THE TYRANNY OF THEORY AND THE STRANGLEHOLD OF PARADIGMS … - tyranny of theory.pdf · THE TYRANNY OF THEORY AND THE STRANGLEHOLD OF PARADIGMS ... resides in what you do but in the

THE TYRANNY OF THEORY AND THE STRANGLEHOLD OF PARADIGMS

THE TYRANNY OF THEORY AND THE STRANGLEHOLD OF PARADIGMS The role of research methodology and theory in Teacher Research Derek Woodrow and Andy Pickard Manchester Metropolitan University This chapter presents a further reconsideration of the role of research methodology in practitioner writing and the avoidance of dogma in the presentation of theory. It arises from the experience of reading well over two hundred master’s dissertations and Ph.D. theses during the past two or so years. The views have become increasingly pertinent because they provide a commentary on the ‘Best Practice’ developments of the DfEE, which invoke ‘research by teachers’ as if it is not problematic. Like the ‘Best Practice’ proposals, all the dissertations and theses were defined in terms of ‘doing research’ but the outcomes occasionally wandered some distance from the usual definitions of research. Peter Foster (1999) reviewed the TTA teacher researcher outputs, which were the fore-runners of the Best Practice proposals, using three criteria : clarity, relevance and validity. He found that about 20% (5 out of 25) he would not classify as research since they ‘did not seem to be projects in which the key goal was the production of knowledge’. Their data collection ‘did not appear to be particularly systematic or extensive’, they were ‘ personal descriptions, or justifications, for their own practice’. Foster goes on to find serious problems with much of the reported work when judged as ‘research’ projects. Foster’s criteria are eminently reasonable ones to adopt (though one might want to define some different ones, or use different terms) and the validity of many of Foster’s judgements is clearly apparent. His critique, it must be noted, does not arise from a consideration of the practical value or professional worth of the activities but from their claim to be ‘research’ actions which implies of necessity the application of strong requirements. Indeed the TTA set them up as ‘high quality research’ which would ‘add to the stock of knowledge available to teachers and the research community’. In the same way one suspects that the addition of a requirement for ‘Best Practice’ activities to be done in relation to higher education is based on an assumption that H.E. will provide the research underpinning, a problematic assumption (see Hammersley, 1993). We will in this chapter, contrast professional practitioner writing with that of researchers per se, maintaining that whilst using similar methods they often differ in intentions and justifications. The ‘striking rate’ for masters dissertations as research texts is somewhat higher than the TTA projects with few not being easily classified as ‘research intended’. In nearly all of them you read the same transposition of material from the standard research methodology texts – Carr and Kemmis, Denzin and Lincoln, Bassey, Bell, etc. There were occasional departures from this picture, but probably less than 5%, though a useful example of a more positive critique can be found in Mellor (1998) who describes the messy journey of his research design and of his struggle to recognise his professional knowledge in the search for research methods. In most dissertations we read that research can be categorised into • positivistic - usually related to the gathering of numerically analysable data

through questionnaires or Flander’s type observation (not any way near as amusing as Flanders and Swann!)

Page 1 Note: copyright is retained by the authors. Please do not quote without permission


• illuminative – which has two subgroups, usually chosen from three potential alternatives : critical research c.f. action research c.f. interpretative. This also involves questionnaires (often naively analysed) and interviews (always semi-structured)

