This desk is very similar to the one my grandfather used
I have submitted my thesis to my committee, and now I am preparing for my viva. I’ve decided to re-read some of the key sources that I have cited. And, I have decided to do some reading around and somewhat outside of the works upon which I have drawn.
I have been awaiting an opportunity to read:
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing: Winnipeg, Manitoba.
This was a great choice after having done so much concentration on other methodologies and having written up my own PhD research in a standardly more formal Western European style. (Although I must admit that writing from a social constructivist perspective and within an interpretivist paradigm, I used a combination of both first and third person singular.) Research as Ceremony was written using a more inclusive voice. The author, Shawn Wilson, began the book as if he was writing to his sons. He later addressed the reader directly in the second person. This style is very engaging. It is nice to follow. The book reads more like a narrative interspersed with some definitions (epistemology, ontology, axiology, methodology, etc.)
Wilson presents this work about indigenous research in a humble manner, honouring the indigenous voice. For me as an aspiring researcher of European descent, the most striking message is the significance of relationships. Although I took a relational perspective on my own research of identity of doctoral students in networked learning, the nature of relationship as I read it in this book extends much deeper. Respectful and trusting relationships amongst people is of vital importance. But, there are also relationships with the land, other creatures, ideas, and the cosmos. Spirituality seems inherently embedded within this view. All are interrelated.
The narrative style, addressing his sons and introducing other indigenous scholars from around the world, offers a sense of relationship to the reader. Interestingly, I wondered if I had met one of the scholars in St. Paul, Alberta at a workshop I had attended several years ago. He seemed familiar to me. Although not of this tradition, I feel that I started to sense how relationships enrich inquiry.
The author paints a picture of his struggle to work within the dominant paradigm of academic research and the indigenous way. Particularly interesting for me was the discussion of ethics. The research ethics boards with which I have interacted support work in which the participants’ identities remain anonymous. I understand that this protects participants–particularly when the subject of research is sensitive. However, because relationships are so significant for understanding indigenous worldviews, the obfuscation of identities can decontextualize and render the research less meaningful. It could even create misunderstanding. Also, identifying contributors is part of honouring them and recognizing that research is collaborative. I am probably not articulating this as well as I should, but it is such an interesting juxtaposition from what I previously held to be “common sense” research ethics. For me, this shows the richness and value of examining perspectives outside of one’s own. What makes our research meaningful–especially as we take such extreme measures to hide identities and decontextualize our research in an effort to reach some nebulous level of “objectiveness”?
Here is an interesting quote which the author cited from an elder named Eber Hampton:
Emotionless, passionless, abstract, intellectual, academic research is a goddamn lie, it does not exist. It is a lie to ourselves and a lie to other people. Humans–feeling, living, breathing, thinking humans–do research. When we try to cut ourselves off at the neck and pretend an objectivity that does not exist in the human world, we become dangerous to ourselves first, and then to the people around us. (1995, p. 52)
Furthermore, there is a relationship of the research to self: “If research doesn’t change you as a person, then you haven’t done it right”. I like that view. It’s what my own recent research was about: how people change as they do their doctoral studies, as they do research.
Here are the main principles cited from Atkinson (2001, p. 10 cited in Wilson, 2008, p. 59):
Aboriginal people themselves approve the research and the research methods;
A knowledge and consideration of community and the diversity and unique nature that each individual brings to the community;
Ways of relating and acting within the community with an understanding of the principles of reciprocity and responsibility;
Research participants must feel safe and be safe, including respecting issues of confidentiality;
A non-intrusive observation, or quietly aware watching;
A deep listening and hearing with more than the ears;
A reflective non-judgmental consideration of what is being seen and heard;
Having learnt from the listening a purposeful plan to act with actions informed by learning, wisdom, and acquired knowledge;
Responsibility to act with fidelity in relationship to what has been heard, observed, and learnt;
An awareness and connection between logic of mind and the feelings of the heart;
Listening and observing the self as well as in relationship to others;
Acknowledgment that the researcher brings to the research his or her subjective self.
Reading this book left me in a reflective mood. Two thumbs up. (I’d give it more, but that’s all I have!)
I am finally ready to start recruiting participants for my doctoral thesis on Identity Positioning of Doctoral Students in Networked Learning Environments. The seemingly endless wait for ethics permission and institutional permission (sometimes known as site permission) was actually a very useful time. I used the time for further reading and reflection on phenomenography in light of the recent methodology workshops and my readings on methods.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
.
Why study interviewing methods so intensively right now?
