Applicant for DPhil in Education Programme, Dept.

of Education, Oxford University

Applicant’s name: Mirat al Fatima Ahsan
Supporting Material Extract I: Extract from MPhil Thesis - ELT Practitioners and their
Conceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Higher Education Context of Pakistan

3.2 On Methodology

My three research questions looked at conceptions of ELT teachers about teaching and learning
and factors that may affect them such as teacher education, and sought to do so within a cultural
framework. Therefore I needed a theoretical framework that allowed me to explore the
phenomenon, that is, teaching and learning, but in a way where the focus was not on the
phenomenon but on describing the ways individuals experienced the phenomenon. Since the
questions sought to explore these experiences within a cultural context, the methodology needed
to be responsive and sensitive to this focus as well. In the following section I justify adopting a
Phenomenographic approach by comparing and contrasting it with other three possible
approaches.

3.2.1 Why Phenomenography?

Phenomenography is a relatively new research tradition that emerged in the late 1970s from
Sweden. It was developed by Marton and Booth, to study thinking and learning, particularly in
the context of educational research (Marton, 1986). Svensson (1997) states that “it represents a
specific approach adapted to the objects of conceptions” (p.162). According to Marton and
Booth (1997)

Phenomenography is focused on the ways of experiencing different phenomena, ways of seeing them,
knowing them and having skills related to them. The aim is, however, not to find the singular essence,
but the variation and the architecture of this variation in terms of the different aspects that define the
phenomena. (p. 110)

Phenomenographic approaches, match the study’s aim, and focus on individuals’ experiences of
phenomena rather than the phenomenon itself. This is one of the reasons why it was chosen.
Another option was taking a Phenomenological approach which has a similar focus. Also
Brentano’s notion of intentionality is a key concept in both approaches1. As Phenomenology is a
far older research tradition, founded on the work of Husserl in the 1900s, it has been suggested
that Phenomenography arose from it (Enwistle, 1997). Marton (1981) acknowledges that
1
This relates to the idea that our consciousness is always directed towards something, we are always conscious of or
about something and in that sense there is an active engagement between our consciousness and knowing of the
world- of objects – of phenomenon (Crotty, 1998).
Applicant for DPhil in Education Programme, Dept. of Education, Oxford University
Applicant’s name: Mirat al Fatima Ahsan
Supporting Material Extract I: Extract from MPhil Thesis - ELT Practitioners and their
Conceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Higher Education Context of Pakistan

Phenomenography borrows key concepts from Phenomenology but also highlights fundamental
differences. Differences between the two that are most relevant to my study are discussed here.

The most significant difference is in their orientation to how ‘conceptions’ are to be understood
and studied. A Phenomenographic approach focuses on studying conceptions as a range in which
varying individual experiences of the phenomenon, (this includes the scientifically approved
version of the conception) are understood to exist as a hierarchical continuum (Marton, 1981).
The objective of a Phenomenographic study is to chart these variations and in doing so preserve
a record of the collective experience and understanding of aspects of a phenomena/reality so it
may serve as an “evolutionary tool” (Marton, 1981, p. 177). Phenomenological approaches, in
contrast generally (Moran, 2000) focus on varying experiences in order to identify the
“essence”2. This means the focus is on individual and inter-subjective meaning in so far it relates
to convergence between the individual’s and researchers’ consciousnesses, and through
Phenomenological reduction, on the common elements of the experience. My study focused on
exploring the different ways Pakistani ELT teachers saw and experienced teaching and learning.
The aim was to map their range of conceptions not to identify their essence.