Little of this seems relevant to the work which then appears in the dissertations, and such categorisations effectively sets up false premises of ‘choice’ and free decision making in the research work which follows. These research paradigms are established in the literature in the context of formal research projects following carefully structured samples and pre-chosen value free enquiries carried out by independent and unprejudiced researchers often learning the research trade. Hammersley (1993), in an article more directed at intra-research politics, nevertheless argues cogently for a distinction between researcher qua researcher and teacher as researcher. In practice, of course, the research in the dissertations/theses is carried out by practitioners, who approach the research from a position of already existing knowledge and beliefs and are using research techniques as a means to an end. These practitioners have a clear commitment to the issue under consideration rather than their future research careers. The enquiries are also often carried out within the structure of a course with built in paradigms, expectations and assumptions which constrain the student into particular models and responses. This leads to a number of charades and games of pretence in the writing. It also leads to misconception and misunderstanding. It is not a criticism of the courses, nor the research method texts. They present the methods and criteria for formal research clearly and directly, but like all literature/course content it only becomes appropriate when interpreted into the context of the work in hand. The terms ‘reliability’ and ‘validity’ are central elements in any form of enquiry. What is often not recognised is that the paradigms defined for research are essentially an attempt to help the researcher to meet these requirements. A defined paradigm commits the researcher to some contextual features but offers the researcher some established and proven methods of meeting these reliability and validity criteria, and each paradigm defines what it means by these terms and how they can be satisfied. Thus within the positivistic paradigm there has to be a belief in the existence of a truthful outcome (in the ‘absolute’ meaning of truth), which then enables reliability to be defined as ‘repeatability’ of the outcomes. This repeatability can be confirmed by a variety of statistical techniques which are accepted as providing the repeatability evidence. For illuminative research, where current reality replaces ‘truth’, reliability is translated into triangulation (however see below) in which multiple evidence is confirmatory of reality. The methods employed in practitioner enquiry are the same as those used in ‘pure’ research, and the questions to be asked – validity, reliability – are still relevant but just as the different research paradigms interpret and respond to these terms differently so too does practitioner research. For practitioner research these notions can often replaced by an appeal to curriculum ‘theory’ and wider professional beliefs as justifications. Similarly the notion of validity can be met in a professional context by the notion of authenticity. Students also come to courses with pre-formed expectations of what it is to do research. They often assume that ‘objectivity’ is fundamental, that they must justify their work in relation to accepted criteria, that experts know. Whilst course tutors and some texts do encourage the confidence to be ‘real’ and ‘authentic’, many practitioners lack personal confidence in the research



domain and do not transfer their professional confidence across. It is extremely difficult for them to trust their own professional authority and competence when carrying out enquiries in the research domain. Their audience, unlike most formal research contexts, is rarely a critical national academe but their fellow teachers, their school and their context. In the terms of an engaged practitioner it is ‘authenticity’ which takes priority over reliability and face validity which counts over technical validity. In the terms coined by Marion Dadds (1995) (though yet to be fully developed) it is often ‘democratic validity’ which matters overall; do your professional colleagues recognise the significance and agree to identify with the outcomes? This is particularly the case where, as so often, the enquiry is an evaluation and prescription for local action and policy. For many practitioners, too, the time-scale of the enquiry is usually externally determined, they often have to begin their research before they have fully organised and planned the work and have of necessity to indulge in retrospective planning and justification. Emergent research is often the keynote, but formal research usually demands early structuring, with even grounded theory leading to confirmatory actions. It is difficult not to be involved in the trapping of students within assumed traditions and expectations often importing from one professional context (professional action beliefs) to another (research enquiry). Practice is full of ambiguity and contradiction, of paradoxical actions. Theory, and theoretical research positions, usually has no truck with this messiness At first glance postmodernism appears to offer an alternative paradigm for teacher researchers , one which fully acknowledges the complexity of teaching. Thus Ian Stronach and Maggie MacLure(1997) argue that "persistent practicality, a desire to put deconstuction etc to work, or at least to bring it to bear on the mundane business of doing educational research" characterises postmodern educational research, or at least their version of such research. As researchers they are concerned with the familiar litany- research methods, policy making, curriculum analysis etc.- but they offer a fresh perspective with a postmodernist reading of a series of eclectic cameos (or simulcras as they describe them). There is much that is refreshing in this given our critique of positivistic research traditions: openings instead of closures; uncertainty rather than certainty; unfamiliarity rather than familiarity; and a blurring of the lines which mark academic territories. Intuitively we feel that there is a future in a postmodern approach for practitioner research and yet when we turn our attention to the trickle of practitioner enquiries that adopt overtly postmodern methodology our confidence begins to waver. Teachers seem to become so preoccupied with their use of language that they become emasculated so far as practical action is concerned. Validity no longer resides in what you do but in the length of your deconstructions of your simulcras. This can be fun for a while but eventually teachers have to do the things that teachers have to do. Uncertainty is highly desirable at some stages of research but teachers will legitimately require intellectual and practical authority as an outcome to their research endeavours. Thus even postmodernism seems to us to be trapped into a form of perverse determinism in that it can countenance no certainties and no absence of ambiguity (Bridges, 1999). We have previously argued (Woodrow, 1995) that the practitioner regularly reacts and acts impulsively, responding to different motivations and beliefs from moment to moment. This flexibility/lack of direction is viewed with antipathy, as undesirable. It is, however, normal and real and as such



