|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OVERLAPPING
INTELLECTUAL COMMUNITIES AT WORK:
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH IN THE REALM OF PERSONAL CONSTRUCT PSYCHOLOGY AND
PHENOMENOLOGY |
|
|
Britt Marie Apelgren |
|
|
Department
of Education, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
This paper takes
its starting point from the idea put
forward, among others, by Dewey who argues that, whilst the distinction
between
psychology and philosophy may be useful for some purposes, it may not
be for
others. Inquiries into and understanding of the nature of learning,
growth and
motivation may all be areas where psychology and philosophy may be of
mutual
benefit. In addition, educational psychology has been regarded as a
discipline
“in between” the more scientific psychology and the more practical
conduct of
education. In regard to the above distinction between the disciplines
of
philosophy, psychology and education, the focusing of common
fundamental values
may be one way of opening up for ‘expendability’ – one of Kelly´s
criteria for
the theory of personal construct psychology. This is discussed in
relation to
constructivist educational research. In particular, the main focus will
be on
the theoretical framework of personal construct psychology and
phenomenology.
Although differing in orientation, they share several common core
constructs,
which are focused on here. In addition, a number of empirical
educational
research applications are presented.
Keywords:
personal construct psychology,
phenomenology, educational research |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
The question why
educational research
within personal construct psychology (PCP) needs an infusion of other
connected
theories and methods has been much discussed for decades. Different
scholars
have highlighted commonalties between closely related theories and in
this
paper I will argue for the development of PCP-based educational
research using
phenomenological analytical tools. The main reason for the proposal of
an
extended research base for PCP probably lies in the fact that
‘constructivism’
is a broad term encapsulating several different theories sharing the
assumptions and commonalities of ‘lived experiences’ and ‘personal
meaning’ of
individuals. Recently, Personal construct psychology (PCP) researchers
have
highlighted connections to other constructivist theories, such as
radical
constructivism and social constructivism (Butt, 2006; Fransella, 2006;
Raskin
2006; Warren, 2004), as well as to different philosophical theories,
mainly
phenomenologogy (Apelgren 2001, 2003; Butt 1997, 2003, 2004; Warren,
1998).
Further, Raskin (2002:12) argues that “there is a great deal of room
for
cross-fertilization among the various constructivist psychologies”. In
constructivist educational research the discussion of constructivism as
a
meta-theory is by no means new. In 1981, Pope & Keen outlined
the
commonalities between social phenomenology and PCP, and both Pope
(1995) and
von Glasersfeld (1991) have highlighted commonly shared notions within
different
constructivist educational research and the pluralistic nature of such
views.
Other important issues concerning PCP theory and education, namely
learner
empowerment, critical reflection and lifelong learning in relation to
Kelly’s
theory, and the notion that all theories are temporary constructions
open to
experiences and change when a person encounters new events, are all
dealt with
in Pope & Denicolo (2001). In this respect education, as well
as
educational research, has to do with personal meaning and meaning
making. Teachers
need to be able to illuminate their learners’ understanding of specific
matters
in the subjects they are teaching, whilst the researcher’s task is to
bring to
light participants’ personal meanings of particular events and
situations. It
is likewise interesting to note that, within the history of educational
psychology, there has been a constant move to issues such as human
learning and
development and away from psychology applied to
education with, instead, a focus on research on
processes of teaching and learning
and, not infrequently, to where such processes actually take place,
namely in
classrooms where individual pupils, both alone and together with their
peers
and teachers, are engaged in learning. In short, research in the field
of
education is, by nature, interpretive and constructive or, if so
preferred, can
be described using the philosophical term ‘hermeneutic’ (Hilgard,
1997).
For many years, the
connections between and
commonalities within the two approaches, PCP and phenomenology, have
intrigued
me (Apelgren
2001, 2003, 2005). As seen above, this interest is in
no way unique and several others within PCP have written about this
relationship, although not exclusively in relation to education and
educational
research. In Sweden,
phenomenological research within the field of the life world in
educational
research has grown and developed in recent years (Bengtsson et al,
1999, 2000;
Claesson, 2008; Dahlin, 2000; Sages & Szybek, 2000). Here
researchers have
found an alternative approach suited to emphasizing people’s
understanding and
experiences of particular phenomena. In addition, I have explored
common themes
and notions within the constructivist paradigm, such as relativism and
non-dualism, reconstructed and naturalistic understanding, the
reconstruction
of experience and choice, intentionality and lived experience
(Apelgren, 2001, 2003,
and 2005). This paper will therefore only briefly discuss those issues
and deal
more with theoretical issues in PCP and phenomenology, and how these
theories
could be applied to educational research.
