A social realist account of the emergence of a formal academic staff development programme at a South African university
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
of
RHODES UNIVERSITY
by
Lynn Quinn
December 2006
Abstract
Using social realist theory and particularly the morphogenetic/ morphostatic methodology advocated by Margaret Archer, this study offers a critical examination of the emergence of a formal academic staff development programme at a small South African university (SSAU). Archer’s morphogenetic approach enabled an investigation of the interface between culture, structure and agency (at macro, mezo and micro levels) in order to theorize about the material, ideational and agential conditions that obtained and which in turn enabled the emergence of the Postgraduate Diploma of Higher Education (PGDHE) at the SSAU.
The study therefore advances concrete propositions about the cultural, structural and agential conditions for transformation which existed at a particular time in the history of higher education (and the subfield of educational development) which enabled the introduction of the PGDHE. Analysis of the data suggests that what occurred at SSAU was a disruption of the morphostatic synchrony between structure and culture brought about by new discourses and structures emanating from the broader international and national higher education context. In particular, it seems that attempts at reconciling the constraining contradictions between the discourses and structures related to quality assurance on the one hand and educational development on the other resulted in a conjunction between transformation at the levels of both the cultural system and social structure. This conjunction, along with the actions of key Institutional agents and the morphogenesis of the staff of the Educational Development Unit, created sufficiently enabling conditions in the Institution for the introduction of the PGDHE.
The research adds to knowledge through insights into the contribution that the ideas, beliefs, values, ideologies and theories about higher education broadly and about educational development specifically make to enabling or constraining conditions for the professionalization of academic staff in higher education institutions. It uncovers how relevant structures at the international, national and institutional levels can shape the practice of educational development and specifically staff development. It has generated insights into how the relevant people and the positions they hold can impact on staff development practices. In summary, the research could contribute towards emancipatory knowledge which could be used by SSAU and educational development practitioners elsewhere to inform future planning and decision making in relation to educational development and more specifically staff development practices in their contexts.
i Acknowledgements
I could never have survived and completed an endurance test as arduous as a PhD study without a great deal of support from those around me. I would like most sincerely to thank those – both in my professional life and my personal life for the million different ways in which they have helped me.
Chrissie Boughey, Kevin Williams and Terry Volbrecht, my supervisors, for their tireless reading of drafts and generous sharing of their knowledge and expertise.
My colleagues at work for taking on some of my work responsibilities to enable me to work on my research.
Heila, Rob and others who took part in the “PhD weeks” for thought-provoking conversations and providing opportunities for me to present emerging ideas.
Jo-Anne and Kevin for the many stimulating conversations on realism, their vote of confidence and constant encouragement.
The men in my life, Richard, Chris and Simon, for their moral support and putting up with my bad moods.
The women in my life, especially, Madeleine, Dana, Madeleen, Jo-Anne, Arona, Valra and Robin, for their love, encouragement and support.
All the lecturers who were (mostly) willing participants on the PGDHE from 2000 – 2005, from whom I learned a lot about teaching and learning in higher education.
My colleagues, at SSAU and other institutions, who generously gave up their time for me to interview them.
Markus for kind and patient help with the formatting of the dissertation and Sandy for her meticulous proofreading of it.
My parents, who encouraged their daughters to study, and who are, I am sure, very proud of all of us.
ii Contents
Abstract ...... i
Acknowledgements ...... ii
Contents ...... iii
Figures...... vii
Acronyms ...... viii
Chapter 1 Introduction...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 The context of the research...... 2 1.3 Goals of the research...... 5 1.4 Outline of chapters...... 6
Chapter 2 Metatheoretical framework...... 8 2.1 Introduction ...... 8 2.2 Social realist ontology and associated epistemology ...... 9 2.2.1 Stratification: the transitive and intransitive dimensions of social reality...... 10 2.2.2 Underlying mechanisms, causality and emergence ...... 11 2.2.3 The “critical” element of realism...... 13 2.2.4 Socio-cultural epistemology...... 14 2.2.5 Discourse and reality ...... 15 2.3 Margaret Archer’s social realism...... 18 2.3.1 The link between culture and structure ...... 20 2.3.2 Conflation of structure and agency and culture and agency historically ...... 21 2.3.3 Rejecting conflation, embracing analytical dualism, the stratified nature of social reality and emergence ...... 23 2.4 Morphogenesis: Archer’s social realist methodology ...... 24 2.5 Cultural morphogenesis...... 28 2.5.1 Logical relationships at the Cultural System level and impact of these on the Socio-Cultural level...... 32 2.5.1.1 Constraining contradictions (necessary incompatibilities) ...... 32 2.5.1.2 Concomitant complementarities (necessary complementarities)...... 35 2.5.1.3 Competitive contradictions (contingent incompatibilities) ...... 37 2.5.1.4 Contingent complementarities (contingent compatibilities)...... 39
iii
2.6 Structural morphogenesis ...... 42 2.6.1 Mediation of structure and culture through human agency (T 2)...... 47 2.6.2 Structural and cultural elaboration (T 4)...... 49 2.7 The morphogenesis of agency ...... 51 2.8 Back to the link between culture and structure (and agency) ...... 55 2.9 What does all this mean for my study?...... 58
Chapter 3 Methodology and methods ...... 60 3.1 Introduction ...... 60 3.2 Case study research...... 62 3.3 Role of theory in methodology ...... 64 3.4 Data identification and selection methods ...... 65 3.4.1 Research texts and participants...... 66 3.4.2 Data identified from interviews...... 68 3.4.2.1 Sampling ...... 69 3.4.2.2 Deciding on the interview questions...... 70 3.4.2.3 Interviewing processes and relationships...... 72 3.4.2.4 Analysis of interview data ...... 73 3.4.2.5 Limitations of interview data...... 74 3.4.3 Observation and document analysis ...... 75 3.4.4 Evaluation data...... 76 3.4.5 Qualitative questionnaire ...... 77 3.5 Data analysis and interpretation...... 79 3.5.1 Abduction and retroduction...... 80 3.5.2 Other analytical strategies ...... 82 3.5.2.1 Critical discourse analysis...... 84 3.6 Ensuring the quality of the research process ...... 87 3.6.1 Validity...... 87 3.6.2 Generalizability...... 91 3.6.3 Ethical considerations...... 93 3.7 Writing up the research...... 94 3.8 Role of the researcher...... 97 3.9 Conclusion...... 101
iv Chapter 4 Macro context: Systemic conditions at T 1 of the morphogenetic cycle.... 102 4.1 Introduction ...... 102 4.2 Cultural conditions...... 103 4.3 The cultural system of higher education at international and national levels...... 105 4.3.1 Knowledge...... 105 4.3.2 Production ...... 109 4.3.3 Democracy ...... 113 4.3.4 Self ...... 115 4.3.5 Critique...... 117 4.4 The cultural system of educational development internationally ...... 119 4.4.1 Professionalization, development and improvement: contested concepts...... 122 4.4.2 Academic staff development internationally ...... 125 4.5 The cultural system of educational development in South Africa ...... 129 4.5.1 Educational support...... 130 4.5.2 Educational development...... 131 4.5.3 Institutional development ...... 132 4.6 Structural conditions of higher education at the international level...... 133 4.6.1 Disciplines as structure...... 134 4.6.2 Quality assurance structures ...... 137 4.7 The structural conditions of higher education in South Africa ...... 139 4.7.1 Policies...... 140 4.7.2 Teaching and learning ...... 143 4.7.3 Quality assurance structures ...... 145 4.8 Effect on role of academics of changing cultural and structural conditions of HE...... 148 4.9 Structural conditions of educational development internationally...... 150 4.10 The structural conditions of educational development in South Africa ...... 153 4.10.1 Policy...... 153 4.10.2 Quality assurance...... 155 4.10.3 SAAAD ...... 157 4.10.4 Staff development...... 159 4.11 Conclusion...... 162
v Chapter 5 Institutional context...... 164 5.1 Introduction ...... 164 5.2 Institutional Culture...... 166 5.2.1 Impact of items from the macro cultural system on the institutional CS...... 166 5.2.1.1 Transformation ...... 166 5.2.1.2 Growing quality assurance discourse at SSAU ...... 169 5.2.2 Teaching and learning ...... 175 5.2.2.1 Changing higher education context...... 179 5.2.2.2 Teaching and research ...... 183 5.3 Discourses related to staff development ...... 187 5.3.1 Disciplinary discourse...... 192 5.3.2 Student/schools deficit discourse...... 197 5.3.3 Skills discourse...... 199 5.3.4 Discourse of performativity ...... 202 5.4 Institutional Structures ...... 204 5.4.1 Quality assurance structures ...... 206 5.4.2 Institutional responses to national policy related to HE curricula...... 209 5.4.3 Educational development at SSAU...... 213 5.5 ED staff as agents ...... 222 5.6 The intersection between structure, culture and agency leading to T 4 ...... 229 5.7 Conclusion...... 234
Chapter 6 Conclusion...... 236 6.1 Overview ...... 236 6.2 The theoretical framework ...... 237 6.3 Conceptual “principles” arising from the research ...... 239 6.4 Looking ahead: the next morphogenetic cycle at SSAU? ...... 241
References ...... 247
Appendix 1: The Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education at SSAU ...... 266
Appendix 2 Email questionnaire sent to lecturers in 2003...... 285
Appendix 3: Consent for use of data for research purposes...... 286
vi Figures
Figure 1 The morphogenesis of culture (Archer 1995:193) ...... 25 Figure 2 The morphogenesis of structure (Archer 1995:193) ...... 25 Figure 3 Cultural elaboration: summary (Archer 1996:270)...... 31 Figure 4 Structural conditioning of strategic action: processes of directional guidance (Archer 1995:218)...... 45 Figure 5 When morphostasis versus when morphogenesis (Archer 1995:295)...... 49 Figure 6 The morphogenesis of corporate agency (Archer 2000:268)...... 53 Figure 7 Sources and purposes of data ...... 67 Figure 8 Summary of discourses related to staff development identified in the data ...... 192 Figure 9 The morphogenesis of structure (Archer 1995:193) ...... 205
vii Acronyms
AD Academic Development
ED Educational Development
EDU Educational Development Unit
EDP Educational Development Programme
AP & QA Academic Planning and Quality Assurance
ESP Educational Skills/Support Programme
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CHE Council on Higher Education
CS Cultural System integration
CEPs Cultural emergent properties
DET Department of Education and Training
DoE Department of Education
EAP English for Academic Purposes
ELAP English Language for Academic Purposes
ETDP SETA Education, Training and Development Sectoral Education Training Authority
GEAR Growth, Employment and Redistribution
HBI Historically black institution
HE Higher Education
HEA Higher Education Academy
HEI/s Higher Education Institution/s
HELTASA Higher Education Learning and Teaching Association of Southern Africa
HERDSA Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia
HESDI Higher Education Staff Development Initiative
HEQC Higher Education Quality Committee
HEQF Higher Education Quality Framework
viii HoD Head of Department
HWI Historically white institution
ICT Information and communication technology
IHEDSA Institute for Higher Education Development in South Africa
ITL Improving Teaching and Learning Project
Moodle Modular Object Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment
NCIHE National Committee of Inquiry into Education
NQF National Qualifications Framework
PGCHE/T Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (and Training)
PDP Professional Development Programme
PEPs Personal emergent properties
PGDHE Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education
PGDHET Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education and Training
QA Quality Assurance
QE Quality Enhancement
QD Quality Development
QPU Quality Promotions Unit
SAAAD South African Association for Academic Development
SAARDHE South African Association for Research and Development in Higher Education
SAAU Small South African University
SAQA South African Qualifications Authority
SAUVCA South African Universities Vice Chancellors Association
S-C Socio-Cultural interaction
SEPs Structural emergent properties
SERTEC Certification Council for Technikon Education
SETA Sector Education and Training Authority
SGB Standards Generating Body
ix SI Social interaction
SoTL Scholarship of teaching and learning
SS Structural system
UK United Kingdom
USA United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VC Vice Chancellor
VP Vice Principal
WASA Women’s Academic Solidarity Association
x Chapter 1 Introduction
It has always been something of a paradox that the educational arena dealing in the highest qualifications and enjoying the best resources has also been associated with the least amount of staff development and formally supported lifelong learning for its teachers (Saunders and Hamilton 1999:118).
1.1 Introduction
The impetus for embarking on the research project documented in this dissertation arose from a combination of personal, intellectual and practical goals. I have worked in the field of
1 academic/educational development (ED) at a small university in South Africa (henceforth referred to as Small South African University or SSAU) since 1995. Since 2000 I, along with colleagues in the Educational Development Unit (EDU), have been centrally involved in the conceptualisation, design and implementation of a formal programme designed to support the professionalization of the teaching practice of academic staff in the University.
In terms of personal goals, my interest in seeking to understand and explain the practice of educational development, which has been so much part of my professional identity, was the greatest motivator for embarking on the research. In particular I wanted to understand and explain how and why ED at SSAU had evolved to the point where, in 2000, it was viable to introduce a formal qualification as a form of staff development. Strauss and Corbin (1990:35-36 in Maxwell 2005:16) suggest that although it may seem hazardous to choose “a research problem through the professional or personal experience route. This is not necessarily true. The touchstone of your own experience may be more valuable an indicator for you of a potentially successful research endeavour”. It is my contention that my knowledge and experience have provided a “valuable source of insight, theory, and data” (Maxwell 2005:19) about the phenomenon under investigation (see 3.8 for discussion on the role of the researcher).
In terms of my intellectual goals, I was interested in finding a theoretical and methodological framework which would enable me to explain why things “turned out” the way they did and not otherwise. In the 1980s and before it seemed very unlikely that professional development courses for lecturers would be introduced at South African higher education institutions. I was thus interested, given the history of educational development in South Africa (see 4.5 and 4.10) and at SSAU (see 5.4.3), in the conditions that led to the
1 In South Africa the term academic development (AD) is more commonly used than the term educational development (ED). However, in keeping with international trends and to avoid confusion I have opted to use educational development. See also 4.4.1 for a discussion on the contested nature of terms such as “development”, “improvement” and “professionalization”.
1 introduction of a formal qualification for academic staff at SSAU in 2000. I wanted to be able to go beyond collecting superficial observations of the social world to uncovering and understanding the underlying mechanisms which made the observable possible. As Bhaskar argues:
… the essential movement of scientific theory will be seen to consist in the movement from the manifest phenomena of social life, as conceptualized in the experience of the social agents concerned, to the essential relations that necessitate them (1979:32). According to Volbrecht and Boughey, educational development practice in South Africa is often based on theories imported from other places in the world:
This means that higher education development in South Africa still has a relatively underdeveloped research-base. In the new global and national context, however, there is increasing pressure for tertiary educators (including AD [ED] practitioners in central units) to generate knowledge of their roles and focal practices … (2004:15). My goal in this research was thus to generate knowledge and theories to contribute to higher education development in South Africa. Practically , there were three inter-related levels at which I wished to gain insights. Firstly, I hoped the research would contribute to knowledge about how the ideas, beliefs, values, ideologies and theories about higher education broadly and about educational development specifically have or haven’t contributed enabling conditions for the professionalization of academic staff (4.3; 4.4). Secondly, I hoped to uncover how relevant structures at the international, national and institutional levels have shaped the practice of ED and specifically staff development (4.7 and 5.4). Thirdly, I was interested in gaining insights into how the relevant people and the positions they hold have impacted on staff development practices. In summary, I hoped to generate insights which would contribute towards emancipatory knowledge which could be used by SSAU and other ED practitioners to inform future planning and decision making in relation to educational development and more specifically, staff development practices in their contexts (see 1.3 below for goals of my research).
1.2 The context of the research
The broad field of the research documented in this dissertation is higher education and the sub-field educational development. Of particular interest is the area of academic staff development. As already noted, the research focus was on the emergence of a formal programme intended to contribute to the professional practice of academic staff at a SSAU.
The changing context of higher education (HE) both internationally and in South Africa presents new challenges to lecturers in higher education which have led to a greater emphasis being placed on academic staff development in many institutions. Internationally
2 the way in which HE is conceptualised is changing. Globalisation, massification (resulting in a changing and more diverse student population), shrinking resources, the proliferation of information and communication technologies, increased demands for quality assurance and greater public accountability and more competition among higher education institutions have contributed towards changing the traditional role of academics. Academics now operate in what Barnett (2000) terms “a world of supercomplexity” where the very frameworks on which their professions are based are continuously in a state of flux. Rowland (2000:2) describes the environment in which academics work as being “increasingly fragmented” and Light and Cox (2001:1) talk of academics experiencing the post-modern condition of uncertainty and ambiguity as a “storm” (4.8).
In addition to these changes, as a result of the inequities created by the apartheid system in the past, South African higher education is in the process of radical transformation. The Higher Education Act of 1997 (RSA 1997) requires higher education institutions to restructure and transform in order to respond to, inter alia, the need for equity and redress and to contribute to the human resource, economic and development needs of the country. In addition, there is increasing pressure on universities to account to government and society at large for the way they respond to the transformation imperatives, as well as for the quality of the teaching and learning in institutions. These seemingly contradictory policy requirements for equity and efficiency of the system have made significant demands on both leadership and academic staff in higher education institutions (HEIs). Academics are required to develop curricula which will ensure that they produce graduates who are able to contribute to a knowledge based global economy as well as to the reconstruction of a democratic and just South African society. Volbrecht and Boughey (2004) argue that the capacity amongst academic staff in higher education to achieve these goals is limited (see also Moore and Lewis 2004).
Traditionally, university lecturers have undergone little or no formal preparation for their role as teachers. However, as a result of the factors outlined above, there has been increasing pressure internationally and in South Africa to provide structures to develop academics’ professional competence (see 4.9 and 4.10). In the last decade, both internationally and to a lesser extent in South Africa, many HEIs have begun to put resources into a range of academic staff development initiatives. The pedagogical approaches and theoretical concepts underpinning the various methods used are “constantly under revision and contested” (Nicoll 2004:325; 4.4.2).
Despite references to the need for staff development in South African policy documents since 1994, not much has been done to promote formal staff development qualifications at a national level other than a set of unit standards for a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher
3 Education generated by the Standards Generating Body (SGB) for higher education for registration as a national qualification on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) (4.10.4; 5.4.3).
In most South African HEIs, if there are staff development initiatives they have been undertaken by ED practitioners. However, in his paper “The story of South African Academic Development in international perspective: have we lost the plot?”, Volbrecht makes the point that there has been “an ongoing tendency in South African AD [ED] discourse not to see the centrality of [academic] staff development to the issue of institutional change” (2003a:113). Volbrecht argues further that academic staff development is weakly conceptualised and developed in many South African higher education institutions (HEIs) (4.5). In this dissertation I argue that due to a confluence of cultural, structural and agential factors, educational development at SSAU has not followed this trend. In fact, since the late 1990s, keeping more in line with international ED trends, ED at SSAU has focused predominantly on academic staff development conceptualized as a way of bringing about institutional change (5.4.3).
SSAU, established in 1904, is categorised as a historically white, English medium university which positions itself in the South African higher education landscape as occupying “a unique niche in being a small, residential and collegial university in a rural setting” (SSAU 2005:i). It is situated in a small town some distance away from the nearest city. In 2005 an estimated 6000 students were enrolled and there were approximately 300 academic staff and 800 support staff ( ibid :7). It has always had a favourable student/staff ratio (15:1in 2005 (ibid )) which is well below the national average. The vision and mission of the University declare its commitment to teaching, research and community service. It considers itself to be “a well-established liberal arts institution with strong humanities, science, law, education, commerce, and pharmacy faculties” ( ibid ).
In 1983, in line with trends at other historically white institutions in South Africa, SSAU established what was called an Educational Skills Programme (ESP) which was focused on meeting the perceived needs of the small number of black students who were admitted to the Institution and who were generally deemed to be “underprepared” for university study. In 1993 the name of the ESP was changed to the Educational Development Programme (EDP) to signal an understanding that changes at the institutional level were required to meet the needs of the changing higher education context. In 1997 a further name change - to the Educational Development Unit (EDU) - was effected. This time it was to signal a structural change: the Unit was to consist of a small number of staff dedicated to educational development work in the Institution while other ED staff members were devolved into faculties or departments to continue offering discipline-specific student support. In the wake
4 of a review of the EDU in 1998 and with the appointment of a new director in 1999, a much stronger focus on staff and institutional development (as opposed to student support) ensued. This led to the introduction in 2000 of the formal qualification for academic staff at SSAU, initially called the Advanced Certificate for Tertiary Studies (ACTS) and now called the Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education (PGDHE) (5.4.3).
In Appendix 1 I provide brief background information on the structure and theoretical framework for the programme. In addition, I have included a brief summary of the evaluation data collected on the programme from its inception until the end of 2005. I have included this information as an appendix, since it provides important background for the reader of this dissertation yet is not central to its main goal. By April 2006 approximately 30 staff members had completed the programme and an approximate further 30 were registered (see Table 1 Appendix 1) 2 . The number of full-time academic staff at the Institution in 2005 was 317 (SSAU 2006d). This modest success rate, considered along with the evaluation data on the programme, was, in my opinion, sufficient for me to consider the PGDHE as a “critical case” (May 2001) which has “something … to be unravelled” (Henning, van Rensburg and Smit 2004) and thus warranted in-depth investigation (Flyvbjerg 2001) (see 3.2). It was not my intention to evaluate the PGDHE or to compare the staff development activities at SSAU with those of any other South African HEIs.
1.3 Goals of the research
It was my intention to explain how and why educational development, and particularly academic staff development at SSAU has evolved the way it has. According to Carter and New
… social explanation always involves the meeting point of structure and agency, and the co-acting of psychological, cultural and social structures that people encounter, use and embody; structures which position them, motivate them, circumscribe their options and their capacity to respond (Carter and New 2004:22). Thus my central research question was
• What were the conditions under which a formal staff development qualification emerged at SSAU?
2 In the first two years there was a fairly high attrition rate. The reasons for this are variable, ranging from the uncertainty in HE context generally to issues related to the programme not meeting the specific needs of some participants. The most often cited reason has been that the programme did not teach participants sufficient “skills” for university teaching (large classes especially). In addition to these figures, a further eight lecturers from private HEIs in South Africa are currently registered for the programme.
5 And my sub-questions were:
What were the cultural conditions which enabled and/or constrained the introduction of the PGDHE at SSAU?
What were the structural conditions which enabled and/or constrained the introduction of the PGDHE at SSAU?
What agential factors contributed to the introduction of the PGDHE at SSAU?
The purpose of my research was to explain why things “worked out” the way they did and not otherwise. My research, underpinned by a critical and social realist social theory, thus sought to provide an analytical history of the emergence of the PGDHE. Social realism provided an explanatory model within which I was able to analyse the interplay between the structural, cultural and agential factors which enabled and/ or constrained the emergence of the PGDHE.
In the following section I provide an outline of the chapters of the dissertation.
1.4 Outline of chapters
Like Broido and Manning I believe that
Research cannot be conducted without the conscious or unconscious use of underlying theoretical perspectives. These perspectives inform methodology, guiding theory, questions pursued, and conclusions drawn (2002:434). In chapter 2 I thus articulate the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of my research project. I clarify the metatheoretical and methodological concepts which informed the substantive theories used in my empirical investigation of the emergence of the formal qualification (PGDHE) as a form of academic staff development at SSAU. Philosophically, my research was underpinned by a realist understanding of the social world. This chapter provides a summary of the key concepts of critical and social realism which are helpful in understanding Margaret Archer’s version of social realism (1995, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003). It also includes a description of Archer’s methodological framework of analytical dualism, which allows for the examination of culture, structure and agency as analytically distinct strata of reality.
In chapter 3 I continue the argument for methodology which I started in chapter 2, including the principles of case study research and the role of theory in research methodology. I describe the methods of data selection, analysis and interpretation I used in the research process. Included is also a discussion of the ways in which I attempted to ensure the quality of the research, the way in which I wrote up the project and my role as the researcher. The
6 latter is particularly important because I researched my own practice which potentially, if not carefully handled, could have created a validity threat to the research.
A case study cannot be studied in isolation from the broader context in which it takes place. In fact, I argue that the context is not merely background to a particular case but is integral to understanding the case. Chapter 4 is an exploration of the macro context (that is, at the international and national levels) that prevailed prior to 2000 and which impacted on the Institutional context and the introduction of the PGDHE. In keeping with Archer’s methodological framework I make an analytical distinction between culture and structure. The first part of the chapter deals with cultural conditions (that is, the ideas, beliefs, ideologies, theories, concepts which are expressed through discourses) at the international and national levels of higher education, then in the field of educational development. The second part of the chapter examines the structural conditions that existed, once again at the different macro levels (international and South Africa) both in HE broadly and in ED more specifically. Chapter 4 thus describes the systemic conditions (structural and cultural) in the broader contexts. However, it is only in an empirical examination of a particular case that it is possible to determine how the people in that context have responded to the systemic conditions.
Chapter 5 includes an analysis of how cultural and structural conditions in the macro context influenced the culture and structure of SSAU. This chapter explores the mezo and micro institutional levels of SSAU and ED within SSAU, including the history of the genesis of the formal qualification. The chapter is divided into three main sections: culture, structure and agency. In the sections on culture and structure I pay attention to the mezo SSAU Institutional level and the micro ED level. In both these sections I first examine the Institutional systemic level and then how the relevant people responded to the systemic conditions in order to uncover whether the overall outcome created enabling or constraining conditions for ED and particularly staff development. In the section on agency I consider the roles of key individuals and groups of individuals and in particular, the role of ED staff. I conclude the chapter by summarising how cultural, structural and agential factors intersected to enable the emergence of the PGDHE.
Chapter 6 concludes the dissertation. In this chapter I provide a brief overview of the research project. Based on the research findings and influenced by D’Andrea and Gosling’s (2005) quality development model , I make some suggestions for what readers of the dissertation may usefully be able to take firstly, from the research “findings” which they may be able to apply to their institutional contexts and secondly from the theoretical framework which I used and apply to their research contexts. Finally, I speculate about the next morphogenetic cycle at SSAU.
7 Chapter 2 Metatheoretical framework
… no social theory can be advanced without making some assumptions about what kind of reality it is dealing with and how to explain it. All social theory is ontologically shaped and methodologically moulded even if these processes remain covert and scarcely acknowledged by the practitioner (Archer 1995:57-8).
2.1 Introduction
According to Williams (1998), not making one’s philosophical underpinnings explicit as part of the intellectual justification for research findings is analogous to an engineer, on completing a bridge, being asked to articulate the principles upon which s/he relied to ensure that the bridge did not fall down, simply shrugging and saying, “Well it’s standing isn’t it? Does it matter?” May (1998:160) makes a similar point when he asserts that topics for reflection for researchers include: “what is the relationship between thought, action and reality? …. how do we conceive of reality itself? … These are of central importance to what it is to ‘know’ the social world” . May goes so far as to claim that the findings of social researchers are meaningless unless they are situated in a theoretical framework which must be made explicit: the “facts do not speak for themselves” (2001:30). Scott, in a similar vein, maintains that “the deployment of empirical research methods needs to be underpinned by a meta-theory embracing epistemological and ontological elements …” (2005:633).
Although pragmatists such as Kemp (2005) and Kivinen and Piivoinen (2006) argue that social scientists should abandon general theoretical frameworks, such as critical and social realism, like Sibeon (2004:8, citing Archer 1995 and Layder 1998a) I believe that
… metatheory is indispensable to social enquiry and that there are advantages to be gained from an epistemology which specifies that metatheory, substantive theory, methodology and empirical data should be consistent with each other and should regulate each other. According to Sibeon, substantive theory consists of “propositions that are intended to furnish information about the social world” and metatheory is concerned with “matters of a more general kind relating to ontology, epistemology and methodology” (2004:12). The purpose of this chapter is thus to make clear the metatheoretical and methodological concepts which have informed the substantive theories used to help me in my empirical investigation of the emergence of the formal qualification as a form of academic staff development at SSAU. May (2001) argues that social theory and concepts are necessary both for interpreting empirical data, but also as a basis for critical reflection on the research process, and social life and social systems in general. However, following Archer (1995, 1996 and Sibeon 2004) I believe that these concepts are provisional and revisable in the light of the empirical data,
8 and that there are many matters that cannot be legitimately theoretically predetermined prior to empirical enquiry .
Philosophically, my research was underpinned by a realist understanding of the social world because like Carter and New (2004:1) I believe that
Of all the philosophies of social science, social realism is probably the most optimistic about the possibility – and the necessity – of reaching significant knowledge of the social world as a result of systematic, principled investigation. Social realism holds to the view that the project of empirical research in the social sciences is to investigate social phenomena in order to discover underlying causal processes. Good explanations are, therefore, those which account for patterns of phenomena by showing what causal processes are operating at various levels of the social world. In the following section I provide a brief introduction to some of the key concepts of critical and social realism. These I believe are helpful in understanding Margaret Archer’s version of social realism as well as her methodological framework of analytical dualism which I used extensively in my research. I conclude the chapter by discussing the relevance of Archer’s framework to my research study.
2.2 Social realist ontology and associated epistemology
A researcher’s ontological position regulates the kind of explanations and theories that can be advanced from within the context of what s/he believes exists socially (Archer 1998). As Sibeon notes, “…our conception of what and how we can know about any particular thing is conditioned by our conception of the general nature of things” (Sibeon 2004:31endnote nr 1). This research project was primarily underpinned by social realist ontology (Archer 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000; Sayer 2000; Carter and New 2004) which has its roots in the philosophy of critical realism. It is important to note that critical realism does not claim any specific substantive theory. Rather it is regarded as a philosophical tradition that acts as an “under labourer” for both the natural and the social sciences. It is therefore compatible with a wide range of substantive theories (for more discussion on this, see for example, Mutch 2004:430 and Mutch 2005:781-2).
A realist approach stresses the fallibility and open-ended nature of our knowledge but claims that there are “things” in the natural and social world which are independent of our knowledge or descriptions of them. In other words, realists maintain a clear delineation between ontology and epistemology unlike constructionists and positivists who tend to collapse the two (Archer 1995, 1996). Positivists are criticised for reducing reality to what can be observed whereas for constructionists there is only our constructed reality. Both of these positions thus conflate what can be known about the world, with what the world is; both are guilty of what is called the “epistemic fallacy”. However, they approach the problem
9 from opposite positions. In Bhaskar’s words, “What is needed is a theory which neither elides the referent nor neglects the socially produced character of judgements about it” (1993:217).
In the remainder of this section, in order to lay the foundations for my research, I describe some of the features of a social realist ontology: the stratification of social reality (2.2.1); underlying mechanisms and structures, causality and emergence (2.2.2.); the “critical” element of realism (2.2.3) and a socio-cultural epistemology (2.2.4). I conclude by looking at the role of discourse from a realist perspective (2.2.5).
2.2.1 Stratification: the transitive and intransitive dimensions of social reality
Critical realists (for example, Bhaskar 1979; Archer 1995, 1996; Sayer 2000; Benton and Craib 2001) propose a stratified ontology which entails a belief that reality is made up of distinct layers which are irreducible to each other. The resulting strata are emerging realities in that each level is the result of the reproductive mechanisms inherent in the more basic strata grounding it: “these strata are hierarchically structured and loosely nested to form an ontologically layered, historically open system” (Harvey 2002:165). The three levels of reality that are distinguished are: First, the real which is intransitive (that is, relatively enduring) and refers to that which exists in both the natural and the social world, independent of our knowing. The real consists of “powers, mechanisms and tendencies” which research seeks to uncover. Second, the actual which is transitive (that is, changing, depending on historical and social contexts) and represents the first level identified in research. It is what happens when the real is activated. Third, the empirical which is also transitive, is that which is experienced or which is observed by our senses. The empirical “provides only limited and mediated ‘takes’” (Sayer 2000:53) on the real. It is this understanding of ontological depth that is the foundation of a critical realist philosophy of science and makes it different from other forms of realism. This understanding has important methodological consequences. From this perspective research is about investigating and identifying “ relationships and non-relationships, respectively, between what we experience, what actually happens, and the underlying mechanisms that produce the events in the world ” (Danermark, Ekström, Jakobsen and Karlsson 2002:21), that is, between the three levels of reality.
At the heart of social realism then is the claim of the existence of the reality of social objects and relations (the intransitive dimension of social reality) which is independent of our knowledge or beliefs about it (the transitive dimension of social reality). Unlike the natural sciences, social reality is both socially produced and socially defined. In principle though,
10 this world is knowable 1, “and to some (discoverable) extent open to being changed on the basis of such knowledge as we are able to achieve” (Benton and Craib 2001:120). Research is thus important to develop knowledge and understanding (the transitive dimensions of that reality) in order to uncover the “structures and powers” that underpin that reality (intransitive objects). Sayer (1992:6) talks about the “necessarily interpretive and critical character of social science”. In the social sciences research is partly about studying people’s interpretations of the social world; about examining the meanings they ascribe to phenomena and practices in the social world (Danermark et al 2002:200). In addition, if we wish to understand and explain social phenomena we must critically evaluate the practices (including discourses, see 2.2.5) and material structures which are produced and which in turn help to sustain those practices (Sayer1992:39 citing Bhaskar 1989). In the context of my research this meant developing an in-depth and critical understanding of the emergence of the social practice of educational development (and particularly the Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education (PGDHE) at SSAU).
2.2.2 Underlying mechanisms, causality and emergence
A stratified ontology entails a conception of the world as an open system. Danermark et al (2002:206) describe an open system in the following way: “When generative mechanisms operate in combination with each other; the more mechanisms involved, the more difficult to anticipate the outcome”. In an open system there are thus unlikely to be clear connections between cause and effect; the activities in the system are likely to be unstable as people will interpret and implement things differently depending on the variable contexts (Archer 1998; Sayer 2000). However, although our perceptions of reality change continually there are underlying structures and mechanisms constituting reality which are relatively enduring, and the aim of realist research is to develop a better understanding of these enduring mechanisms and structures. Sayer describes mechanisms as “the ‘causal powers’ or ‘liabilities’ of objects or relations, or more generally their ways-of-acting” (1992:104-5). According to Bhaskar:
… what the scientist is doing is searching for something behind the pattern of events which generates them, whether or not we have closure of that system of events - irrespective of the human activity which discovers it. So what I did was to argue that the field of the domain of the real is greater, more encompassing than the field of the actual, which describes the pattern of events, and that in turn is greater than the field of the empirical, which describes what the pattern of
1 Knowable, but not in the same way as naïve realists, who believe it is possible to know reality fully and correctly, or constructionists and relativists for whom reality is socially constructed. I use the term “constructionist” to refer to those theories whose adherents believe there are multiple realities and all understanding is relative, and the term “constructivist” to refer to those theories whose adherents believe that although our understanding of the world is constructed, there is a real world “out there” to be understood (Packer and Goicoechea 2000).
11 events that we actually apprehend. Because clearly there would be things, and there would be events, actual phenomena, even if humanity were not here to observe it, or there was no agent to observe it - there would still be patterns in the world (2002:8). To illustrate the realist understanding of the social world as being knowable but not obvious, Williams (1998) uses the example of our being able to know that the reality of homelessness is what is experienced by a homeless person, but the reasons for that state are not always obvious to either the homeless person or to observers. The role of research could be to make more transparent the role of, for example, the structures that are implicated in people becoming homeless.
Central to a realist (critical and social) approach to research is that it seeks to identify and explain the causal forces that operate at the deeper ontological levels of reality; it seeks to discover something about reality which is not yet known. In essence this means accepting that “[t]hings do not happen by chance or without a reason” (Danermark et al 2002:199). Objects have intrinsic properties which are capable of generating something and research (in both the natural and social sciences) is about discovering these properties and mechanisms that generate events. These inherent properties, sometimes called causal powers, exist whether they are exercised or not and whether they are known are not. In the case of my research, my interest was in conducting a critical (see 2.2.3) investigation on the underlying causal mechanisms that contributed towards creating enabling conditions for the introduction of the PGDHE.
Another related critical realist concept is that of emergence. Emergence refers to “situations in which the conjunction of two of [sic] more features or aspects gives rise to new phenomena, which have properties which are irreducible to those of their constituents, even though the latter are necessary for their existence” (Sayer 2000:12). Or in the words of Carter and Sealey (2000:2), emergence refers to the “generation of properties and powers which are not reducible to their constituent elements and must therefore be regarded as distinct from them”. Lockwood (1964) describes emergent properties as the “component elements” of social systems, that is, the what of social systems and their generative powers which explain how they exert causal effects upon people. The notion of “emergent properties” depends on overturning empiricism:
Instead of one-dimensional reality coming to us through the ‘hard-data’ supplied by the senses, to speak of ‘emergence’ implies a stratified social world including non-observable entities, where talk of its ultimate constituents makes no sense, given that the relational properties pertaining to each stratum are all real, that it is nonsense to discuss whether something (like water) is more real than something else (like hydrogen and oxygen), and that regress as a means of determining ‘ultimate constituents’ is of no help in this respect and an unnecessary distraction into social or any other type of theorizing. We would not try to explain the power
12 of people to think by reference to the cells that constitute them (Archer 1995:50- 1). Linked to this, is the realist understanding that the objects of social science are relational. Some of these relations are internal 2 and necessary and some are external 3 and contingent. The realist conception of the relational character of the objects of social science (Danermark et al 2002: 44) is important in terms of understanding Margaret Archer’s framework presented below (2.3). To determine the exact nature of the relations between mechanisms and between mechanisms of different strata for any particular context requires a concrete research study (Danermark et al 2002; Archer 1995, 1996 and Sibeon 2004). Because the effects of mechanisms are contingent, realists prefer the word “tendency” to “laws”, as in an object “tends” to behave in a certain way. Therefore, unlike in the case of scientific laws, in the social sciences, “causal laws … must be analysed as tendencies” (Bhaskar 1978:50 in Danermark et al 2002:57. See also Carter and New 2004). Objects have causal powers whether they are exercised or not, and causal mechanisms whether they are triggered or not . In the case of social objects it is the actions of people that trigger the mechanisms. Research is therefore about investigating the powers and mechanisms (possibly invisible and/or unexercised) that operate at deeper levels of reality than the empirical.
2.2.3 The “critical” element of realism
The “critical” component of both critical and social realism should by now be evident in the intention to uncover what lies behind/ beneath the empirical. This understanding of uncovering the “structures, powers and mechanisms” (Bhaskar 1979) informed my study, for as Bhaskar argues:
… the essential movement of scientific theory will be seen to consist in the movement from the manifest phenomena of social life, as conceptualized in the experience of the social agents concerned, to the essential relations that necessitate them. Of such relations the agents involved may or may not be aware. Now it is through the capacity of social science to illuminate such relations that it may become 'emancipatory'. But the emancipatory potential of social science is contingent upon, and entirely a consequence of, its contextual explanatory power (1979:32). For Danermark et al (2002:200-201), the word “critical” as it is used in the term “critical realism” can have many meanings. In their summary of the “critical element of critical realism” they claim that critical realism
• is a critique of “flat” empiricism, implying an ontology that transcends the empirical level;
2 Internal relations: “the relata are what they are in virtue of the relationship in which they stand to each other” (Lewis 2000:259). For example, what it is to be a teacher is at least in part constituted by the relationship that exists between teachers and students. 3 External relations: “neither [entity] is constituted by the relationship in which it stands to the other” (Lewis 2000:258). For example, two strangers who pass in the street are externally related.
13 • is critical of common philosophy as applied to social science, for example, the conflation of structure and agency (see 2.3.2 below); • is critical of universal claims to truth which are often made in positivist social science by stressing the transitive dimension. In the words of Scott: “Critical realism is critical then because any attempts at describing and explaining the world are bound to be fallible … always open to critique …” (2005:635) (see 2.2.1 above); • aims to lay bare the generative mechanisms at the social level and has emancipatory 4 aims similar to those of critical theory. There are, according to Benton and Craib (2001:136), close connections between Bhaskar’s critical realist philosophy and Habermas’s social theory, since both see “a close connection between knowledge of self and society and human emancipation, or freedom from domination” (Benton and Craib 2001:120). However, Archer argues that simply seeing, and then actually acting are two different things (1996:68-9) and Bhaskar, with reference to critical theory notes, ‘'Only the spell of actualism misleads us into thinking that to explain a phenomenon, such as philosophy, is to dissolve it. The characteristic error of 'critical theory’, to suppose that to demystify a phenomenon is to destroy it, is grounded in the same mistake” (1979:8); • attempts, through critical reflection, to go beyond everyday, common sense interpretations (see 5.2.2). This final point is perhaps closest to Bhaskar’s (1979) understanding of the realist researcher’s quest as one which entails a search for knowledge not just of manifest phenomena but of the underlying structures that generate them . In the case of my research, I was interested in looking behind/beneath everyday understandings of how and why the PGDHE as a form of staff development was introduced at SSAU. I was interested in developing a deeper understanding of the generative mechanisms and structures which had enabled it. The purpose as stated earlier (1.1) of doing this was twofold. Firstly, I hope that the knowledge and insights gained through the research will be used by relevant agents in the Institution to inform their actions and responses to the circumstances which confront them in the future, enabling them to make better decisions. Secondly, I hope that the knowledge and insights gained might usefully inform the actions of relevant agents in other HEIs who might be able to draw parallels between the contexts of my case study and their own contexts (see 3.6.2 on generalization of research findings).
2.2.4 Socio-cultural epistemology
Earlier (2.2) I stated that realists stress the fallibility and the open-ended nature of our knowledge of both the natural and social world. This entails an understanding that our current beliefs are always open to correction, subject to further research. In this section I highlight my understanding that knowledge is socio-culturally constructed, a position which I believe is commensurate with social realism. Acknowledging the influence of Habermas
4 See Brante (2001), who argues for the term “causal” rather than “critical” on the grounds that in his view it is impossible to establish a link between critical realism and emancipation. However, I would argue that my research has an emancipatory element (in the Habermasian sense). ED has always been marginalized and part of the purpose of my research was to look for emancipatory knowledge which could be used by SSAU and other HEIs to make it less marginalized.
14 (1972), Sayer, for example, asserts that “[I]ndividuals cannot develop knowledge independently of a society in which they can learn to think and act” (1992:14). Sayer, drawing on Bhaskar, prefers to use the term “knowing” (rather than “knowledge”) because he believes that it better captures the idea of the process , the work involved in developing and sharing knowledge:
To combat this static view it is imperative to consider the production of knowledge as a social activity. To develop ‘knowledge’ we need raw materials and tools on which and with which we can work. These are linguistic, conceptual and cultural as well as material… To paraphrase Bhaskar, knowledge as a product, a resource, a skill, in all its various forms, is ‘both the ever-present condition and continually reproduced outcome of human agency’ (1979:43) (Sayer 1992:16). From a realist perspective, systems of meanings are “negotiated” during social interaction. These systems therefore become “conventions according to which actions of individuals can be related” (Sayer 1992:21). Part of research is to understand these conventions; however, not just “any understanding” of activity will do – human activity has particular structures and properties which exist independently of our understanding of them. Both Archer (2000:120- 153) and Sayer (1992:48) talk of “practice” as a link between knowledge and the world.
Socio-cultural theory provides an epistemological framework within which to explore the practice of educational development and particularly staff development, not just from the perspective of the individual lecturers or ED practitioners involved but also from the perspective of the social and cultural world in which the practices take place (Packer and Goicoechea 2000); that is, the international, national and institutional contexts which they are part of. This reflects my understanding that educational development is a complex, socially situated practice that entails both cultural and social transformation and, in the process, individual transformation.
Part of the socially situated practice of educational development emerges from the discourses of higher education in South Africa. For both critical and social realism discourse is not “all there is”, but discourse is nonetheless “an efficacious mechanism which operates on the world and is embedded in the world, and [upon which] the world acts …” (Bhaskar 2002: 89). Understanding “discourse” is thus important in the process of understanding structure and agency.
2.2.5 Discourse and reality
I use the term “texts” to refer to what Gee (1990:140) calls “connected stretches of language that make sense” and “discourses” for what Johnstone (2002:3), influenced by Foucault, describes as
15 … conventional ways of talking that both create and are created by conventional ways of thinking. These linked ways of thinking constitute ideologies … and serve to circulate power in society … [they] involve patterns of belief and habitual action as well as patterns of language. Discourses are ideas as well as ways of talking that influence and are influenced by the ideas … This understanding thus emphasizes that discourse is both shaped by and helps to shape the “human lifeworld” (Johnstone 2002:30).
Realist philosophy argues against those versions of constructionist and post-modern philosophy which reduce everything to discourse without any reference to reality. For example, Sayer believes that
[It]… needs to be remembered that social reality is only partly text-like. Much of what happens does not depend on or correspond to actors’ understanding; there are unintended consequences and unacknowledged conditions and things can happen to people regardless of their understandings (2000:20). Such versions of post-modernism, termed “ludic” by Carspecken (1996:15) 5, tend to diminish the role of the actor (see 2.7 for Archer’s use of agency (plural only) and actor (singular)). Actors are deterministically regarded as products of discourses which themselves are determined by social contexts. Sibeon, writing from a social realist perspective, regards the relationship between discourses and social reality/society/social contexts as “loosely dialectical” (2004:82), each to a variable extent influencing or conditioning the other, “without there being any necessary or direct correspondence or ‘perfect match’ between them; change in the one does not necessarily result in automatic or matching change in the other” ( ibid :81). Sibeon stresses the importance of research for ascertaining the nature of the relationship between discourses and social reality in specific contexts:
There may be cases where, for a period of time at least, discourse powerfully shapes context(s), or alternatively, where contextual factors are conducive to the development of, or have a pronounced conditioning effect upon, particular forms of thought: these however are contingent occurrences; they are matters of empirical investigation, not for a priori theoretical predetermination of the kind associated with, say, structuralism or poststructuralism/discourse theory… (2004:82). Willmott points out that critical realists tend to view the linguistic turn “with suspicion, if not hostility” (2005:762) because they believe that all constructionists deny ontology (or at least the importance of ontology); deny that anything exists beyond the text. However, as he points out:
5 For Carspecken there are two positions vis-à-vis discourse: Firstly, the “ludic” position which holds that worlds are “languaged” into being, that there is no reality since all is just language and secondly, the “resistance” position which holds that there is a reality but that discourse obscures it, sets up an “unreal” reality. It would seem that critical realism theorises this resistance position. Brumfit (1996) refers to weak and strong versions of the post-modern quest in this context.
16 A difficulty at the heart of the critical realist project is the implausibility of its claim to know its ‘subject matter’ independently of the discursive practices that are invoked to disclose/produce it (Willmott 2005:762). It seems to me that Willmott is overstating the realist position here. In addition, he is not making a distinction between constructionist and constructivist positions (see footnote 1). According to Sayer it does not involve a contradiction to accept “both that there is a world existing independently of our thoughts and that we can only know what it is like from within discourse” (2000:41) 6. This is the constructivist position. Clearly, the relationship between language, concepts and reality is a complex one (Danermark et al 2002:17) and cannot be ignored by researchers in the social sciences.
In her discussion of the relationship between discourse and reality, Archer cites the following example to advance her argument against a philosophy that claims that everything is about discourse 7:
Victims of educational discrimination … are not victimised by their lack of ‘discursive penetration’ of the situation in which they find themselves… their situation places objective limitations on the resources at their disposal and the rules they are able to follow (1995:116). For Archer a view of society as fundamentally “conversational” results in ignoring all structural properties “whose influence is not mediated through discourse and whose effects are quite independent of whatever discursive conceptions may be entertained about them” (2000:259). Realist philosophy presents a challenge to the hegemony of language by seeing practice rather than language as central to human beings. From a realist perspective people are not simply viewed as “discursive beings” (Archer 2000:2). Rather, language is seen as a cultural emergent property with its own enabling and constraining powers (see 2.5). Language, like all practices, is always “intentional”, that is, it always refers to something real (Archer 2000:136). Archer refers to the “aboutness of language” ( ibid ). She goes on to say: “Our words have the causal power to affect things in the world of matter. Language then is an emergent property because it is a causally efficacious practice” (2000:157) (see 2.2.2).
Consideration of the relationship between discourse and reality helped me to grapple with big ontological questions such as: is it reasonable to regard social reality as a product of discourse? Or is there an ontologically prior, pre-discursive social reality “out there”?
6 Sayer (2000) does however point out that some of the discourses which are produced are better than others and it is the role of the researcher to tell the “best story” that s/he can (see 3.8). 7 See also Sibeon’s discussion (2004:81-84) which, while not exactly the same as Archer’s, raises valid critiques of the fact that ethnomethodologists, poststructuralists, discourse theorists and postmodernists believe that discourses determine social contexts, whereas structuralists believe that structure determines thought.
17 Acknowledging the influence of Stones (1996) Sibeon subscribes to “sophisticated realism” which holds that
… the social world is ‘real’, but at the same time it is often highly variable, and empirically ‘messy’. … elements of a discursively constituted social world, if and when they are stabilized (‘institutionalized’) across time and space, can legitimately be said to be real and to be objective elements of social structure: such elements are ontologically prior to, though in principle may be open to modification or transformation by, the discursive, interpretative, and practical activities of any particular actors who encounter them (2004:84). Sibeon asserts the importance of research to investigate the relationship between discourses and social reality in particular contexts:
There may be cases where, for a period of time at least, discourse powerfully shapes context(s), or alternatively where contextual factors are conducive to the development of, or have a pronounced conditioning effect upon, particular forms of thought: these, however, are contingent occurrences; they are matters for empirical investigation … (2004:82). In relation specifically to research in higher education, Clegg asserts that:
Changes in higher education practices cannot be simply read off discourse. Indeed, I want to argue that attention solely on the discursive produces misreadings and misunderstandings. This is not an argument for ignoring the discursive, merely for denying it ontological privilege (2005:150). Research for critical realists is therefore not only a matter of interpreting discourses; nor is it a matter of disregarding the importance of language. However, when discourses are examined, this cannot be done separately from referents or contexts. To repeat, for realists discourses are cultural emergent properties with enabling and constraining causal powers to affect things in the world. As with other cultural emergent properties, language/discourses can exert a conditioning (but not determining) influence on social actors. As Archer says, “Our words have causal powers to affect things in the world of matter. Language then is an emergent property because it is a causally efficacious practice” (2000:157). Some theorists (for example, Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer 2002) therefore argue that a critical realist attempt to analyse the social world should include semiotic analysis, of which discourse analysis is a part. Part of the purpose of this research was thus to identify dominant discourses in HE generally and to analyse how and to what extent they conditioned the social context and the actions of agents at SSAU at a particular time in history. I elaborate on how I used critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine data texts in my research in 3.5.2.1.
2.3 Margaret Archer’s social realism
As Carter and New (2004:36) point out: “[s]ocial realism is not, of course, a clearly defined set of prescriptions for doing ‘realist work’ …there is no ‘party line’ …”. After many months of
18 struggle to find an appropriate framework for my research endeavour I was introduced to Margaret Archer’s version of social realism. What attracted me was that her theory assisted me in positioning my study within a coherent and aligned ontological, epistemological and methodological framework for exploring the genesis of the PGDHE which I was unable to find in the other frameworks which I had previously explored. Initially I explored activity theory (Engeström1999, 2000 and Engeström, Miettinen and Punamaki 1999) as a possible theoretical framework but I became increasingly aware that activity theory, possibly because of its roots in Psychology, did not readily provide me with the metatheory or sufficient analytical tools for looking at broader structures and particularly at issues of structure and agency which I soon realised were central concepts for my research (Archer 1995, 1996, 2000; Scott 2004). Sibeon in his assessment of Archer’s conceptual framework describes it as
… contributing significantly to the development of sociological theory and methodology. … In particular, her clarification of the grounds for rejecting upwards, downwards, and central conflation, is invaluable, as also, for example is her concept … of a flexible but realist social ontology allied to her epistemological and methodological arguments; her work on a stratified conception of the actor; and her work on ‘positional interests’ … and on the dialectics of agency and structure (2004:99) 8. Carter and New (2004:33) aver : “Probably the major development in realist empirical research has been Archer’s morphogenetic model” (see 2.4 below for an explanation of Archer’s morphogenetic model).
Nonetheless, throughout the research process I was aware of the possible dangers of “throwing in my lot” with only one major theorist. Both May (2001) and Sibeon (2004) argue against using “[m]onolithic social theories and one-dimensional approaches to research” (May 2001:29) as these are unlikely to be able to fully explain everything. To counter these concerns to some extent I also made use of some of the substantive theories and research findings specific to the field of higher education 9 (see chapters 4 and 5) and I employed a range of research methods (see chapter 3).
One of the drawbacks of using Archer’s framework was that I was unable to find a great many examples of attempts to use the morphogenetic approach in qualitative research, particularly in the field of higher education. As Carter and New (2004:35) observe, “its potential for empirical research has yet to be realized”. Although I found Archer’s framework very useful, it was impossible to incorporate all aspects of it. I thus took from it what I
8 See 2.3.3; 2.5; 2.6 for an explanation of these concepts. 9 For example, the theories and findings around academic identities (Clark1983; Becher 1981; Henkel 2000, 2002; Becher and Trowler 2001) and theories around how “communities of practice” function (Lave and Wenger 1991).
19 thought would usefully assist me to achieve my research purposes. I also need to make clear that it was not at any point my intention to evaluate the usefulness of her framework for empirical research. However, in the description of her framework that follows, I signal critiques of her work 10 that I encountered during my research process.
The remainder of this chapter is a description of those parts of Archer’s framework which influenced my study. It is based primarily on three of Archer’s works: Realist Social Theory: the Morphogenetic Approach (1995), Culture and Agency , The Place of Culture in Social Theory (Revised edition 1996) and Being Human (2000) 11 .
The point has already been made that social analysis must be guided by a framework in which there is internal consistency between social ontology, explanatory methodology and practical social theory because “the nature of what exists cannot be unrelated to how it is studied” (Archer1995:15). In the sections that follow I examine Archer’s arguments about what social reality is held to be and outline the explanatory methodology which emerges from her social ontology.
2.3.1 The link between culture and structure
In the introduction to Culture and Agency (1996) Archer avers that, “The problem of structure and agency has rightly come to be seen as the basic issue in modern social theory” (xi). Archer goes on to say that this has meant that issues of culture have tended to take a backseat. She argues that structure and culture parallel one another and that using the same conceptual, theoretical and analytical framework for investigating each of them allows a researcher to compare and contrast the effects of each on social life and to explore the interplay between them. Both structure and culture are central to social life yet they are relatively autonomous from one another and should therefore not be collapsed into each other 12 . If the differences aren’t acknowledged then the two domains would “be clamped together in a conceptual vice, doing violence to our subject matter by eliding the material and the ideational aspects of social life” (1996: xi). Archer understands structure to refer to material interests, and culture to be about ideas, beliefs, values, ideologies. Both are important aspects of social life – they are parallel yet different from each other and autonomous. Keeping in mind their autonomy allows a researcher to understand the interplay between them; between ideas and interests (see 2.3.3 below).
10 See for example King (1999) who, arguing from an interpretive perspective and using Collins’ arguments about micro-sociology, provides a critique of Archer’s social theory. 11 To avoid repetition, in the remainder of this chapter, unless otherwise stated, all references dated 1995, 1996 and 2000 will refer to these three texts by Margaret Archer. 12 However, Kemp, in my opinion, rightly critiques Archer for not providing clear enough definitions of the concepts of culture to “allow us to clearly identify which entities fall into each category” (2005:179).
20 2.3.2 Conflation of structure and agency and culture and agency historically
The theoretical tendency in sociology in both the structural and cultural domains has been to conflate or elide the “parts” and the “people”. Archer argues against what she calls the “Fallacy of Conflation” (1996:xv); both the conflation of structure and agency and of culture and agency. Her theory is one which is “capable of linking ‘structure and agency’ or ‘culture and agency’, rather than sinking the difference between the ‘parts’ (organisational or ideational) and the ‘people’, who hold the positions or ideas within them” (1996:xiv) . If the two are conflated it is impossible to keep them independent and to examine the interplay between them.
Historically theorists have elided the two different levels (the systemic and the agential) in all three possible logical directions, that is, upwards, downwards and central (Archer 1996; Carter and New 2004; Sibeon 2004). Upwards and downwards conflationists see either the “people” or the “parts” as being an epiphenomenon of the other (see 2.3.3). With central conflation the elision is in the middle and neither the “people” nor the “parts” are seen as autonomous but rather as being constitutive of one another. In the latter case it is impossible to unravel the influences of one upon the other.
In downwards conflation (1995:25-45; Archer1998:46-56), human behaviour is entirely determined by the social relations they encounter. Derived from social constructionist accounts, Archer calls this “Society’s Being” (2000:4), or as Harvey (2002:166) calls it, the deterministic “society creates man” model because all the powers and properties possessed by humans are seen to be the “gifts of society”. In Anthropology, traditionally Functionalists and Structuralists have, in different ways, both argued for downward conflation: “Both elaborate on the theme of society predominating over the individual ...” (1996:40) and in Sociology key thinkers like Levi-Strauss and Durkheim also argue for downward conflation (“primacy of society over the individual” (1996:43)). Sibeon argues that Marx too emphasized macro social structure as determining social action (2004:37). According to Sibeon (2004:39-41), poststructuralists (for example, Lacan and Foucault), discourse theorists (for example Laclau and Derrida) and other theorists like Bourdieu are also guilty of a range of forms of social determinism which tend, in varying degrees, to neglect agency.
In upwards conflation (1996:46-71) the major emphasis is on agency and the systemic level is seen to be an epiphenomenon of agency. This version originates in the Enlightenment and is termed “Modernity’s Man” by Archer (2000:4). Harvey (2002:167) calls it the voluntaristic, "man creates society" model. In this view humans possess only one property, namely, instrumental rationality. Social structure and culture is thus derived from agency and it involves the upwards conflation of agency into structure. According to Archer (1996),
21 this belief is also held by instrumentalists, neo-Marxists and critical theorists like Habermas. She claims that the typical fallacy of all versions of upwards conflation is that it “grants insufficient independence to the Cultural System for its internal contradictions to merit attention as autonomous sources of change” (1996:67).
The major modern proponents of central conflation (1996:72-96) are Structuration theorists Bauman and Giddens who accord equal emphasis to the systemic and agential levels of social life; they are believed to be mutually constitutive. This is an attempt to avoid excessive voluntarism on the one hand and determinism on the other. No longer is anything an epiphenomenon of anything else because structure/culture and agency are now intertwined. Structure/culture and agency are thus seen as a duality . Consequently the two components cannot be examined separately and it becomes impossible to investigate the interplay between the two, that is, to investigate “the circumstances or conditions ” (1996:80) under which one may exert more influence than the other: “this central notion effectively precludes a specification of when there will be ‘more Voluntarism or more Determinism’” (1996:86). The two sides of the duality “are simply clamped together in a conceptual vice” (1996:87). The problem with central conflation is its inability to answer “when” questions: for example, when can agents be transformative and when can they only replicate things as they are? This stems from a view of a social system whose ontological status is that of “virtual existence” (Giddens (1979:93 in Archer 1996:88) outside time and space:
… both theorists [Giddens and Bauman] prevent us from talking about the stringency of constraints or the existence of facilitating factors at the Systemic level – because they will not accord ‘full’ ontological status to the Cultural System (1996:90). Equally, at the agential level they seem to assume that all actors “enjoy a constant degree of transformative freedom” (1996:90). (The stratified view of agency will be explored further in 2.7 below.)
In summary then, social realists argue against
‘one-level’ explanations, based on a homogeneous view of the social world, whether this be the ‘psychology’ of the upward conflationist, the ‘sociology’ of the downward conflationist, or the ‘social psychology’ of the central conflationist (1995:105). Sibeon expresses similar sentiments
Collapsing the distinction between subjective/action and structure makes it difficult to account for unintended and perhaps unwanted cultural objects and structures; we are prevented from studying cultural objects and the ‘parts’ of social systems, and relations between them, in their own right, independently of the subjective intentions of those involved in creating or maintaining them (2004:63).
22 2.3.3 Rejecting conflation, embracing analytical dualism, the stratified nature of social reality and emergence
Rejecting all forms of conflation, Archer’s theory relies on the premise that in order to study structure/culture and agency it is necessary to separate the “parts” and the “people” theoretically (see also Layder, Pawson and Sayer in Carter and New 2004). Archer’s argument thus rests squarely on what she terms analytical dualism13 which in effect is the exact opposite of Giddens’ notion of the “duality of structure” (1995:81). (For further critiques of Giddens’ Structuration theory see Archer 1995:93-134; Willmott 2000:104 and Sibeon 2004:73-76). Archer claims that to understand the interplay between the two entities they have to be understood as each possessing distinct properties and powers in their own right. In the context of my research that meant examining the relationship between on the one hand, the systemic level (material structures and ideas related to higher education and educational development) and on the other, the individuals and people involved in the context of my case study .
Social realist ontology is thus based on a stratified view of social reality in which both society and people have emergent properties and powers (see 2.2.1; 2.5; 2.6; 2.7) which are irreducible to one another:
Irreducibility means that the different strata are separable by definition precisely because of the properties and powers which belong to each of them and whose emergence from one another justifies their differentiation as strata at all (1995:13). Thus all forms of conflation are rejected in favour of maintaining analytical dualism. This view of reality allows examination of the distinctive emergent properties of both people and society/culture:
Because the social world is made up, inter alia , of ‘structures’ and ‘agents’ and because these belong to different strata, there is no question of reducing one to the other or of eliding the two and there is every reason for exploring the interplay between them (1995:62). It is thus the Elisionists’ (all theories and theorists who have grouped themselves around structuration theory) insistence on inseparability, versus the Emergentists’ (all theories and theorists who understand social reality as stratified and consisting of emerging properties
13 Archer acknowledges that the concept of analytical dualism comes from Lockwood’s (1964 in Archer 1996 and 1995:67) use of the distinction between ”social integration” and ”system integration” which he used for explaining structure and agency. Social integration for Lockwood is about the degree to which the relations amongst groups of people are orderly or conflictual, whereas systems integration is the degree to which the relations between the ‘parts’ of the social structure are orderly or conflictual. The point was to enable theorising about the interplay between the two. Archer takes this a step further by applying this distinction to the cultural realm as well. See also a summary of Mouzeli’s elaboration of Lockwood’s concepts in Sibeon (2004:79-81) which is in many respects similar to Archer’s. In Sibeon’s (2004:80) view Lockwood’s distinction between social and system integration must not be elided with micro- and macro-levels of analysis, and analysis of both the former can be undertaken at both micro and macro levels. See also Willmott (2000) for discussion of Archer’s application of Lockwood’s distinction between social and system integration.
23 and powers) insistence on separability, which represents the ontological differences between the two (1995:60). This insistence on separability brings with it the premise that structure/culture and agency are “temporally distinguishable” (1996:66), that is, it is possible to determine what happens when, and changes over time at both levels can be examined. Archer also refers to this as “the historicity of emergence ” ( ibid ). Cohen sums up the importance of time and space in social theory:
If social patterns are embedded in the reality of social activity, then a concern for time and space becomes difficult to avoid. Social conduct, after all, is always situated in specific settings, and it takes time to engage even in the most fleeting practices, let alone sustained sequences and series of interactions (1989:77 in Sibeon 2004:155). Because structure/culture and agency are ontologically different entities, each with its own properties and powers, the methodology used to examine them has to enable the researcher to study the interplay between the two. Archer proposes that the morphogenetic/static framework 14 provides a working methodology aligned with realist social ontology, which explains how emergence occurs and allows for an examination of the interplay between structure/culture and agency over time.
To conclude this section:
… the realist social ontology … enjoins a Methodological Realism which embodies its commitments to depth, stratification and emergence as definitional of social reality (1995:159).
2.4 Morphogenesis: Archer’s social realist methodology
The morphogenetic approach is thus presented as the practical methodological embodiment of the realist social ontology (1995:15). To reiterate, social realism requires a methodology premised on the principle of analytical dualism “where explanation of why things social are so and not otherwise depends upon an account of how the properties and powers of the ‘people’ causally intertwine with those of the ‘parts’” (1995:15). It is therefore a close examination of the interplay between them (culture and people and structure and agency) that is of interest to the social realist researcher.
The methodology of social realism “for the practical analysis of vexatious society” (1995:161) proposed by Archer is thus contained in the morphogenetic/morphostatic framework:
As a process ‘morphogenesis’ refers to the complex interchanges that produce change in a System’s given form, structure or state (‘morphostasis’ is the reverse), the end-product being termed ‘Elaboration’ (1996:xxiv).
14 The term “morphogenesis” was coined by Walter Buckley (1967:58) and defined by him as “those processes which tend to elaborate or change a system’s given form, structure or state”. Morphostasis, in contrast, refers to processes in complex systems which tend to ensure that system remains unchanged (1995:75 footnote 11).
24 The morphogenetic/morphostatic framework enables a researcher to give an account for how and why things have either changed (elaborated) or stayed the same (reproduced). Importantly, it also allows the researcher to examine the interplay between the two levels of the parts and the people over time . As alluded to earlier, the inclusion of temporality as part of this explanatory methodology is crucial. Morphogenesis occurs in endless three part cycles consisting of: structural/cultural conditioning → social/socio-cultural interaction → structural/cultural elaboration (see Figures 1 and 2 below). Archer’s claim is that this methodology is capable of allowing a researcher to unravel the dialectical interplay between structure and agency and between cultural and agency over time.
Cultural conditioning T1
Socio-cultural interaction
3 T2 T
Cultural elaboration
T4
Figure 1 The morphogenesis of culture (Archer 1995:193)
Structural conditioning
T1
Social interaction
3 T2 T
Structural elaboration T4
Figure 2 The morphogenesis of structure (Archer 1995:193)
25 In order to examine a morphogenetic cycle of any nature, it is necessary to understand that the starting point (T 1 as present time) is always situated historically; is always “conditioned” 15 by history: “For we are all born into and can only live embedded in an ideational [and structural] context which is not of our making” (Archer 1996:xxv). Therefore to begin to understand any particular morphogenetic cycle it is necessary to begin with an examination of how things came to be (in both the cultural and the structural domains); what they are at the present time. Systemic properties therefore shape the situations in which later “generations” (Archer 1998:82) of agents find themselves, and they bestow vested interests on individuals according to the positions they occupy.
T2 to T 3 is an analysis of how individuals and groups of people (depending on the positions they occupy) respond to inherited constraining or enabling structural and cultural contexts. In the words of Carter and New (2004:6): “People choose what they do, but they make their choices from a structurally and culturally generated range of options – which they do not choose”. If the result of this agential interaction is morphogenesis (as opposed to morphostasis) then the likely result is that of “elaboration” of the structural or cultural systems (T 4). This elaboration is seen as being a mostly unintended consequence of action (non-predictability of change in open systems) 16 . The T 4 of the present cycle becomes the T 1 in the next morphogenetic cycle and becomes a new conditional influence on subsequent action. The morphogenetic/static framework is useful as it allows a researcher to observe when transformation occurs and when reproduction occurs and also the conditions under which each is possible or not possible (Archer 1995:140).
In addition, the advantage of using the morphogenetic cycle as a common framework for examining culture and structure is that it becomes possible “to see how structure and culture intersect in the middle element of their respective morphogenetic cycles” (1996:xxviii), when one is more influential than the other and what the consequences of each is. The point of investigating a particular cycle is that it could provide “an analytical history of emergence of the problematic properties under investigation” (1995:91). In my case I used the methodology of the morphogenetic cycle to investigate the elaboration (structure, culture and agency) of Educational Development and particularly the historical emergence of the PGDHE at SSAU.
15 Archer talks about “structural and cultural conditioning”, and avoids the use of “determining” because that would imply no agency and she believes that agents possess their own emergent properties and powers (1995:90). 16 See Sibeon’s critique of Archer’s lack of theorising about the role of “social chance” in her framework. He says, “Archer’s (1995) analytical and ontological dualism refers to the idea of interplay over time between agency and structure. A more complete conception of the social, however, would insist upon the notion that agency and structure but also social chance may have mutually conditioning or shaping influences one upon the other; to ignore or marginalize social chance in favour of an emphasis on agency and (or ‘versus’) structure, is to imply a seriously incomplete social ontology” (2004:129).
26 Sibeon (2004) critiques Archer’s claim that T 1 is in no sense dependent on what contemporary agents do. For Archer “the only question is what agents will do with their problematic heritage” (1998:83). I would concur with Sibeon’s view that contemporary agents have more power than Archer appears to give them credit for.
The preceding paragraphs have described the morphogenetic cycle in general terms. Yet, as stated previously, to accept Archer’s understanding of the stratified nature of social reality is to accept that society is made up of three sets of emergent properties: structural, cultural and agential. It is also, unlike in structuration theory, important to understand that one cannot collapse these into one another. The emergent properties are therefore both relatively autonomous and relatively enduring. Essentially then, this methodology requires an examination of the emergent properties of structure, culture and agency which means dealing with three different kinds of cycles “each of which has relative autonomy and yet interacts with the others” (1995:192-3).
Archer generally discusses these propositions for culture and structure separately, but I think at this point it is useful for me to deal with them together in order to illustrate how both parts of the social world can be analyzed using the same framework. CS refers to the Cultural System, SS to the Structural System, S-C to Socio-Cultural Interaction, SI to Structural Interaction (the first two thus refer to the “parts” and the latter two to the “people” in the cultural and structural domains respectively). In order to understand the morphogenetic cycles, it is necessary to accept the following four propositions:
(i) There are logical relations between components of the cultural system (CS) and there are internal and necessary relations between and within social structures (SS).
(ii) Causal influences are exerted by the cultural system on the socio-cultural level (S-C) and similarly by the social structure(s) on social interaction (SI).
(iii) There are causal relationships between groups and individuals at the socio-cultural level (S-C) and at the level of social interaction (SI).
(iv) There is elaboration of the cultural and structural systems due, in the case of the former, to the socio-cultural level modifying current logical relations and introducing new ones and in the latter case, to modification or introduction of new internal and necessary structural relationships. This represents morphogenesis. (Adapted from Archer 1995:168-9 and 1996:106).
The cycles will be discussed further in later sections of this chapter.
27 2.5 Cultural morphogenesis
… a Cultural System is held to be roughly co-terminous with what Popper called Third World Knowledge. At any given time a Cultural System is constituted of the corpus of existing intelligibilia – by all things capable of being grasped, deciphered, understood or known by someone. … By definition the cultural intelligibilia form a system, for all items must be expressed in a common language (or must be translatable in principle) since this is a precondition of their being intelligible (1996:104 and 1995:179). Archer’s contention is that in Sociology the concept of culture has been vaguely defined and poorly explained 17 and thus it “occupies no clear place in sociological analysis” (1996:2). The reason for this, she believes, is the pervasive belief historically in what she has dubbed the “Myth of Cultural Integration”, which is the a priori assumption that culture is that which we all share/hold in common and which therefore ensures social cohesion (Willmott 2000:110). Archer devotes the first chapter of Culture and Agency (1996:1-21) to explaining the origins of the myth and debunking it in favour of an understanding of culture which allows for the analytical distinction between the logical consistency among the components of culture (the ideas, beliefs, ideologies, values and theories) and the causal consensus between groups of people. This she claims is essential if one wishes “to gain an analytical grip on the cultural components and upon Socio-Cultural dynamics” (1996:5-6). The degree of logical consistency at the systemic level is labelled “Cultural System integration” (CS). The causal relations between the “people” (or cultural agents) are termed “Socio-Cultural integration” (S-C).
The focus of exploration then, according to Archer (1996), should be the interface between the cultural system (coherence of the ideas, beliefs, ideologies, values, theories) and the socio-cultural level (coherence amongst the people/groups of people). The purpose is to “identify the conditions for integration in the cultural realm” (1996:21) rather than to assume cultural integration aprioristically .
To spell it out further in Archer’s words:
… causal relationships are contingent (they may pertain) whereas logical relationships do obtain, and when internally and necessarily related they constitute cultural emergent properties (CEPs). All items in society’s propositional ‘register’, which have been ‘lodged’ there by previous thinkers, have to stand in some logical relationship to one another (which of course can be one of independence) whilst causal relationships are reliant upon agential instigation. Thus, the Cultural System refers to relations between the components of culture whilst Socio-Cultural interaction concerns relationships between cultural agents (1995:180).
17 Despite this contention, I encountered difficulties with the fact that Archer herself does not provide a very clear exposition of exactly what culture is beyond it being about the ideational. See also Zeuner (1999) on Archer’s lack of clarity regarding culture.
28 The CS, as defined by Archer, is thus made up of ideas, ideologies, theories, beliefs and values which exist independently of whether people (in the present) are aware of them, believe in them or agree with them. What is of interest are the logical relations that pertain between the propositional formations of those ideas. These logical relations can either be consistent (complementary) with one another or they can be inconsistent (contradictory) (see 2.5.1 below). In reality the CS and the S-C neither exist nor function independently of one another but in order to examine the interplay between them, it is necessary to adopt a dualistic approach. Archer suggests that a good starting point is to differentiate the logical relations (of relevance to the CS) from the causal ones (of relevance to the S-C) and then “to conceptualise how certain properties of the ‘parts’ and certain properties of the ‘people’ actually combine at the interface” (1996:xx).
Some critics accuse the morphogenetic approach of implicit cognitivism and/or rationalism (see Nellhaus 1998 and Shilling 1997 in Willmott 2000) but this is because they confuse the contradictions and complementarities that may exist at the CS level with what people do with those ideas. Willmott (2000:109) quotes from Buckley (1967:16) to make his point: “the human personality can harbour fairly great incompatibilities in ideas, beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies, while operating quite effectively”.
In practice this meant that I had to identify the ideas, beliefs, theories, ideologies and values (emergent relational properties) expressed as discourses, which have and still do pertain to first, higher education broadly and then more specifically, to the practice of educational development (including staff development) at: 1) macro (international and national levels in chapter 4 and, 2) mezo (institutional) and micro (EDU) levels in chapter 5.
I am in broad agreement with Sibeon (2004:46 ff ) that Archer has not adequately conceptualised micro-macro in her framework and that she tends to elide micro with agency and macro with structure. Her argument (1995:8-9, 12) is essentially that micro and macro levels are relative to each other. So for example she claims that “societal properties of Britain” ( ibid :10) could be conceived of as macro in a study which is about Britain but could equally be conceived of as micro when the focus of the study is Europe. Essentially I do not think that there is anything wrong with this argument but she does not extend her argument in a way that makes it clear that in order to understand social phenomena in my case study I would have to look at other levels of social processes such as the Educational Development Unit, SSAU, and the national and international higher education contexts. I found Sibeon’s conceptualisation of micro-mezo-macro clearer and easier to apply to my context. Sibeon argues that “micro and macro are distinct and relatively autonomous levels of social process” (2004:53) and if conflationary thinking is rejected, as was argued earlier, then the macro level does not determine the micro level or vice versa and conflation of “micro-agency” and
29 “macro-structure” should also be avoided. In my research I realised that I needed to search for connections between phenomena within and between different levels of social reality (Sibeon 2004:78).
In each of the levels I thus identified and examined the ideas, beliefs, values and theories to determine how they related to one another, that is, were they contradictory or did they complement one another? Then I had to determine how and whether these logical relations, called cultural emergent properties (CEPs), impinged upon the people involved (at the S-C level): what were the consequences for people (lecturers, University management, EDU staff) of holding specific theories or beliefs? Did the interplay between the ideas and the responses of the people result in change or reproduction? The way in which these CEPs conditioned action and the responses by the people to the constraints or enablements constituted the first phase of the morphogenetic cycle (see Figure 1). This meant examining the various causal effects on the people in my study, of holding ideas which stood in logical contradiction with or were complementary to other ideas. Of relevance too was an examination of the interaction amongst the individuals and groups of people to determine the level of integration among them. In summary, part of my research process entailed uncovering “how contradictory or complementary relations between ‘parts’ of the Cultural System map[ed] onto orderly or conflictual relationships between ‘people’ at the Socio- Cultural level …” (1996: xxi). The main purpose for doing this was to enable me to generate understanding about the conditions for cultural stability or change in the context of my research.
In keeping with the morphogenetic cycle described earlier (see 2.5 and Figure 1), it was necessary to start by looking at the cultural system (T 1 in Figure 1) because any socio- cultural action (in my case staff development practices at SSAU) is historically situated and therefore takes place within a context of ideas, theories, beliefs and values which predate the S-C action and therefore exert a conditional influence on the activities of the people.
I therefore set about uncovering whether the ideas in the cultural domain were in logical contradiction or whether they were complementary to one another. The logical relations at the cultural system level create, what Archer calls, situational logics (1995, 1996), that is, different action contexts for actors at the S-C level. Contradictions tend to create “problem- ridden situations for actors which they must confront if and when they realise, or are made to acknowledge, that the proposition(s) they endorse are enmeshed in some inconsistency” (1996:xxii). On the other hand, complementarities create “problem-free” situations for actors (ibid.) (see 2.5.1). As mentioned earlier, aside from these systemic influences, actors are also influenced by the causal relationships which operate between groups and individuals at the socio-cultural level. These relationships “have their own dynamics, rooted in different
30 material interests, producing various forms of social stratification and different ideal interests, such as ethnic, religious or linguistic divides ….These make their own contribution to cultural stability or change through the influences they exert upon what actors do on the spot” (1996:xxii).
The following section will look at the effects on people (at the S-C level) of holding theories or beliefs which stand in particular logical relationships to other theories, ideas and beliefs. To reiterate, these can be relations of contradiction or complementarity which create different situational logics for the holders of the ideas (at the S-C level). In addition, the situational logics will be different depending on whether the ideas are “necessarily and internally related or whether their relationship is purely contingent” (1995:229). In other words there are four possible types of logical relations, each associated with a particular situational logic which “provide[s] directional guidance which predisposes towards totally different (formal) courses of action” ( ibid ). See Figure 3 below for a summary of cultural elaboration.
