on the Principal Washroom Principal
way. The SO drops in at this point.
12:53 pm Molly first meets with the youth counsellor who had been waiting. Principal, Principal’s Youth
They catch up, then go over some resources. The youth counsellor Youth office counsellor
was also recently laid off by DSBN, so Molly gives her some counsellor (last
encouraging career advice before they part. year)
12:56 pm Molly sits down in her office with her SO. They talk about the Principal, Principal’s SO
accusation leveled against the teacher by the student’s parent SO office
earlier in the day. Molly warns her SO that she should expect a
complaint.
12:58 pm The superintendent then mentions that a board-wide secretary Principal, Hallway SO
conference starts at 1:00pm in the school’s library. Molly and SO
the superintendent decide to introduce themselves before the
conference begins and start walking to the library. During the walk
they continue to discuss some of the issues they talked about when
the superintendent arrived.
98

Table 6. More structured observation sample
Time Location Alone/ Meeting Scheduled Purpose Doing # of Purpose of Who Initiator PLRs Mode of
With Alone People Interaction Else is Alone Interaction
Others or with Involved or with
Others Others
12:00 pm Hallway Others No No n/a Discuss- 1 Student Teacher Teacher Cognitive Face-to-face
ion discipline resources
Follow up (problem
solving,
knowledge
of teaching
and
learning)
12:15 pm Principals’ Alone No n/a Speaking On the 1 Building Parent Principal Social Telephone
office with parent telephone relationships resources
about (perceive
student emotion
being and act in
transferred emotionally
sensitive
ways)
12:30 pm Principals’ Others Yes Scheduled n/a Discussion 1 Program Teacher Principal Cognitive Face-to-face
office planning resources
Instructional (problem
leadership solving,
Setting knowledge
directions/ of teaching
vision and
learning)
99

The observation data presented here recorded the work undertaken by the same principal over a
60-minute period. Two different researchers observing the same phenomenon conducted the different
types of observations. Table 5 demonstrates not only the work that the observed principal did for almost
an hour (between 12:00pm to 12:58pm) but also demonstrates the detail of information collected by the
less structured and continuous observations. Table 6 is a sample of the data collected during the same
time period by a second observer using the SurveyMonkey application for the more structured observa-
tions. The column headings were presented in question format for the observer to complete based on
the observation of principals’ work. As demonstrated by the examples above, the less structured and
continuous observations are more naturalistic, capture contextual information and provide a method for
recording the nuanced nature of principals’ work. The timed and more structured observation data al-
lowed researchers to quickly map trends in principals’ work, but are devoid of detailed context.
Lessons Learned from Using Both Types of Observations
Like any research in the education field, observational studies are messy! Despite the existence of neat
prescriptions on how to conduct research, these tidy pictures do not always capture the complexity of
research settings. Researchers are constantly making decisions based on the research context. The analysis
of the two types of observations and the feedback we received from the observer interviews provided an
opportunity to document the real-life experiences of how research is conducted. In this case, decisions
had to be made around using observations as a data collection method; which observation method to
execute, and how to execute the observations for example.
It might be noted that the observers in each case were intended to play an objective role, consistent
with the research undertaking being located in the neo-positivist research paradigm rather than the
Table 7. Comparison of observation methods
Comparison of Observation Methods

Timed and More Structured Continuous and Less Structured
Research setting. Naturalistic. Naturalistic.
Role of observer. Observation without intervention. Observation without intervention.
Quantity of data collected Limited. Excessive.
(excessive, limited).
Level of description Limited description. Very descriptive.
(very descriptive, limited description)
Level of engagement observer engagement. Limited. Extensive.
Time required to organize/clean up data for analysis. Minimal. Extensive.
Cost in terms of time and resources. Less costly but expenses for different More costly but on different things.
things.
Ability to quantify findings. Extensive. Limited.
Ability to engage in statistical analysis. Extensive. Minimal.
Research question most likely to answer. Descriptive. Relational or causal.
Scope of principal actions/tasks/activities. Narrower scope with limited Broader scope with extensive
description. description.
100

subjective, interpretivist paradigm. Because the researchers were observing the same principal both
observations occurred in the same context and also within a naturalistic setting. Although the observers
were engaged in different observations techniques, there were some obvious differences in the data col-
lected upon first glance. One is the quantity of text utilized. Less structured and continuous observations
generated a larger amount of data than the more structured and timed observations. Clearly linked to the
quantity of data collected is the degree of description. The less structured and continuous observations
provided greater description of the event being observed compared to the observations utilizing the more
structured and timed observations. As the research observers reported, and the sample demonstrates,
the less structured and continuous observations captured more tasks/activities/behaviors than the more
structured and time observations as well.
Tables 8 displays a 15 minute excerpt from the less structured and continuous observation. In this fifteen
minutes the observer recorded the principal call the board office to talk about two items: a) supervisory
officer coming to a school improvement meeting and a “heads-up” about a possible assault by a teacher.
Table 9 displays the exact same time period recorded by the more structured and timed observation.
In this observation we still gather that the principal is on the phone and that the phone conversation
is about student discipline but the details around the student discipline are absent. The inquiry about the
supervisory officer attending the school improvement meeting is also absent.
It also appeared from the interviews with observers that the level of work activities for the research
observers was greater for the less structured and continuous observations compared to the more structured
observations. This increased work is understood as both increased mental engagement with attention
to the activities occurring, and the physical engagement of trying to keep up with the writing required
to record the activities. In terms of input, we can see from the previous excerpt that the researcher who
is continuously observing wrote more information compared to the researcher who had the more struc-
tured and time observations. The latter observer was only required to make decisions through a series
of questions and wrote minimally.
The time required to prepare and organize the data for data analysis differed between the two obser-
vational types. The time needed for the more structured and timed observation data was minimal as it
was recorded using a predetermined framework and a software program where the data went directly to
an organized database. For the less structured and continuous observations the sorting process required
a substantial amount of time and work. This also meant that there were cost differences associated with
Table 8. Less structured continuous observation: 15 minute sample
Time Activity Participants Location Activity

Initiator
12:14 Teacher leaves. Molly makes a phone call to the board office to see Principal, Principal’s Principal
pm if her superintendent will be coming by the school for an afternoon Superintendent, office
meeting to follow-up on the school improvement plan. During this Administrative
conversation Molly recounts the angry parent meetings she had this assistant
morning.
Molly also lets the board staff person know that she may be receiving a
complaint from a parent that someone on her staff physically assaulted
a student. Molly indicates that she has followed up with the student,
teacher, parent and any witnesses and there is no evidence for the
accusation. However, she wanted to give the secretary a heads up that a
complaint might be coming in related to this issue.
101
102
Table 9. More structured timed observation: 15 minute sample
Time Location Alone/With Meeting Scheduled Purpose Doing # of Purpose of Who Else is Initiator PLRs- Mode of
Others Alone People Interaction Involved Alone or Interaction
or with with Others
Others
12:00 pm Principal’s Alone. No. No. Calling Discussion. 1 Instructional Superintendent Principal. Social Telephone.
office. about a leadership. (on the resources
meeting. Follow up. telephone). (perceive
emotion
and act in
emotionally
sensitive
ways).

the two types of observations. While the more structured and timed observations required the purchase
of an iPad with internet access and the SurveyMonkey software program, the less structured observations
did not require any supplies. However, the less structured and continuous observations accumulated costs
for wages as hours were spent on organizing the data in a meaningful way for analysis. Even though both
sets of data underwent data analysis, it appeared that the more structured and timed interviews were
inexpensive compared to the less structured and continuous observations in terms of time and wages
required to conduct the analysis.
The less structured and continuous observations were analyzed differently. We were able to capture
the more nuanced aspects of principals’ work. These less structured and continuous observations allowed
us to record much of the work that they did around mental health issues, for example, within the school
community, that may not have been recorded within the structured observations.
The ability to quantify (or at least count things) appeared to be possible for both observation techniques;
however, the degree to which this could occur varied. For the more structured and timed observations
not only could the data be counted and described using descriptive statistics but substantial statistical
analysis packages such as SPSS could also be used. Counting, while possible, was more difficult for the
continuous and less structured observations because there was so much data to search through and it is
difficult to count thick description.
Last but not least, the most important comparison of these two observation techniques was the ques-
tions they could possibly answer. We started this research journey in an effort to reveal what principals
were doing at work. Was it any different than in the past and why or why not? The more structured and
timed observations offered a series of “snapshots” of activities principals are involved in throughout
their day. By engaging in more structured and timed observation, we were able to compare our findings
with existing published research that makes claims about what principals do. It was important to do this
for two reasons. We needed a starting point. We could record what contemporary principals are doing,
but it would have limited meaning if we could not compare findings to what has been documented in the
past. How can we know that principals’ work has changed if it is not possible to compare? Our research
findings indicate that principals still engage in similar work tasks to those reported previously; however
the degree to which they are engaging in this work has changed. For example, some of the components
of the framework include setting direction, having a vision, communicating with people, etc. Principals
in this study indicated they do these things but do so through an increased number of tasks (for more
information on work intensification see Pollock, Wang, & Hauseman, 2015).
Continuous and less structured observations collected more detailed information, which allowed
us to interpret principals’ actions to consider if they were engaging in other kinds of work that has not
been captured in previous research. Data gathered through the less structured and continuous observa-
tions allowed us to figure out if principals’ work has changed in another way. The findings from these
observations indicated that principals are engaging in other kinds of work tasks not previously captured
in seminal work, such as dealing with student mental health or working with families to find housing or
employment (Pollock, Wang, & Hauseman, 2015). While principals’ work volume has increased, the less
structured and continuous observations allowed us to determine that another change is how principals
go about doing the work. For example, while principals historically and currently identify communicat-
ing with stakeholders as part of their work, presently how principals perform this work has expanded
now to include communication mediums such as email, twitter, e-newsletters, blogs, and webinars. The
limitation of more structured and timed observations is that the framework assumes that there are no
103

other kinds of work that principals engage in. Other kinds of work would not be captured within the
pre-designed framework utilized in structured and timed observations.
CONCLUSION
The purposes of the two forms of observation used, along with interviews, was to add to the understanding
of the reality of the work of principals, which fits with working in the neo-positivist research paradigm.
The structure utilized in the first instance allowed existing understandings to be tested; the less structured
approach allowed for the addition of new understandings of the work of principals. The first fits broadly
with the deductive mode of the neo-positivist research paradigm; the second with the inductive mode.
Reflecting on the methodology, while both types of observation styles are useful in documenting the
nature and content of contemporary principals’ work, neither provided much value in gleaning any real
understanding around the motivation(s) for leadership practices. The only way this could be done was
to ask principals why they engaged in the practices that were observed. Therefore, this study confirmed
that observations can provide some insight into what principals are doing but not why they are engaging
in particular kinds of work. It is also worth noting that, although all methodologies and methods have
limitations, the insights gained are valuable (as long as those using the research findings understand
the limitations of the research in question). A combination of continuous observations supported by
participant interviews could be the most appropriate way to capture both leadership practices as they
occur, and some understanding of the motives behind such actions.
REFERENCES
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observation techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Hand-
book of qualitative research (pp. 377–392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participation observation. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Baker, L. M. (2006). Observation: A complex research method. Library Trends, 55(1), 171–189.
doi:10.1353/lib.2006.0045
Bedall-Hill, N., Jabbar, A., & Shehri, S. (2011). Social mobile devices as tools for qualitative research
in education: iPhones and iPads in ethnography, interviewing and design-based research. Journal of the
Research Center for Educational Technology, 7(1), 67–89.
Bezzina, C. (1998). The Maltese primary school principal: An observational study. Educational Man-
agement and Administration, 26(3), 243–256. doi:10.1177/0263211X98263003
Camburn, E., Spillane, J., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Assessing the utility of a daily log for mea-
suring principal leadership practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 707–737.
doi:10.1177/0013161X10377345
104

Cattonar, B., Lessard, C., Blais, J. G., Larose, F., Riopel, M.-C., Tardif, M., . . . Wright, A. (2007). School
principals in Canada: Context, profile and work. In Pan-Canadian surveys of principals and teachers in
elementary and secondary schools (2005-2006). Retrieved from https://depot.erudit.org/id/002032dd
Chrusciel, M. M., Wolfe, S., Hansen, J. A., Rojek, J. J., & Kaminski, R. (2015). Law enforcement execu-
tive and principal perspectives on school safety measures. Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies & Management, 38(1), 24–39. doi:10.1108/PIJPSM-11-2014-0115
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Drysdale, L., Goode, H., & Gurr, D. (2009). An Australian model of successful school leadership:
Moving from success to sustainability. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 697–708.
doi:10.1108/09578230910993087
Dubinski, K. (2015, September 30). Teachers’ unions escalate work-to-rule campaigns as labour relations
deteriorate. The London Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.lfpress.com
Earley, P. (2012). Observation methods: Learning about leadership practice through shadowing. Journal
of Educational. Cultural and Psychological Studies, 6, 15–31.
Fein, A. H., & Issacson, N. S. (2009). Echoes of Columbine: The emotion work of leaders in school
shooting sites. The American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1327–1346. doi:10.1177/0002764209332549
Flessa, J. J. (2012). Principals as middle managers: School leadership during the implementation of
primary class size reduction policy in Ontario. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(3), 325–343. doi
:10.1080/15700763.2012.692429
Gaziel, H. (1995). Managerial work patterns of principals at high- and average-performing Israeli el-
ementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 179–194. doi:10.1086/461821
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness. American Educational Research
Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123. doi:10.3102/0002831211402663
Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders:
Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444.
doi:10.3102/0013189X13510020
Gronn, P. C. (1982). Neo-Taylorism in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly,
18(4), 17–35. doi:10.1177/0013161X82018004004
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American
Journal of Education, 116(4), 491–523. doi:10.1086/653625
Jewitt, C. (2012). An introduction to using video for research. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.
ac.uk/2259/4/NCRM_workingpaper_0312.pdf
105

Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozial
Forschung, 6(2), 1–36.
Kmetz, J. T., & Willower, D. J. (1982). Elementary school principals’ work behavior. Educational Ad-
ministration Quarterly, 18(4), 62–78. doi:10.1177/0013161X82018004006
Kurke, L., & Aldrich, H. (1983). Mintzberg was right! A replication and extension of the nature of
managerial work. Management Science, 29(8), 975–984. doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.8.975
López, V., Ahumada, L., Galdames, S., & Madrid, R. (2012). School principals at their lonely work:
Recording workday practices through ESM logs. Computers & Education, 58(1), 413–422. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.07.014
Martin, W. J., & Willower, D. J. (1981). The managerial behavior of high school principals. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 69–90. doi:10.1177/0013161X8101700105
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1984). The observation of high performing educational managers:
Methodological issues and managerial implications. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim,
& R. Stewart (Eds.), Leadership and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and
leadership (pp. 142–162). New York, NY: Pergamon Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-030943-9.50021-8
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1990). Structured observation of managerial work: A replication and
synthesis. Journal of Management Studies, 27(3), 329–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1990.tb00250.x
Mascall, B., & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing principal
turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 367–383. doi:10.1080/15700763.2010.493633
Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Sacks, R. (2009). The relationship between distributed leader-
ship and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214–228.
McDonald, S. (2005). Studying action in context: A qualitative shadowing method for organizational
research. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 455–473. doi:10.1177/1468794105056923
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 469–474.
doi:10.1177/1077800410364612
Meyer, M. J., Macmillan, R., & Northfield, S. (2011). Principal succession and the micropolitics of
educators in schools: Some incidental results from a larger study. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, 117, 1–26.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.
Møller, J., Vedøy, G., Presthus, A. M., & Skedsmo, G. (2009). Successful principalship in Norway:
Sustainable ethos and incremental changes? Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 731–741.
doi:10.1108/09578230910993113
Pollock, K., & Hauseman, D. C. (2015). Principal leadership in Canada. In H. Arlestig, C. Day, & O.
Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals: Cases from 24 countries (pp. 202–232).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
106

Pollock, K., Wang, F., & Hauseman, D. C. (2015). Complexity and volume: An Inquiry into factors that
drive principals’ work. Societies, 5(2), 537–565. doi:10.3390/soc5020537
Redlich-Amirav, D., & Higginbottom, G. (2014). New emerging technologies in qualitative research.
Qualitative Report, 19, 1–14.
Reynolds, C., White, R., Brayman, C., & Moore, S. (2008). Women and secondary school principal
rotation/succession: A study of the beliefs of decision makers in four Provinces. Canadian Journal of
Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 31(1), 32-54.
Ryan, J. (2010). Promoting social justice in schools: Principals’ political strategies. International Journal
of Leadership in Education, 13(4), 357–376. doi:10.1080/13603124.2010.503281
Sayles, L. R. (1964). Managerial behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Spillane, J., & Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 375–423. doi:10.1177/0013161X08329290
Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., & Pareja, A. S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school
principals’ workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103–125. doi:10.1080/15700760601091200
Spillane, J. P., & Lee, L. C. (2014). Novice school principals’ sense of ultimate responsibility: Prob-
lems of practice in transitioning to the principal’s office. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3),
431–465. doi:10.1177/0013161X13505290
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative
and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The Learning Partnership. (2008). Succession planning: Schools and school boards. Retrieved from
http://live.iel.immix.ca/storage/2/1284604334/IELLeadingFuture.pdf
Tulowitzki, P. (2013). Leadership and school improvement in France. Journal of Educational Adminis-
tration, 51(6), 812–835. doi:10.1108/JEA-03-2012-0026
Webber, C. F., Scott, S., Aitken, N., Lupart, J. L., & Scott, D. E. (2013). Leading assessment for en-
hanced student outcomes. School Leadership & Management, 33(3), 240–255. doi:10.1080/13632434
.2013.773885
Woudstra, K. (2015, September 18). Ontario elementary teachers’ union announces extension of work-
to-rule. The Huffington Post Canada. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca
107
108
Chapter 7
Investigating School
Mathematics Performance
and Affect:
A Critique of Research Methods
and Instruments
Gilah C. Leder
La Trobe University, Australia & Monash University, Australia
ABSTRACT
In this chapter research relating to school mathematics is used as an instance to critique commonly
used methods and instruments employed in educational research to determine performance and single
or multiple aspects of affect. Advances in technology that have enabled the adaption of previously used
instruments are described. Self-report measures, administered face-to-face and on-line, and real-time
and virtual observational methods are discussed in some detail. Illustrative data from specific studies
are provided. Interpreting the different measurement outcomes is, it is argued, far from unproblematic.
This discussion raises issues relevant to research in a range of paradigms but is particularly pertinent
to educational research conducted in the neo-positivist paradigm.
INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE CONTEXT
Researchers in the social sciences operating in the neo-positivist paradigm work from an ontological and
axiological understanding of discoverable reality relating to an aspect of human behavior or at least of
the possibility of discovering, confirming or contesting particular patterns and consistencies in behavior.
To do so requires data collection methods and instruments, along with forms of data analysis, that are
capable of revealing such patterns and consistencies. When it comes to researching aspects of education,
as the discussion of research methods and instruments in this chapter demonstrates, observation and
measurement of patterns and consistencies can be problematic, even when the subject area that pertains
to the investigation is mathematics.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch007

Investigating School Mathematics Performance and Affect
Mathematics is generally recognized as a critical component of the school curriculum. Its dominant
place was freshly reaffirmed by Donnelly and Wilstshire (2014) in their influential Review of the Aus-
tralian curriculum. Internationally, endorsement was further provided by the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development [OECD], which emphasized: “Being able to read, understand and respond
appropriately to numerical and mathematical information are skills that are essential for full social and
economic participation” (OECD, 2013, p. 98).
Data from large scale international comparative surveys such as the Programme for International
Student Assessment [PISA] and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMSS] are
popularly used as valid indicators of student progress. They offer a gross measure of group performance
but do not provide a carefully nuanced marker of an individual’s level of attainment. For the latter, dif-
ferent instruments are needed.
A test’s most important characteristic, according to Nichols and Berliner (2007), is its validity—a
multi-dimensional construct. The validity of a test is described most comprehensively, they argued, in
terms of four measures, the 4Cs. These are content validity: that is, whether the test measures what it
is intended to measure; construct validity: whether the test actually measures the concept or attributes
it is supposed to measure; criterion validity: whether the test predicts certain kinds of current or future
achievement; and consequential validity: the consequences and decisions that are associated with test
scores. There is general agreement in the test measurement literature about the importance and relevance
of the first three measures in particular but Popham’s (1997, p. 13) admonition that the “social conse-
quences of test use should be addressed by test developers and test users” is still not universally adopted.
Some possibilities for pursuing this in the case of mathematics education are explored in this chapter.
To facilitate a functional discussion of students’ academic progress both within and across countries,
reference is often made to the three components of the curriculum promulgated by the International As-
sociation for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IEA] (see e.g., Mullis, Martin, & Foy, 2008).
These comprise the intended curriculum (the curriculum mandated or favored in a particular country
or setting), the implemented curriculum (the curriculum actually taught), and the attained curriculum
(the outcomes of schooling—what students appear to have learnt). Yet to what mathematics students are
actually exposed can be tainted, and potentially expanded or constrained, at each of the model’s three
levels. External influences, local expertise, and individual preferences can mold or change what students
essentially experience. As is fiercely argued by Berliner (2011), all too often overlooked are the inevitable
limitations of results reported from large scale examinations because of, for example, contextual data that
were not reported, participants’ social class and associated advantages or disadvantages, or aspects of the
curriculum considered beyond the scope of the test including material that cannot be assessed through
a paper-and-pencil instrument. Thus what is given as the student’s achievement score in mathematics
is realistically influenced, at least in part, by previous exposure to the content on which they are tested
and how well that content aligns with material actually covered. This constraint applies not just to large
scale tests but also to smaller, locally designed, and supposedly strategically targeted instruments.
That the format of assessment is certainly a possible factor that may confound the determination of
students’ mathematics ability is illustrated, provocatively, by the following example which foregrounds
the case of gender. The data are based on results from the Victorian (Australia) Year 12 examination—the
final year of secondary school—for the years 1994-1999. Three subjects were available to students in
mathematics: Further Mathematics (the least difficult option); Mathematical Methods (more challenging
content); and Specialist Mathematics (the most challenging of the three subjects). In each of the three
mathematics subjects all enrolled students were required to complete three distinct Common Assessment
109

Tasks [CATs]. These were: CAT 1, an investigative project or challenging problem completed during
school time and at home, over an extended period of several weeks; CAT 2, a strictly timed examination
comprising multiple choice and short answer questions; and CAT 3, also a strictly timed examination
paper but with problems which required extended answers. In contrast to the (then) innovative CAT 1,
CATs 2 and 3 followed the format of traditional school-based timed examinations.
Cox, Leder, and Forgasz (2004) capitalized on the introduction of the varied examination tasks in the
mathematics subjects to examine whether the different test formats in the high stakes Year 12 examina-
tion ostensibly affected the mean performance of boys and girls. Leder (2015) reported their findings
as follows:
whether as a group males or females could be considered to be “better” at mathematics depends on which
subject or which test component is highlighted. If the least challenging and most popular mathematics
subject, Further Mathematics, is referenced then the answer is females. If for all three mathematics
subjects the focus is confined to the CAT 1 component, the investigative project or problem assessment
task, done partly at school and partly at home, then again the answer is females. But if the focus is on
the high stake Mathematical Methods subject, the subject which often serves as a prerequisite for ter-
tiary courses, and on the traditional examination formats of CAT 2 and CAT 3 in that subject, then the
answer is males. Collectively these data illustrate that the form of assessment employed can influence
which group, males or females, will have the higher mean performance score in mathematics. (Leder,
2015, pp. 197-198)
Although the source on which these conclusions are based is somewhat dated, the unique circum-
stances which enabled the performance on the different tasks to be gathered, and the still prevalent usage
of the different assessment approaches described warrant continued attention to these findings. They
illustrate the impact of a test’s content and demands on the perception of a group’s mathematical “abil-
ity” and on the validity of the (mathematics) score gained by individual students within these group. The
potential social consequences of the test results, which either challenge or confirm gender differences
in mathematics achievement depending on the mathematics subject and CAT data reported, and remi-
niscent of Nichols and Berliner’s (2007) fourth C of validity, should not be overlooked. While there is
ready access to instruments which allow a student’s height or weight, for example, to be measured with
a great degree of accuracy, there are no comparable tools to describe a student’s cognitive, or affective
attributes, with the same degree of accuracy.
That not only cognitive but also affective factors influence students’ learning of mathematics is widely
recognized. Data gathered as part of the internationally administered Programme for International Student
Assessment [PISA] provided robust evidence that:
Individuals’ attitudes, beliefs and emotions play a significant role in their interest and response to
mathematics in general, and their employment of mathematics in their individual lives. Students who
feel more confident with mathematics, for example, are more likely than others to use mathematics in
the various contexts that they encounter. Students who have positive emotions towards mathematics are
in a position to learn mathematics better than students who feel anxiety towards that subject. Therefore,
one goal of mathematics education is for students to develop attitudes, beliefs and emotions that make
them more likely to successfully use the mathematics they know, and to learn more mathematics, for
personal and social benefit. (OECD, 2013, p. 42)
110

Thus affective descriptors such as attitudes, beliefs, emotions, confidence, and anxiety, embedded in
the excerpt above, are all considered as possible facilitators or inhibitors of mathematics performance.
How can these factors, collectively or separately, be tapped most effectively? That assessing students’
mathematics learning per se is not unproblematic was illustrated above. How might the more elusive
concept “affect” be tapped and captured effectively? The focus of the remainder of this chapter is pri-
marily on this challenging topic.
Affect: A Question of Terminology?
In an influential article Pajares (1992) maintained that:
defining beliefs is at best a game of player’s choice. They travel in disguise and often under alias - at-
titudes, values, judgments, axioms, opinions, ideology, perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems,
preconceptions, dispositions, implicit theories, explicit theories, personal theories, internal mental
processes, action strategies, rules of practice, practical principles, perspectives, repertories of under-
standing, and social strategy, to name but a few that can be found in the literature. (p. 309)
“Beliefs,” it can be inferred, often serves as a generic term for a range of affective factors. The over-
lap of the multiple variables subsumed under the umbrella term affect is further highlighted by Mason
(2004) in his evocative alphabet of generally used affective terms. Starting not with beliefs but with
attitudes he wrote:
A is for attitudes, affect, aptitude, and aims; B is for beliefs; C is for constructs, conceptions, and
concerns; D is for demeanor and dispositions; E is for emotions, empathies, and expectations; F is for
feelings; . . . I is for intentions, interests, and intuitions; J is for justifications and judgements; . . . S is
for sympathies and sensations; . . . V is for values and views; . . . . (Mason, 2004, p. 347)
Goldin (2002, p. 61) offered a somewhat more refined illustration of the links between affective
subdomains as follows:
1. Emotions (rapidly changing states of feeling, mild to very intense, that are usually embedded in
context),
2. Attitudes (moderately stable predispositions toward ways of feeling in classes of situations, involv-
ing a balance of affect and cognition),
3. Beliefs (internal representations to which the holder attributes truth, validity, or applicability,
usually stable and highly cognitive, may be highly structured), and
4. Values, ethics, and morals (deeply-held preferences, possibly characterized as “personal truths”,
stable, highly affective as well as cognitive, may also be highly structured).
The plethora of distinct and overlapping descriptions of attitudes, beliefs, and other affective dimen-
sions are readily discernible in both daily life usage and in the scientific literature. “Research in the
‘affective domain’” wrote Schoenfeld (2015, p. 395), “is densely populated with overlapping constructs,
partially commensurate methods, and somewhat contradictory findings. Definitional imprecision is a
further confounding factor.”
111

An extensive discussion of the many different and nuanced definitions of affect is clearly beyond the
scope of this chapter. In brief, the ambiguity of definitions used for aspects of the affective domain is
theoretically driven, persists and is reflected in the myriad diverse attempts to quantify dimensions of
affect. Moving the focus instead onto methods and instruments used to capture single or multiple aspects
of affect is more realistic and fruitful. In the remainder of the chapter work on attitudes, with the terms
used generically rather than theoretically specific, is foregrounded. Several frequently used instruments
are described and critiqued. For each, a snapshot of its content and its application in educational research
is provided, with mathematics education often used as the specific context. How advances in technology
have led to adaptations of previously used instruments is also considered. For some of these examples
I draw on my own research when appropriate.
MEASUREMENT OF ATTITUDE
Attitudes have been measured in various ways but all have one element in common. All produce informa-
tion that indicates or reflects the attitude(s) of interest. This is, emphatically, not the same as computing
or calculating the attitude(s) per se. Attitudes, in common with other dimensions of affect, cannot be
measured directly but need to be inferred from the way an individual behaves or responds to specifically
designed instruments, cues, or situations. Self-report measures were, and still are, most commonly used.
Other methods that have been adopted also rely on interpretation: at different times on open-ended data,
on inferences drawn from observed behavior or, and far less frequently—and rarely in a classroom set-
ting—on information gleaned from physiological or neural activity. Relevance of these last approaches
to education is still limited, however. An accessible overview of physiological responses used for the
measurement of attitude can be found in Krosnick, Judd, and Wittenbrink (2005) and of techniques used
for investigations on affective processes and the brain in Schimmack and Crites (2005).
When deemed convenient or opportune, researchers have not hesitated to introduce variations to
previously published instruments. To benefit from advances in technology, adjustments to instruments
and their administration are being made as needed. Methodological and practical issues raised by such
adaptations, for example translation difficulties and different cultural expectations, are at times mini-
mized or overlooked.
Likert-Item Scales and Surveys
Likert-item surveys are widely used to measure affect. As Ruthven (2015, p. 393) has noted: “this is an
unusually convenient technique which serves researchers well in generating results.” Likert (1932, 1967)
developed a procedure for measuring attitudes by asking individuals to indicate whether or not they agreed
with a series of statements about a specific topic. Respondents are typically asked to indicate their reac-
tion to selected statements on a 4, 5, or (less frequently) a 7 point scale, ranging from Strongly Agree to
Strongly Disagree. With careful wording Likert-item surveys can also be administered successfully to
young children. If deemed appropriate, the Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree scale can be replaced
with a series of broadly smiling to seriously unhappy faces. However administered, there is muted unease
that items may yield answers perceived as socially accepted, rather than capture the respondents’ true
feelings or opinions. Asking respondents to elaborate on the initial brief response elicited may counter
this concern. Given that the extent to which a series of even purposefully selected items actually reveals
112

what it purports to measure remains a matter for debate, further information is often sought, possibly
through the addition of open-ended items or a different data gathering approach.
Educational research is replete with studies which rely on Likert-item surveys to tap participants’ af-
fect. The internationally administered TIMSS [Trends in International Mathematical and Science Study]
and PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment] are examples of their adoption in large scale
projects. Inclusion of the readily score-able Likert items in these surveys has undoubtedly reinforced
and ostensibly validated their continued presence in a wide range of projects. The Fennema-Sherman
Mathematics Attitude scales (Fennema & Sherman, 1976), initially designed to measure possible differ-
ences in males’ and females’ attitudes to the learning of mathematics, have also been widely embraced.
The nine domain specific Fennema-Sherman scales can be used individually or in their entirety. For data
indicative of the pervasive adoption, and adaption, of these scales by the wider research community see,
for example, Tapia and Marsh (2004), Walberg and Haertel (1992), and Leder (in press). Items included
in the three different Likert-item instruments highlighted in this section include:
From PISA (OECD, 2013)
• Trying hard at school is important.

• I do mathematics because I enjoy it.
From TIMSS (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012)
• I wish I did not have to study mathematics (reverse coding).

• I need to do well in mathematics to get the job I want.
From the Fennema-Sherman (1976) scales
• Knowing mathematics will help me earn a living (from the usefulness of mathematics subscale)
• Females are as good as males in geometry (from the mathematics is a male domain subscale)
From even these few examples it can be inferred that (mathematics) learning is assumed to be influ-
enced by a variety of attitudes. Ideally, these dimensions are captured optimally by a strategically—yet
invariably limited—set of items chosen to tap student affect.
Interviews
Structured interviews, with their preset list of particular questions to be asked, are often considered
as very similar, and ready alternatives, to orally administered surveys or questionnaires. Unstructured
interviews, on the other hand, can uncover views not anticipated in advance. A combination of these
approaches—the semi-structured interview—is chosen by many engaged in educational research.
There is potentially much overlap between data gathered via a semi-structured interview and from
surveys in which participants are asked to elaborate or explain their initial response. Interviews or surveys
are sometimes used as stand-alone measures. At other times they are supplemented with observational
data or are used as part of a more diverse or intensive battery of attitude measurement instruments.
113

Projective Techniques
Various projective techniques have been used to gauge attitude. Typically, an ambiguous or unstructured
stimulus related to the attitude object is presented. Respondents are asked to react to this or explain what
they see or think. Popular examples include sentence completion (“a good day at school is . . . ”), a word
association test, a picture preference test, a request to write a story (“Anne/John came top of her/his
mathematics class. Describe John/Anne.”) or draw a picture in response to a particular cue (e.g., “draw
a scientist”). The technique is readily adapted for use with older and younger students. At best, these
techniques offer powerful insights into the respondent’s attitude to the issue presented. The difficulty
of achieving consistent scoring, and hence satisfactory reliability and validity, remains problematic but
has not stopped researchers from relying on projective measures. Continued adoption of these methods
is favored by those concerned about the adequacy of the more explicit methods used to tap attitudes,
and in particular about the risk, already mentioned earlier, that some Likert items may elicit responses
thought to be socially or culturally acceptable rather than answers actually representative of the attitudes
held by the respondent.
Observations
Observations of behaviors in both structured and unstructured settings are also commonly used to infer
attitudes about various objects or activities. Particularly when gathered by expert and objective observ-
ers, and supported by systematic recordings in a carefully designed observation schedule, information
thus collected can be a productive approach for assessing affect. However, as it is generally difficult
to predict when pertinent behaviors will be observed this method can be inefficient and expensive. In
educational research real time observations are often supported by audio- or videotaped recordings of
the sessions observed, to be analyzed and interpreted at length at a convenient time.
Teachers invariably take note of, and respond to, students’ behaviors in class. While such observations
cannot be considered a formal or structured measure of affect, they are nevertheless, consciously or un-
consciously, used to make inferences about students’ beliefs about themselves and attitudes to their work.
In brief, observations are often made in conjunction with other measures, as part of a triangulation
process or reliability check. Used as a stand-alone measure it is generally considered inefficient and
expensive.
Technology Facilitated Measures
In the next section, the focus turns to technology facilitated adaptations of traditional approaches to
measuring attitude. Variations of the common measures described above are of particular interest.
Gathering data not otherwise readily obtained is one important benefit; closely related is the possibility
of extending and broadening the sample initially involved in a specific research study and as a result
increase the power and generalizability of the findings obtained. An adaptation of the use of an obser-
vation schedule to capture affect associated with the participants’ regular daily activities is described
first. This is followed by a discussion of a readily available method to increase recruitment and achieve
greater sample diversification.
114

The Experience Sampling Method: Virtual Observations
The Experience Sampling Method [ESM], extensively and productively used by Csikszentmihalyi,
Rathunde, and Whalen (1993), offers a sustained method for capturing people’s activities over an ex-
tended period of time, as well as their reactions to, and attitudes towards, those activities. According to
Csikszentmihalyi (1997, p. 15), the ESM can provide:
a virtual film strip of daily activities and experiences. We can trace a person’s activities from morning to
night day by day over a week, and we can follow his or her mood swings in relation to what the person
does and who he [sic] is with.
A critical component of the ESM requires participants to respond to signals and, at the time of con-
tact, record their current activities and reactions on specifically designed Experience Sampling Forms or
ESFs. In studies involving international and local university students (Leder & Forgasz, 2004), secondary
mathematics teachers (Forgasz & Leder, 2006a), and university academics (Forgasz & Leder, 2006b)
mobile phone and computer technology were exploited to contact participants who were spread across
diverse geographic locations.
In these studies, signals were sent, via a mobile phone SMS message, seven times a day over a pe-
riod of one week—between 7.30 am and 9.30 pm on weekdays and between 10 am and 9.30 pm on the
weekend. Each message sent served as a prompt for the recipient to complete the next ESF. Collectively,
the ESFs consistently yielded a rich body of data about the individuals’ activities and their attitudes and
reactions to these activities. An abbreviated ESF excerpt is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Excerpts from Experience Sampling Form [ESF]
115

In this way information about the daily activities of individuals, and their responses to these activities,
were gathered in a natural setting, largely via self-report data, and in a manner that was less obtrusive
and less resource intensive than could be obtained through sustained observations or “shadowing” of
the participants.
When contacted via SMS participants could of course elect whether or not to complete the relevant
ESF. Forgasz and Leder (2006b) countered the argument of bias in the choice of information to include
on the ESFs as follows:
With 22 academics completing six ESFs per day for seven days, there was the potential for 22 x 6 x 7 =
924 complete sets of data—a sufficiently large set to minimise the effect of an occasional biased response
. . . . The overall response rate was very high—approximately 95%. This exceeded . . . our expectations
of completion of ‘at least’ four of the six sheets each day. (pp. 7-8)
In addition, the information gathered using the ESFs was supplemented with data gathered via other
sources. Invariably, the activities revealed by the former resonated well with other evidence.
The requests to indicate their reactions to the different activities recorded on the ESFs elicited im-
portant affective information. For example, in the study in which teachers participated, it became clear
that teaching and administrative work dominated their school day. The teachers’ attitude towards these
different activities was summarized by Forgasz and Leder (2006a) as follows: “It was noteworthy that
when teaching mathematics, the participants’ feelings and moods were generally positive, and high
levels of engagement could be inferred—far more than for administration” (p. 40). For example, when
responses were elicited during teaching times, approximately 90% indicated that they were very or quite
alert, active, and relaxed. When “captured” during administrative duties, they were more likely to de-
scribe themselves as passive, bored, and stressed. Learning on several occasions that a student was in the
laboratory when he received the prompt to complete an ESF is of interest, but takes on quite a different
meaning when that student further indicated that during that time “he found it quite hard to concentrate
and . . . would prefer to have been either playing some sport or reading a book” (Leder & Forgasz, 2004,
p. 191). Without ready access to unobtrusive prompts, for example SMS messages via mobile phones
which can be sent simultaneously to different locations, the rich set of data gathered via the ESM—the
concurrent tracing of activities and the attitudes they provoked—would not have been possible.
On-Line Surveys: Facebook
Using the internet to administer surveys is now increasingly feasible and popular. Larger and geographi-
cally diverse samples can be reached promptly and efficiently in this way, even with limited resources. To
set the scene, a small study which served as the catalyst for turning to the social network site, Facebook
(http://www.facebook.com) to achieve a broader base of information is described first.
As noted at the outset of this chapter, mathematics is widely accepted as a core subject of the school
curriculum. Furthermore, a level of numerical and mathematical proficiency is deemed important for
“full social and economic participation” (OECD, 2013, p. 98). It is therefore not surprising that the skill
level in mathematics of students and teachers continues to attract attention from educators, legislators, and
the public at large. Yet, according to Leder and Forgasz (2010) the public’s views about the importance
of mathematics, its teaching, and its impact on careers are rarely sought. To fill this gap, they compiled
a survey in which these views were explored. They approached pedestrians at four heavy foot-traffic
116

sites—two in the metropolitan area of Melbourne, one in a large regional center, and one in a rural city.
As part of the ethics approval process, an explanatory statement needed to be prepared and offered to
prospective participants. An abbreviated version is shown below.
We have stopped you in the street to invite you to be a participant in our research study. . . . We are con-
ducting this research, which has been funded by [our] University, to determine the views of the general
public about girls and boys and the learning of mathematics. We believe that it is as important to know
the views of the public as well as knowing what government and educational authorities believe. (Leder
& Forgasz, 2010, p. 330)
At least 50 completed surveys were collected at each site. The findings obtained were tantalizing.
The majority of respondents expressed a positive attitude to mathematics. They indicated that they had
liked mathematics at school and thought they had been good, or at least average, in the subject. Many
were concerned that technology use had a negative rather than a positive effect on mathematics learn-
ing. Older participants were more likely to believe that mathematics teaching had changed since their
time at school; younger respondents that they did not know. To test the robustness of these findings
data gathering was initially extended to 12 pedestrian sites in Victoria, and then, in an attempt to gather
data representative of the wider Australian public, to Facebook (Leder & Forgasz, 2011). Extending
approval for our study to include this extra site revealed that Facebook has rights to data collected from
surveys created within it. To avoid possible privacy and ethical complications the initial survey, orally
administered to the pedestrian sample, was duplicated as an online survey using SurveyMonkey (http://
www.surveymonkey.com). A link was created to it from the advertisement placed on Facebook. Briefly,
the procedure used (described in detail in Forgasz, Leder, & Tan, 2014) was:
1. Set up a Facebook account.

2. Design a 110 x 80 pixel image for the advertisement.
3. Produce a destination URL when participants clicked on the advertisement.
4. Create a name for the advertising campaign and text.
5. Decide the target population: individuals aged over 18 (to comply with our ethics approval conditions).
6. Select a daily budget.
7. Determine pricing: i. price per click willing to be paid (varied between 60 and 80 cents) and ii. a
daily budget (we settled on $60).
8. Decide the length of the campaign.
9. Provide additional information e.g., currency to be used and payment method.
Although our advertisement indicated that we were interested in responses from Australia, many
from a range of other countries also chose to participate. In the first instance we compared data from our
Australian Facebook sample with those gathered from the pedestrian sites. No appreciable differences
were observed. Thus, with limited extra financial outlay, data initially gathered from a small, restricted
sample could be compared with nationally gathered data. In further follow up work we extended our
Facebook advertisement to other countries. Even though our intended emphasis was on countries in which
English was the main language, again participants from other countries chose to complete the survey.
This enabled us to make international comparisons (see Forgasz, Leder, & Tan, 2014). Encouraged
by the interest shown in our mathematics focused study we embarked on a comparison of the public’s
117

opinions of mathematics and English and relied once again on both pedestrian and Facebook samples.
Thus the huge and persistent popularity of the social media site delivered an extensive and diverse pool
of international participants not readily reached by other means.
There are, of course, disadvantages as well as advantages in using Facebook as a source for data gath-
ering. Realistically, the survey instrument administered shared the limitations inherent in all self-report
data from a volunteer group. While using Facebook extended the potential sample with only a limited
financial outlay, the additional pool was nevertheless restricted to Facebook users. Additionally, since
reliance was on a survey written exclusively in English the international sample was necessarily limited
to those sufficiently fluent in English to be able to respond. To what extent these limitations, as well as
socio-economic or other factors, may have biased the findings is unknown but must be recognized and
accepted as factors possibly confounding generalization of the results obtained. Alternately, had the survey
been translated into other languages, how well or readily the instrument devised for cultural mores in
an undeniably Western setting could be transported to a different context would need to be considered.
Tan, Forgasz, Leder, and McLeod (2012) reported several other studies in which recruitment via
Facebook enabled the completion of work initially seemingly ambushed by unacceptably low response
rates. In a study in which students’ beliefs, attitudes, and learning preferences about the use of advanced
calculators were explored, cumbersome administrative structures proved an obstacle to the participation
of students in government but not in non-government schools. When another avenue for recruitment was
clearly needed to reach the former group of importance within the sample of interest, Facebook proved
an acceptable and pragmatic alternative. In a different school based study, an unhelpfully low response
rate to a survey of parents initially recruited through a school invitation was overcome by reaching
beyond the school channels directly to Facebook users with children of the age targeted in the study. In
both cases, recruitment using a Facebook advertisement enabled the researchers to extend their reach to
survey participants who would otherwise be inaccessible, and thus pragmatically achieve a sufficiently
diverse sample of acceptable size. Recruitment via Facebook, in common with the administration of
other on-line surveys, had the further advantage of a speedy return of completed surveys in contrast to
the inevitable delay in responses to surveys distributed and returned via snail mail.
Other Options
A host of other options are undoubtedly available for strategic recruitment of samples. For example,
Linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com) can be a useful resource for targeting a specific group of profes-
sionals. Consistent with Facebook’s policy, charges are calculated per click or per impressions. If wished,
a maximum daily budget can be set. Guidance for a suitable bid range is provided to ensure competitive
exposure against other groups targeting the same audience. The higher the bid in the suggested range,
the more likely are impressions to be shown and, correspondingly, the clicks made and responses re-
ceived. Forgasz and Leder (2016) used this approach—a “self-service advertisement” on Linkedin—to
recruit a sample of teachers to complete a survey about teachers’ views about numeracy. In this small
pilot study they wished to attract an international sample as well as teachers from Australia. Both cog-
nitive and affective items were included in the survey. The progress report for respondents, some time
into the campaign, indicated that at that stage some 60,000 impression of the advertisement had been
produced. These had attracted 94 clicks (the method of payment they had selected), at a cost of AU$196.
Within a relatively short time, and within the modest budget allocated to this stage of data gathering,
over 200 responses were received from participants in more than 10 countries. Statistics indicated that
118

70% of those who embarked on the survey spent up to 20 minutes working through it. Stages at which
respondents were likely to opt out of the survey (the last item they attempted) were recorded and items
found particularly difficult were also readily identifiable. Comparisons could be made on items of inter-
est between teachers in different age groups, in different countries, and in different school settings, for
example their attitudes about incorporating numeracy concepts into lessons not specifically designated
as mathematics lessons.
So far, the approaches discussed for monitoring students’ behaviors or tapping attitude have not focused
particularly on student reactions to classroom activities or to instructional materials. Two examples of
the use of iPads, widely available and increasingly used in classrooms, are reviewed in the next section.
INSIDE THE CLASSROOM
Mathematics, Attitude, and iPads (1)
In a small study, Larkin and Jorgensen (2015) used iPads creatively to video record the in-class math-
ematical activities of elementary school students and at the same time capture the students’ thoughts,
feelings and emotions about these activities. Data were gathered over a sustained period. Special prepa-
rations included the following:
Two tents were erected, one in each year 3 and 6 shared space, to create a “mathematical thinking
space.” Students were able to enter the tent to record their video as they chose, within the boundaries of
the usual classroom teaching requirements. This was usually during the times when students would be
seated doing individual work or when they had completed set tasks; however, there was no requirement
that all students must record a video. Students were able to use the video camera that comes standard with
any iPad, to record their musings, and if they needed, they could also use the camera to take photographs
of mathematics work relevant to their conversations (Larkin & Jorgensen, 2016, p. 930).
Extra prompts, given as needed, included questions such as “What would I tell my mum and dad
or my principal about what I did in maths today?” or “If maths were a food what type of food would it
be?”. Themes elicited referred to difficulties with mathematics, hatred and anger towards the subject
and topics within it, frustration, confusion, and boredom. The authors argued that the scope of the data
obtained was more extensive and far richer than could have been gathered using more traditional methods.
Mathematics, Attitude, and iPads (2)
In stark contrast to Larkin and Jorgensen’s (2015) project, which relied heavily on the device’s video
recording facility, Sinclair, Chorney, and Rodney (2015) focused on the sustained use of an application
readily available on the iPad. The assumption that “children’s mathematical activity is not strictly cognitive,
that it is deeply intertwined with affect” (Sinclair et al., 2015, p. 2) underpinned the work they carried out
and the methodology they adopted. Like Larkin and Jorgensen (2015) the Sinclair et al. (2015) sample
comprised young children. Those involved were aged six to eight years. How young children engaged
with the multi-touch and freely available application TouchCounts (http://www.touchcounts.ca/) was
explored via this application, which had been specifically designed for the iPad and for young children’s
119

counting and doing arithmetic. Using rhythm as a primary unit of analysis the authors concluded that
the students with whom they worked systematically discovered both specific and general expressions of
mathematical patterns and that the rhythm of counting served as an active motivational tool.
FINAL COMMENTS
In the context of education research, the neo-positivist paradigm, discussed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2,
is distinguished from the classic positivist paradigm by an appreciation that realities of human behavior
can be elusive phenomena. The research exercise in itself is a human pursuit subject to fallibility. Find-
ings are provisional and contestable. Nevertheless the endeavor to uncover patterns and consistencies
drives the researcher—it is the underpinning axiology. What emerges is intended to represent more than
an individual’s interpretation of the subject explored; it is intended to provide an understanding, albeit a
conditional understanding, of the reality of the matter. In this chapter, in keeping with the neo-positivist
research paradigm, an account of attempts to elucidate patterns of performance and affect arising from the
teaching of mathematics has been advanced; methodological possibilities have been critically analyzed.
Reference has been made to Nichols and Berliner’s (2007) claim that the validity of a test is its most
important characteristic. In the literature there is ready consensus about the scope and relevance of the
first three descriptors of validity: content validity, predictive and concurrent criterion-related validity,
and construct validity—see, for example, Messick (1991). The fourth dimension on Nichols and Ber-
liner’s (2007) list—consequential validity—is often regarded as a more controversial measure of validity,
perhaps because, as these authors noted, this last measure relies more on personal and societal values
than do the other three aspects.
The interplay between cognitive and affective factors is generally accepted. “When we talk about
the attained curriculum, we often think of it in terms of the test scores only. Actually, . . . in all school
systems, students’ positive attitudes are one of the goals of mathematics education” noted Leung (2014,
p. 263) in an article on international studies of mathematics achievement.
Throughout this chapter care has been taken to indicate that seemingly adequate approaches to the
measurement of cognitive and affective components of students’ learning may lack precision and in-
volve a margin of error. Schoenfeld’s (2015, p. 395) concerns have also been raised: “Research in the
‘affective domain’ is densely populated with overlapping constructs, partially commensurate methods,
and somewhat contradictory findings. Definitional imprecision is a further confounding factor.” Yet
capturing and understanding the strength and robustness of the different and interacting components is
of critical concern to those involved in education.
That the recognized obstacles and difficulties should not be used as a justification for a despondent
turning to other areas of research but should serve instead as a call for renewed efforts is aptly cap-
tured by Kramers’ (n.d.) observation that the physical sciences, too, are plagued by a lack of precision
in measurement and terminology. “In the world of human thought generally, and in physical science
particularly,” he argued, “the most important and fruitful concepts are those to which it is impossible to
attach a well-defined meaning.” Continued searching for more accurate and carefully nuanced measure-
ment instruments, and thoughtful reporting of the results obtained, are thus goals well worthy of further
pursuit. Our students deserve no less.
120

REFERENCES
Berliner, D. C. (2011). The context for interpreting the PISA results in the U.S.A.: Negativism, chauvin-
ism, misunderstanding, and the potential to distort the educational systems of nations. In M. A. Pereyra,
H.-G. Korthoff, & R. Cowen (Eds.), PISA under examination. Changing knowledge, changing tests, and
changing schools (pp. 77–96). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Cox, P. J., Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2004). The Victorian Certificate of Education—Mathematics,
science and gender. Australian Journal of Education, 48(1), 27–46. doi:10.1177/000494410404800103
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flaws: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New
York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers. Cambridge, UK: Uni-
versity of Cambridge Press.
Donnelly, K., & Wilstshire, K. (2014). Review of the Australian curriculum. Final report. Department
of Education and Training. Retrieved from http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/review-australian-curriculum
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales. JSAS Catalog of
Selected Documents in Psychology, 6(1), 31.
Forgasz, H., & Leder, G. (2016). Mathematical literacy and teachers. Unpublished manuscript. Faculty
of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (2006a). Work patterns and stressors of experienced and novice mathemat-
ics teachers. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 62(3), 36–40.
Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (2006b). Academic life: Monitoring work patterns and daily activities.
Australian Educational Researcher, 33(1), 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF03246278
Forgasz, H. J., Leder, G. C., & Tan, H. (2014). Public views on the gendering of mathematics and related
careers: International comparisons. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(3), 369–388. doi:10.1007/
s10649-014-9550-6
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen,
& G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 59–72). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Kramers, H. A. (n.d.). Quotes. Retrieved from http://www.quotes.net/authors/H.%20A.%20Kramers
Krosnick, J. A., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2005). The measurement of attitudes. In D. Albarracín,
B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 21–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). “I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?” Using iPad video
diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in Year 3 and Year 6 students. Interna-
tional Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9621-x
121

Leder, G. C. (2015). Mathematics for all? The case for and against national testing. In S. J. Cho (Ed.),
The Proceedings of the 12th Internal Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 189-208). Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_14
Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2004). Australian and international mature age students: The daily chal-
lenges. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 183–198. doi:10.1080/0729436042000206654
Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2010). I liked it till Pythagoras: The public’s views of mathematics. In
L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the Future of Mathematics Education:Proceedings
of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 328-
335). Fremantle: MERGA.
Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2011). The public’s views on gender and the learning of mathematics:
Does age matter? In J. Clark, B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer, & S. Thornton (Eds.), Mathematics:
Traditions and [new] practices (pp. 446-454). Adelaide, Australia: AAMT and MERGA.
Leung, F. K. (2014). What can and should we learn from international studies of mathematics achieve-
ment? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(3), 579–605. doi:10.1007/s13394-013-0109-0
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives de Psychologie, 22(140), 1–55.
Likert, R. (1967). The method of constructing an attitude scale. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in at-
titude theory and measurement (pp. 90–95). New York: John Wiley.
Mason, J. (2004). Are beliefs believable? Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(3), 343–352.
doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0603_4
Messick, S. (1991). Validity of test interpretation and use. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of edu-
cational research (6th ed.; pp. 1–29). New York: Macmillan.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2008). 2007 International mathematics report: Findings from
IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Retrieved
from timss.bc.edu/timss2007/PDF/TIMSS2007_InternationalMathematicsReport
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). Timss 2011 international results in math-
ematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Retrieved from timssandpirls.
bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/T11_IR_Mathematics_FullBook.pdf
Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2007). Collateral damage. How high stakes testing corrupts America’s
schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
OECD (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem
solving and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264190511-en
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review
of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307
Popham, W. T. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern—wrong concept. Educational Measure-
ment: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 9–13. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00586.x
122

Ruthven, K. (2015). Reaction to section 3: Some methodological reflections on studies of mathemati-

cal affect. In B. Pepin & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic systems in mathematics
education (pp. 383-393). Springer.
Schimmack, U., & Crites, S. L. Jr. (2005). The structure of affect. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, &
M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 397–435). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). What counts, when? Reflections on beliefs, affect, attitude, orientation, habits
of mind, grain size, time scale, context, theory and method. In B. Pepin & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.),
From beliefs to dynamic systems in mathematics education (pp. 395–404). Springer.
Tan, H., Forgasz, H., Leder, G., & McLeod, A. (2012). Survey recruitment using Facebook: Three stud-
ies. Paper presented at the International Conference on Internet Studies, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 8(2), 16–21. Retrieved from http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/cho25344l.htm
Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, G. D. (1992). Educational psychology’s first century. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(1), 6–29. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.6
123
124
Chapter 8
Scientific Realism and the Study
of Higher Education Curriculum
and the Student Experience
Calvin Smith
Griffith University, Australia
ABSTRACT
This chapter elaborates and exemplifies the use of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) in the analysis of
the effects of curricula designs on student learning and experience in higher education. A brief didactic
account of the origins of structural equation modelling is used to expose and explore fundamental assump-
tions, metaphysical and ontological commitments, and alternative views in the field. This is followed by
an exemplification of the method by use of a case study of its application in studying a higher education
curriculum design (work-integrated learning). The chapter argues for the adoption of a realist account
of latent variables on the basis that the constructs they represent are in principle manipulable, even
though experimental manipulation is not typically a feature of research on curricula in higher education.
INTRODUCTION
The study of higher education students’ experiences and learning outcomes is a substantive field in its
own right, but it has many variants, in both method and purpose. For instance students have been surveyed
or observed for a range of purposes, including to address the following themes, goals and issues: quality
and nature of teachers’ practices (Chau & Hocevar, 1994; for an example and a review of the literature
see Marsh & Roche, 1994); assurance of learning (Barrie, Hughes, Smith, & Thomson, 2009; Barrie,
2006; Biggs & Collis, 1982; Griffin, Coates, McInnes, & James, 2003; Wilson, Lizzio, & Ramsden,
1997); and students’ approaches to studying (Entwistle, Hanley, & Hounsell, 1979; Entwistle & Rams-
den, 1983). This paper will explore the use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for the exploration
of the impact of aspects of curriculum design on student learning and satisfaction. Along the way there
will be an exploration of the philosophical commitments that such an approach implies.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch008

Scientific Realism and the Study of Higher Education Curriculum and the Student Experience
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
A Debated Issue
The existence of the current volume attests to the fact that in the social sciences in particular, but across
all of the scientific enterprise, philosophical analysis of the logic of scientific inquiry, and the claims
made about the methods and processes of science, has created considerable divisions, at least among
those engaged in this debate, if not among the practitioners themselves.
The philosophical discourse on the logic, sociology, politics, ontology and epistemology of scientific
inquiry is rich and engaged in earnestly. The debate ranges from Marx’s structuralism to Weber’s verste-
hen sociology, through Polanyi’s and Schutz’s phenomenological and ethnomethodological expositions,
to Kuhn’s synthesis of “normal science” and “revolutions,” to Harding’s stand-point epistemologies and
feminist critiques, to Feyerabend’s and Latour’s sincere and contrary skepticisms (Feyerabend, 2010;
Hacking, 1981, 1992; Harding & Hintikka, 1983; Harding, 1986; Kuhn, 1962; Latour, 1986, 1999;
Pickering, 1992; Polanyi, 1966; Schutz, 1962).
These debates have played out in many disciplines, but in the discipline of higher education the
debate seems to be comparatively, and surprisingly, muted; the current volume addresses this gap in a
direct and pragmatic way by linking “approach” or “method” to the range ontological, epistemological
and metaphysical commitments that approaches imply. An account of the assumptions implicit in one
approach to analyzing higher education students, in context, using quantitative data and methods is
presented in this chapter.
These debates have various themes but four key themes in the philosophy of science are:
• Objectivity: Is it possible to do science in a way that is defensibly or incontrovertibly based on

unbiased measures and interpretations that are not influenced by the perceptual or theoretical pre-
conceptions or political prejudices of the researchers?
• Realism: Is there a real world that persists independently of and which is beyond instances of hu-
man perceptions of it?
• Causality: Does it make sense and is it reasonable to assume, and is it possible to “see” or mea-
sure the causal mechanisms that are thought to operate between things in the world?
• Latency: What is the ontological status of latent variables, i.e., theoretical constructs or ideas
whose presence in the world is only known through one or more manifest measurable variables?
A tension persists, within the social sciences generally, as to the legitimacy of empiricist and positivist
approaches to inquiry. As Sayer puts it:
At the centre of social science’s internal crisis have been attacks on orthodox conceptions usually termed
‘positivist’ or ‘empiricist’. So many different doctrines and practices have been identified with these terms
that they have become devalued and highly ambiguous, or even purely pejorative. Those who want to
continue using them increasingly find that they have to preface arguments with tiresome digressions on
‘the real meaning of positivism’ and these often generate more heat than what follows. (Sayer, 1992, p. 7)
This tension is not limited to social sciences. In the philosophy of science the debate remains un-
resolved, though some writers can be found who commit to this or that perspective, offering cogently
125

argued defenses of their positions. However, for any one of these there is at least one other steadfastly
defending some contrary view (for a review see Chakravartty, 2015). Such debate helps to refine our
collective reasoning about the issues.
Method, Data, and Ontology
Ontological commitments do not neatly parallel methodological commitments. Objectivism and real-
ism do not “go with” quantitative methods and irrealism (Goodman, 1978, 1984) does not “go with”
qualitative methods, or standpoint epistemology (Harding & Hintikka, 1983).
To pursue an example, it is noted that, in sociology, Marx and Weber were both ontological objectiv-
ists, both social realists. Marx was a structuralist—for him the structural patterns that could be discerned
among/between social sub-divisions, for example, were a causal story in and of themselves. But for Weber,
Marx’s approach elides the meaning of the experience of the actors, and therefore a crucial (subjective)
part of the causal picture—individual motivated and meaningful action. Weber was thus subjectivist in
his ontology, but objectivist in his method. His interpretivist paradigm is designed to unearth something
that is real (peoples’ values, meaningful engagements with things), and that motivates action. Thus “in-
terpretivist” versus “structuralist” is a useful distinction in this context, because it relates to “method,”
even though it does not show up any distinction in ontological commitments these two, apparently very
different, theorists, had to realism.
Similarly, “qualitative” and “quantitative” is not a useful distinction, because it does not imply a dif-
ference in the ontological commitment that users of such methods might have. There are many examples
of qualitative work that is realist or objectivist. Grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) is an example
of qualitative method that has realist and objectivist ontological underpinnings. In the quantitative camp
it is probably true that realism has been a cornerstone assumption of numerical methods, if sometimes
held implicitly by practitioners. Further, some methods that are quantitative study irreal phenomena; an
example would be thematic or content analysis of people’s beliefs about political parties.
Thus, the task of trying to infer ontology from methods is not a clear one, and is likely to lead to
confusion. A better approach then is to focus on the ontological commitments that practitioners hold,
either explicitly or implicitly.
Table 1 shows a cross-tabulation of methods and the types of phenomena studied. The types of
phenomena studied are classified as “real” or “irreal”—that is, they are distinguished from each other
according to whether the object of study is something materially manifest in the world or manifest in
people’s minds. Although this is itself not as clear as it at first might seem, such a classification approach
has an intuitive clarity and simplicity to it. For instance, though “ideas,” “values” etc., are not materially
manifest in the world it is not clear at all that we can discount their existence, for they can be thought
Table 1. Methods (qualitative/quantitative) crossed with objects of study (irreal/real)
How studied Real Things (Material Conditions, Wealth, Health, Irreal Things (Ideas, Beliefs, Values Etc.)
Sex Category)
Qualitatively Participant observational study of homelessness. Ethnomethodological studies of categorization devices.
Grounded theories. Discourse analysis.
Quantitatively Structuralist studies of inequality. Thematic analysis of beliefs raised in interviews.
SEM studies. Content analysis of beliefs.
126

of as materially manifest in the brains of those persons having them. If that is true, then they are in fact
in the world, and materially.
As will be seen, the debates about ontology, even within SEM, can be understood in a similar fash-
ion, where the question is equally subtle, but with a different emphasis; it does not focus on whether the
things measured by the practitioner are real, or manifest in the world, for they patently are—without, say,
respondents ticking boxes on a survey there would be no data to analyze. The question instead focuses
on whether those measurements represent something other than themselves, something that lies behind
the manifest measurements, and, though not directly measureable, is nonetheless real.
METHOD AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter, then, describes a quantitative method, SEM, and its underlying methodology—the ontologi-
cal and epistemological commitments that are concomitants of that method. It describes the use of SEM
for the study of higher education students’ experiences of curriculum. As will be seen, however, even
though this method is well-established, with many research studies looking at mathematical properties
of the assumptions underpinning a range of mathematically alternative strategies for doing the work,
debates are ongoing within the SEM community about the ontological status of the things measured by
this method—that is to say, these debates are addressing the very issue of what the ontological commit-
ments in SEM are, or should be.
Regression and Causation
SEM is an approach to analyzing relations between quantitative variables. SEM is an extension of the
general linear model, the most basic expression of which is the regression of one variable on another
in order to assess:
1. If there is a directional relationship between the two variables, and

2. What is the magnitude of that directionality.
This directionality in the relationship is interpreted as predictive. That is, the language used to describe
the relationship is of the kind: as x increases y is caused to increase. The magnitude is a matter of by
how much y increases for each increment of x. This can be understood graphically as the slope of a line
in an x-y coordinate system of data points. Figure 1 gives an example of this graphical representation.
The general linear model is a broad term for a group of analysis methods that assume and seek to
quantify directional and, by implication, causal relationships between quantitative variables.
It is an assumption of this method (of regressing one variable on the other, and, by extension, using
multiple regression equations in a SEM model simultaneously), that the relationships between variables
are causal in nature. The coefficient of slope in the above graph (the slope of the line indicating the
rate of change in y as x changes), for instance, represents the degree to which any y is influenced by
perturbations in x. According to Judea Pearl, this interpretation of slope coefficients has been lost over
time and he laments the fact that
127

Figure 1. x,y coordinate system and plot of regression of y on x
Since the early 1980s, it has become exceedingly rare to find an open endorsement of the original SEM
logic: that [the slope coefficient] defines the sensitivity of [y] to experimental manipulations (or coun-
terfactual variations) of [x]. (Pearl, 2009, pp. 135-136)
Note that the regression line, drawn through the points representing actual measures of the x and
y variables on each case or object, does not connect with any of the actual cases. It is an estimate of
a relationship that exists “in the real world” and which is manifest in different individuals with slight
variations caused by other (unmeasured) causal influences.
The way this regression line is estimated, at least in one common approach, is simple enough to grasp
conceptually: The line is called the line of best fit and it is the line that minimizes the sum of the squared
deviations of the data points from the line. In other words, out of an infinite number of possible lines
that could be drawn “through” the data points in the graph, this is the one that lies closest to the greatest
number of points. In Figure 2, a second line is drawn in that clearly does not “fit” the data points as well
as the original one in Figure 1.
Figure 2. x,y coordinate system and plot of regression of y on x, with two lines of fit
128

Causation and Causal Relationships Between Variables
Regression, which is the foundation of SEM, according to its originators and a few others at least, implies
causality, and is an attempt to quantify that causal relationship (Pearl, 2009). The issue of whether or
not relationships between variables are interpreted as causal is not given by the method used, but rather
by the conceptualizations the researcher has of the world. If the variables are thought to be associated
together in a causal sequence, then that conception is prior to the choice of a method for quantifying
their relationship. This is the domain of theorization. Theory is, in this view, a collection of speculations
about the causal relationships between things in the world. This way of expressing it implies a realist
perspective.
Causal mechanisms provide both
• The bridge between a thing to be explained or understood and the conditions that predict its exis-
tence or occurrence (or rate of change, or character), and
• The basis for a distinction between explanation and prediction.
For prediction all one needs is reliable correlation between two things. If the correlation is reliable,
then in the presence of the right quantum of one thing, the presence or even the quantum of its correlate
can be predicted reliably. However, as Manicas (2006, p. 19) puts it “strong correlations are most useful
for prediction though not, symmetrically, for explanation—as nearly everyone would agree.” To produce
an explanation of an event or the state of a thing, causal mechanisms are required. As Manicas (2006,
p. 20) says: “[e]xplanation, like understanding, requires that there is a ‘real connection,’ a generative
mechanism or causal nexus that produced or brought about the event (or pattern) to be explained.”
In the social sciences, where the motivated actions, of actors, themselves act as causes, motivated
actions become plausible contenders as causal explanations. Thus, causal mechanisms constitute the
substance of explanations; and human actors’ motivated actions themselves can enter into explanations of
the events for which they can be said to be causes. This point becomes relevant when we consider studies
that focus on students in the context of curriculum experiences, because it can point up one important
aspect of student behavior and learning, which is motivation. Marton and Saljo’s (1976a) “approaches
to learning” framework, and its progeny (Biggs, 1987a; Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Entwistle & Waterston,
1988) focus on this notion.
Realism and Empiricism
This assumption, of causal realism, is at times intuitively compelling but it has been subjected to several
substantial criticisms beginning with Sextus Empiricus two thousand years ago, and more recently by
Hume (Chakravartty, 2007, p. 96). Chakravartty (2007) provides a solid review of the criticisms of causal
realism, which are beyond the scope of this chapter, but it is his proposal that the perennial philosophical
impasse can be addressed by the notion of causal processes that is of interest. Chakravartty’s proposal is
that causal relationships be seen as overlapping “continuous interactions” between objects that possess
certain properties (like velocity, inertia, direction) and dispositions, and that talk of “events” is a kind of
ontological shorthand that creates or opens up the debate to the philosophical objections mentioned above.
129

By adopting the idea that causation is a process, the causal realist is trading in an account in terms of
successions of discrete events for one in terms of continuous processes. . . . To embrace causation as a
continuous process is to view processes as causally fundamental or basic. Making the switch is not a
matter of simply replacing large-scale events in descriptions of causation with micro-events made up of
changes in the properties of objects. To understand causation as a process is to preclude the descrip-
tion of causation in terms of relations between discrete events, . . . Of course, this does not prevent the
causal realist from carving events out of parts of causal processes and calling them causes and effects,
for the sake of convenience. People do this very effectively, as their success in completing everyday and
scientific tasks confirms. (Chakravartty, 2007, p. 111)
As an alternative to causal realism, there is a school of radical empiricism that derives from the
Humean idea that causation cannot be understood beyond what can be observed about causes and their
effects, which is that they are in “constant conjunction.” This epistemological perspective in turn under-
pins a radical empiricist view that all measures we make of the sort described above, wherein multiple
indicators are said to be indicators of something other than themselves, are nothing more than clusters
of measures; that is there is no underlying construct that they measure. In this radical view, there are
no constructs interacting causally, though invisibly, that give rise to the observations of co-occurrence
of measured variables; all that exists are the measurable variables themselves. Some SEM practitioners
think this way.
To assume that there is causality underpinning the relationship between any variables implies a par-
ticular further assumption. It is that there is a world that is external to, and independent of the researcher
and/or the researcher’s observations or measurements or analysis. This is the assumption of objectivity
of the external world. So an assumption of realist science is that there is an external world, external that
is to the researcher, that it is knowable, through the acts of measurement and analysis, but that the things
measured may not be identical with the things in causal relationship with each other. SEM adopts a way
of speaking about these underlying realities, and the terminology used is “latency.” Latent constructs
are the things in the world that are in causal relationships with each other; measurements taken in the
world might not be direct measurements of these latent variables, and are then regarded as “indicators”
of those latent constructs. In measurement terms these are called “reflective indicators”; the contrary
empiricist view labels measurements as “formative indictors.” Most SEM practitioners adopt this view
of measurement. Every theoretical variable in the ontology of a full (realist) SEM is a latent, and the
estimation of relationships between the latents is the goal.
SEM APPROACH TO ESTIMATING CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS
The Measurement Model
Every measurement in SEM is understood as being made up of a component that is caused by the underly-
ing reality, plus the error in the measurement. Together the error and the value of the underlying reality
for that case are understood to completely cause and account for the measurement taken by the researcher.
But to get to this point of understanding we need to do a little background work. First let us think of
the idea of attempting to predict the value of some empirical, or measured, variable (call it “y”). Where
130

we know nothing of its causes we can only know its distributional properties. It is as though we are
saying that the values the variable takes on are a function of all its (unknown) causes. In such a case our
best prediction is simply the mean of the variable.
This model can be represented as in Figure 3.
The “error” term in this case merely alludes to the idea that none of the variance in y can be accounted
for—we know nothing about the causes of y.
Now consider that we have some variable that is correlated with the empirical variable we are inter-
ested in, and we think is also causally related to it. We posit the situation depicted in Figure 4. In this
diagram the arrow from x to y represents the regression coefficient, and the whole model represents the
regression of one variable on the other. The variance in y accounted for by this model is not complete,
and the remainder is represented in the error term, as though it accounts for the balance of the variance
in y not already accounted for by overlapping variance with x. This overlapping variance in this way of
thinking is rightly thought of as somehow representing or quantifying the deep causal mechanism/s that
associate x and y together.
Now consider a slight variation on this idea. Consider that we think of the variable being predicted as
a measurable “indicator” of an abstract concept. We will say of this abstract concept that it is a “latent”
variable—it exists in some sense in the world, but our knowledge of it is indirect; our knowledge of the
latent is only through direct contact with the indicator that is “manifest” in the world. In this situation,
we would say that the values on the measurement indicator (the manifest variable) vary as a function
of the latent variable and any unaccounted-for variance in the manifest variable is caused by unknown
causes (Figure 5).
Figure 3. “y” is predicted by all of its (unknown) causes—called an “error” term (E)
Figure 4. “y” is predicted by all of its (unknown) causes, and one known cause, “x”
Figure 5. measurement as conceived in SEM (“e”=error)
131

In SEM diagrams, conventions are used for clarity of communication. These include the following:
• Rectangular shapes represent measured (manifest) variables;

• Oval shapes represent hypothesized latent variables, the reality underlying and causing variation
in the manifest and measured variables;
• Circles represent error (of either measurement, as in this case, or of prediction—e.g., Figure 7)
• Lines between objects show causal directionality if single-arrow-headed, and correlation if
double-arrow-headed.
Thus Figure 5 says: “observed measurements on the manifest variable ‘measurement’ are caused by a
latent construct that has a causal relationship with the manifest along with a degree of measurement er-
ror.” Further, this model of measurement is extended to cases in which the latent construct is measured by
more than one indicator variable. This is especially relevant to the social sciences, including educational
research, which rely heavily on survey data, and in which concepts are themselves multi-dimensional or
multi-faceted such that a series of questions in a survey, each one focused on a slightly different aspect of
a concept, might together be taken to be a comprehensive set of measures of that concept (see Figure 6).
The SEM approach to factor analysis for the measurement model is different from that routinely
adopted in traditional psychological research. The traditional approach in psychology has been to use
principal components analysis to derive a pseudo-factor model (really a components analysis, not strictly
a factor analysis) for the measurement model. Components analysis and exploratory factor analysis using
principal axis factoring are both exploratory strategies; they provide a way of discerning and discovering
correlational structure in multivariate data. What SEM does differently is that it allows the researcher
to perform a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Two things make this possible. First, the researcher
posits the factor structure that is expected (hypothesized) prior to the analysis; the software does not
seek out the structure. Second, the mathematics of the analysis is not based on sampling theory and the
central limit theorem. Instead, the software produces a model-predicted (or implied) correlation matrix
that is based on the correlational (or covariance) data in the actual sample under analysis, and a series of
regression analyses of the hypothesized relationships between variables in the model. This gives rise to
path analytic “trace” estimates of the correlations between the variables, which are derived by the usual
path analytic approaches of tracing all the relationships that the model specifies as entered into by each
variable. This value is typically not equal to the zero-order correlation between two variables, which is
why it is called the “model-implied” value.
Figure 6. Multiple indicator measurement model
132

The Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) algorithm is used to find the values of the regression
coefficients, disturbance term paths, and model correlations that maximize the fit of the model-implied
matrix to the actual data. This is compared with the actual correlation (or covariance) matrix, and the
Chi-squared test is applied to the discrepancies between the two correlation (covariance) matrices. A
significant Chi-square statistic in SEM is not what the researcher wants to see, because that says the
predicted values in the matrix (from the hypothesized model) are significantly different from those in
the actual sample. In that case the model is not a good fit to the data and is disconfirmed. On the other
hand, if the Chi-square statistic is not significant then the two matrices do not have significant discrepan-
cies between them and the model is said to be confirmed (for a readable explanation of these technical
ideas, with diagrams, see Kline, 1998, pp. 116-126). This approach to model testing in SEM is the same
whether it is the measurement model or the structural model that is being tested.
The Structural Model
What makes SEM structural is that it allows the modeling of complex multivariate systems or networks
of causal relationships between many latents simultaneously. One of the drawbacks of regression is
that there is only ever one criterion or dependent variable—only one effect, even though regression
can handle multiple causal variables. Not only that, but because in the social sciences many variables
that are theoretically hypothesized as related causally to one or more outcomes or effects are often also
correlated with each other, the ability of SEM to capture all these causal and correlational relationships
simultaneously makes it a very powerful tool and one that is highly relevant to the social sciences, be-
cause most of the questions in social sciences tend to have multivariate answers. This follows from the
fact that the thing being studied cannot be isolated from its natural multivariate context, as one might
be able to do in scientific experiments.
In Figure 7 we see a simple but typical example of a structural model in which there is one dependent
variable, L3, caused by two other latent variables L1 and L2 (which are themselves correlated—dashed
line1). Note that the theory of error is again embodied, this time at the level of estimation of the effect,
by the inclusion of a disturbance term (D). This disturbance term represents any part of the variance of
the effect that is not predicted by the (two) causes. This embodies and explicitly models the specifica-
tion error; variance in a dependent variable not accounted for by the independents is from un-modeled
causes. Measurement error (e) is modeled in the measurement part of the model.
Are Manifest Variables Caused by Latents or

Constitutive of Measurement Concepts?
I have represented the relationships between the latent and the manifest variables in the measurement
diagrams above as one in which the latents cause the manifest variables. As mentioned, when this is the
assumption made by the researcher, the manifest variables are called “reflective indicators.” There are
situations in social sciences in which it makes sense to recognize that the indicators themselves con-
stitute the concept in question. The canonical example is socio-economic status, which is understood
as an aggregation of several indicators, but not itself a construct that exists in the world (and cannot be
“seen”). When the indicators form the latent in this way, that is, “by definition,” they are called “forma-
tive” indicators. The way that SEM practitioners treat indicators is a fairly direct embodiment of their
philosophical and ontological commitments. Radical empiricists (those who object to the idea that theo-
133

Figure 7. A simple structural model with 3 latents
retical entities are real) would only ever consider their latents as empirical conveniences summarized by
formative indicators; realists will use reflective indicators for all latents that they consider to represent
theoretical entities that are real. Borsboom et al. put it this way:
A realist point of view motivates the reflective model because the response on the questionnaire items is
thought to vary as a function of the latent variable. In this case, variation in the latent variable precedes
variation in the indicators. (Borsboom, Mellenbergh, & van Heerden, 2003, p. 208)
At the time of writing a debate is occurring in the SEM virtual community (SEMNET, 2016) about
this very issue, with some people arguing for a realist perspective and others arguing for a radical em-
piricist perspective on measurement in SEM. The debate is also occurring in the scholarly literature
(Borsboom et al., 2003; Harms, Wood, & Spain, 2016; Jonas & Markon, 2016). The debate about the
existence or reality of theoretical entities is not new; many philosophy of science undergraduates have
cut their teeth on the question of the reality and existence of the electron, or what Hacking calls the
philosopher’s “standard ‘theoretical entity’” (Hacking, 1982, p. 71).
Hacking’s proposal for determining the question of a theoretical entity’s existence is whether it can
be manipulated experimentally:
experimenters are realists about the entities that they use in order to investigate other hypotheses or
hypothetical entities. . . . Their enterprise would be incoherent without it. But their enterprise is not
134

incoherent. It persistently creates new phenomena that become regular technology. (Hacking, 1982, p.
71) . . . The experimenter is convinced of the reality of entities some of whose causal properties are suf-
ficiently well understood that they can be used to interfere elsewhere in nature. (1982, p. 75)
This is a useful distinction to hold in mind as the next section moves on to explore the studies that
focus on curriculum.
FOCUS ON CURRICULUM AND LEARNING
In this paper the word “curriculum” is used in a particular way. Teachers enact teaching, but the stu-
dents experience more than the teaching; they experience the whole of the curriculum—all the learning
resources, and the learning opportunities, the classroom, the labs, and so on. In this sense “curriculum”
refers to the totality of the experience educators put students through, including the teaching, but also
including the materials, learning spaces, group and individual activities, resources, and so on. The de-
signed experience is the one that teachers design for students, with the aim that these experiences and
interactions will contribute to the learning outcomes for students. Thus, the focus of the showcase study
is on two parts of the totality of the students’ experience of the curriculum:
• The enacted part of the espoused curriculum, and

• The learnt part of the curriculum, that is the learning outcomes (see Smith, 2008 for a fuller ex-
planation of these terms).
Importantly, the curriculum is something that can be manipulated, experimented with, if you will
(though typically not in a “randomised control trial” sense of this term). This is the basis of our case for
arguing for the existence of the latent variables used in the show case study.
Quantitative Research in Higher Education Focusing

on the “Experienced” and “Learnt” Curricula
There is a long history of objectivist/realist quantitative and subjectivist/realist qualitative studies of

student learning and the student experience (for a brief history see Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001). The
early work by Biggs that resulted in the SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982) was purely qualitative.
The work initiated by Marton and Saljo (1976a, 1976b) began the long tradition of studies on students’
approaches to learning, culminating in the production of the student approaches to learning measurement
framework and the student process questionnaire (SPQ) and its revision (Biggs et al., 2001; Biggs, 1993;
Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Entwistle & Waterston, 1988; Zeegers, 2002). According to Biggs, Kember
and Leung (2001) this research program bifurcated into two trajectories: one constructivist and systems
theoretical, which includes the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) (Biggs, 1987a, 1987b, 1999), and
the other phenomenographical (Marton, 1981; Prosser & Trigwell, 1998).
Expanding on these ideas, correlational studies began to arise that looked at the (putatively causal)
antecedents of students taking a deep approach to their studies. One of these strands of research resulted
in the most widely used measure of higher education curriculum experiences—the Course Experience
Questionnaire (CEQ) (Ramsden, 1991). After some years of use in the sector, this instrument was also
135

revised to include not just the measures of the curriculum processes, but also measures of outcomes
(Griffin et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 1997). A similar program of research that sought to validate cur-
riculum measures against student experience and learning was conducted by Herb Marsh and resulted
in the development of the SEEQ instrument for evaluating higher education teaching (Chau & Hocevar,
1994; Marsh & Roche, 1994).
Because SEM allows the simultaneous modeling of complex sets of relationships among a large
number of variables it is attractive for doing naturalistic studies of complex systems, such as curricula.
Notwithstanding this, the emergence of studies in higher education that use SEM is not apparent until
2005 with the publication of a paper by Kember and Leung (2005) and another shortly afterwards in
2007 (Kember, Leung, & Ma, 2007). This probably represents the rate of uptake of new methodological
ideas across the sector. Thus SEM is ideal for curriculum studies, and it is to the demonstration of this
claim, through the explication of one such body of work, that the next section of this paper is dedicated.
DEMONSTRATION AND EXAMPLE
Smith and Worsfold (2014) will be the focus paper for the demonstration. In this paper, the authors use
SEM to model the relationships between curriculum variables (latents) and outcomes (either learning
outcomes or student satisfaction) for a particular kind of curriculum design—work integrated learning
(WIL). The context for these studies was a rapidly growing interest in WIL as a consequence of repeated
reviews of higher education criticizing the employment-readiness of graduates (Precision Consultancy
& Commonwealth of Australia, 2007; Smith, 2016; West, 1998).
The paper described here is part of an ongoing research program examining the effects of work-
integrated learning (WIL) curriculum design and implementation features on students’ learning (Smith,
Ferns, & Russell, 2014; Smith & Worsfold, 2014, 2015). Starting with a validated model of WIL cur-
riculum features (Smith, 2012) the program of research follows a trajectory of looking at the effects
of these features on a variety of student learning and other outcomes. The goal of these studies was to
provide an empirically defensible basis for making well-evidenced recommendations to those interested
in pursuing WIL curriculum in their taught programs.
In Smith and Worsfold (2014), a structural equation model was conceived that represented the hypoth-
esized causal links between variables. Note that this is a complex model, with learning outcomes and
satisfaction outcomes. Table 2 contains a summary of the variables, and Figure 8 contains a graphical
Table 2. Variables in the model in Smith and Worsfold (2014). The notations “Ln” in brackets after each
one represents the label given to the variables in Figure 8
Curriculum Inputs Learning Outcomes Satisfaction outcomes

Alignment of teaching and learning Self-efficacy (L6). Satisfaction (with the work experience and
activities with learning goals (L1). Team skills (L7). the learning) (L9).
Alignment of assessment with learning Work-readiness (L8). Satisfaction (with the university’s supports)
goals (L2). (L10).
Authenticity of the experience (L3).
Induction and preparation processes prior
to starting placement (L4).
Supervisor access and utility during
placement (L5).
136

Figure 8. Facsimile of the model in Smith and Worsfold (2014)
representation of (fictitious) causal pathways between the variables. Note that SEM allows modeling of
multiple dependent variables and their causes simultaneously. The pathways are fictitious because this
diagram is used here for didactic purposes—see Smith and Worsfold (2014) for the actual model details.
In keeping with the style of graphically representing models in SEM, Figure 8 shows approximately
how these relationships might be portrayed (some adjustments have been made, and the relationships
are not exactly as hypothesized in the original paper, for the sake of simplicity).
Note that in the figure are both the measurement and the structural aspects of the model, as well as
the disturbance terms (diamond shapes), that model the residual variances, for predicted variables, along
with each latent and three manifest measurements for each latent (labelled “Mn”). (In reality there will
typically be more than three manifest indicators and different numbers of them for each of the latents.)
Finally, the measurement error associated with each manifest indicator is represented with circles. Whilst
this notation is not standard SEM notation, it is hope that it will suffice for the ensuing discussion.
Note that the latents in this model are a mix of aspects of curriculum (L1-L5), proximal effects
of these (L6, L7, and L8) and terminal effects (L9, L10). The terminal effects are influenced by both
direct input from the curriculum latents, as well as indirect input via the intermediary variables (L6,
L7, and L8). For instance L4 → L10 is a direct link between a curriculum latent and a terminal latent,
but there is also an indirect effect via the path L4 → L8 → L10. Further, in the graph, it is hypothesize
that L1 and L2 are not independent of each other—there exists some correlation between them, that it
also independent of the shared variance with any of the other variables with which each is associated.
In the model represented in Figure 8, the latent causal variables are those listed in Table 2—things
like frequency and value of meetings with an academic supervisor, or the degree to which the respondent
student was given autonomy, responsibility, meaningful tasks, and did work similar to the work that will
be done in his/her professional life when he/she graduates.
137