The introductory line of
the title
“overlapping intellectual communities at work” is borrowed from
Phillips’
contribution on philosophical perspectives in Handbook
of Educational Psychology (1997: 1005). Here he refers to
psychology and philosophy as disciplines that have the potential to
gain much
from each other. This is in line with the constructivist idea that we
share,
develop, grow and benefit from being open to other perspectives, which
is the
paramount consideration and guiding light for my explorative
investigation.
In conducting this work,
three aspects will
be in focus. First, by examining the ideas of a number of well-known
phenomenologists and by tracing the developments of phenomenology in
different
directions, a brief history of phenomenology will be provided. Second,
along
with the discussion of key concepts within phenomenology, the
importance of
intentionality, temporality and lived experience will be discussed.
Finally,
and most importantly, phenomenology will be discussed and related to
personal
construct psychology and educational research. Ultimately, the aim is
to
explore whether and in what ways,
these two theories can complement one another and, more importantly,
serve as a
theoretical basis for different kinds of constructivist educational
research. In
addition, examples from my own research will be given.
PHENOMENOLOGY
AND PERSONAL CONSTRUCT PSYCHOLOGY
One important initial
question that needs
to be addressed concerns the nature of phenomenology and the ways in
which it
differs from Personal Construct Psychology. What, then, could be more
appropriate than to start by comparing the two theories from the
writings of their
fathers; Husserl (1913/1931) and Kelly (1955/1963)?
|
PHENOMENOLOGY
1913 |
PERSONAL
CONSTRUCT PSYCHOLOGY 1955 |
Discipline |
philosophy |
psychology |
Knowledge base |
logic |
empiricism |
Philosophical
position |
essence of phenomena |
constructive alternativism |
Root of
experiences |
the
researcher’s experiences of the lifeworld |
the
participant’s experiences of the lifeworld |
Aim of research |
absolute and
general knowledge of phenomena |
the
individual’s experiences of phenomena |
Notions of
understanding |
concept –
abstract ideas and notions |
construct – ways of construing |
Theory |
a theory of
consciousness |
a theory of
personality |
In the chart above, the
main differences
are considered. In the classic philosophy of phenomenology the
knowledge base
is logic, i.e. thinking and, in particular, the researcher’s (or the
philosopher’s) own thinking, as compared to the empirical knowledge
base of PCP
where the participants’ thinking and experiences are in focus. The aims
of
research also differ in classic phenomenology and PCP. Whilst in
phenomenology
the essence or the absolute knowledge of a phenomenon is the ultimate
research
objective, in PCP the focus is on the individual’s experiences of a
phenomenon.
As with constructivism,
there are differences
within the theory of phenomenology between different ‘schools of
phenomenological studies’, and between what Patton (1990) calls
‘general
phenomenological perspective’ (philosophy or theoretical background to
justify
methods) and what today is more commonly known as ‘phenomenology of
practice’,
more empirical phenomenological studies. In the sections that follow,
those
differences will be discussed.
Different
schools of phenomenological study and some developments within PCP
The variance between
different schools of
phenomenology can perhaps best be described as a divergence between
classic
phenomenology and empirical phenomenology. In many ways this difference
is best
in evidence in definitions of the concept of ‘essence’. Husserl’s
definition of
essence is very close to the notion of ‘concept’ (Husserl 1913/1931,
p.90). In The Concise Oxford Dictionary
(1995) ‘concept’
is described as: (1) a general notion, an abstract idea or (2) a
philosophical
term for a group or class of objects formed by combining all their idea
and
aspects. Husserl has called this the ‘whatness’ of a thing. Those who
define ‘essence’
in this way seem to regard intuition and logical
thinking as the only way to reach the knowledge
of essence, i.e. logic
as the only knowledge base.
There are, however, other
definitions of ‘essence’.
Some phenomenologists (for example van Manen, 1990) make a distinction
between ‘fundamental
essence’, like Husserl’s essence, and ‘empirical essence’. By
introducing
empirical essence, there is a resemblance and proximity to individuals’
experiences of phenomena. Thus, it is also closer to empirical research
disciplines, such as PCP and phenomenography, i.e. empirical approaches
that take
their starting point in individuals’ lived experiences.