Cultural System
Types of logical relations
Which condition Contradictions Complementarities
Constraining Competitive Concomitant Contingent
Situational Correction Elimination Protection Opportunity logic CS level Syncretism Pluralism Systematization Specialization S-C level Unification Cleavage Reproduction Sectionalism
Figure 3 Cultural elaboration: summary (Archer 1996:270)
To make it simpler (following Archer 1995 and 1996), in the following explication of the four configurations, the logical relations between only two cultural items called A and B, will be used.
31 2.5.1 Logical relationships at the Cultural System level and impact of these on the Socio-Cultural level
2.5.1.1 Constraining contradictions (necessary incompatibilities)
In the case of Constraining contradictions, at the systemic level cultural items A and B are logically inconsistent and thus exert a constraint upon the S-C level if there are people who wish to maintain A (if there aren’t then this property ceases to exist). In this type of contradiction A is dependent on part of B : “B constitutes the hostile environment in which A is embedded and from which it cannot be removed. For A cannot stand alone; it is compelled to call upon B, to operate in terms of B, to address B, in order to work at all” (1996:148-9). Thus those people who try to sustain A are constrained from doing so and their survival depends upon their being able to overcome the incompatibility with B.
Contradictions at the CS level do not determine what happens at the S-C level, contradictions (and complementarities) only exert a conditional influence on the S-C by shaping the contexts people find themselves in (at T 1). In this case the context which is created for the actors is one of strain: because A is dependent on B, those committed to A are forced to engage with B even though they find B repugnant. It is possible to discover that there is an apparent contradiction between A and B but if this does not happen then continued support for A makes a correction of its relationship with B obligatory and involves “seeking to repair [the contradiction] by reinterpretation of the components involved” (1996:156). “Correction” is thus the situational logic created in this context. For example, as will be seen in 4.5, my analysis of data seems to indicate that the original ideas, beliefs, theories, ideologies and values on which ED in South Africa was founded (that is, equity, redress and ensuring epistemological access to higher education for so-called “underprepared” students) have been in constraining contradiction with the beliefs, values, theories and ideas underpinning the move to quality assurance (QA) in higher education. I argue that there have been attempts to “repair” and “reinterpret” both sets of ideas in order to correct the contradictions between them. Correction , according to Archer, means that
… the inconsistency has to be tackled, repaired and the correction made to stick. This is the task that the situational logic enforces on those who neither make their exit nor change sides in the context of a constraining contradiction (1996:157). Correction of the inconsistency generally results in ideational syncretism, defined as “the attempt to sink the differences and effect union between the contradictory elements concerned” (1996:158 and 1995:233). Logically, correction can occur in three different ways:
(1) A ← B, i.e. correcting B so it becomes consistent with A. (2) A ↔ B, i.e. correcting both A and B so they become mutually consistent.
32 (3) A → B, i.e. correcting A so it becomes consistent with B. (1995:233 and1996:159).
The preferred path for correction depends on the perspectives of the people involved. For supporters of A, the preferred solution is A ← B as it is B that undergoes re-interpretation to remove inconsistency while A stays intact. The reinterpretation may go through a number of versions (B 1 B2 B3 etc) before an acceptable solution to the inconsistency is found. The success of the re-interpretation depends on how effective the “repairs” are, and on people at the S-C level accepting the re-interpretation. The second syncretic method (A ↔ B) involves both A and B undergoing re-interpretation (or “concept-stretching” (1996:166)) so that A 1 or An becomes consistent with B 1 or B n. This form of syncretism does not represent a finding of a middle path, that is, a compromise which enables the status quo to be maintained. It in fact enables change; it is morphogenetic because it leads to cultural elaboration at the CS level. In the third syncretic method (A → B), A undergoes repair in order to be consistent with B. My analysis of the data seems to indicate (5.6) that it is the second of these syncretic paths (A ↔ B) that has taken place in the shift at the ideational level in relation to what comprises ED and how it should be practised and at the same time a shift in the interpretation of QA followed by SSAU. There has been a certain amount of re-interpretation of both in order to allow them to “sit together” more or less comfortably.
The main consequence then of the situational logic created by constraining contradictions is an attempt to sink the differences and remove inconsistency between components of the CS. In summary, “the existence of constraining contradictions within the cultural system conditions ideational unification” (1996:171), but it cannot be assumed that this union at the CS level will necessarily be echoed at the S-C level: there might be too much antagonism between individuals or groups of people or there may be structures that militate against harmony at the S-C level.
It is however the nature of the interplay between the “parts” and the “people” that determines whether cultural morphogenesis or morphostasis will take place in a particular context. In other words, it is “how the contradictory or complementary relations between parts of the Cultural System map onto orderly or conflictual Socio-Cultural relationships …” (1996:187). Contradictions at the CS level can be accompanied by either a more orderly or a more disorderly S-C level. In the former, socio-cultural life appears to be unaffected by the inconsistencies at the systemic level. In some cases powerful groups of people exercise power by using containment strategies such as concealing contradictions in order to maintain orderliness at the S-C level. This low system integration and high social integration generally results in cultural stability. However, containment strategies do not work indefinitely, as the contradictions slowly become apparent to more and more people. At this
33 point attempts at syncretic corrections (that is, attempts to sink the differences causing the contradictions) at the CS level take place. If the syncretism is successful, it “introduces a higher degree of integration into belief systems and scientific theories than when the contradiction was being concealed and tackled only through S-C containment” (1996:194-5). It is, however, a mistake to assume that S-C orderliness is always a result of the machinations of power– there are circumstances when people can remain unaffected by, for example, containment strategies. Those whose lifeworlds are independent of and not affected by an issue are, under certain circumstances, able to eschew involvement. They have interests (both material and ideal) which are unrelated to the issue under discussion: “groups which self consciously abjure involvement and pursue their own self-sufficient interests” (1996:196). In 5.2.1.2 I argue that this could account for those lecturers at SSAU who chose not to involve themselves (sometimes as an act of defiance) at all with ED activities (and/or as far as possible with activities related to the QA office) because their identities and interests were much more tied up with their disciplines, their research or their departments and in some cases because their worldviews rejected managerial discourses in higher education (see 4.3.2).
Disorder at the S-C level is dependent on the way in which interests are distributed and power combines with the situational logic of correction. If there are major differences in interests then there is likely to be more disorderliness and conflict between groups at the S- C level before attempts at correction. In such circumstances neither social control through the use of containment strategies nor the use of cultural power to conceal contradictions may work. This disorderliness at the S-C level is what prompts the move to syncretism at the CS level. However, ongoing division of interest means that “those with divergent concerns refuse to let any syncretic formula stick Socio-Culturally” (1996:198). Attempts at syncretism are foiled in three main ways (desertion; schismatism and sectarianism; and counter-actualisation) and each spells a progressive increase in disorder at the S-C level. In the case of desertion those who become disillusioned with the lack of unification sometimes disaffiliate from the idea, belief, theory or value. In relation to ED in South Africa, this could explain why over the years many practitioners have left the field, particularly to (re)enter mainstream departments (Volbrecht 2003). Desertion is something that happens at the individual level but it could have aggregate effects on both the CS and the S-C levels. There seem to be fewer people left in ED in South Africa now to carry on the work. However, in some cases the deserters have not abandoned their ED ideals and ideas and those still in the field find they have support from other places such as the national Department of Education and the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC). However, the discourses used by these people are the policy discourses (identified by Morphet in his evaluation of the
34 South African Association for Academic Development in 1995 and not necessarily the support discourses that originally underpinned ED work in South Africa (see 4.5).
In the case of schismatism and sectarianism the attempts at unifying disparate beliefs is destabilised by in-fighting at the S-C level and results in splintering into groups. This seems to be what has happened to ED in South Africa with some people using different ideologically based discourses to understand their practice. For some it was a case of understanding ED in terms of equity and redress and strongly resisting pressure to adopt “policing” models of quality assurance in HEIs. Both of the former ways of resisting syncretism create high levels of disorder at the Systemic level. Those who wish to, could use the disorder at the S-C level to engage in c ounter-actualization, which means that they “leap-frog over the whole syncretic undertaking to take up their cudgels on the other side” (1996:201). For example, in some HEIs (both in South Africa and in other countries) ED practitioners have moved away from ED and have taken on quality assurance positions. In these cases the emphasis has been predominantly on QA as accountability rather than QA as development or enhancement (see 4.10.2). In some cases then, instead of attempting union or sinking differences, the new proponents of B are in competition with adherents of A, thus introducing an original contribution to the cultural dynamics - the competitive contradiction (see 2.5.1.3).
2.5.1.2 Concomitant complementarities (necessary complementarities)
Concomitant complementarities are the opposite of constraining contradictions; as with the latter, invoking A also unavoidably evokes B, in this case the B upon which this A is dependent is consistent with it . As a result “A occupies a congenial environment of ideas, the exploration of which, far from being fraught with danger, yields a treasure trove of reinforcement, clarification, confirmation and vindication – because of the logical consistency of the items involved” (1996:153). In this case, the situational logic generated by the concomitant complementarity is one of compatibility and is problem-free for the actors concerned. Nevertheless, as was the case with constraining contradictions, concomitant complementarities also causally influence what occurs at the S-C level. Contrary to expectations, this too can, over time, create problems of reluctance to allow for change or innovation
… because their ‘truths’ are not challenged but only reinforced from the proximate environment, then actors confront no ideational problems, are propelled to no daring feats of intellectual elaboration, but work according to a situational logic which stimulates nothing beyond cultural embroidery. …the situational logic of concomitant compatibility conduces towards protection …not correction (1996:158).
35 This situational logic with its concern for protection generally results in ideational systematization which is defined as “the strengthening of pre-existing relations among the parts, the development of relations among parts previously unrelated, the gradual addition of parts and relations to a system, or some combination of these changes” (Hall and Hagen 1969:36 in Archer1996:171-2).
Systematization results in cultural density, that is, “the core complementarity becomes increasingly sophisticated, extends outwards to embrace further readily compatible elements and the whole bundle then undergoes intensive systematization” (1996:176). This process is often echoed in the S-C level with more and more people being drawn into the process of “cultural embroidery”. The net result then is cultural morphostasis. At the S-C level, the result of concomitant complementarities is often an impetus towards reproduction (that is, promoting common ideas and practices throughout the population (1996:179)) as opposed to the impetus towards correcting ideas which is the case with constraining contradictions. In 5.2 I argue that the sets of ideas (or discourses) at the SSAU institutional level regarding the purpose of the university held by many people at the S-C level have historically not been questioned and that a discourse of “excellence” has been used to maintain the status quo. This situation, in conjunction with factors such as the isolated geographical location of the University and the fact that the Institution has not been required to merge 18 with any other institution has resulted in a slower response to calls for transformation and enabled it to stay much the same at both the CS and S-C levels as it has for the last 100 years.
In much the same way as with contradictions, for conditions to be right for morphogenesis in the case of complementarity, there needs to be a considerable reduction in orderliness at the Socio-Cultural level: “it is malintegration at the S-C level which has to disrupt the dense and resilient constitution of a well-dovetailed CS” (1996:210). Both constraining contradictions and the concomitant complementarities are dependent “upon cultural power for germination to take place” (1996:211). In the case of complementarities, the problem is caused by increased CS density (a proliferation of complementary ideas, beliefs and theories) as the complementarity is explored and systematised. The increased density of the CS ideas makes sharing of ideas more and more difficult and eventually leads to hierarchies of people with more or less knowledge. These hierarchies create disorderliness in the S-C level which is characterised by a differentiation of interests and rewards. This then leads to those at the top of the hierarchy using cultural power in an attempt to preserve S-C order among the
18 Since the 1994 democratic elections in South Africa the government has been working towards creating one coherent higher education system. Part of this project has entailed a number of mergers and corporations to reduce 36 universities and technikons (similar to polytechnics) to 22 institutions (Sedgwick 2004). SSAU was not required to merge with another institution although a satellite campus was incorporated into another South African HEI. The main campus however was spared the disruption experienced by the merging institutions. “These mergers were realised in an atmosphere of conflict, stress and strain” (Adams 2006:4).
36 “masses and the marginals” (1996:214). In relation to the masses, this results in what Archer calls “naturalization strategies” ( ibid ) which presents the CS as the natural and “right” order of things and implies unavoidable negative consequences if traduced. But as Archer points out, even though this strategy may lead to “passive acceptance” it does not necessarily lead to “active assent” ( ibid ). However, this tactic does not work with the “marginals” because they are culturally knowledgeable and aware of the fact that they are not receiving the desired rewards. This results in the hierarchy using its power “to sanction and subordinate innovatory ideas and particularly any deviant interpretation of the CS…” (1996:215). In addition, power can be used to deny access to new ideas from the outside which in effect means that “through the use of power, [the ‘marginals’ have] been denied access to the raw material of cultural change” ( ibid ). In this way the CS can be protected from change for a long period time. Despite these tactics, the end result is still lower S-C integration.
In chapter 5 I argue that the status quo at SSAU is changing; that at the Institution what Archer calls “marginals” have over time become more and more frustrated that they are not receiving rewards and their interests are not being met. According to Archer the only way in which cultural morphogenesis can be derived from the concomitant complementarity is when the marginal groups become migrants, that is, “venture to the source of new variety in order to increase their benefits” (Archer 1996:217). The migrants encounter new ideas which can become the catalysts for change. They search for “CS items which have this particular logical property – of consistency with existing ideas, interests, skills, techniques, etc. – a distinctive type of cultural change emerges from it” (1996:219). Such items are, I believe, being introduced to the CS by both the new Vice Chancellor and by the formation of “marginals” into more powerful groups, for example, the Women’s Academic Solidarity Association (WASA), formed in April 2004 by a group of young women academics who were experiencing the Institution as being male dominated and as having “a culture that many found alienating” (WASA 2006). The stated objectives of WASA are “to provide academic, intellectual and professional support to developing women senior students and academic staff at SSAU … with special emphasis on previously disadvantaged women” ( ibid ).
2.5.1.3 Competitive contradictions (contingent incompatibilities)
Competitive and constraining contradictions share the logical property of inconsistency or incompatibility between A and B which means that both cannot be upheld at the same time. However, the difference between constraining and competitive contradictions is that in the latter case B is not in any way dependent on A as they are only contingently related. For example, people can support idea or belief A without invoking idea or belief B. Although the
37 competitive contradiction is systemic in substance (it is about a belief, idea, doctrine) it only comes into play in the S-C level because it requires someone (some group) to champion B. The effect of the competing idea therefore depends on the amount of support it receives at the S-C level (Archer calls this “accentuation” (1995:239)). In Archer’s words:
… these oppositional interest groups cause the contradiction to impinge upon broader sections of the (relevant) population: it does not ineluctably confront them as is the case with constraining contradictions, the moment anyone asserts A (1995:239). The situational logic in the case of competitive contradictions is one which forces people to make choices (1995:240). The degree to which people will feel the need to make choices will depend on how much they know and understand about the competing idea (that is, their “level of discursive awareness” ( ibid )). With constraining contradictions people are forced to make compromises in one way or another because B cannot be held without A. In the case of competitive contradictions the impetus is more towards eliminating the inconsistent or competing idea. Willmott (2000:119) describes ideologies as examples of competitive contradictions. Ideologies are frequently used to conceal the interests of certain sections of a population; the contradictions at the CS often then promote “ambiguity of action”; especially when structured vested interests come into play.
In 4.3 I describe the range of ideas, beliefs and theories around the foundations and purposes of higher education. These are discussed using six orders of discourse (Chouliaraki and Fairclough1999; Fairclough 2000, 2001), namely: knowledge (and truth), production, democracy, self, critique and emancipation. All of these, I argue, are evident in dominant discourses in higher education. I further argue that they stand in a relationship of competitive contradiction to one another as described above.
Emergence of a competitive contradiction always leads to greater conflict at the S-C level: “Those whose interests are served by the new item have to stand up and fight for it; those whose traditional sway is threatened by its actualization have to weigh in and fight against it” (1996:204). This is evident, for example, in the deluge of literature arguing against managerialism, accountability and the corporatization of higher education by those who fear that academic freedom and the traditional autonomy of the university are under threat (4.3.2; 4.7.3 and, for example, Adams 2006). Supporters of competitive contradictions will always be up against opposition: those adhering to A will seek elimination of C. However, generally all tactics to silence competing ideas only work to some extent at the S-C level; they do not remove the contradiction at the Systemic level. In fact, some of these attempts end up being counter productive “since [their] backlash is often an intensified Socio-Cultural antagonism and a reinforced attachment to oppositional beliefs …” (1996:209).
38 Situations where the logical relations at the CS level are contradictory result in “low” CS integration. When this causes even greater disorderliness among the people at the S-C level (low S-C integration) than pertains at the CS level, then cultural change (morphogenesis) is most likely to take place. By contrast, morphostasis is a more likely outcome when there is a high degree of S-C orderliness, usually achieved through the use of cultural power to conceal and contain contradictions.
The situational logic induced by a competitive contradiction is one of mutual elimination. However as both A and C have the same goals, elimination rarely takes place. Instead the default unintended consequence of this situational logic is what Archer calls ideational pluralism that is, “sustained differentiation of ideas from one another at the CS level which is associated with a polarization [later called “cleavage”] of the relevant population at the S-C level” (1996:245).
Archer claims that these competitive contradictions inevitably lead to “debate” and whatever the outcomes of the debate, the consequences will always be morphogenetic. Earlier (2.5.1.2) I alluded to the fact that at SSAU a discourse of “excellence” has militated against serious, sustained and widespread debates in the University regarding its purpose and function. However, in the conclusion (6.4) to the dissertation I argue that due to changes in both the cultural and structural systems as well as the actions of key individuals (the new Vice Chancellor, in particular), and the formation of new groups of corporate agents in the University (including the EDU), these debates are now beginning to take place.
Archer points out that although it is possible for one side to “win the debate” that doesn’t mean that the competing idea necessarily disappears because while some people still maintain some interest in keeping the idea in currency, it will remain. There is nothing preventing the “discovery of a syncretic formula uniting the views of the competitors through repair of the consistency characterising them” (1996:255), but the situational logic doesn’t induce either to search for syncretism. As discussed in 6.4 only time will tell what will transpire at SSAU in the next morphogenetic/static cycle.
2.5.1.4 Contingent complementarities (contingent compatibilities)
In this case, the ideas A and B are compatible but not dependent upon one another . Like the other three configurations, contingent complementarities also condition action but in this case they
… objectively increase the opportunity for cultural free play – for novel combinations and applications involving conceptual integration, theoretical reduction or doctrinal extension, all of which have ideational synthesis as their common denominator (1995:244).
39 However, it does require that people at the S-C level take advantage of the opportunities for “cultural free play” when they are presented to them by the cultural system.
In the context of this research, theorising the range of beliefs, ideas, values, ideologies and theories that have underpinned (and still do underpin) the field of educational development as contingent complementarities (2.5.1.4) was useful in understanding the emergence of the PGDHE as a form of academic staff development at SSAU.
Similar to the case with competitive contradictions (2.5.1.3), contingent complementarities can either be derived from internal dynamics in the CS or they can be derived from independent sources. According to Archer (1996), sometimes when a new idea (one which is not in competition with, or dependent on, existing ideas) is introduced into the CS, it is taken up more easily by people on the fringes of, for example, their disciplines or professional practice. I would argue that in many HEIs (and certainly at SSAU) ED practitioners have historically largely been on the fringes of mainstream academia. For reasons which will be explored in later chapters, when “new” ideas around staff development as a form of educational development entered the CS of the field of ED, practitioners at SSAU took it up as a “better” way to achieve what they believed was their purpose in the Institution. As will be seen, I argue that this resulted in morphogenesis as “the contingent complementarity [was] elaborated and as those engaged in this process bec[a]me more and more absorbed in it” (1996:222). In the case of the SSAU ED staff, I think the two consequences which Archer (1996:223) describes as frequently being the result of contingent complementarity have occurred: at the S-C level the ED staff have re-grouped along specialist lines, that is, as staff and institutional developers rather than along the lines of the more generic ED practitioners (5.4.3), and there has also been increased specialization of the ideas around how staff development should happen at the Systemic level (both cultural and structural).
An obvious consequence of contingent complementarity is lower integration at the S-C level, that is, more choices, alternatives and “ideational opportunities” (1996:224) for the affected groups of people at the S-C level. ED as staff development was particularly attractive for the SSAU ED staff, not only because at an ideological level we believed that it was a better way to ensure epistemological access for students but also because ED work in the form of student support did not seem to be highly successful or very highly valued in the Institution (5.4.3). For some, the move to staff development was perceived as a way of gaining more credibility and status in the Institution. As will be discussed in chapter 5, not everyone in the Institution has been equally supportive of the “new “approach to ED in the Institution. In Archer’s words:
40 Obviously the S-C elites [these could be people in top and middle management positions in the Institution] still attempt to filter, monitor or censor which alternatives are taken up and what use is made of them, but again objectively these changes in the CS represent a shifting environment and an extension of horizons which account for changes in cultural interaction because some actors will take account of them. And whether many take active account or not, the environment has altered radically for all since increasingly they cannot fail to be aware that alternatives exist – and such an awareness is death to tradition (1996:224). In chapter 5 responses at the S-C level to the changes in ED at SSAU at both the cultural and structural level will be explored in more depth.
In the case of contingent complementarities, the situational logic is opportunity because it generates new ideas and this generally results in ideational synthesis: “the building up of separate elements – concepts, propositions, data – into a connected theory or system” (1996:258). The outcome thereafter at the Systemic level is the addition of new ideas to add to those already there. At the S-C level it results in increasing specialisation in various ways. In chapter 5 I argue that the “new” ideas around staff development were not in competition with the ideas underpinning student development but that the “new” ideas complemented one another. However, for ED staff to practise staff development it entailed their developing themselves, that is, building the appropriate knowledge and skills (see 5.5 on the double morphogenesis of ED staff as agents) to engage in staff development work.
In summary then, the logic here is a loose one which encourages morphogenesis if factors at both CS and S-C level encourage/allow it.
To briefly summarise the section on cultural morphogenesis: It is the researcher’s job to uncover, in a specific context, how S-C interaction has contributed to cultural stability and/or change. People are conditioned by the ideas at the systemic level but they are also capable of independent action and can therefore either reinforce or resist systemic influences. Whether they reinforce or resist the influences depends on “how their power and interests matched the situational logic they confronted” (1996:225). Thus the researcher looks at the interplay between the CS and the S-C level to determine whether, why and how cultural change or stasis is likely to take place. Cultural power can be used to maintain long periods of orderliness at the S-C level (using tactics of correction or protection), even if there are contradictions at the Systemic level, resulting in the cultural system staying the same (morphostasis). On the other hand if the people at the S-C level cannot live with the situational logics and correction and /or protection cannot be used to maintain order, the result could be the creation of oppositional interests which threaten the status quo.
41 Ultimately … Socio-Cultural factors determine: - what responses are forged under the pressure of the situational logic emanating from the Cultural System - which of these can be made to stick Socio-Culturally; and - whether that which passes back from the S-C to the CS restarts a new cycle or repeats the old one again (1996:187). In relation to culture, the morphogenetic approach enables a researcher to “pinpoint the conditions that maintain for cultural stability or change – in the conjunction between culture and socio-cultural interaction and how such interaction is itself rooted in the structural domain” (Willmott 2000:97). The following section describes how the methodological framework outlined in this section can be applied in relation to the structural domain.
2.6 Structural morphogenesis
As was previously stated (2.3.1), both culture and structure are central to social life and, although they are substantially different, it is Archer’s contention that the same conceptual, theoretical and analytical framework can be used to investigate both. Thus much of what was described in the previous section can be applied to the analysis of structure as well.
To reiterate (2.3.3), the component elements of social structure(s) (SS) are conceptualised as emergent properties called structural emergent properties (SEPs). Carter and New mention the following as generic properties of social structures: they pre-exist features of the world into which we are born (anteriority); they are relatively enduring and they have enabling and/or constraining powers (2004:9-10). According to Archer, “CEPs and SEPs work in an identical manner as mediatory mechanisms, despite their substantive differences” (1995:229). SEPs are different from other emergent properties in that they are primarily dependent on physical and human material resources. Material relations are often legitimated and maintained by ideas from the CS; however, they can also be sustained through coercion. Archer describes SEPs as “distributions, roles, institutional structures, social systems” (1995:176). In the context of my research it was the institutional structures which were of most interest. SEPs are the result of internal relations between various structures that make up a particular social system. Although the emergent properties are not empirically observable, they can be identified because they have generative powers which have causal influences.
The morphogenetic/static framework provides a methodology which allows a researcher to theorise the emergent relational properties between structures in, for example, an institution as well as to examine the interplay between structure and agency over time. Figure 2 illustrates the morphogenetic cycle for structure. Phase 1 is called Structural conditioning 1 where T represents the existing structure at the start of the cycle which conditions the action 2 at T . The structure consists of the systemic properties which are a result of past actions
42 (see 2.4 above for Sibeon’s 2004 critique of Archer’s view that present day actors are not responsible for conditions at T 1). These properties exert a causal influence on subsequent interaction:
they do so by shaping the situations which later ‘generations’ of actors find themselves [in]and by endowing various agents with different vested interests according to the positions they occupy in the structures they ‘inherit’ … (1995:90). More often than not these properties influence social groups to either work towards maintaining a particular property or changing it, depending on how the property affects the vested interests of the groups. In Archer’s framework then, structure tends to create (through vested/positional interests that are attached to particular roles, positions, group membership, professions) “strategic guidance” for actors which predisposes (“conditions”) them to act in certain ways (1995:210). (See Sibeon 2004 for another view on the relational aspects of social activity). As the line in the diagram indicates, this initial structural influence 2 goes beyond T , that is, “it takes time to change any structural property and that period represents one of constraint for some groups at least” (1995:78).
Phase 2 is called Social interaction. Between T 2 and T 3 agents are able to exert an influence both in terms of the length of time taken to effect structural change and in terms of the kind of change that takes place. In other words, groups of people are capable of “innovative responses in the face of contextual constraints” (1995:91). In Willmott’s words, agents have the “reflective ability to mediate emergent structural properties in creative and fundamentally non-deterministic ways” (2000:101) (see 2.6.1 below). Between T 2 and T 3 there is a time period during which “prior structures are gradually transformed and new ones slowly elaborated” (1995:157-8).
Phase 3 represents Structural elaboration , that is, at T 4 the prior structural property is replaced by a new one. T 4 becomes T1 in the next morphogenetic cycle. The changes are largely unintended because society is an open system and change cannot be predicted in an open system (see 2.2.2 for a definition of open systems).
As indicated previously, the point of investigating a particular cycle is that it could provide “an analytical history of emergence of the problematic properties under investigation” (1995:91). In keeping with the purpose of my research, which was to investigate the analytical history of the emergence of the PGDHE, in both chapters 4 and 5 of this dissertation I deal with structural conditions. In 4.6 and 4.7 I describe some of the structural conditions pertaining to higher education (and educational development as a subset of higher education) at the macro international and national levels. In 5.4 I present an analysis of the relevant structural conditions at the mezo and micro levels (that is at the Institutional level and at the level of
43 the EDU) which I believe impacted on the emergence of the PGDHE as a form of staff development.
Following Bhaskar (1979), Archer (1995) argues that in order to explain the interplay between social structures and human agency there is a need for mediating concepts. Bhaskar (1979:41 in Archer 1995:153) suggests a mediating system which he calls the “position-practice” system in which positions refer to places, functions, rules, duties, rights occupied/filled/assumed/enacted by people (Archer more broadly defines these as “social contexts” individuals find themselves in) and practices refer to the activities they engage in as a consequence of the positions they occupy. For Archer, of interest is the independent variation between the different emergent powers of the “parts” (SEPs and CEPs) and “people” (PEPs) at the different levels which she calls: positional, roles and institutional (1995:185-190). The positional level refers to the conditions that people are born into, for example, privileged or under-privileged: “each ‘generation’ begins life stratified and these different collectivities (groups of agents (see 2.7)) have vested interests in maintaining their advantages or improving their lot” (1995:185). Roles are necessarily and internally related to other roles (for example, teacher/pupil; doctor/patient) and associated with material requirements such as equipment, trained personnel, hospitals and pharmaceuticals: “The distinction between the ‘systemic’ and the ‘social’ is the difference between roles and their occupants” ( ibid :186). Roles are relatively autonomous as there can be many different incumbents of the roles who have different characteristics (role re-definition and personal development happen during double morphogenesis, see 2.7). There is a need to make a distinction between the properties of the roles and the contingent properties of the current incumbents of the roles. In chapter 5 I examine some of the relevant roles in the Institution (for example those of the Vice Principal of the University, director of the EDU and the other EDU staff) and how specific incumbents have filled those roles differently. In terms of research it seems therefore to be necessary to make a distinction between two sets of emergent properties: those pertaining to the roles and those pertaining to the personal qualities which the individual actors bring to bear on the roles.
Real actors bring their own ideals and objectives, skills and incompetence, dedication or distancing, inflexibility or creativeness to the roles they occupy. All such features are not formed by the job (though they may be positively or negatively reinforced in doing it and undergo transformation through learning)… Only by examining the interplay between a role and its occupants is it possible to account for why some roles are personified in routinized ways whilst others can be cumulatively transformed in the hands of their incumbents (1995:187). At the same time as the roles are transformed, actors themselves change in some way as a consequence of the experiences they have had (see 2.7). Of particular interest in my research was an examination of the emerging and changing roles of the EDU staff as a
44 group, how individuals personified those roles differently and how they were or weren’t themselves transformed in the process (5.5).
As was the case with cultural morphogenesis as described in 2.5, as a result of previous structural interaction in an anterior morphogenetic cycle, there are four kinds of structural relationships which exist at any given T 1 between institutional structures (see Figure 3). The situational logics (which “predispose agents towards specific courses of action … providing directional guidance” (Willmott 2000:102)) produced by these relations for the people involved, parallel those discussed previously for the cultural domain (2.5.1). The following section will briefly reiterate the configurations and their implications for the structural domain.
Second order emergent properties Situational logic Necessary complementarities Protection Necessary incompatibilities Compromise Contingent incompatibilities Elimination Contingent compatibilities Opportunism
Figure 4 Structural conditioning of strategic action: processes of directional guidance (Archer 1995:218).
Firstly, in the case of necessary complementarities the relations between SEPs are concomitant (that is, necessary) and also congruent: “When there are necessary and internal linkages of a complementary nature between systemic structures, then institutions are mutually reinforcing, mutually invoke one and work in terms of each other” (1995:219). In such a context everyone tries to maintain the status quo (that is, morphostasis) because everyone has something to lose if it is disrupted. The situational logic which is generated in this configuration is thus protection (1995:220) . An example from the context of my research is the existing necessary yet essentially harmonious relationship between the EDU and the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee (5.4).
Secondly, in the case of necessary incompatibilities there are contradictory relations between SEPs which are “none the less internally and necessarily related” (1995:222). These relations create a situational logic of containment and compromise and generally contain the potential for change. This situational logic arises because “the promotion of vested interests has to be a cautious balancing act, a weighting of gains against losses …” (1995:224). But as Willmott (2000:102) points out, systemic incompatibilities can open up possibilities for agents in organizations to further their vested interests in a range of ways by either resisting action or taking up action. In 4.6 and 4.7 examples of constraining contradictions among structures related to HE at both the international and national levels are discussed. Many of these contradictions are as a result of constraining contradictions at
45 the ideational level. In particular, constraining contradictions around higher education policies, curriculum structures and quality assurance structures are discussed. Central to the purposes of my research was the identification, in the SSAU institutional context, of constraining contradictions between the QA structures and the ED structures. In 5.6 the containment strategies and compromises employed by different actors and agents to deal with these contradictions as well as the conditioning influence these had on structures are analysed.
The last two sets of relations are between SEPs which are not dependent on one another in any way. In one case the SEPs are not compatible whereas in the other they are. Thirdly, in the case of contingent incompatibilities, the SEPs are not internally related and are contradictory. This is because society is an open system and thus open to external influences. The situational logic induced by these relations is that of elimination . Finally, in the case of contingent compatibilities, the external influences result in relations which “prove highly compatible with the interests of particular groups” (Archer 1995:226) and the situational logic here is opportunism. The new SEPs create new interests and new material means for meeting those interests. The result is generally morphogenesis of the structural system, as it accommodates (or replaces the old with the new) the compatible structures. Archer stresses that:
It is only in a minority of cases that an entire social system will have all its components (institutions, roles, distributions) aligned in terms of one emergent core complementarity or incompatibility which thus enmeshes all agents in the same situational logic and means that all material resources are mobilized in that single direction. These are inevitably minoritarian because societies as open systems, can never be proofed against the incursion of external contingencies (1995:227). It must also be noted that in the relations between SEPs, it is not the case that all agents will be involved in relations and it is possible that some agents will be involved in several relations. This is important because the final outcome (genesis or stasis) will be affected by who has vested interests, how much power (including access to material resources) they have and the various alliances which emerge (see 2.7).
Up until now I have examined variations of what could occur in the first phase of the morphogenetic cycle, that is, at how the structural and cultural context is shaped for agents at any particular T 1. In the context of my research one of the questions I sought to answer was: how did the relevant structures at the international, national and institutional levels shape (enable or constrain) the EDU staff from implementing a form of staff development framed by those theories about staff development which they endorsed?
46 In the next section I will examine what agents can do in the structural and cultural contexts which they inherit. The section examines people
not merely as static upholders of this or that idea, but as active makers and re- makers of their culture (and structure) in pursuit of their interests, by use of their power and through social alliances or group antagonism (1995:246).
2.6.1 Mediation of structure and culture through human agency (T 2)
… antecedent social structure disposes people to act in particular ways but it does not compel them to do so. People may choose to act against their interests in favour of other considerations … far from implying that the pre-existing distribution of resources determines the specific course of action adopted by agents, critical realism acknowledges the possibility that people may respond creatively to their circumstances, devising new ways of employing (historically given) material and cultural resources in pursuit of their desired goals (Lewis 2000:259-60, acknowledging Archer 1995 and Porpora 1998). Systemic emergent properties (cultural and structural) can exist without people knowing about them and/or without people doing anything about them. Equally, however, people:
are capable of resisting, repudiating, suspending or circumventing structural and cultural tendencies, in ways which are unpredictable because of their creative powers as human beings … it is equally the case that the exercise of agential powers (whether of individuals or groups) can be suspended, modified, re- directed etc. by the social forms in which they are developed or deployed (1995:195-6). At any particular time (T 1) material structures must exist before agents can engage in activities to transform or sustain them. At the same time agents also “inherit” a set of doctrines, theories, beliefs which dictates what can have an impact on them. Together these shape what agents can do. People are however not always equally cognizant of the constraints and enablements which condition their actions. In Bhaskar’s words, the situations encountered by agents “exist and act independently of the knowledge of which they are the objects” (Bhaskar 1979:14 in Archer 1995:197).
Archer has been critiqued (for example, Zeuner 1999:84) for not dealing sufficiently with the “mental world” in her theory of culture. I think this critique is generally unwarranted as she does deal with it, especially in her later books (2000, 2003). In similar vein Shilling (1999) critiques Archer for taking an entirely cognitive view of agency and interaction and not giving enough emphasis to the body and emotions. Again, I think this critique was premature. Archer is careful not to reify structure and insists on the systemic having a conditional (not determining) influence on action. This is because, in her view, people too have properties and powers, the most important of which is “intentionality” (1995:198). In other words, people have the “capacity to entertain projects and design strategies to accomplish them” (ibid ) and the SEPs and CEPs which they encounter could either enable or constrain them from achieving their projects. A property could therefore in some contexts be enabling for
47 some agents while in another it could be constraining. In chapter 4 I identify the conditional influences of SEPs and CEPs upon the EDU’s “project” of staff development at the macro international and national levels – how it was “conceived, entertained and sustained within a given social environment” (1995:200):
the morphogenetic task is to supply an account of how the powers of the ‘parts’ condition the projects of the ‘people’ – involuntaristically but also non- deterministically, yet nonetheless with directionality (1995:201). In any context there are usually some people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and then there are others with a vested in interesting in changing it: “Vested interests are the means by which structural (and cultural) properties exert a conditional influence on subsequent action” (1995:203). But for people to want to act in relation to their vested interests there needs to be motivation to do so, in the form of opportunity costs . In summary, it would seem that those in difficult situations would seek to change their circumstances (leading to genesis) while those experiencing beneficial situations would try to keep things as they are (morphostasis). As will be seen in my analysis of the SSAU institutional context in chapter 5, the EDU staff had a vested interested in changing the way ED had been practised in the Institution; whereas for many mainstream academics there was a vested interests in maintaining ED as student support because they had somewhere to send “problem” students. Then there were other groups of agents who were not interested either way and who tried as far as possible stay completely uninvolved.
Material reasons (SEPs) emanating from the structural context thus encourage or discourage agents from making certain decisions. In the same way normative reasons (CEPs) from the cultural context will influence agential decision-making. It is possible that the powers of the SEPs and the CEPs might not operate in a synchronous manner which could mean that one is undergoing morphogenesis while the other is undergoing morphostasis (see 2.8 below).
People, through their reflexive and self-monitoring capacities, find reasons (linked to vested interests and issues of power) for acting in specific ways in the face of the structural/cultural enablements or constraints; they have what Archer calls “degrees of interpretive freedom” (1995:209). In the opinion of Carter and New (2004:11) “[o]nce we recognize the sui generis powers and properties of agency, it becomes difficult to see people as passive puppets, cultural dopes or discursive effects”. However in all social systems or institutions certain groups of people (called “corporate agents” see 2.7) are more powerful than others in terms of influencing whether systemic incompatibilities will be contained (leading to stasis) or whether they will be exposed, leading to genesis (1995:191).
48 The following section looks at the final phase of the morphogenetic cycle for the structural and cultural domains, that is, social elaboration.
2.6.2 Structural and cultural elaboration (T 4)
The third phase of a morphogenetic cycle is an account of the “actual configuration of social elaboration” (1995:294) which can only be determined by an analysis of concrete contingencies in each research case. As was discussed in 2.3.3, the key to whether there is genesis (elaboration) or stasis (reproduction) in either a structural or a cultural cycle depends on the interplay between the parts and the people and particularly on the level of integration within each. In other words, the final phase examines whether social and system integration gelled. If there is high integration at both levels at the same time then generally morphostasis ensues, whereas if there is low integration at both levels then the outcome is usually morphogenesis. These two scenarios paint a simple picture but as can be seen in Figure 4, there are a range of different socio-cultural formations which can occur: integration at one level does not necessarily mean integration at the other: “agential integration does not necessarily or even usually mirror systemic integration” (1995:295). In each specific context it is necessary to examine the interaction between various interest groups to see how they have responded when confronted by the enablements and constraints from either (or both) SEPs and CEPs.
High Low
Necessary Necessary High Morphostasis complementarity contradiction
Contingent Contingent Low Morphogenesis complementarity contradiction
SOCIAL INTEGRATION INTEGRATION SOCIAL SYSTEMIC INTEGRATION (structural or cultural)
Figure 5 When morphostasis versus when morphogenesis (Archer 1995:295)
As mentioned previously, the links connecting Phase 1 (T 1) and Phase 2 (T 2) consist of the distribution of vested interests and operate by presenting agents with different situational logics for attaining their interests (1995:296). The links between Phases 2 and 3 which lead to social elaboration work through the relational emergent properties of exchange and power
49 (ibid). In other words, whether transformation or reproduction takes place depends on available resources. Of interest then is how resources are or aren’t distributed and how power is used in interactions between groups to contribute to overall genesis or stasis in a particular context.
Archer (1995:300) suggests three propositions which link agents and resources to interaction: Firstly, agents with little access to the available resources will be in the weakest position to bargain and thus least likely to effect major changes. Second, those with differential access to various resources will be in a better position to bargain. Third, agents with a great deal of access to all the available resources will be in the strongest bargaining position and will be able to effect significant transformations in the social context. A consequence of analytical dualism is that a researcher will need to look at the social distribution of resources as well as the relations between different groups of agents and within different groups of people
It is useful to look at the way in which wealth, sanctions, and expertise were originally distributed at the start of the cycle, that is, at T 1. In relation to my research, for example, it is relevant that despite ideational dissention in relation to ED, the University provided enough resources to ensure that the ED unit (relative to many others in the country) was well staffed and in 1998 an experienced new director was appointed for the EDU (5.4.3). Also relevant in the context is a consideration of “expertise” in relation to the field of higher education as a resource. In chapter 5 I argue that in earlier cycles ED staff as primary agents had low potential bargaining power in the Institution and very little influence over other powerful groups of corporate agents (see 2.7 below for an explanation of the difference between primary and corporate agents). However, as a result of enablements from both the structural and cultural domains (as well as through development of PEPs), ED staff transformed to corporate agents with more resources in terms of expertise in areas such as curriculum, assessment, evaluation, and teaching and learning in higher education. This resulted in the EDU being in a better bargaining position vis-à-vis the needs of other corporate agents in the Institution. In part then, the emergence of the PGDHE was enabled by the increased negotiating strength of the EDU in relation to other agents in the Institution. The third phase of the cycle, is about who can bring what amounts and kinds of vested interests when confronted by the enablements and constraints from the structural and cultural levels (1995:302).
Clegg, discussing higher education specifically, argues for the importance of an examination of agency. She argues for more “detailed attention to the mundane ‘worldly’ work of higher education practitioners … as it is their willed activity or quiescence that help us understand
50 how policies and structural changes impact on the practices of higher education …” (2005:149).
2.7 The morphogenesis of agency
This section examines how agency not only contributes to cultural and social morphogenesis but is itself transformed in the process: “Agents [can] transform themselves in the process of pursuing social change” (Archer 2000:268).
Realists hold that there are three levels or orders of reality which people have to engage with and that agential properties and powers emerge at each of the levels. These are the natural , the practical and the social orders of reality. Of the three, the practical order is central because all knowledge of the natural and the social world is filtered through practice. Knowledge gained from the natural order is embodied knowledge, knowledge about nature. Knowledge from the practical order is practical, procedural knowledge gained through apprenticeship rather than scholarship. Knowledge from the social order is discursive and emanates from the cultural system (Archer 2000).
Each individual has to prioritise his/her concerns in the three orders and how they do that determines their individual, unique identities. Of interest in the context of this research is how a range of people have developed their social (including professional) identities and how these impact on their actions (see 4.6.1 for a discussion on the research and literature on professional identities of academics). However, social identity cannot be viewed in isolation as it is a subset of personal identity, which is forged in all three levels of reality (I return to this later).
From a realist perspective, agency itself is also stratified. For the purposes of investigating matters in the social realm, the strata of the person , the agent and the actor are identified (Archer 1995:254; 2000). The latter two are implicated in the development of social identity and are most salient for my purposes, but as alluded to earlier, the development of social identity is intertwined with personal identity. It is my understanding that professional identity, which is most relevant in my research context, is a part of social identity.
As discussed previously (2.5 and 2.6) agency is conditioned by culture and structure (at T 1), but because agency has properties and powers (PEPs)19 of its own, action by people can result in structural and cultural elaboration (at T4). Of particular interest in this section is the fact that in the process, agency itself can be transformed . So the emergence of social
19 “Among the sui generis properties of people which are relevant to agency are self-consciousness, reflexivity, intentionality, cognition, emotionality and so on” (Carter and New 2004:10).
51 identity is inextricably tied up with the emergent properties of the social structure and culture in which it operates. In Archer’s words
The emergence of our ‘social selves’ is something which occurs at the interface of ‘structure and agency’. It is therefore necessarily relational, and for it to be properly so, then independent properties and powers have to be granted to both ‘structures’ and ‘agents’. This is what is distinctive about the social realist approach. It grants the existence of people’s emergent properties (PEPs) and also the reality of structural and cultural emergent properties (SEPs and CEPs), and sees the development of agents and actors as relational developments occurring between them (2000:255). Archer makes a distinction between collective agents and individual actors . Agents can have causal influences through the effects of the social groups to which they belong (for example, the EDU staff as a group ); actors (for example, the director of the EDU), on the other hand, have the capacity for causal impact through their individual properties and powers given the roles and positions they occupy and the ways in which they occupy them (Archer 1995:118). “The reality experienced by the collectivity is not reducible to the personal reactions of its members; nor is the subjectivity of the latter understandable without reference to the objectivity of the former” (1995:120). Actors need to think carefully about the objective conditions and about how they should proceed given the constraints and enablements and their vested interests (Archer 1995:130).
Without a stratified view of agency which allows of prior structural conditioning and individual personality differences, we lack an account of both the regular patterning of wants in different parts of society and of the personal differences which do indeed make actions something quite different from mechanical responses to hydraulic pressures (Archer 1995:132). An analysis of agential morphogenesis entails first looking at how a group of primary agents transform themselves into a cohesive group of corporate agents ( double morphogenesis ) and then how corporate agents become individual actors (triple morphogenesis ) in order to effect change at the systemic (cultural and structural) level. The following section will look at each of these in turn.
Archer has identified two groups of agents: primary agents and corporate agents . Primary agents are defined as “collectivities sharing the same life chances” (2000:263). They are born into existing social and cultural structures which constrain or enable how they can or can’t act. In other words, the CEPs and SEPs shape the context in which primary agents find themselves. Primary agents “play no part in the strategic guidance of society because they literally have no say” (2000:268). However, agents are not viewed as being completely passive and at the mercy of socio-cultural structures because agency has its own properties and powers, the most distinctive of which is reflexivity (1995, 2000). Agency is viewed as being “reflective, purposive, promotive and innovative” (1995:249).
52 Human beings have the powers of critical reflection upon their social context and of creatively redesigning their social environment, its institutional or ideational configurations, or both … it is possible for human beings to become agentially effective … in evaluating their social context, creatively envisaging alternatives, and collaborating with others in bringing about transformation (2000:308). Therefore primary agents can, in the pursuit of change and using their PEPs, transform themselves into corporate agents (see 5.5). This transformation of primary agents into a cohesive group of corporate agents is what Archer refers to as double morphogenesis. Corporate agents are groups “who are aware of what they want, can articulate it to themselves and others, and have organized in order to get it, can engage in concerted action to re-shape or retain the structural or cultural feature in question” (1995:258). Collective action is therefore an emergent property of agency (PEP), and “the power to exercise it (or not) will be enabled or constrained by the nature of the systemic context in which agents are placed” (2000:269). Primary agents therefore have a vested interest in developing the PEPs of collective action “to improve upon the inferior life-chances assigned to them” and to enable them to become “active participants in society’s decision making” (ibid ). In 5.5 I argue that the EDU staff has, over time, begun the process of double morphogenesis from primary to corporate agents. Part of my research purpose was to identify the factors which were hostile to the formation of ED as corporate agents and those which facilitated collective action.
Social-cultural conditioning of groups
T1 (Corporate agency and primary agency)
Group interaction T2 T3
(Between corporate agents and primary agents)
Group elaboration T4
(increase of corporate agents)
Figure 6 The morphogenesis of corporate agency (Archer 2000:268)
53 The final emergent strata of “people” concerns the s ocial actor who emerges through the triple morphogenesis “in which Agency conditions (not determines) who comes to occupy different social roles. The distinction between the Social Agent and the Social Actor is “only temporal and analytical” (1995:280) – they are the same people. Actors are defined as role incumbents and roles themselves have emergent properties which cannot be reduced to the characteristics of their occupants” (2000:283). Roles pre-exist their incumbents and remain relatively stable over time despite the variations amongst the individual incumbents and the roles themselves (as opposed to the individuals who fill them), and have constraining and enabling powers (see 2.6 and 2.6.1 for earlier discussion on roles). In the process of emergence actors acquire their social (and professional) identities. During the course of my research (5.4.3) I identified key actors (for example, the ex Vice Principal, the Director of the EDU) who brought personal attributes (PEPs) to bear on the interplay with SEPs and CEPs at the institutional level. Actors endow the roles with their own ideals, skills, knowledge and values. I thus examined the interplay between the roles and the occupants. Archer also argues that through their experiences in particular roles, actors may themselves be transformed (PEPs) as the roles they perform are transformed.
Of interest to me was the double and triple morphogenesis of both ED staff and some of the lecturers who have participated in the PGDHE. In both cases I traced the transformation (and its lack) of people from primary to corporate agents and then actors. A key question I asked was: What were the conditions for the morphostasis or the morphogenesis of Social Agency ? (1995:261 and 2000:267). In other words, what ideational and organisational elements facilitated or constrained the development of the “people” in my research context?
As was mentioned earlier, individuals’ personal and social identities are dialectically related. The significance of this in terms of my research interests is that in my analysis of the double and triple morphogenetic cycles of the agents concerned, is the recognition that social (including professional) and personal identity are intertwined: “the ‘inner directed’ … ongoing interior dialogue … does not leave our private lives hermetically sealed and completely hidden” (2000:298). Also of relevance to me was the recognition that actors hold several social roles at the same time and that they have to decide how to balance these competing roles. For example, lecturers are not only are teachers but they are also researchers, administrators and so on and they often express difficulties with managing the competing demands. Reflexivity also referred to as the “adult” internal or inner conversation, the main personal emergent property alluded to earlier, is used by individuals to balance the private and the social and the competing roles within each. The inner conversation is about referential reflexivity; about thinking about reality, about the world and what one’s place in it is and should be (2000:315). I argue that for some lecturers the PGDHE has helped them to
54 develop a stronger conception of themselves as HE educators, thus giving them a stronger sense of both corporate agency as well as contributing to their emergence as individual actors by strengthening their identity as teachers (see Appendix 1). However, as will be seen in 5.5, in relation to ED staff, for some there has been difficulty in maintaining integrity between personal and social identities vis-à-vis changes in the cultural realm (particularly in relation to quality assurance).
2.8 Back to the link between culture and structure (and agency)
Because structure, culture and agency have been unified within the same conceptual framework, this paves the way for uniting them analytically, and theorizing about their relationship. For this conceptual unification enables a specification of the morphostatic/genetic intersection of the three domains, such that we can trace through the effects of one realm on the others and advance concrete propositions about the conditions of transformational versus reproductive power (1995:304-5). In the preceding sections I have examined structural, cultural and agential morphogenesis separately. But what is ultimately of interest in a research context is whether the elaborations in the cultural domain (CEPs) are congruent or incongruent with elaborations in the structural domain (SEPs), and how this congruence or lack of congruence affects agents (PEPs).
it is thus empirically the case that we have to recognize that there is structural penetration of the cultural realm, and cultural penetration of the structural domain. Hence the need to theorize about the intersection of the structural and cultural fields, for the simple sociological reason that actors themselves do have positions in both domains simultaneously (1995:305). There exists a dialectical relationship between culture and structure: culture exerts an influence on structure and structure exerts an influence on culture but these influences always operate through social interaction (“people”). However, what is important for the researcher is to determine when one exerts more influence over the other and “when [is] culture more consequential for structure and vice versa” (1995:308). Archer’s methodological framework attempts to explain what happens under various conditions of conjunction and discontinuity between the morphogenetic/morphostatic sequences in the structural and cultural domains, due to how agency responds in these different circumstances (1995:308). Although there are examples of extreme conjunction and discontinuity, in reality most cases are more likely to be somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes. I now turn to a brief discussion of the four “pure” combinations: (a) conjunction between structural morphostasis and cultural morphostasis; (b) disjunction between cultural morphostasis and structural morphogenesis; (c) disjunction between cultural morphogenesis and structural morphostasis; and (d) conjunction between cultural morphogenesis and structural morphogenesis.
55 (a) Conjunction between structural morphostasis and cultural morphostasis
This combination is what early anthropologists took to be typical and from whence the Myth of Cultural Integration sprang (see 2.5 above). There is a situation of complete and mutual reciprocity between the two domains: “The force of hegemonic ideas imposes itself on stable social groups and the fortune of the dominant groups reinforces the stability of ideas, the two thus working together for maintenance of the status quo” (1995:310). In 5.2.1 I argue that at SSAU there has been an attempt to maintain both structural and cultural morphostasis through the use of an excellence discourse . It has historically been in the material interests of many people (particularly powerful groups of corporate agents) in the Institution to maintain the status quo even though there were some individuals and groups of people (primary agents) who held contradictory ideas (for example, around transformation and equity). These primary agents have not been powerful enough (insufficient PEPs) to voice their ideas, or perhaps they have been concerned that voicing them too loudly would work against them.
(b) Disjunction between cultural morphostasis and structural morphogenesis
In this combination there is discontinuity between one powerful cultural agent and a number of corporate agents who have a range of material interests (1995:312). Very often in this scenario, through the influence of social interaction on socio-cultural interaction, the disjuncture between the two domains has the effect of allowing new corporate agents to emerge who are able to articulate new ideas which lead to cultural elaboration. In this scenario, structural elaboration exerts greater influence upon cultural elaboration than the other way around.
(c) Disjunction between cultural morphogenesis and structural morphostasis
In this configuration there is discontinuity between one powerful structural agent and a number of corporate agents who are culturally differentiated. Cultural morphogenesis means there are new ideas, beliefs, theories and values which intrude on the structural domain. Some will see this as the rise of some inexplicable and possibly outlandish new ideas. I have argued elsewhere (Quinn and Vorster 2004) that this is a situation which faces some of the lecturers at SSAU who take part in the PGDHE. They come to the PGDHE where they join a different group of agents with new and different ideas about teaching and learning, but then they return to a context (their departments and the university more broadly) which is structurally static and which is resistant to changing to accommodate some of their new ideas.
What cultural morphogenesis does is to change people (or at any rate some people), from unthinking traditionalists into evaluators of alternatives and from
56 passive conformists into potential competitors. And although this occurs in the cultural domain, its effects do not stop there because cultural actors are also structural agents. Thus, cultural change leads to the reconstitution of structural subjects (1995:317). In some cases PGDHE participants are able to take the new ideas generated in the context of the PGDHE to their departments where they are able to effect changes in the structures to enable them to implement the new ideas.
(d) Conjunction between cultural morphogenesis and structural morphogenesis
In this configuration more groups acquire the characteristics of corporate agency. These groups are organised and able to articulate ideational alternatives. This scenario is characterised by high levels of interaction among a range of different interest groups, some seeking structural advancement and others seeking cultural advancement. Of interest is how the material and ideational interests interconnect. Here social interaction (SI) and socio-cultural interaction (S-C) reinforce one another, which results in transformations in both the structural and the cultural domains. This occurs after “intense competition, diversification, conflict and reorganisation in the two domains” (1995:322). In 5.4.3 I argue that in relation to the context of my research there has been a degree of conjunction between cultural and structural morphogenesis: that is, between ideational alternatives around the practice of ED (from student to staff and institutional development) and the structures that were put in place to enable staff development activities. I do not however see these as necessarily having taken place at the same time; there were temporal discontinuities between phases but the end result was that by 2000 the structural and cultural context was sufficiently enabling (conditioning) for the emergence of the PGDHE. In addition, the conjunction between cultural, structural and agential morphogenesis has contributed enabling conditions for the continued development and growth of the PGDHE as opposed to its floundering as has been the case at some other institutions in South Africa where there have been other more pressing issues at both the ideational and structural levels (for example, institutional mergers (see 2.5.1.2), lack of expertise and/or lack of support from senior management).
The preceding section was an attempt to “define the conditions under which structure and culture were reciprocally influential and those which resulted in one having a greater influence on the other” (1995:323). To do this it is essential to maintain one of the central principles of social realism, namely, that in order to study social life we have to maintain analytical dualism between the structural and cultural domains. It is however true that in substantive analysis, as in everyday life, the two are merged:
57 … where any form of Social Elaboration is concerned, then structure, culture and agency are always involved. The investigative focus may be on one alone, but the investigation itself cannot fail to introduce the other two (1995:324).
2.9 What does all this mean for my study?
A social realist ontology and Archer’s morphogenetic/static methodology outlined above have given me a framework for analysing “the interplay of the distinctive sets of causal powers of SEPs, CEPs and PEPs” (2000:308) in the particular context of educational development (ED), and particularly staff development practices at SSAU. It is clearly impossible to tell the story of ED at SSAU without reference to BOTH the people and the relevant social structures (including culture) involved:
Since structures are part and parcel of the world which human beings confront, with which they interact, which they have the power to transform, yet which transform them themselves as they do so, only one story can be told. Two separate versions are actually untellable, for each would contain large gaps, either about the conditioning circumstances under which agents live, act and develop or about the transformatory consequences for structures, which otherwise must be matters of structural parthenogenesis (2000:311-2) Archer’s argument is thus that subjectivity and objectivity are quintessentially intertwined and because of this the morphogenetic approach allows one to tell one story. Against those who have critiqued Archer’s framework as being “objectivist”, Willmott argues:
Those who wish to misconstrue the morphogenetic approach as unavoidably ‘objectivist’ focus on the first part of the morphogenetic cycle, namely the identification of cultural (or structural) properties independent of agency. Yet the whole point of this is to examine how the cultural context is shaped for actors in order to gain explanatory leverage upon what they subsequently do in it or what they can do about it (2000:105). Practically, in my research, this entailed an historical analysis of the evolution of ED at SSAU; of the socio-cultural factors which led to the emergence of the PGDHE in 2000. Not only was this examination of the socio-cultural factors conducted over a period of time but also at various levels: international, national, institutional, and unit levels. In addition, it meant investigating the role that various people and groups of people played in the development of the PGDHE as well as their own transformations over time. In Archer’s terms, the research led me to examine cultural, structural and agential morphogenesis.
The study of the socio-cultural context in which the staff development activities at SSAU have taken and are still taking place involved examining how hegemonic beliefs about the purpose of higher education broadly and about educational development more specifically have been challenged by new beliefs, ideas, etc. (for example, ideas around efficiency, effectiveness, quality assurance) and then how these different ideas resulted in changes in the structural domain at various levels (international, institutional, departmental, unit). Both
58 HE broadly and ED as a field have been exposed, through changes internationally, to a “fund of cultural ideas” (2000:270) which have challenged the beliefs and ideas of those involved, particularly those influential in the structural domain. At the same time, in the case of the ED staff at SSAU, we were able to increase our powers and properties as agents which in turn enabled us to form an organised interest group and to articulate ideational alternatives, that is, different ways of understanding higher education and the practice of ED.
the kind of explanation which the morphogenetic approach proffers takes the form of analytical histories of emergence for the practical issue under investigation. It does so by examining the interplay within and between the three cycles …. [it is] a tool for examining the dynamics by which the ‘parts’ and the ‘people’ shape and re-shape one another through their reciprocal interaction over time (1995:194).
59 Chapter 3 Methodology and methods
3.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter I discussed the metatheoretical underpinnings for my research, including Margaret’s Archer’s morphogenetic/static methodological framework. Danermark et al describe methodology as being on “the borderline between on the one hand the philosophy of science, and on the other hand the critical methods or working procedures used in specific studies” (2002:73). This chapter is thus a continuation of the “argument of methodology” (Henning et al 2004:ix) begun in chapter 2 as well as an explication of the specific methods used in the research. Henning et al clarify the difference between methodology and methods in the following way:
The term ‘method’ denotes a way of doing something (one thing). Methodology refers to the coherent group of methods that complement one another and that have the ‘goodness of fit’ to deliver data and findings that will reflect the research question and suit the research purpose. The group of methods of data collection and analysis will also be coherent because the researcher has philosophised in a certain way about them and has made sure that they are compatible ( ibid :36). As I argued in 2.1, I strove for coherence in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology. However, as Danermark et al claim: “There is no such thing as the method of critical realism” (2002:73) (emphasis added). Deciding on what is methodologically suitable for the context of one’s research depends on the relationship between metatheory and methodology, and some critical realist researchers advocate what Danermark et al call “critical methodological pluralism” ( ibid :152). Although I chose to use Margaret Archer’s morphogenetic/morphostatic framework as an overarching methodology, I used a range of different methods both to collect and analyse the data. In this chapter I discuss in more detail how I “operationalised” that methodology, using a) guidelines offered by critical realism for social science research and b) guidelines offered in the literature on social science research methods.
To reiterate, from a critical realist perspective, the primary purpose of research is to identify and explain the properties and causal mechanisms which make things happen at the empirical level of reality. It is about attaining knowledge of
… constitutive qualities and causal mechanisms generating events, but also knowledge of how different mechanisms co-operate and, under specific circumstances contribute to the production of concrete events and processes (Danermark et al 2002:108). However, realists, unlike positivists, understand that these causal properties and mechanisms are not necessarily observable; reality is not “a smooth surface consisting of
60 phenomena that can be identified and observed in a systematic, relatively unproblematic manner” (Brante 2001:179 with acknowledgements to Althusser). For positivists, causal analysis amounts to identifying law-like universal regularities between variables using predominantly quantitative research methods, whereas researchers from a realist perspective usually find it is necessary to employ methods other than (or at least in addition to) statistics to identify and analyze causal mechanisms.
What is usually called “qualitative case study” in research methodology literature is well suited to realist research (Danermark et al 2002:75). Maxwell (2004), from a realist perspective, provides a comprehensive philosophical and practical justification for this still controversial position stemming from the predominance of quantitative methods in relation to positivism. It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to explore Maxwell’s argument in detail but it is useful to examine, albeit briefly, his points regarding the ways in which a realist view of causation is compatible with four of the main elements of qualitative research ( ibid :247). First, realists believe that “some causal processes can be directly observed, rather than only inferred from measured covariation of the presumed cause and effects”, which is compatible with qualitative researchers’ emphasis on “directly observing and interpreting social and psychological processes” ( ibid ). According to Maxwell, this confirms the value of using case studies for causal explanation. Second, from a realist perspective “context is intrinsically involved in causal processes” ( ibid ) which is consistent with qualitative researchers’ insistence that context is more than a “set of ‘extraneous variables’” (see 3.2). Third, realists argue that “mental events and processes are real phenomena that can be causes of behaviour” and this is compatible with qualitative researchers’ insistence on the importance of “meaning and intention in explaining social phenomena and the essentially interpretive nature of these understandings“( ibid ). Fourth, realists do not believe that causal explanations are inherently dependent on pre-established comparisons. This, Maxwell concludes “legitimizes qualitative researchers’ use of flexible and inductive design methods” (ibid ).
Maxwell (2004:248-251) goes on to argue that there are two distinct approaches to research attempting to provide causal explanations: variance theory and process theory. Simplistically, the former is associated with positivist/empiricist approaches to causality and involves identifying variables and the correlations amongst variables, and frequently makes use of statistical analyses. In contrast, process theory
… deals with events and processes that connect them; it is based on an analysis of the causal processes by which some events influence them … It lends itself to the in-depth study of one or a few cases … (Maxwell 2004:248).
61 Maxwell points out that such research is not easy; it is subject to validity threats which need to be addressed in the design and conduct of the research (3.6.1). As my primary interest was to understand the processes by which things took place in a specific context, my research took the form of a qualitative case study. I therefore argue that qualitative research methods (on their own or in conjunction with quantitative methods) are most appropriate for research underpinned by realist philosophy.
3.2 Case study research
Case studies are conventionally defined by their “boundedness” regarding the unit of analysis of the research topic. For example:
…case studies are distinguished from other types of qualitative research in that they are intensive descriptions and analyses of a single unit or bounded system (Smith 1978) such as an individual, a program, event, group, intervention or community (Merriam 1999:19 in Henning et al 2004:41). However, as alluded to earlier (3.1), a case cannot be studied without contextualising it. As Henning et al put it, “The context is also more than part of the case – it is the case and the interaction between context and action that is usually the unit of analysis ” (2004:41). Sayer, too, emphasizes the importance of contexts in case study research: “[they] are rarely just background exploration of how the context is structured and how the key agents under study fit into it – interact with it and constitute it – is vital for explanation” (1992:248). Conventionally, research texts argue for an emphasis on context in order to claim generalizability (3.6.2) for their findings but Maxwell argues that realist social researchers place considerable emphasis on the context dependence of causal explanation. He quotes Pawson and Tilley (1997:69 in Maxwell 2004a:6) who maintain that “the relationship between causal mechanisms and their effects is not fixed, but contingent”. The relationship depends on the context within which the mechanism operates. According to Maxwell, “For the social sciences, the social and cultural contexts of the phenomena studied are crucial for understanding the operation of causal mechanisms” (ibid ). Although the focus of my research was the emergence of the PGDHE, it was necessary to contextualize this case historically (as growing out of the field of educational development and even more broadly, higher education), socio-culturally as well as theoretically.
As was argued earlier (3.1), a single case study lends itself to process-oriented research and particularly to examining the complex network of mechanisms in a specific context, or what Miles and Huberman call “local causality”: “if you have done it right, you will have respected the complexity of local causality as it has played out over time, and successfully combined ‘process’ with ‘variable analysis’” (Miles and Huberman 1994:160 in Maxwell 2004a:6-7).
62 Epistemologically the emphasis is on what can be learned from the single case (Stake 2000; Flyvbjerg 2001). Stake (2000: 437-438) identifies three types of case studies: intrinsic, instrumental and collective. This case study falls within both the first two categories. It is intrinsic in that my interest was partly in developing a critical understanding of the conditions that enabled the emergence of the PGDHE within the specific context of SSAU. At the same time it was instrumental in that I wished, through the case study, to gain insights into the evolution of formal staff development programmes as a phenomenon. “A case is studied because the researcher suspects that there is something waiting to be unravelled in the case” (Henning et al 2004:32).
From a critical realist perspective, a researcher wishes to arrive at an answer to the transcendental question: How is X possible? (See section on retroduction in 3.5.1 below). In this research, my interest was in uncovering the conditions under which academic staff development at a university can take the form of a formal qualification . It was my assumption (from my understanding of the HE context in South Africa) that the case of the PGDHE at SSAU could be useful for revealing some of the hidden structures and mechanisms which have enabled (and constrained) this form of staff development. In this sense, the case study under consideration could be called a “critical” case (May 2001:173).
Case study research allows depth of investigation into a phenomenon whereas other methods allow more breadth of investigation into a phenomenon (Flyvbjerg 2001). My realist stance meant that I was interested in more than a description of my case; it was my intention too to explain how and why educational development, and particularly academic staff development at SSAU has evolved the way it has (Dobson 2001; Maxwell 2004). My interest was in trying to explain the real underlying social structures and mechanisms which have operated and still operate in the context of my study. As Archer says, social structures are “real entities with their own powers, tendencies and potentials” (1995:106) and can therefore be explained (Dobson 2001).
Sayer (1992) and Danermark et al (2002) following Harr ÷ (1979) find the distinction usually made between qualitative and quantitative research inadequate and proffer an alternative between “extensive” and “intensive” research designs. “In intensive research the primary questions concern how some causal process works out in a particular case or limited number of cases” (Sayer 1992:242) and the focus of the research is on groups of people whose members relate to each other structurally or causally ( ibid: 244). Danermark et al (2002:163) claim that both extensive and intensive empirical procedures can be useful for the investigation of how mechanisms operate in different contexts. In an intensive approach the focus is predominantly on causal groups; that is, the substantive relations between
63 people (Danermark et al 2002:167). Despite these critiques, I continue to find the traditional qualitative/quantitative distinction useful.
In summary, purposefully chosen case studies are therefore an important feature of social science research which is underpinned by critical realism (Danermark et al 2002).
Although the importance of theory in social science research is implicit throughout this chapter, before turning to the specific methods I used for identifying and selecting empirical data for examining my case, in the following section I briefly examine the role of theory in methodology.
3.3 Role of theory in methodology
Social scientific skill in essence is a matter of analysing and developing the theoretical language and of employing it in empirical analysis (Danermark et al 2002:116). For realists, theories and concepts are regarded as more than sensitizing constructs, they are regarded as abstract expressions of entities that exist in the real (intransitive) world (Archer 1998). So for example, structure, culture and agency are real; they exist in the intransitive domain. The difficulty is that because theories and concepts are themselves transitive, it is difficult to find agreement on how to define them. Carter and New point out that “The world to which our concepts and theories more or less adequately refer, the intransitive realm, is neither a product of, nor constituted by, our theories about it” (2004:5); to believe otherwise would be to be commit the “epistemic fallacy” (Bhaskar 1989:133). Social phenomena may well be affected by knowledge once it has been formulated (for example, knowledge about how easily someone may highjack a plane may cause fewer people to fly), but the phenomena are distinct from the processes through which we come to know them.
Theories and concepts, whether implicitly or explicitly, direct research. They provide regulative principles or orientations for research. Sayer warns that without them the danger would be of treating data literally as “given things” (1984:51). Theories and concepts can
… help us to see, operate, and get around specific social fields, pointing to salient phenomena, making connections, interpreting and criticizing, and perhaps explaining and predicting specific states of affairs … Social theories provide maps of societal fields that orient individuals to perceive how their societies are structured … Social theories can also illuminate specific events and artefacts by analysing their constituents, relations, and effects (Kellner 1995:24f in Danermark et al 2002:146). As we can never really understand, categorize and or analyse reality without the theoretical language of concepts, theorising should be an integral and integrated part of research methodology (Sayer 1992; Danermark et a l 2002). Social theory directs the attention of the
64 researcher in specific ways and can promote the conceptualisation of events/phenomena in ways that are possibly different from those “in common currency in public debates, policy- making circles … and others in authority” (Seale 2004: 412). Because theories and concepts belong to the transitive domain they are not set in stone but are constantly being developed and must therefore be understood as being corrigible, revisable and provisional (Sayer 1992; Danermark et al 2002; Sibeon 2004). However, not all theoretical descriptions are equally fallible and it is incumbent upon the researcher to make the best judgements possible with the available information. Sayer (1992:54) therefore reminds us that it is important for the researcher to not only think with these concepts but also to think about them. That is, to think about how they may influence the research process and interpretations.
The metatheory presented in chapter 2, the theory about research methodology and methods in this chapter as well as the substantive theory in chapters 4 and 5 are therefore integral to the overall research design and process presented in this dissertation. I am aware that in some cases research is used deliberately to test theory. This is not so in my case. In my research my main purpose was to use the available theory to help me uncover the mechanisms and processes at work in my context and not primarily to see if the theory is “good” or not. Nonetheless I have attempted to maintain a critical stance to the limitations of my theoretical frames (see for example, critiques of Archer’s theory in chapter 2).
3.4 Data identification and selection methods
As noted above (3.1), critical realism does not prescribe one method but tends towards methodological pluralism (Danermark et al 2002; Carter and New 2004) but with the researcher operating with implicitly critical realist premises (see 2.2). Realist research often requires a range of methods “in order to tease out different levels of analysis and the real, deep causal processes at work” (Archer, Sharp, Stones and Woodiwiss 1998:12). For Maxwell (2005:254), in qualitative research, and similarly for intensive research designs (see 3.2) the main way of doing this is to identify what he calls “rich data”. Maxwell (2004, 2005) believes that rich description is often erroneously called “thick description” (see 3.6.1). In order to examine the complexities of the case and to provide rich data I used a range of techniques for identifying and selecting data, including analysis of existing documentation and evaluation data, semi structured interviews, transcripts of formal meetings and informal meetings and my own journal entries. Another reason for using multiple sources of data is to increase the validity of the research process (see discussion on triangulation/ crystallisation in 3.6.1 below).
65 Figure 7 below summarises the main sources of data in relation to the intended purposes of the data.
3.4.1 Research texts and participants
Sources of data Purpose of data
Literature and research in the field of ED and To critically examine the evolution of staff HE. development and to understand the HE and ED context in which it operated (and still Interviews with four “veteran” ED operates). practitioners from a range of types of South African HEIs. Interviews with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and with the acting director of the Higher Education Quality Promotion and Capacity Development unit of the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC).
Institutional archived material, for example, To understand the structural and cultural University administrative and academic contexts that conditioned ED historically at reviews, annual and review reports produced SSAU. by the EDU, evaluation reports on the EDU, minutes of committee meetings.
Data identified and selected from 2000 to To analyse the programme processes to 2005/6 from PGDHE participants (for establish how and to what extent they example, individual interviews, evaluation impacted on individuals’ practice and on the questionnaires, focus group interviews, e- development of the programme. mail correspondence, journals, assignments and portfolios).
66 Data identified and selected from 2000 to To probe perceptions of: why staff 2005 from PGDHE facilitators (for example, development was offered in the form of a interviews, tape recordings of meetings and formal qualification and how the programme informal discussions, e-mail correspondence evolved; the impact of the programme on the and journals). development of individual lecturers; their role (as individuals and the EDU as a group) in the emergence of the PGDHE.
Examination of research and theory on, for To analyse the theories and ideas that example, teaching and learning, curriculum informed the PGDHE. development in HE.
Examination of national and Institutional To identify the ways in which these created policy documentation post 1994. facilitating or inhibiting conditions for staff development activities .
E-mail questionnaires to all academic staff in To identify the ideas, values, attitudes and the Institution administered in 2003. beliefs (which manifest themselves in Interviews with a range of middle and senior discourses) concerning staff development management staff in the Institution and to critically analyse the culture and structure of the University and the way in which each created enabling or constraining conditions for academic staff development initiatives.
Figure 7 Sources and purposes of data
In addition to the data which I identified and selected, my close and long term involvement with the case was also a source of data (see 3.8). Like Maxwell I believe that:
Qualitative data are not restricted to the results of specified ‘methods’ … you are the research instrument … your eyes and ears are the tools you use to make sense of what is going on … you should always include whatever informal data- gathering strategies are feasible, including ‘hanging out’, casual conversations, and incidental observations … (Maxwell 2005:79). In the following sections I discuss the main sources of data used in my research in more detail.
67 3.4.2 Data identified from interviews
Social structures are reproduced or transformed by agents – and people act intentionally. In explaining social phenomena we must always consider what people think and believe – consider their ideas. This particularly applies to the beliefs about different social phenomena (Danermark et al 2002:194).
Maxwell, citing a range of realist social scientists (for example, Huberman and Miles 1985; House 1991; Sayer 1992) argues that the “meanings, beliefs, values and intentions held by participants in a study [are] essential parts of the causal mechanisms operating in that setting” (2004a:7). Even if the opinions, perceptions and everyday notions expressed by people turn out to be false, they are “real” and they may affect practice (Danermark et al 2002:36) and therefore are a crucial source of data in social science research. For example, participants’ perceptions of the PGDHE, even if based on inaccurate assumptions, will affect how they experience the programme, and it is important for facilitators to be aware of these perceptions and where necessary, to engage in further investigation to probe for deeper understandings.
Therefore, interpretive and hermeneutic methods are not in conflict with causal explanations: “Once we understand the material setting and the cultural meaning of a social practice, we can hope to understand people’s options in relation to it and thus their reasons for acting as they do” (Carter and New 2004:6). Clegg, arguing for critical realism as a metatheory for empirical research, particularly in higher education, asserts that
… these sorts of detailed accounts of practice [derived from interviews] are important in understanding how changes are mediated through the creativity and resistance of actors on the ground. How we theorize about … change in higher education is, therefore, crucially dependent on these sorts of data (2005:151). My main sources of data for this research came from the semi-structured, in-depth interviews which I conducted with four different groups of people, each for a different purpose as outlined in Figure 7 above: (1) a sample of PGDHE programme participants, (2) EDU staff at SSAU, (3) people in middle and senior management positions in the Institution and (4) “veteran” ED practitioners. By semi-structured interviews I mean that I designed questions to be used with each set of interviews; however, I was also open to responses from the interviewees which led me in different directions. This aspect of the data selection process was strongly influenced by Tom Wengraf’s (2001) ideas in “Qualitative Research Interviewing”.
The emphasis on interview data in my research was underpinned by an assumption that, to use Henning et al’s words, “the individual’s perspective is an important part of the fabric of society and of our joint knowledge of social processes and the human condition” (2004:50). In my case I thought that it was important to elicit the perceptions of a sample of (and key)
68 individuals who were involved in the case in various ways. In order to develop an understanding and explanation of how staff development has evolved, it was important to find out what key role players thought, felt and did – their subjective reality. One of the ways to do this was through interviewing them. Henning et al (2004:53-65) make a distinction between what they call standard interviews and discursively oriented interviews. In the latter it is acknowledged that analysing interview texts involves more than simply paying attention to the content of what people say, and that a form of discourse analysis should be employed in order to delve deeper into the interview data:
It is not only what people say and do that is important, but also how they say and do it, what they omit and which discourses are dominant in the information in its context (Henning et al 2004:62). How the interview data was analysed will be discussed in more depth in 3.5.
3.4.2.1 Sampling
In terms of EDU staff, the sampling was done on pragmatic grounds: all four of the staff members (including the director of the EDU) still employed at SSAU, who have been and currently are involved in the PGDHE, were interviewed. In addition, I too I have been centrally involved in the PGDHE from its inception so my voice and perceptions are evident throughout my account of the research (see 3.8 for more on the role of the researcher). In the history of the programme there are two further staff members who since the programme was introduced in 2000 have left SSAU. I secured an interview with one of these who is now the director of an ED unit at another South African HE institution. As she was part of the Standards Generating Body (SGB) which designed unit standards for a national qualification called a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE) (5.4.3), the interview had the dual purpose of probing her perceptions of the SSAU PGDHE as she remembered it as well as her opinions of ED and particularly staff development from a national HE perspective.