should be accepted and applauded for its virtues! This is a different position from the theoretician who needs to pursue the theory unswervingly to its limits in order to uncover what might be its consequences (Lerman, 1998). Once again postmodernism has little to say about the ways in which teachers deal with complex time frames (literacy hours, lessons, terms, etc.). At best we get biographical writing used as a means of demonstrating shifting interpretations (Brown and Jones, 2001) as a substitute for a searching engagement with the pragmatism and creativity of teachers. Thus far at least, postmodernism has been silent. What follows are some of the issues, which reflect these concerns and which contribute data towards a more consistent set of conclusions. They are relatively random observations at this stage but will hopefully prompt the development of more appropriate criteria for practitioner – not a new quest but one still some distance from its destination. It is clear that practitioners do not enter a research project with open minds. Their experience almost always provides them with some beliefs and expectations. Fundamentally they care about the outcomes – not as an abstract truth but as proof (or as aids towards justification) of their effectiveness or efficacy – they are not independent researchers whose only quest is simply to reveal the facts whatever they are. The essence of a positivistic approach is the belief that there are truths available, and despite their protestations that they are embarking on illuminative research paradigms, most writers are seeking re-assurance that they are correct in their views and that these are worthy of general adoption. Their hypotheses reveal their commitment to particular beliefs and their day-to-day professionalism demands such assurance. Alternatively they embark on evaluations of projects to which they are already committed and in which they believe and from which the specific outcomes constrain the choice of alternative analyses. In this sense most practitioner research is positivistic. The misconception that if you avoid counting or graphing then you are being interpretative is an interesting confusion of paradigm and method. This is one reason why questionnaires followed by semi-structured interviews predominate – since they are clearly susceptible to researcher construct and control and to embodying professional bias. It is not unusual for questionnaires to lead to fairly bland responses but for interviews to show more intensive responses. The reasons for this are not difficult to see, not only are the questions devised in order to provide confirmatory responses, but the interviewer usually seeks to ‘put the interviewee at their ease’ by stressing their common interests. Headteachers interviewing fellow headteachers, teachers indicating a common concern for the situation in which classroom assistants find themselves, a black interviewer empathising with the shared experience of racial harassment, all provoke responses which create interviewer empathy. It is rare for an interviewer to seek confirmation of the opposite of what they want to know! Illuminative research by practitioners frequently involves shining a narrow beam on one element of a complex picture, the actuality of which is never fully evident to the researcher (for reasons elucidated by Hammersley, 1993) or the reader. They are most regularly rather like those pictures of everyday object taken from peculiar angles, or a detail from a famous picture from which you have to reconstruct the picture it was drawn from.



