Chapter 5 Exploring reality: a critical realist study
5.3 A critical realist research design
Thirdly, CR‘s position on the relationship between knowledge and language is also of essence. Critical realists hold that dominant discourses in society influence people‘s perceptions as well as actions (Trowler, 2001) and in turn help to define (represent) others. For this reason, reality is not independent of semiosis and discourse. It is discursively constructed, just like identity (Gee, 1996). If reality is discursively constructed, then it is multifaceted, pointing to multiple identities. And if that is the case, then whose reality is privileged in the academy; what kind of representations does this kind of reality give rise to?
The approach offered by CR is relevant to this study because it helps illuminate the complexity and the differential practice that underlie the development of discourses in higher education. Like the Gee (2001; 1996) and Bourdieu and Passeron (1977/1990), CR implicates language/discourses in the production and reproduction of knowledge in society. The framing of the key research questions in this study likewise reflects the socio-cultural-historical and CR views that frame this study.
These questions indicate that people do hold multiple perspectives of academic literacy – hence the focus (in the research questions proposed for this study) on the dominant discourses framing academic literacy in an Engineering Faculty. The suggestion is that there are diverse perspectives of academic literacy, making it a contested issue that warrants interrogation to illuminate both the dominant practices and (especially) the causal mechanisms of such practices.
Having explicated the research approach, design and analytical framework guiding this study, I now turn attention to issues of data collection and analysis. While it is true that CR is a philosophy rather than a method, in this study the focus is on using the philosophy to come up with a practical method for theory testing.
findings. Within this research design, research questions, research approach, data sources and analysis are included. These aspects are discussed in the sections that follow. The previous subsection outlined the broad tenets of a CR philosophy; in this section I indicate their appropriateness for researching academic literacy. I have also mentioned in the introductory part to this section that my intention was to use CR to guide my methodology, which entails explicit principles for collecting and analysing data. The discussion in the sections to follow illustrates how CR principles have been incorporated in my methodology.
5.3.1 Research objectives
This study explored representations of academic literacy by students, representations of academic literacy by academic staff, and representations of students by academic staff, all in relation to academic literacy in an Engineering Faculty. The purpose of this exploration was to investigate how these various representations can potentially include or exclude students from the engineering academic community. The argument that runs through this study is that these representations figure in particular discourses which, although not always intentionally, may generate associated practices that govern inclusion or exclusion of students in the academy. Guided by these broad objectives, the study sought to answer the following research questions.
5.3.2 Key research questions
What are the dominant discourses framing the representation of academic literacy in a Technical Communication course in an Engineering Faculty?
What dominant practices do these discourses give rise to?
How do these practices serve to include or exclude students from the Engineering discourse community?
The CR philosophy is reflected in the framing of these research questions. The enquiry proceeds in the first place from the understanding that knowledge of reality is discursive (Agger, 2006). It thus seeks to uncover the dominant discourses which
frame the knowledge of academic literacy in a social context, and which constitute causal mechanisms reflected in certain practices. This leads in turn to the next question which is concerned with the level of the actual. Lastly, seen in a CR perspective, mechanisms can potentially govern behaviour in one way or another (Sayer, 2000). In this study, it is assumed that discourses, as causal mechanisms, have the potential to ‗cause‘ the social inclusion or exclusion of students. To answer these questions, the research followed the approach and methodology outlined in the next section.