The above differences have,
on the one
hand, led to a strong move towards empirical data and description as
well as the
interpretation of data. Hermeneutic phenomenology can be seen as one
branch of
that direction. Hermeneutical phenomenology
is described by van Manen in his book Researching
Lived Experience in the following way:
Phenomenology is
not mere speculative inquiry in the sense of unworldly reflection. Phenomenological
research always takes its
point of departure from lived experience or empirical data. /---/ Thus,
phenomenology consists in mediating in a personal way the antinomy of
particularity (being interested in concreteness, difference and what is
unique)
and universality (being interested in the essential, in difference that
makes
the difference).
(van
Manen, 1990, p. 22-23).
Here, van Manen proposes a research
approach, hermeneutic phenomenology, which, as the name suggests,
combines
hermeneutics with phenomenology, and is thus both
interpretive and descriptive. It is interesting
to note, that Phillips
(1997) too has pointed out that hermeneutical approaches, in
particular, are
relevant for education. So, in empirical research related to education,
there
are reasons to consider van Manen’s theoretical views.
Not all phenomenological
research may so
directly be connected to that of educational research in PCP,
particularly not
those which are based solely on logic and with the idea that the
essence is an
absolute and not an empirical essence. Van Manen’s position, though,
puts
emphasis on empirical data and interpretation of data, which gives this
approach
to phenomenology a position in line with other empirical approaches,
such as
for example PCP. Considering the aim of this article, one obvious
question to
ask would be whether it is indeed possible to combine phenomenology and
PCP. As
with most research, the answer must be that it depends on how we as
researchers
regard our research – whether we are ready to embrace research that is
more
eclectic in nature. For the more eclectic constructivist researcher,
the answer
will most probably be ‘yes’, it is
possible to combine or develop certain aspects as long as this does not
interfere with the general theoretical assumptions of the approach. For
theoretical purists, both within phenomenology and PCP, it is however
difficult
to see a bridge between the two positions. The tension between the
‘empirical’
and the ‘logical’ is also evident in the Nordic debate about the aim
and
outcomes of phenomenological educational research (Bengtsson et al,
2000;
Dahlin, 2000). Here the focus is on the classification of
phenomenological
research in education as subjective or objective, and as either
individual or
collective. The complex question of phenomenology as a descriptive
psychology
is discussed by Scanlon who, referring to Husserl’s Logic
Investigations, states that: “such a project of reflecting
upon conscious experience fit within the general scope of what still
counted
among philosophers as a form of descriptive psychology” (2001:3).
Relating to
intentionality and to a descriptive analysis of intentional lived
experiences,
Scanlon insists that phenomenology may be regarded as a descriptive
psychology.
As this brief consideration
of the directions
of phenomenology demonstrates, it is the
diversity of directions that have been developed
that makes the theory of phenomenology
sometimes difficult to grasp. If bearing in mind how PCP has developed
and
still is developing, not least in educational research settings, it may
not be
too difficult to realize that other theories do the same. Warren
(2004) explores, as he himself puts
it, “the social in PCP”. His thorough review of the philosophical
underpinnings
of social constructivism and pragmatism enables us to gain an
understanding of
the ways in which social aspects are natural parts of a theory of PCP:
What does personal
construct psychology envision the individual doing? First, like a
scientist,
forming constructs with which to make sense of the world. Then, the
individual
tests those construct. In a solipsistic world there would be no need to
test
one’s construct: indeed we may wonder at the process of forming them in
the
first place! But in all other worlds with which we are familiar, the
individual
attempts to compare his or her meaning with that of another, or others,
of his
or her species. That activity in personal construct psychology is an
activity
of validating one’s constructs…what is built firmly into the theory is
the
notion that
one goes to one’s social
context to
validate one’s construing. (Warren, 2004:
40)
Pope & Denicolo
(2001) discuss the
social aspects in education from the point of view of Kelly’s Sociality
Corollary. Referring to classroom interaction, they note that: “change
in
construing will only take place if the person experiments with his/her
ways of
seeing things, construes the implications of these experiments and sees
that it
would result in an elaboration of his/her construct system, if he/she
were to
adopt an alternative way of seeing things”. Further, they argue that
“talking
about ideas and listening to conflicting opinions of others and the
putting of
these ideas to the test would represent an approach to teaching which
is
consistent with Kelly’s model of ‘man-the-scientist’”. Indeed, it is
difficult
to understand how ‘the social’ could not be part of PCP in educational
research. It is rather a matter of ‘ground’ and ‘figure’ – in some
settings it
is foregrounded more than in others.
Another crucial issue which
has had a huge
impact on educational research, and particularly in research designs,
is the
alternative metaphor: ‘person-the-storyteller’
(Pope, 1995; Pope & Denicolo, 2001). This has led to a variety
and
diversity of different methods, alternative techniques to repertory
grids, and,
in this way, has been fruitful in opening up other interpretative
approaches.
