‘Paradigm-Compatibility’ – Phenomenography And Poststructuralism: A New Approach To Data Analysis And Discourse Generation From The Base.

Author(s):

Monika Reece(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES H 12, Philosophy and Education

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-08

11:00-12:30

Room:

340. [Main]

Chair:

Iveta Kestere

Contribution

This paper addresses internationally relevant issues of transition: it suggests a new methodology based on paradigm-compatibility within the context of English as an additional language.

The paper explores the combination of a postructuralist approach employing Foucauldian discourse analysis (Carabine, 2001; Rabinow, 1991; Weedon, 1997), elements of Derridian deconstruction (Culler, 1983; Derrida & Caputo, 1997; Spivak, 1974) and Phenomenography (Marton & Booth, 1997). This approach requires an investigation into the two ontologically congruent but epistemologically and methodologically diverse paradigms’ compatibility.

The paper attempts to answer the following questions:

Why is it important to explore the variation in EAL learners’ perceptions of their subjectivities, needs and what supports their learning?
Could the variation be identified using a non-phenomenographic approach?
Would a phenomenographic approach be sufficient to analyse the data?

In my work ontology is interpreted as considerations of the nature of reality and how it is perceived (Crotty, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), epistemology as considerations of the relationships between the researcher, researched and the ‘known’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), and methodology as considerations of the purpose of the application of certain methods (tools) and the analysis of the generated data (Blaxter et al, 2010).

Phenomenography is based on a non-dualist ontology, it is the relational aspect, the relation between the person experiencing a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself that is essential (Marton & Booth, 1997). Experience of a phenomenon is always partial as individuals experience the world differently (Åkerlind et al, 2014). Poststructuralists’ ontological position is relativist as ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ are seen as fluid, and subjectivity positioned by discourse (Foucault, 1972; Weedon, 1997). The phenomenographic non-dualist perspective could be compared to Foucault’s claim that ‘truth’ cannot be constructed outside discourse (Niesche, 2011). Derrida would argue ‘the thing itself always escapes’ as meaning is deferred and constantly changes (Spivak, 1974:lxix). This links to the relational aspect of things that underpins phenomenographic thought (Marton and Booth, 1997). Ontologically, Phenomenography could therefore complement a poststructuralist approach as variation in perceptions of a group of individuals’ ‘truths’ might reflect fluidity of truth and influences by varying discourses.

Participants’ accounts of their ‘lived experience’ provides, from a poststructuralist perspective, access to ‘locally, temporally and situationally limited narratives’ (Flick, 1998:2) meaning ‘knowledge’ which is individual, fluid and subject to discourse(s). Phenomenography, on the other hand, aims to gain access to ‘knowledge’ by identifying variation in perceptions. It aims for an overall picture of how a phenomenon is perceived, the individual’s narrative is lost in the attempt to establish the variation in perceptions of a group of interviewees (Marton and Booth, 1997). This indicates how the epistemologies of the two approaches are diverse, yet there are parallels. For instance, Phenomenography is interested in what aspects are and which are not discerned by interviewees (Åkerlind et al, 2014) just as Foulcaudian discourse analysis looks at ‘absences and silences’ (Carabine, 2001:281).

The methodological differences between phenomengraphic and poststructuralist interviews lie in the purpose of the methods used and how the data is analysed (Blaxter et al, 2010). The data generated in phenomenographic interviews is analysed to create a hierarchical structure of conceptions demonstrating the variation in perceptions of the phenomenon in question in order to transform and improve teaching and learning (Åkerlind et al, 2014). Poststructuralist discourse analysis of an interview aims to make an individual’s account accessible, an individual’s voice heard. It does not claim to explain or improve the social world, its focus is narrow as it sees individuals’ accounts as historically situated, localised and temporary (Flick, 1998).