These are all real things in the world; we know this because they can be manipulated experimentally
(although typically not in a randomized controlled way). Even the (terminal) latent “satisfaction,” though
a psychological variable, can easily be said to exist in the world, if one accepts that it makes sense to
think of students as having varying degrees of this feeling that can be manipulated.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: CRITIQUE,

LIMITATIONS, AND DÉNOUEMENT
In his 2006 book Peter Manicus develops a comprehensive metaphysics of explanation in the social
sciences. In that book he observes that
in social science, since persons are the critical causes of everything that occurs in the social world,
the generative mechanisms are the actions of persons ‘working with materials at hand,’ and no further
reduction is either possible or necessary. (Manicas, 2006, p. 4)
In the approach I have described above, an account of my own practice as a scientist interested in
the impact of curriculum designs on individuals’ experiences and learning, there is the shortcoming in
that in the focus on aspects of the curriculum there is a lack of emphasis on the agency of the students
who are experiencing that curriculum. It is as though the curriculum impacts on passive object-subjects.
This is of course not a plausible realism; students are subjects and as such are best conceived as active
in this regard, or as having agency.
What might be the implications of this? It might be fruitful to investigate what students do during
their interactions with educational experiences/aspects of curriculum, and also what they do, that is
educationally relevant, in the interstitial times between encounters with the curriculum, and of course,
what their motivations are for those actions.
A second shortcoming is that there is no attempt to measure students’ psychological presage—attri-
butes of students which themselves (in a non-agentic way) might be determining some of their behavior
or reactions to the environment. There are some reliable presage factors that might be relevant, such as
personality factors, which might precede, and determine students’ reactions to their educational experi-
ences, including their dispositions towards adopting deep, surface or strategic approaches to their studies.
Thus, studies of such phenomena might provide useful insights into the educational process, by uncov-
ering the interactions between students and curriculum at a more fine grained, causal, mechanistic level.
Another thing for the future of SEM studies is a clearer comprehension of causation and its incor-
poration into SEM model appraisal. Judea Peal is advancing thinking in this area and it is likely that
explicitly addressing the issue of causation using Pearl’s approaches or some variant thereof will become
de rigueur in SEM research (see Pearl, 2009).
In conclusion then, I have argued in this chapter that ontological commitment is not an obvious con-
comitant of “method” but that it is not hard to find ontological commitment if one scratches the surface
of researchers’ practices. The showcased example explicated a realist commitment to the idea that latent
variables in SEM modeling are indeed something in the world. This contrasted with the idea that the
measures taken, and used to “represent” latent variables, can be understood to be an empirical shorthand
for purely empirical conception of those variables as nothing more than the measures themselves.
138

Finally, it should be noted that a belief in the idea that latents represent actual things in the world, is
not based on prejudice, but rather is best understood as an operating proposition that makes the search
for causes, causal explanations, causal mechanisms, etc., meaningful, by implying that those causal
relationships are relationships between interesting and real aspects of the world, not just between collec-
tions of data derived from various measurements, such that they have real consequences for the people
to whom they apply.
REFERENCES
Barrie, S. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Educa-
tion, 51(2), 215–241. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6384-7
Barrie, S., Hughes, C., Smith, C. D., & Thomson, K. (2009). The National Graduate Attributes Proj-
ect: Integration and assessment of graduate attributes in curriculum. Sydney: Australian Learning and
Teaching Council.
Biggs, J. (1987a). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1987b). The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Australia: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research
into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. Educational
Psychology Series. New York: Academic Press.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theo-
retical review and clarification. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 1–17.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01038.x PMID:8466833
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire:
R-SPQ-2F. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149. doi:10.1348/000709901158433
PMID:11307705
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables.
Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203 PMID:12747522
Chakravartty, A. (2007). A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511487354
Chakravartty, A. (2015). Scientific realism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
Stanford University. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/
scientific-realism/
139

Chau, H., & Hocevar, D. (1994). Higher-order factor analysis of multidimensional students’ evaluations
of teaching effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Entwistle, N., Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying distinctive approaches to studying. Higher
Education, 8(4), 365–380. doi:10.1007/BF01680525
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and preferences for
contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169–194. doi:10.1007/BF00137106
Entwistle, N., & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university
students. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 258–265. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.
tb00901.x
Feyerabend, P. (2010). Against method (4th ed.). London: Verso Books.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Goodman, N. (1984). Of mind and other matters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Griffin, P., Coates, H., McInnes, C., & James, R. (2003). The development of an extended course expe-
rience questionnaire. Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 259–266. doi:10.1080/135383203200015111
Hacking, I. (1981). Scientific revolutions. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford, UK: OUP.
Hacking, I. (1982). Experimentation and scientific realism. Philosphical Topics, 13(1), 71–87. doi:10.5840/
philtopics19821314
Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as
practice and culture (pp. 29–64). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Harding, S., & Hintikka, M. B. (1983). Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology,
metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publish-
ing Company.
Harms, P. D., Wood, D., & Spain, S. M. (2016). Separating the why from the what: Reply to Jonas and
Markon (2015). Psychological Review, 123(1), 84–89. doi:10.1037/a0039860 PMID:26709412
Jonas, K. G., & Markon, K. E. (2016). A descriptivist approach to trait conceptualization and inference.
Psychological Review, 123(1), 90–96. doi:10.1037/a0039542 PMID:26214685
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2005). The influence of active learning experiences on the development
of graduate capabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 155–170. doi:10.1080/03075070500043127
140

Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & Ma, R. (2007). Characterizing learning environments capable of nurturing
generic capabilities in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 48(5), 609–632. doi:10.1007/
s11162-006-9037-0
Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). London: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hop: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Manicas, P. (2006). A realist philosophy of social science explanation and understanding. Cambridge,
Marsh, H., & Roche, L. (1994). The use of students’ evaluations of university teaching to improve teach-
ing effectiveness. Higher Education Divison of DEETYA, Evaluations and Investigations Program.
Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional
Science, 10(2), 177–200. doi:10.1007/BF00132516
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I Outcome and process. The
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). Symposium: Learning processes and strategies II & On qualitative
differences in Learning II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. The British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115–127. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803161
Pickering, A. (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226668208.001.0001
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Precision Consultancy & Commonwealth of Australia. (2007). Graduate employability skills. Canberra,
Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching for learning in higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experi-
ence Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150. doi:10.1080/03075079112331382944
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Schutz, A. (1962). Collected papers:The problem of social reality (vol. 1). The Hague, The Netherlands:
Martinus Nijhoff.
141

SEMNET. (2016). SEMNET Community blog. SEMNET online community and archive. Retrieved June
20, 2003, from https://listserv.ua.edu/archives/semnet.html
Smith, C. D. (2008). Design-focused evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(6),
631–645. doi:10.1080/02602930701772762
Smith, C. D. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive
framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262. doi:10.1080/07294360.201
1.558072
Smith, C. D. (2016). The emergence and development of work-integrated learning (WIL): Implications
for assessment, quality and quality assurance in Higher Education. In C. Ng, R. Fox, & M. Nakano
(Eds.), Reforming learning and teaching in Asia-Pacific universities in advanced economies: Influences
of globalised processes (pp. 322–347). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-0431-5_16
Smith, C. D., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2014). The impact of work-integrated learning on student em-
ployment readiness. Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/resources/SI11_2139_Ferns_Re-
port_2014.pdf
Smith, C. D., & Worsfold, K. (2014). WIL curriculum design and student learning: A structural model
of their effects on student satisfaction. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 1070–1084. doi:10.1080/0
3075079.2013.777407
Smith, C. D., & Worsfold, K. (2015). Unpacking the learning–work nexus: “Priming” as lever for high-
quality learning outcomes in work-integrated learning curricula. Studies in Higher Education, 40(1),
22–42. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.806456
West, R. (1998). Learning for life: Final report of the West Higher Education Review Committee. Can-
berra, Australia: DEETYA.
Wilson, K., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the course
experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53. doi:10.1080/03075079712331381121
Zeegers, P. (2002). A revision of the Biggs’ study process questionnaire (R-SPQ). Higher Education
Research & Development, 21(1), 73–92. doi:10.1080/07294360220124666
ENDNOTE
1
It is not a convention within SEM to use a dashed line to represent correlations; a solid double-
headed-arrowed line is used, but in this case a dashed line makes identification easier.
142
Section 3
Interpretation and
Transformation
144
Chapter 9
Teachers’ Ontological and
Epistemological Beliefs:
Their Impact on Approaches to Teaching
Mary Kelly
International School of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
This chapter documents a case study of the exploration of teachers’ beliefs on the nature of reality (ontol-
ogy) and knowledge (epistemology) within an International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program at the
International School of Amsterdam. The study is positioned within the constructivist-interpretive paradigm
and, therefore, allows for the emergence of a holistic and contextualized understanding of teachers’ beliefs
and practices. The chapter includes reflection on the author’s ontology and epistemology and its impact
on the research undertaking. The study attempts to understand whether teachers’ beliefs have identifiable
impacts on their approaches to teaching within this inquiry-based teaching environment where teachers
are encouraged to design their own curricula. Over the course of the research, comprehensive teacher
profiles were generated for three participants, all experienced international school teachers, who teach
Science, English Literature, and Spanish. The findings indicate that the participants’ approaches to
teaching resonate strongly with their ontological and epistemological beliefs.
INTRODUCTION
Denzin and Lincoln (2000) suggest that the way a researcher approaches a given research situation is
a reflection of who the researcher is, as a person, and how they view and approach the world. The pur-
pose of this chapter is to explore the views of international school teachers and to consider the ways in
which their ontological and epistemological beliefs affect how they see the world, and how they teach.
The chapter begins with a brief contemplation of the doctoral assignment that fuelled my interest in
the research topic and then moves on to a consideration of how teachers’ beliefs impact approaches to
teaching. The chapter describes the complex nature of the research context, the International School of
Amsterdam, which is a well-established International Baccalaureate (IB) school. This is followed by a
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch009

Teachers’ Ontological and Epistemological Beliefs
consideration of a range of literature related to this area of research, which highlights the ways in which
perceptions of reality, knowledge, teaching and learning have changed within educational contexts over
time. The chapter brings to light the impact that the complexity science and supercomplexity paradigms
are having on emergent beliefs, as well as on the evolution of relational approaches to teaching. A
detailing of the chosen research paradigm for the study, the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm, and
its associated research methodology, is followed by a summary of the participant-teachers’ profiles. A
comparison of these profiles generates conclusions that acknowledge the complexity of teachers’ beliefs
and the transformative role that an exploration of these beliefs can have on their personal and profes-
sional development.
THE ONTOLOGY UNDERPINNING THE STUDY
Whilst working on a doctorate module entitled the Philosophy of Educational Research with the University
of Nottingham I was asked to complete an assignment relating to personal perspectives on the concepts
of reality, knowledge and truth. Ultimately, the assignment involved a consideration of the relationship
between these three concepts and how they might inform my approach to educational research. Engage-
ment with the module brought to the surface latent personal interpretations of reality, knowledge, and
truth, and the insights gained not only broadened my understanding of the nature and role of research
paradigms in educational research, but they also highlighted the subtle ways in which these beliefs in-
tertwine to form personal worldviews.
Despite the fact that there is considerable debate with regard to the legitimacy of different theories
on the fundamental nature of reality, it became clear that everyday Western thinking leans towards a
materialistic view of reality: a reality in which matter is considered to be the fundamental nature of
all things. I found, however, that my personal views tended less towards a materialistic view and more
towards the relational view put forward by the physicist-philosopher Amit Goswami. From Goswami’s
(1993) perspective “the principles of quantum theory, which sees the fundamental nature of reality as
relational, make it possible to question and maybe even discard many of the assumptions of material
realism” (p. 45). My interest in Goswami’s views stem not only from an interest in quantum theory but
also from an appreciation of the underlying principles of Buddhist philosophy, which sees all of reality
as interconnected.
An understanding of beliefs on the nature of reality made it possible to consider views on the nature,
possibilities, origins, and extent of human knowledge. I felt comfortable adding tacit, intuitive, spiri-
tual and somatic based knowledge to the traditional lists that included knowledge by sense experience,
language, logic, abstract reasoning, and experimentation. Knowledge generated by humans, I realized,
could not be considered a true reflection of reality, but merely a reflection of how humans perceive,
experience, and conceptualize at different points in their biological, cultural and evolutionary develop-
ment. The concept of knowledge itself emerged, through the assignment, as a transient construct that
was open to change as new ways of interpreting and engaging with reality are devised.
On considering the impact of beliefs on my approaches to teaching it became clear that my teaching
reflects a view that all living organisms and the physical environment exist as a fragile and interconnected
web of existence. Jane Goodall, the primatologist and humanitarian, portrays this reality as a web that
exhibits complex transcendental qualities, qualities that seem poorly understood from a conventional
scientific perspective. This numinous web of existence echoes Goswami’s views as well as the Buddhist
145

concept of inter-being. In addition to a focus on the concepts of inter-being, and interconnectedness

during class activities, I also make a point of engaging students in regular conversations, investigations
and mindfulness-based activities that help demonstrate the limited nature of human perception, and
the provisional, and socially constructed nature of human constructs. In recent years, I have begun to
experimentally engage students with learning theories that extend beyond a focus on the learning of the
individual to incorporate models that highlight the complex ways in which learners mesh together to
form learning collectives.
THE RESEARCH QUESTION
It was my interest in contemplating my own beliefs and practices that initiated an interest in exploring
the beliefs and practices of my colleagues. I was curious as to whether other teachers’ perceptions on the
nature of reality and knowledge had an observable impact on their approaches to teaching within what
could be described as a multicultural, inquiry-based, international school environment.
CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH
The site of the research study is the International School of Amsterdam (ISA): a private international
school that has long since been a member of the International Baccalaureate Organization and offers
three programs:
• The Primary Years Program (PYP),

• The Middle Years Program (MYP), and
• The Diploma Program (DP).
The school is also closely affiliated with Harvard University’s Project Zero Research Centre, which
provides teachers with training in Project Zero’s Teaching for Understanding curriculum planning
framework and their Visible Thinking programs. Like many international schools ISA was originally
set-up to serve the needs of international nomadic families. Currently, the school also serves expatriate
families who have chosen to settle in the Netherlands, as well as a number of Dutch children. In total,
there are now about 1,500 students in the school stemming from 55 different countries with the dominant
cultural groups being American, Japanese, Korean, and Dutch. ISA’s mission, similar to that of many
international schools, is to promote international understanding through socially and environmentally
responsible international curricula as well as through a school-wide focus on universal values.
The research project was carried out in the school the Middle Years Program (MYP) at a time when
the program was still constructed on the platform of the Areas of Interaction: Environments, Human
Ingenuity, Community and Service, Health and Social Education, and Approaches to Learning. These
Areas of Interaction served as a set of lenses through which real world issues and problems were explored,
either from within or across the subject disciplines. The Areas of Interaction served an integrative func-
tion, and each was supported by an array of questions that helped guide the exploration of significant
world issues. These Areas of Interaction have since been replaced by the over-arching Global Contexts
and an array of cross-curricular Related Concepts that promote an understanding of universal concepts,
146

big ideas, and an array of disciplinary and inter-disciplinary understanding. In addition, through a fo-
cus on the attributes of the IB Learner Profile students are encouraged to become competent thinkers,
inquirers, communicators and risk-takers who are open-minded, reflective, caring, and knowledgeable.
When designing curricula and units of study MYP teachers are encouraged to base their planning
decisions on quality and depth of conceptual and procedural understanding, rather than on breadth and
quantity of information. For this reason, students are mostly involved with guided and independent
research. Content knowledge, from an MYP perspective, is seen as the medium through which transfer-
able processing skills are learned and through which big ideas and concepts are explored. Knowledge
is viewed as perpetually fluid and dynamic and students are engaged with visible thinking routines to
isolate alternative conceptions and to track changes in their perspectives. Constructively grounded learn-
ing strategies abound as the MYP framework acknowledges a need to accommodate students’ personal
constructs with regards to how the world works. It is believed that these constructs need to be revisited
and revised in the light of new experiences and further learning (MYP, 2008, p. 17), and this learning
is thought to occur best when students’ learning experiences are contextualized within their own lives
and within local and global contexts.
THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL
With a more developed understanding of the research context and an increased awareness of my own
beliefs regarding the nature of reality and knowledge, the writing of the research proposal should have
been a relatively straight-forward process. Unexpectedly, however, it became a period of confusion when
it became obvious that much of the relevant research in this area was carried out in a way that conflicted
with my thoughts on how the research study might best be approached. The frequent use of question-
naires and grids within this area of research situates it predominantly within the neo-positivist research
paradigm. However, I was doubtful that what I was hoping to explore could be effectively captured in
this way. Due to time pressures and doubts about my ability to deviate from established approaches the
first proposal was designed to incorporate the grids and questionnaires developed by Schraw and Olafson
(2008), Schommer (1990), and Chan and Elliot (2004), even though I was personally drawn to more
open-ended and participatory approaches.
A turning point occurred in my understanding of how the research might be carried out through engage-
ment with the writings of the complexity theorist Brent Davis. Davis’ (2004) work traces the evolution
of educational philosophies through time, and suggests that changes in teaching approaches may be due
to changes in perceptions of the nature of reality and knowledge. His genealogical tree approach to the
organization of beliefs and pedagogical approaches was instrumental in demystifying the connections
between the concepts of reality, knowledge, learning, and teaching. From Davis’ work, when reality is
seen within educational contexts as a state that exists externally to us, then it is believed that we are
capable of accessing it directly and modelling it. On the other hand, where reality is seen as something
that we create, then learners are better able to create their own knowledge. Likewise, where the nature of
reality is not considered relevant, pragmatic approaches to education have emerged. Each interpretation
appears to have brought with it a different view of knowledge, learning and teaching, and, over time,
multiple paradigms have arisen within education and educational research to define these views. Davis’
(2004) overview of the concepts and his timely advice on allowing learning “to expand into the space of
147

the possible” (p. 179) enabled me to let go of the need to follow established approaches in this area and
to move forward with a more emergent, open-ended, and constructively grounded approach to the study.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Davis’ unveiling of the relationships between the associated research related concepts paved the way for
a review of literature relating to teachers’ beliefs on the nature of reality, beliefs on the nature, source
and acquisition of knowledge, and how these beliefs could potentially impact practice. As much of the
research available focuses on students and trainee teachers’ views on knowledge, the review will begin
there. It is important to note that the terms epistemology and ontology will temporarily replace the con-
cepts of knowledge and reality as these are the terms most frequently used in research literature. Episte-
mology is defined by Schraw, Olafson and Vanderveldt (2011) as a study of beliefs about the origin and
acquisition of knowledge and ontology is defined as the nature of reality and being (Lincoln & Guba,
2000; Merricks, 2007). Within educational research it is assumed that epistemological and ontological
beliefs work in tandem to determine an individual’s collective worldview about learning and instruction
(Schraw & Olafson, 2008).
Four of the earlier models in research into epistemological beliefs include The Perry Scheme (Perry,
1970), The Epistemological Reflection Model (Baxter Magolda, 1992), Women’s Ways of Knowing
(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and the Reflective Judgement Model (King & Kitchener,
1994). The models examine student teachers’ beliefs about the complexity and certainty of knowledge,
the process of knowing, and the sources and justification of knowledge claims (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997).
According to Lafrazza (2005) these models have their roots in Jean Piaget’s views on cognitive develop-
ment. Piaget (1967) believed that humans build up personal versions of reality though the construction
of internal conceptual structures. He refers to these conceptual structures as schemata and speculates that
the development of the schemata occurs in developmental stages and that their development depends on
active engagement with the world. As each learner perceives differently, there exist multiple realities,
each constructed by individual cognizing agents and each based on their own individual experiences.
Comparing the different models it appears that the epistemological beliefs emerge along a trajectory
from naïve to more sophisticated beliefs with naïve beliefs being a belief in the certainly of knowledge
and more sophisticated beliefs warranting more of a constructivist approach to the development of
knowledge. At this level it becomes clear that knowledge is viewed as a human construct, reality is
unknowable, and there is a pragmatic need to take personal beliefs and values, as well as the context,
into account when generating solutions to problems. From an approaches-to-teaching viewpoint, the
lower end of the continua seems to reflect a procedural/behaviorist model of education and the upper
ends reflect the degree of sophistication required by students who have strong critical thinking skills,
who may be familiar with inquiry-based learning, and who have a well-developed personal theory of
knowledge. One might expect that teachers within the current research context would be encouraged
to develop epistemological beliefs that mirror those on the higher end of the continuum (see Table 1).
Research indicates that teachers’ epistemological perspectives and their teaching approaches affect the
development of students’ epistemological development. As Muis (2004) maintains “the types of instruction
which students are immersed in parallel the types of beliefs they develop” (p. 363). Windschitl (2002)
suggests that teachers with developed epistemological beliefs and practices promote what he describes as
strong acts of constructivism in their students, enabling them to develop strong epistemological views and
148

Table 1. Overview of epistemological belief models
Epistemological The Perry Scheme Ways of Knowing Epistemological The Reflective Argumentative
Model Reflection Model Judgement Model Reasoning Model
Researchers Perry (1970). Belenky et al. Magolda (2001). King & Kitchener Kuhn & Weinstock
(1986). (2002). (2002).
Respondents Male university Adult females. Male and female— Male and female— Mix of respondents—
students. adults. late adolescence to teenagers to elderly.
adulthood.
Silence: Not having
a voice.
Dualistic Received Knowing Absolute Pre-reflective Realism
Truth can be Knowledge comes Knowledge is Knowledge can be Assertions are copies
known. from an external certain. known with certainty. of reality.
Right and wrong source and not Cognition involves rote Reality is knowable.
views. from within. memorization.
Certainty of
knowledge.
Multiplism Procedural Transitional Quasi-reflective Absolutism
Knowing
Diverse view- Knowledge is seen Degrees of Knowledge has a Assertions can be
points exist. to be gained by uncertainty depend certain degree of either right or wrong.
Uncertainly either separate or on the discipline. uncertainty. Reality is knowable.
Stages in possible. connected means. Meta-cognition is
Epistemological required to sort through
Relativism Independent Multiplism
Development knowledge.
Knowing
Different views Knowledge is Assertions are
exist—the views uncertain. opinions.
are equally valid. Knowledge is created
Truth does not and uncertain.
exist. Reality is not directly
knowable.
Commitment to Constructed Context Knowing Reflective Evaluativist
Relativism Knowing
There is a need to Knowledge Knowledge judged Knowledge claims are Assertions are
analyze viewpoints making involves on evidence in a uncertain. Solutions judgments that can
and choose one that the personal given context. depend on best fit be compared and
is most valid. construction of for the context and evaluated.
meaning. referring to beliefs. Reality is not directly
Criteria of knowing. knowable.
to build personal meaning. In addition, in research into personal epistemologies carried out by Brownlee
(2000, 2001) it was found that teachers who hold evaluativistic personal epistemologies are more likely
to describe student-centered, constructivist approaches to teaching. The importance of science teachers
acknowledging their beliefs has also been highlighted in studies involving surveys carried out by Has-
weh (1996). The research found that teachers with a more empirical view of science were less likely to
explore students’ alternative understandings of concepts or problems compared with teachers who held
more sophisticated epistemological views and constructivist teaching practices.
More recent research in the area of science teaching has found that the ontological dimensions of
epistemological beliefs are particularly useful for understanding pre-service teachers’ personal episte-
149

mologies and their approaches to the teaching of science (Kang, 2008). Where epistemological beliefs,
as have been seen, are concerned with the nature and acquisition of knowledge, ontological beliefs are
more concerned with beliefs about the nature of reality and being (Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Merricks,
2007). Ryan (2006) suggests that it is from within our ontological being or worldview that we interpret
the world and how we see our place in it. Essentially, our epistemology is considered dependent on our
ontological worldview and it allows us to identify what we see as knowledge, and how this knowledge is
generated to describe reality. Shadish, Cook and Campbell (2002), on carrying out research into teachers’
ontological beliefs, placed teachers’ ontological beliefs on a realist to relativist continuum. They found
that a teacher with a realist world-view would be more likely to endorse a belief that knowledge can be
transmitted to a student, whereas a relativist would be more likely to express a constructivist perspec-
tive that each student constructs knowledge that is relevant to him or her with the help of the teacher
(Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2006; Chan & Elliot, 2004).
Much of the research relating to ontological and epistemological beliefs appears to rest on the as-
sumption that learners learn as individuals. This is not surprising given that much of the research into
epistemological and ontological beliefs is based on Piaget’s views on the individualized construction of
knowledge. As Abdal-Haqq (1998) critiques, Piaget makes little reference to the role that interpersonal
dynamics and collectives play in learning. By contrast, Lev Vygotsky, a contemporary of Piaget, views
cognitive development more as a product of social interaction than of individual construction. Vygotsky’s
ideas on the construction of knowledge had a lot to do with how he perceived the role of human con-
sciousness in learning. According to Davis (2004) Vygotsky views human consciousness as “a reflection
of collective human phenomena” (p. 137). So understood, he sees the relationship between teacher and
learner (or between learners) as a sort of mind-sharing where knowledge emerges between individuals.
Jaworski (1994) describes knowledge that emerges in this way as “common” or “intersubjective
knowledge” (pp. 24-25) but clarifies that intersubjective knowledge is not shared by individuals: it
only seems as if there is common knowledge or shared understandings (p. 25). Knowledge, from this
perspective, is not seen as something that a person has but as something that people do together in a
participatory manner. Teaching practices that are informed by social constructionism include dialogic
education. Guilar (2006) suggests that an educational community is intersubjective and dialogic when all
parties relate to each other as having a sense of agency and a unique perspective. In such a community
there is not a knowing subject (teacher), and a known object (student or content of instruction). Rather
all three elements—the teacher, the subject, and the content—relate in an inter-subjective, interpretive
community where meaning is established between people through conversation.
Extending beyond a focus on intersubjectivity in knowledge construction is the emergent idea of the
role of inter-objectivity in learning. This interest stems from philosophical shifts within the physical sci-
ences in the last century which have led to a view of reality as relational. Following experiments involving
sub-atomic particles it was found that physical reality seemed to be constituted not of separate substances
or separate particles but of relationships. In the words of Henry Stapp (1979) “an elementary particle
is not an independently existing, unanalyzable entity. It is, in essence a set of relationships that reach
outward to other things” (as cited in Zukav, 1979, p. 71). Davis and Sumara (2003) suggest that from this
standpoint knowledge can no longer be seen simply as a matter of intersubjective agreement but of the
mutually affective relationship between phenomena and knowledge of phenomena. The basic assumption
of this relational ontology is that the relationships between entities are seen to be ontologically more
fundamental than the entities themselves (Wildman, 2010). Explorations of relational pedagogy within
teacher education contexts by Brownlee and Bertelsen (2006) and Brownlee (2004) find that relational
150

pedagogy fosters more sophisticated epistemological beliefs amongst pre-service teachers particularly
when the cognitive and affective aspects of learning are seen as inseparable to knowledge construction,
when learning is situated in students’ experiences, and when there is mutual respect between student
teachers and facilitators.
Contemporary research within the complexity sciences is guided by the principles of a relational
view of reality. According to Davis and Sumara (2003) the complexity sciences are interested in unities
that live and learn—and those unities include not just humans, but various collectives (student bodies,
bodies of knowledge), sub personal phenomena (immune system, brain regions), and super cultural
forms (species, the biosphere). Essentially, complexity science is the study of complex adaptive systems,
and a defining characteristic of a complex adaptive system is emergence or self-organization. For rea-
sons that are not fully understood, under certain circumstances individuals (agents) can spontaneously
cohere into functional collectives and these collectives have integrities and potentialities that are not
represented by individual agents (Newell, 2008). Sullivan (2010) believes that “referring to emergence
and self-organization could be a way of understanding how learning happens in classroom groups” (p.
27). This view allows for the possibility that “groups of students and teachers co-create new knowledge
together” (Sullivan, 2010, p. 27). The focus, through a complexity science lens, is on the potential of the
collective to self-organize and to co-create new knowledge from within. Reality, from this perspective
is considered to be an evolving and multi-layered phenomenon that is constantly in flux, yet there still
appear to be frameworks and models by which learning collectives can orient themselves.
By contrast, from within the emergent supercomplexity paradigm it is believed that all possible guid-
ing frameworks and models are contestable. Through a supercomplexity lens reality is characterized
by rampant uncertainty, disturbance, fragility, and insecurity. As Barnett (2000) explains “in a super-
complex world nothing can be taken for granted, and no frame of action can be entertained with secu-
rity” (p. 257). In such a world no concepts can be relied upon with certainty, and even personal values
do not stand up to scrutiny. Barnett (2004) maintains that from within the supercomplexity paradigm
uncertainty, instability and fragility become as much ontological terms as epistemological terms. From
a pedagogical perspective McKenzie (2000) advises that teaching for supercomplexity involves enabling
learners to live with uncertainty. To cope with rising levels of uncertainty and instability Barnett (2004)
proposes that a person’s being becomes more important than the knowledge and skills they possess. He
advocates for the development of the dispositions of thoughtfulness, humility, criticality, receptiveness,
resilience, courage, and stillness. Barnett believes that these are the dispositions of a being that can act
in the face of incessant change.
Given the level of uncertainty and instability that underpins evolving educational paradigms it is
understandable that an educational approach exists that is less problematic, ontologically and episte-
mologically speaking, and more pragmatic in nature. David Perkins, one of the founders of Harvard’s
Project Zero, and a regular visitor to the research context, constructs his educational theories on those
of John Dewey who believed that theories about knowledge and learning should best be kept unprob-
lematic. Dewey (1966) summarizes his pragmatic perspective when he notes that “there is no such thing
as genuine knowledge and fruitful understanding except as the offspring of doing” (p. 275). In line
with Dewey’s beliefs Perkins (1999) encourages an active and incremental view of learning, reflective
engagement with tasks, and cognitive conflict with earlier understandings. His advice casts teachers in
the role of facilitators or coaches whose job it is to is to “arrange, support and sequence performances of
understanding so that students develop more complex understandings” (p. 52). From an epistemological
perspective it is clear that for Perkins, knowledge is constructed independently by the learner with the
151

assistance of a more informed mentor and that learning is successful when a learner can independently
apply what they have learned. It is unclear, however, as to how David Perkins’ ontological views relate
to his ideas on learning.
Table 2 gives an overview of the variety of educational approaches that have emerged over time in
response to changes in ontological, epistemological and pedagogical beliefs.
Table 2. Overview of ontological, epistemological, and pedagogical approaches
Constructivist Ontology Epistemology Learning Teaching Research Theorists and

Related Term Related Terms Researchers
referred to in
the research
Construction of Reality is “out Knowledge is a Learn by Dispenser of Positivist Perry (1970)
Mentalisms (Exact there” match with the internalization – knowledge Absolutist King &
Representations) Objective external world memorisation Autocratic Dualistic Kitchener (2002)
prescribed curricula Schraw &
Olafson (2008)
Cognitive Reality is inside All knowledge is Learn by building Facilitator Relativism Chan & Elliot
Constructivism the individual constructed by the mental models Guide Commitment to (2004)
/Radical Subjective individual - Cognitive Causes cognitive relativism Schommer
Constructivism dissonance dissonance (1990)
Discovery learning Kuhn &
Weinstock
((2002)
Khine (2008)
Kang (2008)
Social Reality exists Knowledge Learn through Facilitator Interpretive Vygotsky (1978)
Constructionism between as common dialogue and Guide Collaboration Hofer & Pintrich
individuals understandings conversation Evaluativistic (2001)
Intersubjective Co-operative Magolda Baxter
(2001)
Belenky et
al(1986)
Critical Reality exists Knowledge Learning involves Teacher as Emancipation Vygotsky (1978)
Constructivism between as a form of the deconstruction Provocateur Dialogic Education Freire (1974)
individuals enculturation of “hidden” Dialogic Discourse Analysis
Intersubjective conceptual
frameworks
Pragmatic The nature Knowledge is By integrating Teacher as Teaching for Dewey(1966)

Constructivism of reality is knowledge when it thinking and doing mentor and Understanding Perkins (1999)
considered is practical Mental models not student as Experiential
irrelevant always necessary apprentice Learning
Relational Reality inheres in Knowledge is Learning by Relational Connected ways of Brownlee (2004)
Constructivism the relationships relational connecting Pedagogy knowing Brownlee &
between knowers, teachers, Teacher as Contextual Bertelsen (2006)
phenomena and knowledge, and co-constructor knowers Magolda Baxter
knowledge of contexts. Teacher as (2001)
phenomena learner Belenky at al
(1986)
Fritjof Capra
((1996)
Collective Reality is emergent Knowledge is co- Emergent learning Complexivist Complex Sullivan (2010)
Constructivism It is in a constant created from within through self- Occasioning adaptive system – Newell (2010)
state of becoming the collective organization Teacher as improvisation, Davis (2004)
Interobjective participant and Self-organization Sumara (2003)
co-constructor Emergence
Super-Complexity Reality is All knowledge is Learning to thrive Teacher as open Super-complexity Barnett (2004)
characterised by uncertain, unstable, with uncertainty co-participant, Learning for the McKenzie
uncertainty and and contestable Focus on being and and co- Unknown (2000)
instability dispositions. constructor
152

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
It is clear that the ideas presented in the literature review apply not just to a consideration of how beliefs
and worldviews affect teaching and learning. The review also reflects the wide variety of approaches to
educational research that have emerged, and continue to emerge within educational contexts. As McK-
enzie (2000) fittingly observes, these “new and hybrid frameworks are burgeoning all around us” (p.
206). Consequently, trying to settle on a specific research paradigm was by no means an easy task when
completing the original research proposal. As I mentioned previously, the work of Brent Davis (2004)
became an informative guide as I wrestled with decisions and directions. His advice on letting go of
the need for a clear research plan was insightful but it did not offer practical direction. It was here that
Barbara Jaworski’s (1994) research became useful. Jaworski had carried out research into math teachers’
constructivist approaches to investigations using a constructivist-interpretive approach. Her explanation
of the relevance of the paradigm in the context of an inquiry-based teaching environment was insightful,
given the inquiry-based context of the International School of Amsterdam.
The appropriateness of a chosen research paradigm to any research study hinges on how well the
paradigm suits the context and the beliefs and intentions of the researcher. Essentially, the choice of
paradigm is dependent on the researcher’s views relating to:
1. The form and nature of reality,

2. The relationship between the knower and the known, and
3. How the researcher believes that inquiry is best carried out within a given context.
Ultimately, my interpretation of reality as a relational phenomenon, my view on knowledge as

provisional and socially constructed, as well as my interest in the theory of emergence theory, proved
a comparative fit with the constructivist-interpretive paradigm. From a constructivist-interpretive per-
spective reality is seen in a holistic manner, and multiple versions of reality are believed to be socially
co-constructed as the research participants and the researcher make sense of their beliefs and practices
in context. The emergent nature of this form of research involves, therefore, less of a hunt for the reality
of the situation, and more the unfolding, development, and communication of the shared constructions
that are held by those involved.
These co-constructed realities appear gradually over time through what is often described as a her-
meneutic methodology. Guba and Lincoln (1989) highlight that the ultimate pragmatic criterion for a
hermeneutic methodology is that the process leads to “a successively better understanding of the inter-
actions within which one is usually engaged with others” (p. 88). Essentially, this approach involves the
construction of meanings (hermeneutics) that are contrasted through dialectical interchange. One of the
methodological implications of a hermeneutic method is that the research questions cannot be clearly
defined in advance. Instead, they evolve as the study progresses, which is, indeed, what happened over
the course of the research study.
Putting the chosen paradigm into practice involved the incorporation of the varied elements of the
constructivist-interpretive research synergism, as advocated by Lincoln and Guba (1985). These included
the application of an emergent design approach within a natural research setting, the purposive sampling
of respondents, the interplay of data collection and analysis, a commitment to negotiated outcomes, and
the writing of a case report. In addition, rigor was to be addressed according to the constructivist quality
criteria of trustworthiness, which includes a commitment to the credibility, transferability, dependability,
153

and confirmability of the research findings (Lincoln & Guba 1985, p. 219). To comply with the crite-
ria of transferability, a decision was made to provide a comprehensive case study report. A case study
report is considered an ideal way of providing a “thick description” of the research context in order to
reveal the personal values and backgrounds of the participants, to describe the research context, and to
communicate the different realities present. In order to maximize the range of information presented in
the case study, and, thereby, the range of realities present among those teaching in this environment, I
used purposive sampling to choose the participants.
After some consideration, three participants were chosen from three different cultural and disciplin-
ary areas. At the time that the research study began, all three were relatively unfamiliar to me and to
each other. John, a New Zealander, new to the school at the time, is a teacher of science with a special
interest in Physics. The second participant, Corinna, is a German/Canadian/American teacher of English
literature. The third participant, Anna, is a Dutch-Spanish teacher of Spanish who I knew had an inter-
est in philosophy. The comprehensive teacher profiles, which emerged as the research progressed, were
grounded in the constructions of the research participants themselves and by the time the final teacher
profiles emerged, they had been reviewed and negotiated upon several times.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Barbara Jaworski’s (1994) accounts of her research experiences were a useful guide to getting started
with the initial data collection stage. To begin with, I observed and recorded three full lessons with each
of the teachers and these were followed with conversations and open-ended interviews. To help collect
and process data during the observations I used critical thinking routines so that my thinking could be
made visible to myself and to the participants throughout the data collection and processing stages. The
thinking routines enabled me to collect field notes on what I saw, heard, felt, thought and wondered
about during the observations, and they helped me to process and reflect on the video-tapings of each
lesson. The open-ended interviews were carried out between the observations and following the final
observations. All the while, there was a delicate interplay between the interviews and the observations.
The interviews provided natural leads for the observations and the observations suggested leads for the
interviews. As Erlandson, Harris, Skipper and Allen (1993) indicate, “the interaction of the two sources
of data not only enriches them both, but also provides a basis for analysis that would have been impos-
sible with only one source” (p. 99).
Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000) describe the data analysis stage of constructivist-interpretive
research as “the organizing, accounting for, and explaining of the data and making sense of the data in
terms of the respondents’ definitions of the situation, noting patterns, themes, categories and regulari-
ties” (p. 147). Their description, however, fails to describe the unruly nature of the process. Erlandson et
al.’s (1993) definition seems to fit more closely with the reality of the situation. They describe qualita-
tive data analysis as “a messy, ambiguous, time-consuming, creative and fascinating process that is not
expected to proceed in a linear fashion” (p. 111). This description seemed more fitting and saved me
from becoming overwhelmed in the early stages of the data collection and analysis stages of the research.
To begin with, visual wall charts helped to collect units of data that connected with the general theme
of the research, as they arose. The charts led to the generation of a complex grid structure to organize the
units of data and this enabled the identification of emerging patterns. The initial patterns highlighted each
teacher’s approach to the organization of the learning environment, their handling of knowledge, refer-
154

ences to reality and existence during the lessons, their ways of positioning themselves in the classrooms,
and their means of communicating with the students. Mostly, the ideas were selected on an intuitive
“feels right” or “looks right” basis and the early units and associated patterns facilitated adjustments
to interview questions, observational strategies, and to other data collection procedures. In this sense,
the collection of the data and the analysis were complementary, on-going and simultaneous processes.
The themes that emerged paved the way for the generation of the first versions of the participant pro-
files. Some additional themes that emerged at this point related to the perceptions of learners, the role of
groups in learning, the organization of classrooms, perceptions of reality, constructivist approaches, the
nature of disciplinary knowledge, and the role of the teacher. These early versions of the teacher profiles
were relatively unstructured. They were also long, loosely framed and heavily infused with classroom
extracts and excerpts from the dialogues. Eventually, it became necessary to use a framework to struc-
ture the profiles so that an easier contrast of the three participants’ beliefs and practices could be made.
After some consideration, I chose to use an adapted version of a Teacher’s Knowledge Model that had
been originally developed by Leach and Moon (2000). The model had been designed to bring together
the different components of teachers’ professional knowledge (see Figure 1).
In this adapted version of the model Pedagogical Knowledge refers to a teacher’s approaches to teach-
ing and learning and Subject Knowledge indicates an understanding of knowledge and ways of knowing.
Knowledge of School Context refers to knowledge of the MYP and ISA, and Personal Construct represents
a complex amalgam of teachers’ past knowledge, experiences and beliefs. The Personal Construct refers
specifically to teachers’ ontological assumptions, and their view of the nature of learning and learners.
Leach and Moon (2000) placed personal constructs at the center of the model to indicate that these
beliefs underpin and inform each of the other areas of a teacher’s professional knowledge. This positioning
of ontological beliefs at the center of the diagram seemed ideal to the purpose of the study and it reflects
Kang’s (2008) view that an understanding of ontological assumptions helps teachers better understand
their epistemological perspectives and their approaches to teaching. Revisiting the data again through
the lens of the new organizing model helped to reinforce the original categories and themes, but it also
made it possible to consider additional units of data that now seemed relevant. Additional interviews
Figure 1. An adaptation of the Teacher’s Knowledge Model
155

were conducted to shed more light on the personal background experiences that might have impacted
the respondents’ ontological and epistemological perspectives and their teaching practices.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
The actual profiles are extensive, each being about fourteen pages long. Given the confines of this chapter
what follows is but a brief preview of each of the profiles. The names that appear on the profiles are the
actual names of the teachers who consented to being named through the research study. Also, in line
with the criteria of trustworthiness associated with constructivist-interpretive research, it is important to
note that the three respondents John, Corinna and Anna were involved in the review of the draft versions
and final versions of the profiles so that they could discuss them and comment on them. Following these
discussions changes and additions were incorporated into the final versions of the profiles.
Summary of John’s Profile: Science Teacher
John comes from New Zealand originally and with a Bachelor’s degree in science he has worked in a
number of countries as a science teacher. At ISA he teaches Physics to Diploma Program level and sci-
ence at the Middle Years Program level.
John believes that his background in science informs his view of reality, which he sees as an elusive
kind of energy that forms the base of all organic and inorganic matter. Although this is his own personal
view he estimates that the true nature of reality is unknowable given the limitations of human percep-
tion. John sees scientific knowledge as no more than a hint in the direction of the true nature of reality:
a reality that, for him, is devoid of any meta-physical essence.
Learning, for John, involves the development of mental models on the part of students through a
process of cognitive constructivism. He believes that the brain plays a pivotal role in learning and that
a combination of procedural and conceptual understanding is essential in enabling students to produce
observable performances of understanding. Learners are seen, by John, as individual, cognizing entities
with separate minds who communicate as if they have an understanding of the same concepts, although
he admits that this is rarely the case. Students are also viewed in an interdependent light, in the sense that
they are component parts of the social and environmental systems that surround them. Their role in the
class is to follow the curriculum that is in place through a series of guided activities. He also encourages
them to develop the dispositions of the IB Learner Profile.
John sees scientific knowledge as an evolving process that changes as we develop new technologies
and new ways of observing the world. He was keen to discuss the role that inspiration and dreams play
in the generation of scientific knowledge, such as August Kekulé’s dream of the benzene ring structure.
He also emphasizes the impassable problems associated with Heisenberg’s (1958) Uncertainty Principle,
which indicates that in experiments carried out at subatomic level the observations of the experimenters
directly affect the outcomes of the experiments. Although John has a sophisticated view of quantum
physics and the epistemology of science he believes that students at the middle years level are too young
to understand the unpredictable nature of reality and the provisional nature of science. It is more impor-
tant, he maintains, to introduce students to the processes of experimentation and induction at this age.
As a teacher John sees himself as a coach who sets up the play for the day by giving students structure,
guidance, and support for what they need to do. However, he feels that it’s up to them to carry through
156

Figure 2. Applying the planning framework to John’s profile
with the activities in a collaborative manner within the designated time frame. He affords the students
ample opportunity for collaborative work as he feels that students often learn more from each other than
they do from listening to a teacher (see Figure 2).
Summary of Corinna’s Profile: English Literature Teacher
Corinna was born in Germany, but grew up and went to school and university in Canada, and then
completed post-graduate studies to doctoral level in the United States. She worked on university related
educational research projects in multiple countries around the world and then taught in international
schools in Brazil and in Turkey before moving to Amsterdam to teach English Literature.
For Corinna literature is the study of life itself, and she expects all students to dig deep inside of
themselves in order to bring their most cherished thoughts, beliefs and dreams into the classroom. She
encourages students to be aware, reflective, awake, compassionate and above all, present and mindful in
her lessons and in their lives. Corinna expects that engagement with meaningful concepts and ideas will
have a transformative effect on each student. These transformations happen, she believes, when students
develop deep understandings of universal concepts and when they thoughtfully connect an understanding
of these concepts to their own lives.
Corinna spoke about how her understanding of the nature of knowledge had noticeably changed
over the years. She maintains that work on her PhD was illuminating with regard to what it meant to
construct knowledge, meaning and understanding. She openly uses terms such as the social construc-
tion of knowledge with her students and she believes that the individual knowledge that is constructed
differs depending on the past experiences of the students. Corinna believes that personal constructions
change over time following introspection and reflection. For Corinna, the construction of reality is
open-ended, and shifts in understanding can happen as students’ internal scaffolds and schemas change
due to discordance with events in the external world. She makes a point that the fragmented lenses that
humans use to view the world are not representative of reality. She does not believe that reality can be
157

categorized and bounded in this way. She adds that there may be no fixed realities and no fixed bodies
of knowledge “out there” because in the end we see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Corinna intuits that we are more than our physical bodies and believes that we have a metaphysical
essence that is connected to everything else in the non-physical realm. Although she cannot easily describe
this essence in words she sees all of reality as interconnected. The idea of everything being connected
came up regularly in the lessons and one of her students described the individual as a microcosm of the
classroom and the classroom as a microcosm of the world.
Corinna finds that a singular focus on the individual within educational discourse misses the point in
relation to how learning happens within the classroom and within the real world. For Corinna, knowledge
is also constructed within groups. She maintains that a critical mass of thoughtful students generates a
synergy that ends in the collective (the whole) becoming greater than the sum of its individual members.
She senses that there is a collective consciousness that emerges and somehow transcends the individu-
als that are present. Seeing the collective as a learning entity, Corinna positions herself within the class
circle and becomes part of the learning experience, as opposed to the director of it.
For Corinna, there is no certainty in literature, and during the lessons conversations regularly moves
in unanticipated directions. Corinna likes the idea of letting learning expand into the space of the pos-
sible as she intuits that this is what happens in her classes. This is a phrase that she borrowed from a
conversation that we had about Brent Davis’ ideas on the emergent nature of learning. It was clear that
Corinna had been searching for words that would help explain what was happening in groups in a way
that made sense to her (see Figure 3).
Summary of Anna’s Profile: Spanish Language Teacher
Anna grew up in Spain and in the Netherlands, in a bi-cultural household, and she speaks several
languages fluently. She has a Master’s Degree in Applied Linguistics and she developed an interest in
teaching whilst at university.
Figure 3. Applying the planning framework to Corinna’s profile
158

For Anna, the fundamental nature of reality is love and she believes that the physical world is un-
derpinned by this reality, even if it is not always apparent. She believes that this love is more obvious in
humans than in other living beings due to humans having a higher level of consciousness. Anna guesses
that her perception of reality may have originally emerged during early experiences with Christianity.
Later, however, she developed more personal constructs of love through engagement with spiritually
oriented teachings. The nature of reality that Anna describes is the guiding principle that supports her
teaching approach. She feels that it informs how she engages with students both within and beyond the
classroom.
Anna is aware that her students and others develop their own views of reality, and she, therefore,
feels that it is important to engage students with the many ways in which the world can be seen. She
feels that this kind of openness and awareness is important within an international school environment
where she believes that the perspectives of the parent-body tend to be grounded in rational beliefs. In
considering a wider range of beliefs she hopes that her students will be better able to connect to the
larger world beyond their own backgrounds. Her lessons are a means of making the familiar strange and
of bringing the far-away near. Anna hopes that a realization of the interdependence of all life will have
a transformative effect on her students.
Anna deliberately chooses topics that she feels will challenge her students’ perspectives and she
encourages the students to develop their own personal understandings of the ideas being discussed. She
encourages philosophical inquiry and explores the concepts of justice, beauty, freedom, knowledge,
thinking, and love. She is adept in the language of thinking and appears to have detailed knowledge of
strategies that are beneficial in the fostering of thinking in students.
With regards to how learning happens Anna intuits that the process of language construction involves
the subconscious mind and the creation of non-material grooves. For Anna, a student only achieves true
understanding of grammar, for example, once the grammatical rule has been internalized and laid down
in these grooves. Anna reasons that, even though we can know something on a conscious level, it may
take considerable time and reengagement with material and ideas before this information can become
integrated on the subconscious level. Anna sees the sub-conscious as an essence that is not of the physi-
cal world, and not necessarily brain-based, but an essence that may be distributed throughout the body.
In order to fully understand abstract concepts she believes that the concepts need to be felt deeply with
one’s whole being. She used the concept of love as an example of an abstract concept that relies on whole
being knowledge as opposed to rational and intellectual definition. In this sense learning, for Anna, is a
holistic student-centered endeavor that involves the mind, the body, the brain, the emotions and the spirit.
Anna’s role in the classroom is that of a facilitator. She can be observed weaving between the students
to support them when they need translations and support. Anna’s room is set up in a relaxed café style
with couches and she consciously chose this classroom formation so as to encourage the students to
communicate more freely—similarly to how they would in a natural real-world setting. Anna believes
that when students come together in this way they become energetically linked. She describes this linking
energy field as cloud-like and believes that different energies emanate from different groups (see Figure 4).
Overview of the Main Points from the Profiles
Following completion of the main profiles it was possible to isolate some of the main beliefs and prac-
tices that had emerged for each of the teachers. They are recorded in Table 3 using the same format that
159

Figure 4. Applying the planning framework to Anna’s profile
Table 3. Overview of the teachers’ profiles
Ontology (Reality) Nature of Epistemology Approach to Learning Teaching

Learners (Knowledge) Constructivism
John Nature of reality Independent Knowledge is Piagetian Topic and teacher Teacher as
may be unknowable cognizing constructed by the Constructivism centred mentor and
Reality is Energy entities individual Pragmatic Learn by building student as
Reality is inside Learner as Knowledge is Performance mental models and apprentice
the individual – mental and knowledge when it Constructivism representations Facilitator
subjective material being serves a practical Semi-inquiry-based Coach
Nature of reality purpose Often co-operative
is considered Accumulated by
irrelevant collecting evidence
Corinna Nature of reality Independent Knowledge Piagetian Student centred Relational
may be unknowable and group is (partially) Constructivism Transformative pedagogy
Reality is a state of cognizing constructed by the Social Learning by Holistic
Inter-connectedness entities individual Constructionism connecting knowers, approach
Reality inheres in Learners as Knowledge is Collective teachers, knowledge, Teacher as
the relationships spiritual and relational Constructionism and contexts participant and
between phenomena material beings Knowledge is co- Emergent learning co-constructor
and knowledge of Existence of created from within through self- Teacher as
phenomena a collective the collective organization learner
Intersubjective consciousness Contextualized
Interobjective Community Circle
Anna Nature of reality Independent Knowledge is Piagetian Student centred Facilitator
may be unknowable cognizing constructed by the Constructivism Transformative Guide on the
Reality is Love entities individual Social Learning through side
Reality is between Learners as Knowledge results Constructionism dialogue and Provocateur
individuals spiritual and from common Critical conversation
Intersubjective material beings understandings Constructionism Involves
Learners Knowledge needs deconstruction
as “linked” deconstructing Contextualized
through energy
cloud
160

was introduced in Table 2 to align the relationships between ontological and epistemological views, and
approaches to teaching.
DISCUSSION
It appears that each teacher has developed a clear personal impression of the fundamental nature of
reality. These impressions are identified as a form of energy, interconnectedness or love. The personal
impressions resonate closely with the respondents’ views on the nature of learners and their teaching
approaches. In addition, some of the concepts that the teachers engaged with during the lessons reflect
their personal impressions of reality. With Corinna the concept of interconnectedness came up on a mul-
titude of occasions through our conversations and through class dialogue, and in one of Anna’s classes
the central theme of one of her lessons was the transcendent nature of love. John’s whole course for the
year followed the theme of energy.
With respect to engagement with the physical and meta-physical aspects of reality, John’s pragmatic
attachment to the observable aspects of reality results in a view of learners as cognizing individuals.
Corinna’s approach is more philosophically and metaphysically oriented and it involves the holistic
engagement of individuals and collectives with significant themes. For Anna, language construction
involves a subconscious dimension and she expresses a need to connect with her students beyond a focus
on the physical and mental. It is clear that the teachers’ perceptions of learners is informed both by their
physical and metaphysical beliefs as well as their perceptions of being.
From a theory-of-knowledge perspective, the teachers all have well developed epistemological beliefs
that reflect the middle to higher end of the epistemological beliefs models, as summarized in Table 1.
They view concepts and procedures as human constructs: uncertain, provisional, and dependent on per-
ception, life experiences and context. They favor inquiry-based approaches to teaching and they make
obvious efforts to contextualize the learning in the lives of their students. However, the teachers varied
in the degree to which they enabled students to be involved in planning and to implement the criteria of
knowing. There were also notable differences in the degree to which students were expected to critique
and evaluate their research findings.
Although each teacher advocates a constructivist approach to teaching there are apparent differences
in the blends of constructivism that they are drawn to, ranging from strong acts of constructivism, as
described by Winschiti (2002), to more pragmatic approaches. It appears that their approaches are influ-
enced by their ways of being, how they see students, and how they perceive knowledge and the disciplines
they teach. John appreciates the individual, the visible, and that which can be measured. He is, therefore,
drawn to a blend of cognitive and performance-based constructivism, as advocated by Perkins (1999).
Corinna likes to engage individuals and groups with issues of the spirit and collective philosophizing
and she is drawn to a blend of cognitive, social and collective constructivism. Anna believes that it is
important for students to think deeply, to see themselves clearly, and to question and transform social
realities, and she is drawn to a blend of cognitive, social and critical constructivism.
Apart from relating closely to teachers’ ontological and epistemological beliefs the constructivist
approaches enacted by the teachers seem to reflect the ways-of-knowing indicative of the respective
disciplines. Science is by its nature a subject that demands a significant amount of practical work and
modeling as well as initial orientation by the teacher, literature depends on significant degrees of collec-
161

tive philosophizing and deconstruction, and learning Spanish involves a notable degree of conversation
and open dialogue.
Interestingly, there appeared to be either a close connection or apparent disconnection between
epistemological beliefs and practice as the teachers’ personal epistemological beliefs were not always
in evidence through their teaching. Anna’s approach to teaching generally matched her beliefs although
she did not engage her students directly with conversations relating to her complex beliefs on the nature
of language learning. John’s approach to teaching reflected an empirical view of science although he has
a well-developed understanding of the epistemology of science. Contrary to Hasweh’s (1996) advice on
engaging students with the provisional nature of scientific inquiry, John believes that this approach only
serves to confuse younger students. Corinna’s ontological and epistemological beliefs matched well with
her relational approach to teaching and she engaged her students with the idea of social constructionism.
Her thoughts on social and collective learning seem to echo Vygotsky’s idea of mind-sharing, as well
as more contemporary views on the effect of emergence and self-organization in learning, as described
by Sullivan (2010).
It is interesting to contemplate whether the teachers’ comfort levels with discussing epistemologi-
cal questions with students is somehow connected to their levels of post-graduate education. With a
doctorate in education, Corinna has a well-developed understanding of the philosophy of educational
research, and during the research study she highlighted the effect that post-graduate research had on the
development of her epistemological beliefs.
Keeping in mind the relationship that a researcher’s beliefs can have on the research paradigms that
they are drawn to, it could be said that the teaching approaches in evidence in the different teachers’
classrooms echoed many of the underlying principles of different research paradigms in education. John’s
pragmatic approach, and his adherence and reliance on empirical evidence, situates him comfortably
within the post-positivist branch—referred to in this book as neo-positivist in the inductive mode—
whereas Anna’s interest in students critiquing established beliefs and social practices sets her within
the critical constructivist arena. Corinna’s notable level of comfort with uncertainty, and her relational
and transformational approach to teaching, as well as her interest in the learning of collectives, hint at a
hybrid of the constructivist-interpretivist, complexity science and supercomplexity paradigms.
An important point that became relevant in the closing stages of the study was that involvement in
the research project had become a transformational experience for each of the participants. In follow-up
reflection sessions they spoke at length on the positive effect that their involvement had on them. Anna
felt that the generation of the profile had given her the opportunity to talk about her teaching in a way
that rarely happens for her. She felt that reading her profile brought her teaching style alive and enabled
a picture of her, as a whole person, to emerge. She enjoyed sharing her personal philosophy and she ap-
preciated that she had a voice in how everything appeared on paper. John commented that the research
had given him a welcome opportunity to speak about the effect that background experiences had on his
beliefs and the encouraged him to engage students with the uncertain nature of fundamental scientific
concepts. He has already created a booklet that enables his students to develop personal mental images
of nebulous concepts in a way that fosters their understanding.
Corinna felt that involvement with the research project was an emotional experience that helped her
to move towards a much deeper understanding of her own teaching practice and how she sees herself
and her students. She commented on the impact of metaphysical beliefs on her personal pedagogy and
highlighted the need for more in-depth conversations of this kind in continuing professional development
and in teacher education. Her hope is that conversations in education begin to move beyond discussions
162

relating to teaching strategies and techniques towards conversations and practices that are truly trans-
formational in nature. Interestingly, even though the transformative research paradigm had not been to
the forefront of my mind as I initiated the research project, the research study has had, nonetheless, a
deeply transformative effect on all of those involved.
CONCLUSION
It appears that there are observable connections between the participants’ personal beliefs on the funda-
mental nature of reality (ontology), the way they view learners (being), and the concepts and disciplines
that they choose to teach. The respondents’ beliefs seem to manifest themselves in different ways and
could be said to impact their views on knowledge (epistemology), their individual approaches to con-
structivism and social constructionism, and the ways they interact with students and disciplinary material.
More sophisticated epistemological beliefs appear to be associated with more open-ended approaches to
inquiry and a greater degree of student involvement in the direction of the lessons. A teachers’ belief in
the metaphysical aspects of reality appears to impact relationships with students directly and also affects
teachers’ perspectives regarding the ability of groups to form learning collectives. Although disciplines
appear to affect beliefs and teaching approaches, it is unclear without further exploration whether this is
the case, as individual teachers’ beliefs were not always enacted in practice. Further exploration could
include a look at beliefs and practices across disciplines both within and beyond IBMYP contexts, and
perhaps also within denominational contexts.
The value, along with the limitations of the study, centres on the usefulness of the study within the
realm of constructivist-interpretive inquiry. As it is a single case study, that explores the views of three
respondents and their specific teaching context, it could never be replicated or generalized. However,
within a constructivist-interpretive paradigm no attempt to generalize is made (Erlandson et al., 1993;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The study presents a “slice of life” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 155), and readers
are invited to draw their own conclusions. The transferability of these findings to other settings should
be made only with due consideration of their appropriateness.
REFERENCES
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for theory and practice.
Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-3/theory.html
Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 255–264.
doi:10.1080/713696156
Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3),
247–260. doi:10.1080/0729436042000235382
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Students’ epistemologies and academic experiences: Implications for
pedagogy. The Review of Higher Education, 15(3), 265–287.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to
promote self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
163

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing:
The development of self, mind, and voice. New York: Basic Books.
Brownlee, J. (2000). An investigation of core beliefs about knowing and peripheral beliefs about learning
and teaching in pre-service teacher education students: Implementing a teaching program to develop
epistemological beliefs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia.
Brownlee, J., & Bertelsen, D. (2006). Personal epistemology and relational pedagogy in early child-
hood teacher education programs. Early Years: An International Journal of Research, 26(1), 17–29.
doi:10.1080/09575140500507785
Brownlee, J. M. (2001). Knowing and learning in teacher education: A theoretical framework of core
and peripheral epistemological beliefs. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education & Development,
4(1), 167–190.
Brownlee, J. M. (2004). An investigation of teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Devel-
oping a relational model of teaching. Research in Education, 72(1), 1–18. doi:10.7227/RIE.72.1
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor
Books.
Chan, K., & Elliot, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about
teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817–831. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.002
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New York:
Routledge Farmer. doi:10.4324/9780203224342
Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2003). A genealogical tree of contemporary conceptions of teaching. Educa-
tional Insights, 8(2). Retrieved from http://einsights.ogpr.educ.ubc.ca/v08n02/contextualexplorations/
sumara/sumaradavis.html
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to meth-
ods. New York: Sage Publications.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York: Seaview.
Goswami, A. (1993). The self-aware universe: How consciousness creates the material world. New
York: Tarcher/Putnam.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications.
Guilar, J. (2006). Intersubjectivity and dialogic education. Radical Pedagogy, 1(8). Retrieved from http://
www.radicalpedagogy.org/radicalpedagogy/Intersubjectivity_and_Dialogic_Instruction.html
164

Hasweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching science. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 47–63. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<47::AID-
TEA3>3.3.CO;2-T
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.
Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowl-
edge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
doi:10.3102/00346543067001088
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational
Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383. doi:10.1023/A:1011965830686
Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist inquiry. New York: Routledge.
Kang, N.-H. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices
of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 478–498. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.002
Khine, M. S. (2008). Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting
intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgement model: twenty years of research on
epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology
of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K.
Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and
knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
LaFrazza, G. C. (2005). Domain specificity of teachers’ epistemological beliefs about academic knowl-
edge (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Florida State University.
Leach, J., & Moon, B. (2000). Pedagogy, information and communications technology and teachers’
professional knowledge. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Conference,
Cardiff, UK.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage Publications.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging conflu-
ences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.; pp. 163–188).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McKenzie, T. (2000). Supercomplexity and the need for a practice and scholarship of self-reflexiveness
in university research and training. Staff and Educational Development International, 4(3), 205–216.
Merricks, T. (2007). Truth and ontology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780199205233.001.0001
165

Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research.
Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377. doi:10.3102/00346543074003317
MYP. (2008). Middle Years Programme: From principles into practice. International Baccalaureate
Organization. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org
Newell, G. (2008). The class as a learning entity (complex adaptive system): An idea from complexity
science and educational research. SFU Educational Review, 2(1), 5–17.
Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Piaget, J. (1967). Biology and knowledge. Paris: Gallimard.
Ryan, A. (2006). Constructivism—Rhetoric and reality. In Proceedings of the AARE 2006 International
Education Research Conference. Retrieved from http://publications.aare.edu.au/06pap/rya06016.pdf
Schommer, M. A. (1990). Effects of the beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2008). Assessing teacher’s epistemological and ontological worldviews. In
M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures
(pp. 25–43). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5_2
Schraw, G., Olafson, O., & Vanderveldt, M. (2011). Fostering critical awareness of teachers’ epistemo-
logical and ontological beliefs. In J. Brownlee, C. Schraw, & D. Berthelsen (Eds.), Personal epistemology
and teacher education (pp. 149–165). Routledge.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sullivan, J. P. (2010). Emergent learning: The power of complex adaptive systems in classrooms. Saar-
brucken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Vygotsy, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wildman, W. J. (2010). An introduction to relational ontology. In J. Polkinghorne & J. Zizioulas (Eds.),
The trinity and an entangled world: Relationality in physical science and theology (pp. 55–73). Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis
of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 72(2), 131–175. doi:10.3102/00346543072002131
Zukav, G. (1979). The Dancing Wu Li Masters. New York: Morrow.
166
167
Chapter 10
Engineering Students’
Approaches to Learning
Mathematics
Samuel Olugbenga King
Coventry University, UK
ABSTRACT
paradigms on the design, implementation, and outcomes of a research exercise. The research question
for the study was: How may students’ approaches to learning (engineering) mathematics be character-
ized? The aim of the exercise was to characterize students’ approaches to learning mathematics on an
Engineering Mathematics course, based on evidence from student interviewees’ transcripts. The individual
student learning approach characterizations were undertaken through the adoption of an integrated
framework comprising the “approaches to learning” theoretical framework and goal theory, with sec-
ondary data analysis, based on the “three worlds of mathematics” framework. The research paradigm
employed was essentially interpretivist/constructivist. The neo-positivist paradigm, inductive mode, was
also referenced. Qualitative research methods were employed with integration of multiple theoretical
frameworks for the design, data collection and analyses, and interpretation of the results of the study.
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
paradigms on the design, implementation, and outcomes of a research exercise. The research question
for the focal case study was: How may students’ approaches to learning (engineering) mathematics
be characterized? The aim of the research was to characterize or interpret a student’s approach, at the
course level, to learning mathematics on an Engineering Mathematics course at a British university,
based on evidence from student interviewees’ transcripts. Mathematics is a disciplinary field of inquiry
that students have historically found challenging as Sawyer (1943) observed: “Very many students feel
that they will never be able to understand mathematics, but that they may learn enough to fool examin-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch010

Engineering Students’ Approaches to Learning Mathematics
ers into thinking they do” (p. 7). Empirical characterizations on how students approach mathematics
learning may make a valuable contribution to addressing this.
To undertake these characterizations, I utilized Marton and Saljo’s (1976a) approaches to learning
theory (ALT) framework (see also Case & Marshall, 2004; Biggs, 1999; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983;
Skemp, 1976). To provide alternative views of student learning approach characterizations, I also employed
goal theory (e.g., Pintrich, Conley, & Kempler, 2003) and, for secondary data analysis, the three worlds
of mathematics framework (Tall, 2008). The research goal was to characterize individual interviewees
as to whether they exhibited a procedural surface, procedural deep, and/or conceptual deep approach to
learning (engineering) mathematics.
Student Learning Approaches
It is now recognized that student approaches to learning are heavily influenced by the context, hence
the approaches that students adopt in different disciplines may vary due to the often different require-
ments (e.g., Drew, Bailey, & Shreeve, 2002; Ramsden, 1988, 1992). It is also now recognized that it is
possible for students to change their learning approach in moving from one course context to another,
i.e., a student may adopt a surface approach in one course context, and then “switch” to a largely deep
approach in another course (e.g., Barnett, 1990; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Meyer, 2000; etc.). Hence,
student approach to learning is sometimes construed as a response to the perceived course context (e.g.,
Case, 2000; Case & Marshall, 2004; Hazel, Prosser, & Trigwell, 1999). A distinction has also been made
between the type of approach that students adopt at the task level, and that which they employ at a whole
course level (e.g., Booth, 1992; Case & Marshall, 2004; Drew et al., 2002).
In mathematics, research also suggests that there is a correlation between student perceptions of
mathematics and the type of learning approach adopted. For example, Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas and
Prosser (1994, 1998) indicate that students who have a “cohesive” conception of mathematics, i.e., see
mathematics holistically as a template for the creation of knowledge in the form of mathematical think-
ing, are more likely to adopt deep learning strategies (also see Drew, 2001). In contrast, students who
have a “fragmented” conception of mathematics, i.e., see mathematics more or less as an elevation of
arithmetic or a combination of formulae to use in answering questions, are more likely to adopt surface
approaches to learning.
The Influence of Research Paradigms
This report is framed by an understanding that it is the research paradigm that determines the purpose
for using the methodologies, not the methodologies themselves (Chapter 2). Consequently, the adoption
of a qualitative research method, and integration of multiple theoretical frameworks for the design, data
collection and analysis, and interpretation of the results from this study are predicated primarily on an
interpretivist paradigm that is augmented by a constructivist perspective as advocated by Marshall and
Case (2005):
From a constructivist/interpretivist perspective, we would argue that all research findings should be
considered as heuristics or “thinking tools,” rather than as representing any sort of absolute truth. In
this article we have argued for studies that are more contextually nuanced, situated in a constructivist/
168

interpretivist rather than a positivist paradigm, and drawing on other theoretical perspectives. However,
we have also outlined ways of researching using approaches to learning theory that are nuanced, sensi-
tive to context, and open to the incorporation of other theoretical perspectives, especially where these
help understand the very real difficulties that learners have in adopting the deep approaches that are
often required in higher education contexts. (p. 265)
The constructivist perspective employed here shares some of the features of the neo-positivist para-
digm in the inductive mode in that it involves constructing a new understanding, but in this case the
research outcome is not construed as representing “any sort of absolute truth” (Marshall & Case, 2005,
p. 265); it is an interpretation.
There are several frameworks that could be employed in analyzing student approaches. For example,
there is considerable research on how learning styles may influence student approach to learning, and
how specific instructional practices that build on this knowledge of learning styles may be constructive
in helping students learn better (e.g., Felder, 1996; Kolb, 1984). Another framework for analyzing student
approach to learning mathematics is the conceptual change theoretical framework (e.g., see Tirosh &
Tsamir, 2004), which has as its tenet the supposition that “students’ prior knowledge is often incompat-
ible with some central mathematical notions they are to acquire,” such that this prior knowledge base
has to undergo radical or more marginal development or reification for the development of the desired
“central mathematical notions” (p. 536). Further, Fischbein’s theory of intuitive knowledge (Fischbein,
1987, 1993), described as a “type of immediate, implicit, self-evident cognition that leads in a coercive
manner to generalizations” (Tirosh & Tsamir, 2004, p. 537), is a useful framework for explaining the
“essential role [that intuitions play] . . . in students’ mathematical and scientific thinking processes” (p.
537). There is also Stavy and Tirosh’s (2000) theory of intuitive rules, which is based on the observa-
tion that “students react in similar ways to a wide variety of conceptually non-related mathematical and
scientific tasks that have some common, external features” (Tirosh & Tsamir, 2004, p. 538).
In the event I used the ALT framework as a descriptive tool for interpreting and/or understand-
ing how the students interviewed approached learning situations (Burton, 2002). I adopted the ALT
framework as the primary interpretivist lens for this study because the framework has proven useful
in understanding how students approach learning situations due to the potential of the framework to
describe a “recognisable reality” (Entwistle, 1997, p. 214). The downside to this frequently used frame-
work is that those employing it have often not been self-critical, or attempted to integrate other learning
theories to either critique, or complement the application of the framework to their respective research
inquiries (Haggis, 2003; Webb, 1997). Haggis (2003) also indicates that the ALT framework has often
been presented as the “holy grail” of student learning, while some researchers have ignored the potential
shaping influence of context on learning approach (pp. 101-102). This is why the dual interpretivist/
constructivist or neo-positivist (inductive) lens adopted for this study incorporates the integration of
multiple frameworks and data analytical procedures within a qualitative research ambit. This provides
alternative conceptualizations of student learning realities. So while the interpretivist lens provides a
nuanced, subjective interpretation of the interviewed students’ approaches to learning (engineering)
mathematics, the supporting constructivist lens, including triangulation, quantification (correlational
data) and pattern inference, ensures the dependability, confirmability and transferability of the research
outcomes (see Chapter 2; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
169

In summary, the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm for this study framed the:
• Selection of multiple theoretical frameworks for the primary and secondary analyses of data;
• Adoption of purposive sampling for student interviewees’ selection;
• Interpretation and adoption of reliability and validity methodological procedures for qualitative
research data, based on Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) recommendations;
• Adoption of thematic analysis for data analysis;
• Interpretation of results of the primary and secondary data analyses; and
• Quantification/benchmarking of the results (e.g., student performance in examinations) from the
study sample with the broader (target) student population.
Contributions
This study makes contributions to the literature on student learning approaches in three ways:
• The adoption of an integrated, multiple theoretical framework for the primary analysis of data,
with a view to providing a rich description and documentation of the frameworks that may be used
to characterize student learning approaches;
• The adoption of a mathematics-specific theoretical framework for the secondary analysis of data,
with a view to investigating whether there are any qualitative differences or similarities in the
characterizations produced in primary analysis;
• The adoption of interviews as the method of inquiry in order to provide context-based views
of “meaning and understanding,” which are often not captured in standard inventories used in
evaluating student learning approaches (Haggis, 2003, p. 94; Marshall & Case, 2005, p. 260). For
example, Case and Marshall (2004) showed how a student who had earlier been characterized as
displaying a surface approach, based on her submissions to an inventory, was later identified as
displaying a deep approach based on “interview evidence” (p. 261).
METHODOLOGY PREDICATED ON RESEARCH PARADIGM
The research design for this study is inductive in nature in the sense that the results of the study are
“grounded in the data generated by the research act” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 22). In this
respect it draws upon the neo-positivist paradigm (Chapters 1 and 2). The data analysis and results are
presented from an interpretivist (epistemological) framework, which is concerned with “laying bare
how members of a social group interpret the world around them” (Bryman, 2008, p. 17). In this case,
the students interviewed represent the “group,” while the “world” comprises student learning on the
engineering mathematics course. This aligns with the interpretivist paradigm.
Context
The engineering mathematics course under investigation incorporated significant use of electronic voting
systems (EVS), which are also known as student response systems or clickers (e.g., Cubric & Jefferies,
2015). To clarify, EVS technology (Figure 1) enabled the engineering mathematics course lecturer to
170

Figure 1. Overview of EVS usage

(Source: iClicker. https://www1.iclicker.com/higher-education/)
present mathematical problems to students in real time, with subsequent real time problem solving and
interactive feedback, i.e., information to the lecturer about student understanding, and lecturer feedback
to students after a problem-solving instructional block (e.g., see King & Robinson, 2009). EVS technol-
ogy was utilized for the course to enable formative assessments (only), which were not graded.
To answer the research question, “What is the student’s approach to learning (engineering) mathemat-
ics?” a study predicated on a qualitative research methodology was conducted. A semi-structured interview
was employed to interview 10 volunteer students. As a result of the preliminary studies conducted, I
had acquired substantial knowledge on the ways that engineering students learn mathematics. However,
there were still many gaps in that knowledge. The semi-structured interview approach was adopted as
the most effective means of addressing these “gaps” because: “The structured interview is useful when
researchers are aware of what they do not know and therefore are in a position to frame questions that
will supply the knowledge required” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 354).
Method
The target sample for the study was second-year Automotive (auto) and Aeronautical (aero) Engineering
students who were taught an engineering mathematics module in the 2008/2009 academic year, with a
total class size of about 150 students. Four female and six male students from auto and aero volunteered
for the interviews (the 10 interviewees are depicted by the synonyms, K1-K10 to safeguard their privacy).
This may be described as purposive sampling (Bryman, 2008, p. 458).
A semi-structured interview approach was adopted to interview the 10 volunteer students, i.e., “a se-
ries of questions, statements or items were presented and the respondents were asked to answer, respond
to or comment on them in a way they thought best. There was a clear structure, sequence and focus,
but the format was open-ended, enabling respondents to reply in their own terms” (Bryman, 2008, p.
438). So the structure was adequate to ensure consistency of question content and presentation across
respondents, yet flexible enough to accommodate unanticipated (respondent) comments or observations.
The interviews then consisted of a set of structured questions that students could respond to flexibly.
During the interviews, each participant was presented with a set of questions (Table 1), including six
types of EVS-based mathematics questions that had been previously used in class for the engineering
mathematics module under investigation. The questions were based on the topics that had been covered
in class, including Multiple Integration, Fourier Series and Vector Calculus.
171

Table 1. The first set of questions presented to interviewees
Q1. How proficient would you say you are in mathematics? Please circle one.
Very good Good Average Poor Very poor
Q2. Before obtaining admission to X University, Would you say you were looking forward to studying mathematics at university level?
Please elaborate on your answer.
Q3. In what way(s) has the use of voting systems in MAB104 hindered or helped your learning/revision of Calculus?
Q4. What is your goal(s) for the MAB104 module e.g. Get a pass grade; Get a 100% score; Get a real understanding of course content;
etc.
Q5. What do you think you need to know or do to achieve your goal(s)?
Q6. Would you say the way or the rate you are learning in the MAB104 module is similar or different to the way or the rate you are
learning in your other modules? Why is this so (Please explain)?
Reliability and Objectivity
To determine the reliability and objectivity of the study, I adopted Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) trustwor-
thiness criteria: dependability (which roughly parallels reliability) and confirmability (which parallels
objectivity), because these criteria were specifically developed for the measurement of reliability and
validity in a qualitative research context (Bryman, 2008, p. 377). Dependability refers to the degree to
which the findings of a study are reliable. Confirmability is concerned with the establishment of re-
searcher objectivity in the conduct of the research project. To ensure dependability and confirmability,
I adopted the audit approach, keeping complete records of all phases of the research process. To ensure
face validity for the interviews, I submitted the materials used in the interviews to members of the aca-
demic unit of which I was a member and piloted protocol/materials. To negate or limit the influence
of the acquiescence factor, interviewees were reassured at the beginning of each interview session that
all their contributions would be treated with confidentiality, and that even the course instructor would
appreciate genuine feedback about their learning experiences on the engineering mathematics course.
SYNTHESIS OF AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK TO

CHARACTERIZE STUDENT LEARNING APPROACHES
In 1976, two researchers investigating how students approached a reading task described how some of
the students employed a “surface” approach, characterized by rote learning and simple memorization,
while others adopted a “deep” approach, characterized by meaning-seeking or understanding intentions.
This classification subsequently became known as the classic deep and surface approaches to learning,
or the approaches to learning (ALT) theoretical framework (Marton & Saljo, 1976a, 1976b, 1984). Since
Marton and Saljo’s groundbreaking study, many researchers working across different institutional and
geographical contexts have discovered similar learning approaches in the student populations they studied
(e.g. Biggs, 1999; Entwistle, 1997; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden,
1984, 1987, 1988, 1992; etc.). Most of the approaches uncovered by researchers in the different disciplines
were classified under the classic surface and deep approaches to learning categories.
172

Applying the ALT Framework
Using the ALT framework and emulating research in the field, I wanted to analyze and categorize the 10
student interviewees into the appropriate ALT groups. To undertake this analysis, I adopted the inten-
tion/strategy model or criteria, described in Case and Marshall (2004, p. 613), and henceforth referred
to as CAMC. The CAMC is predicated on the fact that if the intention(s) and the corresponding learn-
ing strategies of a student are known, then it might be possible to characterize the student’s learning
approach, with respect to the ALT framework (Table 2).
OTHER THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS: GOAL THEORY
In keeping with the recommendation of the Marshall and Case (2005) study and also Haggis (2003) for
the application of other theoretical constructs in investigating student approaches, I adopted two comple-
mentary theoretical frameworks to analyze data provided by interviewees. The first of these was classic
(achievement) goal theory which, incorporated alongside the ALT framework, was used for the primary
analysis of data, with respect to characterizing student approaches. The second was the three worlds of
mathematics framework (Tall, 2008), which was used for the secondary analysis of data.
Incorporating Goal Theory
Classic goal theory describes student approach to learning as arising from either a mastery or perfor-
mance (i.e., performance approach or avoid) goal orientation (e.g. Deemer & Hanich, 2005; Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Pintrich 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; Pintrich et al., 2003; Pintrich & Schunk,
2002; Wolters, Yu & Pintrich, 1996). Students “with mastery goals are interested in learning new skills
and improving their understanding and competence, whereas students with performance goals are more
concerned with proving their ability or avoiding negative judgments of their competence” (Furner &
Gonzalez-DeHaas, 2011, p. 231). Basically, “mastery goals reflect a focus on developing competence,
learning and understanding the task . . . [while] performance goals reflect an orientation to demonstrat-
ing competence” (Pintrich et al., 2003, p. 321). Hence those students with mastery goal orientations
are focused on developing competence, while those with performance goal orientations are fixated on
demonstrating competence.
Table 2. The CAMC model for characterizing student learning approaches
STRATEGY INTENTION
Passing the Test Understanding
Memorization Surface approach.
Problem-solving. Procedural surface approach. Procedural deep approach.
Concepts Conceptual deep approach.
(Source: Case & Marshall, 2004, p. 613)
173

Table 3. A simplified explanation of classic goal theory based on the CAMC model
CLASSIC GOAL INTENTION FOR STRATEGY FOR LEARNING

THEORY LEARNING Strategy: What students do
Intention: Why students do it
PERFORMANCE To demonstrate competence by meeting or Characterized by a focus on rehearsal strategies
(Performance Approach/ surpassing the relevant assessment standards
Avoid)
MASTERY To develop competence or mastery of course Characterized by a focus on elaboration or
material. comprehension monitoring strategies.
Further, performance or mastery goal orientations “represent the individual’s ‘orientation’ to the
[learning] task or situation, their general focus or purpose for achievement, and not just the specific target
goal they have for the task” (Pintrich et al., 2003, p. 321). Mastery and performance goal orientations
are therefore demonstrably analogous to the deep or surface approaches to learning, a link that has been
demonstrated in previous research, e.g. Fredricks et al. (2004), (see also Ames & Archer, 1988; Miller,
Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, & Nichols, 1996; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).
To use goal theory (Table 3) to characterize the learning approaches adopted by interviewees, I
adapted the CAMC model (Table 2).
Distinguishing between Procedural Deep and Conceptual Deep

Student Learning Approaches in the ALT Framework
Using the Case and Marshall (2004) study or classic descriptions or characterizations of the ALT frame-
work in literature for that matter, it is often difficult to differentiate between the Procedural Deep (PD)
and Conceptual Deep (CD) student learning approaches. This is especially so due to the problem solving
nature of the engineering mathematics module being investigated, which necessitates a focus on the use
of procedures. In this context therefore, students from both the PD and CD groups might be expected to
rely on the use of procedures in solving problems.
So I turned to classic goal theory, and the characterization of the strategies employed by students as
being either elaboration or rehearsal-focused (Fredricks et al., 2004; Pintrich et al., 2003). Although both
PD and CD in the engineering mathematics context contain elements of both elaboration and rehearsal,
there is a greater concentration of elaboration strategies in CD. In addition, owing to Case and Marshall
(2004), a distinction may also be made about the timing of the intention to understand. Students with
the CD approach have a stated preference for concurrent understanding, i.e., they try to understand the
underlying concepts at the time of attempting the task, and not at a later date. Students displaying a PD
approach on the other hand exhibit a preference for subsequent understanding, i.e., they do not necessarily
want to understand or relate the underlying concept to the task at hand at the time of first attempting the
task, as understanding is seen as something that is achieved later through working through problems and
repeating procedures (Table 4). Case and Marshall (2004) describe this as “students using a procedural
deep approach indicated that, although this approach did not centrally focus on understanding, their ex-
pectation was that in the long run they would gain understanding through practising problems” (p. 610).
Student approach within goal theory could also be classified from either a reason i.e. “students’ reasons
for engaging in achievement-related behaviours,” or standard perspective, i.e., “standards individuals
used to judge success” (Pintrich et al., 2003, p. 332). In addition, goal theory is also associated with
174

Table 4. Criteria for distinguishing between the procedural deep and conceptual deep student learning
approaches
Approach Intention Strategy Goal

Procedural Deep Subsequent Rehearsal strategies predominate (although elaboration Performance
understanding. strategies are also present).
Conceptual Deep Concurrent Elaboration strategies predominate (although rehearsal Mastery
understanding. strategies are also present).
theories about intelligence. For instance, students with a mastery orientation are described as subscrib-
ing to an incremental theory of intelligence (Dweck, 2000), and are thus more likely to hold adaptive
beliefs about learning and also display metacognitive skills.
INTEGRATING THE ALT AND GOAL THEORY FRAMEWORKS
Based on ideas and information from ALT literature, especially the CAMC model, as well as goal theory,
I developed a more comprehensive framework to use for the analysis and characterization of interviewees’
approaches to learning. Using this expanded framework (Table 5), an interviewee whose learning inten-
tion is to reproduce material without any intention to understand such material, and who relies mainly
on rehearsal strategies, would, for example, be characterized as displaying a procedural surface approach
to learning. The goal theory equivalent is performance. Hence this integrated heuristic, the Analysing
Student Learning Approaches (ASLA) framework (Table 5), drawing upon constructs from goal theory
and ALT frameworks, was used for the primary analysis of data to guide the characterization of student
interviewees’ learning approaches, as described in the next section on the framework for data analysis.
Table 5. The Analysing Student Learning Approaches (ASLA) framework
Approach to Learning Intention (For Learning) Strategy (For Learning)

