Artifact Seven

Discussions around my methodology

Rationale

            Although expertise is hard to come by, the term and its related descriptors portray a person who possesses a deep, broad and interconnected knowledge base, so much so that they can elaborate and extend ideas and concepts in new and flexible ways to solve problems and create innovations. Although I am not an expert researcher yet, as a doctoral student I am learning about different methodological issues that will inform the development of my thesis.  This process will help me identify qualities of my in-depth research project that will focus on understanding of both the theoretical and the practical aspects of inquiry into human affairs. Such understanding can be gained through ongoing dialogue with people and texts, reflection and analysis, and through writing. The work below is a culmination of all these, with particular intent to work with two central questions pertaining to my study: Who am I as a researcher? What are my responsibilities as a researcher?

            In this paper I begin by focusing on the qualities of the researcher by tapping into my own, mainly educational, experiences, then, in my second segment, I move on to the contextual setting, which pertains to, what Giroux (2014) calls, “severed” relationship between neoliberalism and education. We need to understand this dominant connection because, increasingly, commodification is the dominant norm through which schools, teachers, students, and pedagogy are defined. The concept of power indispensably shapes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and allows the exposure of discursive nature of much contemporary social and cultural change (Fairclough, 1992, 1995). From this point of view, my third point is concerned with CDA, an analytical framework that may inform my method of analysis in my doctoral dissertation. The last piece, my short conclusion, is a forward looking “let`s become more demanding and knowledgeable ourselves” analogy of wisdom.

An introduction of importance—qualities of a researcher

I intend to challenge myself during my doctoral dissertation; I want to move from seeing language as an abstract to seeing our words as having a particular historical, social, and political context. I want to look to the future, as we all do, but at the same time I also want to have discourse on what Greene (1995) calls the “contemporary educational reality.” How can I, as an educator and social-scientist-to-be, “intervene” and say how things ought to be? The simple answer is: through my research. Before I decide upon how my methodology will unfold, presently I am still consumed by how different modes of seeing perspectives are shifting.

Greene`s (1995) critique that there are significant restructuring movements underway today in our field of work that do not require educators to “choose between seeing big and seeing small; nor does it require them to identify themselves as people concerned with the conscious action that signifies a new beginning” (p. 12) echoes my approach to teaching, learning, and educational research: I am interested in both the beginnings and in endings; I talk about openings, possibilities, about moving in quest and in pursuit.

Greene (1995) and Dewey (1996) point out that there are always vacancies, roads not taken, vistas not acknowledged, and invisibilities to be broken through. This captures Greene`s (1995) hint in that the (re)search must be ongoing in order to “cultivate multiple ways of seeing and multiple dialogues in a world where nothing stays the same” (p. 16).

Knight (2008) contends that a successful educator is a forward-looking individual whose process of thinking must be dynamic and ongoing, while Arendt (1958) goes one step further and remarks in detail that with “word and deed we insert ourselves into the human [existence]” (p. 157) and this insertion, she further argues, permits us to act, to begin, to lead, to take initiative, to set something in motion. The simple question “Who are you?” is implicit in both words and deeds, yet the affinity between them will provide the very foundation of my query. As I intend to expose the ontological and epistemological issues I have in understanding my methodology and methods, the disclosure of “who” somebody is in contradistinction to “what” somebody is will most likely appear (or stay hidden) in my study. Disseminating the abstract—moving away from it, that is—is something I also intend to do, because I find the abstract ineffective and unengaging. Being imaginative, however, allows the educator and learner to be flexible in mind, and present and learn a subject in a new and engaging way, a way that “enables students to understand [the subject] better and also take pleasure from the learning” (Egan, 1992, p. 1). Imagination is about engaging, stimulating, and developing one’s thinking. Egan further notes that imagination “lies at a kind of crux where perception, memory, idea generation, emotion, metaphor, and no doubt other labeled features of our lives intersect and interact” (p. 3). I wish to follow up on the importance of imagination in my writings because the great potential power of our writing to engage effectively requires not only our cognitive attention but also our ability to understand who we are. Cole & Knowles (2001) argue that research stems from a deep professional and personal commitment, and when “such a commitment is present the resulting scholarship will display a certain authority, with an obvious authenticity, and is likely to have moral, social, intellectual, and political roots” (p. 45). By adhering to this principle, I tap into my own experiences that the power of my narrative captures.

