Article S10.2 Importance of Interpretive Research in Comparative Education Seminar Leader: Michael Crossley Research Centre for International and Comparative Studies Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, UK M.Crossley[at]bristol.ac.uk Published Online: April 24, 2013 Note. This is a reflective report on a two-part seminar led by Professor Michael Crossley at the Institut Pendidikan Guru Kampus Batu Lintang [Institute of Teacher Education Batu Lintang Campus], Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia on April 10, 2013. The event was co-organised by the Institute together with Persatuan Perkembangan Profesionalisme Pendidikan Sarawak [Sarawak Education Professionalism Development Association] and Biro Perkhidmatan Pendidikan Majlis Islam Sarawak [Sarawak Islamic Council Education Services Bureau]. The report is intended to capture the message that contextual understanding is necessary to avoid uncritical transfer of educational policies across countries. 1. Main Points From the Seminar Research Process In social and educational inquiry, research is not limited to the application of a technique. Various philosophical assumptions enter into the research process that determine how one positions oneself as a researcher. These could be assumptions about the nature of the social world (ontology), assumptions about the conditions and limits of knowledge (epistemology), and assumptions about the nature of values and value judgements (axiology). Positionality in Research Different combinations of ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions enable one to position oneself as a researcher in specific ways. Historically, distinct positionalities have emerged around broadly recognisable research paradigms, such as empirical-analytic paradigm, hermeneutic-interpretive paradigm, critical paradigm, and postmodern paradigm. Naturally the goals and methods of inquiry vary across these paradigms. Paradigms Compared In the empirical-analytic paradigm, inquiry is oriented towards “objective knowledge,” which would hold good across time and space. In the hermeneutic-interpretive paradigm, inquiry is oriented towards “intersubjective understanding” of human experience, which remains attached to the context, although new contexts can be linked to it following the same process of inquiry. Critical and postmodern paradigms challenge both in different ways. While the critical paradigm focuses on the potential of inquiry to liberate humans from “false consciousness,” the postmodern paradigm challenges any ideal, convention, and method as restrictive of human spirit. Postmodernism does not offer a solution to the problem of knowledge, but encourages us to disbelieve all knowledge claims and all “grand narratives” of modernity. In comparative education, research initiatives based on different positions serve different purposes. An empirical-analytic research initiative could seek to identify “best practices” by collecting similar data across several countries/regions, such as the global rankings produced by the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). A hermeneutic-interpretive research initiative could seek to understand how a specific head teacher experiences and interprets a policy initiative or how a specific school achieves and maintains remarkable levels of excellence within a specific socio-cultural setting. Although different paradigms orient the researcher in different directions, sometimes it may be possible to achieve a degree of collaboration, especially at the level of tools and techniques associated with the paradigms. Comparative Education The field of comparative education (or comparative and international education) involves studies of educational systems and challenges around the world, with a view to achieving educational goals at local, regional, and international levels in an efficient and timely manner (Crossley, 2012). This field of research is gaining prominence due to various trends towards globalisation, such as (a) global movements such as Education for All (led by UNESCO), (b) universal primary education listed under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), (c) global league tables on scholastic performance of students (e.g., those by TIMSS and PISA), and (d) increasing use of information and communication technology to multiply educational resources and enhance educational outcomes. Comparative education has its scholarly associations in various countries and regions and their global federation, the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES). Some scholarly journals in this field are Comparative Education Review and Journal of International and Comparative Education. Context Matters A key insight of comparative education is that, while seeking to transfer the educational policies, systems, and practice of one country to another, sufficient attention must be paid to the specificities of the two contexts. It challenges uncritical transfer of educational policies across countries or regions. It also challenges the forms of research that overlooks the uniqueness of each educational experience and each educational context in a rush towards generalisable results. It encourages policy makers to take into account the ground realities before formulating policies based on abstract/general principles. It encourages researchers to undertake field visits, be self-critical about their own assumptions and frameworks, and develop the empathetic ability to feel what others are feeling. A DFID-funded project to strengthen primary-school leadership and management in Kenya was discussed