Maths
Surface (Performance goal) Reproduction or performance orientation without intention Rehearsal strategies—chiefly (surface) memorization of
to understand. information or rote- learning, devoid of practise or problem
solving.
Procedural Surface Reproduction or performance orientation without intention Rehearsal strategies—chiefly problem solving.
(Performance goal) to understand.
Procedural Deep Reproduction or performance orientation with intention Rehearsal strategies predominate (although both rehearsal
(Performance goal) to understand; Focus on subsequent understanding (i.e. and elaboration strategies are present).
implicit meaning or understanding orientation).
Conceptual Deep (Mastery Mastery, meaning or understanding orientation, with focus Elaboration strategies predominate (although both rehearsal
goal) on concurrent understanding. and elaboration strategies are present).
Strategic Approach Perform well on relevant assessment measure. Examination Intelligence (EI), review of past examination
papers, rehearsal strategies.
Rehearsal strategies are characterized by: Identifying and memorizing calculation methods for solving problems; Learning by repetition and
memorization of formulae and simple algorithms; To be able to repeat formulae and use algorithms in tests/examinations, effort-avoidant strategies that
maximize short term retention of information, etc.
Elaboration strategies are characterized by: Relating of formulae to each other, or parts of algorithms to other parts; Working through problems and
consulting textbook, puzzling over gaps in understanding; Relating of learning tasks to their underlying concepts or theory i.e. relating new information to
existing knowledge, comprehension monitoring, organization, regulating attention, persistence, etc.
(adapted and extended from Case & Marshall, 2004; Pintrich et al., 2003)
175

FRAMEWORK FOR PRIMARY ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEW DATA
The goal of the data analysis of interviewees’ data transcripts, which was based on thematic analysis,
was to clearly delineate individual interviewees’ intention for learning, and strategy for learning.
To evaluate individual interviewees’ approaches to learning, I reviewed interviewee responses to Q4
(see Q4 in Table 1) to determine intention. In the second stage, to verify that the interviewee did indeed
have that intention, I reviewed interview responses to Q4. In the third stage of analysis, I reviewed in-
terviewee responses to Q5 (Table 1) to identify any learning strategies that they might have specified
as the means by which they achieved the learning goals submitted in response to Q4 (Table 1). In the
fourth stage, I reviewed interview submissions for Q5 by asking them to clarify, where appropriate,
how they employed those learning strategies, to establish consistency of purpose and application. In the
fifth stage, I reviewed interviewee responses and approaches to solving the six EVS-based mathematics
questions that I posed during the interviews. Student attempts at answering the questions enabled me to
annotate and identify data sections that provided insights into student approaches, i.e., intentions/learn-
ing strategies. In the sixth stage of analysis, I looked for clues to individual interviewee study habits and
learning strategies as revealed during the course of the interviews, often in response to, for example, a
direct question about how they prepare for examinations, what they do after getting questions wrong in
class, etc. In addition, some of the data I coded was focused on strategy/study habits, although this is
not reflected in this analysis due to space constraints.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS FROM PRIMARY DATA ANALYSIS
Using a multiple theoretical framework consisting mainly of the ALT framework, but incorporating
constructs from both goal theory and strategic approaches, i.e., Table 5, I characterized individual
interviewees’ approaches to learning mathematics. A summary of the characterizations for the 10 in-
terviewees is presented in Table 6.
Table 6. A summary of the characterizations of interviewees’ learning approaches, based on the ASLA
framework
Interviewee ALT Goal Theory Overall

Grade
K1 Procedural Surface Performance 82.7
K2 Procedural Deep Performance 70
K3 Conceptual Deep Mastery 72.4
K4 Conceptual Deep Mastery 48
K7 Procedural Deep Performance 73.4
176

Characterizations of learning approaches via the integrated ASLA framework indicate that five, i.e.
half of all interviewees, displayed a procedural deep (PD) approach (Table 6). A relatively high number
of interviewees (i.e. four students) were also characterized as displaying a conceptual deep (CD) ap-
proach. I think this might perhaps be related to the fact that all the interviewees had indicated in their
pre-interview questionnaire submissions (i.e., student responses to Q1 and Q2 in Table 1) a positive at-
titude, enjoyment of and/or aptitude for mathematics. Although I did not sample the opinions of the rest
of the class, it is quite reasonable to assume that in a class of 156 students, there are some who would
not display such positive attitudes towards mathematics, and who might therefore be disinclined to aim
for (conceptual) understanding of a subject they do not enjoy.
Correlation between Student Learning Approach and Academic Performance
I have included the overall grade of each interviewee (Table 6) to identify any relationship(s) between
the type of learning approaches adopted and the corresponding students’ academic performance. Data
from Table 6 shows that the interviewees with the three best overall grades are K5, K8, and K1 who were
characterized as displaying conceptual deep (CD), procedural deep (PD) and procedural surface (PS)
approaches respectively. The same pattern is repeated for the top five overall grades, which comprises
one student with a PS characterization, two with a PD characterization and three with a CD charac-
terization. Further, of the six interviewees with distinctions (i.e., overall grades >70%), three of these
are characterized as displaying a PD approach, two with a CD approach and one with a PS approach.
Interestingly, K4, characterized as exhibiting a CD approach, did poorly overall (along with K9 with
a PD approach), perhaps indicating that a CD approach is not necessarily synonymous with high ac-
complishment on standard assessment measures. The grades of the interviewees were also benchmarked
with the whole class (Table 7).
Influence of Time on Student Learning Approaches
One influence on the type of learning approach that students adopt that does not appear to have received
much attention in the approaches to learning literature, apart from the research undertaken by Case and
Gunstone (2003), and Marshall and Case (2005), is the time factor. Deemer and Hanich (2005), writ-
ing about how they restructured the undergraduate psychology course they were teaching in order to
emphasize mastery goal orientations (i.e. deep or conceptual approach to learning), commented that
“Mastery-oriented goals will most likely prevail when students feel ownership in determining the pace
and scheduling of learning activities and assignments” (p. 198). In this study, some of the students I
interviewed (e.g., K4 and K9) who explicitly stated their intentions for understanding learning material,
often resorted to employing procedural surface approaches, because they did not have the luxury of the
Table 7. Comparison of the academic performance of the 10 interviewees with the rest of the class
Coursework Exam Average Overall Grade

Average Average
Whole class 64.7 58.4 59.7
Interviewees 75.9 68.3 69.8
177

extended time that was required to arrive at a conceptual understanding of the relevant concepts. The
influence of time on student approach to learning could be summarized in two ways. First, all students
irrespective of proficiency or attainment levels would appear to require (at least initially) more time to
engage with learning from a conceptual or deep approach perspective. Second, the time allocated for
(guided) learning should bear a correspondence with the amount of material to be learnt because “the
amount of time it takes to learn material is roughly proportional to the amount of material being learned”
(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 58).
Metacognitive Development Skills
As indicated earlier, the learning approach adopted by students is often predicated on the perceived af-
fordance of the course context. Case and Marshall (2004) noted how there was a “convergence” towards
the adoption of a procedural deep approach because students perceived the course context to “emphasize
problem-solving procedures over conceptual understanding” (p. 611). In this context the student assumes
agency for his/her own learning, with the intention of acquiring mastery of relevant learning material.
THE THREE WORLDS OF MATHEMATICS (TWM) THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Tall (2008) presents the learning of mathematics from a three-world perspective, comprising the Con-
ceptual-Embodied, Proceptual-Symbolic and Axiomatic Formal worlds (Figure 2). These three worlds
are expressed as depending or building upon the innate mental or cognitive structures, Recognition,
Repetition and Language, which Tall (2008) referred to as “set-befores”:
Figure 2. A diagrammatic representation of the three worlds of mathematics’ theoretical framework

(Source: Tall, 2008, p. 8)
178

Recognition and categorisation of figures and shapes underpins thought experiments with geometry and
graphs, while the repetition of sequences of actions symbolised as thinkable concepts leads to arithme-
tic and algebra. Each of these constructional processes develop further through the use of language to
describe, define and deduce relationships, until, at the highest level, set-theoretic language is used as a
basis for formal mathematical theory. (p. 7)
The “three worlds” theoretical framework is hierarchical: The ability to operate in the Conceptual-
Embodied (i.e., Embodiment) and Proceptual-Symbolic (i.e., Symbolism) worlds precedes and/or leads
to fluency in the Axiomatic Formal (i.e., Formalism) world, with the acquisition of appropriate language
skills to aid mathematical thinking in the latter (Tall, 2008, p. 9).
So the three worlds theory provides an interpretive lens for examining the cognitive development
pathway through which equivalent mathematical procedures may be conceived as a process, and which
may (or may not) then be encapsulated as an object. Further, the three worlds are not only hierarchical,
they are also iterative, such that attainment of axiomatic-formal fluency in turn positively impacts fluency
in the performance of procedures (symbolism) and manipulation of shapes (embodiment). In addition,
the proceptual-symbolic world may be singularly viewed as an instance of a group of mathematical
frameworks known as process-object theories (e.g., APOS theory: Asiala, Brown, DeVries, Dubinsky,
Mathews, & Thomas, 1996; Breindenbach, 1992; see also Gray & Tall, 2007).
Tall (2008) also describes how “met-befores”—“a current mental facility based on specific prior
experiences of the individual” (p. 6)—could influence and shape mathematical thinking both positively
and negatively. For instance, pupils who were introduced, at elementary school, to the met-before,
“taking away gives less [i.e., subtraction]” (p. 6), would struggle at higher levels with mathematical
problems involving negative numbers and/or fractions. This conceptual struggle could be perceived as
a “challenge” (p. 13) by the more confident student, while it could lead to “anxiety” (p. 13) in the less
confident students. In this case, Tall (2008) posits that the met-before could “cause internal confusion
that impedes learning” (p. 6).
For this secondary analysis, I was mainly interested in how the blending of the embodiment and sym-
bolism worlds, i.e., embodied symbolism (Tall, personal communication, January 22, 2010; Tall, 2013)
might be applied in evaluating student understanding. Part of this analysis therefore involved exploring
the influence of met-befores on the type of learning approaches that students adopted.
SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEW DATA USING THE

EMBODIED-SYMBOLISM CONSTRUCT (TWM FRAMEWORK)
The outcome of the characterizations of student approaches using the integrated ASLA framework showed
that K3, K4, K5 and K6 employ a conceptual deep approach to learning. This approach is often presented
as the apex or the desirable approach for students to adopt (Devlin, 2007; Haggis, 2003). But during the
interviews, it was apparent to me that the depth of understanding displayed by these four students, based
on their responses to solving the problems posed, varied. As the expanded ASLA framework incorpo-
rating the ALT and motivational goal theory frameworks did not provide any qualitative differences
between these four, I decided to apply the TWM framework (Tall, 2008) to evaluate whether there were
any discernible differences in the depth of mathematical understanding displayed by K3, K4, K5 and K6.
179

To determine this, I applied the notion of embodied symbolism, which is a blend of embodiment
and symbolism, in evaluating whether the depth of understanding displayed by the four was equivalent.
Embodied symbolism simply means that students are able to conceptualize, through appropriate strate-
gies such as visualization, the embodiment, i.e., real world or physical equivalent(s) of the symbolic
operations that they conduct to solve mathematical problems.
The significance of this approach, as opposed to the adoption of a purely symbolic method of ma-
nipulating objects, is that the adoption of the former is an indication of a higher level of understanding
of a particular subject area. Tall (2010) suggests that the adoption of a symbolic approach that is devoid
of embodiment “often involves a procedural approach, using rules rather than conceptual meaning”
(personal communication, January 22).
Further, he suggests that the reason why students often struggle (e.g. Breidenbach, Dubinsky, Hawks,
& Nichols, 1992) with moving from a process to an object level of conceptualization is because students
are unable to mentally represent or visualize the mathematical operation as an embodied entity or think-
able concept (Tall, 2008, p. 12).
To apply embodied symbolism to characterize the depth of student (i.e., K3, K4, K5 and K6) under-
standing, I observed how these students responded to solving a question on double integration, i.e., Q1
(Figure 3). Q1 requires that students have (a visual) understanding of the concept of double integration,
i.e., to solve the question by thinking of the double integrals as representing the volume under a surface.
Where appropriate, I also considered student attempts at solving Q4 (Figure 4) where students, without
using calculators, should be able to imagine or visualize the sine wave. In addition, interviewees some-
times commented on whether they were able to, preferred or loathed to, or were unable/not predisposed
to using visualization strategies. But the main evaluation strategy was how students responded to Q1. It
should be noted that the characterizations to be presented in this section are based on limited evidence,
and a single interpretation of embodied symbolism.
Figure 3. (Q1): An EVS question on double integration
180

Figure 4. Q4: An EVS question on sine calculation, knowledge of which is required for Fourier Series
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS OF SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS
Using the presence or absence of an embodied-symbolic approach as the main determinant, I have at-
tempted to characterize the depth of understanding inherent in the approaches of K3, K4, K5 and K6
to problem solving. Based on the data presented, K5 seemed to have displayed the greatest use of an
embodied-symbolic approach, which s/he often used in an instantaneous or reflexive manner. K4 on
the other hand did not seem to utilize the blended approach, preferring to rely exclusively on symbolic
manipulation methods. Both K3 and K6 employed the blended embodied-symbolic approach, although
their readiness and dexterity at applying this approach was not as high as that displayed by K5.
The evaluation of interviewee understanding of the double integration concept based on attempts at
answering Q1 therefore buttresses Tall’s (2010) statement that “symbolism without embodiment” often
“involves a procedural approach using rules rather than conceptual meaning” (personal communication,
January 22), as this statement or description applies to K3, K4 and K6. This is because anyone with an
understanding of the concept of double integration and with prolonged exposure to working with prob-
lems involving double integrals should be able to answer Q1, a relatively simple question.
Table 8. Illustration of how the Embodied-Symbolic approach illuminates student understanding of

related mathematical concepts
Interviewee Usage of Embodied-Symbolism Understanding of Concept of Double

(Conceptual Deep Category Only) Approach Integration
K5 High High
K3, K6 Intermediate Low
K4 Low Low
181

A possible explanation for K5’s relatively high understanding of the concept of double integration,
as evidenced by his/her answer to Q1 (Figure 3), was that s/he was probably able to imagine the effect of
the integration operation—that is, s/he was able to envision what the final state or outcome of the task
would be based on the integration operation required. However, I can only conjecture this as the study
was not designed to probe this reality. What is incontrovertible is that s/he envisioned the product of the
integration as representing volume, or as s/he put it:
I suppose you could see it as a square of sides 2 and a height of 4. – K5
Both K3 and K6 suggested that their limited ability in using the blended approach was due to the met-
before of previous teaching, especially in calculus where students are taught to solve problems almost
exclusively via symbolic manipulation routines. They implied that a greater use of instructional methods
emphasizing blended approaches would probably lead to an increase in the number of students adopting
visualization and calculation strategies. In fact, K5 alluded to this when s/he remarked that previous
teaching (at British A level) was probably responsible for the inability of some students to answer Q4:
Yeah. If you ask . . . in my course if you ask most people, if you ask them to evaluate sine and pi they’d
use a calculator. – K5
Q: Why do you think that? Why do you think that happens?
A: Because in A levels or whatever they were shown how to draw that, they probably did it using a
calculator. – K5
S/he then implied that s/he was able to answer the question i.e. develop an approach comprising
both symbolic and visualization strategies because s/he had not been allowed to use a calculator (in the
country where s/he studied):
It’s very simple, I was never allowed a calculator, so it’s different for me.
Problematic Visualization
It should be noted that the adoption of a blended approach is not without its peculiar difficulties. For
example, a wrong visualization strategy led K6 to the incorrect solution with respect to answering Q4
(Figure 4). K3 had also stated that s/he could not answer a related question in class and also during the
interview because s/he “got confused by the visual aid” used by the instructor. This is why researchers
in the field of object-process theories often caution about the use of visualization strategies, due to its
ability to introduce defective knowledge (Breidenbach et al., 1992; Tall, 2008) or faulty intuitions (Fis-
chbein, 1993). Further, the use of the embodied-symbolic approach might not accommodate problems
involving numbers with negative values or very high dimensions (e.g., signed numbers or numbers with
powers greater than three; see Tall, 2013).
In summary, a blended approach involving both visualization and symbolic manipulation strategies,
as has been shown in this section, can be a powerful way of illuminating student understanding.
182

Table 9. Comparison of the ASLA framework with TWM framework
ASLA Procept Theory Description Levels of Understanding

Framework (i.e. TTW Framework)
Procedural Surface Procedure. Uni-structural: responding in terms Level 1
of one aspect. (lowest).
Procedural Deep Multi-Procedure. Multi-structural: responding in Level 2.
[Performance] terms of several aspects.
Conceptual Deep Process. Relational: relating several aspects Level 3.
[Mastery] together.
????? Abstract (Procept). Extended abstract: having an overall Level 4
grasp of the situation. (highest).
COMPARISON OF THE ASLA AND TWM FRAMEWORKS
In terms of mapping the integrated ASLA framework (Table 5) to the TWM framework (Tall, 2008,
p. 11), the only clear categories in both frameworks that have a 1:1 correspondence are the conceptual
deep (ASLA) and process (TWM) categories. This is because the descriptions of the learning inten-
tion/strategy occurring at both the conceptual deep and process categories are analogous. The process
category within TWM is described as being “relational,” i.e., “relating several aspects together” (Tall,
2008, p. 11; see also Table 9). Similarly, students with a conceptual deep approach are characterized
by the “relating of learning tasks to their underlying concepts or theory i.e. relating new information to
existing knowledge” (Table 5).
By the same logic, it is reasonable to assume that students who are at the “precept” level (i.e., Level
4 in Table 9) within TWM display greater understanding than those within the conceptual deep level on
the ASLA scale. However, it might be that the conceptual deep scale also incorporates students whose
levels of understanding have evolved to the procept scale. However, I cannot verify this, as this study
was not designed to capture this nuance. Last, it is reasonable to assume that the surface, procedural
surface and procedural deep levels within the ASLA framework broadly correspond to the procedure
and multi-procedure scales within TWM (Tall, 2008, p. 11).
CONCLUSION
The research reported in this chapter was designed to answer the question, How may students’ approaches
to learning (engineering) mathematics be characterized? To answer the question, I employed a primary
analytical process consisting of the approaches to learning (ALT) theoretical framework, motivational
goal theory and as a supplement, the strategic approach construct to analyze data from 10 interviewees.
The ALT and goal theory frameworks, which were combined, were patterned after the intention/strategy
model, whereby interviewees’ expressed intentions for learning and the associated strategies were used
to characterize or interpret their learning approaches with respect to the procedural surface, procedural
deep and conceptual deep learning approach categorizations.
The results of the characterization process, using the integrated ASLA framework, indicated that
one interviewee displayed a procedural surface approach, four displayed a conceptual deep approach,
183

and five exhibited a procedural deep approach. The greater frequency of the procedural deep approach
might be due to the problem solving context of the engineering mathematics module. In addition, the
findings together with related literature indicate that time influences whether or not students learn with
understanding. A focus on the development of metacognitive skills might provide a suitable means for
students to take ownership of their learning, so they could study with understanding.
I have also employed secondary analysis of data whereby I evaluated the level of (conceptual) un-
derstanding of four interviewees, characterized as displaying a conceptual deep approach, based on the
ASLA framework, by examining whether or not these interviewees employed embodied-symbolism, a
TWM construct. The results of the analysis showed that the four displayed varying levels of the applica-
tion of embodied-symbolism, with the degree of application serving as an indicator of an understanding
of double integrals.
The contributions of this study include the unique application of an integrated theoretical framework
to analyze student approaches to learning within an interpretivist/constructivist research paradigm. This
has helped to provide a richer description and documentation of the procedures that may be used to reli-
ably characterize student approaches to learning. Second, the application of secondary analysis of data
through the use of the embodied-symbolism construct extends knowledge of how even students charac-
terized as displaying a conceptual deep approach to learning may vary in their levels of understanding
of relevant subject matter. Third, using a qualitative interview approach to analyze student approaches to
learning provides an alternative view of investigating student learning in a field where the predominant
means of inquiry is the use of (quantitative) inventories.
Finally, the study outcomes precipitate the following recommendations. First, mathematics instruc-
tional pedagogies and plans should accommodate extended time to catalyze student conceptual or
deep engagement with learning; and second, learning activities and assessments that reinforce student
metacognitive development should be systematically designed and incorporated into undergraduate
engineering mathematics instructional processes.
REFLECTIONS ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE RESEARCH PARADIGM
The research exercise described in this article is based on what I would refer to as a dual interpretivist/
constructivist and neo-positivist (inductive) research paradigm. The ontological, axiological and epis-
temological determinants for the dual interpretivist/constructivist research paradigm that was adopted
for this study are presented in Table 10.
Finally, it is useful to briefly highlight the challenge of working in a dual paradigm, the components
of which might appear oppositional, i.e., the interpretivist and constructivist (neo-positivist induc-
tive) research paradigms (see Table 10 for a minimalist comparison of the neo-positivist inductive and
constructivist paradigms). The neo-positivist (inductive) or constructivist paradigm has been adopted
for this research exercise not to enable replication, replicability or reproduction (i.e., to reach similar
conclusions), but rather to facilitate the adoption of similar methodological and analytical procedures
for interpretivist-framed studies, i.e., transferability. For example, the theoretical framework (Table 5)
that was derived in the case study described in this chapter was based partially on the clearly structured
theoretical framework presented in Table 2 (i.e., Case & Marshall, 2004, p. 613). This is the same reason
why there has been a focus on dependability—the degree to which the interpretations or findings are
184

Table 10. Illumination of the components of the interpretivist and neo-positivist (inductive)/construc-
tivist research paradigms that informed the research project described in this chapter (adapted from
Chapters 1 and 2)
Ontology Axiology Epistemology Outcome Methodology

(Drivers and Theory)
INTERPRETIVIST PARADIGM
The only understanding Pursuit of an The understandings A defended, evidenced, Tools: Interviews
available is based understanding of student about student socially constructed, Data: Qualitative
on observation and learning approaches learning approaches and personal Analysis: Thematic
interpretation. for engineering for engineering interpretation of student
mathematics. mathematics presented learning approaches
are interpretations for engineering
which are subjective and mathematics.
socially constructed.
CONSTRUCTIVIST PARADIGM
Constructed reality, which Reconstruction of an Constructed but Evidenced, trustworthy Approach Inductive:
is subject to change over understanding of student provisional and and authentic Triangulation to
time. learning approaches revisable understanding understanding of student supplement primary
within engineering of student learning learning approaches interpretivist paradigm
mathematics. approaches for for engineering Tools and Data:
engineering mathematics that is Quantitative
mathematics. contextual, provisional Analysis: Correlational
and revisable.
NEO-POSITIVIST PARADIGM (INDUCTIVE MODE)
Reality may be patterned, Construction or An understanding that A constructed Approach Inductive:
local and subject to change reconstruction of an is constructed and understanding of reality Triangulation to
over time. understanding of student provisional. that is evidenced, supplement primary
learning approaches trustworthy and interpretivist paradigm
within engineering authentic though Tools and Data:
mathematics. contextual, provisional Quantitative
and reliable. Analysis: Correlational
reliable—and confirmability, i.e., internal coherence or apparent continuity between research questions,
methodology and findings or interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, pp. 317-318).
So the primary reason for situating the case study in a dual interpretivist/neo-positivist (inductive)
framework is to ensure that the outcomes or findings (and any associated artifacts, e.g., theoretical frame-
works), which are interpretations, are plausible (transferability), coherent (confirmability) and soundly
evidenced (dependability). The adoption of quantification, correlational data, and pattern inference do
not represent the codification of knowable reality or snippets of absolute truth but rather, they have been
employed to show that the findings (interpretations) are thoroughly evidenced and defensible.
It is therefore assumed that another researcher working in the interpretivist/neo-positivist (inductive)
paradigm, and who has adopted the plausible theoretical framework presented in Table 5, may not ar-
rive at the same conclusions or interpretations reached in this study. This means, for example, that the
characterizations or interpretations of the (interviewed) students’ approaches to learning engineering
mathematics (Table 6) may not be the same for another researcher studying the same sample of students
and for the same engineering mathematics program.
185

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge the advice and input of his former supervisor, Dr. Carol Robinson, in
the design and implementation of the research exercise described in this chapter. The author would also
like to express his gratitude to Prof. David Tall for the invaluable comments and enthusiastic support
that he provided on the initial drafts of this manuscript, as well as Prof. Jenni Case for her helpful com-
ments. Finally, the author would like to express his appreciation to Profs. Peter and Lorraine Ling for their
critical, insightful and helpful comments that have significantly enhanced the quality of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and mo-
tivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
Asiala, M., Brown, A., DeVries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework
for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. CBMS Issues in
Mathematics Education, 6, 1–32. doi:10.1090/cbmath/006/01
Barnett, R. (1990). The idea of higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Booth, S. (1992). Learning to program: A phenomenographic perspective. Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta
Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience and
school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception
of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(3), 247–285. doi:10.1007/BF02309532
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Burton, L. (2002). Methodology and methods in mathematics education research: Where is the why? In S.
Goodchild & L. English (Eds.), Researching mathematics classrooms (pp. 1–10). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Case, J. M. (2000). Students’ perceptions of context, approaches to learning and metacognitive devel-
opment in a second year chemical engineering course (Unpublished PhD thesis). Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia.
Case, J. M., & Gunstone, R. F. (2003). Going deeper than deep and surface approaches: A study of stu-
dents’ perceptions of time. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 55–69. doi:10.1080/1356251032000052320
Case, J. M., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: Procedural approaches to learning in
engineering contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 605–615. doi:10.1080/0307507042000261571
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London:
Routledge/Falmer.
186

Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of mathematics and how it
is learned: The perspectives of students entering university. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 331–345.
doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90005-1
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). University mathematics students’ concep-
tions of mathematics. Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 87–94. doi:10.1080/03075079812331380512
Cubric, M., & Jefferies, A. (2015). The benefits and challenges of large-scale deployment of electronic
voting systems: University student views from across different subject groups. Computers & Education,
87, 98–111. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.004
Deemer, S., & Hanich, L. B. (2005). Using achievement goal theory to translate evidence-based prin-
ciples into practice in educational psychology. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 78(5), 197–198.
Devlin, K. (2007). What is conceptual understanding? Retrieved November 11, 2015, from https://www.
maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_09_07.html
Drew, L., Bailey, S., & Shreeve, A. (2002). Fashion variations: Student approaches to learning in fashion
design. In A. Davies (Ed.), Enhancing curricula: Exploring effective curriculum practices in art, design
and communication in higher education (pp. 179–198). London: Centre for Learning and Teaching in
Art and Design.
Drew, S. (2001). Student perceptions of what helps them learn and develop in higher education. Teach-
ing in Higher Education, 6, 309–331. doi:10.1080/13562510120061197
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia,
PA: Taylor and Francis.
Entwistle, N. J. (1997). Reconstituting approaches to learning: A response to Webb. Higher Education,
33(2), 213–218. doi:10.1023/A:1002930608372
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6, 18–23.
Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Reidel.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The interaction between the formal and the algorithmic and the intuitive components
in a mathematical activity. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Straser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics
of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 231–345). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
Furner, J. M., & Gonzalez-DeHaas, A. (2011). How do students’ mastery and performance goals relate
to math anxiety? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science & Technology Education, 7(4), 227–242.
187

Gray, E., & Tall, D. (2007). Abstraction as a natural process of mental compression. Mathematics Edu-
cation Research Journal, 19(2), 23–40. doi:10.1007/BF03217454
Gray, E., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A proceptual view of simple arithmetic.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 115–141.
Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into “approaches
to learning” research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 89–104.
doi:10.1080/0141192032000057401
Hazel, E., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2002). Variation in learning orchestration in university biology
courses. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 737–751. doi:10.1080/09500690110098886
King, S. O., & Robinson, C. L. (2009). Pretty lights and maths: Increasing student engagement and en-
hancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems. Computers & Education, 53(1), 189–199.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.012
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.
Ling, D., & Ling, P. (2016). The power of the paradigm. Methods and Paradigms in Education Research.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Marshall, D., & Case, J. (2005). Approaches to learning research in higher education: A response to
Haggis. British Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 256–267. doi:10.1080/014119205200340242
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. The
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: II. Outcome as a function of
the learner’s conception of the task. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 115–127.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.),
The experience of learning. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press.
Meyer, J. H. F. (2000). The modelling of “dissonant” study orchestration in higher education. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 5–18. doi:10.1007/BF03173163
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in
academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 388–422. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0028 PMID:8979871
Pintrich, P. (2000a). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory,
and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92–104. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1017
PMID:10620384
188

Pintrich, P. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544
Pintrich, P. (2000c). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich,
& M. Zeidner (Eds.), The handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 451–502).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Merrill.
Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and
research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4), 319–337. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.002
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivated and self-regulated learning components of academic
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher
education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Ramsden, P. (1984). The context of learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The
experience of learning. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press.
Ramsden, P. (1987). Improving teaching and learning in higher education: The case for a relational
perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 12(3), 274–286. doi:10.1080/03075078712331378062
Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: Improving teaching. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning:
New perspectives. London: Kogan Page.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203413937
Sawyer, W. W. (1943). Mathematician’s delight. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teacher,
77, 1–7.
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Tall, D. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 20(2), 5–24. doi:10.1007/BF03217474
Tall, D. (2013). How humans learn to think mathematically: Exploring the three worlds of mathematics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139565202
Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2004). What can mathematics education gain from the conceptual change ap-
proach and what can the conceptual change approach gain from its application to mathematics education?
Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 535–540. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.017
Webb, G. (1997). Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of phenomenography. Higher
Education, 33(2), 195–212. doi:10.1023/A:1002905027633
189

Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hand-
book of research on teaching and learning (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
Wolters, C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational
beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 211–238. doi:10.1016/
S1041-6080(96)90015-1
190
191
Chapter 11
A Code of Our Own:
Making Meaning Queerly
Mark Vicars
Victoria University, Australia
ABSTRACT
Queerly located inquiry can be disruptive and unsettling, jolting habitual perceptions of what can consti-
tute a research narrative and narratives of research. Queer work conceptually contests and problematizes
understandings of “I,” “We,” “Us” as an “internal, subjective or perceptual frame of reference” (Combs
& Syngg, 1959, as cited in Nelson Jones, 2011) and in doing so destabilizes the concept of identity as
a social and cultural category of belonging. Queer work has critically interrogated the performativity
of sexuality in and across social life, rearticulating textual, historical, and rhetorical understandings
of same sex expressions and representations (Allen & Rasmussen, 2015). This chapter draws on three
queerly operationalized research projects that investigated same-sex sexualities, sexuality-related di-
versity, equality and inclusion in educational domains. In interpretation it works from the ontological
and axiological and epistemological margins with the aim of “integrating rather than eliminating the
inquirer from the inquiry” (Montuori, 2013, p. 46).
INTRODUCTION: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A GAY MAKES
Differences of identity and affiliation are becoming more and more present in children’s and young
people’s life worlds and the growing divergence of subcultural discourses in education have in recent
years become significant as a field of study (Atkinson, 2004; Ellis & High, 2004; Epstein & Johnson,
1998; Epstein, O’Flynn, & Telford, 2002; Kumashiro, 2002; Letts & Sears, 1999; Rasmussen, 2006;
Vicars, 2006). In this chapter I draw on three different research projects that investigated same-sex sexu-
alities in and beyond educational domains. The first project looked at experiences of parents of same-sex
identified children in which the parents narrated the implications of (homo) sexuality in children’s lives
(Vicars, 2008a). The second project focused on how sexuality-related diversity and inclusion was being
addressed by senior and middle management in post-16 institutions (Vicars, 2008b) and the third project
investigated the literacy practices of gay men in adolescence (Vicars, 2009).
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch011

A Code of Our Own
The focus on same-sex attracted children and youth, in the context of educational research, routinely
gets framed within discourses of health, well-being and inclusion (Hillier et al., 2010). These normalizing
discourses, it could be argued, discipline sexuality research by focusing in on deficit or risky behaviors
of young people and seldom seek to trouble heterosexuality as presented and performed in schools. Het-
erosexuality has a panoptic power in educational domains and invariably is perceived as universal and
natural whereas other forms of sexuality get thought of as unnatural, odd, perverse and queer. How to
move beyond the binaries of understanding identity and speak back to the ways in which some identities
are judged to have more value than others has been taken-up by a queering of what Warner (1999) has
described as “the regimes of the normal.”
Dislodging the notion that sexuality is an essentialist, biologically constructed binary that fixes sub-
jects within teleological narratives of accomplishment has emerged from the “queer turn” in academic
life originating from a conference on sexualities in the early nineties at the University of Santa Cruz
(De Lauretis, 1991), which has ricocheted through academic circles and politicized matters pertaining
to sexuality (Warner, 2012). Queering scholars have looked differently at normative discourses; chal-
lenging and deconstructing perceptions of knowing and of the ways knowledge is formed and enacted
across a range of hegemonic practices (Kollias, 2012; Taylor, 2012; Weber, 2015). Implicit in the work
of the “queer turn” has been a paying of attention to the “doing” and the dialectic to “being”; further-
ing deconstruction of the “ways these various conventions and rules incite subversive performances,
citations and inconveniences” (Britzman, 1998, p. 213). In this chapter, a queerly nuanced reading of
policy, classroom practices, and curriculum through teacher/student narratives pays attention to the
complexities and contradictions arising out of heteronormative ways of knowing. Taking a queer lens
in research to unsettle the tacit production of normalizing knowledge claims has involved analyzing and
making visible the hetero-norming apparatus of meaning making. Situating queer deconstruction and
reconstruction to “question the constitution and effects of social and institutional norms” (Talburt, 1999,
p. 537) has involved a rethinking of how meaning making is derived from being positioned by, to, and
within the center/periphery dialectic and has invited critical consideration of different ways of know-
ing. Paradigmatically, queer, has been claimed to “hover at the limits of articulation” (Halley & Parker,
2011, p. 2) but how it has been used and where it has been aimed is revealing in terms of scope and its
generative productivity. Talburt and Rasmussen (2010, p. 2) have suggested how:
queer educational research has much to say about the production of the social and the social production
of institutions; relations between citizenship, nation, pedagogy, and identity.
My coming to queer, as a gay man growing up in a time and place in which I was constituted as a
summoned subject “defined [my] position as respondent” (Ricoeur, 1995, p. 262) within heteronorming
“discourses of the social and the individual” (Fox, 1997, p. 42). I have written elsewhere of my making too
much of my particular claims of self but “accustomed and attuned to surveying the conventions, cultural
understandings and assumptions of the domains in which I work and live” was a shaping interpretative
location and “the imperative of sameness that would have me believe that I am making too much of myself
when I speak and act as a gay man” has me now “speaking from a queer location as a way of critically
interrupting how power and knowledge get materialised in everyday life” (Vicars, 2012, pp. 65-65).
My genealogy as an educator and researcher invested in queering has been formed through an auto-
poiesis of dissent (Vicars, 2016), in which “the processes of self-production . . . self-construction emerges
out of a set of relationships . . . thus, in an ontological context meaning emerges not from the thing-in-
192

A Code of Our Own
itself but from its relationships to an infinite number of things” (Kincheloe, 2011, p. 214). “I” am never
too far away from the memory of growing up in a small town in the North of England in the 1980s in
which I experienced what Allgeier and Allgeier (2000) have argued is the pathology of homosexuality
within dominant Western scientific and cultural discourses. Systematically reductive, the prevailing nar-
ratives of my youth tended to be normalizing stories that worked to deposit sexual difference outside of
accepted cultural and sexual boundaries, identities and communities. Tracing how my nascent dissident
and non-normative readings and reinterpretations of everyday life became a way of world-making and
self-making meant that in childhood and adolescence I embarked upon re-storying the quotidian as a
form of interpretation and translation. Umberto Eco commented of “those things about which we cannot
theorize we must narrate,” and inhabiting the creases, (Schechner, 1988) has meant my interpretative
stance has been driven by telling stories as interpretations that theorize. The “I” in my re-narrations
are “used to perform a moral act, an act of commitment to the context of the utterance . . . ‘I’ is a word
having a role in conversation. It is a form of life, a moral community” (Harré, 1989, p. 26).
And, as my interpretative stance has been driven by “[t]he political in queer theory [that] comes
from throwing light onto seemingly neutral practices and creating a discomfort about them” (Gowlett
& Rasmussen, 2014, p. 333), it is located as a political and discursive postmodern (poly)tical praxis: a
paradigmatic conceptual interruption to meaning-making.
Palmer (1998) maintains that good teaching includes understanding “the self that teaches” (p. 4) and
if the values, motivations, and understandings that teachers have of themselves correlate and map on to
professional practices (Goodson & Sikes, 2001) the same statements could be applied to the process of
research and researchers. Studies on teachers’ learning suggest the importance to understand the process
of how individuals become teachers (Alsup, 2006; Thomas & Beauchmap, 2011); however, in acknowl-
edging the relationships the researcher brings to the field and of “integrating rather than eliminating the
inquirer from the inquiry” (Montuori, 2013, p. 46), I am mindful of not becoming trapped in the “queer
cul de sac” (Rasmussen & Allen, 2014).
My interpretative location as a researcher claims “a world view . . . that underpins all aspects of
the research undertaking from the intent or motivation for the research to the final design, conduct and
outcomes of the research” (Chapter 1, p. zz). My interpretative aim in this chapter is to show the ways in
which affect, power and identities are re/experienced across social, cultural and discursive assemblages
as effects of being the hyphenated Other (Fine, 1994).
Moving from interpretative to transformative and supercomplexity, the paradigmatic orientations
demonstrated in the following narratives situate the taking-up of paradigms and position takings as be-
ing central to my queerly contoured meaning-making.
DISRUPTING PLACES: ALTERITY AND ITS DISCONTENTS
I would say that when he went to primary school, when he was 5, that is when it all started. His first
teacher would often say to us “Paul doesn’t mix very well; he would rather play with the girls than with
boys”. It became an issue of concern for the school that he was choosing to mix with girls more than
with the boys and we were invited to school. The teachers asked us about what he did at home and that
we should try and encourage him to play with more boys’ toys. We knew better than to tell them that
we bought him girls’. As Paul got older the name calling got progressively worse. He has always been
a bit effeminate but he would stand up for himself. As he became more outspoken he would say to us
193

A Code of Our Own
was different and we would ask in what way? He said he didn’t know but told us, “I must be different
because they are all having a go at me”. There was this one time when Paul had trouble with another
student, the lad was calling him gay so we went in to school because he would come home and cry. I
approached the teachers on several occasions and said “Do you have a problem if he is gay?” And they
said “Well . . . no we don’t have a problem . . . but . . . ” The next thing we knew we had a social worker
at our door. We told her about the name calling and that sometimes he didn’t want to go in the morning
and how he would make himself sick, he would come home crying and how sometimes he would mess
himself at school because he was afraid of going to the toilets. Throughout Paul’s primary education he
went to three different schools, the first school suggested he would benefit from a fresh start, that was in
year three and in the second school we removed him in year 5 because of the bullying.
When he started secondary school he explained to us how he felt and told us he thought he might be gay.
He said he didn’t want to go to school because of what he had gone through before. He started making
himself sick and point blank refused to attend. The school sent us letters and we went up to see the head
to try and give different reasons, we never said he was gay. When we were called in again the deputy
head told us about the rumours that had been going around the school. I asked him outright if he had a
problem if he was gay, he said “No but other pupils do” and that “If Paul lashed out then there would
be a situation and we can’t have that”. The school didn’t feel that they could put measures in place to
prevent that from occurring. It was constructed as our problem so we moved him to another school.
It wasn’t that long before it started all over again and in the end I got sick of it and went to the school
and said “I haven’t got a problem with it and I’m his Dad”. We were then called to a meeting about his
behaviour that started by saying they were going to exclude him. They said to us “Are you aware that
he has a problem with his sexuality?” We said “He didn’t have a problem and yes we were aware”.
This particular teacher was getting on my nerves ’cos he was saying “Well you don’t know what your
son is getting up to”. At the end of the meeting Paul was excluded. They kept bringing up his sexuality
and in the end I said “Excuse me; you are talking about my son, why does his sexuality matter so much
to you?” When he went to the next school, the headmaster made it clear that the school had a reputa-
tion for being strict, the discipline was good and the headmaster assured us that in his school bullying
didn’t happen. What we did say was that “Paul does have certain feminine ways” and was told not to
worry about that, how that would pass when he matured and started to grow up. Six months later the
problems began again. His younger brother by this point in time had started to become affected by the
situation and was getting name called at school because of the attention that his brother was receiving.
Throughout the interviews Paul’s parents did not tell a linear narrative and my analysis of their account
paid attention to how their voices has been heard and interpreted by the schools in which Paul had been
placed. Narrating a story in which the self-as-subject and self-as-object became revealed was a telling
feature in their account: maneuvering between subjectivities, epistemologies and axiologies. Paul’s par-
ents’ story resisted a normative teleology of childhood. Sexuality was not an absent presence but made
visible in Paul’s rebuttal of heterogender performances and the ways in which normativity in schools
gets materialized in the informal curriculum of classroom and playground. Ritchie and Wilson (2000)
have noted how “interpretive acts . . . are never single voiced but instead are dialogical, shaped by previ-
ous history, by present emotional and rhetorical context, by the potential listener as well as the teller.”
Tracing how voice and agency become important tools for understanding the dialogic aspects of their
meaning making of and from their experiences involved interpretation of the discourses that put in to
194

A Code of Our Own
place alterity as a telling relation. My interpretations of their account, in recognizing and validating their
lived experience as connecting to a wider social and political context, meant making meaning out of our
situatedness of becoming the Other. As their story articulated “inward, outward, backward, forward,”
the inward referred to their “feelings, hopes, aesthetic reactions, and moral dispositions,” the outward
referred to “the existential conditions that are environment” and the backward and forward referred to
“the temporality-past, present, and future,” all of these dimensions were integrated with the conception
of place, which they call “situation” (Clandinin, 2013, p. 49). The situation was all too recognizable
as a listener but for Paul’s parents when they found themselves encountering the disciplining force of
heteronormativity they too became suspect and vulnerable. Enforcing silence about what they had ex-
perienced, they had kept “their situation” within the family expressing concerns about how they were
being perceived as parents and of the consequences of making their story known indicating the ways in
the epistemologies of the closet are ubiquitous.
AXIOMATIC NON/SENSE
In the second research project I sought to investigate effective leadership in implementing sexuality
diversity and equality in the learning and skills sector. This was conducted over a period of six months
and involved senior management, curriculum leaders and lecturers and a small, self-selecting sample of
lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) students/staff within a Further Education institution. Scenarios were
used to generate discussion and the participants were asked to consider issues that they felt most impacted
upon lesbian, gay, and bisexual learners in college settings.
They were invited to reflect upon their professional and personal experiences and upon key strategies
they felt were necessary to make provision for promoting equality and diversity in post-16 institutions.
The middle managers and lecturers were invited to respond to the question of how they have sought
to address formations of—and resistance to—heterosexism and homophobia in curricula, learning and
teaching in their classroom practices and in their day-to day relationships with colleagues. They were
asked about current policy and legislation as it relates to the educational inclusion and welfare of LGB
students and they were asked to talk about their experiences of supporting LGB students within the
institution and how they have dealt with homophobic incidents in their curriculum areas.
You can put all the frameworks in place but what matters is what people believe and that they are chal-
lenged in their beliefs. How do you do that? We have got frameworks about discrimination, we have
got frameworks for complaints, we have got frameworks about grievances. What I am not sure about is
where, we, as managers, would be in terms of providing education and supporting individuals that have
experienced harassment. What would that involve? Where do we need to be? - Senior Manager
One of the potential hurdles is that of the laddish, heterosexual culture that often exists in organisations.
Those attitudes go potentially all the way up to the top and that includes the governors. - Senior Manager
We have policies about everything but to be honest my view on policies is that they are only as good as
the people who implement them, embed them and believe in them. It is the practice that matters. - Senior
Manager
195

A Code of Our Own
I would want to know that if anything happened to me that I could go to a tutor or someone higher up
and that they would deal with it. I would want support and something to be done. I am not sure if this
would happen. Do they really care? - Student
You hear stuff about “queers” all the time, not just in the canteen but in class as well. The lecturers
don’t do anything about it. So you kind of think there is no point saying anything ’cos they can’t be
bothered. When I did say something to a tutor, I was told I was being too sensitive and to stop making
a fuss. - Student
I kept being called “dyke” and nothing was done about it even though it was happening in front of my
lecturer. The name calling got worse and then I got my head knocked against a wall and that was when
I decided to change course and move to another campus. - Student
When I first started work at the college I was working with a group of students and there was this one
individual who had strong views about particular groups of people. There was one occasion when the
conversation was about his hatred of homosexuals and very loud comments were made that were of-
fensive. I had challenged him throughout the morning in a friendly way on his use of language but it
was quite a difficult situation and one that, to be honest, I didn’t feel fully prepared for dealing with
the aggression and at that point there wasn’t any presence or any mention of the college being strongly
anti-discrimination on the basis of sexuality. We had zero tolerance posters up on racism for a short time
and I remember thinking “what could I do?” I was not entirely sure of my position in how to challenge
the remarks and that and I don’t think I reacted in the best way. I look back at that situation now and I
think, had he been racist or sexist to the extent he was being, I would have felt prepared and I would have
known how to deal with it. It is having a policy and knowledge that it is something the college takes a
stance on. At that point there was no visibility. I didn’t think it was a part of what we did. I think it has
definitely changed over the last couple of years. LGB issues have been raised formally, they have been
part of management discussions and training. Very recently there has been a strong understanding, in
a managerial context about LGB discrimination and some excellent training that has been embedded
as part of a college drive for retention. We as managers and lecturers need practical strategies to tackle
LGB discrimination. I have not heard of any training for new members of staff for challenging inap-
propriateness, they are sort of left to their own instincts. - Lecturer
My interpretation became a critical analysis of relationships and how these impacted upon the task
of implementing policy changes and developing staff training. The axiomatic narrative of management
promoted a singular understanding of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) identities as be-
ing the “issue” and the issue was a problem to be addressed. Making visible the “issue” involved much
discussion and reified understandings of LGBT identity as categories that were defined in relation to
heterosexuality. The participants as respondents to the scenarios rehearsed essentializing frames of ref-
erence that sedimented categorizations of the Other and regarding the distinctions being made of self /
Other, I was struck by how the participants’ own authorizing locations became almost unsurmountable.
Freeman (1993, p. 146) noted how:
Self-understanding, in short, requires as its very condition of possibility precisely the same hermeneutic
principles and forms of attention as textual understanding more generally . . . the problem, however, is
196

A Code of Our Own
that dealing with these different texts of the self, we remain in the difficult and rather precarious posi-
tion it seems of being not only readers but authors as well. We interpret texts that we ourselves have
fashioned: our thoughts, our feelings, our words, our actions.
Locating the reproduction of a logic in which the homosexual subject as object is made performa-
tively accountable became central to my interpretation of the interview data. Whilst there was a general
consensus for senior management to act as an advocate for and champion LGBT issues within the in-
stitution, it was the re/presentations of the participants’ individual values of managing difference that
revealed the difficulties of displacing cultural and institutional discourses.
DISSENTING FICTIONS
In 2004, I had assembled from amongst my middle-aged, middle-class, tertiary educated, gay friends
and colleagues, a group of six men. We met twice a month for eight months to discuss how in childhood
and adolescence, our literacy practices had been intimately involved with, and inseparable from our tacit
motivations, involvements and desires. We referenced how our sexual desires had positioned us as read-
ers in search of a particular knowledge and pleasures. Turning teenagers in a decade in which the global
pandemic of AIDS had produced a zeitgeist of increasing moral panic and hysterical homophobia, we
reflected on our “messy” relationships with heteronormative texts of identity. We retold how our queer
yearnings had brought us to moments of biographical disruption (Sparkes, 1996). How living a doubled
life can be a messy affair. Our narrating selves, recalled the conventions of everyday life through which
we had come to our particular knowledge(s) of self. And our collective conversations started by speak-
ing of our adolescent endeavors “to keep a particular narrative [of self] going” (Giddens, 1991, p. 54):
I have at earlier points in my life felt shame about my sexuality, how can I be comfortable with a sexuality
that for many years has caused me anguish? As you are growing up the more you realise your attraction
is to the same sex the more alarming that knowledge becomes, there is always lurking the thought that
you might be found out and that can have a paralysing effect. My homosexuality was never acted out in
real terms, it was 1970s suburbia I couldn’t, I wasn’t visible, I couldn’t, I didn’t know. I was desperately
clinging to the idea, that somehow, one day I would fit in and be part of that which was considered
“normal”. Sexuality has been an absent colour on the palate I have used to paint my life canvas. Grow-
ing up I felt it just wasn’t fair that that I couldn’t have all these things that other people had, I felt like
I had been short changed. (D)
I tend not to say all of what I think. I hold a little back. It doesn’t pay to be too candid about the full
details of one’s intimate life. If you keep your mouth shut, then people don’t know and they can’t wade
in with their opinions. It is much simpler to keep your mouth shut. I don’t let much show anymore until
I really trust that other person and that way nothing can get to me. People no longer have the ability to
touch me. (I)
Living in that village was difficult not because I was being hit by visibly homosexual things but because
I was being hit by the subliminal force of what heterosexual men are and of what they did. They went
down the mine, they came home, their dinner was on the table, and they went out to the pub and came
197

A Code of Our Own
back at 11.30 pm smelling of beer and went to bed. That is what happened and it happened for every-
body. That was life and it was something I didn’t want to do. (A)
In my childhood I would hear men and women in the village talking about the queers, not that they
were ever named but it was like “Ey up! ’Av you heard ’bout . . . ” It wasn’t an everyday thing, at most
it happened once, twice, three times a year but I would pick up on things like that and I inched back
inside myself. (A)
Being part of a social group, and being willing to share common experiences that were located in
the taking up and claiming of identity as gay men was at the outset beneficial for accessing participants
who were willing to tell tales of and from their lives. The stories that emerged focused on the fall-out we
experienced within the immediate institutions of home, family and school life. We commented on and
supplemented each other’s accounts with fragments of knowledge remembered from the necessity of
performing partial, re-enacted identifications. Liminality became a context from which we constructed
narratives that folded in our multiple interpretations of how literacy and reading in our adolescent lives
coalesced with the discursive practices of gender, class, race and sexuality.
As reading became the scene and setting for interrogation of our identity work, affect, pleasure,
power and desire became telling as knowledge practices in which desire and sex articulated how our
subjectivities and identities were gestated and formed an interpretative ecology from which our layered
understanding (Green & Hart, 1999) was evoked. Lorde (1984, p. 54) commented how
erotic knowledge empowers us, it becomes a lens through which we scrutinize all aspects of our existence
. . . the erotic is a measure between the beginnings of our sense of self and the chaos of our strongest
feelings.
Ronai (1995) has proposed that a “layered account” is that which “decenters the authority of science
by including narrative reflections, fantasies, and emotions” (p. 397). Mapping our queer desires between
the lines of appearance and disappearance, our interpretations of our activities with texts functioned as
an “ante-closet” (Urbach, 2000) which has been described as the space prior to the closet that one uses
to dress and undress oneself. A space that constitutes self-representation at once connected and free
from social norms.
CODE SWITCHING. QUEERING INTERPRETATIONS
In thinking through how I have made meaning requires ongoing critical reflection upon my philosophy
of practice and research paradigms. Acknowledging how researchers are situated paradigmatically in
the praxis of research focuses attention on the moral imperatives of what gets constituted as data: how it
is interpreted and represented. A paradigmatic position involves questions being asked about the nature
of enquiry being undertaken: Why this research? Why these lives?
Interrogation of epistemology, ontology and axiology is increasingly accepted in research practices
and I have come to realize how “the more one interprets the more one finds not the fixed meaning the
world, but only other interpretations” (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982, p. 107). In interpretation, my invested
gaze has involved making present the presence and practices of normalcy. The reconstruction of meaning
198

A Code of Our Own
from out of a queer place seeks to interrupt “common sense” discourses. This is not without problems.
It has been noted how:
to engage queer theories can be a difficult task, particularly when voice, visibility, the self and experi-
ence have inherently mediated forms and when knowledge and ignorance do not readily offer evidence
of their workings. A difficulty is to discover how epistemologies that rely on seeing and hearing can be
brought into dialogue with epistemologies that question what is seen and heard. (Talburt, 1999, p. 529)
The concept of who a researcher is, their histories and experiences, therefore becomes significant
in recounting as reflexive frame from which to analyze, interpret and represent. The taking up of posi-
tions—position taking—and stand-points can be read and interpreted as social and cultural negotiations
of self in which “I” becomes a hermeneutic from which to see, hear, speak and make meaning. Making
valid(ity) to claims of self, according to Lather (1993), is a relentless process, that requires ongoing
reflection and deconstruction, in contextual and intertexual ways. It is a form of world-making that
works the ruins of normalizing concepts (Adams St Pierre, 2014). From the creases of my queerly staged
interpretation, the relationships and flows of self in which the social, political, cultural and historical
world are located are: “not objectively given relations that look the same from every angle of vision but,
rather, that they are deeply perspectival constructs, inflected by the historical, linguistic and political
situatedness of different sorts of actors” (Appadurai, 1996, p. 33).
To speak about a queering relation as a paradigmatic interpretative disposition is to take to the task of
meaning-making a tactical-discursive apparatus from which to re-imagine and re/narrate the “proper” and
“improper” (De Certeau, 1984). Queer interpretations have contributed to intersectional understandings of
disability, ethnicity, race, and religion, and continue to tease, puzzle and perplex the making of meaning.
AND . . .
Chapter 1 of this book outlines a range of paradigm possibilities for research in the broad field of edu-
cation. I have made many references to interpretation in this chapter and my research endeavors could
be seen as sitting in that paradigm. At the same time, I have titled this chapter “A code of our own.” It
involves an intent—an axiology—that goes beyond interpretation to making a contribution to transforma-
tion. In making reference to narrative reflections, fantasies, and emotions and the chaos of our strongest
feelings, this research could also be seen to produce complex findings, even findings that in the current
era could be seen to reflect something of the supercomplexity paradigm.
To focus on interpretation: interpretation, much like becoming, “is always in the middle; it is the
in-between, the border or line of flight or descent” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 293) and is invariably
connected to the social, political, cultural and historical landscapes in which it occurs. Who a researcher
is, their histories and their experiences can tell us something about how “that which writes is still chang-
ing - still in doubt” (Crisp, 1977, p. 212) and remaining doubtful is, in interpretation my paradigmatic
preference. Deploying uncertainty is connected to my understandings of what queer work can do to make
visible what often is prohibited from being spoken or revealed. If the interpretations I have presented bear
traces of my ways of reading and attending to research narratives, then as interpretative endeavors they
are the means through which I am able to think the unthinkable and to make visible the particularities,
the contexts, and contingencies of paradigmatic inscription.
199

A Code of Our Own
Taking up a transformative paradigm is to make a space, in research, for critical interruptions of hege-
monic discourses and position-takings. Working from the development of shared and negotiated meaning
locates the speaking of truth-to- power as political dialectic act; a shaping relation that critically frames
the research process. It has been claimed that “research is not an innocent or distant academic exercise
but an activity that has something at stake and that occurs in a set of political and social conditions”
(Smith, 2001, p. 5), and acting-out of emblematic indicators such as gender, race, ability and sexuality
can potentially transform not only the knowledge that is produced but how it becomes produced. As a
space of and for interruption, the transformative paradigm generates possibilities for critical reflection,
agency and action. Questioning of taken-for granted assumptions trouble normalizing expectations,
practices and pedagogies to purposefully regenerate and reposition the self in the social.
Queering the center by centering the provisional, the uncertain and the unknown, characterizes the
paradigm of supercomplexity. “Stammering into knowing” (Lather, 1997, p. 288) is an uncanny and
unsettling endeavor but doubt and uncertainty can be productive for articulating how a piece of research
has been conducted and for rethinking the ways in which we give a form to knowledge. The affinity
between epistemology, ontology and axiology could be characterized as ambivalent or agnostic in a
supercomplexity paradigm. The pursuit of a social reality relies on interrogation of complexities of
culturally mediated relationships rather than the discernment of an “objective” truth. Getting stuck-in
between induces intellectual uncertainties and Nietzche (1996) in On the Genealogy of Morals describes
this as “pathos for distance,” a reflective state through which one can start to query how intimacy or
detachment from the social world forms a landscape through which understanding of self and Other
become mediated. As ways of knowing draw upon a thinking and feeling relation with self and others,
in a supercomplex paradigm, conceptual frameworks as being yet another interpretative stance, are
destabilized and called into question.
In this chapter, I have represented research journeys that have travelled between and across paradigmatic
positions. I believe research stories inevitably show movement of ideas, of methodologies, of ideolo-
gies and of how research is increasingly located on a contested continuum. Paradigms and associated
practices generate ways of thinking about and doing research; they inherently make coherent, re-shape
and reconfigure the research stories we tell of others; and perhaps more significantly, show something
of ourselves as an inseparable element of the story.
REFERENCES
Adams St Pierre, E. (2014). A brief and personal history of post qualitative research toward “post in-
quiry.”. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(2), 2–19.
Allen, L., & Rasmussen, M. L. (2015). Queer conversation in straight spaces: An interview with Mary
Lou Rasmussen about queer theory in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development,
34(4), 685–694. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1062072
Allgeier, A. R., & Allgeier, E. R. (2000). Sexual interactions (2nd ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath.
Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
200

A Code of Our Own
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalisation. London: University

of Minnesota Press.
Atkinson, E. (2004). Sexualities and resistance: Queer(y)ing identity and discourse in education. In J.
Satterthwaite, E. Atkinson, & W. Martin (Eds.), Educational counter-cultures: Confrontations, images,
visions. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books.
Britzman, D. (1998). Is there a queer pedagogy? or, Stop reading straight. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Cur-
riculum: Towards new identities. New York: Routledge.
Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.
Crisp, Q. (1977). The naked civil servant. London: Penguin.
De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. Rendell, Trans.). London: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
De Lauretis, T. (1991). Queer theory: Lesbian and gay sexualities. Differences: A Journal of Feminist
Cultural Studies, 3(2), iii–xviii.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Con-
tinuum.
Dreyfus, H., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Ellis, V., & High, S. (2004). Something more to tell you: Gay, lesbian or bisexual young peo-
ple’s experience of secondary schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 213–225.
doi:10.1080/0141192042000195281
Epstein, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Schooling sexualities. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Epstein, D., O’Flynn, S., & Telford, D. (2002). Innocence and experience: Paradoxes in sexuality and
education. In D. Richardson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of lesbian and gay studies. London: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781848608269.n17
Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fox, N. J. (1997). Is there life after Foucault? Texts, frames and differends. In A. Peterson & R. Bunton
(Eds.), Foucault, health and medicine. London: Routledge.
Freeman, M. (1993). Rewriting the self. History, memory, narrative. London: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late Modern Age. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Goodson, I., & Sikes, P. (2001). Life history research in educational settings. Berkshire, UK: Open
University Press.
Gowlett, C., & Rasmussen, M. (2014). The cultural politics of queer theory in education research. Dis-
course (Abingdon), 35(3), 331–334. doi:10.1080/01596306.2014.888838
201

A Code of Our Own
Green, J., & Hart, L. (1999). The impact of context on data. In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Devel-
oping focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849208857.n2
Halley, J., & Parker, A. (Eds.). (2011). After sex? On writing since queer theory. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Halperin, D. (1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford, UK: Open University Press.
Harré, R. (1989). Language games and texts of identity. In J. Shotter & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of
identity. London: Sage.
Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackmen, J., & Mitchell, A. (2010). Writ-
ing themselves in 3: The third national study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex attracted
and gender questioning young people. La Trobe University. Retrieved from http://e-publications.une.
edu.au/1959.11/10504
Kincheloe, J. (2011). Critical ontology: Visions of selfhood and curriculum. In K. Hayes, S. Steinberg, &
K. Tobin (Eds.), Key works in Critical Pedagogy. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. doi:10.1007/978-
94-6091-397-6_17
Kollias, H. (2012). Queering it right, getting it wrong. Paragraph, 35(2), 144–163. doi:10.3366/
para.2012.0050
Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: “Queer” activism and anti-oppressive pedagogy. London:
Routledge.
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4),
673–693. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00112.x
Lather, P. (1997). Drawing the line at angels: Working the ruins of Feminist ethnography. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(3), 285–304. doi:10.1080/095183997237124
Letts, W., & Sears, J. (1999). Queering Elementary education:Advancing the dialogue about sexualities
and schooling. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: The Crossing Press.
Montuori, A. (2013). The complexity of transdisciplinary literature reviews. Complicity: An International
Journal of Complexity and Education, 10(1/2), 45–55.
Nelson-Jones, R. (2011). Six approaches to counselling and therapy (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
Nietzsche, F. (1996). On the genealogy of morals (D. Smith, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rasmussen, M., & Allen, L. (2014). What can a concept do? Rethinking education’s queer assemblages.
Discourse (Abingdon), 35(3), 433–443. doi:10.1080/01596306.2014.888846
Rasmussen, M. L. (2006). Becoming subjects: Sexualities and secondary schooling. New York: Routledge.
202

A Code of Our Own
Ricoeur, P. (1995). Figuring the sacred: Religion, narrative, and imagination. Minneapolis, MN: Fortiss
Press.
Ritchie, J., & Wilson, D. (2000). Teacher narrative as critical inquiry: Rewriting the script. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Rogers, C. R. (1962). The interpersonal relationship: The core of guidance. Harvard Educational Re-
view, 32, 416–429.
Ronai, C. R. (1992). The reflexive self through narrative: A night in the life of an erotic dancer/researcher.
In C. Ellis & M. Flaherty (Eds.), Investigating subjectivity: Research on lived experience. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Schechner, R. (1988). Performance theory. New York: Routledge.
Smith, L. T. (2001). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed
Books Ltd.
Sparkes, A. (1996). The fatal flaw: A narrative of the fragile body-self. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(4), 463–494.
doi:10.1177/107780049600200405
Talburt, S. (1999). Open secrets and problems of queer ethnography: Readings from a religious
studies classroom. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(5), 525–539.
doi:10.1080/095183999235935
Talburt, S., & Rasmussen, M. (2010). “After queer” tendencies in queer research. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/09518390903447184
Taylor, J. (2012). Playing It queer: Popular music, identity and queer world-making. Bern: Peter Lang.
doi:10.3726/978-3-0351-0420-2
Thomas, L., & Beauchamp, C. (2001). Understanding new teachers’ professional identities through
metaphor. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 762–769. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.007
Urbach, H. (2000). Closets, clothes, disclosure. In J. Rendall, B. Penner, & I. Borden (Eds.), Gender
space architecture: An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Routledge.
Vicars, M. (2006). Who are you calling queer? Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will
always hurt me. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 347–361. doi:10.1080/01411920600635395
Vicars, M. (2008a). Effective leadership on lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues in further education: Over-
coming barriers to implementing sexuality, diversity and equality. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University
Centre for Excellence in Leadership.
Vicars, M. (2008b). Memories of homophobia in childhood: Social exclusion is not a place where one
chooses to hang out. In E. Atkinson & R. DePalma (Eds.), Invisible boundaries. Addressing sexualities
equality in children’s worlds. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham.
Vicars, M. (2009). Dissenting fictions: Investigating the literacy practices of gay men. Saarbrücken,
Germany: VDM Verlag.
203

A Code of Our Own
Vicars, M. (2012). Towards a rhizomatic methodology: How queer! In S. Steinberg & G. Canella (Eds.),
Critical qualitative research reader. New York: Peter Lang.
Vicars, M. (2016). Suspicious, suspect and vulnerable: Going beyond the call and duty of ethics in life
history research. In P. Sikes & I. Goosdon (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on narrative
and life history. London: Routledge.
Warner, M. (1999). The trouble with normal: Sex politics and the ethics of queer life. New York: The
Free Press.
Warner, M. (2012). Queer and then? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(6). Retrieved from http://
chronicle.com/article/QueerThen-/130161
Weber, C. (2015). Why is there no queer international theory? European Journal of International Rela-
tions, 21(1), 27–51. doi:10.1177/1354066114524236
204
Section 4
Practical Solutions
206
Chapter 12
Undertaking Commissioned
Research in Education:
Do Research Paradigms Matter?
Kay Livingston
University of Glasgow, UK
ABSTRACT
The place and challenges of identifying and working with research paradigms in the context of commis-
sioned research is addressed in this chapter. The characteristics of commissioned research and com-
missioned evaluation are discussed. The role of Invitation to Tender (ITT) documents in commissioned
research is explored using a conceptual continuum from looser to tighter specification of parameters.
Consequences for the selection of a research paradigm are considered. The chapter concludes with an
imperative: Communication to develop understanding of each other’s perspectives needs to be better
recognized for its value to all parties in meeting their intended purpose in engaging in a commissioned
research undertaking.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to reflect on research paradigms related to research commissioned by
governments and government agencies. The chapter is intended to be of interest to researchers and
policy-makers who wish to develop their understanding of the place and challenges of research paradigms
applying to commissioned research. It will also be of interest to students in assisting their understanding
and critique of policy-related research publications.
The characteristics of commissioned research are explored and distinctions between research and
evaluation are considered. Different views about the purpose and outcomes of commissioned research
are discussed, as are some possible reasons for the lack of attention given to research paradigms. This
discussion is framed by consideration of different ways of viewing reality (ontology), differences in views
about the nature of knowledge and processes of knowing (epistemology) and differences in values, beliefs,
motivations and intentions (axiology). The difficulties caused by lack of conceptual clarity and different
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch012

Undertaking Commissioned Research in Education
views about the relationship between epistemology, learning and teaching are addressed. Examples drawn
from experience of commissioned educational1 research are used to illustrate potential differences in
opinions that can arise in views about whether research paradigms have a place in commissioned research
reports. Examples are also used to explore reasons for different views about the purpose of research and
to confront implicit messages, and sometimes contradictory messages, that are communicated in the
commissioning documentation prior to the research and in the subsequent research reports.
To suggest that the views of the world of research and the world of commissioning bodies can be
understood as two distinct and easily defined perspectives is too simplistic. While reference is made
throughout this chapter to a “commissioning body” as if it “speaks” with one voice, it is acknowledged
that decisions, such as the purpose of research, its ongoing management and the actions (if any) to be
taken from the research report, are seldom made by one person. Many voices are likely to have an input.
However, while the individual views of those involved in commissioning the research may differ, the
government policies and/or direction are likely to set the agenda for research. The complexity of the
context in which commissioned research is undertaken and the many voices that may seek to influence
the initiation, implementation and reporting or post-reporting stages of the research are discussed. In the
concluding section, the paradigm of supercomplexity is considered for its potential as a way of open-
ing up opportunities for researchers undertaking commissioned research in challenging and shifting
circumstances that are impacted by multiple influences.
As Gardner (2011) indicates, educational research covers a variety of areas from the organization
and structures of education, to policy formation and its effectiveness, trends and innovations and such
themes as social justice, inclusion, multiculturalism, curriculum, assessment and pedagogy. He also
points out that the educational research community represents people from diverse backgrounds (for
example, from teaching, vocational and higher education) and disciplines (such as the social sciences,
humanities and the natural sciences). This means that the educational research community does not
“speak” with one voice either. Researchers hold various theoretical perspectives and may favor different
methodological approaches. Heilbronn & Foremann-Pack (2015, p. ix), drawing from Ellis (2012) argue,
“the practice of education does not fall within the boundaries of neat and discrete packages; critical
and systematic reflection on education stems from many traditions, voices and modes of enquiry.” The
views of researchers undertaking commissioned research are likely to vary widely and they are likely
to have different experiences of commissioned research. The views I express in this chapter are formed
from my own particular range of experiences as a university researcher (leading and writing tenders
and undertaking commissioned research for governments, government agencies and non-governmental
educational organizations) and as a Director (with responsibility for commissioning research, chairing
and participating in teams of staff members evaluating the tenders submitted) in a non-departmental
governmental body that became a government agency.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMISSIONED RESEARCH
One of the strong messages put forward by Lorraine Ling in Chapter 2 is that it is the paradigm within
which the research is undertaken that allows the researcher to decide on the purpose of the research, for
whom it is likely to be valuable or beneficial, how it will be conducted, from whom or what to obtain
the data, how the data may best be analyzed, the rhetoric or discourse appropriate throughout the re-
207

search study and the data collection approaches that may be used. This could be considered as an ideal
approach to undertake research in education. Indeed, Ling suggests for coherence in research design,
implementation and conclusions the researcher needs (my italics) to clearly nominate and articulate
the paradigm of research within which the study is to be carried out. Similarly, Mackenzie and Knipe
(2006) argue that without nominating a pardigm as the first step, there is no basis for subsequent choices
regarding methodology, methods, literature or research design. However, in research commissioned
by government and government agencies the researcher is seldom free to make all the decisions about
what the research is about, its purpose or how it will be conducted and reported. The often prescriptive
nature of the requirements of the commissioning body means that it is more likely that the researcher
has little or no input into decision-making prior to the start of the research. This means much of what
is to be researched, why and how is already decided by someone or a group of people (in the same or
different departments) within a commissioning body or bodies. Consequently, a researcher undertaking
commissioned research is likely to be faced with a very different starting point from that suggested by
Ling, where all decisions flow from paradigm choices made at the start of the research process.
Commissioned research covers a wide range of subject matter and disciplines. It does, however, have
certain characteristics due to its “commissioned” nature. The definition of “a commission” is that someone
places an “order” for something to be done and those who undertake the commission are paid to do it. As
Nisbet (1985, p. 13) points out, “commission” is a commercial term, suggesting a customer–contractor
relationship. In most cases research is commissioned by a commissioning body for specific reasons and
it pays for the researcher to carry it out. The researcher, then, is usually responding to a specific brief
set out in an “invitation to tender” (ITT) or an equivalent briefing document. The ITT document has
a significant role in shaping the commissioned research. The following sections explore the potential
influence that the ITT document has on decision-making about choices of research paradigms.
A Looser to Tighter Continuum of ITT Documents
The ITT documents vary in the level of specificity and could be said to lie along a continuum from a
loose specification to a tight specification. A loose ITT document could be described as one where the
researcher is able to decide on the research paradigm and make all other decisions that flow from it,
such as the purpose, the research questions, the methodology and the methods for data collection and
analysis. However, it is unlikely in research commissioned by governments and government agencies
that many, if any, ITT documents would lie at the “loose” end of the continuum. While the aspect or area
of research is likely to be stipulated, ITT documents at the “looser” end of the continuum may provide
some freedom for the researcher(s) to make decisions. For example, the researcher may be invited to
suggest the methodology for the piece of research and propose the methods for the data collection. They
may have the freedom to determine the research paradigm that will be applied.
Research specifications lying at the “tighter” end of the continuum typically stipulate: the background
and aim(s) of the research, scope and design of the work, research output(s), project management, times-
cale, and what can be included in the price schedule. In other words, the authority, agency or organization
commissioning the research has something specific they want the researcher to research and they stipulate
by what means and when. This tight stipulation of commissioned research carried out for governments
and government agencies is not new. Back in 1985 Nisbet said in the context of policy research,
208

the management of research is now considered to be too important to be left to researchers. The claim
of policy makers to take control of research, allowing policy priorities to determine choice, design,
methodology and reporting, is difficult to refute when they also control the funding. (Nisbet, 1985, p. 10)
This highlights a key characteristic of commissioned research by governments and government agen-
cies; the use of public money for which they are accountable. Commissioned research must demonstrate
value for money and that the results are relevant and useable. This leads to pressure to maintain tight
control to ensure that money invested in research is well spent and to avoid unexpected surprises, which
could mean the research outcomes cannot be used for the purpose intended. Furlong and Oancea (2005)
argue that there is increasing recognition of the legitimacy of the policy-originated quest for answers
and the need for researchers to contribute to solutions but concern remains within the policy community
about apparent lack of accountability of researchers and the lack of solutions provided in research. Whitty
(2006) drew attention to the relationship, or lack of it, between educational researchers and government
policy makers in England, in his Presidential Address to the British Educational Research Association.
He addressed the extent to which the relationship is inherently one of conflict or at least a site of mutual
misunderstanding and even suspicion. A series of reviews of educational research (e.g. Hargreaves, 1996;
Hillage, Pearson, Anderson, & Tamkin, 1998) were critical of educational research and Whitty (2006, p.
161) suggested that politicians could perhaps be forgiven for believing that educational research could
be characterized by the following features:
• Lack of rigor.
• Failure to produce cumulative research findings.
• Theoretical incoherence.
• Ideological bias.
• Irrelevance to schools.
• Lack of involvement of teachers.
• Inaccessibility and poor dissemination.
• Poor cost effectiveness.
While the extent of the criticism is contested, the often poor perceptions of the quality and useful-
ness of educational research by the policy community, together with closer scrutiny of the use of public
funds, has led to increasingly prescriptive research briefs in an effort by government and government
agencies to secure what is required, in their view, from a particular commissioned piece of research.
Ling, in Chapter 2, raises the possibility of researchers being creative, imaginative, resourceful and
open to uncertainty and the unexpected emerging during the course of the research. This is likely to be
in contrast to what a government or government agency commissioning research is hoping for as they
attempt to pin down and control the research aims, processes and outcomes.
Tighter stipulations for funded research are not restricted to the UK. As Wright and Gale (2008)
emphasize from an Australian perspective, neoliberal themes characterize an increasing political inter-
vention into the work of universities by governments and this includes increased expectations by govern-
ment for publicly funded research to demonstrate national benefit. Disappointment is often expressed
by the commissioning body when research results or outcomes are not in forms that, in their view, they
can use to support their agendas or demonstrate public benefit clearly (Gardner, 2011; Hillage et al.,
1998). A range of factors is likely to be the cause of any disappointment but differences in the views
209

of the researcher and the commissioning body about research paradigms (even if this label is not given
explicitly) and the lack of attention given to them may be key contributing factors in misunderstandings.
Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) in their review of research texts found variable attention to research
paradigms by researchers themselves, with a complete absence in some cases. Similarly, in ITT documents
mention is seldom made of research paradigms in specific or explicit ways. While research paradigms
may not be explicitly referred to in ITT documents, that does not mean that a particular view about the
research approach is not being expressed (intentionally or unintentionally) by the commissioning body.
The language that is being used (e.g. testing, comparing, confirming, evaluating) in the prescribed ap-
proaches set out for the research may send a message about the preferred research paradigm.
As there is generally a confidentiality clause which states that all information contained in the ITT
document is confidential, no specific examples from documents are discussed here. Rather, what ITT
documents may “say” or may “not say” (i.e. the underlying messages) are raised in general or hypotheti-
cal terms to stimulate reflection concerning the implications for the research paradigm within which
commissioned research is carried out.
The ITT Document: Introduction, Background, and Aims
An introduction and background to the research is usually provided to set the scene for the research. This
is generally the case for ITT documents across the loose to tight continuum. The aims for commissioning
the research may or may not be stated clearly in the Introduction section. It may indicate what has to be
researched but not why. For example, it may state that the research aims to explore teachers’ practice in
a particular topic, but the reasons the particular focus has been selected may not be explicit. The under-
lying reason for commissioning the research may be to find out if a policy is working or not working or
potentially move resources towards or away from an issue. However, these, political reasons may not be
stated explicitly in the ITT document to avoid attracting the attention of the media, the teaching unions
or opposition parties at the early stage of the research.
The Background section of the document may outline policy actions that have already been taken in
the area or topic of research. For example, reference may be made explicitly to previous policy documents,
national reports and/or relevant statistics that have been collected. While, this background information
is helpful for researchers in understanding the context for the research, it may not provide the researcher
with sufficient clarity about purpose to enable them to select an appropriate research paradigm, espe-
cially when a tender has to be submitted prior to a researcher having direct communication with those
commissioning the research.
The ITT Document: Scope, Design, and Research Outputs
In a looser ITT document the researcher may be invited to set out a detailed methodology to meet the
research aims. In a tighter ITT document the researcher would be expected to adhere to specific issues set
out relating to the scope and design. For example, the ITT may specify that the research sample should
include: primary and secondary schools, schools with different socio-economic profiles, and schools from
different geographical locations. Some ITT documents go as far as stipulating the number of schools,
teachers, pupils, parents or key personnel to be involved and some suggest the specific methods to collect
the data. The Methodology section of the ITT document may specify that semi-structured, face to face
interviews with groups of teachers from an identified number of schools should be carried out, using a
210

list of questions and prompts to be trialed and adapted in discussion with the commissioning body. This
level of “tight ITT” reduces the possibility for the researcher to select or decide on a research paradigm.
Rather than the research paradigm driving the decision-making process about methodology and choice
of methods, researchers undertaking commissioned research are more likely to find themselves having to
fit a research paradigm around a stipulated methodology. The commissioning body may be of the view
that certain methodological approaches align with particular research approaches. For example, that a
positivist research paradigm aligns with quantitative data collection methods.
The ITT Document: Timescale, Funding, Project Staffing, and Management
Specified sections regarding timescale, the research personnel and the cost also pose challenges for
researchers’ decision-making regarding the research paradigm. Research commissioned by government
and governmental agencies generally has to be carried out over relatively short periods because it has
to sit within government terms of office or financial years. The timescales specified often mean short
lead-in times to prepare data collection instruments, with equally limited amounts of time to collect the
data, analyze them and write the research report. From the commissioning body’s point of view research
reporting data on educational issues that are over two years old for example is of little use to policy-
makers who have to respond to immediate policy concerns. This can be problematic for the researcher.
As Nisbet (1985) suggests, policy-determined research incurs several dangers including reducing the
research agenda to simplistic problems and dealing with short-term issues.
Seemingly looser ITT documents that enable the researcher to propose the research paradigm and
methodology may in fact offer little freedom in decision-making if short timescales then restrict researcher
choices. For example, data collection methods that flow from a particular research paradigm that requires
time for interpretation from multiple case studies may not be possible in the timescale stipulated. This
poses a dilemma for researchers in preparing their research proposal if at the outset they recognize that
the choice of research paradigm is unlikely to provide the outcomes sought by the commissioning body
in the timescale available or enable the research to be undertaken and reported with sufficient rigor.
The amount of funding available for the research is not always stated in the ITT document, which
also leaves the researcher with difficult decisions. Attempts to cost the research have to be done in the
knowledge that their research tender has to be competitive in price as well as offer a credible persuasive
research proposal. However, it can also be challenging for the researcher when the amount of funding
available for the research is specified in the ITT document. The amount of funding may restrict the re-
search paradigm and methodology choices. For example, the funding available may restrict the number
and choice of seniority of staff because of the cost associated with their time commitment. In some cases
the ITT may state that a particular range of research and analytical skills is required for the successful
completion of the project, which may rule out the involvement of some researchers and send implicit
messages about expected choices of research paradigm. For example, if skills in undertaking randomized
control trials are stipulated this aligns with one research paradigm rather than another.
The choices of research paradigm and methodology may be further influenced by the requirement set
out in some ITT documents for the establishment of an Advisory Group. Some commissioning bodies
may invite the researcher to propose possible members of the group in their tender document. However,
the group may be chosen by the commissioning body to oversee the progress of the research. The ITT
document may outline the number of expected meetings to be held during the research project and the
methods of reporting to the group. This may, for example, entail consultation on and sign off of data
211

collection instruments and provision of draft interim and final reports. This increases the number of
voices inputting to the decision-making processes and increases the likelihood of different beliefs, val-
ues and world views concerning what counts as quality research and different expectations about what
outcomes can be arrived at by the research. To make a decision about the choice of a research paradigm
in these circumstances requires time for discussion and negotiation. Where the importance of the choice
of research paradigm is not fully understood it is unlikely this would be seen as a priority.
IDENTIFYING AND UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT REALITIES
People bring different personal histories, beliefs and experiences to understanding themselves, education
and research. Aldridge (2015, p. 115) suggests “our previous commitments and projects ‘always already’
predispose us to experience the world in particular ways.” Aldridge (2015), drawing on Heidegger (1962)
and Gadamer (1977), argues that our understanding is an orientation of our being, an ontological condi-
tion of our openness to the world. Ontological perspectives are shaped by many influences, however,
the reality of the context in which personnel within commissioning bodies and researchers work is a key
influencing factor in relation to the topic of this chapter. Researchers and those who are responsible for
commissioning research work in different contexts with different understandings of reality. They have
different agendas to work to, with different sets of expectations. These different ways of being are likely
to influence views about research generally and about the approach to the specific piece of research being
commissioned. To first identify any differences in ontological stances and then seek to understand the
differences requires dialogue, which in turn requires opportunities and time for dialogue—as noted above.
A research specification lying towards the “looser” end of the continuum may enable the researcher to
engage with the commissioning body prior to tendering to ask questions about the purpose, the scope and
the intended outcome(s) in relation to their reality. This information would put them in a better position
to be able to select an appropriate research paradigm for the commissioned research. However, in the
public sector, engagement with the government or a government agency may be indirect, in that it may
be limited to submitting questions via an electronic mailbox with brief responses posted electronically.
Opportunities to uncover, often deeply-held, views about education and research, seek clarification of
purpose, and negotiate research paradigms directly at the tendering stage are unlikely. Negotiation may
be possible after the researcher has been awarded the contract, during the first meeting with the contact
person(s) in the commissioning body. However, at this stage the funding agreed for the research may
already create restrictions that often make it difficult to change the research approach and the scope. In
addition, a public body usually has to score tender documents using a fixed set of criteria, which may be
linked to the research approach and methodology set out by the researcher in the tender document. The set
of criteria used to make judgments about the award of the research tender and the research methodology
itself may be subject, in the UK, to Freedom of Information requests after contracts have been awarded
(see Freedom of Information Act 2000, which enables members of the public to request information
from public authorities). In this case it is difficult to make substantial changes after the tender has been
accepted. Discussion and negotiations for changes between the researcher and the commissioning body
are more likely to be tinkering around the edges in terms of scope, methods of data collection and tim-
escale rather than a major change in the research paradigm.
As more than one person is likely to have been involved in decisions about the commissioning of
research any discussion with the researcher’s contact person in the government or government agency
212

is unlikely to be helpful in uncovering the influence of ontological, epistemological or axiological per-

spectives. The researcher may only meet their contact person(s), rather than those who are the ultimate
decision-makers, about the use of the research outcomes. Individuals in government usually do not offer
personal opinions; rather they present an agreed view in line with policy or the intended policy direc-
tion. The final decisions about commissioning and funding the research may have been signed off by
a Government Minister, a senior policy officer, a committee or advisory board. This makes it difficult,
if not impossible, for researchers to meet the range of expectations held if they are only made aware of
part of the picture of the intended use of the research outcomes.
The reality of the “world” in which government and government agencies operate is one which is
averse to surprises and risk taking. Striving for policy messages that are consistent with particular po-
litical ideologies, and can inform policies that can be implemented in planned, ordered, effective ways,
within budget and time-scale, is usually of key concern. The level of certainty and uncertainty that the
commissioning body accommodates in the commissioned research is likely to “already be” influenced
by the need for clear outcomes that support and take forward the particular ideology of the government
at the time.
Researchers can face a tension where they have an understanding of political and social justice fac-
tors, related to the research, as having consequences for marginalized or oppressed groups or individuals
and this view is in opposition to political ideologies of the commissioning body and at odds with the
intended policy direction. Gardner (2011, p. 543), identifying views critical of educational research,
said for some commentators,
much educational research is too progressive, lacking a grasp of the “real” needs of society or not having
the political nous to deal with “real-world” people. Sometimes the discourse of educational research
is impenetrable to the various audiences for whom it should matter most, thereby losing its utility and
importance.
This suggests that the choices made about research paradigms (implicitly or explicitly) do matter
in commissioned research. As Ling’s discussion of research paradigms in Chapter 2 showed, different
choices of research paradigms lead to different types of research. These different types of research perform
different functions. While policy makers may want research to provide answers to problems, research-
ers may be more interested in research approaches that identify new problems or new perspectives on
problems (Nisbet, 1985). From the perspective of university researchers their realities are influenced by
different factors within their work context from those influencing personnel in government and govern-
ment agencies. The reality for “research-active academics” working in research universities in the UK
is increasingly targets that arise from criteria set by the Research Excellence Framework (REF)2. The
targets generally concern achieving specified levels of funded research, ensuring any research under-
taken results in evidenced impact and publication outputs (texts and articles) that are assessed using a
four level star rating. The aspiration is to have publications and impact from research assessed at level
4; “Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour” (REF, 2014). The real-
ity for researchers therefore is not only being successful in the tendering process for funded research,
which involves ensuring their tender meets the specifications set out by the commissioning body, but also
ensuring that the research is carried out in a way that meets the criteria of originality, significance and
rigor. The selection of research paradigms that enable rigor and critical analysis and add to knowledge
are increasingly likely to be at the forefront of researchers’ minds.
213