Method

18 interviews were conducted in two mainstream English comprehensive secondary schools with EAL learners, girls and boys aged 11-15. The participants come from nine different countries, from European, African and Asian backgrounds. Interviews were on average 30 - 40 minutes long but varied in length depending on participants’ level of English and their ability to engage in the interview process. EAL learners have varying perceptions of their subjectivities, needs and what supports their learning. The formulation of these perceptions is subject to surrounding discourse(s) as Weedon (1997:31) explains. 'The crucial point for the moment is that in taking on a subject position, the individual assumes that she is the author of the ideology or discourse which she is speaking. She speaks or thinks as if she were in control of meaning. She ‘imagines’ that she is indeed the type of subject which humanism proposes – rational, unified, the source rather than the effect of language.' Phenomengraphy as a tool for transforming teaching and learning uses the hierarchy of conceptions generated from the collective interview data to support learners in questioning and developing their understanding of a certain phenomenon (Åkerlind et al, 2014). The paper argues that the different conceptions could be applied to ‘discourse generation from the base’, the base being the participants portraying the perceptions of their ‘lived experience’ of the phenomenon in question. The conceptions would be examples of possible ‘knowledges’ which “‘emerge’ from the data, in relationship with the researcher” Åkerlind (2012:116). As both the participants and the researcher are subject to discourse(s) the interview data is examined via Foucauldian discourse analysis for influences of contemporary discourses surrounding the provision for EAL learners, and consideration is given to the researcher’s positioning. Capturing all possible knowledges is from a poststructuralist, deconstructionist point of view impossible as meaning is constantly deferred (Derrida, 1978). A phenomenographic approach suggests possible ‘saturation’ after about 16-20 interviews (Åkerlind, 2005). All utterances and comments made by the collective of participants need to be included to establish the critical variation between them, still, the system of conceptions can never claim to be exhaustive (Marton and Booth 1997). For the purpose of my work, I compare ‘saturation’ to the use (not the nature) of the mathematical concept of π. π is infinite, however for pragmatic reasons we pretend, whenever necessary, that it is not.

Expected Outcomes

Paradigm-compatibility as an innovative research methodology is expected ‘… to reveal and undermine what is most invisible and insidious in prevailing practices’ (Ball 1995: 267) to a greater extent than either Phenomenography or Post-structuralism could. The identification of the variation in EAL learners’ perceptions of their subjectivites, needs, and what supports their learning could lead to the development of alternative discourses of EAL provision as new epistemes can evolve from diverse or resistant discourses over time (Foucault, 1982). New ways of supporting the transition process young people undergo when they find themselves in an unknown social and education system of which they do not speak and understand the language, might be developed from these ‘discourses from the base’. Variation in perceptions could be identified using a non-phenomenographic approach. However, the generation of a hierarchy of conceptions might allow to highlight the level of diversity in discourses participants have been subjected to. For Foucault discourse is what is said, thought, by whom, with what authority and when (Foucault, 1977; Bourke et al, 2013). Policy discourse might be discernible in conceptions reflecting teachers’ or parents’ talk about why and how to learn English. In my view, a poststructuralist approach on its own would not offer the opportunity to generate alternative discourses from the base. It would generate data to examine individuals’ accounts of their experiences. Phenomenography, however, categorises responses into conceptions and each conception is based on remarks by a group of participants. Phenomenography only identifies variation, it does not explore the reasons for variation. It uses the identified variation to improve teaching and learning but ignores that the hierarchically organised conceptions are resulting from surrounding discourse(s). Employing Phenomenography’s and Poststructuralism’s diverse methodologies and epistemologies in harness could constitute a new useful approach to data analysis and ‘discourse generation from the base’.

References

Åkerlind, G. S. (2012). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods, Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 115-127 Ǻkerlind, G. S. (2005). ‘Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis and the qualitative research paradigm’, in: J. Bowden and P. Green (eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT University Press Åkerlind, G. S., McKenzie, J. and Lupton, M. (2014). ‘The Potential of Combining Phenomenography, Variation Theory and Threshold Concepts to Inform Curriculum Design in Higher Education’, in: J. Huisman and M. Tight (eds.) Theory and Method in Higher Education Research II, 227-247. Bingley: Emerald Ball, S. (1995). Intellectuals or Technicians: the urgent role of theory in educational studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 255-271. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (eds.) (2010). How to research. 4th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press Bourke, T., Ryan, M. E. and Lidstone, J. (2013) Reflexive professionalism: reclaiming the voice of authority in shaping the discourses of education policy, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 398-413 Carabine, J. (2001). ‘Unmarried Motherhood 1830-1990: A Genealogical Analysis’, in: M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates (eds.). Discourse as Data. A Guide for Analysis. London: Sage Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Culler, J. (1983). On Deconstruction. London: Routledge Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). ‘Introduction. The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research’, in: N. K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. London: Sage. Derrida, J. and Caputo, J. D. (1997). Deconstruction in a nutshell: a conversation with Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and the power, in: H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds.) M. Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton: Harvester Press Marton, F. and Booth, S. (1997). Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Niesche, R. (2011). Foucault and Educational Leadership. Disciplining the principal. Oxon: Routledge Rabinow, P. (ed.) (1991). The Foucault reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought. London: Penguin Spivak, G. C. (1974). Translator’s preface, in: J. Derrida, Of Grammatology (G.C. Spivak, Trans.) Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell

Author Information

Monika Reece (presenting / submitting)

Edge HIll University, United Kingdom; Lancaster University, United Kingdom

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.