In terms of the other interview participants (for example, the PGDHE participants) I made use of deliberate or purposeful sampling (as opposed to randomised sampling) (see for example, Wengraf 2001) or what Patton (1990 in Wengraf 2001:102) calls “maximum variation sampling” which is described as “purposefully picking a wider range of variation on dimensions of interest”. Maxwell argues that the term “purposeful selection” is a more appropriate one: “This is a strategy in which particular settings, persons, or activities are selected deliberately in order to provide information that can’t be gotten as well from other choices” (2005:88). The search for a sample is a form of triangulation (see 3.6.1 on validity). My intention was to elicit data from a range of participants, each coming from a different view point/ perspective, to enable me to evaluate and synthesise the ideas expressed by each of them (Wengraf 2001:105). My sampling decisions benefited from my prior knowledge
69 gained through evaluation data and discussions with other PGDHE facilitators. My purpose in terms of the PGDHE participants was to interview them to access their experiences (both positive and negative) of the programme, so I looked for a range of participants whom I felt had experienced it “differently” for different reasons, for example, disciplinary area, age, years of professional experience, gender. I have interview data from lecturers who participated in the programme when it first started and from some who completed the programme in 2005. I also interviewed people who had dropped out of the programme for a range of reasons.
I conducted interviews with two members of the Council on Higher Education (CHE) 1 in order to gain an impression of the wider national context of higher education and their opinions of the role of academic staff development in HE. In order to gain data regarding the perceptions of academic staff development, particularly among those in top and middle management positions of the University, I conducted semi-structured interviews with: The ex Vice Principal of SSAU (he was instrumental in facilitating the EDU’s move in focus from student to staff development in 1999 so I felt his input to this research was important; see 5.4.3), the present Vice Principal, the past and present Deans of Science, the Dean of Commerce, the Dean of Law, the Dean of Humanities, the Dean of Research, the Director of the Educational Development Unit, the Director of Academic Planning and Quality Assurance and one head of department (HoD) in the Science Faculty (this HoD requested the interview rather than complete the questionnaire sent to all academic staff; see 3.4.5). My interest was in trying to understand how people who occupy significant positions in the University understood ED broadly and particularly, academic staff development (see 2.6.1). This data was used to augment the questionnaire data from other SSAU lecturers, which was designed to elicit their opinions on academic staff development (3.4.5).
3.4.2.2 Deciding on the interview questions
Sayer (1992:51) refers to theories as “examined conceptualisations” of reality. In other words, theories are propositions which contain concepts and concepts refer to something believed to belong to social reality (Archer 1995). Theories are used by researchers to give “explanatory purpose on substantive social problems, through supplying the terms or framework for their investigation” ( ibid :12-13). I was hoping that by using theoretical concepts to analyse the interview data I would be able to identify the relevant causal processes to explain my case.
1 “The South African Council on Higher Education (CHE) is an independent statutory body with the responsibility to advise the Minister of Education on all matters related to higher education policy issues and quality assurance within higher education and training” (CHE 2006).
70 However, it is Wengraf’s contention that social science theories and their concepts are expressed in “theory-language” (2001:53) for which the indicators are often indirect and not obvious. He therefore suggests that when designing interview questions the researcher should make a distinction between what he calls “theory-questions” and interview questions or prompts. I followed his model by attempting to maintain a clear link between my research purposes, my theory (research) questions and my interview questions. I began by formulating theory-questions around important concepts in my theoretical framework (for example, culture, structure, agency) and then I designed interview questions in which I tried to use a style and language that my interviewees would be comfortable with. I felt this was particularly important for the PGDHE participants, especially those from non-cognate disciplines to Education. It was less important for ED staff but nonetheless, to avoid putting words in their mouths I tried asking indirect rather than direct questions.
Wengraf warns though that even when a researcher formulates theory questions she must not be closed to further theories or ideas that may come up in the data. In my case this included ideas from the substantive theory which is dealt with in the following chapter. According to Wengraf, the conceptual framework that one chooses needs to be adapted and used in a way which makes sense for the particular research purpose. When designing the interview questions (linked to the theory-questions) I was careful to try and avoid leading and biased questions, that is, questions that would consciously or unconsciously prompt my interviewees to give me the answers I was looking for ( ibid :163).
When I approached people involved in the PGDHE to ask them if they would be prepared to be interviewed I was careful to explain to them that the purpose of the interview was to understand how they had experienced being part of the PGDHE (either as programme designers/facilitators or as programme participants). I stressed that the purpose was not to evaluate the programme. At the start of the interviews I reiterated this position and, although I realised this was very difficult, I also asked them to try not to see me as part of the EDU . Following Wengraf’s suggestions for ways in which one could structure interviews, I first started with a very broad, open question to allow interviewees to indicate to me what they considered important or of specific interest about the topic and also hopefully to help them relax. Depending on what came up in response to the general question, I then used the interview questions I had designed. I concluded the interview by asking another broad open- ended question to allow participants to raise any ideas in relation to the topic. Particularly in the interviews with the EDU staff (and with the senior and middle managers at the University) I began the interviews with a question which prompted autobiographical narratives of their professional lives: “People’s explicit theories in response to questioning may tell you one thing; the assumptions and asides in their story-telling may tell you
71 something else. Such ‘triangulated’ multiple sources of evidence need careful ‘interpretation’” (Wengraf 2001:178). These were then followed up with more specific questions regarding historical circumstances and then led up to their experiences with the PGDHE, or their perceptions of the programme.
3.4.2.3 Interviewing processes and relationships
The interview is a social situation and inherently involves a relationship between the interviewer and the informant. Understanding the nature of that situation and relationship, how it affects what goes on in the interview, and how the informant’s actions and views could differ in other situations is crucial to the validity of accounts based on interviews (Briggs 1986; Mishler 1986) … (Maxwell 1992:295). The success of an interview often hinges on the researcher’s ability to establish an appropriate relationship with her research participants (see Maxwell 2005:83-5 for a discussion of this). Massarik (1981:205 in Wengraf 2001:153) identifies a typology of interview relations from the point of view of the interviewer. In my interviews I strove to establish a combination of two of those types of relations:
In the Rapport interview , the interviewer emerges as Human-Being-in-a-role , not denying his/her humanity and acknowledging the humanity of the interviewee, while still focusing essentially on subject-matter and on specific replies. In the Depth-interview , interviewer and interviewee, in substantial balance meet as Peers , their humanities expressed in circumscribed terms but with continuing emphasis on the specific goals of response content. I tried to listen very carefully and with empathy to what my interviewees were saying by employing close-listening and close attentiveness strategies. I used paralinguistic clues and non-verbal communication to signal these. I was aware that some of my participants found the interview situation stressful and I attempted to cater for that and to monitor it throughout the interviews. All the interviews were, with the interviewees’ permission, audio taped. In addition, I took field notes during and after each interview in which I noted anything that I thought might be significant, including any relationship difficulties that I became aware of.
I attempted to create what Wengraf calls a “relatively safe research interview experience” (2001:18) for both myself and my interviewees by explaining, as I mentioned earlier, that the purpose of the research was not to evaluate the programme or the EDU. I urged them to give honest responses and not to be concerned about protecting anyone’s feelings (especially mine). I explained the purpose in quite simple terms as my research interest lay in developing an understanding of how they had experienced the programme (either as participants or as facilitators). In the case of the interviews with people not involved in the PGDHE, I explained the purpose as wanting to gain insights into their perceptions of academic staff development broadly and the PGDHE at SSAU particularly. I reassured them
72 that their identities would remain anonymous and that I would ensure that there were no negative repercussions as a result of their participation in my research (see 3.6.3 on ethical considerations in the research). Nonetheless, I needed to be aware all the time of the possible influences of my identity, both personal and professionally, on the interview. Professionally most of the interviewees knew me as programme co-ordinator, past facilitator, member of the EDU (and colleague in the case of the other EDU staff). I also had to be aware of any “potential interview identities” (Wengraf 2001:19) brought by the interviewees into the interview 2. This was especially so in the case of my colleagues – most of us have a long relationship (between 6-11 years) which contains all sorts of events that might have coloured how people responded to me in interviews. As alluded to earlier, I attempted to reflect on these issues in the pre, during and post interview field notes. In general I attempted to follow Wengraf’s advice by
…. adopting an interview strategy that minimises (for as long as possible) the interview er’s concerns (system of values and significance) to allow fullest possible expression of the concerns, the systems of value and significance, the life-world, of the interview ee (2001:69).
3.4.2.4 Analysis of interview data
To reiterate, the reason for conducting interviews with a sample of programme participants as well as with the EDU staff who have been involved in the PGDHE was to explore their experiences of the programme; their subjective worlds. Nonetheless, this did not mean that their responses were accepted at face value. Wengraf warns:
Any analysis of interview material which assumes (rather than questions) a straightforward automatic correspondence between the ‘presented world’ and the ‘actual world’ may be considered to be variably naïve and potentially worthless (2001:27). Wengraf adds “we have to search unendingly for ‘communicative’ and ‘interpretive’ blunders and naiveté …” ( ibid: 38). Realists treat research data as “ fallible evidence of extra-interview realities ”, which are to be used critically to test and develop ideas about the existence and nature of the phenomena (Maxwell 1996 cited in Wengraf 2001:59). Interpretation is required in order to link the theory to the empirical indicators.
To assist me in this task and following the advice of qualitative researchers (for example, Wengraf 2001:224; Henning et al 2004:76), I transcribed most the interviews myself as that gave me an opportunity to engage with the data and become familiar with it. While I was transcribing, I made use of NVivo® to make “theoretical memos” to myself ( ibid :227). NVivo® is qualitative data analysis software which enables the researcher to link a set of
2 See Moore (2003, 2003a) on “public discourses” (“best face forward” accounts) and private disclosures that emerged in his research with academics in two South African HEIs. I was aware of the possibility of participants (especially senior management interviewees) using “public discourses” in the interviews.
73 documents (for example, interview transcripts) with an index system. Using NVivo® I then coded the data from each interview using my initial theory-questions as categories. At the same time I tried to remain open to the possibility of new theory-questions which might contribute to my research question emerging. I made a note of interview processes which I thought were relevant. I coded data for each theory-question separately. In some cases I found that the same piece of data could be coded for more than one theory-question. While doing the coding, I continued to write observations and theoretical memos to myself. In addition, some of the interview data was analysed using the tools of critical discourse analysis. In particular I used the dominant discourses in HE, identified in the literature and research, as initial categories for coding the data (see 3.5.2.1).
3.4.2.5 Limitations of interview data
Similar to Wengraf, Silverman claims that a researcher needs to decide whether interview data should be treated as “giving direct access to ‘experience’ or as actively constructed ‘narratives’ involving activities which themselves demand analysis” (2001:113). From a realist perspective, interview data is useful as long as the researcher remembers that what people say does not necessarily correspond with reality; it is their conceptions and perceptions of reality which they are conveying and perhaps not even accurately or honestly. In my research I was aware that some respondents were possibly seeking to “elaborate their positions” (Moore 2003:86) by projecting a particular image of themselves, feeding me the “official line”, or saying whatever they thought I wanted to hear. Despite these limitations, I believe that if examined carefully using appropriate theoretical concepts and in combination with other techniques, interview data may provide useful insights into causal mechanisms at deeper levels of reality.
Archer argues that it is not sufficient to use only interview data in order to identify structural and cultural emergent properties as this will only reveal the “fallible partial appreciation which agents have” (1995:177) of their structural and cultural contexts. She cautions that “ falsely privileging the discursive penetration of agents, [it] deprives us of any means of understanding their distorted perception, its sources and the interests it serves” ( ibid. Emphasis added). For that reason, realist researchers engage in retroductive analysis which involves transcendental arguments which ask “what else needs to be the case, what else must be present for X to be such as it is, and not what people think, notice, tell or believe is the case” ( ibid) (see 3.5.1 below).
74 3.4.3 Observation and document analysis
Many of the principles outlined above for interview data apply equally to data obtained through observation: “What is observed (seen and heard) is the researcher’s version of what is ‘there’” (Henning et al 2004:81). My “observations” are not so much as a result of data selection as from being intimately involved in the case under discussion – in effect, as a participant observer. Some of the data was obtained through recording meetings of PGDHE facilitators. In all cases I was part of the meetings as programme co-ordinator, rather than as researcher. In transcribing and analysing these meetings, further insights into the programme were gained. This aspect will be explored in more detail in 3.4.4, the section on evaluation of the PGDHE and in 3.8, the section on the role of the researcher.
A range of documents was used as data sources in this research. From the PGDHE participants the documents included written assignments as part of the programme, their teaching portfolios, electronic journal entries, formal and informal evaluations on the programme, informal communications with the facilitators (email usually). This combination of what can be called public and private documents (May 2001:181) was useful in providing further insights into the way events are constructed and people perceive of them. Other public documents that were used as sources of data included policy documents and archived papers, and documents such as audit reports (internal and external audits), reports submitted to University committees such as the Teaching and Learning Committee as well as documents and papers dealing with the history of educational development – both nationally and at SSAU. As May notes, document analysis can be used “to situate contemporary accounts within an historical context” (2001:175). Thus any document is a product of the context in which it was produced and the researcher has to use the context to make sense of the text. May goes on to say:
Documents, read as the sedimentation of social practices, have the potential to inform and structure the decisions which people make on a daily and longer-term basis; they also constitute particular readings of social events. They tell us about the aspirations and intentions of the periods to which they refer and describe places and social relationships at a time when we many not have been born, or were simply not present (2001:176). Policy documents as well as commentary on policy documents were, for example, particularly useful for gaining insights into T1, the first phase of the morphogenetic cycle, that is, the structural and cultural conditions that prevailed at the macro level, that is, the national and international HE contexts (see chapter 4).
Documents, such as internal and external reviews were used for finding evidence of the discourses used to construct and express the ideas, beliefs, and values (CEPs) that have
75 historically underpinned and currently underpin ED, and particularly staff development practices.
As with other data texts, I attempted to conduct not only content analysis, but also used discourse analysis methods to examine the documents (see 3.5.2.1). In keeping with my general orientation to research, this entailed “interrogating” the data in a critical manner to ensure that the findings were not superficial and “naively realistic” (Henning et al 2004:102). I attempted to uncover deeper strata of reality. Again, as with other data analysis, the analysis of documents was undertaken using Archer’s morphogenetic/static framework.
As May (2001:187 quoting Forster 1994:149) points out, it is worth remembering that documents:
… should never be taken at face-value. In other words, they must be regarded as information which is context-specific and as data which must be contextualized with other forms of research. They should, therefore, only be used with caution. As with some of the other data I collected, the document analysis was done qualitatively in the manner described by Ericson et al : “In the process, the analyst picks out what is relevant for analysis and pieces it together to create tendencies, sequences, patterns and orders …” (1991:55 in May 2001:193).
Silverman reminds us of the linguistic character of much of the data used in qualitative research studies: “Even if our aim is to search for supposedly ‘external’ realities in our data (e.g. class, gender, power), our raw material is inevitably the words written in documents or spoken by interview respondents” (2001:119).
In analysing the documents for my research I attempted in each case to take into account the processes and social contexts in which the documents were produced as I do not believe that any document simply reflects the social reality to which it refers. From a realist perspective, I therefore attempted to analyse the documents in a way that helped me to understand better the properties, powers and structures that were involved in the construction of the texts.
3.4.4 Evaluation data
The SSAU policy on the “Evaluation of teaching and course design” (see 5.4.1) is that individual lecturers are responsible for assuring the quality of their teaching, their courses and their students’ learning. In order to help PGDHE participants understand the rationale behind the policy and to comply with it, one of the modules of the PGDGE deals with evaluation of teaching and courses. Both in order to model evaluation practices and to inform our own teaching and course, following the principles and practices of action research
76 (see for example Carr and Kemmis 1986, McTaggart 1991 and Zuber-Skerritt 1991), the PGDHE facilitators constantly elicit feedback from the programme participants (see Appendix 1). A range of methods are used, some formal and others more informal: open- ended questionnaires, questionnaires using the SSAU Evaluation Assistant (a web-based tool which enables course facilitators/lecturers to custom design evaluation questionnaires), which includes ranked-scale and open-ended questions, a range of focus group interviewing techniques, interviews with individual participants, freewriting (Elbow 1991), journal entries, and solicited and unsolicited emails. In addition, as mentioned earlier, in order to see how the data was “spoken back to” by the programme facilitators, I recorded a sample of the planning meetings where the evaluations were a topic of discussion. The data selected from evaluations was further triangulated by looking at, for example, the participants’ portfolios and by noting the comments made by the external examiner for the programme. By prior arrangement with my colleagues, I was given access to the evaluations which were gathered from 2000 to 2005/6.
The selected data was not analysed in any complex way but rather more descriptively, as the purpose for collecting it was to give programme designers and facilitators feedback to be used for the ongoing curriculum development and teaching of the programme (that is, not specifically for my research). As Silverman (2001:113) points out, it is important to assess whether the researcher’s analytic position is appropriate to her practical concerns – in other words, in the case of this data, I did not believe that in-depth data analysis (for example, discourse analysis) was required. In terms of this research, the data selected from the evaluations was used to advance the argument that the PGDHE has been relatively successful in meeting its aims and was thus a “critical” case worthy of further investigation (see Appendix 1).
3.4.5 Qualitative questionnaire
Virtually all surveys aim to describe or explain the characteristics or opinions of a population through the use of a representative sample (May 2001:89). In order to understand the Institutional context in which ED and particularly the PGDHE operated, it was necessary to gain insights into the perceptions and beliefs of people not closely involved with ED or the PGDHE. For that reason, as previously mentioned (3.4.2), I interviewed a range of people at SSAU. In addition, in 2003, because I was interested in the attitudes to and opinions of academic staff, I sent out an email questionnaire intended to capture their perceptions about academic staff professionalization (see 4.4.1 for discussion of the contested nature of professionalization). I conducted an attitudinal survey (Ackroyd and Hughes 1983 in May 2001) using an email questionnaire (see Appendix 2) which was sent via heads of departments (HoDs) to all academic staff. The response rate was
77 approximately 42% which can be called a representative, random sample (also sometimes called probability sampling). According to May, “An important principle is that each person in the population of interest has an equal chance of being part of the sample” (2001:93). 101 responses were received out of a total of approximately 240 3. Of those 101, 23 responses were from Heads of Departments. The rest ranged across the spectrum of staff from junior lecturers through to full professors. Very few people who had actually undertaken (or were enrolled) in the PGCHE 4 responded to the questionnaire as they assumed it wasn’t intended for them. The purpose of the questionnaire was to gain insights into the dominant attitudes of lecturers (reflected in the discourses used to respond to the questions) regarding their need to professionalize their practice as educators.
The questionnaire was sent to Heads of Departments with a covering letter explaining the purpose of the survey and requesting them to forward it to all the academic staff members in their departments. I chose to do it this way, rather than send the questionnaires directly to all the staff, as my assumption was that staff would be more likely to respond to a request through their HoD than directly from me. The reasonably good return rate seems to indicate that this assumption was correct.
As I was aware of the fact that academics are very busy, I attempted to keep the covering letter short and the number of questions to a minimum. It is possible that had I asked more questions I would have elicited more in-depth data. Lecturers were requested to return their responses to me directly. This method did not allow for anonymity, which may have influenced their responses. A frequent disadvantage of mail questionnaires is that the questions themselves and /or the motives of the researcher involved may be misunderstood. In retrospect I think the framing for my questions was not particularly useful, as the student deficit argument (see 5.3.2) for staff development was foregrounded. Although I only asked two open ended questions, I left a gap to probe beyond the questionnaire by asking if individuals would be available for a follow-up interview. However, due to time constraints, I didn’t follow this up.
The survey responses were not analysed statistically, but rather intensively. Using the tools of critical discourse analysis (3.5.2.1), I identified dominant discourses that were currently being used in higher education to help me to understand more fully lecturers’ attitudes and perceptions. When analysing the data, I was continually aware of how imprecise and misleading these kinds of responses can be and therefore attempted to use them with caution. Nonetheless, the responses were useful, mostly in confirming the “hunches” held
3 It is difficult to tell exactly how many lecturers received the email as it went via the heads of departments and also one can’t be sure how many academics were away at the time. 4 See 5.4.3 for an explanation for the name changes of the qualification offered at SSAU.
78 by myself and my colleagues in the EDU about staff perceptions of our activities. It is important to note that these responses represented a snapshot of opinions/perceptions of a specific group of people at a specific time and place – nonetheless they provided interesting information for my case study. They contributed towards the development of an understanding of the dominant discourses in current use in the context in which the PGDHE operated.
3.5 Data analysis and interpretation
Danermark et al propose that the main problem of science “is that our knowledge of reality always is filtered through language and concepts that are relative and changeable in time and space” (2002:39). Central to research, as was mentioned in 3.3, is the fact that we think both with and about concepts (Sayer1992). The methodological implication of this is that “conceptualisation stands out as the most central social scientific activity” (Danermark et al 2002:41). Data analysis involves engaging in conceptual abstraction in order to examine the complexity of the objects of research. Danermark et al ( ibid ::43) describe abstraction as the social science equivalent of an experiment; it is a way of isolating certain aspects in thought. The act of data analysis therefore involves, to a large extent, using the available concepts to engage in abstraction, allowing the researcher to examine the deep generative mechanisms that produce the events at the level of the actual and which may or may not be experienced at the empirical level.
To repeat, from a critical realist perspective, the purpose of research is to explain events and processes. This entails describing and conceptualising the properties and causal mechanisms (in the deep structures of reality) that make things happen at the empirical level of reality. The acts of describing and explaining are not discrete from one another:
… what social reality is held to be also is that which we seek to explain. It is denoted as being such and such by virtue of the concepts used to describe it and their use is inescapable since all knowledge is conceptually formed (Archer 1995:17). Research also involves describing and explaining how different mechanisms manifest themselves under certain conditions. As the information collected at the empirical level does not “speak for itself” researchers need to make use of their reasoning ability to abstract from the texts; they need to make inferences from the selected data: “Reasoning, our ability to analyse, relate, interpret and draw conclusions, is a fundamental precondition for all knowledge and knowledge development” (Danermark et al 2002:79). Danermark et al (ibid :79-106) discuss four different modes of inference (or “thought operation”), namely, deduction, induction, abduction and retroduction, all of which they maintain are complementary in research practice. In my research, as is the case with most research
79 underpinned by a realist perspective, the latter two modes predominated. I discuss these briefly in the following section.
3.5.1 Abduction and retroduction
Abduction and retroduction are two important tools for research, as they enable explanations of social phenomena that reveal causal processes and mechanisms (Danermark et al 2002:1). In research involving abductive reasoning, information is collected about the empirical event / phenomenon of interest (in my case, staff development practices at SSAU). The researcher then chooses a conceptual framework(s)/theory(ies) which she uses to reinterpret or recontextualize the selected data. The end result is a new interpretation of the event or phenomenon. Doing this enables the researcher to move from the empirical to the deeper levels of reality. Abduction thus entails a:
... move from a conception of something to a different, possibly more developed or deeper conception of it. This happens through our placing and interpreting the original ideas about the phenomenon in the frame of a new set of ideas (Danermark et al 2002:91). Through abduction it is possible to generate an understanding of structures, internal relations and contexts that are not necessarily directly observable.
In my research the overarching methodological framework used for making sense of the data was Archer’s morphogenetic/morphostatic framework which was outlined in the previous chapter. Applying this framework to my data enabled me to develop a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the conditions that enabled the emergence of the PGDHE. I conclude the discussion on abduction, that is, using theoretical frameworks to make sense of reality, with the following quotation:
For the use of models in science is not motivated by the ability of these models to empirically describe a pure reality. The strength of scientific models lies instead in their ability to break away from a descriptive discourse and provide a possibility to see ‘something’ as ‘something else’ . Since the purpose of using models in science is to explore reality by establishing new relations in it, the scientific model has a heuristic function in producing new hypotheses and so discovers new dimensions of reality (Uggla 1994:400 in Danermark et al 2002:94 italics and translation by Danermark et al ). Retroduction , as a mode of thought operation, involves moving from a description and analysis of concrete phenomena to reconstruct the basic conditions for these phenomena to be what they are . Benton and Craib provide the following definition of retroduction:
A form of inferential argument which starts with some phenomenon, or pattern, and poses the question ‘What sort of process, mechanism, agency, and so on, if it existed, would have this phenomenon as its consequence?’ The conclusions are not logically necessary, but it offers a rational process for devising candidate explanations (2001:185).
80 Similar to abduction, retroduction provides knowledge of structures and mechanisms that cannot be directly observed in the empirical domain. This domain that cannot be directly observed is referred to as the transcendental domain: “Critical realism is based on transcendental realism implying that the basic preconditions for our knowledge of reality are to be found in this reality, which is independent of our seeking knowledge” (Danermark et al 2002:206; 2.2.1). Retroductive reasoning involves determining the conditions for something to be what it is and not something completely different. In the case of research, retroduction is done through transcendental argumentation, which entails asking key questions such as, in the context of my research:
How is X phenomenon (for example, staff development) possible?
What properties must exist for it to exist and to be what it is?
What must SSAU (the context) be like for staff development like this to be possible?
How do we arrive at the conclusion that certain structures and mechanisms but not others make up the conditions for X to be possible?
How can we distinguish between the necessary conditions for X (the constituent properties) and the more contingent circumstances affecting the particular case under study? (adapted from Danermark et al 2002: 97 and 200).
A fundamental idea in critical realism is … that causality involves properties, structures and mechanisms that can only be identified through retroduction and by means of abstract concepts and theories ( ibid :120-1). It must be noted however, that there are no fixed criteria for judging, in a definite or conclusive way, the validity of retroductive conclusions. Interpretation is therefore always fallible and capable of being revised in the light of further research findings (see discussion on “judgemental rationalism” and the need to problematise interpretations in 3.6.1).
As was stated in 2.2.1, a fundamental realist understanding is that objects are what they are by virtue of their internal relations with other objects. It is through retroductive reasoning that knowledge of the internal relations of what makes an object what it is can be obtained. I used Archer’s methodological framework to help me to identify the internal relations at play in the context of my case study. My research question essentially was: What made staff development in its present form (PGDHE) possible ? My research represents an attempt to uncover the foundational conditions behind concrete historical events; to determine what structural and cultural conditions and agential actions enabled or disabled the phenomena, that is, staff development, under study.
81 3.5.2 Other analytical strategies
Marvasti describes data analysis as “the interpretive activity of making sense of human artefacts by conceptually connecting them with other meaningful data” (2004:82). He also makes the point that data analysis happens throughout the research process, not just at the end. Practically, according to Maxwell (2005:96-99) there are three main groups of analytic methods, all of which I employed at various stages of the research process: 1) categorizing strategies (for example, coding and thematic analysis), 2) memos, and 3) connecting strategies.
Because my study generated a large amount of text, I decided, where appropriate, to use NVivo®, a qualitative data analysis software tool referred to earlier (3.4.2.4), to assist me in organising and managing the text and particularly to help me to analyse it, using the first two of Maxwell’s strategies outlined in the previous paragraph. Using NVivo® enabled me to link a set of documents (for example, interview transcripts, journal entries, assignments) with an index system. An index system is a set of hierarchically linked nodes (for example, concepts/issue/key words). The software allowed me to electronically pull out data from the documents which had been coded under the same node.
Henning et al (2004) believe that the initial coding of data is derived from a perspective of naïve realism; that is, they are based on a belief that “the world is as it appears in gathered information positivistically related to the ‘real’ world” (2004:101). For that reason it was necessary to move from coding to categorising, which involved invoking the contexts in which the information was generated. The data analysis process thus entailed moving in a cyclical fashion to increasingly sophisticated levels of abstraction. Some of the categories came from my understanding of the existing theory that framed the enquiry (such as the discourses about HE prevalent in the HE literature), whereas others were developed inductively during the data analysis process, and still others from the conceptual structures of the research participants (Maxwell 1996:79). Henning et al (2004) argue that the researcher’s in-depth knowledge of the context can be an advantage in the data analysis process, provided appropriate validity checks are put in place (see 3.6.1 and 3.8 below). In addition, as mentioned in 3.4.2.4, the way in which NVivo® is organised, allows the researcher to write memos linked to the data. Maxwell believes that researchers should “regularly write memos while you are doing data analysis; memos not only capture your analytic thinking about our data but also facilitate such thinking, stimulating analytical insights” (2005:96).
The third way of analysing data, often associated with narrative research, which Maxwell calls connecting strategies (2005) or connecting analysis (2004), involves identifying
82 connections between events and processes. Smith describes how he used connecting strategies at the same time as he was categorising data:
Concurrently, a related but different process is occurring … The conscious search for the consequences of social items … seemed to flesh out a complex systemic view and a concern for process, the flow of events over time (1979:338 in Maxwell 2004:255). This type of analysis is better suited to research which is concerned with explaining processes. It “elucidates the actual connections between events and the complex interaction of causal processes in a specific context” (Maxwell 2004:256).
Henning et al (2004:107) cite Holliday (2001:100) who describes the process of data analysis as one in which the “corpus of raw data” is “rationalised”. Crang calls this a process of “recontextualization” during which a researcher takes bits of material (some theoretical and some empirical data) and transforms and recontextualizes them into a “plausible and persuasive whole” (2003:133). In the process, the “messy reality” of everyday social life is taken into the domain of the enquiry, moving it a step further from reality as lived, and then further still when the researcher imposes thematic organisation on the data. Each theme can then be used as the foundation for an argument, which will enable the researcher to provide some answers to her research questions.
Clandinin and Connelly (1994) refer to the data as “field texts”, that is, the texts created by the research participants and the researcher to represent aspects of what they refer to as the “field of research experience”. Other documents (in my case, for example, national and institutional policy documents, curriculum documentation) become field texts when they become relevant to the research project. What is crucial is that these field texts need to be reconstructed as “research texts”. In some cases, these documents were not coded and categorised as described above but were analysed using the connecting strategies mentioned earlier, which, instead of “fracturing” texts, looks for relationships within texts and attempts to understand the data in context (Maxwell 2005:98). This is similar to what Henning et al call “global analysis” (2004:109-111), which enabled me to “obtain an overview of the thematic range of the text” (Flick 1998:196 in Henning et al 2004:109) and to identify aspects of particular interest to my research. This required me to ask crucial questions of meaning and social significance; to search for patterns, tensions, themes and narrative threads in the field texts as I began to construct my “story” of the emergence of the PGDHE.
The following two sections look at the final data analysis strategy which I employed in the research: critical discourse analysis.
83 3.5.2.1 Critical discourse analysis
Earlier (2.2.5) I briefly explored the difference between post-modern / constructionist and critical realist understandings of the relationship between discourse and reality. In that section, with reference specifically to Archer (2000), I claimed that from a critical realist perspective, discourse is regarded as a cultural emerging property (CEP) with enabling and constraining powers. Discourses refer to something real and have causal powers to affect the things in the world: they have real effects on social practice and social institutions. It therefore seems logical to state that researchers cannot avoid engaging with discourse at some level or another. Willmott (2005) points out that critical realism challenges some varieties of discourse analysis, particularly those which presuppose that
… the social world is constructed by us; it is merely a social construct; there is no extra-discursive realm that is not expressed in discourse; the social world is generated in discourse (Ackroyd and Fleetwood 2000:8 quoted in Willmott 2005:748). This stance, according to Willmott (2005 citing for example Reed 2000 and 2003), reflects a lack of examination of the range of varieties of discourse analysis (DA) available, and that the type of DA described by Ackroyd and Fleetwood above is an extreme formulation of a discursive approach. However, some forms of DA, in particular Fairclough and associates’ critical discourse analysis (CDA), are categorised as being consistent with critical realist philosophy because of their explicit focus on both context and text. Fairclough, Jessop and Sayer (2002) argue that a critical realist attempt to analyze the social world should include semiotic analysis, of which discourse analysis is a part.
In CDA the interest is in looking at how discourses influence reality while at the same time how discourses are constrained by reality 5:
… because texts are both socially-structuring and socially-structured, we must examine not only how texts generate meaning and thereby help to generate social structure but also how the production of meaning is itself constrained by emergent, non-semiotic features of social structure (Fairclough et al 2002:3-4). Because most of the data for my research project was either gathered or represented in the form of texts, it seemed that interpretation of the data would inevitably involve discourse analysis of one kind or another. Some of the data that was in the form of non-written texts had to be “entextualised” (Johnstone 2002:20). For example, all the interviews I conducted were audio taped and then transcribed to create written texts. For the purposes of my research (that is, to analyse the emergence of the PGDHE over a period time), it did not seem necessary or appropriate to use the tools of CDA for very close scrutiny of texts. However, during the data analysis phase of the research I used the guiding principles which
5 See Widdowson (1998) for critiques of CDA.
84 underpin CDA to analyse data. For example, in the analysis of my data texts I maintained an awareness of the dialectical internal relations between actors, language, text, social relations and practical contexts (Fairclough et al 2002:4). Part of my research process involved identifying, both in selected documentation and literature on higher education and in the data texts, the causal powers and mechanisms of discourses prevalent in higher education and to consider answers to questions such as:
Which discourses are prevalent in HE?
Why are certain discourses privileged over others in HE?
Why and how are discourses used for “interpreting events, legitimising actions, representing social phenomenon” ( ibid :5)?
How do discourses influence people’s identities and ways of being?
How do the “parts” (culture and structure) influence which discourses are privileged and which are not?
How do agents (particularly those who occupy powerful roles in institutions) influence discourses? (based on ideas from Fairclough et al 2002).
Of interest to me was how dominant and changing discourses prevalent in the cultural system of higher education contributed towards enabling and constraining conditions for the emergence of the PGDHE. Also of interest were both the internal relations between discourses as well as the external relations that existed between discourses and associated social phenomena ( ibid :6). In other words, I was not only interested in the discursive impact of the dominant HE discourses but also in how discourses contributed to changes in social practices (for example, the implementation of the PGDHE). Fairclough et al ( ibid ) point out that critical realist researchers can benefit from the tools and skills provided by CDA to enable them to reflect critically on any text. The “Discourse analysis” part of CDA focuses on the complexities of the mechanisms in the texts which produce the effects and the “critical” aspect has to do with “the truth, truthfulness and appropriateness of texts, their production and their interpretation” ( ibid ) (see 2.2.3). In other words, CDA can provide the means for examining the relationship between discourse and the material and social world. As such then, discourses are excellent examples of emergence because they offer “endless possibilities for meaning to emerge from the play of difference” ( ibid :7). Many post structural accounts of this emergence ignore the real world whereas CDA (and critical realism) are concerned with both text and context.
85 Using my understanding of the context, part of my data analysis thus involved identifying (and coding, using NVivo®) discourses in the data and how those related to dominant discourses which have been identified by other theorists in the field. For Henning et al the main question to be asked is:
What discourse(s) frame(s) the language action and the way in which the participants make sense of their reality and how was this discourse produced and how is it maintained in the social context? (2004:117-8). My analysis was informed by Fairclough’s (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999; Fairclough 2000, 2001) understanding of social life as consisting of interconnected networks of social practices. This allowed me to sustain my focus on analysing the interplay between the parts and the people (Archer 1995). According to Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), social practices networked in a particular way constitute a social order (for example, the emergent neo-liberal global order) and the discourse aspect of a social order is called an order of discourse , that is, the way in which a range of genres, discourses and styles are networked together. For example, in the field of higher education, quality assurance could be identified as an order of discourse associated with the emergent neo-liberal global order. An order of discourse usually encompasses a range of sub-discourses; in the case of the QA discourse these include discourses of performativity, accountability and marketization. Both the social networks and associated discourses are more or less stable and more or less fluid.
Genres, styles and discourses are on the one hand relatively permanent elements of orders of discourse, and on the other hand instantaneously and shiftingly constituted in specific texts in ways which may to a greater or lesser degree reproduce or transform the permanence of orders of discourse. Those who favour neatness may regard this tension within the categories as simply confusing, but it is essential to the dialectical movement between the perspectives of structure and action in the analysis of texts and discourse (Fairclough 2000:171). Keeping this tension in mind, I coded sections of texts which I identified as instances of uses of particular orders of discourse (as well as sub-discourses and in some cases, oppositional discourses) (see 5.3). It must be conceded that both the naming of discourses and the actual coding of texts is to a certain extent arbitrary and idiosyncratic. However, using my knowledge of the field and substantive theories I provide reasons for the choices of particular codes (“Every single time you ‘label’ an action (text and talk), a phenomenon or artefact, you have to provide essential reasoning for doing so” (Henning et al 2004:120)). Examples that seemed to fit together were then categorised to form a distinct part of the pattern of language usage. These patterns were then related to particular social practices that I had identified or were familiar with from my own experiences. In this way I used the principles of CDA to contribute to my analysis of the cultural, structural and agential influences that enabled the introduction of the PGDHE. It must however be pointed out that not all the data
86 was exhaustively analysed; some was used as a backdrop to the contextual background and the narrative, which describes and explains the evolution of the PGDHE at SSAU.
Whatever the choice of method for analysing the data in research, it is the researcher’s responsibility to ensure as far as possible the quality of the research process and product. It is to this aspect that I now turn.
3.6 Ensuring the quality of the research process
3.6.1 Validity
… in contrast to most relativist, constructivist, or post modern positions, which have often been invoked as stances for qualitative research, realism emphasizes the fundamental importance of validity issues (Hammersley 1992, Maxwell 1992, 2002, 2004), as well as the legitimacy of causal explanation, in qualitative research (Maxwell 2004a:9). In all research it is incumbent upon the researcher to provide grounds for legitimizing both the observations and the generalisations made during the research process. In a nutshell, validity depends on the relationship between the researcher’s conclusions and the reality of the research context. So the validity of this research report is inherent, not in the research processes used to produce it, “but in its relationship with those things that it is intended to be an account of ” (Maxwell 1992:281). A realist approach thus bases validity on the kinds of understanding we have of the phenomena being studied.
Maxwell (1992) postulates five types of validity, each closely related to kinds of understanding linked to qualitative research. They are: descriptive validity, interpretive validity, theoretical validity, generalizability and evaluative validity. As suggested by Maxwell I found this typology useful “as a checklist of the kinds of threats to validity that one needs to consider and as a framework for thinking about the nature of these threats and the possible ways that specific threats might be addressed” (1992:296). Due to space constraints I do not intend to discuss these in detail and in fact, most of these types of validity are dealt with in other sections of this chapter, for example, theoretical validity was dealt with earlier in 3.3, the section on the role of theory in methodology, generalizability is the topic of the next section (3.6.2) and aspects of evaluative validity are dealt with the earlier section on the “critical” aspect of critical realism (2.2.3) .
Sayer makes the point that perhaps a better way to think of interpretive understandings is not to try and determine how true or authoritative the interpretation is but rather to consider the extent to which it has added to the range of interpretations, “thereby enriching an ongoing creative conversation” (2000:46). Like Maxwell (above), he suggests that it is important not to separate the interpretations from their practical contexts otherwise a
87 researcher may be tempted to conclude that there are many different interpretations with none being better or worse than another. Realists accept the post modernist view that because the world is open, diverse and complex it is difficult to draw lasting or universal conclusions; what Bhaskar (1986:72 in Sayer 2000:47) calls “epistemic relativism”, that is, acknowledging that knowledge is historically determined and that the world can only be known in terms of the available discourses. However, realists reject “judgemental relativism” (Bhaskar 1989), that is, that all discourses are equally good. Similarly Seale (2004) argues that we can’t accept an “anything goes” attitude to interpretation. He reminds us that the stories we tell “must be congruent with the facts we have found out” (Becker 1998:18 in Seale 2004:411). Bhaskar refers to researchers needing to exercise "judgemental rationalism", that is, needing to determine what is the”best” argument that can be found. Without this we are doomed to extreme relativism (in Sayer 1992:68). Similarly Sayer talks about knowledge needing to be evaluated in terms of “practical adequacy” which means that “knowledge must generate expectations about the world and about the results of our actions which are actually realised” (1992:69):
Though we must forgo the chimera of a fixed gold standard for truth, we need not therefore distrust that on any actual occasion of dispute there will be resources at hand, sufficient for all practical purposes, to determine the most adequate among competing accounts (Weinberg 2002:13 in Seale 2004:414). Although critical realists argue that the connection between the real world and our knowledge of it is a question of practical relevance, this is not the same as the instrumentalist argument that knowledge must be true if is useful to somebody (Danermark et al 2002:25). In order to determine the most “adequate” account, the researcher needs to use all the resources at her disposal. I have argued that using a coherent metatheoretical framework and substantive theory in both the research design and interpretation of the data will assist the researcher in this regard. In addition, in an attempt to develop valid (as opposed to spurious) causal explanations for the processes that occurred in the setting of my case, the following strategies as validity checks (that is, ways of ensuring and in some cases testing the validity of my conclusions) were put in place: triangulation, member checking/peer debriefing, providing rich data, researcher’s intensive and long term involvement with the case, reflexivity and searching for discrepant evidence and negative cases. Each of these will be examined briefly in turn.
Triangulation or crystallisation involves multiple data selection methods and examining the material from different angles, at different times and from different perspectives. Fielding and Fielding (1986:24 in Maxwell 2004:258) believe that triangulation “puts the researcher in a frame of mind to regard his or her own material critically”. Richardson argues that the metaphor of the crystal is more appropriate than the conventional concept of triangulation as
88 a means of increasing validity in qualitative research methods. Crystallisation recognises the many facets of any given approach to the social world. The crystal "combines symmetry and substance with an infinite variety of shapes, substances, transmutations, multidimentionalities, and angles of approach. Crystals grow, change and alter, but are not amorphous" (2000:934). Henning et al agree that the metaphor contained in the notion of “triangulation” is limited and prefer to think in terms of “interpreting and sourcing in various ways” (2004:103) to describe a range of data selection methods and different approaches to “working the data” ( ibid ). As was detailed earlier, I used multiple data collection and data analysis methods. However, as Maxwell (2004:259, citing Fielding and Fielding 1986) cautions, these strategies do not on their own ensure validity; it is up to the researcher to identify specific validity threats and methods that will provide the evidence needed to address them.
Another strategy which I used is often referred to in research methodology texts as member checking or respondent validation . Maxwell prefers the latter term which he describes as: “The single most important way of ruling out the possibility of misinterpreting the meaning of what participants say and do and the perspective they have on what is going on, as well as being an important way of identifying your own biases and misunderstandings …” (2005:111). However, he cautions: “participants’ feedback is no more inherently valid than their interview responses: “both should be taken simply as evidence regarding the validity of your account” ( ibid ). In my case, where this worked best was when I asked my colleagues in the EDU and my supervisors to give me feedback on both the research processes I was using and on the explanations which I developed. Carspecken (1996) calls this “ peer debriefing ”, that is, asking colleagues/supervisors to examine procedures and interpretations. The main reason that I requested co-supervision for my research from someone outside of SSAU was an attempt to ensure that I received an “outsider” peer perspective on all aspects of my research. In my research project, I found that the peer debriefing definitely helped me to identify validity threats, some of my biases and assumptions and flaws in my research process (Maxwell 2004:259). axwell ( ibid ) also mentions other difficulties with this technique, namely, the possibility of participants’ or peers’ lack of interest in the research, their difficulty in “juxtaposing their own understanding to that of the researcher”, balancing their own agendas with that of the researcher’s and “the member’s need to reach consensus with the researcher and other conversational constraints” ( ibid ).
Some writers (for example, Henning et al 2004) following Geertz suggest that validity can be increased through providing “thick descriptions”. Maxwell believes this is a misnomer and prefers the term “ rich data ”, which (citing Becker 1970) he defines as: “data that are detailed
89 and varied enough that they provide a full and revealing picture of what is going on and of the processes involved”; a detailed description of a social setting or event, he claims, can reveal many of the causal mechanisms at work (2004:254). Becker (1970:53) argues that rich data can:
… counter the twin dangers of respondent duplicity and observer bias by making it difficult for respondents to produce data that uniformly support a mistaken conclusion, just as they make it difficult for the observer to restrict his observations so that he sees only what supports his prejudices and expectations (in Maxwell 2004:255). In addition to providing rich data, in the narration that follows I attempt to provide information which will make it possible for my readers to determine the trustworthiness of my work by a) describing how my interpretations were produced, b) making visible my actions as a researcher, c) explaining how I accomplished transformations in the data and d) making primary texts available on request (Riessman 1993:67).
Linked to providing rich data is the potential benefit for the research process of the researcher’s intensive and long-term involvement with the case , which can result in a “clearer picture of causal processes, as well as helping to rule out spurious associations and premature theories. They also allow a much greater opportunity to develop and test causal hypotheses during the course of the research” (Maxwell 2004:255). My long term and intensive involvement with the case will be discussed further in the section on the role of the researcher (see 3.8. below).
Throughout the research process I attempted to exercise reflexivity , particularly theoretical and methodological reflexivity (Lather 1986; Usher 1996). This included, for example, an awareness of the role of the metatheory, substantive theory and methodology used in the research, including the underlying assumptions, in constructing the research outcomes. It also included being critical of my own self-involvement in the research which, as has been noted, has the potential to implicitly and explicitly shape the research (3.8).
Another strategy suggested by Maxwell (2004:258), particularly useful specifically for dealing with causal validity (that is, for “deciding between two or more explanations that are consistent with the data, or testing an explanation against possible validity threats” ( ibid )), is searching for discrepant evidence and negative cases. The usefulness of this strategy depends on the researcher’s willingness to accept data that challenges the explanation(s) she has developed. In my case, for example, I deliberately chose to interview people who had not completed the PGDHE and to use evaluations from all participants (these were often anonymous and included participants who did not have a positive perception of the programme). In addition, some of the people I interviewed had not necessarily indicated a positive attitude to or interest in ED or staff development. As Maxwell says: “The basic
90 principle here is to rigorously examine both the supporting and discrepant data to assess whether it is more plausible to retain or modify the conclusion [explanation developed by the researcher]” ( ibid ).
I have taken Bassey’s (1999) advice and made sure that the case record provided an adequate audit trail (see also Lincoln and Guba 1985). Furthermore, I have endeavoured to bring my “foundational assumptions [and values] to the surface, not concealing them underneath the methodological artifice of science” (Agger 1991:120 in Riessman 1993:68).
There is nothing to stop us making the greatest attempts to avoid bias and achieve objectivity. Of course, it is hard, almost impossible, and precisely because our values are also at stake. But it helps, rather than hinders, the cause to be aware of this (Taylor 1994:569 in May 2001:44). Maxwell (1992, 2004, 2004a and 2005) consistently argues that in qualitative research a useful approach to validity is for a researcher to attempt to identify validity threats specific to her research context and then to put in place strategies to counter those validity threats as effectively as possible. In the case of my research, I believe that my close involvement with the phenomenon that was the focus of the research, although a strength in many respects, was also potentially the greatest threat to the validity of the interpretations and explanations that I offer. “As one qualitative researcher, Fred Hess, phrased it, validity in qualitative research is not the result of indifference, but of integrity (personal communication)” (Maxwell 2005:108). For that reason, both ethical considerations (3.6.3) and the role of the researcher (3.8) are dealt with separately in later sections of this chapter. Before coming to those sections, the issue of generalizability, which is closely linked to validity, will be discussed briefly.
3.6.2 Generalizability
It is important of course to acknowledge that the findings of a case study/intensive study are not “representative” of the whole population. Nonetheless, case study research methods are able to identify structures and their mechanisms, and the abstract knowledge of those may be applicable more generally. However further research may be required in order to establish the extent to which findings can be generalized (Sayer 1992:249).
There is some contention in the social science research methodology literature concerning the extent to which the findings of a case study can be generalized to other contexts. Flyvbjerg maintains that generalizability is increased by the strategic selection of a “critical case”, which he defines as having strategic importance in relation to a general problem (2001:78). For historical reasons, which will be discussed later (5.4.3), the Educational Development Unit at SSAU has been well resourced and thus able to implement a more coherent staff development model than many other higher education institutions in South
91 Africa (ETDP SETA 2003; Volbrecht 2003). For that reason it can be seen as a “critical case”, an in depth examination which has the potential of providing insights of value for the Institution as well as for other HEIs.
Realists argue that social science can’t be predictive in the usual way but it can still have “practical relevance” (Danermark et al 2002:69 and Archer 2005). One of the central claims made by realists is that “[a]ll science should have generalizing claims” (Danermark et al 2002:74 - 8). They argue that often qualitative research is believed to generate information only about individual phenomena and quantitative research to generate general, universal information. They provide many examples of qualitative cases studies which have generated generalizable knowledge about structures and mechanisms. Similarly, Williams (1998) argues that the denial of generalization implies a denial that explanations for social phenomena are possible. If this is the case, then it is impossible to formulate theories about the social world and research is a waste of time. Clearly social research is always dealing with open systems and thus generalizability of the whole is impossible, but that there may be some aspects of research findings that are relevant to other similar contexts is self evident.
For critical realists then, generalizability has to do with developing explanations about the deep structures of reality, which involves the researcher engaging in abstraction and particularly, using retroductive thought operations as described earlier (3.5.1). In addition, critical realism brings an understanding that each case contains the whole story. It is the reader who must bring the generalizability to the reading of the narration and therefore bigger social structures can be informed by the case study findings (Bassey 1999 and Stake 2000).
Stake points out that the researcher has “to encapsulate complex meanings into finite reports” giving the readers sufficient detail so that they can “vicariously draw conclusions (which may differ from those of the researcher)” (2000:439). Thus case study researchers can help readers in the construction of knowledge through their experiential and contextual accounts. A similar point is made by Sayer, who reminds researchers of the importance of being aware of not “dehistoricising” the objects of their research, which he describes as “giving a transhistorical, pancultural character to phenomena which are actually historically specific or culture-bound” (1992:100). The detailed socio-cultural historical chapter that follows this chapter was designed to provide readers with a clear understanding of the context of this case study, thus enabling them to decide to what extent the findings can be generalized to contexts with which they are familiar. Another way of making this point is to consider what the “practical use” (for example, Riessman 1993) or “practical utility” (Kvale 2002 in Henning et al 2004:147) of the findings are. The usefulness and consequences of the knowledge generated by this research endeavour will be determined by the relevant
92 discourse communities (ED practitioners and particularly people involved in staff development at other HEIs) rather than by me, the researcher.
Danermark et al (2002:178) argue that research is able to generate practical knowledge about structures, mechanisms and tendencies that can be useful for good planning in various spheres. In addition, research from a critical realist perspective clearly involves explanatory critique of society which can potentially also impact on future practice. In my research, of particular interest is the critical knowledge gained, which can possibly be used to argue against the marginalised position that has traditionally been enjoyed by ED both in South Africa and in other countries
To summarise, as the object of my research (staff development practices at SSAU) operates within an open system, none of my findings can be used to predict what will happen in other contexts; there can be no overt generalizability. However, despite the fact that the contexts of other HEIs are all very different, there are sufficient similarities for the causal properties and powers which I have uncovered in this context to provide insights which may prove to be useful in terms of future planning for ED practitioners in other institutions (see 6.3 for further discussion on this).
3.6.3 Ethical considerations
Like any activity, research is a social process and no matter what stance is adopted by a researcher there are no guarantees that the process will be innocent or ethically neutral. However, it is incumbent upon the researcher to strive to be as ethical as she is able in all aspects of the research process: “actual decisions must be made in the light of an evaluation of the particular politics (including one’s own ‘personal politics’) of the situation under study, with all its conflicting interests and imbalances of power” (Sayer 1992:256 citing Oakley 1981). Ethical considerations thus involve the researcher making her values and assumptions in relation to all aspects of the research as explicit as possible so that they are open to the reader’s scrutiny. I have attempted to do this in this research report by, for example, making explicit the metatheory, substantive theory and methodological principles which informed my research; by problematising my somewhat ambiguous situation as staff developer and researcher researching her own practice; by specifying my research processes in as much detail as is practical and by providing as much contextual background to the case study as possible.
Making ethical decisions in research “arise when we try to decide between one course of action and another not in terms of expediency or efficiency but by reference to standards of what is morally right or wrong” (Barnes 1976:16 in May 2001:59). Ethical considerations are thus made at all stages of the research. Some aspects of ethical considerations have been
93 alluded to already in this chapter (for example, 3.6.1 above) and other aspects will be dealt with in later sections (for example, 3.7 and 3.8 below). Bassey (1999:15) suggests that researchers need to take into account the following ethical values: respect for persons and respect for truth. Respect for truth entails ensuring the validity or “trustworthiness” (Lincoln and Guba 1985) of the research as discussed above. “Truth” for critical realists is not held as a “correspondence theory”, that is, truth equals reality, but rather truth is held to have “practical adequacy “(Sayer 1992, see 3.6.2).
In this section I briefly explore ethical issues in relation to the research participants:
In investigating people’s experiences, the researcher enters a relationship with those she or he studies. The ethics of social research have to do with the nature of the researcher’s responsibilities in this relationship, or the things that should or should not be done regarding the people being observed and written about (Marvasti 2004:133). Respect for persons means making ethical decisions that take into account the interests of the research participants as opposed to the interests of the researcher or the project. In an attempt to ensure that I was doing this, I obtained permission from all the relevant research participants, making agreed upon arrangements with them for transferring ownership of the record, as well as arrangements for identifying or concealing the identities of individuals and settings and permission to publish research reports (see Appendix 3). In writing up the research in this document, I have tried to make sure that nothing I say can be used against any of my research participants in either their professional or their personal lives. I ensured that my research met the requirements laid down by the SSAU’s Ethics Committee (see SSAU 2006). I have striven to be ethical in every aspect of the research design (Maxwell 2005:7) and research process which is presented in this dissertation.
In the following two sections I deal with issues around how I chose to write up the research and my role as a researcher in the research process. In both these sections ethical concerns are implicit.
3.7 Writing up the research
In order to tell my research story I chose to use a combination of narrative and conventional report writing genres. According to Archer:
Practical social theorizing cannot avoid the work of producing [such] a narrative each and every time the aim is to explain why things structural, cultural or agential are so and not otherwise, at any given moment in a given society. These analytical histories of emergence are explanatory, retrodictive and corrigible accounts. Therefore analytical narratives cannot be ‘grand’ since the need to narrate arises because contingency affects the story and its outcome; they can never be unanalytical because what is narrated is the interplay between necessity and contingency; and they cannot be purely rhetorical because they
94 are avowedly corrigible, dependent upon the present transitive state of knowledge and revisable in the light of new scholarship (1995:344). In Archer’s terms, this research report presents an analytical account of the emergence of a particular form of staff development practised in a specific context at a specific time. In order to achieve this, I had to transcend the usual inclination of social science researchers to think of the narrative and the analytical as being in opposition (Archer 1995:343) and I had to combine the two genres of narrative and conventional report writing. What is important to bear in mind is that the kinds of narratives about emergence which Archer proposes, cannot be termed grand narratives because
… the imperative to narrate derives from recognizing the intervention of contingency and the need to examine its effects on the exercise or suspension of the generative powers in questions – since outcomes will vary accordingly but predictably ( ibid ). Henning et al describe a research report as
… a combination of telling the research story, integrated with argument and exposition of literature … Thus the author tells her story of the inquiry and then illustrates her narrative with ample examples from the field, explained by ‘examples’ from the theory (2004:154). As report writing is a conventional genre, I have chosen not to discuss it in detail but rather to focus on narration as the more contentious of the two genres.
Narrative enquiry, according to Riessman (1993), is inherently interdisciplinary and is closely linked to what has been termed the “interpretive turn” in the social sciences. As social science researchers, bent on understanding social life, began finding the ontology and methodologies of natural sciences limiting, scholars from a range of disciplines began using narrative as a organising principle for human action (Riessman 1993:1 cites the following as examples of scholars from the United States: Bruner 1986, 1990; Cronon 1992; Rosaldo 1989; Sarbin 1986; Schafer 1980, 1992 and the following from the United Kingdom: Bakhatin 1981; Barthes 1974; Ricoeur 1981, 1984).
White (1998:1 cited in Riessman (1993:3) suggests, narration is a solution to “the problem of how to translate knowing into telling ”. This does not however imply a belief that research data represents the world “out there”. Therefore, to use Riessman’s words, I understand my story as “constructed, creatively authored, rhetorical, replete with assumptions, and interpretations” ( ibid :4). The text I produce can really only hope to “represent reality partially, selectively, and imperfectly” ( ibid :15). Nonetheless, the story that I tell is about the “the real world” as opposed to being a story from my imagination.
The story is, however, told by a narrator who tells it from a very specific vantage point and the account is therefore always fallible:
95 Fallibility … implies that social actors are always contingently positioned, and therefore, always observe the world from a fixed position (geographical, cultural and, more importantly, epistemological). There is no outsider perspective that allows the individual access to complete knowledge, including knowledge of how the world works (Scott 2005:636). Sayer (2000), too, reminds us that as researchers we are always in some position or other in relation to the objects of our research and that it requires reflexivity to determine whether our influence is benign or malign (see 3.8 below).
Although, like conventional historical narratives, social realists accept that events can be unique, “the endorsement of real but unobservable generative mechanisms directs analysis towards the interplay between the real, the actual and the empirical to explain precise outcomes” (Archer 1995:344). An analytical history is therefore different from the versions of post modernism which will claim that whatever text is produced is merely rhetoric.
Some of the critiques of narrative specifically include questioning whether it is an appropriate discourse for producing knowledge; for the presentation of clear, logical thought (Gough 1998:120). Others argue “that data are subject to incompleteness, personal bias and selective recall” (Hatch and Wisniewski 1995:125). Still others fear that narrative approaches encourage self indulgence of one sort or another (in Gough 1998). These and other critiques of narrative inquiry are similar to critiques levelled against most qualitative research methods and genres. Therefore most of the issues raised in this chapter in the sections on validity and the role of the researcher identify attempts to address some of the critiques and difficulties inherent in qualitative research more broadly and narrative more specifically. It is argued (for example, Polkinghorne1995) that it is not necessary to stick to the singular mode of expressing knowledge of the received tradition and that as with all social science research, a researcher using narrative needs to maintain a high level of reflexivity (see 3.8 below). Researchers who use narrative understand it as a legitimate form of knowledge, an epistemological claim which is fundamental to arguments about what counts as research (Hart 2002:141).
Arguing from an explicitly realist perspective, Sayer (1992) asserts that both narrative and more conventional “analysis” have their dangers, but that the value of each depends on the nature of the object:
… faced with open systems and concept-dependent objects, social scientists tend to disagree over whether narrative or analysis is appropriate in their field. Those in the analysis camp worry about what Abram’s terms ‘the dereliction of method that results from excessive sensitivity to detail’, while those in the narrative camp worry about the ‘dereliction of scholarship that results from excessive attachment to theoretical generalisation’ (Sayer 1992:260 quoting Abrams 1982:162).
96 A further critique raised by Sayer ( ibid ) is that narratives are not primarily concerned with causality in their descriptions and they therefore tend to underplay the implications of social structures and particularly to blur the distinction between chronology and temporality. This means that often the complex interactions of causal influences are not explored in the narrative.
In both the data analysis and writing up stages of the research I was aware of these and other critiques. Many of the pitfalls highlighted by the critics were however avoided in two main ways. Firstly, using a number of different methods of data analysis and using a mixed genre for writing up the research potentially enabled me to use the best aspects of the two genres and avoid the pitfalls of each. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the data selection and analysis was informed by Archer’s theoretical framework which forced me to engage at a deep level with the issues and to confront aspects of the case which otherwise might have been avoided or neglected. However, I must acknowledge that it has not been an easy task to express the complexity of the case and I have been ever mindful of the risk as described by Hart (2002:145-146, with acknowledgements to Jickling 1991) of:
… self-delusion and falsehood, those dirty little lies or genuine failures of perception that illustrate the importance of the intersubjective quality of such inquiry as well as turning a sharp ear to our critics by responding to legitimate issues of narrative smoothing and narrative secrecy, absent presences, present absences, and blind spots by conscientiously discussing issues of selection, silence, fictions, and other limitations of the indeterminate condition of qualitative inquiry …
3.8 Role of the researcher
An account is, by definition, historical, local, particularised: To account for one’s research, one has to explain the history and circumstances of one’s identity as a researcher and how one’s work arises out of those particularities (Geisler 1994:237).
… the subjectivity that originally I had taken as an affliction, something to bear because it could not be foregone, could, to the contrary, be taken as ‘virtuous’. My subjectivity is the basis for the story that I am able to tell. It is a strength on which I build. It makes me who I am as a person and as a researcher, equipping me with the perspectives and insights that shape all that I do as a researcher, from the selection of the topic clear through the emphases I make in my writing. Seen as virtuous, subjectivity is something to capitalize on rather than to exorcise (Glesne and Peshkin 1992:104 in Maxwell 2005:38). Traditionally it was thought that what the researcher brings to the research design and process was “biased” and needed to be eliminated or countered in whatever way possible (Maxwell 2005:37). Now, as shown in the introductory quotation to this section, many social science researchers believe that the researcher’s involvement in the research could be a strength and they acknowledge that the researcher is the main instrument of research (for
97 example, Holliday 2001; Alvesson and Sköldberg 2000; Phillips 1987; Henning 1995; Henning 2002; Holstein and Gubrium 2002 in Henning et al 2004:7 and Geisler 1994). There is a recognition that “your personal ties to the study you want to conduct can provide you with a valuable source of insight, theory and data about the phenomenon you are studying: experiential knowledge” (Maxwell 1996:16 in Wengraf 2001:77).
Along with this understanding of what I as researcher bring to the process as well as the value of my involvement with the case and the research process, I am also aware that I bring a very particular perspective to the research. As Carter and New (2004:4), explain, realists’ understanding of the difference between the transitive realm (our knowledge about the world) and the intransitive realm (the world which is the object of that knowledge) means that knowledge (including concepts and theories) brought by the researcher must be understood to be “historical, value-laden and ‘situated’”.
The researcher’s close involvement with and investment in the case can therefore present a validity threat to the research. As mentioned earlier (1.1) I have been part of the EDU at SSAU since 1995. I was centrally involved in the conceptualisation, design and implementation of the PGDHE in 2000. Since 2003 I have been co-ordinator of the programme. Although I continued to engage in other staff development activities in the Institution, my professional identity has been (and continues to be) very closely tied to the PGDHE. Soon after the inception of the programme I realized that it was potentially a valid and interesting area for research so I began to collect information with a view to that. I have however from the start of the research process been aware of needing to balance my interests as a staff development practitioner at SSAU with my interests as a researcher, hoping to present a useful and accurate account of the case study. This has meant being aware of needing to monitor my own subjectivity and engage in high levels of reflexivity “to avoid the trap of perceiving just what my own untamed sentiments have sought out and served up as data” (Peshkin 1991: 294 in Maxwell 2005:20). Throughout the data identification, selection, analysis and writing up phases of the process I have therefore attempted to be reflexive of both the process I was engaging in as well as the possible impact of my dual roles on the research context.
As Maxwell counsels, “Attempting to purge yourself of personal goals and concerns is neither possible nor necessary. What is necessary is to be aware of these concerns and how they may be shaping your research, and to think how best to deal with their consequences” (Maxwell 1996:16 in Wengraf 2001:77). (See also Carr and Kemmis 1986; Sayer 2000; Stake 2000; Hart 2002; and Payne and Payne 2004 on the need for reflexivity on the part of the researcher).
98 May postulates two kinds of reflexivity: endogenous and referential. The former refers to “the ways in which the actions of members of a given community contribute to social reality itself … [and] relates to the knowledge we have of our immediate social and cultural milieu” (1998:157-8). The latter refers “to the consequences which arise from a meeting between the reflexivity exhibited by actors within the social world and that exhibited by the researcher as part of the social scientific community ... [it] thus refers to knowledge which is gained via an encounter with ways of life and ways of viewing the social world that are different from our own” ( ibid ). “Reflexive questioning should not only involve an examination of the grounds upon which we may claim to know the social world, but also point to the limitations of our knowledge” ( ibid :159). Following the advice of Wengraf, I have attempted to “engage in a very systematic inventory of [my] own prejudices, stereotypes, fantasies, hopes and fears, ideological and emotional desires and purposes and to record these very systematically in writing ” (Wengraf 2001:94).
Moustakas, in the following quotation, provides the words to describe how I conceptualise my close involvement with the object of my research:
All heuristic inquiry begins with the internal search to discover, with an encompassing puzzlement, a passionate desire to know, a devotion and a commitment to pursue a question that is strongly connected to one’s identity (1990:40 in Wengraf 2001:76). My professional and personal identity is enmeshed and tied up with this research – the earlier writing, research, experiences in the field have all contributed to how I designed, conducted and wrote up the research. I have been influenced not just by the theories of others but by my own beliefs, theories and values about my practice
The story of the evolution of ED and staff development that follows is therefore not a neutral representation of my research findings. My role as the person constructing the story is crucial; my views will perforce shape the findings. Clearly, there is no way in which I can construe myself as being an “objective” researcher. Not only am I the narrator of the story but I am also one of the protagonists of the story. Thus I attempted to be constantly vigilant against the unconscious selection of events to observe and record; I needed to be sure that I understood the effect of what I selected to include and exclude from my story. As was stated earlier, I have throughout the process employed strategies (aside from reflexivity) to counter the possible negative effects of my subjectivity such as involving peers (internal and external to the case study) in the research process (see 3.6.1 on validity) and using a theoretical framework which I believe forced me to examine aspects of the case which would otherwise have been neglected (Henning et al 2004).
99 As a consequence of the nature of the objects of social science research (that is, dealing with people in an open system), reflexivity on the part of the researcher must by necessity involve a double hermeneutic (this is linked to the ideas presented in 2.2.3 on the “critical” element of critical realism). In other words, it has meant that I had to narrate the narration – the story of my research has had to frame the evidence I used. This involved interpretation and asking questions regarding why this particular story is being told; what are the motives, interests involved in the telling of the story and whose voices have been silenced or privileged,. I have had to reflect on issues of representation and legitimation (Hart 2002:142). I have therefore attempted to be both rigorous and self aware in my interpretation of meaning (Sayer 1992:37). According to Sayer, in social science “the existence of a double hermeneutic requires a conscious or examined interpretation of concepts and beliefs in society, whether they be true or false” ( ibid :65). Part of what a researcher needs to do is to not only think "with" hidden concepts but to also think "about" them ( ibid: 1992:52) (see 3.3). It is Sayer’s contention that because we are used to thinking in terms of a particular set of concepts, they become accepted as “common sense” and we seldom recognise their influence. I attempted therefore to examine critically the concepts used in my practice and my research.
In relation to the writing of this research report/narrative, one of the issues I have had to grapple with is that of “voice”. Geertz (1988 cited in Clandinin and Connelly 1994) claims that there is no more difficult dilemma for a writer than sorting out how to “be” in the text. I have tried to get the balance right – I have been aware that being too dominant a voice in the narration will run the risk of drowning out the voices of my participants; being too subtle runs the risk of creating the deception whereby it appears as if the narration/text speaks from the point of view of the participants. I have throughout attempted to ensure that my voice doesn’t become the loudest voice in the narrative as my voice is only one among many. Although I cannot avoid writing this story from my point of view, it is important to note that I tried to acknowledge and give attention to a wide variety of viewpoints. I attempted to heed Slaughter’s (2001) advice that the “authors” of higher education need to interrogate and problematise their role in their narratives and the effect their narratives may have on the “objects” of their research.
I conclude this section on the role of the researcher by returning briefly to ethical considerations in research (3.6.3). Henning et al , in their discussion about how the researcher should approach the research narrative, explain:
It means that you use your representational facilities to put the data together in what is acceptably a story. You do this with the licence of the ethical researcher (Lincoln 2002) and not with poetic licence. To me this means that you show the
100 ‘workings’ of how the … narrative [has] been assembled from the data … (2004:112-113).
3.9 Conclusion
In this chapter I have described the methodological framework and the specific methods which I used in order to answer the following question:
What were the cultural, structural and agential conditions that enabled/constrained the introduction of the PGDHE at SSAU in 2000? In the chapters that follow, using Margaret Archer’s morphogenetic/morphostatic framework I present and discuss the research findings. The following chapter provides a context for the research. It is an historical account of circumstances leading up to T 1, the first phase of the morphogenetic cycles, that is, the structural and cultural conditions that prevailed at the macro international and national level at the time that the formal qualification first came into being as part of staff development at SSAU.
101 Chapter 4 Macro context: Systemic conditions at T 1 of the morphogenetic cycle
The temporality of the structure-agency relationship becomes apparent once we recognise that all human activity takes place within the context provided by a set of pre-existing social structures. At any given moment of time people confront social structures which are pre-formed in the sense that they are the product, not of people’s actions in the present, but of actions undertaken in the past. … These social structures are bequeathed ‘ready made’ to the current generation of agents, impinging involuntaristically upon the latter and confronting them as an objective reality that is ontologically distinct from and irreducible to their current subjective beliefs and actions (Lewis 2000:250).
4.1 Introduction
… people make their own history, but not just as they please; they do not make it in circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past (Marx and Engels 1968:96 in Lewis 2000:260). The purpose of this chapter is to provide an historical context for the case study. As was argued in the previous chapter, the context of a case study is more than background information; it is integral to explaining and understanding the case. In recent years most nation states in the world have undergone or are undergoing transformational processes that are strongly influenced by global trends and pressures and these in turn have influenced and are influencing higher education systems all over the world (Maassen and Cloete 2002:14). South Africa is no exception – since its first democratic election in 1994 South Africa has undergone massive social and political transformation which has presented complex and sometimes contradictory challenges for all aspects of society, including higher education. Educational development, however differently defined in different contexts, is now an integral part of the higher education landscape both internationally and in South Africa. The history of ED is intertwined with the history of higher education more broadly.
In relation to Archer’s morphogenetic cycle, this chapter is an attempt to understand T 1 (see Figure 1and Figure 2), that is, the systemic (structural and cultural) conditions at the macro level that prevailed prior to 2000 (when the formal staff development course was introduced). Sibeon (2004) argues for the importance of examining social processes at various levels:
Society consists of micro-, mezo- and macro-levels of social process, each of which – though they overlap and indirectly influence each other – have a relatively independent existence in the sense that each exhibits distinct properties and effects of its own that are not reducible to … the properties of the other levels (2004:171).
102 I have chosen to discuss the macro level processes in terms of the international and national contexts together as it seems that the orders of discourse (Fairclough 2000, 2001; 3.5.2.1) for higher education internationally are present in the South African context. Historically, however, because of our unique political, social and cultural context, some ideas are more prominent than others at different times (Kraak 2000). I point these out in the sections that follow.
The systemic conditions at T 1 had a shaping influence on events and people (at the socio- cultural level) within the institutional context of SSAU, the focus of this case study. Although this chapter deals mainly with the “parts”, that is, the systemic level, it is important to remember, as indicated in the introductory quotation to this chapter, that cultural and structural conditions are always the products of prior human agency and historical conjunctions.
To understand how the contextual systemic factors enabled or constrained the Institutional context and ultimately the introduction of the PGDHE, it is necessary to make an analytical distinction between the parts (culture and structure) and the people (see 2.3.3). The first part of the chapter examines the logical consistency among the components of culture (the ideas, beliefs, ideologies, theories, concepts and values) at the international and national levels for higher education more broadly, and then in the field of educational development (ED). This is in keeping with the social realist position that analysis should start with the CS because S-C is always located in an historical context informed by the ideas, theories, etc. from the CS (Archer 1996:xxi). The second part of the chapter examines the structural conditions that existed - once again at the different macro levels (international and South Africa) - both in HE broadly and in ED more specifically. In this chapter, it is my intention to put forward the systemic conditions (structural and cultural) in the broader contexts, but it is only in an empirical examination of a particular case that it is possible to determine how the agents in that context have responded to the systemic conditions. In the following chapter I will analyse the interplay between parts (cultural and structural) and the people and how this enabled or constrained social change in the context of ED at SSAU.
4.2 Cultural conditions
According to Archer, the logical propositions associated with the ideas, beliefs, etc., which exist in any particular Cultural System (CS), are either complementary or they are contradictory with one another (2.5.1). The cultural components associated with higher education broadly and educational development as a subsection of higher education will be discussed below.
103 In chapter 2, Archer’s framework was discussed hypothetically using the logical relations between only two cultural components (A and B). Unfortunately understanding the ideational context of the field of higher education is not that simple: there are many different components. Much is made of and has been written about the changing university/higher education 1 context with words like “crisis” (for example Nixon 1996), “crisis of legitimacy” (Delanty 1998), “ruins” (Readings 1996), “turbulence and dislocation” (Candy 1996), “fragmentation” (Rowland 2002) and “chaos, turbulence, unpredictability, uncertainty, contestability and challengeability” (Barnett 2004:70) being used to describe the higher education context. In addition, words like “flux” and “turbulence” (CHE 2004) are used to describe the higher education context in South Africa. Ronald Barnett, using a philosophical and sociological perspective to his study of higher education, characterises the world we live in and in which higher education operates as one of “supercomplexity”:
… professional life is increasingly becoming a matter not just of handling overwhelming data and theories within a given frame of reference (a situation of complexity) but also a matter of handling multiple frames of understanding, of action and of self-identity. The fundamental frameworks by which we might understand the world are multiplying and are often in conflict. Of the multiplication of frameworks, there shall be no end.
It is this multiplication of frameworks that I term supercomplexity . It increasingly characterizes the world in which we all live (2000:6). Much, too, has been written about the purpose and foundations of the university and I do not intend to present a summary of that literature (see, for example, Perkin 1997, for a comprehensive history of the 800 years of the existence of the university). However, to uncover the cultural conditions which created the enabling (and constraining) conditions for educational development at SSAU, it is, I believe, important to understand where those ideas come from and how the ideational context at the macro international and national levels relates to that of the institutional context of SSAU.
At the macro level there are a plethora of beliefs, theories, values, ideas, ideologies and concepts that are used to understand the foundations and purposes of higher education. Some of these are complementary and many are contradictory. For the purposes of this (necessarily brief) discussion, I have decided to use six orders of discourse (Fairclough 2000, 2001; 3.5.2.1), based on what Barnett (2000:48-58 acknowledging Bernstein 1991) calls constellations of ideas, to discuss the main sets of ideas about higher education
1 For want of better terminology I will use the terms “the university” and “higher education”, sometimes interchangeably even though I understand that neither term acknowledges the differences between them or the diversity that exists within both. My exploration in this research is essentially of a university (as part of a bigger HE system) set in contemporary western culture and, as Barnett (2000:62) points out: “To align oneself with the notion of ‘the Western university’ is already to commit one’s self [sic] to certain values and traditions”. It is questionable whether these values are entirely appropriate for a university in Africa in the 21st century. However, it is beyond the scope of this research project to explore these issues further.
104 encountered in the literature. The six orders of discourse are: knowledge (and truth), production, democracy, self, critique and emancipation. All of these are evident in dominant discourses (and their associated practices) in higher education. Bagnall describes the university discourse as:
… the beliefs, commitments, understandings, values, expectations and language characterising human engagement with the university … The university discourse, then, may be seen as restraining and constraining the form … of all human action that is influenced by it (2002:79-80). Cultural ideas can only be expressed through language / discourse, but discourses have causal powers which can influence practice. From a realist perspective, however, “everything” is not only discourse, but it is only through discourse that we can talk about practice. Although discourses are very powerful, people can (through critique and exposing the invisible, the taken-for-granted) resist powerful discourses. “Universities are then ‘fragile settlements’ between and within competing discourses, ‘subordinate, dominant, co-existing and competing but always open to challenge and change, to reworking meaning and truth’” (Kenway 1995:141 in Walker 2000:2). Generally in HE internationally there are a host of competing discourses. Searle and McKenna’s (forthcoming) analysis of the South African HE context leads them to conclude that in the emergent democracy norms and values are in a state of flux and thus all the dominant discourses too are in transition and a state of flux.
Although in the following sections the six orders of discourse will be discussed separately, as Edwards says, “the boundaries between in and about them are themselves not firm … [the discourses] overlap and interpenetrate each other and they are themselves diverse and contested” (1998:31). For example, within the order of discourse which Barnett has named “knowledge and truth” there are contradictory propositions, whereas the ideas within each of the other orders of discourse appear to be essentially complementary. It is my contention that each of these orders of discourses represents a component of the Cultural System and that they relate to one another logically in terms of competitive contradictions (see 2.5.1.3). In the following sections I explore them further in relation to higher education both internationally and more specifically, in South Africa.
4.3 The cultural system of higher education at international and national levels
4.3.1 Knowledge
In this section I argue that there are constraining contradictions (2.5.1.1) within the order of the discourse of knowledge , that is, beliefs about what counts as knowledge and the values that should underpin the pursuit of knowledge. Debates around knowledge and the purposes of higher education are complex (Barnett 2004) and space constraints only allow
105 me to raise some of the issues (for a comprehensive treatment of the topic, see for example, Delanty 2001).
In keeping with the hallmarks of modernism, described by Tierney as “deterministic logic, critical reasoning, individualism, humanistic ideals, a search for universal truths, overarching theories about knowledge, and a belief in progress” (2001:358), central to the idea and mission of the modern university (in line with the tradition associated with Wilhelm von Humboldt) was the pursuit of knowledge ‘for its own sake’ (Newman 1976 edition in Barnett 2000:14). However, in the post-modern world 2, there are now a number of competing and contradictory ideas around the notions of knowledge and truth, and by implication, the purpose of the university.
During the Enlightenment the university was about improving human beings through reason and theory. However, the purpose of the university is no longer to promote universal reason; the university is now required to “engage with wider society and to contribute to its intellectual capital in ever wider forms” (Barnett 2000:32). The Enlightenment was contemplative, whereas the new Enlightenment is what Barnett calls “operational” – it is about adding value rather than insight from additional knowledge. Some may describe the shift in the university’s focus as being an ideological one “[f]rom transformation-as- emancipation to transformation-as-sheer-performance” ( ibid ). Barnett believes that contemporary universities are carriers of multiple discourses and that both the contemplative and performative discourses are to be found: “The university offers an ideological admixture of old and new forms of enlightenment at the same time”. Universities are “ called upon to sustain both” ( ibid: 33). As will be discussed later, these, competitive contradictions (see 2.5.1.3), exist at all levels of higher education: internationally, nationally and at SSAU.