Neoliberalism and education

For social scientists and educators at large, the term ‘neoliberal’ has become a way of expressing all that is wrong with the present educational system (Torres, 2013). Neoliberalism refers to an ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition and sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling goods. Such a usage of this term provides a limitation in our ability to imagine and explain different futures or understand the past. Many scholars such as Giroux (2014) and Torres (2013) have argued that neoliberalism has increasingly turned mainstream politics into a “tawdry form” of governance where the principles of so-called democracy turn against democracy itself. This form of approach has produced a legitimating ideology in which conditions for critical inquiry, moral responsibility, and social and economic justice disappear.

The role of education in a democratic society is immense, and it has the potential to produce change (Apple, 2013). This is a central argument I wish to investigate in my doctoral dissertation. Within the neoliberal paradigm, the process of how adults, as educators, teachers, and academic scholars, make decisions has a great impact and influence on the learner’s education. How do educators make critical decisions regarding developing and implementing curriculum? How do people develop the particular capacity to think critically? These are some of the questions I want to pose in my study. I know that a complete agreement on the aims, mission and the contribution of education to society varies within our field of research. Therefore, I believe it is necessary for me to draw out the salient ambition of my approach: the intention to theorize. I wish to positively identify critical energies that can be tapped as forces to use to challenge and perhaps overthrow the existing order. According to Fay (1987), in Marcuse`s (1964) “one dimensional society”, opposition failed to provide any resistance to the ruling power, therefore rendering real democracy impossible. This abandonment provides one of the reasons why I have chosen to unearth important social, metaphysical, political, and pedagogical assumptions in order to place them into what Greene (1995) calls a vision of human life and human possibility.

Within a neoliberal context, the idea that we are given unlimited choices ought to be critiqued, because we are not. I draw upon Beck (1992) to argue for an effort or for a “push” to be made to insist upon the actual opportunity to critique things, such as the underlying values that inform decisions regarding what we should retain in the school curriculum, and what we should not. By examining the neoliberal environment, one learns that we all live in a risk society, and even though things like choice, for instance, are presented to us as a multitude of possibilities, this is actually not the case. It is here that I will examine from both a personal lens and also from a broader perspective the pathologies of the political and educational system afflicting our daily lives. I express my concern regarding a system that is at best an unnecessary complicating factor, and at worst a downright hindrance, to the managed pursuit of (un)predictable, measurable, and marketable outcomes in service to neoliberal imperatives, and has also entailed a steady stream of efforts to limit choice and decision-making among educators. To develop this discussion, I draw upon theories from existing adult education literature and lifelong learning discourses; indeed, it is here that I will situate my contextual framework, raising such questions as: How does power play out in terms of leadership vs. teachers in different kinds of educational contexts? What is gained and what is lost in our contemporary approach to education? How is our learning shaped by technology and/or neoliberalism? Why is excellence determined by everybody doing the same thing, the same way?

Critical Discourse Analysis

I am considering using a critical discourse analysis (CDA) to explore various educational policies and directives as a part of my doctoral research to address some of the neoliberal influences that are impacting upon current educational contexts. The subsequent statements and questions I will have in my study will seek the common ground from which conceptual enrichment stems. As I set out to find my own voice, my never-neutral words are shaped by my professional culture, socialization, social structure, and by my background. Discourse—the words and the language we use—both helps to form and inhibit our identities, relationships and systems of knowledge and beliefs. As educators, our identities, knowledge and belief systems are shaped and constrained by the language and words adopted by us and by others. Hence, my enthusiasm for CDA.

CDA tries to unite, and determine the relationships between, three levels of analysis: (a) the actual text; (b) the process that involves writing, speaking, reading, creating; and (c) the larger social context that carries the text and the discursive practices (Hodge & Kress, 1979; Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Threw, 1979; Fairclough, 1989). Since I am interested in language, power, and ideology, it seems that CDA is a perfect fit for me as I attempt to clarify the discursive practices that involve ways of being in the world that signify specific and recognizable identities (Gee, 1990). What are they really saying? Who are they? How else could that statement have been formulated?