The richness and novelty in many of the research projects within the
realm of
the alternative metaphor is certainly a way of reaching “expandability
by
integration with other approaches” (Winter, 2007:6). It also shows
that, just
like phenomenological research, constructivist research reaches out to
and draws
from adjacent theories and orientations. There is however, for this
very
reason, a need to be observant to what authors really mean when they
refer to, for
example, ‘constructivist research’ and ‘PCP research’ or
‘phenomenological
research’ and ‘phenomenology’ in their writings.
A
phenomenological perspective and phenomenological study
In this section, the focus
will primarily
be on phenomenology and the differences between what Patton calls a
‘general
phenomenological perspective’ and ‘phenomenological study’. In some
commonly
used books on research methods (i.e. Patton, 1980/1990; Taylor
& Bogdan, 1984),
the sphere of research is divided into two major theoretical
perspectives: ‘positivism’
and the ‘phenomenological perspective’. Phenomenology is described as a
broad
tradition within social science which is concerned with understanding
from
participants’ frames of reference. This very broad description could,
more or
less, include any qualitative, interpretative research, and it
certainly appears
to diminish the significance of the immense phenomenological
contribution to
theory and thinking in philosophy. In this way phenomenology becomes a
very
simple, clear and straightforward way of doing research. The main aims
appear,
as presented, to be bipolar to the positivist paradigm. Thus, the
concept of
phenomenology is complex due to the fact that it is sometimes referred
to as a
‘philosophy’, sometimes as a ‘perspective’, ‘approach’, inquiry’ and,
on some
occasions, as a ‘paradigm’. Immediately after these considerations,
Patton
introduces phenomenology as both an ‘approach’, as well as an
‘inquiry’. For
the reader not familiar with phenomenology, it must appear not only as
complex,
but also confusing.
There is dissimilarity
between the
philosophical phenomenology and the practical approach to social
science often
referred to as phenomenology in several research handbooks. In Europe and elsewhere, the work
of Merleau-Ponty, the
French philosopher, has influenced and has had impact on qualitative
interpreted research. Here the work of van Manen is particularly
important, as
he in turn is influenced by Merleau-Ponty.
Merleau-Ponty can be said
to represent an
existential phenomenology. His writings are less dogmatic than
Husserl’s and
closer to constructivist thinking as is illustrated when he writes that
“we
must not, therefore, wonder whether we really perceive a world, we must
instead
say: the world is what we perceive “(Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p.xi). This
could be
compared to the PCP view that an individual creates his/her own way of
seeing
the world. Mereau-Ponty’s definition of ‘essence’ is likewise close to
constructivist thinking:
Looking for the world’s essence is not looking for
what it is as an idea once it has been reduced to a theme of discourse;
it is
looking for what it is as a fact for us, before any thematization. (Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. XV)
It is not simply the
position that Merleau-Ponty takes
on the concept of ‘essence’ that he has influenced so many, but also
his
extensive writings on intentionality, temporality and experience. His
elaborated notion of ‘intentionality’ could be one bridge between
phenomenology
and PCP, which Butt has already suggested (1997 and 2004). For
those not
familiar with the term ‘intentionality’, it was introduced by the
German
psychologist Bretano in the 1870s, but it has been developed, extended
and
redefined by, amongst others Husserl (a student of Brentano) and
Merleau-Ponty.
In short one can say that intentionality is the very act of ‘directing
our
consciousness towards something’ and it is how we reach out to events
in the
world and make sense of them. It is through intentionality, as van
Manen argues,
that we can ‘discover a person’s world or landscape’ (1990, p.182).
Understood
in this way, intentionality resembles the constructivist ‘process of
construction’.
When elaborating on the
notion of
intentionality van Manen introduces the terms ‘specific intentionality’
and ‘general
intentionality’. Specific intentionality refers to directness of
thinking here
and now and to our direct experiences of certain phenomena. General
intentionality, on the other hand, has to do with a general directness
to the
world and how we choose and find ourselves to be presented in the world
– how,
for example, we think and act as teachers. In my research on language
teachers’
experiences of teaching and change, general pedagogic intentionality
(thematic
categories) was extracted from a series of extensive interviews, as one
of the
final steps in the analyses (Apelgren, 2001). Both these perspectives
of
intentionality have relevance for a theory of personality, such as PCP.