This description of two realities indicates that outcomes to be achieved by a researcher and a commis-
sioned body can be very different. Their ontological perspectives are likely to influence implicit or explicit
choices of research paradigm within which the research is carried out. A positivist or a neo-positivist
paradigm may appear to be most appealing to commissioning bodies, who seek a consistent or ordered
reality with certainty in research outcomes. They may accept that the outcomes may be provisional and
revisable because of their understanding that society is changing, but even in the short-term they are
likely to seek certainty. The nature of government cycles mean that research outcomes that do not offer
some degree of certainty for relatively short periods are unlikely to meet the needs of policy-makers and
fail to meet their expectations of the commissioning brief. In contrast, researchers may from an ontologi-
cal perspective be open to the unexpected and understand at the start of the research that it is unlikely
to uncover or present a consistent reality. Researchers working from this perspective are likely to view
interpretations of data as socially constructed and select constructionist, interpretive or transformative
research paradigms. They may use tentative language in their analysis and present their interpretations
in the research report as multiple possibilities that do not readily lead to generalization. This approach
may meet the researcher’s needs in offering a critical review and interpretation but not meet the commis-
sioning body’s goal of definitive, and in their view, useable results that indicate causality—for example,
reducing class sizes has positive impact on pupil learning.
When the researcher chooses not to make the choice of research paradigm clear, there is a danger
that the commissioning body may interpret the research approach proposed in the tender from their own
ontological perspectives. They may have expected the research to lead to outcomes to support or inform
policy direction rather than raising more questions to be answered. Even when the commissioning body
understands that reality is changing, they are still likely to hope for greater certainty than the researcher
can provide from educational research undertaken in the complex context of schools and classrooms, for
example. These challenges could be overcome to some extent if the research problem and the purpose
of carrying out the research are made explicit in the ITT document and in the researchers’ proposal to
undertake the research.
The motivation to engage in commissioned research and the expectations about what that research
can provide in terms of “useful” research outcomes (socially and politically) are likely to be influenced
by interacting ontological and epistemological beliefs, as well as the values and beliefs that drive behav-
ior and action (axiological factors). These will include the commissioning body’s and the researcher’s
values and beliefs about not only how knowledge is constructed and what they understand by learning
and teaching but also what research in education is and what, in their view, counts as quality educational
research. The views of researchers and those of the commissioning body may or may not be in alignment
in relation to any or all of these aspects. As Furlong and Oancea (2005) suggest, there has been little
attempt to bring conceptual clarity to different approaches of educational research and this ambiguity
can lead to confusion and misunderstandings about what particular types of research can or should be
able to do and raises questions about what is understood as quality research.
MATCHES AND MISMATCHES IN CONCEPTS

UNDERPINNING COMMISSIONED RESEARCH
Lack of understanding of research paradigms not only relates to those in the commissioning body.
Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) suggest some researchers are uncertain about different research paradigms
214

and about what outcomes are possible from particular research approaches. They may omit any men-
tion of them from tenders for commissioned research or from their research report because they do not
understand their importance and instead focus on explaining methodological choices for data collection
and analysis. Where researchers do understand the importance of research paradigms they may choose
to omit explicit mention of the particular choice of a research paradigm for fear of their research report
being criticized for being overly academic, theoretical and/or inaccessible to the report’s audience.
A challenge for the researcher when writing a response to a looser ITT document is that the com-
missioning body’s views about what counts for example as valid or reliable methods may be hidden. It
may be that research paradigms are not mentioned explicitly in ITT documents or discussed because as-
sumptions are made by the commissioning body that “good” research is expected to be undertaken using
a scientific approach. Research that does not follow this approach may not be understood as credible or
“fit for purpose” in terms of providing authoritative results. Their expectation may be that a deductive
approach is necessary that tests a hypothesis and involves mainly quantitative data collection. As Mertens
(2005, p. 8) suggests, this view may be based on a belief that that there is “a method for studying the
social world that is value free, and that explanations of a causal nature can be provided.” Some research-
ers may share this view while others may believe that the research participants’ views of the situation or
issue being studies are central (Cresswell, 2003, p. 8) and recognize the influence of their own experi-
ences on interpretation of the research data. In this case, their views of “good quality” research may be
research that is carried out within a constructionist, interpretive or transformative research paradigm.
A commissioning body may understand that an approach more in line with a neo-positivist paradigm
is necessary to take account of some of the variables (such as socio-economic status of the pupils, dif-
ferences in ability levels, differences in teaching approaches). However, they may believe that it is up to
the researcher to find a way, through their choice of methodology and data collection methods, to take
account of a range of variables.
A pragmatic approach that places the research problem at the centre (Cresswell, 2003) may be the
most acceptable option to the commissioning body. Conducting the research within the pragmatic para-
digm means that the researcher is not committed to a particular ontological position or epistemological
understanding being driven essentially by an endeavor to find a workable solution to a problem. As
Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) point out, in a pragmatic research paradigm data collection and analysis
methods are chosen that are most likely to provide insights into the research problem with no philosophi-
cal loyalty. They suggest,
In this way researchers are not quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods researchers, rather a researcher
may apply the data collection and analysis methods most appropriate for a particular research study. It
may in fact be possible for any and all paradigms to employ mixed methods rather than being restricted
to any one method, which may potentially diminish and unnecessarily limit the depth and richness of a
research project. (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, p. 6)
However, not all researchers value a pragmatic approach, particularly when it is associated with
“what works” research. According to Furlong and Oancea (2005, p. 5) “traditionally it has been assumed
that there is a clear distinction between the worlds of research and the worlds of policy and practice.”
They provide the example of a world of research that is based on explicit, systematic work aimed at the
growth of theoretical knowledge while policy is seen as taking place in the “real world” based on differ-
ent forms of knowledge (tacit or practical wisdom). While they recognize that there are increasing links
215

between research and policy they suggest there are remaining tensions. For example, they suggest that
researchers are worried about what they see as a push towards “marketization” of the research process
and emphasize a need to continue to find ways to contribute to “pure” theoretical knowledge rather than
merely pragmatic concerns about what works (Furlong & Oancea, 2005, p. 6).
For the purposes of the REF, research is defined as “a process of investigation leading to new insights,
effectively shared” (REF, 2012, p. 48). The REF documentation sets out what this definition includes
and what it does not include. For example, it includes work of direct relevance to the needs of the public
and voluntary sectors; the invention and generation of ideas, where these lead to new or substantially
improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce new or
substantially improved materials, products and processes, whereas it excludes routine testing and routine
analysis of materials and processes, such as for the maintenance of national standards, as distinct from
the development of new analytical techniques. It also excludes the development of teaching materials
that do not embody original research.
The notion of “adding to the store of knowledge” (see Chapter 2) in what the REF defines as quality
is clear. This notion also defines the research goals for many or most university research-active staff.
The exclusion of “routine testing and routine analysis of materials, components and processes such as
the maintenance of national standards” may create challenges for university researchers who engage
in commissioned research. If testing or routine analysis is the purpose of the research identified by the
commissioning body the researcher may be concerned that this may rule them out of a potential funding
opportunity to carry out research in education unless they can write the research tender in such a way
that it enables them to meet their own purpose of engaging in rigorous, critical and innovative research,
for example.
When the purpose of the research from the commissioning body’s perspective is to find out if a
policy is working successfully the researcher may interpret this as evaluation rather than research. For
example, the expected purpose of the data gathering from the perspective of the commissioning body is
to evaluate it against a set of criteria to determine the level of success of a particular activity or initiative.
Evaluation data may provide the commissioning body with the information it wants regarding whether
government policies are working. As Greene (2005, as cited in Mertens, 2005, p. 50) argues, evaluation
is intertwined with political power and decision-making about societal priorities and directions. Many
educational researchers, however, are motivated to undertake research in schools in an effort to add to
knowledge in the field of education and in an increasingly competitive context for securing funded research
they may also see the invitation to submit a proposal for research as a way of meeting funding targets set
by universities regarding research. Their purpose in submitting a research tender may be to meet those
targets and to undertake a piece of research that meets the REF criteria in relation to significance, rigor
and originality rather than a “what works” evaluation.
Nevertheless, undertaking an evaluation is not without purpose and merit for researchers and evalu-
ation can make an important contribution to public engagement. It may enable researchers to identify
the impact of policies and actions that flow from them. Evaluations may also provide the researcher
with opportunities to engage directly with policy makers to develop mutual understanding of the dif-
ferent agendas operating. Importantly, REF 2014 included the assessment of quality of impact from
research. The assessment criteria included the “reach” and “significance” of impact on the economy,
society and/or culture that were underpinned by excellent research (REF, 2012, p. 6). An evaluation of
an area of education in which the researcher has been involved in influencing and/or supporting change
now offers potential to identify evidence of impact and contribute to a case study submission to REF.
216

The inclusion of the assessment of impact widens the scope of research and research-related activities
that are recognized as being of value in the “world of research.” Nevertheless this does not mean that
researchers have less of a requirement to uncover and understand the purpose of the commission or not
consider the range of possible research paradigms.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The realities for those in the research world and in the world of governments and government agencies
are becoming more complex, uncertain and dynamic. The speed of change and the radical nature of many
of the changes mean that traditional frames of reference are shifting. In education, the challenging and
changing contexts have created the need for new knowledge, skills and values, and different patterns of
life and work (Livingston, 2012). Knowledge about what and how people learn is continually developing,
and more diverse populations of learners with changing learning needs add new challenges. The extent
of change is such that Barnett (2015, p. 238) argues we are living in “a ‘supercomplex world’ where the
very frameworks by which we orient ourselves to the world are themselves contested.”
In Chapter 2 Ling suggests that in this era of change a new supercomplexity paradigm is needed.
Her argument is that where the traditional frames of reference are constantly shifting, the problematic
elements, which are the basis for research, abound in supercomplexity as never before. Therefore, re-
searchers need to be comfortable with strangeness and awkward, unexpected and unknown situations.
This paradigm, she argues, is one of opportunity and challenge as well as invention and innovation and
opens up new possibilities for research and for researchers to generate new ways of being, acting and
thinking. Ling argues that in the paradigm of supercomplexity the role of a researcher is to expand the
problematic elements of an issue or a situation that is the focus of the research, and to augment the riski-
ness and insecurity by the addition of further problems and unknowns. These arguments are important
for re-considering research approaches in an increasingly complex world. However, if commissioning
bodies are unable to tolerate unexpected surprises in research carried out within the constructionist,
interpretive or transformative paradigms for example, the likelihood of them being ready or open to a
supercomplexity paradigm may be limited.
As discussed, research commissioned by governments and government agencies involves multiple
voices and perspectives and is linked to policy decisions and political ideologies. The challenge for
researchers undertaking commissioned research is how to communicate the complexity of education
and its relation to “living and being” in a supercomplex world in a way that opens channels for ongo-
ing discussion, debate and critique within the realities of those commissioning the research, rather than
closing them down. Different types of research serve different functions but if the hope is to foster new
thinking about future orientations to learning and teaching then critiques that seek to disrupt previous
frames of reference also need to propose realistic alternatives to current policy approaches. A chal-
lenge for researchers is to find new ways to engage with commissioning bodies about the complexity of
learning and the complex political and social framework in which it is fostered. Key messages need to
be conveyed to the policy community, demonstrating a deep understanding of their world and offering
proposals for consideration in the policy context.
Misunderstandings between researchers and the commissioning body may arise simply because of
the way the research messages are communicated and the timing of their communication. Governments
and government agencies need and want to consider the uncertain, the unknowns and the problems but
217

are likely to wish to do so thoughtfully and prepare responses out of the public glare of the media and
the political arena. There is a need to keep the research/policy dialogue going throughout the research
process without compromising the research outcomes—this is not without its ethical difficulties for the
researcher. However, as Ling suggests, in supercomplex times, while ethical issues continue to matter,
there may be a need for new perspectives about what the concept of ethics means. Whatever the choice
of research paradigm the factors of accessibility, relevancy, persuasiveness, credibility and authoritative-
ness (Gardner, 2011) need to be at the forefront of researchers’ minds.
Researchers need to develop a better awareness and understanding of the realities of the world of
commissioning bodies, the multiple voices involved and the multiple audiences they have to satisfy.
Commissioning bodies also need a better understanding of the pressures researchers are under to produce
research that offers more than “what works” outcomes. These multiple realities may each have their own
validity but work in a dynamic opposition to each other.
In conclusion, research paradigms do matter but not all researchers or personnel working in govern-
ments have an understanding of their importance in influencing the way the research is carried out and
the research outcomes that are achieved. Capacity building opportunities are needed for both researchers
and commissioning bodies to enable them to understand that commissioned research is a particular type
of research in which constraints stipulated in the ITT document can narrow the researcher’s choice of
research paradigm to one that may not be appropriate for the specific aims of the research. This requires
better understanding of the diverse forms of educational research and of the implications of different
choices of research paradigm for research outcomes. Communication to develop understanding of each
other’s perspectives needs to be better recognized for its value by all parties in meeting their intended
purpose in engaging in a research undertaking. Researchers, and those who commission research, need to
purposely identify strategies for maximizing the opportunities to enable this communication to happen.
REFERENCES
Aldridge, D. (2015). The role of Higher Education in teacher education: A reorientation towards on-
tology. In R. Heilbronn & L. Foreman-Peck (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on teacher education.
Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118977859.ch7
Barnett, R. (2015). Thinking and rethinking the university—The selected works of Ronald Barnett. Ox-
ford, UK: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Furlong, J., & Oancea, A. (2005). Assessing quality in applied and practice-based educational research:
A framework for discussion. Oxford University Department of Educational Studies. Retrieved January
6, 2016, from http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-social-sciences/education/projects/
esrc-2005-seminarseries5.pdf
Gadamer, H.-G. (1977). The universality of the hermeneutic problem. In D. E. Lange (Ed.), Hans-Georg
Gadamer: Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
218

Gardner, J. (2011). Educational research: What (a) to do about impact! British Educational Research
Journal, 37(4), 543–561. doi:10.1080/01411926.2011.596321
Hargreaves, D. (1996). Teaching as a research-based profession. London: Teacher Training Agency.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Heilbronn, R., & Foreman-Peck, L. (Eds.). (2015). Philosophical perspectives on teacher education.
Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118977859
Hillage, J., Pearson, R., Anderson, A., & Tamkin, P. (1998). Excellence in research on schools. Research
report no. 74. London: Department for Education and Employment.
Livingston, K. (2012). Quality in teachers’ professional career long development. In J. Harford, B. Hudson
& N. Niemi (Eds.), Quality assurance and teacher education: International challenges and expectations
(pp. 35-51). Oxford, UK: Peter Lang.
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues
in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quan-
titative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nisbet, J. (1985). Introduction. In J. Nisbet & S. Nisbet (Eds.), Research. policy and practice. London:
Kogan Page Ltd.
Research Excellence Framework (REF). (2012). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions,
REF 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguid-
anceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf
Whitty, G. (2006). Education(al) research and education policy making: Is conflict inevitable? Presidential
address to the British Educational Research Association, University of Glamorgan, 17 September 2005.
British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 159–176. doi:10.1080/01411920600568919
Wright, J., & Gale, T. (2008). Utility as a first principle for education research: Reworking autonomy
in Australian higher education. Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Political Studies,
27(1-2), 115-129.
ENDNOTES
1
Educational research rather than education research is used throughout this chapter. As Whitty (2006,
p. 173) suggests, the term educational research should be reserved “for work that is consciously
geared towards improving policy and practice,” which is the point of commissioned research.
2
Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a peer-review process to evaluate the quality of research
in UK Higher Education Institutes. See http://www.ref.ac.uk/
219
220
Chapter 13
Transnational Education
Research and Development:
Paradigm Possibilities
Peter Ling
ABSTRACT
This chapter comprises reflections on a commissioned project entitled “Learning without borders:
Linking development of transnational leadership roles to international and cross-cultural teaching
excellence.” The project was designed to identify key issues for leadership in transnational education
and in particular, the best arrangements for distributed leadership. It had both a research element and
a development element. The research methods employed included observation, document analysis,
surveys, focus groups and interviews. The approach to be taken was specified as action research. The
paradigm in which the research element was to operate was not specified in the project proposal nor
was it mentioned in the project report. The conclusion arrived at in this chapter is that the exercise is
best described as falling in the pragmatic paradigm as various research approaches were adopted and
a range of methods employed in order to provide a useful response to the commissioned task.
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
This chapter comprises reflections on a public-sector commissioned project. As for many such projects
financed through public funding, the project involved a coincidence of the interests of the funding body
and the interests of the proposing institutions.
The research project that constitutes the focal point for this chapter was entitled Learning without
borders: Linking development of transnational leadership roles to international and cross-cultural
teaching excellence. The project, which relates to higher education, was supported by national funding
in Australia, in the first instance through the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) as a
“Leadership” project and later by the successor to the ALTC, the Australian Government Office for
Learning and Teaching (OLT). The project was proposed by two Australian Universities—Swinburne
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch013

Transnational Education Research and Development
University and Curtin University. Each has a main campus in Australia and a campus in Sarawak, Ma-
laysia. The project commenced in 2009 and concluded, following an extension, in 2013.
The project task was to identify, support and recognize leadership roles amongst academics at on-
shore and off-shore Australian operated campuses. The project involved working with unit convenors
and program coordinators responsible for interacting with transnational partners for program delivery
and quality assurance. The intent was to identify key issues for leadership and in particular, the arrange-
ments for distributed leadership in unit convenor and program coordinator roles. Focusing on both the
knowledge base and broader experiences of these staff members, the project was designed to explore
and initiate support and development models for wider implementation. The investigation was used to
develop and disseminate recommendations for good practice in the recognition, support and development
of academics in distributed leadership roles in transnational education and good practice in cross-cultural
teaching and the internationalization of the taught curriculum. For purposes of the project, transnational
education was defined as “an arrangement for provision of higher education where students acquire an
award in one country issued by a higher education institution based in another country” (Mazzolini, Yeo,
Ling, & Hall, 2012). The recommendations from the project provided the basis for ongoing implementa-
tion of programs and structures within the partner institutions (Mazzolini et al., 2012, p. 5).
The project, then, had both research and development components. The research element involved
investigating the nature of current arrangements for the leadership of transnational education, both on
home campuses and on transnational campuses, and the consequences of the model adopted for the staff
involved as well as for student learning. One intention in the design of the project was to identify good
practice in leadership of transnational education. The proposal had a development component producing
recommendations for the management and leadership of transnational education as well as materials to
support staff development aligned to the recommendations.
The research paradigm to be adopted in the project was not explicit but there was a statement of the
approach to be employed—action research—and included in the report of the project were details of the
data collection methods used and means of data analysis adopted. Reflecting on the research paradigm
underpinning this project using the paradigm model in the introductory chapter of this book there is
more than one possibility.
In determining the paradigm base of this project the research questions, the methodology, the form
of the findings and nature of the outcomes of the project will be addressed. The ontology, axiology
and epistemology underpinning the project have to be inferred and will be addressed in the discussion
section of the chapter. The conclusion provides reflection on the paradigm into which the exercise fits.
THE RESEARCH PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The project examined leadership roles in the conduct of transnational education and in the international-
ization of curriculum. The project was focused on developing recognition, reward and support of leaders
in transnational education. The project involved an investigation of staff experiences, expectations and
preferences in transnational education (Mazzolini et al., 2012). The broad research question was “are
some models of transnational education preferable to others from the point of view of recognition, re-
ward and support of academic managers and leaders involved at home and abroad?” (Ling, Mazzolini,
& Giridharan, 2014). In addressing this question a number of the organizational features of the various
models of transnational education encountered were charted and the consequences of the various models
221

for local academics and home campus academics were identified. The investigation was used to develop
and disseminate recommendations for good practice in the recognition, support and development of aca-
demics in these roles within the partner institutions and more generally in the conduct of transnational
education (Mazzolini et al., 2012).
METHODOLOGY
The research methods employed included document analysis, surveys, individual interviews and focus
groups. Institutional policies relating to leadership roles in the conduct of transnational education were
reviewed. A survey of academics involved in transnational education at Curtin University was conducted
to investigate, amongst other matters, the preparation academics receive for working in cross-cultural
settings and the support or information staff would like to receive in relation to engagement in transna-
tional education. Fifty responses were received. This survey was supplemented with an online survey
of Swinburne University and Curtin University academics who were already or were likely to become
program coordinators and unit convenors for programs offered on a home campus or on a transnational
campus. Sixty-four responses were received. More than 30 individual interviews were conducted with
home campus and transnational campus academics on how transnational education policies and proce-
dures could best support academics undertaking program co-ordination or unit convening roles. Finally,
focus group interviews on the topic were conducted on both home campuses and transnational campuses.
FINDINGS OF THE RESEARCH ELEMENT OF THE PROJECT
The Models of Transnational Education Encountered,

the Roles of Academics and the Drivers
The International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) identified five models of transnational
education involving nationally recognised academic awards (International Education Association of
Australia, 2008). This included distance education that did not involve any student attendance. That
educational format was not considered in the project reported here but elements of the other models
were. The models were:
1. Full delivery transnational campus: Delivered by home institution staff, possibly supplemented by
local staff.
2. Articulation: Units of study offered by a local institution and accepted as equivalent by the home
institution.
3. Franchising: An overseas institution authorised to offer an award of the home institution.
4. Branch campus: A transnational campus established to offer programs and qualifications of the
home institution.
The Learning without borders project focused on the fourth of the IEAA categories, branch cam-
puses, but data were also drawn from participants working in the first of the IEAA models conducting
home-accredited programs on transnational campuses owned by a foreign partner institution. Both the
222

institutions involved adopted more than one arrangement for the management of transnational education
programs offered. For the purposes of the Learning without borders project, on the basis of a review of
policy documents and analysis of survey, interview and focus group data, the management arrangements
were categorized as:
1. Home campus curriculum control.

2. Limited transnational campus curriculum control.
3. Distributed curriculum control.
4. Transnational campus curriculum control.
Illustrations of the way these models operated in practice based on data drawn from interviews are
provided below. The data is published in full in the project report (Mazzolini et al., 2012) and in select
form in Ling, Mazzolini and Giridharan (2014).
Home Campus Curriculum Control
In the first case, for offerings on the branch or transnational campus, curriculum design and content,
teaching and learning resources and activities, and assessment instruments were the responsibility of
program coordinators and unit convenors at the home campus. Assessment of student work was either
conducted by academics on the home campus or moderated by home campus academics. This arrange-
ment, designed to ensure consistency between sites at which programs are offered, was typically adopted
where programs were offered on multiple sites, or programs were offered at the branch campus for the
first time or by new staff.
With home institution control curriculum design, learning resources and assessment are determined
by home campus academics and were the same for students at any location. It might be substantially
delivered by home campus academics on a fly-in-fly-out basis, with some local tutors or might be de-
livered by local academics under guidance from the home campus.
As an example a home campus based unit coordinator stated:
We fly our staff up there to do all of the lectures . . . the partners will provide some tutors to run the other
small groups. We developed and managed all of the assessment. We did all of the marking.
Where the program is taught by locals it is still essentially a replica of the home-based version. As
one home-based convenor indicated:
I am prescriptive. Not just sample marking. I provide a teaching guide and revision notes. I make sure
that teachers are on the same page. I provide a marking grid down to ½ a mark.
Another reported:
I design all assessment, labs, and quizzes. They have the opportunity for providing feedback but rarely
suggest change. I have control of everything.
At the branch campus end a local academic stated:
223

The package come with all the outcomes, assessment, Powerpoint slides and other documents. I went
over the whole thing and modified just a little bit.
Limited Transnational Campus Curriculum Control
Limited transnational campus control includes situations where the program is substantially delivered
by local academics, maybe with some visits from home campus staff. There are opportunities for con-
textualization of learning activities and/or assessment items. Assessment or a sample of assessment is
moderated by home campus academics. This arrangement was adopted where the number of sites was
limited and the academics at the transnational campus had some experience in teaching the program.
The home campus convener of a business studies program stated:
because of equivalency, we control the curriculum part, the assessment . . . and when I say we control
this it’s within reason that we allow them to actually change a certain percentage … up to about 25%.
[With regard to] the practical aspect we actually encourage their conveners to give local examples.
In this model local input may be modest. In the experience of a branch campus unit convener:
So in a way we are working with the same framework, but the individual approach will be different in the
class. Staff may introduce their way of presenting but by and large the content of the teaching material
comes from [the home campus].
Another expressed it in terms of balance between local and home campus content:
In the lectures, I like to give local examples—as the students latch on to them, they remember better, it’s
more relevant—but, not exclusively. There’s definitely got to be a balance there.
Distributed Curriculum Control
Distributed control refers to programs substantially delivered by local academics. Elements of the cur-
riculum along with learning resources might be designed locally. Learning and teaching activities and
assessment can be contextualized. Local educational decisions are constrained only by an obligation
to attain the same learning outcomes. This model may include sample assessment moderation by the
home institution.
A home campus convener of business studies provided a picture of the way this plays out:
My role was to make it consistent but to allow for a localization of content. Instead of making overseas
students learn Australian consumer law they can do international law in this area or can do their own
jurisdiction.
In engineering a Deputy Dean on the home campus stated:
We’re really striving to say that the two programs are equivalent but you don’t have to be identical. So
for example, in engineering, codes of practices are quite important and the Malaysians will use their
224

codes of practice there but also cross reference with our ones as well. They’ll use some of the design
examples which are more about the Malaysian context than an Australian context.
In information technology a home campus Deputy Dean reported:
In some cases, some of the staff has modified the curriculum ensuring that the learning objectives are
still the same. And I think that’s terrific when that happens.
A local campus Unit Convener described the operation as:
Basically I like to take the responsibility on my own … as far as possible, because here in Sarawak,
it is me who is teaching the course … so I have to take responsibility for my students. So if I get some
material from Australia, like unit outline, slides, etc., I generally just take it as guideline and I develop
my own material, my own unit outline.
Transnational Campus Curriculum Control
There were a few instances of local campus control where the curriculum and delivery decisions are
determined by local academics subject to accreditation by the home institution. This could be an award,
a major study or an elective offered on the local campus only. In some cases, these studies might be taken
by home campus students though study aboard options. A major entitled “Borneo Studies” developed
on the Curtin University Malaysian campus provides an example.
So one branch campus Unit Convener was able to report:
We do have specific electives units that we have developed ourselves so we are not entirely free of cur-
riculum development responsibilities.
The Findings Summarized
The key features of these models for the management of transnational education are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Models for control of transnational education decisions
2. Limited Transnational 4. Transnational Campus

1. Home Campus Control 3. Distributed Control
Campus Control Control
Curriculum design and Opportunities for Transnational campus decisions Units of study or programs
assessment determined by contextualization of learning constrained only by attaining offered only on transnational
home campus only. Maybe activities &/or assessment items. the same learning outcomes. campus but with the
fly-in-fly-out delivery. Assessment or sample moderated May include sample assessment qualification awarded by the
by home campus. moderation by the home campus. home campus institution.
Key features: Key features: Key features: Key features:
The unit, learning activities The unit and assessment are the Unit learning outcomes are the The program/unit is subject
and assessment are the same same whoever delivers the unit. same. Learning and teaching to quality assurance processes
whoever delivers the unit. Learning and teaching activities activities and assessment are consistent with home campus
may be contextualized. contextualized. national protocols.
225

The project focused on the consequences of different arrangements for academic managers and leaders.
Details of findings of the project in relation to consequences for academics may be found in the project
report (Mazzolini et al., 2012) and in Ling, Mazzolini and Giridharan (2014). The consequences of the
management model for home campus and transnational campus academics engaged in transnational
education is summarized in Table 2.
THE DELIVERABLES
Recommendations, Handbook, and Checklists
The project resulted in a report, which contained recommendations (Mazzolini et al., 2012, pp. 26-33).
The recommendations are stated to be based on the project investigation conducted with staff at Swinburne
University of Technology and Curtin University, in Australia and Sarawak, involving surveys, interviews
and focus groups. Based on the recommendations a series of checklists was produced: a checklist for
recognition and support of leadership in transnational education; additional checklist items for transna-
tional education branch campuses; and a checklist for leadership in internationalization of curriculum
(Mazzolini, Yeo, Goerke, Lueckenhausen, Giridharan, & Ling, 2012a). A handbook was also produced
(Mazzolini, Yeo, Ling, Goerke, Giridharan, & Lueckenhausen, 2012b).
Recommendations relating to decision making included:
• Providing for input from teaching academics into university planning for transnational education.
• Defining the understanding of equivalence of units of study and programs and the scope for local
curriculum variation.
Table 2. Models and the consequences for managers on home and transnational education campuses
1. Home Campus Control 2. Limited Transnational 3. Distributed Control 4. Transnational Campus Control
Campus Control
For Home Campus Managers
Managers can demonstrate Managers can demonstrate Managers can demonstrate Managers may have a modest
leadership in curriculum leadership in curriculum some understanding of opportunity for demonstrating
design and implementation in a design and implementation in a curriculum design and some understanding of curriculum
transnational education context transnational education context. implementation in a design and implementation in a
and cross-cultural experience. Managers may be relieved of transnational education transnational education context.
The management load may some of the assessment load of context. They have more opportunities for
limit opportunities for career Model 1 but still the load may Managers are relieved of other career development activities.
advancement through research limit opportunities for career some of the responsibility for
and publication. advancement through research design of learning student
and publication. assessment, providing more
opportunities for other career
development.
For Transnational Education Campus Managers
Allows demonstration of May be able to cite contribution May be able to cite Can cite management and
teaching ability but not to curriculum design, learning management and leadership leadership in curriculum design, and
management. and teaching activities and in curriculum design, and assessment.
assessment. assessment.
226

• Stipulating the responsibilities of key home campus and transnational campus staff.
• Providing opportunities for transnational campus staff to contribute advice on the design of cur-
riculum and assessment.
• Providing qualified and experienced transnational campus academics with the same opportuni-
ties to contextualize curriculum content, devise learning and teaching activities, design learning
resources, and contribute to assessment items as home campus academics.
There were recommendations regarding communication, which included having clearly defined
communication protocols between home campus and transnational campus staff, including for culturally
sensitive matters, such as forms of address.
As the project was focused on providing recognition, reward and support for leadership in transnational
education, recommendations were made under these headings. These included:
• Clearly specifying curriculum design, teaching and assessment responsibilities at both the home
campus and transnational campus so that academics with responsibilities have well-defined evi-
dence of their responsibilities in the area.
• Ensuring position descriptions at the home campus and transnational campus include reference to
transnational education responsibilities and that positions are at an appropriate academic level or
loadings applied for an appropriate period.
• Acknowledging the time demands and the complexity of transnational education.
• Designating responsibility for professional development and support of staff engaged in transna-
tional education.
• Providing timely professional development for staff with transnational education responsibilities,
especially leadership responsibilities and providing opportunities for peer exchange.
Professional Development Modules
As part of the project three professional development modules were produced to support higher education
academics and program leaders involved in managing or delivering programs or units transnationally
or in offshore or partner locations. The modules were developed on the understanding that they could
be customized by other universities to suit the leadership development needs of their own staff. The
modules could be used to support or augment academic staff development programs, by individuals
working through modules either independently or at the direction of others, or to be used on-demand
whenever information was required by transnational education leaders in their work.
In designing the professional development program, study of any of the specific transnational edu-
cation modules was intended to be preceded by undertaking a module on leadership. The module on
leadership was not derived from the Learning without borders project; it was based on an “Integrated
Competing Values Framework” (ICVF) model of leadership (Vilkinas, Leask, & Ladyshewsky, 2009).
There were three self-directed modules that academic staff could work through:
• Module A: For transnational education program directors.

• Module B: For transnational education unit coordinators/team leaders.
• Module C: For teachers in a transnational education classroom.
227

Each module was made up of four key components.
1. Government and Institutional policy and guidelines for transnational programs or education for
international students.
2. Institutional policy, regulations and expectations relating to teaching in transnational settings.
3. Institutional policy and regulations for course and unit delivery and assessment, especially relating
to transnational education.
4. Resources and processes to support staff working in transnational or cross-cultural settings.
Participating staff were asked to select the module that was appropriate for their role within trans-
national education programs. Although there was a structure to each module, participants were not
required to work through it in any particular way. They could undertake each activity, which addresses a
particular learning outcome, in any order. They could simply access the content without completing the
activity. A learning outcome (or goal) for each key component of the module was specified. This briefly
described what staff should accomplish if they engaged with the activity in full. Each module included
a narrative, a short story based on the research element of the Learning without borders project. The
narrative underpinned the content and design of the modules. The narrative was a story which illustrated
academic leadership in a variety of transnational education situations. Each story was a composite and
did not describe any particular person or institution but did draw on experiences derived from the sur-
veys, interviews and focus groups.
Each narrative has a number of questions which allow participants to:
• Identify various leadership behaviours from the ICVF framework

• Critique or evaluate those behaviours
• Explore their own leadership behaviours and development in relation to the situation described
The modules then allow a deal of flexibility in the manner in which individual participants used
the professional development materials. They were also designed to be tailored for use by other higher
education institutions.
OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS
In sum then outcomes of the project involved both research and development. Outcomes of the develop-
ment element of the project are specified here because they have implications for the research paradigm
that applied to the project.
To summarize the research side, the investigation was used to identify staff views on good practice in
the recognition, reward and support of academics with leadership roles in transnational education. With
regard to leadership, on the basis of data collected, recommendations on good practice in transnational
education policy, procedures and support measures were drafted. Feedback was obtained from academic
leaders engaged in transnational education and from academic leaders responsible for related resource al-
location. A revised set of recommendations was then drafted and is available on the project website http://
transnational education.curtin.edu.au. With regard to internationalization of the taught curriculum and
cross-cultural teaching approaches, a position was developed based on literature, surveys and interviews.
228

This understanding was disseminated to transnational education academic leaders and other interested
parties through workshops and conference papers delivered in Australia and on branch campuses.
On the development side, tools for building the capacity of transnational education leaders were
produced. These included a resource website and a downloadable creative commons handbook to sup-
port transnational academic leaders (Yeo & Goerke, 2011). Checklists of core issues and key questions
have been developed in order to support institutional self-audits designed to determine whether policies,
procedures and practices are “fit for purpose” in the support, induction, development, recognition and
reward of transnational education academic leaders.
The online professional development modules devised were designed to foster reflective practice
through consideration of scenarios reflecting relevant examples of transnational education learning and
teaching, scholarship and leadership. Scenarios employed in the professional development modules were
devised from an analysis of perspectives of transnational education of academic leaders, both at home
campuses and in transnational education settings. These perspectives were based on the project investi-
gation and informed by pertinent literature. The first iteration of the professional development modules
was trialed in the participating universities and subsequently refined. Aside from the primary purpose
of professional development the modules could also assist academics engaged in transnational educa-
tion in their preparation of portfolios for promotions and performance reviews. The online professional
development modules could be adapted by any institution as an online induction tool for developing
transnational education leaders, both at home campuses and in transnational education settings.
DISCUSSION: PARADIGM POSSIBILITIES
In reflecting on the research paradigm that could be applied to the project some paradigms can be ruled
out. While the project was informed to an extent by leadership and management theory, there was no
particular hypothesis put to the test. The project involved charting a patch of unknown territory so the
positivist paradigm and the deductive form of the neo-positivist paradigm do not apply.
The interpretivist paradigm could be considered as the project involved the interpretation by the
research team of survey responses, interviews, focus group contributions and observations of practice
to contribute to an understanding of good practice in organizational and leadership arrangements in
transnational education, and in internationalization of curriculum. Against this, as the outcomes were
said to be “the identification of good practice in this area” (Mazzolini et al., 2012, p. 9), a premise of a
discoverable consistency could be said to underpin the project design and outcomes. In this respect the
research throws more to the positivist end of the continuum than the interpretivist and could align with
the neo-positivist paradigm in the inductive mode. The question is whether the results of the data analy-
sis are seen as revealing patterns and consistencies in the way in which arrangements for transnational
education leadership and management play out or as simply providing an illustration of investigated ar-
rangements for transnational education leadership and management and the researchers’ understanding
of their consequences in a particular case.
The project could be said to provide an instance of the transformative paradigm in that the project
was funded in support of an agenda to enhance leadership roles in transnational education in pursuit of
cross-cultural teaching excellence. It was a project funded through the ALTC, which was established as
“a general government sector agency.” The aim of the ALTC was to “enhance the learning experience
of higher education students by supporting quality teaching through a range of initiatives” (Australian
229

Learning and Teaching Council Limited, 2010, p. 205). The ALTC grants program in particular was
designed to “investigate issues of national priority, drive innovative practice and celebrate, reward and
recognise excellence” with an intended outcome being that “Australian higher education institutions
provide high quality teaching and learning for all students” (Australian Learning and Teaching Council
Limited, 2010, p. 219). In considering location in the transformative paradigm it might be noted that
the intended outcomes of the ALTC programs are designed to be of consequence to the Australian com-
munity in a context in which international education ranks as Australia’s largest services export and the
fourth largest export overall after iron ore, coal and natural gas (Pyne, 2015). Government funding for
the project was provided in this context.
As observed above, the project could be said to constitute an instance of research in the neo-construc-
tivist paradigm in the inductive mode in that the recommendations emerging may be said to be based on
a constructed understanding of the impact on academics and on student learning of adopting differing
organizational arrangements for the leadership and management in transnational education. It involved
an investigation of staff experiences, expectations and preferences in areas such as influences on career
paths and learning and teaching, as well as the identification of good practice in this area. The project
was geared towards developing recognition and support of leadership roles in transnational education
and in internationalization of curriculum. The project deliverables included provision of models for
linking transnational education leadership to teaching excellence and tools for building the capacity of
new transnational education leaders. The deliverables, then, are based on the premise that the project
team, through their investigative strategies, uncovered consistencies and patterns of organizational and
leadership behaviour that enhance the transnational experience of academics and students; that is, the
research team constructed an understanding of optimal or preferable organizational arrangements and
leadership behaviours.
CONCLUSION
It is not unusual for a commissioned project of this type to provide recommendations and supportive
resources; that is often the point. From a research paradigm point of view, identifying a consistent un-
derpinning to the exercise can be a challenge. In this case the investigation was limited in scale and for
the most part confined to two participating institutions. The research findings relied on the investiga-
tors’ interpretation of policy documents, interviews, focus groups, survey responses and observations of
practice. Nevertheless, the recommendations emerging, along with the tools developed—a handbook of
good practice, checklists, and professional development modules—imply wide applicability. There is,
however, no claim that the findings can be generalized. Care was taken to refer to good practice rather
than best practice and the professional development materials were designed to provide a base that could
be tailored to suit different institutions and different contexts.
The ontological underpinning of this exercise is ambiguous. Given this, and the commissioned nature
of the project, the one paradigm the exercise fits in is the pragmatic paradigm. This paradigm accom-
modates ontological and epistemological inconsistency or shifts. The point of the exercise was to find
a solution to an immediate problem; a solution of practical value. While the investigative component of
the exercise could sit well in the interpretivist paradigm, the recommendations emerging and the tools
developed on the basis of the findings require the support of an emergent understanding applicable be-
yond the limited context investigated. The latter could be seen as fitting with a neo-positivist paradigm in
230

the inductive mode. The pragmatic paradigm allows this shift, being concerned with finding a workable
solution rather than having a pre-occupation with ontological and axiological consistency.
The other paradigm possibility raised above was transformative, given that the exercise was intended
to provide a base for altering the behaviours of academic leaders engaged in transnational education.
However, the exercise is not classified as fitting the transformative paradigm as, while it had a political
agenda, it was undertaken objectively with an openness to the forms of good practice that would emerge
rather than providing evidence to address in justice or inequity.
Pragmatic then is the paradigm of best fit. The option of designating the pragmatic paradigm graces
the outcomes with an authenticity that might otherwise be seen as wanting given that the investigative
component is essentially interpretive, based on the subjective construction of the understanding of the
researchers, while the recommendations and tools developed were based on an assumption of a revealed
consistency in the pertinent element of human behaviour. The capacity of the pragmatic paradigm to ac-
commodate conflicting ontologies is why it is suggested in Chapter 1 that it could be seen as something
of a peri-paradigm.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to recognize contributions of the Learning Without Borders project leaders Professor Margaret
Mazzolini, Swinburne University, and Professor Shelley Yeo, Curtin University, and project team mem-
bers Veronica Goerke, Curtin University, Dr Beena Giridharan, Curtin University Sarawak, and Gillian
Lueckenhausen, Swinburne University Sarawak, together with the research assistance of David Hall,
Swinburne University.
REFERENCES
Australian Learning and Teaching Council Limited. (2010). Australian Learning and Teaching Council
Limited. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council Limited.
International Education Association of Australia. (2008). Staffing and professional development. In
Good practice in offshore delivery: A guide for Australian providers. Retrieved from https://aei.gov.au/
About-AEI/OffshoreSupport/Pages/TransnationalEducation.aspx
Ling, P., Mazzolini, M., & Giridharan, B. (2014). Towards post-colonial management of transnational
education. Australian Universities Review, 56(2), 47–55.
Mazzolini, M., Yeo, S., Goerke, V., Lueckenhausen, G., Giridharan, B., & Ling, P. (2012a). Checklist
for recognition and support of leadership in TNE; Additional checklist items for TNE branch campuses;
Checklist for leadership in internationalisation of curriculum. Retrieved from http://tne.curtin.edu.au/
project.html
Mazzolini, M., Yeo, S., Ling, P., Goerke, V., Giridharan, B., & Lueckenhausen, V. (2012b). Transnational
education: Leadership in transnational education and internationalisation of curriculum. Sydney: Office
for Learning and Teaching Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
231

Mazzolini, M., Yeo, S., Ling, P., & Hall, D. (2012). Learning Without Borders: Linking development of
trans-national leadership roles to international and cross-cultural teaching excellence. Sydney: Office
for Learning and Teaching Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
Pyne, C. (2015). Education exports hit a record $17.6 billion. The Department of Education and Train-
ing Media Centre. Retrieved from https://ministers.education.gov.au/pyne/education-exports-hit-record-
176-billion
Vilkinas, T., Leask, B., & Ladyshewsky, R. (2009). Academic leadership: Fundamental building blocks.
Strawberry Hills, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Yeo, S., & Goerke, V. (2011). Transnational education and internationalisation of education professional
development program. Retrieved from http://tne.curtin.edu.au
232
Section 5
Shifting Sands
234
Chapter 14
Paradigm Surfing:
Cross-Disciplinary Education-
Focused Research
Catherine Lang
ABSTRACT
This chapter presents the experiences of a researcher conducting education research in the computing
discipline, and in doing so provides evidence of a journey through several paradigms, hence the chap-
ter title: paradigm surfing. A case-by-case retrospective analysis was conducted on several influential
research projects with reference to the categorization of paradigms presented by Ling and Ling in
Chapter 1 of this book, as well as categorizations presented by other scholars. The chapter provides an
understanding of paradigm shifts influenced by the environment in which the research was conducted,
the purpose of the research and the maturity of the researcher. The reflexive lens used demonstrates how
these developmental research experiences have contributed to a rich understanding of the importance of
paradigms and the nature of interdisciplinary educational research (epistemology). This led to a current
identification with the pragmatic paradigm as the best fit for the author’s axiology.
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the author presents the experiences of a researcher conducting education research in the
computing discipline, and in doing so provides evidence of a journey through several paradigms, hence
the chapter title: paradigm surfing. A retrospective lens is applied to four major research activities that
shaped the career trajectory of the author from school teacher to university academic. The end point of
this twenty-year research journey is acknowledgement of “surfing” through aspects of paradigms such
as neo-positivist and interpretivist paradigms as defined by Ling and Ling in Chapter 1 of this book. The
constructivist paradigm is based on the assumption that reality is socially constructed (Mertens, 2005)
and has led to an identification with the pragmatic paradigm as the best fit for the author’s axiology.
A case-by-case retrospective analysis of the projects was conducted with the objective of providing
the reader with an understanding of the paradigm shifts the author experienced on this research journey,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch014

Paradigm Surfing
while not perhaps understanding the importance of this at the time. In each case the set of assumptions
held at that time (ontology) are presented to demonstrate how these were influenced by the environ-
ment in which the research was undertaken. The axiology, or intent of the researcher in each case was
influenced by the employer, the thesis supervisors as well as intrinsic desire to gain an understanding of
the various issues under investigation. The reflexive lens used demonstrates how research experiences
contribute to the development of a rich understanding of the importance of paradigms and the nature of
interdisciplinary educational research (epistemology).
BACKGROUND TO MY RESEARCH JOURNEY
As a practicing school teacher with ten years’ experience, I gained the opportunity to undertake a
university-based Teaching Fellowship, which was a collaboration with one university and the Depart-
ment of Education in my State. I was released from my school to the university for twelve months and
retained my current school position and salary, not an unimportant consideration for anyone working as
an academic in a university without a higher degree. The year-long secondment involved a commitment
to teach into the undergraduate degree program, interact with university academics to promote smooth
transition of students to higher education, and also undertake a research project related to teaching and
learning.
In my school I was expert in two disciplines, Geography and Information Technology. While I was
passionate about both areas I was aware of the growing importance of Computing and Information Tech-
nology in all aspects of education and business. I had observed that my senior classes were consistently
dominated by male students, and despite my active petitioning to female students, I had little success in
attracting them into the senior computing classes. Serendipitously, in my Teaching Fellowship applica-
tion I proposed a research topic related to gender and computing that caught the attention of the Dean of
the Faculty of Computing, who also was becoming increasingly aware of the gendered skew of students
studying the discipline at university level.
The Teaching Fellowship led to my first taste of a research project beyond that of the student proj-
ects that were part of the final year school assessment in the subjects I taught. For example, in senior
Geography this involved a systems approach to investigating inputs to a system, studying and evaluating
processes within the system, and their subsequent effects on the outputs. In the Information Technol-
ogy discipline the students investigated a current computing system or business process to evaluate its
effectiveness in achieving the desired outputs and suggest ways it could be improved.
The Fellowship opportunity allowed me to explore research paradigms beyond the practical applica-
tions of a secondary school teacher across two disciplines. It also allowed me the time to realize that I
enjoyed the research process and this developed into a desire to continue with the project and complete
a Master’s degree in the topic of gender and computing.
Example 1: Cross-Cultural Investigation into Gender Imbalance in Computing
This first major research project undertaken in my Master of Education (Research) degree was a cross-
cultural investigation into the gender imbalance in the computing discipline. It was cross-cultural in that
the university where I was working taught programs in Singapore and in Australia and this provided
the cohort of students for the investigation. There were seven principal questions posed in this research
235

Paradigm Surfing
related to schooling, social and cultural factors that were identified in the literature as influences of fe-
male student choices to study computing. The structure of the thesis grew from my Teaching Fellowship
experience, and was guided by the initial first supervisor, a Professor in Education who specialized in
physics and science. Under his guidance I posed an experimental hypothesis based on my preliminary
reading and an analysis of enrollment statistics, which was:
Girls are not choosing computing career paths because of preconceived ideas about the field that are
influenced by schooling, social and cultural factors. (Lang, 1999)
I then refined this after a larger literature review attributing the hypothesis to a social constructionist
interpretation of society, particularly the development of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Reeve, 1996;
Zimmerman, 1995).
I created a table of research variables defining constants, independent and intervening variables.
This is clearly a scientific approach of a social phenomenon. Data were gathered through an extensive
questionnaire that was constructed to collect qualitative and quantitative responses. The questionnaire
data were triangulated with interviews with professional women in computing as well as undergraduates
who volunteered to provide a deeper insight into their background. A rich data set of 25 interviews and
550 surveys was the result.
At this point of the research I re-classified the experimental hypothesis into a series of nine sub-
hypotheses, with three related to curriculum factors, three to social factors, and three to cultural factors,
each to be tested by the survey and interview responses.
My epistemology when framing the inquiry and the associated ontology of assumptions enables a
paradigm to be retrofitted. I was able to read my Research Method chapter in the thesis and consider the
definitions provided related to paradigms. This methodology partly positions the research project in the
neo-positivist paradigm; however, the word paradigm was not mentioned at all, either in the thesis or in
my recollection of discussions. The ontological position was that I was seeking to explain a phenomenon
through proving or disproving a hypothesis based on my knowledge and value position. I was seeking
a consistent and ordered reality of a social phenomenon and a deeper understanding of the issues that
attracted more Singaporean women to the computing discipline than Australian women. It was deductive
in its outcome where a conclusion was drawn from a set of hypothesis. I was looking for correlations;
connections between factors that, while they may have existed, may not have had influence on each other.
Tests of statistical significance were employed to determine the validity or otherwise of each of the
hypotheses. I had Likert responses from three groups; Australian University undergraduates, Singaporean
University undergraduates, and secondary school students. I conducted a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and a Sheffe Post Hoc analysis on each of these datasets. Hypotheses were then stated as
Rejected or Supported dependent on the level of significance being likely or unlikely to have happened
by chance. I was strongly guided by my supervisor to construct and interpret these tests and produced
the following conclusion:
The general hypothesis that girls are not choosing computing courses at university because of preconceived
ideas about the field that are influenced by schooling, social and cultural factors can be attributed to
the social constructionist interpretation of society. Social constructionists believe that individuals learn
how to behave and be accepted by society from their families and social groups (Beall & Sternberg,
236

Paradigm Surfing
1993). This in turn affects fields of interest and therefore career choices. The influence of schooling
based factors further impacts on these choices. (Lang, 1999)
The thesis examiners were critical of aspects of this study that I believe now reflect my naivety as
a researcher. However, the method of using hypotheses is not the issue, only that the hypotheses were
refined during the thesis. One examiner suggested that it may be a conceptual problem in the research
process and wrote: “It is tautological to use the data to develop the hypotheses and to also use the data
to test those hypotheses,” however this was a reporting problem and indeed the general hypothesis that
had developed from the literature review had remained consistent throughout with some sub-hypotheses
being added for clarity later. The thesis was passed with a Distinction grade after some minor edits.
In this example of my first major research exercise my view of reality at the time (ontology) was that
there was a provable explanation for why some female students were attracted to computing and some
were not. My axiology was to gain an understanding through questionnaires and surveys influenced by
my fallible position. The epistemology was an evidenced and authentic understanding that was con-
textual using quasi-scientific triangulation tools. Each of these elements can be seen as fitting with the
neo-positivist paradigm deductive approach, i.e. quasi scientific and testing of null hypothesis (Chapter
1). Looking for causality from correlations is a huge leap of faith and now, on reflection, I believe is a
flaw in the methodology employed.
Example 2: Looking Beyond Female Students
The grounding of a research Master’s degree stood me in good stead to leave secondary teaching and
take up an academic role in a computing faculty at a technical university. They were obviously interested
in my gender and education experiences; however, the appointment was conditional on me completing
a doctorate. I considered many areas of investigation in the teaching and learning space, however was
still drawn to the underrepresentation of women in the computing discipline and was keen to expand
the topic of my Master’s research to include male and female students. This led to a broader investiga-
tion into factors that influence student course and career choices, with a particular focus on computing.
At this stage of my research career I aligned to a constructivist approach, now defined within the
ontology of interpretivist by Ling and Ling in Chapter 1 of this book. I believed the purpose of research
was to investigate and construct meaning from a known phenomenon. My PhD research employed
qualitative methodologies, but included quantitative aspects in the data collection and publication of
data for the following reason.
In my first compulsory presentation to the computing faculty my thesis supervisor, a Professor in
Education, noticed the audience sit up and pay attention when I put graphs on the screen showing the
steady decline of female student uptake of computing courses and degrees over the last ten years. We dis-
cussed his observations and decided that this was a good strategy to gain attention for my research, given
the cross discipline nature of the study. His argument was that my audience in the computing discipline
was strongly aligned to the positivist paradigm and were most familiar with quantitative presentations
that manipulated numbers, graphs testing effects, and computer code. Using statistical data in graph or
chart format, with lines and arrows showing a decline in enrollments, completions, graduating students
and course choices of students according to gender I quickly gained their attention. It is important to
note that student numbers are essential to the continuation of a discipline in the university. These data
were easily accessible on government and university websites.
237

Paradigm Surfing
While the rest of my thesis was interpretivist in that I applied interpretation to understand social
constructions, I employed a mixed-methods approach to my research and maintained the format of a
quantitative introduction for many years. This allowed me to gain the attention of the majority of the
audience, then focus on the richer data and the exploration of reasons behind the pattern of declining
enrolments and interest.
The research question that defined my PhD thesis was: “How do adolescents form attitudes to Infor-
mation Technology (IT) that may influence their study and career choices?” This second major project
in my career trajectory followed a more traditional research structure. The research question was posed,
then the literature was explored. There was a need to investigate self-efficacy and career-choice litera-
ture as well as the emerging theories related to women in IT. I discovered that much of the women in IT
literature was atomistic and atheoretical, grounded in practical problems and localized in nature, and my
aim was to contribute to the knowledge base related to this issue. My paradigm was neo-positivist and
inductive in application. I believed I was filling a gap in the knowledge on the basis of the investigation.
The research question was broken down in to several sub-questions starting with a general question: What
factors influence student course and career choices?, leading to the more specific question: Are there
discipline specific factors that act as detractors or attractors to the discipline? I concentrated on gender
differences in the responses. The data were collected from female and male students at three different
levels of their secondary schooling, and then university students who had enrolled in a computing degree.
I was aiming to determine if there were specific factors that attracted one gender more than another, and
indeed, if there were factors related to IT that acted as detractors to female students.
There is no mention of paradigm in my thesis. There is a justification to use qualitative methods to
“investigate and explore reasons and factors that influenced decisions about courses and careers” (Lang,
2010, p. 70) and “to obtain the most appropriate data to respond to the research question” (Lang, 2010).
Retrofitting this study to the paradigm model I can see that it sits across the neo-positivist in the
inductive mode and the interpretivist space. The ontology is based on the local environment, subject to
change, yet also influenced by the desire to gain an understanding of the research problem that appeared
to be socially constructed.
My axiology was driven by a mix of intrinsic motivations. I was in pursuit of a stronger theoretical
understanding of the gender imbalance in the discipline in which I worked. There was a pattern of en-
rolment attractors and detractors that I had witnessed and was keen to know more about. The approach
used and the research question posed determined the tools (surveys, focus groups and interviews). The
analysis was thematic and the outcome provided a localized evidence-based conclusion that, while not
generalizable, added to the body of knowledge in this discipline (epistemology). I wrote:
In the course of this investigation it was concluded that much of the existing “Women in IT” research
centred on what had been labelled the “deficit model”. The assumption that there is a deficit in the
knowledge of young women and that they are not choosing IT because they are unaware of it. In the
process of this research further concerns were voiced that the discipline is not only not attracting young
women, but also not perceived as attractive to many young men; the “Y” generation. (Lang, 2010, p. 200)
In the course of this project, which lasted 6 years, my thesis supervisors had provided me with good
advice related to mixed methods, which I was comfortable adopting. I also learned a great deal about
rich data collection and interview techniques as well as how to conduct focus groups. I learnt to guide
conversations and listen. It was fortunate that I was able to use digital recording because the importance
238

Paradigm Surfing
of re-listening was invaluable. The data were analyzed through thematic analysis and followed up with
many discussions with my supervisors. In fact, in the true purpose of doctoral research, I believe I
learned the craft of research. I came to feel comfortable and competent in the constructivist/interpretiv-
ist paradigm, despite not naming it.
Example 3: Paradigmatic Competition: The Servant of Two Masters
A few years into my academic career in the Faculty of Computing, I was successful in gaining a rea-
sonably large strategic initiative grant in collaboration with two colleagues, an Information Systems
specialist, and the other a Social Scientist with a good deal of experience in gender research and gender
politics. The university and Faculty were concerned about the gender imbalance in computing courses
and the successful grant pitch was focused on this phenomenon, for example we wrote that the “Women
in Information Technology” (WIT) project would provide a timely and strategic vehicle for understand-
ing the educational and economic challenge to IT courses at the university. The proposal for a three-year
research budget was strongly founded on a similar successful intervention program in the USA, and
deliberately appealed to the economic and marketing aspects of a modern university: “The University
will benefit both educationally and financially through the development of research and intervention
programs in the gender and IT field designed to deliver students and market branding to the university”
(Lang, 2010). Student diversity and overall enrolment numbers were, and still are, critical to survival
of a Faculty of School. While ten years ago gender was clearly an issue in computing, in 2014 this is
more recognisable as the T for Technology component of the push to get more students into STEM in
Australian high schools, for example:
Around 40 per cent of our Year 7 to 10 mathematics classes are taught without a qualified mathemat-
ics teacher. While Australia’s absolute performance in school-level scientific literacy has remained
unchanged, our relative performance has slipped… Australian schools also show a decline in the rates
of participation in “science” subjects to the lowest level in 20 years. (Science, Technology, Engineering
and Maths). (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014, p. 11)
The paradigm of the research was not discussed within the group, but the proposal wording dem-
onstrates that the program sits partly in the transformative paradigm and partly with constructivist/
interpretivist approaches. For example, the selection and interpretation of the reality was determined
by the researchers (ontology). We were all firmly embedded in qualitative methodologies and practices
coming from Education, Social Science and the Information Systems disciplines. In fact, there were
many discussions around the advantage of qualitative methodologies used in Information Systems over
the quantitative methodologies used in computer science. We clearly saw the under-representation of
women in computing as an issue that had an impact on society in general. We had the experience of
male colleagues questioning the point of this education research, demonstrating a lack of interest in the
gender breakdown of their students and only concerned with getting good students. By deduction the
assumption was that the best were always male. This was not a limited or isolated view. In fact, one Dean
in the USA received worldwide media coverage and condemnation about statements when he ascribed
a reason for few women in I.T. to “issues of intrinsic aptitude” (Jaschik, 2005).
The axiological drivers of this research project were political, economic and social. The internal
politics of the university and fight for positions of power was strongly aligned to the number of students
239

Paradigm Surfing
in each Faculty, regardless of gender. As a woman in computing I embraced my role as marketer of

the career to others. The economic agenda was that it was a hugely lucrative career path and the three
researchers were committed to ensuring that female students, the minority gender, were supported in
accessing this future economic security. The social agenda was strongly intertwined with issues around
power and politics that continue today. We believed that women need to be at the table where decisions
are made and have an equal voice in decisions about technology (Sandberg, 2013, p. 82) and this was a
strong driver. The politics within the university were important also, because a technological university
needed to support gender diversity, and the resultant Women in IT Club was seen as a good positioning
tool in a competitive student market, promoted at University Open Days and other events.
Our epistemology was perhaps naive. We still believed that women were not studying computing
because of a lack of knowledge about the discipline, because the broader range of computing fields were
not widely understood. It was apparent that the media focus was often on the technical coding aspects and
rarely the socially supportive aspects. We thought that widening this knowledge, including the creative
and business importance of computing careers, would help dispel the perception of it being a career for
men and not a career for women. We were also focused on supporting and retaining our current female
students and promoted them as ambassadors for the discipline in the wider community.
In this three-year research project we undertook a survey of all first year students to get an understand-
ing of their perceived IT competency and interests. We analyzed results based on gender. We conducted
and reported on an audit of student performance in each of the core subjects according to the technical
level of the subject (some were strictly coding and some were socio-cultural), the gender of the student,
the proportion of females in each subject and the gender of the teaching faculty. We embraced nascent
theory in the literature of women needing to feel welcome and part of the group when they are a minority
in a discipline. We provided lunchtime events to connect them with each other, female staff members,
alumni and professional women. We embraced social media and were the first group to have a Facebook
presence in the university.
At the end of the three-year project, as well as a number of research papers and presentations to teach-
ers and the wider community, the final reporting process to the Dean of the Faculty included a series of
recommendations to transform the culture of the Faculty as the structure of some of the degrees offered.
For example, to support and empower current female students we suggested that they continue with
their own student society. This society would run regular events to offer support to understanding issues
associated with being a minority in a traditional male environment and provide strategies to manage dif-
ferent approaches to learning. More importantly we suggested that a “Diversity in ICT elective unit” be
offered to all students. The aims and objectives of this unit were to allow all students access to a better
understanding of the nature of the gender disparity in ICT. We proposed that as graduates they would
be more aware of this issue and become evangelists for diversity in IT. In addition, the gender focused
audit of the student results in core subjects led to recommendations for a transition subject for those
new to programming, especially those taking programming units in their first semester. The importance
of all academics having teaching qualifications, especially those teaching technical and programming
subjects, was stressed. We recommended changes in types of assessment offered to include creative and
collaborative open assessments more than closed examination and test assessments. There was also recom-
mendation to reassess the order of subjects; particularly not to offer Java programming in first semester.
In making these recommendations we understood the need for suggested changes to be non-threatening
to our colleagues and our final recommendation was to consult with all Faculty committees first.
240

Paradigm Surfing
The final reports and presentations to senior Faculty created a polemic. Our evidence was rejected
due to the lack of “statistical significance” in our data. The arguments for quantitative over qualitative
in the Faculty were strong and the positivists were those in the position of power. The events we recom-
mended continued to function, and were often funded through grants, however the Faculty did not make
a commitment to financially support the activities. As is often the case with women in computing, the
minority gender drove the program (students and faculty). The proposed structural changes were ignored.
There was no diversity elective unit introduced, no restructure of assessment types, no introduction of
a transition unit, and no change to the order of subject or staffing of subjects.
This project greatly influenced my professional life. I was disheartened that we were only able to
effect what I considered cosmetic changes and not the transformational changes in the Faculty programs
and delivery method that we had recommended. The result was that I became more focused on pursuing
my research agenda in the politically charged computing environment.
Example 4: Paradigmatic Understanding: Digital Divas Club
The fourth and final example I present was a project positioned between three universities. The research
team consisted of Information Systems and Education academics, two of whom were ex-high school
mathematics teachers. The seed for this school based project was sown when I met UK researchers while
gathering data for my PhD. I had implemented a trial of their program in one school in Australia prior
to contacting research colleagues and driving the Australian Research Council (ARC) grant application
process. The under-representation of women in computing was still widely recognized as an issue in
education and society, and this timely grant application was successful and gained ARC grant funding
for three years from 2009. We positioned our research as “the first longer-term, multi-layered interven-
tion program in Australia exploring curriculum-based strategies to address both girls’ lack of interest
in studying IT at school and the stereotypical representations of IT careers” (Fisher, Lang, Craig, &
Forgasz, 2015, p. 3): a claim that is yet to be refuted.
In the preparation meetings with research colleagues, for the first time in my research history, the
research paradigm was discussed and debated. We considered whether our proposed research sat within
what is classed in this book as the neo-positivist paradigm; arriving at an understanding that would fill
a gap in knowledge. This position was influenced by the literature; for example, Wacjman (2000) stated
that while it is difficult to combat entrenched societal perceptions around the gendered image of tech-
nology, it is not impossible. We all believed that the gendered nature of the computing discipline was a
social construction and therefore could be changed. Our position was also influenced by Cornelliussen
(2005) who demonstrated that the societal expectation that males will have more interest and be fasci-
nated by the technology than females can be overturned when the curricula is delivered differently. In
her study, when core aspects of the IT curricula were moved from the Sciences to the Social Sciences,
both genders embraced the technology. Furthermore, Robinson and Davies (2007) suggested that he-
gemonic discourses of identity, gender, class, and ethnicity influenced the perceptions and landscapes
of students and that these constructions contributed to girls’ ambivalence to ICT. We believed that we
could construct an intervention that disrupted the formation of stereotypes associated with the discipline
in the early years of secondary schooling.
However, our research was situated in both the Information Systems and Education domains and
after discussions related to the research design and methodological stance, we changed our paradigmatic
241

Paradigm Surfing
position, all agreeing it was clearly in the interpretivist paradigm. This decision was also influenced by
the literature, for example, as presented in our final publication:
we focused on people and the “social world” rather than the natural world (Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2011).
We did not set out to test hypotheses or expect our findings to be replicable as is common with positivist
research (Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2011; Shanks, 2002). We were not independent of the phenomenon being
investigated; we were closely involved with the schools, the teachers, the Expert Divas, and the girls
themselves. Interpretivist research approaches are particularly valid when looking at rich phenomena
that cannot be easily describes or explained by existing concepts or theories (Walsham, 1995). (Fisher,
Lang, Craig, & Forgasz, 2015, p. 32-33)
Grounding our research in the interpretivist paradigm provided us with a clear direction. The paradigm
influenced the methodological stance that enabled us to explore, inquire, measure and disturb a social
phenomenon. By adopting the mixed-methods approach to the project we were able to gain a depth of
understanding of the complex question of why girls are or are not interested in studying IT.
The ontology of the Digital Divas project was to find what works and add to a current understand-
ing of what influences female student perception and adoption of IT. Our axiology was to provide an
evidenced-based understanding to assist in transforming an existing situation. We were driven by the need
to interpret the current phenomenon and construct a deeper understanding of the many faceted issue of
the masculinization of this discipline. In this aspect our research could be classed as transformative. The
intent was to develop curricula that could be replicated and used in schools that was evidenced based, as
well as to demonstrate practical outcomes such as a growth in the numbers of girls in IT classes.
PhD Supervision Experience
The Digital Divas project was also funded to support a PhD scholarship and through this I had my first
experience of supervising a doctoral student to completion. A greater understanding of the importance
of the paradigm enabled me to guide and influence this student’s research journey.
The doctoral research investigated the wider community perception of the Digital Divas (DD) program
and the student decided that this research was a better fit to the relatively new pragmatic paradigm. The
decision was influenced by the work of Morgan (2007) and Bryman (2007). The student argued that the
pragmatic paradigm “provided the best foundation to use both quantitative and qualitative approaches”
and was a better fit because it:
Emphasised shared meanings, joint actions and the utility of research… As this thesis is part of the wider
DD program, a pragmatic approach has been taken in that the theoretical framework and method used
by the DD program were adopted. (McLeod, 2014, p. 78)
I draw attention to this as an example of the fluidity of the paradigm landscape. The experience of
doctoral supervision led me to consider the pragmatic paradigm in more detail and has influenced my
current predilection to this paradigm, which will be explained in more detail in the next section.
242

Paradigm Surfing
SURFING THROUGH THE PARADIGMS
I have selected these four research projects to best demonstrate the journey of my research and highlight
the benefit of understanding paradigms when planning research. I suspect many new researchers may
have a similar journey and perhaps not find their best fit until they have experienced several projects and
worked with different project teams. The four projects are summarized in Table 1.
As Table 1 shows, I have sampled several paradigms in my research journey leading to my world
view to produce evidenced solutions to societal issues, in these cases the under-representation of women
in computing.
The methodology of each project has been influenced by the paradigm. I have not returned to the
neo-positive hypothesis testing methodology since my first major project, however have used mixed-
methods continually. As previously stated in this chapter, statistics and trends are particularly important
in gaining the attention of computing colleagues when reporting on the social construction of computing
as a male career path. Quantitative methods were used in the final two projects to indicate percentages
and trends. In particular analysis of variances was considered to be important when comparing groups,
but mainly to position a deeper investigation of why an intervention was successful in one situation more
than another. In the Digital Divas project being able to demonstrate a statistically significant change in
students’ perception of IT being a career for both genders helped the project gain national and interna-
tional research attention.
I identify now with the pragmatic paradigm as my research continues and moves into the teacher edu-
cation field. This is where I feel my research has the greatest value. My axiology is to make a difference
by improving understanding, delivery, or approach to a known or observed phenomenon by providing
evidence-based solutions to issues or phenomena. However, I have a degree of subjectivity in each of
my projects so lean to the interpretivist approach in contributing to the understanding of a phenomenon.
Table 1. Surfing through the paradigms summary
Paradigm Ontology Axiology Epistemology

An evidenced and authentic
Master of Education Research: A provable explanation Gain an understanding, looking
understanding that was
Neo-positive. existed. for causality from correlations.
contextualized.
Adding to the body of
Intrinsic motivation to
Focused on the local knowledge by drawing on the
PhD research: understand a phenomenon.
environment and subject theories of self-efficacy and
Neo-positivist (inductive)/interpretivist. Extrinsic to gain higher
to change. student choice in the Women
qualification for employment.
in Computing domain.
Transform understanding and
Interpretation of the Social, economic and political
Strategic Initiative Grant: positioning of IT discipline
reality determined by drivers within a university
Interpretivist/transformative. to both genders by enabling
researchers. environment.
inclusivity.
Add to current
Contribute to the knowledge
understanding of best
Disrupt the stereotypes around of how appropriate curricula
ARC Grant: practice curriculum and
the masculinization of the IT and learning environments
Interpretivist. learning environments
discipline. influence student IT
in junior and middle
confidence and capability.
schools.
243

Paradigm Surfing
In presenting my journey I aimed to demonstrate the power of the paradigm and its impact on all other
aspects of my research design and implementation, whether or not it was actually articulated overtly.
It has taken time, mistakes and a degree of research maturity to determine my best paradigm fit. This
has given me a better understanding of my axiological stance when I conduct research. In writing this
chapter I hope that others will identify with some aspects of the journey and in doing so gain a greater
understanding of how they position their own research in the paradigm. Sometimes this can only be
achieved by surfing through a few of them to find the paradigm that best fits your own worldview, to
find your personal research position.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.
Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). The psychology of gender. New York: Guilford Press.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Meth-
ods Research, 1(1), 8–22. doi:10.1177/2345678906290531
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2011). On Methods, Methodologies and how they Matter. Paper presented at
ECIS, Helsinki, Finland.
Corneliussen, H. (2005). Women’s pleasure in computing. Enfield, UK: Middlesex University Press.
Fisher, J., Lang, C., Craig, A., & Forgasz, H. (2015). Digital Divas: Putting the wow into computing for
girls. Clayton, Australia: Monash University Publishing.
Jaschik, S. (2005). What Larry Summers said. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/
news/2005/02/18/summers2_18
Lang, C. (1999). Factors accounting for the gender imbalance in computing degree enrolments [Unpub-
lished Master of Education thesis]. Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Lang, C. (2010). Why IT rarely enters students’ schematic repertoire of future careers. A gendered
analysis of student course and career choices related to IT in the 21st Century. Saarbrucken, Germany:
VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG.
McLeod, A. B. (2014). Community attitudes and an ICT intervention program for school girls [Unpub-
lished Doctor of Philosophy thesis]. Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of
combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.
doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Australia’s
future. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
244

Paradigm Surfing
Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Robinson, K., & Davies, C. (2007). Boy nerds, girl nerds: Constituting and negotiating. Computing
and Information Technologies and peer groups as gendered subjects in schooling. Altona, Australia:
Common Ground Publishing.
Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work and the will to lead. London: WH Allen.
Shanks, G. (2002). Issues in positivist, single case study research in Information Systems. In S. Gregor
& D. Hart (Eds.), Information Systems foundations: Building the theoretical base (pp. 61–72). Canberra,
Australia: Australian National University.
Wajcman, J. (2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is the art? Social Stud-
ies of Science, 30(3), 447–464. doi:10.1177/030631200030003005
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of
Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81. doi:10.1057/ejis.1995.9
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy
in changing societies (pp. 202–231). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527692.009
245
246
Chapter 15
Researching the Learning
and Teaching of Writing:
A Retrospective Analysis of
Paradigms Employed
Noella Mackenzie
Charles Sturt University, Australia
ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author reflects on a research journey and the conscious and subconscious application
of paradigms to research design. The chapter is focused on research conducted in her role as research
and teaching academic in the area of literacy learning and teaching. Through the retrospective analysis
of a particular program of research the author concludes that it may not be necessary to articulate a
paradigm in the design stages of research to be strongly guided by that paradigm. The author contends
that a researcher’s theoretical orientation and worldviews about how research should be enacted may
be the key to paradigm “choice.” However, not all researchers have the luxury of determining how and
what they will research, nor the paradigms or methods to be applied, in the world of competitive grants,
commissioned research and multiple research agendas.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a retrospective reflection on the research paradigms that informed some of the
research carried out by the author, as an academic researcher with a particular interest in literacy learn-
ing and teaching. While it is contended in the preface that “being clear about the paradigm in which the
research is conducted is critical in ensuring all elements of the research exercise are congruent” (2016),
the author of this chapter will argue that the way a researcher subconsciously understands the world,
and how research should be carried out, may mean that a research project can follow the parameters of
a particular paradigm without the paradigm having been explicitly named in the original study design.
The program of research discussed in this chapter operated between 2007 and 2014. The research
involved multiple projects over the seven years. The author of this chapter was chief investigator for all
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch015

Researching the Learning and Teaching of Writing
projects; some that were single researcher projects and others that involved a team of researchers. The
contexts for the projects were early childhood centers, preschools and/or primary schools in New South
Wales and Victoria, two of the most populated states in Australia. The common link across the projects
was their focus on understanding the learning and teaching of young writers. The projects examined
what happens in the year before children start school (preschool) and the first two years of primary
school from the perspectives of children and their teachers. While each of the projects will be discussed
more fully later in the chapter, they are introduced briefly at this point in Table 1. It is these projects that
provide the “data” for the chapter and its discussion of the place and power of the research paradigm.
The first five projects to be discussed built on one another with each informing those that followed.
The first, Writing in the First Year of School, was designed to find out “what was out there” and fits quite
comfortably into the interpretivist paradigm as described in Chapter 1, Table 1. The four phases of the
Becoming a Writer research program came about as a result of the findings of the Writing in the First
Year of School study. While the interpretivist paradigm informed three of the four Becoming a Writer
studies, it will be argued that Becoming a Writer Phase 3 (study 4) drew on earlier findings and aligns
more comfortably with the pragmatic paradigm, although some may suggest it could also be aligned
with the transformative paradigm. The final project to be discussed, Year One Writing, is described as
interpretivist, although the process of analysis involved the development of an analysis tool that was
then applied to the data statistically. In this instance, the outcomes of the statistical analysis elaborated
and enriched the study findings.
The author’s background and experiences help to explain the approach to research and research
paradigms. The teaching and learning of writing is explained, as each of the research projects central to
this chapter focus on this topic. The literature focused on literacy in the 21st century, the ways success
with literacy is measured, and the learning and teaching of writing specifically. This literature will assist
the reader to understand the projects, and therefore their paradigms, ontology, axiology drivers, episte-
Table 1. Overview of studies informing the chapter
Study Study Title and Brief Description

Writing in the First Year of School: The collection and analysis of 337 writing/drawing samples from kindergarten classrooms
1. (first year of school, children aged between four years, six months and six years at the start of the year) across New South
Wales (NSW). The purpose was to establish the current status of writing in kindergarten classrooms.
Becoming a Writer Phase 1: Case studies of nine children from three kindergarten classrooms in different schools. Focus on
2.
the teaching and learning of writing.
Becoming a Writer Phase 2: A survey of 228 Foundation Year teachers provided three different forms of data: demographic
3. information, responses to questions using a 5-point Likert scale, and open-ended responses to a sample of early writing
provided by a student in the fifth week of school.
Becoming a Writer Phase 3: A case study of 60 students, in kindergarten, and their teachers. Teacher participants were
4. volunteers who agreed to implement intervention over the first six months of kindergarten, which focused on encouraging
children to draw and talk as a way of supporting their early attempts to write.
Becoming a Writer Phase 4: Interviews conducted with 23 preschool teachers based at not-for-profit preschools of Early
5. Childhood Centres from Victoria and NSW. The purpose was to discover how children’s experimentation with drawing and
writing was encouraged and supported within the preschool context, in the year before they started school.
Year One Writing: Collection and analysis of writing samples from year one children at the middle and end of the school year.
6. The purpose was to establish what mainstream grade one children’s writing looks like in the second half of year one. (N.B.
Year one is the second year of school in Australian schools)
247

mological stance and outcomes. Following the literature review there is a discussion of the contexts for
the projects with a brief description of each. A retrospective discussion of the paradigms informing the
projects follows. A conclusion completes the chapter.
BACKGROUND
The Researcher and the Research
The author’s career began as a classroom teacher with the qualification, Diploma of Education (Early
Childhood). Although these qualifications allowed her to work in schools and early childhood settings,
she stayed within schools and initially taught children who were in the first three years of their formal
schooling (4 years 6 months - 8 years). She later moved on to teach children in the primary years (8-12
years). After twelve years in the classroom, she returned to study and a new role in teacher professional
development. Over the next fourteen years she worked as an education consultant with a specific focus
on providing professional development to practising teachers. The professional development focused on
literacy learning in the early years of school and early intervention. The author was introduced to research
paradigms during post-graduate study, while her interest in the teaching and learning of writing came
about through her work in classrooms and with teachers, prior to becoming an academic in a university.
The personal worldview of the author as a researcher can best be understood in terms of the social
nature of research conducted. The researcher is driven, through the research process, to understand
phenomena rather than influence phenomena. When studying, the author had a particular interest in
understanding the work of teachers. Working within an interpretivist paradigm was therefore an easy
fit for the researcher. While the projects that follow also included children, a driver for the researcher
continued to be the understanding of teaching and learning processes. In the studies that follow, only
one involves an interventionist element. The author has, however, used the findings of various research
studies to endeavor to influence phenomena related to both teachers and learners.
Background to, and Rationale for, the Studies to Be Discussed
The author, engaged as a Lecturer in Literacy Studies, chose to explore early writing because of anecdotal
evidence gathered during her professional experiences as a teacher and education consultant. Discus-
sions with teachers often centered on their need to understand more about how to teach young writers.
Teachers would say that they were more comfortable teaching reading than teaching writing but also that
they sometimes found that the two processes were reciprocal. Teachers suggested that the children they
worked with who were good at writing were often also good at reading, but that this did not always work
in reverse. They referred to children who were successful with reading but had problems with writing.
Teachers also claimed that they lacked confidence in their ability to teach writing to many of the children
in their classes. The author had enjoyed teaching writing, but a lot of what she had done was based on
professional instincts and experience, rather than a deep understanding of the theories behind this area
of literacy. She suspected that getting off to a good start with writing was important for success with
school and life opportunities. While she could share her experiences and instincts with the teachers and
university students she was working with, she could not back it up with her own research and a search
of the literature had confirmed her suspicions that there was much less early writing research than early
248

reading research. Understandings of literacy or literacies had also been changing throughout her career
and the way that success in literacy learning was being measured had shifted following the introduction
of external accountability measures managed by the government. A brief literature review addressing
these issues contextualizes the studies under examination.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literacy in the 21st Century
Language is used to construct and share meaning and involves a system of symbols and signs (semiotics).
Language is also a social practice determined by the social contexts, situations and needs of a community.
Language is therefore culture or context specific with rules that differ across communities. Moreover,
language is central to literacy. Literacy was once understood as the ability to read and write print-based
texts, although as early as 1983, Garth Boomer proposed that literacy was more complex and context
specific than previously understood; literacy in one context does not ensure literacy in another. Accord-
ing to Boomer, “it is more accurate to think of a multiplicity of ‘literacies’ than to speak of a unitary
achievement called ‘literacy’” (1983, p. 595). The term New Literacies was introduced to the literacy
discourse in the late 20th century by The New London Group, combining letters, symbols, colors, sounds
and graphics to extend our understanding of language and the ways we communicate. In 2000, Luke,
Freebody and Land argued that literacy should be considered as the “flexible and sustainable mastery
of a repertoire of practices with texts of traditional and new communications technologies via spoken
language, print and multimedia” (p. 20). Following on from these contemporary understandings of lit-
eracy, in 2009, Wing Jan defined a literate person as someone with “the skills and knowledge to create,
locate, analyse, comprehend and use a variety of written, visual, aural and multi-modal texts for a range
of purposes, audiences and contexts” (p. 3). The term multiliteracies was introduced by Kalantzis and
Cope (2012) to describe literacies involving “multimodality, where written-linguistic modes of meaning
interface with oral, visual, audio, gestural, tactile and spatial patterns of meaning” (2012, p. 2). They
also discussed multiliteracies in terms of multiple contexts; for example, community setting, social role,
interpersonal relations, identity, subject matter etc. (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012, p. 2). Language and literacy
continue to evolve in order to meet the needs of a changing society and the technologies that afford both
language and literacy. In parallel to our growing understandings of the complexities of language and
literacy, has been a shift in the way that children’s literacy learning is measured that is quite puzzling.
Measuring Success in Literacy Learning
High Stakes testing was introduced into Australian schools in 2008 in the form of the National Assessment
Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), managed by the Australian Curriculum and Reporting
Authority (ACARA, 2010). This “placed a new layer of accountability on teachers and a new emphasis
on measurable outcomes in school reporting” (Mackenzie, 2014, p. 182). At the same time, what happens
in schools became more visible to the community through the introduction of “My School” websites in
2010 (ACARA, 2010). Where once teachers and schools managed their own systems of monitoring chil-
dren’s progress in ways similar to countries like Finland, now the process is designed and administered
by a government department (ACARA), and data are shared with the community via annual reports,
249

“My School” websites and individual student reports. While the first of the NAPLAN tests does not
take place until students are in grade three “anecdotal evidence … suggests that the pressure on teach-
ers begins as soon as children start school” (Mackenzie, 2014, p. 182). What is tested influences what
is taught, with Wohlwend arguing that high stakes testing in schools leads to “an emphasis on correct-
ness of form” (2008, p. 43). The testing of literacy in the NAPLAN tests emphasizes traditional, rather
than contemporary, understandings of literacy. This phenomenon has also been reported in the United
Kingdom (Coates & Coates, 2006), and the United States of America (Genishi & Dyson, 2009; Hassett,
2008). We therefore come to a situation of conflict created by contemporary understandings of what it
means to be literate, and an accountability agenda that encourages a focus on traditional understandings
of literacy. This creates the backdrop for the discussion of writing and the research projects that follow.
Learning to Write
Writing is about meaning making. Writing involves making visual marks on a surface of some kind
(e.g. paper or screen) using some kind of tool (Olson, 2009). Being able to write well impacts a child’s
success in school, and life generally. Written texts are different to spoken texts. While the systems are
complementary, they have different systems of organization and grammar. Writing also has a much
shorter history than spoken language. Through writing, humans record and communicate their ideas,
feelings, reflections, theories, stories, discoveries, history, knowledge, laws etc. of a culture. Different
cultures have different systems for writing; many are based on an alphabetic system (e.g. English) while
others follow logographic or ideographic principles and processes (e.g. Chinese). All writing systems
grow and change over time to reflect the changing needs of society and in response to advances in tech-
nology. While a language such as English has common structures, there are variations of English that
apply varied processes in both spoken and written texts (e.g. differences between English in England,
the United States of America, Canada and Australia). Likewise, although the English language is based
upon an alphabetic system, it is not phonetically regular in the way some languages are (e.g. Finnish
and Italian) having been heavily influenced by other languages (e.g. Latin, German, Greek and French).
Learning to write is complex and requires the interaction of cognitive and psychomotor processes,
involving the eye, hand and both sides of the brain (Bromley, 2007) within the restrictions of a culturally
determined set of conventions. In order to learn to write in an acceptable way, children are required to
move from a creative, non-rule driven process of sign creation (e.g. drawing) to a process of sign use
(Vygotsky, 1997) that is complex, with rules determined by the conventions of the written language be-
ing learned. Sign creation and use are explained by Vygotsky (1997) as distinguishing features of human
behavior. In Australia the shift from sign creation to sign use usually begins in the first year of school,
although some children may engage in conventional writing processes sooner and others later. Being
able to write in a conventional manner requires the management of both authorial dimensions of writ-
ing (text structure, sentence level grammar and vocabulary use) and secretarial or editorial dimensions
(spelling, punctuation use and handwriting). The complexity of learning to write is further impacted by
the shifting sands of our understandings of literacy or literacies, as discussed earlier.
Most children begin experimenting with mark making tools and exploring sign creation processes
long before starting school. However, their opportunities to experiment are impacted by their personal
context, which is in turn impacted by the cultural context of the family. Some children have strong role
models and access to multiple opportunities and tools that support their experimentation. Others do not.
Access to modern and sophisticated technology also influences children’s writing models and opportuni-
250

ties. In some homes, smart phones, tablets and computers have replaced pens and pencils, while in other
homes there continues to be a mix. If children “see an advantage in being able to write, they will apply
the same focused attention to learning how to write that they applied to learning to be oral language
users” (Mackenzie, 2010, p. 30), although “wanting to learn is only part of the challenge” (Mackenzie
& Scull, 2015, p. 406).
Teaching Writing
Different teaching methods have been applied to the teaching of writing, reflecting changes in theoreti-
cal understandings and expectations of the community. The teaching of writing in Australian schools is
possibly more complex in the current era than at any other time. Teachers are torn between their under-
standings of contemporary literacies, their own engagement with technologies (which varies greatly),
their personal beliefs about how to teach writing, and a “back to basics” cry from parents, the community
and often their school supervisors or systems, in response to tests such as NAPLAN. Childcare centers,
preschools and schools provide the spaces within which teachers work. While they share some common
features and goals they are different in many ways. While the government funds some schools, many
are independent or private with a range of philosophies driving them. They also vary greatly in size
and location. In Australia, while schools share a common “Australian Curriculum” (ACARA) this is
interpreted differently by each state or territory, each system, school and then the teachers themselves.
Preschools and early childhood centers also vary greatly. Some are not-for-profit organizations and others
are privately run businesses. While preschools and early childhood centers are informed by the National
Quality Framework (NQF) for Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) and the Early Years Learn-
ing Framework (EYLF), these documents are also interpreted at the state, local and teacher levels. In
addition, the diverse nature of Australia’s population is mirrored in schools, preschools and early child-
hood centers, some of which provide for children from many different cultural and social backgrounds.
In Australia, preschool is voluntary and not all children attend for a range of reasons, some possibly
to do with the associated costs, even though the government has recently provided some fee support for
parents of children the year before they start school. This support reduces the costs of sending a child to
preschool for 15 hours per week. There are extra rebates for low income families and indigenous families.
However, cost is still an issue for many families. Children usually start school in Australia the year they
turn five, although they are not required to attend school until they turn six. This leads to an age range
in the first year of school (referred to as Foundation in the Australian Curriculum, but also as Kinder-
garten in some states and territories and Prep, or Reception in others) from four years and six months
to six years at the start of the first year of school. This creates an 18 month age gap within the grade.
RESEARCH PROJECTS AND THEIR PARADIGMS
The contexts for the projects to be discussed were Australian early childhood education and care centers,
preschools and primary schools. The common link across the six projects was their focus on understand-
ing the learning and teaching of young writers. The projects examined what happens in the year before
children start school (preschool) and/or the first two years of primary school. While the adult participants
were all teachers, no two teachers involved in any study can be expected to respond to the same situation
in the same way, although common responses and patterns may be identified. Likewise, the differences
251

between children may be seen to be equally, if not more, extreme than those across teacher participants
and schools. In the year before children start school, and the first year of school, their prior experiences
are at their most diverse. Ethics approval for all projects discussed was obtained through the university,
the relevant school or early childhood education and care systems and either the participants themselves
or their parents. Where parents provided consent, assent was sought from the child participants where
face-to-face contact with the researcher was necessary.
It needs to be understood that although in this part of the chapter each of the projects will be dis-
cussed in terms of an identified research paradigm, these were not articulated when the projects were
designed or conducted. Despite this, after close analysis, the projects can be clearly seen to reflect the
axiology, ontology, and epistemology of particular research paradigms. Five of the six studies aimed to
understand a socially constructed phenomenon. In each case, the study contexts were clearly described
and recognized as fundamental to the studies and their findings, and the value position of the researcher
was recognized as significant in terms of the phenomenon under examination and the research approach.
One study deliberately set about to create change in teacher practices and child outcomes and it is these
decisions that set this study apart from the others in terms of paradigm. In each study data analysis and
interpretation was defended using an interpretive framework reflecting the paradigm.
Project 1: Writing in the First Year of School
This project involved the collection of 337 writing samples from schools across NSW, Australia. Meth-
odology was qualitative with children’s writing samples provided by volunteer foundation year teachers.
Samples were provided with no identifying information. Teachers and schools providing the data also
remained anonymous. The research questions guiding the study were simple:
• What do children’s writing samples look like in the first year of school?
• What can we learn from the samples?
An inductive approach to data analysis was applied. The data (children’s writing samples) were sorted
and grouped according to themes (commonalities and differences). These were then described, leading
to three main findings.
Firstly, children appeared to start school with huge variation in skill and understanding of how to
approach writing. The variation extended across a range of expected milestones associated with children
from one to eight years of age:
• Early exploration, resembling scribble (usually associated with children aged one to three years);
• Drawings without any writing-like symbols (common with children from three to five years);
• Writing like-squiggles or letter-like shapes (common with children from three to five years);
• Reproduction of their name and letters from their name applied randomly (common with children
from three to five years);
• Drawings with text added, often using the letters from their names (common with children from
three to five years who have been encouraged to draw and write to express meaning);
• Readable text and drawings with a clear purpose and audience (common with children aged five to
six years who have been encouraged to draw and write together to express meaning);
252

• Meaningful texts that sometimes included several ideas, using simple clauses with nouns, verbs
and adverbs and using every day vocabulary and possibly some topic specific words (usually as-
sociated with children aged from five to seven years);
• Spelling sometimes showing plausible attempts with most sounds in words represented (common
for children aged five to six years who have already received instruction in writing);
• Texts, which demonstrated an understanding of genre or text type (e.g., recount, narrative, letter)
(common for children aged five to eight years who have already received instruction in writing);
and
Secondly, most children appeared to illustrate their writing rather than using drawing as a way of
telling stories and expanding on their experiences and feelings. Many writing samples showed no draw-
ings. The drawings usually followed the writing attempts. This finding was based on the placement of
text and drawings. Sometimes the writing and drawings were connected and other times there appeared
to be no connection.
Thirdly, teachers appeared to value accuracy and the conventions of print (directionality, spacing and
return sweep, full stops, correct use of capital letters, correct spelling). This finding was based upon the
“ticks” (check marks) and comments that teachers provided on children’s samples.
In terms of axiology, the study was designed to help the researcher’s understanding of early writ-
ing in schools through the observation and analysis of artefacts without influencing the creation of the
artefacts. The researcher did not attempt to separate her knowledge or experiences from the research.
Rather, she brought to the analysis process her understanding of early writing from her experiences as
a teacher of young children, her work with teachers and her work as an academic interpreting relevant
research literature. The research was conducted within the social construct of the classroom, in that data
were created and collected from within this context. Consequently, the ontological position, the axi-
ological drivers and the epistemological possibilities were consonant with the interpretivist paradigm.
Project 2: Becoming a Writer: Phase 1
This project involved nine children aged five years of age at the start of the data collection process. The
children were randomly selected from three foundation classrooms at three different schools. The three
foundation year teachers volunteered to participate in the study. Consent was obtained for the children’s
participation. Methodology was qualitative with data gathered using a range of tools including tests,
observations, interviews and document analysis (student writing samples). The research questions guid-
ing the project were as follows:
• Is there a relationship between the language skills of children at school entry as measured by the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (PPVT-III), (Dunn & Dunn, 1997), the Record of Oral Language
(ROL), (Clay, Gill, Glynn, McNaughton, & Salmon, 2013) and writing development in the first 6
months of school?
• Do the results from the Who Am I? Developmental test (de Lemos & Doig, 1999), and the
Concepts about Print test (CAP) (Clay, 2013) applied at school entry provide an indication of how
children will engage in the writing process during the first six months of formal schooling?
• What can we learn from the teacher/student conversations/interactions that relate to early writing?
• How do teachers promote early writing development in the first 6 months of school?
253

The project allowed for a unique case study informed by three teachers, from three different schools
and nine randomly selected children. As with project 1, the researcher aimed to understand a number
of phenomena under examination rather than influence them, although her experiences and knowledge
are recognized as having an impact on the questions asked, the assessment tools chosen and the data
analysis processes. While the findings could be defended by the researcher, using the evidence collected,
another researcher may have approached the study quite differently and described quite different findings.
Acknowledging this, the project also reflects the expectations of the interpretivist research paradigm in
terms of ontology, axiology, epistemology and the resulting outcomes.
Findings from this project included the following:
• None of the individual tests or tasks used in this study at the start of school was reliable in predict-
ing how the children in the study would engage in the writing process in the first half of the first
year of school (as measured by the standard tasks administered in July);
• The teacher predictions/expectations were equally problematic, suggesting that professional judg-
ments may be inconsistent or inaccurate and highlighting the complex nature of the task faced by
teachers;
• Children appeared to come to school with a great variation in skill and understanding when it
came to their control of language and understandings of writing;
• Children appeared to illustrate their writing rather than using drawing as a way of telling stories
and expanding on their experiences and feelings;
• Teachers seemed to value accuracy and spend a lot of time focusing on the conventions of print;
and
• Teachers appeared to talk a great deal and sometimes used language which could be seen to be
confusing to young children.
A teacher and a child may both speak the same language per se, but the teacher uses language in ways
that are new and different to the child who has just started school. The students in this study often ap-
peared to be wrestling with what the teacher wanted with varying degrees of success. Terms like space,
full stop and big mean something different at school compared to home and yet “school language” seems
so obvious to the initiated that it can be easy to forget that “school language” may be a source of puzzle-
ment to the uninitiated. At times the teachers’ agendas appeared (to the researcher) to block their ability
to hear what the children were trying to say, leading to confusions on behalf of the children about what
was expected of them. If left confused, these children may fall behind classmates who had prior-to-school
experiences that aligned closely with school and therefore prepared them for the teacher’s language and
expectations. Teacher talk can turn into a “sea of blah” (Edwards, 2000). Feedback is a powerful tool
that has been demonstrated to have positive impact on performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Pianta,
La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002) but it can also be meaningless if the child and teacher are not on
the same wavelength and “school language” is a barrier.
This study involved a survey of foundation year teachers, circulated to schools across NSW. The purpose
of the study was to investigate teachers’ understandings of, and attitudes towards, children’s early literacy
development. The methods employed were both qualitative and quantitative. Two hundred and twenty
254

eight teachers provided three different forms of data: demographic information, responses to questions
using a 5-point Likert scale, and open-ended responses to a sample of early writing provided by a student
in the fifth week of school. Analysis of data was thematic, involving clustering and frequency counts.
Demographic data relating to the survey respondents were also considered. Two research questions
guided the study:
• What do teachers say about the teaching of writing in the first year of school?
• What do teachers identify as indications of successful writing development when analysing writ-
ing samples of students in the first year of school?
The findings from this project built on from the findings of the two previous projects. Importantly,
this project identified a mismatch between what teachers claim (survey statements) and what actually
happens in classrooms on a day-to-day basis (writing analysis item). The survey identified areas of
understanding that teachers seemed to have in common and others that showed clear differences in at-
titude and understanding.
The aim of the project was to study a phenomenon without influencing the phenomenon. The researcher
was removed from the data creation process at the point of collection, although her experiences, beliefs
and understandings of the phenomenon under examination influenced the questions asked within the
survey and indeed the data analysis processes. Responses to the Likert scale statements were grouped
according to their common elements (e.g. all the statements relating to language). Responses to the
individual sample were analyzed, with the Likert scale responses acting as an analysis framework. The
methodology, epistemology, axiology and ontology are once more reflective of the interpretivist paradigm.
Becoming a Writer, Phase 3 involved a case study of 60 students in their first year of school, and their
teachers. The methodology was qualitative, with the inclusion of an intervention and a range of data
collection tools including interviews, focus groups, document analysis (children’s work samples), and
observations as well as pre- and post-testing. Teacher participants were volunteers who agreed to imple-
ment the intervention over the first 6 months of school. The intervention aimed to encourage children to
draw and talk as a way of supporting their early attempts to write. The intervention was included in the
teachers’ programs twice per week throughout terms 1 and 2 where they followed a set lesson plan for
the teaching of writing. Children were pre-tested at the start of the year and post-tested at the end of the
year. Children were also interviewed half way through the year. This phase of the Becoming a Writer
program of research was designed to explore the relationship between drawing and writing, which was
identified as important in the work of other researchers but lacking in the findings from Phases 1 and 2
of this program of research. Research questions included:
• How do teachers “teach” writing to students in the first six months of formal schooling?
◦◦ What do teachers say about the teaching of writing to kindergarten children?
◦◦ What do teachers identify as indicators of successful writing development when analyzing
writing samples of students in the first year of school?
◦◦ How do teachers build on students’ prior-to-school language and experiences?
255

• What role do children’s drawings play in early writing development?