The fact that Phenomenographers take a second-order perspective as opposed to the first-person
point of view taken in Phenomenological approaches was also relevant. Taking a second-order
perspective requires researchers to keep an open mind to try and see what participants’
experiences are, as they are, without imposing their own perceptions and understandings. They
do so without attempting to merge their consciousness with participants’ consciousness as is
done when a first order perspective is taken (Moran, 2000). The focus is on you, that is the
participant, rather than on the researcher as the participant-‘I as you’. This difference relates to
their opposing metaphysical positions. Phenomenological approaches are noumenal and take a
transcendental idealist stance (Moran, 2000; Soon & Barnard, 2002) to describe the world and
objects in it in terms of an ideal world. In contrast, Phenomenographic studies take an empirical
position and are phenomenal. They focus on describing the experienced world. Consequently,

2
For Husserl essence relates to the whatness of things. As there are many different types of phenomenology
(Dall’Alba, 2009), the definition of what constitutes essence varies. However there is consensus that apprehending
an individual’s experience of the phenomena “ as it is lived”, means getting at the meaning of the experience- the
properties, qualities and aspects that make the experience essentially what it is (Moran, 2000).
Applicant for DPhil in Education Programme, Dept. of Education, Oxford University
Applicant’s name: Mirat al Fatima Ahsan
Supporting Material Extract I: Extract from MPhil Thesis - ELT Practitioners and their
Conceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Higher Education Context of Pakistan

Phenomenographic findings are autonomous because the individual’s and the researcher’s
consciousness remain separate (Marton, 1981, p. 179). When Phenomenographers ‘bracket’,
they focus on serving as a ‘neutral filter’, to ‘see’ participants’ experiences. This is why findings
are argued to be empirical. They relate to what is ‘seen’ rather than being dependent on who the
interpreter / researcher is and their individual consciousness. Marton (1981) also points out that
accessing individuals’ worlds through their experience, as phenomenologists do, makes it
difficult to separate what is experienced from the experience itself. Applied to my study this
would mean looking at both_ what teaching and learning is and participants’ experiences of
teacher and learning. What I am trying to explore however, are teachers’ understandings of
teaching and learning, not what teaching and learning are.

Their differing ontological positions were also relevant. Phenomenological approaches take a
dualistic stance in which objects and subjects are two separate, independent realities. Meaning is
inter-subjective and derives from the interaction of the two. Reality, in Phenomenography is seen
in non-dualistic terms. The subject and the object are interdependent entities, with the object
having meaning because it is perceived. Walker (1998) gives the example of a book and reader
to illustrate this concept. The book exists- has meaning because there is someone to read it.
Similarly in the case of my study, the object- conceptions of teaching and learning exist -have
meaning because there are teachers to interact with and have experiences of teaching and
learning.

The final relevant difference relates to data analysis. Data collected in Phenomenological studies
is analysed for what is common, culminating in the identification of meaning units.
Phenomenographic data is concerned with the descriptive and the collective in the sense that it is
analysed for identifying “content-loaded” descriptions (Uljens, 1996), that is, categories of
description of the ways in which the phenomena has been seen/interacted with. This is then
further analysed for optimum minimisation of categories to produce an “outcome space”. These
categories of description and ‘outcome space’ relate to the awareness and variation theory
developed by phenomenographers (Booth 1997, Bowden & Marton, 1999; Marton, 1988; Marton
& Booth, 1997). The awareness theory states that participants’ awareness of experiences has a
theme and a margin. The theme is the foreground, the main focus of the participants’ awareness
Applicant for DPhil in Education Programme, Dept. of Education, Oxford University
Applicant’s name: Mirat al Fatima Ahsan
Supporting Material Extract I: Extract from MPhil Thesis - ELT Practitioners and their
Conceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Higher Education Context of Pakistan

of the phenomenon. The theme includes all aspects directly related to the phenomenon and its
boundary is determined by the internal horizon. The margin or the thematic field relates to
aspects indirectly related to the participants’ awareness of the phenomenon and their boundary is
determined by an external horizon- that is the perceptual boundary associated with participants’
ways of seeing. The internal and external horizons constitute the structural aspects . The variation
theory (Marton, 2002) posits that individuals are able to derive meaning about a phenomenon
once they are able to distinguish it from other phenomena. The ability to make this distinction in
turn depends on participants’ experience of variation and this enables them to clarify the
meaning of the experience. This is referred to as the referential aspect. This difference between
analysing for variance versus essence was the final basis for my choice.