Merleau-Ponty has also
written about ‘temporality’,
which could be described as ‘lived’ or subjective time as opposed to
objective
or clock time. A former experience, something past, and a forthcoming
experience, something in the future, have to be brought into our
consciousness
in the here and now (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). This suggests that lived
experience
has a temporal structure, thus implying that it can never be grasped
directly
but only reflectively and, as such, changes by the influence of the
present
time. Put another way, van Manen describes this as the way in which
“the
temporal dimensions of past, present, and the future constitute the
horizons of
a person’s temporal landscape” (1990, p.104). Zaner has in his book The Way of Phenomenology discusses the
complex
structure of temporality and concludes that temporality is “easily
grasped, but
devilishly difficult to express in words” (1970, p.142). The theory of
how, as
individuals, we experience different dimensions of time has bearing on
PCP research
studies in education. One example where analysis of recollections close
to the
phenomenological ‘temporality’ can be found in Burnard’s study on
children’s
experiences of improvising and composing music (1999).
So far, my aim has been to
attempt to advance
the idea that one way in which phenomenology can actually contribute to
constructivist educational research is in its philosophy. The notions,
for
example, of intentionality and temporality, as shown above, can provide
a
theoretical framework to compare and discuss empirical results in an
additional,
theoretical, manner. Phenomenological analysis may also be looked at in
relation to constructivist analyses within personal construct theory,
for
example by means of repertory grids and different narrative techniques.
PHENOMENOLOGICAL
AND CONSTRUCTIVIST ANALYSES
The procedures commonly
used to elicit
experience of different phenomena in phenomenological analysis (Patton,
1990; van
Manen, 1990; Bjurwill, 1995; Smith & Osborn, 2008), could well
be used in
constructivist analysis as yet another complement to the variety of
methods
within PCP educational research (Pope & Denicolo, 2001).
A phenomenological analysis
is often
described as a disciplined analysis and is often concerned with
detailed stage
by stage analyses of transcribed interviews. There are today numerous
different
phenomenological analyses used, i.e. Interpretative Phenomenological
Analysis,
or IPA for short, (Smith, 1997; Smith & Osborn, 2008) or
Phenomenological
psychological analysis (Giorgio & Giorgio, 2008). The technique
referred to
and used here is close to what has been named ‘empirical
phenomenological
psychological analysis’ (EPP, Karlsson, 1994) and to introduce this
phenomenological
analysis, the metaphor of the House of Phenomenology will be used
(Bjurwill,
1995; described and developed in Apelgren, 2001 and 2003).
Passing between the
different floors of the
house, the reader probably realizes that the researcher takes a
different
perspective in his/her analysis of the phenomenon on every floor. This
way of
“attacking” one’s subject, is relevant for all types of analysis of
interpretative research and is, of course, something constructivist
researchers
do all the time in their interpretative work. In a phenomenological
analysis it
is rather a matter of being more actively observant of different
perspectives. Lemon
& Taylor (1997) describes five stages of a phenomenological
analysis which
has features in common with the different floors in the house of
phenomenology;
(1) make sense of the text/read and reread, (2) extract significant
statements,
(3) reflecting on the statements, (4) themes of related meaning and (5)
description of phenomenon.
In my own research
(Apelgren, 2001 and
forthcoming) I have explored teachers’ thinking and experiences of
different
educational concepts, combining analyses from PCP (repertory grid and
career
rivers/snakes) with different analytical tools used in phenomenological
research (empirical phenomenological psychological analysis and text
analysis
using NVivo 8). These multi-dimensional analyses have been used in
addition to more
individual or narrative presentations.
To see how the EPP analysis
works in practice,
examples from research on foreign language teachers personal theories
and
experiences of teaching and change in teaching will be given (Apelgren,
2001),
referring back to the House of phenomenology above. In short the study
was set
up as a cumulative study, starting with a questionnaire survey to 70
foreign language
teachers in one urban educational area. Twenty teachers from the cohort
were
interviewed twice and were also asked to comment on the final analyses
and
results. The first interview was an instructed narrative conversation
based on
their own drawings of career rivers/snakes, where the participants told
“their”
teaching career stories focused around experiences of teaching, subject
matter
issues and change and development. In the first stage of the analysis
(floor 1;
intuition, describing experience and perception) potentional
interpretations of
meanings appear which lead to the second stage of the analysis (floor
2;
abstraction, describing ideas and essence). All in all 334
statements/quotations
were isolated as examples of specific themes to be further explored in
the
second interview. In addition, those quotations made the base for the
narrative
descriptions in the study. Data from the two interview transcripts were
read
and reread as to be able to describe commonalities (floor 3) within the
40
interviews related to common themes explored. In the forth stage the
statements
were grouped into separate themes of experiences of teaching and
experiences of
change, so called ‘specific intentionality’ (van Manen, 1990), which
refers to
directness of thinking here and now and to our direct experiences of
certain
phenomena, in this case teachers’ thinking and experiences of teaching
foreign languages
and developing as a foreign language teacher. In the fifth and final
stage the
extracts were reduced into thematic categories, so called ‘general
pedagogic
intentionality’ (floor 5). At this point the researcher has moved away
from the
actual transcript interview data and it thereby becomes the
researcher’s text
more than the informants’ texts. Here the extensive interview data
were
reduced to four different orientations towards foreign language
teaching.