◦◦ Do teachers encourage children to use their drawings as a means to develop their written
messages?
◦◦ Does encouraging children to draw and talk about their drawings prior to writing promote
complex writing ideas?
The findings confirmed earlier research in regard to the relationship between drawing and writing
and the importance of building on what children know and can do (Mackenzie, 2011). The change in
teachers’ priorities as a result of the intervention had positive impact on children’s skill development,
attitude to writing and behavior. Teachers’ attitudes also changed as a result of their involvement in the
research project. Findings from this phase have been discussed in a number of publications including
Mackenzie (2011).
Given the intervention, this research did not reflect the interpretivist notion of understanding a phenom-
enon without influencing the phenomenon. In this instance there was a deliberate decision to determine
if the intervention (in teacher practice) would make a difference to children’s learning. The approach was
based upon the practicalities of working with 10 volunteer teachers and 60 randomly selected children
across multiple school and classroom sites. The findings of the researcher’s earlier studies as well as
the research literature were interpreted by the researcher and used to develop the intervention. Teacher
participants then interpreted the intervention within their own classroom contexts although focus groups
allowed for the development of shared understandings. Data collected to demonstrate the outcomes of
the intervention were both qualitative and quantitative and analysis processes were both statistical and
descriptive. While this approach put to the test an existing understanding derived from earlier research,
which could be seen to align with the neo-positivist paradigm, the purpose of the research was to pro-
duce a solution to a practical problem by whatever research approach best worked. The intervention
was designed to provide a solution to the problem of children struggling with writing in the first year of
school. The approach adopted, then, is in line with the pragmatic paradigm as it is described in Chapter
1 of this text. The researcher was impartial and open to emerging findings but did have an intellectual
investment in the findings. The study was conducted with volunteer teacher participants and randomly
selected children from the teacher participants’ classrooms. The researcher designed the study and the
intervention and was part of the pre- and post-testing process.
This project involved interviews with 23 preschool teachers based at either not-for-profit preschools or
private early childhood centres in Victoria and NSW. The research questions came about through inter-
action with teachers during previous research projects and professional development contexts as well as
the research literature and the researcher’s own experiences, understandings, beliefs and attitudes. The
research was designed to understand children’s writing experiences in the final year of preschool from
the perspective of preschool teachers. Research questions were as follows:
• Do preschools and early childhood centres have a document (policy) that identifies how literacy is
approached with 4 year olds in their preschool rooms?
• What approaches are taken to supporting pre-school children in their experimentation with writ-
ing in the year before they started school?
256

• What constitutes writing in the preschool classroom the year before children start school?
• What do preschool teachers think children should know and be able to do (in regard to literacy)
before they go to school?
• How do preschools manage transition processes?
• How does drawing fit into the 4-year-old preschool program?
The study findings suggested that preschool teachers see their role as providing opportunities for
children to explore writing through play, but not to proactively seek or initiate opportunities to interact
with them in ways that might assist children to progress along the writing continuum. The preschool
environment was described as a place for children to explore writing, if they wish, when they wish and
how they wish. None of the sites had their own policies on how literacy should be approached with chil-
dren in the year before they start school. Study participants had varied understandings of what children
should know and be able to do in terms of writing before starting school. Only two of the 23 participants
had been to visit a foundation class in the previous five years. Participants were generally uncertain as
to what was expected or how literacy would be approached in schools. Transition programs tended to
be organized by schools with little input from the preschool teachers. Participants agreed that drawing
was a form of expression and communication and claimed that they would often write down what the
child had expressed about their drawing. Some saw a strong relationship between language, drawing and
early writing. Others described drawing as the beginning of writing or a symbolic representation of life.
This is another study that sits comfortably under the Interpretivist Paradigm. The research did not
aim to influence what was happening but instead to understand and describe the emerging findings and
provide an account of the phenomenon under examination. The methodology, ontology, axiology and
epistemology again reflect an Interpretivist research paradigm.
Project 6: Year 1 Writing
The final project informing this chapter involved the collection of writing samples from students at the
middle and end of year one (the second year of school in Australia). The study aimed to build up a pic-
ture of students’ writing (composition), in the second year of school (year one) in New South Wales and
Victoria in the current era, in terms of length, spelling, vocabulary, text structure, ideas and handwriting/
legibility. The research question driving the study asked:
• What does year 1 students’ writing (composition) look like at the end of term 2 and term 4 in
NSW and Victorian classrooms in terms of length, spelling, vocabulary, text structure, ideas and
handwriting/legibility?
Two samples of writing from students who were in the second half of year one were collected from
each of 1799 students from 58 schools across NSW and Victoria. The data collection and analysis pro-
cesses led to the design of a tool that considers year one students’ writing development across six clear
dimensions and six levels of competence. This analysis tool was then applied to 500 samples of writing
from 250 students. Shifts evident in the writing samples were observed across the dimensions of: text
structure, sentence structure, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, and handwriting/legibility. Success
with the authorial dimensions of writing means a child can organize their writing using a format that is
appropriate for the intended purpose (e.g. a report or letter), write in grammatically correct sentences
257

and carefully choose words so that readers can easily understand their intended message. Success with
secretarial or editorial dimensions means a child can use tools like spelling, punctuation and handwriting
(or keyboarding), to be able to write easily and efficiently and make their writing easy to read (Mack-
enzie, Scull, & Bowles, 2015).
This final project also aimed to provide an account of a phenomenon and the approach to data collec-
tion was designed in such a way that the researchers did not influence the artefacts collected. The data
were collected from multiple classrooms and schools across two states and were selected by teachers as
representative of year one students in their classrooms. The processes of analysis were heavily influenced
by the understandings, experiences and beliefs of the researchers involved as well as their interpretation
of relevant research literature. The data analysis tool developed demonstrates a social constructivist ap-
proach to the teaching and learning of writing. Other researchers may have examined the artefacts quite
differently, and valued different writing dimensions. However, the approach, analysis, interpretation
and findings are defensible in terms of previous research and current ways of thinking about writing
composition. The methodology, ontology, axiology, epistemology and the findings reveal the influence
of the interpretivist research paradigm despite this not being declared at the start of the project.
DISCUSSION
In Chapter 1, Ling and Ling suggest that research paradigms are often not the focal point in research
practice or research literature. The paradigms informing the six research projects outlined above were
not clearly articulated at the design stage of any of these projects. After agreeing to write this chapter,
the author went back to the research grant applications and ethics applications related to each project;
none of which required a discussion of the research paradigm informing the project. In each case, a
limited space was provided and while a discussion of the methodology was required, this also was lim-
ited, and did not ask about paradigms. However, working backwards, it has been possible to determine
the research paradigms through an analysis of the ontology, axiology, epistemology and methodology.
In pursuit of an increased understanding of the learning and teaching of writing in the early years, six
different but overlapping projects demonstrate application of two different paradigms: the interpretivist
paradigm and the pragmatic paradigm. Table 2 (see below), which has been created using the headings
and explanations provided in Chapter 1, summarises the projects in terms of their ontology, axiology,
epistemology, methodology and research paradigms. While it might be tempting to suggest that it is merely
a coincidence that five of the six projects fit within the interpretivist paradigm, it is more likely that even
though the paradigm was not articulated, the researcher’s way of viewing the world and her belief in
socially constructed knowledge steered her to design research that fitted within this research paradigm.
In the one instance where the research project reflects the pragmatic paradigm, the researcher had made
a conscious shift in mode to an intervention study that built on the findings of previous research findings.
On reflection, the author’s experience, ways of looking at the world generally, and the phenomena
under examination in each study, determined the research questions and the methods needed to answer
these questions. The paradigms informing each project, although not actually articulated in the study
design, could be identified by an experienced researcher familiar with the paradigms used for education
research. All projects outlined in this discussion related to learning more about how children between
the approximate ages of four years and seven years of age experience the teaching and learning of writ-
258

Table 2. Research projects and their paradigms
Study 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ontology Understanding of early writing (learning and teaching) through
√ √ √ √ √
Interpretivist observation and interpretation
Ontology Finding out what works or adds to our understanding of early
√
Pragmatic writing at school
Understanding of the learning of writing within the context of
schools. Researcher connected to the topic through experience √ √ √
Axiology Drivers and Theory as a teacher, literacy lecturer and researcher
Interpretivist and/or Pragmatic Understanding of the teaching of writing within the context of
schools. Researcher connected to the topic through experience √ √ √ √
as a teacher, literacy lecturer and researcher
Epistemology Interpretation of data based on previous research literature,
√ √ √ √ √ √
Interpretivist previous research and the researcher’s experiences
Epistemology
An understanding based on tested practical value √
Pragmatic
Outcomes Evidence based interpretation based on previous research by
√ √ √ √ √ √
Interpretivist and/or Pragmatic the researcher and other researchers
Methodology - Approach
Open to emerging findings Case studies √ √ √ √ √ √
Interpretivist and/or Pragmatic
Analysis of students’ writing samples √ √ √ √ √
Observations √
Methodology - Tools Pre- and post-testing √ √

Interpretivist and/or Pragmatic Interviews √ √
Survey with Likert scale and writing sample √
Focus groups √
Pragmatic Intervention √
Methodology—Data Qualitative √ √ √ √ √ √
Interpretivist and/or Pragmatic Quantitative √
Methodology—Analysis
Thematic √ √ √ √ √ √
Interpretivist and/or Pragmatic
Pragmatic Statistical, correlational √
ing. While they were not conducted in the same ways, five of the projects sit comfortably within the
interpretivist paradigm.
Interpretivist research is based on an acknowledgement of the involvement of the researcher in data
gathering and analysis and the notion that in social research, understandings are socially constructed.
In the interpretivist paradigm the research is subject to the interpretation of the researcher in interaction
with the researched. Another researcher’s interpretation of the same data or related data could differ
and both be defensible.
Data came from children and teachers in different education contexts, collected using a range of meth-
ods: student work samples, interviews, surveys, pre- and post-testing. Data were analyzed thematically
using relevant findings from previous studies, the research literature and the professional knowledge
base of the researcher. The Year One Writing project, while still interpretivist, differed from the other
259

Interpretivist projects because in the analysis stages of the study, a writing analysis tool was developed,
tested and then applied to the data in a statistical manner. In this way data that were collected qualitatively
became data that could be analyzed quantitatively. However, the data were not influenced in any way by
the research process, so the project still remained within the Interpretivist paradigm.
While it was tempting to also classify study 4 as interpretivist, it actually sits more comfortably
within the pragmatic paradigm due to the inclusion of an intervention and the use of pre- and post-
testing to determine the effectiveness of the intervention. While this project was also designed to add
to our understanding of the phenomenon of writing outlined above, the intervention was also testing a
theory developed through the analysis of the combined findings of the previous studies and the research
literature. Qualitative data included interviews, focus groups, observations, and student sample analy-
sis. While pre- and post-testing were utilized, the data were not analyzed statistically. The testing data
demonstrated the effectiveness of the intervention, which was then confirmed by teacher participants
during the interviews. In the case of this project, the researcher was influencing the potential findings,
through the use of the intervention. Methodologies applied to the project were driven by ontology (what
was practical and relevant) and epistemology (the practical value of the findings), giving the study its
pragmatic flavor.
CONCLUSION
In the projects discussed in this chapter, research paradigms retrospectively provide an explanation for
the design, implementation and interpretation of data in research studies aimed at increasing our under-
standings of how children in the 21st century learn to write and how the preschool teachers and school
teachers in their worlds support this process. The projects were participatory by design, informed by
previous research and in some cases involved teacher participants as co-researchers and the researcher/s
as co-participants. They were designed to build new understandings or test previous findings, theories
and professional “wisdoms,” and inform the research from a practical stance.
The projects focused on discovery and interpretation of contexts and experiences, through the analysis
of conversations, processes and texts. They were strongly influenced by the participant and researcher
contexts; in particular, what it means to learn to write in Australia in the early years of the 21st century.
While there were connections between participants in and across projects, (e.g. when a project involved
teachers of the first year of school, and children from their classrooms), in reality their differences were
often greater than their similarities (e.g. teachers had varied experience, differing values, differing
beliefs, varied agendas and were in different career stages and personal situations). The schools and
early childhood education and care centers they work in may have more differences than similarities.
Likewise, the differences between children may be seen to be equally if not more extreme than those
across teacher participants and schools. In the year before children start school, and the first year of
school their prior experiences are arguably at their most diverse. Children’s prior to school experiences
are often vastly different, although the increased number of children attending childcare from a young
age may be changing that.
One of the six projects was conducted within a pragmatic paradigm, whereby the researcher went
beyond description and understanding, to explore ways of increasing current understandings of the teach-
ing and learning of writing, through the implementation of an intervention. This study was designed to
modify existing practices and research the process and the outcomes. Three of the projects aligned with
260

an interpretivist paradigm informed this project. In all instances, whether the projects fit more neatly
within an interpretivist or pragmatic paradigm, the expectations of the researcher were that there would
be no one size fits all, easy answers to the questions being asked. Multiple realities were expected and
accepted.
A researcher’s theoretical orientation and world views about how research should be enacted may
be the key to paradigm “choice,” although in the world of competitive grants, commissioned research
and multiple research agendas not all researchers have the luxury of determining how and what they
will research, nor the methods to be applied. Additionally, in the case of large research teams it may be
necessary to agree upon the research paradigm at the design phase. Reflecting on the research projects
outlined within this chapter was an interesting exercise that required the author to go back to the research
texts and the definitions of paradigms and methodology. It also involved questioning the approaches
taken and rationalizing why the projects were conducted in the ways that they were. While it has been
argued that the research findings conducted within the interpretivist paradigm may be interpreted differ-
ently by different researchers, it is also possible that another researcher may interpret the identification
of paradigms in the chapter differently. For the author, the exercise has been one of reflection on which
paradigms had implicitly guided the research projects discussed. In the design of future research, perhaps
the paradigm will come first and be explicit at every stage. The question is; will it make a difference?
REFERENCES
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). Retrieved from http://
www.acara.edu.au/default.asp
Boomer, G. (1983). The wisdom of the antipodes: What’s working for literacy in Australia. Journal of
Reading, 26(7), 591–601.
Bromley, K. (2007). Best practices in teaching writing. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (pp. 243–263). New York: The Guilford Press.
Clay, M. M. (2013). An observation of early literacy achievement (3rd ed.). Auckland: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M., Gill, M., Glynn, T., McNaughton, T., & Salmon, K. (2007). Record of oral language.
Auckland: Heinemann.
Coates, E., & Coates, A. (2006). Young children talking and drawing. International Journal of Early
Years Education, 14(3), 221–241. doi:10.1080/09669760600879961
de Lemos, M., & Doig, B. (1999). Who am I? Developmental assessment. Camberwell: The Australian
Council for Educational Research. ACER.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Examiner’s manual for the Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd
ed.). Minnesota: American Guidance Service.
Edwards, J. (2000). The research and realities of teaching and learning in the middle years of schooling.
Paper presented at theMiddle Years of Schooling Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
261

Genishi, C., & Dyson, A. H. (2009). Children, language and literacy: Diverse learners in diverse times.
New York, London: Teachers College Press.
Hassett, D. D. (2008). Teacher flexibility and judgement: A multidynamic literacy theory. Journal of
Early Childhood Literacy, 8(3), 295–327. doi:10.1177/1468798408096479
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. Port Melbourne. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9781139196581
Luke, A., Freebody, P., & Land, R. (2000). Literate futures: Review of literacy education. Brisbane, Qld:
Education Queensland.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2010). Motivating young writers. In J. Fletcher, F. Parkhill & G. Gillon (Eds.), Mo-
tivating literacy learners in today’s world (pp. 23-32). Auckland: New Zealand Council for Educational
Research (NZCER).
Mackenzie, N. M. (2011). From drawing to writing: What happens when you shift teaching priorities in
the first six months of school? Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 34(3), 322–340.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2014). Teaching early writers: Teachers’ responses to a young child’s writing sample.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 37(3), 182–191.
Mackenzie, N. M., Scull, J., & Bowles, T. (2015). Change over time: An analysis of texts created by Year
One students. Australian Educational Researcher, 42(5), 25. doi:10.1007/s13384-015-0189-9
Mackenzie, N. M., & Scull, J. A. (2015). Literacy: Writing. In S. McLeod & J. McCormack (Eds.),
Introduction to speech, language and literacy (pp. 398-445). Oxford: Melbourne.
National Assessment Program. Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). Retrieved from http://www.nap.
edu.au/naplan/naplan.html
National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care and the Early Years Learning
Framework. EYLF. Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.au/early-years-learning-framework
Olson, D. R. (2009). The history of writing. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of writing development. London: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9780857021069.n2
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten
classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary
School Journal, 102(3), 225–238. doi:10.1086/499701
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 4). (R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton,
Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.
Wing Jan, L. (2009). Write ways: Modelling writing forms (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford.
Wohlwend, K. E. (2008). From “What did I write?” to “Is this right?”: Intention, convention, and ac-
countability in early literacy. New Educator, 4(1), 43–63. doi:10.1080/15476880701829259
262
263
Chapter 16
Education Research in an
Intercultural Context:
An Instance of Interpretation,
Induction, and Deduction
Beena Giridharan
Curtin University, Sarawak, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
This chapter presents a research framework for a study that focused on the development of a second
language vocabulary acquisition model in a tertiary setting. The study was an investigation of lexical
inferencing strategies specifically employed by second language (L2) learners, and of whether the explicit
teaching of effective vocabulary strategies benefited learners in developing vocabulary. The framework
presented here draws on theories of learning from the fields of education, applied linguistics, vocabulary
development, and cognitive psychology. Several theoretical standpoints on vocabulary development,
including factors such as lexical representation; theoretical constructs in reading comprehension;
vocabulary processing in tertiary L2 learners; and socio-linguistics were considered in the design and
inquiry process of the study, which was set in an intercultural context. The association of components
of this research exercise to research paradigms is discussed.
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter a research undertaking relating to an inherently intercultural subject, second language
learning, is used to illustrate some critical considerations in the design, implementation, and outcomes
of research in education. The form adopted in the chapter is to identify critical elements in the research
design and implementation in order to discuss the principles that apply and the implications for the
concept of a research paradigm. This involves specifying the methodology, the rationale or underpinning
for the research methods employed, as well as the methods employed.
Improving intercultural education and intercultural communication are seen as important goals for
the 21st century (Batelaan & Coomans, 1999; Davis, Brown, & Ferdig, 2005). Nevertheless, realizing
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch016

Education Research in an Intercultural Context
intercultural education is perceived as challenging for a number of reasons. Firstly, a cohesive body of
research in the area is wanting, partly due to the fact that researchers in intercultural communication
and education come from multiple fields. Secondly, variation between educational systems can add to
the complexity of intercultural education perspectives.
Intercultural perspectives regarding the research methods gaining dominance in education research
are featured in this chapter. In the chapter analyses of research methods employed from an empirical
study conducted by the author are drawn on to investigate patterns of English vocabulary inferencing
strategies among adult second language (L2) learners in pedagogical contexts, and the effects of explicit
instruction of inferencing and vocabulary learning strategies in advancing vocabulary development (Girid-
haran, 2010). The chapter is informed by literature on approaches in education research that highlight
the consideration of cultural contexts while adopting research methods.
It is not uncommon for intercultural education researchers to apply multiple research methods to study
the phenomenon being investigated. This is the case for the study reported here, where one phase of the
study involved qualitative data and data analysis methods that were employed as a means to understand
the phenomena from different perspectives, which aligns with the interpretivist paradigm, while the
second phase moved on to generate a grounded theoretical model, which aligns with the inductive form
of the neo-positivist paradigm. A second phase of the study applied quantitative methods nested in a
neo-positivist paradigm in the deductive mode to validate models.
This layered approach sits with the bricolage metaphor. Denzin and Lincoln (1999, as cited in Rogers,
2012) attempted to define qualitative research based on Levi-Strauss’ (1966) bricolage metaphor. Levi-
Strauss used this metaphor while studying qualitative research methods that were applied throughout the
20th century and more recently, which found that significant changes had occurred to traditional quali-
tative methods positioned in positivist paradigms and that the approaches applied had moved to more
interpretive and constructivist approaches. The bricolage metaphor is based on a concept of a critical,
multi-theoretical and multi-methodological approach to inquiry and constitutes a summary of the way
in which researchers accept “flexibility and plurality by amalgamating multiple disciplines, multiple
methodologies, and varying theoretical perspectives in their inquiry” (Rogers, 2012, p. 4). Quantitative
and qualitative observations provide intercultural researchers with different ways of operationalizing and
measuring theoretical constructs and practical concepts. While quantitative methods can provide a high
level of measurement precision and supportive statistical evidence, qualitative methods can supply a
greater depth of information about the nature of communication processes in a particular research setting.
RESEARCH PARADIGMS
Some Paradigm Possibilities
Researchers in education often have to struggle with large, complex issues. This, coupled with the scarcity
of capable research teams able to work with large data sets, means that research in education can focus
only on certain sections of the issue investigated, and this makes it challenging to connect the study
to overarching frameworks that could indicate that the topic area is moving in new directions (Newby,
2010). Educational research designed to explore educational problems, understand learner behavior and
actions in educational settings, develop and test educational theories, and improve educational practice
can be based on differing and competing views of the social sciences such as views involving causal
264

connections, and interpretive views. In line with the understanding adopted in this book, Hitchcock and
Hughes (1995, as cited in Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011) state that ontological suppositions, which
refer to understandings about the nature of reality and things, lead to epistemological understandings
on how to research, which then leads to methodological deliberations, which leads to the emergence
of valid instruments to gather and analyze data. It is important then that researchers understand these
interdependent aspects of educational research.
Associated with the dominant paradigms that influence educational research such as the positivist
paradigm and the post-positive paradigm, is the scientific method, which implies that things are mean-
ingful only if they are observable and verifiable. The scientific approach was adapted from research
in physical sciences by educational researchers and is essentially quantitative, featuring measurement
and prediction (Anderson, 1998). However, criticisms of the positivist paradigm highlight the fact that
limitations in this type of research are often restricted to faulty measurements and do not acknowledge
the fact that not all phenomena can be directly observed. Post-positivism (referred to as neo-positivism
in Chapters 1 and 2) accepts values and perspectives as significant elements in knowledge creation while
accommodating qualitative measurements emerging according to insightful observations and interpretive
accounts and manifestations that are grounded in theory (Anderson, 1998). In the interpretive paradigm,
the researcher seeks to understand “the subjective world of human experience” (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 17)
and focuses on understanding phenomena in the world around them. However, the validity of the results
of education research conducted in naturalistic settings could be challenged on the basis of changes in
the population studied, selection bias, historical events or maturation (Bordage & Dawson, 2003).
The Paradigms Employed in the Study
The study reported here provides an instance of bricolage, in the sense of “the deliberate mixing of
qualitative methods and ways of thinking in order to address a specific issue or problem” (Association for
Qualitative Research, n.d.). The research undertaking reported here involved a preliminary study explor-
ing inferencing strategies employed by a group of L2 learners. While this was essentially an interpretive
study, producing the researcher’s interpretation of the data, the research moved on to a grounded theory
approach in that results of this study were used to construct a theoretical understanding of inferencing
strategies employed by second language learners. Construction of a theoretical understanding aligns with
the inductive mode of the neo-positivist paradigm as put forward in Chapters 1 and 2. The theoretical
understanding was then tested by employing a hypothesis, which aligns with the deductive mode of the
neo-positivist paradigm.
The methodological approach applied in the preliminary study conducted by the author was premised
in the first instance on a social constructivist ontology and interpretive epistemology, and utilized for
the identification of the patterns of inferencing strategies of L2 learners in the first phase of the study.
The ontological premise was acknowledged as a set of assertions or beliefs about inferencing during
reading among L2 learners and L2 vocabulary development in particular. A constructivist approach was
applied with the assumption that the matter investigated is a product of meanings derived from interac-
tions and understandings of the group studied. The interpretive epistemological model selected stemmed
from the nature of the research objectives, research questions and investigative processes required for
acquiring an understanding of patterns of inferencing and vocabulary strategies employed by L2 learn-
ers (Giridharan, 2010).
265

A constructivist approach was considered most appropriate in the preliminary study as constructiv-
ists work within an ontology that allows multiple realities, in which researchers and participants are
able to create their own understandings (von Glaserfeld, 1993). Interpretive patterns assist in guiding
and informing inquiry and are described in relation to ontology, epistemology, and methodology (Guba
& Lincoln, 1994). In an interpretivist/constructivist paradigm, reality is not concrete and therefore the
researcher’s goal is to construct the understanding of human experiences and knowledge through which
shared reality is created, upheld and potentially transformed. The understanding emerging had both
phenomenological and ethnographic dimensions.
The understanding that was developed as an interpretation of L2 learner inferencing and vocabulary
strategies was adopted as a grounded theory, which the researcher then tested. This sits with what is
described in the introduction to this book (Chapter 1) as the neo-positivist paradigm. Beyond the pre-
liminary study, the research involved two basic components. In the first instance, in line with a grounded
theory approach, it addressed a gap in understanding; that is, it aligned with the inductive mode of the
neo-positivist paradigm. In the second instance the understanding developed was tested; this phase could
be seen as aligning with the neo-positivist paradigm in the deductive mode. Following the preliminary
study, the ontology underlying the research was consistent; it involved an understanding that there may
be patterns in the inferencing strategies employed by L2 learners that had some consistency to them.
The first task was to uncover possibilities about the nature of such patterns. The second task was to test
this understanding.
The constructivist/interpretive component of the study of how adult ESL learners developed vocabu-
lary (Giridharan, 2010) involved the objectives:
1. To investigate patterns of inferencing strategies occurring between pre-receptive stages of vocabu-

lary and productive-vocabulary stages in L2 vocabulary acquisition.
2. To investigate the language inferencing strategies in the vocabulary development of L2 learners.
The inductive neo-positivist component of the study involved the objective:
3. To develop a theoretical model of L2 vocabulary development.
The deductive neo-positivist component involved the objective:
4. In light of the above findings, evaluate the L2 theoretical model developed to account for the
interaction of the inferencing strategies, role of context and explicit instructional mediation from
current vocabulary proficiency to productive vocabulary acquisition in L2 learners.
A case study analysis was applied on the inferencing strategies employed by L2 learners and the
influence of teaching explicit inferencing strategies in the development of vocabulary in L2 learners. In
the preliminary study, qualitative methods involving the use of verbal protocol analysis (VPA), or think-
aloud procedures, were used to elicit information on the strategies used by L2 learners in developing and
acquiring vocabulary. The role of the researcher here was to “understand, explain, and demystify social
reality through the eyes of different participants” (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 19).
266

Procedural data analysis from the preliminary study supported the development of a theoretical
model of vocabulary development in L2 learners. This phase of the study applied a grounded theory
approach. Creswell (2012) views grounded theory as a compelling tool for ascertaining a broad theory
or explanation of a natural phenomenon, and states that as the emerging theory is “grounded” or rooted
in the data, it will provide a more refined explanation than a theory derived from other studies. Theo-
retical sampling is one of the key fundamental concepts in grounded theory, in which researchers are
able to return to the original data sources to attain in-depth data, which requires data to be gathered
continually until the developed categories are saturated and an explicit theory is developed successfully.
Charmaz (2008) affirms that theoretical sampling is a process of collecting data which contributes to
the elucidation of theoretical categories and consequently constructs the emergent theory. The purpose
of theoretical sampling is not to increase the generalizability of the study, but to develop the emerging
theory (Charmaz, 2008).
Glaser (2002) outlines two main steps in theoretical sampling in which first a grounded theorist un-
dertakes continuous comparison to the collected data in term of their minimal differences. The constant
comparative method allows for the discovery of the underlying pattern in the multiple participants’ expres-
sions. Consequently, grounded theory is remodeled to a Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) method from
its initiation of conceptual core variable analysis of data involved—baseline, proper-line, interpreted or
vague (Glaser, 2002). In this way one can see that constructivism or the jointly built interactive, inter-
preted, produced data, is a means to achieve a credible, accurate description of data gathering methods.
The final phase of the research exercise addressed here involved verifying the validity of the concep-
tual theoretical L2 vocabulary acquisition model developed and the emergence of the resulting proposal
for explicit instructional mediation. Two categories of participants comprising two control groups and
two experimental groups took part in the second phase of the study. A neo-positivist deductive approach
was applied to authenticate the theoretical model that had been developed in phase one. This phase
involved the adoption of largely quantitative methodology, employing experimental methods involving
experimental (or treatment) and control groups and administration of pre- and post-tests to measure
gain scores. In this approach, the researcher is the supervisor of the research process and focuses on the
objectivity of the research process (Creswell, 2007).
As the study was positioned in the fields of educational linguistics and applied linguistics, the
methodology and approaches employed in the study adhered to the procedures called for in educational
research. It is well established that qualitative methods such as case studies can be used first for strong
internal validity, followed by quantitative methods to establish external validity or generalizability in
order to provide a more insightful understanding of the phenomena being investigated (Yin, 1994).
RESEARCH METHODS
Methodological Issues
Pertinent to the selection of research methods for the study undertaken here is the question of the suit-
ability of differing data types and their associated analytic procedures for the different stages of the
project. The type of enquiry determines the research methodologies used to support the study and the
methods used to collect data. In a quantitative enquiry, data are analyzed using numerical and statistical
267

procedures and conclusions drawn or new hypotheses generated based on the results of data collected.
Qualitative approaches focus on the processes that affect behavior and seek to understand meanings or
describe phenomena occurring. In a mixed-method approach, quantitative and qualitative research methods
are employed in different phases of the research study to draw valid conclusions or triangulate data. For
example, a researcher may support one set of findings from one method of data collection underpinned
by one methodology, with another method underpinned by a different methodology (Wisker, 2007). At
the crux of the research approach selection process is the fundamental inquiry to uncover knowledge.
Epistemology is used to describe the study of knowledge and “how we know what we know” (Newby,
2010, p. 93).
Qualitative research allows the researcher to draw upon a number of analytic tools and research meth-
odologies and this was a consideration pertinent to the study. The qualitative inquirer is concerned with
data that are usually in the form of words that depict the rich experiences of participants, and addition-
ally collects numeric data to reaffirm the outcomes from initial data gathered (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh,
2002). Qualitative approaches present ways of transcribing and analyzing the consequential nature of
learning within events and provide insights to the researcher in academically appropriate ways (Putney
& Green, 1999). The qualitative methods of research used in the study were cogent in the exploration
of instructional practices.
According to Bitsch (2005) areas of application of qualitative approaches may include:
1. The description and interpretation of new or not well-researched issues;

2. Theory generation, theory development, theory qualification, and theory correction;
3. Evaluation, policy advice, and action research; and
4. Research directed at future issues.
Some of the suggested examples of the use of qualitative methods in multi-method projects are focus
group discussions to frame a research question appropriately for a specific context, in-depth interviews
of key informants before developing a questionnaire and to help interpret the results of models, or inclu-
sion of open-ended questions in a structured questionnaire to collect unanticipated data (Bitsch, 2005).
Research Methods Employed in the Study
In the study, with these understandings in mind, qualitative data gathering methods were applied first
to investigate L2 inferencing strategies, and quantitative experimental methods set in a post-positivist/
neo-positivist paradigm were applied in the later part of the study to validate the role of explicit teach-
ing of these strategies. The study was positioned in a multicultural context as participants were adult
tertiary students whose second language or L2 was Chinese/Malay. An intercultural communicative
approach and intercultural higher educational setting called for careful selection of research methods
for validating the study results.
The complexity of the study approach underscore the importance of synthesis of results of many
studies to bring about better understanding among education researchers and implications for the context
of research.
268

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The Role of Research Questions
Formulating the research questions in an educational research study is a task that requires careful think-
ing and analysis as they are set to explain what the researcher hopes to learn about the area of research.
Research questions may concentrate on the relationship of theories and concepts or be focused on under-
standing new concepts and generating new theories in an exploratory research paradigm. This fits with
what is described in this book as the neo-positivist paradigm in the inductive mode (Chapters 1 and 2).
The research question or questions must reflect the purpose of the study in the chosen field and the scope
of study, and be based on an analysis of underlying assumptions and pertinent theory (Hemmings & Hol-
lows, n.d.). The research question is an important aspect of the research design as a research question or
questions allow a researcher to articulate what the researcher wants to investigate or understand. Research
questions bring clarity to the project/study and allow the researcher to focus. They guide the method of
inquiry and communicate research objectives clearly to other researchers. Maxwell (2005) asserts that
research questions help shape research designs which are also shaped by a number of other facets of the
research such as the researcher’s perspective, the review of existing literature and emergent data from the
project itself. A single study may have multiple research questions, though Creswell (2007) encourages
researchers to try to define one overarching question, which can then have a number of sub-questions.
Research Questions in the Study
In the study undertaken by the author, the research objectives, specified above, guided the specification
of the research questions and sub-questions. Maxwell (2005) advocates three categories of questions for
qualitative research: questions about meaning, or how people make sense of the world; questions that
illuminate context; and questions that investigate processes (Maxwell, 2005), all categories which were
applicable in the author’s study, which had three major objectives:
1. To investigate patterns of inferencing strategies;

2. To investigate the role of context on inferencing strategies; and
3. To analyses the role of teaching explicit inferencing strategies in the vocabulary development of
L2 learners.
DATA COLLECTION
Data Collection Considerations
The researcher constructs the research argument and connects it to theoretical positions from the data
gathered through the research study. In the case of this study it was particularly important to recognize
that data collection, both quantitative and qualitative, operates within a cultural context and is affected
to some extent by the perceptions and beliefs of investigators and data collectors. Data collected through
quantitative methods are thought to generate more objective and accurate information because they
were collected using standardized methods, can be replicated, and, can be analyzed using sophisticated
statistical techniques.
269

Grotjahn (1987) states that research traditions in applied linguistics must account for the methods
used for data collection, such as: if the data were collected experimentally or non-experimentally; if the
type of data elicited by the investigation is qualitative or quantitative; and, if the type of analysis con-
ducted on the data is statistical or interpretive. Nunan (1992) says that mixing these methods provides
the researcher with two “pure” research paradigms, such as in an “exploratory-interpretive” paradigm,
which uses a non-experimental method, yields qualitative data and provides an interpretive analysis.
This aligns with the first phase of the research study, which applied qualitative approaches that generated
rich descriptions and data leading to theoretical interpretations. In the second phase Nunan’s other pure
form “analytical-nomological” approach was used, in which data were collected through experiments
and yielded quantitative data that were subjected to statistical analysis (Giridharan, 2010). The second
phase of the study employed quantitative methods consistent with research methods in education to
confirm the formulation of a L2 vocabulary development model in tertiary learners.
The research design for the study justified the selection of the qualitative-interpretive paradigm, which
yields qualitative data analyzed interpretively, and experimental design that uses experiments through
which vocabulary proficiency is measured and supported statistically. Theoretical analysis of the data from
the first phase informed the conceptualization of a specific model of L2 vocabulary development model.
Collecting Data for the Study
In the study the inferencing strategies and the development of vocabulary focused on a specific category
of tertiary L2 learners who came from a first year undergraduate engineering course and from Chinese/
Malay L2 backgrounds. In education research, it is important that the researcher acknowledges the
importance of accessing and understanding participants’ different social constructions of reality, and
of examining issues in depth through exploratory, open-ended conversations, giving importance to the
whole understanding situated in lived experience (Trahar, 2009).
The use of verbal protocol analysis (VPA) or think-aloud procedures was used in phase one of the
study to elicit inferencing strategies used by L2 learners in acquiring vocabulary. VPA has been used
widely to examine changes in knowledge and process as skill develops, and findings from research
studies that examine such changes, have important implications for both the understanding of construct
validation and for approaches to validation (Green, 1998). The central notion of protocol analysis is that
it enables the researcher to instruct subjects to verbalize their thoughts in a way that does not modify
the order of thoughts mediating the completion of a task and therefore is acceptable as valid data on
thinking (Ericsson, 2002).
The participants in the study were informed of the proposed verbal protocol procedures and provided
with the choice to participate or not, and respondents who agreed to participate were provided with a
letter of consent which they signed following the ethical guidelines of the study. The participants in the
first phase (n=40) were provided with questions in an information sheet to guide their thoughts for the
verbal protocol. Additionally, probe questions were provided to guide the participants on how to proceed
with the retrospective self-reports, to prompt valuable information considered crucial to ascertain the
research objectives, and to check for matches in thematic descriptions obtained subsequently from con-
current verbal protocol during the process of reading. Probe questions assist in clarifying behaviors that
signal reservations or doubts. The participants were informed of the importance of their contributions
and that the disclosure of their mental processes would be informative to the research objectives, and
were encouraged to verbalize their thoughts as completely as possible. The clarity of the information
270

provided to participants is acknowledged as significant, given that the study participants came from a
linguistically and culturally diverse background.
The verbalizations gathered in phase one of the study were documented by the researcher and were
consequently transcribed, scored and evaluated for levels of understanding. These verbalizations of-
fered the researcher insights into the cognitive processes of the L2 learners. Verbal reports include three
categories of data:
1. Self-report, where learners provide descriptions of what they do—this is generally characterized
by general statements about learning behaviors;
2. Self-observation, which is the inspection of specific rather than generalized language behavior
soon after a learning event; and
3. Self-revelation, which is a “stream of consciousness disclosure” of thought processes while the
information is being attended to (Cohen, 1996).
Verbal reporting methods that have been ascribed in educational research were used in the study
because they provide data on cognitive processes. The verbal reports gathered both concurrently and
retrospectively provided a logical understanding of the vocabulary learning processes occurring during
text comprehension.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data Analysis Considerations
Qualitative and quantitative data analysis involves labeling and coding the data from the research study
so that similarities and differences can be recognized. Content analysis explains the method of identify-
ing and labeling and the coding data that needs to be developed. The data coding process should aid
researchers to determine what data to collect next as they progress with the analysis of the data gathered.
Creswell (2012) recommends that researchers compare the collected data and group the data into the
corresponding categories based on their interconnections and common threads throughout the coding
process. Creswell (2012) further advocates the use of selective coding and theory development where a
grounded theorist triangulates and delineates the relationships between categories in the coding paradigm
logically. This process refines the developed axial coding paradigm and represents it as a conceptual
model or a theory of the studied phenomenon.
Analyzing Data in the Study
In the study described here, the researcher developed coding categories for the data gathered that strength-
ened the interpretation of statements made by individual participants, in that each code categorized seg-
ments of the text that referred to an inferencing strategy or vocabulary learning skill. Content analysis
and analytic induction were used implicitly in the analysis of qualitative data in the study and although
content was analyzed qualitatively for themes and consistent patterns of meaning, a quantitative approach
was taken to the content analysis through the development of theoretical units of analysis. The process
required the simultaneous coding of raw data and the construction of categories that captured relevant
271

characteristics of the content (Giridharan, 2010). Categories and subcategories were mostly constructed
through comparative methods of data analysis. Detailed theoretical units of analysis were developed from
the data following appropriate coding and segmenting of the data gathered. Category construction began
with the first set of data and moved on to the next set while examining common themes or strands. Ac-
cording to Lincoln and Guba (2000), a unit must be firstly heuristic in that it reveals information relevant
to the study and stimulates the reader to think beyond the information; and furthermore, the unit should
be able to stand by itself in the context in which the inquiry was carried out.
The data were analyzed for patterns, consistencies, repetitions and expressions significant to the
subject of the investigation. The verbal protocols collected on audio tapes were first transcribed and
then examined to draw out codes according to a pattern or representation. The transcripts were coded
independently by the researcher and inter-rater reliability established with a colleague who was a native
English speaker (Giridharan, 2010). All protocols were coded independently by the researcher and the
colleague and meetings were held to review the coded protocols for reliability checks and for discussing
difficulties in coding. The verbal protocol data were transcribed according to the orthographic transcription
conventions recommended by Lemke (2005), who referred to thematic content as that which represents
processes, activities, and relationships including the participants in these processes, and circumstances
of time, place, manner, and means. Orthographic transcription is a verbatim record of what is said by
participants, which includes repetitions, pauses and other non-verbal elements.
Symbols to reflect pauses and thinking intervals were developed for the transcripts through further
discussions with two additional raters. The transcripts were analyzed to answer specific research questions.
Green (1998) recommended the segmenting of the verbal protocols as representative of a single specific
process. Green (1998) further suggested that a balance must be maintained between the researcher’s desire
for coding that reflects every nuance of the verbal report and the need to establish inter-rater reliability.
Inter-coder reliability was established with an experienced colleague who was also a native speaker and
an agreement of 98% was achieved regarding the allocated symbols in the transcribing process.
FINDINGS
Findings in a Mixed Method Context
Miles, Huberman and Saldana (2014) explain the stages that can be adopted to interpret qualitative data
in a valid and rigorous manner, encompassing the descriptive to the explanatory and the concrete to the
more conceptual and abstract. They recommend that researchers organize data according to noted pat-
terns and themes that allow for plausibility and clustering to assist the researcher to connect and make
coherent associations.
A mixed-analysis approach that involved the use of both quantitative and qualitative analytical tech-
niques within the same framework was applied to the qualitative data gathering in the first phase and to
the quantitative data gathered in the later phase of the study. Mixed analysis involves the analysis of both
data types, either concurrently, or sequentially in two phases. It could involve the qualitative analysis
phase preceding the quantitative analysis phase or vice versa. In a phased study, the findings from the
initial analysis phase inform the data gathering and analysis in the subsequent phase (Onwuegbuzie &
Combs, 2011). In mixed method analyses, either the qualitative or quantitative analysis strands might
be given priority or they may have approximately equal standing as a result of a priori decisions or
272

decisions that emerge during the course of the study (i.e., posteriori or iterative decisions). The mixed
analyses could represent case-oriented, variable-oriented, and process/experience oriented analyses
(Onwuegbuzie & Combs, 2011).
Findings and the Preliminary Phase of the Study
In the preliminary study, analyses of the transcribed protocol profiles were exploratory-interpretive,
with the aim of categorizing participants’ inferencing strategies. The analyses of the transcribed verbal
protocols from retrospective self-reports and concurrent reports assisted the identification of the range
of inferencing strategies employed by the study participants during the reading process, such as memory,
cognitive, meta-cognitive and social inferencing strategies. Each inferencing strategy was identified on
the basis of whether it corresponded to memory, cognitive, meta-cognitive or a social strategy.
There were numerous lexical entries, inferencing strategies, and transfer strategies, in the meta-cog-
nitive schemata assisting L2 vocabulary production processes in the mental lexicons of the participants
in the study (Giridharan, 2010). From the retrospective and concurrent verbal protocol analysis, several
inferencing and vocabulary learning strategies were seen to be used by the participants. Four strate-
gies were used most frequently, namely: structural analysis, dictionary reference, context analysis and
morphemic analysis. Four new strategies or variants of strategies were used by participants including:
registering satisfaction with assimilation, referring to internet search engines like “Google,” expressing
lack of understanding, and visualizing. Participants used multiple strategies simultaneously to assist them
in reading comprehension and for L2 vocabulary development (Giridharan, 2010). Table 1 summarizes
the number of strategies used and the percentage of participants who used them.
Table 1. Vocabulary learning strategies identified in the study
No Vocabulary Learning Strategies Percent

1 Text Processing 51
2 Context Analysis 68
3 Morphemic Analysis 61
4 Structural Analysis 78
5 Repetition and Multiple Exposures 54
6 Dictionary Reference 73
7 Peer Learning/ Constructivist Learning 41
8 English For Specific Use 34
9 Limited Processing Capacity 20
10 Retaining New Words Depending on “Need” 27
11 Retaining New Words Depending on “Search” 24
12 Retaining New Words Depending on “Evaluation” 22
13 Guessing Meaning of Unknown Words 56
14 Expressing Lack of Understanding 48
15 Visualizing 32
16 Transfer Processes 24
273

Findings and the Second Phase of the Study
The second phase of the study was concerned with investigating whether vocabulary increments were
achieved via the explicit teaching of the vocabulary inferencing strategies identified in the first phase of
study, in comparative groups of study participants. Specially designed criterion referenced tests (CRT-
diagnostic) to test vocabulary proficiency in context were administered in six groups of participants in a
tertiary setting at semester commencement. These measured the vocabulary proficiency level in English
of the L2 learners. Four uniform groups, in which homogeneity in terms of vocabulary knowledge and
language proficiency was established, were selected for inclusion in the study. In the two experimental
groups an intervention was utilized and in the two control groups standard teaching procedures carried
out. Criterion referenced (CR-achievement) vocabulary tests were administered to the two control groups
and two experimental groups at the end of the semester in order to measure productive vocabulary devel-
opment and to ascertain whether L2 learners benefit from explicit instruction. A parametric test such as
the t-test for independent means was used to evaluate the difference in means between the two groups of
participants in the study. The t-test is appropriate to determine whether a difference between the means
of two samples is significant (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000). The t-test for independent means was used to
compare the mean scores of the two different types of independent groups which were the control and
experimental groups. A minimum coefficient reliability of +.7 was set for the study to establish internal
stability for the test-retest methods used for administering pre- and post-tests in the study and this was
successfully achieved.
The results from the CRT-achievement tests for experimental and control groups showed that the
participants in the experimental groups had performed much better than participants in control groups
on items that tested for recognition skills, lexical knowledge, depth of vocabulary knowledge, meanings
in different contexts and technical vocabulary proficiency. The results validated that explicit teaching of
vocabulary learning strategies assists in developing vocabulary in L2 learners.
Mixed analyses quite often involve several phases. Greene (2007, p. 155) identified the following
four phases of analysis:
1. Data transformation,
2. Data correlation and comparison,
3. Analysis for inquiry conclusions and inferences, and
4. Using aspects of the analytic framework of one methodological tradition within the analysis of data
from another tradition.
In this case, the use of mixed-methods in a case study approach allowed for triangulation of data and
validation of study findings.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the chapter provides an insight into the research paradigms that applied in an empirical
study conducted by the author that adopted a mixed method case study approach. In the first instance
qualitative methods were employed to investigate patterns of English vocabulary inferencing strategies
among adult second language (L2) learners in pedagogical contexts. In the second instance quantitative
274

form was adopted to measure the effects of explicit instruction of inferencing and vocabulary learning
strategies in advancing vocabulary development. In the preliminary phase the study worked within a
constructivist/interpretive paradigm with the assumption that the phenomena investigated is a product
of meanings derived from interactions and understandings of the participants studied. The findings from
this phase informed an understanding adopted as grounded theory. This could be seen to align with the
neo-positivist paradigm in the inductive mode. In the second phase the understanding derived was put
to the test, which aligns with the neo-positivist paradigm in the deductive form. This demonstrates how
two, or even more, research paradigms may be employed in a research study in a complementary fashion
to serve different intents.
REFERENCES
Anderson, G. (1998). Fundamentals of educational research. Pennsylvania: The Falmer Press.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Association for Qualitative Research. the. (n. d.). Bricolage. AQR Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.
aqr.org.uk/glossary/bricolage
Batelaan, P., & Coomans, F. (1999). The international basis for intercultural education including anti-
racist and human rights education (2nd ed.). Switzerland: International Association for Intercultural
Education (IAIE) in Co-operation with UNESCO; International Bureau of Education (IBE) and the
Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/Publications/FreePublica-
tions/FreePublicationsPdf/batelaan.PDF
Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and evaluation criteria. Journal of
Agribusiness, 23(1), 75S91.
Bordage, G., & Dawson, B. (2003). Experimental study design and grant education in eight steps and 28
questions. Medical Education, 37(4), 376–385. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01468.x PMID:12654123
Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide
to research methods. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781848607927.n14
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Ap-
plied Language Learning, 7(1&2), 5–24.
Cohen, L., Manion, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thou-
sand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
275

Davis, N. E., Brown, A., & Ferdig, R. E. (2005). Developing international leadership in educational
technology: Strategies to promote intercultural competence. In P. Nicholson, J. B. Thompson, M. Ruoho-
nen, & J. Multisilta (Eds.), E-Training practices for professional organizations (pp. 247–254). Boston:
Kluwer Publications. doi:10.1007/0-387-23572-8_30
Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Protocol analysis and verbal reports on thinking. Retrieved from http://www.
psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.proto.thnk.html
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Giridharan, B. (2010). An investigative study of English vocabulary acquisition patterns in adult L2
tertiary learners with Chinese/Malay L1. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Perth, WA: Curtin University of
Technology. Retrieved from http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/p?cur_digitool_dc159516
Glaser, B. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory, Forum Qualitative Research 3(3). Retrieved from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/825/1792
Green, A. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis in language testing research: A handbook. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grotjahn, R. (1987). On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Introspection in second language research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hemmings, S., & Hollows, A. (n. d.). Formulating the research question. Sheffield Hallam University.
Retrieved from http://www.socscidiss.bham.ac.uk/research-question.html
Lemke, J. L. (2005). Textual politics, discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging conflu-
ences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Applied social research methods series: Vol. 41. Qualitative research design: An
interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook.
London: Sage Publications.
Newby, P. (2010). Research methods in education. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
276

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Combs, J. P. (2011). Data analysis in mixed research: A primer. International
Journal of Education, 3(1). Retrieved from http://macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ije/article/view-
File/618/550 doi:10.5296/ije.v3i1.618
Putney, L., Green, J., Dixon, C. N., & Kelly, G. J. (1999). Evolution of qualitative research methodology:
Looking beyond defense to possibilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 368–377. doi:10.1598/
RRQ.34.3.6
Rogers, M. (2012). Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. Qualitative Report,
17, 1–17.
Trahar, S. (2009). Beyond the story itself: Narrative inquiry and autoethnography in intercultural research
in Higher Education. Forum Qualitative Research. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/
index.php/fqs/article/view/1218/2653
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The
practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wisker, G. (2007). The postgraduate research handbook (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://he.palgrave.
com/page/detail/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230363943
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: designs and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
277
278
Chapter 17
Work-Integrated
Learning Praxis:
Selecting a Research Paradigm
Bruce Calway
ABSTRACT
Education practices, like Work-Integrated Learning, result from a confluence of educational issues, and
contextual and philosophical influences. This chapter commences with an overview of the Work-Integrated
Learning philosophy, the contextual modifiers and the education issues that provide the framework for
Work-Integrated Learning education practices. Issues in investigating or researching Work-Integrated
Learning and research paradigm possibilities are explored. It is contended that adoption of a holistic
research paradigm for future Work-Integrated Learning research projects is needed to avoid simplistic
assessments of Work-Integrated Learning that fail to advance experiential learning (e.g. Dewey, 1938)
in school-to-work and workforce scenarios, in any meaningful way. Selection of the neo-positivist re-
search paradigm is argued.
INTRODUCTION
Work-Integrated Learning (WIL), in its broadest sense, is a term often used to describe what educators call
the “school-to-work” pathway; a pathway that guides and supports the employability of graduates. WIL
had its genesis in the early part of the 20th Century and has morphed into a plethora of situation-specific
implementations worldwide. Broadly speaking WIL is expressed in terms of educational practices that
integrate discipline knowledge and theory to its application in industry. It involves meaningful workplace
application that is seen to be organized and intentional, and that ultimately leads to recognition of such
learning by formal bodies in a particular industry. The World Association for Cooperative Education is
the peak organization and promoter of the work-integrated learning framework as a deep learning model
at school level and the workplace (WACE, 2016).
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch017

Work-Integrated Learning Praxis
WIL PHILOSOPHY AND THE EDUCATIONAL IMPERATIVES1
WIL is a term that incorporates knowledge and skills acquisition with “real-world” experience. It em-
braces many approaches, across several levels of education. The World Association for Cooperative
Education (WACE) is the peak organization worldwide and the promoter of the work-integrated learning
paradigm as a deep learning model at school level and in the workplace (WACE 2016). Broadly speaking
WIL can be expressed as “educational activities that integrate theoretical learning with its application in
the workplace” and “provide a meaningful experience of the workplace application that is intentional,
organized and recognized by the institution, in order to secure learning outcomes for the student that are
both transferable and applied” (Griffith University, 2006).
Philosophically, Dewey (1938), Kolb (1983), Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989), Lave and Wenger
(1991), and others have argued the learning benefits of linking work and learning. Learners involved in
WIL are able to move from observation to participation. Throughout a work placement, this transition
may take place on a number of occasions as learners are exposed to new challenges. Each transition
enables the learner to become involved in informal learning. Informal education is a way of helping
people to learn that involves elements such as conversation and experience in any setting (e.g. Smith,
1997). Informal education provides an opportunity for broader learning than can be obtained just in a
class room whereas learners in WIL are forced to move from a strategic/pragmatic approach to positive
problem solving learning (Calway, 2005).
The Work-Integrated Learning philosophy can be expressed by way of a number of generic WIL mod-
els. WIL found its genesis in engineering. The initial model has evolved into a multiplicity of variations;
been transferred and implemented across an array of disciplines, institutions and workplaces. WIL is the
general term given to learning that occurs through undertaking a component of industry/professional
practical experience while studying, whether studying for an accredited program of tertiary level studies
or not. We suggest that WIL should adopt active and/or action learning methodologies, and focus upon a
broader individual and corporate professional development approach, and that WIL should be expressed
through six educational imperatives as a social construction:
• Work ready (labor force) graduates—a vocational and skills/competency focus in the proliferation
of degrees with specialized major studies;
• A continuing professional development culture;
• Life-long learning;
• Knowledge transfer and exchange that occurs through “linkage and exchange”—the interaction,
collaboration, and exchange of ideas;
• Human and social potential; and
• Internationalization—international relevance and collaboration.
Adopting these six educational imperative will see the impact of workforce economics and compe-
tence being played out in individuals, institutions and workplaces, in contrast to continuing professional
development that requires a more holistic approach.
Using the lens of this WIL definition and philosophy a study was conducted of cooperative education
and continuing professional development literature, together with published public and higher education
policy. Working on the basis that any understanding of WIL must embrace an education and workplace
philosophy that informs workforce development, learning theory and education pedagogy we identified
279

nine generic models for WIL. As part of our original review of cooperative education literature, and
WIL as a learning philosophy, we questioned:
• Whether WIL, as reported, was meeting the needs of public policy broadly; and
• The relationship that active and action learning has with WIL as both learning theory and learning
methodology.
We proposed that the analysis of these studies provided an understanding of a WIL philosophy as
incorporating the six educational imperatives and as using active and action learning methodologies:
• Action learning is seen here as an overt contrivance by the learner and strongly embedded in the
learner’s culture and learning desires—a continuous process of purposed learning and reflection,
centered about the need to find the solution to a real problem. Learning is initiated and driven
by the learner (Knowles, 1975; Revans, 1991). Our analysis shows that this is not how WIL is
reported in literature; and
• Active learning is concerned with learning from doing, and/or taking action. It can involve reflec-
tion and/or include student course materials, constructed activities, case studies, group projects,
etc. This sees WIL as an integration of work and learning, contrived not by the learner but by other
parties (educators, employers, etc.). (Meyers & Jones, 1993).
In its broadest sense WIL is most often described as an attempt by educators to provide a “schooling-
to-work” pathway to support the employability of graduates. The cooperative arrangements, between
stakeholder groups, have for decades shaped programs of study at many tertiary education institutions,
and certainly for the best part of the last century in the Western economies. Such approaches endorsed a
workforce and competence imperative for education and learning that, while consistent with the broader
expressions in public policy, did not encourage or engage career-based professional development educa-
tion and learning. The major stakeholders in WIL have been seen as industry, students and the education
institutions.
A wider relationship also exists that includes: Professional Associations; the Government; and more
widely the community, which may extend over time as a career development paradigm. Successive
Western governments have expressed a social imperative for “work-ready” and “life-long learners” as
part of their labor policy. An examination of public policy recorded in Australia over three decades,
undertaken by Calway and Murphy (2007), found that education policy was being driven by workforce-
ready imperatives and risk minimization (i.e. competence and compliance) strategies. This was also
consistent with worldwide policy directions detailed in:
• OECD reports (2002; 2003);

• National submissions to the International Symposium for Career Development and Public Policy
(CICA, 2006);
• The emphasis on employability issues in the Bologna Process (Bologna Process, 1999-2007;
Kohler, 2004); and
• Quality Assurance (ENQA, 2007).
280

In 2006 and 2009 we studied approximately 900 articles (Calway & Murphy, 2007) reporting work-
integrative and cooperative learning projects, from prominent journals and publications that were collected
as abstracts and content analyzed along multiple dimensions. The groupings of experiential education
were consolidated into the first eight of the models listed below (see Table 1):
• Model One “Pre-course experience” was distinct from the other models in that it could be seen as
a prerequisite for course entry rather than a work-based experience during the term of a course. It
assumes a certain level of competence upon acceptance into a course rather than work and learn-
ing integration during the course.
• Model Two was named “Project-based” and contained the practicum, independent studies and
work-based project models. This model is project-based with students completing a research proj-
ect related to their chosen career, generally at a work site, which offers an opportunity to apply
theory learned to the project undertaken.
• Model Three “Vocational” contains the vocational education, technical preparation and appren-
ticeship models. The models are vocational in focus. Most of the skills are developed on the job
with a small amount of theory being learned through course material. These models are “trade
focused,” for example: plumber, carpenter, etc.
• Model Four “Contextual Learning” contained the models of experiential education, contextual
learning, praxis and service learning. This group brings real life experiences into the classroom
setting. Learning from doing in a very structured way, this ensures that the student is playing an
active learning role in their own education. These models ensure that the curricula is not studied
in isolation but that ideas, skills and insights learned in a classroom are tested and experienced in
real life. In this instance “context” is interpreted to mean “real life.”
• Model Five “Work Experience” contained the work experience and job shadowing. These ar-
rangements give students a sample of what it feels like in the workplace. They do not necessarily
have to have any relevance to course material as the students are generally “observers” simply
attempting to gain an understanding of what a job entails. These are generally undertaken during
the middle years of high school as students attempt to plan for their future careers; the placement
is generally short-term.
• Model Six “Supervised Experience” contained externship, field studies, internship, cognitive ap-
prenticeship, professional practice and “preceptorships”: supervised experience in a focused field
of study. These arrangements are generally “built” into the course rather than having a student
make a choice to participate in industry learning. Medical internship provides an example. These
are skill-based, in a professional field.
• Model Seven “Work-Based Learning” contained cooperative education, organizational learning,
industry-based learning, sandwich courses, and practice-oriented education. These are forms of
education that integrate periods of academic study with periods of work experience related to the
student’s studies. Academic credit is offered for generally six to twelve month placements. These
arrangements are generally optional and a result of a student’s initiative and commitment to study.
Students learn first and then enter the work place to apply knowledge.
• Model Eight “Joint Industry/University Courses” contains cooperative programs and joint indus-
try/university courses. These arrangements are a partnership between industry and university,
where industry can move into the classroom to ensure that students have the necessary skills to be
employable by the industry.
281

A further review in 2009 included professional associations as major stakeholders and continuing
professional development as the learning paradigms. That study highlighted the need to include continu-
ing professional development as a post-graduation learning opportunity or model of WIL (See Table 2).
Model Nine was named “Continuing Professional Development.” It is based on the premise that
simply maintaining the sufficiency level of knowledge held at entry into the profession is inadequate.
Practice alone is generally insufficient to ensure knowledge is effective and up to date. New knowledge
required to continue to practice within a profession evolves over time as a consequence of legal changes,
technological advances or conceptual development. Professionals, therefore, have a requirement for
professional development to obtain knowledge which reflects current practice within the profession and
workplace as well as society norms.
All WIL models analyzed reported benefits and suggested that WIL should be designed and imple-
mented so that the learning is maximized (Andresen, Boud, & Cohen, 2000; Billett, 2001). In some
cases the employer is a key stakeholder of the process and in others the employer may be coincidental
or even irrelevant. In all models it is possible to construct a learning environment that challenges learn-
ers to reflect on the practices and processes of the workplace and to critically review their own and the
operational performance of the business.
Unfortunately for many students/learners the first exposure to problems without predetermined solu-
tions comes after graduation. This may be the cause of the many requests over the years for work-ready
graduates (e.g. CIO Executive Council, 2006; IBM, 2004; Jancauskas, Atchison, Murphy, & Rose, 1997).
Education providers need to strike a balance between:
• Purely vocational education, which is competency-based and focused on standards; and

• A pure education philosophy that does not extend the student beyond the class room.
WIL purports greater depth of learning as learners are exposed to the multiple cultures of learning
and work. Through WIL, learning can be placed in context, providing learners with:
• Greater understanding of the technical aspects of their profession;

• Broader understanding of their profession and their workplace; and
• The incentive to become active learners rather than strategic/pragmatic participants.
SELECTION OF A RESEARCH PARADIGM FOR WIL RESEARCH
When developing the WIL philosophy and educational imperatives some years ago (refer Calway &
Murphy, 2011) it was with the goal in mind of contextualizing what was known about WIL and WIL
models, the politics, social constructions of work and learning, and reported research studies. What
was not upper most in mind was the “research paradigm” that encapsulates, or could encapsulate, and
overarch the understandings of WIL and the various associated education imperatives and issues. The
present book suggests there must be at least one research paradigm that can foreground further research
and provide a consistent basis for subsequent research study design and researchers in this important
area of education implementation, learning and continuing professional practices.
The question arises then: Which research paradigm could be said to best represent and underpin a WIL
philosophy and the educational imperatives? In this exploration the findings may well influence further
282

research studies and empower researchers in applying research methods to data collection construction
and data analysis, interpretation processes and conclusions reached. Research studies of the coopera-
tive arrangements between these groups can be developed and observed; and importantly to defining a
research paradigm, is that WIL is not a prescriptive form of education as it supports multiple work and
learning realities, models and operations and can exist within different learning theories.
Research paradigm is a term with many connotations but a term that was not overtly represented in
the majority of papers that made up the content analysis of the WIL models and philosophy study (refer
Calway & Murphy, 2011). It is not known whether the researchers in the many hundreds of studies were
aware of the research paradigm that underpinned their research or simply assumed that a research paradigm
was self-evident in their methodology statement and that it was more important to state their methods
and describe their research study methodology for data collection and analysis. The clear proposition
of the present book, and this chapter, is that the methodology employed does not describe the research
paradigm but rather only one facet of it.
Some time ago Knight (1989) argued the case for a holistic understanding of the relationship of
philosophical determinants, contextual modifiers and educational issues that help educators to avoid
neglecting the roots of their education practices; remembering that education is deliberately outcome
or goal-oriented. In the research paradigm concept it is the philosophy—the ontological, axiological
beliefs/values and epistemology—that determines the goal of the research paradigm.
The philosophical understanding, however, may be modified by factors such as political, social, and
economic expectations, and educational issues and practices. It is then that the expressed education
practices become the focus of much of the researchers’ studies, often published in the form of evaluative
studies. Many implementations of work and learning are practices implemented in response to industrial
and social needs—particularly in times of economic turmoil; most often as a response to the development
of thematic/discipline focused education programs that were designed to meet professional, industrial and
community demands for employability, compliance and accountability. In this context there is perpetual
revision of extant education practices and the comparative analysis across models, never expressing or
testing the philosophical or contextual underpinning of the studies. Worse is a reliance upon extant be-
liefs, values, contextual drivers and educational issues without challenging the underlying assumptions.
In the case of WIL, it could be argued that of the many studies reviewed, most studies took a restricted
view. Some involved veracity testing of one practice over others and some identified education issues
but they failed to address the philosophical determinants and contextual modifying factors required for
identification of a research paradigm.
Some years ago I considered it necessary to understand what was being said with regard to models
of education that included: cooperative education; practice-based learning; continuing professional de-
velopment; and public and higher education policy, among other criteria. I was seeking a higher order
categorization of knowledge or understandings assigned to individual, political and institutional WIL
education practice drivers. This was achieved and published in the book chapter mentioned above (Cal-
way & Murphy, 2011). The chapter dealt with a view of reality that was a consolidation of a plethora of
education practices and research/evaluative studies. It also dealt with the drivers of the researchers and of
their studies; and the nature of the knowledge gained from their research. What was not recorded at the
time was the plethora of methods and methodologies used by the researchers to reach individual research
conclusions. Rather, I concentrated upon recording the philosophical determinants and the contextual
modifying factors, e.g. political, economic, social, and labor force arrangements.
283

CHOOSING A RESEARCH PARADIGM FOR WIL
Armed with the description of WIL above and the selection criterion of philosophical determinants,
contextual modifiers and education issues involved, the discussion now moves to selection of a research
paradigm from among the paradigms categorized in Chapters 1 and 2. It is the philosophical determinants
(ontology; axiology; epistemology) expressed as a goal or goals and modified contextually, consequently
driven by education issues, that leads to education practices. Where WIL research and evaluation stud-
ies involve collecting data with a view to continuous improvement a superficial or pragmatic approach
could be argued. However, it is important to look beyond the superficial to deeper understanding of
contextual modifiers and philosophical determinants. If we move from the superficial practices level
towards a deeper and holistic education research paradigm for WIL then we seem to be drawn toward
three possibilities: neo-positivist; interpretivist; and transformative research paradigms.
Neo-positivism acknowledges that reality may be structured, localized and subject to change over
time. In the deductive mode this may be addressed by testing the “null” case from a constructed world-
view (i.e. something is assumed truth until such time as an example shows otherwise). Understandings
of WIL, it could be argued, are the aggregate of what is known along with the way that it has become
known, and importantly the beliefs and values attached through such educators as Dewey (1938) . This
view would then depend upon the theory of WIL, presented in the philosophy and the educational impera-
tives section of the chapter, being understood as a school-to-work to workforce/work-life arrangement.
Outside of a WIL research paradigm then, research studies will continue to focus on the “better
mouse trap” syndrome—the pragmatic paradigm—and fail to advance our education philosophy and
consequently practices. Categorization of WIL within a neo-positivist research paradigm, as defined in
Chapters 1 and 2, allows for a consistent patterned world-view that enables education practices to change
over time due to contextual modifiers while at the same time holding the goal of a WIL philosophy
relatively constant but subject to theoretical testing over time.
On the other hand the interpretivist and transformative research paradigms, as another two possibili-
ties, assume that there need not be an underscoring theory of WIL and that any WIL world-view is a
construction of the researcher working with the participants in a particular context. That WIL has strong
political and economic drivers is self-evident. Industrial participants in a context of labor-force practices
and community perceptions combine to produce a relativist understanding of education practices for
school-to-work-to-workforce.
To argue for a transformative research paradigm for WIL would be to argue that the researcher is
inherently the driver of change with a definite socio-political agenda. However, while it can be said that
individual researchers of education practices of WIL can and do take an action-based approach to their
research study, it is at the education practice end rather than the philosophical end of the continuum;
they are not trying to change the philosophical understanding of a WIL world-view.
Equally, the interpretivist understanding of reality, as a third option for a research paradigm, can ac-
commodate many of the variations of the WIL educational practices identified in the research studies.
The beliefs and value position of the researcher are acknowledged in a research study and cannot be
separated from the subject of the research. As a subjective world-view the conclusions reached are not
objectively defensible and can and/or do change over time. Understandings that may be seen as initially
appropriate may be challenged over time.
284

Philosophical underpinnings of WIL, “labor-force economics” and arrangements for school-to-work

to workforce educational practices, can be tested as objective arrangements that do not degenerate due to
researcher subjectivity and/or transformative influences. This is not to say that transformative approaches
will not change the implementation of educational practice. The social dynamics of emancipatory and
feminist agendas, for example, could and perhaps should, drive school-to-work to workforce contexts
more than at present. However, this considered, it is still possible to contend that understandings of
school-to-work to workforce may be seen as objective. With this in mind, I would argue for the applica-
tion of a neo-positivist research paradigm for WIL research and that each research study be seen as the
opportunity to test: the “null case”; the philosophical goals of WIL; the contextual modifiers; and the
educational issues. Educational practices are contingent upon this knowledge and understanding.
REFERENCES
Andresen, L., Boud, D., & Cohen, R. (2000). Experience-based learning. In G. Foley (Ed.), Understand-
ing adult education and training (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Billett, S. (2001). Learning through work: Workplace affordances and individual engagement. Journal
of Workplace Learning, 13(5), 209–214. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005548
Bologna Process. (2010). The Bologna process and Declaration: Trends in learning structures in higher
education. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/search/index.htm?cx
=013531861688426506363%3Afnpyfltxhbu&cof=FORID%3A11&q=Trends+in+Learning+Structur
es+in+Higher+Education&sa=Zoeken&siteurl=www.ond.vlaanderen.be%2Fhogeronderwijs%2Fbolo
gna%2Fsearch%2F#1664
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated learning and the culture of learning. Education
Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
Calway, B. A. (2005). Rethinking a learning environment strategy. Geelong: Deakin University.
Calway, B. A., & Murphy, G. A. (2007). The educational imperatives for a Work-Integrated Learning
philosophy. The Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 41(2), 95–109.
Calway, B. A., & Murphy, G. A. (2011). A Work-Integrated Learning Philosophy and the educational
imperatives. In P. Keleher, A. Patil, & R. E. Harreveld (Eds.), Work-Integrated Learning in engineer-
ing, built environment and technology: Diversity of practice in practice. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-547-6.ch001
CICA, Career Industry Council of Australia (Ed.). (2006). Shaping the future: Connecting career de-
velopment and workforce development. Paper presented at theInternational Symposium on Career
Development & Public Policy, Sydney.
CIO Executive Council. (2006). Situation analysis. Council Initiatives—Australia. Retrieved from http://
www.cioexecutivecouncil.com/public/au/mentoring.html
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
285

ENQA. (2007). ENQA report on standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher
education area (2nd ed.). Helsinki: ENQA.
Griffith University. (2006). Introduction to Work Integrated Learning (WIL). Retrieved from http://
www62.gu.edu.au/policylibrary.nsf/xmainsearch/a0d60f04626b7f144a2571800063dd56?opendocument
IBM. (2004). Services science: A new academic discipline. Retrieved from http://domino.research.ibm.
com/comm/www_fs.nsf/images/fsr/$FILE/summit_report.pdf
Jancauskas, E., Atchison, M., Murphy, G. A., & Rose, P. (1997). Unleashing the potential of Work-
Integrated-Learning through professionally trained academic and industry supervisors. Paper presented
at theWACE Conference, Cape Town.
Knight, G. R. (1989). Philosophy and education. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning—A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association
Press.
Kohler, J. (2004). The Bologna Process and employability: The impact of employability on curricular
development. Paper presented at the A Key Objective of Academic Studies and for Academic Institu-
tions, Bled.
Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Engle-
wood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral interaction. Cambridge: CUP.
(Original publication 1990) doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Developing and assessing instructional expertise: Promoting active
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
OECD. (2002). Education policy analysis. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3343,
en_2649_39263231_1841194_1_1_1_1,00.html
OECD. (2003). Education policy analysis. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/document/14/0,2340,
en_2649_34511_17735886_1_1_1_1,00.html
Revans, R. W. (1991). Action learning: Its origins and practice. In M. Pedlar (Ed.), Action learning in
practice (2nd ed.). New York: Gower Press.
WACE. (2016). The World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE): Advancing work integrated
learning globally. Retrieved from http://www.waceinc.org/
286

ENDNOTE
1
The following section and attached Appendix Table are an outtake and paraphrase of a chapter
published as B. Calway and G. Murphy (2011), “A work-integrated learning philosophy and the
educational imperatives.” In P. Keleher, A. Patil & R. E. Harreveld (Eds.), Work-Integrated Learn-
ing in Engineering, Built Environment and Technology (pp. 1-24). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. The
details are paraphrased and presented to provide an understanding of WIL as a base for discussion
of the selection of a research paradigm, which follows.
287
APPENDIX 1
Table 1. WIL models: Expectations for stakeholders
Educational Institution and/ Employer and/or Industry

