Monday, October 24, 2011

What is the truth that is your tacit knowledge?

I well remember the first residential weekend when I started my doctorate. My research proposal had been accepted – albeit with some fairly lengthy feedback about how it would need to be refined; I had written a progress report based on said feedback; and here I was, bright-eyed and ready to make my mark on the world of research. Or maybe not quite as ready as I thought: dear reader, indeed I was most unready.


The first group discussion started; there were, perhaps, six students and six supervisers. “So, let’s all begin by describing our personal theoretical frameworks – Jan perhaps you’d like to start us off?” Holes in floors sprang to mind most readily – where was the framework for my escape? I had to admit that I had no idea what the question meant. Well, they may all have thought I was stupid but at least I hadn’t proved it.

The months and years passed by. Still, I was searching for that elusive framework to my research. Just how did my methodology underpin my methods? I think I ‘got’ it just in time. Since then, I have supervised others and also had informal discussions with friends undertaking the same sort of study. It seems to me that this is a crucial factor when jumping through the academic hoops to achieve the status of doctor and a licence to do unsupervised research.

Like many things in life, it comes to some people easily and for others it is more hard won. For some it arrives early on. For still others, the ideas do not seem to crsytallise until after the event. Theoretical frameworks sometimes have recognised ‘names’ – but not always.

Are these the key questions that novice researchers must ask themselves:
• What is the ‘truth’ that for you is tacit knowledge?
• How will the methods that you employ to make the tacit become explicit relate to your theoretical framework?

Bear in mind that your ‘theories’ or ‘framework’ do not have to have ‘names’. For example, if you employ an observation pro forma for the videos of the lessons, will that have an empiricist stance? On the other hand, if you carry out interviews, will this have more of a Grounded Theory approach because you are unsure what themes might emerge?

I am following up with three bits of writing I did ages ago. As always, comments most welcome please.

The following is something I wrote some time ago:

“As a novice researcher in the postmodern era, I turned to some writing on the topic to see if I could find a fit with my approach to Grounded Theory (GT). Clarke (2005: xxiv) describes postmodernism in an easily accessible manner when she cites Fontana (2002: 162) explaining that postmodernism abandons “overarching paradigms and theoretical methodological metasystems”. For Clarke, postmodern research involves embracing complexity, partial hypotheses, and contradictions. She continues (ibid) by highlighting the fact that, from the postmodern perspective, all forms of knowledge are socially and culturally produced – and this includes both natural and social sciences, as well as ‘lay knowledge’.

In other words, all knowledge is situated. This has very real implications for my approach to GT since it implies that my tacit knowledge of my field of inquiry is not only valid but also enables me to construct analytical methods which pertain directly to the phenomena being measured.

Clarke proposes three ‘maps’ which are intended to be used as analytic exercise and she asserts (ibid: xxii) that through mapping the data against these three axes, the “analyst constructs the situation empirically” – so that the situation becomes the ‘unit of analysis’.

1. situational (considering relationships)
2. social world/arenas (meso-level interpretations of the context)
3. positional maps (positions taken along axes of difference, concern and controversy in the inquiry)

By using this approach, Clarke states (ibid: xxiii) that the researcher can “simultaneously address” narrative, texts, and – most importantly for me – the influence of change and of power relationships.

She writes that the outcome of these mapping should be ‘thick analyses’ (citing Fosket 2002: 40), like Geertz’s (1973) ‘thick descriptions’ – looking at all the interrelations within the situation.

Pole and Lampard (2002: 132-133) discuss ways in which the interview is a means of exploring a situation “via their (the participants’) personal recollections”. They state that it is too simple to view the researcher’s epistemological stance as the main determining factor in choosing a methodology for a particular study. If one’s epistemological stance is related to a personal view of knowledge, then I agree with them. For me, the purpose of research is to extend one’s own view of knowledge – its nature, sources and limits. On the other hand, one’s ontological position may well have a great bearing on the chosen methodology, since it is related to a particular domain of study which has been chosen by the researcher, rather than by the other participants.”

The following is something that evolved out of the prep I did for my viva:

Sunday, May 24, 2009

what is a theoretical framework?
What is a theoretical framework, where do you get one, and how does it affect the research and the researcher[1]?

• The researcher starts with some preconceptions – which could be termed bias but Glaser (2002) asserts that this is not so because these notions are acknowledged and described.[2]
• These preconceptions determine the researcher’s personal ontology (what s/he perceives as truth).
• This ontology, in turn, determines the researcher’s proposed defined epistemology (what s/he perceives as knowledge) of a certain situation or context which is under examination.[3]
• Thus, the researcher will develop a set of research questions aimed at interrogating the proposed epistemology.
• The ontological perspective and the epistemological stance will determine the methodology of the investigation (including the methods of data collection and analysis)[4].
• The methodology is validated by these perspectival linkages – the sources of knowledge in the domain chosen by the researcher.
• The whole process described above defines the personal theoretical framework for the particular researcher in the particular context. The exact moment that the framework is defined varies according to the research approach being used (Grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, etc.). Framework ≠ methodology. Frameworks in qualitative or mixed methods research can be based upon a mixture of small, medium or grand theories (personal, interpretive or paradigmatic).
• Theoretical frameworks in qualitative or mixed methods research do not necessarily have ‘names’.
• The theoretical framework defined by the researcher is unique, a perception of reality expressed through the data (including literature search) accumulated, analysed and (most importantly) interpreted with clear and thorough descriptions of the context.[5]