This prior commitment and practitioner knowledge makes real critique very difficult for teachers. Being critical – as opposed of course to criticising - requires an openness of mind to explore the alternatives whatever they are and whatever their implications. To quote a ‘complaint’ by Martin Hammersley (1999) ‘ today one rarely gets the sense of engaging with the data to explore the different meanings it could convey…instead dollops of data are doled out as if their meaning were obvious and univocal. This is what Glaser and Strauss criticised many years ago as ‘exampling’…’ . Whilst this is a legitimate complaint for a researcher to make, for a practitioner there are other grounds for accepting a particular interpretation as ‘correct’ (though this leads one on towards the tyranny of accepted theory – see below). The practitioner can justify, in the appropriate context, a different (non formally researchy – see Foster, 1999) way of proceeding. Professionals need to come to decisions on which to act, and whilst examples do not ‘prove’ they do initiated collegiate support and provide evidence of from where decisions originate in a professional context. In his analysis of the TTA teacher researcher outputs Foster identifies a number of concerns which differ from that which would be generated by a formal research proposal. Many of the activities appear to fall short of what would be required of good research modelling – but as we keep re-iterating there are other good practitioner reasons for the activity. The use of research methodology does not in itself guarantee research quality, and one of the complications is that practitioner enquiry uses many of the same tools, but to a different purpose. This distinction needs to be clarified if we are to build a substantial debate into practitioner derived theory. What matters, of course (what a revealing phrase), are the questions which the application of a particular paradigmatic methodology raises – questions of reliability, validity are positivistic questions which illuminative research finds either difficult or irrelevant. Authenticity and relevance are difficult questions for positivists. Research articles often very clearly articulate and present the research approach very fully and justified the outcomes; but in seeking such validity and reliability they often lose all sense of what is being looked at, defining categories which became too wide and unfocussed to speak to the practitioner, and representing one of the complaints directed at researchers from practitioners that the research may be solid but that as a consequence it does not focus on clear professional issues. Research sometimes proves what it can rather than what is interesting. What is often important is not whether the appropriate tests have been applied but whether or not for a particular piece of research the question is appropriate. Definitions of case studies or of ethnographic research issues might or might not be relevant descriptions of a particular enquiry, it depends upon why such terms have been applied. Paradigmatically they are used so as to define the criteria and methodology which needs to be applied. Too often they are invoked without any sense of these functions but merely to describe the work as based in a particular context or confined to a specific small population. In a recent thesis exploring the life experiences of a lecturer using techniques of psycho-analysis as the main research tool an attempt was made to describe it variously as a case study of a single person, and as an ethnography of a single person. There was a sense that the researcher felt it imposed upon her to identify her research within the pre-specified cannon of research descriptions. With a clear methodology and clear population these terms added nothing. Far more interesting is to explore the problematic issues raised by such categorisations within the research as carried out. Many practitioner



researchers explore the nature of collecting samples when they have no alternative sampling possibilities available to them so that it becomes a pre-determined collection rather than a sample. Indeed in much practitioner illuminative research there is no actual sampling possible within what is in reality merely a small local population. There is rarely sufficient data available to attempt to show how this mini population is in any sense representative of a wider constituency. In the context of an M.Ed course they may, of course, be really presenting their research c.v., trying to establish with the examiners that they know what research is about. There are, however, other ways of doing this. The thesis/dissertation should be about the problem/issue being investigated and the ability to bring appropriate tools to bear on that context and not essentially a response to an examination question. One of the most outstanding examples of undigested application of a research concern reduced to methodological irrelevance is that of triangulation. For one of the authors, as a one-time mathematician, a triangle is a very clearly defined object – uniquely determined not by any old three pieces of data but only by specific collections of three pieces of data. Coincident points, coincident lines, lines in different planes all confuse the assumption that triangles are made from three points or three lines. Very often the same questions asked of two different groups is presented as triangulated data – with little concern as to whether they represents really distinct views of the issue (i.e. three points on the same line or two parallel lines) or whether the two samples come from the same population (lines in different planes). Often the same questions are asked as a questionnaire and in interviews and this is presented as triangulated data (two coincident points). The standard categorisation into different types of triangulation (see e.g. Cohen and Manion (1994): method/theory/data/investigator) almost always the leads to an appeal to the use of multiple methods as representing in itself a guarantee of triangulation of outcomes. It is unfortunate that this clarity in description of potential methods has served only to obscure the reality of the question of validity which triangulation seeks to answer (as it does in determining position in geographical contexts, to which it is clearly alluding). It has become a meaningless (and often thoughtless) application of a standard statement whose appropriateness is never questioned. Many practitioner researchers claim to be conducting illuminative/interpretative enquiries but by their very invocation of the term ‘triangulation’ they can sometimes betray positivistic aspirations. What is rarely grasped is that the notion of triangulation merely raises very clearly the issue of validation and reliability in the context of qualitative research methodology, it does not itself resolve that issue. Multiple methods may give a means of performing this task, as may using different researchers, equally however an appeal to other research and, in this context, an appeal to other educational theories or appeals to accepted good practice may do the task even more effectively. Action-research is yet another confused concept. A number of practitioners are attracted to ‘action-research’ as a phrase redolent with their concerns and professional context. Belonging to this club is a worthwhile label. Yet so very rarely does a dissertation or thesis contain any complete (or even any attempt at) plan - action – evaluate – replan cycle and a consequent improvement cycle, a fundamental of most action research assumptions. The attraction of ‘action-research’ to practitioners is that is does imply some pre-commitment in initiating the action under review. The initial acceptance of the actions is based on professional



