99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
The Learning of Infamous People
Christopher Zirnig
University of Hohenheim, Germany
Presenting Author: Zirnig, Christopher
There is a consensus about lifelong learning (LLL) being at the centre of a rapidly changing world. The idea is that change happens in “such a frantic pace that […] we all need to be lifelong learners. We need to continually keep our skills sharp and up to date so that we have an edge in all we do” (Laal & Salamati, 2012, p. 1). Luckily, “of course, we all have a natural desire to learn for adapting to change, enriching and fulfilling our lives” (ibid.). European policy has embraced this zeitgeist and developed several strategies towards LLL. However, the concepts of LLL and the associated concepts knowledge economy/society lack clear analytical distinctions, contributing to a conceptual ambiguity (Peters, 2001). This is not merely definitional but shapes and legitimates knowledge (Hughes, 2002). Brine (2006) differentiates between high knowledge-skilled (HKS) individuals, typically graduates, and low knowledge-skilled (LKS) individuals. Brine (2006)also reveals a persistent association between LLL and employability, especially for LKS learners and despite the shift of employment from the first to the fourth aim of LLL, the European Commission continued to prioritise the relationship between LLL and employability in its White Papers (CEC, 2000). The White Papers construct the LKS learner as at risk and the threat, to the knowledge society. The White Papers outline the individualised, pathologised, LKS learner who, unlike the HKS learner, has personal identifiable needs: basic skills (numeracy, literacy, information technology), entrepreneurship and social skills. Those who have not been able, for whatever reason, to acquire the relevant basic skills threshold must be offered continuing opportunities to do so. However often they may have failed to succeed to take up what has been offered so far (CEC, 2000, p. 11). In this sense, Field (2006, p. 114) states that “[l]ifelong learning is actively reproducing inequality.” Field (2006, p. 116) raises four reasons for that: 1) the closure of options for those deemed unskilled; 2) rising general expectations; 3) new politics of poverty and welfare; 4) absence from new learning culture can become a mechanism for legitimating existing inequalities. And so, inequalities in education carry on throughout life even if those who suffer the most from it are often the least aware of it (Becker, 2013; Hadjar, 2008). Because those who have benefited least from educational opportunities in the past are also far the most likely to express little or no wish to return to education in the future (Aldridge, 2005, pp. 15-17). And so, another important aspect of LLL to consider is resistance. Some adults simply have no interest in taking up the so-called opportunities that are on offer (Field, 2006, p. 131). For them, not being a school type can be a positive form of self-identity.
Working out the perception and subsequent coping strategies of this form of inequality and/or resistance is the aim of this research. The focus of this project is on the relationship between educational and job-related experiences and the resulting attitudes towards LLL. This relationship describes the exercise, production, and accumulation of knowledge and cannot be dissociated from the power mechanisms with which they maintain complex relations (Foucault, 1994, p. 291). This work will therefore analyse how the LLL discourse, including societal expectations and exclusion, affect people whose lives are shaped by educational inequality. The research question is:
What patterns of perception, interpretation and potential coping strategies are evident in people who suffer from educational inequality regarding the perceived pressure coming from LLL discourse?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn order to understand the mechanisms of disadvantage, affected individuals will be interviewed with the help of biographical interviews. Interview partners will be recruited, in Germany, amongst lower educated employees as well as amongst the long term unemployed. Employees with lower educational histories are affected by disruptive technologies and are hence under pressure for LLL. The long term unemployed are forced to visit educational programmes by the state and must therefore also cope with a pressure for LLL. Expected results will be coping strategies and structures of meaning concerning pressure as well as opportunities for LLL. LKS learner’s awarded abilities, needs and wishes for LLL are widely shaped by their educational experiences and the discourse around LLL, and hence, by society. A decisive argument was put forth, by Rosenthal (1993) to navigate away from the impasse of the subject-society dualism through the utilization of the concept of biography. The exploration of the biographical as a social entity encompasses both the inquiry into the social role of biographies and the examination of the social processes that shape them (Fischer-Rosenthal, 1991, p. 253).
In biographical interviews, biographers are prompted with an opening question to spontaneously narrate their life events. The uninterrupted main narrative, facilitated by nonverbal cues, allows for a comprehensive account. The subsequent questioning phase delves into elaborations on mentioned topics and addresses blocked-out issues. Analysis involves two levels: genetical (reconstructing biographical meaning and chronological sequence of experiences) and narrated (thematic field analysis for present meanings and temporal order). Thematic field analysis explores the selection mechanisms guiding the biographer’s textual elements. The goal is to reconstruct the form and structure of the narrated life story, emphasizing the dialectical link between experienced life history and narrated life story. Considering biography as a social construct that encompasses both social reality and the subjective experiential realm focuses on methodological and procedural aspects of reconstructing narrated life stories, aiming to address the relationship between educational experiences, decision-making and behaviour and the discourse of LLL. In short, the aim of the biographical interviews is to gain insights into the LKS learner perspective on LLL. So far, the needs of LKS learner have been defined by others, top-down. This research aims to inquire from the ground-up, self-defined learning described by LKS learners as well as to understand the meaning of learning for LKS learners.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe technological progress and the frantically paced change lead to contradictory developments in LLL: On the one hand, in many areas, more complex work equipment increases the pressure on employees to learn new things as a means of ensuring employability. This can lead to uncertainty and additional stress for employees and the unemployed in two ways. Firstly, their own perceived employability is weakened when knowledge and skills lose their (perceived) half-life (Jackson & Wilton, 2017; Yeves et al., 2019). Secondly, a confusing and contradictory technology discourse leads to uncertainties regarding relevant knowledge. The market for continuing education programmes reflects this confusion. On the other hand, technologies that foster human-machine interaction can result in jobs that require no skills or qualification (Autor, 2015). LKS learners, hence, are still needed but in fewer numbers. So, the discourse of LLL can help to blame the unfortunate life situation of marginalised learners (e.g., long-term unemployment) on themselves, as all the options for LLL (the cure for all their ills) are always at hand.