CDA is a difficult concept but it is a useful method to scrutinize policy documentations and examine policies. I may do a sampling of policy analysis around educational policies from international perspective, given that I have a European and UK professional background. The recent developments in my native country of Hungary provide me with unfortunate yet useful material that I can certainly examine by using CDA. In Budapest, the government recently closed down, the highest-ranking university called Central European University (CEU) because 1) this educational institution is funded by American financier and philanthropist George Soros, and 2) CEU is critical, global, independent and multicultural.

If I narrow my focus in my research, my objective to provide an explanatory critical framework can succeed better, as I am also interested in the practical problems of social life, such as how meanings are constructed. How do educators develop the particular capacity to think critically?  It is important to be aware of the causes of the phenomena, in order to transcend the facts and the appearances of events; therefore, I am extremely interested in phenomenological studies. Some carefully-performed interdisciplinary studies can also contribute to emancipatory social science, especially for the educator of languages. CDA can be used to clarify the social mechanisms of domination and resistance or emancipation and social transformation. This tool allows the researcher to capture other meanings that were otherwise not present. I am drawn to CDA because I want to engage with, question, and research the social being because I need to learn more about the being. We live in an open, sensitive, ever-transforming world, with a constant need for instant gratification; how can we as researchers know the structures, mechanisms, forces and powers that underpin and determine these social phenomena? As a discourse-analysist-to-be, I know one thing for certain: If I expect to understand the process that leads to emancipatory science and social transformation—change is not enough—I cannot be indifferent to these issues. From this comes my desire to theorize in order to create explanations that impose conceptual order on reality, however “manufactured” this order might later turn out to be.

Using CDA to study educational problems has the potential to influence the broader field of critical discourse. Since life is marked by continual strain, which according to Fay (1987) “shows itself in the relentless tension in human life between illumination and activity on one hand, and concealment and dependency on the other” (p. 215), I therefore need to see clearly in my pursuit.

Looking ahead

It is no exaggeration to say that clarity is strategically crucial for Ph.D. students, therefore until I create the proposal for my doctoral dissertation I shall keep on writing (and reading), which in itself is a method of qualitative inquiry, because when we write we learn about ourselves and, more importantly, about our research. When “we are putting pen to paper”, we are unpacking things as we move forward; we situate ourselves into our writing. When we let our voice be heard in our own writing, we also “construct [our own] subjectivity in ways that are historically and locally specific” (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2000, p. 961). These authors further point out that we also “understand ourselves reflexively as persons” and “it frees us from trying to write a single text in which everything is said at once to everyone” (p. 962). Working from this premise, and by being exposed to multiple discourses and allowing myself to shift back and forth like a tectonic plate and grow like a crystal—because there is always more to know—I shall deepen the understanding of my complex topic (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2000).

References

Apple, M.W. (2013). Can education change society? New York: Routledge.

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Cole, A., & Knowles, J.G. (2001). Lives in context: The art of life history research. Walnut

Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

Dewey, J. (1996). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education.

New York: Free Press.

Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning: The middle school years. London, ON:

Althouse Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London, UK: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and social change. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA: Polity

Press and Blackwell.

Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: the critical study of language. London, UK:

Longman.

Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science: Liberation and its limits. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London, UK:

Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourse. London, UK: Falmer.

Giroux, H.A. (2014). Neoliberalism`s war on higher education. Toronto, ON: Between the

Lines.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social

change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1979). Language as ideology. London, UK: Routledge.

Knight, G. (2008). Issues and alternatives in educational philosophy (4th ed.). Berrien Springs,

MI: Andrews University Press.

Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial

society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E.A. (2000). Writing. A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y.S.

Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 959-978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Torres, C. (2013). Neoliberalism as a new historical bloc: A Gramscian analysis of

neoliberalism’s common sense in education. International Studies in Sociology of

Education, 23(2), 80-106.