I feel strongly that one must understand one’s methodology before collecting data. And, it is important to be mindful of all the choices that one must make while employing data collection methods. Some researchers utilize data collected previously by other researchers for other research purposes. This might be suitable avenue for researchers who have difficulty accessing some participants or whose projects are on tight time constraints. It might also be done simply for convenience. In some cases, seemingly perfect data sets can be procured from national databases such as the UK Data Archive. As I read more deeply about phenomenography, I sense that it is in the best interests of my own study to collect data carefully with sensitivity to phenomenographic theory and procedures of analysis. This is also the position taken by Bowden (2000):
Whatever research method is used, researchers need to articulate the purposes of their project and to keep those purposes in mind at all stages of the research—in the design of the investigation, in the development of the data collection processes, in the collection of data and in the analysis and interpretation. (p. 7)
What is a phenomenographic interview?
Interviewing is the most common method for collecting data in phenomenography (Walsh, 2000, p. 19, Marton, 1986, p. 42). Trigwell (2000) and Dunkin (2000) suggest that the ideal number of interviews rests around 15 to 20. In phenomenological studies, the number of suggested interviews might be less as phenomenology seeks to explore the essence of an individual’s experience in some depth. Phenomenography, on the other hand, focuses on the limited possible ways of experiencing a given phenomenon across a group of individuals. The outcome space (results) is a compilation of categories of description which expresses the variation. As such, it is necessary to reach a balance between depth of description and breadth of experience among a group of individuals.
Interviews are typically semi-structured (or “guided” if you choose Olson’s terminology) and last roughly 40 to 60 minutes or until the “the interviewer feels the experience has been described, and the meaning of relevant words has been revealed (Trigwell, 2000, p. 67). Most phenomenographers seem to agree that the participants should have sufficient flexibility to describe the experiences as they wish in their own way. Hence, most questioning and probing is open-ended. Bowden (Chapter 1) and Prosser (Chapter 3), in working with children, prefer to offer “problem questions” that the participants are asked to resolve. By asking participants to work through problems or tasks “interviewees are encouraged to reveal, through discussion, their ways of understanding a phenomenon, that is, to disclose their relationship to the phenomenon under consideration” (p. 9). Most of the questions in a phenomenographic interview follow from comments of the participant (Trigwell, 2000). Some sample questions that Bowden supplies (p. 10):
Could you explain further?
What do you mean by that?
Is there anything else you would like to say about this problem?
Prosser offers some interesting observations on eliciting information from the participants:
While it is relatively easy to get interviewees to describe their strategies, it is much more difficult to get them to discuss their intentions underlying their strategies and their conceptions of phenomena. (Prosser, 2000, p. 44).
To approach the participant’s conceptions, the researcher must consider the interview/discussion as a whole. According to Marton & Booth (1997) interviews take place on two levels: the interpersonal contact between the interviewer and the participant and at a metacognitive level in which the participant relates his/her awareness of an experience (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87). So, whilst the researcher attempts to maintain focus on the target conception(s), he/she must also provide room for the participant fully express related nuances and details. In some cases, it might be helpful within the context of the co-constructed interaction (see previous blog postings on interviews), for the researcher to share her own experiences. However, Bowden (Chapter 4) warns against “leading too much” to avoid influencing the participants. As per my previous blog postings on interviewing, anything that the researcher discloses during the interview should be as carefully transcribed and reported as the participant’s dialogue.
In some cases, a phenomenographic interview might seem to revolve tediously around the same question over and over again. This is partially true. A phenomenographic interviewer will ask similar questions in different ways so as to elicit a number of different views on the phenomenon. “Typically, a range of questions is used to provide views of each conception from several angles in order to make the description of the conception as rich as possible” (Dall’Alba, 2000, p. 94).
In a metaphorical sense the group of readers can be thought of as a prism through which the text passed, to be refracted and to exit in distinctly different meanings (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 150).
Definitions
The following definitions are in no particular order except that I hope that one flows to the next. Also, they contain direct quotes from the books below with more specific referencing at the bottom of this page.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Phenomenography
Not a method, but an approach primarily used in educational research (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 110).
Takes a “relational or constitutionalist view” (Trigwell, 2000, p. 63). [See “conceptions” below.]
The classic (and most cited) definition of phenomenography comes from Ference Marton himself:Phenomenography is a research method adapted for mapping the qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualise, perceive, and understand various aspects of, and phenomena in, the world around them. (Marton, 1986, p. 31 also cited in Bowden, 2000, p. 2)
Bowden describes the nature of phenomenography:. . . in a sense, phenomenographic research mirrors what good teachers do. It tries to understand what the students are doing in their learning. It attempts to discover what different approaches students are taking and to understand these in terms of the outcomes of their learning activities. (Bowden, 1986, p. 10 cited in Bowden, 2000, p. 48)
Unit of study: “a way of experiencing something” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 111). Also: a way of discerning something (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 112).
