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 ..........................................................................................................