References
Anfara, V. A., Jr., and Mertz, N. T. (2006) (eds.) Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. California, USA: Sage
Glaser, B. G. (2002, September). ‘Constructivist Grounded Theory?’ Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 3, 3 http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm (accessed 20.02.2004 and 05.03.2004) 24 paragraphs
Pole, C. and Lampard, R. (2002) Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research. (2002) Essex, England: Pearson

[1] Based upon Denzin and Lincoln (2003:30) cited in Anfara and Mertz (2006:xx1): see references for full citation.
[2] It is important to remember Glaser’s points (2002) about the partiality of the researcher. The perspectives of the researcher (in conceptualising the grounded theory) do not affect the way in which the reader acquires it; therefore no bias can reasonably be claimed. We must show a commitment to realism and we cannot be completely objective so partiality is not a failing.
[3] Although Anfara and Mertz (2006: xiv) present a linear relationship from concepts/events to constructs (“clusters of thoughts”) to propositions (or “expressions of relationships among several constructs”) to theory ( “a ‘set’ of propositions”), the process is probably nested or looped, since the researcher may move backwards and forwards between concepts, constructs and propositions before any kind of substantive theory emerges. Even then, the emerging theory may drive the analysis back to the very beginning and start off a new loop.
[4] Pole and Lampard (2002: 132-133) state that it is too simple to view the researcher’s epistemological stance as the main determining factor in choosing a methodology for a particular study. If one’s epistemological stance is related to a personal view of knowledge, then I agree with them. For me, the purpose of research is to extend one’s own view of knowledge – its nature, sources and limits. On the other hand, one’s ontological position may well have a great bearing on the chosen methodology, since it is related to a particular domain of study which has been chosen by the researcher, rather than by the other participants.
Footnotes 2,3 and 4 from my thesis
[5] Silver (1983), cited by Anfara and Mertz (2006: xiv), sees theory as “a unique way perceiving reality, an expression of someone’s profound insight into an aspect of nature”.

I have also written the following about Mixed Methods research:

What is mixed methods research?
According to Burke Johnson et al. (2007: 121), one definition of mixed methods research, is that it entails “within research paradigm mixing”. In their discussion of the search for a definition of mixed methods research, they remind us that: “The classical pragmatic philosophers (i.e., Pierce, James, Dewey) had it right when they pointed out that the present is always a new starting point.”

Is mixed methods research an opportunity to develop a shared ontology? This would fit well with the description provided by Burke Johnson et al. (2007: 113) of mixed methods research as an approach which attempts to “consider multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints”.

Perhaps mixed methods research is based upon an epistemological rather than an ontological stance. In his article outlining the paradigmatic history related to mixed methods research, Morgan suggests a pragmatic approach rather than a worldview definition. He considers that methodology should be at the centre of the research design, placing it between methods and epistemology (2007: 68/69). Reflecting upon this has given my original evolutionary and situational approach to grounded theory a slightly altered perspective. Morgan’s exposition (ibid: 71) of abductive reasoning that “moves back and forth between induction and deduction – first converting observations into theories and then assessing those theories through action” is a good description of how a study can be progressed.

As Burke Johnson et al. (2007: 113) describe it, mixed methods research takes account of multiple perspectives. For me, this is the essence of postmodernism. Clarke (2005: xxiv) describes postmodernism in an easily accessible manner when she cites Fontana (2002) explaining that postmodernism abandons “overarching paradigms and theoretical methodological metasystems”. For Clarke, postmodern research involves embracing complexity, partial hypotheses, and contradictions. She continues (ibid) by highlighting the fact that, from the postmodern perspective, all forms of knowledge are socially and culturally produced – and this includes both natural and social sciences, as well as ‘lay knowledge’.

In other words, all knowledge is situated. This implies that tacit knowledge of the field of inquiry is not only valid but also enables the researcher to construct analytical methods which pertain directly to the phenomena being measured.

Burke Johnson (2007: 116) cite Collins et al. (2006) and their “four rationales for conducting mixed methods research: participant enrichment …., instrument fidelity ……., treatment integrity …., and significance enhancement…..” The first of these (participant enhancement), involves ensuring that respondents are all suitable for the aim of the investigation. Instrument fidelity requires that all measurement instruments are also appropriate. Treatment integrity involves maintaining the reliability of any interventions that are made by the researcher. Finally, significance enhancement involves employing thick descriptions (Geertz, Fosket) and thus validating the findings through a process of ‘crystallisation’ (Ely et al.) and providing enough information for the reader to determine a degree of fit (Schofield).

References (I really will get round to these refs)

• Burke Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Turner, L. A. (2007) Towards a Definition of Mixed Methods Research, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 1, number 2, pp. 112 - 133, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California
• Clarke, A. E. (2005) Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. California, USA: Sage
• Ely
• Geertz
• Fosket
• Morgan, D. (2007) Paradigms lost and Pragmatism regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 1, number 1, pp. 48 – 76, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California
• Schofield