The table below
shows qualitative different ways of experiencing language teaching
based on the
participants’ self-perception of teacher role and personal theories of
English
as a foreign language (EFL) teaching. The four categories presented in
the
table indicate that teaching EFL is viewed as being oriented towards
one of the
following categories: (1) teaching as a mutual affair, (2) teaching as
guiding
with an invisible hand, (3) teaching as a social activity, and finally
(4)
teaching as being a captain on a ship.
Orientation |
Teaching as a
mutual affair |
Teaching as
guiding with an invisible hand |
Teaching as a
social activity |
Teaching as
being the captain on a ship |
teacher role |
encouraging |
guiding
|
activating
|
informing
|
directness of
teaching |
learner-directed |
learner-directed |
teacher-directed |
teacher-directed |
focus of teaching |
relation and
interaction |
exploration and
reflection |
activities and
usage |
structure and
transmission |
aim of teaching |
cultural and
social competence |
deeper
linguistic understanding and meta-cognition |
communicative competence |
language
proficiency understanding |
Different ways of experiencing teaching of EFL
(Figure 26.
Apelgren, 2001:295)
In the above I
have put forward the idea of general pedagogic intentionality as a way
of
describing foreign language teachers’ orientation of their teaching and
ways of
changing. The way an individual teacher changes depends to great extent
on
personal factors which in a subtle way will guide how changes come
about. The
choice of listening and learning from external agencies, curriculum
demands,
collegial interaction or experienced teachers’ expertise, is a personal
and
selective choice which is governed by past experiences. Seen in this
way “we
carry around our past with us in our construing” (Burr & Butt,
1992, p.63).
The way a teacher experiences and views his or her teaching is also
personal.
I have indicated
that the teachers’ understanding of their teaching can be described as
being
directed in different ways, with different goals and perspectives. The
foreign
language teachers in this study define English as a foreign language
and their
descriptions emphasize either language as a system or language as
communication. However, it is
seldom
a matter of ‘either or’, as language must be understood as to enclose
both
aspects, insofar that language is a
system which enables, permits and is used for human communication and
interaction. This implies that the interpretation and the
choice of focus
in that interpretation lie with the individual teacher and his or her
ways of
making sense.
In a traditional
phenomenological analysis
the researcher continues to fine-tune the interpretation in order to
reach the
essence of the phenomenon. In my study, I wanted to place the
phenomenological
results within the constructivist framework. The categories of general
pedagogical intentionality were therefore taken back to the
participants for
comments on which of the four orientations they found best correspond
to how
they saw themselves as foreign language teachers.
I have here tried to show
that there is a potential
in using a combination of logical analysis with a qualitative analysis
of
empirical and personal data. Also Sages & Szybek (2000) have,
in a study of
comprehensive school students’ knowledge of biology, shown how
phenomenological
analysis can be used on students’ texts. Their aim has been to
elucidate how
scientific concepts presented to pupils in school are understood and
how a
phenomenological analysis could complement a research area where
constructivism
is a common theoretical base.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, the aim has
been to present
both theoretical reasons for, as well as empirical examples of, the use
of
phenomenology in PCP educational research. The title “overlapping
intellectual
communities at work” suggests that different approaches and theoretical
perspectives can exist – and sometimes coexist – and thereby mutually
benefit
one another. For this to be possible, certain prerequisites, such as
ontological issues, need to be clarified. It has been suggested that
Husserl
and his followers of traditional philosophical phenomenology stand too
far from
the fundamental assumptions of personal construct psychology. In the
philosophy
of the existential and hermeneutic phenomenology on the other hand,
there seems
to be much to gain from their theories and ideas. The concepts of
‘intentionality’,
‘temporality’ and ‘lived experience’ have briefly been touched and
commented
upon. In addition, practical aspects, such as phenomenological
analysis, have
been discussed and presented as a possible tool to better understand
empirical
data.