argument and professional beliefs. The actions explored, however, cannot be free from the research itself and although they pre-exist the start of the research they become an integral part of its process. In this way it seeks to meet the necessary context of practitioner research in its prior commitment and beliefs. Action research as presented in many dissertations is often seen as synonymous with evaluating an action – the outcomes are tested and assessed – rarely with any reviewal analysis of the action phase. Indeed any action phase is very often not amenable to influence by the researcher/teacher or even under any accessible control and cannot become a central part of the research process as required by the paradigm. The ‘actions’ are then essentially phenomena which are explored, rather than constituent parts of the research process. The quarrel is not with the action research– still less with its methodology – but with the casual justification of uncritiqued evaluations under this heading without respect for the principles invoked by the ‘action-research’ label (Anderson and Herr, 1999). It illustrates another instance of the use of naming methodological theories to justify unreflective and uncritical actions. It represents the trapping of students into the tutor’s terminology and jargonised language, providing a spurious justification and authority for their work. It is so often in-authentic. The ‘confusion’ between action-research and evaluation research within teacher enquiry is also very common. Some of the essential qualities which identify and underpin evaluation as compared with research are another area of interesting investigation. As with practitioner research evaluative research has a number of distinctive aspects (see for example Green and Abma, 2001). Evaluation again uses many of the same methods as most research activities, notably questionnaire and interviews, it also shares a concern for ethical practice, though in the context of evaluation ethical practice is principally used as a vehicle to validate the data. Evaluation is essentially defined as ‘case study’ (see Stake, 1994). The outcomes may lead to some generalisations about the world but it is essentially not concerned with formal additions to knowledge – a definition often used about research – except that of the participants. The world of the evaluator is contained within the defined actions, their intentions and their outcomes. The question is the extent to which the ‘project’ has achieved outcomes consistent with the objectives initiating the activity. Reliability in this context is related to the coherence of the evidence and some assurance that it is not ‘idiosyncratic’. Validity in evaluation relates to the extent to which the evaluator has authentically described the intentions and outcomes of the originators. Evaluative activity has its own ‘theoretical’ positions and methodologies which mirror but do not necessarily coincide with those of ‘formal’ research techniques and assumptions. It is rare for teacher researchers to recognise these variations and to acknowledge the distinctiveness of evaluative activity since the meanings and implications of claiming ‘researchiness’ is often given symbolic importance. It is also true that in drawing such distinctions between ‘research’ and ‘evaluation’ we can be seen to be guilty of pedantry by those for whom ‘research’ is a widely inclusive term. The same kind of faddism which elevates action research above evaluation is evident in the curriculum and learning theories brought by practitioners to the writing. Consider constructivism as the exemplar, as it currently dominates the arena in terms of teaching and learning theories. The application of these ideas illustrate most clearly the tyranny that theories represent when they are presented as truth,



