Chapter 3. Methodology: Contexts, Concepts, and Methodological Processes 3.1 Introduction and Overview of 1 Introduction and Overview of Chapter
3.2 Contextual and Conceptual Frameworks: Methodological Considerations
The historical-contextual framework presented in Chapter 1 referred to the use of quantitative approaches to represent academic achievement in South African higher education. In concluding this chapter, it was identified that there did not appear to be any specific quantitative
representation of exceptional academic achievement, and that this was therefore a gap in existing research. Given the social, cultural, and critical foundation of the historical-contextual
framework presented in Chapter 1, and South Africa’s current transformation agenda, it was suggested that an orientation to and awareness of a quantitative criticalist perspective (Stage, 2007) was warranted (see subsection 1.2.2). An awareness of critical quantitative methodological principles is therefore necessary because, consistent with a critical theory paradigm, it would be important to be attuned to representations of inequity as well as of possible methodological moves that may stimulate action against such inequity (Guba & Lincoln, 2008).
Importantly, Stage (2007) suggests that critical theory should not necessarily be viewed as a unified theory, as many theorists who have been identified as critical (e.g., Marx, Kant, Hegel, theorists from the Frankfurt School, Foucault, Habermas, Freire, Bakhtin, and Vygotsky) also differ on important philosophical issues. However, certain dominant principles and assumptions are evident from a critical theory perspective, the first pertaining to the presumed existence of power relationships that are perceived to dominate the construction and maintenance of society.
Second, critical theorists are likely to advocate that the aforementioned power relationships should be critically analysed and exposed (Stage, 2007). Third, a major focus of critical theory (or at least critical research) would necessarily include the reduction of inequalities across a range of human domains (e.g., race, gender, age, and educational attainment) (Johnson & Gray, 2010). Stage (2007) asserts that, although the majority of critical research is conducted primarily through qualitative approaches, certain principles and assumptions of critical theory and research (as identified above) do not disqualify quantitative methods as viable strategies for interrogation within this frame.
Kincheloe and McLaren (2008) identify seven basic assumptions that a critical researcher or theorist would probably incorporate –
the first assumption reiterates the aforementioned reference to the assumed (or
recognised) omnipresence of power relationships in all aspects of human structure and activity;
critical theorists recognise the interrelationships between facts and values and how these are positioned within forms of “ideological inscription” (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2008, p.
405);
critical theorists are likely to accept the instability of the relationship between concept and object and that between signified and signifier;
these theorists are also likely to acknowledge the central role that language plays in individuals’ awareness of themselves and of others;
it is also assumed that certain social groups are afforded more privileges than others, and that these privileges are more extreme where those who are less privileged are complicit and accepting of the status quo;
critical theorists recognise that oppression is manifest in multiple forms (e.g., through socio-economic status, race, gender, educational attainment); however, they also identify that these manifest forms of oppression are highly interconnected; and
critical research assumes that on average, mainstream research approaches reproduce and reinforce oppressive social and cultural systems.
I suggest that the last assumption is also most often associated with mainstream positivist (and postpositivist) research approaches which have predominantly used quantitative methods.
Four methodological considerations (from a critical theory paradigm) are necessary to highlight in critical quantitative research. Firstly, an awareness of Marxian dialectical notions of
contradictions, reciprocity, co-determination, and co-construction is important (Hayes, 2004).
These critical and Marxian notions were therefore important to integrate methodologically in the current study of exceptional academic achievement in South African higher education. Secondly, critical research places an importance on narratives, and in particular counter-narratives
(Andrews, 2004). Defined as “the stories which people tell and live which offer resistance, either implicitly or explicitly, to dominant cultural narratives” (Andrews, 2004, p. 1), counter-
narratives are relevant in critical research in that they voice the stories of people who are
typically disempowered or under-represented in human systems. Thirdly, critical paradigms also imply researcher reflexivity in the research process (Lather, 1986), which involves an awareness of power differentials, the researcher’s role as mediator in producing, analysing, and interpreting the data, the way this may influence the process and participants, and the way the process and participants may influence the researcher. A fourth important point for research of a critical orientation pertains to the issue of knowledge dissemination and feedback of results to participants (Macleod, 2004). In particular, Macleod (2004) comments that critical research findings should be redirected back to the participants, as well as be directed towards publications that function to empower and transform.