Pope and Denicolo (2001:xi)
point out that
“Personal Construct Theory provides a fruitful framework within which
to
explore education”. Referring to the above discussion, I would argue
that
phenomenology, and more precisely phenomenological techniques and tools
of
analyses, are equally fruitful in exploring education. Within
phenomenology,
there are people who propose that phenomenology should be accessible to
a wider
audience. Halling (2002), for one, discusses different ways in which
phenomenology could be fruitful and useful. One important reason for
adopting a
phenomenological approach is to provide a deeper understanding of
specific
experiences to practitioners who work with persons having those
experiences, in
our case teachers and educators. Moreover, such techniques would also
provide
important empirical evidence for policy makers. It is easy to recognize
the
proximity to recent PCP research in education when Halling, referring
to Bruner
(1986) and the importance of telling the participants’ stories, argues
that “… if
the researcher tells the story of the research, the reader is invited
to think
along and to participate in the experience of discovery that was part
of the
research process” (2000:27). Moses concurs with this view when stating
that
“…philosophy as educational research provides educators and researchers
alike
with fundamental understanding of the fundamental aims and meanings of
education. Such theoretical work both adds to and informs issues within
the
larger study of education, such as teaching, learning, and policy”
(2002:6).
Thus, it would appear that
van Manen and
the hermeneutic phenomenology can be seen as a theoretical perspective
in
between, on the one hand, the more philosophical phenomenology of
Husserl and Merleau-Ponty
and, on the other, the practicality of for example Bogdan &
Tayor (1984). Whilst
this approach is still close to the traditional philosophy of
phenomenology and
follows in many ways its classic research methods and procedures (like
thematic
analysis, reduction and description), it is also close to, and grounded
in,
people’s experiences (through interviews, observations, journal
writings etc.)
and empirical work that constructivists in educational research
recognize and
are familiar with. That encapsulated in the words of Phillips below may
well be
written about personal construct psychology:
The
essence of
hermeneutical approach is that humans harbor beliefs, intentions,
desires, and
so on, and these things lead to human action and are therefore
necessary
ingredients in any attempt to understand and explain action
(Phillips,
1997:1016)
For van Manen, hermeneutic
phenomenology is
“a philosophy of the personal, the individual” (1990, p.7). What then
could be
more appropriate to accompany a theory of personality than a philosophy
of the
personal, especially if the task of the philosophical research is, as
van Manen
points out, “to construct a possible interpretation of the nature of a
certain
human experience” (van Manen, 1990, p.41). Indeed, this is very close
to what
we as constructivist educators are also trying to accomplish in our
research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|
|
Apelgren,
B.M. (2001). Foreign language
teachers’ voices. Personal theories and experiences of change in
teaching English as a foreign language in Sweden.
PhD thesis. (Göteborg studies in
Educational Science 155). Göteborg:
Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Apelgren,
B.M. (2003). Researching lived experiences: A study on Swedish foreign
language
teachers’ voices on teaching and change.In G. Chiari & M. L.
Nuzzo (eds.) Psychological
constructivism and the social world. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
(pp. 132-141)
Apelgren,
B.M. (2005). Research on or with teachers? Methodological issues in
research
within the field of foreign language didactics. In E. Larsson Ringqvist &
I. Valfridsson, Forskning
om undervisning i främmande
språk. Växjö:
Växjö University
Press. (pp. 35-45)
Apelgren,
B.M. (work in progress)
Bengtsson, J.
(Ed.) (1999) Med livsvärlden som grund.
Bidrag till utvecklandet av en livsvärldsfenomenologisk ansats i
pedagogisk
forskning. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Bengtsson, J.
et
al (2000). Pedagogisk forskning med livsvärlden som grund. Nordisk pedagogik, 20, 124-127.
Bjurvill, C.
(1995). Fenomenologi. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Burnard, P.
(1999). Into different worlds: children’s
experiences of musical improvisation and composition. Unpublished
PhD,
University of Reading, UK.
Butt, T.
(1997). The later Kelly and existential
phenomenology.
In P. Denicolo,P. & M. Pope (eds.), Sharing
understanding and practice. Farnborough: EPCA Publications. (pp. 40-49)
Butt, T. (2003). The
phenomenological
context of personal construct psychology. In F. Fransella, (ed.). International Handbook of Personal Construct
Psychology. Chichester:
Wiley. (pp.
379-386)
Butt, T.
(2004). Understanding, explanation, and personal construct. Personal Construct
Theory &
Practice, 1, 21-27
Butt, T.