the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This theoretical position is, however, merely the latest in a long tradition of such dictatorial impositions. Piaget in England, behaviourism in the USA are obvious precursors. We have noted elsewhere (Woodrow, 1997) that learning theories – like many other theoretical stances – are believed in direct relationship to how clearly they fit the ambient socio-political atmosphere. Constructivism is one outcome of forty years of commitment by Anglo-American societies to emphasising individual right rather than responsibilities to the ‘state’. (An interesting early debate about the paradox which must be sustained between 'rights' and 'needs' can be found in Rappaport (1981) who maps the move in the U.S.A. away from social paternalism to individual responsibility.) An Afrikan science researcher expressing in his thesis a full commitment of to constructivist science education, but reported as having to interview his pupils in groups of at least three because you never talk to pupils individually in Tanzania (Wandaja, 1997). Chinese pupils in English classrooms have difficulty accepting group discussion as valuable because their ‘respect for elders’ Confucian principles make it irrelevant (Sham and Woodrow, 1998). Autonomy not authority is the priority for Anglo-American societies but not of course a universally held dictum. There are few English teachers who will consider the proposition that praising pupils is irrelevant to learning– even when it is pointed out that most praise given is for qualities over which pupils have no control and this often causes disenchantment and disbelief. Yet when comparing pupils in Hong Kong and Manchester we found that whilst over 80% of Manchester pupils had been praised, less than 20% of Hong Kong pupils had ever been praised – yet their expressed enjoyment of school was higher. This is not to say that in the context of English education the practitioners are not right to centralise praise, the problem raised is that professional complicity makes it very difficult for practitioners to step outside of such given assumptions. An advisory teacher researching in an illuminatory paradigm the actual occurrences inside three classrooms so as to have a clear picture of the actuality of what was happening, couldn’t resist criticising what she found to be happening when it was not in line with her own preferred practices. As was indicated earlier, it is our belief that teachers actually employ whatever theoretical positions suit their immediate context, though the socialised expressions they utter are well tutored. Most teachers will eschew adopting a behavioural approach, learning is for meaning not merely by rote which is a poor substitute for real learning! Yet of course the big ticks and small crosses syndrome is well recognised – clearly a behavioural teaching methodology. Examinations pragmatically test facts and skills rather than understandings and creativity. Pupils, students and teachers all welcome being given well structured and organised notes – yet they espouse constructive principles which would favour self organisation of learning outcomes. Breaking learning steps down into clear step by step instruction, learning spellings, phonic reading, all indicate particular assumptions. Similarly there is a somewhat dismissive attitude towards so called ‘surface learning’ as opposed to deep learning – yet much of useful learning may not initially be deeply structured. We talk about Vygotskian ‘scaffolding’ – aids to learning which are later removed to ensure that the learner uses their own mental structuring. In practice we almost always provide learners with ‘skeletoning’, externally provided ‘props’ and ‘aids’ which become central and irremovable. Indeed the notion of scaffolding implies some intrusion on the learning from outside – which constructivism would reject, at least in its strong form. There is clear value in rote learning as a scaffolding



which enables the building of a knowledge structure – rendering the rote learning eventually redundant. More than that, however, there is evidence of Asian students being adept at building deep learning structures by use of memorising and repetition (Tang and Williams, 2000). Indeed the current fashion for Vygotsky represents a rarely understood or used theory, quoted more often in vain than in value. How does one utilise the concept of a ‘zone of proximal development’? There is a paucity of exemplars of how its boundaries are discovered. As such it is a useful, though ill defined, curriculum concept, but from a research point of view it is far too ephemeral to employ. Note in passing that perhaps the best evidence of the construction of knowledge is the way in which Vygotsky is often presented as developing Piaget’s ideas into constructivist notions, even though he died well before Piaget’s major writings were published. Indeed even the adoption of Piaget as the precursor of constructivism is complicated by the fact that central to Piagetian principles is the fact that children’s learning (thinking?) structures differ from adults. We see little influence of artificial intelligence and the growing understanding of mind connections and genetic factors on the learning theories held by practitioner teachers, such is the hold that traditional and corporate beliefs have on practitioners. The impact of DNA impressed learning characteristics, which might well follow the establishment of the ‘book of genes’, may yet create a radical realignment of what it is to learn and what is to be a certain kind of person. The establishment of a gene suggesting a predisposition to dyslexia might just be the start of a revolution in the attribution of learning characteristics (Cardon, 1994). It is clear, too, that the central notion of rational debate, which can be traced back to Greek axioms for such a construction, is not the only human form of thinking. The Black Afrikan lobby (Asante, 1990; Collins, 1991; Scheaf, 1992) would argue for a much different ‘world’ view of thinking involving emotional thinking being just as central to the actuality as rational ‘mind’ thinking:-

‘The African concept of extended self … is particularly illustrative of the Africentric spiritual/material ontology at work’ (Myers, 1985) ‘A new paradigm must, by necessity, be one that facilitates our reconnection with our spirituality. In this new paradigm there is a recognition and an assumption that we are spiritual beings.’ (Schaef, 1992) ‘But our notions of what constitutes intelligence have been moulded by the minority western European world-view and so we have difficulty thinking holistically in this regard, since the European World is predicated on first separation, dichotomisation and then dominance of one of the opposites.’ (Ani, 1994)

This view also appears in a number of feminist writers:

