Conceptualising and researching the new

communities, spaces, places and futures of

contemporary higher education

Paul Ashwin, Lancaster Universityp.ashwin@lancaster.ac.uk

SRHE Conference for Postgraduates & Newer Researchers:

New communities, spaces and places: inspiring futures for

higher education

6-7 December 2011, Celtic Manor Resort, Newport, Wales

1

My focus

My interest is in:

�How we ‘see’, or theorise, the new communities, spaces, places and futures of higher education;

�How we generate and analyse data about these;

�The relations between ‘theories’ and data in higher education research;

�Whether a different understanding of these relations could lead to new ways of understanding higher education.

2

Some context

� There is little development of theories in higher education research, which is one important aspect of empirical research;

� ‘Development’ in the sense of working on an extending existing theories and/or gaining a sense of the kinds of processes and contexts that particular theories are most useful for conceptualising;

� Rather HE research seems to move through a succession of theoretical lenses, the use of which appears to be largely a matter of fashion.

(see Ashwin 2009, in press for a discussion of these issues)

3

What are the new

communities, spaces,

places and futures?� The papers here focus on:

� on-line spaces, relations and pedagogies;

� employability and the labour market;

� professional, researcher and teacher identities;

� assessment;

� corporate social responsibilities;

� curriculum development;

� the internationalisation of higher education;

� leadership;

� widening participation.

� I see these as ‘objects’ of research.

� Whether these are new or not depends in part on how they are conceptualised.

4

The messy reality of

higher education

5

After Law (2004)

Conceptualising

� In order to deal with this messy reality, we have to simplify our research objects by seeing them in certain ways and not others.

� At this conference, papers draw on the ideas of Bourdieu, Bernstein, Communities of Practice amongst others to conceptualise their research objects.

� Worth noting that these are not particularly new, and that there are not that many, consistent with HE research generally.

6

Question 1

Think about a single research project you

have been involved in.

�How did you ‘choose’ the way in which

you conceptualised your research object?

Please share your thoughts with the rest of

your table.

7

Different ways of

simplifying the mess

8

9

10

Researching

� How do we generate and analyse data about the new communities, spaces, places and futures of higher education?

� In the papers at this conference: interviews, surveys, document analysis, focus groups and observations;

� A few more unusual approaches: photo interviews, audio-diaries;

� Quite a few mixed-method studies.

� In terms of analysis of data: Discourse, Narrative, Voice-centred Relational Method.

� Overall some interesting innovations but remarkably similar to research methods used at least since 1930s, again consistent with HE research generally.

11

Question 2

Thinking again about the research project

you discussed under question 1:

�Did your way of seeing your research

object inform the way in which you

generated and analysed your data?

Please share your thoughts with the rest of

your table.

12

13

Relating

� How can we relate our views of our research object to the outcomes of our data analysis?

� Most often done in terms of ‘theory’ explaining ‘data’.

� This has led some to claim there is a problem with theory-building in educational research (for example see Thomas 2007; Kettley 2010).

� My sense is that this is based on the ambiguity of the word ‘theory’ and can be addressed by:� Analytically separating views of research objects (theories)

from data generation and analysis (data);

� being more careful about what aspects of theories and data are brought into relation to each other.

14

Relations between ‘the

world’, ‘theories’ and

‘data’

15

Creating dynamic

relations between

‘theories’ and ‘data’

16

Situated view

of the

research

object

Systematized

and

structured

data set

Inspiring Futures?

My argument is that in developing more dynamic relations between theories and data, we will:

�Gain more powerful knowledge about the communities, spaces, places and futures of higher education;

�Extend theories and gain a better sense of the kinds of processes and contexts that particular theories are most useful for conceptualising;

�Encourage a greater number of different ways of seeing research objects and generating and analysing data;

�Encourage more dialogue about new and old ways of seeing higher education;

�Become more playful and confident in the ways in which we research and think about higher education.

17

References

Ashwin, P. (2009) Accounting for Structure and Agency in Researching Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Higher Education. London: Continuum.

Ashwin, P (in press) How often are theories developed through empirical research in higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 38 (1) February 2013 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2011.557426 ).

Kettley, N. (2010) Theory Building in Educational Research. London: Continuum.

Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.

Thomas, G. (2007) Education and theory: strangers in paradigms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

18