StakeholderModels Student/Learner
or Professional Associations Workplace
• Skill establishment.
• Students entering the course
• Work experience. • Student is employee.
have a certain level of practical
M1—Pre-course Experience • Enhanced employment • Higher level of expertise
knowledge.
opportunities. through doing the course.
• Prior knowledge/ experience.
• Advanced Qualification.
• Independent knowledge
application. • Project completion.
• Industry relationships
M2—Project-Based Experience • Field experience. • Business improvements
• Students with practical skills.
• Enhanced employment through “consultation.”
opportunities.
• Students who have trade
• Practical/occupational skill
skills to complete specific
experience. Students who are skilled and
M3—Vocational Education tasks.
• Enhanced employment work force ready.
• Good, cheap, dependable
opportunities.
workers.
• Students who are independent
• Enhanced learning style.
learners.
• Able to apply theory to practice.
M4—Contextual Learning • Contextualized knowledge. N/A.
• Application of information/
• Students who are more
knowledge.
interested in learning.
• High schools develop
relationships with industry.
• Students get a taste of
• Students who have had some
• A taste of the work place. company.
M5—Work Experience “work force” experience.
• Generic skills. • Students are to comply with
• Community service
company guidelines.
(depending on type of
experience).
• Industry partnerships.
• Enhanced employability.
• Enhanced employment
• Marketable jobs skills.
opportunities. • High level competence.
M6—Supervised Experience • Exposure to current industry
• Development of reputation. • Minimal or no cost.
practices.
• Student’s application of
• Clarification of career goals.
knowledge.
• High level competence.
• Work force ready students.
• Fully contributing
• Reputation development.
• Enhanced employability. employee.
• Graduate employability.
• Marketable jobs skills. • Worker at lower cost.
• Industry partnerships.
M7—Work-Based Learning • Exposure to current industry • Training a future employee.
• Opportunity to update faculty.
practices. • Benefit of current
• Workplace tested curriculum.
• Clarification of career goals. university practice.
• Student’s application of
• Benefit of current
knowledge.
knowledge.
• High level competence.
• Benefits of current practice in • Fully contributing
• Enhanced employability. the workplace. employee.
• Marketable jobs skills. • Industry expertise. • Worker at lower cost.
M8—Joint Industry/University Courses • Exposure to current industry • Ongoing partnership. • Training a future employee.
practices. • Student’s application of • Benefit of current
• Clarification of career goals. knowledge. university practice.
• Work force ready students. • Benefit of current
knowledge.
(Calway & Murphy, 2011, p. 5)
288
APPENDIX 2
Table 2. WIL models: Continuing professional development
Educational Institution
Employer and/or Industry
Stakeholder Models Student/Learner and/or Professional
Workplace
Associations
• Benefits of current practice
• Upskill for compliance and/or
in the workplace.
knowledge enhancement. • High level competence.
• Industry expertise.
• Enhanced employability. • Fully contributing
M9—Continuing Professional • Ongoing partnership.
• Marketable jobs skills. employee.
Development • Learner’s application and
• Exposure to current industry • Benefit of current
transference of knowledge.
practices. knowledge.
• Work force ready students/
• Clarification of career goals.
learners.
289
Section 6
Supercomplexity
291
Chapter 18
Researching Supercomplexity:
Planes, Possibilities, Poetry
Ronald Barnett
University College London, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
A schema is proposed on which basis education research might be advanced. The approach revisits an
earlier idea, that of supercomplexity, and substantially develops it into a supercomplexity mark two. The
discussion is situated in the context of the university and the proposed schema situates the university
on three planes. The planes hold together both ontological and ideational components (the university
as institution and as idea), reveal spaces for emergence, and allow for imaginative thought and action.
Two implications emerge. Firstly, education research should be conducted with an awareness of the
total (tri-planar) space in which an institution such as the university moves, in all its ontological and
ideational aspects. Secondly, writing becomes not an adjunct to research but takes on aspects of creativ-
ity and even poetry. In response to an enquiry about one’s professional occupation, an academic should
be happy to say “I am a writer.”
INTRODUCTION
We live in turbulent times. It is not just that we live amidst change but that our fundamental concepts
and frameworks through which we make sense of the world are in dispute. In turn, each person and each
group—say in professional life—is having to juggle multiple, proliferating and contending frameworks
of understanding. In turn, too, professional identity is unstable and full of immanent conflict. A doctor
can no longer be sure of his or her identity as a doctor, a situation that arises, in part, as a result of a
surrounding swirl of rival frameworks.
This situation has to have repercussions for education research and for the role of the university
more broadly. In the wider philosophical and social theoretical literature, terms are to be found that
attempt to do some justice to it. The metaphor of an unstructured “rhizome” and its associated theme
of “multiplicities” (Deleuze & Guattari, 2007), a “liquid world” (Bauman, 2005), and “assemblage”
theory (De Landa, 2013; Irwin & Michael, 2003), are just a few of the contemporary offerings to gain
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch018

Researching Supercomplexity
some hold of an inchoate situation. The implications of these movements, both in the world and in our
efforts to understand that unstable world, have yet to work its way fully into education research. This
essay, accordingly, seeks to address the matter. If the world is so unstable that our very frameworks
for comprehending it are problematic, if words can hardly do justice to the world’s fluidity, how might
education research itself be construed and conducted? The main ploy adopted here is that of revisiting
an earlier idea, that of supercomplexity, and developing it in the light of more recent theoretical develop-
ments, and then turning to suggest some implications for education research. Perhaps even the very term
“education research” needs to come in for scrutiny: Our very notions of research may be inadequate in
doing justice to the world now before us.
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEXITY
Approaching twenty years ago (Barnett, 1990), the idea of supercomplexity was posited as a way of
understanding some of the challenges befalling an educational institution (the university was the object
of interest at that time). The idea of supercomplexity possessed a number of components, both positive
and negative. Negatively, it could be said, supercomplexity was not complexity. More positively, super-
complexity was sharply distinguished from complexity in having its own characteristics. Crudely, so far
as an educational institution such as the university was concerned, complexity worked at the systems
level. It was concerned with the inputs, systemic processes and outputs, all of which had their place in an
environment that was itself complex, and which ranged from the local through the national to the global
levels. “Complexity” here referred to the instability and, thereby, the unpredictability of the interactions
of all of these components and the outcomes of those interactions.
“Supercomplexity,” in contrast, was still a form of complexity but it was not that systems-kind of
complexity. Supercomplexity arose from the presence of multiple conceptual frameworks through which
individuals and groups—members of a university, say—interpreted their world. The very categories
through which the world was understood were not only in dispute but were proliferating. Just what was a
university, for example? Was it an institution for human development or for economic gain or for worldly
power or for public understanding? To say it is all of these things was to evade the matter at hand, for
the categories of possible understanding cut across each other. Some might even be incommensurable
with each other. And this presence of competing frameworks is the character of the world—and thereby
of people’s lifeworld—today.
The difference between complexity and supercomplexity, so understood, can be encapsulated in this
way. (The example of what it was to be a doctor was given.) A doctor is faced with increasing numbers
of new drugs, new procedures, a surfeit of patients, an overload of data, growing audits of various kinds,
and an insufficiency of resources to cope with the situation. Such a situation is not just replete with
multiple entities but is one that is characteristically complex. For all the features just mentioned are in
effect sub-systems that are entangled with each other, producing all the time unexpected happenings and
events, which in turn demand a response. This complexity is real: It exists in the world and it imposes,
in turn, considerable psychological burdens. So much so that doctors experience stress. Doctors even
commit suicide.
Supercomplexity, in contrast, is not systems related, at least not in the same way. As stated, super-
complexity is present when there is a situation of multiple, proliferating and rivalrous sets of categories
through which situations may be understood. Here, in relation to our example, the question arises: “What
292

is a doctor?” Different, growing and conflicting responses are readily available in contemporary society. A
doctor is a systems manager, or works to fulfil state ends in public services, or is an agent in the operation
of quality systems, or is a professional caring for the health needs of clients as they present themselves,
or is a member of a medical profession with its own interests, or is a crystal-ball gazer with a concern
for improving public health, or is a magic healer endowed with supernatural powers. Again, to say that
what it is to be a doctor is understood in all of these ways is right but such a response is inadequate for
it underplays the extent to which these invocations cut across each other. Again, too, such conflicts and
challenges play themselves out in their daily professional life, as doctors are pulled this way and that,
in responding not just to different interpretations of their role but also to the different parties with their
different expectations (that result in those different interpretations).
It may be tempting to say, in contrast to systems-based complexity, that this supercomplexity exists
only in the mind, whereas complexity as such is real, founded on multiple systems in the world. That
would be inaccurate. Supercomplexity too has an ontological robustness. It arises from the presence
of multiple discursive regimes and even—to draw on an alternative idea—of multiple ideologies. And
discursive regimes and ideologies have their effects and play out, whether or not they are recognized by
actors. But it remains important to keep clear water between complexity and supercomplexity. Briefly,
a key contrast can be expressed in the following way.
Under conditions of complexity, so understood, many of the challenges that present themselves could
in principle be dissolved, or at least could be partially mitigated, if actors had access to more resources—
to more time, more money, more staff, whatever it may be. Under conditions of supercomplexity, in
contrast, the challenges that present themselves could never be so resolved. To the contrary, more time
and more resources may very well result in a deepening of a situation of supercomplexity, as reflection
and debate brings new insights, and new ideas, and so more conceptual dispute. Supercomplexity can
never, as it were, be put back into the box, with its challenges resolved and sorted out. Whereas to a
degree, complexity is a contingent feature of the environment—it can be addressed, it can be tackled,
its most vicious effects can be softened in the best of all possible worlds—supercomplexity is now a
necessary feature of the world.
LOCATING SUPERCOMPLEXITY
Supercomplexity is a hybrid idea, taking on moments both of ontology and epistemology. It is self-
evidently ontological in that it points to real, if emerging, characteristics of the world. It is not too
fanciful to suggest that we live in a supercomplex age. That observation works at two levels. Firstly, it
refers to the swirl of proliferating discourses and rival categories through which humanity attempts to
understand its world. The foundational readings of the world are now in dispute. Educational institu-
tions, especially the university, are not and cannot be immune from this situation. To the contrary, the
university especially is in part the source of such a welter of rival frameworks emerging. Indeed, that is
partly the function of a university in the twenty-first century; to go on developing new interpretations
of the world. (We must return to this point.)
Secondly, that there are proliferating readings of the world and no consensus as to the fundamental
categories of the world is not happenstance but is itself explicable. It is explicable in that there are large
global (and national) forces at work that cut across each other. The global knowledge economy, cogni-
tive capitalism, state regulation, ecological movements, neoliberalism, global citizenship, the digital
293

age (which opens the way both to corporate interests and to the formation of a new public sphere), and
community engagements: all these forces cut across each other. This is truly a networked society but
the rather neat patterns of Castells’ (1997) networks—even with their flows of spaces and irregular
nodes—has now surely to be ditched in favor of a more haphazard global configuration.
This double interpretation of “the supercomplex age” as ontology has clear affinities with—as it
might be put—a distinction between postmodernism and postmodernity. The first reading, that of a swirl
of discordant holds on the world which bequeaths only open and unending questions (What is a doctor?
What is a university?), is redolent of postmodernism. Famously, we were told that postmodernism is
characterized by “an incredulity towards metanarratives” (Lyotard, 1984). There is, though, a fundamen-
tal difference precisely here. Far from witnessing a dissolution of grand narratives, this supercomplex
age is characterized by a surfeit of metanarratives that only grows! (This point is crucial for our story.)
The second reading of the age of supercomplexity—that of the co-presence of huge global forces
pulling and pushing at each other—is redolent of postmodernity. This is a world that has shrunk both
in space and time, in which events in one possibly quite limited place can have profound effects—and
even produce crises—globally; and it is demonstrably turbulent. A problem here, especially for research
into educational institutions and settings, is that these global forces in all their turbulence and intercon-
nectedness, may seem uncontrollable. The very term “postmodernity” here gains its force from the sug-
gestion that this unstable world is witnessing a momentum and collisions of forces that are irrational.
Reason, the supreme hallmark of modernity, is here put in question against the background of this new
world (dis)order.
Again, there is a crucial point here for our story. In education research over the past thirty or more
years, there has been much hand-wringing over the dismal character of the world. Research narratives
of “crisis” are repeatedly rehearsed, dressed up in an understandable clutch of categories such as neo-
liberalism, performativity, audit “regimes,” marketization, and (in)equity. Often, education research and
scholarship—in higher education, at least—has presented with bleak readings of the world. It has even
been suggested, for example, that the university is “in ruins” (Readings, 1997). Space is frequently given
to the “structure-agency” debate but, at best, the over-arching picture offered is surely that of agency
offering at best pin-pricks against the overwhelming might of dominant structural forces at work. The
extent to which a more nuanced and even somewhat optimistic analysis might be forthcoming is rarely
countenanced.
We began this section with the suggestion that supercomplexity takes on both ontological and episte-
mological characteristics, our remarks so far have focused on supercomplexity as ontology, as pointing to
features of the world that are real and have a robustness. But what of supercomplexity as epistemology?
The matter lies at the heart of this essay and so must constitute much of the burden of what is to come.
Here, I shall content myself with the following observation, which has already been foreshadowed in the
discussion so far. A supercomplex age calls for supercomplexity in our knowing efforts. Supercomplex-
ity as ontology requires nothing less than a supercomplex epistemological approach: in short, (multiple)
epistemologies governed by generous, rigorous efforts to understand the world in all its manifestations,
both complex and supercomplex. In turn, researchers can no longer be hemmed in—governed indeed—
by strict boundaries as to what it might be to know, to understand, the world. Here, in particular, given
the multifaceted matter of what is to count as education and as an educational institution (and what is
to count as a “university”), our epistemologies must themselves take on an especially open character.
294

THREE PLANES
My account so far has largely taken the form of revisiting the original thesis of supercomplexity, and of
rehearsing it albeit with some embellishments (for example, in locating it in relation to postmodernity
and postmodernism, and in locating it as an ontological feature and as an epistemological device). I now
want substantially to develop the idea of supercomplexity by suggesting that, in relation to education at
least, it exhibits itself on different planes. I shall attempt to provide some substance in the observations
to come by bringing in the university as a case study.
A university can be said to move on three planes, each with its particular poles (Barnett, 2016):
1. The university as institution—the university as idea;

2. A university in its own time and space—a university in its possibilities;
3. The particulars of universities (materials, events and practices)—the general ideas through which
institutions might come to be understood as universities (See Figure 1).
Each of these planes deserves some elucidation:
1. The University as Institution: The University as Idea
It might plausibly be thought that the university as an institution and the university as an idea present
themselves on separate planes. For instance, there has been a two-hundred year tradition of writings on the
idea of the university and it could be felt that that tradition has little if anything to do with the university
as an institution, in all its empirical complexity. And indeed that tradition of writings is largely ignored
in research on higher education (save largely for some recovery of the idea of Bildung and somewhat
cursory references to von Humboldt and to Newman). But ideas of the university have been influential
in the development of the university as an institution. Both von Humboldt and Newman played key parts
in university reconstruction, bringing their ideas into play (in the formation of the Universities of Berlin
and Dublin respectively). Subsequently, many other examples can be identified of ideas influencing the
development of the university as an institution: Kerr’s idea of the multiversity in the formation of the
California system (Kerr, 2001), Lindsay at Keele (Gallie, 1960), ideas of openness in the formation of
Figure 1. Three planes of the university and their interconnections
295

the Open University in the UK, Bentham’s utilitarianism being influential in the birth of University
College London (Twining, 1990, p. 86), and so on.
Equally, changes in the university qua institution have surely prompted—and are prompting—think-
ing about the university qua idea. The digital revolution is prompting new ideas of university openness
(Peters, Gietzen, & Ondercin, 2012), the fragmentation of knowledge into ever numerous academic fields
helped to provoke calls for a “general education” (Corrigan, 2012), and closer alignment of the university
with the knowledge economy is sponsoring ideas of the entrepreneurial university (Clark, 1998). So there
is a to-ing and fro-ing of the university both as institution and as idea. The two poles stand on a level.
2. A University in Its Own Time and Space and in Its (Future) Possibilities
Each university exists in its own time and space, with time understood as its history and development
and space understood as the totality of the resources available to it. But we understand a university, too,
through the possibilities that we might discern for it. Educational institutions are always undergoing
change; and so it is for universities. Matters arise, therefore, not only over the changes that are already
underway but that might come into view. Just what trajectories and which possibilities might be in front
of this university, say, as compared with another university?
A university, therefore, is always in process of becoming, moving on plane two, in a dynamic inter-
action between its present state and ideas that might be held of its future. But an individual university
on plane two is always also having to work within the context of plane one, of the university in general
as an institution and as idea. At any moment, a university will be moved by large local, national and
global forces (of finance, marketization, digital innovations, and global audits such as world rankings),
and international flows (of students and staff). There will also be present an ever-changing circulation
of ideas about universities. Under such circumstances, the formation of, for example, a university’s
corporate strategy will amount to a set of hopeful fictions (Barnett, 2013, p. 149). Such a strategy will
typically set out ideas of its possibilities say five, ten or more years into the future when that future is
largely uncertain. Its corporate strategy may be imaginative and even harbor utopian inflections.
3. The University as Particulars and as Universals
Across the world, each university may be understood as a set of particulars; of particular resources,
materials, events, and practices. Perhaps, in theory, it might be felt possible to provide an inventory of
the unique set of particulars that constitute each university. This, of course, is fantasy, for each apparent
particular is itself a site of infinite moments and possibilities. In walking down a corridor and looking
through door windows, variously individuals may be seen in the midst of activities in laboratories, teach-
ing settings and, say, in meetings. But each event is susceptible to infinite understandings.
There is first of all the Levinas (1969) insight that each situation itself opens to infinity. The open
interaction between a teacher and even just a single student contains infinite possibilities (of mutual
anticipations, interpretations and intuitions). Secondly, there is the consideration that infinite readings of
any situation can plausibly be said to be available. It is not just that researchers or analysts will have their
own interpretations but that the actors themselves will each have their own interpretations, interpretations
that are far from stable. (When invited to recall a particular and infamous event in a 1946 Cambridge
seminar—in which Wittgenstein allegedly brandished a poker in the direction of Popper—all those
present subsequently offered quite different interpretations of the event (Edmonds & Eidinow, 2001).)
296

If unstable and infinite particulars constitute one pole of this third plane, the other pole is constituted
by very general concepts through which sense might be made of those particulars. As intimated, such
concepts have not fallen into desuetude but are actually widening. Nowadays, the university worldwide
is being understood through a veritable panoply of concepts, including student-as-customer, impact, em-
ployability, sustainability, openness, internationalization, knowledge economy, research, and knowledge
transfer. Not far off, waiting in the wings for their own entry (occasionally to be glimpsed) are other
concepts such as sustainability, wisdom, public (as in “the public university” and the university having
a “public” role), wellbeing, ecology, and engagement. Each of these concepts are open-ended, being
susceptible to multiple interpretations. And such open-endedness partly accounts for their universality.
Such a constellation of concepts has come to constitute a global discourse through which universities
are discursively situated across the world.
To emphasize a key point here, to speak of universals does not imply universal consensus over the
meaning of any of these concepts. Rather, each term is to be seen as a universal space in which rival
interpretations can play against each other (Butler, Laclau, & Zizek, 2000). What is to count as impact,
or openness, or even as research is open to all manner of views and the individual concepts, as univer-
sals, offer a space for those different interpretations each to have its day. There is a universality here,
too, in that taken together, this array of concepts has come to have a universal power. Worldwide, there
is remarkable agreement as to the language by which universities are debated (and which enable, for
example, world conferences of ministers of higher education to confer with ease).
But the cardinal point here, for this essay, is that—as stated—this universality is growing, and this
widening of the university’s universals is explicable, given our preceding analysis. This phenomenon is
but a natural outcome of the university moving on plane one, with unstable foundations that constitute
its structuring mechanisms and messy and often heated debates as to the idea, place and purpose of the
university in the twenty-first century. If this is so, there is surely space for yet more universals to enter
the fray. Ideas through which we might interpret the world and its possibilities may expand still further.
SUPERCOMPLEXITY: MARK TWO
Given this analysis of there being three planes on which an educational institution—such as the univer-
sity—is moving, it is apparent that the original idea of supercomplexity now deserves to be developed.
The three planes just encountered do not themselves constitute supercomplexity but they have impli-
cations for understanding supercomplexity (and complexity for that matter) and, thereby, for education
research. Supercomplexity is apparent in the swirl of ideas—say about the role of the university—that
are in circulation at any time. These ideas are an amalgam, a residue of past ideas, and a ferment of pres-
ent ideas and glimpses of future ideas (of the kind evinced in, say, imagined scenarios of the university
at some point in the future). At any moment, ideas of the university—or, say, school education—will
be themselves an array on several levels, held by, for instance, academics and school teachers as they
enact their daily round; by senior managers; among policy and political networks; and within the wider
public discourse. Such pools of ideas are not moving in an ether but are affecting the work and practices
of those in educational institutions.
Individuals in those institutions—students, teachers, managers and others—have their being within
this inchoate swirl of ideas. This swirl of ideas in turn, has its effects on institutions themselves, as ideas
in turn feed variously into state educational policies, and local decisions on each institution. And this
297

instability, both of institutions and of ideas, plays itself out in the most general way (plane one) as well
as in relation to each school or university (plane two).
Simply to understand this situation as one of conceptual heteronomy, with individuals being bom-
barded with educational ideas, is inadequate. For individuals and groups are actively involved in form-
ing their own ideas—about teaching practices, the purposes of their research, and their hopes of their
institutions. As it might be said, individuals are discursively agentic, putting their own thinking into the
generally circulating pool of ideas (plane three). Some such ideas may take on an oppositional or even a
subversive character, where they have much of their point in countering dominant frameworks, whether
at national or local levels.
In educational settings, then, supercomplexity works at multiple levels, at once local and immediate,
national and even (especially with universities) global. It is prompted and exacerbated by underlying
structuring mechanisms. It has its place in frames of time and space that are themselves dynamic: A
university that has been a very local institution may look to become much more “research-active” and
so may consequently become more international in its internal (and even external) narratives. But, as
noted, supercomplexity has the future, if not in its bones, then on its sleeve. Educational ideas address the
future and extend into it. And here open glimpses of possibilities, for an institution in particular and for
whole systems (say, of higher education). New ventures may be envisaged for an institution that would
offer it ideas for its development. And individuals might take up those ideas and see in them spaces for
new personal projects, whether in teaching or in research or in “third mission” activities.
As implied, supercomplexity moves on yet a further level. This is the level marked out by plane three.
Here, supercomplexity takes on a transcendental level, as new concepts for understanding education are
brought into view, concepts that may well critically engage with existing concepts and seek to supersede
them. As implied too, any such concepts, to win their spurs, have to demonstrate their capacity to inform
and indeed to change current practices and even to provoke new practices into being.
It is apparent then, that the original idea of supercomplexity—against the background of the three-
planar view of education mooted here—has here been substantially developed to form, in effect, a mark
two account of supercomplexity. In particular, it has to take on three aspects:
1. Temporal (past, present and future),

2. Spatial (local, national and global),
3. Transcendent (imaginary and creative)
And it has to work in three dimensions:
1. Structural (to be sensitive to the deep structures and ideologies at work),

2. Institutional (both particular institutions and their collectivities, for example in national systems
or perhaps informal groupings), and
3. Practical (in the myriad of events, activities, and resources that constitute daily life in educational
settings).
298

UNDERSTANDING SUPERCOMPLEXITY: AN EXAMPLE
The three planes have this in common: that all three hold within them an interplay between the world
as it is, and the world as it is represented in ideas. More formally, they are implicitly positing different
relationships between ontology and epistemology. Putting together different parts of our earlier discus-
sion, and holding in mind our diagram, we can say that complexity is constituted by the left-hand end
of each plane:
1. Education as an institution,
2. Each educational organization as it is here-and-now, and
3. Particular materials, events and actions.
Supercomplexity, on the other hand, is constituted by the right-hand end of each plane:
1. Ideas of education,
2. Possibilities that might be espied for an individual institution, and
3. Large concepts that might be brought into view to help furnish a discursive space for educational
development.
These moments of complexity and supercomplexity interact both along each plane and between the
planes (as depicted in the diagram). An example may help here, worked out for each of the three planes.
We begin with plane three and work downwards to plane one:
• (Plane Three): A university teacher may simply hear the word “internationalization” and wonder
what it might mean for her approach to teaching. The concept of internationalization is a large term
that has come into the vocabulary of higher education over the past twenty years or so (Altbach
& Knight, 2007)—and has come to be a general concept among the universals of contemporary
debate (at the right-hand end of plane three). There, it takes on substance insofar as it can be seen
to impart significance for particular events, situations and materials across higher education (at the
left-hand end of plane three). But that plane (plane three) possesses a transcendental aspect—and
our teacher enters that transcendental level in engaging with the concept of internationalism as
such. Hard work has to be done in situ (plane two) if the potential of debates and hearsay instances
of “good practice” in the system are to be identified for a particular institution.
• (Plane Two): Our teacher may see some signs of internationalization playing itself out in her
particular institution and may play her part in fulfilling her university’s international strategy in
the here-and-now (plane two, left-hand side) but she may also want to join and make a particular
contribution to the university’s debate as to how its internationalization strategy might develop.
What possibilities might be envisaged for her particular university, possibilities that just might be
realized in the best of all possible worlds? And our teacher may have a particular line of thought
or ideas of her own, perhaps connected with her own insights into students as world ecological
citizens. This is to move into the realm of conjectures as to an institution’s possibilities (plane two,
right-hand side).
299

• (Plane One): However, such debates—on personal and institutional levels, and in relation to the
here-and-now and to barely glimpsed possibilities—would sooner or later abut against consider-
ations of the large forces at work, nationally and locally. Here, there would, for example, be refer-
ences to “globalization,” it being recognized that internationalization within universities is in part
a system-wide response to globalization, which is present as a “generative mechanism” (Bhaskar,
2008) within higher education (plane one, left-hand side). Attention might be given, too, to wider
ideas of the university (plane one, right-hand side) such as the relationship between teaching and
research. Concerns might be raised that any supposed unity between teaching and research (an
idea with over two hundred years of history) might be being jeopardized by globalization in its
drive for “cognitive capital” (Moulier Boutang, 2011). On the other hand, being visionary about
internationalization, as implied, might just open possibilities for new kinds of unity between re-
search and teaching (which takes us back to plane three and so on and so forth).
RESEARCHING SUPERCOMPLEXITY
As intimated, this account has considerable implications for what it is to conduct research in the social
sciences, especially in the field of education. For the researcher, especially the education researcher,
supercomplexity poses challenges but also opens possibilities. Sensitive to the multiple presences of
supercomplexity, education research has itself to work at the levels of the three planes, and it has to
be nimble, fleet-footed, and conducted with a light touch. It has to be robust and inquisitorial, delving
below the immediate givenness of matters into their ideological and structural foundations (plane one)
and it has to be sensitive to half-felt impressions and sentiments (in the sheer being of, say, interviewees)
(plane two). It has to open itself to the mêlée of circulating ideas, at systems level (plane three) and at the
personal level (plane two). It has somehow to comprehend the infinity of etceterations that are present
in any activity (plane two), say with the pedagogical relationship (not to mention, say, in the multitude
of interplays, spoken and unspoken, within a classroom setting). And it has to be willing to enter the
more transcendental realm of universals (plane three).
To say all of this is to open a research endeavor that may seem formidable and formless, without
boundary. There is a smoothness (Deleuze & Guattari, 2007), even a glassiness here. Is any structure
available that might inject some firm ground and even some markers?
Clearly, there is a structure, one that is imparted by the three planes and their interactions, as in
the diagram (and as illustrated and worked out in our example). And that structure, to reiterate, has
movements that are both lateral and vertical (again, as our example testifies). The education researcher
has a structure to work within that supplies a framework and with it both a set of horizons and a set of
desiderata. The three planes open multiple horizons—of the presence of deep structuring mechanisms,
of institutions and materiality, of antagonistic ideologies, and of ideas and possibilities. And the three
planes, once accepted as a framework for understanding a social practice such as education, then come to
constitute a set of desiderata. Implicitly, their acceptance amounts to an injunction that unless education
research can accommodate and indeed embrace all of the three levels of analysis and their interactions,
any proffered framework will be but a part of the research terrain. Large zones of any particular matter
would remain yet-to-be-researched.
300

BEYOND STRUCTURES
However, to speak in such a way is unduly to restrict the research endeavor, daunting as it already might
appear. For the remarks just made amount merely to a widening of the existing research endeavor, when
what is in question—on this revamped framework of supercomplexity—is a shift to a quite new idea of
inquiry. Five considerations come into view here.
First, as indicated, supercomplexity brings into view worlds of ideas and concepts. To recognize the
presence of supercomplexity is to recognize the presence in the world of ideas and concepts and that they
have a power of their own; on occasions, a power to dislodge, to unsettle, and even entirely to destabilize.
Further, these ideas are frequently in disharmony with each other. The question was asked earlier: What
is it to be a doctor? The question cannot be answered with any consensus. Only a disputed discursive
territory opens. And yet doctors have to live amid such discursive turmoil. And this discursive turmoil
can have baleful consequences. As this is being written, there is a heated public debate taking place
in the UK as to whether “junior” hospital doctors might or should strike (in relation to a dispute over
conditions of work). The debate is explicitly posing profound questions as to the role and responsibili-
ties of doctors and the doctors in question are having to find their way through this discursive turmoil,
doubtless with much anguish in some cases.
So education research has itself to engage with such controversies with all their value-laden character,
if it is to understand disputed concepts such as professional identity. The being of such professionals
cannot be understood unless the discursive landscape with all of its contestations and contradictions is
explored and exposed. Education researchers have in part to become philosophers, engaging with the
concepts and ideas of a particular landscape, so as to expose the inner conceptual worlds of actors in
the setting in question (cf. Deleuze & Guattari, 2013; Badiou & Zizek, 2009). And any such conceptual
world is likely to be a welter of conflicts and antagonisms.
Second, a receptivity to supercomplexity will expose not just a conceptual landscape that is replete
with antagonisms—to what extent should education be “public” or “private”? To what degree should
there be individual freedom? To what extent should education be orchestrated through more collective
arrangements?—but will also detect absences (Bhaskar, 2002). It may be that the universal concepts
currently in circulation (plane three) are so structured by the large forces at work (plane one) that the
repertoire of ideas in circulation is being unduly curtailed.
A concept may be absent in that ideologies have suffocated it or it may have been turned on its head
and so lost much of its substance. In the UK, over the past twenty years, the very phrase “critical think-
ing” has almost vanished from the public debate about university education. Where it does surface, it
tends to be muted, reflecting corporate needs for innovation. The idea of critical thinking as embodying
large evaluative horizons, in which persons and groups take up active stances by which they hold the
world at a distance, has fallen away. Research that focuses on the here-and-now is liable to miss such
discursive absences. But a research approach that is forensically on the look-out for such absences itself
calls for conceptual resources and for the perception of possible worlds that are not to-hand. A creative
stance is called for.
This is especially so in relation to options that may be newly presenting themselves. The dominant
institutional and ideological imaginaries (Taylor, 2007) may be acting so as to thwart new conceptions
arising. For instance, there is a debate currently getting going in some countries over the idea of a “public
university” but again such a debate may be tilted through the presence of a dominant ideology. Economic
301

interpretations of “public” may be so to the fore that more social and philosophical conceptualizations
are implicitly discouraged. Just what might constitute the public sphere in a digital age; and what im-
plications arise for (say) the university? Such a matter is barely if at all on the horizon of contemporary
debate (cf. Pusser, Kempner, Marginson, & Ordorika, 2012) and its possibilities call for imagination.
Third, as noted, any educational event opens itself to an infinite set of possibilities. The teacher
and the student do not merely interact but hold in a single encounter an infinity of feelings, nuances,
sensitivities and impressions that play against each other. Among Western philosophies, hermeneutics,
phenomenology, and existentialism have opened large insights into worlds that lie beneath the overt ap-
pearances of being human. Ultimately, the micro-study of educational settings and educational persons
must open to this hiddenness and to its infinite interpretations.
Fourth, educational research must open itself to the realm of utopias. Why this “must”? Simply
because actors in educational settings will, themselves, have their own utopian selves. They will give
themselves to their careers over many years partly in virtue of holding within themselves large hopes of
their institution or even of education itself. They live in hope. They hold to ideas of education (or higher
education) that they intuit may never be realized but nevertheless they continue to hold to such utopian
vistas. The utopian realm is not entirely fantastical but has a real basis in being a world inhabited by
very many. Such utopias may fuel energies that inspire efforts to create new pedagogies, new curricula
and even new kinds of research.
But, and fifth, utopias may legitimately come into view as part of the researcher’s equipment in
another sense. For, as stated, we understand an educational setting fully only when we may glimpse its
potential. What is it fully to teach, to learn, in a university setting? What is it fully to be a university?
Such questions are part of the currency of an age and are not fanciful: ultimately they must yield utopian
responses. Separately, philosophical questions also pose themselves as to what might count as criteria of
legitimate utopias and perhaps some criteria of adequacy might be discerned, by which putative utopias
might be put to the test, so identifying feasible utopias (Barnett, 2013). But all this is to urge that utopian
thinking is a legitimate part of the researcher’s orientation.
RESEARCH FOR SUPERCOMPLEXITY
The situation sketched here has implications for education research focused on universities, both in
conceptualizing what is to count as such research and in its practical character.
So far as its conceptualization is concerned, education research may be now be understood as en-
hancing—or exacerbating—supercomplexity. The age of supercomplexity has arisen in part from the
work of universities, from their putting into the public sphere multiple frameworks of understanding.
The university has, therefore, a responsibility to help the world live with supercomplexity. In engaging
rationally in the public sphere, the university shows how it is possible to participate in communicative
acts that are inherently disputatious. In its public manifestations, in the television studio, on the radio
and in social media generally, the university not only can put its wares into the public window, as indeed
many universities are doing today; but it can also demonstrate how it is possible to engage in debates
that are marked by conflict. In this way, the university helps to open the public sphere as a “space of
reason” (Bakhurst, 2011). This is not, á la Habermas (1979), to suggest implicit movements towards a
consensus, and that in prospect here is something approaching an ideal speech situation. To the contrary,
significant here is a sense that conflicts may not be susceptible to any straightforward resolution. As
302

stated, supercomplexity is inherently a situation of conflict, and the first role of the university is to show
that it is possible to live a life of reason in the company of irreconcilable conflict.
That much, again with a little embellishment, was part of the story of supercomplexity, mark one. But,
now, with mark two, against the background of three planes on which it moves, the university acquires
a larger set of responsibilities. In essence, the university is obliged to take on self-consciously the task
of widening the frameworks in public circulation and so enhancing supercomplexity; and education
research here has to be adequate to these challenges.
Two sets of considerations open. Firstly, on all three planes, forces and tendencies are at work that
would limit ideas and their circulation. On plane one, massive global forces are present, albeit at sub-
terranean levels, that are tilting the university in particular directions—towards markets, science and
technology, economic generation, the interests of the corporate sector and measurable performance. The
challenges facing the humanities, and across much of the world, are symptomatic of these cognitive
currents; for what role might be salvaged for the humanities in the wake of such forces? (Small, 2013)
Internally, too, universities show signs of curbing the circulation of ideas. Not only may a more corpo-
rate management style have this effect but even groups of students are also sometimes acting directly
to limit the expression of ideas on campus, seeking to avoid personal discomfort in encountering ideas
that they find offensive (Furedi, 2016).
On plane two, in thinking about their future options, universities have difficulty in simply getting
through the immediate day and so tend to foreclose imaginative thinking about their possibilities. It is
the here-and-now that attracts the greater attention and much less so imaginative glimpses of possible
future trajectories.
On plane three, it is the particulars of the university—university people, and particular teaching and
research activities—that can most easily attract attention rather than large concepts. University managers
are not inclined to become philosophers. But, amid supercomplexity, the university has a responsibility
to work against the grain of academic life and to widen frames of understanding. This is far from easy,
since so many of the markers of recognition—income streams, rankings, political approval—largely
endorse a limited discursive role for the university.
The second consideration here is that, especially in an internet age, new opportunities open for the
university to become a “corporate agent” (List & Pettit, 2011) seized of its possibilities and even its
powers to inject ideas—at once heterogeneous and conflicting—into the public sphere. The sub-heading
of this chapter section—research for supercomplexity—accordingly takes on a dual aspect. Education
research now has a responsibility to stimulate supercomplexity in the wider society. It is actively pros-
ecuted for—that is to say, in the interests of—supercomplexity. But this “research,” so guided, will go
beyond the bounds of research conventionally understood. It will take on a supercomplex character itself,
no longer hedged in by conventions, but deliberately orchestrated so as to generate insights, vocabularies
and frames that unsettle, that disturb and that open glimpses of new possibilities. It is evident that such
a program calls for a re-examination of contemporary ideas of “the public role” of universities and even
of “the public sphere” in relation to the university; and it calls too for a critical eye to be turned upon
notions of “impact” and “engagement.” Here, perhaps, a metaphorical allusion may be helpful.
Education research, it becomes apparent, has something of the character of spotting and also catching
butterflies. Delicacy is called for, together with fleet-footedness and an ability instantaneously to move
from one level to another, and even to soar into voids, and to fly from one direction to another. Care
has to be taken. Without due sensitivity, the object of one’s attention can be damaged. For example, the
303

education researcher may unwittingly be caught up in large ideologies that are circulating and so come
to impose dominant categories on presenting situations.
The butterfly-catching metaphor has a further aspect, as we have seen. It implies the ability to fol-
low an object from its immediate surroundings into the air and to have a sense of its possibilities. With
which air current might it flutter its path? (cf. Irigaray, 1999) Which trajectories are open to it? Education
research calls for openness and imagination.
THE RESEARCHER AS A WRITER
Such reflections suggest, in the context of a supercomplexity playing itself out on three planes, that the
very term “education researcher” may now be inadequate. That old-fashioned term “scholar” may loom
into view but it contains too many resonances that are ill-fitting here. It is evident that the role now
takes on aspects of philosopher and conceptual deconstructionalist, linguist, philologist, archaeologist of
institutions, discourse analyst, historian, imaginer, colorist, fortune-teller and even poet. The education
researcher now looks for new vocabularies and new grammars, as well as sensitively laying out some
intimations of the present (supercomplex) situation. These are not entirely separable roles. Quick-footedly,
the researcher is here compelled to be able to live comfortably with all of them.
It follows that the act of writing becomes a matter of supreme significance. No longer can the phrase
“writing up one’s research” be tolerated. Now, it has to be understood that writing is here a creative act—
with its own considerable demands and challenges—as much as it is an analytical act. Every sentence
is creative. We have understood that since Chomsky observed that accomplishment in young children
(Chomsky, 1968). But now, this writing has self-consciously to be creative. For writing now comes to
be the linguistic parallel to catching a butterfly.
It will have been noticed that the last few sentences have spoken of “writing,” not of “academic writ-
ing.” On whichever plane an analysis is mainly situated—whether exploring institutions and, say, their
policy background (plane one), or say a case study of academic identities within one or two individual
universities (plane two) or broad ideas coming into circulation, such as the balance of the public and
private spheres and what it means to be a “public” institution (plane three)—the writing has to take on
something of a fictional character. For it will amount to a proposal: Let us see the world (this portion
of it) in a new and a particular way. It will open itself to imagining unnoticed possibilities which are
necessarily inherent in a situation. It will be telling a story and will be suitably nuanced, with all manner
of discursive inflections, so as to bring out the complex and supercomplex situations before it. It will
be using words—on a screen, on a printed page—to capture the ineffable. It will be a form of artistry.
In other words, to recognize supercomplexity as a context for education research is to open the way to
considerations of style and manner.
It may be objected that to speak of writing in this way is tantamount to a falling away of “academic”
standards. It might even be asked “how on earth are we to teach research students to develop competence
in academic writing on a set of views such as these?” More than one response is available.
First, already, in using concepts such as globalization, neoliberalism, cognitive capital and performa-
tivity, authors of academic texts are already writing in a story-telling mode. Phenomena such as these
cannot be seen in any straightforward way. At best, tell-tale signs might be searched for. A conventional
“positivist” approach could never deduce them from observable data. After all, they are pointing to deep-
seated “generative mechanisms” that have their powerful effects at a subterranean level. Indeed, their not
304

being available to immediate inspection partly accounts for their power. On Bhaskar’s critical realism,
such structures lie in and are symptomatic of the presence of the ontological level of the real, that part of
the world that lies beyond immediate experience but which nevertheless exerts considerable power. So
imagination and story-telling are already present in academic texts (at least on plane one of our schema).
Second, to do justice to any micro situation, for example, a pedagogical encounter will involve an
empathy on the part of education researchers. In order to do justice to the data, the researcher has to
intuit to some extent the plausible meanings of utterances. Words—of interviewees or of those in ob-
served situations—do not speak for themselves. Meanings have to be attached; and hence the double
hermeneutic of such situations, as actors intuit each other’s meanings and as the researcher makes some
kind of analytical sense of their meanings. A poet-like acute sensitivity to the microscopic character of
each situation is called for (cf. Hughes, 1967).
Third, research in an educational setting is bound to draw the researcher into an examination of con-
cepts in play in the situation in question. But, as Peter Winch (1958) pointed out some years ago, the
researcher is perforce then obliged to become a kind of philosopher engaging in the forensic exploration
of concepts (the public good, public interests, employability, citizenship or whatever it may be). But this
work, too, in a way is to tell a story. It is to find other words to fill out a picture, so as to make plausible
the analysis being developed.
Fourth, as noted, sooner or later, possibilities are going to loom into view, whether for individuals
or for groups or for their institutions and for the systems in play. This is so because actors and groups
have in view their own strategies and policies for the future, and so justice will have to be done to those
future-oriented glimpsings. And it will be a further matter for education research as to the viability and
robustness of the aspirations of the actors concerned. Research cannot but be drawn into a future-oriented
stance, in which possibilities are identified and weighed.
Fifth, the weighing of possibilities, whether at the personal, institutional or system-wide levels, can
only be essayed in anything approaching a satisfactory way if it is offered against some kind of horizon
of what might be possible in the presenting situation. Absences—to pick up an earlier point—can only
be identified in the company of sight of just what might be possible, even if it is not on the horizon.
It follows from these admittedly rather cursory observations that “academic” writing has to become
adequate to its task of revealing the three-planar character of the complex and supercomplex environment
that is education. And that in turn means that the act of writing takes on hitherto largely unrecognized
dimensions. A rich vocabulary, metaphor, juxtaposition of ideas, pacing, rhythm, air, space, color, ap-
pearance on the page, and a concern for the reader: all these textual resources might be in evidence.
Rhetoric can no longer remain as a term of abuse. This writing, after all, becomes a way of communi-
cating, to the widest set of audiences, ways of reading the (educational) world, with all of its inter-, its
absences, its conflicts and its possibilities. Hints, allusions, glimpses, and openings have to be part of
the equipment of the researcher-as-writer.
This kind of writing has to become, in its own way, a craft (Stennett, 2008) and even a kind of poetry.
Originality in the manner of scholarly communication can justifiably come into view as part of the edu-
cation researcher’s responsibilities (cf. Bammer & Boetcher-Joeres, 2015). Writing and experimentation
within writing becomes part of the researcher’s “methodology.” “Writing otherwise,” indeed, becomes
part of the horizon of education research (Stacey & Wolff, 2013).
In turn, the academic researcher has to come to understand her or himself as a writer, with the very
term “writer” becoming part of the academic’s self-espoused identity. The researcher will want to say,
when asked for his or her occupational designation, “I am a writer.”
305

CONCLUSION
Education is not only complex but supercomplex, and that supercomplexity can be seen at work on
three planes. Those planes extend across systems and ideas, individual institutions and their possibili-
ties, ideologies and resources, and particular events and the general ideas or universals through which
events might be understood. Conflicts abound across these spaces. A university, for example, is char-
acteristically a zone of antagonisms. And those antagonisms arise both out of conflicts between the
underlying steering mechanisms and the interests of the various parties and out of different readings of
the possibilities before the university (any university and universities in general). What is to count as a
university and what a university might plausibly strive to become are matters of dispute. Now, there is
no end to this openness and to this disputatiousness. The genie will not go back into the bottle. To the
contrary, there is only further and wider dispute in sight, not least on account of the university itself
adding to the ferment of ideas. This is an open terrain, with an infinite set of “lines of flight” (Deleuze
& Guattari, 2007; Guattari, 2016) before it.
Against this background, the education researcher has to be deft, being open to and sensitive to half-
caught nuances of contending readings of situations (among the actors themselves). More, if the educa-
tional researcher is to do justice to the three planes on which educational processes move, she or he has
to see into the unseen, to become a partial soothsayer, being open to possibilities (at once practical and
conceptual) embryonically present; by all means, noticing unfolding dystopias but then also glimpsing
feasible utopias (Barnett, 2013).
Supercomplexity is, in essence, a situation of multiplying and contending interpretations and pos-
sibilities. The claim has been here that this is precisely the nature of education situations. (More, that
this supercomplexity is evident on three planes.) What then of the academic as writer? Words become
but counters to attempt to do justice to a landscape that cannot be fully described or captured. (This is
not to open to relativism or constructivism; to the contrary, education as a real phenomenon has been
apparent throughout this exploration.) Sensitive to this situation, the researcher as writer is a butterfly
catcher, catching the ineffable—for a butterfly, once caught, is no longer the butterfly that it was. The
butterfly can only be shown, seen in different aspects, revealed through multiple configurations (as in a
kaleidoscope) and metaphorically caught in poetic prose. Such creative “research” is a daunting pursuit.
REFERENCES
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and
realities. Journal of Studies in Education, 11(3-4), 290–305.
Badiou, A., & Zizek, S. (2009). Philosophy in the present. Cambridge: Polity.
Bakhurst, D. (2011). The formation of reason. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444395600
Bammer, A., & Boetcher Joeres, R.-E. (Eds.). (2015). The future of scholarly writing: Critical interven-
tions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137505965
Barnett, R. (1990). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/
Open University Press.
306

Barnett, R. (2013). Imagining the university. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.

Barnett, R. (2016). Understanding the university: Institution, idea, possibilities. Abingdon, New York:
Routledge.
Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge & Malden, MA: Polity.
Bhaskar, R. (2002). From science to emancipation. New Delhi: Sage.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. London, New York: Verso. (Original work published 1975)
Butler, J., Laclau, E., & Zizek, S. (2000). Contingency, hegemony, universality. London, New York: Verso.
Castells, M. (1997). The information age: Economy, society and culture: Vol. I. The rise of the network
society. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. (1969). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation.
Oxford: Pergamon/IAU.
Corrigan, P. (Ed.). (2012). General Education and University Curriculum Reform: An International
Conference in Hong Kong, Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/edge/
conference2012/docs/GE_Conference_Proceedings.pdf
De Landa, M. (2013). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London,
New York: Bloomsbury.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2007). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London, New
York: Continuum. (Original work published 1987)
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2013). What is philosophy? London, New York: Verso.
Edmonds, D., & Eidinow, J. (2001). Wittgenstein’s poker: The story of a ten-minute argument between
two great philosophers. London: Faber & Faber.
Furedi, F. (2016). The end of argument. Prospect, February, 42-45.
Gallie, W. B. (1960). A new university, A. D. Lindsay and the Keele experiment. London: Chatto & Windus.
Guattari, F. (2016). Lines of flight: For another world of possibilities. London, New York: Bloomsbury.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. London: Heinemann.
Hughes, T. (1967). Poetry in the making. London, New York: Faber & Faber.
Irigaray, L. (1999). The forgetting of air in Martin Heidegger. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: McGraw-
Hill/Open University Press.
Kerr, C. (2001). The gold and the blue: A personal memoir of the University of California, 1949-1967.
Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
307

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Ox-
ford, New York: University of Oxford. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591565.001.0001
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: University of
Manchester.
Moulier Boutang, Y. (2011). Cognitive Capitalism. Malden, MA & Cambridge: Polity.
Peters, M. A., Gietzen, G., & Ondercin, D. J. (Eds.), (2012). Knowledge socialism: Intellectual commons
and openness in the university. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Pusser, B., Kempner, K., Marginson, S., & Ordorika, I. (Eds.). (2012). Universities and the public sphere:
Knowledge creation and state building in the era of globalization. New York, Abingdon: Routledge.
Readings, B. (1997). The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University.
Small, H. (2013). The value of the humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780199683864.001.0001
Stacey, J., & Wolff, J. (Eds.). (2013). Writing otherwise: Experiments in cultural criticism. Manchester,
New York: Manchester University. doi:10.7228/manchester/9780719089428.001.0001
Stennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. London, New York: Allen Lane.
Taylor, C. (2007). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Twining, W. L. (1990). Laws. In F. M. L. Thompson (Ed.), The University of London and the world of
learning 1836-1986. London & Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press.
Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
308
309
Chapter 19
Becoming Comfortable
with Supercomplexity:
Looking Back, Forward, In, Out,
and Shaking it About!
Mark Selkrig
(Ron) Kim Keamy

ABSTRACT
In this chapter the authors map various lines of flight they have taken that have informed their growing
awareness of supercomplexity as a paradigm appropriate for the current epoch. Rather than concentrat-
ing on being researchers, the authors focus on how they are always becoming researchers, in between,
like a rhizome. Illustrative accounts of the authors’ research biographies are provided. They utilize a
semi-fictional narrative, with images as a way to overlay fact-oriented research with fiction, in order
to “play” with different ways of representing research. In the final section of the chapter, a number of
emergent concerns, challenges and possibilities are considered in relation to working with supercomplex-
ity. These musings offer the authors, as rhizome researchers with many conceptual tools and practices,
a way to be open to new types of inquiry—a process that could be described as simultaneously knowing
but not knowing.
INTRODUCTION
Metaphors pepper the landscape of research, the work that researchers do, and has been the focus of
research itself (for instance, Midgley, Trimmer, & Davies, 2013). The metaphor of the researcher as a
mystery novelist, “detecting the paradigm,” is used in Chapter 2. Even though we were already comfort-
able using metaphors in our work, the title of our chapter was initially generated as a reference to the
childhood dance, The Hokey Pokey. We thought that a dance metaphor would provide us with a way of
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch019

Becoming Comfortable with Supercomplexity
exploring different steps involved in how we might design and undertake research. We also figured that
as a consequence of thinking through the writing of this chapter, we would inevitably be re-framing and
shaking our existing ideas of research about.
We are approaching this chapter as a predominantly reflexive task, mapping our own various lines
of flight, as a way to process the emergence of our growing awareness of supercomplexity (for instance,
in Barnett, 2000b) as a paradigm appropriate for the current epoch, which Bauman (2014) refers to as
“liquid modernity.” For us we see reflexivity as having moved beyond an awareness of the ways biography
shapes research and concur with the notion that reflexivity is “a deconstructive exercise for locating the
intersections of author, other, text, and world, and for penetrating the representational exercise itself”
(Macbeth, 2001, p. 35).
The “we” in this chapter have been research collaborators for many years and in the next section draw
on some of the projects in which we have worked together, as well as those in which we have pursued
our own research trajectories. And rather than concentrating on being a researcher, in this chapter we
explore how we are always becoming researchers, in between, like a rhizome. As Deleuze and Guattari
(1987) state,
unlike trees or their roots, the rhizome connects any point to any point and its traits are not necessarily
linked to traits of the same nature . . . it has neither a beginning nor end, but always in the middle (mi-
lieu) [original emphasis] from which it grows . . . it has multiple entryways and exits and its own lines
of flight. (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 21)
Using the rhizome metaphor in the past has offered us a way to visualize and describe how research
is messy, entangled, and far from linear. It conjures an image of the multiple inter-relational connections
that occur in transitory, haphazard or undetermined ways in the process of becoming a researcher. As
“rhizome researchers” (Clarke & Parsons, 2013), we continue to use the rhizome metaphor in this chapter
within and alongside the dance metaphor, with the latter providing section headings to guide our writing.
As a first entryway we provide a brief and selective narrative of our respective biographies as neophyte
researchers. We then concentrate on a particular research project in which we were both involved as
researchers in a P-9 school in Melbourne (Australia) because in terms of Deleuze and Guattari (1987)
it became a “plateau”—an activity of heightened intensity that left an afterimage for us; something that
could be revived or inserted into other activities.
We then turn our focus to our respective journeys, with one of us as researcher and the other as a
research participant in a university-focused research project. At this point in the chapter, we introduce
a semi-fictional narrative, which is a literary device used “when fiction[al] form is laid over a ‘fact-
oriented’ research process” (Agar, 1990, as cited in Whiteman & Phillips, 2008, p. 294). Whiteman and
Phillips consider that a semi-fictional approach can help to “reframe data and representational process
through discursive play” (pp. 294-295), thereby providing a benefit for academic theorizing. “What is
important,” they say, “is to weave together fragments of social ‘data’ with the creative licence to make
the theoretical insights of the researcher vivid and easily available to the reader” (Whiteman & Phillips,
2008, p. 296).
In the final section of the chapter, “Looking forward . . . and shaking it all about,” we ponder a number
of emergent concerns, challenges and possibilities that our new dance with supercomplexity presents for us.
310

LOOKING BACK
Through the apprenticeship phase of becoming a researcher via doctoral research, Kim began to carve
out a niche for himself in educational leadership research, using narrative methodologies to explore the
life stories of male academic leaders who worked counter to hegemonic masculinist ways (Keamy, 2003).
He utilized narrative story-telling in his doctoral research, which at that time, was considered by Barone
and Eisner (1997) to be a major, and increasingly popular, form of arts-based educational research. The
use of semi-fictionalized accounts in this chapter, for instance, can be traced back to Kim’s formative
research activities.
For Mark, his doctoral inquiry, Community-based artists: Dialogues of identity and learning (Selkrig,
2009) focused on the impact on artists when they work in sites of learning. To navigate his inquiry Mark
adopted the stance of a bricoleur. The metaphor of a quilt-maker is used by Denzin and Lincoln (2005) to
describe a bricoleur, a person who combines potentially disparate sets of representations, ideas or images
and fits these to the specifics of a complex situation—the process of bricolage. Kincheloe and Berry
(2004) claim bricolage can provide rigor while grappling with the complexities inherent in qualitative
research. “Bricolage affords a range of prisms that can be used to view the inquiry at various points in
the research, rather than a reductive perspective provided by single disciplinary lens” (Selkrig, 2014, p.
24). In Mark’s case, and as an established artist, he not only engaged with several disciplinary lenses in
his inquiry, he similarly needed to move beyond text, also creating artworks in the form of sculptures
to explore and make meaning of complexity in his thesis. “It became apparent that the conventional
taxonomic, textual and linguistic devices used to develop the narrative of a manuscript would not allow
me to make sense, or tell the complex story, of my inquiry” (Selkrig, 2014, p. 17).
Our respective research activities coalesced when we were working together on a small regional
campus of a large university, and found ourselves, like other academics in similar circumstances, needing
to become opportunistic with the research activities that presented themselves. As a consequence, new
shoots of research work began to surface. This work included commissioned research about pedagogy
in the middle years of schooling; a series of research activities in which we theorized and made connec-
tions in our approaches to fostering creative partnerships between universities and community (Selkrig
& Keamy, 2009); and ways in which we were innovative in combining protocols into online teaching
environments (Keamy & Selkrig, 2013). We also actively reflected on our own professional insights
gained from these innovations (Selkrig & Keamy, 2015). Much, if not all of this work was situated
within the paradigm of constructivism, which is described as researchers attempting to “understand the
complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it” (Schwandt, 2000, as cited
in Mertens, 2015, pp. 16-17). The goal for constructivist researchers, Mertens adds, is to “understand
the multiple social constructions of meaning and knowledge . . . the inquirer and the inquired-into are
interlocked in an interactive process. Each influences the other. The constructivist therefore opts for a
more personal, interactive mode of data collection” (Mertens, 2015, pp. 18-19).
Taken together, our individual and combined research trajectories had the following features: we were
opportunistic; prepared to look inwards at our own learning, as well as outwards at the impact we were
having on others’ learning. We were also prepared to be innovative and imaginative in the approaches
we adopted to reflect on our research practices through art-making and creative writing. Gradually we
realized that whilst we were increasing the emphasis on reflexivity, we were also simultaneously “de-
faulting” to many safe methods of conventional data gathering—those of surveys, interviews and focus
group discussions. This realization challenged our ontological and epistemological assumptions about
311

the research we were undertaking. As we emerge as researchers we have continued to question if the
interpretive frameworks we have employed are adequate and what sorts of knowledge we have privileged.
Eisner (2008) goes some of the way to summarize our concerns, arguing that
it has become increasingly clear since the latter half of the 20th century that knowledge or understand-
ing is not always reducible to language. . . . Thus not only does knowledge come in different forms, the
forms of its creation differ. The idea of ineffable knowledge is not an oxymoron. (p. 5)
While we could see the importance of “knowing” a bit more about ourselves as a consequence of
doing research and situating ourselves in a specific paradigm, it also felt a little like being pigeon-holed
in a particular way because of how we thought about, developed and undertook our research. Although
paradigms are usually presented in the literature as separate entities, situating oneself within a particular
paradigm is sometimes problematic due to a blurring of genres (Geertz, 1993). As Ling and Ling argue
in the Introduction to this book, the categorization of paradigms tend to portray “ideal types,” whilst
in practice, there can be permeable boundaries with more than one paradigm being involved. Various
paradigms can be intertwined, making it possible to blend elements of one paradigm into another if they
share axiomatic fundamentals that are similar such as “elements of interpretivist/postmodern critical
theory, constructivist and participative inquiry [which can] fit comfortably together” if they are suited to
the nature of the research (Guba & Lincoln, 2005, p. 201). Giving himself permission to cross boundar-
ies through bricolage allowed Mark to consider the potentially porous boundaries between many of the
“paradigms.” The concept of being “in between” had started to filter into his work. Our musings and
ongoing dialogue about our research dispositions proved to be another plateau from which a subsequent
research approach emerged—an approach that was very much in search of a paradigm with which to
describe it.
Following relocation to a different university in Melbourne, we continued collaborating, undertak-
ing research in a Preparatory Year to Year 9 (P-9) government school in the outer northern suburbs of
Melbourne. The purpose of this school-based research was to consider ways in which teachers—both
specialist Arts teachers and generalist teachers responsible for teaching the Arts—and the leadership
team at the chosen school, describe and understand creativity, creative learning and arts learning. While
following a new rhizomatic stem, we were also “doubling back” on ourselves by returning to ideas that
were central to our respective doctoral works. The research design and focus were exploratory in nature
and utilized a mixed methods case study research design informed by the work of Creswell (2007),
along with notions of arts-related research (Selkrig, 2014). We were continuing to grapple with nebu-
lous concepts of “creativity” and “arts learning” and the ways that art practice as research continually
challenged our thinking. At the time, we had not fully envisaged the impact this had for us in how we
developed as researchers.
Data gathering in this school-based research commenced with a questionnaire. A series of multi-
stage discussion forums followed, which involved various groupings of the school community. Artists’
sketch books, in which participants could record their thoughts about creativity, creative learning and
teaching in whatever way suited them (for example writing, drawing, collage) over a six week period,
were provided at the end of these initial discussions. During this six week period, participants were sent
a total of four emails with prompts and focus statements to stimulate their thinking about creativity.
The emails acted as an invitation/reminder that they could use these prompts to focus their reflections
in their sketch books. In the first week, for instance, teachers were prompted to consider ways in which
312

they taught creatively, along with an invitation for them to record some examples. The final prompt was
sent in the sixth week, at which time the teachers were encouraged to reflect on the creative learning
that occurred for the student and for the class when making art, along with the methods they used to
record or monitor creative learning.
The sketch books and email prompts were the particularly innovative and creative aspects we introduced
to this project. In addition, the email prompts sent to teachers to stimulate their thinking about creativ-
ity was both efficient, being aware that the participants had limited time in which to be involved with
the project, and imaginative. We were also mindful of the need to consider “other” forms of knowledge
when collecting and interpreting data. As Ellsworth (2005) claims, “some knowings cannot be conveyed
through language…[and we need] to acknowledge the existence of forms of knowing that escape the
efforts of language to reference a ‘consensual,’ ‘literal,’ ‘real’ world” (p. 156). The teachers described
how the email prompts were valuable as they “stimulated thinking throughout” the project and “allowed
everyone to come to the final [discussion] with something to add” (comment made by Teacher 1).
In our early work we had used a combination of conventional research methods along with some
novel and innovative data gathering tools, which would be embedded in subsequent research activities.
We continued to stretch our boundaries and cultivate ideas of what research might be. For us, new tools
meant new ways to look at new problems or questions, or even those we were exploring in our existing
inquiries.
LOOKING IN; LOOKING OUT
Having mapped some significant plateaus for us in becoming researchers, we turn now to another more
recent node in the rhizome, a university-based research project titled Small stories and the big picture:
Academics revealing the work they do (also referred to as the Postcards Project). In this project, Mark
was a lead researcher-participant, and Kim was a participant. A deliberative shift occurs in our narrative
here for two purposes: to capture a particular turning point—plateau—in our becoming researchers, and
to “play” with different ways of representing research.
What follows then, is a semi-fictional narrative, which, as described previously, is an arts-related
approach. This type of narrative, according to Whiteman and Phillips (2008), overlays fact-oriented
research with fiction in order to help reframe the data in parallel with academic theorizing. By using
this approach we recognize that “as researchers, we are participants in the creation of data” (Tierney,
2000, p. 534), and that the story and related theory become deliberately tangled (Briggs & Woolbright,
2000, p. xii). This literary technique also builds on a conference presentation by Kamler and Thomson
(2001), in which they exchange emails between each other and in which they explore substantive topics
augmented and theorized with reference to scholarly works. Within our semi-fictional narrative emails
that appear below, we reproduce two of the actual email exchanges that occurred between us, along with
some embellishments to introduce a number of theoretical concepts that we then discuss further in this
chapter. But first, an explanation about the research upon which we are focusing.
The research in question involved a research team of three academics (of which Mark was one), and
twenty-one participating academics. The setting for the research was within the College of Education at
Melbourne’s Victoria University. The research team sought to explore the shifting nature of academic
work, with the researchers keen to explore how academics understood core parts of their work: teaching,
research and service (in this case, community engagement).
313

Life in universities delivers many instances of complexity in which the demands placed on academics
are not always resolvable by the resources available, though notionally they could be resolved if only
there were more resources (Barnett, 2000c, p. 415). As many cultural monoliths break up, and the cer-
tain, lasting and solid structures are replaced with the uncertainty and transience in the current epoch of
“liquid modernity” (Bauman, 2014), the terrain of power, knowledge and other meta-levels of life have
changed drastically and continue to do so. Supercomplexity, on the other hand, points to some of these
drastic changes in universities and arises under “conditions of a conceptual overload,” with the concepts
of “contestability, challengeability, uncertainty and unpredictability” that have become common features
of work in universities, combining with “change, turmoil, turbulence, risk and even chaos” to contribute
to a sense of “emotional insecurity” (Barnett, 2000c, pp. 415-416).
Osberg (2010) questions Barnett’s (2000c) differentiated concepts of supercomplexity and complex-
ity. Osberg argues that “Barnett is positioning ‘supercomplexity’ as something which presents us with
a problem in principle, while complexity presents us with a problem in practice.” Osberg states that
this differentiation is something that she does not necessarily agree with, “as I think they are much the
same thing,” with the “problem in principle” being aligned to the postmodern position. Even though,
as Osberg maintains, it is necessary to “‘materialize’ the resources we need to meet the demand[s],”
noting that “we can’t make something out of nothing,” this nevertheless places demands upon academ-
ics. Capturing the perspectives of a group of academics within one college of one university was a way
to understand how individuals within the university system were living with the constantly-changing
demands and potentially, emotional insecurity, as a response to the changing circumstances to which
they were exposed.
There were two phases of data gathering after approval to conduct the research was gained from
the University’s Ethics Committee: the first phase was the staged dissemination of four email prompts
in which a sentence stem was circulated to participants, along with an invitation for them to submit a
response. The researchers invited participants to provide both short textual and photographic images in
their return email responses. Placing a deliberate limitation on the amount of text, so that it could only
occupy one side of a postcard, whilst the image that participating academics generated occupied the
other side, ensured the prose would “cut to the chase.” The data generated in the first phase of the Post-
cards Project were then transformed into postcard format, and later, into posters (a collage of individual
postcards). These artefacts were utilized in the second phase to question and engage in further dialogue
with the participants, and the artefacts were also displayed in the public realm.
The first of three prompts was circulated via the University’s email system to participants in our
College. The invitation read, in part:
You would be aware from the information sheet circulated previously, we are now entering the phase
of the project when we are encouraging you to think about the core themes that guide academic work
and then for you to send us your images and text that relate to these themes… With this first prompt we
request that you consider the following stem sentence:
314

Teaching Is. . .
Feel free to think broadly about the stem sentence that you have been provided with to consider the text
and image you might use to represent your ideas.
Kim’s response to that prompt appears in Figure 1 and is followed by the first email exchange between
himself and Mark.
Figure 1. Kim’s response to the prompt: “Teaching is. . .”
315

To: Mark Selkrig

From: Kim Keamy
Subject: Response to “Teaching is. . .” prompt
Hi Mark
Here is my response to “Teaching is. . .” A captured image from my Outlook calendar as a metaphor
for my life!!
I can’t quite believe it—the huge array of things that occupy my week. Getting in the way of the teaching
and research I want and desperately need to do. Looking at some of the jobs I’ve been sandwiching my
teaching in between there are some things that relate to the running of the University; some things that
relate to the running of our College; some things that relate to how I might rejig my teaching for online
and blended delivery, and two things amongst all that that have to do with students. Ah students! That’s
why we’re here, isn’t it?
Sometimes it almost does my head in: discovering what the boundaries are of sometimes competing
priorities . . . and then trying to come up with some sort of creative response.
Thinking of the life of academics takes me back to my doctoral research when I investigated issues
of masculinity(ies), identities, leadership and the work practices of male academics in a number of
universities in southern Australia. And it reminds me also of Tierney’s (2000, 2001) work in which he
contemplated the identities of academics in American universities.
I haven’t done any of my own research today—for the same reasons alluded to in my postcard text—but
at least I’ve enjoyed participating in someone else’s!
Kim
To: Kim Keamy

From: Mark Selkrig
Subject: Re: Response to your “Teaching is. . .” prompt
Dear Kim
Thanks for your postcard image and text in response to the “Teaching is. . .” prompt. A crowded Outlook
calendar as a metaphor for your current life as an academic. I could empathize with your image and am
well aware of the intensity of work we seem to be required to do in universities.
You mentioned your doctoral research, and this made me go back to my own and how, I too, also looked at
dialogues of identity and learning. Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) concepts of rhizomatics and becoming
316

as a means to describe the ongoing nature of how identities are formed was one of my key influences. I
was thinking at the time of the complexity of identity-formation.
Your reference to the mix of your current work as an academic “doing your head in” echoes the post-
card texts of quite a few of our colleagues. . . they enjoy teaching but find it harder and harder to weave
their way through the numerous systems and compliance requirements of the university. On their own,
they say, each one makes sense, but when they are combined, it’s getting harder and harder to see how
things hang together.
In these email exchanges related to the first prompt—“Teaching is. . .” —we have been able to name a
few things: the multifaceted nature of our work and the impact of different systems on our teaching. We’ve
both also referred to our identities being affected by these impacts, which echo some of the “problems
in practice” articulated by Osberg (2010), but also allude to “emotional insecurity[ies]” described by
Barnett (200b, p. 416). We now consider a second postcard, this time Mark’s, which is in response to
the prompt “Research is . . ., ” and the email exchange that followed.
Figure 2. Mark’s response to the prompt: “Research is…”
317

To: Mark Selkrig

From: Kim Keamy
Subject: Your “Research is. . .” prompt
Thanks Mark for sharing your “Research is. . .” response with me. I’ve only just submitted mine. You’ve
probably seen it—the one with the photo of the football oval crowded with people? And the text that sug-
gests that research is a matter of weaving through the crowd, jumping hurdles and climbing many steps
to get to the highest seat in the grandstand, only to then be questioned: is my work worthy of research?
Looking at your reference to an evolving map to which research contributes. The work of Deleuze and
Guattari, who you mentioned in your previous email to me, making another appearance!
The phrase you used: “knowing, not knowing, unknowing” is something that I can relate to as well.
And the image—that seems to have a back story of its own. Are they books on a bookshelf in the lower
part of the image?
As enjoyable as this process has been to date, I realize that it is a research project and the data will need
to be analyzed. How do you guys intend doing that?
Kim
To: Kim Keamy

From: Mark Selkrig
Subject: Re: Your “Research is. . .” prompt
Thanks Kim. The image in the foreground of a person trying to climb onto a platform of spikes is called
“Moving to another plane.” Along with the sculptures I made that related to my thesis, this work was part
of another series of 15 sculptural works I made titled Caprichos, (a Spanish word for whims, vagaries or
quirks) and a type of homage to the famous series of etchings by Francisco Goya with the same name,
which he produced during the late 1700s in Spain. My Caprichos emerged during the limbo period of
submitting my thesis for examination and waiting to be notified of the result. Each Capricho became a
platform (or perhaps a plateau) to reflect on the rollercoaster ride of my research odyssey. The back-
ground . . . yes, blurred books below the plane and blurred people above, alluding to my muddled state
of mind, I was questioning my ability as a researcher.
In my postcard text I referred to “complexity”. I was talking with one of our colleagues about her
postcard and mine, and she mentioned the concept of supercomplexity. Have you heard of it? “We are
in a situation of supercomplexity when our very frameworks for making the world intelligible are in
dispute” (Barnett, 2000a, p. 75). In the introductory piece I read it seems that what Barnett is saying is
that supercomplexity cuts to the heart of how it means to be an academic—the act of being—is thrown
into chaos as a consequence of the uncertainty, unpredictability, contestability and changeability of life
in general . . . and certainly within the university environment.
318

I also found this in Barnett’s own words: “A complex world is one in which we are assailed by more
facts, data, evidence, tasks and argument than we can easily handle within the frameworks in which we
have our being. By contrast, a supercomplex world is one in which the very frameworks by which we
orient ourselves to the world are themselves contested. Supercomplexity denotes a fragile world but it
is a fragility brought on not merely by social and technological change; it is a fragility in the way we
understand the world, in the way in which we understand ourselves and in the ways in which we feel
secure about acting in the world [original emphases]” (Barnett, 2000b, p. 257).
And analysis: very interesting! We’ve been working out how to do this. . . Some of us (arts-based re-
searchers, who use art in our research to use Sullivan’s (2005) term) are familiar with interpreting
visual images and others (arts-informed researchers, who use art to inform their research, to use the
term adopted by Knowles and Cole (2008)) are more at home with interpreting written text. But taking
both together is a bit of a challenge! I think Bragg’s (2011) work is going to help us a bit. She writes
about scrapbooks, but uses the term to include things like photos that are accompanied by personal
writing and other commentary. We like her idea also of this work providing a tool to think with. But
she’s certainly right about one thing: “our capacity to generate visual data far outstrips our capacity
to analyse them” (Bragg, 2011, p. 98).
The device of using email dialogue conveys our emerging understandings, with the inclusion of
some pertinent concepts, of what the paradigm of supercomplexity might mean and how it impacts on
our work as researchers. In the emails we are effectively reframing our thinking from earlier research
activities to a different way of understanding and knowing.
PONDERINGS: LOOKING FORWARD. . . AND SHAKING IT ALL ABOUT
Given that Lather (2006) has previously argued the need for paradigm proliferation, we consider it timely
that Ling and Ling have responded to a need to introduce the paradigm of supercomplexity in this book.
Lather maps how certain paradigms can be grouped within modernist, structural, humanist theories/
discourses that “predict,” “understand,” and “emancipate.” Another group of paradigms that represent a
shift from these traditions is linked with postmodern, post-structural, post-humanist theories/discourses
that “deconstruct.” In this second group Lather also lists another category of “Next?” which is perhaps
where supercomplexity might “fit.”
Having deconstructed recent research activities in which we have been engaged, and identified the
on-going, arts-related thread running through our research, we have come to the realization that our
more recent work and thinking could indeed be considered within a paradigm of supercomplexity. In
this final section of the chapter, we turn our attention to ponder some of the emergent concerns, chal-
lenges and possibilities of which we have also become aware. It is a process that could be described as
simultaneously knowing but not knowing.
Interspersed throughout this chapter we have made reference to “arts-related research” as a common
thread running through our research work. This term provides a way of negotiating the somewhat bewil-
dering terrain of the utilization of arts in research (Selkrig, 2014), but has not been used to dismiss the
extensive scholarly considerations of “arts-based” (such as Sullivan, 2005) and “arts-informed” research
(see, for instance, Knowles & Cole, 2008). Rather, arts-related research is a term that we have chosen
319

to use in this chapter to flag the research methods that we have used in the past and which we consider
sit comfortably within the paradigm of supercomplexity.
How, then, might arts-related approaches further evolve in our research? To a certain extent, this is
a shoot from the rhizome that has not yet surfaced; an unknowable:
There is something real about not knowing at the time why a decision was made, but having a felt need
that an object or image may hold significance and meaning that may be revealed later. When artistic
practice is used within the context of inquiry, there is an investment in the potential that insight may
emerge as a reflexive action sparked by creative impulse that can help to see things in a critically dif-
ferent way. (Sullivan, 2008, p. 242)
Linking methodologies, such as arts-related research and aspects of complexity theory, with its concern
for “relations within interconnected, dynamic and changing networks” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,
2011, p. 28) may hint at our future directions. We are beginning to imagine how arts-related research
methods may have a place in complexity by acting as a conduit for emergence.
Thus, the contribution of arts based research is not that it leads to claims in propositional form about
states of affairs but that it addresses complex and often subtle interactions and that it provides an image
of those interactions in ways that make them noticeable. In a sense, arts-based research is a heuristic
through which we deepen and make more complex our understanding of some aspects of the world.
(Barone & Eisner, 2012, p. 3)
Key terms and concepts such as feedback, recursion, emergence, connectedness and self-organization
shape the discourse of complexity theory (Cohen et al., 2011, pp. 28-29). “Emergence,” in particular, is a
concept common to both the rhizome metaphor that we have been using as well as to complexity theory.
In complexity theory, emergence is about generating something entirely new, something that adds up to
more than the sum of its parts: “I would argue that emergence is a logic in which something new must
be created out of a base or foundation that is already in existence [original emphases]” (Osberg, 2010).
Complexity theory offers some tools to grapple with our research practice that emerge, or that are
present, when we view the world through a supercomplexity lens. If we are to work within the proposed
new and emerging paradigm of supercomplexity, along with considering complexity theory, it is worth
reassessing the notion and limitations of existing qualitative and quantitative methods. Lather and St Pierre
(2013) and MacLure (2013) promote the idea of “post-qualitative” methodologies, where ontological
turns (St Pierre, 2014, p. 3) emerge. Amongst the emergence of “post-qualitative” methodologies a range
of methodological and conceptual positioning has surfaced that Fenwick, Edwards, and Sawchuk (2011,
p. viii) describe as “socio-material arenas” that can assist in tracing the dynamics of education. These
orientations include Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), actor-network theory (ANT), spacial-
ity theories and complexity theory. St Pierre (2014) argues if we are to engage with post-structuralist
thinking then conventional qualitative tools are too restrictive.
Leavy (2009) also argues that although arts-based practices such as stories, images, and evocation
might be seen as an “extension” of conventional qualitative research, arts-based research also constitutes
a departure and ultimately an expansion of the “qualitative” (p. 256). There are clear differences in the
main tenets of quantitative, qualitative and arts-based research—the purpose or intention, the methods
used, how data are represented and how the work is judged or assessed. Leavy states, “As qualitative
320

research ushered in new terms appropriate with research practices, the new kind of knowledge-building
occurring in art-based traditions may also require a new way of talking about research” (p. 257). We
would agree with Leavy that arts-related and art-based research methodologies might fit neatly into the
post-qualitative methodologies and offer us a way to allow types of inquiry that open up new possibilities.
It affords us other ways of thinking, seeing, understanding, and meaning-making of multiple perspectives
and relations in changing networks that are at the heart of complexity research, where reality is seen as
dynamic, emergent and self-organizing (Kuhn, 2007, as cited in Cohen et al., 2011, p. 30).
We are also drawn to Barnett’s (2000a) “triple reframing” (p. 149) that should take place when work-
ing with supercomplexity. Firstly, there is an encouragement to redraw (or at least be open to redrawing)
frameworks through which we understand our world, to which we can say that we have been able to
consider that. We also agree with Lather, who states
Layering complexity, foregrounding problems, thinking outside easy intelligibility and transparent un-
derstanding, the goal is to move educational research in many different directions in the hope that more
interesting and useful ways of knowing will emerge. (Lather, 2006, p. 53)
Secondly, Barnett (2000a, p. 150) says, there’s research itself and being open to a whole range of dif-
ferent audiences through the use of technologies. We consider that we are able to see parallels in our own
work with this second reframing. Finally, Barnett says, we as researchers need to reframe ourselves as
“…not just of thought but also of action, of self-understanding and of communication” (Barnett, 2000a,
p. 150). The task ahead of us as we consider Barnett’s third re-frame is presented by Hooley (2006) who
poses questions that similarly point to some of the challenges:
Research as an investigation into knowledge and undertaken from a critical point of view will begin with
the question, what is the point of conducting this research if the researchers remain unchanged by the
experience? That is, have the researchers learnt nothing about themselves and hold exactly the same
views and understandings as they did at the beginning of the project? How will this make for a better
world, how will the status quo be altered? (p. 558)
This remains as a challenge and a plateau to be traversed by us in our becoming researchers.