‘In other words it insists that emotion is vital to systematic knowledge about the social world and that any epistemology that fails tom recognise this is deeply flawed’ (Stanley and Wise, 1993)



and also Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence (1996). It is important, however, that having identified a number of problematic issues there is some attempt to provide responsive actions. In many respects and in all modesty, our critique of the methodological and theoretical conventions share some of the qualities of Soren Kierkegaard's existentialist attack on the philosophical dogmas of the early nineteenth century. The effect of Hegel's efforts in particular to construct philosophical systems which fitted together human inner and outer worlds, subordinated "passions, desires and everything else that is human and individual" (Muller1987). We would resist constructing yet another research paradigm based upon existential philosophy, but we do argue that existentialism and phenomenology by centring on experience and finite/infinite relationships, relates directly to teacher research as being focussed on the process of teaching. Teachers move constantly between the here and now (the finite) and what should/could be (the infinite). Being precise about that relationship, investigating what is involved in moving between the two, is central to being a teacher in away that a mountain of questionnaires, a roomful of triangulations, or even a library full of postmodern wordplays can never be. Nor do we believe that all of this is so much rhetoric. Heideggerian phenomenology in particular, captures that dynamic qualities of existence and the restless nature of the interior life and it is he who directs us towards authenticity. We intend no disrespect to Heidegger, but he could have been writing about teacher research when he described the 'I' being lost in the 'they' (Muller1987). Educational research can best serve teachers if it provides them with the means to be themselves - their authentic selves. The authentic teacher both confronts the world but also recognises that not everything is possible. Thus a research approach rooted in phenomenology frees the researching teacher to present their 'that will do for now' moments (intrinsic to practice) as a validating, legitimating quality to their research. Similarly, the ancient philosophical adage to 'be thyself' becomes a search for coherence between the here and now of the present and the then and there of the future. Heidegger also draws our attention to the significance of 'situations' as central to authentic agency (see Guignon, 1992). Situations are those moments we confront which require decisive action. Such situations are imbued (dripping almost) with subjectivity, deaf to the siren call of 'you must' 'you ought' objectivity. Yet at the same time we cannot detach ourselves from the world in an objective sense and thus teacher research becomes a matter of walking the subjective/objective boundary. What we have intended here is not a sustained examination of how existentionalism and phenomenology lend themselves to a redefinition of educational research. Such a project is beyond the scope of this chapter and quite possibly our own understanding. What we are interested in is the way in which this particular philosophical tradition links up with the pragmatism, the subjectivity, the creativity and temporal dimensions of being a teacher and which ought to be central to teacher research but rarely is. As Neil Bolton (1979) has argued in an early pleading of the phenomenological cause, "phenomenological judgements aim to be both empirical and critical .....(and)....phenomenological investigation is thoroughly reflexive: it is an analysis from which the investigator himself (sic) cannot remain



immune”. In short, it embraces those qualities of being a teacher; practice, understanding and commitment (or passion as Marion Dadds would have it) which can provide foundations to teacher research. Of course we need to work harder on the notion of ‘authenticity’ which is at the core of practitioner research. By authenticity we do not mean truth! Authenticity is a sense of fittingness, of representing a version of reality which is recognised by the community. It carries the sense coherence to context and to ‘being’. It is the acceptance of the imagery of one’s statements as portraying potential reality sufficient to allow for questions that are of professional interest and answers that define the complexity that real life entails. Often in teacher research it implies that one’s colleagues agree with the potentiality of the outcomes and are willing to act on, and respond to, those assumptions. This ‘democratic’ validation is not the only form of professional validation, which can also come from an appeal to coherence with accepted theories and professionally derived practices, illuminating and amending those theories to provide coherence with the exhibited experience. Much of the quality depends upon those descriptions of experience, their complexity and detail and the drawing together of apparently disparate strands to reflect the proper triangulation of an idea, issue, problem to which they relate. Unlike some uses of interviews in research, in practitioner research they are often tools for validation rather than creation of theories. They form both the derivation of grounded theories and their validation. What must not happen - and what we must stress we are not about – is to denigrate or dismiss practitioner enquiry as a valid activity. The impact and power of the context on the research that teachers perform needs to be recognised. They should not have imposed upon them those structures and disciplines utilised by the independent educational researcher which are inappropriate. The researcher can bring to the teacher’s enquiry some valuable insights and some methodological strength – but do not confuse method with intention, the journey with the destination and neither with the mode of transport. Just as BERA is developing differential codes of practice for differential writing genres, so too must we provide differential criteria for the growing interpretation of practitioner ‘enquiry’ (or we will have to use the term ‘research’ as a socially required terminology). In providing methodological support we need to respect the strengths of practitioners – their commitment, their importing of theories based on different premises, their use of different validating tools rooted in authenticity and relevance within their practice beliefs, but not burden them with inappropriate criteria. References