(2007)
Personal
construct theory and method: Another look at
laddering. Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 4, 11-14.
Butt, T.
& Burr, V. (1992). Invitation to personal construct psychology. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
Claesson, S.
(2008). Livsvärldsfenomenologi och empiriska studier. (Life world phenomenology and
empirical
studies). Nordisk pedagogik, 28, 123-131.
Dahlin, B.
(2000). (Review). Med livsvärlden som grund. Bidrag till utvecklandet
av en
livsvärldsfenomenologisk ansats I pedagogisk forskning. Nordisk
pedagogik, 20, 55-57.
Fransella,
F. (2007). PCP: A personal story. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 4, 39-45
Giorgio, A. &
Giorgio, B. (2008).
Phenomenology. In: J. A. Smith (ed.) Qualitative
psychology. A practical guide to
research methods. (Second edition).London: Sage. (pp. 24-52)
Halling, S. (2002). Making
phenomenology
accessible to a wider audience. Journal
of Phenomenological Psychology, 33,
1-38.
Hilgard, E.R. (1997).
History of educational
psychology. In: D. Berliner & R. Clafee (eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology. New York:
Macmillan. (pp. 990-1004)
Husserl, E. (1913/1931). Ideas. London: George
Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Kelly, G. A. (1955/1963). A theory of personality. New York:
Norton.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. (French original 1945) .London:
Routledge.
Moses, M. (2002). The heart
of the matter:
Philosophy and educational research. Review
of Research in Education, 26, 1-21.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.Newbury
Park,
California: Sage.
Phillips, D.C. (1997). Philosophical perspectives. In D. Berliner, R. Clafee. (eds.), Handbook of
educational psychology. New York:
Macmillian. (pp.
1005-1019)
Pope, M. (1995).
Constructivist educational
research: A Personal Construct Psychology perspective. Keynote paper
presented
at the 11th International Congress of Personal Construct Psychology,
Barcelona,
3-7 July 1995.
Pope, M. &
Denicolo, P. (2001). Transformative
education. Personal construct
approaches to practice and research. London: Whurr.
Pope, M. & Keen, T.
R. (1981). Personal construct psychology and
education.
London:
Academic Press.
Raskin, J. (2002).
Constructivism in psychology:
Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social
constructivism. American Communication
Journal, , 5, 2002, 1-25.
Raskin, J. (2006). Don’t
Cry for Me George A.Kelly:
Human involvement and the construing of personal construct psychology. Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 3,
50-61
Sages, R. & Szybek,
P. (2000). A phenomenological
study of students’ knowledge of biology in a swedish comprehensive
school. Journal of Phenomenological
Psychology, 31, 155-187.
Scanlon, J. (2001). Is it
or Isn’t it?
Phenomenology as descriptive psychology in the logical investigations. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,32, 1-11.
Smith, J.A. (1997).
Developing theory from
case studies: Self-reconstruction and the transition to motherhood. In
N.Hayes
(ed.) Doing Qualitative Analysis in
Psychology. Erlbaum UK:
Psychology Press. Taylor& Francis. (pp. 187-199)
Smith, J.A.
& Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological
analysis. In J. A. Smith (ed.) Qualitative
psychology. A practical guide to
research methods. (Second edition).London: Sage publications. (pp. 53-80)
Taylor, S. &
Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to
qualitative research methods.
New
York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. Canada:
The Althouse Press.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Radical constructivism. London:
The Falmer Press.
Warren (1998). Philosophical
dimensions
of personal construct psychology. London:
Routledge.
Warren, B. (2004).
Construing constructivism:
Some reflections on the tension between PCP and social constructivism. Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 1,
34-44
Winter, D. (2007). Personal
construct
psychology: The first half-century. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 4, 63-67.
Zaner, R. (1970). The way of phenomenology. New York:
Pegasus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT
THE
AUTHOR
Britt
Marie Apelgren, PhD, is
Senior Lecturer and Vice Dean at the Faculty of Education of the University of Gothenburg. Her primary research field concerns teachers’
and
students’ perceptions and experiences of language teaching. Her
theoretical
framework is constructivist, primarily influenced by personal construct
psychology. Other research areas involve students’ language skills in
English
and charting and delineating teachers’ alternative forms of assessment.
Email:
BrittMarie.Apelgren@ped.gu.se
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Apelgren,
B. M. (2010). Overlapping intellectual
communities at work:
Educational research
in the realm of personal construct psychology and phenomenology. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice, 7, 1-11, 2010
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp10/apelgren10.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 31
August 2009 – Accepted: 28 January 2010 –
Published: 11 February 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|