Object of research: “the variation in ways of experiencing a phenomenon” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 111).
“The aim is . . . not to find the singular essences [as in phenomenology], but the variation and the architecture of this variation in terms of the different aspects that define the phenomena” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 117).
Learning
Within the phenomenographic perspective, learning involves a change in perception or integration of concepts. Marton & Booth (1997) write:. . . learning proceeds , as a rule, from an undifferentiated and poorly integrated understanding of the whole to an increased differentiation and integration of the whole and its parts. Thus, learning does not proceed as much from parts to wholes as from wholes to parts and from wholes to wholes. (p. viii).
“Learning is mostly a matter of reconstituting an already constituted world” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 139).
According to Marton & Booth (1997), experiencing learning involves the how and the what. How refers to the “indirect object and the act of learning whilst the what refers to the direct object of learning (p. 91). The how and the what both contain structural (with internal and external horizons) and referential aspects. [See definition of experience below.] ” [Note: Should one use indirect object in this instance or ablative / adverbial? This would be so if the “how” phrase were somehow a predicate. But, “how” refers to an act. The word, act, is a noun form. But, in that case, can it not also be a kind of direct object? How refers to manner, which would be expressed in the ablative case in Latin. Hmmmm . . . ]
Conceptions
An individual’s personal understanding of a phenomenon. This is not directly accessible or knowable by the researcher.
The “relation between the individuals and the phenomenon” (Bowden, 2000, p. 17, 50). [This suggests the relational/constitutionalist view mentioned above.]
Synonyms: ways of understanding, ways of comprehending, conceptualizations, ways of experiencing (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 114).
Sometimes referred to as “apperceptions”.
Apperception
“‘Appresentation’ refers to the fact that although phenomena are, as a rule, only partially exposed to us, we do not experience the parts as themselves, but we experience the wholes of which the parts are parts. We do not experience silhouettes but phenomena (material or conceptual) in all their complexity of space and time” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 100).
Description
“The description we reach is a description of variation, a description on the collective level, and in that sense individual voices are not heard. Moreover, it is a stripped description in which the structure and essential meaning of the differing ways of experiencing the phenomenon are retained, while the specific flavors, the scents, and the colors of the worlds of the individuals have been abandoned” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 114). [Somewhat reductionist.]
“The descriptions arising from phenomenographic research are relational, experiential, content-oriented and qualitative” (Marton, 1988, p. 94 cited in Dall’Alba, 2000, p. 94).
Category of description (CoD)
Sometimes confused with conception. However, a CoD is a construct created by the researcher to represent as closely as possible the participants’ conceptions—at the collective level (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 128).
Some researchers feel that CoDs emerge from the data as with grounded theory. In this view, the CoDs are viewed as forming an essential part of the data. I believe this suggests that the CoDs are believed to exist a priori. This sits in opposition to a social constructionist perspective in which the interaction of the researcher and the data mutually bring each other into existence (Walsh, 2000).
Others, such as social constructionists, feel that CoDs are constructed and as such reflect the “relationship between the data and the researcher” (Walsh, 2000, p. 20). Rather, in my view, CoDs reflect a relationship between the researcher and the understanding shared by the participant. This view recognizes the role of the “wider analytical process” which rests upon a holistic-phenomenographic approach from project initiation.
Outcome space
The outcome space represents the set of categories of description and outlines how they are logically related to each other. Equally important, the outcome space also indicates the internal consistency of the categories themselves (Walsh, 2000, p. 26). During analysis, constant examination of the internal and external logic guides the iterative construction of the CoDs and, hence, the outcome space.
“. . . the outcome space is the complex of categories of description comprising distinct groupings of aspects of the phenomenon and the relationships between them” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 125).
“A more reasonable idea is to see the object as a complex of the different ways in which it can be experienced . . . ‘Outcome space’ thus turns out to be a synonym for ‘phenomenon’: the thing as it appears to us, which contrasts with the Kantian ‘noumenon’: ‘the thing as such’” (Marton, 2000, p. 105).
The outcome space often results in 2 to 9 conceptions described or displayed in a way that shows how they relate to one another (Trigwell, 2000). [Interesting: this is reminiscent of Miller’s Law, the Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two: Some Limist on our Capacity for Processing Information.] Trigwell (2000) adds that the small number of conceptions might be due to the relative homogeneity of the participants within a given study.