Ethnography was another choice as it is similar to Phenomenography in terms of being inductive,

descriptive, interactive and entailing recursive data analysis (Richardson, 1999). More
importantly, it allows a focus on culture. However, literature (Marton, 1986; Richardson, 1999;
Svensson, 1997) points out their difference in aims, nature of description required, in methods
and in data analysis. The deciding factor for me was the difference in aim _ ethnography is
concerned essentially with culture and questions which seek to explore phenomena in terms of
social processes (Patton, 2002). Phenomenography focuses on investigating conceptions with the
fundamental assumption that knowledge and conceptions are relational where “knowledge is a
question of meaning in a social and cultural context” (Svensson, 1997, p. 165). My study focused
on variance of conceptions with specific conceptual orientations regarding culture (section 2.2.2,
p.10). There was, therefore, greater resonance between my study aims, questions and
Phenomenography. Also, ethnography, because of its focus on social processes, requires cultural
immersion, a condition that neither the scope nor the timelines of my study could have met.

Grounded Theory, though similar to Phenomenography, in being grounded in empirical data and
data-driven, and being exploratory (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000; Entwistle & Ramsden,
1983), aims at theory generation and answering questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’. My study aimed
at describing conceptions/experiences of ELT teachers about teaching and learning. Also
Grounded Theory is positivistic in orientation (Richardson, 1999). Knowledge is discovered – is
Applicant for DPhil in Education Programme, Dept. of Education, Oxford University
Applicant’s name: Mirat al Fatima Ahsan
Supporting Material Extract I: Extract from MPhil Thesis - ELT Practitioners and their
Conceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Higher Education Context of Pakistan

an objective truth (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). My study has an entirely different epistemological
positioning.

3.2.2 Criticism on the Phenomenographic Approach

Phenomenographic studies have been criticised on various fronts in the literature (Haggis, 2003;
Webb, 1997; Richardson, 1999). Therefore, I incorporated elements in the study design to
respond to those criticisms considered most relevant.

Studies have been criticised for ignoring culture and context when interpreting data and for
treating findings as “neutral, cognitive truth” (Haggis, 2003, p.93; also see Webb, 1997; Uljens,
1996). Marton (1981) argues that categories of description are “frozen forms of thoughts”
(p.181) arrived at by separating categories from thinking and thinking from its original context.
He cites Popper’s third world and its focus on “objective contents of thoughts” and his notion of
“epistemology without a knowing subject” (p. 196) to support his argument. There is an inherent
contradiction in this. In the same paper Marton (1981) acknowledges that to identify and
systematise people’s interpretations of aspects of reality entails drawing on socially significant
frameworks (p.181). This means that cultural frameworks would impact on variations and also
on how they are understood. This issue of culture and context is addressed in two ways in my
study. Conceptions have been investigated within a cultural frame of reference (see section
2.2.3). Uljen’s (1996) solution of interpreting experiences within their social, historical and
cultural dimensions has also been implemented by engaging in a hermeneutic mode of data
interpretation.

Webb (1997) and Haggis (2003) question the likelihood of researchers’ being able to
successfully bracket and take the second-order perspective. Webb (1997) cites Popper’s theory
of horizons expectations to argue that cultural and social assumptions cannot be bracketed as all
meaning-making is value-laden rather than value-neutral. Engaging in a hermeneutic
interpretation of the data resolved this as it entailed taking my assumptions as an insider and
outsider into account.
Applicant for DPhil in Education Programme, Dept. of Education, Oxford University
Applicant’s name: Mirat al Fatima Ahsan
Supporting Material Extract I: Extract from MPhil Thesis - ELT Practitioners and their
Conceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Higher Education Context of Pakistan

Richardson (1999) highlights that Phenomenographic data generally comprises only of interview
data where participants’ accounts are accepted at face value. He argues that it is unlikely that
‘tacit and implicit knowledge’ would easily be accessed through discourse. Webb (1997)
characterises Phenomenographic interviews as being “short-termed, controlled and
instrumentally-directed” (p. 200) and therefore being positivistic in orientation rather than
qualitative as claimed. The use of qualitative tools, the phased data collection process and the
hermeneutic mode of data interpretation all speak to this concern.