In the post-modern world, knowledge can no longer be understood as one unified concept and the university is no longer the only site of knowledge production. This debate was opened up by Gibbons, Limoges and Nowotny et al (1994) with their concepts of Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge: Mode 1 knowledge is seen as being the traditional, canonical disciplinary knowledge produced in the university and mode 2 as being knowledge produced in the context of application (see 4.3.1). Additionally, “the university no longer is a site that seeks to develop a unified theory but rather it is a conduit for diverse conversations about the nature of a particular problem” (Tierney 2001:362). What counts as knowledge is now more contested and there are many knowledges competing for a place within the university. The dominance of (a particular view of) science has been challenged as incomplete,
2 Following Barnett (2000:3-4) I use post-modern and postmodernity in a value-free way to refer to the “new world order” which is “upon us” due to changes such as globalisation, information technology, etc. It is used as a sociological description. Postmodern and postmodernism, on the other hand, are used to reflect a philosophical value position .
106 insufficient or deficient and other types of knowledge are now being valued in addition to traditional scientific knowledge (see, for example, Scott 1997). There are many different ways to engage with the world and many different frames for what counts as legitimate knowledge in that engagement (see 4.7 for discussion on the structural implications for these changes in the CS, particularly in the South African context). The competitive contradictions around the concept of knowledge within the university are not just complex but supercomplex. The following hypothetical questions, that an academic about to design a course might ask her/himself, starkly illustrate this:
Is a course to be constructed around contemplative knowledge, that so-and-so is the case; or around knowledge-in-action; or around understanding-through- communication; or around critical action; or around action learning? Are the ‘skills’ to be domain-specific or are they to be generic, transferable – so it is hoped – across situations and knowledge frameworks? Is the knowing in question to be acquired through a deep embedding in a tradition or is it to offer an overarching ‘metaknowing’, such that one has the capacity to approach a domain with energizing and fruitful knowing strategies? Is knowing a matter of understanding large conceptual schemes or is it a matter of determining strategies that will carry one forward effectively in large-scale endeavours (through ‘policy studies’)? Is knowing essentially epistemological or ontological in character: is it cognitive or has it much more to do with one’s state of being in the world? (Barnett 2000:35). To repeat, knowledge can now no longer be pursued for “its own ends” but must have “use value” (Barnett 2000:17) and universities are expected to be responsive to the needs of the economy and the world of work (see production discourse in 4.3.2 below). Lyotard’s postmodern story for these epistemological changes is captured in the term “performativity” (1984 in Barnett 2000:38) which expresses the idea that knowledge is all about its use value: “Knowledge has to perform, to show that it has an impact upon the world”. Empirical evidence for this is that universities are now involved in a diversity of activities which include new kinds of research, consultancies and so on. This has led to an “expanding scope of what it is to be an academic” ( ibid ) (4.8).
In traditional universities of the kind described by Newman (1976 edition), knowledge had its own end and it was a case of “[t]he light shed by disinterested reason was its own value” (in Barnett 2000:25). There was little concern about the immediate use or application of such knowledge. The major purpose of such a philosophical education in both the arts and the sciences was to develop the minds of individuals, to liberate them so that they could think for themselves.
Since cultivation of mind is surely worth seeking for its own sake, we are thus brought once more to the conclusion, which the word “Liberal” and the word “Philosophy” … [suggest], that there is a Knowledge, which is desirable, though nothing come of it, as being of itself a treasure, and a sufficient remuneration of years of labour (Newman 2001:106-107 in Imenda 2006:67).
107 D’Andrea and Gosling (2005:33) observe that approaches to HE informed by a liberal discourse can be very alienating for students from minorities (in South Africa, students from previously disadvantaged groups). They can feel disempowered, oppressed and alienated as these discourses imply a “denial of multiple social identities of students”.
Changing conceptualisations of knowledge(s) are underpinned by competing and often contradictory values which Barnett eloquently describes:
The university is at a value-fork. Faced with two sets of values – rooted respectively in dialogic life and in performativity – it is stuck fast. It is ambivalent towards the new values: part of it feels distrustful, even hostile, but it recognizes that in them lies some kind of security, position and social acceptability. Money, influence and visible action await. In the knowledge society, a new and central role opens up for the university. The university can see not just financial security but also a recognized pivotal position in the new world order. On the other hand, it dare not yet abandon its traditional values. It cannot yet bring itself to burn its existing value boats (2000:27). Value conflicts occur at macro and institutional levels: “Organizations are often arenas for dispute and conflict, and one of the main items under dispute is often values … Cultural conflict is most obvious in professional organizations – large teaching hospitals, research laboratories, tertiary education institutions” (Meek 1988:461 in Willmott 2000:111). Barnett speculates that it is difficult to determine whether these values in which “[D]isinterested is set against interestedness; critical commentary is set against action-in-the-world; understanding is set against performance; and impartiality is set against partiality” ( ibid :29) are straightforwardly incompatible or conflicting. He however concludes that it is a necessary condition that contemporary universities have to grapple with these ideas.
Imenda argues that the primary purpose/focus of knowledge and knowledge production will be a function of the university’s idea of itself.
Accordingly, the knowledge production that takes place in most universities encompasses the different aspects of knowledge, in different proportions and mixes. In this regard, most universities engage in basic as well as applied research; they offer programmes of study which produce professionals for industry and the labour market, generally - such as lawyers, accountants, teachers, medical doctors, nurses, and others - thereby contributing to the knowledge training, thereby producing `lower professionals', such as artisans, technicians, and others; as well as engage in the service to communities around them. The above, notwithstanding, there is still a need for each university to articulate what it sees as its primary purpose, even if only for the sake of institutional identity. However, inevitably, this will determine its knowledge base and modes of knowledge production (2006:73-4). It is only through empirical investigation of specific contexts that one can examine how these competing and constraining contradictions at the ideational level influence interaction among the actors at the socio-cultural level, and the extent to which the interplay between the
108 systemic and the agential contribute to social change or reproduction (Archer 1995, 1996; Barnett 2004 and Sibeon 2004).
These constraining contradictions regarding knowledge and the purpose of the university are as present in South African higher education as elsewhere. However, due to our unique history and circumstances, the emphases are slightly different. In South African HE, at both cultural and structural levels, there are contradictions between the need for universities to compete globally while at the same time respond to local needs. For example, Muller and Subotzky discuss the simultaneous (and sometimes competing) challenges facing developing countries which need knowledge in order to carve out “niche areas of innovation within the competitive global arena while meeting the development needs of the majority of their increasingly marginalized and impoverished populations” (2001:163). While I recognize that reference to “knowledge society” is not unproblematic (Fuller 2001;Muller and Subotsky 2001; Barnett 2004), the following extract from the CHE report entitled South African Higher Education in the First Decade of Democracy published in 2004 sums up the situation in South Africa in the following way:
The contemporary ‘knowledge society’ that is the product of increased capital in the global economy and of rapid technological advances, demands integrated knowledge solutions to deal with complex socio-economic problems – in developing countries as much as if not more so than elsewhere. HEIs have a critical role to play in developing solutions to ‘real world’ problems through research that supports innovation, as well as through sustaining disciplinary knowledge foundations which underpin interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary knowledge production (CHE 2004:17) The consequences for higher education of these constraining contradictions will be discussed further in the following section.
4.3.2 Production
This order of discourse arises out of the previous one, out of contradictory beliefs about what counts as knowledge and the values that underpin the pursuit of knowledge. Production is associated with interconnected ideas around “work, the economy, the vocational, competence and skills” (Barnett 2000:49). This order of discourse is associated with exhortations to universities to produce graduates who will be able to contribute actively to improving the economy of nations and to academics to design qualifications to that end. “Economic regeneration, economic competitiveness and skill upgrading are the watchwords” (ibid ). This order of discourse has been widely taken up by many people both within and outside the university.
These ideas are closely linked to the concept of globalisation which, although a highly contested concept (see, for example, Slaughter 2001:389), is a useful term as it captures
109 “the notion of rapid worldwide social and economic transformation” (Maassen and Cloete 2002:30). As a consequence of globalisation, nation states are expected to create suitable conditions for social and economic development, which entails producing better educated people and increasing knowledge production, which is a prized commodity in the global world. Kraak uses the term “high skills thesis” borrowed from British literature on education and economic change (2001:88). According to this thesis, due to globalisation there are new education and training demands to supply the highly skilled labour force to use the new technologies and to respond rapidly to technological change. Like many others, Kraak characterises this trend as the marketisation of higher education which he describes as entailing a transition
… away from the idea of a university in its traditional liberal formulation as a ‘house of knowledge’, detached from the larger society to pursue pure disciplinary research and higher learning in a state unhindered by the narrow interests of government and business …
… to a conception of the university in the service of the market, where the intellectual labour has become commercialised, serving primarily the innovation demands of the new global knowledge economy (2000:33). Salter and Tapper (1993), talking about the United Kingdom (UK), regard this order of discourse as a major challenge to the traditional liberal arts, knowledge for its own sake idea of the university. They have named it the “economic ideology of education”, the basic principle of which is that education is an economic resource which should be used to contribute to a country’s economic and industrial development. This idea promotes a view that socially relevant and applied knowledge is more useful and more important than pure knowledge (for further critique of this change in HE see also Giroux 2002).
Internationally, the relationship between higher education and the world of work is complex – it is not simply about being able to predict labour demand and supply: a complex relationship exists between educational outcomes, economic growth and social development (CHE 2004:164). In South Africa the situation is even more complicated: in post-apartheid South Africa, higher education has been required to undergo a process of transformation not only in response to global economic trends but also in response to the economic and social needs of the African continent and South Africa itself. For example, see the following extract from the White Paper of 1997 which states that one of the purposes of higher education is
… to address the development needs of society and provide the labour market, in a knowledge-driven and knowledge-dependent society, with the ever-changing high-level competencies and expertise necessary for the growth and prosperity of a modern economy. Higher education teaches and trains people to fulfil specialised social functions, enter the learned professions, or pursue vocations in administration, trade, industry, science and technology and the arts (RSA DoE 1997: section 1.3).
110 This topic will be pursued further in 4.7, the section on the structural context of South African HE.
However, concern has been expressed by some that the concept of “responsiveness” in the South African context is being used to refer only to market and economic responsiveness at the expense of social responsiveness. Singh, for example, suggests that:
Within a paradigm that invokes the ‘market’, the notion of responsiveness is becoming emptied of most of its content except for that which advances individual, organisational or national economic competitiveness (2001:9). Boughey (forthcoming, citing Dale 1989) argues that there is a mutual contradiction in South Africa between the “state’s need to foster the conditions for capitalist expansion whilst at the same time, guaranteeing the conditions for social reproduction”. However, she goes on to argue that it is always necessary for the state to try to balance these needs and it is through policy that it tries to do so (see 4.7.1). At this point in the history of South Africa, “responsiveness” has to include democratic reconstruction as well as concern for the social, intellectual and cultural development needs of society.
The corollary to the strong call globally that higher education (especially universities) should be responsive to economic needs is that institutions should be held accountable to the state for carrying out their economic role properly. According to Salter and Tapper:
The theme which emerged was that if education is to serve the economy, then the state must ensure that it does so efficiently: education must be held accountable and managed for the economic good (1993:13. Emphasis added). The order of discourse around “production” is thus closely linked to other concepts, some of which have already been referred to such as performativity (Lyotard 1984), public accountability, efficiency, managerialism, quality assurance/management, all of which stand in contradiction to traditional ideas about the autonomy of the university. Trowler (2001:185) describes a higher education system underpinned by managerialism as having assumptions about knowledge that commodifies knowledge, that values forms of learning not usually associated with the academy and attempts to be responsive to the needs of the marketplace. These changes have all impacted on the university and radically changed the nature of teaching and research and, by implication, the role of academics (Maassen and Cloete 2002). Vale, for example, in his analysis states:
South Africa’s HE institutions have sanctioned a remarkable degree of state intervention – a situation that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. This has happened because the cultural politics that anchored the discourse over higher education in the old South Africa has yielded to the idea of the primacy of economics as the basis for all social relations. As a result of this transaction, tertiary education has been turned away from the free, rational advancement of knowledge towards the production of professionals to build a competitive economy (2003:2).
111 For many people this order of discourse represents a “transition from collegial academic self- rule to academic managerialism” (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002:217 citing du Toit 2001) which needs to be strongly resisted (see for example, Edwards 1998 and Slaughter 2001), whereas for others (for example, Trowler 2001), the ideas and practices associated with this order of discourse are seen as an appropriate response to changes in the world (globalisation) and the attendant changes in higher education such as an expanded and much more diverse student body, new technology and the need to operate with limited resources (see also Maassen and Cloete 2002:30). The following chapter analyses the way SSAU’s response to this challenge has impacted on ED and staff development.
In South Africa as a result of our particular history of apartheid there is another tension, a tension between quality and equity (see quotation from White Paper of 1997: section 1.3 earlier in this section). Some believe that these two constraining contradictions need to be balanced: “equity without quality is meaningless, while quality cannot be pursued in isolation from the goal of equity in higher education” (CHE 2004:241). It is therefore necessary in this context to pursue both social equity and redress and quality simultaneously, even though this “establishes difficult political and social dilemmas and choices and decisions, and raises the question of trade-offs between principles, goals and strategies” (VC SSAU 2006:13).
An exclusive concentration on social equity can lead to the privileging of equity/redress at the expense of quality, which could result in the goal of producing high quality graduates with the requisite knowledge, competencies and skills being compromised. Conversely, an exclusive focus on quality and ‘standards’ can result in social equity being retarded or delayed, with no or limited erosion of the inequitable racial and gender character of the high-level occupational structure and the social structure.
It is clear that no institution can escape the paradoxes and intractable tensions of our social milieu but must boldly confront and creatively mediate these paradoxes and intractable tensions ( ibid :13-14). For many black South Africans, a priority in post-apartheid South Africa is access to HE which they believe will lead to status, jobs and material wealth denied to them in the past. This topic will be returned to in 4.3.3.
An associated contradiction, alluded to earlier, is that at the cultural system level which higher education all over the world needs to grapple with, is the extent to which it has to respond to global versus local needs. Vally, citing Manual Castells, observes:
… (The) more states emphasize communalism, the less effective they become as co-agents of a global system of shared power. The more they triumph in the planetary scene, in close partnership with the agents of globalization, the less they represent their national constituencies. End of millennium politics, almost everywhere in the world is dominated by this fundamental contradiction (2003:698).
112 In South Africa the order of discourse around higher education needing to contribute to local economic and social transformation is particularly prevalent. Many of these ideas are in direct contradiction to traditional ideas about university education being for the education of the elite few and about pursuing knowledge for its own sake. In post apartheid South Africa many people are still living in abject poverty and unemployment rates are high – there is a strong call that higher education should be responsive to the economic needs of the country and the attendant corollary is that institutions should be accountable to the state for carrying out their economic role properly.
According to Edwards (1998), managerial discourses tend to focus on structures. The impact of these discourses on HE structures will be dealt with in more detail in 4.6.
I conclude this section with a quotation from the CHE which links the order of discourse around production with the following order of discourse around democracy:
Given the scale of South Africa’s reconstruction and transformation challenge, it is clear that successful outcomes of higher education – in the form of graduate competencies and skills, knowledge and research relevant to social and economic priorities – are critical enablers of equity, democracy and development in society also (2004:158). These ideas are echoed in SSAU’s mission statement which states that part of the University’s mission is “to undertake fundamental research to advance knowledge; conduct applied research so as to contribute to the general welfare of the people of southern Africa, and to meet their special needs” (SSAU 2006c).
As will be seen later (4.7.1), policy changes in HE, particularly curriculum policy, in many countries such as the UK and South Africa show evidence of being driven by competing ideologies linked to the two orders of discourse discussed so far. Moore and Young (2001) refer to the two competing ideologies as “neo conservative traditionalism” which evidences respect for traditional disciplines and their canons (knowledge for its own sake) and secondly, as “technical instrumentalism” which argues for curricula which are responsive to economic imperatives (knowledge for instrumental reasons).
4.3.3 Democracy
For the past one hundred and fifty years or so, the university has come to see itself as a site of critical reason and an institutional vehicle for enlightenment. To these two roles has been added more recently a role in furthering social democracy: agendas of human rights and equal opportunities are present now on campus (Barnett 2004:69). Giroux argues that democracy is both a political and an educational task and that education needs to be “treated as a public good – as a crucial site where students gain a public voice and come to grips with their own power as individual and social agents” (2002: URL. See
113 also Singh 2001). To achieve democracy in education (and every day life) requires the need to challenge “the ever growing discourse and influence of neoliberalism, corporate power, and corporate politics” (Giroux 2002:URL).
For Barnett democracy is associated with ideas of “justice, citizenship and community” (2000:50). These are important concepts about inclusion rather than exclusion. They represent a move internationally to make higher education less elite and to provide access to higher education to people previously denied it. Democratisation is thus clearly linked to the much written and spoken about “massification” of higher education. Discourses around democracy and massification in HE are contradictory to the traditional liberal discourse with its focus on individual rights, entitlements and education of elites with little regard for the common good (Imenda 2006). Massification has it origins in two sources: one is the need for high skills for national economies (4.3.2) and the other is from social pressures
to reduce the gross social inequalities in a number of societies across the globe by making access to further and higher education more available to working class and other marginalised communities. The dual impact of these external and internal shocks – globalisation and massification – has led to a major shift in the institutional organisation and delivery of higher education programmes since the late 1980’s (Kraak 2000:6). This order of discourse is closely related to the order of discourse around what counts as knowledge and the values that underpin the acquisition of knowledge. As Kraak observes, democratisation is clearly linked to the “new knowledges”, to shifts away from “closed knowledge systems managed only by canonical norms and collegial authority to open systems which are dynamically interactive with outside social interests and knowledge structures” (2000:8-9).
As a result of South Africa’s history, this order of discourse has been foregrounded, particularly since the 1994 elections when South Africa became a democracy. Kraak however points out that in South Africa what he calls the “popular democratic discourse” was already evident in the 1980s and 1990s (2001:93). At that stage it emerged from the radical discourse of the anti-apartheid struggle and was resurrected again after 1994 in the form of concepts such as equity, access and redress. All levels of South African education were in desperate need of transformation in order to eliminate the inequalities along racial lines imposed by the former nationalist government (see 4.7.1 for an account of how these concepts impacted on policies after 1994). So in South Africa particularly, democratisation has meant the expansion of access to learning in higher education (Kraak 2000:1). However, Morrow (1994) pointed out that merely giving students “formal” access, that is allowing them to register and attend higher education institutions (HEIs) is insufficient. Students, especially those from “previously disadvantaged” backgrounds, need to be given
114 “actual” access which he says is about “democratising access to knowledge”, that is granting students epistemological access to the knowledge processes of the university/HE. It is this understanding of “access” that has underpinned much of the ED work at SSAU (5.4.3).
The dual challenge for South African higher education is to make up for the legacy of apartheid while at the same time responding to emerging global trends:
Higher education that serves the purposes of democracy helps to lay the basis for greater participation in economic and social life more generally. … By creating opportunities for social advancement on the basis of acquired knowledge, skills and competencies, higher education also enhances equity and social justice (CHE 2004:16). As is clear from the extract quoted above, some people in the higher education arena in South Africa believe that part of redress for apartheid lies in responding to the economic needs of the country, but at the same time there is an awareness that it is important not “to reduce the notion of responsiveness to ‘market responsiveness’” only (CHE 2004:159) (see also Singh 2001 quoted in 4.3.2 above). The process of higher education transformation is part of a larger process of democratic reconstruction and development which entails responsiveness to the social needs of the citizens of the country as well. The following extended quotation is an indication of how some higher education theorists (for example, see also Fataar 2003) believe that the discourses around production (4.3.2) and those around democracy can be complementary rather than contradictory:
Higher education, and public higher education especially, has immense potential to contribute to the consolidation of democracy and social justice, and the growth and development of the economy…..These contributions are complementary. The enhancement of democracy lays the basis for greater participation in economic and social life more generally. Higher levels of employment and work contribute to political and social stability and the capacity of citizens to exercise and enforce democratic rights and participate effectively in decision-making. The overall well-being of nations is vitally dependent on the contribution of higher education to the social, cultural, political and economic development of its citizens (CHE 2000: 25-26). In post-apartheid South Africa generally and in higher education specifically ideas around democracy, equity and redress have predominated. This is illustrated by this quotation from the White Paper , “Existing inequalities … must be identified and a programme of transformation that includes measures of empowerment and redress implemented” (RSA DoE 1997:section 1.18). This order of discourse links to the next two orders of discourse called “self” and “emancipation”.
4.3.4 Self
The order of discourse of self includes ideas around “autonomy, personal development, personal fulfilment and personal realization” (Barnett 2000:52). “There is … deep in the
115 Western university, a longstanding receptivity in favour of the student developing as an individual independently of any market” ( ibid :53). Many people hope that the educational experiences they expect to engage in at the university help them to find personal fulfilment and identity. Concerns about the effects of massification in higher education have been particularly great for those who see individual personal fulfilment as the main purpose of the university.
Clearly this order of discourse, with its inward focus on the individual, is at odds with some of the other orders of discourse – particularly those that suggest that the main purpose of the university is to look outward and respond to the economic and social needs of the country. These ideas are, for example, in contradiction to traditional African thinking and cultural practices in which the community was the focus of all human activity (Mbiti 1973 in Bitzer 2001) and which are influential in terms of ideas around the “Africanization” of higher education, the university and knowledge. Makgoba and Seepe, for example, are of the opinion that
Since a curriculum is produced within social, cultural and historical conditions, the changed political scenario suggests a need for (re)formulation of liberatory philosophy and goals of education that will resonate with the aspirations of the majority. Prominence should be given to questions dealing with the type of society envisaged, the kind of knowledge, skills and values required for cultural, societal and economic development (2004:30). For further discussion on Africanization in higher education see for example, Moulder 1995; Seepe 2000; Makgoba 2003; Kotecha 2004 and Pityana 2004. In the context of South African higher education, notions of personal fulfilment are generally linked to equity and redress. One of the purposes of higher education in South Africa, according to the White Paper of 1997, is:
To meet the learning needs and aspirations of individuals through the development of their intellectual abilities and aptitudes throughout their lives. Higher education equips individuals to make the best use of their talents and of the opportunities offered by society for self-fulfilment . It is thus a key allocator of life chances [and] an important vehicle for achieving equity in the distribution of opportunity and achievement among South African citizens (RSA DoE 1997:section 1.3 Emphasis added). However, one of the roles of the university is to socialise people into specific discourse communities (for example, Bartholomae 1985; Ballard and Clanchy 1988; Gee 1990; Geisler 1994), which is essentially a process of helping students to assimilate into dominant cultures rather than about self actualisation of individuals. Some theorists like Knoblauch and Brannon (1993), influenced by Freire (1972), attack what they regard as “limiting” models of literacy and argue instead that students need to develop a critical consciousness and should be encouraged to use their own socially underprivileged discourses. It could, however, be
116 argued that the explicit socialisation of students into the discourses and literacies of disciplines is empowering for individuals and contributes towards making higher education fairer to all students.
4.3.5 Critique
The order of discourse of critique includes ideas around “critical thought, higher education as opposition, critical self-reflection, dissent and even revolution” (Barnett 2000:54). For many, traditionally there has been the
… hope that higher education can offer a countervailing force in society, distinct from and, if necessary, in opposition to the dominant voices of the day. It follows that, if this hope is to be realized, the university should enjoy a definite autonomy in its own right ( ibid ). These ideas are in contradiction with many of the ideas in the orders of discourses presented earlier, particularly those advocating the need for higher education to be responsive to and accountable to society.
In the section entitled “The case for higher education” in the CHE report on South African higher education the following comments are made suggesting that at the ideational level, the ideas around critique are considered important in South African higher education:
South African president Thabo Mbeki has on a number of occasions referred to the role of higher education in society, and especially in emerging democracies such as our own, placing emphasis on the need for more vigorous debate and discussion, especially amongst the country’s black intelligentsia. Critical discussion of, and engagement with, social policies are paving stones to reinvigorating the African continent (2004:16). An extract from the White Paper of 1997 describes another of the purposes of higher education:
To contribute to the socialisation of enlightened, responsible and constructively critical citizens. Higher education encourages the development of a reflective capacity and a willingness to review and renew prevailing ideas, policies and practices based on a commitment to the common good (RSA DoE 1997:section 1.3. Emphasis added). Kraak describes some of the contradictory ideas in the CS in South Africa particularly in terms of there having been a shift within some sectors of higher education in recent years from knowledge to competence. He says:
Traditional notions of the knowledge that students acquire through academic learning are that they are provisional, contested and problematic. It is for this reason that critical thinking skills are considered the central capability in traditional academic learning – to interrogate the ‘problematic’ and ‘incompleteness’ of current knowledge. The shift to ‘competence’ comprises a very different view of the higher education enterprise – ‘one where knowledge skills can be sufficiently complete to be operationalised into identifiable skills’
117 (Scott 1995:79). These developments have come about in part to make explicit and transparent the outcomes expected from non-traditional adult and mature learners who are now accessing higher learning in large numbers (2000:11-12). Barnett suggests one further order of discourse called “emancipation”. I think that it is so closely linked to the ideas around critique that I have decided not to discuss it separately. It is also closely associated with the orders of discourses of democracy and self. Emancipation, as an essentially western, liberal concept, similar to Habermas’s “critical interest” (in Kember and Gow 1992; Grundy 1987) is about knowledge and learning paving the way to freedom and liberation ( ibid :56).
Together the orders of discourses of self, democracy, critique and emancipation are all implicated in the idea of the university teaching students to engage in constant “critical self reflection” which for some people is what “higher” learning entails.
To sum up the ideational context of South African higher education in post-apartheid South Africa I once again quote at length from the CHE which is explicit about the contradictions that exist in the national higher education context:
… for good political and social reasons, paradoxes exist and trade-offs will be inevitable as the attempt is made to balance competing goals and enable the pursuit of equally desirable goals.
For the foreseeable future, government and HEIs are likely to be impelled to pursue simultaneously goals and strategies that stand in severe tension with one another, and will need to negotiate and renegotiate the implications of doing so. Where trade-offs are made, they should not be hidden: rather, their overall impact on the achievement of goals should be confronted (CHE 2004:240). Later in this chapter, I examine how this ideational context has impacted on the structural context of higher education in South Africa (4.7) and then in chapter 5, I analyse the effects of this macro systemic context on the mezo, institutional context at SSAU and the micro context of ED at SSAU.
To conclude this section, clearly there are enormous tensions between competing interests impacting on higher education institutions at a time of considerable change and instability (D’Andrea and Gosling 2001:69) both internationally and in South Africa. Barnett describes the state of contemporary academia in this way:
It is one in which the purposes of the university are so many pools of self- understanding on the part of the university itself. These pools of self- understanding are, in turn, part of wider discursive societal currents around ideas of democracy, enlightenment, personhood and economic growth. These discursive currents continue to widen, and to become more turbulent. The currents run against each other, and the university is caught up in it all (2004:70). This section has discussed briefly some of the contradictory ideas that exist in the CS at the macro international and national levels. In Archer’s terms, there appears to be low
118 integration at the cultural system level of higher education at both international and national levels (that is, many of the ideas, beliefs etc. are contradictory). Although it is beyond the scope of this work to examine in detail, it appears that at the socio-cultural level there is also generally low integration, that is, among the people and groups of people involved in higher education – there is debate and conflict about what the purpose of HE should be; what counts as knowledge; whether the focus on higher education should be predominantly on the social or economic needs of people; whether and how HE should be accountable to its stakeholders; how and whether equity and quality can be achieved simultaneously; and whether an appropriate focus for HE should be on the community or on the individual.
The low integration in the cultural realm of higher education has created a stress-ridden situation which has, in some countries, contributed towards enabling conditions for the field of educational development (ED) at the cultural systems level (see 4.4). Although a substructure of higher education and thus subject to the same CS components, new cultural components, in response to the low CS integration have also been developed. These are discussed in the following section. As D’Andrea and Gosling comment: “[t]he emergence of the discourse around learning and teaching in higher education is one of the more remarkable phenomena [in educational theory and practice] of the last decade” (2001:64). However, some, for example Walker, believe that this discourse is closely aligned to a managerialist discourse and avoids engaging in the complexities of curriculum and pedagogy. She says,
This technicist, allegedly apolitical discourse, is enabled by the triumph of the economy over education, whilst the politics of its agenda resided precisely in its disavowal of any connection between politics and university teaching and learning. This discourse not only cramps what might be said about curriculum and pedagogy, but also eschews teaching as an intellectual and moral activity (2002:45). The following section examines the cultural system of educational development, first at the international level and then at the national level.
4.4 The cultural system of educational development internationally
… educational (academic) development … essentially revolves around the improvement, support and development of teaching, learning, assessment and curriculum, the inquiry into, investigation of and research into higher education, and informed debate and promotion of the scholarship of teaching and learning into higher education gaols and practices (Bath and Smith 2004:14, drawing on Badley 1998 and Gosling 2001). This section is not intended as a comprehensive history of ED either internationally or nationally, but merely provides a brief context for the discussion of ED at SSAU in the
119 following chapter (see Volbrecht 2003 for a more detailed account of educational development internationally and in South Africa).
The field of educational development (more often than not called academic development in the South African context), in its many guises (Candy 1996; Rowland 2001; Macdonald 2003), is informed by a range of beliefs, values, ideas, ideologies, theories and concepts which support its various practices. According to Volbrecht, there are “multiple areas of specialised knowledge in AD [ED] that constitute formalised reflection on higher education … such as learning and teaching in higher education, curriculum studies, staff development, assessment and evaluation, academic literacy, the role of ICT in higher education, post- graduate supervision and peer group learning, to name a few” (2003:95). Some of the ideas informing ED are contradictory and some are complementary; all of them are related to the cultural domain of the broader higher educational context discussed earlier in this chapter.
Macdonald, in his discussion on “What is ‘educational development’?”, states:
Whilst it might be going too far to say that the area is contested, it is true to say that there is no one dominant approach, not least because of the different traditions within institutions and between countries. It has even proved too much to find agreement on a commonly understood term to describe the area of practice (2003:3). Nonetheless, a brief survey of the literature on ED internationally 3 (mainly the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia) indicates that there has been a dominant trend to seeing academic staff development as “the key to student, curriculum and institutional development” (Volbrecht 2003:96). This trend has led to a greater emphasis, particularly in countries such as the UK, USA and Australia, on the professionalization of teaching in higher education and at the same time, more emphasis on the professionalization of the work done by ED practitioners in HEIs. At the same time, in these countries educational development has moved from the margins to the mainstream of higher education institutions (Candy 1996, Gosling 2001, Macdonald 2003 and Volbrecht 2003):
In the past few years, higher education has undergone dramatic and far reaching changes. This has had major implications for all aspects of academic work, and for the role of academic staff. These changes have impacted on staff and educational development, which has moved from being marginal and relatively low profile in many institutions to a more central and influential position (Candy 1996:7).
3 See for example discussions about ED in the English-speaking world in McDonald (2003) and Volbrecht (2003); Baume and Baume (1996), who describe the work done in the United Kingdom by the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA); Kreber’s (2002) explanation of staff development in the UK and North America; Gosling’s research (1996 and 2001) on what educational units in the UK do; Davidson’s (2001) evaluation of a course at the University of Nottingham; and the course at the University of Sheffield described by Rowland and Barton (1994). .
120 Identifying these broad trends in no way implies that there isn’t an enormous range in terms of a conceptual understanding about ED and a range of ways it is practised. “The preliminary findings from our research in the UK, USA, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa suggest that this uncertainty about the role and function of educational development exists in many institutions across the English-speaking world” (D’Andrea and Gosling 2001:69). (See also Trowler 2004 on the range of relationships between educational development units and their university contexts).
In 1987 Moses conducted research on ED-type units in Australia, Britain, America, West Germany and Sweden which showed that these units and their staff were largely marginalized. In contrast, Gosling’s comprehensive research in 2001, involving a survey sent to ED-type units in 84 HEIs in the UK, shows that in the last number of years there has been “a process of gradual evolution into a more clearly defined educational development function from a variety of starting points and origins” (2001:79). These developments indicate a reasonably high CS and S-C integration in ED in some countries. As suggested earlier, this is possibly a response to the stress ridden situation in higher education (exacerbated by interrelated factors such as globalisation, massification, shrinking resources, increased demands for quality and accountability) discussed earlier, which seems to have created enabling conditions for a generally more coherent and concentrated effort on staff development and a clearer move into the mainstream of ED-type units in some countries. Due to different historical circumstances this has not been the trend in ED in South Africa (see 4.5).
Although ED practices are informed and underpinned by a range of beliefs, theories, ideas and values, these ideational components are on the whole compatible with one another and independent on one another (invoking one of the concepts does not necessarily invoke the others); that is, they are in a relationship of contingent complementarity with one another (2.5.1.4). Contingent complementarities tend to “increase the opportunity for free play” (Archer 1995:244), especially if there is sufficient integration at the S-C level (among the people) to take advantage of the opportunities being presented by the range of complementary cultural components. In the case of ED internationally, it would seem that there were people or groups of people in sufficiently powerful positions to argue for the centrality of academic staff development as the way to student, curriculum and institutional development (Volbrecht 2003). Conditions such as these generally result in morphogenesis rather than statis. I therefore argue that the integration at the CS level in ED internationally created enabling conditions for ED and contributed towards the general focus on academic staff development and also to ED’s move towards the mainstream of academic life in some HEIs. As mentioned previously, in South Africa these same ideas were responded to
121 differently at the socio cultural level as a result of the different political, social and cultural contexts of higher education.
There is some inconsistency in the literature in the use of terminology. I use staff development and professionalization of staff interchangeably (both with reference to academic staff) although there are differences which will be clearer in 4.4.1. I do not use educational development as synonymous with staff development, but rather as a broader term, synonymous with academic development. In the USA the term “faculty development” is used to denote what I call staff development. Aside from the inconsistency in the use of terminology, some of the concepts in use are contested. Before going on to discuss the CS of academic staff development, in the following section I briefly examine the contested nature of concepts such as professionalization , development and improvement and clarify my understanding of them.
4.4.1 Professionalization, development and improvement: contested concepts
… if we are to be regarded as professional educators by society, then we must be trained to do the job professionally. This qualification is the rite of passage to enter the profession (lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 252). The quotation above reflects the view of some lecturers in higher education whereas others regard the current move toward professionalization with suspicion. According to D’Andrea and Gosling, “Although there is agreement that teaching is being professionalized, there is little agreement about what this means and whether this is a positive or a negative trend” (2005:64).
In many fields (that is, not only higher education) the notion of “the professional” and of “professionalization” is a contested concept. Evetts groups the many different interpretations of the concept into two broad areas, namely, normative value systems and controlling ideology:
…professionalism as value system is guardedly optimistic about the positive contributions of the concept to a normative social order, professionalism as ideology focuses more negatively on professionalism as a hegemonic belief system and mechanism of social control for 'professional' workers (2003:399) Gleeson and Knights (2006:278) argue that these contrasting notions tend to maintain the structure/agency dualism (2.3.2). In one view the professional is regarded as a passive person who is subjected to bureaucratic, hierarchical and managerial controls rather than collegial relations (see also Slaughter’s (2001:395) discussion on the “professionalization of everyone” in order to “control professionals with claims to autonomy”). In the context of higher education this translates to a fear of loss of autonomy and intellectual freedom. In the second view the professional is seen as an agent who is empowered to define her own
122 conditions of work; who has agency to construct her own meaning and identity. In Gleeson and Knight’s view
… public professionals are neither simply de-professionalized ‘victims’, who feel oppressed by the structures of control, nor strategic operators seeking to contest the spaces and contradictions of market and audit cultures … it is our view that very often professional practices in the public sphere are mediated or co- produced outcomes of structure and agency (2006:279). Nixon, reflecting a structurally deterministic view of changes in higher education, warns that the
[r]ising tide of professionalization carries its own inevitable undertow, which has an undoubtedly erosive effect on the institutional well being of civil society generally and higher education in particular (2001:178). Nonetheless an alternative to “a hopelessly compromised and over-managed professionalism” is not to return to the “grand old days of ‘amateurism’” ( ibid ). Nixon argues for what he calls a “new” professionalism underpinned by strong moral and ethical principles.
Edwards reminds us that professionalism is not only about quality assurance or only about lecturers themselves but also about students and others stakeholders:
Professionalism in this sense is not essentially about quality assurance, efficiency or effectiveness. It is about valuing individual autonomy and its corollary accountability, in a society which upholds freedom as an ideal for all and not just for the academic (1998:301). Similarly Nixon, Beattie, Challis and Walker argue that professionalism needs to be based on upon “a more generous and expansive notion of academic freedom as freedom for others” (1998:URL).
What this brief exploration of the concept of the professional and professionalization suggests, is the need for ongoing critical interrogation by all concerned (in our case ED practitioners, the academic staff and the University leadership) of the values underpinning the professional development practices on offer in any particular context. It is my hope that the kind of professional development which is encouraged by the PGDHE promotes professionalization as a value system and is viewed as a site of knowledge production rather than a system of power relations (McWilliam 2002:290).
Crucial to any attempt to professionalize the practice of HE educators is that it should contribute to creating enabling conditions for lecturers to exercise their critical agency. This agency needs to be based on their own professional judgement but from an informed position. Lecturers need to be cognisant of all the options available to them in relation to their practice as well as to understand the contexts in which they operate. In order to either capitalise on them or resist them, lecturers need to understand the structural and cultural conditions which influence their actions. As Rowland observes, “In order to be professional
123 teachers, academics need to understand how practices relate to wider social values and purposes” (2001:165).
Normative concepts like development and improvement are similarly contested and open to dispute. They can be interpreted according to a range of ontological and epistemological standpoints (Tight 2004). Webb, for example, argues that everything about the concept of “development” is discursive and therefore the practices associated with “development” can be interpreted from a range of standpoints: “Practice can have systematic direction or be directed towards the needs of individuals, and can be seen to draw on different theoretical perspectives and literatures” (1996:173).
In addition, I share with some writers (for example, Webb 1996; Rowland 2000; D’Andrea and Gosling 2005) concerns regarding the implied deficit in the use of these terms in a HE context. In particular in relation to academic staff, the use of these terms can lead to pathologizing of lecturers’ practice which can result in resentment. According to D’Andrea and Gosling the effects of these terms are exacerbated when the development/improvement/professionalization work is underpinned by a psychological model. They suggest it would be better to shift to a structural level –that is, to an emphasis on the roles staff play within institutions and the teaching and learning process rather than on the individual: “it is not the person who needs changing but the role and role relationship they are playing within institutional structures” (2005:179). Then the terms can be used not in a judgmental, backward-looking way but rather to imply a process which is “proactive and not reactive” and work with academic staff can become a process of “naming and claiming instead of blaming and shaming” ( ibid ). These ideas are part of D’Andrea and Gosling’s quality development model for higher education which I return to in the conclusion of the dissertation.
In conclusion, it is necessary to maintain a critical approach to concepts such as professionalization, development and improvement. D’Andrea and Gosling (2005) argue that they need to be understood as teleological concepts; as growth, change or development towards specific goals. However, there is a need for people to be explicit about what is meant by these concepts in specific contexts, and the goals need to be “determined, articulated and recognised” (24-25). As will be seen in chapter 4 the purposes and goals of HE are highly contestable and agreement on what is meant by development or improvement cannot be taken for granted.
In the following section, I examine the CS of academic staff development at the international level.
124 4.4.2 Academic staff development internationally
Some of the discourses that have and do inform the practice of academic staff development are complementary and others are contradictory depending on the structural and agential conditions within specific contexts (see for example Nicoll 2000:325). Clearly conceptualisation of what professionalization of academic staff development in higher education means must be informed by the concepts used to understand the purposes of HE more broadly and ED as a field (4.3 and 4.4). This section aims to outline some of the discourses that have and still do influence staff development practices and initiatives all over the world.
Light and Cox (2001) have identified what they call three paradigms in the history of teaching development in higher education: the ad hoc paradigm, the skills paradigm and finally the professional paradigm. Each is underpinned by a different set of cultural beliefs which will be discussed below. Although each of these was more prevalent at different times in history, it is important to note that all three paradigms (and combinations and variations of each) are still in evidence in HEIs all over the world. However, as Wareham points out, concern with academic staff development of any form in HE is a relatively new phenomenon:
For centuries, no-one gave any particular thought to how university teachers acquired their knowledge and understanding of teaching. It was assumed, for example, that a distinguished physicist or historian would have the intelligence and innate ability to teach students. Simply being in proximity to great minds would mean that students would learn and be inspired… If students couldn’t benefit from their teaching, however good or bad this might be, then they had no business being at university (2002:86). This attitude prevailed and worked well within the traditional “elite” university system. The majority of the students coming into the system were homogenous and arrived with the requisite cultural capital to “read” for a degree and how they were taught did not impact greatly on whether they would succeed or not. During this time, the only kind of “staff development” that took place was ad hoc , located mostly within the individual academic: “its underlying assumption is that teaching is something you pick up and grasp informally and individually. The teacher is left to their own devices and draws on past experience of being taught, trial and error, help from sympathetic colleagues … and ‘natural’ affinities for teaching” (Light and Cox 2001:10). (See 5.3 for identification of the born teacher discourse among academic staff at SSAU).
In many countries, from around the 1960s onwards, there has been an increase in student numbers. This has resulted in more heterogeneous student populations, with many students entering higher education not prepared for traditional university study. As Wareham notes, “[T]he phrase ‘reading for a degree’ has all but disappeared and in its place the notion of
125 being taught – and being taught effectively – has gained ascendancy” (2002:87). This change saw the start of the second paradigm identified by Light and Cox, the skills paradigm which was most prevalent in the 1970s when student numbers were expanding (and in South Africa in the 1980s when more black students were being admitted to historically white institutions). In this paradigm, teacher development is seen as an “add-on” activity in which teachers are to acquire a set of generic skills and tips, regardless of the epistemological and ontological foundations of their disciplines. Examination of the literature shows that staff training using this model still exists in many HEIs world-wide. It consists of courses or workshops which deal with “‘nuts and bolts’ training rather than a critical engagement with the role and practice of the teacher in a university context” (Rowland and Barton 1994:URL). (See 5.3.3 for identification of the skills discourse among academic staff at SSAU).
Many ED practitioners have argued against this model of staff development. Biggs (1999:62-63), for example, argues that this form of staff development usually consists of useful advice which is largely concerned with management of the teaching situation, rather then with facilitating learning. He says, “[T]eaching is seen as a bag of competencies; the more competencies you have, the better a teacher you are” ( ibid. ) (see also, for example, Nicoll 2000). Gosling (with acknowledgements to Gibbs and Rust nd), talking about educational development in the UK says:
The limitations of an event-based strategy are well-known – only those who attend hear the message and only a fraction of them implement the innovation – and because of these reasons, total reliance on ‘the workshop’ as the main way of embedding change is now rare (2001:85). Candy (1996:8) quoting Sveiby (1992:168) calls this a “McDonaldized” model of training in which the university is viewed as an industrial organisation as opposed to a knowledge- based organization. He warns against staff development initiatives that are aimed at remedying perceived shortcomings in people’s current levels of skill.
In the wake of the massification of higher education some models of staff development have been linked with national quality assurance imperatives to monitor the quality of teaching and learning in higher education. Lee and Green (1997), for example, are of the opinion that recently specialist ED or “teaching and learning” units have been established in HEIs in various parts of the world, driven mainly by an instrumental agenda of quality assurance and a deficit view of both institutions and academics (see also Rowland 2002.). McWilliam (2002), drawing on Foucault’s notions of the workings of power in institutions, warns that professional staff development programmes that are aligned with the quality assurance agenda are part of a dangerous system of power relations and should be regarded with extreme suspicion. For some ED practitioners this trend has led to their needing to deal with constraining contradictions at the CS level between orders of discourse underpinning the
126 notion of “development” and those underpinning the quality assurance movement (see 5.6 for discussion of this at the institutional level at SSAU). Gosling, talking about the UK context, claims:
… the emphasis on quality assurance adopted by the Quality Assurance Agency, since its creation in 1997, has led to a dilemma for educational developers who prefer to be associated with ‘development’ rather than ‘assurance’ (2001:77). Gosling goes on to say that some ED practitioners see themselves as mainly working in support of the strategic objectives of the institution, “others position themselves in a more neutral stance of supporting staff to cope with, or even subvert, some of the changes required by senior management (Badley 1996, Land 1999)” ( ibid :83). Andresen, an Australian educational development practitioner, takes this argument even further: “teaching development’s potentially greatest contribution to university life is to actually help subvert managerialism and turn it back on its tracks” (2000:27). As will be discussed in the next chapter, due to specific cultural, structural and agential conditions this constraining contradiction is playing itself out in an unusual way in the SSAU context.
Light and Cox’s third paradigm, the professional paradigm, goes beyond the individual practitioner to include wider issues raised by the discipline and by the society. It has as its intention the development of teachers who are reflective, critical professionals:
The model of practice proposed here is that of mutual [students and teachers] empowerment through an engagement with the language(s) of teaching and learning, through critical understanding of its principles … It is not asking academics to submit to a barrage of techniques, tips and prescribed practices … but rather, to engage in a way of thinking about their own practices (2001:14). For ED practitioners conceptualising staff development as the professionalization of academic staff is thus very different to conceptualising it as a set of generic skills. It entails a more “academic” approach, involving the disciplined inquiry and study of higher education (see also Andresen 2000; Bath and Smith 2004). It requires an understanding that teaching in higher education, like other professions, has scholarly foundations. Boyer’s (1990) now famous four types of scholarship, including the scholarship of teaching, have contributed to this understanding of teaching. In more recent literature there is frequent reference to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) (see for example D’Andrea and Gosling 2005).
It is Candy’s opinion that without such an academic approach “academic staff may be inclined to the view that staff development is little more than witchcraft and magic, based on the personal whim or idiosyncratic experience of the staff developer” (1996:13). Nixon (2001) points out the irony of staff/educational development units which in some institutions in the UK are characterised as “non-academic”. In Candy’s view ED practitioners need to be
127 “reputable academics whose area of research and teaching happens to be higher education itself” (1996:15). He argues for staff development to be viewed as a “meta-profession” (see 5.5 for discussion on the role of ED staff at SSAU).
Staff development practices underpinned by the professional paradigm mostly take the form of formal courses, some accredited and some not (see Luby1999). Central to many such courses is the notion of reflective/reflexive practice and the reflective practitioner (see Schön 1983; Boud, Keogh and Walker 1985; Ramsden 1992; Barnett 1994; Brookfield 1995, Brockbank and McGill 1999; Fanghanel 2004; Pill 2005, Zembylas, Espinet, Milne and Scantlebury 2006 4) and in some cases the notion of action research (see for example, Rowland and Barton 1994; Light and Cox 2001; and Pill 2005). A key feature of a programme underpinned by the notion of reflective practice is that it would require critical engagement, based on evidence, with the roles and practices of higher education teaching, rather than having as its goal the necessity to “teach” a set of generic skills and techniques. A course underpinned by action research would involve a group/s of academics undertaking critical self-reflective enquiry into their practices with a view to improving their practices (Webb 1996).
As alluded to earlier, another feature of staff development underpinned by the professional paradigm is that it is generally not offered in the form of decontextualized, add-on workshops or courses. Candy (1996), for example, argues that for staff development to have any impact it has to be embedded in the culture and context of specific institutions. Staff development initiatives in an institution will be influenced by macro contexts (both cultural and structural), but the cultural and structural context of individual institutions will also have a significant impact on the type of initiative and its success (Trowler and Knight 1999). In the following chapter I will look at how the cultural and structural emergent properties at the mezo, institutional level have impacted on staff development practices at SSAU.
A contentious issue in staff development is whether staff development initiatives should be based within specific disciplines/departments or whether they should take the form of cross disciplinary groupings (see Appendix 1 for discussion of this issue in relation to the PGDHE at SSAU). This is essentially a structural concern but how it is argued comes from contradictory ideas discussed earlier in relation to what counts as knowledge and how academics construct their identity. The literature supports the claim that academics’ identities are closely linked to their disciplines (for example, Becher 1981; Henkel 2000; Becher and Trowler 2001) and that staff development needs to take place within disciplines
4 There are a number of discussions on and critiques of reflective practice as a framework for staff development in the literature. See for example, Ecclestone 1996; Boud and Walker 1998; Bleakley 1999; Edward, Ranson, and Strain 2002; Knight 2002; Fanghanel 2004; Kreber 2004.
128 or departments (for example Jenkins 1999; Healey 2000; Nixon, Marks, Rowland and Walker 2001; Parker 2002). As Gibbs points out: "Despite the growth of managerialism, corporate approaches and greater emphasis on institutional strategic planning, the department has remained at the heart of most decision making about teaching" (1996:27). Some believe that because learning and knowing is situated, staff development should take place in the context of departments or disciplines. Others argue that ED staff should not be involved in professional development at all and that it should be conceptualized as self development, which academics take responsibility for themselves. And if any formal activities are arranged, out of respect for cultural, epistemological and methodological differences between disciplinary and subject areas, they should take place at departmental or faculty level (see for example, Nixon et al 2001;Nixon 2001). At the same time however there is evidence, both in my research (Quinn and Vorster 2004) and the literature, that mixed disciplinary groups can be very successful, with people learning and benefiting from the diversity of those groups (see Rowland 1999, 2000; Walker 2000; D’Andrea and Gosling 2005). However, as Rowland, Byron, Furedi, Padfield and Smythe (1998) argue, even in cross disciplinary groups, academics should be encouraged to engage with the ontological, epistemological and methodological frameworks of their disciplines (see Appendix 1).
In this section I have provided a brief overview of some of the issues related to the professional development of academics in higher education. However, as I indicated at the start of the section, opinions of how professional staff development should be undertaken are varied, contested and constantly under revision (Nicholls 2004). The following section examines educational development at the national level.
4.5 The cultural system of educational development in South Africa
Perhaps the most striking difference between ED as a South African discourse and the international ED discourse … is the primary emphasis on social justice in the former and the primary emphasis on quality in the latter (Volbrecht 2003a:113). For historical reasons which will be explored below, the two main changes in ED internationally (that is, an emphasis on academic staff development and a move of ED into the mainstream of HEIs) did not occur in the same way in ED in South Africa as described above.
Volbrecht and Boughey (2004) in their overview of the history of ED in South Africa, identify three phases which they have broadly termed “educational support”, “educational development” and “institutional development”. These, they point out, are not distinct from one another but are indicative more of dominant discursive formulations in the field of ED than actual periods of time. Relating these to Archer’s framework, the discourses represent
129 sets of ideas which, depending on specific institutional contexts (particularly structural and agential factors), stand in relationships of contradiction or complementarity with one another. The enabling or constraining effects of the logical relations between different elements of the cultural system can only really be determined in each specific context. The following section briefly examines some of the elements that are associated with each of the phases identified by Volbrecht and Boughey.
4.5.1 Educational support
In South Africa, in the 1980s some of the historically white liberal universities took advantage of loopholes in the law and started admitting black students from Department of Education and Training (DET) schools. Schools administered by the DET were designated schools for black school children under apartheid. By the 1990s there was formal access for students from non-designated groups (RSA MoE 2002:104) to white universities (see also Pavlich and Orkin 1993). By 1990, 28% of student enrolments in historically white universities were black (CHE 2004:61). Much ED work in the 1980s and 1990s was underpinned by the ideas in the democracy order of discourse described earlier (4.3.3), in particular by an equity discourse. There was a growing understanding that access and equity were about more than simply admitting students formally into institutions to which they had formerly been denied access. Understanding grew that access to higher education involved epistemological access, as much as physical and legal access (Morrow 1994). ED work at that time was underpinned by a desire to contribute to the dismantling of apartheid and to ameliorating some of the profound inequities which black South Africans had experienced, particularly in relation to education. The origins of educational support in South Africa were thus in opposition to the ideas and structures of apartheid. The role of academic support was to assist students in overcoming the educational consequences of their poor socio- economic and educational backgrounds. Torr gives an indication of the dominant discourse underpinning educational support programmes when she notes that they were “developed to assist students without the necessary background to be able to benefit immediately from lectures and tutorials” (1991:624).
Educational support entailed helping students to develop appropriate academic and study “skills” to fill in conceptual gaps, to improve their competence in English (English is a second or even third language for black students in South Africa) and to contribute to their abilities to think critically (teaching methods in DET schools notoriously encouraged only low-level rote learning) (Boughey 2005). The early ED initiatives were often what are now termed “ ad hoc ” or “adjunct” initiatives and consisted mainly of additional study skills tutorials, language classes or individual consultations with students, focusing particularly on academic writing.
130 In time the construct of there being a set of generic academic skills was questioned and it became clear that although underpinned by noble ideals, this model was based on a deficit assumption about the students “in a context of an assurance about the ‘rightness’ of the practices which characterised the institutions into which they had been admitted” (Boughey 2005a:2). Reflecting back on this period in the history of ED in South Africa, Boughey sums up the situation:
Although some of those working with black students undoubtedly had a much more critical and transformative agenda in mind, it is probably fair to say that, at an institutional level, student support initiatives were largely constructed around the idea of giving black students an equal chance in institutions modelled on European universities. Whatever the intent, there is no doubt that the majority of these early initiatives were liberal in practise as they located the phenomenon of ‘underpreparedness’ or ‘disadvantage’ in factors inherent to the individual. Black students were deemed to lack the ‘language proficiency’, the conceptual background or the ‘skills’ necessary to engage with higher education and therefore needed to be supported and developed in order to be able benefit from it. The early initiatives therefore focused on the provision of additional tutorials and special courses in language and study skills (Boughey forthcoming).
4.5.2 Educational development
The second phase, educational development , also called the “infusion model” of ED, came about as a result of critiques of the support/skills model (see for example, Walker and Badsha 1993). Boughey (forthcoming) points out that this was also a time of great political change in South Africa and that there was an understanding that South African universities would “soon need to represent the more general demographics of the country rather than those of a white elite”. ESP, instead of needing to focus on the “underprepared” minority, would need to focus on the “”underprepared’ majority who would soon constitute the mass of the student body”.
This phase represented an attempt to move ED work from the margins closer into the mainstream disciplines; there was a move away from regarding students as deficient to a more critical examination of the teaching and learning being advocated in the disciplines. This more critical discourse argued that the way to student development was through curriculum, staff and institutional development (Volbrecht 2003), which often involved ED staff working in collaboration with mainstream staff on integrated projects (see for example, Dison and Pinto 1995; Ensor 1993; Walker and Badsha 1993; Boughey and van Rensberg 1994; Coetzee and Boughey 1994). This change in focus from individual behaviour and mind to a focus on the social and the cultural is indicative of a “social turn” (Gee 1990) in the approach to ED.
While the first phase of the ED movement was about providing support to students directly , the second phase has a much more embracing understanding
131 of the notion of support constructing it as occurring through the development of curriculum and appropriate teaching methodologies and, thus, through work ‘in the mainstream’ (Boughey 2005a:33). Although this change in thinking about ED gained some prominence in certain quarters it was not widely taken up and was not uncontested. In an evaluation of the South African Association for Academic development (SAAAD) conducted by Morphet in 1995, three dominant discourses were identified, namely, a “support” discourse as described earlier, a “policy” discourse with a focus on institutional and systemic transformation and a “capacity” discourse related to righting the inequalities in resources that existed between historically black and historically white HEIs. There was however sufficient support for the policy discourse to bring about the name change from “educational support” to “educational development”. ED practitioners and ED-type units in South Africa vary greatly in relation to how they have responded to the ideational context of higher education and ED both nationally and internationally. Volbrecht, in his analysis of the national ED-landscape, maintains that there has been “an ongoing tendency in South African ED discourse not to see the centrality of staff development to the issue of institutional change” (2003:110). He maintains that in fact the support discourse, both in terms of work with students and work with staff has persisted in some contexts. It appears that the “ongoing tendency” for many ED practitioners in South Africa to theorise their work in terms of support for underprepared students has created a set of concomitant complementarities which serve to protect the status quo, leading to strengthening of conservative theories at the CS level and practices associated with those theories at the S-C level. In the case of concomitant complementarities, ideas are internally related but they are also compatible with one another (see 2.5.1.2). Mainstream lecturers are grateful to have somewhere to send their “problem” students so there is no challenge to ideas underpinning ED work from that quarter. The equity-linked (critical, emancipatory) discourse that looks to staff development has begun to challenge the status quo at the ideational as well as the S-C level. But in South Africa, this has been slow to occur and much of the staff development work that has taken place since the early 1990s has been ad hoc rather than underpinned by definite national or institutional strategies and policies (this topic will be pursued further in 4.10, the section on ED structures in South Africa). In the following chapter, my analysis of ED at SSAU will show a different response to the systemic context from the one described in this section.
4.5.3 Institutional development
The final phase of the ED movement can be dated from the late 1990s onwards. The ideas underpinning ED at this time are those described under the order of discourse of production (see 4.3.2). Changes in how ED was conceptualized and practised were influenced by ideas
132 around the need for systemic change in South African higher education, the need for curricula to be responsive to the economic and social needs of the country and the need for higher education to be accountable to its stakeholders for the quality of its graduates. The changes in the cultural context resulted in changes structurally, particularly in relation to policy frameworks in South Africa. The way ED is practised in some institutional contexts has been greatly influenced by these structural changes, which will be discussed further in 4.6 below.
As was described earlier in the discussion on ED internationally, this set of cultural ideas was seen to be in a relationship of constraining contradiction with the “development” ideals underpinning earlier models of ED. Different agents in different contexts have dealt with these contradictory ideas in different ways. The following chapter analyses how at SSAU there was an attempt to reconcile these constraining contradictions in the way ED is being practised.
The phases described above were intended to provide a brief overview of the range of beliefs, ideas and values that have underpinned ED work in South Africa since its inception in the 1980s to the present. However, it is important to understand that this description does not mean to imply that ED at all South African HEIs has gone through these phases. ED work in South Africa incorporates a diverse range of practices underpinned by a wide range of ideas, beliefs, theories and ideologies. However, it does not have a strong overall focus on academic staff development as is the case in many of the other English-speaking countries in the world. In addition, I would agree with Volbrecht (2003), that overall, ED in South Africa has not made as much progress as particular ED-type units in the UK in moving into the mainstream. Some of these trends in ED in South Africa are due to structural conditions in the South African context. It is to structural conditions that I now turn.
4.6 Structural conditions of higher education at the international level
Indeed the critical element in the structure and dynamics of university systems is their ability to combine and make compatible seemingly contradictory functions (Castells 2000:211 in Moore and Lewis 2004:44). Within specific contexts, different constraints and possibilities emerge from structures (for example policies), which affect how people may or may not act; which either set limits or offers possibilities for practice. The purpose of this section is to look at some of the broader structures in higher education which have produced structural emergent properties with generative powers and causal influences resulting in people either working towards maintaining the status quo (morphostasis) or changing it (morphogenesis). As with cultural conditions, structural conditions at T 1 are the results of actions of actors and historical conjunctions in previous morphogenetic cycles. How agents respond to the structural
133 conditions at T 1 will be different in each specific context. The response at SSAU to the structural conditioning in the broader HE context will be discussed in chapter 5.
In this section have chosen to highlight two broad structural areas in HE which are pertinent to my case study. The first deals with traditional disciplinary structures and the second, not unrelated to the first, with the structures that have emerged in relation to quality assurance.
4.6.1 Disciplines as structure
Central to modernism was the premise that the university has been one of, if not the central site of knowledge production (Tierney 2001:355). This has been underpinned by an assumption that the development of knowledge is ideologically-free. At the structural level this has made the discipline the main organising principle (Burton Clark 1983:29). While Moore (2003) argues that international subfields within disciplines are often more significant structuring entities than academic departments, Tierney suggests that
[t]he implication of a modernist view of knowledge production has a logical relationship for the structure of the academic enterprise. If knowledge occurs within disciplines and the best critics of a scientist’s work are other scientists, then the building blocks of the university will be the department, school or faculty unit (2001:357). The traditional discipline-based paradigm is subscribed to by academics who believe that “education should be an apprenticeship into powerful ways of knowing: of modes of analysis, of critique and of knowledge production” (Ensor 2002:274) (see 5.3.1 for identification of the disciplinary discourse at SSAU) 5. This traditional disciplinary discourse has an “introjective orientation” (ibid ) because the focus is inward, into the concepts, structures and modes of argument of the discipline rather than outward-looking to the world. For such academics
… qualifications are associated with powerful canonical assumptions about the need for structured and sequential learning and the need to socialise students into the rules and rituals of particular disciplines and cultures (Kraak 2000:9 in Ensor 2002:276). Although the traditional disciplinary discourse remains dominant, particularly in universities, due to changes in the cultural realm discussed earlier, this structure is being challenged by “the growth of interdisciplinary studies, generic approaches to learning and teaching, and the introduction of key skills expected to be developed with all graduates irrespective of the subjects they are studying” (D’Andrea and Gosling 2001:69-70). Academics are being required to shift from an introjected to an outwardly projective orientation, looking to social and economic relevance rather than more intrinsic disciplinary values (see 4.6.1). They are
5 See Foucault’s (1989) critique of the ideals of the Enlightenment, especially scientific rationalism and the disciplinary nature of modern society. He is critical of the way in which the disciplines, particularly of the social sciences, use power to “discipline” and control what can be known and how it can be known. The critique therefore is also of the use of grand narratives to explain phenomena.
134 being required to respond to a host of priorities from outside their disciplines and faculties (that is, from the broader CS level) (Moore 2003).
In some countries (for example, the UK, New Zealand, South Africa) there have been significant changes at the policy level in relation to curriculum development which have created constraining contradictions between traditional disciplinary structures and the “credit accumulation and transfer or credit exchange discourse” (Ensor 2002) associated with national qualification frameworks and outcomes-based education. Credit accumulation and transfer (CAT) approaches, Kraak says “offer points of entry and exit without slavish regard to the academic symmetry of the whole … connections between academic topics and levels are pragmatically derived rather than cognitively prescribed” (2000:9-10 in Ensor 2002:276). An important consequences of curricula being required to be more “responsive” to economic and social needs entails a shift away from traditional academic boundaries to “more open knowledge systems (in dynamic interaction with external social interests, consumer or client demand, and other processes of knowledge generation)” (NCHE 1996:6).
Academics and departments have responded differently and been affected in different ways by these structural constraining contradictions. Ensor rightly claims that the science and humanities faculties in universities have been most affected by the policy changes with respect to curricula whereas professional and vocational faculties have been less affected because in most cases curricula were designed to meet the requirements of specific professional and/or industrial bodies and were oriented towards production/work (to use Barnett’s terms ): “there was no significant challenge to its core business of producing skilled graduates for employment in the workplace. If anything, government policy on curriculum has strongly affirmed this mission” (2002:271).
Also of interest in the context of my study, are research findings related to the link between disciplinary discourses and structures and the identity formation of academics. Space constraints do not allow me discuss these findings in detail; however, there is convincing evidence that it is within these disciplinary structures rather than the institution as a whole that most academics develop their professional identities (see for example Becher 1981; Burton Clark 1983; Henkel 2000, 2002; Barnett 2000; Becher and Trowler 2001; Knight and Trowler 2001; Moore 2003). In Henkel’s study, for example, she found that “academic working lives continue to be centred in their disciplines, whether individuals see themselves primarily as researchers, teachers, managers or a combination of more than one of those” (2002:142). Henkel goes on to say that
[c]ommunities provide the history, the myths, the very language , concepts and values through which identities are shaped and reinforced (MacIntyre 1981). At the same time, they provide the ‘normative space’ (Bleiklie 1998) within which
135 individuals make choices, enter into ongoing dialogue with community members and construct their identities (2002:138). These findings regarding the impact of disciplinary structures on agents have implications for the types of academic staff development that are most likely to succeed and for the motivation of staff to engage in staff development activities (see 5.3). They also have implications for the possible changes to personal and professional identity that may occur as a result of engagement in staff development activities (see for example, Parker 2002; Trowler and Cooper 2002). However, it must be noted that Trowler’s (1997) research led him to challenge the explanatory priority usually accorded to the epistemological characteristics of disciplines. In some contexts, organisational, cultural and ideological characteristics along with the interests and understandings of actors may be more important than disciplinary structures. He found, for example, that some academics have thrived in the changing context of British higher education.
Another issue linked to disciplinary structures that has been identified in the literature on higher education is the tendency among many academics and managers to prioritise disciplinary research over teaching (see for example, Nightingale and O’Neil 1994; Trowler 2004) (see, for SSAU, 5.2.2.2 below). As Gosling, (with acknowledgements to Brown 2000a) notes:
There is considerable evidence that, in UK universities, disciplinary research is perceived to have the highest status, despite the fact that undergraduate teaching is the main business of most higher education institutions (2001:77). Von Kotze, writing about the South African context is of the opinion that
… academics are valued more in terms of how much funding they bring in through expensive research grants or accredited publications, than the quality of critical questioning and innovative ideas stimulated through their teaching (2006:3). How this tension is responded to by people in institutions clearly has implications for staff development. Clegg, for example, found that
[s]taff development is commonly conceptualized as a peripheral activity compared with these [research and mainstream teaching] other major preoccupations. There is of course considerable institutional variation in espoused commitment by both staff and management, but the resilience of underlying rhythms cannot be ignored (2003:38). Other scholars have argued that when university teaching entails an inquiry or discovery approach (for example, Boyer’s (1990) scholarship of teaching), there is a natural integration between teaching and research (Kreber 2000, citing Clark 1997, Colbeck 1998; Rowland 1996). For these scholars “learning about one’s discipline and learning about teaching are two processes that inform each other and are inextricably intertwined” (Kreber 2000:75). Lueddeke, in his discussion on the professionalization of academic staff argues:
136 … if teaching in higher education is to be considered a ‘professional calling’, then academics may need to place their preparation to do research on an equal footing with that for teaching. This would mean engaging in pedagogical practices that go beyond ‘the acquisition of a few craft skills which may be picked up on the job or from a few short courses’ (Piper 1994:7). They would be expected ‘to know more than just their subject’ but also as Laurillard (1993:6) observes, ‘to know the way it can become understood, the ways it can be misunderstood’ and ‘what counts as understanding’ (2003:224-5). Nicholls (2004) critiques the way the notion of scholarship of teaching is used in relation to professional development activities. She believes it is used to raise the social and economic value of teaching to further the interests of specific organisations or individuals rather than to enhance teaching and learning in higher education. This is linked to issues raised earlier (2.5.1.4) about ED support for staff development in some cases being about improving the status of ED practitioners in HEIs rather than necessarily about improving teaching and learning.
Although there is much support for findings which stress the impact of disciplinary structures on academics’ identities, there is also evidence (much of which is anecdotal) that this phenomenon does not necessarily translate into university departments forming genuine “communities of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991). Knight and Trowler define a community of practice as “a closely interacting group of practitioners within which contextualized, situated learning is always happening and is legitimized” (2001:9). That departments do sometimes form these sorts of communities of practice in some contexts is uncontested; however, as Nelson and Watt point out, “[a]cademic departments are not for the most part centres of collective intellectual life” (1999:17). In fact they are often characterised by divisions (sometimes in relation to intellectual tensions and debates within the discipline); jostling for power and a lack of collegiality among members of departments (see Appendix 1 for evidence of this from PGDHE participants). Once again, the enabling or constraining conditions created by both disciplinary and departmental structures (particularly in relation to teaching development) are different in different contexts and can only be determined through empirical research. In the next chapter, this aspect will be examined in relation to the SSAU context.
4.6.2 Quality assurance structures
Changes in the cultural realm discussed earlier, which have led to increased demands by “stakeholders” in higher education for institutions to be more accountable and a for greater emphasis on quality assurance in HE, have impacted on the structural realm, at both national and institutional levels, in many countries. Arguments from a national perspective for greater accountability are often related to needing to ensure that tax payers’ money is being well spent:
137 … on the one hand, public funding of higher education can be seen as the state’s way of fulfilling its obligation to support higher education as a public good; on the other hand, funding provides government with a powerful instrument for steering the system in the direction of specific national policy goals and targets (CHE 2004:188). In some places the demands are also driven by fear of declining quality in HE as a result of expanded numbers of students and a more diverse student population. Most institutions have structures of some kind which are dedicated to QA, often called quality assurance offices/units or in some case “standards’” offices. “Quality” is understood differently in different contexts. At national (and sometimes international levels) demands for quality come from professional bodies and from government. Many countries have national bodies whose raison d’être is to monitor the quality of HE. These bodies are the structures in place for steering educational systems in the direction of specific national policy goals and targets, which vary from country to country. In Britain for example there was the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC 1993-97) and then the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) and in South Africa there is the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) (see 4.7.3). These national bodies are usually involved in activities such as institutional audits, departmental/qualification/subject reviews, benchmarking, programme accreditation, and so on. For reasons discussed earlier, these structures can, and in some contexts, do operate in contradictory ways with other structures, for example, of relevance to my research, structures set up for educational development work in institutions. Gosling and D’Andrea, with reference to the UK, suggest that:
Higher education institutions frequently expect Educational Development Offices or Centres to help subjects prepare for QAA visits. This has brought quality and educational development into increased contact with each other and required greater collaboration between the two. The working agenda of these areas, as well as the underlying philosophy of the work, has often been at odds because quality assurance focuses on quality assessment and educational development focuses on quality enhancement (2001:5). Much has been written about the impact of these changes in higher education (see, for example, D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:170-174 for a review of the quality assurance/ quality enhancement debate in HE). Barnett, for example, notes: “academics have come to be more managed (whether well or ill is another matter). In the ‘audit society’ (Power 1997), their activities are subject to external and internal evaluation, their work is more open to scrutiny, and the extent and the pattern of their work is subject to monitoring processes” (2000:15). What was private (teaching) has now become public. For many academics these changes feel like surveillance: “things are not what they were; we no longer have the space to be the kind of assured institution and determinate social actors that we once enjoyed” ( ibid ). For many academics, these changes represent serious threats to the “academic freedom” that has traditionally been enjoyed by academics and HEIs (see for
138 example Nelson and Watt 1999). The new QA measures in HE indicate that the quality of academic work is no longer presumed on trust or reputation but is now a matter of “explicit and transparent performance” (Henkel 2002:139). There is now far more stress on providing proof of academic work being done for the scrutiny of administrators (for example, in the form of teaching portfolios). It is argued that the “ideology” of quality management is based on a rationalistic and “technologised” model of higher education (Gosling and D’Andrea 2001:3) and that it could have negative effects:
The paradoxical result may well be that vigorous efforts by agencies and central government to assess the quality of university work lead to its decline as more and more energy is spent on bureaucratic reports and as universities begin to adapt to the simplifying tendencies of the quantification of outputs (Trow 1994:20 in Gosling and D’Andrea 2001:3). National and institutional QA structures have been responded to differently by agents in specific contexts. In some contexts, the QA structures have created enabling conditions for ED and staff development and in others, they have created constraining conditions. “By taking a more active role in the quality assurance processes educational developers have been open to the challenge that they are implicated in carrying forward the quality management ideology” ( ibid :5). Gosling and D’Andrea argue that if some form of syncretism or unification could be achieved between both the ideas and structures of educational development and those of quality assurance, this could result in an overall focus on quality development/enhancement which could be more beneficial to HEIs and HE systems (see 6.4 for further discussion of this model). Trowler, with reference to the effect of the Quality Assurance Agency in the UK, suggests that:
… - although unpopular, one unintended consequence of such initiatives has been to realign relationships and priorities within institutions, giving new roles and dynamism to EDUs … The insertion of new elements into a system of higher education, then, can have unintended consequences whose effects may be deleterious or beneficial in relation to the aims and work of EDUs (1998:196). Rowland (2003) warns that a culture of audit and surveillance associated with ED may be considered by academics as yet another bureaucratic imposition with which they have to contend. As mentioned, (4.4), Andresen’s (2000) opinion is that ED can contribute towards subverting and resisting these trends in HE.
4.7 The structural conditions of higher education in South Africa
I start this section by quoting once again from the CHE report to give an overall impression of the historical systemic context in which HEIs functioned (and still function) in South Africa before going on to discuss the structural context in more detail:
A particular higher education system was inherited from apartheid: one that was deeply divided internally, and isolated from the international community of
139 scholars. It was highly fragmented in structural and governance terms, and was far from being a coherent and coordinated system. It was inherently inequitable, differentiated along the lines of ‘race’ and ethnicity, and designed ‘to reproduce … white and male privilege and black and female subordination in all spheres of society’ (Badat 2003:4). …
In sum, the legacy of the past was a fractured system and a set of HEIs bearing the scars of their origins. As South Africa entered a process of social, economic and political reconstructions in 1994, it was clear that mere reform of certain aspects of higher education would not suffice to meet the challenges of a democratic country aiming to take its place in the world. Rather a comprehensive transformation of higher education was required, marking a fundamental departure from the socio-political foundations of the previous regime (CHE 2004:230). In the following sections I examine the South African HE structural landscape in terms of policies, teaching and learning, and quality assurance. These three areas are of most interest in terms of ED and my case study.
4.7.1 Policies
This section examines how policy influenced the South African HE landscape. In South Africa the term higher education and training (HET) is commonly used to denote inclusivity, that is, to include the full range of higher education institutions including the former technikons and colleges. I will use higher education (HE), as my case study involves a university which is not normally associated with “training”.
Prior to 1994 there were thirty-six HEIs in South Africa, controlled by eight different government departments. This structural arrangement is one of the ways in which the apartheid regime created racial, language and cultural divisions among the people of South Africa and disenfranchised the African majority (Bunting 2002). Since the first democratic election in South Africa in 1994 there have been a series of policy papers and bills designed to reconstruct higher education and create a single co-ordinated higher education system (for example, NCHE 1996; RSA DoE 1996; RSA DoE 1997; RSA 1997; RSA MoE 2001). The policies reflect two broad imperatives: one of a global nature and one of a local nature. These policies are in a relationship of constraining contradiction with one another, and an analysis of the policy landscape shows South African HE struggling to meet both the challenges presented by the globalising knowledge society and economy described earlier and those of its own developing democracy (Ensor 2002; Cloete, Fehnel, Maassen, Moja, Perold and Gibbon 2002; CHE 2004; Moore and Lewis 2004). The CHE describes this double transformation challenge for South African HE in the following way:
The first element of this dual challenge emanated from the historical context of South Africa – and in particular the apartheid legacy; it has to do with achieving social equity, economic growth and development, and building and consolidating
140 democracy. The second element is related to contemporary global developments, namely: addressing the challenges of globalisation and the competitive global economy, and enabling South Africa to participate in, and engage with, this global order in a proactive way (2004:2). The CHE summarises the conclusions of a number of policy analysts (for example, Jansen 2001; Kraak 2001; Cloete, Fehnel et al 2002; Badat 2003 and Fataar 2003) who have agreed in defining three main periods of higher education policy: symbolic policy-making, framework development, and implementation (2004:230- 234). The first period, symbolic policy-making or as Kraak (2001) refers to it, the “pre taking of power phase” (1990 – 1994), was essentially about attempting to create syncretism/unification at the cultural system level by signalling a complete break from the ideologies of apartheid and a new direction, rather than about putting in place appropriate structures to achieve these ideational ends: “The predominant concerns were principles, values, visions and gaols, unconstrained by issues of planning, resources and implementation … Outcomes included the general agreement on the values and principles that should guide policy-making …” ( ibid :231 with acknowledgements to Badat 2003). As the following quotation indicates, finding shared cultural ideas to inform HE transformation was not as difficult as putting in place the structures to effect the transformation:
Developing a national democratic consensus after 1994 on the fundamental values, purposes and goals of higher education was a challenging process. It may nevertheless have been relatively easier than achieving and maintaining consensus on the actual policies, strategies, instruments and procedures for transformation (CHE 2004:239). The second period, framework development (1994 – 1998), was about establishing legal and policy frameworks linked to the symbolic cultural components of the earlier period and involved the beginnings of defining the “strategies, structures and instruments for the pursuit of the policy goals” ( ibid :232). However, as Cloete (2002:105) points out, although these policies were created in an atmosphere of optimism, they were unfortunately followed by an “implementation vacuum” and in some cases, interpretations of policy (at the social interaction level) that were in conflict with the intentions of those policies (CHE 2004:232). Cloete concludes his analysis of the response to policies in the following way:
In terms of the four main pillars of transformation – equity, democracy, efficiency and responsiveness – the evidence reveals a very complex picture. In each area some progress has been made, but in all cases the gains have been more modest than anticipated by the policy-makers. What is quite clear is that in most cases change can be attributed to institutional responses and the impact of the market, and much less to government policy than one might have predicted from the policy proposals and processes (2002a:442). The idealism of the earlier period was confronted by the political, social and economic realities of the time. One of these realities was that the anticipated “massification” didn’t
141 occur in all HEIs: some were struggling to balance their budgets in the face of fewer student enrolments than they had hoped for. In addition, higher education was subject to fiscal constraints and economic growth rates were lower than those forecast by Growth, Equity and Redistribution (GEAR), the macro-economic policy of 1996, which constrained the government’s ability to put into action redress and equity initiatives (Kraak 2001:99). HEIs were required to do more with less.