Our final musings in this chapter return us to the idea of representation and of metaphors. Our approach
here has been to provide a conventional discourse alongside the use of imagery and semi-fictional narra-
tives as we strive to represent possibilities and to make our writing readerly, that is, to “[invite] readers
to engage with, and make meanings from, a text” (Thomson, 2015) and images. We have deliberately
“moved outside conventional social scientific writing” to incorporate “creative analytical practices. . .
[as]. . . valid and desirable representations of the social,” as Laurel Richardson describes it (Richardson
& St. Pierre, 2005, p. 962). This approach sees us continuing to ensure that our selves are present in our
research. Creative analytical practices (CAP) belong to a:
new species of qualitative writing [that] adapt to the kind of political/social world we inhabit—a world
of uncertainty. . . . Using CAP researchers learn about the topics and about themselves that which was
unknowable and unimaginable using conventional analytic procedures, metaphors and writing formats.
(Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005, pp. 962-963)
321

Some of the writing formats suggested by Richardson and St. Pierre that we may choose to explore
further, that is, additional to the approaches we have employed in writing this chapter—collaborative
writing, autobiography and semi-fictional narratives—could include the use of layered texts, transforming
field notes into drama, writing accounts of research from multiple perspectives, and the multimodal use
of imagery. Clarke and Parsons (2013) introduce the concept and characteristics of “rhizome research-
ers” who are able to utilize approaches, which include starting where we are; listening to the voices and
things connected to them; embedding ourselves in the lives of our research, and developing sensitivities
to elements/people that are not part of the status quo. Similarly the arts and education based research
methodologies of A/r/tography offer up additional possibilities. With a focus on inquiry through the arts
and writing, a/r/tograpy, according to Irwin and Springgay (2008), attends to “the in-betweens where
meanings reside in the simultaneous use of language, images, materials, situations, space and time”
(p. xix). The notion of “renderings” are used to outline conceptual practices such as: contiguity; liv-
ing inquiry; metaphor and metonymy; openings; reverberations; and excess as ways “to move into the
boundaries between theory, practice and creative activity and allow each to impact one another” (Irwin
& Springgay, 2008, p. xxxi).
We cannot be certain what our “new dance” may be, or where the rhizome might next sprout, but
as rhizome researchers with many conceptual tools and practices at our disposal (Clarke & Parsons,
2013), and a disposition for bricolage, we are open to new perspectives on our educational journey in
supercomplex times.
REFERENCES
Barnett, R. (2000a). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham, UK: The Society
for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Barnett, R. (2000b). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 255–265.
doi:10.1080/713696156
Barnett, R. (2000c). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4),
409–422. doi:10.1023/A:1004159513741
Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (1997). Arts-based educational research. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Contemporary
methods for research in education (2nd ed.). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (2012). Arts based research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bragg, S. (2011). “Now it’s up to us to interpret it.” Youth voice and visual methods in creative learn-
ing and research. In P. Thomson & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Researching creative learning: Methods and
issues (pp. 88–103). London: Routledge.
Briggs, L. C., & Woolbright, M. (2000). Introduction: Reflections on editing. In L. C. Briggs & M.
Woolbright (Eds.), Stories from the center: Connecting narrative and theory in the writing center. Ur-
bana, USA: National Council of Teachers of English. doi:10.1063/1.1588971
322

Clarke, B., & Parsons, J. (2013). Becoming rhizome researchers. Reconceptualizing educational research
methodology, 4(1), 35-43.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi,
Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Eisner, E. (2008). Art and knowledge. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in
qualitative research (pp. 3–12). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. New York: Routledge/Farmer.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing
the socio-material. London: Routledge.
Geertz, C. (1993). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. London: Fontana.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 3, pp. 191–216).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hooley, N. (2006). Participation and the question of knowledge. In T. Townsend & R. Bates (Eds.),
Handbook of teacher education: Globalisation, standards and professionalism in times of change (pp.
557–570). Netherlands: Springer Press.
Irwin, R. L., & Springgay, S. (2008). A/r/tography as practice-based research. In S. Springgay, R. L.
Irwin, C. Leggo, & P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with A/r/tography (pp. xix–xxxiii). Rotterdam: Sense.
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. L. (2001, December 2-6). Talking down ‘writing up’ or ten e-mails make a
conference paper. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, WA.
Keamy, R. K. (2003). Performing masculinity and leadership: Male academics’ work practices and
identities [Doctor of Education dissertation]. Deakin University, Geelong, VIC. Retrieved from http://
dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30023211/keamy-performingmasculinity-2003.pdf
Keamy, R. K., & Selkrig, M. (2013). The effectiveness of protocols when pre-service teachers engage in
online collaborations: An exploration. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2). Retrieved from
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol38/iss2/7 doi:10.14221/ajte.2013v38n2.4
Kincheloe, J. L., & Berry, K. S. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing
the bricolage. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
323

Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (2008). Arts-informed research. In G. Knowles & A. Cole (Eds.), Handbook
of the arts in qualitative research (pp. 55–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in educa-
tion as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.
doi:10.1080/09518390500450144
Lather, P., & St Pierre, E. A. (2013). Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 26(6), 629–633. doi:10.1080/09518398.2013.788752
Leavy, P. (2009). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. New York: The Guildford Press.
Macbeth, D. (2001). On “reflexivity” in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third. Qualitative
Inquiry, 7(1), 35–68. doi:10.1177/107780040100700103
MacLure, M. (2013). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in postqualitative
methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 658–667. doi:10.1080
/09518398.2013.788755
Mertens, D. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Midgley, W., Trimmer, K., & Davies, A. (Eds.). (2013). Metaphors for, in and of education research.
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Osberg, D. (2010). Authoritative knowledge and the public role of the university: How complexity chal-
lenges our assumptions and opens alternate possibilities. Paper presented at the Learning, Teaching &
Research Conference, University of St Mark and St John, UK. Retrieved from http://moodle.marjon.
ac.uk/mod/page/view.php?id=18760
Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Selkrig, M. (2009). Community-based artists: Dialogues of identity and learning [Doctor of Education
thesis]. La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/152554
Selkrig, M. (2014). Becoming a bricoleur: Constructing sculptures to explore complex and troublesome
dimensions in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(1),
17–30. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2012.742051
Selkrig, M., & Keamy, R. K. (2009). Beyond borderlanders: Universities extending their role in fostering
creative partnerships within communities. International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 185–196.
Selkrig, M., & Keamy, R. K. (2015). Promoting a willingness to wonder: Moving from congenial to
collegial conversations that encourage deep and critical reflection for teacher educators. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(4), 421–436. doi:10.1080/13540602.2014.969104
St Pierre, E. A. (2014). A brief and personal history of post qualitative research. Journal of Curriculum
Theorizing, 30(2), 2–19.
324

Sullivan, G. (2005). Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Sullivan, G. (2008). Afterword: Continuing conversations outside the circle. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin,
C. Leggo, & P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with A/r/tography (pp. 233–244). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Thomson, P. (January 4, 2015). Writerly, readerly and strategic—Practices for getting published [blog
post]. Retrieved from https://patthomson.net/2015/01/12/writerly-readerly-and-strategic-some-tips-for-
getting-published/
Tierney, W. G. (2000). Undaunted courage: Life history and the postmodern challenge. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (2001). Faculty work in schools of education: Rethinking roles and rewards for
the Twenty-first Century. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Whiteman, G., & Phillips, N. (2008). The role of narrative fiction and semi-fiction in organizational
studies. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of new approaches in management and
organization. London: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781849200394.n51
325
326
Chapter 20
The Black Academy:
A Renaissance Seen Through
a Paradigmatic Prism
Mark Rose
ABSTRACT
The continent nominated by Westerners “Terra Australis Incognita” was land occupied for tens of
thousands of years; home to peoples whose surviving descendants, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people, could claim to have sustained the world’s oldest culture. The colonists occupying the
territory, however, declared it “terra nullius,” a land with no recognized claim. The colonial attitude to
Indigenous culture was similar, treating it as “Intellectual nullius.” From the colonial occupation to the
1980s became the “Dark Ages for Indigenous Knowledge,” in which the trans-generational capability,
engaged in Western knowledge, was rare. In this chapter, this history is revisited on a path to current
contributions of the Black Academy to higher education. These are advanced here as: an Indigenous
perspective; an oppositional approach; integrative Indigenous knowledge; contemporary Indigenous
knowledge; and pure Indigenous knowledge. Reflecting on the research paradigm involved, emerging
contributions of the Black Academy represent a supercomplex renaissance.
INTRODUCTION
The reach of the colonial arm was much broader than mere land acquisition and military appropria-
tion. On the homelands of nearly five hundred Aboriginal and Torres Islander nations the might of the
clenched colonial fist swept away much of everyday life for the indigene on their now conquered land.
While spoils were abundant for the acquirers, their haste to satisfy an almost insatiable economic thirst
purged Indigenous knowledges and knowledge systems tens of thousands of years in the making. In the
mid-1990s the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association (VAEAI) produced a bumper sticker that said
“Education and land go hand in hand.” While this is something that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island-
ers have always professed, it proved to be somewhat prophetic in relation to the elevation of Indigenous
knowledges and knowledge systems in the general academy.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch020

The Black Academy
Colonial endeavor rarely wanders far from the base script whether it be a people, acquisition of land
or, pertinent to this chapter, knowledge production and transfer. In fact, the apparent dichotomy between
colonization of land and the colonization of the mind carries more analogous intersections than one
might expect. Parallels are tracked in this chapter in order to demonstrate how Indigenous representation
in higher education in Australia, referred to here as the “Black Academy,” has challenged traditional
underpinnings in research and more specifically, education research, leading to the emancipation of
the Black Academy through an intellectual renaissance. In the context of a nexus with colonialism and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’s recent emancipation through knowledge systems, a multilayered
paradigmatic prism is employed to reveal the variety of underpinning intellectual intents and platforms,
including indigenous ontologies, axiologies, epistemologies, and methodologies. It is the intention in
this chapter to review how Indigenous knowledges have today contributed to the “supercomplexity” of
knowledge in universities. This includes the exploration of what the implications of Indigenous Knowl-
edge are and the derivative complexities that will need to be considered as we position both “Traditional
Knowledge” and “Indigenous Knowledge” in the life and fabric of a modern Australian University.
To comprehend the emancipation of the Black Academy as an intellectual dynamic requires apprecia-
tion of the systemic subjugation that has applied. The British colonial enterprise learnt much from the
mistakes made in earlier expeditionary endeavors. In 1770 the English Mariner James Cook set foot on
the sovereign land of the Eora Nations claiming it for his King, George III and attributing to it the out of
place and highly innocuous name of “New South Wales.” Cook had been dispatched to the Pacific with
the astronomical task of observing the transit of Venus. Back as far as Aristotle there were references
to the existence of “Terra Australis Incognita” or an unknown land of the south. After Cook’s scientific
obligations had been fulfilled he circumnavigated Aotearoa and continued his colonial appropriations.
On that land the first significant imperial “boots on the ground” in New South Wales didn’t occur
until 1788 with the “First Fleet” landing in a Gadigal inlet in 1788. The mind of the colonizers bore
the scars and the consequences of the United States Continental War and were still raw. The reality of
what the Provincial Congress Massachusetts in 1775 had ignited in terms of defying colonial rule led
in a mere eight years to a rag tag militia subduing in convincing terms the might of the world power of
the day, the British Empire. The following waves of colonizers in this great southern land came with
scars that translated into harsh conditions that would never allow another uprising war of independence
on distant shores again. Colonial occupation was an evolving science and differing models can be eas-
ily juxtaposed to other colonial endeavors of about the time. Examples of this are the Maori Treaty of
Waitangi and South Africa’s apartheid, which had its genesis from Dutch colonization and then British
colonization through the occupation of the Cape of Good Hope in 1795. The focus here, however, is on
a brutal epoch of colonial power for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and one of its less
recognized longitudinal effects on knowledge production and exchange.
The 1967 referendum presents as a high point in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition
and to today the referendum itself enjoys the status as the highest “Yes” vote of 90.77% in electoral
history. The actual fiat read somewhat innocuously—allowing the federal government to make laws for
Aborigines and allowing Indigenous people to be counted in the census. This paved the way for a raft of
emancipatory programs that, even with the best of intentions, still struggle to close gaps in basic social
indicators. One area that has developed in almost four decades since the 1967 referendum is tertiary
education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. With the dissolution of state run “Aborigine
Protection Acts” the educational apartheid that was practised in forms of overt and covert exclusion
post-year eight disappeared. It was not until the 1980s, however, that targeted measures were put in place
327

The Black Academy
to attract Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people into higher education. Some of these measures
have been questioned in latter times as being pseudo educational ghettos cloistered from the broader
university and some cases offering “associate” degrees.
Some four decades on from that early beachhead in education, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people now occupy some of the most senior positions in the 39 Australian universities, with over three
hundred completed PhDs and the same number again currently in candidature. The rise and rise of the
Black Academy in under four decades, apart from destroying the ill-conceived, turn of the century no-
tion of eugenics that gave license for a century of racial subjugation, emancipated Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people in many other ways. The elevation of the Black Academy and their higher educa-
tion accession through career development in the knowledge industry, has spawned an enquiry within
themselves of where their traditional knowledge sits.
In the international sphere we see the elevation of both Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous
Knowledge emerging firstly by disparate entities and then concurrently with global domains such as the
United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO, 2006) and the World Indigenous
Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC). Here in Australia, the home of that oldest intellectual
tradition, Indigenous Knowledge has surfaced in the Western academy mainly through the agency of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics who have emerged only in the last couple of decades
as the Black Academy.
The Black Academy heralded an intellectual renaissance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
and generated a new found ability to capture and project Traditional Knowledge and other knowledges
in contemporary formats. Their influence, however, has migrated beyond an Indigenous standpoint, for
as Indigenous men and women, they have rightly challenged limitation in Western knowledge gather-
ing techniques and philosophy and have illuminated the insidious strands of hegemony embedded in
the process.
A small number of the Black Academy have from their ontological and axiological platforms de-
veloped Indigenous epistemologies and methodologies that present mammoth challenges that can be
seen as positioned within the sphere or paradigm of “supercomplexity” (see Chapters 1, 2 and 18). The
established academy, as an essentially Western construct, struggles with how to represent Indigenous
Knowledge as well as how to supervise it, assess it and confidently deploy it.
The positivist notion of objectivity, which purports that if you can’t measure it then it doesn’t exist,
is diametrically opposed to Indigenous Knowledge systems where data is procured not transactionally
but relationally. Objectivity then surrenders to subjectivity that is genealogically credentialed within a
traditional Aboriginal value of respect. An intense challenge to Western notions of research, using standard
methodology and epistemological understandings, arises where non-Indigenous researchers undertake an
Indigenous project and need to venture out of their knowledge system into the one they are researching.
This drives a stake into the traditional turf of the university. The university as the source of all wis-
dom and knowledge is challenged on many levels where Indigenous topics have only been examined
on the first dimension and only as part of a power-laden concept. “Supercomplexity” inverts the power
position of the Black Academy and places exponents of the Indigenous Knowledge system in a position
of potential influence. The Black Academy is able to operate in two systems at a sophisticated level,
employing significant expertise in a limited field that is, at the moment, thinly populated.
So far in Australia only one of the thirty nine universities has acknowledged formally the proposition
that the Indigenous Knowledge system presents a knowledge system in its own right, having its own
integrity. This is juxtaposed to the international groundswell emerging around Traditional Knowledge
328

The Black Academy
and Indigenous Knowledge, particularly significant here in Australia where nearly five hundred different
Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander nations present as the world’s oldest continuous culture. Accepting
the premise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are the world’s oldest continuous culture then it
must also be the world’s oldest continuous intellectual tradition.
The elevation of Indigenous Knowledge systems, the emancipation of the Black Academy and the
intellectual renaissance it has generated is by all accounts a phenomenon of supercomplexity. Within
the broader academy there is, as a result of this, a challenge to the seemingly immutable power of the
Western academy. This challenge by Indigenous Knowledge to the academy of the West is garnished by
unknowns, insecurities, uncertainties, and obscurities and is therefore consistent with the notion of how
the modern day university operates in a supercomplex environment.
THE DARK AGES FOR INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE
Cook’s pursuit of “Terra Australis Incognita” was followed by the employment of the concept of “Terra
Nullius,” a Latin term essentially meaning “nobody’s land” and implying the territory which has never
been subject to the sovereignty of any state, which was employed to negate land ownership by the Eora
people in New South Wales. The position adopted later spread throughout the entire continent. “Since
the Australian aborigines were held incapable of intelligent transactions with respect to land Australia
was treated as terra nullius” (O’Connell, 1965, p. 409), and so “Terra Nullius” as a concept became
metaphorically analogous for what became the “Dark Ages for Indigenous Knowledge.”
Whilst the construct of “race” informs and legitimates “terra nullius,” it also informs the assumption by
colonists and subsequent generations that Indigenous traditions of intelligentsia equate to “Intellectual
nullius.” (Rigney, 1997, p. 636)
So the systematic subjugation of First People’s knowledge that started with first contact cascaded out
across the nation as the colonizers spread inland over the next hundred years.
As a ramification of social and cultural genocide that this brought, the First Peoples were relegated to
barely human status. Interwoven within standard colonial settler practice were eradication and containment
measures. While life for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander faced significant disruption, Indigenous
Knowledge, despite the severity of the disruption, could still be passed according to cultural lines.
As the colonies developed on land rich in bounty, aided by the gold rushes, the burgeoning cluster
of colonies edged towards nationhood. So great was the wealth that had accumulated by the mid and
late 1800s that progressive democratic policies emerged that led the world. Examples are the Education
Acts that made education free, secular and compulsory, and South Australia granting women’s voting
rights in 1894 almost a quarter of a century before the United States. Juxtaposed to this new world
thinking from the Antipodes was the treatment of the Indigenes, which formed no part of the emerging
democratic sophistication of colonial life. The Aborigines Protection Acts typified the other extreme of
progressive thinking. Education was used as a tool of control for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island-
ers, eradicating culture and language and for decades preventing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people from full education,
329

The Black Academy
The myth of terra nullius implied that this country was uninhabited and terra nullius social policy
supported by research enabled for the dispossession of knowledges of Indigenous peoples. It must be
remembered that university curriculum, teaching methodologies and research endeavours have a history
of development that contributed to this dispossession. Has the time come for change? (Hart & What-
man, 1998, p. 9)
There were two essential tenets that contribute significantly to the Dark Ages for Indigenous Knowl-
edge. These relate to Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge and the methodical dismantling
and constant attack on indigenous tradition and culture.
At Federation, with colonisation a fine-tuned instrument and lessons learned from previously suppressing
the Indigenes of the United States, New Zealand and Canada, the founding fathers of modern Australia
pursued a progressive democratic agenda for whites with distinctive race elements. This included the
premise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were essentially an aberration of evolution to
be pitied until they died out. “Smoothing the dying pillow” was not the benign humanitarian endeavour
it purported to be: the colonial blanket smothered traditional ways, including language, knowledge, law
and other cultural expressions. It was aided by unrelenting overt and covert genocide practices, includ-
ing many enacted through education. (Price, 2015, p. 68)
These practices included internment on missions, removal of children, family disintegration by

forced migration, and up to the early 1960s policy that inhibited Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders
from ever progressing beyond year 8 in school; “policies of segregation, assimilation, integration, and
the forced removal of children from 1910-1970” (Taylor & Guerin, 2010). Smoothing the pillow for a
people who defied the notion of “dying out.” Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge, those
traditional ways of surfacing and exchanging, still occurred but were highly affected by the strategic
dissolution of the old ways. Fuelled by the thinking of the day and in pursuit of Education, all aspects
of Indigenous knowledge were overtly suppressed and devalued. One of the first Aboriginal academics
captures Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge by referring to it as “First Knowledge.”
Conceptually, First Knowledge is that knowledge that is transferred, or imported, via a set of deliber-
ate, culturally premised, constitutional procedures, perhaps best defined as significantly transmundane.
(West, 2000, p. 42)
The ramifications of this cultural and historical suppression embedded in a regenerative curriculum
overflowed, “affecting not only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but also non-Indigenous
people” (Price, 2015, p. 68). The 1880s Education Acts mandated standard Western education for all
children but for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children this rarely occurred. With the implica-
tion of controlled exclusion policies, jaundiced syllabi evolved that supported racial priorities and that
rendered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people invisible and mute in the curriculum.
The Dark Ages for Indigenous Knowledge up to the early 1980s meant that, for Aboriginal and Tor-
res Strait Islander people, the trans-generational capability engaged in Western knowledge was rare and
virtually non-existent. The nation setting 1967 referendum was the springboard for a raft of policies
that were designed to overcome the damage perpetuated by over a hundred years of social, cultural and
educational genocide. Nevertheless the effects of this are still felt today at the sharp edge of the criminal
330

The Black Academy
justice system and evidenced by the ubiquitous gap on social indicators, which has barely been arrested
let alone closed.
With dedicated programs appearing in the 1980s to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people in higher education a group has in a short time heeded the call of their ancestors. They
have intellectually emancipated themselves and taken a place in the academy and punched well above
their weight in the knowledge economy. In just four decades a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander academics have emerged who are prolific writers, active researchers, hold significant positions
in the nation’s universities and most of all heralded an “Indigenous Intellectual Renaissance.” This
renaissance presents something of a challenge to those conventional tenets of the Western academy. It
may be seen as linked to the notion of “supercomplexity” where “the university is no longer the sole or
even the main source of production of knowledge” (Barnett, 2000, p. 410).
THE INDIGENOUS INTELLECTUAL RENAISSANCE
The expiration of the dark ages in Indigenous Knowledge and education did not end precipitously. The
first glimmer of light penetrated the abyss as early as 1973 but it was not until the 1980s, with the invita-
tion for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to participate in higher education, that the foundations of
an intellectual renaissance were forged. This is captured by images such as “a quiet revolution.”
There has been a “quiet revolution” in Australian Aboriginal scholarship over the last 50 years that has
been driven by the works of Aboriginal writers across a diverse range of genres, from the academic to
the creative. This revolution is defined by the strong positioning of Aboriginal voices in published texts
and of Aboriginal people speaking about Indigenous knowledges, communities, histories, experiences,
logic, worldviews, laws, hopes, dreams, loves, grief, traumas and frustrations. (Kwaymullina, Kwaymul-
lina, Rosa, & Butterly, 2013, p. 1)
The first generation to partake met offerings that today would be considered tinged with the hue of
segregated exclusion. Being plunged into a world in which they, and generations before them, had been
excluded, meant that lost trans-generational capacities had to be rebuilt. For many of this first genera-
tion, the pathway was through colleges of further education or other vocational education. In the case
of higher education most universities in this period operated in sequester enclaves. In some cases, as if
they were cloistered fortresses, these institutions did not offer standard degrees for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people; they offered only associate degrees.
In this environment, and despite the nexus with an early essentially segregated model, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people stood up and claimed the space in which the “Indigenous Intellectual
Renaissance” was grafted. But before renaissance there was resistance, mainly through the agency of
Indigenous academics who have emerged just in the last couple of decades.
In the 1990s and 2000s we have seen an expansion of scholarship, mainly by Indigenous scholars but
also some non-Indigenous scholars, about Indigenist research methodologies and their relationships to
both teaching and research in the academy (for example, Bishop 1998; Rigney 1999; Rains, Archibald
& Deyhle 2000; Kuokkanen 2000, 2004, 2008; Martin 2003; Kovach 2005; Arbon 2008; Denzin and
Lincoln 2008; Moreton-Robinson and Walter 2009; Tuhiwai Smith 2012). (Kwaymullina et al., 2013, p. 2)
331

The Black Academy
Having access to higher education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders wasn’t enough as cur-
riculum, pedagogy and research, as tenets of teaching and learning, presented as an extension of the
colonial past through “Intellectual nullius” or what Chilisa denotes as “academic imperialism,”
which refers to the unjustified and ultimately counterproductive tendency in intellectual and scholarly
circles to denigrate, dismiss and attempt to quash alternative theories, perspectives and methodologies.
(Chilisa, 2012, p. 54)
This placed before Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students a double burden. Without the
advantage of a standard education, they had to apply themselves to a coursework curriculum that was
essentially foreign. The second burden was political; the obligation to mount resistance and create a
more appropriate space for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders coming behind them. This space is
predicated on the fundamental dogma of Indigeneity; a realm in which they are not invisible and mute
but have an acknowledged and honored intellectual heritage dating back tens of thousands of years.
This was their opportunity to espouse a cultural kerygma in a voice that has over almost four decades
strengthened and rebounded across the broader academy through the agency of the emerging Black
Academy. It is by achieving Western credentials that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders academics
working their way through the dense labyrinth of the higher education sector are best at recognizing the
racialized academy in which they operate.
It is the racialised research structures, philosophies and methods of investigation that we have inherited
from colonialism, within which Indigenous peoples function, that have been fundamental in the Indig-
enous scholar’s own oppression. (Rigney, 1997, p. 636)
Indigenous academics are well-tuned, perhaps more so than their non-Indigenous counterparts, to
the hegemony embedded in Western knowledge transfer.
Primarily Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander post-graduates (and often simultaneously Centre staff),
continually expressed frustration that their use and development of Indigenous knowledges within their
scholarship was not understood by their faculty or supervisors and they were continually pressured to
conform to mainstream epistemological norms i.e. collecting qualitative data using in depth interviews
is acceptable, using yarning methods is not. This is not an argument for a lowering of scholarly rigour.
(Walter, 2011)
In fact so compelling has been the work of the Black Academy that broader academy, while not fully
accepting the discourse on Indigenous Knowledge, are referencing the work of members and the intel-
lectual probity of their worldview. Referencing this worldview and articulating it in coherent and lucid
logic has challenged the broader academy. It is through a sustained critique of the limitations and the
hegemonic tenets of derivative paradigmatic and racialized notions that infuse generalized ontologies,
axiologies, epistemologies, and methodologies of the West, that a vibrant contribution to the “super-
complexity” paradigm has been made. The elevation of “Indigenous Knowledge” through the Black
Academy, while fought along cultural lines, has contributed to what Gage contends is “the so-called
positivistic, establishmentarian, mainstream, standard, objectivity-seeking, and quantitative approach
[which] had died of the wounds inflicted by its critics” (1989, p. 10).
332

The Black Academy
While Gage pronounces the death of a paradigm, Woodhouse cautions,
to claim that an old worldview is dying and a new one is emerging requires, first of all, that we clarify
what we mean by “worldview” and “paradigm shift”. Only then will we be in a position to identify the
old worldview, the causes of its decay, and the kind of vision that promises to replace it. (Woodhouse,
1996, p. 4)
The “Indigenous Intellectual Renaissance” is not about replacement nor comparison but the base as-
sertion that Indigenous Knowledge/Traditional Knowledge exists as a knowledge system in its own right.
It is not a derivative of, nor an abstraction from, that of the West. So to engage in any form of “paradigm
wars” is principally academic in nature and substance. In the emancipation of Indigenous people there
exists the inalienable right to generate and transfer knowledge in the tradition of their ancestors and with
the mandate of their communities. Within the “Indigenous Intellectual Renaissance” there is a place for
us to decolonize our being, and to promote our rich intellectual heritage as Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander pursuit of knowledge with a culturally informed epistemological mandate. Our renaissance may
be, as Sami academic Rauna Kuokkanen states, because “Indigenous epistemes have to be recognized
as a gift to the academy” (Kwaymullina et al., 2013, p. 2).
POSITIONING INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE
It is somewhat of an irony, and particularly here on lands that have housed the oldest intellectual tradition,
to refer to Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge (IK), as the United Nation does, as “new
knowledge.” For Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge in any context is indeed ancient
knowledge. There is empirical evidence validating what Australian First Peoples have always known and
held as a central plank of our being; an understanding that dates back between forty and sixty thousand
years, being the “world oldest culture.” The value proposition is not just limited to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander as Chilisa captures from Guba and Lincoln 2005: “There is growing evidence that social
science research ‘needs emancipation’ from generations of silence and emancipation from seeing the
world in one colour” (Chilisa, 2012, p. 3).
Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge therefore eclipses Western knowledge by literally
tens of thousands of years though they are often viewed as a “curiosity” rather than credible knowledge
systems of rigour and meaning.
While the orbital pull of the dominant Western academy persists, what is new is that Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islanders are now at the table and involved in the knowledge economy. With this new
recognition around Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge surfacing, here and internation-
ally, and the growth of demand by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students and academics, ques-
tions are generated about what this means for the standard contemporary Australian university in such
a “supercomplex” environment.
In pockets around the globe, Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge, considered as
something as a new frontier in knowledge production, have emerged. This is driven by at times disparate
sources and at other times completely interconnected sources, such as the United Nations, World Intel-
lectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the WINHEC (World Indigenous Nations Higher Education
Consortium).
333

The Black Academy
Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge should focus on both the process as well as the
product, “for Indigenist research to be recognised in the Western academy it must also identify its meth-
odology” (Martin, 2003). Specifically this occurs by interrogating and challenging the critical stages in
the pursuit of any higher degree including established paradigms and methodologies, and procedures
such as ethics clearances and supervisory practices. At the same time, epistemological rigor and making
a significant contribution to the whole academy must be ensured.
What is most distinctive between Western and Indigenous knowledge systems revolves around the
actual instrument of knowledge transfer. The Western academy both quantitatively and qualitatively tends
to transfer knowledge transactionally in the forms of measurable tools such as questions and surveys or
blood samples etc. Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge on the other hand carry far greater
emphasis on relationship. Here in Australia, it is this notion of relationship that has informed and driven
the Indigenous methodology agenda by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics.
Underpinning the conceptually “relational” premise of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous
Knowledge and knowledge transfer “specifies a reciprocal relationship between the researcher and the
researched who must become ‘a family’: be interconnected in a reciprocal way in the frames of the
particular research project with which they are involved” (Porsanger, 2004, p. 111).
Central to the notion of connectedness and familiar reciprocity is that Indigenous methodologies
turn what the west would interpret as “subjective” and “conflict of interest” into a dynamic instrument
of rigour and a central plank in knowledge transfer.
In standard Western qualitative research designs, the researcher becomes a “human instrument”
gathering, managing, analyzing, and interpreting data (Breuer & Roth, 2003; Capra, 1996; Samdahl,
1999; Silverman, 2000) and is considered as the primary instrument for data collection and analysis.
In Indigenous methodology, however, there are points of difference that echo that of Bishop’s (1996)
position on reciprocity of the family/group where “individuality” is replaced by group meaning and in
which neither the individual researcher nor the audience are predominant. There are similarities here
to the qualitative interpretive process where “using a qualitative methodology enabled the researcher to
‘uncover the meaning a situation had for those involved’” (Merriam, 2002, p. 11).
The Western academy has been seen as leveraged upon a basic separation into qualitative and
quantitative approaches. This is captured by Glaser and Straus who attempt to draw one basic point of
differentiation, “Qualitative researchers do not begin with an a priori hypothesis that is subsequently
tested through experimentation” (Glaser & Strauss, 1968). While the appropriateness of a focus on the
qualitative versus quantitative distinction is challenged in Chapters 1 and 2, the point here is elevation,
production and exchange of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge is not as easily demarcated
as the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy. Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge could be
both empirical and positivist and yet at other times qualitative and interpretative. In her seminal work
Lakota scholar Cheryl Crazy Bull prosecutes the dimensions and limitations of the scientific method for
it, “requires the researcher to remain outside the research experience, to investigate through observation
and discovery, and to draw conclusions based on those observations” (Crazy Bull, 1997, p. 110). While
remaining outside the research project Crazy Bull in critiquing the West implies that, from an Indigenous
viewpoint, the Western science approach may actually compromise objectivity.
There is an aspect of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge that needs to be unequivo-
cally addressed and that is what should be included and what should be excluded? For Indigenous people
in accordance with their cultural traditions there is knowledge that can be shared and knowledge that
is not to be shared. Conceptually this attracts a series of labels including “sacred knowledge, sacred
334

The Black Academy
women’s business or men’s business.” In positioning Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge
this relates only to that knowledge that is not culturally quarantined either by an Indigenous nation,
community or through blood lines. This knowledge has strict lines of transfer along with cultural and
spiritual consequence if contravened. “In Aboriginal societies, Knowledge itself has a cultural personal-
ity, which demands that it be treated as a cultural entity” (West, 2000, p. 44). While the concept is the
subject of many misconceptions, “This concept must also be understood within the total implication of
the exchange of knowledge and consequences of that action, before any real cross-cultural benefits, or
dialogue of a true multi-cultural exchange can occur” (West, 2000, p. 44). The purpose of this work is
that culturally quarantined knowledge should not be considered within the Traditional Knowledge and
Indigenous Knowledge frame.
Therefore positioning Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge refers to local knowledge
held in community and passed according to protocol “in situ” rather than the “ex situ” productions of
often jaundiced interpretations by the West. This speaks loudly of issues of epistemological purity devoid
of a multiplicity of power laden assumptions within a dominant and privileged arrangement.
THE PARADIGM EMERGES
In projecting even the basic constructs of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge the first
challenge is to articulate it beyond mere points of comparison. As Maggie Walter states, “Strength-
ening Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges recognition within higher education is not a
straightforward process; there are intrinsic risks in whatever strategies are devised” (Walter, 2011, p.1).
Comparison can lead to hegemonic drift and value-laden inferences.
The history of Western scientific method has made it difficult for academics to imagine ways to investi-
gate and study their methods systematically. As a result, a powerful orthodoxy exists in the assumptions
of Western scientific rationalism, in that it assumes it is the most powerful tool we have for knowledge
production and the investigation of social human behaviour (Harding, 1986). (Rigney, 2001, p.4)
The profession of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge as a knowledge system in its
own right and equal to other “knowledge systems” faces further challenges. For example
Equal recognition of Indigenous knowledges is currently inhibited by the common fault line of separate,
isolated, placement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business within institutions. The current
global political economy still features overt domination over who can know, who can create knowledge,
and whose knowledge can be bought. (Chilisa, 2012, p. 54)
The fault line to which Chilisa refers to is that inexorable underpinning of the dominant Western
academy and the ubiquitous susceptibility for hegemonic drift.
This concept of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge being more relational than trans-
actional is captured more succinctly by Maori academic Russell Bishop who captures the epistemology
of whanaungatanga, an early methodology which Porsanger (2004) describes as a “particular Indigenous
methodology based on Indigenous epistemology and ontology.” Mindful of the power vested in the
Western academy, Moreton-Robinson articulates the essence of Indigenist research, declaring that, far
335

The Black Academy
from a poor imitation of the academy of the West, Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge
produce legitimate methodologies that, “reflect our epistemologies (ways of knowing), our axiologies
(ways of doing) and our ontologies (ways of being)” (Moreton-Robinson & Walter, 2009, p. 2).
As the paradigm emerges there are specific implications for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander re-
searchers. While philosophical positions revolve around the pursuit of social reality, Indigenous ontology
emanates from the integrity of Indigenous Knowledge systems. With Western knowledge as a dominant
paradigm reality, it is very easy to inadvertently slip in subliminal and symbolic statements, which are
actually deferments to the power of the West, and detract from Indigenous Knowledge.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers, who as a preference engage in Indigenous Knowl-
edge systems, also engage Indigenous methodologies. Therefore they must be confident that the epis-
temological agility of the methodology will allow them to pierce, interrogate and surface the reality
they seek. “While Indigenous and Western knowledge systems have different beginnings, they each are
aligned with a characteristic way of approaching the world” (Moreton-Robinson & Walter, 2009, p. 3).
The nature of qualitative research “lies with the idea that meaning is socially constructed by indi-
viduals in interaction with their world” (Merriam, 2002, p. 3). This philosophical construct is similar
in Indigenous knowledge systems as any proponent of Indigenous methodologies requires a particular
intellectual nimbleness. “Understanding Indigenous methodologies requires cognisance of the forces
shaping Western methodological frames” (Moreton-Robinson & Walter, 2009, p. 3). Therefore Aborigi-
nal and Torres Strait Islanders carry with them as active researchers a double burden of being expert in
Indigenous Knowledge systems but also expert in that of the West, with that dual capability for constant
code switching. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers should not see Indigenous Knowledge
Systems and Traditional Knowledge Systems as an alternative skills base and seek to be expert in one
knowledge system only, for
academic discourse systems contain their own unspoken rules as to what can be said and how, when and
where. Each constructs canons of truth around whatever participants decide is “admissible evidence”,
a process in the case of prestigious discourses, such as those found in universities. (Chilisa, 2012, p. 4)
This will mean for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the paradigm emerges academics will
need to be able to work and understand both systems. To be able to competently construct and decon-
struct academic arguments around positivism and postmodernism will be as important in their pursuits
as making a clear and engaging discourse around Indigenous ontology and epistemology.
This is the world Aboriginal and Torres Islander researchers enter. In order to defend Indigenous
Knowledge systems, they must be as conversant in Western research methods and able to launch and
navigate compelling critiques of Western methods. Finally, the ability to navigate both systems requires
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers to challenge the embedded power dimensions that
infuse Western research methods.
A TYPOLOGY OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE
As the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander active within the broader academy as research-
ers is on the rise along with knowledge and literature emanating from Indigenous sources, methods and
methodologies, it may be time to think of Indigenous Knowledge systems in some form of typology.
336

The Black Academy
While the pure Indigenous knowledge itself is ancient, one should not apply the cultural stereotype that
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and by inference their knowledge, is only of a singular type.
Therefore, in order to comprehend the paradigmatic rubrics of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous
Knowledge systems within the supercomplexity of modern universities, a rudimentary typology of five
types is employed here. This typology provides a view of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowl-
edge in the various forms and contours it now takes in what, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders,
amounts to an emancipatory intellectual renaissance as the Black Academy takes root.
Type One: Indigenous Perspective
If you take Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge as a gamut with Indigenous Knowledge
in its purest form at one end, then type one—Indigenous Perspective—as a type is at the other extreme.
With the emergence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as active researchers in the broader academy
their projects may be positioned across the entire spectrum of knowledge systems.
This type of knowledge production and transfer is relevant when the project is technical and the field
of endeavor is purely from inside the Western academy. Here the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
researcher must be careful not to provide more than a perspective, otherwise it would encroach, detract
from or diminish their academic standing by creating epistemological vulnerabilities. Ontologically they
are driven by their worldview, as is their axiology, but this type surfaces when the topic is discipline
driven and the most appropriate methodology, in order to be faithful to the epistemological mandate, is
derived from a specific “knowledge system.”
The value add that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers who operate in this type provide
is that they bring a perspective; a unique lens and expertise in that particular field or discipline. This
perspective negates neither their world view nor their methodological response.
Type Two: Oppositional Approach
Type two, the “Oppositional Approach,” presents as a significant shift toward the right of the spectrum
and is recognised by Indigenous positions, perspectives and knowledges being placed in direct opposition
to that of the Western academy. The oppositional approach had its genesis deep in the resistance move-
ment emanating from an anti-colonial position that promoted continued resistance, political posturing
and the privileging of Indigenous voices. This type, while sharing similar ontologies and axiologies
inherent in Indigenous being, goes beyond the base comparative perspective and unequivocally positions
Indigenous Knowledge in an adversarial stance. In doing so it privileges Indigenous Knowledge over
other knowledge systems, particularly Western ones, and is unapologetically value laden.
In this typology the crux of the work is vested in juxtaposition; two hard edges against one another.
The work is strong on standpoint and can be susceptible and vulnerable to critique around issues of bal-
ance by those adopting opposed knowledge systems.
The “oppositional approach type” has been a good launching platform for many Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander academics and researchers, with many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander thinkers as
intellectuals having manned the paradigmatic barricades and propelled Indigenous Knowledge and Tra-
ditional Knowledge as a conceptual revolution. There are many examples of this type under the heading
of “standpoint theory” with one of the early and seminal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander pioneers
in this field being the late Professor Errol West, for example in An Alternative to Existing Australian
337

The Black Academy
Research and Teaching Models—The Japanangka Teaching and Research Paradigm—An Australian
Aboriginal Model (West, 2000).
Type Three: Integrative Indigenous Knowledge.
This type is similar to type two in that it is “oppositional.” However, it recognizes the rich dichotomy of
all knowledge systems and seeks greater balance. Rather than the juxtaposition, there is a “dovetailed”
segue that allows a concept to be viewed from two knowledge systems.
This type three, integrative, can be aligned to the mixed methods approach within the Western acad-
emy where there is convergence and where the richer and deeper “new knowledge” resides. This type
was the next step in resistance, particularly by those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander writers who
sought to formalize their skills with formal credentials. Early Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PhD
students around the 1980s and 1990s, while clearly pioneers, did face significant hurdles. The reality
is that because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander supervisors and examiners didn’t exist or rarely
existed, they were supervised by non-Indigenous scholars and examined by non-Indigenous scholars
who at best insisted on integrative methodological approaches.
For these Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander candidates in their supervisory relationship the abil-
ity for them to wander into the domains of “Indigenous Knowledge” was determined by intellectual and
conceptual courage of their non-Indigenous supervisors and their tolerance for ambiguity. It did happen
but it constituted a continuation of the resistance that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had to face.
The type also bears a number of vulnerabilities around balance and the possibility of hegemonic drift,
however, as Maggie Walter captures, “integrating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander dimensions into
the mainstream business of the university risks a re-marginalisation on the basis of their minority status”
(Walter, 2011). Within the band of vulnerabilities, Walter goes on to provide a caution that, “regardless
of good intentions, Indigenous knowledges can easily become continually, if not permanently, subsumed
under the weight of the always competing dominant knowledge matters” (Walter, 2011).
In the emancipation of the Black Academy and within the intellectual renaissance, many Indigenous
scholars who worked out of this type in the 1980s and 1990s have gone on to supervise and examine the
next generation. They, being obviously far more culturally and conceptually nimble, have facilitated the
rise of Indigenous Knowledge systems within the broader academy
Type Four: Contemporary Indigenous Knowledge
The emphasis of type four, contemporary, revolves around the current emphasis upon Aboriginal or Tor-
res Strait Islander people taking an active role in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues, peoples
or places. This contemporary frame covers standard research programs as well as commercial research
for which there is an unfettered demand.
Many Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people claim to be the most researched subjects known.
A consequence is the industrial scale of the machinery needed to facilitate this. Government, who is the
generator of such research, in addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues, is driven by the
dogma of “evidence based” responses.
Government interventions related to Indigenous disadvantage, which has been described in recent
times as a “national emergency, [needing] stronger communities to close the gap,” are underpinned
and catalyzed by research. Up until the emancipation of the black academy few Aboriginal or Torres
338

The Black Academy
Strait Islander people were involved beyond being passive subjects euphemistically referred to as “black
handbags.” Often on these projects Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people are relegated to doing the
“community stuff,” placing them on the fringe of the project and replicating the colonial past.
The emergence of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander researchers addressing contemporary issues,
while contributing to the rich tapestry of knowledge generation and transfer, also contributes to the
university as a supercomplex entity. Ontological and axiological frames for Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islanders in this space emanate from a standpoint that methodologies are basically integrative. For
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders working within this type a number of common misconceptions
that are both overt and subliminal need to be surfaced and challenged. One of these is that Indigenous
Knowledge and Traditional Knowledge is ancient knowledge and can only be seen through that lens. Like
all cultures, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture evolves and in order to address social indicators
contemporary projects within this typology are critical. To challenge this what has to be surrendered
are erroneous pre-dispositions as Price captures: “exoticism is often intellectually lazy—driven by a
notion of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander identity that is a populist derivation of the classical noble
savage syndrome” (Price, 2015).
Vulnerabilities for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander abound in this type, including the suscepti-
bility to “hegemonic drift,” as well as ethical consideration drawn from the duality of ethical systems
that Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander researchers find themselves in. While universities and com-
mercial projects require standard ethical compliance mechanisms, a parallel cultural system between
the community and the researcher exists. This mechanism, if breached, carries significant cultural and
community ramifications for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander researchers that their non-Indigenous
colleagues escape.
Type Five: Pure Indigenous Knowledge
Pure Indigenous Knowledge is essentially the process of surfacing, recording, securing and where ap-
propriate transferring Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Knowledge through ontologies, axiologies,
methodologies and ethical processes that are exclusively Indigenous.
Within this type, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander researchers operate under very close direction
and with explicit permission of Elders and whole of community engagement and endorsement. Pure
Indigenous Knowledge is that knowledge that is openly available and not quarantined in any way by com-
munity protocol. It is knowledge that can be transferred along cultural passage lines for dissemination.
One of the early examples of pure Indigenous knowledge is the work of Veronica Arbon. Her land-
mark work Arlathirnda Ngurkarnda Ityirnda: Being-Knowing-Doing: De-colonising Indigenous Tertiary
Education (2008) is a seminal piece of Pure Indigenous Knowledge. The work, while contemporary,
is the manifestation of an unbroken line of Indigenous Knowledge that has been passed generationally
from her and her community’s ancestry. The knowledge was not culturally quarantined and was open
to be surfaced. As a vibrant intellectual, Veronica Arbon can clearly articulate ontology, axiology, and
epistemology leading to methodology but in the case of “pure Indigenous Knowledge” these expressions
of modernity are eclipsed by Indigenous terms, such as “ularaka” and “yanhirnda arratya,” determining
the process of how knowledge is gathered. The process followed is as powerful as the product. Strict
supervisory lines from Elders mean that in essence knowledge would be fully relational and rarely
transactional. The methodology would, as in traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge
transfer, be an instructional exchange with the teacher becoming the learner and learner becoming the
339

The Black Academy
teacher through seamless segues. While protocols can at times suggest hierarchy, the arrangement for
knowledge exchange is predicated more upon the notion of respect rather than upon a nominal rank,
as the Western concept suggests. Finally Indigenous knowledge transfer hierarchy provides ways to an
overarching ethos that can best be described as egalitarian in nature. Describing this in Western terms is
not to suggest that Indigenous knowledge and knowledge transfer can only take place within an academic
or a peri-academic space.
For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers who operate in this space the reality is that
they are under greater scrutiny and are held accountable by higher standards to their own community on
issues of process and ethics that carry personal and cultural ramifications. They also often sit with the
questions of credibility raised by colleagues in the sector, some of whom deem Traditional Knowledge
and Indigenous Knowledge a curiosity with constant bench-marking with the West. Aboriginal and Tor-
res Strait Islanders who write within the space of Western academic parameters without relinquishing
Indigenous principles are at the vanguard of Indigenous Knowledge. Working with “pure Indigenous
Knowledge,” as well as being a contemporary academic, demands exceptional skills of intellectual
dexterity and conceptual nimbleness. Malaysian academic Syed Hussein Alatas cautions about the trap
of the “captive mind” when he “refers to an uncritical imitation of Western research paradigms within
scientific intellectual activity” (Chilisa, 2012. p. 7).
Each of these five types that position Indigenous Knowledge and transfer is to be valued and is criti-
cal in progressing knowledge as the great emancipator.
CONCLUSION
The emancipation of the Black Academy and the elevation of Indigenous Knowledge systems confronts
the dominance of Western knowledge in the broader academy on a number of levels. Universities and
other higher education providers, while operating in a world of increasing supercomplexity, also oper-
ate in a world of super-diversity. Within the broader academy there is, as a result of this, a challenge to
the seemingly immutable power of the Western academy. This challenge by Indigenous Knowledge to
the academy of the West is garnished by unknowns, insecurities, uncertainties, and obscurities, and is
therefore consistent with the notion of the modern day university operating in a “supercomplex” environ-
ment. Disciplines as the one time stalwarts of shaping curriculum and the internalization of the fountain
of all knowledge and wisdom are being challenged on many fronts, including Traditional Knowledge and
Indigenous Knowledge. Methodological frames driven by diverse ontologies and axiologies generate
rich dichotomies, with an array of new and broad research paradigms. The intellectual renaissance for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is likely to contribute significantly to the phenomena of intense
supercomplexity. The impact will be slow given the numerically low numbers of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander academics, however, those who have broken through now occupy positions of influence
across the nation as members in university professoriate and above. What this will mean for the broader
academy will be the continuation of “paradigm wars” to an extent, however, it will over time reap much
benefit for all of society. The knowledge economy will be more balanced as Chilisa indicates:
Social science research needs to involve spirituality in research, respecting communal forms of living
that are not Western and creating space for inquiries based on relational realities and forms of knowing
that are predominant among non-Western others still being colonized. (Chilisa, 2012, p. 3)
340

The Black Academy
The elevation and acceptance of Indigenous Knowledge and Traditional Knowledge transfer and formal
acceptance as knowledge system only bolsters the epistemological mandate that all researchers have.
The Black Academy has in a little over three decades appropriated the skills of the West and exhumed
what was sought to be buried and now have a powerful tool of cultural, intellectual and spiritual libera-
tion. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers with an ever increasing confidence academically,
intellectually and conceptually defend with vigor their choice of employing Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander approaches, epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies. The emancipation of the Black Academy
has meant that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can now operate with impunity in both knowl-
edge systems. Like Bungil, the creator spirit, we can spread our wings and while we will always defend
our knowledge amidst multiple hegemonic pulls; in the full light of an intellectual renaissance our topic
and areas of endeavour don’t have to be shackled to resistance thinking alone. The battle has been won.
This work has purposely not tabled what Indigenous Knowledge/Traditional Knowledge is for that
would be culturally counterintuitive to everything that has been professed in this chapter. It is about
intellectual and conceptual dexterity, accepting and waiting rather than rushing for a transaction to be
complete. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people knowledge is omnipresent: it may be eagles
soaring or feet beating the desert in ceremony, a class in algebra and trigonometry, or rich stories drawn
in sand. It can be people exchanging knowledge or images with respect or messages racing through the
ether at the speed of light. It can be ancient cures for modern diseases, for Indigenous Knowledge and
education is as simple as it is complex.
REFERENCES
AIASTIS. (2011). Guidelines for ethical research in Australian Indigenous studies. Australian Institute
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Retrieved from http://aiatsis.gov.au/research/ethical-
research-australian-indigenous-studies
Arbon, V. (2008). Arlathirnda ngurkarnda ityirnda: Being-knowing doing: Decolonising indigenous
tertiary education. Teneriffe, Queensland: Post Pressed.
Barnett, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4),
409–422. doi:10.1023/A:1004159513741
Bishop, R. (1996). Collaborative research stories: Whakawhanaungatanga. Palmerston North, NZ:
Dunmore Press.
Breuer, F., & Roth, W. (2003). Reflexivity and subjectivity: A possible road map for reading the special
issues. Forum Qualitative Sozial Forschung, 4(2), 24.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor.
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. New Delhi: SAGE Publications Inc.
Crazy Bull, C. (1997). A native conversation about research and scholarship. Tribal College Journal of
American Indian Higher Education, 9(1), 16–24.
Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath—A “historical” sketch of research on teaching
since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.
341

The Black Academy
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968). The discovery of Grounded Theory. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicholson.
Hart, V., & Whatman, S. (1998). Decolonising the concept of knowledge. Paper presented at the HERDSA
conference, Auckland, NZ.
Kuokkanen, R. (2004). Border crossings, pathfinders and new visions: The role of Sami literature in
contemporary society. Nordlit: Tidsskrift I Litteratur og Kultur, 15, 91-103.
Kuokkanen, R. (2008). What is hospitality in the academy? Epistemic ignorance and the (im)possible
gift. Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 30(1), 60–82. doi:10.1080/10714410701821297
Kwaymullina, A., Kwaymullina, B., Rosa, T., & Butterly, L. (2013). Living texts: A perspective on
published sources, Indigenous Research Methodologies and Indigenous Worldviews. International
Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.isrn.qut.edu.au/publications/
internationaljournal/documents/volume6_number1_13-Kwaymullina.pdf
Martin, K. (2003). Ways of knowing, ways of being and ways of doing: A theoretical framework and
methods for indigenous research and indigenist research. Journal of Australian Studies, 76, 203–214.
doi:10.1080/14443050309387838
Merriam, S. B. et al. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moreton-Robinson, A. M., & Walter, M. (2009). Social research methods. South Melbourne. South
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
O’Connell, D. P. (1965). International Law (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). London, UK: Stevens and Sons.
Porsanger, J. (2004). An essay about Indigenous methodology. Retrieved from http://septentrio.uit.no/
index.php/nordlit/article/viewFile/1910/1776
Price, K. (2015). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education-An introduction for the teaching pro-
fession (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Rigney, L. (2001). A first perspective of Indigenous Australian participation in Science: Framing In-
digenous Research towards Indigenous Australian Intellectual Sovereignty. Kaurna Higher Education
Journal, 7, 1-13.
Samdahl, D. (1999). Differences between quantitative and qualitative research. In E. L. Jackson & T. L.
Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 119–133). Pennsylvania: Venture.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Taylor, K., & Guerin, P. (2010). Health care and Indigenous Australians: Cultural safety in practice.
South Yarra, Victoria: Palgrave Macmillan.
Walter, M. (2011). Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander presence: Opening knowledge
pathways 2011. Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Is-
lander People. Canberra: DIISTRE.
342

The Black Academy
West, E. G. (2000). An alternative to existing Australian research and teaching models—The Japanangka
teaching and research paradigm—an Australian Aboriginal model [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Southern
Cross University, Lismore, NSW.
WIPO. (2006). The protection of Traditional Knowledge: Revised objectives and principles (Document
Code WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/5). Geneva: WIPO.
Woodhouse, M. (1996). Paradigm wars: Worldviews for a new age. Berkeley, California: Frog Publishers.
343
Section 7
Conclusion
345
Chapter 21
Conclusion:
Paradigm Paradiddle
Lorraine Ling
Peter Ling
ABSTRACT
Authors of the chapters of this book have reflected on education research undertakings and research
paradigms applicable to their work. Their writing is revisited here as it links education research in
practice to underpinning understandings of the nature of the aspect of the world investigated, the driv-
ers of the research and the contributions to knowledge that emerge. Instances that fit within or move
between established research paradigms are addressed first. The case for a new research paradigm—the
supercomplexity paradigm—is then rehearsed and contributions of chapter authors to that concept and
its application summarized. While research reviewed in the chapters covers the full array of paradigms,
the endeavors portrayed are linked by the act of research itself. In this endeavor, whatever the education
research topic, approach and methods employed, being clear about the research paradigm that applies
helps in ensuring the research exercise is coherent and the outcomes appropriate and defensible.
As any drum-playing researcher reading this book will know, research is sometimes like a paradiddle in
that it involves particular patterns and phases; tempos and beats. A paradiddle is an exercise performed
by a drummer, consisting of a series of patterns and tempos with the possibility of dramatic expression
at points. It takes practice to master it to perfection. In this book, the various authors have demonstrated
how research moves through specific phases and tempos, sometimes increasing in intensity at points. As
for the paradiddle, research mastery requires understanding of the exercise and practice in application.
The particular phase of the research during which they focus on the research paradigm can vary be-
tween researchers. For some, pinpointing the paradigm or paradigms within which they will undertake
their research occurs as they begin their research study; carefully and deliberately working through their
ontology, epistemology, axiology, intent and desired outcomes. For others it may be as the research study
unfolds and increases in momentum and complexity that they begin to ground the research according
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1738-2.ch021

Conclusion
to the elements of a particular research paradigm. For other researchers, the paradigm is considered at
the end, as the research and findings begin to point to conclusions; assisting them to place the study in a
particular frame. There are, of course, others who do not consider the paradigm except retrospectively,
when specifically asked or challenged to do so. If we are honest, there are many for whom the notion
of paradigms is not a part of their research repertoire or lexicon; the paradigm remains an unknown.
We have focused attention in this book on six paradigms of research—the positivist, neo-positivist,
interpretivist, pragmatic, transformative and supercomplexity. The first five paradigms are well established.
Supercomplexity, however, is a research paradigm that we have added, drawing on the work of Barnett
(Barnett, 2000; see also Chapter 18). We have illustrated how each paradigm reflects a particular ontol-
ogy, epistemology, axiology, intent or motivation and related outcome. It has been shown that paradigms,
as well as being organizational and analytical devices used to categorize research undertakings, can be
concepts that transform thinking about oneself as a researcher, a teacher or a learner.
PARADIGMS OF EDUCATION RESEARCH: PATTERNS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Turning attention to the five established research paradigms, the first listed is the positivist paradigm.
The applicability of the positivist paradigm to education research in the current era may be challenged.
It is included here for two reasons. With its ontological underpinning of a discoverable reality, it serves
as a conceptual base for distinguishing other paradigms. In addition, for some reported current education
research, the structure of the research and the ontology implicit continues to be positivist. In Chapters 1
and 2, we address several post-positivist paradigms; post-positivist in the sense of being adopted as an
alternative to the positivist paradigm. One we have labelled “neo-positivist” because it shares something
of the ontology of the positivist paradigm—the existence of an ordered reality. It is distinguished from
the positivist position by an understanding that reality may be patterned, local and subject to change over
time and by a recognition of the limitations of researchers. Research in the neo-positivist paradigm may
explore and test existing understandings, which we have labelled the deductive mode, or may seek to
fill a gap in present knowledge, which we have labelled the inductive mode. Other paradigms addressed
are the interpretivist and transformative. These two paradigms share the ontological understanding
that, whatever the reality of the social world, all that is available to us is what we can apprehend within
our human limitations. Hence the outcomes of research are evidenced interpretations of the researcher
working with the researched. Multiple defensible interpretations of a research subject can be available
simultaneously. The transformative paradigm is distinguished by a concern with human rights and social
justice and the endeavor to produce an evidenced, socially-constructed understanding with potential to
support empowered action. We have included a pragmatic paradigm in our framework as an approach
to research unencumbered by ontological or methodological constraints but driven by the need to find a
practical solution to a problem. Pragmatic research is often undertaken as a commissioned investigation.
In this book we have presented a range of researchers’ reflections on a paradigm or paradigms as
it plays out in their own research studies. Several chapters relate to the neo-positivist paradigm. Leder
(Chapter 7) has focused on research methods employed in investigating mathematics in schools. She
demonstrates how methods change and adapt according to the situation and changing understandings.
Leder has also demonstrated how previously commonplace methods can be updated and changed through
the influence of technology, thus making them more evocative and effective as research tools. Leder
concludes that the extensive, ever-changing and complex array of methods available to a researcher
346

Conclusion
of school mathematics remakes and re-imagines what is possible for the predominantly neo-positivist
approach to research. This gives meaning to the prefix “neo” in that it demonstrates the range of ap-
proaches and methods available to researchers undertaking their studies thus adopting adaptation of
the positivist paradigm and the qualified nature of the understandings of reality that emerge. Pollock
and Hauseman, in a study of the work of school principals, (Chapter 6) reflect on the use of alternative
observation techniques. The techniques could be used to provide an interpretation of the nature of the
work of the principals but, they note, they can alternatively be seen as providing an “understanding of
the reality of the work of principals; a methodology consistent with working in the inductive version
of the neo-positivist research paradigm”. Devlin (Chapter 5) identifies the research endeavor described
in her chapter, which is an evaluative study of an attempt to improve teaching and learning in a higher
education context, as sitting squarely within the neo-positivist paradigm. Devlin explains how the neo-
positivist paradigm, combined with a case study approach, has been used in research into higher educa-
tion to provide a “provisional, contemporary understanding of patterns and entities”. Smith (Chapter 8)
also writes about research into higher education. He observes that in this field there is a predominant
use of quantitative methodologies and notes that “the task of trying to classify methods by the charac-
teristics of the approach or of the data used, is not a clear one and is likely to lead to confusion.” Smith
advances Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) for the exploration of aspects of curriculum design on
student learning and student satisfaction. In doing so he adopts “a realistic commitment to the idea that
latent variables in SEM modelling are indeed something in the world”; a commitment to investigation
of causal relationships that are “relationship between interesting and real aspects of the world, not just
between collections of data derived from various measurements.”
Kelly (Chapter 9) has used the elements present in paradigms as an analytical tool to explore teach-
ers’ approaches to teaching. By focusing especially on teachers’ ontological and epistemological beliefs,
Kelly has herself adopted what she refers to as a constructivist-interpretive paradigm. In undertaking this
study Kelly has also gone somewhat beyond the interpretivist paradigm in that, through her research,
she notes “the transformative role that an exploration of these beliefs can have on their [the teachers’]
personal and professional development.” Through the course of her research, explaining and explor-
ing the concept of ontology and epistemology to the teachers themselves, the active participants in the
research, Kelly has transformed the understanding those teachers have of the rationale for decisions that
they make as teachers and for the methods that they employ in their work.
On the other side of research into learning and teaching, King (Chapter 10) focuses upon the approach
learners in higher education take to learning engineering mathematics. Like Kelly, he has undertaken this
research in an interpretivist-constructivist paradigm. King has emphasized the centrality of theory in his
research and has selectively synthesized a variety of theoretical perspectives to produce the framework
for his research. Adopting qualitative data collection methods for examining the way learners approach
the learning of engineering mathematics provides an imaginative research approach. One would expect
that engineering mathematics in and of itself would imply a heavy reliance on a neo-positivist mindset,
where pattern and order and correct solutions and predetermined end products prevail. However King,
in exploring how learning occurs in such a seemingly positivist/neo-positivist field of study, has delib-
erately sought to interpret and construct understandings in an open and non-predictive way, but with a
clear basis in theory facilitating and guiding the interpretative and constructivist phases.
Vicars (Chapter 11) has used a politically, socially and culturally contested terrain of research to
demonstrate the potential of “queer theory” to disrupt, confront, unsettle, jolt and problematize “habitual
perceptions of what can constitute a research narrative and narratives of research.” The action verbs in
347

Conclusion
themselves place this research in the transformative paradigm. The title of the chapter, “A Code of Our
Own,” demonstrates, through the narratives that are recounted in this chapter, the empowering nature of
research as it gives voice, not only to the researcher, but also to research participants. In this transforma-
tive paradigm approach Vicars demonstrates how the participants in the research are “integrated” into
the inquiry and are empowered through it.
Researchers sometimes have to be adaptable in the approaches employed, with implications for the
paradigm that applies. Livingston (Chapter 12) highlights the fact that research studies commissioned by
external stakeholders are influenced by external pressures and constraints. In consequence the research
paradigm employed may be determined by, or at least influenced by, an external stakeholder who has an
expectation of a particular set of findings and outcomes and commissions research to achieve that end.
Any considerations about a paradigm with its particular features are thus made by the commissioning
or interested party and the researcher works accordingly. As Mackenzie puts it “not all researchers have
the luxury of determining how and what they will research, nor the paradigms or methods to be applied,
in the world of competitive grants, commissioned research and multiple research agendas” (Chapter
15). In this context a researcher may operate in different research paradigms for different assignments.
For Peter Ling (Chapter 13), meeting the brief of commissioned research involved employing multiple
research methods with ambiguity about the paradigm employed. The approach was essentially pragmatic.
Other chapter authors have explored a range of paradigm possibilities that could apply to the forms
of investigation in which they have engaged. Lang (Chapter 14) uses the metaphor of surfing to describe
the manner in which she, as a researcher, has used several paradigms. In undertaking research in infor-
mation and communication technologies, Lang has demonstrated that the end product that is desirable
is often known at the outset, hence one will adopt whatever methods and ontological, epistemological
and axiological stances assist in achieving the desired outcome. Here Lang epitomizes a researcher in the
pragmatic paradigm. However, she understands and identifies herself in this way retrospectively, when
challenged by the exercise of writing this chapter, to critically reflect upon herself as researcher and to
hang her colors to a specific paradigmatic mast. Lang notes, in a self-reflective and highly self-aware
manner, that she now has “an understanding of the paradigm shifts the author experienced on this re-
search journey, while not perhaps understanding the importance of it at the time.” This also demonstrates
the possibility of openness as a researcher—being open to changing the research paradigm that is seen
as valuable and appropriate, and being open to self-reflection and transformation as a researcher. For
Giridharan (Chapter 16) also, her research involved more than one paradigm. Her investigation of lexical
inferencing strategies employed by second language learners, and consequences for learning and teaching,
may be seen as an instance of bricolage; a mixing of methods and approaches to address the issue. She
adopted an interpretivist-constructivist approach in the first instance and put the findings to the test; that
is, employed the neo-positivist paradigm, in the second instance. Calway also raises alternative paradigm
possibilities in his area of interest—work-integrated learning (WIL). In reviewing research relating to
WIL he observes that much of the writing on investigation of WIL amounts to evaluation or a compara-
tive analysis of models, “never expressing or testing the philosophical or contextual underpinning of the
studies.” The paradigm that implicitly applies is the pragmatic; investigation being driven by economic,
professional, industrial and community demands. He raises the possibility of adopting the interpretiv-
ist or even transformative research paradigm and acknowledges that these may make a contribution to
understandings of WIL and to improvement of practice. On balance, however, he advocates adoption of
the neo-positivist research paradigm for WIL research on the grounds that arrangements for WIL may
be seen as objective and investigated accordingly.
348

Conclusion
Fraser and Penchenkina (Chapter 3) have used the concept of the paradigm as a categorization and
analysis tool and have demonstrated that it can provide a means to critique, audit and analyze research
publications and outputs, according to the features and elements they display. In finding that the bulk
of publications in the area of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) that they analyzed fell into
the neo-positivist paradigm category, they have identified some patterns and themes that pervade the
literature of SoTL and have demonstrated that the authors of the articles examined in their chapter begin
from a premise that there are patterns and truths to be known, however imperfectly. In undertaking this
analysis, Fraser and Penchenkina have seen the exercise itself as involving a defended interpretation
rather than a definitive categorization.
For Robertson (Chapter 4), who discusses research training through the eyes of a research supervi-
sor, the paradigm during research training is a moveable feast, with many paradigm shifts occurring
as a novice researcher comes to terms with the complexity of decisions about ontology, epistemology,
axiology, motivation and outcomes, along with methodology and theoretical frameworks. However,
Robertson does conclude that research training that occurs throughout the course of the writing of a
thesis will ideally result in a situation where “candidates can deepen their philosophical and meaning
making constructs of ‘knowing’ and seek transformative intellectual positions.” Thus research training,
conducted and supervised well, should result in a “lived” transformative experience through which both
candidate and supervisor pass.
SUPERCOMPLEXITY: A NEW PARADIGM?
We have added to conventional social research paradigms the paradigm of supercomplexity. Mertens,
in her foreword to this book, asks the question “Is a supercomplexity paradigm necessary or do other
paradigms need to integrate concepts of complexity into their worldviews?” We certainly acknowledge
that complexity is an integral part of the world view for any education research. Education is a social
activity. In the current era, all social research contexts and events involve a level of complexity as they
are acted upon by the complex physical, social, political and economic environments in which they are
set. However, based on the work of Barnett (for example Barnett, 2000; Barnett, 2005), where we see
supercomplexity as different from an inherent complexity occurring in all paradigms is that it goes beyond
complexity. Complexity is characterized by a situation where there are more data, facts and knowledge
than we can process within the existing frames of reference. In supercomplexity traditional frames of
reference themselves are constantly shifting and in tension and conflict with each other; new frames of
reference need to be contemplated. Barnett (2005) claims that in supercomplexity,
Research itself becomes the production of strangeness, through the production of new frameworks of
comprehension… Research in the university of strangeness cannot be constructed as work within largely
given paradigms and conducted within conversations of peer researchers. In a world of supercomplexity,
researchers now acquire—whether wittingly or not—the challenge of communicating their intellectual
wares to a wider public so advancing public understandings of a chaotic world. (p. 93)
The concept of researchers and research in supercomplexity, then, goes beyond a realization of a
complex dimension in all paradigms. Paradigms other than supercomplexity lead to attempts to interpret
or analyze data according to existing frames of reference. Supercomplexity charges a researcher with a
349

Conclusion
responsibility to themselves embrace strange and awkward spaces, and to assist others to embrace these
same elements of a supercomplex condition. It demonstrates that the role of a researcher, and of a public
intellectual, in supercomplex times is to assist public understanding of a messy, awkward and chaotic
world in imaginative and novel ways that themselves produce “strangeness”.
Barnett (Chapter 18) claims that in supercomplexity
The writing has to take on something of a fictional character. For it will amount to a proposal: Let us
see the world (this portion of it) in a new and a particular way. It will open itself to imagining unnoticed
possibilities which are necessarily inherent in a situation.
Barnett also creates an image in which
The researcher as writer is a butterfly catcher, catching the ineffable—for a butterfly, once caught, is
no longer the butterfly that it was. The butterfly can only be shown, seen in different aspects, revealed
through multiple configurations (as in a kaleidoscope) and metaphorically caught in poetic prose. Such
creative ‘research’ is a daunting pursuit.
The fact that the subject of a research undertaking is embedded in a complex environment, then,
does not mean that the research undertaking necessarily fits in the supercomplexity research paradigm.
Education research may be classified as fitting the supercomplexity paradigm when, and only when,
supercomplexity is the paradigm of best fit, having regard to the discernable ontological, axiological,
and epistemological underpinnings of the research undertaking and to the span of possibilities generated
by the research outcomes. If the outcomes of the research exercise contribute to convergence in under-
standings of the subject investigated, the research exercise aligns to one of the traditional paradigms.
If the outcomes generate problems with conventional understandings and raise a range of possibilities,
then the research exercise may fit in the supercomplexity paradigm.
Selkrig and Keamy (Chapter 19) “play” with the supercomplexity paradigm and show how the pos-
sibilities and complexities of research are both limitless and unknown and represent a “process that
could be described as simultaneously knowing but not knowing.” Like Barnett, they reflect upon the
researcher as a writer of fiction and semi-fiction. Selkrig and Keamy use “a semi-fictional” narrative
with images as a way to overlay fact-oriented research with fiction, in order to “play with different ways
of representing research.”
Rose, in his chapter reflecting on current contributions of the “Black Academy” to Australian higher
education, (Chapter 20) also makes reference to supercomplexity. He portrays a supercomplex renaissance
in contributions to education research involving: an indigenous perspective; an oppositional approach;
integrative Indigenous knowledge; contemporary Indigenous knowledge; and pure Indigenous knowledge.
Supercomplexity, then, is presented in this book as a research paradigm. Here we need to express a
caution: As a research paradigm, supercomplexity is a bounded concept, limited to forms of undertak-
ing that can be classed as research. While the supercomplexity research paradigm opens possibilities
in research approaches, in the forms of data that may be utilized, in the associated data analysis, and in
the nature of and the span of outcomes that may emerge, it is not a matter of “anything goes.” It is not
simply an opinion piece or whimsy. Academic research undertaken in the supercomplexity paradigm
must be valuable, informed, theorized, plausible, systematic, meaningful, and defensible (see Table 1).
350

Conclusion
Table 1. Features that distinguish research in the supercomplexity paradigm from empty verbiage
Element Features
Topic Of value
Research question Informed by understandings of the discipline, pertinent literature and past research.
Theorized.
Expectations of outcomes Plausible.
Investigative method Systematic.
Attuned to theoretical expectations and the research question.
Data (vs information) Pertinent to the question researched.
Data analysis Meaningful.
Outcomes Make reference to the research question.
Reflect on theoretical expectations.
Plausible.
Are defensible and defended on the basis of evidence.
Conclusion Identifies the contribution made to current understanding.
DÉNOUEMENT
Education research does not sit neatly in one research paradigm. Education research shares common
ground with a range of disciplines including sociology, psychology, political science, economics, history,
and fine art. Possibilities for approaches to education research and methods employed are consequently
wide-ranging. The foregoing reflections on the various chapters in this book have revealed the multiple
and apparently endless array of approaches, motivations and nuances of education research. In this book
a researcher has been likened to a soothsayer, a fiction writer, a surfer, a traveler, a bricoleur, an image
maker, a disturber, a butterfly catcher, a writer, a poet, a storyteller, and our paradiddle-playing drummer.
Our drummer performing his paradiddle can be called upon to apply his technique in different rhythms,
textures, genres, and situations to achieve different outcomes and impacts. Likewise, the researchers
writing here have applied their skills variously and within different paradigms, producing a variety of
outcomes. They are all, however, linked by the act of research itself, which results in new knowledge,
insights, understandings, problematics, unknowns, imaginings, and possibilities. The message embed-
ded in this book is that, whatever the education research topic and whatever the research approach and
methods employed, being clear about the research paradigm that applies, and hence about the underpin-
ning ontology, axiology and epistemology, helps in ensuring the research exercise is coherent and that
the outcomes are appropriate and defensible.
REFERENCES
Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Milton Keynes: Society for
Research Into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Barnett, R. (2005). Recapturing the universal in the university. Educational Philosophy and Theory,
37(6), 785–797. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00158.x
351
352
Compilation of References
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for theory and practice. Retrieved from
http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-3/theory.html
Adams St Pierre, E. (2014). A brief and personal history of post qualitative research toward “post inquiry.”. Journal of
Curriculum Theorizing, 30(2), 2–19.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observation techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualita-
tive research (pp. 377–392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
AIASTIS. (2011). Guidelines for ethical research in Australian Indigenous studies. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Studies. Retrieved from http://aiatsis.gov.au/research/ethical-research-australian-indigenous-studies
Aldridge, D. (2015). The role of Higher Education in teacher education: A reorientation towards ontology. In R. Heil-
bronn & L. Foreman-Peck (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on teacher education. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
doi:10.1002/9781118977859.ch7
Allen, L., & Rasmussen, M. L. (2015). Queer conversation in straight spaces: An interview with Mary Lou Rasmussen
about queer theory in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(4), 685–694. doi:10.1080/07
294360.2015.1062072
Allgeier, A. R., & Allgeier, E. R. (2000). Sexual interactions (2nd ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath.
Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and realities. Journal of
Studies in Education, 11(3-4), 290–305.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivational
processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
Anderson, G. (1998). Fundamentals of educational research. Pennsylvania: The Falmer Press.
Andresen, L., Boud, D., & Cohen, R. (2000). Experience-based learning. In G. Foley (Ed.), Understanding adult educa-
tion and training (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalisation. London: University of Minnesota Press.
Appling, S. E., Naumann, P. L., & Berk, R. A. (2001). Using a faculty evaluation triad to achieve evidence-based teach-
ing. Nursing and Health Care Perspectives, 22, 247–251. PMID:15957402

Arbon, V. (2008). Arlathirnda ngurkarnda ityirnda: Being-knowing doing: Decolonising indigenous tertiary education.
Teneriffe, Queensland: Post Pressed.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
Asiala, M., Brown, A., DeVries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and
curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 6, 1–32.
doi:10.1090/cbmath/006/01
Association for Qualitative Research. the. (n. d.). Bricolage. AQR Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.aqr.org.uk/
glossary/bricolage
Atkinson, E. (2004). Sexualities and resistance: Queer(y)ing identity and discourse in education. In J. Satterthwaite,
E. Atkinson, & W. Martin (Eds.), Educational counter-cultures: Confrontations, images, visions. Stoke-on-Trent, UK:
Trentham Books.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participation observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Hitting the books: Characteristics of higher education students. Retrieved De-
cember 12, 2015 from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20July+2013#p2
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2011). Australasian survey of student engagement: Research briefing
(vol. 9). Retrieved from www.acer.edu.au/files/AUSSE_Research_Briefing_Vol9.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.
au/default.asp
Australian Education International. (2013). AEI international student enrolment data 2013. Retrieved from https://aei.gov.au/
research/International-Student-Data/Documents/INTERNATIONAL%20STUDENT%20DATA/2013/2013Jan_0712.pdf
Australian Learning and Teaching Council Limited. (2010). Australian Learning and Teaching Council Limited. Sydney:
Australian Learning and Teaching Council Limited.
Badiou, A., & Zizek, S. (2009). Philosophy in the present. Cambridge: Polity.
Baker, L. M. (2006). Observation: A complex research method. Library Trends, 55(1), 171–189. doi:10.1353/lib.2006.0045
Bakhurst, D. (2011). The formation of reason. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444395600
Bammer, A., & Boetcher Joeres, R.-E. (Eds.). (2015). The future of scholarly writing: Critical interventions. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137505965
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.
Barnett, R. (1990). The idea of higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 255–264.
doi:10.1080/713696156
Barnett, R. (2000a). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Milton Keynes, UK: Society for Research
Into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Barnett, R. (2000b). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4), 409–422.
doi:10.1023/A:1004159513741
353
Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 247–260.
doi:10.1080/0729436042000235382
Barnett, R. (2005). Recapturing the universal in the university. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(6), 785–797.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00158.x
Barnett, R. (2013). Imagining the university. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Barnett, R. (2015). Thinking and rethinking the university—The selected works of Ronald Barnett. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Barnett, R. (2016). Understanding the university: Institution, idea, possibilities. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (1997). Arts-based educational research. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Contemporary methods for
research in education (2nd ed.). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (2012). Arts based research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Barrie, S. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51(2), 215–241.
doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6384-7
Barrie, S., Hughes, C., Smith, C. D., & Thomson, K. (2009). The National Graduate Attributes Project: Integration and
assessment of graduate attributes in curriculum. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Batelaan, P., & Coomans, F. (1999). The international basis for intercultural education including anti-racist and human
rights education (2nd ed.). Switzerland: International Association for Intercultural Education (IAIE) in Co-operation
with UNESCO; International Bureau of Education (IBE) and the Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.
unesco.org/International/Publications/FreePublications/FreePublicationsPdf/batelaan.PDF
Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge & Malden, MA: Polity.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Students’ epistemologies and academic experiences: Implications for pedagogy. The
Review of Higher Education, 15(3), 265–287.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-
authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). The psychology of gender. New York: Guilford Press.
Bedall-Hill, N., Jabbar, A., & Shehri, S. (2011). Social mobile devices as tools for qualitative research in education:
iPhones and iPads in ethnography, interviewing and design-based research. Journal of the Research Center for Educa-
tional Technology, 7(1), 67–89.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development
of self, mind, and voice. New York: Basic Books.
Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48–62.
Berliner, D. C. (2011). The context for interpreting the PISA results in the U.S.A.: Negativism, chauvinism, misunder-
standing, and the potential to distort the educational systems of nations. In M. A. Pereyra, H.-G. Korthoff, & R. Cowen
(Eds.), PISA under examination. Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools (pp. 77–96). Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
354
Bezzina, C. (1998). The Maltese primary school principal: An observational study. Educational Management and Ad-
ministration, 26(3), 243–256. doi:10.1177/0263211X98263003
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (2002). From science to emancipation. New Delhi: Sage.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. London, New York: Verso. (Original work published 1975)
Biddle, B. J. (1964). The integration of teacher effectiveness research. In B. J. Biddle & W. J. Ellena (Eds.), Contemporary
research on teacher effectiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Biggs, J. (1987a). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council for Educational
Research.
Biggs, J. (1987b). The Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council for Edu-
cational Research.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Educa-
tion & Open University Press.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarifica-
tion. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01038.x PMID:8466833
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F.
The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149. doi:10.1348/000709901158433 PMID:11307705
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. Educational Psychology
Series. New York: Academic Press.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead,
UK: McGraw-Hill/Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
Billett, S. (2001). Learning through work: Workplace affordances and individual engagement. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 13(5), 209–214. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005548
Bishop, R. (1996). Collaborative research stories: Whakawhanaungatanga. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.
Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and evaluation criteria. Journal of Agribusiness,
23(1), 75S91.
Bologna Process. (2010). The Bologna process and Declaration: Trends in learning structures in higher education.
Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/search/index.htm?cx=01353186168842650636
3%3Afnpyfltxhbu&cof=FORID%3A11&q=Trends+in+Learning+Structures+in+Higher+Education&sa=Zoeken&si
teurl=www.ond.vlaanderen.be%2Fhogeronderwijs%2Fbologna%2Fsearch%2F#1664
Boomer, G. (1983). The wisdom of the antipodes: What’s working for literacy in Australia. Journal of Reading, 26(7),
591–601.
Booth, S. (1992). Learning to program: A phenomenographic perspective. Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Bordage, G., & Dawson, B. (2003). Experimental study design and grant education in eight steps and 28 questions.
Medical Education, 37(4), 376–385. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01468.x PMID:12654123
355
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological
Review, 110(2), 203–219. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203 PMID:12747522
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching. Retrieved from depts.washington.edu/gs630/Spring/Boyer.pdf
Bragg, S. (2011). “Now it’s up to us to interpret it.” Youth voice and visual methods in creative learning and research. In P.
Thomson & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Researching creative learning: Methods and issues (pp. 88–103). London: Routledge.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience and school (expanded
edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(3), 247–285. doi:10.1007/BF02309532
Breuer, F., & Roth, W. (2003). Reflexivity and subjectivity: A possible road map for reading the special issues. Forum
Qualitative Sozial Forschung, 4(2), 24.
Briggs, L. C., & Woolbright, M. (2000). Introduction: Reflections on editing. In L. C. Briggs & M. Woolbright (Eds.),
Stories from the center: Connecting narrative and theory in the writing center. Urbana, USA: National Council of Teach-
ers of English. doi:10.1063/1.1588971
Britzman, D. (1998). Is there a queer pedagogy? or, Stop reading straight. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: Towards
new identities. New York: Routledge.
Bromley, K. (2007). Best practices in teaching writing. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best
practices in literacy instruction (pp. 243–263). New York: The Guilford Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated learning and the culture of learning. Education Researcher,
18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
Brownlee, J. (2000). An investigation of core beliefs about knowing and peripheral beliefs about learning and teaching
in pre-service teacher education students: Implementing a teaching program to develop epistemological beliefs (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Brownlee, J. M. (2001). Knowing and learning in teacher education: A theoretical framework of core and peripheral
epistemological beliefs. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education & Development, 4(1), 167–190.
Brownlee, J. M. (2004). An investigation of teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Developing a relational
model of teaching. Research in Education, 72(1), 1–18. doi:10.7227/RIE.72.1
Brownlee, J., & Bertelsen, D. (2006). Personal epistemology and relational pedagogy in early childhood teacher edu-
cation programs. Early Years: An International Journal of Research, 26(1), 17–29. doi:10.1080/09575140500507785
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
1(1), 8–22. doi:10.1177/2345678906290531
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bryman, A. (2008). The end of the paradigm wars? In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The SAGE hand-
book of social research methods (pp. 13–25). London: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446212165.n2
Burton, L. (2002). Methodology and methods in mathematics education research: Where is the why? In S. Goodchild
& L. English (Eds.), Researching mathematics classrooms (pp. 1–10). Westport, CT: Praeger.
356
Butler, J., Laclau, E., & Zizek, S. (2000). Contingency, hegemony, universality. London, New York: Verso.
Calway, B. A. (2005). Rethinking a learning environment strategy. Geelong: Deakin University.
Calway, B. A., & Murphy, G. A. (2007). The educational imperatives for a Work-Integrated Learning philosophy. The
Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 41(2), 95–109.
Calway, B. A., & Murphy, G. A. (2011). A Work-Integrated Learning Philosophy and the educational imperatives. In P.
Keleher, A. Patil, & R. E. Harreveld (Eds.), Work-Integrated Learning in engineering, built environment and technology:
Diversity of practice in practice. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-547-6.ch001
Camburn, E., Spillane, J., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Assessing the utility of a daily log for measuring principal leadership
practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 707–737. doi:10.1177/0013161X10377345
Campbell, P. L. (2011). Peirce, pragmatism and the right way of thinking. Sandia Report. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia
National Laboratories, United States Department of Energy. doi:10.2172/1022181
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.
Case, J. M. (2000). Students’ perceptions of context, approaches to learning and metacognitive development in a second
year chemical engineering course (Unpublished PhD thesis). Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Case, J. M., & Gunstone, R. F. (2003). Going deeper than deep and surface approaches: A study of students’ perceptions
of time. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 55–69. doi:10.1080/1356251032000052320
Case, J. M., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between deep and surface: Procedural approaches to learning in engineering contexts.
Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 605–615. doi:10.1080/0307507042000261571
Castells, M. (1997). The information age: Economy, society and culture: Vol. I. The rise of the network society. Malden,
MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
Castree, N. (2006). The detour of critical theory. In N. Castree & D. Gregory (Eds.), David Harvey: A critical reader
(pp. 247–269). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9780470773581.ch13
Cattonar, B., Lessard, C., Blais, J. G., Larose, F., Riopel, M.-C., Tardif, M., . . . Wright, A. (2007). School principals in
Canada: Context, profile and work. In Pan-Canadian surveys of principals and teachers in elementary and secondary
schools (2005-2006). Retrieved from https://depot.erudit.org/id/002032dd
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2011). On Methods, Methodologies and how they Matter. Paper presented at ECIS, Helsinki,
Finland.
Centra, J. A. (1993). Self-ratings of college teachers: A comparison with student ratings. Journal of Educational Mea-
surement, 10(4), 287–295. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1973.tb00806.x
Chakravartty, A. (2015). Scientific realism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford
University. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/scientific-realism/
Chakravartty, A. (2007). A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511487354
Chan, K., & Elliot, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and
learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817–831. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.002
Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research meth-
ods. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781848607927.n14
357
Chau, H., & Hocevar, D. (1994). Higher-order factor analysis of multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching ef-
fectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. New Delhi: SAGE Publications Inc.
Chomsky, N. (1969). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Chrusciel, M. M., Wolfe, S., Hansen, J. A., Rojek, J. J., & Kaminski, R. (2015). Law enforcement executive and principal
perspectives on school safety measures. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38(1),
24–39. doi:10.1108/PIJPSM-11-2014-0115
CICA, Career Industry Council of Australia (Ed.). (2006). Shaping the future: Connecting career development and work-
force development. Paper presented at theInternational Symposium on Career Development & Public Policy, Sydney.
CIO Executive Council. (2006). Situation analysis. Council Initiatives—Australia. Retrieved from http://www.cioexecu-
tivecouncil.com/public/au/mentoring.html
Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Per-
gamon/IAU.
Clarke, B., & Parsons, J. (2013). Becoming rhizome researchers. Reconceptualizing educational research methodology,
4(1), 35-43.
Clay, M. M. (2013). An observation of early literacy achievement (3rd ed.). Auckland: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M., Gill, M., Glynn, T., McNaughton, T., & Salmon, K. (2007). Record of oral language. Auckland: Heinemann.
Coates, E., & Coates, A. (2006). Young children talking and drawing. International Journal of Early Years Education,
14(3), 221–241. doi:10.1080/09669760600879961
Coffey, M., & Gibbs, G. (2001). The evaluation of the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality questionnaire (SEEQ)
in UK higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 89–93. doi:10.1080/02602930020022318
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language
Learning, 7(1&2), 5–24.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Corneliussen, H. (2005). Women’s pleasure in computing. Enfield, UK: Middlesex University Press.
Corrigan, P. (Ed.). (2012). General Education and University Curriculum Reform: An International Conference in
Hong Kong, Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/edge/conference2012/docs/GE_Confer-
ence_Proceedings.pdf
Cox, P. J., Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2004). The Victorian Certificate of Education—Mathematics, science and
gender. Australian Journal of Education, 48(1), 27–46. doi:10.1177/000494410404800103
Craib, I. (2011). Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge.
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of mathematics and how it is learned: The
perspectives of students entering university. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 331–345. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90005-1
358
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). University mathematics students’ conceptions of math-
ematics. Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 87–94. doi:10.1080/03075079812331380512
Crazy Bull, C. (1997). A native conversation about research and scholarship. Tribal College Journal of American Indian
Higher Education, 9(1), 16–24.
Cresswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Crisp, Q. (1977). The naked civil servant. London: Penguin.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flaws: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge
Press.
Cubric, M., & Jefferies, A. (2015). The benefits and challenges of large-scale deployment of electronic voting systems:
University student views from across different subject groups. Computers & Education, 87, 98–111. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2015.04.004
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2003). A genealogical tree of contemporary conceptions of teaching. Educational Insights,
8(2). Retrieved from http://einsights.ogpr.educ.ubc.ca/v08n02/contextualexplorations/sumara/sumaradavis.html
Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, N. E., Brown, A., & Ferdig, R. E. (2005). Developing international leadership in educational technology: Strategies
to promote intercultural competence. In P. Nicholson, J. B. Thompson, M. Ruohonen, & J. Multisilta (Eds.), E-Training
practices for professional organizations (pp. 247–254). Boston: Kluwer Publications. doi:10.1007/0-387-23572-8_30
De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. Rendell, Trans.). London: University of California Press.
De Landa, M. (2013). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. London, New York:
Bloomsbury.
De Lauretis, T. (1991). Queer theory: Lesbian and gay sexualities. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies,
3(2), iii–xviii.
de Lemos, M., & Doig, B. (1999). Who am I? Developmental assessment. Camberwell: The Australian Council for
Educational Research. ACER.
Deemer, S., & Hanich, L. B. (2005). Using achievement goal theory to translate evidence-based principles into practice
in educational psychology. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(5), 197–198.
359
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Continuum.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2007). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London, New York: Continuum.
(Original work published 1987)
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2013). What is philosophy? London, New York: Verso.
Denholm, C., & Evans, T. (2006). Doctorates downunder. ACER Press.
Denholm, C., & Evans, T. (2007). Supervising doctorates. ACER Press.
Denholm, C., & Evans, T. (2009). Beyond doctorates downunder. ACER Press.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
doi:10.4135/9781412984591
Denzin, N. K. (2008). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: The politics of interpretation. Malden, UK: Blackwell.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Devlin, K. (2007). What is conceptual understanding? Retrieved November 11, 2015, from https://www.maa.org/exter-
nal_archive/devlin/devlin_09_07.html
Devlin, M. (2007). An examination of a solution-focused approach to university teaching development (Unpublished