3.3 On Philosophy: ‘what is’ and ‘how we know’

Ontologically the study’s position on reality aligns with Phemenongraphy’s view of reality.
There is only one world and objects in it have meaning because they are perceived (Marton,
1981). This non-dualistic perspective has two implications for the study’s orientation. Reality is
conceived of as existing outside the mind and in that sense the study takes a realist position.
Also because the object is dependent on being perceived to have meaning, epistemologically
knowledge is not seen in terms of objective truth as in objectivism3.

This epistemological stance, regarding meaningful reality emerging from an interaction between
consciousness and reality, corresponds closely with two epistemological positions. The first is
social constructionism :“ all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is
contingent upon human practices being constructed in and out of interaction between human
beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context”
(Crotty, 1998, p.42). The second is constructivism where the knower interprets reality based on
their own experiences and interactions with their environment (Gergen, 1999). Both see
knowledge as a meaning-making process, but while constructionism focuses on the “collective
generation of meaning” (Crotty, 1998, p. 58), constructivism, particularly radical constructivism
(Von Glaserfield, 1995), sees meaning-making as a uniquely individual process. This study
looked at ELT teachers’ experiences of/interactions of teaching and learning within a cultural

3
This is antithetical to Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) view who posit that to take a realist ontological position means
the knower takes an objective detached position towards the world and objects in it (p. 108). Crotty (1998) gives the
examples of Husserl to argue that a realist ontological positioning can be compatible with a interpretive stance.
Applicant for DPhil in Education Programme, Dept. of Education, Oxford University
Applicant’s name: Mirat al Fatima Ahsan
Supporting Material Extract I: Extract from MPhil Thesis - ELT Practitioners and their
Conceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Higher Education Context of Pakistan

frame of reference. In doing so it focused on collective meaning in two ways. It looked at the
range of experiences and it did so by orienting these within a collective frame. In that sense it is
constructionist in its assumptions about what makes meaning. Yet there are constructivist
elements because by not reducing experiences to their common elements what was unique in
participants’ understanding and interactions with teaching and learning was preserved.

I am aware that this is a problematic positioning. The study fits well within the social
constructionist paradigm especially since it too takes a non-dualistic stance on reality (Young &
Collins, 2004). In constructionism we construct knowledge by engaging with the world and
objects in it. Conversely, in the constructivist approach reality is dualistic: the inner world
explains the outer world (Von Glaserfield, 1995). However the study’s focus on the individual’s
experience and engagement cannot be fully accounted for by orienting it solely within the social
constructionist paradigm, hence the study is positioned within the social constructionist paradigm
but with a slightly constructivist orientation.

3.4 On Gathering of Data

Sampling, choice of methods and data analyses were engaged in keeping in view the research
context, research questions, the Phenomenographic framework and constraints and limitations of
the study.

An emergent design was used, as in Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Richardson,
1999), so that the study was data -driven and included three stages with three different types of
interviews being used. This is a modification of the traditional phenomenographic data collection
practices. Though alternate methods such as participant observation are discussed (Marton,
1988), the interview is the preferred method (Marton, 1986). Observation was not considered as
a method because the scope of the study included a focus on teachers’ experiences as manifested
in their own accounts (Marton & Booth, 1997) rather than their practice4. The modified design
was a response to criticisms of the ‘Phenomenographic interview’. To be able to access
participants’ actual experiences I needed to bypass their defence structures: their concern with

4
There was also the issue of the possible disjunction between understanding and practice, that is espoused theory
versus theory-in-action highlighted earlier (section 2.3.1)
Applicant for DPhil in Education Programme, Dept. of Education, Oxford University
Applicant’s name: Mirat al Fatima Ahsan
Supporting Material Extract I: Extract from MPhil Thesis - ELT Practitioners and their
Conceptions about Teaching and Learning in the Higher Education Context of Pakistan

‘presenting the right image’, but without raising ethical concerns (Francis, 1993; Richardson,
1999), or being positivistic and taking a solely directed approach (Webb, 1997). It was
anticipated that a staged design would allow for a relatively gradual emergence of participants’
experiences that would be induced naturally through building rapport _ a state of “meta-
awareness” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 129).

( Word Count: 2,634)