Because LKS learners are often problematised as a threat to society, there is only little research on potential positive meaning of non-participation in education and its relationship to the LLL discourse. Rather, the needs of the LKS learners are described as basic skills, skills to increase inclusion, vocational education, basic social skills and skills to increase entrepreneurship and increase employability (Thompson, 2002). However, if individual employability, the economy and even the nation itself ride on lifelong learning, the infamous and the reluctant are of interest, too.
ReferencesAldridge, F. (2005). Better news this time? The niace survey on adult participation in learning 2005. NIACE.
Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3
Becker, R. (2013). Bildungsungleichheit und gerechtigkeit in der schweiz. Swiss Journal of Educational Research, 35(3), 405-424.
Brine, J. (2006). Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy: Those that know and those that do not—the discourse of the European Union. British Educational Research Journal, 32(5), 649-665. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920600895676
CEC, Commission of the European Communities (2000). Commission staff working paper: A memorandum on lifelong learning.
Field, J. (2006). Lifelong learning and the new educational order. ERIC.
Fischer-Rosenthal, W. (1991). Biographische methoden in der soziologie. Flick, U./Kardorff, E. v./Keupp, H./Rosenstiel, Lv/Wolff, St.(Hg.)(1991): Handbuch Qualitative Sozialforschung. München: Psychologie Verlags Union, 253-256.
Foucault, M. (1994). Interview conducted by d. Trombadori 1978, first published 1980. In: J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984. Volume 3: Power. Sage.
Hadjar, A. (2008). Meritokratie als legitimationsprinzip. Springer.
Hughes, C. (2002). Key concepts in feminist theory and research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024459
Jackson, D., & Wilton, N. (2017). Perceived employability among undergraduates and the importance of career self-management, work experience and individual characteristics. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(4), 747-762.
Laal, M., & Salamati, P. (2012). Lifelong learning; why do we need it? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 399-403. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.073
Peters, M. (2001). National education policy constructions of the ‘knowledge economy’: Towards a critique. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(1).
Rosenthal, G. (1993). Reconstruction of life stories: Principles of selection in generating stories for narrative biographical interviews. The Narrative Study of Lives, 1(1), 59-91.
Thompson, J. (2002). Life politics and popular learning. In: J. Field & M. Leicester (Eds.) Lifelong learning: education across the lifespan (pp. 134-145). Routledge.
Yeves, J., Bargsted, M., Cortes, L., Merino, C., & Cavada, G. (2019). Age and perceived employability as moderators of job insecurity and job satisfaction: A moderated moderation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 799.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
The Evidence Claims in the Systematic Reviews of Qualitative Studies in Education: a Systematic Review
Rita Marzoli
University of Verona, Italy
Presenting Author: Marzoli, Rita
There is a growing interest in conducting Systematic Reviews in education for both research purposes and evidence-based policy making. Education research is a critical domain that grants us valuable insights into the intricate processes of learning and teaching. Within this dynamic field, researchers employ a diverse array of methods and approaches to investigate a wide spectrum of educational facets, ranging from the dynamics of classroom environments and teacher-student interactions to the far-reaching consequences of education policies and practices on student outcomes (Creswell & Poth, 2019).
Typically, education research is categorized into two overarching paradigms: qualitative and quantitative research. However, it's worth noting that mixed-method research occupies a distinctive paradigm of its own. This comprehensive approach brings with it unique foundational perspectives on social reality and research, distinct ontological and epistemological viewpoints, and a set of axiologies and methodologies exclusive to its domain.
However, Systematic Reviews synthesising qualitative research evidence still pose theoretical and methodological challenges at all stages of the process (from the formulation of research questions to the evidence claim made by the authors).
In the field of education, the synthesis of qualitative studies within systematic reviews has long been a shared challenge. Education, inherently qualitative in nature, presents a complexity of variables that complicates the calculation of a straightforward combining effect size in meta-analysis (Borenstein, 2009). Moreover, the profound insights into educational settings and perceptions derived from the synthesis of qualitative studies hold immense value. Understanding not just whether a practice was successful, but why it was, offers a deeper perspective. However, the diversity in how qualitative research is conducted and reported poses significant challenges in synthesizing these findings (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2006).