Experience
“Experiences are reflected in statements about the world, in acts carried out, in artifacts produced” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 120). Phenomenographers take a “second-order perspective” that allows them to examine these experiences as they express their experiences. (p. 120). The researcher brackets as much as possible his/her own experiences of the phenomenon.
Experiences are neither mental nor physical, but arise as a relationship between the two. In other words, experience is non-dualistic (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 122 and p. 164; Marton, 2000).
According to Marton & Booth (1997), all experience is composed of structural and referential aspects. Structural aspects are composed of internal and external horizons which are internally related:
Structural aspect (how)
How the explanation is given (Trigwell, 2000).
Indirect object.
“The structural aspect of a way of experiencing something is thus twofold: discernment of the whole from the context on the one hand and discernment of the parts and their relationships within the whole on the other” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87).
Internal horizon of the structural aspect: “The parts and their relationships, together with the contours of the phenomenon” experienced (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87).
External horizon (context) of the structural aspect: “That which surrounds the phenomenon experienced, including its contours” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87).
Referential aspect (what)
Meaning
What is focused on; the content (Trigwell, 2000).
Direct object.
Also has a structural and referential aspect with internal and external horizons. (Yes, this is a bit confusing; Marton & Booth’s (1997) diagrams help greatly).
Trigwell (2000) elaborates:Two internally related aspects of a category. If you like, an action (how) and the something being acted upon (what). For example, transmission is the how and the content is the what. We actually saw the how and the what as the same as the structural and the referential. (p. 74)
Figure & Field / Focal & Figural
“The dimensions are discerned in relation to the thematic field against the background of which the phenomenon, and the situation in which it is embedded, is seen” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 100). Note: a situation is located within a specific time, context, and space. A phenomenon is “experienced as abstracted from or transcending such anchorage” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 82). This distinction is important in the study of learning as some learners may focus specifically on the situation whilst others may focus on the phenomenon underlying the situation. This is the foundation for the concepts of surface and deep learning.
“. . .figure and ground . . . The underlying idea is that the salient features of a phenomenon—what we focus on when we talk about it—constitute what is important about it for us in that particular context” (Patrick, 2000, p. 123).
Awareness
These concepts, focal and figural, are integral to the phenomenological concept of awareness:. . . awareness has two most important qualities. One of them is that we cannot be aware of everything in the same way. I few could, there would not be any differences between individuals as far as their experiences, and hence their acts, are concerned. There would in fact be no world experienced; nothing would be more important than anything else. The other is that we are aware of everything at the same time, albeit not in the same way. Awareness is layered. Some things make up the core; they are objects of focal awareness; they are figural. Other things belong to the field, or fields, surrounding the core. Yet others belong to the fringe that extends indefinitely. Although we are not consciously aware of most things, we are aware enough for them to be pulled into the core if the changing here and now were to make them relevant (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 123).
“The totality of a person’s simultaneous experiences, her relatedness to the world, I will call her awareness. The term ‘awareness’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘consciousness’ (Marton, 2000, p. 109).
“Our awareness has structure to it. Certain things come to the fore, they are thematised . . . there are different degrees of how figural, thematised, and explicitly things or aspects are in our awareness” (Marton, 2000, p. 110).
Discernment
“We find that in various situations people manage to different degrees to discern and keep all relevant aspects of the phenomenon and of the situation in focal awareness simultaneously. What happens is that single aspects are abstracted or separated out, while others are left undiscerned” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 102).
“The variation between different ways of experiencing something, then, derives from the fact that different aspects or different parts of the whole may or may not be discerned and be objects of focal awareness simultaneously” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 112).
“It is necessary that something varies, some aspect of the situation that surrounds the person, for change to be experienced, in the least case something changing from one state to another. This change may happen to the learner or be brought about by her. It is through variation that aspects are differentiated within the experience of a phenomenon” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 145).
But, what has this to do with interviewing? That is the topic of my next blog posting.
References
Bowden, J. (2000). Chapter 1: The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Bowden, J. (2000). Chapter 4: The experience of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Dall’Alba, G. (2000). Chapter 6: Reflections on some faces of phenomenography. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49.
Marton, F. (2000). Chapter 7: The structure of awareness. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Patrick, K. (2000). Chapter 8: Exploring conceptions: Phenomenography and the object of study. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Prosser, M. (2000). Chapter 3: Using phenomenographic research methodology in the context of research in teaching and learning. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Walsh, E. (2000). Chapter 2: Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Trigwell, K. (2000). Chapter 5: A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.