The combination of an implementation gap and unintended outcomes from policy has subsequently led to more interventionist approaches on the part of government 6 (Cloete 2002:105), which marks the third period of policy making (from 1999 to the present): implementation. This period of stronger state steerage is characterised by an increase in structures designed to bring about the desired transformation in higher education. The need for regulatory structures and instruments is clearly spelled out in the National Plan for Higher Education (RSA DoE 2001) 7. According to some analysts (for example, Fataar 2003, 2004), since 1998 the focus has been almost exclusively on demands for efficiency and effectiveness, as opposed to demands for democratisation, in the HE system:
The policy demand for public accountability and greater efficiency, and the pressure of market competition, thrust South African higher education on to the same terrain as higher education institutions in other parts of the world that are grappling with the effects of globalization (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002:216). However, others do not believe that the goals of equity and efficiency are necessarily in competition with one another. For example, although the new funding framework is evidence of stronger steering of the system (influenced by fiscal constraints), it also represents a commitment to equity, development and efficiency (CHE 2004:201) (see 4.3.3).
What is clear in South Africa is that the traditional understanding of a rational linear process of causally linked phases of policy formation, policy implementation, policy evaluation, feedback and adaptation is too simplistic (Cloete and Maassen 2002: 452-453). It also has to be realised that policy is not the only driver of change in this context: “In the flux which characterises the current South African higher education system, the effects of policies are likely to be co-produced by the state, the higher education sector, individual HEIs, and other social actors – in cooperation, in conflict and competition” (CHE 2004:37). In South Africa some HEIs have changed drastically and others very little. Empirical research in each specific context would have to be conducted to determine the structural, cultural and agential reasons for the different responses. This topic will be dealt with again in the following chapter on the SSAU context.
6 For a full analysis of changes in governance in higher education see the CHE Report (2004:173-186). 7 As alluded to earlier (2.5.1.2), possibly the main structural change to affect many South African HEIs in recent history has been the required merging of institutions.
142 To conclude this brief overview of the policy environment I once again quote from the CHE report:
To recap: the 1997 White Paper set out the framework for transformation towards a single, co-ordinated system that would be both equitable and differentiated. Transformation would be guided by the goals of expanded participation, cooperative governance and responsiveness to societal needs, and a set of principles including equity, effectiveness and efficiency. Policy goals were translated into a legislative framework for higher education through the Higher Education Act , while the National Plan elaborated a set of strategic objectives, benchmarks, and an operational time frame for progress towards transformation. Subsequent policy development has focused on particular aspects highlighted by the White Paper and the National Plan (e.g. restructuring policy, funding policy, redress policy, academic policy and QA policy). The sequence and degree of developments have been influenced by multiple competing priorities which are also interconnected (2004:35-6). The next two sections highlight two particular aspects arising from this policy landscape which are of particular relevance to my case: Firstly, aspects related to teaching and learning (including curriculum development) and secondly, quality assurance (QA).
4.7.2 Teaching and learning
The term “teaching and learning” as I use it here includes the teaching and learning activities in HEI classrooms as well as the “ policies, strategies, plans and infrastructure both at the higher education system level, and at institutional level, to support these activities” (CHE 2004:93).
According to the CHE analysis:
Under apartheid, higher education teaching and learning practices and the curriculum tended to be as fragmented as the institutional structure in which they were located … (CHE 2004:94). In my interview with the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the CHE, he expressed his views on the need for transformation in terms of teaching and learning in the following way:
So that convinces me again, apart from the … kind of depressing stories that are being conveyed to us, convinces me that teaching and learning has to be transformed and that the measure of the transformation of our higher education system is going to be the extent to which we transform that area and start to live up to the kind of obstacles and the constraints in that area … some academics simply do not want to wake up to the fact that the composition of the students in front of them in terms of class, in terms of gender has changed radically and that their teaching and learning methodologies and techniques are not appropriate for developing new generations of students in this country. And unless they face up to that fact, neither them nor their institution is going to be able to meet the requirements for the kind of graduates we need to produce (Interview 24.03.04 para 26). Post-1994, policy developments in the arena of teaching and learning have been consistent with broader policy in that there has been an attempt to respond to the need for redress in
143 the wake of apartheid while at the same time to respond to global trends. According to Ensor, in all the post-apartheid policy documents there has been evidence of a “desire to steer South Africa along a ‘high skills, high growth’ path of economic development which would lay the foundation of a new democratic society” (2002:272). The key structural response to achieving these ideals was the establishment of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), which includes criteria for accreditation of programmes and qualifications and the introduction of outcomes based education (OBE). The major goals for the establishment of the NQF were to contribute to: lifelong learning, equity and social redress, improved quality of academic provision and responsiveness to societal needs (CHE 2001). The intention was and is, through the NQF to bring education and training closer together and thus improve access to education and training to those to whom it had previously been denied. The intention was for HEIs to produce curricula that were more relevant to the world of work and which could contribute to students developing a set of generic transferable skills.
The central assumption supporting the NQF is the idea of equivalence of different knowledge forms, and the notion of the “outcome” was to be used to express these equivalences. Important, too, were the changing conceptions of what counts as knowledge - discussed earlier (4.3.1) - and the move away from strict disciplinary boundaries to interdisciplinarity as “the basis for re-constituted, relevant curricula” (Ensor 2002:273) and “from ‘courses’ to ‘credits’; from ‘departments’ to ‘programmes’; from ‘subject-based teaching’ to ‘student- based learning’; from ‘knowledge’ to ‘competence’; and from ‘theory-based learning’ to ‘problem-based learning’” (CHE 2004:96). However, as pointed out by Ensor ( ibid ) and the CHE ( ibid ), there is ambiguity in the policy documents at the ideational level between “the canonical norms of traditional disciplines, and more open knowledge systems in dynamic interaction with external social interests, economic and student demand, and other processes of knowledge generation” (CHE 2004:96) (see discussion on disciplinary discourses and structures in 4.6.1). The general implication is that these two systems should and could co-exist, for example:
The incorporation of academic qualifications within a national framework is not a straightforward matter and, quite properly, it has been the subject of intense debate. SAQA [South African Qualifications Authority] has determined that both unit standards and whole qualifications may be presented for registration on the NQF. This should meet the serious concern among many academic staff that unit standard methodology, and the construction of qualifications from multiple units of learning, are inappropriate foundations for certain academic programmes (RSA DoE 1997:28). What this shows is that at a national level constraining contradictions at both the cultural and structural levels exist in relation to the key question: “what knowledge, capacities, skills and
144 competencies must higher education curriculum deliver to meet the needs of the South African society and economy?” (CHE 2004:99 with acknowledgement to Muller 2003).
The CHE (2004:96) summarises the following enabling mechanisms that have been put in place via national higher education policies: a programmes-based definition of higher education, an outcomes-based definition of higher education, an NQF for integrating education and training and on which all qualifications must be registered and finally a national quality assurance system (see 4.7.3 below). Individual institutions have responded differently to these “enabling” mechanisms. Despite these, it seems that to a large extent the hoped for outcomes in terms of curriculum restructuring have not been entirely successful (see CHE 2004:99 for a summary) and ironically, it seems that the portability of the system that was hoped for has in fact declined rather than increased (see, for example, Moore’s 2003 research in two South African HEIs on using OBE approaches to design multi- or interdisciplinary programmes). Members of the academic community have been critical of the national system at both the ideational and structural levels. In particular, they have criticised the implied assumptions about the nature of learning and knowledge and the purposes of higher education, the change of focus from the traditional disciplines towards unit standards. Many have been highly critical of OBE as an underpinning philosophy for higher education. See for example, Luckett and Luckett 1999; Kraak 2001; Allais 2003; Ensor 2003 and D’Andrea and Gosling, who sum up the situation thus:
In South Africa the formation of the South African Qualifications Authority has required all departments to register their programmes of study using a learning outcomes approach which was poorly understood and perceived as threatening and inappropriate by most faculty members (2005:176-177). In addition, individual institutions have interpreted policy differently and have responded differently in order to protect their interests. The following chapter examines how SSAU responded to the national attempts to provide an enabling environment for transformation.
The following section briefly examines the structures that have been put in place in South Africa in response to calls for increased quality and accountability in the HE arena.
4.7.3 Quality assurance structures
Prior to 1994 there was no systemic national quality assurance system in place for universities. Universities made their own arrangements for assuring the quality of their academic offerings and the institution. For a range of reasons the quality across the system was extremely variable and therefore one of the goals of the White Paper (RSA DoE1997: section 2.69) was to create a holistic approach to quality assurance (QA) in higher education. A significant step towards achieving this goal was the launch of the Higher
145 Education Quality Committee (HEQC) in June 2001 under the auspices of the Council on Higher Education (CHE).
The HEQC proposed to judge quality in relation to three areas: fitness for purpose (that is, in relation to the mission statement of the university), value for money judged against the full range of HE purposes; and transformation, that is, in the sense of developing individual learners (this relates to the “self” discourse identified by Barnett. See 4.3.4 above) as well as being responsive to the social and economic, including employment, needs of the country (HEQC 2006). The central principle to emerge was that despite the creation of a national body responsible for quality assurance and promotion across the system, the primary responsibility for QA rests with the higher education institutions themselves (Cloete et al 2002:374).
Pertinent to my interests is the fact that the HEQC frameworks and policies have clearly signalled that the quality of teaching and learning at HEIs is to be a national priority. As summarised by the CHE, the emphasis has been in three main areas: firstly, curricula are to be designed to be responsive to national and regional contexts, to national policy goals and to particular institutional missions. Secondly, “a continuous-improvement orientation at institutional and programme levels should facilitate teaching and learning innovation and renewal” and finally, teaching and learning should promote epistemological access for students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds (2004:98) (see also Moore and Lewis 2004).
The new emphasis on quality at a systemic level in South African higher education has evoked a range of responses among people at the S-C level. For some it has signalled a move away from the earlier equity agenda to an efficiency and accountability agenda and is associated with the marketisation of higher education. For others it represents a threat to the traditional view of universities as being autonomous and free from state interference. South African higher education, as in many other countries, is characterised by tensions “between the conditions for disciplinary integrity and necessary levels of institutional autonomy on the one hand, and the demands of social and political accountability on the other” (Gibbon and Kabaki 2002:223 citing du Toit 2001:3-6).
Predictably, the implementation of QA policies at the institutional level has been variable. Referring to the period 1994 to 2001, the CHE notes: “a gap existed between the broad intentions of national policy and quality issues as established in this period, and the individual quality approaches of HEIs as they had taken shape – or failed to take shape – in the course of years, and in the absence of congruent QA frameworks” (2004:148). In the face of this situation, the 2001 National Plan indicated clearly that “quality was henceforward
146 to be viewed as one of the three principal levers for steering the transformation of the higher education system, alongside planning and funding” (ibid :149). In its founding document the HEQC outlines its approach to quality and its intention to balance improvement/enhancement and accountability functions in an attempt to contribute to the transformation of South African higher education (CHE 2001). To date the HEQC has developed a new accreditation system and a system of institutional audits (CHE 2004a, 2004b, 2004c) 8. In addition, it has been engaged in a number of quality promotion and capacity development initiatives such as the Improving Teaching and Learning (ITL) project (mentioned earlier) that resulted in a set of guides for good practice in teaching and learning (CHE 2004d).
In summary, structurally there has been “a shift from an ad hoc and uneven system to a situation in which the HEQC is generating and applying national QA frameworks and criteria across a coordinated system” (CHE 2004:153). However, the HEQC functions in a situation of considerable flux structurally. There has been a delay, for example, in finalizing a new Higher Education Quality Framework (HEQF) which brings together university and technikon qualifications. Thus the registration of qualifications on the NQF has not been finalised and, at another level, mergers have resulted in enormous disruptions at many HEIs (Adams 2006). In addition, as mentioned before, individual institutional responses to the HEQC requirements are variable.
Conclusion to this section From the preceding overview of the cultural and structural conditions of higher education in South Africa it is clear that there was and still is a low level of system integration. McKenna, in her analysis of the HE context concludes that “[b]ecause the norms and values of our society are ‘up for grabs’, the discourses constructing education are in a state of flux” (2004:272). Despite attempts, post-1994 to create a coherent, co-ordinated system, higher education transformation can still be described as “highly complex, consisting of a set of still unfolding discourses of policy formation, adoption, and implementation that are replete with paradoxes and tensions, contestations, and political and social dilemmas” (CHE 2004:234). The constraining contradictions between sets of discourses such as those around democracy, equity, redress, critique and quality assurance, efficiency, accountability, performativity, marketability have impacted on the structural context. None of the enabling
8 QA in terms of academic staff development is not prescriptive (that is, there is no requirement that all lecturers must do a course such as the PGHDE) but institutional arrangements for staff development are the topic of one of the criteria for the institutional audits (CHE 2004b:8 criterion 3(v)). This seems to be a signal from the national level that academic staff development is an important aspect of the reconstruction and development of HE in the country.
147 mechanisms for transformation that have been put in place via HE policies have yet brought about the hoped for transformation in the system:
… a systemic framework for transformation in higher education teaching and learning, and curriculum, is urgently needed and has long been anticipated. The finalisation of a new academic policy is therefore awaited as a system-level guideline that will serve to focus and instruct institutional-level teaching and learning approaches. The resolution of the NQF review will be an important support or corollary (CHE 2004:102). As my interest in this research was in academic staff development, it seems appropriate to pause here and briefly consider the effects of the changing cultural and structural conditions in higher education on the roles of academics.
4.8 Effect on role of academics of changing cultural and structural conditions of HE
Changes in higher education internationally, summarised by Barnett as: globalisation; the revolution brought about by the arrival of digital technologies; the interpenetration of higher education with the wider host society; agendas of participation, access and equal opportunities; marketisation of higher education, with institutions identifying their knowledge services for potential customers; competition; and the development of systematic and nationwide state-sponsored quality evaluation mechanisms (2004:62-63) have impacted on the roles and identities of academics world-wide.
Clark (1983) identified four social institutions responsible for conditioning the professional identities of academics: 1) the disciplines into which they are socialised; 2) the institution in which they are located; 3) the national higher education system, and 3) the academic profession more broadly. As mentioned earlier (4.6.1), it is the academic discipline which has traditionally provided the main source of identity formation for most academics: “Differing epistemological concerns of disciplines play a profound role in shaping the consciousness and priorities of individual academics” (Moore 2003:39). However, as noted above, due to the changes in HE and pressures from national HE systems, academics have been required to take on roles and practices sometimes at odds with those conventionally associated with academia.
For example, much has been written about academics struggling with a sense of waning autonomy and academic freedom. Bundy (2004) cites research undertaken by Halsey (1964, 1976, 1989), Rhoades (1998) and Morley (2000) which provides evidence to suggest that the academic profession has been adversely affected by the accountability, bureaucratization and commodification of HE. Nixon describes lecturers in HE as suffering from “a crisis of professional self identity” (1996:5) while Nixon et al (2001) argue that
148 changes in HE have led to lecturers feeling increasingly isolated while at the same time accountable.
On the other hand, Bundy (2004) also cites research which suggests the there are “collective capacities of resilience, recovery and resourcefulness among academic communities”. For example, Trowler (1998) argues that the work done by Clark and Becher is rooted in “epistemological essentialism” (that is, individuals who are only able to fulfil predetermined roles) and that in reality there is a wider range of cultural and structural factors which could influence how academics respond to change. In addition, Trowler argues that academics have the freedom to resist some of the discourses and to exercise some level of agency to act in different, not pre-determined, ways. As a result of her study, Henkel (2000) argues that in Britain some academics (particularly older established academics) are struggling to cope with the requirements brought about by changes in HE while at the same time defending the core values of collegiality, academic freedom, autonomy, etc. However, she notes that many academics are also engaged in a process of “reprofessionalization”.
Bundy points out that as a consequence of apartheid, changes in HE globally since about 1980 were delayed in South Africa. However, “the experience since 1994 has sometimes seemed like a film projected at fast speed: the sequence is recognisable, but seems jerky, exaggerated and frenetic” (2004:7). Winberg sums up the situation in the following way:
… the struggles of academics in addressing issues of equity and excellence, coping with demands for accountability and transparency in teaching, learning and research and the management of institutions, as well as meeting the needs of an increasingly underprepared student body, while at the same time, battling against decreased sources of public funding (2004:1999). Moore and Lewis, in their discussion on the need for curriculum change in HE in South Africa, make it clear that many academic staff are not equipped to deal with the new demands that are being made on them:
Universities are communities of experts who, paradoxically, have limited access to expert understanding regarding their own communities and contexts. Academics may have deeply-felt, tacit insights into their own experience, but little is available in the form of theory or empirical data with which to understand and transform this experience into collective understanding or a transformational tool. We need to conduct new models of collegial practice which focus not only on managing the current pressures for change, but which are able to implement the change process itself, informed by a meaningful understanding of particular academic, social, intellectual and organisational practices. However, the reality is that few opportunities exist which equip academics with the skills required to manage change and the increasingly complex nature of the academic enterprise (2004:9). It would seem from the arguments presented above, that academic staff should be afforded the opportunities to build the knowledge and skills to cope with the diverse and changing
149 demands from both the international and national contexts. In some HEIs, educational development units have been established with the aim of doing this. The following sections examine the structural level of educational development, as a subsection of HE, first internationally and then nationally
4.9 Structural conditions of educational development internationally
It is against this backdrop of flux and organizational uncertainty that ‘educational development’ as both a concept and a functional unit must establish its place and its identity (D’Andrea and Gosling 2001:71). The structural context, particularly in terms of policy and national organisations dedicated to teaching and learning in higher education, in the English-speaking countries seems to have provided a generally enabling context for educational development. However, the positions and roles allocated to ED both at institutional and national levels vary greatly.
A range of ED organisations have been formed which have increased the ability for ED practitioners internationally and within national boundaries to network and share ideas about their practice. For example, in 1993 the International Consortium for Educational Development (ICED) was formed in England. ICED contributes to networking in the international ED community through conferences and the publication of the International Journal of Educational development (IJAD). This networking has no doubt created some degree of integration at the structural level (and among relevant groups of people) which has contributed towards the two broad trends in ED internationally described earlier: the clearer focus on staff development and the movement of ED into the mainstream of academic life.
In the UK 9 the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE), known as ‘the Dearing Report’ (NCIHE 1997) recommended that “all institutions of higher education begin immediately to develop or seek access to programmes for teacher training of their staff”. One hundred and fifteen UK-based HEIs have nationally accredited professional development courses (UUK/SCOP 2004 in D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:74). Professional organisations promoting ED-type practices in the UK include: SEDA (Staff and Educational Development Association established in 1993); HEDG (network of heads of educational development from across the UK formed in 1995); UCoSDA (Universities and Colleges Staff Development Agency); and the HEA (Higher Education Academy founded in May 2004). In addition, since the late 1990s, the Funding Councils in the UK have funded a range of initiatives to raise the status of teaching and learning in UK HEIs (see Trowler et al 2005 for a critique of recent UK policy initiatives to enhance teaching and learning in the UK).
9 Most of this information about structures supporting ED in the UK comes from Gosling (2001) and from the websites of the particular organisations. See also D’Andrea and Gosling (2005:201-202) for further description of the range of ED institutional structures in the UK.
150 Finally, in the UK (as in HE systems in many other countries in the world), the national quality assurance system has also had an impact on how ED has evolved and is practised in some HEIs. National QA demands have placed new demands and pressures on lecturers for which most are unprepared and have thus been forced to seek out help from the ED-type units and staff. ED-type units in many HEIs have therefore in recent years been given the role of helping departments to prepare for review and also to respond to other recommendations emanating from the Dearing Report in relation to the National Qualifications Framework, programme specifications, subject benchmarking and progress files.
In Australia, too, ED, mostly in the form of staff development, has increased in significance (Andresen 1996; Volbrecht 2003). This is evidenced by the wide ranging activities of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) which incorporates a special interest group on educational development. In addition, the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development (CUTSD) has also funded large scale projects aimed at developing the scholarship of teaching in Australia (Kreber 2001). Nicolls (2004) reports that there has been increased pressure to provide professional development opportunities for higher education lecturers through national policies in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and in Australia. Volbrecht (2003:101-105) provides a summary of the status of academic or more commonly called “faculty development” in the USA. He concludes that:
… the USA does not have integrative national higher education policies to the same extent as countries such as UK, Australia and SA although it does have many national agencies, such as the American Association for Higher Education, contributing to the development of higher education ( ibid: 104). Lewis (1996) in her brief history of faculty development in the USA makes mention of increased membership in the Professional and Organisational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education, the National Council of Staff, Program and Organisational Development (NCSPOD) and the National Institute for Staff and Organisational Development (NISOD). She reports in particular in the 1990s an increase in a range of faculty development initiatives in colleges and universities all over the USA. Currently it would seem that some form of training or development is common in most HEIs in the USA and the Preparing Future Faculty movement is gaining prominence (CHE 2004d:4). The trend in the USA seems to be for professional development courses to be offered prior to commencement of full-time teaching (D’Andrea and Gosling 2005). Recent research on “faculty development” in the USA by Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy and Beach (2006 in Sorenson 2006) confirms this: “The findings of this study validate our belief that educational development is a critically
151 important lever for ensuring institutional excellence” (Sorcinelli et al 2006 in Sorenson 2006:21).
In some countries structural changes around research have also had an indirect impact on ED, although not a positive one. For example, in the UK the Research Assessment Exercise (REA) led to increased funding for disciplinary research which, according to Gosling (2001:77 quoting McNay 1998:186), “caused a gradual separation structurally, of research from teaching”. Gosling describes a common experience in HEIs all over the world: “The research culture and promotion and recognition that goes with success in publications continues [sic] to militate against engagement in educational development for many staff …” (2001:77). D’Andrea and Gosling note that in HE there are paradoxical pressures to engage in disciplinary research and publish while at the same time there is increasing political and public interest in teaching and learning. With acknowledgements to R. Brown (2000a), D’Andrea and Gosling go on to say:
… in practice, we have a tension between the rhetoric of valuing teaching, enhancing the status of teaching and rewarding excellent teachers, and the reality which continues to suggest that teaching is very much a lower priority subservient to research and income-generating activities (2005:16). There is evidence of these paradoxical pressures in the criteria designed for the institutional audits, which are currently underway in South African HEIs (CHE 2004a).
In many HEIs there are committee structures which have enabled and/or constrained ED. In the UK the majority of ED-type units have Learning and Teaching Committees or “Academic Boards” (Gosling 2001). In addition many units have close links with “Quality” or “Academic Standards” committees. It would seem that in most countries there is a range of institutional structures underpinned by different conceptual understandings of ED. There is also a range of ways in which ED staff members are funded. In England for example, there is short term funding available for staff through the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund (TQEF) (HEFC 2006). The ways in which ED staff members are funded, at both national and institutional levels, is frequently an indication of the “worth” of ED in particular contexts. Both internationally and nationally there have in recent years been more academic appointments in ED-type units, even some at professorial level which “indicates a shift in thinking about the status and the nature of the work being undertaken” ( Ibid :81). Gosling ( ibid ) believes that these appointments indicate that in the UK there is a shift away from what he calls “traditional conceptions of staff development” to ED work that is more research-based. In the UK particularly there seems to be increasing involvement by ED staff at institutional policy level. Structurally some ED-type units internationally have a stronger “service role”, but as Gosling notes, “there [is] a difference between those who only operate at this level
152 and those who were in a position to directly influence, promote and implement innovations in the curriculum” ( ibid :84).
The following section considers more closely the structures that enable or constrain ED as a field in South Africa.
4.10 The structural conditions of educational development in South Africa
Firstly, the treatment of ED in national policy documents (as indicative of the CS) will be considered. This will be followed by a discussion on how structural QA requirements have influenced ED in South Africa. Thereafter I will briefly examine how the South African Academic Development Association (SAAAD) impacted on ED and particularly, staff development. Finally, I examine the structural conditions for staff development specifically.
4.10.1 Policy
Volbrecht’s analysis of South African policy in relation to ED leads him to conclude that both the way the concept of ED is treated as well as the idea that ED should be “mainstreamed” is “incoherent” (2003:115). In his opinion the way ED is dealt in the White Paper of 1997 demonstrates a lack of consistency regarding the ideational foundations of ED in South Africa and the effect this has had on ED practice: “With the concept of ED slipping and sliding all over the White Paper in this way, it is not surprising that similar ambiguities persist at the institutional level” ( ibid :117).
In later policy documentation ED is predominantly defined as being about student development and, in particular, about providing extended foundation-type programmes for previously disadvantaged students (for example, section 2.3.2 National Plan (RSA DoE 2001); section 7.3 A New Academic Policy for Programmes and Qualifications in Higher Education (RSA MoE 2002)). The CHE discusses ED only in terms of “educational development for students from disadvantaged backgrounds” (2004:101) and in terms of “extended curriculum programmes, tutoring and mentoring schemes” ( ibid :207). In all these documents, however, there are frequent references to curriculum and institutional development but these are not explicitly linked to educational development. In the same way, without necessarily making the link to ED, some of the policy and discussion documents “highlight the urgency of professionalising educators in HEIs” (CHE 2004d:5). See for example The White Paper (RSA DoE 1997:33-34) and A New Academic Policy for Programmes and Qualifications in Higher Education (RSA MoE 2002:119). Generally I would argue that national policy and discussion documents have not led to enabling structures for a coherent model of ED in South Africa; nor have they created enabling conditions for institutions to take on board the notion of professionalization of academic staff.
153 Despite this narrow treatment of ED in policy documents, ED practitioners in some institutions have responded to the broader policy frameworks intended to transform South African higher education. The final phase of ED described earlier as Institutional development (Volbrecht and Boughey 2004 and Boughey 2005) has been most influenced by changes in the national policy context post 1994. For example, the establishment of SAQA and the introduction of the NQF made demands on institutions to recurriculate and develop learning programmes using outcomes as an organising principle:
… academics will now have to make explicit their learning outcomes and assessment criteria and offer these for public scrutiny. When designing curricula they will be required to work in programme teams rather than as single individuals … The demand for summative, integrated assessment, across specific course outcomes and across modules within a programme will be particularly demanding in relation to demand and implementation, given traditional territorial and individualistic approaches to teaching (SAUVCA 1999:27-8 in Moore and Lewis 2004:40). In some HEIs, the only people able to assist academics with these new curriculum development demands were ED practitioners. In some cases this brought them more into the mainstream as staff and curriculum developers. Generally though, it seems that in the majority of cases staff in South African HEIs are ill-equipped to cope with the new policy demands and the majority of institutions are equally ill-equipped to provide the development and training to assist their academic staff.
Both the CEO of the CHE and the Acting Director of the Higher Education Quality Promotion and Capacity Development for the HEQC, in my interviews with them, indicated support for and an understanding of the need for academic staff development in institutions. However, neither seemed to support the idea of national level prescriptions for academic staff development:
… my own view here is that we should not be overly prescriptive. I think … that each institution needs to define for itself what is the most appropriate form … it could range from … a doctoral degree in this area … (Interview CEO of the CHE 24.03.04: para 32). The Acting Director (interview 24.03.04) concurred, but he also pointed out that one of the criteria for the current round of institutional audits asks questions about whether staff development is managed effectively in individual institutions (CHE 2004b). His opinion was that it is important to recognise that HEIs have different historical circumstances and different needs and that no particular model of staff development can be prescribed, but that each institution needs to make its own appropriate internal arrangements in relation to staff development.
So for us to be prescriptive at a national level really would be dangerous (Interview 24.03.04: para 238).
154 Each institution has such a different history. As I say, the fundamental is that the institution is responsible. We then, you know, part of the accountability mechanisms and encouraging quality improvement, we come along externally. But internally, that’s where the work happens. That’s where they must take responsibility. We really can’t be prescriptive. The new academic policy is going to indirectly assist in sorting out the accreditation and registration of these qualifications one hopes (ibid : 250). Even if the policy environment had been more enabling for ED (conceptualized as staff development), not all HEIs have the capacity to offer appropriate development opportunities for their academic staff.
In the following section I examine the influence of QA structures on ED practices.
4.10.2 Quality assurance
The second major change in policy frameworks to affect ED practitioners in some institutions was brought about by the introduction of a quality assurance framework through the establishment of the HEQC. The two main mechanisms used by the HEQC are institutional audits and programme accreditation. Both these have placed demands on HEIs to develop quality assurance procedures and systems. As Boughey (2005) points out however, there was (and still is) a need in HEIs not only to develop policies to guide practice but also to build capacity for academic staff to work within the policy guidelines when they had been developed. In some institutions, the ED practitioners were best placed to contribute to both the policy development and academic staff development needs created by these national structural changes. Boughey summarises the situation in the following way:
Practitioners who have ‘stayed the course’ in the educational development movement now tend to be highly qualified (most now have doctoral qualifications or are in the process of completing them) and occupy relatively senior positions in institutions. The need to ‘academicise’ ED by improving the qualification level and by engaging in research and publishing is something which is probably unique to universities. What is not unique, however, is the need for a high level of expertise at least at senior levels if appropriate conceptualization and direction of activities is to be achieved. It is also important for ED staff to be able to engage with senior levels of management in any institution if the endeavour is to contribute to the process of institutional development which characterizes this third phase (2005:4). From the outset the HEQC identified academic staff development as a major focus area for enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in higher education in South Africa. This is evidenced in Criteria for Institutional Audits, Criteria Nos 9 and 10, (CHE 2004b:13); and the Criteria for Programme Accreditation, Criterion 3 (CHE 2004c:9). As mentioned previously, the HEQC showed its commitment to contributing to the enhancement of the quality of teaching and learning in South Africa through the Improving Teaching and Learning Project. In the foreword to the Improving Teaching and Learning Resource no 6 on Staff
155 development, Singh says “the project fitted in with the international debates and developments in higher education, which were prioritising the learning experiences of students as well as giving increased attention to the professionalization of higher education teaching and to staff development and support” (CHE 2004d:2).
Later in that document, the HEQC makes clear its rationale vis-à-vis staff development:
Staff development is primarily an institutional responsibility and is operationalised within an institutional context. However, it is increasingly influenced by national policies and global trends. Institutions respond to these demands and take up national policies in different ways depending on their missions, contexts, institutional culture, resources and so on. Nevertheless, given that institutional performance is ultimately dependent on staff effectiveness, all South African HEIs should provide resources and incentives for their staff to meet their own professional goals and to contribute to the realisation of institutional missions. Staff development should be an integral part of an institution’s human resource development strategy and practice rather than an isolated, optional activity. Furthermore, the development of academic staff should be at the centre of any attempt to respond to the challenges currently facing HE professionals ( ibid :6). For some institutions then, the new policy around QA and other national structures such as the HEQC created enabling conditions for ED practitioners and ED units to be more centrally involved in staff and institutional development. Again, however, it must be emphasized that despite these attempts at national level, due to a range of differences and capacities both at the institutional structural level and at the agential level, these changes in ED in response to national policy have not been uniform across South African HEIs
The impetus toward staff development in South Africa, like elsewhere, does not come from within disciplines or even university departments. It comes more from outside pressure (in the case of South Africa, staff development as part of transformation of the education system), and internationally and nationally, QA pressures are implicated as well. Institutions have been forced to respond to these outside pressures by adopting certain policies and practices. Henkel, for example, claims that in Britain many institutions have developed management structures similar to those of corporate enterprise. Many institutions now have policies which directly affect academic practice. Henkel notes: “Departments and individual academics find themselves the targets for change and the change agents may not be fellow academics but administrators or other purveyors of what academics would regard as generic and relatively low level knowledge” (2002:139).
In the following section I examine the third structure, the South African Association for Academic Development, which is relevant to ED in South Africa.
156 4.10.3 SAAAD
The South African Association of Academic Development (SAAAD) was established in opposition to the South African Association for Research and Development (SAARDHE). SAARDHE was established in 1979 and initially consisted mainly of academic support practitioners from historically white institutions (HWIs) (SAARDHE nd). SAARHDE had an “apolitical stance with a focus on Higher Education Studies rather than educational activism … it was seen as conservative and academically suspect [by some members of SAAAD]” (pers com Volbrecht 21.11.06). In the mid 1980s, partially in response to the challenges to the construct of academic support from historically black institutions (HBIs), practitioners from both HWIs and HBIs banded together to form SAAAD. By the early 1990s it had strong membership and high attendance at the annual conferences held in December each year. It provided an important structure for ED practitioners to network and to share ideas and practices of their work. Many of the papers presented at the conferences, particularly in the early 1990s, are evidence of the ideational shift from support to development; the “social” turn in ED referred to earlier; the attempt to move ED work more into the mainstream of the university. However, as mentioned earlier (Morphet’s 1995 evaluation of SAAAD), ED work in South Africa has been and still is underpinned by a range of discourses, some of which are contradictory. These contradictions and attempts to create some kind of syncretism or accommodation among the ideas is evident in the both the papers presented at SAAAD conferences and in the subsequent demise of SAAAD. For example, Boughey (2005a:4) quotes the following written by the organising committee of the 1994 SAAAD conference:
As the ED community, and as members of SAAAD, we should value our variety and our diversity, and we should seek out ways to promote and encourage the development of multiple discourses. Thus, our empowerment of ourselves as individual ED workers should not be concerned with joining or rejecting the discourse which appears to dominate the field at the present moment. Rather our individual empowerment rests on the rigorous development of ourselves as ED intellectuals and the professionalization of our attitudes to our work, within a framework of accepted diversity (Annecke et al 1994). Volbrecht, however, is more critical of the fact that SAAAD did not provide more enabling structural conditions for HEIs to take on academic staff development as a central role of educational development. He claims,
The failure of SAAAD to develop a vibrant staff development discourse within HET institutions is evident in the finding of the ETDP [Education, Training and Development Practices] researchers (1997:34) that ‘Staff development programmes for academic staff are undeveloped or non-existent at South African universities’. They do note, however (1997:15) that there are some formal diplomas and post-graduate degrees in higher education and a growing interest in accredited courses (Volbrecht 2003a:115).
157 Volbrecht’s analysis suggests that SAAAD’s lack of clear focus on academic staff development was made worse at some HEIs when ED units not linked to Quality Assurance were marginalised or closed down. However, as discussed in 4.7.3, the emergence of the HEQC in the early 2000s and the creation of the NQF towards the end of the 1990s have “created an enabling frame for policies and practices that may effectively incorporate staff development into South African AD” (Volbrecht 2003a:113).
In the early 1990s as it was apparent that South Africa was headed for a peaceful settlement, the international community was wiling to donate large sums of money for the transformation of the post-apartheid HE system. Much of the money was channelled through SAAAD. Since SAAAD was a professional organisation, it did not constitute an appropriate framework for the administration of this funding. In 1997, therefore, the Institute for Higher Education Development in South Africa (IHEDSA) was established under the auspices of SAAAD. IHEDSA was to function as a national organ which would drive transformation and administer funds for research and development in HE. No sooner was IHEDSA established, however, than it was wracked by a financial scandal and major donors (such as United States Agency for International Development (USAID)) withdrew their funding. IHEDSA was forced to close. SAAAD did not survive the scandal in IHEDSA and the annual conference later that year was the last the organisation was to hold. The Executive Committee disbanded, no more membership fees were collected and the organisation was no more.
Attempts to resurrect a national organisation were made at conferences hosted in various institutions from 2000 onwards. Although attendance at these conferences was an indication of the need for a new professional organisation, it was only in 2005 that a constitution for a new organisation named the Higher Education Learning and Teaching Association of Southern Africa (HELTASA) was accepted. The HELTASA constitution declares one of the aims of the Association to be:
To create, support and sustain an enabling and synergistic network of higher education practitioners in Southern Africa, facilitating and encouraging collaborative conversations and ventures concerning policy, developmental practice and educational research in HET across the various specialised fields. Such specialisation shall include teaching in formal and non-formal programmes and engaging in trans-institutional practices such as organizational/institutional, staff, student, curriculum or technological development (HELTASA 2005). It remains to be seen whether this new organisation will contribute towards enabling staff development in HEIs in South Africa.
158 This section has briefly mentioned some of the constraining and enabling national structural influences on ED in South Africa. The following section will look more closely at academic staff development in South Africa.
4.10.4 Staff development
This new social organisation of knowledge requires a differently equipped cadre of knowledge workers than those who are currently based in universities. The new cadre must consist of problem identifiers, problem solvers and problem brokers (Cloete and Bunting 2000:39 in Moore and Lewis 2004:39).
… the reality is that few opportunities exist which equip academics with the skills required to manage change and the increasingly complex nature of the academic enterprise (Moore and Lewis 2004:46).
At the level of the individual it’s simply coming to grips with the fact that some, perhaps many, perhaps most of our academics are simply not equipped for learning and teaching and supervision of research (Interview CEO of the CHE 24.03.04: para 26). As indicated in the quotations above, a number of HE analysts have recognised that the changes in higher education generally and particularly the current policy goals and QA demands in South African HE have significant implications for academic staff, and they question whether mainstream academic staff and managers have the capacity to cope with these changes and often competing demands (see also, for example, D’Andrea, Gosling, Scott and Tyeku 2002).
Nonetheless, staff development is not a priority in all South African HEIs: “Despite the existence of small pockets of good practice, initiatives to professionalize teaching in South African HE are still at an early stage of development” (CHE 2004d:10). However, there have been some structural initiatives aimed at improving this situation. In response to the New Academic Policy for Programmes and Qualifications in Higher Education (RSA MoE 2002) and SAQA’s mission to generate standards for the NQF, a group of ED practitioners interested in and/or involved in staff development activities formed a “standards-generating body” (SGB). The SGB developed a 120 credit unit-standards-based qualification for the professionalization of academic staff called the Postgraduate Certificate for Higher Education and Training (PGCHET), which was registered on the NQF at an honours level 7 in March 2003 (Mbali 2003) . It consists of seven compulsory core unit standards and five elective unit standards. The stated purpose of the qualification reads:
The PGCHET is a postgraduate qualification intended to provide professional development and recognition for HET practitioners who lack formal HET teaching qualifications. It will enable persons with high levels of discipline-related qualifications to qualify themselves for specific roles/obligations as practitioners in HET. It is directed at persons with HET teaching experience at NQF levels 5
159 and above and persons wishing to specialise in HET as a field of study… (CHE 2004d:11). ED units in HEIs that were already offering or planning to introduce formal programmes for academic staff development responded in different ways to these unit standards. Some institutions offered a course structured according to the unit standards whereas others used the unit standards as a guide for designing a more coherent curriculum. SSAU followed the latter option (see 5.4.3). The unit standards designed by the SGB appear to be of limited value as they encourage institutions to put in place courses which teach towards the unit standards in a technicist way rather than designing coherent curricula which cater for the needs of lecturers in specific contexts (ETDP SETA 2003). Volbrecht and Boughey (2004:13) point out the difficulties of the bureaucratic route required for curriculum development in South Africa at present. It is a two-phase process: firstly the development of outcomes-based qualification specifications for registration on the NQF and secondly, the design, implementation and review of courses at the institutional level. Lolwana (2006) in her discussion on the relationship between unit standards generated by SGB’s makes the point that in the end it’s the programme or curriculum, not the statements of outcomes/unit standards which give value to a qualification; successful implementation depends on the capacity of the agents and the systemic conditions, in particular, institutional contexts rather than on the unit standards. This was reinforced in the interviews I conducted with ED practitioners involved in staff development work in other South African HEIs who were also members of the SGB 10 . For example, one interviewee said:
I think that for me there’s a deeper question about OBE in separating qualification design from learning programme design. I feel we haven’t found a way in South Africa of getting those two to talk to each other…
[Name of another SGB member] argued that intuitively the good teacher feels organically involved in learning programme development but if some other body has designed this qualification and now you have to design down from somebody else’s thinking into your own way of working … The claim has always been that you have one qualification and then multiple pathways to that qualification. I don’t feel that that has been theorised sufficiently. What actually happens to people when they have the destination of their pathway so predetermined?
I think the approach we’ve adopted in this country is too rigid. There’s too much specification (Interview 6.10.04 paras 85, 89 and105). According to the CHE (2004d:12), there are currently approximately a dozen formal staff development programmes as well as a range of non-credit bearing induction programmes for new staff at HEIs in South Africa. There is a lack of uniformity across the country in relation
10 “The SGB approach as originally conceptualized has been shown to be problematic in HE and has been abandoned” (pers com SGB member 12.05.06).
160 to the types of formal programmes which could be a consequence of the failure to develop a new Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF) post 1994. There are postgraduate diplomas, postgraduate certificates, coursework Master’s degrees and, in a few cases, full Master’s and Doctoral research degrees. The majority of the programmes at diploma and certificate level are offered by ED practitioners whereas Master’s and Doctoral degrees are generally offered through Faculties of Education in HEIs (HESDI 2003). However, “with few exceptions, numbers enrolling for these programmes remain small, except where it has become a compulsory requirement for new academic staff” (CHE 2004d:12). In addition to these formal programmes, many HEIs in South Africa offer a range of different types of informal staff development/training activities. As the focus of my research was the genesis of the PGDHE at SSAU and the intention was not to compare it with other staff development initiatives in South Africa or elsewhere, I will not discuss these further.
A second South African staff development initiative documented, funded and initiated by the Education Training and Development Sectoral Education Training Authority (ETDP SETA) was that of the Higher Education Staff Development Initiative (HESDI) (CHE 2004d). HESDI was established in 2000 by human resource development and academic development practitioners to promote the professionalization of academic and support staff in higher education initially in collaboration with the ETDP SETA to establish learnerships and skills programmes in higher education. Inter alia , academic learnerships leading to the SAQA registered PGCHET were proposed. However, HESDI found that these learnerships were not viable. Volbrecht, however, points out that
HESDI’s swansong was a national workshop inviting people involved in staff development programmes. The SETA published a report on the workshop as well as a set of case studies from several HEIs. I think this workshop was significant in that it showed how many HEIs are gravitating to more formalised staff development programmes – also interesting in this regard was the growing convergence of the work of ex-SAAAD and SAARDE academics/practitioners (pers com 21.11.06). Despite this initiative, the structures that have been put in place for staff development in South Africa have not created sufficiently enabling conditions for large scale transformation in relation to the professionalization of academic staff in HE. Only a few EDU-type units in HEIs have been able to focus on academic staff development and only in a few institutions has ED moved closer to the mainstream of the university. In fact few HEIs in South Africa have been able to implement and sustain coherent courses aimed at professionalising their academic staff. There are many reasons for this and each context would have to be studied individually. It would seem however that a crucial reason for this, in some HEIs, is a lack of institutional capacity. The CEO of the CHE said:
161 You know, to actually take them [unit standards designed by the SGB] and work with them in the way you have … taking that as a framework/ the fact that the SGB has put out something like this doesn’t mean that the institutions can offer this … I would be one of those who would ask very serious questions about the capability of that institution to run this programme (Interview CEO of CHE 24.03.04: para 90) The purpose of my research was to investigate the institutional conditions and historical conjunctions that enabled a focus on staff development at SSAU where ED has in fact been able to develop more along the lines of ED internationally described earlier in this chapter.
4.11 Conclusion
… in all sociological enquiry it is assumed that some features of social structure and culture are strategically important and enduring and that they provide the limits within which particular social situations can occur. On this assumption the action approach can help to explain the nature of the situations and how they affect conduct. It does not explain the social culture and structure as such, except by lending itself to a developmental enquiry which must start from some previous point at which structural and cultural elements are treated as given (Cohen 1968:93 in Archer 1996:xxi). This chapter has provided the historical context, the “features of the social structure and culture” (referred to by Cohen in the quotation above) which existed at a particular time in history (T 1), prior to the introduction of the PGDHE at SSAU. I began by identifying the orders of discourses which are used by people internationally and in South Africa to understand the foundations and purposes of higher education. I concluded that in terms of the cultural system of HE worldwide, there is low integration, that is, many of the beliefs, values, ideas and theories are in contradiction with one another. Due to the different political, social and cultural contexts of South Africa, the stress-ridden situation created by these contradictions conditioned a different context for ED. I therefore discussed the CS of ED internationally and in South Africa separately. It would appear that the major differences between the two are firstly, that ED in most English-speaking countries focuses predominantly on academic staff development and secondly, that ED has begun to move more into the mainstream of institutional life. The changing beliefs, values and theories underpinning ED in South Africa were discussed in terms of the three phases identified by Volbrecht and Boughey (2004), that is, educational support, educational development and institutional development. Essentially I argued that much ED as practised in South Africa is still underpinned by a “support” discourse.
In the second part of the chapter I examined the structural conditions of HE first internationally and then in South Africa, paying particular attention to structures related to HE policies, teaching and learning and quality assurance. I then investigated the structural conditions of ED in both macro arenas. A complicated picture of the structural arena of both
162 these fields emerged. In South Africa, it would seem that the only structures that contributed some enabling conditions for staff development initiatives were those related to quality assurance. In the following chapter I examine how the macro cultural and structural systems described in this chapter impacted on the specific institutional context of SSAU.
163 Chapter 5 Institutional context
5.1 Introduction
In keeping with the overall purpose of my research (a critical analysis of the emergence of the formal qualification as a form of academic staff development), in the previous chapter I provided the systemic (cultural and structural) historical context of higher education and educational development at the macro level (T 1). In this chapter I turn to the mezo institutional level. Archer argues that it is not possible to analyse an institution unless it is regarded as relatively enduring with “properties that are internal and necessary to it being what it is” (1995:96). Nonetheless, an institution is always in a fluid state of transformation.
This chapter examines the mezo institutional context of SSAU as well as educational development within SSAU, including the history of the genesis of the formal qualification for academic staff development. From the changing and competing discourses discussed in the previous chapter, it is clear that within HE broadly and ED as a subsection of HE there are a host of competing interests and ideas, and that HEIs internationally and in South Africa are operating in a context of considerable change and instability. Gultig, for example, claims that a discourse of “crisis” is prevalent in both the press and among HE academics in South Africa (2000:43). The current Vice Chancellor at SSAU described the HE context as one filled with “the paradoxes and intractable tensions of our social milieu” (VC 2006:14). However, the nature of the tensions between interests and the way in which change and instability are dealt with will be different in each institution. This is evident in the discourses which are privileged and those which are silenced. This chapter thus includes an overview of the systemic context of SSAU (and ED at SSAU) against the background of the international and national contexts provided in the previous chapter.
The argument presented in this chapter is that by the end of 1999 sufficient primary agents had transformed into corporate agents (Archer 2000:268-282) and Institutional systemic conditions (cultural and structural) were such that morphogenesis in relation to the conceptualisation and practice of ED could begin to take place to the extent that it was viable to introduce a new form of academic staff development – an accredited, formal qualification for staff. Due to uncertainties related to the development of a new HEQF, initially the qualification was called the Advanced Certificate in Tertiary Studies (ACTS) and it was intended to contribute to the professionalization of academic staff at the University.
164 The data used to inform the discussion in this chapter was obtained from 1) official documents and reports mostly generated by the Institution 1, 2) interviews conducted with a range of people in the Institution, and 3) the survey questionnaire sent to all lecturers via their Heads of Departments in May 2003 (see Appendix 2 and 3.4.5). As discussed earlier (3.5.2.1), using the broad principles of critical discourse analysis (CDA), I analysed the texts, identifying instances of uses of particular discourses prevalent in HE and associated with particular social practices. This analysis was then used to inform my narrative of the historical events which led to the emergence of the PGDHE in 2000. In keeping with the realist methodological principle of analytical dualism and the stratified view of social reality , the texts were analysed to allow consideration of structure, culture and agency separately. In this way, as Willmott suggests, instead of conflating or dissolving structure and agency, the two are linked “by teasing out their respective influences over time” (1999:17).
In this chapter I argue that changes in the cultural and structural domains in the Institution, often in response to international and national circumstances, exerted either constraining or enabling influences on the agency of ED as a structure and on the actions of ED staff at different times. As Archer points out, one of the implications of emergence is:
… the need to grapple with the ongoing interplay between micro- and macro- levels, where the broader context conditions the environment of actors whose responses then transform the environment with which the context subsequently had to deal, the two jointly generate further elaboration as well as changes in one another (1982:476). Before 1999 the Institutional systemic conditions at SSAU were predominantly constraining for ED and especially for staff development. However, from 1996/7 there were changes at the systemic level (both at Institutional and Unit level) which appear to have begun to establish more enabling conditions for staff development activities. The history of these changes is documented in this chapter. I also analyse how socio-cultural and social interaction (T 2 to T 3) contributed to cultural and structural change (T 4).
The chapter is thus divided into three main sections: culture, structure and agency. In the sections on culture and agency I pay attention to the mezo SSAU Institutional level and the micro ED level. In both the sections on culture and structure I first examine briefly the Institutional systemic level (that is, CS and SS) and then S-C and S-I levels and particularly the interplay between them in order to uncover whether the overall outcome created enabling or constraining conditions for ED and particularly, staff development. In the section
1 For example, internal review documents of academic departments (SSAU1997; SSAU 2000 and SSAU 2005a) and administrative departments (SSAU 1998; SSAU 2002), and evaluation reports by and on the EDP/C (SSAU 1989; SSAU 1996; Scott 1998).
165 on agency I consider the roles of key individuals and groups of individuals and in particular the double morphogenesis of ED staff.
Before reporting on the data analysis, I would like to return briefly to a discussion started in 3.8 on my role as the researcher. I would argue that it is difficult, if not impossible for a researcher to shed her professional roles and to inhabit what one of the external examiners of this thesis called “a more dispassionate researcherly identity”. Clearly then, the reader needs to take into account (and perhaps make allowances for) the fact that, despite my best attempts, in this thesis, I do argue from the perspective of an ED professional. Where possible I shall point out possible negative consequences of this in this chapter.
5.2 Institutional Culture
In this section I examine the ideas, values, attitudes and beliefs 2 which manifest themselves in discourses within the Institution, and which impacted on the introduction of the PGDHE in 2000. Some of the discourses in the Cultural System (CS) at the Institutional level were influenced by those in the CS at the international and national levels as discussed in the previous chapter. The contradictory discourses at the Institutional level, which I suggest impacted most on staff development, were those around transformation (including access, equity and redress), quality assurance, teaching and learning, and academic staff development. The contradictory and complementary relations between the relevant discourses of the CS at the Institutional level are identified and then examined to see how they map onto the orderly or conflictual relationships between the affected agents at the Socio-Cultural (S-C) level. However, as previously noted (3.5.2.1), the boundaries between discourses are not firm; they “overlap and interpenetrate each other and are themselves diverse and contested” (Edwards 1998:31).
5.2.1 Impact of items from the macro cultural system on the institutional CS
In this section I begin by making some general observations about how SSAU responded to contradictory discourses from the macro CS and then I focus on two areas of particular relevance for the purposes of this research implicated in those discourses: transformation and quality assurance.
5.2.1.1 Transformation
During the time of apartheid in South Africa three different types of universities were distinguishable: the English medium universities, the Afrikaans medium universities and the black homeland universities (see for example, Kissack and Enslin 2003 for a discussion of
2 Only if particular ideas have holders can they exert an influence on agency (Archer 1996).
166 HE in South Africa under apartheid). SAU is categorised as a historically white, English medium university - one of the so-called “liberal universities” - which ostensibly did not support apartheid policies but has always nonetheless been dependent to a certain extent on government funding (Bunting 2002). Bunting (citing Mamdani 1998) says that these universities “were never major agents for social and political change in South Africa, despite the anti-apartheid stance they had adopted”. Instead they were “islands of white social privilege” (2002:73). At a “Colloquium on the Critical Tradition at SSAU” held in 2004 at SSAU, a number of scholars argued that not only did SSAU not openly oppose apartheid policies but that there are episodes in the history of SSAU which show collusion with, rather than opposition to apartheid (see for example, du Toit 2005; Jaffer 2005; Maylam 2005; Streek 2005).
According to Kissack and Enslin, historically the epithet “liberal”, when used in relation to universities, implied “access for the progeny of the traditional aristocracies and the newly emergent middle classes” (2003:39); it did not refer to a system that offered access to a broader spectrum of the population. In addition, the term “liberal” implied a particular institutional ethos of critical individualism. Kissack and Enslin go on to claim that this ethos was dispersed through the British Empire, and the historically white, English medium universities in South Africa saw themselves as “inheritors of this legacy” ( ibid ). Similarly Gultig’s analysis of South African HEIs leads him to conclude that that these universities are “slightly modernised versions of the old elite academy” (2000:37) and that it has been their
mission to retain the status quo as much as possible.
Von Kotze, with reference to another South African HEI which has a similar history to that of SSAU, points out, “[o]ur universities have been attempts to reproduce European institutions in order to reproduce European culture, social structures, beliefs and values. We have operated as poor copies of Oxbridge and Harvard, and by maintaining the superiority of western knowledge discourses, we have failed to concede that such knowledge is partial” (2006:5). Against this historical backdrop, it is therefore not surprising that most of these South African universities have struggled to respond to the post-1994 HE context (manifested in diverse student bodies) and to the transformation agenda.
In the period under discussion (the years prior to 2000), SSAU had undergone some changes, by, for example, admitting small numbers of black students. However, the following quotation from the SSAU Audit Portfolio written in preparation for a national audit of the University by the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) in 2005 acknowledges that in many respects the Institutional culture has not changed a great deal from that of the historically white liberal university it was prior to the democratic elections in 1994:
167 It is well recognized that some aspects of the institutional culture may be perceived by some staff, students and other stakeholders to be alienating or even hostile. Further, it is in the long established institutions that such cultures are deeply embedded and difficult to change. SSAU is well aware of this situation and of the need to adopt a proactive approach to its mission statement which states that the University undertakes to ‘develop shared values which embrace basic human and civil rights; acknowledge and be sensitive to the problems created by the legacy of apartheid, to reject all forms of unfair discrimination and to ensure that appropriate corrective measures are employed to address past imbalances’ (SSAU 2005:11-12). In the period from the democratic elections in South Africa in 1994 until 2000 I would argue that, although aware of the need for transformation and the need for the Institution to respond to changes in the national ideational context, SSAU essentially strove and largely succeeded in maintaining its identity as an institution that was, in the words of a young coloured woman in her exit interview from SSAU, “predominantly white in its outlook”. Evidence of this is found in a document written by the current Vice Principal of SSAU in which he described the University’s “strong Eurocentric Oxbridge approach to higher education” (Current VP SSAU 2003:1) and mentioned the long overdue need for a change. Despite the appearance in the University of high integration at the S-C level, the Vice Principal pointed out that there were individuals or groups of individuals in the University who held ideas and beliefs that were contradictory to the overall ethos. He argued that SSAU needed to position itself “not just as an institution of international standing but one that is positioned in the national i.e. in an African context” ( ibid :2). In an interview with the Director of Academic Planning & Quality Assurance (AP & QA) in 2003 she said, “I think there are still things which in terms of the transformation of higher education that we seriously have to respond to” (29.07.03 para 156).
Although there was resistance to “deep” transformation, the University was increasingly providing formal access to black students, so-called “previously disadvantaged” students. The Educational Skills Programme (as ED was called in 1983 when it was established) was a structural response by the Institution to help those students who were deemed “underprepared” for studying at the University (see 5.4.3 below). It was a way of responding to the ideational and structural changes at the national levels without the Institution or the lecturers needing to adapt in any way. As this served at the Institutional CS level as a way of responding to the ideational and structural changes at the national levels without the Institution or the lecturers needing to adapt, this resistance to discourses around transformation (coming from the national CS level), while perhaps not constraining, did not enable the move towards academic staff development.
168 5.2.1.2 Growing quality assurance discourse at SSAU
In the previous chapter (4.3.2) I discussed the emergence of the QA discourse (particularly QA constructed as being largely about accountability) at the CS level in HE both internationally and nationally. In this section I briefly examine the response at the institutional CS level to the growing QA discourse as well as the effect of this discourse on a range of people at the S-C level (that is interaction at T 2 to T 3).
From about the mid-1990s there were a few people who recognized that it would be impossible for the Institution not to respond to the “new” discourses around QA and accountability in the macro CS. These people realized that it would be in the interests of the University to begin to put in place structures in response to them. A key agent in this regard was the person who occupied the position of Vice Principal (VP) at the time. As was discussed in 2.6, there is a difference between roles and the people who occupy those roles: “some roles are personified in routinized ways while others can be cumulatively transformed in the hands of their incumbents” (Archer 1995:187). As Sewell points out, structures empower agents differentially and “the extent of the agency exercised by individual persons depends profoundly on their positions in collective organisations …” (1992:21). The particular role incumbent of the position of VP at that time, using his powerful position, began to “accentuate” (Archer 1995:239) the QA ideas in the Institution by introducing a particular version of the QA discourse into the Institutional CS. The following extract from an interview with the then-VP shows that he understood that it would be in the broader interests of the University to accept the QA ideas into its CS. His use of the quality discourse is predominantly about the University needing to respond strategically to the national context (to avoid sanctions), but there are also times when he uses the discourse in relation to improving teaching and learning:
Quality assessment may be bad news but it is one of the things pushing the academics from up there [from national level] to have awareness of teaching and learning issues are the quality assessments. Although the government has disclaimed this several times, it is the same government that is paying the bills. Although [the Executive Director of the HEQC of the CHE] assures us that funding is not directly linked to the HEQC, they’ve actually put in print that a bad report will lead to discussions about how to correct things and if those things are not corrected we can’t expect continued funding. At the end of the day/ …The stick behind QA is funding…one of the sticks behind teaching and learning policy is QA (Interview ex-VP 6.03.02 paras 83-85). The QA discourse began to penetrate the CS at the Institutional level gradually resulting in structural changes (5.4.1). The ideas encapsulated in the QA as accountability discourse were for many academics (particularly the more senior, established academics) inconsistent with their understanding of the purpose of the university/higher education and notions of
169 autonomy and academic freedom. The following incident reported by the then-VP, illustrates the clash of values experienced by some academics:
You’ve got to be aware that that [QA] is one of the very real pressures, which are pushing some people. Some people like [name of a senior academic in the Humanities Faculty]/ I identify quite a lot with his mindset but I just don’t like the way that he expresses himself. Recently he wrote a vitriolic thing to [the Director of AP & QA] about some of the work that QA did and she passed me a copy of this email and she was quite upset. I said, ‘Don’t let people like this get under your skin, and ignore the man because he’s the past’. I understand where he’s coming from because quite frankly I’m of the same vintage and I understand the values that he’s fighting for but it’s just that I know/ …There’s a difference between preservation and conservation. Preservation means to freeze things for all time and you can’t do that. … I believe that you can carry values forward but they need different things. … You can keep your set of values but they need different actions now as to forty years ago and unfortunately Cambridge man that he is/ he went there in 1950. If he went back there now for a year he would find Cambridge in the year 2000 very different. That’s the problem with these guys who have got these classical educations; they’re trying to make SSAU like Cambridge. If they made SSAU like Cambridge in 2002 that would be fantastic but not Cambridge 1960! ( ibid paras 87-93). Some academics appeared to feel that their autonomy and academic freedom were in jeopardy. One of the Deans expressed his irritation at what he perceived to be the bureaucratisation of HE in the following way:
I’ll be quite frank, my perception is that a lot of this QA stuff, and you know every acronym you can put together, is perceived by a lot of people as adding a lot of overhead and a big burden to what’s been going on. I always try to teach properly. Do I have to fill all these forms in? Do I have to write down all these SAQA points? Do I have to write down all the objectives? We all realise that introspection into what we’re doing is a useful thing, but I would hope that for natural teachers they would do it naturally anyway. … Ja, categorising it all the time doesn’t actually help, it’s just more for them to do and I don’t know if they want to, and I think there’s a perception that there’s a lot of that (Interview Dean 21.08.03 para 107-109). Of interest here is the way in which the QA discourse used by this Dean appears to reflect limited ways of conceptualizing what QA can be. Perhaps this quotation reflects an understanding of QA as consisting only of a range of bureaucratically imposed tasks rather than a process which could potentially lead to improved practices, contribute to the Institution achieving its own strategic goals or to the transformation of the HE system more broadly (see 6.3; 6.4). Also of interest is his construction of “natural teachers” which will be returned to in 5.3 below.
A senior lecturer, close to retirement expressed her
… profound unease about the state of universities both here and abroad. Fifty percent of the population in Britain is expected to go to university within the next ten years - it’s bad enough that we are now corporations - but becoming sausage machines is a betrayal of integrity on every level. You will be glad to know that I
170 am on my way out so you can happily ignore my irritation (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 562) 3. The Director of AP & QA expressed her understanding of some academics’ reactions to QA in the following way:
… part of the whole attraction of higher education has been that complete freedom to teach in a way that suits you best and not be questioned, and to be seen as the ‘superior being’ in many ways. I think by putting it all out there it takes away the mystery, and the, I suppose, the elite aspect of higher education. And I think that’s quite hard to give up… I see them as taking it to be an ‘add- on’, rather than something that should be an inherent part of the job (Interview 29.07.03 para 35). Evident in her construction here is the liberal discourse mentioned earlier (5.2.1.1), which academics have used to resist the call for transformation and change, and the role of the QA discourse in “demystifying” academia. Some academics use the discourse of academic freedom and autonomy to oppose the QA discourse (frequently understood only as a QA for accountability discourse), which they fear will result in unwanted changes to the way they function. Also evident is a discourse of “them” (academics) and “us” (senior administration of the University) which captures one of the reasons for the resentment among some academic staff to the QA/accountability discourse which many felt had been imposed on them, sometimes with little real understanding of their particular disciplinary and departmental contexts.
Partly as a consequence of the QA for strategic purposes model that was being encouraged by the University leadership at the time, QA was constructed (or perhaps caricatured) by those who were resistant to it, as a loss of autonomy and academic freedom for academics and/or the bureaucratisation of HE. It thus emerged as a competitive contradiction to the conventional beliefs held by many of how a university should operate. (These reactions to QA are well documented in the international literature . See for example Shore and Wright 1999; Harding and Taylor 2001 and McWilliam 2002). This resulted in greater conflict at the S-C level. As Archer maintains: “Those whose interests are served by the new item have to stand up and fight for it; those whose traditional sway is threatened by its actualisation have to weigh in and fight against it ” (1996:204). The following incident related by the then-VP in response to a request that departments write a self evaluation report illustrates the effects on the S-C of the new cultural item. It shows too how the situational logic created was one which forced people to make choices in relation to their reactions to the new discourse in the CS:
3 The questionnaire eliciting lecturers’ perceptions of staff development was sent out in May 2003. Responses continued to trickle in until November of that year so all data from the questionnaires will be referenced “Lecturer questionnaire data 2003”. For purposes of analysis all the data from the questionnaires was imported into one document in NVivo©. “Para” refers to the paragraph number of the quoted section from that document.
171 One of the things that SSAU has never done by way of its culture is to force people to do things, a classic example is the first time that we did formal academic planning and we said to academic departments, ‘We want you to do self-evaluation along these lines and we want it in six weeks’. The first time that I detailed this with all the heads, eight departments said, ‘we’re not going to be part of it and we think that its rubbish’. I discussed it with various colleagues and we said, ‘Okay we can fight them, we can instruct them and we can ignore’ and we chose to take the SSAU route and just ignored them. One or two very senior professors said very defiantly, ‘We are not going to do this, it’s an intrusion on our departmental autonomy and it shows that you don’t trust us’. We didn’t fight it and instead worked hard with the departments who saw it as an opportunity to actually sell their wares to the management and in that way argue for more resources. … We said to them, ‘Have you got something to be ashamed of?’ and they told us that they didn’t so we encouraged them to show us and tell us what they were doing. The first week that we had departments here I had one or two reports coming from departments who said that they weren’t going to be part of it. The one professor who is very senior and held out to the end (no names) came into my office right at the very end and said that he had given it further consideration and had decided to put in a minimal report and so we had one hundred percent of the reports. … Now that’s how change occurs in a very conservative place like SSAU but it’s more effective than just instructing people and setting up wars (Interview ex-VP 6.03.02 para 18 -22). Despite the fact that there were people who would have liked to eliminate the practices associated with this “new” discourse, considerable pressure (in the form of structures) was brought to bear on people in the S-C level. However, this does not mean that the more traditional discourses about how universities should operate disappeared; there have been “sufficient Socio-Cultural reasons for some people to want to keep the faith or maintain the theory” (Archer 1996:253). Although the situational logic created by competing discourses does not usually induce people at the S-C level to seek syncretism, it seems that the way in which senior management and particularly the way the VP approached QA in those earlier years shows that there was an attempt to find ways to repair the inconsistencies between the discourses underpinning QA and those underpinning lecturers’ beliefs in academic freedom and autonomy. Thus the approach to QA in the Institution represented a middle way. Archer contends:
Since these ‘middle ways’ are usually forged from elements the premises of which are mutually contradictory, they are better seen as Socio-Cultural devices enabling people to live with contradictions rather than as resolutions to them (1996:255). These “middle ways” can be seen as ways of limiting change as much as possible by maintaining high integration (agreement amongst actors) at the socio-cultural level. In this instance the University administration attempted to find ways of satisfying the growing national requirements for institutional QA systems without causing too much disruption at the socio-cultural level. For example, one of the ways in which senior management attempted to find a syncretic formula to enable academic staff to cope with the contradictions and to make
172 the QA ideas more palatable was by encouraging an “ethos of individual pride and responsibility … responsibility for defining the quality of teaching and courses rests with individual lecturers” (SSAU 2005:19-20). On the AP & QA webpage QA is described as being a shared responsibility:
All members of the SSAU community are expected to strive for high quality in their activities. The University has avoided establishing a separate unit to which QA would be relegated, encouraging instead a shared commitment to and responsibility for QA. An example of this is seen in SSAU’s’ stance on self-evaluation where responsibility for evaluation is placed with individuals (rather than with a QA unit which could conduct evaluations on behalf of the university). The Educational Development Unit, which functions as an academic staff development unit, then provides support to academics in the evaluation process (SSAU 2006b). In a response to this analysis, the Director of the EDU commented: “I think this [these ideas] came from us in the EDU in relation to our work on the Evaluation Policy” (Pers com 1 July 2006). This appears to be an indication (referred to in 5.2.1) of the background role being played by the ED in finding ways (socio-cultural devices) of helping academic staff to live with some of the contradictions at the ideational and structural levels. This was confirmed by the Director of AP & QA in response to a question about whether academics felt that they were being “policed”:
I think when it’s [QA] seen as a kind of bureaucratic and externally imposed approach [it is perceived as policing], but we’ve been trying very hard, and I think to some extent have succeeded, in saying to people, ‘Look, you’re the ones who are deciding what it is you’re being evaluated against; you’re the ones who are being asked to look at yourself critically. It’s not some outside body coming in with standards and ideas that they’ve already formulated, and then saying whether or not you measure up’ (Interview Director of AP & QA 29.07.03 para 36). The view of QA being expressed here appears to be one of QA as encouraging individual accountability rather than QA as a means of meeting institutional goals or of QA as contributing towards transformation of higher education (see 6.3; 6.4).
The following extracts from the Report on the Review of Administrative Divisions in 2002 indicate that despite the use of these socio cultural devices, there were people who experienced these discourses in the CS as contradictory:
Some contributors felt there was an increasingly ‘managerial’ approach to higher education, resulting in an ‘us vs them’ perception between academics and administrators (SSAU 2002:5). The Committee found that increased external reporting requirements were largely responsible for the perception of a ‘managerialism’ ethos but also found ample evidence of the collegialism which has been always been one of the cornerstones of higher education ( ibid :25). The way in which the discourses around QA were handled “muted” rather than “transmuted” (Archer 1996:256) the contradictions. To date I do not think a genuine or workable syncretism has been found to unite the contradictions, but perhaps the quality development/enhancement model suggested by D’Andrea and Gosling 2001 and 2005)
173 might in the future enable a genuine syncretism between QA and other discourses about the university (see 6.3, 6.4).
However there were then and still are people at the S-C level who managed to stay out of the fray by remaining aloof of anything which seemed to involve the EDU. Some lecturers perhaps felt that they had more imperative things (usually disciplinary research) to deal with or who were concerned, in order to protect their vested interests, to maintain the status quo. For example, using the liberal discourse referred to earlier, a young lecturer in response to a question regarding the necessity for academics to engage in staff development initiatives responded: “… leave us in peace to teach and research our chosen topics …” (Lecturer interview data para 510).
The SSAU Audit Portfolio sums up some of the attitudes to QA and teaching and learning which were prevalent in the late 1990s (and are still present now), that show that many academics constructed teaching as “common sense ”4 (see 5.2.2.1):
… such discourses tend to be particularly resilient and attempts to assure the quality of teaching and assessment can range from incredulity that anyone would want or need to enquire into classroom practices, to anger at the intrusion to academic life … Equally concerning are ‘conservation strategies’ which result in overt compliance with policy but which minimize actual change and describe quality management as bureaucracy (SSAU 2005:64). However, it was only when the QA discourses began to affect the structural level of both the University (5.4.1) and the EDU (5.4.3) that changes began to take place.
In this section I briefly explored two discourses from the macro CS level, that is discourses around transformation and quality assurance. I would argue that in response to changes in the HE context, SSAU never really took up the call for transformation in higher education and on the whole, has only paid lip service to it. Similarly, in relation to the “new” quality assurance discourse, SSAU has tried to maintain the status quo at the CS level. It could be argued that SSAU used QA to oppose transformation by using the excellence discourse in, for example, the Audit Portfolio (SSAU 2005).
In the following two sections I examine two other CS discourses of direct relevance to this research: firstly, discourses about teaching and learning broadly and secondly, more specifically about academic staff development. What will be seen later however is that there is an important link between QA, teaching and learning and staff development which impacts on the work of the EDU in the Institution. As the former VP put it:
4 This tendency was observed in the earlier quotation (5.2.1.2) by the lecturer who spoke of “natural” teachers who would “naturally” engage in certain activities. See also 5.3 for discourses around lecturers being “born” teachers and having “natural” abilities.
174 QA, which is a different game to what you’re in, is actually converging with what you’re doing. QA is putting a lot of emphasis on teaching and learning and not just here, the whole of Western Europe is focusing its QA on the teaching and learning interface (Interview ex-VP 6.03.02 para 81).
5.2.2 Teaching and learning
My experience as an ED practitioner at SSAU and evidence from my research suggest that there was (and still are) a range of discourses which indicate an overall culture of valuing “good” teaching and learning in the Institution. For example, in 1974 a group of young lecturers established what was called the “Teaching methods committee”. Later it became an official Senate Committee. This Committee ran Saturday morning workshops on teaching methods and facilitated a programme for new lecturers at the start of the academic year (email correspondence with professors in English and Economics at SSAU 31.10.06). In archived documents I found letters and attendance lists for meetings and workshops which show that considerable interest in teaching was generated by this committee. The documentation I was able to find indicates that the Senate Teaching Methods Committee functioned from 1974 to 1979 and thereafter from 1980 to1985, and from 1990 to1992 there existed a Senate Teaching/Learning Support Committee. From the documents that I examined it is clear that since the 1970s there has been a discourse of concern for quality in issues related to curriculum and teaching in the Institution. The Institutional portfolio compiled in preparation for the institutional audit by the HEQC in 2005 is entitled SSAU Audit Portfolio: Enhancing the student experience . Throughout this document it is patently clear that at SSAU students’ learning and, by implication, teaching was (and still is) valued. For example, in the foreword to the portfolio the then-VC said:
…they [the academics] were committed to providing a high quality education to its students. This commitment to education is also demonstrated in the high level of interest in teaching on campus. As this portfolio will show, SSAU academics have been prepared to engage constructively with initiatives intended to develop teaching and to share the expertise they have developed in this area with their colleagues (SSAU 2005:i). I would however argue that this interest in teaching and learning for some people in the Institution entailed a generic, common sense understanding of teaching and learning. In some cases this was directed only at strategic goals. “Common sense” here is used in the Gramscian sense to mean “the uncritical and largely unconscious way of perceiving and understanding the world that has become ‘common’ in any given epoch” (Gramsci 1971:322). However, for others, there was a genuine interest in developing an understanding of what constitutes “good” teaching in their specific contexts. At the CS level there existed a set of contingent complementarities (2.5.1.4) around teaching and learning which for some academics (often dependant on departmental culture and structures) created
175 a situational logic of opportunity, enabling conditions to develop their role and identity as teachers in higher education. I identified in the data a set of discourses around teaching being integral to the identi ty of some academics 5. Many lecturers at SSAU took their role (however they understood that role) as teachers and their students’ learning very seriously. For example, one of the Deans, in an interview said:
I don’t think one could survive an academic career if one didn’t take one’s teaching seriously because it’s simply integral to what one is doing… .. if I want my discipline to survive, if I want others to be inspired or to follow an academic career then it is my duty to pass on that enthusiasm, that knowledge to succeeding generations (Interview Dean 21.08.03 para 11 and 13). In expressing his concern about the survival of his discipline this Dean seems to be investing in his own identity. This is consistent with research findings (for example Henkel 2000, 2002; Becher 1981; Becher and Trowler 2001) which indicate that many academics draw their primary identity from their disciplines.
Some academics, particularly in the context of their educational responsibilities, explicitly saw sustaining the discipline as an end in itself. They wanted to ensure that the understanding it affords and the qualities that it represents, intellectual and sometimes social and moral, were passed on. Many academic values were embedded in concepts of the discipline and often expressed in a language shared by members of the discipline (Henkel 2002:142) 6. These discourses around valuing of teaching (and by implication, of specific disciplines) in the CS of the Institution were to a certain extent an enabling factor for the work of the EDU and for the introduction of the PGDHE in 2000. At SSAU (unlike some other HEIs in South Africa particularly) there are many lecturers who value their teaching despite the fact that historically research has been rewarded more than teaching and there has been more kudos for research than there has been for innovative teaching, curriculum design, assessment and so on (see research is what counts discourse in 5.3.1).
It seems that there was sufficient integration for this item to be a contributory enabling factor for the work of the EDU and for the introduction of the PGDHE. However, this does not mean that everyone in the S-C valued the teaching aspect of their jobs equally. For example, one of the Deans remarked: “We need to take the teaching aspect of our lives a lot more seriously” (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 54). A younger lecturer commented: “there is considerable variation in the ability, preparedness and level of commitment to teaching among academic staff” (Lecturer questionnaire data para 213).
5 See Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) on the dialectical relationship between discourse and identity. From a realist perspective, discourse understood as a CEP can have a conditioning effect on actors and equally actors can bring about changes in the cultural system, including the discourses. 6 See 5.3.1 for further discussion on lecturers’ identities.
176 That some lecturers did not value teaching equally was evident in a discourse in which they shifted all the blame to the students by positioning them as being deficient in some way or another (see student deficit discourse in 5.3.2). For example, one young lecturer said:
The students are a bunch of lazy things who do not even know why they are here in the first place, don’t know why they are studying a particular subject as part of their degree and are just here to get pissed as much as they can, and get their degree with the minimum amount of work. Finally Daddy/Mummy will buy them a car when they graduate!! (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 126). For some academics their identity is tied up more with their research than with their teaching (see discussion on disciplinary discourses in 5.3.1 below). For example, an HoD ventured the following opinion:
I certainly still see myself as a lecturer and not a teacher. Academics may have chosen this career for a research focus and not teaching - had teaching been the calling they would have entered into the ‘teaching profession’ directly (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 115). Although there appeared to be a range of discourses around the teaching aspect of their jobs, these jobs seem to have been valued sufficiently by enough academics at various levels in the Institution to have been an enabling factor for ED to move towards a concerted focus on staff development.
The contradictions in the CS at international and national levels described in chapter 4 were (and still are) all present in the CS at the Institutional level. In the years prior to the introduction of the PGDHE, there were individuals (and groups of individuals) who subscribed to contradictory discourses about, for example, the need for Institutional transformation, knowledge, truth and the purpose of the university, and the need to ensure the quality of Institutional teaching and learning. Agents at the S-C level reacted to these contradictory CS discourses in a range of ways. The lack of coherence among discourses at the CS level both nationally and institutionally (that is, low systems integration, see 4.2) potentially created a problem-ridden context (situational logic) for the people at the S-C level. However, even when there is low integration at the CS level, people at the S-C level act in ways which either protect or increase their vested interests (Archer 1995, 1996). Most of the contradictions inherited from the macro CS were competitive, which meant that they created a situational logic which forced people to make choices . The degree to which people felt forced to make choices depended on their level of discursive awareness of the contradictory discourses at the CS level. In other words, it depended on how much they were aware of the competing discourses. As will be seen in the following section, despite the existence of these contradictions at the CS level, there was little cultural change in the Institution.
Stability in the institution was maintained through the use of cultural power which concealed and contained the contradictions to a certain extent. This is evidenced, for example, through
177 the excellence discourse7, used in much of the official documentation put out by the University and in response to critiques of the University. For example, in the University’s vision and mission statement “excellence” is used to describe the University’s vision of itself as “an internationally respected academic institution, affirming its African identity, producing internationally recognised graduates and making a contribution to the advancement of international scholarship and regional development” (SSAU 2006c). The SSAU Audit Portfolio declares that “[t]o promote excellence and innovation in teaching and learning the University provides its staff with access to academic development opportunities” (2005:8). This discourse was used at senior management level to maintain the status quo (morphostasis) and to silence the debates that should have been taking place regarding the culture of the institution.