Chapter 2 included an exploration of a social cognitive framework for representing and explaining exceptional academic achievement in higher education. In particular, SRL was highlighted as an explanatory process that could yield exceptional academic results in students.
Informed by a positivist orientation and an ontological assumption that individual cognitive structures and processes exist and can be uncovered, most social cognitive research on SRL relies upon experimental and quasi-experimental methods (Hadwin et al., 2011). In line with this,
several self-report instruments31 have been developed and validated, while other methodological innovations have included the micro analysis of think-aloud protocols (Azevedo, Cromley, &
Seibert, 2004), student diaries, and computer trace data (Hadwin, Nesbit, Jamieson-Noel, Code,
& Winne, 2007). In effect, methods within a social cognitive approach seem to have generated extensive information around how exceptional academic achievement could be attained and managed; however, they seem to have gravitated around the primacy of individuals in working towards or facilitating this attainment (Hadwin et al., 2011).
In section 2.3 of Chapter 2, a sociocultural framework for conceptualising exceptional academic achievement was presented as offering an opportunity for synthesising individual, social, and cultural domains of learning and academic achievement. In addition, this framework was positioned as compatible with the equity and quality agenda evident in contemporary South African higher education. The origins of socioculturalism were ascribed to Vygotsky (Gӧncü &
Gauvain, 2012), and a current articulation through activity theory was described. Finally, a sociocultural approach to co-regulated learning was identified as a lens through which exceptional academic achievement in South African higher education could be viewed. The specific methodological considerations that arise from a sociocultural and activity theory framework are considered below.
As the sociocultural tradition is strongly rooted in Vygotskian principles (Gӧncü & Gauvain, 2012), it is important to identify key methodological principles evident in Vygotsky’s writings.
In addition to emphasising a dialectical approach to inquiry (as described in section 2.3), Vygotsky (1978) identifies three other methodological and analytical principles that were of relevance for the study of higher psychological functions. These included a focus on processes and not objects, explanations in addition to descriptions, and the development (and
developmental analysis) of a phenomenon. In linking these three principles, “Vygotsky argued that rather than deriving explanations of psychological activity from the individual’s
31 See, for example, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &
McKeachie, 1991), the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Schraw & Dennison, 1994), and the LASSI (Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987).
characteristics, the unit of analysis should be the individual engaged in social activity” (Tudge &
Winterhoff, 1993, p. 66). In essence, sociocultural approaches are aligned with a methodology that accentuates the explanation of processes in dynamic social, cultural, and historical activity.
An additional and related sociocultural methodological consideration includes the importance of finding ways to generate and account for more than one domain of human behaviour (i.e., individual, social, and cultural domains) (Gӧncü & Gauvain, 2012). For a sociocultural study on exceptional academic achievement in higher education then, it was important to move beyond individual explanations of exceptional academic achievement, and integrate social, cultural, and historical components of this exceptionality. Wertsch (1995) further reinforces that “the goal of such [sociocultural] research is to understand the relationship between human mental
functioning, on the one hand, and the cultural, historical, and institutional setting on the other”
(p. 56). In addition, Schoen (2011) argues that “sociocultural approaches often seek to reconcile disjoint, but relevant theories by recontextualising and defragmenting what is known about human motivation and …subsequent learning and behaviour” (p. 16). As a result, sociocultural approaches tend to adopt a dialectical stance, this often being materialised through mixed methods.
As there is not a unified body of literature describing an activity theory methodology, two ontological and epistemological assumptions inherent in activity theory are identified below.