5.3.2 Research approach
Creswell (2003 p.4) identifies three research approaches which are contingent upon
―philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality, epistemology, values, the rhetoric of research and methodology‖. These approaches are quantitative research, qualitative research and mixed methods research. Critical realists, however, refrain from talking about qualitative or quantitative methods which supposes that there is an either or position (Sayer, 2000). Rather, they talk of intensive and extensive approaches. An extensive approach, which can be seen as the equivalent of quantitative research, ―shows us mainly how extensive certain phenomena and patterns are in a population‖ (Sayer, 2000 p. 20). Such an approach is based on a positivist understanding of phenomena, where the researcher engages in a process of coding the social world in numbers according to some preordained variables (Maxwell and Rossman, 2011). Because it is rooted in statistics, quantitative research can be used to prove or disprove hypotheses. In this sense, quantitative methodology assumes that there is a single reality which is independent of people‘s experiences. Starting with a hypothesis thus limits the positivist understanding in that it imposes a limited worldview on the subjects and the research. The intensive approach is ―concerned with what makes things happen in specific cases‖ (Sayer, 2000 p. 20). In this approach, which can also be likened to the qualitative approach, the natural and subjective components of the social world are emphasised and the aim is to ―identify the native and indigenous concepts of the subjects being investigated‖ (Mouton, 1996 p. 186). By ‗native‘, Mouton signifies the natural elements of society. It is only after these concepts have been identified that the
researcher integrates them into an interpretative framework (Mouton, 1996).
Although the distinction between extensive and intensive research methods would suggest incompatibility, given the inherent differences in the underlying philosophies, Sayer (2000) suggests that they have complementary strengths and weaknesses and can hence be used together. Intensive approaches are strong on causal explanation and interpreting meanings in context. As such they are time-consuming and are therefore best used on a small sample. Extensive approaches, on the other hand, provide the researcher with information on the extent or quantitative dimensions of certain phenomena. Using a combination of both approaches offers the possibility of a fine-grained understanding of the phenomenon under study.
Choosing the research methodology for my study went hand-in-hand with my growing understanding of the enquiry I intended to embark on. Following the advice from scholars such as Maxwell and Rossman (2011); Maxwell (2005); Cohen et al.(2000) and Mouton (1996), I had to give serious consideration to the setting in which I wanted to conduct the research and ask which approach best suited my objectives. This led me to realise that there was no way I could separate myself from the subject I sought to explore. I am part of that context, as both an insider and an outsider. As an insider, I am a student myself. Hence, an examination of the academic literacies teaching and learning context is close to my heart. As an outsider, I have represented myself as a critic of the same context. Furthermore, I have also realised that human actions are to a large extent influenced by the context in which individuals find themselves (Maxwell and Rossman, 2011). Thus, in order for me to understand the teaching of academic literacy as a course in an Engineering Faculty, I had to adopt a methodology which was both exploratory and descriptive of the phenomenon under investigation and which allowed for an analysis of context. It was only fitting therefore, that I used a combination of both intensive and extensive approaches in order to answer the research questions central to my study.
5.3.3 The research sample
This study is primarily concerned with the discursive construction of teaching and learning. As such, its locus of interest is HEIs. Consequently, the population for this study was the HEIs in South Africa. However, a complete analysis of representations of students in all the 21 HEIs in South Africa was not feasible. Cohen et al.(2000)
point out that to make the research manageable it is necessary to work with a smaller group or subset of the population, often referred to as the sample. For the purposes of this study, purposive sampling was used and the study focused on a single institution, the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Given the multiple data sources that formed part of this study, it was also not feasible to do a survey of all the faculties. Hence, the focus was on one Faculty, while recognising that issues of representation and identity explored within this context can apply to all students.
Cohen et al. mention that in purposive sampling researchers handpick the cases to be included in the sample on the basis of their typicality. Research indicates that it is a common feature not only of South African higher education institutions, but also internationally to refer to courses designed to teach disciplinary practices as academic literacy (see Boughey, 2009; Lea and Street, 1998). In the context of this study, such a conception is considered to be a misappropriation of what academic literacy is, and is therefore contrary to the theoretical position that I have adopted which sees literacy as a set of practices emerging from the Discourse of a discipline such as Engineering. Yet, it is the dominant (mis)perception that has been used to justify add-on language courses. In light of this (mis)appropriation, the Technical Communication for Engineers course in the Faculty of Engineering is considered a typical ‗academic literacy‘ course and was therefore the sample for the study.