The late Dr Prem Naidoo (2005) of the HEQC suggested that HEIs are not engaging in ontological debates about the purpose of the university and the nature of best practice. This critique seems to have been taken up the SSAU imbizo 8 held in July 2006 where the notion of excellence and how it is used in HE and particularly at SSAU was critiqued by some of the participants. For example, a lecturer in the History Department in her analysis of the vision and mission of the University asks, “… what exactly is this ‘excellence’ we keep wanting to promote and strive for? Excellent by whose standards, and in reference to what specifically?” (History lecturer SSAU 2006:26). I would argue that the excellence discourse allowed people at the S-C level to some extent to ignore the contradictions in the CS level and to resist change. It discouraged people from serious critique of the University and did not create enabling conditions for large-scale transformation. The excellence discourse was used in an attempt to resist or eliminate the newer discourses (for example, those around transformation as well as those around production and accountability), which some people felt were a threat to their beliefs and values about how the University should function. The History lecturer mentioned earlier argues that SSAU academic staff and management need to engage in informed discussion and debate. She says:
Necessary conditions and strategies that will combat the shallow use of a vision and mission statement and allow us to regain some integrity will need a massive intellectual and practical exercise that calls on us, as individuals and as staff, to look anew at things we speak about glibly. It also means that we have to
7 See Readings (1996:21-43) for an extended discussion on the meaninglessness of the notion of excellence. He says: “Excellence is invoked … as always, to say precisely nothing at all: it deflects attention from the questions of what quality and pertinence might be, who actually are the judges of a relevant or a good University, and by what authority they become those judges” (32). Barnett (2004:64, citing Readings 1996) describes the idea of excellence as “standing for no purpose, no ideal and no concept in particular”. For further critiques of the excellence discourse see Harvey and Green (1993). 8 Imbizo is a Zulu word, meaning gathering or convocation, commonly used to describe a forum for enhancing dialogue and interaction between institutional leadership and the people.
178 recognise the worlds outside our own sense of safety and comfort and be prepared to confront them ( ibid :27). Similarly, in his inaugural speech the newly-appointed Vice Chancellor of SSAU spoke about a tendency at the university towards complacency, an “if it ain’t broken don’t fix it” attitude. This stance, he argued, prevents people from asking critical questions like “from whose perspective ain’t it broken?” (VC SSAU 2006a). He further argued that it is important for the Institution to develop shared understandings of what it means by “quality” and “excellence”.
Von Kotze (2006 citing Readings 1996) makes similar observations about the use of the excellence discourse at another historically white HEI in South Africa. She talks about needing to ask questions about what quality means, about who can judge what quality is, about the authority which allows those individuals to make such evaluative judgements, and about whose interests are served by those judgement. In that context too, the excellence discourse has worked against deep engagement with issues around institutional transformation. Von Kotze adds
A particular notion of excellence has been bestowed upon us, and every time we use it to describe or appraise we show that we have embraced it, often uncritically and unreflectively. The neo-liberal economic framework defines ‘excellence’ in terms of contributions towards mainstream knowledge systems that benefit primarily the elite (2006:12). At SSAU, despite attempts to suppress them, these ideational contradictions were not resolved and as pressure from both the ideational and structural contexts increased, people (either as departments or as individuals) had to find ways, or what Archer calls “socio- cultural devices” (1996:255) to live with the contradictions. In my analysis later in this chapter (5.2.1.2), I show that although not necessarily intentional, part of the role of the EDU at SSAU has been to help the Institution and particularly academics find ways of living with contradictions at both the ideational and structural levels. I argue later that the socio-cultural devices helped to contain some of the contradictory discourses in the CS but pressure from particularly the structural system eventually created conditions for morphogenesis in relation to ED in the Institution.
In the remainder of this section I briefly examine the Institutional responses to two sets of discourses from the macro CS level: transformation and quality assurance.
5.2.2.1 Changing higher education context
In the interview I conducted with the then-CEO of the CHE he referred to the “radically changed” student body and how this calls for “drastic changes” in approaches to teaching and learning in HE. My analysis of the discourses used by lecturers in the data reflected two broad positions taken by lecturers in relation to the call for transformation in South African
179 HE, and their approaches to teaching and learning in the Institution. Firstly, there was a cluster of discourses in which lecturers seemed to distance themselves from the “problems” created by the changing HE context such as increased student numbers and greater student diversity. They located “the problem” of students who were not succeeding in the system outside the university and themselves. These discourses I have named the student deficit discourse , the schools deficit discourse and the intellectual elitist discourse . Secondly, there was a cluster of discourses which I called the transformation and critical pedagogy discourses in which lecturers seem to locate the need for change within themselves, the Institution and the HE system more broadly.
The student deficit discourse and the schools deficit discourse are closely related (see also 5.3.2). Many lecturers lamented the deplorable state of some of the secondary schooling in the country which resulted in students being underprepared for study in higher education 9 (see for example interview Dean 21.08.03 para 17). As Geisler points out, “Much is made today of school reform but in most cases, academic practitioners make these calls for the reform of others and never of themselves” (1994a:51). Both these deficit discourses are also closely linked to an intellectual elitist discourse which argues strongly for maintaining the status quo. The following quotation from the lecturer questionnaire data illustrates this:
The real solution - and the only satisfactory long-term strategy - is to establish primary and secondary schooling in such a way that we no longer have guilt- ridden hangovers from the old days, which oblige us to operate tertiary systems in markedly non-ideal ways. If (and I say ‘if’ rather than ‘when’) the government and the citizenry of this country is able to put pre-tertiary education onto an acceptable footing of standards and procedures, then there will be no need for the universities to make these problematic and dangerous concessions to past socio-political dysfunction. If we ‘institutionalise’, across the board, processes for dealing with underprepared students we will, I believe, be taking another step towards mediocratising tertiary education in general (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 544). Using an intellectual elitist discourse some lecturers argued strongly against changing their approaches to teaching in HE from the traditional “sink or swim” methods, as they believed this might lead to a dropping of standards. For them it was important that the status quo at the University should be maintained and that “the problem” be addressed at the secondary school level. For example, a lecturer writing about his experiences of teaching at SSAU in the early 1990s said, “… lecturers have a responsibility to ensure that academic standards are not sacrificed to the altar of ‘affirmative action’” (Wakely 1993:12). Using this discourse,
9 Research (for example Scollon and Scollon 1981; Geisler 1994) has shown that the common sense assumption that schools should and do prepare students for university is not necessarily correct. More often than not it is the literacies acquired in middle-class homes that prepare students for higher education. This is evidenced by the poor performance of working class students in higher education worldwide.
180 some argued that “underprepared” students should not be allowed formal access to the University at all:
I really don’t think that under prepared kids belong at a university. They should be at a community college or some such thing. It wastes the time and effort of academics to be involved with them and it also wastes the time of the kids who could be excelling (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 129). This discourse seems to indicate, to borrow Singh’s phrase, “nostalgia for some romanticised past” (2001:18); an understanding of the purpose of education being to enhance the intellectual life of the elite few (such as that championed by von Humboldt or John Henry Newman in the 19 th century) rather than as having any responsibility towards contributing to the “public good” through access to higher education to those who were previously excluded (Singh 2001). For some of these lecturers it seems their liberal discourses were a defence against having to reconceptualize the purpose of higher education and to changing their practices 10 .
Others used these discourses to argue that if “underprepared” students were admitted to the University then it was not their “problem” to deal with them and the University/EDU should provide suitable support for struggling students. For example:
I believe the University should attempt to regard ‘underprepared’ students as a ‘necessary evil’ (and I don’t mean that unkindly or unsympathetically) in the system, rather than as some sort of impending norm or majority. If there is a genuine intention on behalf of the University to protect and maintain standards in an international context, it should be insisted that ‘underprepared’ students be brought up to speed within the first part of their university career, rather than being ‘carried’, by ‘suitably trained and supportive staff’, through their full university years and released as ‘underprepared’ graduates (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 543). The following comment made by a lecturer who conducted research on teaching in a Humanities department at the University illustrates some lecturers’ resistance to responding to the changing HE context:
Lecturers are developing courses that reflect their own frames, rather than the students’. They make unrealistic assumptions about the kinds of prior knowledge that their students are bringing with them into the University. They all
10 As pointed out by one of the external examiners of the thesis, the analysis provided here could be seen as constructing a homogenized account of traditional positions that stand in critique of ED discourses. The danger of this, I concede, is a tendency to pathologize these positions. The external examiner makes an important point when he says that, for example a recognition should be made of the essentially elite character of higher education generally (only a proportion of the school-leaving population is likely to participate, even in the most affluent societies ) …This sociological descriptive notion of ‘elite’ differs from a pejorative notion of ‘elitist’ used to refer to apartheid racial exclusions … I think it is important to understand that a traditionalist position is strongly evident worldwide, and that it is important for ED professionals to understand the constitution (even the necessity!) of this position, and how it arises from deep socialization into highly-focused intellectual endeavour and a commitment to research (External Examiner’s Report 2007:6).
181 need a touch of Vygotsky and ‘the zone of proximal development’! They are angry about underprepared students but don’t see the problem in their own expectations. They have to design courses that make tough but realistic demands on students (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 322). In opposition to the deficit and intellectual elite discourses described above there was another set of discourses (transformation and critical pedagogy discourses) used by lecturers which seemed to indicate an openness to reconceptualising higher education in terms of providing formal and epistemological access for not just the elite but also for students who had previously been denied access to higher education (Morrow 1994; 4.5.1). For these lecturers an appropriate response to the changing HE context was for them to change their teaching methods, curricula and assessment methods to enable all students to gain epistemological access. For example:
… it is unlikely that the secondary education ‘playing field’ will be level for many years (generations...) to come. In this scenario, all educators need to be prepared to teach effectively: not merely to provide information/skills so that students ‘sink or swim’ (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 430). Yes, particularly in a time of transition with diverse student groups and backgrounds. It [staff development] should not only deal with the traditional stuff on improved pedagogy and lecturing techniques, but also on how to recognise and build on strengths that disadvantaged students bring, and how to deal with the supposedly advantaged students who are so ignorant about life - and their disadvantaged colleagues (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 134). My analysis of the data, illustrated by the two extracts above, suggested that among some (a minority) of the lecturers at SSAU there was an understanding similar to the “critical pedagogy” espoused by people like Paulo Freire (1972) and Henry Giroux (1994), that is, an understanding that education systems are inherently unfair to some while privileging others and it is the responsibility of educators to offer education that is fair to all students. For this minority, the primary concern of critical education is with social injustice and how to transform inequitable, undemocratic, or oppressive institutions and social relations (Burbules and Berk 1997).
For some lecturers the transformation discourse was related to their experiences of teaching increasingly diverse groups of students. Some began to realise that teaching uncritically, using “common sense” notions (Gramsci 1971; 5.2.2) about what constituted “good” teaching, which previously seemed adequate, were now proving to be inadequate 11 . For example:
11 According to Gramsci (1971) “common sense” can entail contradictions between theories implicit in practical activity and theories uncritically inherited from the past. Gramsci conceived of “common sense” as made up of beliefs inherited from the past (often explicitly stated in discourse) and beliefs implicit in practical activity (which may or may not be explicitly stated in discourse, but which can be detected and analysed by researchers in a particular field).
182 .. the type of learner has changed and will continue to change rapidly. Increased diversity of language, skills, cultural differences, perceptions of the value of learning and the responsibilities for learning, economic factors etc. – these are all issues that the ‘ old way of doing things ’ did not have to contend with … (Lecturer questionnaire data para 249. Emphasis added). And
… because the class composition is linguistically and culturally complex, and likely to become more so given the current transformation process taking place, teaching has become more demanding and challenging than previously . We cannot make assumptions about the learners’ prior knowledge (Lecturer questionnaire data para 230. Emphasis added). In each of the quotations above I have emphasized phrases to indicate awareness among these lecturers not just of the changing HE context but of their need to change their practices in order to respond to the changing context. A similar awareness is expressed by the following respondent:
… in the past the student audience was homogeneous and a new lecturer could get by with the attitudes and techniques picked up when she was part of that student body. A new lecturer now faces diversity and a mixed audience, many of whom have a very different view of things and another set of expectations (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 182). However it must be noted that the sub-discourses (as part of the transformation discourse) around diversity and difference which I identified do not necessarily provide evidence of deep critical engagement with the issues but were possibly a result of superficial recognition on the part of some lecturers that the student body had changed. For example, the following extract seems to indicate only superficial concern with issues related to increased student numbers:
We are not used to dealing with large numbers - our experience is usually limited to small tut [tutorial] groups. Also, the classes are made up of people from such diverse backgrounds that it is sometimes difficult to ‘pitch’ lectures (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 325).
5.2.2.2 Teaching and research
The second area in which there were contradictory responses among people at the S-C level, was in relation to discourses around teaching and research. For most of the respondents, “research” was used to refer to disciplinary research, or what Boyer (1990) calls the scholarship of research as opposed to research on teaching their disciplines, which Boyer calls the scholarship of teaching. Out of a decade of discussion and debate around the scholarship of teaching, the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) has emerged as a scholarship in its own right (see for example, D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:146-169 for a discussion of some of the current debates around SoTL).
183 As discussed earlier (5.2.2), some lecturers used a discourse which indicated that teaching is integral to their identities as lecturers. Closely linked to this was a discourse about teaching being integral to lecturers’ disciplines . For some of those lecturers there appeared to be clear links between their disciplinary research and their teaching, with the former having a positive effect on the latter. For example:
The best teachers at this level are those who put time into working in their field. They know it well, they have strong views, and they are enthusiastic about their field. They can challenge their students, and teach them most about the state of the field. In order to make lecturers better teachers we must continue to encourage, urge, and reward their research (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 15).
In my experience, here and abroad, the best teachers are those who are active in research as well as being good teachers. Someone who is just an informed knowledge-mediator is not good enough for undergraduate education because you don’t get the breakthrough or the excitement of fresh discovery from such teachers (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 297). These lecturers seem to be expressing similar ideas to those argued by some scholars in the literature. For example, Clark 1997, Colbeck 1998 and Rowland 1996 (in Kreber 2000) argue that it is possible for a natural synthesis or integration of teaching and disciplinary research to take place when university teaching follows an inquiry or discovery approach. For the lecturers quoted above there is clearly a relationship between learning about the discipline and learning about teaching the discipline. Rowland et al argue strongly for lecturers needing to understand their disciplines:
… its underlying methods, its philosophy, its assumptions, its deep structures, its relationships to a wider world beyond itself … academics should not see themselves as setting aside their enquiry into their field, but rather as broadening it, deepening it, or transforming it, so that it can engage the interests of students (1998:135). Rowland (1996) cites research at British universities in which heads of departments expressed the view that active involvement in the research of their disciplines improved the quality of their teaching. However, he emphasizes that whether lecturers perceive there to be a link between their teaching and their research depends on the discipline and on how knowledge is conceived:
Where knowledge is seen as absolute, specialised and unrelated to wider perspectives of experiences of life, then working with less knowledgeable students is unlikely to stimulate research. However, where the knowledge which research produces is seen (and is offered to students) as being tentative, open to reinterpretation or containing insights which can be applied more widely, the ways the students relate to this knowledge is potentially significant to the lecturer’s own research (Rowland 1996:15). It would seem that these different conceptions of knowledge account for the fact that some lecturers did not see any relationship between their disciplinary research and their teaching.
184 This could explain some of the negative attitudes to staff development evident in the data (see section on disciplinary discourses in 5.3.1 below).
Some lecturers expressed an interest in conducting research on their teaching (similar to Boyer’s notion of the scholarship of teaching). For example, one lecturer said:
I think academics would also benefit a lot if they did research on their own teaching … so we should ask of academics that rather than endless course evaluations, they do research to see what people are learning, what strategies they are using to come to grips within a course … and in this way try to get people to, at the very least, be informed about what exactly is going on in their classroom rather than labouring under the illusion that learning is taking place when it is not or at least not in the way that people seem to assume it is (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 143). A number of lecturers experienced tensions in relation to the multiple roles they had to fill and particularly, in struggling to find a balance between teaching and disciplinary research. One of the Deans said, “It’s kind of embarrassing that I don’t have a great research record, but you can’t do everything … I like to feel that I’m a fairly good teacher and it has been important” (Interview 21.08.03 para 73).
There is a plethora of evidence in the literature on higher education, of academics experiencing a tension between priorities for research and teaching (see for example Nightingale and O’Neil 1994; Kreber 2000; Gosling 2001; Trowler 2004; D’Andrea and Gosling 2005; Van Kotze 2006.). As was noted previously, the research is what counts discourse where disciplinary research is believed to be privileged over teaching in terms of rewards and status is prevalent at SSAU (see for example SSAU 2005:63).
In the sciences I think a lot of people have become scientists because they want to do research, not because they want to teach. But especially in this department for example, we’ve got six professors out of a staff of eight and we publish more than most departments in the university … teaching really isn’t our primary interest (Interview PGDHE participant 01.10.02). For some lecturers (as seen in the quotation above) it seems the emphasis on research was appropriate and they appeared to feel that their professional and disciplinary identities (see 4.6.1 above and 5.3.1) were threatened by the suggestion that they should consider themselves as “teachers”:
… academics are not just teachers! Rather, they should first-and-foremost be researchers aiming to develop the profession and advance knowledge. To be considered as primarily ‘teachers’ is to relegate universities in South Africa to being little more than finishing schools for the elite rather than being institutions where serious professional and discipline-specific endeavours are undertaken (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 243). This lecturer’s opinion that the role of the academic is to conduct research in order to “develop the profession and advance knowledge” is linked to the earlier point made by
185 Rowland (1996) which is that how lecturers view research vis-à-vis teaching is related to their conceptions of knowledge, that is, whether knowledge is regarded as absolute or whether it is tentative and open to interpretation.
For other lecturers it was more a case of recognising, whether they approved of it or not, that research is valued more than teaching and therefore needing, for strategic and career advancement purposes (see discussion on performative discourses in 5.3.4 below), to prioritise their disciplinary research:
In science faculties these days, research takes priority over teaching ability when it comes to appointments, promotion, funding, etc (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 104).
Excellence in teaching goes essentially ignored by those parts of the University that deal with promotions. So why should we waste our time on things we don’t need in order to prove something that doesn’t need proving? (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 109). Some lecturers found the emphasis on research constraining and problematic:
There is too much emphasis on academic and research ability, and not nearly enough emphasis on teaching ability, methodology and the like (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 96). It would seem that the discourse of research being more valued than teaching acted as a disincentive for some people to spend their time and energy on developing their teaching. Mbali, writing about the South African context specifically, argues:
If we are serious about trying to improve the quality of teaching (especially in order to respond to all the imperatives of Government policy to open up higher education to a greater percentage of the population and hitherto disadvantaged, and to grow the economy) then incentives for staff to do this must be carefully planned and resourced (2003:98). The constraining contradiction between the different conceptions of what counts as research and the perception that in the Institution disciplinary research is valued over and above teaching and learning, created low integration at the S-C level. Individuals, often influenced by departmental cultures, had to find their own ways of coping with the resultant strained situational logic. All three types of syncretism described earlier (2.5.1.1) 12 were employed by various groups and individuals in an attempt to repair the contradiction: Some continued to foreground their disciplinary research and paid minimal attention to their teaching. As will be seen later (5.3), these were the lecturers who generally had a negative view of staff development activities. Some lecturers foregrounded their teaching at the expense of
12 Correction of the inconsistency generally results in ideational syncretism. Logically correction can occur in three different ways: A ← B, i.e. correcting B so it becomes consistent with A. A ↔ B, i.e. correcting both A and B so they become mutually consistent. A → B, i.e. correcting A so it becomes consistent with B. (Archer 1995:233 and1996:159).
186 pursuing further disciplinary research. Finally, a third group of lecturers managed to find a balance between the two: at different times in their careers they foregrounded their disciplinary research and at others times their teaching. Archer (1996) contends that this syncretic path does not represent a compromise which merely functions to maintain the status quo, but rather that it creates conditions for morphogenesis, as it contributes towards shifts at the ideational level. In this case cultural genesis would be represented by a shift in which, in the CS of the Institution, both teaching and research are equally valued. Which syncretic path was pursued by individuals was influenced by a range of factors – some to do with Institutional structures and some do with agency. It is beyond the scope of this work to explore these further.
In the following section I present my analysis of the discourses used by academics at SSAU in relation to staff development. These discourses were, I believe, influenced by the overall ethos of the Institution and the discourses related to QA and to teaching and learning discussed earlier in this chapter.
5.3 Discourses related to staff development 13
The ex-Vice Principal of SSAU described the situation at SSAU prior to the 1980s in the following way:
.. the traditional student came from a pretty good home background in educational and experiential terms … they were what we called the ‘advantaged’ in educational terms and that was the norm in the University. Furthermore the proportion of the population going into universities, even amongst the whites, was less then than it is now. You had the cream coming in and lecturers could do what they had done for hundreds of years – cast pearls before the swine. If the swine didn’t like it, it didn’t matter. Your promotion depended on your qualifications and your publications or research. Good or bad teaching was something that the students put up with and if they ever complained, (which was rare), they seldom got much response. The South African universities teaching traditions came out of those essentially European and British traditions. Lecturers were saying, ‘I didn’t get a PhD to help some moron learn first year chemistry’….
Of course it took a long while to come to the obvious conclusion that the mainstream academic has actually got to bite the bullet and has actually got to be concerned with teaching as well as research … slowly the realities changed and the politics of the country changed, the pressures all round on staff changed (Interview ex-VP 6.03.02 para 8 and 14). It is against this history that staff development activities were initiated at SSAU in the 1990s, leading to the formal qualification which has been on offer since 2000. In this section I
13 Some of the discussion and data in this section was used to compile a report for the ETDP SETA, “An evaluation of the formal qualification then called the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education and Training (PGCHET)” (Quinn 2003).
187 examine discourses related to staff development before the formal qualification became an established feature of the Institutional landscape (the first course participants graduated in April 2004) (see Appendix 1, Table 1). Although the data used for this section was collected in 2003 I believe that from it I could gain insights into the dominant and oppositional discourses that were prevalent around the “idea” of staff development broadly, rather than to the formal qualification as it was then. Using the data, I was able to gain insights into the elements of the CS related to professionalization of academic staff and the S-C responses to those elements.
In this section I begin by providing an overview of the data and then discuss my analysis of the data in terms of four main orders of discourse: disciplinary discourse, student (and schools) deficit discourse, skills discourse and discourse of performativity (see Figure 8 below). Within each order of discourse there are a range of sub-discourses as well as oppositional discourses. As previously mentioned (3.5.2.1), although discourses remain relatively stable for periods of time, they are at the same time fluid and changeable. The boundaries between discourses are not fixed; discourses slip and slide into and out of one another. In addition, the naming and identifying of these discourses would be different if undertaken by a different researcher, but during the analysis I used my knowledge of the context and the relevant theory to help me in identifying the discourses. In addition, as described in 3.6.1, I used a number of methods such as triangulation and member checking to increase the validity of my analyses.
As noted earlier (3.4.5), during 2003 an email questionnaire (see Appendix 2) was sent to all heads of departments (HoDs) with the request that they forward it to the academic staff in their departments. 101 responses were received out of a total of approximately 240 lecturers at SSAU at that time. Of those 101, 23 responses were from HoDs. The rest were from the whole spectrum of staff from junior lecturers through to full professors. Data was also derived from semi-structured interviews with a range of senior and middle management staff at the University (3.4.2).
The majority of staff who responded to the questionnaire claimed, in theory, to be in favour of some kind of staff development: 68 out of 101 people responded “yes”; 17 “no” and 16 gave ambivalent “yes and no” type of answers to the question asking whether they felt some form of staff development is necessary for lecturers in HE. Among the 68 positive responses, I identified three main discourses used to describe the types of structures which should/could be put in place for staff development in the Institution. Firstly, there were those who understood staff development as a set of skills that should be directly relevant to the needs, practices and contexts of the individuals involved (see 5.3.3 below). They suggested the following as examples of appropriate structures for staff development: a one day
188 orientation workshop for new staff, informal discussion groups among staff, reading groups and a series of workshops on relevant topics. Secondly, there were some who understood staff development as a disciplinary endeavour and thus suggested that all staff development should take place within academic departments (or faculties) (see 5.3.1 below). Such staff development initiatives could include workshops tailored for specific disciplines and departmental systems of peer review and/or mentoring. Finally there were those who understood staff development as critical engagement with the theory and practice of higher education and thus suggested that staff development should take the form of a formal academic qualification (see 5.3.3 below). Various combinations of these were also suggested by some respondents.
I identified a degree of slippage between the discourses, evidenced by respondents expressing varying opinions as to how much educational theory was necessary for staff development purposes. Some felt that in-depth engagement with the literature and research on higher education (staff development as critical engagement discourse) was crucial but most agreed that some form of practical assistance, especially for new lecturers, was vital. Presentation and public speaking skills, use of equipment in lecture venues, use of PowerPoint, managing large groups of students were some of the practical aspects that lecturers felt needed to be addressed (staff development as a set of skills discourse). Others commented on the fact that the changing context of higher education was creating new demands which lecturers needed help in coping with (see transformation discourse discussed in 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.2.1 above).
An interesting discourse (and its corresponding oppositional discourse) which emerged from the data (linked to the discourses about teaching and learning identified earlier in 5.2.2) was what I call the born teacher discourse . This discourse constructed staff development as a waste of time as the ability to teach was innate (Light and Cox’s 2001; 4.4.2 above). For example: “It is my experience that the vast majority of lecturers have a natural ability to communicate with students” (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 49) 14 and “… it has been clear that some people are just born teachers” (para 562). Some felt that there was in fact a danger that such staff development activities might “interfere with the really good ‘born’ lecturer who often breaks all the ‘rules’ and norms” (para 436) . This kind of discourse that argues that “good” teachers are born not made seems to be a “common sense” belief which has not necessarily been questioned. Carr, drawing on Gramsci (1971) points out:
14 Unless otherwise stated, the quotations from data in this section all come from the lecturer questionnaire administered in 2003. Quotations from this data will be referenced using only paragraph (para) numbers from the document created in NVivo® (3.4.5).
189 … the distinctive feature of common sense is not that its beliefs and assumptions are true but that it is a style of thinking in which the truth of these beliefs and assumptions is regarded as self-evident and taken for granted. What is commonsensical is ipso facto unquestionable and does not need to be justified (1995: 53 – 54). Gramsci’s (1971) formulation of the concept of hegemony can be used to explain how such common sense notions can have a powerful effect on related discourses and practices. Discourses such as the born teacher discourse are underpinned by “common sense” notions which are used to resist “new” discourses such as those around staff development as critical engagement with the theory and practice of higher education.
I however also identified discourses which resisted this common sense notion and argued instead that few people are born with such innate abilities and that most people, especially early on in their careers, could benefit from some form of training or development. One professor reflecting on his career said:
Some [lecturers] got away with being ‘naturals’, but the non-naturals simply sank deeper into bad didactic habits as their careers went on. These especially would have benefited from especially the more reflexive kinds of training (para 237). Linked to the issue of innate teaching abilities was a discourse, especially among some of the older more established lecturers and Deans, showing a belief that they had learned through experience and trial and error and that learning “on the job” was sufficient. As one Dean put it, “I think I learnt by osmosis” (Interview Dean 2.09.03 para 91). Some had the attitude that they were “thrown in the deep-end” and that they survived and became “good” teachers. Another Dean said “… that might explain my approach towards the more formal approach … because I did cope somehow and things have gone well since then … So, if I can do it, I think the vast majority of people should be able to” (Interview 2.09.03 para 93).
There was some acknowledgement that this method hadn’t worked equally well for everyone, particularly for those who were not “natural” or “born” teachers. There was some discussion on the value of good role models and/or mentors in their early years of teaching. Some of the more mature respondents (grudgingly), using the transformation discourse (5.2.1.1), acknowledged that as the world and HE has changed since they started teaching it is possible that younger staff coming into the University might need more support - opinions varied as to what kind of support should be offered. As one HoD put it:
The modern university is, however, a very different environment with very different requirements: teaching portfolios, OBE, assessment, alignment of assessment, etc. Increased student rights to good lectures, good supervision, etc. will place increased onus on lecturers to ‘get it right’. And very little, if any, of this is included in a discipline-specific degree (para 277). However, for many this did not seem to be part of a staff development as critical engagement discourse but rather part of a pragmatic discourse ; of acknowledgement that
190 the context had changed and that certain adjustments had to be made to lecturers’ practice to accommodate this change.
Nonetheless, many established academics expressed outrage at the suggestion that they might be required to undergo any form of professionalization 15 as evidenced by the comments below:
…I think it would be invidious to attempt to teach old dogs new tricks – beginning lecturers only! (para 319)
… to require all experienced lecturers to undergo training and demand that they qualify in some course may well be both unnecessary and offensive. Personally I do not want to be forced to take some kind of teaching course – because catch- all courses are just plain irritating (para 473). It seemed from some discourses used in the lecturer questionnaire data as well as some in the interview data with senior management that in many cases it was the “older staff [who] are much more resistant” (Interview Dean 21.08.03 para 78) to the discourses around staff development, particularly staff development as critical engagement. One of the interviewees said:
… the ‘old-school’ academics have been the most antagonistic towards it. The relatively younger staff have almost seen it as a given, that it’s something that should be happening … (Interview 29.07.03 para 33). And another Dean said, “… there is no question in my mind that there is a culture of post- graduates and young staff who see that as part of their job” (Interview 21.08.03 para 82). Change takes time and possibly it is unrealistic to expect older academics to enthusiastically embrace new discourses and practices around staff development but with the help of supportive institutional structures (5.4 below) and bottom up support from younger staff members, a culture in which a discourse of staff development as professionalization of practice might become more dominant than, for example, the discourse of the born teacher.
The range of complementary and contradictory discourses related to teaching and learning discussed above (5.2.2) had causal effects at the S-C level, influencing the discourses used by lecturers in relation to academic staff development. To determine how people in the S-C responded, the data was analysed in terms of certain of the discourses prevalent in higher education in South Africa. Of interest to me was how these discourses (as cultural emergent properties, see 2.5) influenced and reflected lecturers’ identities and ways of being; their
15 As mentioned in Appendix 1, the only requirement at SSAU for formal staff development came into effect in January 2004: as part of probationary requirements all lecturers new to the Institution have been required to complete a course on the assessment of student learning. This course is equivalent to one of the core modules of the PGDHE. Lecturers who have completed the course on assessment then have the option of whether or not they would like to complete the other modules for the whole qualification.
191 roles as lecturers and as a result their attitudes to and beliefs about academic staff development.
The four orders of discourse which I identified as being prevalent in higher education were: disciplinary discourse, student deficit discourse, skills discourse, and discourse of performativity. As mentioned previously, within each of these I identified sub-discourses as well as oppositional discourses. The boundaries between the various discourses are unstable, permeable and changeable.
Each of the four orders of discourse conditions staff development in different ways and they seem to represent contradictory positions towards it. Associated with each discourse there were also people who held oppositional attitudes. The four discourses (and the associated oppositional discourses) will now be discussed in turn. See Figure 8 below for a summary of the discourses linked to academic staff development identified in the data.
Orders of discourse Sub-discourses and oppositional discourses (O) Disciplinary • Staff development as disciplinary endeavour • Good researcher equals good teacher • Good researcher does not necessarily equal good teacher (O) • Research is what counts • Autonomy/academic freedom • Credibility of ED staff • Staff development as professionalization of practice Student/schools deficit • Liberal and intellectual elite • Transformation (O) • HE as contributing to the public good (O) Skills • Anti-intellectual • Born/natural teacher • Deep end/learn through experience • Staff development as critical engagement with theory and practice of HE (O) • Staff development as professionalization of practice (O) Performativity • Strategic/pragmatic • QA as accountability
Figure 8 Summary of discourses related to staff development identified in the data
5.3.1 Disciplinary discourse
Spending time on training courses is time spent avoiding the main purpose of a lecturer’s raison d’être at a university – research (para 283).
192 As discussed earlier (4.6.1 and 5.2.2.2), discourse communities in higher education are usually conceptualized as disciplines. Disciplines therefore constitute the primary source for academic identities (see for example Becher 1981; Henkel 2000; Trowler and Knight 2000; Becher and Trowler 2001; McKenna 2004; Moore 2003). For many academics, their main purpose is to generate knowledge in their disciplines. For some, the research status conveyed by the attainment of a PhD meant that they were automatically “good” teachers and that they did not therefore need to engage in any kind of staff development activities (see also Radford 2001). One of the interviewees said, “If you’re a good researcher then you become a very good teacher” (Interview HoD 11.08.03 para 33). This perception is also reported on in some of the literature on higher education:
One of the curious features of academic life is the practice of appointing junior lecturers almost exclusively on their research credentials. It seems to be assumed that the possession of a doctorate ensures that a new academic with no previous experience as a teacher will be competent at lecturing, conducting tutorials, seminars and other activities associated with university teaching (Crittenden n.d.:16 in Lee and Green 1997:11). In his research at another South African university, Volbrecht found that there is a tendency to assume that “good research automatically leads to good teaching, which is why some of them [academics] have expressed open hostility to being ‘interfered with’ by ED specialists” (2003:185). At the S-C level those academics implicated in discourses which construct academic identity as resulting from their disciplinary endeavours regarded the staff development discourse as a competitive contradiction. The situational logic engendered by these two discourses is one of elimination. This resulted in some lecturers trying their best (and often succeeding) in ignoring all institutional structures aimed at academic staff development. This discourse is illustrated in the following response from a young lecturer, “Then leave us in peace to teach and research our chosen topics which seldom include education” (para 510). These are the lecturers referred to earlier (5.2.2.2) who did not attempt any syncretism between conflicting ideas in the CS but instead remained aloof from all contradictory ideas in a bid to maintain the status quo.
Interestingly, in opposition to the good researcher equals good teacher discourse, I also identified a, good researcher does not necessarily equal good teacher discourse . For example:
There is a difference between knowing your field and being able to impart knowledge (para 38).
Top researchers often make poor lecturers – they simply know too much, expect too much and can’t communicate at a basic level (para 104).
Traditionally we have assumed that if we appoint new staff with strong academic backgrounds, they will also be good teachers. We, however, have found that
193 young inexperienced lecturers find it difficult to cope and spend the first couple of years ‘learning by doing’, sometimes to the detriment of the students (para 217). Why do people think that good researchers make good teachers? It’s absolute hogwash! (para 118).
I have met some truly stunning academics who cannot communicate or teach and in my humble opinion will never be able to communicate or teach effectively. These people should be engaged solely in research (para 176). As discussed in 5.2.2.2, there was however evidence of discourses among those at that S-C level which positioned in-depth knowledge of the discipline derived from research as being complementary to “good” teaching and complementary to staff development discourses.
However, as mentioned previously (5.2.2.2), I also identified a research (as opposed to teaching) is what counts discourse. A number of lecturers at various levels in the hierarchy of the University expressed the opinion that teaching was not valued (or not sufficiently valued) in the Institution (see also 4.6.1). At a structural level, the fact that SSAU has a full- time dedicated Dean of Research and no equivalent position in the hierarchy for teaching and learning is regarded by some as evidence of this being the case. One of the Deans said, “I think I’ve always recognised that there’s been more recognition for research, but that might have changed – I know the University is trying to change that, but I still think if you went around and asked people they would say there’s more recognition for research” (Interview Dean 2.09.03 para 3). For some, this perception appears to have contributed negatively toward their attitudes to staff development, seeing it as a waste to devote time to a course about teaching when the time could be better spent conducting disciplinary research. According to D’Andrea and Gosling
… in most western university systems the status of research has traditionally been greater than for teaching and learning. The three ‘R’s’ – resources, rewards and recognition – are in abundance for research, whereas the opposite has been true for teaching and learning (2005:146). This situation is exacerbated by changes in the HE landscape which have led to increased pressures on academics to obtain further degrees in their disciplines and to publish research papers at an early stage in their careers. According to Henkel this “means, too, that the need to acquire ‘tacit knowledge’ of their disciplinary community is more rather than less important. Therefore a key medium of identity building has been strengthened” (2002:141). In some cases the impetus for acquiring further qualifications and publishing research papers is to secure funding rather than necessarily as a result of identifying strongly with their disciplines. Depending on their disciplinary area, this has led to pressure for the commercialisation and commodification of research for some academics. All of this contributed to some academics feeling that they have less time, energy and commitment to devote to their teaching.
194 The strong sense of identity displayed in the disciplinary discourse appeared to underpin another set of discourses prevalent in the data. Some lecturers conceded that some form of development was required and that it would be useful for all lecturers, but they felt strongly that this development should occur within the departments or at the very least in groups where participants have the same or similar disciplinary backgrounds. Earlier (5.3) I identified this as a staff development as disciplinary endeavour discourse. For example:
The best kind of training would be one in the teaching of the didactics of a specific subject (para 339).
I would prefer to see subject-specific (or at least faculty-specific) training in place that is directly relevant to the needs of the lecturers (para 521).
Who could possibly supply training on lecturing mathematics honours, say? I think the department should have its own way of weaning new lecturers and also have in place a system of peer review (para 299) .
…don’t place Stats lecturers in the same training course with those from French or History, for example!! (para 354). Disciplinary differences have been studied by a number of educationists over the past few decades (for example, Kolb 1984; Becher 1981; Healey 2000; Becher and Trowler 2001). These studies seem to confirm that advances in the scholarship of teaching will occur more readily if they are closely aligned to the conceptual structure and epistemology of the discipline. Lueddeke (2003) argues that research has shown significant differences between disciplines in relation to conceptions of teaching and learning. He maintains that staff teaching hard/pure or applied subjects (for example, mathematics) would be more likely to bring in an information transfer/teaching focus to their teaching, while staff teaching soft/pure or applied subjects (for example, psychology) would assume a more student-focused developmental stance.
This discourse seemed to lead some lecturers to the conclusion that any kind of course involving a diverse range of academics (particularly cross faculty), “catch-all courses”, as one participant called them, was undesirable. In the literature on teaching in higher education (for example, Jenkins 1996; Healey 2000; Parker 2002) and in the data from the questionnaires there are many convincing arguments put forward for disciplinary staff development groups. Knight and Trowler (2001:151) argue that the department as a community of practice (4.6.1) should be “the hub of professional development work”. As Gibbs points out:
In successful departments, faculty members talk to each other, identify and talk about problems with teaching and learning rather than burying them, and address problems collaboratively. Decision-making processes are consensual and public rather than individualistic and private (1996:29) (Emphasis added).
195 Unfortunately, in reality few university departments function in this way and centralised, cross-disciplinary staff development can provide much needed support in such cases (see also D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:67). There is evidence in the literature (see for example, Rowland 1999, 2000; Davidson 2004) and in our evaluation of the PGDHE over the years (see Appendix 1) that mixed disciplinary groups can be very successful with participants learning enormous amounts from the diversity of those groups. For example:
In the mixed group you get pushed to think about things you wouldn’t otherwise have done (Evaluation questionnaire 6.12.04).
I really enjoyed the group discussions … the various ranks, age groups, departments, things like that. The discussions were really useful and it [the course] changed my thinking. I think about teaching differently (Email feedback 3.12.05). For some lecturers a cross disciplinary group can provide a community of practice which does not necessarily exist in their departments. A PGDHE participant said:
I also joined the course to be part of a community of people involved in teaching in HET. I get an incredible amount out of being with people who are involved in teaching, sharing experiences and discussing ideas (Evaluation questionnaire 6.12.04).
D’Andrea and Gosling (2005) argue for both discipline specific and cross-disciplinary or generic educational development initiatives in HEIs. Another discourse identified in the data, linked to academics’ strong sense of disciplinary identity, was the traditional autonomy/academic freedom discourse mentioned earlier (5.2.1.2), which some people felt was being threatened by the quality assurance/accountability discourse that was becoming more prevalent in higher education and in the Institution (see also 4.3.2). At the time that the PGDHE was being introduced, the work of the EDU was beginning to be couched in a discourse of efficiency and quality assurance which some people found problematic (5.4.3). One of the respondents interviewed speculated that some of the negative perceptions around staff development in the Institution were because academics feared that the “new” QA initiatives might in some way interfere with how they wanted to conduct their lives as academics. The situational logic created by this competing item was once again one of elimination, as some academics tried to eliminate (or at the very least ignore) all ideas around both QA and staff development. This will be discussed further in 5.6.
Another discourse identified in the data, linked to staff development as disciplinary endeavour mentioned earlier, was around the credibility of the staff in the EDU to design and facilitate staff development initiatives. For example:
It is essential that such training be seen to be driven by practising and acknowledged teachers, otherwise the training will lack authority (para 396).
196
The trainers must be really competent and knowledgeable themselves, they should as far as possible serve as models (para 463). I would speculate that these opinions were partly as a result of academics’ sense of identity in their disciplines, resulting in a strong belief that if any development were to take place, it should be within departments. They questioned the abilities of non-discipline specialist people in a centralised ED unit to contribute to staff development. Possibly this is part of an attitude among some academics to Education as a discipline in general (see Parker 2002). Volbrecht (2003:322) citing Edwards (1997:96-97) claims that Education has always had “an uneasy status in universities as an ‘applied’, ‘non disciplinary area’”. In addition, as discussed in 5.4.3, this discourse could be part of a persistent discourse in the University which positioned educational development as student development (not staff development).
Knight and Trowler express a similar reservation about whether ED practitioners are equal to the task of staff development: “This is not to demean what they do but to wonder whether what they have learned to do well is that which is needed to help departments to become the prime sites of their own professional learning: are they skilled enough as change agents to be seminal to the growth of learning communities?” (2001:152).
Ironically, as will be seen in 5.3.3 below, I identified contradictory views regarding what is an appropriate discourse for staff development: some respondents regarded the ED practitioners’ educational disciplinary backgrounds as a handicap. For example one respondent declared that a course for staff should:
… definitely not be taught by educationalists as they are too tied up in their discipline and often apply ideology at the expense of genuinely good practice (para 527). This and further issues related to the role of ED staff will be returned to below in 5.5.
5.3.2 Student/schools deficit discourse
A second set of discourses prevalent in higher education and identified in the data are those that located “the problem” as being within the students or as a result of poor schooling (5.2.2; 5.2.2.1; McKenna 2003; D’Andrea and Gosling 2005). Some lecturers, using these discourses, therefore argued that staff development was not necessary because schools should ensure that all students are adequately prepared for HE and/or if underprepared students are admitted to the University then ED should be directed at supporting those students and not at academic staff. Some discourses constructed all academic difficulties encountered by students as “language problems”, the solution to which was either better schooling or a central unit, such as in the old academic support model (see 4.5.1 and 5.4.3) where students could be sent to be “fixed”.
197 However, as mentioned earlier, international and national research (for example Scollon and Scollon 1981; Moll and Slonimsky 1989; Geisler 1994; Hillocks 1995; Dison and Rule 1996; Johns 1997) argues against the common sense assumption that secondary schools prepare students for higher education. In fact it would appear that all students arrive at university underprepared for tertiary study. Geisler, for example, argues that schools work within “naïve problem spaces” (1994a:51) in terms of texts and contexts and therefore do not induct students into the rhetorical processes associated with specific disciplines. The literacies which prepare students for participation in higher education are acquired in their homes, rather than at school. This is seen in low working class participation rates in developed countries. The implication, as I have argued elsewhere (Quinn1999), is that it is the role of lecturers to make explicit the academic literacies and discourses of their disciplines to all their students, and not just those from so-called disadvantaged backgrounds.
Deficit discourses are closely related to discourses which construct the role of the university in a range of contradictory ways. For example, those using the liberal and intellectual elite discourses identified earlier (5.2.1.1 and 5.2.2.1) argued that the purpose of the university is to educate the elite, and they therefore see no need for either student or staff development. Some respondents argued that supporting struggling students, whether by lecturers or ED staff, was tantamount to “spoon feeding” and could contribute to “the anti-responsibility culture that removes the responsibility for … learning from the students, and makes it the academics’ problem rather than primarily the students’ problem” (para 557). A major concern for those using these discourses was that a focus on underprepared students could lead to a lowering of standards:
If we ‘institutionalise’, across the board, processes for dealing with underprepared students we will, I believe, be taking another step towards mediocritising tertiary education in general (para 544). On the other hand, there were those who, using discourses of transformation (see 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.2.1) and of higher education as contributing to the public good (Singh 2001), argued that “in a time of transition and with diverse student groups and backgrounds” (para 134) students and lecturers need help in coping with a new context otherwise, as one Head of Department said, “we’re left with the old cycle of ‘teachers tend to teach as they were taught’” (para 234) 16 . This discourse was therefore used to argue that staff development was necessary to help lecturers to design curricula and teach (and assess) in ways that would enable epistemological access to the university for all students and not just those who arrive with the requisite cultural capital to cope with tertiary study (4.5.1). One lecturer
16 Using “common sense” (Gramsci 1971) theories of “good” teaching (see 5.2.2).
198 observed: “…all our students arrive at university not quite prepared for tertiary level education – some are obviously more underprepared than others ...” (para 51). Another said, the University “should be concerned with promoting good and effective teaching for all the students to whom it has granted admission” (para 544). These views are supported by research in HE in South Africa. For example, McKenna, as a result of her research on discourses prevalent at a South African HEI, suggests that:
It is only when our common sense understandings of the ‘student problem’ are questioned that we can consider other perspectives of teaching and learning. It seems we, as educators, need to adopt other discourses, or at least be exposed to them, before we can consider alternative understandings of how to improve student success (2004:148). D’Andrea and Gosling writing from the UK perspective believe that due to changes and new challenges, teachers in HE need “to adapt and respond to widening access and greater student diversity by focusing on the academic development needs of students, rather than operating with a deficit model of student capabilities” (2005:192).
The competing contradictions associated with discourses around students’ levels of (un)preparedness created a situational logic which conditioned academic staff in the S-C to make choices. Some made choices which involved their focusing their energies on designing curricula and teaching in ways which would grant access to all students. In some cases these lecturers made choices to take up the staff development opportunities offered by the EDU at that time (called Professional Development Programmes, see 5.4.3 below). Others, either through lack of awareness of the issues or in defence of their beliefs about higher education, deliberately made choices to continue teaching as they always had without making any concessions to the changing student population. In some cases lecturers’ ways of dealing with the competing ideas (that is, that staff should engage in staff development activities that might lead to changes in their teaching) was through “dismissal-by- devaluation” (Archer 1996:207) of the EDU either as a group or as individual ED staff members. This dismissal-by-devaluation sometimes involved the use of power, for example, there is anecdotal evidence of HoDs devaluing the work of the EDU by deliberately arranging departmental staff meetings to clash with staff development activities.
5.3.3 Skills discourse
Teaching continues to be devalued – the question is why? It is argued here that the devaluing is the result of five assumptions held about teaching: teaching excellence is nothing more than a matter of technique; teaching requires no training or ongoing professional development; pedagogical practice and scholarship can exist without standards; the wisdom of teaching practice entails no real worthwhile knowledge; and content (not students and learning) should drive instructional decision making (Weimer 1997:52).
199 A third discourse prevalent in higher education is the skills discourse . It is frequently encountered in relation to student learning (for example Boughey 2002a; Boughey forthcoming; McKenna 2004) but also in relation to staff development initiatives. Inherent in the skills discourse, as indicated in the opening quotation to this section, is the dismissal of the intellectual complexity of teaching. D’Andrea and Gosling refer to the “technocratic approach to teaching as a set of skills”, which ignores both the emotional commitment involved as well as the “contested field of values and political commitments which underpin different pedagogical approaches”(2005:66) (see also Challis in Nixon et al 1998 and Dall’Alba 2005 for further arguments against staff development conceptualized as skills).
In their responses to the email questionnaire many lecturers used the word “training” and talked about needing professional development in order to gain the “skills” of a “good” teacher (this was evident in the lecturer data quoted in 5.2.2). For some, being a “good” teacher only required lecturers to be good at “public speaking and presentation …speaking, breathing, voice projection … learning to connect with an audience … the preparation of visual aids” (para 295) and so on.
This skills discourse was taken even further by some to reflect an anti-intellectual discourse, or what Rowland (2001:163) calls an “atheoretical perspective” in which “teaching is viewed as a somewhat menial and amateurish task compared to the real intellectual work of research” (citing Booth 1998:63). As a senior academic said, “I have very little interest in the academic side of academia – of teaching or education” (Interview Dean 2.09.03 para 120). Theory in relation to teaching and learning is positioned as “irrelevant” or “out of touch” with the “realities of practice” (Edwards 1998:27 and see also Clegg 2003). This resistance to educational theory could be a result of lecturers believing that educational developers do not take sufficient cognizance of the highly situated nature of professional knowledge (D’Andrea and Gosling 2005).
These views are challenged by an oppositional discourse both in the data and in the literature on higher education which I earlier called a discourse of staff development as critical engagement with theory and practice of higher education (see 5.3 above). In this discourse, teaching is understood as being more than a set of skills. Brookfield, for example, states:
The musings of educational theorists are often contrasted with the practicalities of teaching, theory and practice being viewed as existing on either side of a great, unbridgeable, divide … Making this distinction is epistemologically and practically untenable. Like it or not, we are all theorists and practitioners. Our practice is informed by our implicit and informal theories about the processes and relationships of teaching. Our theories are grounded in the epistemological and practical tangles and contradictions we seek to explain, resolve … the educational theories may be a more codified, abstracted form of thinking about
200 universal processes, but it is not different in kind from the understanding embedded in our own local decisions and actions (1995:9). For Weimer (1997) (citing Eisner 1983) it is in the interstices between theory and practice, that is, between having a range or techniques at one’s disposal and knowing which one to use, that the real craft of teaching emerges. Weimer suggests that lecturers need to explore why it is that they choose one technique over and above another; what is the “theory” underpinning the intuitive, non-reflective criteria used to choose a technique.
A similar idea was apparent in a lecturer’s response:
I feel strongly about that, it’s [staff ‘training’ focused only on skills] nonsense because practice is inextricably linked to theory. Whatever we do we adopt some kind of philosophy about what we think is right and what we think is wrong. So even if you’re using PowerPoint/ if you look at why you’re using it, you’ll find a deep philosophy of what you think teaching is about and how it can be facilitated using a certain method so I think that [anti-intellectual argument] is a ridiculous argument … so I think that it’s absolute bull that it has to be exclusively about skills (para 379). Or in the words of a more senior academic:
Clearly one can talk about voice modulation and overheads … but how do you train for a more transformative agenda? Exposure of academics to the literature of learning I think would be more helpful …I think that people need to be getting into debates about what learning is, what education is for, what people learn and how they learn it …I don’t think that the training to which you refer should be the sort that ‘teaches to teach’ because I think that when you get into a classroom there are a myriad ways of engaging with people using your own style, creativity, energy, personality and particular strengths. What is needed is for people to be aware of what we know about learning and learners (para 140). One of the Deans interviewed felt that there was a lot to be gained from lecturers engaging in the theory of teaching and learning:
… over the last 30 years the disciplines of the social sciences in particular have made enormous strides and our understanding of the learning process itself is far more advanced than it what it was 30 years ago … I firmly believe that one really can’t practise until one has some sort of theoretical background against which to benchmark what one does … I mean if one does not really understand how students learn, what alternative ways there are available for the human mind to process information … no matter how well you use PowerPoint, it’s meaningless (Interview Dean 21.08.03 para 8). Some lecturers expressed a fear that a “skills” type course would result in a “dangerous and ultimately enfeebling tendency towards ‘dumbing down’ by a focus on educational procedure at the expense of intellectual content” (para 100). Similarly, Lueddeke argues that “significant pedagogical concerns that face academics will not be resolved until a more scholarly approach is taken in the development of teaching staff” (2003:215).
As noted earlier (5.3), these contradictory discourses about what kind of staff development should take place in the Institution led some participants to make the choice of withdrawing
201 from the formal programme as they found the course too theoretical. These contradictions remain problematic and largely unresolved at the S-C level. However, despite these contradictions, staff at the EDU remain convinced that to improve teaching and learning in the context of a professional development qualification for lecturers requires a scholarly approach (D’Andrea and Gosling 2005).
5.3.4 Discourse of performativity
The final order of discourse to be discussed, performativity, is closely linked to the skills discourse discussed above (5.3.3) and to the discourses identified earlier in discussions related to production, managerialism, quality assurance and accountability (4.3.2 and 5.2.1.2). Edwards (1998) argues that these discourses and the practices associated with them tend to focus on institutional structures and outcomes, perhaps at the expense of values and processes. In my analysis of the data this was evident in some lecturers expressing strategic or pragmatic motivation (rather than a genuine interest in their own development as educators) for considering involvement in staff development activities. Some showed an interest in acquiring a qualification of some sort only in order to ensure tenure or promotion or to satisfy policy (national and institutional) requirements. For example, one young lecturer responded when asked why he would think of engaging in staff development activities: “for greater academic marketability” (para 412). One of the HoDs interviewed repeatedly referred to the value of a formal staff development course in terms of it giving young lecturers “a piece of paper or a certificate or something” (Interview HoD 11.08.03 para 55) that would be valuable in terms of promotion. He asked whether the qualification would be recognised nationally and internationally and judged this to be very important in terms of its usefulness to individuals: “a piece of paper will mean a lot ... to put it on one’s CV will be a great asset” (Interview HoD 1.08.03 para 115). Another HoD said:
I have encouraged (not pressurised) the newer staff in the department to attend these courses, mainly I must add as they appear to be one of the main criteria upon which promotion is based these days (para 540). A number of people in senior management positions spoke of the benefits of obtaining a teaching qualification for younger lecturers, particularly in terms of it potentially improving their career prospects. One of the Deans confirmed that selection committees are beginning to see it as significant if an applicant has made attempts to develop him/herself as a teacher and not only as a researcher. Others made direct links between professionalization and accountability. Searle and McKenna (forthcoming) caution that practices conditioned by a performative discourse could lead to a “culture of compliance” and a concern with merely meeting the minimum standards rather than aiming for “best practice” informed by critical reflection and reflexivity.
202 However, as mentioned earlier (5.2.2.2), the discourse of research is what counts and the concomitant perception that teaching was not valued in the Institution meant that not even instrumental reasons would motivate some lecturers to engage in staff development activities of any kind. That in some HEIs teaching-related activities are scorned is illustrated by findings from Skelton’s study on the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) in the UK:
Several award winners in the ‘research intensive’ institutions felt that receiving an award for teaching was problematic … the NTFS represented a ‘poisoned chalice’. Other NTFS holders maintained that the award had prompted negative or ‘ironic’ comments from colleagues, and sometimes led to a feeling of being separate or isolated (2004:461). The former Vice Principal, in his discussion on lecturers’ attitudes to formal staff development courses, predicted that for some, particularly younger staff, purely instrumental motivation initially may lead to real development and interest in their teaching:
Further down the track you could get a thirty-five year old … who says, ‘This stuff could be important in the future. It’s not in my heart but it could be important in the future and if I want to be a professor one day maybe I’ve got to take this seriously’ … may end up applying an intelligent mind to it when they get into it and they say , ‘Hey this is important, this is interesting’ …(Interview 6.03.02 para 26). There is evidence in the PGDHE evaluations of this having happened. At the start of the course we ask participants to fill in a questionnaire and one question asks them to describe why they have decided to register for the course. Some responded with purely instrumental motives but in later evaluations they conceded that they had gained far more than they expected from doing the course. In the words of a new lecturer, “Quite clearly my primary motivation for taking this course is to ensure that I develop into a more informed and effective teacher. The fact that I can do so while also completing a recognised qualification certainly doesn’t hurt” (para 78). One of the course facilitators reported: “People may have come in expediently with all sorts of other motives – ‘I want to get a qualification, I want to meet the requirements of the University but almost everybody I have spoken to says to me ‘my thinking has changed’” (Facilitators’ meeting 11.09.03).
For some lecturers the movement in HE towards professionalization of academic staff was seen as part of the processes of control and surveillance of lecturers, leading perhaps to a redefinition of the role and identity of the academic (see for example D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:64). These ideas were therefore seen to be in contradiction to the academic freedom and autonomy discourse discussed earlier (4.3.2 and 5.2.1.2). For example, a lecturer said: “My knee-jerk reaction to this is … ‘oh no – the government is telling us how to do our jobs and being interventionist’” (para 228). Some saw the suggestion (let alone the requirement) that they should engage in some sort of professionalization as another example of the
203 increased burden being placed on their shoulders, preventing them from getting on with their jobs and they were suspicious of the motives behind many of the changes taking place in HE including being required or encouraged to professionalize their practice. A number of academics actively resisted the quality assurance/accountability discourse and were particularly concerned at the merest hint that some form of staff development might be made compulsory:
My feeling is that in order to avoid further ‘bureaucratization’ of a system already bedevilled with bureaucracy, and not showing signs of getting better, we should not introduce blanket requirements of the sort suggested (para 543). In contrast, other lecturers saw staff development and other ED-initiatives as a resource to help them cope with both the new CS items and the new structural requirements. This theme will be explored further in 5.4.
The examination of the influence of the logical relations among components in the Institutional Cultural System (CS) on the causal relations among the people (S-C integration) adds empirical evidence to Archer’s assertion that cultural integration cannot be assumed in all contexts (see 2.5 for discussion on the “myth of cultural integration” (Archer 1996)). The analysis thus far indicates that at SSAU prior to 2000 there was a high level of inconsistency (in other words low CS and low S-C) in relation to ideas about HE from the macro CS level and also in relation to ideas about both teaching and learning and staff development in the Institution. This situation did not create enabling conditions for staff development in the Institution. It is only when the ideas in the CS (macro and institutional) started to make an impact on the Institutional structures that more enabling conditions began to be created. It is to a consideration of the impact of those structures that I now turn.
5.4 Institutional Structures
In this section I identify the structures in the University up to 2000 that affected the introduction of the formal programme. I also explore the relations between those structures. The structures that existed were influenced by discourses in the macro (international and national) CS and SS levels. In terms of the morphogenetic cycle (see Figure 9) this section describes the institutional structural properties (SEPs) which existed at T 1 which had a conditioning influence on the action at T 2. As stated previously (2.6), these properties exerted a causal influence on the interaction, thus shaping the situations actors found themselves in by bestowing some agents with vested interests depending on the positions they occupied in the institutional structures. How agents responded (social interaction- SI) to the conditioning influences represented the movement from T 2 to T 3 on the diagram (Figure 9).
204 Structural conditioning
T1
Social interaction
3 T2 T
Structural elaboration T4
Figure 9 The morphogenesis of structure (Archer 1995:193)
Although the ideational underpinnings and the practices of ED in the Institution at T 1 were geared mainly towards equity and granting all students epistemological access, it seems that in the late 1990s at the Institutional level, there was a swing in emphasis away from those concerns to more emphasis on efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. As discussed earlier (4.3.2), the discourses in South African HE generally seem to have moved from those of equity and transformation to those of skills development and quality assurance (see also Fataar 2003).
My analysis indicates that it was the relationship between QA-related structures in the Institution and the ED-related structures that had the strongest conditioning influence, resulting in structural elaboration (T 4) in the form of the implementation of the formal staff development course. In 5.6 I will explore this relationship further.
As in the case with cultural morphogenesis, there are four kinds of second order structural relationships between structures which exist at any T 1 (that is, necessary complementarities, necessary incompatibilities, contingent complementarities and contingent incompatibilities) (Figure 5 and 2.5.1). In this section I argue that it was the structural emergent properties (SEPs) resulting from the relationship of necessary incompatibility (or sometimes called constraining contradiction) between these two major structures (QA and ED) that created the most enabling conditions for the introduction of the formal course as a form of staff development at SSAU. The following sections will provide an historical overview of the emergence of each of the two institutional structures: QA and ED. Thereafter the relationship between them and the way the people at the SI level responded to the situational logic created by the constraining contradiction between them (that is T 1 to T2) will be analysed.
205 5.4.1 Quality assurance structures
Prior to 1994 there was no systemic quality assurance in South African universities 17 and SSAU, like most other universities, had its own internal arrangements for assuring the quality of its academic offerings. As discussed in the previous chapter (4.3.2), post 1994, as part of the need to transform the whole national HE system, discourses around efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and quality assurance began to enter the national CS. It was only in 2001 with the establishment of the HEQC that a national QA structure was formed (4.6.2). However, at SSAU from about the mid-1990s discourses around QA began to enter the Institutional CS and by the late 1990s institutional structures related to QA began to be put in place.
Earlier the role of the previous Vice Principal as a key actor in introducing ideas and discourses around quality assurance to the CS at the Institutional level was discussed (5.2.1.2). By virtue of his position he was exposed (through his involvement in, for example, the South African Universities Vice Chancellors Association (SAUVCA) and attendance at HE conferences in other countries) to the changes that were taking place in HE at the macro systemic level (both culturally and structurally). From about the mid 1990s he became aware that it would not be long before there would be demands from the national structural level on HEIs to put in place structures frameworks which could ensure the quality of the teaching and learning in their institutions. The following extract from an interview with him shows the influence of international experience on his thinking about QA:
Last year at the QA conference which focused mostly on this sort of stuff, the Scandinavian countries had some valuable work and the Netherlands had some valuable work. We tend to exclusively read British or North American stuff and the truth is that the continentals also have brains and experience … This conference that I went to last May was fascinating because a Norwegian guy would stand up and speak in reasonable or broken English but what they were doing was exciting and their approach was quite different. In the area of quality assurance within teaching the British have made a lot of mistakes and there has been a huge resistance to their work. The Scandinavians didn’t meet that resistance and neither did the Dutch because they actually didn’t go down that exceptionally bureaucratic road (Interview 6.03.02 para 30). Later in the same interview he talked about planning to introduce QA structures in the form of teaching and learning policies to the institution:
I thought about providing the pressure for action to say, ‘How do we break down these things?’ Teaching and learning were the obvious starting point for me
17 However, in 1988, the Certification Council for Technikon Education (SERTEC) was established as a statutory body for the technikon sector to undertake programme accreditation and auditing of certain institutional aspects. The former technikons were similar to the polytechnics in the UK. They are described as “institutions for advanced vocational learning” (CHE 2000:14). As part of the restructuring of HE in South Africa, some technikons have now become “universities of technology”.
206 because that’s how ED used to work in its traditional way and I said, ‘We’ve got to study this interface where the lecturer meets the student and we’ve got to study it from all angles and we’ve got to help all those who are willing to help, what do we do?’ So we started off by working out how we would get it into the system (that was my job), ‘Let’s write teaching and learning policies and let’s write them in such a way that there is enough in them to make them do what we are trying to without being too prescriptive’. We then had to put them in front of the Senate because once the Senate had bought it there was no head of department who could moan at either the Vice Principal or at ED and you know how the process went from there (Interview 6.03.02 para 22). What is significant in these quotations was the concern for how the people in the Institution would respond to the structures: in the first quotation the opinion is expressed that QA structures should not be overly bureaucratic and in the second, policies are referred to as needing to not be “too prescriptive”. However, at the same time, people in the institution seemed to hold quite a limited view of QA, that is, QA as accountability and compliance with policy (see 6.3 and 6.4 for discussion on different conceptions of quality in HE).
This concern for the people at the S-I level was evident in interviews with both the VP and the director of AP & QA. For example, the director of AP & QA talked about reducing the amount of reporting required by departments on their implementation of the policies by linking reporting requirements to three or five yearly academic reviews rather than expecting annual reports to be submitted. She said, “It would lessen the burden” (Interview 29.07.03 para 17). She also said:
… that would take it out of the managerial type of realm; it would be individual departments saying this is where our weaknesses are ( ibid para 55).
I think when it’s [QA] seen as a kind of bureaucratic and externally imposed approach, but we’ve been trying very hard, and I think to some extent have succeeded, in saying to people, look, you’re the ones who are deciding what it is you’re being evaluated against; you’re the ones who are being asked to look at yourself critically. It’s not some outside body coming in with standards and ideas that they’ve already formulated, and then saying whether or not you measure up. It might be that the institution decides what you think is good teaching practice, is not good teaching practice according to their understanding of it, but that would be very much open to debate. … rather than a tick-box mentality. So, I think there is resistance, but I think there’s less and less. I mean, I certainly am becoming increasingly resistant to this bureaucratic and externally imposed standard that is being imposed, which seems to be growing ( ibid para 36-37) 18 . In both the interviews with the former-VP and the Director of AP & QA there was evidence of an understanding that particularly the responses of key individuals would influence how others responded to structures and ultimately influence whether the structures could have an effect on the quality of the institution (that is, lead to elaboration). For example,
18 Part of this extended quotation is also used earlier in 5.2.1.2.
207 ... well if you talk to [name of influential faculty Dean], he made a very interesting comment because he’s one of the most outspoken critics in terms of the whole idea of QA, and he said, ‘you know, you must understand academics aren’t against quality or quality assurance. It’s the way it’s handled that’s important’ (ibid para 41). Formal responses in the Institution to QA from the national context commenced in 1997. From the outset QA and academic planning were combined and initially handled by the former VP 19 . The first formal QA initiative began in 1997 when SSAU offered to take part in a pilot audit conducted by the Quality Promotions Unit (QPU) of the South African Universities Vice Chancellors Association (SAUVCA). In preparation, the University conducted its first internal review. Since then there have been two further Institutional academic reviews and two administrative reviews.
However, in terms of assuring the quality of teaching and learning specifically, the main Institutional structures that were put in place during the period prior to the introduction of the PGDHE were three teaching and learning policies . The first policy introduced in 1998 (revised in 2004) was on the Evaluation of Teaching and Courses (SSAU 2006a). The second policy was on Curriculum Development and Review introduced in 1998 and the third was on the Assessment of Student Learning introduced in 1999 (SSAU 2006a). As will be seen later in the section on ED at SSAU (5.4.3), even in 2000 when quality assurance structures were just being introduced at the Institutional level, the policies contributed considerably towards creating enabling conditions for the PGDHE.
The first paragraph of the evaluation policy makes clear links to the professional development of academic staff and to the fact that the Institutional policy was introduced in response to national policy structures:
Evaluation of teaching and of courses is essential as a foundation for continuing professional and educational development within the University and as a base for quality assurance systems required by national policy (SSAU 2006a). At about the same time as the teaching and learning policies were being introduced, the idea was mooted that new academic staff would be required to submit teaching portfolios at the end of their three year probationary period, as would staff applying for promotion. Although it took some years for this requirement to be formalised and despite the fact that there were vociferous reactions to it from certain quarters in the Institution, it too was a structural factor which contributed enabling conditions for the introduction of the programme. From the outset, the PGDHE was assessed by means of an integrated teaching portfolio. Participants attending the PGDHE were thus assisted in the construction of the document. For some this
19 In 2001 a joint office for Academic Planning and Quality Assurance (AP & QA) was formed. Currently the director of AP & QA is the University’s quality manager who reports to the Vice Chancellor who in turn reports to the University Council and the HEQC on QA structures and systems in the University. In addition, there is a Quality Assurance Committee, a joint Senate and Council committee responsible for QA in the Institution.
208 was a motivating factor to attend the course. As mentioned earlier, one of the questions on the registration form asked lecturers to explain why they wanted to register for the programme. Approximately five participants explicitly stated that one of their reasons was to obtain help with writing their teaching portfolios.
Earlier (5.2.1.2) the mixed reactions of academic staff to the ideas underpinning QA were mentioned - there were equally mixed responses to both the institutional and national structures which were beginning to appear (for example, the anecdote told by the previous Vice Principal about HoDs’ reactions to the first academic review quoted in 5.2.1.2). However, there was evidence of some, particularly younger, lecturers who were more open (or perhaps more resigned) to the QA structures being introduced at the University. Some even suggested that the Institutional structures, such as the teaching and learning policies, were potentially helpful to them in meeting national requirements in terms of accountability:
Apart from the reasons that I mentioned above, we are now going to be held accountable by society (as prescribed and monitored by HEQC) for the quality of our educational offerings (Lecturer questionnaire data 2003 para 245). The fact that not all lecturers automatically objected to the QA discourse is a reminder that people are not necessarily “captured” by any particular discourse; that there are conditions under which they are able to “displace, negotiate, reconstruct and create alternative discourses” to dominant discourses in their milieu (Trowler 2001:183).
Having briefly documented the general structural responses at the Institutional level to QA/accountability in the previous section, the following section will examine more specifically the Institutional responses to changes in relation to legislation and structures linked to the curriculum in HE from the national level.
5.4.2 Institutional responses to national policy related to HE curricula
In 4.7 the following were cited as enabling mechanisms that have been put in place via national higher education policies: a programmes-based definition of higher education, an outcomes-based definition of higher education, an NQF for integrating education and training on which all qualifications must be registered and finally, a national quality assurance system (CHE 2004:96). As part of the internal review of academic departments in 1997, SSAU decided to continue offering traditional discipline-based degrees rather than opt for the route of credit-exchange vocationally oriented degree programmes as some other HEIs were doing. Ensor describes the differences between the two routes in the following way:
In practice the disciplinary and exchange discourses foreground different aims for university undergraduate curricula. The disciplinary discourse favours formative education at both school and university level, with the apprenticeship of students into specialised domains of knowledge. The credit exchange
209 discourse (as promoted in South Africa, at any rate) favours modularisation of the curriculum, a focus on generic skills, and selection from these modules by students to create curriculum packages to meet their own requirements …(2002:277). Those universities that opted for the credit exchange vocationally oriented degree structures used outcomes statements for establishing equivalence and exchange on the NQF, whereas those, like SSAU,that opted for traditional degree structures (underpinned by the disciplinary discourse, as discussed in 4.6.1) used outcomes statements to contribute towards the QA of teaching and learning in the institution (Ensor 2002:291).
Although SSAU chose the more conservative route of retaining traditional discipline-based degrees which did not require the major curriculum changes across disciplines required for those institutions that were introducing new credit-exchange degree programmes, there was pressure both from national and institutional structures to reconceptualize curricula in OBE format. For example, the SSAU policy on Curriculum Development and Review states:
Learning outcomes which include knowledge and understanding of a subject as well as cognitive, general and professional skills should be explicitly stated for each course or programme and these should be the pivot around which the whole course is developed. This is in line with SAQA and NQF requirements (SSAU 2006a). Being required to reconceptualize/rewrite their courses using the principles of OBE presented considerable challenges for some academic staff. It was especially difficult for those from the non –professional disciplines who had up until then been used to complete freedom in relation to curricula and their only interest was in terms of the canon of their disciplines (4.6.1). There was much resentment in many quarters and for many academics, not only in South Africa but in countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, OBE became symbolic of what is perceived as an increasing loss of academic freedom and imposition from government on how universities should function in the academic sphere (Gosling and D’Andrea 2001). The conflict between OBE and traditional ideas around curriculum could be theorised as constraining contradictions. An attempted containment strategy used by some was to ignore the policy entirely. For others, accepting OBE has involved having to rethink some of their disciplinary ideas and possible adaptation of OBE ideas, that is, correcting both A and B so they become mutually consistent A ↔ B. (For further critiques of OBE in the South African context see Jansen 1999; Luckett and Luckett 1999; Luckett and Webbstock 1999).
In keeping with the philosophy of OBE and in an attempt to be more responsive to the economic needs of the country, some universities moved away from offering generic formative degrees to offering vocationally oriented qualifications. Once again SSAU opted not to introduce any new vocationally/market oriented programmes. Essentially then,
210 despite changes in legislation and structures related to the curriculum in HE from the national level, in terms of curricula, little changed at SSAU.
Regardless of which route was chosen by universities, it has been recognised that simply putting structures such as these (or any others) in place does not necessarily lead to the desired changes in organisations. Describing responses by different HEIs in SA to the general policy situation, Cloete and Maassen state:
… a number of institutions transformed rapidly in the direction of a dominant outward ‘market’ orientation. Others decided to stick to an inward orientation of ‘academic business as usual’, implying that they decided to rely on their traditional academic strengths. A third group was left behind trying desperately to survive … (2002:472). This analysis is similar to that of Gultig’s (2000; see also 5.2.1.1) which maintains that since 1994, differences among HEIs in South Africa have manifested along traditional linguistic/racial lines with the historically white Afrikaans universities having taken on the market orientation, the historically white English universities like SSAU fitting into the second ‘academic business as usual’ group, and the third group being the historically black universities, many of which are “beset with crisis” (Gultig 2000:38). Ensor, after her case study research on curriculum reform at three South African HEIs made the following remarks about SSAU:
SSAU occupies a privileged niche in the area, drawing students both regionally and nationally. Student numbers have remained robust, and even though some departments have been closed or amalgamated, the academic establishment has retained its size over the past few years. The leadership of the university has held fast to its position that the best way to ‘respond to the market’ is to continue with the general, formative undergraduate education it has prized itself in providing (2002:286). Maassen and Gornitzka (2000 in Cloete and Maassen 2002:466) argue that for certain types of organisations to change in response to government policy, “there needs to be a normative match between values underlying the proposed policy and the identity and tradition of the organization”. The values underpinning credit exchange and vocationally oriented curricula, the NQF and OBE generally did not “sit” well with the identity and traditions of SSAU. SSAU managed to circumvent the “new” discourse by paying lip-service to OBE rather than confronting the credit exchange demands of the NQF. Hence, anecdotally, the hope expressed by many in the Institution in the 1990s that all this “OBE stuff would just go away”; the argument was that it hadn’t worked in places like New Zealand and it was an ill-advised national initiative that was bound to fade into obscurity and all SSAU had to do was sit tight and wait. Nonetheless, in the short term academic staff members were expected to comply with the Institutional policy which required them to reconceptualize their curricula in OBE format. At that point it was realised that there was capacity in the EDU to assist staff in this
211 regard and it became strategic for senior management to support staff development initiatives in the Institution (Volbrecht and Boughey 2004).
In addition, the policy on assessment of student learning required lecturers to rethink their traditional methods of assessment and implement outcomes-based assessment:
In recent years, calls for institutions of higher education to become more accountable and transparent about what they do, have become increasingly common … In South Africa, the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) and the movement towards outcomes based education (OBE) have resulted as a response to these demands. These developments at a national level follow similar developments internationally.
The promotion of an outcomes based approach to education and the requirement that qualifications should be registered on the NQF have profound implications for the assessment of student learning (SSAU2006a) . The new policy environment was alienating for many lecturers and some clearly lacked the capacity to comply with the policy requirements. Slowly the need for assistance from the staff in the EDU began to be felt by some academics. This was noted by an EDU staff member who said: “The lack of capacity was a fundamental driver for the ‘success’ of the PGDHE as a formal course and for appeals to the EDU re curriculum (e.g. Law, Psychology and Pharmacy) and portfolio assistance” (pers com 8.10.06). Thus the knock on effect of national policy and Institutional policies contributed to creating enabling conditions for the work of the EDU and later the introduction of the PGDHE.
In the previous chapter the range of discourses used by people in the S-C and SI in relation to both the ideas and structures (at the national systemic level) which it was hoped would enable transformation of HE in South Africa were discussed. A similar range of discourses existed among people at SSAU. Particularly the older guard were most resistant to change. In summarizing institutional responses to policies regarding teaching and learning, the CHE comments:
Change in teaching and learning cannot occur simply through the imposition of policy frameworks, nor is quality to be assured through the forms of programmes- and outcomes-based higher education. Indeed it is not clear that substantive policy-driven reform of fundamental curriculum modes is always necessary …If serious and substantive curricular reform is to be achieved, then one alternative priority might be to strengthen existing modes of curriculum through increased professionalisation of academic staff with respect to teaching and learning (2004:99-100. Emphasis added). This quotation highlights that structures in the form of policy are not sufficient to drive change in an education system. Support for people in the system is essential.
The section above dealt with the structures related to quality assurance that were put in place in the Institution. The following section turns to the second major structure of interest
212 to this research: ED at SSAU. It documents the way in which ED has evolved over the years from predominantly supporting students to supporting academic staff.
5.4.3 Educational development at SSAU
In order to understand the essentially enabling systemic conditions created by the constraining contradiction between QA and ED that led to the introduction of the formal qualification for academic staff in 2000, it is necessary to understand the history of ED in the Institution. ED at SSAU more or less followed the three phases identified in the description of ED nationally (4.5), that is, educational support, educational development and institutional development (Volbrecht and Boughey 2004).
In 1983 SSAU, like many historically white universities (HWU) in South Africa, established an Educational Skills Programme (ESP) 20 . In this first phase ESP was underpinned by the order of discourse which Barnett (2000) termed “democracy” (4.3.3). It operated within what might be termed an “equity” discourse which focused on meeting the needs of so-called disadvantaged students – students disadvantaged in terms of the discriminatory apartheid schooling system. It was therefore sustained by student deficit discourses (5.3.2). The objective of the programme was to provide support for the small number of black students who had been admitted to SSAU and who were deemed “underprepared” for academic study. This support generally took the form of add-on tutorial programmes, workshops and individual consultations with students. The idea was that these interventions would teach students generic academic skills to enable them to cope with their mainstream courses. An extract from the Educational Skills Annual Report of 1989 confirms this:
The mission of the Educational Skills Programme at SSAU is to provide academic support for the students who for whatever reason find themselves underprepared for University study. … to impart a range of general study skills, communicative and language skills, and effective approaches to university life so as to develop confident and independent learners (SSAU 1989:1). In addition, a one year credit bearing course also focused on teaching academic skills; first called English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and later English Language for Academic Purposes (ELAP) it was offered for “underprepared” students from the Humanities faculty (Dison and Rosenberg 1995). There had also been a Commerce Foundation Course in existence since 1994. In 2005 these courses became part of a reconceptualized student development system offered by a newly-formed branch of ED at SSAU called the Extended Studies Unit.