These assumptions allow for a description of relevant methodological points that were incorporated into this study. Firstly, activity theory is grounded in a non-dualistic (and
dialectical) ontology (Yanchar, 2011) which operates from the assumption that human behaviour and higher psychological processes (such as those directed towards academic achievement) are intimately connected to society and social processes. Methodologically, this implies the “study of the human mind in its cultural and historical contexts” (Holzman, 2006, p. 6). Given the critical and Marxist roots of activity theory, power relationships and intra- and inter-activity system tensions and contradictions should be seen as central to social change and transformation. A key epistemological feature of activity theory is the centrality of collective activity, and not
individual action (Engeström et al., 1999). Grounded in Leontiev’s (1978) work, current
conceptions of activity theory highlight collective activity systems as epistemic paths. From an activity theory framework then, it was envisaged that exceptional academic achievement would not necessarily exist within the individual or in the context within which the individual operates and creates, but rather in the dialectical processes within and between these. This had important consequences for what was perceived as a suitable unit of analysis for research grounded in activity theory (see subsection 2.3.2). Similar to the aforementioned sociocultural unit of analysis being identified as the individual engaged in social activity, Engeström (2009a) argues that “a collective, artifact-mediated and object-oriented activity system, seen in its network relations to other activity systems, is taken as the prime unit of analysis” (p. 56). Engeström (2009a) goes on to further clarify that individual actions are not overlooked in the unit of analysis, but that “goal- directed individual and group actions, as well as automatic operations, are relatively independent but subordinate units of analysis, eventually understandable only when interpreted against the background of entire activity systems” (p. 56).
Three additional activity theory inspired methodological manifestations are relevant to highlight for the purposes of this study. Firstly, Wardekker (2000) notes that both quantitative and
qualitative methods have applicability in the activity theory paradigm because neither undermine its ontological and epistemological assumptions. In commenting specifically on the use of
numerical data in examples of Engeström’s activity theory research, Yanchar (2011) refers to the idea of “practical discourse” (p. 181). Defined as “the language within which and through which we live experience” (Williams, 1990, p. 147), practical discourse often justifies the use of textual and other qualitative data forms in research. However, Yanchar (2011) contends that
contemporary practical discourse does not exclude certain contextually appropriate numerical forms. This is certainly so in the domain of undergraduate academic achievement in higher education, where numerical representations feature predominantly as indicators of academic achievement. Yanchar (2011) reinforces this with specific reference to a hypothetical study of students’ academic experiences and numerical data such as (among others) marks, rankings, and personal and family history denominators that he identifies as part of the everyday language and practical discourse of that context.
Secondly, contemporary research using an activity theory framework seems to apply
predominantly qualitative techniques within interpretive and humanistic paradigms (see journal of Mind, Culture and Activity). In addition, it is observed that the case study method is
commonly used in activity theory based research (Coggio, 2010; Warmington, 2011), this being perceived as consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of activity theory. Case study research can be described as
a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audio-visual material, and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case themes.
(Cresswell, 2013, p. 97)
Cresswell (2013) suggests that case study research is suitable when a researcher requires in- depth understanding of a particular phenomenon, and there are identifiable instances of this phenomenon. Methodologically then, the activity theory framework and case study method implied that the unit/s of analysis for aspects of the current study were the activity and activity systems of exceptional academic achievement in higher education.
Thirdly, the dialectical relationship between the researcher and participant, the research tool and resultant research data, and research and intervention should be highlighted in activity theory related research. Developmental Work Research is an application of a CHAT-inspired interventionist research approach that involves context specific change and transformation (Engeström, 2005). The aim and focus of Developmental Work Research are on active
participation (between researcher and participant), the introduction of stimuli into the research activity (research tool and resultant data), and the identification and implementation of activity systemic change (Edwards & Fox, 2005; Ellis, 2008). Similarly, described within the domain of participatory research and grounded in Vygotskian principles, Van der Riet (2008) highlights the relevance of visual research methods in research activities. Focusing on the joint construction of diagrams and maps by research participants, Van der Riet (2008) discusses how the activity of these constructions has the potential to mediate individual, social, and institutional change. Other
visual research methods (including auto-photography and Photovoice) have also been used as research tools and research data, and analysed via an activity theory inspired framework (O'Brien, Varga-Atkins, Umoquit, & Tso, 2012; Pearson & Ralph, 2007).