PhD Dissertation). The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Devlin, M. (2006). Challenging accepted wisdom about the place of conceptions of teaching in university teaching
improvement. International Journal of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2), 112–117.
Devlin, M. (2008). Research challenges inherent in determining improvement in university teaching. Issues in Educa-
tional Research, 18(1), 12–25.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dinham, S. M. (2002). Use of multiple methods in research on college teachers. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.),
Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in Higher Education (pp. 321–334). Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0593-7_14
Donnelly, K., & Wilstshire, K. (2014). Review of the Australian curriculum. Final report. Department of Education and
Training. Retrieved from http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/review-australian-curriculum
Drew, L., Bailey, S., & Shreeve, A. (2002). Fashion variations: Student approaches to learning in fashion design. In A.
Davies (Ed.), Enhancing curricula: Exploring effective curriculum practices in art, design and communication in higher
education (pp. 179–198). London: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design.
Drew, S. (2001). Student perceptions of what helps them learn and develop in higher education. Teaching in Higher
Education, 6, 309–331. doi:10.1080/13562510120061197
360
Dreyfus, H., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Drucker, P. F. (1959). The landmarks of tomorrow. New York: Harper & brothers.
Drysdale, L., Goode, H., & Gurr, D. (2009). An Australian model of successful school leadership: Moving from success
to sustainability. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 697–708. doi:10.1108/09578230910993087
Dubinski, K. (2015, September 30). Teachers’ unions escalate work-to-rule campaigns as labour relations deteriorate.
The London Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.lfpress.com
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Examiner’s manual for the Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Minnesota:
American Guidance Service.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor
and Francis.
Earley, P. (2012). Observation methods: Learning about leadership practice through shadowing. Journal of Educational.
Cultural and Psychological Studies, 6, 15–31.
Edmonds, D., & Eidinow, J. (2001). Wittgenstein’s poker: The story of a ten-minute argument between two great phi-
losophers. London: Faber & Faber.
Edwards, J. (2000). The research and realities of teaching and learning in the middle years of schooling. Paper presented
at theMiddle Years of Schooling Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Eisner, E. (2008). Art and knowledge. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research
(pp. 3–12). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Ekers, M., Hart, G., Kipfer, S., & Loftus, A. (Eds.). (2013). Gramsci: Space, nature and politics. Oxford, UK: John
Wiley and Sons.
Ellis, V., & High, S. (2004). Something more to tell you: Gay, lesbian or bisexual young people’s experience of secondary
schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 213–225. doi:10.1080/0141192042000195281
Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. New York: Routledge/Farmer.
ENQA. (2007). ENQA report on standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area
(2nd ed.). Helsinki: ENQA.
Entwistle, N. J. (1997). Reconstituting approaches to learning: A response to Webb. Higher Education, 33(2), 213–218.
doi:10.1023/A:1002930608372
Entwistle, N., Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying distinctive approaches to studying. Higher Education,
8(4), 365–380. doi:10.1007/BF01680525
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and preferences for contrasting academic
environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169–194. doi:10.1007/BF00137106
Entwistle, N., & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. The British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 258–265. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00901.x
Epstein, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Schooling sexualities. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
361
Epstein, D., O’Flynn, S., & Telford, D. (2002). Innocence and experience: Paradoxes in sexuality and education. In D.
Richardson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of lesbian and gay studies. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781848608269.n17
Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Protocol analysis and verbal reports on thinking. Retrieved from http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/
ericsson/ericsson.proto.thnk.html
Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. New York:
Sage Publications.
Fein, A. H., & Issacson, N. S. (2009). Echoes of Columbine: The emotion work of leaders in school shooting sites. The
American Behavioral Scientist, 52(9), 1327–1346. doi:10.1177/0002764209332549
Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6, 18–23.
Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achieve-
ment: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multi-section validity studies. Research in Higher Education,
30(6), 583–645. doi:10.1007/BF00992392
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales. JSAS Catalog of Selected Docu-
ments in Psychology, 6(1), 31.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-
material. London: Routledge.
Feyerabend, P. (2010). Against method (4th ed.). London: Verso Books.
Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The interaction between the formal and the algorithmic and the intuitive components in a mathemati-
cal activity. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Straser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific
discipline (pp. 231–345). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fisher, J., Lang, C., Craig, A., & Forgasz, H. (2015). Digital Divas: Putting the wow into computing for girls. Clayton,
Australia: Monash University Publishing.
Flessa, J. J. (2012). Principals as middle managers: School leadership during the implementation of primary class size
reduction policy in Ontario. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(3), 325–343. doi:10.1080/15700763.2012.692429
Forgasz, H., & Leder, G. (2016). Mathematical literacy and teachers. Unpublished manuscript. Faculty of Education,
Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (2006a). Work patterns and stressors of experienced and novice mathematics teachers.
Australian Mathematics Teacher, 62(3), 36–40.
Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (2006b). Academic life: Monitoring work patterns and daily activities. Australian Edu-
cational Researcher, 33(1), 1–22. doi:10.1007/BF03246278
Forgasz, H. J., Leder, G. C., & Tan, H. (2014). Public views on the gendering of mathematics and related careers: Inter-
national comparisons. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(3), 369–388. doi:10.1007/s10649-014-9550-6
Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things. An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Books.
362
Fox, N. J. (1997). Is there life after Foucault? Texts, frames and differends. In A. Peterson & R. Bunton (Eds.), Foucault,
health and medicine. London: Routledge.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of evidence.
Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
Freeman, M. (1993). Rewriting the self. History, memory, narrative. London: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin.
Furedi, F. (2016). The end of argument. Prospect, February, 42-45.
Furlong, J., & Oancea, A. (2005). Assessing quality in applied and practice-based educational research: A framework
for discussion. Oxford University Department of Educational Studies. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from http://www.
birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-social-sciences/education/projects/esrc-2005-seminarseries5.pdf
Furner, J. M., & Gonzalez-DeHaas, A. (2011). How do students’ mastery and performance goals relate to math anxiety?
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science & Technology Education, 7(4), 227–242.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1977). The universality of the hermeneutic problem. In D. E. Lange (Ed.), Hans-Georg Gadamer:
Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath—A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989.
Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.
Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989.
Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.
Gallie, W. B. (1960). A new university, A. D. Lindsay and the Keele experiment. London: Chatto & Windus.
Gardner, J. (2011). Educational research: What (a) to do about impact! British Educational Research Journal, 37(4),
543–561. doi:10.1080/01411926.2011.596321
Gaziel, H. (1995). Managerial work patterns of principals at high- and average-performing Israeli elementary schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 179–194. doi:10.1086/461821
Gebser, J. (1985). The ever-present origin (N. Barstad & A. Mickunas, Trans.). Ohio University Press.
Geertz, C. (2000). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology (3rd ed.). Basic Books.
Genishi, C., & Dyson, A. H. (2009). Children, language and literacy: Diverse learners in diverse times. New York,
London: Teachers College Press.
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2000). Training to teach in higher education: A research agenda. Teacher Development, 4(1),
31–44. doi:10.1080/13664530000200103
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach
to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100.
doi:10.1177/1469787404040463
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
363
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalisation is reshaping our lives. New York: Routledge.
Giridharan, B. (2010). An investigative study of English vocabulary acquisition patterns in adult L2 tertiary learners
with Chinese/Malay L1. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Perth, WA: Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved from http://
link.library.curtin.edu.au/p?cur_digitool_dc159516
Glaser, B. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory, Forum Qualitative Research 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.
qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/825/1792
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968). The discovery of Grounded Theory. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (1998). Complexity and the function of mind in nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner
(Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 59–72). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Goodman, N. (1984). Of mind and other matters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goodson, I., & Sikes, P. (2001). Life history research in educational settings. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Goodyear, P., & Hativa, N. (2002). Introduction. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and
knowledge in Higher Education (pp. 1–13). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-
94-010-0593-7_1
Google Scholar. (2015). Top publications—Education. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from https://scholar.google.com/
citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=soc_education
Goswami, A. (1993). The self-aware universe: How consciousness creates the material world. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
Gowlett, C., & Rasmussen, M. (2014). The cultural politics of queer theory in education research. Discourse (Abingdon),
35(3), 331–334. doi:10.1080/01596306.2014.888838
Gray, E., & Tall, D. (2007). Abstraction as a natural process of mental compression. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 19(2), 23–40. doi:10.1007/BF03217454
Gray, E., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A proceptual view of simple arithmetic. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 115–141.
Green, A. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis in language testing research: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Green, J., & Hart, L. (1999). The impact of context on data. In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus
group research: Politics, theory and practice. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849208857.n2
364
Greenwood, G. E., & Ramagli, H. J. J. (1980). Alternatives to Student Ratings of College Teaching. The Journal of
Higher Education, 51(6), 673–684. doi:10.2307/1981172
Griffin, P., Coates, H., McInnes, C., & James, R. (2003). The development of an extended course experience question-
naire. Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 259–266. doi:10.1080/135383203200015111
Griffith University. (2006). Introduction to Work Integrated Learning (WIL). Retrieved from http://www62.gu.edu.au/
policylibrary.nsf/xmainsearch/a0d60f04626b7f144a2571800063dd56?opendocument
Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5),
1091–1123. doi:10.3102/0002831211402663
Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence
from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444. doi:10.3102/0013189X13510020
Gronn, P. C. (1982). Neo-Taylorism in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(4), 17–35.
doi:10.1177/0013161X82018004004
Grossman, P., Haigh, N., & Jiao, X. (2009). The status of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in New Zealand
universities: Three institutional case studies. Final report to the Ministry of Education and Ako Aotearoa. National
Centre of Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276921881_The_sta-
tus_of_the_scholarship_teaching_and_learning_SOTL_in_New_Zealand_universities_-_Three_institutional_case_studies
Grotjahn, R. (1987). On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspec-
tion in second language research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Guattari, F. (2016). Lines of flight: For another world of possibilities. London, New York: Bloomsbury.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp. 191–216). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp. 191–216). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications.
Guilar, J. (2006). Intersubjectivity and dialogic education. Radical Pedagogy, 1(8). Retrieved from http://www.radi-
calpedagogy.org/radicalpedagogy/Intersubjectivity_and_Dialogic_Instruction.html
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. London: Heinemann.
Hacking, I. (1981). Scientific revolutions. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford, UK: OUP.
Hacking, I. (1982). Experimentation and scientific realism. Philosphical Topics, 13(1), 71–87. doi:10.5840/philtop-
ics19821314
Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture
(pp. 29–64). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
365
Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into “approaches to learning” research in
higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 89–104. doi:10.1080/0141192032000057401
Halley, J., & Parker, A. (Eds.). (2011). After sex? On writing since queer theory. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Halperin, D. (1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford, UK: Open University Press.
Hamilton, D. (2014). Building a culture of pedagogical enquiry: Institutional support strategies for developing the schol-
arship of teaching and learning. Advances in Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1). Retrieved June 20, 2016, from
http://tlc.unisim.edu.sg/research/AdvSoTL/hemilton.html
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Harding, S., & Hintikka, M. B. (1983). Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, meth-
odology, and philosophy of science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Hargreaves, D. (1996). Teaching as a research-based profession. London: Teacher Training Agency.
Harms, P. D., Wood, D., & Spain, S. M. (2016). Separating the why from the what: Reply to Jonas and Markon (2015).
Psychological Review, 123(1), 84–89. doi:10.1037/a0039860 PMID:26709412
Harré, R. (1989). Language games and texts of identity. In J. Shotter & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity. London: Sage.
Hart, V., & Whatman, S. (1998). Decolonising the concept of knowledge. Paper presented at the HERDSA conference,
Auckland, NZ.
Hassett, D. D. (2008). Teacher flexibility and judgement: A multidynamic literacy theory. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 8(3), 295–327. doi:10.1177/1468798408096479
Hasweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 33(1), 47–63. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<47::AID-TEA3>3.3.CO;2-T
Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective
teaching dimensions and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699–729. doi:10.2307/2672900
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
doi:10.3102/003465430298487
Hazel, E., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2002). Variation in learning orchestration in university biology courses. Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 737–751. doi:10.1080/09500690110098886
Healey, M. (2003). The scholarship of teaching: Issues around an evolving concept. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 14(1/2), 5–26.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Heilbronn, R., & Foreman-Peck, L. (Eds.). (2015). Philosophical perspectives on teacher education. Chichester, UK:
Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118977859
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy. New York: Harper & Row.
Hemer, S. R. (2012). Informality, power and relationships in postgraduate supervision: Supervising PhD candidates over
coffee. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 827–839. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.674011
366
Hemmings, S., & Hollows, A. (n. d.). Formulating the research question. Sheffield Hallam University. Retrieved from
http://www.socscidiss.bham.ac.uk/research-question.html
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006a). Emergent methods in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
doi:10.4135/9781412984034
Hillage, J., Pearson, R., Anderson, A., & Tamkin, P. (1998). Excellence in research on schools. Research report no. 74.
London: Department for Education and Employment.
Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackmen, J., & Mitchell, A. (2010). Writing themselves
in 3: The third national study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex attracted and gender questioning young
people. La Trobe University. Retrieved from http://e-publications.une.edu.au/1959.11/10504
Hite, H. (1968). A model for performance certification. In R. C. Burkhart (Ed.), The assessment revolution: New view-
points for teacher evaluation. New York: State University College at Buffalo.
Ho, A. (2000). A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model for programme design. The International
Journal for Academic Development, 5(1), 30–41. doi:10.1080/136014400410088
Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evalu-
ation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42(2), 143–169. doi:10.1023/A:1017546216800
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology
Review, 13(4), 353–383. doi:10.1023/A:1011965830686
Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing
and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. doi:10.3102/00346543067001088
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2005). Interpretivist practice and social action. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hooley, N. (2006). Participation and the question of knowledge. In T. Townsend & R. Bates (Eds.), Handbook of teacher
education: Globalisation, standards and professionalism in times of change (pp. 557–570). Netherlands: Springer Press.
Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Educa-
tion, 116(4), 491–523. doi:10.1086/653625
Hughes, T. (1967). Poetry in the making. London, New York: Faber & Faber.
Hutchings, P., & Schulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10–15. doi:10.1080/00091389909604218
IBM. (2004). Services science: A new academic discipline. Retrieved from http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/
www_fs.nsf/images/fsr/$FILE/summit_report.pdf
Ideal Type. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type
International Education Association of Australia. (2008). Staffing and professional development. In Good practice in
offshore delivery: A guide for Australian providers. Retrieved from https://aei.gov.au/About-AEI/OffshoreSupport/Pages/
TransnationalEducation.aspx
Irigaray, L. (1999). The forgetting of air in Martin Heidegger. Austin, TX: University of Texas.
Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open Uni-
versity Press.
367
Irwin, R. L., & Springgay, S. (2008). A/r/tography as practice-based research. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin, C. Leggo,
& P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with A/r/tography (pp. xix–xxxiii). Rotterdam: Sense.
Jancauskas, E., Atchison, M., Murphy, G. A., & Rose, P. (1997). Unleashing the potential of Work-Integrated-Learning
through professionally trained academic and industry supervisors. Paper presented at theWACE Conference, Cape Town.
Jaschik, S. (2005). What Larry Summers said. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/02/18/sum-

mers2_18
Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist inquiry. New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York: New York University Press.
Jewitt, C. (2012). An introduction to using video for research. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/4/NCRM_
workingpaper_0312.pdf
Johnson, T. D., & Ryan, K. E. (2000). A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of college teaching. In K. E. Ryan
(Ed.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning: Evaluating Teaching in Higher Education: A Vision for the Future
(Vol. 83, pp. 109–123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.8309
Jonas, K. G., & Markon, K. E. (2016). A descriptivist approach to trait conceptualization and inference. Psychological
Review, 123(1), 90–96. doi:10.1037/a0039542 PMID:26214685
Jones, C., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Stepping beyond the paradigm wars: Pluralist methods for research in learning technol-
ogy. Research in Learning Technology, 19. doi:10.3402/rlt.v19s1/7798
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. Port Melbourne. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139196581
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. L. (2001, December 2-6). Talking down ‘writing up’ or ten e-mails make a conference paper.
Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, WA.
Kandlbinder, P. (2014). Signature concepts of women researchers in higher education teaching and learning. Studies in
Higher Education, 39(9), 1562–1572. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.801430
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and
practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228. doi:10.3102/00346543072002177
Kang, N.-H. (2008). Learning to teach science: Personal epistemologies, teaching goals, and practices of teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 478–498. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.002
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozial Forschung, 6(2),
1–36.
Keamy, R. K. (2003). Performing masculinity and leadership: Male academics’ work practices and identities [Doctor of
Education dissertation]. Deakin University, Geelong, VIC. Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30023211/
keamy-performingmasculinity-2003.pdf
Keamy, R. K., & Selkrig, M. (2013). The effectiveness of protocols when pre-service teachers engage in online col-
laborations: An exploration. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2). Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/
vol38/iss2/7 doi:10.14221/ajte.2013v38n2.4
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning
and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X
368
Kember, D. (2003). To control or not to control: The question of whether experimental designs are appropriate for
evaluating teaching innovations in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(1), 89–101.
doi:10.1080/02602930301684
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good
teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469–490. doi:10.1023/A:1026569608656
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2005). The influence of active learning experiences on the development of graduate
capabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 155–170. doi:10.1080/03075070500043127
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & Ma, R. (2007). Characterizing learning environments capable of nurturing generic ca-
pabilities in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 48(5), 609–632. doi:10.1007/s11162-006-9037-0
Kerr, C. (2001). The gold and the blue: A personal memoir of the University of California, 1949-1967. Berkeley & Los
Angeles, CA: University of California.
Khine, M. S. (2008). Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6596-5
Kincheloe, J. (2011). Critical ontology: Visions of selfhood and curriculum. In K. Hayes, S. Steinberg, & K. Tobin (Eds.),
Key works in Critical Pedagogy. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_17
Kincheloe, J. L., & Berry, K. S. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing the bricolage.
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual
growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgement model: twenty years of research on epistemic cognition.
In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing
(pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
King, S. O., & Robinson, C. L. (2009). Pretty lights and maths: Increasing student engagement and enhancing learning
through the use of electronic voting systems. Computers & Education, 53(1), 189–199. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.012
Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford Press.
Kmetz, J. T., & Willower, D. J. (1982). Elementary school principals’ work behavior. Educational Administration Quar-
terly, 18(4), 62–78. doi:10.1177/0013161X82018004006
Knight, G. R. (1989). Philosophy and education. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (2008). Arts-informed research. In G. Knowles & A. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts
in qualitative research (pp. 55–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning—A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association Press.
Kohler, J. (2004). The Bologna Process and employability: The impact of employability on curricular development.
Paper presented at the A Key Objective of Academic Studies and for Academic Institutions, Bled.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kollias, H. (2012). Queering it right, getting it wrong. Paragraph, 35(2), 144–163. doi:10.3366/para.2012.0050
Kramers, H. A. (n.d.). Quotes. Retrieved from http://www.quotes.net/authors/H.%20A.%20Kramers
369
Krosnick, J. A., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2005). The measurement of attitudes. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson,
& M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 21–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: “Queer” activism and anti-oppressive pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Kuokkanen, R. (2004). Border crossings, pathfinders and new visions: The role of Sami literature in contemporary
society. Nordlit: Tidsskrift I Litteratur og Kultur, 15, 91-103.
Kuokkanen, R. (2008). What is hospitality in the academy? Epistemic ignorance and the (im)possible gift. Review of
Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 30(1), 60–82. doi:10.1080/10714410701821297
Kurke, L., & Aldrich, H. (1983). Mintzberg was right! A replication and extension of the nature of managerial work.
Management Science, 29(8), 975–984. doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.8.975
Kwaymullina, A., Kwaymullina, B., Rosa, T., & Butterly, L. (2013). Living texts: A perspective on published sources,
Indigenous Research Methodologies and Indigenous Worldviews. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies,
6(1). Retrieved from http://www.isrn.qut.edu.au/publications/internationaljournal/documents/volume6_number1_13-
Kwaymullina.pdf
LaFrazza, G. C. (2005). Domain specificity of teachers’ epistemological beliefs about academic knowledge (Unpublished
doctoral thesis). Florida State University.
Lang, C. (1999). Factors accounting for the gender imbalance in computing degree enrolments [Unpublished Master of
Education thesis]. Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Lang, C. (2010). Why IT rarely enters students’ schematic repertoire of future careers. A gendered analysis of student
course and career choices related to IT in the 21st Century. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktieng-
esellschaft & Co. KG.
Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). “I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?” Using iPad video diaries to investi-
gate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in Year 3 and Year 6 students. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9621-x
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673–693.
doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00112.x
Lather, P. (1997). Drawing the line at angels: Working the ruins of Feminist ethnography. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(3), 285–304. doi:10.1080/095183997237124
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profu-
sion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57. doi:10.1080/09518390500450144
Lather, P., & St Pierre, E. A. (2013). Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
26(6), 629–633. doi:10.1080/09518398.2013.788752
Latour, B. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hop: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
370
Latrobe University. (n.d.). Research scholarships. Retrieved from http://www.latrobe.edu.au/research/future/scholarships/

research-scholarships---downloads/APA2010.pdf
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral interaction. Cambridge: CUP. (Original publica-
tion 1990) doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lawson, C. (2012). Student voices: Enhancing the experience of international students in Australia. Canberra, Australia:
The Australian Government.
Leach, J., & Moon, B. (2000). Pedagogy, information and communications technology and teachers’ professional knowl-
edge. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff, UK.
Leavy, P. (2009). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. New York: The Guildford Press.
Leder, G. C. (2015). Mathematics for all? The case for and against national testing. In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The Proceedings
of the 12th Internal Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 189-208). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_14
Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2010). I liked it till Pythagoras: The public’s views of mathematics. In L. Sparrow, B.
Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the Future of Mathematics Education:Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference
of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 328-335). Fremantle: MERGA.
Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2011). The public’s views on gender and the learning of mathematics: Does age matter?
In J. Clark, B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer, & S. Thornton (Eds.), Mathematics: Traditions and [new] practices (pp.
446-454). Adelaide, Australia: AAMT and MERGA.
Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (2004). Australian and international mature age students: The daily challenges. Higher
Lemke, J. L. (2005). Textual politics, discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.
Letts, W., & Sears, J. (1999). Queering Elementary education:Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Leung, F. K. (2014). What can and should we learn from international studies of mathematics achievement? Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 26(3), 579–605. doi:10.1007/s13394-013-0109-0
Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives de Psychologie, 22(140), 1–55.
Likert, R. (1967). The method of constructing an attitude scale. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and
measurement (pp. 90–95). New York: John Wiley.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.; pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage Publications.
Lindén, J., Ohlin, M., & Brodin, E. (2013). Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in PhD education. Studies
in Higher Education, 38(5), 639–662. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.596526
371
Ling, D., & Ling, P. (2016). The power of the paradigm. Methods and Paradigms in Education Research. Hershey, PA:
IGI Global.
Ling, P., Mazzolini, M., & Giridharan, B. (2014). Towards post-colonial management of transnational education. Aus-
tralian Universities Review, 56(2), 47–55.
List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford, New York:
University of Oxford. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591565.001.0001
Livingston, K. (2012). Quality in teachers’ professional career long development. In J. Harford, B. Hudson & N. Niemi
(Eds.), Quality assurance and teacher education: International challenges and expectations (pp. 35-51). Oxford, UK:
Peter Lang.
Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Ethical issues in doctoral supervision: The perspectives of PhD students in the natural
and behavioral sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 24(3), 195–214. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.830574
López, V., Ahumada, L., Galdames, S., & Madrid, R. (2012). School principals at their lonely work: Recording workday
practices through ESM logs. Computers & Education, 58(1), 413–422. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.014
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: The Crossing Press.
Luke, A., Freebody, P., & Land, R. (2000). Literate futures: Review of literacy education. Brisbane, Qld: Education
Queensland.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: University of Manchester.
Macbeth, D. (2001). On “reflexivity” in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(1), 35–68.
doi:10.1177/107780040100700103
Mackenzie, N. M. (2010). Motivating young writers. In J. Fletcher, F. Parkhill & G. Gillon (Eds.), Motivating literacy
learners in today’s world (pp. 23-32). Auckland: New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER).
Mackenzie, N. M., & Scull, J. A. (2015). Literacy: Writing. In S. McLeod & J. McCormack (Eds.), Introduction to
speech, language and literacy (pp. 398-445). Oxford: Melbourne.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2011). From drawing to writing: What happens when you shift teaching priorities in the first six
months of school? Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 34(3), 322–340.
Mackenzie, N. M. (2014). Teaching early writers: Teachers’ responses to a young child’s writing sample. Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy, 37(3), 182–191.
Mackenzie, N. M., Scull, J., & Bowles, T. (2015). Change over time: An analysis of texts created by Year One students.
Australian Educational Researcher, 42(5), 25. doi:10.1007/s13384-015-0189-9
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational
Research, 16(2), 193–205. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html
MacLure, M. (2013). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in postqualitative methodology.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 658–667. doi:10.1080/09518398.2013.788755
Manathunga, C. (2014). Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining time, place and knowledge. Hoboken, NJ:
Taylor and Francis.
Manicas, P. (2006). A realist philosophy of social science explanation and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511607035
372
Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective.
In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook on theory and research (vol. 8, pp. 143-234). New York: Agathon.
Marshall, D., & Case, J. (2005). Approaches to learning research in higher education: A response to Haggis. British
Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 256–267. doi:10.1080/014119205200340242
Marsh, H. W. (1991). A multidimensional perspective on students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness: A reply to

Abrami and d’Apollonia (1991). Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 285–296. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.285
Marsh, H. W. (1994). Students’ evaluation of educational quality (SEEQ): A multidimensional rating instrument of
students’ perceptions of teaching effectiveness. Sydney: The University of Western Sydney.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1991). The multidimensionality of students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: The
generality of factor structure across academic discipline, instructor level, and course level. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 7(1), 9–18. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(91)90054-S
Marsh, H. W., Overall, J. U., & Kesler, S. P. (1979). Validity of student evaluations of instructional effectiveness: A
comparison of faculty self-evaluations and evaluations by their students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2),
149–160. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.149
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. (1993). The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance uni-
versity teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 217–251. doi:10.3102/00028312030001217
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1994). The use of students’ evaluations of university teaching to improve teaching ef-
fectiveness. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Marsh, H., & Roche, L. (1994). The use of students’ evaluations of university teaching to improve teaching effectiveness.
Higher Education Divison of DEETYA, Evaluations and Investigations Program. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
Marsh, H., Rowe, K., & Andrew, M. (2002). PhD students’ evaluations of research supervision. The Journal of Higher
Education, 73(3), 313–348. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0028
Martens, E., & Prosser, M. (1998). What constitutes high quality learning and how to assure it. Quality Assurance in
Education, 6(1), 28–36. doi:10.1108/09684889810200368
Martin, E., Benjamin, J., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Scholarship of teaching: A study of the approaches of aca-
demic staff. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving student learning outcomes (pp. 326–331). Oxford,
UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University.
Martin, K. (2003). Ways of knowing, ways of being and ways of doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indig-
enous research and indigenist research. Journal of Australian Studies, 76, 203–214. doi:10.1080/14443050309387838
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1984). The observation of high performing educational managers: Methodological
issues and managerial implications. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leadership
and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership (pp. 142–162). New York, NY: Per-
gamon Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-030943-9.50021-8
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1990). Structured observation of managerial work: A replication and synthesis.
Journal of Management Studies, 27(3), 329–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1990.tb00250.x
Martin, W. J., & Willower, D. J. (1981). The managerial behavior of high school principals. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 17(1), 69–90. doi:10.1177/0013161X8101700105
373
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2),
177–200. doi:10.1007/BF00132516
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I Outcome and process. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). Symposium: Learning processes and strategies II & On qualitative differences in Learn-
ing II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. The British Journal of Educational Psychology,
46(2), 115–127. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience
of learning. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press.
Mascall, B., & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing principal turnover. Leader-
ship and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 367–383. doi:10.1080/15700763.2010.493633
Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Sacks, R. (2009). The relationship between distributed leadership and teach-
ers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214–228.
Mason, J. (2004). Are beliefs believable? Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(3), 343–352. doi:10.1207/
s15327833mtl0603_4
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Applied social research methods series: Vol. 41. Qualitative research design: An interactive ap-
proach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mazzolini, M., Yeo, S., Goerke, V., Lueckenhausen, G., Giridharan, B., & Ling, P. (2012a). Checklist for recognition
and support of leadership in TNE; Additional checklist items for TNE branch campuses; Checklist for leadership in
internationalisation of curriculum. Retrieved from http://tne.curtin.edu.au/project.html
Mazzolini, M., Yeo, S., Ling, P., Goerke, V., Giridharan, B., & Lueckenhausen, V. (2012b). Transnational education:
Leadership in transnational education and internationalisation of curriculum. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching
Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
Mazzolini, M., Yeo, S., Ling, P., & Hall, D. (2012). Learning Without Borders: Linking development of trans-national
leadership roles to international and cross-cultural teaching excellence. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching
Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
McDonald, S. (2005). Studying action in context: A qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qualita-
tive Research, 5(4), 455–473. doi:10.1177/1468794105056923
McKenzie, T. (2000). Supercomplexity and the need for a practice and scholarship of self-reflexiveness in university
research and training. Staff and Educational Development International, 4(3), 205–216.
McLeod, A. B. (2014). Community attitudes and an ICT intervention program for school girls [Unpublished Doctor of
Philosophy thesis]. Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Merriam, S. B. et al. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster dictionary. (2015). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
Merricks, T. (2007). Truth and ontology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780199205233.001.0001
374
Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
publications.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and
qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 469–474.
doi:10.1177/1077800410364612
Messick, S. (1991). Validity of test interpretation and use. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research
(6th ed.; pp. 1–29). New York: Macmillan.
Meyer, J. H. F. (2000). The modelling of “dissonant” study orchestration in higher education. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 15(1), 5–18. doi:10.1007/BF03173163
Meyer, M. J., Macmillan, R., & Northfield, S. (2011). Principal succession and the micropolitics of educators in schools:
Some incidental results from a larger study. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 117, 1–26.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Developing and assessing instructional expertise: Promoting active learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Midgley, W., Trimmer, K., & Davies, A. (Eds.). (2013). Metaphors for, in and of education research. Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. London: Sage Pub-
lications.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work:
The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 21(4), 388–422. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0028 PMID:8979871
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row.
Møller, J., Vedøy, G., Presthus, A. M., & Skedsmo, G. (2009). Successful principalship in Norway: Sustainable ethos
and incremental changes? Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 731–741. doi:10.1108/09578230910993113
Montuori, A. (2013). The complexity of transdisciplinary literature reviews. Complicity: An International Journal of
Complexity and Education, 10(1/2), 45–55.
Moreton-Robinson, A. M., & Walter, M. (2009). Social research methods. South Melbourne. South Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
Morgan, D. (2006). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health re-
search. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Emergent methods in social research (pp. 165–182). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412984034.n8
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative
and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
375
Moulier Boutang, Y. (2011). Cognitive Capitalism. Malden, MA & Cambridge: Polity.
Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of
Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377. doi:10.3102/00346543074003317
Mulhall, S. (2007). Wittgenstein’s private language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2008). 2007 International mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in
international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Retrieved from timss.bc.edu/timss2007/
PDF/TIMSS2007_InternationalMathematicsReport
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). Timss 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut
Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Retrieved from timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/
T11_IR_Mathematics_FullBook.pdf
MYP. (2008). Middle Years Programme: From principles into practice. International Baccalaureate Organization. Re-
trieved from http://www.ibo.org
Nandy, A. (2005). Exiled at home. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
National Assessment Program. Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan/
naplan.html
National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care and the Early Years Learning Framework. EYLF.
Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.au/early-years-learning-framework
Nelson-Jones, R. (2011). Six approaches to counselling and therapy (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
Newell, G. (2008). The class as a learning entity (complex adaptive system): An idea from complexity science and
educational research. SFU Educational Review, 2(1), 5–17.
Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2007). Collateral damage. How high stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Press.
Nietzsche, F. (1996). On the genealogy of morals (D. Smith, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Nisbet, J. (1985). Introduction. In J. Nisbet & S. Nisbet (Eds.), Research. policy and practice. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Connell, D. P. (1965). International Law (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). London, UK: Stevens and Sons.
O’Donoghue, T. A. (2007). Planning your qualitative research project: An introduction to interpretivist research in
education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
OECD (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and
financial literacy. OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264190511-en
OECD. (2002). Education policy analysis. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,3343,

en_2649_39263231_1841194_1_1_1_1,00.html
OECD. (2003). Education policy analysis. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/document/14/0,2340,

en_2649_34511_17735886_1_1_1_1,00.html
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra,
Australia: Australian Government.
376
Olson, D. R. (2009). The history of writing. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage handbook
of writing development. London: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9780857021069.n2
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Combs, J. P. (2011). Data analysis in mixed research: A primer. International Journal of Educa-
tion, 3(1). Retrieved from http://macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ije/article/viewFile/618/550 doi:10.5296/ije.v3i1.618
Osberg, D. (2010). Authoritative knowledge and the public role of the university: How complexity challenges our assump-
tions and opens alternate possibilities. Paper presented at the Learning, Teaching & Research Conference, University of
St Mark and St John, UK. Retrieved from http://moodle.marjon.ac.uk/mod/page/view.php?id=18760
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational
Research, 62(3), 307–332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paradigm. (n.d.). In Urban dictionary. Retrieved December 1, 2015, from www.urbandictionary.com/define.

php?term=Paradigm
Paulsen, M. B. (2002). Evaluating teaching performance. New Directions for Institutional Research, 114(114), 5–18.
doi:10.1002/ir.42
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803161
Peirce, C. S. (1931). The collected papers: Pragmatism and pramaticism (vol. 5). Retrieved from http://www.textlog.
de/peirce_pragmatism.html
Penny, A. R. (2003). Changing the agenda for research into students’ views about university teaching: Four shortcomings
of SRT research. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 399–411. doi:10.1080/13562510309396
Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11.
Perry, W. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Peters, M. A., Gietzen, G., & Ondercin, D. J. (Eds.), (2012). Knowledge socialism: Intellectual commons and openness
in the university. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1967). Biology and knowledge. Paris: Gallimard.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom en-
vironment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3),
225–238. doi:10.1086/499701
Pickering, A. (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chi-
cago/9780226668208.001.0001
Pintrich, P. (2000a). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92–104. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1017 PMID:10620384
Pintrich, P. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544
377
Pintrich, P. (2000c). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), The handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research, 39(4), 319–337. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.002
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivated and self-regulated learning components of academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall Merrill.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pollock, K., & Hauseman, D. C. (2015). Principal leadership in Canada. In H. Arlestig, C. Day, & O. Johansson (Eds.), A
decade of research on school principals: Cases from 24 countries (pp. 202–232). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Pollock, K., Wang, F., & Hauseman, D. C. (2015). Complexity and volume: An Inquiry into factors that drive principals’
work. Societies, 5(2), 537–565. doi:10.3390/soc5020537
Poole, G. (2013). Square one: What is research? In K. McKinney (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in and
across the disciplines (pp. 135–151). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Popham, W. T. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern—wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and
Practice, 16(2), 9–13. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00586.x
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.
Porsanger, J. (2004). An essay about Indigenous methodology. Retrieved from http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlit/

article/viewFile/1910/1776
Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education Quarterly, 42, 203–220.
Precision Consultancy & Commonwealth of Australia. (2007). Graduate employability skills. Canberra, Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Price, K. (2015). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education-An introduction for the teaching profession (2nd ed.).
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching for learning in higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buck-
ingham, UK: Open University Press.
Pusser, B., Kempner, K., Marginson, S., & Ordorika, I. (Eds.). (2012). Universities and the public sphere: Knowledge
creation and state building in the era of globalization. New York, Abingdon: Routledge.
Putney, L., Green, J., Dixon, C. N., & Kelly, G. J. (1999). Evolution of qualitative research methodology: Looking beyond
defense to possibilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 368–377. doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.3.6
Pyne, C. (2015). Education exports hit a record $17.6 billion. The Department of Education and Training Media Centre.
Retrieved from https://ministers.education.gov.au/pyne/education-exports-hit-record-176-billion
Quinlan, K. M. (1999). Commonalities and controversy in context: A study of academic historians’ educational beliefs.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(4), 447–463. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00066-3
378
Ramsden, P. (1984). The context of learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learn-
ing. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Academic Press.
Ramsden, P. (1987). Improving teaching and learning in higher education: The case for a relational perspective. Studies
in Higher Education, 12(3), 274–286. doi:10.1080/03075078712331378062
Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: Improving teaching. In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Improving learning: New perspec-
tives. London: Kogan Page.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Question-
naire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150. doi:10.1080/03075079112331382944
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203413937
Rasmussen, M. L. (2006). Becoming subjects: Sexualities and secondary schooling. New York: Routledge.
Rasmussen, M., & Allen, L. (2014). What can a concept do? Rethinking education’s queer assemblages. Discourse
(Abingdon), 35(3), 433–443. doi:10.1080/01596306.2014.888846
Readings, B. (1997). The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University.
Redlich-Amirav, D., & Higginbottom, G. (2014). New emerging technologies in qualitative research. Qualitative Report,
19, 1–14.
Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Research Excellence Framework (REF). (2012). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions, REF 2014. Re-
trieved from http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20
including%20addendum.pdf
Revans, R. W. (1991). Action learning: Its origins and practice. In M. Pedlar (Ed.), Action learning in practice (2nd
ed.). New York: Gower Press.
Reynolds, C., White, R., Brayman, C., & Moore, S. (2008). Women and secondary school principal rotation/succes-
sion: A study of the beliefs of decision makers in four Provinces. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne
de l’éducation, 31(1), 32-54.
Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ricoeur, P. (1995). Figuring the sacred: Religion, narrative, and imagination. Minneapolis, MN: Fortiss Press.
Rigney, L. (2001). A first perspective of Indigenous Australian participation in Science: Framing Indigenous Research
towards Indigenous Australian Intellectual Sovereignty. Kaurna Higher Education Journal, 7, 1-13.
Ritchie, J., & Wilson, D. (2000). Teacher narrative as critical inquiry: Rewriting the script. New York: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Robertson, M. (2010). Expectations and “deliverables”—not always a happy match. In F. Waugh & L. Napier (Eds.),
Internationalising learning and teaching in academic settings (pp. 133–148). Sydney: Faculty of Education and Social
Work, University of Sydney.
379
Robertson, M., & Al-Zahrani, A. M. (2012). Self-efficacy and ICT integration into initial teacher education in Saudi Arabia:
Matching policy with practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1136–1151. doi:10.14742/ajet.793
Robertson, M., Dang, T. T., Al Zahrani, A., Santosa, H., Alsharidah, M., & Mohammed, R. et al. (2013). A “beehive”
approach to the research supervision journey. In T. Lê & Q. Lê (Eds.), Conducting research in a changing and challeng-
ing world. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Robinson, K., & Davies, C. (2007). Boy nerds, girl nerds: Constituting and negotiating. Computing and Information
Technologies and peer groups as gendered subjects in schooling. Altona, Australia: Common Ground Publishing.
Roche, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2002). Teaching self-concept in higher education: Reflecting on multiple dimensions of
teaching effectiveness. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in Higher Education.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0593-7_9
Rogers, C. R. (1962). The interpersonal relationship: The core of guidance. Harvard Educational Review, 32, 416–429.
Rogers, M. (2012). Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. Qualitative Report, 17, 1–17.
Ronai, C. R. (1992). The reflexive self through narrative: A night in the life of an erotic dancer/researcher. In C. Ellis &
M. Flaherty (Eds.), Investigating subjectivity: Research on lived experience. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ruthven, K. (2015). Reaction to section 3: Some methodological reflections on studies of mathematical affect. In B.
Pepin & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic systems in mathematics education (pp. 383-393). Springer.
Ryan, A. (2006). Constructivism—Rhetoric and reality. In Proceedings of the AARE 2006 International Education
Research Conference. Retrieved from http://publications.aare.edu.au/06pap/rya06016.pdf
Ryan, J. (2010). Promoting social justice in schools: Principals’ political strategies. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 13(4), 357–376. doi:10.1080/13603124.2010.503281
Sadler, R. (1999). Managing your academic career: Strategies for success. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Saljo, R. (2009). Learning, theories of learning, and units of analysis in research. Educational Psychologist, 44(3),
202–208. doi:10.1080/00461520903029030
Samdahl, D. (1999). Differences between quantitative and qualitative research. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.),
Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 119–133). Pennsylvania: Venture.
Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work and the will to lead. London: WH Allen.
Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Winer, L., & Gandell, T. (2004). Assumptions underlying work-
shop activities. In A. Saroyan & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Rethinking teaching in Higher Education (pp. 15–29). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Sawyer, W. W. (1943). Mathematician’s delight. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Sayles, L. R. (1964). Managerial behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schechner, R. (1988). Performance theory. New York: Routledge.
Schimmack, U., & Crites, S. L. Jr. (2005). The structure of affect. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.),
The handbook of attitudes (pp. 397–435). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
380
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). What counts, when? Reflections on beliefs, affect, attitude, orientation, habits of mind, grain
size, time scale, context, theory and method. In B. Pepin & B. Roesken-Winter (Eds.), From beliefs to dynamic systems
in mathematics education (pp. 395–404). Springer.
Schommer, M. A. (1990). Effects of the beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2008). Assessing teacher’s epistemological and ontological worldviews. In M. S. Khine (Ed.),
Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 25–43). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
1-4020-6596-5_2
Schraw, G., Olafson, O., & Vanderveldt, M. (2011). Fostering critical awareness of teachers’ epistemological and on-
tological beliefs. In J. Brownlee, C. Schraw, & D. Berthelsen (Eds.), Personal epistemology and teacher education (pp.
149–165). Routledge.
Schutz, A. (1962). Collected papers:The problem of social reality (vol. 1). The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Selkrig, M. (2009). Community-based artists: Dialogues of identity and learning [Doctor of Education thesis]. La Trobe
University, Bundoora, VIC. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.9/152554
Selkrig, M. (2014). Becoming a bricoleur: Constructing sculptures to explore complex and troublesome dimensions
in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(1), 17–30. doi:10.1080/174372
7X.2012.742051
Selkrig, M., & Keamy, R. K. (2009). Beyond borderlanders: Universities extending their role in fostering creative part-
nerships within communities. International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 185–196.
Selkrig, M., & Keamy, R. K. (2015). Promoting a willingness to wonder: Moving from congenial to collegial conversa-
tions that encourage deep and critical reflection for teacher educators. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
21(4), 421–436. doi:10.1080/13540602.2014.969104
SEMNET. (2016). SEMNET Community blog. SEMNET online community and archive. Retrieved June 20, 2003, from
https://listserv.ua.edu/archives/semnet.html
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized
causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shanks, G. (2002). Issues in positivist, single case study research in Information Systems. In S. Gregor & D. Hart (Eds.),
Information Systems foundations: Building the theoretical base (pp. 61–72). Canberra, Australia: Australian National
University.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 77, 1–7.
Small, H. (2013). The value of the humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:o
so/9780199683864.001.0001
Smith, C. D., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2014). The impact of work-integrated learning on student employment readiness.
Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/resources/SI11_2139_Ferns_Report_2014.pdf
Smith, C. D. (2008). Design-focused evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(6), 631–645.
doi:10.1080/02602930701772762
381
Smith, C. D. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive framework. Higher
Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.558072
Smith, C. D. (2016). The emergence and development of work-integrated learning (WIL): Implications for assessment,
quality and quality assurance in Higher Education. In C. Ng, R. Fox, & M. Nakano (Eds.), Reforming learning and
teaching in Asia-Pacific universities in advanced economies: Influences of globalised processes (pp. 322–347). Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-981-10-0431-5_16
Smith, C. D., & Worsfold, K. (2014). WIL curriculum design and student learning: A structural model of their effects
on student satisfaction. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 1070–1084. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.777407
Smith, C. D., & Worsfold, K. (2015). Unpacking the learning–work nexus: “Priming” as lever for high-quality learning
outcomes in work-integrated learning curricula. Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 22–42. doi:10.1080/03075079.20
13.806456
Smith, L. T. (2001). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Sparkes, A. (1996). The fatal flaw: A narrative of the fragile body-self. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(4), 463–494.
doi:10.1177/107780049600200405
Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., & Pareja, A. S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school principals’ workday.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103–125. doi:10.1080/15700760601091200
Spillane, J. P., & Lee, L. C. (2014). Novice school principals’ sense of ultimate responsibility: Problems of practice in tran-
sitioning to the principal’s office. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 431–465. doi:10.1177/0013161X13505290
Spillane, J., & Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 45(3), 375–423. doi:10.1177/0013161X08329290
St Pierre, E. A. (2014). A brief and personal history of post qualitative research. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing,
30(2), 2–19.
Stacey, J., & Wolff, J. (Eds.). (2013). Writing otherwise: Experiments in cultural criticism. Manchester, New York:
Manchester University. doi:10.7228/manchester/9780719089428.001.0001
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Stennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. London, New York: Allen Lane.
Stubb, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2014). Conceptions of research: The doctoral student experience in three domains.
Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 251–264. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.651449
Sullivan, G. (2005). Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sullivan, G. (2008). Afterword: Continuing conversations outside the circle. In S. Springgay, R. L. Irwin, C. Leggo, &
P. Gouzouasis (Eds.), Being with A/r/tography (pp. 233–244). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Sullivan, J. P. (2010). Emergent learning: The power of complex adaptive systems in classrooms. Saarbrucken, Germany:
Lambert Academic Publishing.
Talburt, S. (1999). Open secrets and problems of queer ethnography: Readings from a religious studies classroom. In-
ternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(5), 525–539. doi:10.1080/095183999235935
382
Talburt, S., & Rasmussen, M. (2010). “After queer” tendencies in queer research. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 23(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/09518390903447184
Tall, D. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2),
5–24. doi:10.1007/BF03217474
Tall, D. (2013). How humans learn to think mathematically: Exploring the three worlds of mathematics. Cambridge,
Tan, H., Forgasz, H., Leder, G., & McLeod, A. (2012). Survey recruitment using Facebook: Three studies. Paper presented
at the International Conference on Internet Studies, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2),
16–21. Retrieved from http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/cho25344l.htm
Taylor, C. (2007). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University.
Taylor, J. (2012). Playing It queer: Popular music, identity and queer world-making. Bern: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-
3-0351-0420-2
Taylor, K., & Guerin, P. (2010). Health care and Indigenous Australians: Cultural safety in practice. South Yarra, Vic-
toria: Palgrave Macmillan.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative
approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Paradigm issues in mixed methods research. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.),
Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in the social and behavioural
sciences (pp. 83–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
The Learning Partnership. (2008). Succession planning: Schools and school boards. Retrieved from http://live.iel.immix.
ca/storage/2/1284604334/IELLeadingFuture.pdf
The Macquarie concise dictionary. (2000). New South Wales, Australia: The Macquarie University Library.
The University of Iowa. (2015). Java applets for power and sample size. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from http://
homepage.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power/index.html#Download_to_run_locally
Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2000). Creating responsive student ratings systems to improve evaluation practice. In K. E.
Ryan (Ed.), New Directions for teaching and learning: Evaluating teaching in Higher Education: A vision for the future
(Vol. 83, pp. 95–108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.8308
Thomas, L., & Beauchamp, C. (2001). Understanding new teachers’ professional identities through metaphor. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 27(4), 762–769. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.007
Thomas, L., & Krebs, C. J. (1997). A review of statistical power analysis software. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of
America, 78(2), 126–138.
Thomson, P. (January 4, 2015). Writerly, readerly and strategic—Practices for getting published [blog post]. Retrieved
from https://patthomson.net/2015/01/12/writerly-readerly-and-strategic-some-tips-for-getting-published/
Tierney, W. G. (2000). Undaunted courage: Life history and the postmodern challenge. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (2001). Faculty work in schools of education: Rethinking roles and rewards for the Twenty-first
Century. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
383
Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: An a-theoretical community of practice? Higher Education Research
& Development, 23(4), 395–411. doi:10.1080/0729436042000276431
Tirosh, D., & Tsamir, P. (2004). What can mathematics education gain from the conceptual change approach and what
can the conceptual change approach gain from its application to mathematics education? Learning and Instruction, 14(5),
535–540. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.017
Trahar, S. (2009). Beyond the story itself: Narrative inquiry and autoethnography in intercultural research in Higher
Education. Forum Qualitative Research. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/
view/1218/2653
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Re-
search & Development, 9(2), 155–168. doi:10.1080/072943600445628
Tulowitzki, P. (2013). Leadership and school improvement in France. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(6),
812–835. doi:10.1108/JEA-03-2012-0026
Twining, W. L. (1990). Laws. In F. M. L. Thompson (Ed.), The University of London and the world of learning 1836-
1986. London & Ronceverte: The Hambledon Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1969). The evaluation of teaching. In A. D. Albright & J. E. Barrows (Eds.), Preparing college teachers.
Louisville, KY: University of Kentucky.
Urbach, H. (2000). Closets, clothes, disclosure. In J. Rendall, B. Penner, & I. Borden (Eds.), Gender space architecture:
An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Routledge.
Vicars, M. (2006). Who are you calling queer? Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will always hurt me.
British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 347–361. doi:10.1080/01411920600635395
Vicars, M. (2008a). Effective leadership on lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues in further education: Overcoming barriers to
implementing sexuality, diversity and equality. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University Centre for Excellence in Leadership.
Vicars, M. (2008b). Memories of homophobia in childhood: Social exclusion is not a place where one chooses to hang
out. In E. Atkinson & R. DePalma (Eds.), Invisible boundaries. Addressing sexualities equality in children’s worlds.
Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham.
Vicars, M. (2009). Dissenting fictions: Investigating the literacy practices of gay men. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
Vicars, M. (2012). Towards a rhizomatic methodology: How queer! In S. Steinberg & G. Canella (Eds.), Critical qualita-
tive research reader. New York: Peter Lang.
Vicars, M. (2016). Suspicious, suspect and vulnerable: Going beyond the call and duty of ethics in life history research.
In P. Sikes & I. Goosdon (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook on narrative and life history. London: Routledge.
Vilkinas, T., Leask, B., & Ladyshewsky, R. (2009). Academic leadership: Fundamental building blocks. Strawberry
Hills, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of
constructivism in science education (pp. 23–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 4). (R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton, Trans.). New York:
Plenum Press.
384
WACE. (2016). The World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE): Advancing work integrated learning glob-
ally. Retrieved from http://www.waceinc.org/
Wajcman, J. (2000). Reflections on gender and technology studies: In what state is the art? Social Studies of Science,
30(3), 447–464. doi:10.1177/030631200030003005
Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, G. D. (1992). Educational psychology’s first century. Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(1), 6–29. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.6
Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information
Systems, 4(2), 74–81. doi:10.1057/ejis.1995.9
Walter, M. (2011). Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander presence: Opening knowledge pathways 2011.
Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. Canberra: DIISTRE.
Walters, C. (2009). Bologna process- Conference of the European ministers responsible for higher education- Bologna
policy forum. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/forum/Bologna_
Policy_Forum_Australian_statement.pdf
Warner, M. (1999). The trouble with normal: Sex politics and the ethics of queer life. New York: The Free Press.
Warner, M. (2012). Queer and then? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(6). Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/
article/QueerThen-/130161
Watkins, D. (1998). A cross-cultural look at perceptions of good teaching: Asia and the West. In J. J. F. Forest (Ed.),
University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 19–34). New York: Garland Publishing Inc.
Webber, C. F., Scott, S., Aitken, N., Lupart, J. L., & Scott, D. E. (2013). Leading assessment for enhanced student out-
comes. School Leadership & Management, 33(3), 240–255. doi:10.1080/13632434.2013.773885
Webb, G. (1997). Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of phenomenography. Higher Education, 33(2),
195–212. doi:10.1023/A:1002905027633
Weber, C. (2015). Why is there no queer international theory? European Journal of International Relations, 21(1),
27–51. doi:10.1177/1354066114524236
Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teaching and learning (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
West, E. G. (2000). An alternative to existing Australian research and teaching models—The Japanangka teaching and
research paradigm—an Australian Aboriginal model [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.
West, R. (1998). Learning for life: Final report of the West Higher Education Review Committee. Canberra, Australia:
DEETYA.
Whitehead, A. N. (1962). The aims of education and other essays. London: Ernest Benn Ltd.
Whiteman, G., & Phillips, N. (2008). The role of narrative fiction and semi-fiction in organizational studies. In D. Barry
& H. Hansen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of new approaches in management and organization. London: Sage Publica-
tions. doi:10.4135/9781849200394.n51
Whitty, G. (2006). Education(al) research and education policy making: Is conflict inevitable? Presidential address to the
British Educational Research Association, University of Glamorgan, 17 September 2005. British Educational Research
Journal, 32(2), 159–176. doi:10.1080/01411920600568919
385
Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (2009). Research methods in education: An introduction (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and
Bacon.
Wildman, W. J. (2010). An introduction to relational ontology. In J. Polkinghorne & J. Zizioulas (Eds.), The trinity and
an entangled world: Relationality in physical science and theology (pp. 55–73). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Willis, J. (2007). World views, paradigms, and the practice of social science research. In J. W. Willis (Ed.), Foun-
dations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches (pp. 1–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
doi:10.4135/9781452230108.n1
Wilson, K., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the course experience
questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53. doi:10.1080/03075079712331381121
Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the concep-
tual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.
doi:10.3102/00346543072002131
Wing Jan, L. (2009). Write ways: Modelling writing forms (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford.
WIPO. (2006). The protection of Traditional Knowledge: Revised objectives and principles (Document Code WIPO/
GRTKF/IC/9/5). Geneva: WIPO.
Wisker, G. (2007). The postgraduate research handbook (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://he.palgrave.com/page/detai
l/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230363943
Wohlwend, K. E. (2008). From “What did I write?” to “Is this right?”: Intention, convention, and accountability in early
literacy. New Educator, 4(1), 43–63. doi:10.1080/15476880701829259
Wolters, C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and
self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 211–238. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90015-1
Woodhouse, M. (1996). Paradigm wars: Worldviews for a new age. Berkeley, California: Frog Publishers.
Woudstra, K. (2015, September 18). Ontario elementary teachers’ union announces extension of work-to-rule. The
Huffington Post Canada. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca
Wright, J., & Gale, T. (2008). Utility as a first principle for education research: Reworking autonomy in Australian higher
education. Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Political Studies, 27(1-2), 115-129.
Yeo, S., & Goerke, V. (2011). Transnational education and internationalisation of education professional development
program. Retrieved from http://tne.curtin.edu.au
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: designs and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zeegers, P. (2002). A revision of the Biggs’ study process questionnaire (R-SPQ). Higher Education Research & Devel-
opment, 21(1), 73–92. doi:10.1080/07294360220124666
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing
societies (pp. 202–231). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527692.009
Zukav, G. (1979). The Dancing Wu Li Masters. New York: Morrow.
386
387
About the Contributors
Lorraine Ling is Dean of College of Education, Victoria University, Australia and Emeritus Pro-
fessor, La Trobe University, Australia. Lorraine’s academic and research interests include: educational
administration and leadership; higher education policy construction; the changing nature of academic
work; values in education; and curriculum design and development. Lorraine has conducted educational
consultancies in many countries including Indonesia, Vietnam, Finland, U.S.A., Scotland and Ireland.
She has been chair of the Association for Teacher Educators in Europe – Research and Development
Centre for the Professional Development of Teachers. Recent publications include: Stephenson, J. and
Ling, L. (Eds), Challenges to Teacher Education in Difficult Economic Times: International perspectives
(Routledge, 213); Ling, L. Knowledges, Discontinuities, Spirals and Universities, in T. Fitzgerald (Ed)
Advancing Knowledge in Higher Education: Universities in Turbulent Times (IGI Global, 2014); and
Ling L. and Mackenzie N., An Australian Perspective on Professional Development in Supercomplex
Times, Psychology, Society and Education (2015).
Peter Ling is Adjunct Associate Professor, Learning Transformations, Swinburne University of Tech-
nology, Australia. Peter has extensive experience in academic development in Australia and U.S.A. Peter
has been principal researcher for several national projects including “The development of academics and
higher education futures” (2012). He has been evaluator for nationally commissioned projects includ-
ing: “Peer Review of Teaching in Higher Education”, (2008), “Evaluation of Learning Spaces” (2010),
and “Professional development program to embed inclusive and explicit teaching practices” (2015).
Recent authored or co-authored publications include: Pedagogies for Next Generation Learning Spaces,
in K. Fraser (Ed.), New Generation Learning Spaces (RoutledgeFalmer, 2014); Learning online, in K.
Fraser (Ed.), Studying for Continuing Professional Development in Health (Routledge, 2009); Towards
post-colonial management of transnational education, Australian Universities Review (2014); and How
academic is academic development? International Journal for Academic Development (2013). Peter has
co-edited Higher Education Research and Development and guest edited Innovative Higher Education.
***
Ronald Barnett is Emeritus Professor of Higher Education at University College London Institute
of Education, where he was Dean of Professional Development, and also Pro-Director, responsible for
the Institute’s longer term strategy. He is a past-Chair of the Society for Research into Higher Educa-
tion (SRHE), was awarded the inaugural prize by the European Association for Educational Research
for his “outstanding contribution to Higher Education Research, Policy and Practice”. He is a Fellow

of the Academy of Social Sciences, the SRHE and the Higher Education Academy. He is also a Visit-
ing Professor at several universities in the UK and across the world, and has been a guest speaker in
40 countries. Across his career, he has been working to establish and develop a social philosophy of
higher education. His (26) books include – most recently – a trilogy on understanding the university,
Being a University (Routledge, 2011), Imagining the University (Routledge, 2013), and Understanding
the University (Routledge, 2016).
Bruce Calway entered academe in 1991 from a 20 year career in business and ICT design and de-
velopment. He completed a Ph.D. in Information Systems and a 2nd Ph.D. in Education. Bruce is an
Adjunct Professor at Swinburne University of Technology and Retired Dean, Faculty of Higher Educa-
tion, Lilydale, Swinburne University of Technology. Bruce has researched and published extensively in
aspects of work-integrated learning, eLearning and learning environment development for the higher
education sector in Australia and in P.R. China.
Marcia Devlin is Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Quality) and Professor of Learning En-
hancement at Federation University, Australia and Lifetime Fellow of the Society for Research in Higher
Education. Marcia’s research interests include university learning and teaching enhancement, digital
education, and the success of disadvantaged students. She has given more than 70 headline addresses
in nine countries. Recent publications include: Devlin, M. and McKay, J. Teaching students using
technology: Facilitating success for students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds in Australian
higher education, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (2016); McKay, J. and Devlin, M.
“Low income doesn’t mean stupid and destined for failure:” Challenging the deficit discourse around
low SES students in higher education, International Journal of Inclusive Education (2015); McKay,
J. and Devlin, M. Widening Participation in Australia: Lessons on equity, standards and institutional
leadership, in S. Mahsood, A. Bennett, and E. Southgate, (Eds.) Widening Participation: A Global
Perspective. (Elsevier, 2015).
Kym Fraser is the Associate Professor, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at the Swinburne
University of Technology. Kym has worked in the tertiary education sector in Australia, the United
Kingdom, Hong Kong, and the United States of America. She is the editor of the books The Future of
Learning and Teaching in Next Generation Learning Spaces (Routledge, 2015) and Education Develop-
ment and Leadership in Higher Education (Routledge, 2005). Kym is a past editor of the HERDSA Green
and Gold Guide Series, and author of the guides Studying for Continuing Professional Development in
Health and Student Centred Teaching. Kym is currently leading the Office of Learning and Teaching
funded Fellowship “A national, open access Learning and Teaching Induction Program for staff new to
teaching”, which is a collaboration between 11 Australian universities. Her research interests include the
impact of graduate certificates and teaching induction programs on teaching conceptions and practice,
and building learning and teaching research cultures.
Beena Giridharan is the Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor, Curtin University, Sarawak, Malaysia. Her
research and academic interests include: vocabulary acquisition in ESL, educational leadership, higher
education practices, transnational education, and ethno-linguistic studies in indigenous communities.
As a member of a project funded by Office of Learning and Teaching, Australia funded and entitled
“Learning without Borders” Beena has investigated leadership roles in transnational education and in-
388
ternationalization of curriculum. She is a Fellow of the Higher Education Research and Development
Society of Australasia (HERDSA), a panel assessor for HERDSA fellowship portfolios, and a mentor to
aspiring Fellows. She won the 2006 Carrick Australian Award for University Teaching and the Curtin
Excellence in Teaching and Innovation award in 2006. Beena Giridharan is an associate editor for the
IAFOR Journal of Education, USA, and a reviewer for a number of international journals in higher
education. Her publications include Vocabulary Acquisition Patterns in Adult Tertiary (ESL) Learners
(Lambert, 2013).
David Cameron Hauseman is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult
Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto (OISE/UT), Canada.
Cameron’s academic and research interests include: education administration and leadership, with a
specific focus on the work and role of school principals. He has been involved in a conducting a number
of program evaluation and applied social research projects in Canada. Recent authored or co-authored
publications include: Youth-led community arts hubs: Self-determined learning in an Out-of-School
Time (OST) program, Cogent Education (2016); Pollock K. and Hauseman D.C,. Principal Leadership
in Canada, in H. Arlestig, C. Day, and O. Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals:
Cases from 24 countries (Springer, 2015); Pollock K., Wang F., and Hauseman D.C. Complexity and
volume: An inquiry into factors that drive principals’ work, Societies (2015).
Kim Keamy is an experienced educator, having taught across a wide range of education and training
contexts, including primary schools, special education settings, prison education, loss and grief educa-
tion, and as a workplace trainer. He is currently Director of Learning and Teaching in the College of
Education at Victoria University, Australia, and teaches mainly in postgraduate courses. Kim’s research
is predominately in the area of educational leadership, which was also the focus of his doctoral research.
Recent publications include: Creative leadership? “It’s just the norm”, School Leadership and Manage-
ment (2016); Selkrig, M., & Keamy, K. Promoting a willingness to wonder: Moving from congenial to
collegial conversations that encourage deep and critical reflection for teacher educators, Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice (2015), and Keamy, K. and Selkrig, M. The effectiveness of protocols
when pre-service teachers engage in online collaborations: An exploration, Australian Journal of Teacher
Education (2013).
Mary Kelly is the coordinator of the “Thought-full Schools Teacher Peer Development” program at
the International School of Amsterdam (ISA), where she also teaches science at middle school level. ISA
is an International Baccalaureate (IB) World school and is affiliated with Harvard University’s Project
Zero Research Centre. Mary has served as ISA’s Project Zero and Visible Thinking coordinator, she has
acted as a consultant to IB schools, and she has been a regional IB workshop leader for the sciences. In
recent years, Mary completed a Doctorate in Teacher Education with the University of Nottingham. Her
research explores the relationship between teachers’ ontological and epistemological beliefs and their
approaches to teaching. Related research interests include the role of complexity and supercomplexity
theories in education, the role of teacher narratives in professional development, and the impact of inte-
grated mindfulness-based practices on teacher and student well-being and performance.
Samuel Olugbenga King has taught and conducted research in schools and universities, as well as
in formal and informal learning contexts. His research, teaching, and professional experience includes
389
extensive work experience in the higher education, school and non-profit sectors in Nigeria, South Africa,
United Kingdom, and U.S.A. His research and teaching interests include faculty/academic development,
STEM education, informal learning, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Recent publications
include: Catalyzing genetic thinking in undergraduate mathematics education, Curriculum and Teaching
(in press); Use of data analytics for program impact evaluation and enhancement of faculty/staff devel-
opment, in M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (4th ed.) (in
press); and Evidence-based course design for active learning: Evaluation of a blended learning approach
to enabling faculty development, International Dialogues on Education: Past and Present (2015).
Catherine Lang (ORCID 0000-0002-7282-5032) is an Associate Professor and Director, Engage-

ment and Professional Partnerships in the School of Education, La Trobe University. Catherine spent
over 12 years teaching in a Faculty of Computing and was a chief investigator in the Australian Research
Council funded project “Digital Divas” developing and implementing a curriculum initiative for sec-
ondary school girls. Her research focus is on pre-service teacher professional experience models, and
the development of intercultural competencies through international professional placements. Recently
authored and co-authored publications include: Creating Digital Divas (Monash University Press, 2016);
Programs to Unblock the Pipeline and Broaden Diversity in ICT Education, International Journal of
Information and Communication Technology Education (2016); An embedded professional paired place-
ment model: I know I am not an expert, but I am at a point now where I could step into the classroom
and be responsible for the learning, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education (2015); and Embracing
social media to advance knowledge creation and transfer in the modernized university, in T. Fitzgerald
(Ed.), Advancing Knowledge in Higher Education (IGI Global, 2014). (ORCID 0000-0002-7282-5032).
Gilah Leder is Professor Emerita at La Trobe University and an Adjunct Professor at Monash Uni-
versity. Her research includes gender issues in mathematics education, exceptionality – predominantly
high achievement, and affective factors. Gilah is a Past President of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia [MERGA] and of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education, a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, and a life member of MERGA.
She was awarded the 2009 Felix Klein medal and is the recipient of the 2013 MERGA Career Research
Medal. Recent publications include: Leder, G., & Lubienski, S. Large-scale test data: Making the invis-
ible visible, in A. Bishop, H. Tan, & T.N. Barkatsis (Eds.), Diversity in mathematics Education: Towards
inclusive practices (Springer, 2015); Leder, G.C. Mathematics for All? The Case for and Against National
Testing, in S.J. Cho (Ed.) The proceedings of the 12th Internal Congress on Mathematical Education.
(Springer, 2015); and Gutiérrez, A., Leder, G.C., & Boero, P. (Eds.), The Second Handbook of Research
on the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Sense, 2016).
Kay Livingston is Professor of Educational Research, Policy and Practice, School of Education,
University of Glasgow, Scotland. Kay works closely with policy-makers, teachers and key educational
stakeholders at international, national and local levels. Her academic and research interests include:
teachers’ and teacher educators’ professional learning; leadership and mentoring; the inter-relationship
of curriculum, assessment and pedagogy; and educational change and improvement. She has served on
the European Commission’s Education and Training 2020 Working Groups on Schools and on the Pro-
fessional Development of Teachers. She has chaired the Association for Teacher Education in Europe’s
Research and Development Centre for the Professional Development of Teachers. She is Editor of the
390
European Journal of Teacher Education and the Curriculum Journal. Recent publications include:
Pedagogy and curriculum: teachers as learners, in: D. Wyse, L. Hayward & J. Pandya, (eds.), The
SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment. (SAGE, 2016); Teacher educators: hidden
professionals? European Journal of Education (2014); Livingston, K., and Hulme, M., Innovations in
teacher professional learning in Scotland: moving forward in challenging times, in: J. Stephenson, and
L. Ling, (eds.), Challenges to Teacher Education in Difficult Economic Times: International Perspec-
tives. (Routledge, 2014).
Noella Mackenzie is a Senior Lecturer in literacy studies in the School of Education at Charles Sturt
University, Albury, Australia. Noella is known both nationally and internationally in the field of early
childhood literacy education through her track record of research and publication, particularly in the
area of early writing development. She is currently leading research projects examining the teaching
and learning of writing in primary schools in Australia and Finland. Recent publications include: Mack-
enzie, N.M & Petriwskyj, A., Understanding and supporting young writers: Opening the school gate,
Australasian Journal of Early Childhood (2016); Becoming a Writer, in B., Raban, & J., Scull (Eds),
Growing up literate: Australian early literacy research, (Eleanor Curtain, 2016); and Mackenzie, N. M.,
Scull J., & Bowles, T., Writing over time: An analysis of texts created by Year One students, Australian
Educational Researcher (2015).
Ekaterina Pechenkina is Research Fellow in Learning Transformations, Swinburne University of

Technology, Australia. Ekaterina’s research focus is on evaluation of innovative and impactful teaching
and learning initiatives. A cultural anthropologist and education researcher, most recently Ekaterina
investigated the effectiveness of digital micro-credentialing, the intricacies of social media usage in e-
learning, and impactful blended learning designs. She has been an International Research and Exchange
Board Visiting Scholar at the California State University Bakersfield. Her recent publications include:
“It becomes almost an act of defiance”: Indigenous Australian transformational resistance as a driver
of academic achievement, Race Ethnicity and Education (2016); “Who needs support?” Perceptions
of institutional support by Indigenous Australian students, UNESCO Observatory Multi-Disciplinary
E-Journal in the Arts (2015); and The space for social media in structured online learning, Research in
Learning Technology (2015).
Katina Pollock is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy in Critical Policy, Eq-
uity, and Leadership Studies at the Faculty of Education, Western University. Katina has been awarded
a number of research grants and contracts with various funders. Her most recent grant (with Dr. Fei
Wang) explores Secondary School Principals’ Understanding of Work Intensification. Katina has been
involved in large-scale knowledge mobilization initiatives that connect research to practice. She is cur-
rently Co-director for the Knowledge Network for Applied Education Researcher, an initiative supported
by the Ontario Ministry of Education. Katina’s most recent publication includes: Pollock, K, Wang, F.
and Hauseman, D.C., Complexity and volume: An inquiry into factors that drive principals’ work, So-
cieties (2015); Pollock, K., Murakami, E., & Swapp, D., The work of school leaders: North American
similarities, local differences, International Studies in Educational Administration (2015) and Pollock,
K., & Winton, S., Juggling multiple accountability systems: how three principals manage these tensions
in Ontario, Canada, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (2015).
391
Margaret Robertson is Professor of Education in the College of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce
at La Trobe University, Australia. Margaret is a member of the Steering Committee of the International
Year of Global Understanding Project with interests in youth cultures, pedagogical change and trans-
forming education through innovative uses of technologies. Research interests include cross-cultural
analyses of young people’s views and visions for the future. Whilst Margaret has long contributed to the
curriculum and research outputs related to Geographical Education, relevant to this publication is her
dual discipline background in psychology and geography. Post-graduate teaching and doctoral supervi-
sion of international students has prompted an enquiry into the psychological steps needed for higher
order thinking and academic performance.
Mark Rose is traditionally linked to the Gunditjmara Nation of Western Victoria, Australia. With
a 30 year career in education, Professor Rose has contributed to broad range of educational settings
within Victoria, nationally and internationally. Mark currently holds the position of Executive Director
of Indigenous Strategy and Education at La Trobe University. In ministerially appointed arrangements
he advised several Australian government ministers and the co-chair Royal Commission into Aboriginal
Deaths in Custody Review. Mark has sat on numerous government task forces, is involved with United
Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York. He is a delegate to the National Congress
of Australia’s First People. Currently Mark is Vice President of the Victorian Aboriginal Education
Association Incorporated. He chairs the Indigenous advisory group of the Australian Curriculum and
Assessment and Reporting Authority. He also chairs the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Education in
the Northern Territory.
Mark Selkrig is a Senior Lecturer, Creativity and the Arts, College of Education, Victoria Univer-
sity, Australia. His academic and research interests focus on the intersection and possibilities of: art,
education, change making and learning to build capacity and agency of individuals and communities.
Mark is a Churchill Fellow and practicing artist. Recent publications include: Learning about ourselves
from others: Transformation of artists’ identities through community-based arts practice, International
Journal of Lifelong Education (2011); Becoming a bricoleur: Constructing sculptures to explore complex
and troublesome dimensions in educational research, International Journal of Research and Method in
Education (2014); Selkrig M. and Bottrell C. Considering a methodology to provoke respectful con-
versations about creativity with arts educators, Australian Art Education (2016); and Sadler K., Selkrig
M. and Manathunga C. Teaching is... opening up spaces to explore academic work in fluid and volatile
times, Higher Education Research and Development (2016).
Calvin Smith is an adjunct Research Fellow with the Griffith Institute for Educational Research.
His research focuses primarily on theorizing the impact of aspects of curriculum on student learning.
This work currently is focused on the development of integrative learning, employability skills, lifelong
learning and professional identity formation through work-integrated learning (WIL). The recipient of
multiple internal and external research and development grants exceeding $1 million, Calvin’s work has
emphasized the importance of clarity in conceptualization and operationalization of constructs, and the
use of appropriate research designs. Calvin was Chief Investigator for the Australian Office for Learning
and Teaching (OLT) project Measuring The Impact Of WIL On Employability (2012-2014). He was a
co-leader of the OLT project Measuring and Reporting Teaching Quality (2010-2012), led an Austra-
392
lian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Extension Grant Project focused on student employability
(2011). He co-led on the ALTC National Graduate Attributes Project (2008-2009).
Mark Vicars is a Senior Lecturer in the College of Education at Victoria University, Melbourne..
Mark is editor of Qualitative Research Journal and Creative Approaches to Research Journal. His
main research interests are literacy education, sexuality and gender in teacher education and inclusion
and diversity. Recent publications include: Suspicious, suspect and vulnerable: going beyond the call
and duty of ethics in Life History research, in P. Sikes & I. Goosdon (Eds) The Routledge International
Handbook on Narrative and Life History (Routledge, 2016); Learning from the margins: a case of criti-
cal community pedagogy in rural Thailand, in W. Reynolds (Ed) Forgotten Places: Critical Studies in
Rural Education, (Peter Lang, 2016); Vicars, M. & Atkins, L., Feminine men and masculine women:
in/exclusion in the academy, Journal of Education and Training. (2016).
393
394
Index
A doctoral supervision 63, 242
a/r 322 E
absences 301, 305
achievement 55-56, 63, 109-110, 120, 173-174, 249 education research 1-6, 9-11, 19-21, 23-24, 40, 63,
affect 29, 57, 79, 108, 111-114, 119-120, 144, 148, 68-69, 88, 120, 220, 234, 239, 258, 263-265, 270,
153, 156, 163, 193, 198, 268 284, 291-292, 294, 297, 300-305, 327, 345-346,
art-based research 321 349-351
autopoiesis 192 emergence 60, 136, 144, 151, 153, 162, 265, 267, 291,
axiology 4-6, 8, 11, 13-14, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 29-31, 33, 310, 320, 337, 339
35, 39, 42, 50, 68, 70, 72, 75, 83, 120, 198-200, empiricism 129-130
206, 221, 234-235, 237-238, 242-243, 247, 252- engineering mathematics 167, 170-172, 174, 184-
255, 257-258, 284, 337, 339, 345-346, 349, 351 185, 347
epistemology 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 19-20, 23-25,
B 27, 29-30, 32-33, 35, 39, 42, 50, 68, 70, 75, 83,
125-126, 144, 148, 150, 156, 162-163, 198, 200,
bisexual 195-196 206-207, 221, 234-238, 240, 252, 254-255, 257-
bricolage 10, 264-265, 311-312, 322, 348 258, 260, 265-266, 268, 283-284, 293-294, 299,
butterflies 303 335-336, 339, 345-347, 349, 351
Experience Sampling Method 115
C
F
cognitive development 58, 62, 148, 150, 179
commissioned research 30, 32, 206-218, 246, 261, Facebook 116-118, 240
311, 348 fiction 309-310, 313, 350-351
constructivist 9, 49, 59, 135, 148-150, 153, 155, 161-
162, 167-170, 184, 234, 237, 239, 258, 264-266, G
275, 311-312, 347
critique 1, 10, 23, 69, 108, 138, 161, 169, 206, 217, gay 191-192, 194-198
332, 337, 349 gender and computing 235
curriculum 72, 109, 116, 120, 124, 127, 129, 135-138,
146, 156, 192, 194-195, 207, 221, 223-226, 228- H
230, 236, 249, 251, 330, 332, 340, 347
higher education 2, 23, 44, 48-51, 54-55, 57, 59, 61,
D 68-70, 75, 83, 124-125, 127, 135-136, 169, 207,
220-221, 227-230, 235, 279, 283, 294-295, 297-
deductive 6-7, 12, 14-15, 28-30, 45, 47-48, 92-93, 298, 302, 326-328, 331-333, 335, 340, 347, 350
104, 215, 229, 236-237, 264-267, 275, 284, 346 Higher Education in Research and Development 44
Digital Divas 241-243 holistic 53, 56, 63, 144, 153, 159, 161, 278-279, 283-284
Index
I neo-positivist 1, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 27-30,

40, 42, 45, 47-50, 68-70, 72, 75, 80-81, 83-84, 89,
ideology 111, 213, 301 91-93, 96, 100, 104, 108, 120, 147, 162, 167, 169-
inductive 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 28-30, 42, 45, 47-50, 170, 184-185, 214-215, 229-230, 234, 236-238,
92-93, 104, 162, 167, 169-170, 184-185, 229-231, 241, 256, 264-269, 275, 278, 284-285, 346-349
238, 252, 264-266, 269, 275, 346-347 neo-positivist (inductive) paradigm 185
international students 54-55, 57-60, 63 neo-positivist paradigm 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 27-30,
interpretative 192-193, 198-200, 334, 347 40, 49, 68-70, 72, 75, 80-81, 83-84, 91-93, 96,
interpretive 9, 12, 15, 35, 40, 44, 53, 63, 150, 179, 108, 120, 167, 169-170, 214-215, 229-230, 236-
194, 214-215, 217, 231, 252, 264-266, 270, 275, 237, 241, 256, 264-266, 268-269, 275, 346-349
312, 334 normativity 194
interpretivist 1, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-16, 19-21, 23, 27, 32-34,
36, 44-45, 47, 49-50, 80, 91, 96, 101, 126, 167- O
170, 184-185, 229-230, 234, 237-239, 242-243,
247-248, 253-261, 264, 266, 284, 312, 346-348 observation 2, 25, 31, 33, 88-93, 95-97, 100-101, 103-
interpretivist paradigm 4, 7-9, 12, 14, 16, 21, 32-34, 104, 108, 114, 120, 169, 220, 253, 279, 293-294,
44, 47, 49-50, 101, 126, 168, 170, 229-230, 239, 334, 347
242, 247-248, 253, 255, 257-261, 264, 347 observation methods 90
interviews 24-25, 27-28, 73, 90-91, 96-97, 100-101, ontology 4-6, 8-11, 13-14, 19-20, 23-25, 27, 29-34, 39,
103-104, 113, 154-155, 171-172, 176, 179, 194, 68, 70, 75, 83, 125-127, 130, 144-145, 148, 150,
210, 220, 222-223, 226, 228-230, 236, 238, 253, 163, 198, 200, 206, 221, 235-239, 242, 247, 252,
255-256, 259-260, 268, 311, 332 254-255, 257-258, 260, 265-266, 284, 293-294,
invitation to tender 206, 208 299, 335-336, 339, 345-347, 349, 351
iPads 119
P
L
paradiddle 345, 351
lesbian 195-196 philosophy of science 125, 134
lexical inferencing strategies 263, 348 planes 291, 295, 297, 299-300, 303-304, 306
literacy 191, 197-198, 239, 246-250, 254, 257 poetry 37-39, 291, 305
positivist 1, 3, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, 19-21, 23, 25, 27-
M 30, 36-37, 40, 45, 47-48, 80, 93, 120, 125, 169,
211, 214, 229, 237, 242, 264-265, 304, 328, 334,
mathematics 23, 108-120, 132, 167-174, 176-178, 346-347
183-185, 239, 241, 346-347 pragmatic 1, 8-9, 12, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 30-32, 36, 40,
meaning making processes 60 43, 45, 48-50, 118, 125, 147-148, 151, 153, 161-
measurement 22, 68, 70, 72, 78, 108-109, 112-113, 162, 215-216, 220, 230-231, 234, 242-243, 247,
120, 130-135, 137, 172, 264-265 256, 258, 260-261, 279, 284, 346, 348
metaphor 38-39, 264, 291, 304-305, 309-311, 316, pragmatic paradigm 8-9, 12, 16, 30-32, 40, 45, 48-50,
320, 322, 348 215, 220, 230-231, 234, 242-243, 247, 256, 258,
methodology 2, 4-6, 10, 12-13, 16, 19-21, 24-25, 27, 260-261, 284, 346, 348
29-30, 32-33, 35, 37, 39, 44, 47-48, 53, 68-70, pragmatism 8, 30-31, 48
76, 90, 104, 119, 127, 145, 153, 170-171, 185,
208-212, 215, 221-222, 236-237, 243, 252-253, Q
255, 257-258, 261, 263, 266-268, 283, 305, 328,
334-337, 339, 347, 349 quality assurance 221
mixed methods 8, 215, 238, 312, 338 queer 191-193, 197-199, 347
N R
neo-positivism 6, 14, 69, 265, 284 research design 2, 5, 15, 20, 30, 37, 40-41, 68-69, 74,
395
Index
84, 170, 208, 241, 244, 246, 263, 269-270, 312 291-295, 297-304, 306, 309-310, 314, 318-321,
research methods 1-4, 8, 10, 12, 20, 31, 41, 69, 88, 108, 327-329, 331-332, 337, 340, 345-346, 349-350
167, 220, 222, 263-264, 267-268, 270, 283, 313, surveys 2, 24, 27-28, 77, 109, 112-113, 116-118, 149,
320, 336, 346, 348 220, 222, 226, 228, 236-238, 259, 311, 334
research outcomes 2, 20, 23, 28-29, 36, 169, 209,
213-214, 218, 350 T
research paradigm 1-6, 8, 12-14, 19-20, 23-25, 31, 39-
41, 49, 63, 68-69, 88-89, 91, 93, 96, 100, 104, 120, theoretical orientation 246, 261
145, 147, 153, 163, 167-168, 170, 184, 206, 208, timed observation 101, 103
210-212, 214-215, 218, 221, 228-230, 241, 247, transformative 1, 6-10, 12, 14-16, 19-21, 23, 27, 34-
252, 254, 257-258, 261, 263, 269, 278, 282-285, 36, 40, 45, 47, 49, 53-54, 63, 145, 157, 159, 163,
326, 338, 345-348, 350-351 193, 200, 214-215, 217, 229-231, 239, 242, 247,
research paradigms 1-6, 8-11, 14, 19-21, 25, 30, 42, 284-285, 346-349
51, 88, 145, 162, 167-168, 184, 198, 206-208,
210, 212-215, 217-218, 235, 246-248, 252, 258, U
260, 263-264, 270, 274-275, 284, 340, 345-346,
348-349 universals 36, 296-297, 300, 306
rhizome 291, 309-310, 313, 320, 322 university 43, 45-46, 55-59, 63, 69-72, 74-75, 77-80,
115, 117, 145-146, 157-158, 167, 192, 207, 213,
S 216, 221-222, 225-226, 231, 234-240, 248, 252,
279, 291-298, 301-303, 306, 311-314, 316-318,
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 43, 349 327-331, 333, 338-340, 349
SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ WORK 88
Scientific Realism 124 V
second language 263-265, 268, 274, 348
semi-fictional narrative 309-310, 313 vocabulary acquisition 263, 267
sexualities 191-192
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 124, 347 W
student experience 55-56, 124, 135-136
Student Learning Approaches 168, 170, 172, 174- Work-Integrated Learning, 278
175, 177 writing 7, 10, 22, 36, 47, 60, 64, 101, 134, 147, 153, 177,
student outcomes 80 207, 215, 244, 246-248, 250-253, 255-260, 291,
studies in higher education 44, 136 304-305, 310-312, 319, 321-322, 345, 348-351
supercomplexity 1, 8-10, 14-16, 19-20, 23, 36-40, 45,
47, 49-50, 145, 151, 162, 193, 199-200, 207, 217,
396

Possibilities and Paradigms in Education Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Possibilities and Paradigms in Education Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Methods and Paradigms

A volume in the Advances in Educational

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

Handbook of Research on Administration, Policy, and Leadership in Higher Education

Literacy Program Evaluation and Development Initiatives for P-12 Teaching

Systemic Knowledge-Based Assessment of Higher Education Programs

Applied Chaos and Complexity Theory in Education

Promoting Global Peace and Civic Engagement through Education

Handbook of Research on Organizational Justice and Culture in Higher Education Institutions

701 E. Chocolate Ave., Hershey, PA 17033

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 352

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 387

Interpretation and Transformation

perspective; an oppositional approach; integrative Indigenous knowledge; contemporary Indigenous

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 352

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 387

TILLING PARADIGMATIC GROUND

Bauman, Z. (2014). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

1. Understand the centrality and power of the research paradigm;

USING THE BOOK

THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

Table 1. A categorization of paradigms for research in education

Paradigm Ontology Axiology Epistemology Outcome

PARADIGMS FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION

The Concept of Paradigms Employed

The Positivist and Neo-Positivist Paradigms

The Interpretivist and Transformative Paradigms

The Pragmatic Paradigm

The Supercomplexity Paradigm

Where Constructivist Fits In

Research Methods and Paradigms

Paradigms, Objectivity and Certainty

CRITIQUE OF EDUCATION RESEARCH

Figure 1. Education research paradigms model

Table 2. Distinguishing features of research paradigms

Feature Positivist Neo- Neo- Pragmatic Interpretative Transformative Super-

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH DESIGN

Research Paradigms and Research Methods

PARADIGM CLASSIFICATION AND FRAMEWORK

COMPONENTS OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF PARADIGMS

The positivist paradigm is distinguished by an underpinning understanding—an ontology—that a con-

Table 1. The research paradigms employed and research method possibilities

Paradigm Elements METHODOLOGY

tion, contradiction or modification of theory or contemporary understanding. The method employed is

The understanding is nevertheless advanced as a representation of a reality. This is a form of research

Barnett, R. (2000). University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity. Higher Education, 40(4),

THE PARADIGM THAT UNDERPINS THIS CHAPTER

Choosing Journals and Sample Size

Moderation Between the Researchers and with Experts

Identifying SoTL Papers

• Based in the higher education teaching and learning literature; and

Journal Positivist Neo-Positivist Neo-Positivist Trans Interpret Super Pragmatic* Total*

Neo-Positivist (Deductive Mode) Paradigm: 1

Neo-Positivist (Inductive Mode) Paradigm: 28

None of the papers in the sample appeared to be underpinned by this paradigm.

Neo-Positivist (Deductive Mode) Paradigm: 8

Neo-positivist papers sub-classified as “deductive mode” endeavored to test a certain understanding

Neo-Positivist (Inductive Mode) Paradigm: 22

and/or socio-constructionist approach; and two other papers self-identified as “phenomenographies,”

• SHE had a higher rate of neo-positivist (deductive) papers;

ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL CHANGE

TOWARDS A SCHEME FOR “DOWNUNDER”

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.