20 Educational Skills was quite an unusual nomenclature for the time, more popular was Educational Support.
213 There is evidence in the ED archival material that individual students benefited from the support they received from the ESP staff. However, some people had reservations about the Programme. For example, Wakely, a lecturer at SSAU at the time, writing in 1993, asked the following question:
Or are some, or all, of such measures themselves to be either totally rejected as misguided attempts to paper over the cracks of inequality in the decaying edifice of apartheid (cf Moulder 1988; Sommerville 1983), or lightly valued as the Educational Skills Programme in some quarters (on this, see Jardine 1986:57; Stones, Tunmer & Walters 1986:xi), because they are perceived to be mere cosmetic, short-term palliatives, stopgap window-dressing exercises which merit support simply because of the modest contribution they make to the promotion of good will and a favourable image among the public? (1993:13). Over time, following trends elsewhere, academic skills/support practitioners at SSAU began to develop a different understanding of “disadvantage” (see for example, Starfield 1994; Hartman and Warren 1994; Drewett 1994 in Quinn 1999). A key agent who influenced the underpinning ideas around ED at SSAU was a black woman who, when she arrived at SSAU in 1986 with a master’s degree in history, was appointed as an ESP tutor in the history department . Reflecting back on that time she said:
I had this feeling we were doing ourselves a disservice in seeing the students as ‘not having’ and I was forever pleading for an approach that was going to be saying, ‘what do these students have that we can build on?’ (Interview 6.10.04 para 21). Later in the same interview she said:
Yes. It was at the close of the 80s that that deficit model began to be questioned. I remember the way academic papers began to appear at SAAAD conferences… it has begun to be questioned but it has never gone under. …It’s still part of the discourse. I just want to make that point. It has not gone under … we still have a deficit model. We still are complaining about ‘them’. Yes, there is still a binary approach ( ibid :para 51-54). In a later interview she reiterated her viewpoint, “I was very, very angry at the way African students were positioned … and the way I was positioned too” (Interview 24.05.06 para 12). She went on to say that from the early 1990s she began to argue strongly for a heightened sensitivity to the way in which black students (and staff) were treated in the Institution. Secondly, against all odds, she had managed to fill a senior position and in 1998 she was appointed to the post of “Staff development officer” in the EDU at SSAU. She was an active member of the South African Association for Academic Development (SAAAD) from its inception, and by the late 1990s she was part of the SAAAD executive . It was through SAAAD that she was exposed to the CS of ED at the national level. She was therefore influential in encouraging changes in the CS of ED at SSAU. At that time there was virtually no systemic (cultural and structural) support for such a view in the University. However, despite the lack of Institutional support some of the ED staff began to conceptualize their
214 work differently. Another staff member thinking back on that time articulated some of the issues with the skills/support work that was being done:
… there was a great sense of, ‘this is a really important job to do’ but there was also the sense of having to sell it all the time, both to students and to staff. And I think students were/ many students even though they benefited, they didn’t like the idea of being part of an academic support or educational development programme where they were treated as being deficient in some way. And in my experience a lot of the students who actually needed the extra support and tuition didn’t make use of it … there was a realization that the way we were working with small numbers of students was not really viable, economically but also in relation to the impact that it was or was not having on the wider institution (Interview ED staff member 11.08.05 para 21). Instead of framing their work within a student deficit discourse, ED staff began to look at ways in which the structures of the institution could increase the likelihood of all students gaining “epistemological access” (Morrow 1994) (4.5.1). In other words, they began to conceptualize their work in terms of “development” rather than support. To signal this change of focus from student support to institutional development, in 1993 the ESP (Educational Skills Programme) became the EDP (Educational Development Programme). In practice, this change meant an attempt to move away from add-on workshops for “disadvantaged” students to an “infusion model”. The EDP annual report in 1996 summed up ED work at the time:
Educational development at SSAU involves both staff and student development. Generally, the activities of the EDP staff are aimed at realizing this two-pronged thrust. EDP also seeks to integrate educational development into mainstream teaching and learning activities rather than to provide “add on” programmes on the sidelines (SSAU 1996:3. Emphasis in original). In terms of language work, this involved what were termed “integrated literacy development projects” in which ED staff members worked with students and staff within disciplines (see for example Davies and Quinn 1995; Amos and Quinn 1997; Van der Riet, Dison and Quinn1998). Aside from the staff in the EDU, other ED staff members were located in faculties and departments in order to integrate student, curriculum and staff development work.
However, this move was not appreciated by everyone in the Institution.
But the major stumbling block was the fact that departments did not understand this new move we were making and not even senior management for that matter. So it was actually a journey of a struggle and I am not saying a struggle as an individual, but with the colleagues with whom I was working, nationally too (Interview ED staff member 6.10.04 para 115). In terms of my research focus, it is important to note that there is documentary evidence that staff development as a way to student and institutional development was part of the CS discourse for ED practitioners at SSAU from at least 1993 (see for example, Nelson 1994),
215 although there was little acceptance of this role from the University management or from the academic staff. The EDP Evaluation Report written in 1996 concludes:
If tertiary institutions are serious about the quality of teaching and learning, it is critical that staff receive some formal training and recognition as qualified tertiary educators (SSAU 1996:4. Emphasis in original). Interestingly, this report suggested a change in thinking about ED more in keeping with the CS level of ED internationally (4.4): “The evaluation team’s proposals seek to effect the following: a culture change to move ED into the main stream programme of the university” (ibid :20). In the report, the following staff development initiatives were recorded “new staff orientation programmes, workshops within departments (notably in the area of active learning), general staff development seminars and workshops, and tutor training” ( ibid :5). 1997 and 1998 saw the beginnings of more formal staff development in the form of short courses for lecturers called “Professional Development Programmes” (PDPs) consisting of modules such as “Language and Academic Literacy”, “Curriculum Development and Course Design”, “Teaching Methods” and “Assessment and Evaluation”. At the same time ED staff members continued with student support work in the form of supplemental instruction (Davies and Vorster 1994; Vorster 1995), tutor development, a writing respondent programme (Van der Riet et al 1998), integrated language projects (Amos and Quinn 1997), individual consultations with students and writing and study skills workshops.
Despite or possibly because of this wide range of activities, although there was evidence of many students benefiting from their work, ED was not having the desired impact – neither in terms of student support nor at the staff and institutional levels. One interviewee talking about the early staff development initiatives said:
Staff were surprised that anyone should expect them to look at how they were teaching and to even consider changing how they were teaching – especially at SSAU! They had PhDs … they felt they had international credibility and that was enough – they didn’t have to be accountable to anyone for their teaching or their students’ learning (Interview ED staff member 24.05.06 para 19). The 1996 evaluation report identified the reason for this being partly a lack of systemic support in the Institution for ED work:
… many academic staff at SSAU do not know what the role of the Educational Development Programme is …. The current lack of clarity also raises the question as to whether an EDP can adequately implement its work, in a situation in which overall institutional priorities with respect to teaching and learning are not clearly stated … policies on teaching and learning appear to be tacit and assumed, rather than explicitly stated (SSAU1996:10). The evaluation team identified opinions that the quality of teaching and learning at SSAU at that time varied:
216 … from excellent to poor. … There was no indication that how the university teaches, and how students learn, have a regular place on the university agenda (e.g. at Senate), for discussion and debate. It was also apparent that there is a shortage of structures at SSAU for identifying, supporting and rewarding good teaching … there needs to be a clearer agenda on teaching and learning … it should be possible to move towards an explicit policy reflecting priorities for teaching and learning, since the majority of staff share a commitment to quality and excellence, and would thus be likely to support such a policy ( ibid :11-12. Emphasis added). From the quotation above it is clear that the team identified support for the importance of teaching and learning at the ideational level (see 5.2.2), but gaps at the Institutional structural level. The report also contained data suggesting that many academic staff at that time still saw ED work only in terms of student support, and that the student deficit discourse was still common. What is clear from this report is that there was an emerging disjuncture between ED staff’s evolving understanding of the discourses that should underpin their work (more in line with changes in the CS of ED internationally 4.4) and the discourses used by academic staff in the University in relation to the role of ED: “EDP staff, on the other hand, appear to be conceptualising a far broader role in the university” ( ibid :11).
A broader conception of ED to include staff development within a quality assurance discourse featured strongly in this evaluation report, from which I quote at length:
Educational development, in our view, relates to the areas of quality development and assurance in teaching and learning. It has a functional and a structural level.
Educational development is defined at the functional level as the efforts made by individuals at institutional and departmental levels to ensure quality in teaching and learning. It manifests in a commitment to quality development and assurance, to staff development and evaluation. It manifests in particular in critical scrutiny of what is taught, how and why it is taught, how this relates to what is learned, and how learning takes place.
Educational development is defined at the structural level as the way in which the university as an institution organises itself through its executive, senate, faculties and departments to ensure an ongoing critical scrutiny of what is taught, how it is taught, how it relates to what is learned, and how learning takes place. It implies the development of structures through which the vision and aims of each of these stakeholders can be expressed in coherent policy in teaching and learning, and structures through which policy can be translated into action, and its success evaluated ( ibid :12). Of interest, too, was the emergence of a discourse around the need for structures in the form of policies and strategies to enable an institutional focus on teaching and learning. In the report there was a recommendation that much of the ED work needed to be done by ED practitioners in departments and that only a few core staff were needed in an ED unit to do “staff development, certain curriculum development and materials development functions, and certain functions relating to research in and evaluation of teaching and learning”
217 (ibid :13). In addition, the report showed evidence of a growing awareness of the quality discourse internationally and the likelihood of there being national quality structures in the future: “It was thought that the South African Education Ministry might institute centralised quality assurance policy for tertiary education” ( ibid :14).
The report contained data from senior management staff who claimed that teaching methods in the University needed to change to meet the challenges of the changing student body: “The ‘Oxbridge deep end’ approach needed to go” ( ibid ) and a need for staff development was expressed, but it was “acknowledged that a successful staff development programme would require commitment and support from the top level of management” ( ibid) . The report however still made explicit reference to ED staff (in departments and in the central unit) needing to offer a range of student support activities.
In the wake of the recommendations contained in this report there were three major structural changes. Firstly, later in 1996 the Senate Committee on Teaching and Learning was established. The function of the Teaching and Learning Committee was to foster good teaching practices and to promote the quality of teaching and learning in the Institution. The committee was to be chaired by the Vice Principal. The director of the EDU was required from thence forth to report to the Vice Principal. It was also recommended that each faculty establish a Teaching and Learning Committee although I have found no evidence that this recommendation was followed. Secondly, the name change from EDP to EDU (Educational Development Unit) which was recommended in this report was implemented. This name change indicated a structural change in the way ED operated from then on: a small central unit with the other staff devolved into departments and faculties. The central EDU consisted of five fulltime staff members (this included the director and one staff member dedicated to educational technology) and two part-time staff members. I would speculate that the smaller central unit became an enabling factor for staff development as it was easier to create a community of practice and to develop shared thinking about ED among a smaller more cohesive group of people (see 5.5 on ED staff agency below). The remaining ED staff members in departments and faculties continued to provide discipline specific academic support for students. The report recommended the following functions for the staff in the central Unit: staff development, language development, peer learning, and technology for supporting teaching and learning and a research function. Thirdly, in 1998 the first two teaching and learning policies (on evaluation and curriculum) were introduced and in 1999 the third one on assessment was introduced (5.4.1).
1998 was significant in the history of ED at SSAU. The then-director of ED resigned unexpectedly and the senior management of the University used that as an opportunity to take stock of ED at SSAU. The Director of the Educational Development Programme
218 Central Unit at another South African HEI was invited to investigate the situation. This resulted in a report entitled Recommendations on the future of the post of director of the Educational development Centre at SSAU (Scott 1998). What emerged from the report was that there was fairly widespread lack of support for ED work generally and staff development initiatives specifically, especially among Deans and other senior staff at the University:
In particular, the EDU’s involvement in academic staff development (which was apparently seen by most [EDU staff] as its primary function) came in for substantial criticism … reservations about the capacity of current EDU resources … rejection of the EDU’s vision of staff development and its credibility in this area (Scott 1998:2). Scott pointed out that there appeared to be a gap between the way ED staff conceptualized their role and the conceptions of many of the academic staff of the role of ED in the Institution:
… a (possibly high) proportion of senior staff hold the traditional view that the proper role of ED is confined to providing supplementary services for disadvantaged students … EDU is seen … as lacking the academic credibility to offer staff development programmes that would be valued by mainstream academic staff ( ibid ). The report commented on the “current lack of focus and impact of the work of the EDU” (ibid :5) and a lack of “strategic focus” ( ibid :4). It is important to note that at this point conditions created at the Institutional systemic level (both CS and SS) were constraining for staff development activities. As was the case in the 1996 evaluation report, Scott’s report also emphasized the importance of university culture and structures in relation to the work of the EDU: “it is nevertheless clear that the EDU’s ability to focus its efforts optimally will depend considerably on the clarity of the university’s overall educational goals and priorities” (ibid :6). In addition, the report clearly stated that there was at that time a lack of credibility for the staff development work that had been offered. However, the report explicitly stated that only the opinions of Deans and selected senior academics were sought. It is most likely that the bulk of the staff development work that had been taking place up to that point would have involved tutors and junior academic staff. The EDU archives contain evaluation data which shows that many of those who were involved in those initiatives found them useful. Scott also commented on EDU staff members’ “commitment to educational and institutional development” ( ibid :3) (see below ED staff members as agents 5.5). In addition, Scott alerted the University that if positioned strategically with sufficient capacity development, ED could play a crucial role in terms of Institutional development:
It will be important for ED leadership to keep abreast of developments in this area [changing demands on HE arising from contemporary economic and social conditions as well as emerging government policy] and to prepare ED staff to play a broader developmental role, should this be needed – not only to comply
219 with government policy but also to maintain the university’s competitive edge (1998:9). This moment in the history of ED was crucial. The University could have closed the Unit down at this stage. In the interview with the previous Vice Principal he reported that there were powerful people in the Institution who felt that the resources being spent on ED could have been better spent on mainstream departments (Interview 6.03.02 para 18). However, in the wake of the recommendations from the Scott report (1998), the University decided to protect its vested interests 21 by appointing a new director and by redirecting the work of the Unit from student support to quality assurance to ensure that as a resource it would be used more efficiently, effectively and strategically.
Later that year a new director for the EDU was appointed to start in January 1999. She had both academic credibility and a wealth of experience in the field of ED. On her arrival she was briefed by the Vice Principal who indicated to her that as a result of the events of the previous year and the Scott report, the EDU was to begin to re-position itself within a quality assurance framework and to focus its energies on staff development. The following extract from the Report on the Review of Administrative Divisions in 2002 confirms this:
In 1999, the EDU moved from a student to a staff focus and the Unit plays a clearly defined quality assurance and developmental role within the University (SSAU 2002:6). I would argue that rather than a clear role definition in terms of QA and development, as implied above, it was more like an uneasy truce underpinned by a lack of shared understanding in the Institution of QA and ED (see 5.6 below) .
In time it seems that the senior management of the University began to understand the role of the EDU less in terms of the earlier “equity” discourse (with its focus on providing epistemological access for students) than in terms of a discourse of “efficiency” (Boughey 2003:2). It was decided that it would be more efficient to prepare and support lecturers to deal with their own students than for the ED staff to offer direct student support. In 5.5 below the responses of ED staff to this change in the CS of ED at the Institutional level are discussed. In keeping with the shift to a quality assurance (QA) frame, it became the role of the EDU staff to support staff in complying with the University’s policies on teaching and learning (5.4.1). With this change in direction came increased structural support from the Institution (mainly in the form of the policies) as well as the all important support from the senior management structures of the University. The EDU staff member who held the post of staff development officer at that time, said:
21 As discussed in 2.5.1 Archer regards vested interests as a way in which structural and cultural properties exert a conditional influence on the activities of people in a specific context (1995:203).
220 … at about the same time [the Vice Principal at the time] seems to have had a change of heart or a Damascus road experience because he suddenly embarked on a very progressive and supportive mode which I remember very well. He irritated people like some of the professors to the extreme which meant at a very senior level management he began to show support (Interview ED staff member 6.10.04 para 127). This extract indicates that it was her perception that change was beginning to take place at the Institutional CS level. Later in the same interview she reflected on the importance of institutional structures in relation to staff development:
… staff development cannot take place effectively outside institutional development where you have policies and strategies that are implementable both in terms of resources and in terms of willingness ( ibid :para 143). By January 1999, following its new mandate from the senior management and with a new director at the helm, the EDU began to wind up all its student support activities and to concentrate its efforts solely on academic staff development 22 . In effect this meant providing academic staff with support in meeting the requirements of the teaching and learning policies. Initially this took the form of workshops on key areas such as evaluation, assessment, outcomes based education and portfolio development. By the end of 1999, staff in the EDU felt that there were sufficient enabling conditions in the Institution for the introduction of a programme aimed at professionalizing the practice of SSAU lecturers. 2000 thus saw the introduction of a programme leading to a proposed Advanced Certificate in Tertiary Studies (ACTS). The programme was an obvious development flowing from the University’s policies on teaching and learning. For example, the policy on Evaluation required staff on probation and staff applying for promotion to submit a teaching portfolio to the Academic Planning and Staffing Committee. As ACTS was to be a work-based course, it made sense to use the teaching portfolio to assess the course. As mentioned earlier (5.4.1), some, especially junior lecturers, were motivated to enrol for the course as it provided them with assistance in building a teaching portfolio while at the same time allowing them to gain a qualification. Three of the modules of the course were directly aimed at providing support for staff in relation to the three teaching and learning policies. Those modules were: Curriculum Development, Evaluation of Teaching and Courses and Assessment of Student Learning. The fourth module, the Nature of Learning, was designed to deepen participants’ theoretical understanding of learning as well as their practical understanding of ways in which to facilitate students' access to learning in the various disciplines in higher education (PGDHE Course Guide 2006 – 2007) (see Appendix 1).
22 There were still a number of ED staff members in faculties who soon lost close contact with the Unit and in many cases they lost their ED focus and became steadily more absorbed into the mainstream teaching in their departments.
221 This section has provided a brief narrative of the history of ED, showing how its CS and SS changed over time and how it responded particularly to the changing Institutional structures. The following section looks at the responses of the ED staff (T 2 to T 3); at how they responded to the conditions created at T 1 and thus how agency contributed towards the enabling conditions for the introduction of ACTS (later the PGDHE) in 2000. The formal programme represents elaboration; T4, the third phase of the structural and cultural morphogenetic cycles.
5.5 ED staff as agents
… in theorising about teaching and learning, and change in higher education , we need a clear focus on agency as the impact of macro-level changes are mediated through the understandings of specific actors, and their creativity and resistance (Clegg 2005:149. Emphasis added). Much of this chapter thus far has provided an account of the Institutional systemic (both cultural and structural) conditions prior to the introduction of the PGDHE with only a few references to the actions of key agents. The essence of agency lies in its emergent character: “Agency denotes the capacity of persons to transform existing states of affairs, and, by implication, agency’s capacity to transform itself reflexively” (Archer 1982:173). Sewell (1992) points out that structures empower agents differentially and that agency can be collective and/or individual: Following Archer (1995), I shall use “agency” always in the plural and “actor” when referring to individuals (2.7).
In this section I change the focus specifically to agency in relation to ED staff as a group. I provide an account of how agency not only contributed to cultural and social morphogenesis leading to the enabling conditions for staff development at T 1 but how agents themselves were transformed in the process. As pointed out earlier (2.3.3), social realism recognizes the existence of people’s emergent properties (PEPs) and also the reality of structural and cultural emergent properties (SEPs and CEPs) (2.5 and 2.6). It is in the interplay between the two that agential morphogenesis occurs. Agency is conditioned by CEPs and SEPs but because it has properties and powers of its own, the exercise of agency can contribute towards the elaboration of culture and structure and in the process agency itself can be transformed (2.7).
For Archer, social identity too is stratified: first people are involuntarily born into certain circumstance as primary agents ; later they may join together in a cohesive group of corporate agents and later still they may develop into social actors (2000, 2002). Of interest in this section is how the interplay between the systemic conditions (SEPs and CEPs) described above and the developing PEPs of the EDU staff members enabled the transformation of primary agents into a more coherent group of corporate agents, that is,
222 what Archer calls agential double morphogenesis (2.7) (see Clegg for discussion on how changes at the systemic level in HE have in some cases opened up spaces for “new sorts of collective agents in the academy” (2005:157)). A further type of agential morphogenesis called triple morphogenesis, is the transformation of corporate agents to individual actors. The latter will only be touched on briefly in this study.
In the 1980s and 1990s the majority of ESP posts at SSAU were filled on contract terms and paid largely from external funding from the Independent Development Trust (IDT) 23 . For example, in 1996 SSAU only funded the EDP director and an administrative assistant. The staffing situation was summarised in the 1996 evaluation report in the following way:
ED activities have led a hand-to-mouth existence at SSAU for over a decade. The daily management of ED activities has suffered through making fundraising the primary responsibility of the director of the EDP. Short term posts, funded on soft money, have had a debilitating effect on the vision for ED at SSAU, as well as on the ability to attract and keep quality staff members (SSAU 1996:18). The 1996 evaluation report recommended that ED staff appointments needed to be made at a fairly senior level “to attract suitably qualified career ED practitioners … for them to have sufficient effect and profile in the academic body … we are of the strong conviction that the ED effort will be most effective if it is staffed by a core of long term, committed personnel” (ibid :18).
As a consequence of the structural and cultural conditions, mentioned here and in earlier sections of this chapter (5.2; 5.3; 5.4), ED staff until the late 1990s at SSAU did not, as a group, enjoy a powerful position in the Institution or a very good reputation. In the words of the previous Vice Principal:
… ED lecturers, who were, let’s be frank, regarded as second class citizens in the university. Often they were not well qualified academically, they weren’t doing mainstream teaching and they were seen as second-class teachers (Interview 6.03.02 para 10). This was not and still is not an unusual situation for ED staff in South African HEIs. Volbrecht, as a result of his research on the career pathing of ED practitioners, notes, “… I am concerned that South African ED practitioners based in HET [Higher Education and Training] institutions are usually marginalised …” (2005:589).
By 1999 due to the recent upheavals in ED and our 24 marginalised position in the University, the existing members of staff were, in Archer’s terms, a group of primary agents who had very little confidence in our own abilities, particularly in relation to staff development.
23 The IDT, established in 1990, is a quasi non-governmental agency providing funding, inter alia, for educational development in South Africa. 24 From this point in the narrative I found it difficult to maintain a distanced perspective from the story as a 3 rd person narrator and therefore use the 1 st person pronouns at times.
223 Archer’s description of primary agents as “inarticulate in their demands and unorganised in their pursuit” (1995:185) sums up ED staff in those early years. Looking back at that time however, it was the opinion of the Director of the EDU:
You need to attribute a lot more agency to people like [names of ED staff] who’ve been around a long time and who’ve developed an enormous amount of expertise and really deep understandings intellectually. But what I think happened/ I wasn’t here/ but my take on it is that through all the troubles at SSAU, when you were constantly under attack for failing to solve an unsolvable problem, the way SSAU had set it up. And actually being cut away at for failing to solve. And I think it ate at your self esteem and I think that by the time I came in 1999 you were sort of hesitant but that wasn’t because you didn’t have the capacity or the ideas but because of the history of this long standing criticism (Interview 6.12.05 para 17). In response to a direct question for clarification, the Director of the EDU said:
The unsolvable problem focused on the idea that students could be ‘fixed’ up in isolation from mainstream. Theoretically we can now account for why this didn’t work. There is evidence from other universities that it didn’t work so your (i.e. EDU’s) inability to do all the fixing wasn’t a shortcoming on your part. SSAU therefore set you up for failure (pers com Director EDU 30.06.06). However, by the end of 1999 there were some systemic enabling factors, such as basic material resources (for example, the retention of a relatively big ED staff complement funded by the University) coupled with the introduction of new ideas around ED as staff development at the international level, which enabled ED staff to articulate ideational alternatives and begin to form a cohesive organised interest group focused on ED as staff development. This could however not have occurred if ED staff as a group did not have and/or develop (as a result of interactions at the S-C level) the requisite PEPs. Although many of us recall suffering varying degrees of crises in confidence, we can all look back now and recognize that both our earlier academic qualifications and our early work experiences contributed significantly towards building PEPs for the later staff development work (Quinn 2005). Many of us had taught for varying lengths of time in high schools. All of us had had experience of teaching and or tutoring in the discipline-based teaching and learning contexts (for example, English Language for Academic Purposes, Divinity, Psychology, Afrikaans) before undertaking the student support work as part of the centralized ED in the University. Especially the student development work that we were involved with in a range of ways had been a crucial foundation for informing our staff development work. In the words of one staff member:
I think it [student support work] was an important process. Ja, I think that understanding of where students come from and the kind of things that they struggle with has been very useful in the way that I understand student learning and the way I understand the relationship between student learning and teaching. And also in the way I understand the importance of a kind of holistic approach towards students … (Interview 11.08.05 para 49).
224 In addition, the slow introduction into staff development work through the professional development programmes (PDPs) in 1997 and 1998, and later in 1999, the workshops for staff on various aspects of practice, gave us the opportunity to increase our knowledge and skills in relation to staff development work. EDU staff had already begun the process of developing the knowledge and skills for staff development work in the mid-1990s when most ED units in SA were involved exclusively in student support or development (Volbrecht 2003). I quote again from the interview with the Director of EDU to show her understanding of how the staff responded to the challenges and the enabling conditions presented in 1999 and the PEPs they drew on and continued developing at the time:
I think there was always the capacity here and that you did understand. And that given the right conditions it didn’t take much and you could all literally just fly … because of those understandings, because of your willingness, because of your own capacity, you all just started reading and doing and if you look at where we’ve got to from those early days … I mean it’s for me, it’s like wow. And nobody helped you to do it (Interview 6.12.05 para 21). Another way in which emerging ED staff PEPs contributed to enabling factors for formal staff development, was through other staff support/developmental work. For example, in 1998 after the policy on the Evaluation of Teaching and Courses was introduced, ED staff members were required to support lecturers in meeting the policy requirements (see Boughey 2001 on the early history of evaluation at SSAU). This entailed helping them collect student evaluation and peer evaluation data, helping them to analyse the data and then to decide whether and how to act on the data. That work was and continues to be crucial in terms of giving us insights into lecturers’ practices. It has been invaluable in informing both our PGDHE programme design and our teaching. However, the other side of the coin was that our involvement in the evaluation of teaching and courses caused some lecturers to misinterpret our role and to regard us as the QA “police” of the university (this will be discussed further in 5.6). Evidence of this is mostly anecdotal, for example, an ED staff member recounted how a lecturer in the University said to his son, “Oh yes, I know your dad, he’s in the Gestapo” (pers com 23.09.06).
Despite, or perhaps as a consequence of being in a marginalised position in the Institution for many years, ED staff members have been able to exercise a degree of agency and have been motivated to continue to develop themselves. Archer (2000) describes the transformation of primary to corporate agents as depending to a certain extent on the subjective reflexivity of primary agents in seeking to play an active part in re-shaping the contexts they work in while at the same time transforming themselves. A quotation from the EDU evaluation report described the EDU staff as “a team that is keenly aware of the need for its own development” (Scott 1996:9). This seems to have been a part of the culture from the early ESP days and it still exists. Staff members were concerned about staying abreast
225 of international and national thinking in the field of ED by: attending local and overseas conferences; taking advantage of exchange programmes to other countries; and being involved in the South African Association for Academic Development (SAAAD) and other regional organisations. When I joined the staff of the EDU in 1995 there was an existing culture of researching and critiquing our own practice. This too has remained a hallmark of the work of the EDU. We considered it important to write and publish articles on our work although time constraints often militated against this. For a number of years the EDU published a journal called Discourse in which articles on teaching and learning initiatives and innovations in the Institution were published. In addition, there has always been a culture of in-house development for ED staff. The ED staff member who filled the post of staff development officer in 1998 described it thus:
And one of the things that I believe I did when I was there was to cultivate what I called in-house staff development within ED because I felt that if we were going to have any effective staff development then we had to have our own/ and I think we took that extremely well and I think it was one of my best experiences in terms of development. In terms of living out the concept of people just growing and growing and growing and also growing in confidence. Even though there wasn’t an environment that was affirming because we still couldn’t get into departments (Interview 6.10.04 para 123). An obvious constraining factor (as identified earlier in this section by the former VP) for ED staff agency was the lack of (in some cases “appropriate”) academic qualifications. The majority of ED staff at SSAU in those early years were younger women, most of whom were bearing and raising children while at the same time completing post graduate degrees and trying to make a career in ED. Research both in South Africa (Stones et al ETDP Project 1997 in Volbrecht 2005) and elsewhere (for example Andresen 2000; Gosling 2001; D’Andrea and Gosling 2001; MacDonald 2003) shows that academic capital in the form of postgraduate degrees and a research publication record, preferably in a high status field, is the main currency for career progression in any discipline in HE. D’Andrea and Gosling, referring particularly to the field of ED, from their research claim that:
… educational development leadership must come from staff with sound academic credentials, experience and peer recognition as good teachers, if they are to be perceived as being credible (2001:73-4). MacDonald (2003:5-6) citing Candy (1996) believes that ED staff should be regarded not as para-professionals but rather as meta-professionals. He believes that their potential effectiveness in changing both individual attitudes and institutional cultures is “dependent on being, and on being seen to be reputable academics whose area of research and teaching happens to be higher education itself”.
In the early years most of the ED staff at SSAU only had honours degrees in a range of different disciplines. It is clear from the interviews with staff that they were all very aware of
226 the importance of acquiring the appropriate “academic capital”. By 2000 all the staff in the EDU had completed masters degrees (mostly, but not all, in the field of higher education). By the start of 2006, aside from the Director, two other ED staff had completed PhDs and the remaining four staff members were engaged in PhD research in the field of higher education. Reflecting on ED staff members’ motivation to engage in further study, the EDU director said:
We’ve done the spadework inside in terms of developing ourselves … There is something else going on in here. What is it that gives people the motivation, the professional sense that they want to improve themselves? Often, as we know, under very difficult circumstances … So what is it about the endeavour, about how they see themselves as individuals and their professional identity which has made them push through to get those further qualifications? I don’t know what the answer is (6.12.05 para 123-125). Engaging in postgraduate study has been a major enabling factor for staff in different ways: credibility and confidence by virtue of having the degree but also the learning and development in working towards it (Interview EDU staff member 14.07.05 para 336 and Interview EDU staff member 26.06.05 para 209). The pursuit of the higher degrees has given us personal properties and powers which have contributed towards our agency which enabled us to contribute towards changes at the structural and cultural levels of ED in the Institution.
A further enabling factor that emerged from the interview data for ED staff both in their transformation from primary agents to corporate agents and then individual actors (2.7) (in different ways and degrees for different individuals), at both the cultural and structural level, has been the community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991; Lave 1996; Knight and Trowler 2001) of the Educational Development Centre. For most of the staff members it has been an enabling context in which to develop our knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs about the practice of academic staff development (CS and SS). Aside from the formal structures of regular staff meetings and dedicated planning meetings, there have been ongoing informal conversations and sharing of expertise, experiences and resources among the staff. As I said to one of my colleagues: “For me, a real strength for us has been the community of practice, the sharing of ideas, and the building of common understandings of the course. We’ve worked hard at that” (LQ in interview with EDU staff member 11.08.05 para 259). In response to a question regarding the role of the EDU, an EDU staff member said:
I think what’s really important is that there is a kind of shared understanding of what the PGDHE is supposed to be about. And I think there is a shared sort of culture of/ maybe culture isn’t the right word/ I think shared understanding is a better way of putting it. A shared understanding of what makes good small group professional teaching development. So, I think it’s paramount. Also the other thing that’s important is that there is a lot of sharing of resources. That’s
227 always been there … So there’s a sense that it’s there, a kind of joint collective activity rather than ‘my course’ or whatever (Interview 11.08.05 para 450). A structural change in the EDU which contributed to a large degree to the ability of the staff to develop PEPs was the change of leadership at the start of 1999. As pointed out in a review document written in 2002: “It is clear that excellent leadership had contributed to a great improvement since the 1998 review …” (SSAU 2002:6).
Clearly the new director was a key agent in contributing towards the change in ED at the time. In the words of the previous VP:
Let’s face it, there had to be a change of mindsets here. It was painful and in essence it has taken place and people are happy with the direction. A lot of that is thanks to [name of the EDU Director] and her way of going about things (Interview 6.03.02 para 57). As mentioned earlier (5.4.3), the new director arrived with the requisite PEPs (both in terms of academic qualifications and experience) to offer the kind of strategic leadership which was required to contribute towards the double morphogenesis of the staff from primary to corporate agents. As corporate agents the ED staff have, since 1999, begun to move from the previously marginalised position we had occupied to that of an institutional resource.
The data contains evidence that perceptions of the EDU (collectively and in relation to individual staff members) have improved over the years. Later in the same interview the previous VP ventured the following opinions:
VP: The status of the ED staff is much better than it was five years ago.
LQ: Things have improved greatly.
VP: There’s no doubt. That is something that is perceived on the outside [the Institution]. EDU at SSAU has a much greater status than ED at some other places and it’s partly because of your focus on mainstream work. You’re no longer the dumping ground for [student] problems.
LQ: Although some people still wish we were, just so that they could have somewhere to dump.
VP: Oh yes, there will be some people who will still have those thoughts for another twenty years (Interview 6.03.02 para 63-67). One of the Deans expressed a similar opinion:
The EDU didn’t have a good reputation years ago. I think you’re still fighting that … there’s still enough of the old school academics around who just say ‘this is not how you do it, this is not how we do it’, but I think, and I mean this absolutely sincerely, the vibe that I pick up is that you have a reputation which people now have a lot of confidence in; the EDU and what you’re doing (Interview 21.08.03 para 132).
228 The following quotation from the interview with the Director of AP & QA adds her voice to the changing perceptions of the EDU in the Institution:
Ja, what I was aware of was, first of all, a growing antipathy from academics to what used to be the EDU, before the review was undertaken, and then as I have come into this position, increasingly aware of growing support from both the academics and the management…. but when I look at other institutions and how the EDU is very much relegated to the side-lines. Ja, an add-on, I realize actually we are very, very fortunate. I think we’ve got it probably as ‘right’ as any other institution in the country (Interview 29.07.03 paras 103-5). In conclusion, Archer (1995:187 and 2000:11) (see also 2.4.2.) discusses the need to examine the interplay between roles and the occupants of roles. In the case of the EDU staff (including the Director), this section has shown how they exercised their agency, not in “routinized ways”, but rather in ways which transformed their roles:
Corporate Agency transforms itself in pursuing social transformation. Primarily it does this, in the course of its struggles, by inducing the elaboration of the institutional role structure. New roles are created, and these constitute new positions in which more people can willingly invest themselves (Archer 2000:11). ED staff at SSAU had a vested interest in retaining their jobs, but also in doing the staff development work they believed was important for institutional transformation. In this section I have accounted for how the ED staff, to protect their interests and to minimize the opportunity costs involved, responded to the enabling structural and cultural conditions resulting not only in structural and cultural elaboration in the form of the PGDHE, but also in the double morphogenesis of the staff from primary agents to corporate agents. The following quotation from the interview with the EDU Director discussing the change in 1999 to a focus on mainly staff development for the Unit illustrates my point:
And so the top level stuff opened a space. That was fine but then you really had the capacity, the will, the motivation, the interest and you just zoomed in and occupied that space (Interview 6.12.05 para 25). This quotation leads into the next section, which is a discussion of the connection between structure, culture and agency. In particular, it is about how the constraining contradictions at the cultural level between the ideas underpinning QA and the foundational ideas of ED and the constraining contractions between the institutional structures put in place for QA and ED resulted in overall morphogenesis.
5.6 The intersection between structure, culture and agency leading to T 4
… where any form of Social Elaboration is concerned, then structure, culture and agency are always involved. The investigative focus may be on one alone, but the investigation itself cannot fail to introduce the other two (Archer 1995:324). At this point it is useful to return briefly to the theory presented in chapter 2. As pointed out in 2.3, because Archer’s framework unifies the concepts of structure, culture and agency
229 within the same conceptual framework, it is possible to theorise about the relationship between them. This section does that by identifying the morphogenetic intersection (Archer 1995:305) of the three domains in order to advance concrete propositions about the conditions for transformation which existed at the time that the formal programme was introduced at SSAU in 2000. The conditional effects of the “parts” (structure and culture) as described earlier in this chapter depended upon how they were received by the “people” (S- C and SI). The first part of this section will therefore examine how the ED staff responded to the elaborations brought about by the constraining contradictions in both the cultural and structural domains. What is also of interest is whether the elaborations in the cultural domain (CEPs) were congruent or incongruent with elaborations in the structural domain (SEPs) and how this congruence or lack of congruence affected the relevant agents (PEPs). The relationship between culture and structure is thus dialectical: culture exerts an influence on structure and structure exerts an influence on culture, but these influences always operate through social interaction (“people”). What is of significance is to determine when one exerts more influence over the other. In this section I argue that at the historical moment under consideration, there was a conjunction between cultural morphogenesis (as a result of the constraining contradiction between the ideas underpinning QA and those underpinning ED) and structural morphogenesis (as a result of the constraining contradictions between the Institutional QA and ED structures). However, it was the structural morphogenesis that was dominant and created the most enabling conditions for the next morphogenetic cycle.
As outlined earlier (2.8), when there is a conjunction between cultural morphogenesis and structural morphogenesis there tends to be high levels of interaction among interest groups and some groups acquire the characteristics of corporate agency. I argued above that by the beginning of 2000 ED staff had begun to develop PEPs and to work together in a much more cohesive way than before in a bid to find both structural and cultural advancement in the Institution. Perhaps our ability to mobilise into corporate agents at that point is what then enabled the continued development and growth of the PGDHE as opposed to its floundering as has been the case at some other South African HEIs, where there have been other things happening at both the ideational and structural levels, for example, mergers, lack of a critical mass of expertise, lack of support from senior management and so on.
As I observed earlier (5.2.1.2), the situational logic created by the constraining contradictions at the cultural level between the ideas which underpinned ED and those that underpinned QA resulted in a syncretism in which there was some adjustment from both sides to allow the two sets of ideas to co-exist. For example, an extract from the Audit Portfolio notes: “…. SSAU has made a concerted effort to minimise intrusion on academic activities … and has
230 deliberately tried to avoid going the ‘total quality management’ or ‘tick box mentality’ route …” (SSAU 2005:9).
However, at the S-C level the QA discourse did not “sit” easily with most ED staff: “While this shift in framing discourse was uncomfortable for those working within the EDU, it was nevertheless instrumental in allowing staff to do the work they had long been arguing for” (Boughey 2003:2). The following extract from the interview with the EDU director is illustrative of the ambivalence of the staff towards the QA discourse:
LQ: I think it is quite interesting though that the space opened up by the top level, the ideational space, and the ideational level at which we work is actually different [from that created by the QA discourse].
Director: Yes, I think it’s very different.
LQ: We accept that as our place, and we’re grateful for it as it gives us a reason for existence in the University but we work with another set of ideologies and beliefs.
Director: Yes. Yes I think the two discourses: [the ex-VP’s] quality discourse and certainly the discourse that interested you [ED staff], what drove you in the late nineties was an equity, a student-centred discourse. It was about making things better for students and particularly disadvantaged students, students who didn’t come in with all that cultural capital. [The ex-VP] didn’t understand it in that way. It was an efficiency discourse and I think now still the discourses sit uneasily.
LQ: I think we used it to our advantage. (Interview 6.12.05 paras 27-35).
And later in the same interview, the Director says:
I mean if someone asked me about my work, ‘why do you do?’ I wouldn’t hesitate in saying that my interest is in social justice and yet the quality discourse is not about that ( ibid :para 57). The extracts above seem to indicate that although not all the ED staff completely agreed with or were entirely comfortable with the quality assurance discourse, there was an acknowledgement that it created a cultural and structural framework which provided a raison d’ être for the EDU as a staff development unit which did not exist previously. As I said:
It [the move to QA] has also given us legitimacy that we are here to support people in meeting the quality requirements of the Institution. We phrase it in this developmental, supportive, helpful way but it has given us a place in the institution that is actually stronger. This new legitimacy has changed the nature of our jobs. The days of three people pitching for a workshop, that’s gone. And that is because we are being supported by the senior management of the University.... (LQ in interview with EDU staff member 11.08.05 para 109).
231 In her recent analysis of ED in South Africa, Boughey (forthcoming) argues:
That work within an outcomes based approach was linked to wider processes of globalisation and the need for high skills further added to this reframing of Educational Development as a tool for capitalist expansion rather than social reproduction. Far from furthering the equity agenda which had characterized work informed by both support and capacity discourses, therefore, the ‘new’ Educational Development activities represented compliance with a more conservative agenda serving the capitalism related to the global revolution in information and communication technologies (ICTs) of the 1990s. However my analysis of the situation at SSAU indicates that despite outward compliance with a “more conservative agenda”, most ED staff members continued to work from within an equity discourse although with a more critical dimension to it than in the earlier ESP days. The intention behind our work was to look for a better way of helping students without holding a deficit view of them (5.3.2); locating “the problem” not within students but looking more critically at the Institution, at curricula and teaching to ensure epistemological access for all students. Nonetheless, despite our reservations and concerns about the way in which discourses like accountability and quality assurance are used to rationalize and regulate higher education (Slaughter 2001), it was a strategic move and in our interests as a Unit to take on those discourses to give us an ideational space, to give us legitimacy in the University. The Director described her feelings at that time:
I can remember very clearly back in 1999 having to go over to [the previous VP’s] office once a week and report on what we were doing and very much sort of presenting us as the handmaidens of the discourse. Like we’ve done this and he’d say ‘oh wonderful’ and then I know he was going elsewhere and saying, ‘oh aren’t they doing well’. Obviously he had an interest because he had argued for our survival. But I felt sort of look oh, I had another coat on going to those meetings and I was never comfortable doing it. And I was very conscious of the fact that we were on the back foot. That we were having to prove ourselves within this particular space which had been allocated for us but it wasn’t what we were about and it wasn’t what we were interested in. It wasn’t pleasant (Interview 6.12.05 para 61). Some higher education theorists (for example Gosling and D’Andrea 2001; Nixon 2001; Nixon et al 2001) argue that the “ideology” of quality management is based on a rationalistic and “technologised” model of higher education and that it could have negative effects on HE:
The paradoxical result may well be that vigorous efforts by agencies and central government to assess the quality of university work lead to its decline as more and more energy is spent on bureaucratic reports and as universities begin to adapt to the simplifying tendencies of the quantification of outputs (Trow 1994:20 in Gosling and D’Andrea 2001:3). Others have argued that the bureaucratic demands associated with QA “are creating a compliance culture that dampens creativity, rewards conformity and slows down the responsiveness of the system to a rapidly changing environment” (Gosling and D’Andrea 2001:4-5 citing Rustin 2000, Cooper, 2000, Trow 1994). Clearly then, QA and ED are
232 underpinned by competing agendas and the relationship between them is complex (see for example MacDonald (2003) on the influence of QA on the work of UK ED practitioners).
As alluded to earlier, for strategic purposes there was a measure of compromise (syncretism) in the Institution between the two discourses to enable ED staff members to do the work they wanted to do and to enable the University, at the very least, to pay lip service to the QA demands from the national level. However, as Gosling and D’Andrea point out: “By taking a more active role in the quality assurance processes educational developers have been open to the challenge that they are implicated in carrying forward the quality management ideology” (2001:4). At SSAU, although this syncretic movement contributed towards the enabling conditions for staff development work, concern was expressed by a range of research respondents for the possible negative consequences of this compromise. A senior academic whom I interviewed made the following observation: “There’s also a big conflation between what the EDU’s doing and what people think the government is doing - interfering with them and academic freedom issues” (Interview 25.08.05 para 131).
Some ED staff also expressed concerns about the possible negative consequences of the syncretism that has occurred between the two discourses. One staff member said:
This QA thing is actually very problematic because the work we do is ultimately about developing our students, the lecturers, so it feels/ it almost feels like there’s a disjuncture … between the kind of teacher role and the inspector role. It’s like having to be the teacher and the inspector at the same time …. That’s how it feels sometimes (Interview 11.08.05 para 87). D’Andrea and Gosling point out that this is not unusual:
… like all members of higher education communities, those working in educational development often find themselves being required to engage in activities while personally disagreeing with the ideological basis that underpins the very things they are required to do (2005:205). Another staff member, in response to a direct question regarding ED being positioned as “a ‘hidden’ QA resource as it does the work allocated by many other institutions to formal ‘quality promotions units’” (SSAU 2005:16), said:
I feel that it is both a limiting and watered-down positioning of our work. It becomes reactive, rather than proactive, and I feel pays insufficient attention to the agency of lecturers. I also feel that it presumes the acceptance of the quality discourse as exhausting the idea of scholarship of curriculum and pedagogy, which I do not feel is a legitimate assumption (Email correspondence15.05.06). Later in the email this staff member expressed a concern that the association of our work with QA might “undermine our integrity” 25 , making it difficult for staff to believe that our concerns were and still are with “real” development of teaching and learning in the Institution
25 He did however concede, that “in order to survive we had to play that game”.
233 as opposed to that of policing lecturers or perhaps providing the requisite window dressing to pay lip service to national QA requirements. His concern is echoed by Boughey (forthcoming) who suggests that ED practitioners need to develop a
… critical eye in relation to curriculum development, assessment and staff development.... The development of a critical consciousness in Educational Development work would be one way of finding the voices needed to ensure that the transformation of South African higher education is indeed fitting to the new democracy. Some ED staff thus had reservations about the uneasy syncretism at the cultural level. The uneasiness seems to have stemmed from the particular QA discourses (and concomitant structures) that were introduced at the time (see 6.3; 6.4 for discussion of alternate QA discourses and structures which may lead to more genuine syncretism in the future). However, despite this uneasiness, the QA structures that were introduced in 1998 and 1999 in the form of the teaching and learning policies, coupled with the support from senior management, created enabling conditions for the change in focus of our work. Some ED units in HEIs in SA were being closed down at that time. The fact that SSAU retained the services of a relatively well-resourced Unit for doing ED work is further evidence of support from the top structures of the University (see Candy 1996 and Volbrecht 2005 on how crucial it is for ED units to have the support of senior management for staff development initiatives). As part of this research I interviewed an ED director at another SA HEI (17.06.03), who talked at length about the difficulties of trying to initiate staff development activities without support from management structures and with lack of capacity in the ED unit. In an institution far bigger than SSAU, only one ED staff member was responsible for staff development. In addition, there was little support for that person in terms of an ED community of practice within the institution.
The directing of our energies and expertise on one area (that is, staff development) helped us (the EDU staff) to increase our PEPs, which in turn enabled us to contribute to structural and cultural elaboration (T 4) by designing and introducing the formal programme.
5.7 Conclusion
In this chapter I have provided an analysis of those aspects of the cultural, structural and agential Institutional context which contributed towards creating enabling conditions for the introduction of the PGDHE at SSAU in 2000. From this analysis it would seem that it was the combination of 1) the response at the S-C level to the constraining contradictions between the QA and ED at the level of culture (CS) and 2) the response at the SI level to the structural (S-S) constraining contradictions which created the essentially enabling conditions for changes in the way in which ED was practised in the Institution. My analysis has shown
234 that structural and cultural elaboration took place with the process of competitive conflict as the central mechanism for that change. The responses of the people to that conflict resulted in sufficient sinking of the differences to create enabling conditions for structural and cultural morphogenesis to take place represented by the emergence of the formal programme for staff development.
235 Chapter 6 Conclusion
6.1 Overview
I began this dissertation by outlining the personal, intellectual and practical goals which provided the impetus for this research project. I have achieved my personal goal of attaining both a greater understanding of the history of ED in relation to HE broadly as well as in my own role as an ED practitioner. I am now better able to explain how and why things at SSAU turned out they way they did and not otherwise. In relation to my intellectual goals , Archer’s morphogenetic/morphostatic methodological framework (underpinned by a social realist epistemological and ontological understanding of the world) encouraged me to move beyond superficial understandings to uncover what lies beneath and beyond the empirical. This entailed examining the interplay between the “parts” (culture and structure) and the “people” (agency) in order to uncover the conditions that enabled or constrained transformation or reproduction in the specific context of ED at SSAU. Archer’s framework thus enabled me to provide an historical analysis of the socio-cultural factors, at macro, mezo and micro levels, which led to the emergence of the PGDHE in 2000.
What remains to be done is to make explicit the practical goals which I believe I have achieved in this research project. In the event, although not part of the original intention, one of the outcomes of the research has been to show how Archer’s framework can be used to generate knowledge and understanding in the context of ED in higher education (I return to this below). In addition, through the research I have provided knowledge and insights that might prove useful for ED practitioners, both at SSAU and at other HEIs, to inform their actions and responses to the circumstances which confront them, enabling them to make better decisions to inform their planning. According to Danermark et al
If we have knowledge of the mechanisms of social structures, we can identify the driving forces behind the events we are observing. Doing so we can also in a more qualified manner estimate the possibilities, deficiencies and limitations of the actions we plan (2002:188). However, before moving on to a more detailed discussion of the practical outcomes of the project, I need, again, to signal my understanding that research findings and interpretations are partial: “By nature all research is partial in relation to the real world” (Danermark et al 2002:169). In addition, research findings and interpretations are “shifting, contestable and more or less provisional” (Crang 2003:141). As Sayer points out:
Any explanation, be it of natural or social phenomena, is incomplete for the epistemological reason that all knowledge is revisable, but explanations of social phenomena are also incomplete for ontological reasons … that the objects of
236 study are undergoing continuous historical, and not merely evolutionary change (1992:234). What I have done in this dissertation is provide an analytical history of the emergence of the PGDHE: “This transitive, corrigible narrative is the methodological hallmark of morphogenetic realism ….” (Archer 1995:94).
I found that at SSAU there has been a “progressive disruption of the morphostatic synchrony between structure (SEPs) and culture (CEPs)” (Archer 2000:273) caused by new discourses and structures emanating from the broader international and national HE context. Evidence for the synchrony between SEPs and CEPs was the prevalence of the excellence discourse which served to maintain the status quo at SSAU (5.2.1). In particular, I argued that attempts at reconciling the constraining contradictions between the discourses and structures related to quality assurance on the one hand, and educational development on the other, resulted in a conjunction between cultural morphogenesis and structural morphogenesis. This conjunction, along with the double morphogenesis of the staff of the EDU from primary agents to corporate agents, created sufficiently enabling conditions in the Institution for the introduction of the PGDHE.
6.2 The theoretical framework
Rather than aiming for statistical or empirical generalizability, qualitative research often seeks to produce concepts that are theoretically generalizable. Mitchell (1983), an advocate of the case study method, argues that cases should be chosen on the basis of their power to explain rather than their typicality. Sampling on the basis that such critical cases will be of particular interest to the researcher in terms of being able to confirm or contrast emergent theory is termed theoretical sampling (Bloor and Wood 2006:93. Emphasis added). Although as mentioned previously (2.3) I did not deliberately set out to evaluate Archer’s social realist morphogenetic/morphostatic framework, the value of its use as a framework in research of this nature emerged very strongly. Readers wishing to conduct similar empirical research may also find it useful. In this section I will briefly summarise how and why I think it is a useful framework for case study research projects similar to the one I undertook.
Firstly, I would argue that the social realist metatheoretical framework and in particular, Archer’s morphogenetic/morphostatic methodological approach provides a research project with theoretical and practical coherence. It enables researchers to analyse data in such a way that they are able to advance an argument for the conditions (structural, cultural and agential) under which a phenomenon (in my case the PGDHE at SSAU, as a particular form of academic staff development) was possible at a particular time in history.
The social realist approach encourages researchers to look beyond/beneath the immediately observable empirical level of reality; beyond what Archer calls the “hard data supplied by our
237 senses” (1995:50). It enables an investigation of deeper levels of reality and the uncovering of the underlying causal processes, structures and powers which enable/constrain the phenomenon/phenomena under investigation. Such findings can potentially provide practitioners with more valid and reliable information on which to base future decisions.
Archer’s non-conflationary framework, based on the principle of analytical dualism, allows researchers to separate and examine the conditioning effects of culture, structure and agency on events and practices. It enables an examination of the interplay between culture and structure and between culture and agency and structure and agency, that is, the effects of the systemic (parts) on social life (people).
In this framework, culture, structure and agency are viewed as separate strata of reality, each with distinct properties and powers (CEPs, SEPs and PEPs). Both culture and structure are regarded as central to social life and, although they are substantially different, it is Archer’s contention that the same conceptual, theoretical and analytical framework can be used to investigate both and also to investigate the interplay between culture and agency and structure and agency . The framework provides a methodology which allows researchers to advance concrete propositions about how the normative ideas (and their associated discourses) and the material structures related to a particular field (for example, in my case, higher education and educational development) at the macro level shape the ideas/discourses and material structures at mezo 1 and micro levels, and then how the people in these contexts respond to these conditioning influences. Because structure, culture and agency are unified within the same conceptual framework, it paves the way for uniting them analytically, and theorizing about their relationship. It enables the researcher to determine when one exerts more influence over the other. In the case of ED at SSAU, as a result of my research I, for example, suggest that it was the structural elaboration in the Institution which was more significant than the cultural elaboration in providing enabling conditions for the introduction of the PGDHE.
Archer’s framework not only allows for an examination of how agency is conditioned by culture and structure, but it also allows for an examination of how agency can contribute to cultural and structural elaboration. Because agency is understood to be ontologically separate from culture and structure, it has its own powers and properties, such as intentionality and reflexivity, which means that agency not only contributes to cultural and social morphogenesis but can itself be transformed in the process. As I have applied it in this study, the framework allowed me to investigate the conditions for the morphogenesis of certain key agents, including the EDU staff, in the Institution.
1 See Trowler (2005) on the need for more HE research at the department/ unit, programme level, as a key unit of analysis at the mezo level which is generally under-researched.
238 Earlier (2.2.1) I quoted Benton and Craib (2001:120) in arguing the social realist point that the social world is in theory knowable and to a certain extent therefore open to be changed on the basis of the knowledge we can achieve through empirical research. However, it would seem important to note that this knowledge is not merely superficial knowledge. To conclude this section I would argue that using Archer’s social realist framework can usefully be employed to generate in-depth and critical knowledge about the interplay between underlying causal processes. This knowledge can then be used by practitioners to inform future practice. The following section suggests some conceptual principles which can be formulated from the research findings of the case study reported on in this dissertation.
6.3 Conceptual “principles” arising from the research
Talking about change, Trowler and Knight (2001:21) suggest that
… it is a journey that involves a process of progressive clarification. Some (like Weick 1995) argue that one can’t just import change/solutions, for this reason there is a point in ‘reinventing the wheel’ each time it is used; attempts to import solutions that have worked elsewhere will lack both a sense of ownership as well as the contextually specific sets of meanings and practices associated with it that have evolved in that other context. As alluded to earlier (3.6.2), I do not believe that the findings of my study or the way I have interpreted my data will be generally applicable to all or even most HEIs (in South Africa or elsewhere). Rather, like Trowler and Cooper, I hope to have developed “illuminative ways of understanding processes which occur in these contexts in order to help significant actors, including programme designers and programme participants, to operate in a more considered and better-informed way” (2002:223).
Tentatively then, I suggest the following conceptual “principles” for ED/HE practitioners to consider:
HEIs, in conceptualizing institutional transformation (morphogenesis) would do well to consider how the interplay between culture and structure and between the parts and people could affect whether and how transformation might occur.
• At the cultural level , HEIs need to create opportunities for people (at all levels) to make explicit the understandings of the purposes of HE that underpin their mission and vision, and to create spaces for debate and discussion about these. They need to engage in debates about the purposes of higher education, the identity of the specific institution and what it is the people in the institution are aiming for/improving towards. During this process, cognizance must be taken of the ideas, beliefs, theories and values around HE nationally and internationally. There need to be opportunities for relevant agents to engage in debate around their understanding of the CS at the institutional level as well
239 as of ED in the institution. In addition, agents need to be aware of the ways in which the CS of the institution and the CS of ED relate to the CS which inform national goals.
• Discourses around quality are part of the HE landscape in most countries and therefore HEIs need to find ways of conceptualizing quality that are congruent with the purposes, values, and strategic goals of their institution. In South Africa it is particularly urgent that HEIs also find ways of ensuring compatibility between the discourses around equity/redress and those of quality. This may mean a move away from discourses which conceptualize quality as only being about accountability towards discourses which conceptualize quality as enhancement and development of teaching and learning in HE.
• At the structural level , HEIs need to consider what structures could be put in place to enable them to meet the strategic goals and purposes discussed earlier. If ED is conceptualized (at the CS level) as being about institutional development and transformation, then appropriate institutional and ED structures could help to achieve morphogenesis. What these structures need to be will be different in each context but I suggest that in order to signal that teaching/ learning is valued, a position such as Dean or Deputy Vice Chancellor for Teaching and Learning could be created.
• In addition, ED could be positioned as an institutional resource which could contribute towards the transformation of teaching and learning. HEIs would have to consider how the institutional structures around both QA and ED could contribute enabling (as opposed to constraining) conditions for transformation. Indications from my research suggest that they should not be set up in structures which separate them and therefore exacerbate the constraining contradictions between them. Therefore I suggest that to enable ED and QA to play a central role in institutional transformation, a structure such as a Teaching and Learning Centre, which brings the two together, could be created.
• Part of such a structure could be the development and offering of a formal qualification for the professional development of academic staff. As was suggested earlier (4.4.2), the focus of such a qualification should be the structural level, that is, on the roles staff play within institutions and the teaching and learning processes, rather than on individual teachers. For such a structure to have any real impact on the institution it needs however to be part of an institution-wide process of transformation.
• At the agential level , the importance of both actors and agents in contributing towards transformation processes should be considered. For example, the leadership roles in HEIs such as those of VCs, VPs, ED and QA Directors, Deans and HoDs need to be considered. Questions need to be asked about how these roles are conceptualized and how they fit into the structures of the institution as well as how individual incumbents fill
240 them. The conditioning influence of the key actors in relation to institutional morphogenesis or morphostasis should be critically considered. Institutional transformation is most likely to occur when these actors form a group of powerful corporate agents who work together towards commonly understood goals. This would include common understandings of the roles of ED and high–level, consistent support for ED activities in the institution.
• Careful consideration should be given to whether groups of primary agents (for example, staff members of an EDU) in the institution are encouraged and given opportunities to develop appropriate personal properties and powers (PEPs) in order to fill their roles and thus contribute to institutional cultural and structural morphogenesis. As Beattie points out, “… those who teach future teachers should be good teachers themselves, and … they deserve conditions and support for their on going learning and professional development” (in Nixon et al 1998:URL).
In this section I have pointed to some general “principles” arising from my case study for readers of this dissertation to consider in relation to their institutional contexts. The final section of the dissertation looks more specifically at the SSAU context once again.
6.4 Looking ahead: the next morphogenetic cycle at SSAU?
Using the knowledge and insights gained from the research process, as well as from the research and literature on higher education, in this section I speculate/make proposals for what I think could happen in the next morphogenetic cycle at SSAU.
The EDU has sufficient evidence that at the level of individual staff the PGDHE has made a significant impact on teaching and learning (see evaluations in Appendix 1). The syncretism between both the QA and ED discourses and structures appears to have been sufficient to create enabling conditions for the programme but not, I would argue, to have a meaningful large-scale impact at the Institutional level. For the continued development of both the PGDHE and for further improvement in terms of teaching and learning at SSAU, the next morphogenetic cycle will require systemic changes at both the cultural and the structural levels. In the words of D’Andrea and Gosling, educational development
… needs to be both broader in its conception and more centrally located within institutional decision-making processes if it is to meet the challenges facing higher education today 2 (2001:65).
2 See research by Taylor (2005:32) which “places academic development in the leadership domain”.
241 Following D’Andrea and Gosling 3, I would speculate that this is unlikely to occur unless there is a whole-institutional approach 4 in which there is genuine syncretism between competing discourses in the CS and between structures which could enable QA and ED to work together to achieve common goals. D’Andrea and Gosling suggest that a way in which this could be achieved is through what they call a quality development model 5. To achieve this, at the cultural level QA and ED have to find a common set of values and beliefs to replace the existing “improvement agendas based on often opposing values” (Gosling and D’Andrea (2001:2). They propose an integrated model in which educational development incorporates the enhancement of learning and teaching with the quality and standards monitoring processes in an HEI. The quality development model as conceptualized by D’Andrea and Gosling is not predicated on either managerialist (QA as accountability) or traditional collegial approaches (which tend to value research more than teaching) to higher education, but on core values unique to higher education. It is beyond the scope of this work to conceptualize in any detail how this may work at SSAU but I will make some suggestions.
At SSAU, for changes in the CS to occur, in order to create what Bergquist (1992 in D’Andrea and Gosling 2005) calls a “developmental culture”, critical conversations about important philosophical questions such as the purpose of higher education and the strategic goals of this Institution need to take place at all levels of the Institution in order for the agents to develop shared understandings. As mentioned in 5.2.1, the notion of “excellence” has to be better understood and critiqued. In the words of SSAU’s VC:
It is vital that we guard against conduct, practices, self-fulfilling prophecies, self comforting perceptions, and dangerous platitudes that can induce inertia, complacency and insularity, and stifle innovation, improvements, transformation, and development (2006a:13).
Critical conversations do take place in the PGDHE group sessions (Appendix 1) and are now beginning take place in other important forums such as at the University imbizo in 2006 (5.2.1). The newly appointed VC, in his inaugural address, made clear the importance of the Institution developing an understanding of its purposes and its identity. He also outlined the changes he believes are necessary in the cultural system for transformation in higher education:
3 Much of this section was inspired and informed by the ideas of D’Andrea and Gosling in D’Andrea and Gosling (2001and 2005) and Gosling and D’Andrea (2001) in which they outline their “quality development” model for higher education. 4 See also Fanghanel (2004), whose research findings indicate that the success of staff development courses in the UK depends largely on organizational change. 5 Space precludes a full exploration but this model seems similar to the enhancement-led approach to managing quality and standards in Scottish higher education (Quality Assurance Agency Scotland 2006).
242 Transformation is fundamentally about a revolution of the mind, a revolution in thinking. It means being open to rethinking, and changing, how we think – about ourselves and about the ‘other’; about what we deem ‘natural’, and ‘normal’; about what are supposedly self-evident characteristics of academic quality and excellence; about what and whose knowledge counts; about our curriculum, pedagogy, and learning-teaching, and our research questions; about universities and their purposes and roles; and about our society and its challenges (SSAU VC 2006a:14).
At the cultural level, the argument could be advanced that particularly at this juncture in the history of South African HE, attempts have to be made to create unification between the discourses related to equity and access and those related to efficiency and quality. Making it clear that achieving such syncretism is not a simple matter 6, the VC stated:
The conventional wisdom appears to be that increased enrolments, equity and redress must necessarily result in the reduction of the quality of provision, qualifications and graduates. There may be an intractable tension between the simultaneous pursuit of equity and quality, but there is no inevitable conflict between quality and equity. Enhancing social equity does not mean a diminution of quality and the compromise of standards, appropriately defined.
We can and must, without compromise, pursue social equity with quality, and quality with social equity. Without quality, social equity is meaningless. So- called quality to the exclusion of social equity means that we reproduce the occupational and social structure of our apartheid past, and we compromise the substance of our democracy (2006:16).
Similarly, the Director of the EDU, in her “Think Piece” for the imbizo suggests that perhaps in future
The framing … would shift to one of ‘quality for equity/access’ - in other words our efforts at assuring quality would be directed at ensuring that teaching and curriculum design were enabling the University to meet its goals of contributing to social justice. Teaching and curriculum design would thus have a strategic goal rather than a more general goal of simply being ‘excellent’ (Director EDU SSAU 2006:57).
Rather than simply striving for “excellence”, “improvement” or development”, individuals and groups of corporate agents at SSAU need to clarify their goals; they need to determine what it is they wish to “develop towards” (D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:22).
However, only further empirical research will uncover how the people in the S-C of the University will respond to these attempts to change the CS. If genuine syncretism between these two sets of apparently contradictory ideas could be achieved, then it would be easier
6 D’Andrea and Gosling (2005) also note that achieving the kind of syncretism to enable a quality development model is not a simple process and that simple theories will not suffice; there will always be contradictions and incompatibilities (at both the systems and social levels) that need to be managed.
243 to overcome the current underlying tensions between QA and ED and create structures which could work towards morphogenesis of the Institution.
In my view, both the QA and ED structures in the Institution need to be reconceptualized to reflect new ideas around quality as development and to enable QA and educational/staff development to work together. It is the view of the former CEO of the CHE that structures need to be put in place that promote both equity and quality in HE. In particular structures need to be in place to support academic staff in this regard:
… to engage and provide epistemological access to a new generation, a changing generation of students who simply are very different from those they [academic staff] have been used to historically. So both for reasons of equity and quality, not just because of equity but especially because of quality and national development needs and …in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of getting the job done and producing graduates with knowledge, competencies and skills that are appropriate for our context. I think we can’t escape some way of equipping academics either before they start or parallel with their starting; creating flexible opportunities for them to develop ….(Interview 24.03.04 paras 18 and 22). Before concluding this section, I would like to return briefly to D’Andrea and Gosling’s quality development model. In terms of structure, in this model they promote the idea of a learning organization 7 which is made up of what they call learning communities . In their model they conceptualize learning communities and quality activities as complementing one another and leading to continuous quality improvement for student learning. Much discussion would need to take place in the Institution to set up these structures. However, since the PGDHE already functions as a learning community 8 in the Institution, I would suggest that for it (and other EDU work) to make the desired impact, there has to be an institution-wide approach in which a range of learning communities work together to create a learning organization. For this to occur, the structures around both QA and ED need to be conceptualized differently; as working together towards a common goal to improve teaching and learning.
Briefly, quality needs to be understood as a formative process as opposed to a predominantly summative process, with a concomitant shift of focus from accountability for the past to improvement in the future. There need to be fewer burdensome and bureaucratic processes related to quality and more emphasis on collecting useful evaluation data that can contribute to improving the educational experience of students. In short, the focus in quality needs to be on improving student learning through teaching and curriculum rather than on proving excellence.
7 The concept of a learning organization is based on ideas from Senge (1990 in D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:41): “[A learning organization is a place] where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together (Senge cited in Meade 1995:114)”. 8 Similar to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) idea of “a community of practice” as mentioned in 5.3.1 and Appendix 1.
244 ED has to be reconceptualized as not being just about staff development or just about student support. It has to encompass three key aspects of the pedagogical process: curriculum development, teaching and learning activities and most importantly, the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). In 4.8 I argued that the present culture of HE presents academics with mixed messages regarding their roles as teachers and researchers. I would agree with D’Andrea and Gosling that there are distinct possibilities that SoTL could be used in the Institution “as a bridge between research and teaching and a lever for change in higher education” (2005:155). In terms of the professionalization of academic staff, the emphasis should shift from the individual academic in isolation to the academic role and the way the above three aspects are integral to that role. Present in the Institution should also be comprehensive support systems for students linked to disciplines and curricula. Such systems should “encourage[s] the creation of learning enhancement activities for all students and not just for those needing remedial support” (D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:181).
Following Nixon et al (1998), in the future in South Africa there is a need to reconceptualize academic staff development as professional development:
.. we need to reconceptualize the role of the academic so that the focus is on learning (that of other’s and one’s own), so that the teaching relationship comes first in an academic’s life, so that the connections between teaching and research are strengthened, and so that collegial and collaborative academic cultures are created where continuous professional development is the norm (Beattie in Nixon et al 1998:URL). If ideas such as those outlined above are accepted by people in the Institution, there would need to be structural changes to enable the changed practices. It is impossible to speculate exactly how those structures should be set up, but, I would suggest, for example, that there would need to be an overall structure dedicated to teaching and learning in the Institution. This could be signalled by appointing a Dean of Teaching and Learning as a counterpart to the existing Dean of Research. Aside from the structural benefits, it would also signal that teaching and learning are as valued by the Institution as research. In addition, the existing Teaching and Learning and QA committees could be combined as a learning community charged with promoting quality development in the Institution.
I have not been able to do justice to D’Andrea and Gosling’s model here but I propose that it could be a useful starting point for debate among staff at SSAU. I would speculate that SSAU is at a significant point in its history. As noted previously, in his inaugural speech the newly appointed VC of SSAU (2006a) made it clear that he is committed to both transformation and development and that both equity and quality need to be pursued by the Institution.
245 I suggest that future ED research at SSAU could take place at two levels. Firstly, further research on the evolution of the PGDHE itself could be undertaken. Archer’s framework could be used to theorise how cultural, structural and agential conditions contributed towards the development or stasis of the programme and to the double and triple morphogenesis for the people involved (that is, the academic staff who have completed the course and the EDU staff who have been involved in the on-going curriculum development and teaching of the course). Secondly, at some point in the future, aside from ongoing Institutional evaluation, which is about “capturing transitional shifts in the institutional culture … [and] … important to understanding the outcomes of improvements made” (D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:198), large scale research could be undertaken to uncover whether and how there has been institution-wide morphogenesis/stasis, particularly in relation to overall quality development, and what the cultural, structural and agential conditions where that enabled/constrained it.
I conclude this dissertation with the Director of the EDU’s vision for the future of ED at SSAU:
Since the middle of the year I've been talking about 'Third Generation Student Support' - in the last week or so, I've realised that what I need to be talking about is 'Third Generation ED'. The 'Third Generation' comes out of the phases of ED work identified in my writing and also in Terry Volbrecht's. South Africa started off with adjunct student support models in the 1980s, moved into the 'infusion model' of the early 1990s and then collapsed as the decade wore on. As ED has 'resurrected' itself in the 2000s, it has done so within a quality frame. In the early years at SSAU, we were careful to separate out ED work, which we perceived as developmental and QA work which we saw as policing. When we did this we were conceptualizing quality work in a particular way - as quality assurance dependent on the development of policy which is then implemented. As an aside, I think this is the dominant model of quality work in South Africa. I think this is a very narrow understanding, however, which totally neglects the development of quality.
If you take the definition of quality as 'fitness for and of purpose' (which is what the HEQC does) and you understand that being fit for and of purpose necessarily involves transformation in the South African context, then Third Generation ED becomes a resource for the Institution as it becomes more and more 'fit'. The staff development work we do allows staff to contribute to that fitness, the extended programmes also do this in terms of admissions and if student development work is taken up in our reconstruction next year, then I would also frame that in the same way. This would mean, for example, looking for hotspots in assessment - courses where certain kinds of students fail and asking questions about them. Similarly it would involve looking at, say, learning materials across a year level as more black students on the margins of access criteria come into a faculty. This would have to be done in conjunction with deans and faculties so that the Institution as a whole comes to manage its teaching more (pers com 12.12.06).
246 References
Please note that some of the documents and websites referred to below will be difficult to trace as the name of the institution has been substituted with the fictional SSAU (Small South African University). For access to the documents and websites please contact the author. Adams, F. (2006). "Managerialism and higher education governance: Implications for South African universities?" South African Journal of Higher Education 20 (1): 3-14. Allais, S.M. (2003). “The National Qualifications Framework in South Africa: A Democratic Project trapped in a Neo-Liberal Paradigm.” Journal of Education and Work 16 : 305–324. Amos, T. and Quinn, L (1997). "Management Education and Training: The role of integrated language development." South African Journal of Higher Education 11 (1): 186-191. Andresen, L. (1996). “The work of academic development – occupational identity, standards of practice, and the virtues of association.” The International Journal for Academic Development. 1(1): 38-49. Andresen, L. W. (2000). "Teaching Development in Higher Education as Scholarly Practice: a reply to Rowland et al. ‘Turning Academics into Teachers?’" Teaching in Higher Education 5(1): 23 - 31. Archer, M. S. (1982). "Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action." The British Journal of Sociology 33 (4): 455- 483. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. (1996). Culture and Agency. The place of culture in social theory . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. (1998). “Social theory and the analysis of society”. May, T. and Williams, M. (eds) Knowing the social world . Buckingham, Open University Press : 69-85. Archer, M. S. (2000). "Being Human. The Problem of Agency." Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. (2002). "Realism and the problem of agency." Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating Alethia) 5(1): 11-20. Archer, M.S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Archer, M., Sharp, R., Stones, R. and Woodiwiss, T. (1998). “Critical realism and research methodology”. Opening remarks at the Second Plenary, CCR Conference, Essex. Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating Alethia) 2(1): 2 – 16. Bagnall, R. G. (2002). "The contingent university: an ethical critique." Educational Philosophy and Theory 34 (1): 77 - 90. Ballard, B. and Clanchy, J. (1988). “Literacy in the University: An ‘Anthropological’ Approach.” Literacy by Degrees . Taylor, B. B. G., Beasley, V., Bock, V., Clanchy, J. and Nightingale P. (eds) Milton Keynes, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press: 7-23. Barnett, R. (1994). The limits of competence: Knowledge, higher education and society. London, Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity . Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
247 Barnett, R. (2003). Beyond all reason: living with ideology in the university . Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2004). "The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia." London Review of Education 2(1): 61-73. Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. When a writer can’t write: studies in writer’s block and other composing-process problems. Rose, M. (ed) New York, Guilford : 134-165. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings . Buckingham, Open University Press. Bath, D. and Smith, C (2004). "Academic developers: An academic tribe claiming their territory in higher education." International Journal for Academic Development 9(1): 9-27. Baume, C. and Baume, D. (1996). "A national scheme to develop and accredit university teachers." International Journal for Academic Development 1(2): 51-58. Becher, T. (1981). "Towards a Definition of Disciplinary Cultures." Studies in Higher Education 6(2): 109 - 122. Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2 nd edition) Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Benton, T. and. Craib, I. (2001). Philosophy of social science. The philosophical foundations of social thought . Basingstoke, Palgrave. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control, Vol 4: The structuring of pedagogic discourse . London, Routledge. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The Possibility of Naturalism. A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences . Brighton, Sussex, Harvester. Bhaskar, R. (1989). The possibility of naturalism . Brighton, Harvester Wheatsheaf. Bhaskar, R. (1993). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom . London, Verso. Bhaskar, R. (2002). From Science to Emancipation. Alienation and the Actuality of Enlightenment . New Delhi/London, Sage/Thousand Oaks. Biggs, J. (1999). "What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning." Higher Education Research and Development 18 (1): 57- 75. Bitzer, E. (2001). "Understanding co-operative learning: a case study in tracing relationships to social constructivism and South African socio-educational thought." South African Journal of Higher Education 15 (2): 98 - 104. Bleakley, A. (1999). "From reflective practice to holistic reflexivity." Studies in Higher Education 24 (3): 315 - 330. Bleakley, A. (2001). "From lifelong learning to lifelong teaching: teaching as a call to style." Teaching in Higher Education 6(1): 113 - 117. Bloor, M. and Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in Qualitative Methods. A Vocabulary of Research Concepts . London, Sage. Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London, Kogan Page. Boud, D. and Walker, D. (1998). "Promoting reflection in professional course: The challenges of context." Studies in Higher Education 23 (2): 191-207.
248 Boughey, C. (2001). “Evaluation as a means of assuring quality in teaching and learning: policing or development?” Teach your very best: selected proceedings of a regional conference for staff from tertiary institutions from SADC countries, Safari Court and conference centre, Windhoek, Namibia. Boughey, C. (2002). “Examining expertise: An inquiry into the way mainstream academics engage with educational discourse.” Paper presented at the Academic Development Conference on Student-Centred Learning: challenges and opportunities for knowledge in Southern Africa. University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. 2-3 December 2002. Boughey, C. (2002a). "'Naming' Students' Problems: an analysis of language-related discourses at a South African university." Teaching in Higher Education 7(3): 295-307. Boughey, C. 2003. “The Rhodes University Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education Programme.” Case Study written for the Higher Education Staff Development Initiative (HESDI) Conference. Birchwood Conference Centre, Boksburg. 6 August 2003 Boughey, C. (2005). "Epistemological access to the university: an alternative perspective." South African Journal of Higher Education 19 (3): 230-242. Boughey, C. (2005a). “Preface to AD Archives”. South African Academic Development Association (SAAAD) Conference proceedings 1991-1995 . Available on compact disc. Boughey, C. (forthcoming). "Educational Development in South Africa: From Social Reproduction to Capitalist Expansion?” Higher Education Policy . In press. Boughey, C. and Van Rensburg, V. (1994). “Writing to learn in Occupational Therapy.” Curriculum Development: Issues and Cases . Walker, M. (ed) Bellville, University of the Western Cape Press. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered : priorities of the professoriate . Princeton, N.J., Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brante, T. (2001). "Consequences of realism for sociological theory-building." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 31 (2): 167-195. Brew, A. and Barrie, S. (2000). "Academic development through a negotiated curriculum." International Journal for Academic Development 4(1): 34 - 42. Brockbank, A. and McGill, A. (1999). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Broido, E.M, and Manning, K. (2002). "Philosophical foundations and current theoretical perspectives in qualitative research." Journal of College Student Development 43 (4): 435- 445. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Brumfit, C. (1996). “Towards a post-modernist applied linguistics. Language and Literacies.” Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Southern African Applied Linguistics Association, University of Zululand. Bundy, C. (2004). “Global patterns, local options? Changes in higher education internationally and some implications for South Africa” Paper presented at the Colloquium on 10 years of democracy and higher education change. Glenburn Lodge, Muldersdrift. Bunting, I. (2002). “The higher education landscape under apartheid.” Cloete, N., Fehnel, R, Maassen, P, Moja, T, Perold, H and Gibbon, T. (eds) Transformation in higher education. Global pressures and local realities in South Africa . Lansdowne, Juta and Co : 58-86. Burbules, N. C. and Burke, R. (1999). “Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences, and Limits.” Popkewitz, T.S. and Fendler, L. (eds) Critical theories in education: changing terrains of knowledge and politics . New York, Routledge: 45-66.