While there's a prevailing belief that qualitative research can be systematically reviewed and synthesized, distinguishing methodically conducted qualitative research from those lacking rigor remains a necessity. Furthermore, a consensus on various aspects of the research process and its reporting still eludes the field (Garside, 2014).
Qualitative systematic reviews in Education provide valuable insights into the characteristics of knowledge claims made within the field. These reviews are designed to synthesize and analyse qualitative research studies to generate comprehensive and nuanced understandings of educational phenomena. The characteristics of knowledge claims in qualitative systematic reviews are distinct and supported by the review authors through rigorous methodology and transparent reporting. Critical reflection on facts and the interpretation of evidence lies at the core of all research, particularly when using research findings to guide policies and practices. Within the context of a systematic review, this process takes on added significance. Here, it is not only essential to deliberate upon the review methodology but also scrutinize the studies that have been incorporated into the review and dissect the resultant findings (Gough et al., 2017). This interconnected triplet – the research question, research methods, and research data – forms the linchpin of constructing knowledge claims within the purview of qualitative systematic reviews in the field of Education. Against this backdrop, this review aims at answering the following research question:
What are the characteristics of the knowledge claims made in qualitative systematic reviews in the field of education and how are they supported by the authors of the reviews?
a) conducting a systematic review of existing systematic reviews of qualitative studies in the education field with a focus on student, teacher and parents’ subjective experiences, beliefs, opinions and attitudes;
b) developing a comprehensive theoretical framework by integrating Toulmin's Argumentation Model and Gough's Claim Appraisal Framework (Gough, 2022; Toulmin, 1958) to identify methodological characteristics and reporting practices of qualitative systematic reviews in the education field.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis review is preceded by an iterative protocol including detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, a structured search process to locate and select relevant existing reviews, and a formal process to extract data. The screening process will be documented using the PRISMA Flow Diagram (Page et al., 2021)
For the purposes of this study, only systematic reviews focused on qualitative studies that included the subjective experiences of students, teachers and parents were considered. Only primary or secondary education was taken into account.
An initial search of ERIC database was undertaken. The search strategy used to construct clear and meaningful objectives was developed around three main concepts informed by the PCC framework (Pollock et al., 2023):
Population: students, teachers, parents.
Concept: students, teachers’ and parents’ subjective experiences (beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, opinions, experiences).
Context: school environment, from primary to secondary education within the formal educational system where students engage in structured learning activities.
Following the search, all identified citations have been collated into Zotero and then uploaded into Rayyan where duplicates were removed.
The records in Rayyan were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following eligibility criteria.
Inclusion criteria:
1. Must be a systematic review (a review and synthesis of existing primary research studies with reported methods)
2. The primary studies included in the systematic review should use qualitative methods (i.e investigate the views/ beliefs/ attitudes/ perceptions/ opinions/ experiences of participants using text / narrative/ speech as data).
3. The systematic review must use a qualitative method of synthesis.
4. The participants should be students, teachers, or parents in primary or secondary school settings (from grade 1 to 12).
5. The topic of the research should be education or learning broadly conceived.
Exclusion criteria:
1. A review without methods and/ or primary research studies.
2. The primary studies included in the systematic review use quantitative methods (data is in the form of numbers).
3. The systematic review uses a statistical method of synthesis.
4. The participants are not students, teachers, or parents in primary or secondary school settings (from grade 1 to 12).
5. The topic of the research is health
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis research study is part of a PhD project which aims to explore the intricacies of 'knowledge claims' within the existing literature, particularly within qualitative reviews. To accomplish this goal, from a theoretical and conceptual perspective, an integration of Toulmin's model (Toulmin, 1958) with Gough's framework (Gough, 2022) will be enhanced. This synergistic approach will enable a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics inherent in these knowledge claims as they are portrayed in the body of qualitative research literature.
The search strategy in ERIC yielded 335 studies, of which two were removed as duplicates. The remaining 333 studies were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The systematic review is still in progress, but the author expects to proceed simultaneously in two directions: (i) screening of studies for inclusion and (ii) construction of the framework for assessing the 'fit for purpose' of evidence claims by integrating Toulmin's model of argumentation and Gough's framework. This step is necessary to code the eligible studies (systematic reviews) that used qualitative research designs. These will be categorised into broader, higher order themes based on the integrated framework.
References- Borenstein, M. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In L. V. H. H. Cooper &. J. C. Valentine (Eds. ). (A c. Di), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (1–Book, Section, pp. 221–235). Russell Sage Foundation.
- Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2019). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publication.
- Garside, R. (2014). Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(1), 67–79.
- Gough, D. (2022a). Appraising Evidence Claims. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985072
- Gough, D. (2022b). Appraising Evidence Claims. Review of Research in Education, 45(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20985072
- Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). SAGE.
- Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., (et al.) (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
- Pollock, D., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, (et al.) (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123
- Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2006). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer publishing company.
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. University Press
|