in detail. The project aimed at improving primary education in Kenya in both qualitative and quantitative terms through training 16,700 Head Teachers in specific planning and management skills. It also had social objectives such as gender equity and poverty alleviation. Two universities (Kenyatta University, Kenya and University of Bristol, UK) were engaged in the project to assist in preparing training materials and evaluating the impact of the project. Besides these operational goals, the universities were also interested in: (a) formation and development of research capabilities among all the collaborators (including the primary schools), (b) promotion of theoretically informed reflection on the educational realities in Kenya, and (c) critical policy analysis, that is, generating insights on how the policy processes and contexts shape the policy agenda and how the policies and their consequences are experienced by various relevant actors in their daily life contexts. The field-level interviews with Head Teachers in remote parts of Kenya uncovered the diversity of experiences and views relating to the project. Some of these challenged the fundamental notions upon which the project was based. This demonstrated the need to align policy initiatives with the realities on the ground, in a cyclic and ongoing manner. The seminar also showcased the doctoral work of Mohd Asri (2012), whose research investigates into the workings of the “clusters of excellence” policy in the Malaysian education sector. One of his case studies of a Sarawak-based school was discussed. The case study demonstrates the role of rich interactions between the school and the wider community in achieving and maintaining excellence at the school. 2. Audience Interaction Audience interaction focused on a number of topics such as research problem, research ethics, research quality, and researcher development. A distinction between “practical problem” and “research problem” was argued. Crossley suggested that researchers in the comparative education field generally start with the problem as it is presented by the client (e.g., a government may like to implement a certain educational policy and ask researchers to evaluate its impact). However, researchers then have to consider the possibility of locating the original problem within a broader area of interest (e.g., in addition to evaluating the impact of a policy, researchers may look into the suitability of its underlying principles within the specific context where it is being applied). The relevance of research ethics was discussed. Since interpretive researchers enter into community spaces and gain access to a broad range of facts, perceptions, and feelings, some of which could be of sensitive nature, they encounter various ethical dilemmas. For example, sharing the research results widely may bring potential or real harm to specific members of the community. In university-based research, such issues are anticipated at the research planning stage and an ethics approval committee ensures that suitable mitigating measures are put in place. The issue of researcher subjectivity potentially affecting research quality was discussed. Different research paradigms handle the issue of researcher subjectivity differently. The empirical-analytic paradigm requires researchers to minimise subjectivity through suitable research design, research instruments, and analytical techniques. The interpretive paradigm requires researchers to be transparent and reflective about the specific values, beliefs, and assumptions they bring into the research process. It does not seek the kind of value-free “objective knowledge” that the empirical-analytic paradigm seeks. On the other hand, it seeks to unravel the intersubjective processes involved in human contexts. Early-stage researchers encounter difficulties in formulating research problems (a student researcher admitted to the difficulty stating, “I have no problem”). In response, Crossley referred to his 1997 book co-authored with Graham Vulliamy, titled Qualitative Educational Research in Developing Countries: Current Perspectives. The book provides concrete advice for students undertaking educational research in developing countries. The general suggestion was to debate the assumptions that shape our understanding of the world and our capacity to understand and change that world. This debate is essential before one could adopt a specific stance as a researcher and initiate systematic inquiry in some domain. 3. Focus on Context Overall, the seminar called attention to the complexities involved in designing effective educational policy. Despite the emerging universal priorities in education, despite the global league tables on the scholastic performance of students (such as PISA), educational excellence remains a uniquely contextual accomplishment. Without taking into account the kind of contextual understanding that can be produced by interpretive forms of research, interventions in any educational system can be wasteful and counterproductive. References Crossley, M. (2012). Comparative education and research capacity building: Reflections on international transfer and the significance of context. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 1(1), 4-12. Retrieved from http://crice.um.edu.my/downloads/crossley.pdf Mohd Asri, M. N. (2012). The Malaysian clusters of excellence policy: A multi-site case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol, UK. Reported by D. P. Dash, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Malaysia
Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home |