249 Candy, P. C. (1996). "Promoting lifelong learning: Academic developers and the university as a learning organization" International Journal for Academic Development 1(1): 7-18. Carr, W. (1995). For education: towards critical educational inquiry . Bristol, Open University Press. Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: education knowledge and action research . London, Falmer Press. Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. A theoretical and practical guide . New York, Routledge. Carter, B. and New, C. (2004). “Realist social theory and empirical research.” Paper presented at the ESA Social Theory Conference. Paris. 15-17 September 2004. Carter, B. and Sealey, A. (2000). "Language, structure and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics?" Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(1): 3-21. (CHE) (Council on Higher Education)(2000). Towards a new higher education landscape: Meeting the equity, quality and social development imperatives of South Africa in the 21st century . CHE, Pretoria. CHE (Council on Higher Education) (2004). South African Higher Education in the first decade of democracy . CHE, Pretoria. CHE (Council on Higher Education) (2004a). Framework for institutional audits . Pretoria, CHE. CHE (Council on Higher Education) (2004b). Criteria for institutional audits . Pretoria, CHE. CHE (Council on Higher Education) (2004c). Framework for programme accreditation . Pretoria, CHE. CHE (Council on Higher Education) (2004d). Improving Teaching and Learning (ITL) Guides. Pretoria, CHE. CHE (Council on Higher Education) (2006). http://www.che.ac.za/ . Accessed 29 November 2006. Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis . Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Clandinin, D.J. and Connelly, F.M. (1994). Personal experience methods. N. K. Denzin and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research . Thousand Oaks, Sage: 413 – 427 Clark, Burton R. (1983) The higher education system: Academic organization in cross- national perspective . Berkley, University of California Press. Clegg, S. (2000). "Knowing through reflective practice in higher education." Educational Action Research 8(3): 451-469. Clegg, S. (2003). "Problematising ourselves: Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education." International Journal for Academic Development 8(1 & 2): 37-50. Clegg, S. (2003a). "Learning and teaching policies in higher education: mediations and contradictions of practice." British Educational Research Journal 29 (6): 803-819. Clegg, S. (2005). "Theorising the mundane: the significance of agency." International Studies in Sociology of Education 15 (2): 149-163. Clegg, S. and Saeidi, S. (2002). "Reflecting or acting? Reflective practice and continuing professional development in higher education." Reflective Practice 3(1): 131-146. Cloete, N. (2002). “Policy expectations.” N. Cloete, Fehnel, R, Maassen, P, Moja, T, Perold, H and Gibbon, T. (eds) Transformation in higher education. Global pressures and local realities in South Africa. . Lansdowne, Juta : 87-108.
250 Cloete, N. (2002a). “New South African realities.” Cloete, N., Fehnel, R, Maassen, P, Moja, T, Perold, H and Gibbon, T. (eds) Transformation in Higher Education. Global Pressures and Local Realities in South Africa . Lansdowne, Juta: Lansdowne : 414 - 446. Cloete, N., Fehnel, R, Maassen, P, Moja, T, Perold, H and Gibbon, T. (eds) (2002). Transformation in higher education. Global pressures and local realities in South Africa. Lansdowne, Juta. Cloete, N. and Maassen, P. (2002). “The limits of policy”. Cloete, N., Fehnel, R., Maassen, P., Moja, T., Perold, H and Gibbon, T (eds) Transformation in higher education. Global pressures and local realities in South Africa. Lansdowne, Juta : 447-493. Coetzee, S. and Boughey, C. (1994). “Personal voice and academic knowledge: the story of writing to learning in Occupational Therapy continues.” Voices Learning and Development. Leibowitz, B. and Walker, M. (eds) Bellville, University of the Western Cape Press. Crang, M. (2003). Telling materials. Using social theory and thinking through research . Pryke, M., Rose, G. and Whatmore, S (eds) London, Sage. Current VP (Vice Principal) SSAU. (2003). “Reflections - Transformation in higher education as it relates to SSAU.” Unpublished paper. Dall’Alba, G. (2005). “Improving teaching: Enhancing ways of being university teachers.” Higher Education Research and Development 24 (4): 361-372. D'Andrea, V. and Gosling, D. (2001). "Joining the dots. Reconceptualizing educational development." Active learning in higher education 2(1): 64-80. D'Andrea, V., Gosling, G., Scott, I. and Tyeku, S (2002). “Outline of current HE policy goals and possible areas of capacity building in relation to teaching and learning.” HEQC Improving Teaching and Learning Project: Needs and capacity analysis. Pretoria, Council on Higher Education. D'Andrea, V. and Gosling, D. (2005). Improving teaching and learning in higher education. A whole institution approach . Berkshire, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Danermark, B., Ekström , M., Jakobsen, L. and Karlsson, J.C. (2002). Explaining society. Critical realism in the social sciences . London, Routledge. Davidson, M. (2001). "Developing the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice at the University of Nottingham: A working paper - Review 2001" Unpublished paper. Davidson, M. (2004). "Bones of contention: using self and story in the quest to professionalize higher education teaching - an interdisciplinary approach." Teaching in Higher Education 9(3): 299-310. Davies, E. and Quinn, L (1995). “AD in Practice: Language development and problem- solving in Law.” Conference Proceedings of the South African Association for Academic Development. Technikon Free State, Bloemfontein. 29 November-1 December 1995. Davies, E. and Vorster, J. (1994). “The SI leader as a teaching resource.” Conference Proceedings of the South African Association for Academic Development. University of Natal. Delanty, G. (1998). "The idea of the university in the global era: from knowledge as an end to the end of knowledge." Social Epistemology 12 (1): 103-13. Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging Knowledge. The university in the knowledge society. Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Director EDU (Educational Development Unit, SSAU) (2006). “Recruitment and access, support and success.” Think Piece for SSAU I mbizo. 21-23 July 2006.
251 Dison, L. and Pinto, D. (1995). “Changing conceptions of material development at Wits University.” South African Journal of Higher Education 9(2): 160-173. Dison, A. and Rosenberg, S. (1995). "Creating an environment to facilitate students’ development of academic literacy." Discourse 6(3): 1-5. Dison, L. and Rule, P. (1996). “Bridging the subject-student divide: an integrated approach to developing foundational curricula.” academic development 2(2): 83-97. Dobson, P. J. (2001). "Longitudinal case research: a critical realist perspective." Systemic Practice and Action Research 14 (3): 283-296. Du Toit, A. (2005). "The legacy of Daantjie Oosthuizen's engagement with three philosophical generations." African Sociological Review/Revue Africaine de Sociologie 9(1): 40-61. Ecclestone, K. (1996). "The Reflective Practitioner: Mantra or a Model for Emancipation?" Studies in the Education of Adults 28 (2): 146-161. EDTP SETA (2003) Case Studies presented at the Higher Education Staff Development Initiative (HESDI) Conference Birchwood Conference Centre, Boksburg. 6 August 2003 Edwards, R. (1998). "Mapping, Locating and Translating: a discursive approach to professional development." Studies in Continuing Education 20 (1): 23-38. Edwards, R., Ranson, S. and Strain, M. (2002). "Reflexivity: towards a theory of lifelong learning." International Journal of Lifelong Education 21 (6): 525-526. Elbow, P. (1991). "Reflections on academic discourse: how it relates to freshmen and colleagues." College English 53 (2): 135-155. Engeström, R. (1999). "Imagine the world you want to live in: A Study on Developmental Change in Doctor-Patient Interaction." Outlines 1: 33 - 50. Engeström, Y. (2000). "Comment on Blackler et al. Activity theory and the social construction of knowledge: A story of four umpires." Organization 7(2): 301 - 310. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamaki, R-J. (eds) (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Ensor, P. (1993). “Building a team effort in health: facilitating curriculum development in UWC’s School of Pharmacy.” Conference Proceedings of the South African Association for Academic Development., University of the Western Cape. 1-3 December 2003. Ensor, P. (2002). “Curriculum”. Cloete, N., Fehnel, R, Maassen, P, Moja, T, Perold, H and Gibbon, T. (eds) Transformation in higher education. Global pressures and local realities in South Africa . Lansdowne, Juta : 270 - 295. Ensor, P. (2003). “The National Qualifications Framework and Higher Education in South Africa: some epistemological issues.” Journal of Education and Work 16 (3): 325-346. Evetts, J. (2003). "The sociological analysis of professionalism. Occupational change in the modern world." International Sociology 18 (2): 395 - 415. External examiner’s report (2007) on “A social realist account of the emergence of a formal academic staff development programme at a South African university”. Thesis submitted by Lynn Quinn, December 2006. Fairclough, N. (2000). "Discourse, social theory, and social research: the discourse of welfare reform." Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2): 163-195. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power . (2 nd edition) Harlow, England, Longman. Fairclough, N., Jessop, B. and Sayer, A. (2002). "Critical Realism and Semiosis." Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating Alethia) 5(1): 2-10.
252 Fanghanel, J. (2004). "Capturing dissonance in university teacher education environment." Studies in Higher Education 29 (5): 575-590. Fataar, A. (2003). "Higher education policy discourse in South Africa: a struggle for alignment with macro development policy: perspectives on higher education." South African Journal of Higher Education 17 (2): 31-39. Foucault, M. (1989). Archaeology of knowledge . London, Routledge. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social enquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed . Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Penguin. Fuller, S. (2001). "Critical perspectives on knowledge society." Current Sociology 49 (4): 177- 201. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses . Basingstoke, Hampshire, Falmer Press. Geisler, C. (1994). Academic Literacy and the Nature of Expertise. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum. Geisler, C. (1994a). "Literacy and Expertise in the Academy." Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 1: 35-57. Gibbon, T. and Kabaki, J. (2002). Apartheid labour policy and higher education. Transformation in higher education. Global pressures and local realities in South Africa. Cloete, E., Fehnel, R, Maassen, P, Moja, T, Perold, H and Gibbon, T. (eds) Lansdowne, Juta and company : 186-229. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotony, H. et al (1994). The new production of knowledge . London, Sage. Gibbs, G. (1996). "Supporting educational development within departments." International Journal for Academic Development 1(1): 27 - 37. Gibson, R. (1986). What is critical theory . London, Hodder and Stroughton. Giroux, H. A. (1994). Disturbing pleasures: learning popular culture . New York, Routledge. Giroux, H. A. (2002). "The corporate war against higher education." Workplace 5(1). Available online. http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/node/22830 . Accessed 27 November 2006. Gleeson, D. and Knights, D. (2006). "Challenging dualisms: Public professionalism in 'troubled' times." Sociology 40 (2): 277-295. Gosling, D. (1996). "What do UK development units do?" The International Journal for Academic Development 1(1): 75-83. Gosling, D. (2001). "Educational development units in the UK - what are they doing five years on?" The International Journal for Academic Development 6(1): 74-90. Gosling, D. and D’Andrea, V. (2001). “Quality development: a new concept for higher education.” Presented at the Sixth QHE Seminar: The End of Quality? Birmingham. 25-26 May. Gough, N. (1998). “Narrative and educational inquiry.” Mousley, J., Gough, N., Robson, M. and Colquhoun, D (eds) Horizons, Images and Experiences: The Research Story Collection . Gedong, Australia, Deakin University: 118 - 127 Gramsci, A. (1971) (1992 printing). Selections from the prison notebooks . (edited and translated by Hoare, Q. and Smith, G.N.). New York, International Publishers. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis? London, Falmer Press.
253 Gultig, J. (2000). "The university in post-apartheid South Africa: new ethos and new divisions." South African Journal of Higher Education 14 (1): 37-52. Haggis, T. (2003). "Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into 'approaches to learning' research in higher education." British Educational Research Journal 29 : 89-104. Harding, G. and Taylor, M.G. (2001). "Academic assessment in the carceral society." Pharmacy Education 1: 77-82. Hart, P. (2002). "Narrative, knowing, and emerging methodologies in environmental education research: issues of quality." Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 7(2): 140-165. Harvey, D. L. (2002). "Agency and community: A critical realist paradigm." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 32 (2): 163-194. Harvey, L. and Green, D. (1993). "Defining Quality." Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 18 (1): 9-30. Hatch, J. A. and Wisniewski. R. (1995). Life History and narrative: questions, issues, and exemplary works . Hatch, J. A. and Wisniewski. R. (eds) London, Falmer: 113 - 135 HEA (Higher Education Academy) (2006). Website. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk . Accessed 22 April 2006. Healey, M. (2000). "Developing the Scholarship of Teaching in Higher Education: a discipline-based approach." Higher Education Research and Development 19 (2):169 - 189. HELTASA (Higher Education Learning and Teaching Association of Southern Africa) (2005). Constitution. Available online. http://www.ul.ac.za/heltasa/Documents/HELTASAconstitution.pdf . Accessed 17 November 2006. Henkel, M. (2000). Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education . London and Philadelphia, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Henkel, M. (2002). "Academic Identity in Transformation? The case of the United Kingdom." Higher Education Management and Policy 14 (3): 137 - 147. Henning, E., Van Rensburg, W. and Smit, B. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research . Pretoria, Van Schaik. HERDSA (Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia) (nd). Website. http://www.herdsa.org.au/ . Accessed 10 November 2006. HEQC (Higher Education Quality Committee) (2006). Website. http://www.che.ac.za/heqc/heqc.php . Accessed 22 April 2006. Hillocks, G. J. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice . New York, Teachers College Press. Hinchey, P. (1998). Finding Freedom in the Classroom. A Practical Introduction to Critical Theory . New York, Peter Lang. History Lecturer SSAU (2006). “Values, purposes and identity: SSAU’s vision and mission, or: Can you have integrity in a corporate, lobotimised world?” Think Piece for SSAU I mbizo. 21-23 July 2006. Isaacs, G. and Parker, R. (1997). “Short courses, beyond and beside: What do newly appointed university teachers want?” International Journal for Academic Development 2: 43– 51. Imenda, S. N. (2006). "Knowledge production as a function of the individual institution's idea of a university." South African Journal of Higher Education 20 (1): 60-73.
254 Jaffer, Z. (2005). "Rhodes University: a different place." African Sociological Review/Revue Africaine de Sociologie 9(1): 179-183. Jansen, J. (1999). “Why OBE will fail.” Jansen, J. and Christie, P. (eds) Changing curriculum: Studies in outcomes-based education in South Africa . Cape Town, Juta. Jenkins, A. (1996). "Discipline-based educational development." International Journal for Higher Education 1(1): 50 - 62. Jenkins, A. (1999). "Turning academics into teachers: a response from a 'non-academic' unit." Teaching in Higher Education 4(2): 281-285. Johns, A.M. (1997). Text, Role, and Context. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse Analysis . Massachusetts, Blackwell. Kember, D. and Gow, L. (1992). "Action research as a form of staff development in Higher Education." Higher Education 23 : 297-309. Kemp, S. (2005). "Critical Realism and the Limits of Philosophy." European Journal of Social Theory 8(2): 171–191. King, A. (1999). "Against structure: a critique of morphogenetic social theory." The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review : 199-227. Kissack, M. and Enslin, P. (2003). "Reconstruction from the ruins: higher education policy and the cultivation of citizenship in the new South Africa." South African Journal of Higher Education 17 (3): 36-48. Kivinen, O. and Piiroinen, T. (2006). "On the limits of a realist conception of knowledge: a pragmatist critique of Archerian realism." The Sociological Review 54 (2): 224-241. Kneebone, R. (2002). "Total internal reflection: an essay on paradigms." Medical Education 36 : 514 - 518. Knight, P. T. (2002). Being a teacher in higher education. Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher and Education and Open University Press. Knight, T. and Trowler P. (2001). Departmental Leadership in Higher Education . Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Knoblauch, C.H. and Brannon, L. (1993). Critical teaching and the idea of literacy. Portsmouth, NH., Boynton. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall. Kotecha, P. (2004). "Determining a sectoral approach to internationalisation." IZWI: Voice of HE leadership 3rd quarter (3): 11. Kraak, A. (2000). “Changing Modes: A brief overview of the mode 2 knowledge debate and its impact on South African policy formation.” Kraak, A. (ed) Changing Modes. New Knowledge Production and Its Implications for Higher Education in South Africa . . Pretoria, Human Sciences Research Council : 1-37. Kraak, A. (2001). “Policy ambiguity and slippage: higher education under the new state, 1994-2001.” Kraak, A. and Young, M. (eds) Education in Retrospect: Policy and Implementation since 1990. Pretoria, HSRC: 85-120. Kreber, C. (2000). "How University Teaching Award Winners Conceptualize Academic Work: some further thoughts on the meaning of scholarship." Teaching in Higher Education 5(1):61 - 78. Kreber, C. (2001). "Impact evaluation of educational development programmes." The International Journal for Academic Development 6(2): 96 – 108.
255 Kreber, C. (2002). "Controversy and Consensus on the Scholarship of Teaching." Studies in Higher Education 27 (2): 152 - 167. Kreber, C. (2004). "An analysis of two models of reflection and their implications for educational development." International Journal for Academic Development 9(1): 22-49. Lather, P. (1986) “Research as Praxis.” Harvard Educational Review 56 (3): 257-277. Lave, J. (1996). "Teaching, as Learning, in Practice." Mind, Culture, and Activity 3(3): 149- 165. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral learning . Cambridge., Cambridge University Press. Lee, A. and Green, B. (1997). "Pedagogy and disciplinarity in the 'new' university" UTS Review 3(1): 1-25. Lewis, K. G. (1996). "Faculty development in the United States: A brief history." International Journal for Academic Development 1(2): 26-33. Lewis, P. (2000). "Realism, causality and the problem of social structure." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30 (3): 249-268. Lewis, P. A. (2002). "Agency, structure and causality in Political Science: a comment on Sibeon." Politics 22 (1): 17-23. Light, G. and Cox, R (2001). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional . London, Paul Chapman. Lincoln, Y. S and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry . Newbury Park, Sage. Lockwood, D. (1964). Social integration and system integration. Zollschan, G.K. and Hirsch, W. (eds) Explorations in social change . London, Routledge: 244-257. Lolwana, P. (2006). “National Qualifications Frameworks and the Further Education and Training/Higher Education interface.” New linkages 2: Building pathways between FET Colleges, universities of Technology and Universities in Kwa-Zulu Natal and Eastern Cape. Mpekweni, Eastern Cape. Luckett, K and Luckett, S. (1999). “Implementing outcomes-based education in a South African University.” Academic Development 4(1): 125-154. Luckett, K. and Webbstock, D. (1999). “Tensions between system and lifeworld: The imposition of a national qualifications framework on the humanities in South Africa.” Academic Development 4(1): 125-154. Luby, A. (1999). "Accrediting teaching in higher education - voices crying in the wilderness!" Quality Assurance in Education 7(4): 216-223. Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). "Professionalizing teaching practice in Higher Education: a study of disciplinary variation and 'teaching-scholarship'." Studies in Higher Education 28 (2): 213 - 228. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern condition: a report on knowledge . Manchester, Manchester University Press. Maassen, P. and Cloete, N. (2002). Global reform trends in higher education. Transformation in Higher Education. Global pressures and local realities in South Africa. Cloete, N., Fehnel, R, Maassen, P, Moja, T, Perold, H and Gibbon, T. (eds) Lansdowne, Juta : 13- 57. Macdonald, R. (2003). “Developing a Scholarship of Academic Development: Setting the Context”. The scholarship of academic development . Eggins, H. M. and Macdonald, R. (eds) Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press: 1- 10.
256 Makgoba, M. W. (2003). “An African vision for mergers.” Beyond Matric/ Mail& & Guardian . Johannesburg : 1-2. Makgoba, M. and Seepe, S.P. (2004). “Knowledge and identity: an African vision of higher education transformation.” Seepe, S.P. (ed) Towards an African identity of higher education . Pretoria, Vista University and Skotaville Media : 13-57. Marshall, D. and. Case, J. (2005). "'Approaches to learning' research in higher education: a response to Haggis." British Educational Research Journal 31 (2): 257-267. Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1976). "On qualitative differences in Learning-I: outcome and process." British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1): 4-11. Marvasti, A. B. (2004). Qualitative Research in Sociology . London, Sage. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). "Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research." Harvard Educational Review 62 (3): 279-300. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach . Sage: Thousand Oaks. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). "Using qualitative methods for causal explanation." Field Methods 16 (3): 243-264. Maxwell, J. A. (2004a). "Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education." Educational Researcher 33 (2): 3-11. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach . Thousand Oaks, Sage. May, T. (1998). Reflections and reflexivity. May, T. and Williams, M. (eds) Knowing the social world . Buckingham, Open University Press : 157-177. May, T. (2001). Social research. Issues, methods and process . Buckingham, Open University Press. Maylam, P. (2005). "Colonialism, segregation and apartheid, 1994-1970." African Sociological Review/Revue Africaine de Sociologie 9(1): 14-22. Mbali, C. (2003). "Getting both wheels on the rails: how do academics in South Africa envisage gaining educator competences at the same time as advancing in their disciplines." South African Journal of Higher Education 17 (3): 97-105. McKenna, S. (2004). “A critical investigation into discourses that construct academic literacy at the Durban Institute of Technology.” A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Rhodes University. McTaggart, R. (1991). Action research: a short modern history . Geelong, Vic., Deakin University. McWilliam, E. (2002). "Against Professional Development." Educational Philosophy and Theory 34 (3): 289-299. Moll, I. and Slonimsky, L. (1989). “Towards and understanding of cognition and learning in the academic support context.” South African Journal of Higher Education 3(1): 160-166. Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. Theory and Practice . London, Kogan Page. Moore, R.S. (2003). “Adaptive responses to curriculum restructuring policy in two South African universities: An enquiry into the identity projections of academics disposed towards change.” Thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Education, University of Cape Town.
257 Moore, R. (2003a). "Curriculum Restructuring in South African Higher Education: Academic identities and policy implementation." Studies in Higher Education 28 (3): 303-319. Moore, R. (2003b). Policy Driven Curriculum Restructuring: Academic Identities in Transition? Trowler P. and Pritchard, C. (eds) Realizing qualitative research into higher education . London, Ashgate : 121-142. Moore, R. and Young, M. (2001). "Knowledge and the Curriculum in the Sociology of Education: towards a reconceptualisaton." British Journal of Sociology of Education 22 (4): 445-461. Moore, R. and Lewis, K. (2004). Curriculum responsiveness: The implications for curriculum management. Griesel, H. (ed) Curriculum responsiveness. Case studies in higher education . Pretoria, South African Universities of Vice-Chancellors Association: 39-56. Morphet, T. (1995). “The second part of an evaluation of SAAAD: Examining present perceptions, potential future pathways and the decisions which any particular choice of direction would require”. Braamfontein, SAAAD. Morrow, W. (1994). “Entitlement and achievement in education.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 13(i):33-37. Moses, I. (1987). "Educational development units: a cross-cultural perspective." Higher Education 16 : 449-79. Moulder, J. (1995). "Universities and “Africanisation”. South African Journal of Higher Education 9(1): 7-8. Muller, J. and Subotzky, G (2001). "What knowledge is needed in the new millennium?" Organization 8(2): 163-182. Mutch, A. (2004). "Constraints on the Internal Conversation: Margaret Archer and the Structural Shaping of Thought." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34 (4): 429-445. Mutch, A. (2005). "Critical realism, agency and discourse: moving the debate forward." Organization 12 (5): 781-786. Naidoo, P. (2005). “Transforming from within: teaching and learning in higher education.” Keynote address. South African Academic Development Association Conference. Durban University of Technology. 28-30 November 2005. NCHE (National Commission on Higher Education) (1996). “A framework for transformation: Final report.” Pretoria, Government Printer. NCIHE (National Commission of Inquiry into Higher Education) (1997). “Higher education in the learning society.” Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. Norwich, The Stationery Office. Nelson, C. and Watt, S. (1999). Academic keywords. A devil's dictionary for Higher Education. New York, Routledge. Nelson, R. (1994). “Half yearly report for the position of research officer within the EDP, SSAU.” Neumann, R, Parry, S and Becher, T (2002). “Teaching and Learning in their Disciplinary Contexts: a conceptual analysis.” Studies in Higher Education 27 (4): 404–417. Nicholls, G. (2004). "Scholarship in teaching as a core professional value: what does this mean to the academic?" Teaching in Higher Education 9(1): 29-42.
258 Nicoll, k. (2000). "The "good' teacher? The work of professional development programmes for academics." UTS Research Centre Vocational Education and Training. Working Knowledge: Productive learning at work. Conference proceedings 10-13 December. University of Technology Sydney, Australia: 325- 330. Available online http://www.oval.uts.edu.au/working_papers/wkpapers/worknow42.pdf Accessed 9 November 2006. Nightingale, P. and O’Neil, M. (1994). Achieving Quality Learning in Higher Education . London, Kogan Page. Nixon, J. (1996). "Professional identity and the restructuring of higher education." Studies in Higher Education 21 (1): 5-15. Nixon, J. (2001). "'Not without dust and heat': the moral bases of the 'new' academic professionalism." British Journal of Educational Studies 49 (2): 173-186. Nixon, J., Beattie, M.Challis, M and Walker, M. (1998). "What does it mean to be an academic? A Colloquium." Teaching in Higher Education 3(3): 277-299. Available online http://0-web.ebscohost.com.echea.ru.ac.za/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=112&sid=7cf52ebb- ba4a-45d9-8be4-9892016bbd2b%40sessionmgr107 . Accessed 14 November 2006. Nixon, J., Marks, A., Rowland, S and Walker, M. (2001). "Towards a New Academic Professionalism: a manifesto of hope." British journal of Sociology of Education 22 (2): 227 - 244. Packer, M.J. and Goicoechea, J. (2000). "Sociocultural and Constructivist Theories of Learning: Ontology, Not just epistemology." Educational Psychologist 35(4): 227-241. Parker, J. (2002). "A New Disciplinarity: communities of knowledge, learning and practice." Teaching in Higher Education 7(4): 373 - 386. Pavlich, G. and Orkin, M. (1993). Diversity and Quality: Academic Development at South African Tertiary Institutions . Braamfontein, CASE. Pawson, R. (2004). “Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective.” Carter, B. and New, C. (eds) Making realism work. Realist social theory and empirical research . London and New York, Routledge : 26-49. Payne, G. and Payne, J. (2004). Concepts in Social Research . London, Sage. Perkin, H. (1997). “An overview of the history of higher education.” Goodchild, L.F. and Wechsler, H.S. The History of Higher Education (2 nd edition). Ashe Reader series, Boston, Ginn Press: 3-34. PGDHE Course Guide (2006-2007). Educational Development Unit, SSAU. Pill, A. (2005). "Models of professional development in the education and practice of new teachers in higher education." Teaching in Higher Education 10 (2): 175 - 188. Pityana, B. (2004). “If not now, then when?” Beyond Matric/ Mail & Guardian . Johannesburg : 1,4. Polkinghorne, D. A. (1995). “Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis.” Hatch, J. A. and Wisniewski, R. (eds) Life history and narrative . London, Falmer: 5 - 23. Quality Assurance Agency Scotland (2006). Webpage. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/ELIR/default.asp. Accessed 2 November 2006. Quinn, L. (1999). “An examination of the drafting-responding process used to develop students’ writing in an English Language for Academic Purposes Course.” Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (English Second Language). Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
259 Quinn, L. (2003). "A theoretical framework for professional development in a South African university." International Journal for Academic Development 8(1-2), 61-75. Quinn, L. (2003a). “An evaluation of the impact of a formal programme leading to the Post Graduate Certificate in Higher Education and Training (PGCHET) at SSAU.” Report for the EDTP SETA. Quinn, L. (2005). “A long and winding road: Becoming academic staff development practitioners at SSAU”. Paper presented at the SAAAD Conference, Durban Institute of Technology. 28 - 30 November 2005. Quinn, L. and Vorster, J. (2004). "Transforming teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning in a postgraduate certificate in higher education and training course." South African Journal of Higher Education 18 (1): 364-381. Radford, J. (2001). "Points for debate: Doctor of What?" Teaching in Higher Education 6(4): 527 - 529. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education . London, Routledge. Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins . Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Richardson, L. (2000) “Writing: a method of inquiry.” Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research . (2 nd edition) Thousand Oaks, Sage: 923-948 Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative Analysis. Qualitative Research Methods Series 30 . Newbury Park, Sage. Rowland, S. (1996). "Relationships between teaching and research." Teaching in Higher Education 1(1): 7-20. Rowland, S. (1999). "The Role of Theory in a Pedagogical Model for Lecturers in Higher Education." Studies in Higher Education 24 (3): 303 - 314. Rowland, S. (2000). The enquiring university teacher . Buckingham, UK, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Rowland, S. (2001). "Surface learning about teaching in higher education: The need for more critical conversations." The International Journal for Academic Development 6(2): 162- 167. Rowland, S. (2002). "Overcoming Fragmentation in Professional Life: The Challenge for Academic Development." Higher Education Quarterly 56 (1): 52 - 64. Rowland, S. (2003). “Academic Development: A practical of theoretical business?” Eggins, H. M. and Macdonald, R. (eds) The scholarship of academic development . Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press: 13 – 22. Rowland, S. and Barton, L. (1994). "Making things difficult: Developing a research approach to teaching in higher education." Studies in Higher Education 19 (3): 367- 375. Rowland, S., Byron, C, Furedi, F, Padfield, N. and Smythe, T. (1998). "Turning Academics into Teachers?" Teaching in Higher Education 3(2): 133 - 141. RSA DoE (Republic of South Africa, Department of Education) (1996). “Green Paper on Higher Education Transformation”. Pretoria, Department of Education. RSA (Republic of South Africa) (1997). “The Higher Education Act”. Pretoria, Government Printer. RSA DoE (Republic of South Africa, Department of Education) (1997). “Education White Paper 3: A programme for the transformation of Higher Education”. Pretoria, Department of Education.
260 RSA DoE (Republic of South Africa, Department of Education) (2000). Norms and Standards for Educators. Government Gazette. Vol. 415, No. 20844, 4 February 2000. RSA MoE (Republic of South Africa. Ministry of Education) (2001). “National Plan for Higher Education Transformation”. Pretoria, Department of Education. RSA MoE (Republic of South Africa. Ministry of Education) (2002) “A New Academic Policy for Policy for Programmes and Qualifications in Higher Education. Pretoria. Rust. C. (2000). “Do initial training courses have an impact on university teaching? The evidence from two evaluative studies”. Innovations in Education and Training International 37 (3): 254-262. SAARDE (South African Association for Research and Development) (nd) Website. http://www.saardhe.ac.za/ . Accessed 10 November 2006. Salter, B. and Tapper, T. (1993). The State and Higher Education . London, Woburn Press. Saunders, D. and Hamilton, D. (1999). "A Twinning Model for Staff Development in Higher Education." Innovations in Education and Training International 36 (2): 118 - 127. Sayer, A. (1984). Methods in social science. A realist approach . London, Hutchinson. Sayer, A. (1992). Method in Social Science. A Realist Approach. (2 nd edition). London and New York, Routledge. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science , London, Sage. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . London, Temple Smith. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, N.J., Ablex. Scott, D. (2005). "Critical realism and empirical research methods in Education." Journal of Philosophy of Education 39 (4): 633-646. Scott, I. (1998). “Recommendations on the future of the post of director of the Educational Development Unit at SSAU.” Evaluation report for SSAU. Scott, P. (1997). The postmodern university? Smith, A. and Webster F. (eds) The postmodern university? Contested visions of higher education in society . Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press : 36-47. Seale, C. (2004). “Quality in qualitative research.” Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F. and Silverman, D. (eds) Qualitative Research Practice . London, Sage: 409 - 419 Searle, R. and MC Kenna, S. (forthcoming). “Policy discourses about teaching excellence in a transforming South Africa.” Skelton, A. (ed) International Perspectives on Teaching Excellence in Higher Education . University of Sheffield, UK, Routledge. SEDA (Staff and Educational Development Association) (2006). Website http://www.seda.ac.uk/about_seda.htm . Accessed 10 May 2006. Sedgwick, R. (2004) “Institutions of higher education in South Africa after the mergers.” World Education News and Reviews. Available online. http://www.wes.org/eWENR/PF/04May/PFFeature.htm . Accessed 12 November 2006. Seepe, S. (2000). “Africanization of knowledge: Exploring mathematical and scientific knowledge embedded in African cultural practices.” African voices in education. Higgs, P., Vakalisa, N.C.G., Mda, T.V. and Assie-Lumumba, N.T. (eds) Lansdowne, Juta : 118-138. Sewell, W. H. (1992). "A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation." American Journal of Sociology 98 (1): 1 - 29.
261 Shilling, C. (1999). "Towards an embodied understanding of the structure/agency relationship." British Journal of Sociology 50 (4): 543-562. Shore, C. and Wright, S. (1999). "Audit Culture and Anthropology: Neo-Liberalism in British Higher Education." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 5(4): 557-576. Sibeon, R. (2004). Rethinking social theory . London, Sage. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction . London, Sage. Singh, M. (2001). "Reinserting the public good in higher education transformation." Kagisano. CHE Higher Education Discussion Series 1: 8-18. Skelton, A. (2004). “Understanding ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education: a critical evaluation of the National Teaching Fellowships Scheme”. Studies in Higher Education 29 (4): 451-468. Slaughter, S. (2001). "Problems in comparative higher education: Political economy, political sociology and postmodernism." Higher Education 41 : 389-412. Sorenson, D. L. (2006). "Educational development in the USA, 2006." HERDSA News : 19- 21. SSAU (1989). Educational Skills Annual Report of 1989. SSAU (1996). Evaluation Report of the team charged by Senate to evaluate the Educational Development Unit at SSAU. SSAU (1997). Review of academic departments SSAU (1998). Report on review of Administrative Divisions SSAU (2000). Report on review of academic departments SSAU (2002). Report on review of Administrative Divisions. SSAU (2005). “SSAU audit portfolio: Enhancing the student experience.” Prepared between January and June 2005 for an institutional audit to be undertaken by the HEQC 5 – 9 September 2005. SSAU (2005a). Academic Review Report. SSAU (2006). Ethical standards. Available online. http://www.ssau.ac.za/research/policies/ethical_standards/ethical_standards.htm. Accessed 7 November 2006 SSAU (2006a). Policies and procedures. Available online. http://www.ssau.ac.za/intranet/policies/?action=category&category=1408 . Accessed 7 November 2006. SSAU (2006b). Quality assurance. Available online. http://campus.ssau.ac.za/index.php?action=category&category=1407 . Accessed 7 November 2006. SSAU (2006c). Mission and vision. Available online. http://www.ssau.ac.za/general/mission.htm . Accessed 23 October 2006. SSAU (2006d). SSAU Digest of Statistics 2006. Available online. https://www.ssau.ac.za//intranet/dmu/DIGEST2006.pdf. Accessed 19 November 2006. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. N.K. Denzin NK and Lincoln Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research . (2 nd edition) Thousand Oaks, Sage: 435-454. Streek, B. (2005). "Skeletons in the SSAU Cupboard: What should be done about them?" African Sociological Review/Revue Africaine de Sociologie 9(1): 161-166.
262 Taylor, K. L. (2005). “Academic development as institutional leadership: an interplay of person, role, strategy and institution.” International Journal for Academic Development 10 (1): 31-46. Tierney, W. G. (2001). "The autonomy of knowledge and the decline of the subject: Postmodernism and the reformulation of the university." Higher Education 41 : 353-372. Tight, M. (2004). “Higher education as a field of research”. Tight, M. (ed). The RoutledgeFalmer reader in higher education. London and New York, RoutledgeFalmer: 1 – 14. Torr, L. (1991). “Academic Support in the history department, University of Natal, Durban.” Proceedings of the Conference of the South African Association for Academic Development, University of the Witwatersrand. Trowler, P. (1997). "Beyond the Robbins trap: Reconceptualising academic responses to change in higher education (or … quiet flows the don?)." Studies in Higher Education 22 (3): 301-419. Available online. http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=9711141296 . Accessed 6 April 2006. Trowler, P. (1998). Academics responding to change: new higher education frameworks and academic cultures. Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Trowler, P. (2001). "Captured by the Discourse? The Socially Constitutive Power of New Higher Education Discourse in the UK." Organization 8(2): 183-201. Trowler, P. (2004). "Policy and change: academic development units and the Bologna Declaration." International Journal for Academic Development 9(2): 195-200. Trowler, P. R. (2005). “A Sociology of teaching, learning and enhancement: improving practices in higher education.” Papers 76 : 13 -32. Available online http://www.bib.uab.es/pub/papers/02102862n76p013.pdf . Accessed 27 November 2006. Trowler, P and Cooper, A. (2002). "Teaching and learning regimes: Implicit theories and recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational development." Higher Education Research & Development 21 (3): 221-40. Trowler, P., Fanghanel , J and Wareham, T. (2005). “Freeing the chi of change: the Higher Education Academy and enhancing teaching and learning in higher education.” Studies in Higher Education 30 (4): 427-444. Trowler, P. and Knight, P. (1999). "Organisational socialisation and induction in universities: Reconceptualising theory and practice." Higher Education 37 : 177 - 195. Trowler, P. and Knight, P. (2000). "Coming to Know in Higher Education: theorising faculty entry to new work contexts." Higher Education Research & Development 19 (1): 27- 42. Trowler, P. and Knight, P. (2001). “Exploring the implementation gap: theory and practices in change interventions.” Trowler, P. (ed) Higher Education Policy and Institutional change. Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Usher, R. (1996). “A critique of the neglected epistemological assumptions of educational research.” Scott, D. and Usher, R. (eds) Understanding educational research . London and New York, Routledge Vale, P. (2003). Farewell the hallowed ground. Mail & Guardian 19(31). Johannesburg: 1-2. Vally, S. (2003). “Reassessing policy and reviewing implementation: a maligned or misaligned system?” Chisolm, L., Motala, S and Vally, S. (eds) South African Education Policy Review . Sandown, Heinemann : 697-743.
263 Van der Riet, M., Dison, A. and Quinn, L. (1998). "Conceptual development through process-writing: A case study of a Psychology 2 course." South African Journal of Higher Education 12 (1): 220-226. VC SSAU (Vice Chancellor Small South African University) (2006). “South African higher education change: context, achievements, and critical issues and challenges.” Think Piece for SSAU I mbizo. 21-23 July 2006. VC SSAU (Vice Chancellor Small South African University) (2006a). “Our society, our university, our challenges and responsibilities.” Inaugural address of the Vice-Chancellor of Small South African University. 27 September 2006. Volbrecht, T. E. (2003). “Plot and Practice. A Narrative Inquiry into Academic Development, Language Policy and Lifelong Learning as Frameworks for Literacy Development at the University of the Western Cape.” Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor Litterarum in the Department of English, University of the Western Cape. Volbrecht, T. (2003a). "The story of South African academic development in international perspective: have we lost the plot?" South African Journal of Higher Education 12 (2): 110- 117. Volbrecht, T. (2005). "Invisible professionals in a pathless land? The career pathing and professional association of South African tertiary educators in the changing landscape of higher education." Research and Development in Higher Education 28 : 588 – 593. Volbrecht, T. and Boughey, C. (2004). “Curriculum responsiveness from the margins? A reappraisal of Academic Development in South Africa.” Griesel, H. (ed) Curriculum responsiveness: Case studies in higher education . Pretoria, SAUVCA: 57-80. Von Kotze, A. (2006). "Between excellence and engagement: towards a 'truly African university'." Ingede: Journal of African Scholarship 1(1): 1- 14. Vorster, J. (1995). "Supplemental Instruction: Developing students learning through peer collaboration." Discourse 6(2): 15-21. Vorster, J. (ongoing). A social-realist analysis of collaborative curriculum development processes in two academic departments at a South African university. Research towards a PhD, Rhodes University. Wakely, R. (1993). "Of survival strategies, sanctimonious smoke screens, slipping standards and slippery semantics." Discourse 4(4): 9-16. Walker, M. (2000). “Higher education and a democratic learning society: professionalism, identities and educational action research.” Keynote address at the annual South African Association for Academic Development conference: Academic Development - Challenges and Changes . Rhodes University, Grahamstown. 4-6 December 2000. Walker, M. (2002). “Pedagogy and the politics and purposes of higher education”. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 1(1): 43-58. Walker, M. and Badsha, N. (1993). "Academic development: the 1990s." South African Journal of Higher Education 7(1): 59-62. Wareham, T. (2002). “Failing teachers, failing students: learning about failure from a teaching development programme”. Peelo, M. and Wareham, T. (eds) Failing students in higher education . Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press: 85- 97 WASA (Women’s Academic Solidarity Association). Available online. http://www.wasa.strange.za.net/ . Accessed 1 November 2006. Webb, G. (1996). Understanding Staff Development . Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
264 Weimer, M. (1997). "Assumptions that devalue university teaching." International Journal for Academic Development 2(1): 52 - 74. Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing . London, Sage. Widdowson, H. B. (1998). "The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis." Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 136-151. Williams, M. (1998). “The social world is knowable.” May, T. and Williams, M. (eds) Knowing the social world . Buckingham, Open University Press : 5-21. Willmott, H. (2005). "Theorizing contemporary control: some post-structuralist responses to some critical realist questions." Organization 12 (5): 747-780. Willmott, R. (1999). "Structure, agency and the sociology of education: rescuing analytical dualism." British Journal of Sociology of Education 20 (1): 5 - 21. Willmott, R. (2000). "The place of culture in Organization Theory: Introducing the morphogenetic approach." Organization 7(1): 95-128. Winberg, C. (2004). "Symbolic representations of the post-apartheid university." Theoria: 89 - 103. Zembylas, M., Espinet, M., Milne, C and Scantlebury, K (2006). “Forum: teacher agency, social structures and professional education in science education.” Cultural Studies of Science Education 1(2): 353-366. Zeuner, L. (1999). "Review Essay. Margaret Archer on structural and cultural morphogenesis." Acta Sociologica 42 : 79-86. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1991). Action research for change and development . Aldershot, Gower.
265 Appendix 1: The Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education at SSAU
The ultimate aim of professional development activity is to improve the quality of teaching and learning to the benefit of the students (D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:66).
Background
Participants
For the majority of academic staff at SSAU, the Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education (PGDHE) is optional. New lecturers are required to complete an assessors’ course as part of the University’s probationary requirements. The assessors’ course is equivalent to the PGDHE module on Assessment of Student Learning (see Table 3). After completing the assessors’ course some lecturers elect to complete the whole diploma. The only other lecturers who are required to do the PGDHE (or some modules of it) are those who are part of the Mellon Programme for Accelerated Development1. The bulk of the participants therefore register for the programme voluntarily. The programme is not geared at only new lecturers; however the majority of participants have been relatively new to academia (see Table 1). The fact that we have had a relatively high interest in the programme even though it has not been compulsory seems to indicate that motivation to professionalize practice has more to do with academic identity, with what Moore calls “the professional dispositions of academics” (2003:5) which exist at the level of the individual actors, than with exogenous pressures. On registration for the programme, participants are required to say why they wish to do the programme. The majority of responses indicate intrinsic motivation (for example, “I want to improve my teaching”) rather than extrinsic motivation (for example, “because it’s going to be compulsory in time to do a qualification”).
In addition to the PGDHE, lecturers can opt to register for a Masters in Education degree. These lecturers attend the PGDHE programme and their portfolios are examined as the coursework component of the qualification. They are also required to complete a further research component. The remainder of this report provides background information on the PGDHE and a summary of evaluation data received on the programme.
1 This programme, funded by the Mellon Foundation, allowed for the employment on three year contracts (over a period of time) of 16 promising young academics from previously disadvantaged population groups. The object was to provide support to fast track their academic careers. In terms of their employment contracts they were required to complete either the whole PGDHE or two modules of it, depending on their disciplinary qualifications.
266 Structure and processes
The PGDHE programme design is based on the shared theoretical and philosophical beliefs about what constitutes an appropriate approach to the development of academic staff in HE, and to meet the specific needs of SSAU lecturers within the context of their disciplines, the University and the HE context nationally and internationally. It is a practice-based course, the purpose of which is to facilitate the professional development of lecturers as reflexive practitioners by assisting them to enhance their abilities: to facilitate, manage and assess learners’ learning; to evaluate their own practice effectively; to develop their knowledge of HE as a field of study and to provide professional accreditation (PGDHE Course Guide 2006-2007:1) (See Dall’Alba (2005:362) for similar aims for a course offered at the University of Queensland).
The programme is offered in the form of four core modules and one elective module (see Table 2 for a list of the exit level outcomes for the programme and the modules). The programme is summatively assessed by means of a portfolio which requires participants to integrate what they have learned in all the modules of the programme. They are required to document the way in which they manage their different roles as educators, based on a coherent theoretical and philosophical understanding of teaching and learning in higher education. For each module there is an assignment in which they are expected to present an argument which makes clear the links between their everyday practice and the theory they have engaged with in the programme. These assignments are intended to act as scaffolding for the final portfolio.
The programme takes a minimum of two years to complete (part-time). Participants are required to attend weekly contact sessions of one and a half hours each. Groups are diverse in terms of, for example, disciplines, ages and years of teaching experience. Because the programme is practice-based, participants are required to reflect critically on their own practice and share these reflections with their group. The facilitators employ a highly interactive, seminar-style methodology in the sessions. The emphasis is on participants constructing and sharing knowledge rather than the facilitator transmitting a body of knowledge. The role of the facilitator is to provide resources in the form of appropriate theory as well practical strategies. Facilitators help participants to negotiate educational discourse through designing appropriate activities and scaffolding readings.
Since 2004 extensive use has been made of a web-based learning management system called Modular Object Oriented Distance Learning Environment (Moodle). This has proved to be a very useful curriculum development and teaching tool. Aside from being a “place” in which readings and tasks can be stored for easy access, it also has an on-line journaling
267 facility which participants are required to make use of in order to reflect on their teaching, their students’ learning and their own learning on the programme. The constant engagement between the facilitator and her/his group as well as among participants results in strong supportive relationships.
Theoretical framework
Like many similar programmes in higher education, a central theme of the PGDHE is that of the critically reflective practitioner (see for example, Schön 1983; Boud, Keogh and Walker 1985; Ramsden 1992; Barnett 1994; Brookfield 1995; Brockbank and McGill 1999; Clegg 2000; Fanghanel 2004; Dall’Alba 2005; Pill 2005; Zembylas, Espinet, Milne and Scantlebury 2006). Consequently, a key feature of the programme is critical engagement, based on evidence using the roles and practice of the higher education educator in her/his teaching context rather than to “teach” a set of generic skills and techniques. Like Rowland and Barton (1994:367), the course facilitators believe that “improvements in teaching are likely to follow from the sustained reflection and research of higher education lecturers into their own practice and the social context in which it arises”. It is hoped that the programme will encourage participants to learn about their “own values, self-theories, thoughts and identities” (Knight 2002:24) as well as introduce them to other forms of knowledge. As Moon avers:
Practitioners need to reflect on an event and on their knowledge-in-action that has contributed to the outcome of their action, but they probably also need to draw in material from elsewhere, which may be a theory, experience, lessons or advice from others (1999:50). In the programme, theories are introduced against the backdrop of reflection on participants’ personal knowledge of their practice in order to challenge, stretch, or confirm the validity of their teaching-learning practices.
As programme designers and facilitators we are conscious of the fact that despite all the demands and claims being made from the global and local contexts outside the University, specific academic disciplines continue to constitute the major claim on the professional identity of participants (see for example research done by Becher 1981; Henkel 2000 and 2000; Becher and Trowler 2001; Moore 2003, 2003b). The facilitators are very aware of the disciplinary differences that participants bring to the programme and that disciplines vary greatly in terms of the way in which knowledge is produced, recognized, structured and therefore presented to students. Like Jenkins, we believe that “the way educational developers should seek to work with the vast majority of staff is to recognize, value and build on staff’s concern for their discipline” (1996:15). We are therefore careful to avoid seeing the development of teaching and learning as “a generic and practical activity which does not
268 involve disciplinary thinking” (Rowland 2002:62). It is, we believe, necessary for lecturers to make explicit (first to themselves) the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of their disciplines and then to think about how best to introduce and develop their students’ understandings of the concepts, beliefs, values, and theories of their disciplines. Programme participants are thus required to think about questions like: What is knowledge? How is knowledge created in my discipline? What is truth? What is the purpose of higher education? They are encouraged to think about how the answers to these questions influence their beliefs about how students learn and how they should be teaching. Critical theorists “claim that theory and practice are indivisible, that there is always theory underlying and embedded in any practice” (Gibson 1986:3-4). Participants therefore need to make explicit to themselves the theories and values underlying their practices. Only then, we believe, are they able to examine their practices critically with a view to changing them.
Research has shown that the process of looking at the theories underlying practice could make more explicit the links between research in disciplines and the teaching of the discipline. Using their research Rowland (1996) and Kreber (2000) have pointed out that how one construes the relationship between teaching and research depends on how knowledge is conceived, and to facilitate students’ learning, teachers need to know how knowledge of their discipline is acquired and advanced. Lecturers need to be able to articulate clearly what constitutes knowledge in their discipline. “One could perhaps conclude that learning about one’s discipline and learning about teaching are two processes that inform each other and are inextricably intertwined” (Kreber 2000: 74-75). So the teacher’s role is to know how to interpret, translate and transform the research in the discipline into ways which are accessible to students at particular stages of development in order to induct them into the discipline (Andresen 2000). The PGDHE strives to provide a forum for participants to think about how to do this most effectively.
The epistemological and pedagogical beliefs and values espoused by the programme facilitators are based on constructivist and critical perspectives. A central intention of the programme is to encourage lecturers to question their everyday practices, their “common sense” assumptions and to grasp that these taken-for-granted ways of doing things are not “natural” but constructed and therefore open to criticism (Gibson 1986:11). For example, in the Nature of Learning module, part of our purpose is to challenge lecturers to go beyond the traditional lecture format in which the lecturer transmits a discrete body of knowledge to a group of passive students (based on the belief that all knowledge constitutes factual verifiable information (Hinchey 1998:39)). They are encouraged to think about ways of teaching which exhibit an understanding of the constructed and contested nature of knowledge. This means developing an understanding based on our belief that for “real”
269 learning to occur students need to transform knowledge; they need to engage with it in an active way in order for it to be meaningful to them; to construct new concepts or ideas for themselves and take personal responsibility for their learning. Similarly, in the modules on Curriculum Development, Assessment of Student Learning and Evaluation of Teaching and Courses we encourage participants to ask critical questions of themselves such as: “In whose interests do I do what I do?” “Is the way I am teaching/assessing/evaluating fair to all my students?” “Am I empowering my students to become independent learners?” In addition, we encourage lecturers to reflect on broader ethical, social and political issues that impact on their specific teaching and learning contexts (Moon 1999; Rowland 1999 and Light and Cox 2001).
In the design and teaching of the programme, the facilitators have attempted where possible to model a process of active learning in order to encourage deep approaches to learning (Marton and Säljö 1976) among the participants (see Haggis’s (2003) critique of deep and surface approaches to learning and a response to these critiques by Marshall and Case (2005)). Learning also occurs as a result of group members sharing the wealth of experiences which they bring from their various disciplinary contexts (see Rowland 2000 for a description of the advantages of mixed disciplinary groups). In addition, they are required to submit written assignments in which they critically examine their practice and any innovations to their teaching introduced as a result of the programme processes and in the light of the theory they are exposed to.
Evaluation
As part of our critical reflection on the programme and our teaching, the participants are regularly asked to give us feedback on all aspects of the PGDHE; for example, module and programme outcomes, assessment methods and tasks, teaching methodologies, materials, programme organisation, group dynamics and facilitation. Feedback is received from a variety of sources such as questionnaires, focus group interviews, one-on-one interviews, email communications, journal entries, assignments, teaching portfolios and external examiners’ reports. The feedback is used to continually revise and develop the curriculum in an attempt to meet the programme outcomes and the needs of the participants. The purpose here is not to provide an in-depth analysis of that data: some of that has been done in other publications, see for example, Quinn 2003, 2005 and Quinn and Vorster 2004. In this section I will therefore merely highlight some of the ways in which the programme seems to have succeeded in its aims. However, following Pawson, it is my understanding that no intervention works for everyone and “[t]he net effect of any particular programme is thus made up of the balance of successes and failures of individual subjects” (2004:30-31).
270 Evaluation then, is not about whether the programme “worked” but rather whether the resources offered in the programme enabled participants to make it work. There is no expectation that it worked in the same way for everyone.
Many participants believed that there were developments in their theoretical and/or philosophical beliefs as a result of their engagement in the programme. These in turn impacted on their teaching practice. This is clear from comments such as:
It [the programme] had a profound impact on my thinking about teaching which has impacted on my practice … It profoundly changed the way I view teaching and learning as well as learners … (email correspondence 6.06.06).
What I found most enriching was identifying the ideological and paradigmatic structures which influence the way I and the Institution understand knowledge, learning, assessment, etc. The articulation of my philosophy was a very empowering experience for me (email feedback 30.07.03). Another participant claimed that the programme, “initiated a process of reflection, often deep, an intellectual enquiry into teaching and theory which resulted in definite changes in my practice and approaches to teaching” (email feedback 7.08.03).
Participants talked about the value of reflecting on their existing practice, thinking about why they did things the way they did. Having been exposed to some of the theory they then used it to re-think their practice and to arrive at what they thought was “good” teaching within their specific contexts. For some this led to their questioning long-held assumptions about what counted as knowledge in their disciplines and how it should be taught. Others claimed to have developed a heightened awareness of the value of encouraging their students to engage in critical reflection. Many participants felt that sharing with members of their group the insights gained through reflection, resulted in their thinking and practices changing. A number of participants described feeling unhappy dissatisfied with the way they were teaching which was often modelled on the way they themselves had been taught. Through the programme they began to understand the theoretical framework from which they operated. In some cases this metacognitive knowledge led to lecturers being able to do things in certain ways, knowing consciously what the educational effect might be.
Participants cited many different but specific ways in which they believed their practice had changed as a result of the programme. For example, some felt that a better understanding of curriculum development theories and processes had led to their being able to structure their own courses much more effectively; others felt they had a changed understanding of how students approach learning and in some cases, this led to their using more active learning strategies in their teaching; some reported changes in terms of the way they assessed their students’ learning and the way in which they evaluated their teaching and
271 courses. The following extract from a participant’s journal is an example of reflection on how the programme made her rethink her assessment practices:
For the first time, I will approach the briefing of the essay quite differently. I will give the students assessment criteria broken up into the marks they can achieve (based mostly on the Biggs’ reading from last week) in the hopes that that will guide their learning as they do the textual analysis. I will also discuss with them in detail what this entails, as well as what understanding is (based on your discussion of understanding being not only what one knows, but – what I have termed for them ‘critical understanding’ - as what they make of this knowledge and the arguments at hand) . I will also discuss a previous tutorial that focused on approaches to textual analysis and remind them of its relevance to this essay (as I did during the actual tutorial). … In some ways this approach has invigorated the entire essay process for me too – I am excited to see how this facilitates their essay writing and also hopeful that it will produce better results (April 2005). Although the programme aimed to impact on lecturers’ day-to-day practice it was informed by a belief that an understanding of the broader context (in terms of specific disciplines as well as HE internationally, nationally and institutionally) in which the practice took place was essential. For example, “The course enabled me to identify some of the key issues pertaining to the function and challenges to the HE context in SA – something I took for granted and hadn’t really grappled with” (email feedback 30.07.03).
For many participants the diverse nature of the groups (in terms of discipline, level of experience, age, gender, race, and so on) was a real strength of the way in which the programme was offered. Examples of comments which confirm this are: “The diversity of the discussion groups was the most rewarding part of the process for me” (email feedback 20.07.03) and “The mix of disciplines provided for an expanded view of HE, one I would not have experienced in the sole company of scientists” (email feedback 9.01.05). Rowland confirms that cross disciplinary groups potentially provide opportunities “to bring the different disciplines into a critical relationship as they each contest the nature of the knowledge with which they deal” (2002:62).
Aside from these benefits, many participants appreciated the emotional support and safe space provided for them within the structure of their groups: “… it’s a way of stepping out of your own preconceptions where you can listen to other people’s perspectives as well … one of the group members called it weekly therapy!” (interview 5.09.03:12 2). “I feel very nurtured and safe to learn in the environment that you create for us and am unable to imagine the awful universe that exists in which I decided NOT to do the programme – too tragic to contemplate” (email correspondence 25.05.04). For some then, the PGDHE functioned as a “community of practice”; as “a closely interacting group of practitioners within which
2 To maintain anonymity, interviews are referenced by the date on which the interview was conducted (for example, 5.09.03) followed by the page number of the transcript where the quotation appears.
272 contextualized, situated learning is always happening and is legitimized” (Trowler and Knight 2001:49, citing Lave and Wenger 1991. See also Dall’Alba (2005) who describes a staff development course in which not just the group but also the educational literature served as a community of practice for participants). This was particularly the case for participants from departments where their identities as teachers (as opposed to or in addition to their identities as researchers and/or disciplinary experts) were not highly valued. For some the programme provided a supportive community in which to develop these identities. One lecturer in an interview said, “I now feel myself a teacher” (10.08.05:2).
Positive feedback on the programme facilitators was received. Participants seemed to feel that they were generally suitably knowledgeable in the field of HE; well qualified and sufficiently experienced for their role. They commented on the fact that facilitators had effectively modelled “good” practice in all areas including curriculum design, teaching methods, assessment tasks and methods. Many participants commented on the high level of encouragement and support they received from the facilitators. One illustrative comment from a response to an evaluation questionnaire read:
[Name of facilitator]’s facilitation style was professional; she handled the diverse class with confidence and respect …. She was flexible … seemed to have insight into the different modus operandi of the different subjects the participants represented … her comments and feedback on the first assignment were fair and useful … I learned a lot from her in terms of how to manage a diverse group of students in discussion sessions. She was interested in our opinions and views … (6.12.04). One of the implicit goals of the programme was to empower lecturers. Feedback provided evidence that for some participants the programme increased their ability to exercise agency by providing them with a greater array of options from which to choose. In other words there is no presumption that “particular knowledge or skill increments lead directly to better teaching; their impact is achieved indirectly by enhancing the professional repertoire from which the teachers draw” (Hegarty 2000:464 in D’Andrea and Gosling 2005:66). According to Zembylas, Espinet, Milne and Scantlebury “agency is basically related to teachers’ options for action, and one of the professional teacher education goals is to enlarge teachers’ options for action” (2006:1).
In addition, the programme aimed to give participants a language to argue for change. International research (for example, Henkel 2000 and Rust 2000) as well as research at SSAU (Vorster ongoing) indicates that lecturers who have completed formal staff development qualifications are in a strong position to influence curriculum change in their departments. One participant said:
I definitely have found being equipped (even in just 1.5 years of doing this programme) with knowledge about teaching and having read further on teaching
273 in my discipline, highly beneficial when articulating myself to peers in my department. Although I am not in a position to make changes, I am gaining more credibility (and self confidence to be taken as a credible source) because of this programme … one must be able to articulate what the issues are from an informed perspective if you are going to have a voice … (email correspondence 6.09.06). Some participants recognised that the programme was the start of a developmental process, for example, “I feel extremely good about the entire course and that I have gained immensely. This will last my life time as I gain more experience and continue to reflect on my teaching” (email feedback 6.06.05) and
The aims of the course go well beyond the course; the course has initiated a developmental process … I am so grateful for the opportunity to take the course as I have learned such a lot and have no doubt that it has set me on a different academic trajectory (email feedback 31.07.03). However, despite the many positive responses to the ways in which the programme had developed lecturers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in HE and impacted on their practice, there are factors, some directly related to the programme and some related to broader contextual factors, which constrained or prevented lecturers from deriving positive benefits from the programme. It is to these that I now turn.
The programme designers and facilitators continue, inter alia , to grapple with ways of meeting the often contradictory needs of the participants. For example, for some participants the programme placed insufficient emphasis on the practical aspects of teaching and learning. Some argued from an anti-intellectual stance for only skills and tips, for example, “I don’t think you’ll become a better teacher by learning the theory” (focus group interview report October 2003) (See Clegg and Saeidi (2002:137) for similar findings in their case study). Others, although recognising the value of educational theory, found it difficult (“I still often feel overwhelmed with all the theory” (email feedback 30.07.03). And then still others found the theory reductionist and argued for greater depth in relation to theory. These contradictory responses to the programme were more often than not linked to participants’ different disciplinary backgrounds. Neumann, Perry and Becher (2002:406) group disciplinary knowledge into four categories: hard pure knowledge such as Physics and Chemistry, soft pure knowledge such as History and Anthropology; hard applied knowledge such as Engineering and soft applied knowledge such as Education and Management Studies. These disciplinary orientations are important in terms of understanding individual lecturers’ responses to formal academic staff development (Clegg 2003).
Lecturers from particularly the sciences found the educational discourse and theory difficult to come to terms with: “I did not realise how much effort and time it would take. Nor how
274 much I would battle with a completely new discipline” (email correspondence 6.06.06) (See research by Boughey (2002) on difficulties encountered by academics with educational discourse). A Biochemistry lecturer said:
The first article I received from [the facilitator] I remember reading this paragraph, the first paragraph and I had to read it again. I thought ‘huh? How do I get my mind around this airy fairy stuff?’ But now I’m getting better and better at it …. (group interview July 2003). This participant had the staying power to complete the programme, but others didn’t. His experiences of the programme echo those of Kneebone, a medical doctor, who when writing about his first encounters with educational literature says: “At first, and greatly to my surprise, I found this literature almost impenetrable … [I had the] disquieting sensation of moving into alien territory, where familiar landmarks had disappeared" (2002:514). He talks about coming to understand that some of his difficulties were caused by a clash of worldviews: "a clash between the comforting solidity of orthodox 'science' and the fluidity of those disciplines which challenge their own paradigms as a matter of course" ( ibid ). Early on, the programme facilitators were thus alerted to the need to be sensitive to the fact that educational discourse is new and difficult for many people and that for some, especially science educators, being introduced to new and different ways of thinking about the world is unsettling. We continue to grapple with ways of scaffolding and helping participants to understand the new discourse and worldviews. Fanghanel (2004) describes similar ideological tensions and incompatibilities that can exist between courses like the PGDHE and different disciplines and departments in a university
In addition, the epistemologies of some disciplines make it more difficult than others to implement some of the ideas generated on the programme. For lecturers involved in soft and/or applied fields of study they are relatively easy to implement, for example, active learning strategies, whereas for other fields of study, due to constraints perceived to be inherent in the discipline, it may be more difficult. Space precludes a full exploration of this but Bernstein’s (1990) concept of “recontextualization” might be usefully employed to develop a better understanding of the difficulties encountered by lecturers from, for example, the sciences in terms of recontextualising the “new” educational knowledge they are exposed to in the programme. These difficulties are complicated by their need, in their teaching, to integrate this educational knowledge with recontextualized knowledge related to their disciplines. So although a strength in some ways, the mixed disciplinary groups continue to present many challenges for the programme designers.
Some participants encountered difficulties in relation to the theoretical framework of the programme. Lecturers who had studied beyond, for example, an honour’s level in their discipline and/ or who had some experience of teaching in higher education prior to the
275 programme coped best with the programme. It seems that some of the first time lecturers who registered for the programme did not have sufficient grounding in their own disciplines to enable them to make the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of their disciplines explicit, or to cope with the new educational discourse. It is also debatable whether, at that early stage of their careers, they could be expected to operate from a critical perspective when they had not yet gained certain levels of practical and technical knowledge (for example, knowledge about teaching methods, curriculum development, evaluation of teaching and courses, assessment of student learning) (see Walker 1993). Some participants felt that the theory dealt with in the programme was too “difficult” and expressed the need for a more skills-based type of programme.
I finished my degree last year …and then came straight into lecturing. I am actually teaching a course that I took last year … I need skills training … I have found a lot of the discussion in the sessions too abstract … incredibly theoretical … I was hoping to come in here and get the core skills … the seminar discussions have become increasingly removed from the reality of what we are doing (quoted in Quinn 2003:69). Feedback as well as facilitators’ experiences while interacting with participants showed that some lecturers, especially those in their first year of teaching had insufficient teaching experience on which to reflect critically (see Clegg and Saeidi 2002). It became apparent early on (see Quinn 2003 for further discussion) that the programme was better suited to people who had two or more years teaching experience (see Isaacs and Parker 1997 for similar findings at the University of Queensland). In an attempt to cater for the needs of these lecturers, since the beginning of 2004 the EDU has been offering a more substantial new lecturers orientation course which deals explicitly with the “nuts and bolts” of teaching. However, in terms of the PGDHE we are in agreement with Trowler and Cooper who argue that “… all practice is underpinned by theory, albeit often tacit and sometimes of rather poor quality. We believe practice based on explicit, rigorously evaluated theory stands a better chance of being effective” (2002:223). We continue to argue that “significant pedagogical concerns that face academics will not be resolved until a more scholarly approach is taken in the development of teaching staff” (Lueddeke 2003:214). Thus we continue to expose our participants to the theory and research associated with the field of higher education.
Aside from the problems encountered by lecturers new to teaching, the programme facilitators have become increasingly critical of the way in which the concept of critically reflective practice is used in the programme and are continually seeking ways of ensuring that it is used meaningfully and doesn’t become an empty “mantra” (Ecclestone 1996). Ecclestone’s evaluation of her context resonates with the concerns that we have been expressing about our programme: “We might need to offer them much clearer accounts of different interpretations and values which underpin reflection and to structure its forms and
276 focuses more coherently than we do at present” ( ibid :152). For critiques of reflective practice in the context of staff development, see for example, Ecclestone 1996; Boud and Walker 1998; Bleakley 2001; Clegg 2000; Clegg and Saeidi 2002 and Knight 2002.
A further ongoing concern identified by the programme facilitators has been regarding the extent to which the programme is equipping lecturers to contribute to the transformation of HE by ensuring epistemological access to the University for all their students (see Quinn 2005 for further discussion on this issue).
Other issues identified are related to the broader context rather than directly to the programme. A number of lecturers reported a lack of support and or recognition from their home departments in relation to their efforts to improve their teaching 3. Many lecturers mentioned encountering difficulties at both institutional and departmental levels when trying to bring about changes as a result of insights gained in the programme. For example: “… you can have innovative ideas but if you bring them up in a staff meeting everyone looks at you like you just crawled out of the floor” (focus group interview 2003:11). Some felt that their efforts to improve their teaching were devalued by other members of their department. For example, in an interview one lecturer said:
… when you start using those words (curriculum alignment, assessment criteria, etc.) you just see their eyes glazing over and you see them thinking ‘what is this?’ And it’s not really academic, its not real theory. It’s not stuff that serious academics would engage with (Interview 10.08.05:5). This quotation points to another issue which many lecturers referred to, that is the tendency in academia to not only polarise teaching and research but also to prioritise (and reward) research activities over teaching-related activities (see Barnett (2003) and Rowland (2002) on the extent of the divisions between research and teaching in HE). The following extracts from the data illustrate the point:
It is very difficult to persuade senior colleagues to take seriously the principles being learned [in the course]. The priority to adopt good teaching, learning and assessment practices does not rank as high as other demands, particularly research. The approach to teaching is almost medieval, supported by an ‘if it ain’t broke, why fix it?’ attitude (email listserv discussion 10.04.03).
HOWEVER promotion does not rely on good teaching – far more emphasis is placed on additional professional qualifications and or research papers …. Until this changes there will be no commitment to a teaching course: without the personal commitment the course is a waste of both the lecturers’ and the students’ time. … The University has to decide on what it actually wants: good teaching, good research or both … reward them. BUT remember that both is ‘hard’ when you’ve just started teaching and just started research…. I ‘lost’ two
3 There were however participants who reported departmental climates and colleagues who were supportive of their involvement in the PGDHE. Some were in fact requested to play leadership roles in relation to, for example, recurriculation in their departments (see Vorster ongoing).
277 years of work on my PhD to complete the PGDHE. I spent approximately 2 months of my sabbatical writing it up …. Has the PGDHE helped me to improve my teaching? Yes. Do I encourage other people to attend? Yes. Any regrets? No (email correspondence 6.06.06). Knight and Trowler (2001:155-156) cite a study by Wright and O’Neil (1994) which inter alia found that one of the most important categories of action to improve teaching in an HEI was leadership particularly that of deans and heads of departments. And “key actions involved: valuing teaching; recognizing, reviewing and rewarding teaching achievement; and establishing climates of trust in which teaching could be discussed and improvements attempted”. Their review of the literature indicates that if HEIs don’t recognize and reward teaching there are limits to how motivated staff can be expected to be in relation to teaching development activities. Data from my study seems to indicate that in some departments at SSAU there is a lack of the kind of academic leadership which young academics need to enable them to balance the different educator roles in complementary rather than contradictory ways. In addition to academic leadership, strategic departmental management is required to ensure that young academics have the space and time to develop both their disciplinary research and their teaching expertise.
…you need someone to sit down with you and say, ‘now let’s see where you’re going, when would be the best time for you to do it [the PGDHE]. Maybe not in your first year … maybe you should get your PhD first or whatever’. That’s what I feel is lacking, that kind of guidance for staff. It depends on HoDs having a philosophy of headship of a particular kind (interview 25.08.05:4). Trowler, Fanghanel and Wareham’s (2005) analysis of initiatives to improve teaching and learning in UK HEIs shows that they have generally failed to focus specifically on the mezo, departmental or workgroup level. They argue that accredited courses need to be complemented by a “set of policies addressing departmental practices – a social context into which they [lecturers] return …” (2005:438).
Without departmental co-operation some PGDHE participants found it difficult to cope with the demands of the course and compromised the quality of their engagement with the programme processes: “I was often worried that time constraints and stricter deadlines with my other work would eventually push me into the dreaded surface learning approach” (evaluation questionnaire 6.12.04). A lecturer from the science faculty summed up the kind of pressure that he felt he was facing in the following way:
It’s [the course] about seven or eight levels down. I made a list here of priorities: if you don’t research you perish, if you don’t publish you perish, if you don’t get funding you perish, if you don’t supervise post grads you perish, if you don’t write reports you perish, if you don’t get NRF funding you perish …(focus group interview October 2003). Comments like these seem to confirm Clegg’s assertion that:
278 Staff development is commonly conceptualised as a peripheral activity compared with these other major preoccupations. There is of course considerable institutional variation in espoused commitment by both staff and management, but the resilience of underlying rhythms cannot be ignored (2003:38). The foregoing sections cannot do justice to the wealth of data which has been collected on the programme over the past six years, nor have I attempted to document the ways in which the programme has evolved and developed in response to the feedback received from the participants, the external examiner and the in-depth critical reflection of the programme facilitators. Despite the difficulties and constraints which face staff development activities in higher education generally and the PGDHE at SSAU in particular, I argue that the programme has been successful enough in meeting its aims to warrant the closer examination which this dissertation documents.
I would suggest that the major impact of the PGDHE has been at the individual level rather than the institutional level. However, as Webb notes:
Whether it be at the individual or institutional level, there is little doubt that educational and staff development now has a greater opportunity to make an impact and be taken seriously than ever before. In a relatively short time we have moved from cottage industry to institutional necessity (1996:2). In addition, I would argue that the PGDHE has fulfilled D’Andrea and Gosling’s criteria in terms of contributing to what they call a “learning organization”:
From the perspective of contributing to the university as a learning organization, the critical features of [initial] professional development courses are that they need (a) to encourage participants to become curious about their teaching and foster habits of critical enquiry into teaching and learning, (b) to assist [new] teachers to develop a vocabulary to talk about teaching in a scholarly way, and (c) to provide a forum for discussion of a range of teaching and assessment practices (2005:76).
Table 1 PGDHE Participants
Below are details of participants who have graduated and who are presently registered for the PGDHE/MEd. The department, appointment level in the University and highest degree at time of initial registration are provided.
The eight participants currently registered who are NOT lecturers at SSAU do not appear in the table below.
* Denotes masters degree (in most cases Master of Education) as opposed to PGDHE
Graduates April 2004
Information Systems Lecturer MCom
Geography Professor PhD
279 Pharmacy Associate professor MCom
Psychology Junior lecturer BA Hons
Management Lecturer MBA
Pharmacy Lecturer MSc
Information Systems Senior instructor DE (JP)
Geographical Information Lecturer BSc Systems
Graduates April 2005
Zoology & Entomology Professor PhD
Environmental Science Lecturer PhD
Human Kinetics and Lecturer MSc Ergonomics
Human Kinetics and Lecturer MSc Ergonomics
Human Kinetics and Junior lecturer MSc Ergonomics
Law Lecturer LLB
Law Lecturer LLB LLM
Education Lecturer MEd
Graduates April 2006
Law Lecturer LLB LLM
Law Lecturer LLB
Pharmacy Associate professor MPharm
Biochemistry Lecturer PhD
Ichthyology & Fisheries Lecturer MSc Science
Journalism Junior lecturer MA
Statistics Lecturer MSc
280 Fine Art Lecturer PhD
Geology Lecturer PhD
Management Lecturer MCom
Pharmacy Lecturer PhD
Pharmacy* Lecturer BPharm
Political & International Lecturer PhD Studies*
Drama * Lecturer MA
Currently registered
Journalism & Media Studies Lecturer MA
Biotechnology Lecturer PhD
Accounting Junior lecturer BCom
Psychology Junior lecturer MA
Information Systems Lecturer BSc Hons
Sociology Junior lecturer BA Hons
Philosophy Lecturer PhD
Journalism & Media Studies Lecturer MPhil
Journalism & Media Studies Lecturer BA Hons
Journalism & Media Studies Lecturer Diploma in Fine Art
Chemistry Lecturer PhD
Extended Studies Unit Lecturer MA
Extended Studies Unit Lecturer MA
Extended Studies Unit Mentor co-ordinator MSc
Extended Studies Unit Lecturer MSc
Fine Art Lecturer MA
Accounting Senior lecturer LLB
Extended Studies Unit Lecturer MSc
281 Management Lecturer MSc
Music and Drama Part-time lecturer MBA
Journalism & Media Studies Lecturer BJourn
English Language & Lecturer PhD Linguistics
Mathematics Lecturer PhD
Information Systems Lecturer MBA
Law Lecturer LLB LLM
Psychology * Senior lecturer PhD
Fine Art * Lecturer MA
Journalism & Media Studies * Lecturer BJourn
Journalism & Media Studies * Senior lecturer BA (Hons) PGD
Industrial Psychology * Lecturer MA
Environmental Science * Lecturer PhD
282 Table 2 PGDHE exit level outcomes
As a result of engaging with the course processes and materials, participants should be able to
1. Evaluate the influence of the higher education context (at global, national, regional, institutional and disciplinary levels) and apply insights to their professional practice.
2. Use critically reflexive practice to examine and develop their teaching and learning activities.
3. Use theoretical understandings of the nature of learning and teaching in higher education to facilitate student learning in their disciplines.
4. Use relevant theory to inform the design, interpretation and implementation of higher education curricula.
5. Use relevant assessment theory and principles to implement assessment of student learning in higher education.
6. Use relevant theory to design and implement evaluation of teaching and courses in higher education.
283 Table 3 Structure of the PGDHE
COMPULSORY MODULES CREDITS
Learning in Higher Education 40
Curriculum Development 30
Assessment of Student Learning 30
Evaluation of Teaching and Courses 10
110
ELECTIVE MODULES (Choose 1)
Design and Develop eLearning 10
Design and Structure Experiential Learning 10
Supervision of Research in Higher Education 10
Leadership in Higher Education 10
Internationalisation in Higher Education 10
10. Research elective 10
Total 120
284 Appendix 2 Email questionnaire sent to lecturers in 2003
Dear
In recent years, the need to cope with increasingly large classes made up of students who are often termed “underprepared” for tertiary education has brought enormous pressure on academic staff. Internationally this has resulted in the development of formal programmes intended to develop academics as educators. Since the start of 2000 the EDU at SSAU has been offering the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE) for lecturers. The EDU has received a grant from the Education, Training and Development Practices, Sector Education and Training Authority (ETDP SETA) to conduct research on the impact of formal programmes such as the one offered by the EDU.
The objective of the research is to generate information which will contribute to the development of such courses at a national level. In addition, the data gathered will inform the on-going development of the SSAU PGCHE.
Please could you respond as fully as possible to the questions below:
1. Do you think there is a need for lecturers to undergo some formal training in preparation for teaching in higher education? Please give reasons for your answer.
2. If your answer to 1 above is yes, what form do you think the training should take?
Please indicate whether you would amenable to being contacted to elaborate on your responses to these questions.
Many thanks
Lynn Quinn
285 Appendix 3: Consent for use of data for research purposes A framework for professional development for lecturers in South African higher education institutions
Thank you for verbally agreeing to participate in this research project aimed at developing a framework for professional development for lecturers’ in South African higher education institutions. The purpose of this document is to obtain your written consent for being involved in my research. In order to achieve the aims of the research I need to document the development of the Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education (PGDHE) at SSAU in order to ascertain what can be learned from our experiences (the successes and the failures!) which may be of use to other institutions embarking on staff development programmes. In order to do that I would like permission from you to use any evaluation data you may have provided when you were enrolled for the course. That may include questionnaires administered by your facilitator, focus group interviews conducted by various people and one-on-one interviews conducted by me. All the other members of the Educational Development Unit have granted me permission to access this data. In addition, I may want to use extracts from assignments, completed portfolios, e-mail correspondence and in some cases journal entries. In order to document the development of the programme I think it is vital from me to include the “voices” of the people who have been participants on the course since its inception in 2000.
In the research outputs (thesis, academic papers etc.) I will not be using any of the participants’ names and I will endeavour to protect your identities. There may be occasions where in the interests of the research I will allude to departments or faculties. If I think someone may be able to identify a participant and that such identification could in any way have negative consequences for the individual, I will send them the relevant sections of the report and check with them that it is acceptable. If the participant feels that it is unacceptable, I undertake to make changes to the satisfaction of the individual concerned.
Attestation of agreement and confidentiality
I, Lynn Quinn (the researcher) do hereby swear that all information obtained as a result of this research will be treated in such a way that the confidentiality of the provider of that information will be maintained.
Signed:______Date:______
I, ……………………………………………………(research participant) do hereby acknowledge that I have been informed of the nature, method and purpose of this research project, and have given my informed consent to participating in the project provided that my confidentiality is observed. I give permission for data with my identity concealed, to be used for the purposes of this research project.
Signed:______Date:______
286
287