Andersen G. and Herr K., (1999) The new paradigm wars: is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28, pp12-21

Ani M. (1984) Yurugu: An Afrikan Centred Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behaviour (Trentham (NJ); African World Press)

Asante M.K. (1990) Kemet, Afrocentricity and Knowledge (Trenton (NJ); Africa World Press)

Bell J. (1993) Doing Your Research Project (Milton Keynes; OUP)



Bolton N. (1979) Phenomenology and Education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 27, 3, 245-258

Bridges D. (1999) Educational Research: pursuit of truth or flight into fancy? British Educational Research Journal, 25, 5, 597-616

Brown A.M. & Jones E. (2001) Action research and Postmodernism: Congruence and Critique. (Buckingham; OUP)

Cohen L. and Manion L. (1994) Research Methods in Education (4th Edition). (London, Routledge).

Collins P.H. (1991) Black feminist Thought, Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment (New York, London; Routledge)

Cardon, Lon R. et al. (1994). Quantitative Trait Locus for Reading Disability on Chromosome 6. Science, 266, 276-279.

Dadds, M. (1995) Passionate enquiry and a school development: a story about teacher action research. (London, Falmer)

Foster P. (1999) Never mind the quality feel the impact: A methodological assessment of teacher research sponsored by the teacher Training Agency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47, 4, 380-398

Goleman D. (1996) Emotional Intelligence : why it can matter more than I.Q. Bloomsbury, London

Greene J.C. & Abma A.A. (eds.) (2001) Responsive Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation No. 92

Guignon C. (1992) History and Commitment in the Early Heidegger. In H.L.Dreyfus and H.Hall (eds.) Heidegger: A Critical Reader (Oxford, Blackwell)

Hammersley M (1993) On the Teacher as Researcher. Education Action Research. 1, 3, 425-445

Hammersley M. (1999) Some reflections on the current state of qualitative research, Research Intelligence, 70, 16-18

Mellor N. (1998) Notes from a method. Education Action Research 6, 3, 453-470

Muller R.J. (1987) The Marginal Self. An Existential Enquiry into Narcissism. (Atlantic Hylands, N.J.; Humanities Press International)

Myers L. (1985) Transpersonal Psychology – The role of the Africentric Paradigm. Journal of Black Psychology 12, 1, 31-42

Rappaport J. (1981) In Praise of Paradox: A Social Policy of Empowerment over Prevention, American Journal of Community Psychology vol. 9, 1-25

Scheaff A.W. (1992) Therapy, Beyond Science a New Model for Healing the Whole




Person (San Francisco; Harper Collins)

Sham S. and Woodrow D. (1998) Chinese Children and their families in England Research Papers in Education 13, 2, 203-226

Stanley L. and Wise S. (1993) Breaking Out Again, Feminists Ontology and Epistemology (London; Routledge)

Stake R.E. (1994) ‘Case Studies’. In N.K.Denzin & Y.S.Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage)

Stronach I & MacLure M. (1997) Educational; research Undone: The Postmodern Embrace. (Buckingham, England; Open University Press)

Tang, T. and Williams J. (2000) Who have better learning styles – East Asian or Western Students? Proceedings of the 5th ELSIN Conference, Hertford, 2000. pp 318-340

Wanjada, E. K. (1996) Secondary school pupils' errors in algebra. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Leeds.

Woodrow D. (1995) The quest for multiple beliefs in learning theories in Chreods 9 pp10-14

Woodrow D. 1997 Intercultural Education: Theory, Policy and Practice. D.Woodrow et.al. (eds) including D.Woodrow, Social Constructs of Learning Theories, pp29-54. (Aldershot, Ashgate Press.)

Documents

THE TYRANNY OF THEORY AND THE STRANGLEHOLD OF PARADIGMS … - tyranny of theory.pdf · THE TYRANNY OF THEORY AND THE STRANGLEHOLD OF PARADIGMS ... resides in what you do but in the