Theory and Method in Higher Education Research: Volume 7

Decolonizing involves dismantling deeply entrenched colonial systems of knowledge and power by disrupting colonial patterns of thought, questioning how teaching and learning occurs, and critiquing the colonial practices that are merged into the fabric of higher and adult education. Within this process, scholars and practitioners engage in interrogating teaching and learning approaches and developing a critical consciousness regarding what knowledge is valued and how this value is acquired. Within higher and adult education, limited research has explicitly considered the ways in which conceptions of andragogy and its accompanying instructional approaches might be deconstructed within the context of decolonization. The purpose of this chapter is to deconstruct and decolonize foundational higher and adult learning conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are routinely embedded within courses and programs. The conceptual and theoretical frameworks selected and analyzed include self-directed learning, transformative learning, and action learning as conventional examples of individual and collective instructional approaches employed within higher and adult learning settings. Maōri scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith's (2012) nine characteristics of theory that contribute to colonizing discourses and 25 Indigenous projects/principles are employed as the lenses that frame this analysis. These lenses include social science and methodological approaches and strategies that decolonize populations and promote Indigenous epistemologies.

Critical race theory (CRT) seems to face a never-ending baptism by fire. When the Trump administration sought to ban CRT from American federal training courses in 2020, this may have come as a shock to few (Lang, 2020). Perhaps of greater surprise was that mutual sentiments resonated with the UK Minister for Equalities Kemi Badenoch, a black female, who appears to oppose the teaching of CRT in principle (Thrilling, 2020). The resurgence of such denunciations is problematic in a Western world which is primed for social activism, particularly for scholars in higher education institutions, where CRT has been gaining traction as a guiding framework for research into antiracism, fairness and affirmative action. This chapter suggests that the condemnation of CRT is neither unexpected nor is it altogether absurd. Nevertheless, it aims to provide a balanced metatheoretical ‘criticism’ of CRT and offer a view on the suitability of, and prospects for, its activist research agenda in higher education. Quite often, criticisms of CRT reflect issues with its origin as a troubled bricolage of conveniently assembled ‘tenets’, which do not lend themselves easily to the burden of evidentiary production required in higher education research and practice. In this review, I analyse CRT, through its bricolage-style characteristics, as primarily an explanatory theory, with respect to its application against racialised issues in higher education policy. It is hoped this chapter offers academic and activist researchers a way past the shadow of CRT's bricolage, by defusing some of the misgivings towards its inherent limitations.

Since its conception, the community of practice (CoP) theory has become a popular framework in a plethora of disciplines and settings. In the field of higher education, this versatile social theory of learning and identity that is compatible with theories of language and discourse has been used for the exploration of a variety of topics such as quality assurance, language socialisation in study abroad, medical student workplace learning and the learning of science. This theoretical model offers a framework based on collectives attached by their practice and mutual relations, which suits a priori some institutionally recognised clusters within higher education, such as research groups (RGs). These groupings, composed of pre- and post-doctoral researchers, form a domain of sustained relations and interactions through which learning may occur, but the extent to which the RG constitutes a CoP remains uncertain. This chapter discusses the suitability of the CoP model for the study of RGs in the light of ethnographic data gathered from two RGs.

Informed by multiple disciplines, theories, and methods, higher education scholars have developed a robust and diverse literature in many countries. Yet, some important (organizational) sociological perspectives, both more established and more recent, are insufficiently linked. In particular, we identify two theoretical strands – institutional and relational – that, when joined, help to explain contemporary developments in global higher education and yield new organizational insights. We review relevant literature from each perspective, both in their general formulations and with specific reference to contemporary higher education research. Within the broad institutional strand, we highlight strategic action fields, organizational actorhood, and associational memberships. Within the relational strand, we focus on ties and relationships that are especially crucial as science has entered an age of (inter)national research collaboration. Across these theories, we discuss linkages between concepts, objects, and levels of analysis. We explore the methodological approach of social network analysis as it offers great potential to connect these strands and, thus, to advance contemporary higher education research in a collaborative era.

This chapter considers the values and challenges of a highly embedded participant ethnographic methodology that has evolved over the last four years in the course of two formal ethnographic studies in higher education. The method has been developed by a practitioner-researcher in tandem with the learning design of a new programme. As such, the roots of the method lie very much within the paradigms of heuristics and action research but lend themselves equally well to more formal, extended ethnographic work. The nature of this method raises several interesting, messy and difficult issues that are further explored. The first is the nature of practitioner research and the purpose of participant ethnography in this context. What does it mean for the teacher to concurrently and contemporaneously inhabit the role of researcher? This leads neatly into an exploration of the attendant ethical considerations. Issues of power and positionality must be tackled, and the ability of the researcher to engage in fully reflexive practice and research is key to unpacking this. Who or what is being observed, and from what perspective? Whose experience is really being interrogated – that of the teacher or the student? Finally, as this method has evolved from, and shares much in common with, action research, consideration will be given to the nexus of action research, observation and formal ethnography – both in terms of the participation and contributions of the teacher-researcher to the process and the students, who in effect become auto-action researchers, investigating themselves as learners and their experiences with their peers.

There is currently a great deal of attention in psychometric and statistical methods on ensuring measurement invariance when examining measures across time or populations. When measurement invariance is established, changes in scores over time or across groups can be attributed to changes in the construct rather than changes in reaction to or interpretation of the measurement instrument. When measurement in not invariant, it is possible that measured differences are due to the measurement instrument itself and not to the underlying phenomenon of interest. This chapter discusses the importance of establishing measurement invariance specifically in postsecondary settings, where it is anticipated that individuals' perspectives will change over time as a function of their higher education experiences. Using examples from several measures commonly used in higher education research, the concepts and processes underlying tests of measurement invariance are explained and analyses are interpreted using data from a US-based longitudinal study on bioscience PhD students. These measures include sense of belonging over time and across groups, mental well-being over time, and perceived mentorship quality over time. The chapter ends with a discussion about the implications of longitudinal and group measurement invariance as an important conceptual property for moving forward equitable, reproducible, and generalizable quantitative research in higher education. Invariance methods may further be relevant for addressing criticisms about quantitative analyses being biased toward majority populations that have been discussed by critical theorists engaging quantitative research strategies.

Scholars in the field of higher education take many approaches to apply theory in empirical research. However, this wide array of theoretical applications has prompted confusion among scholars who seek to integrate and understand how theory is situated in higher education research. This chapter explores the conceptualization, application, and visibility of theory in higher education research by presenting discourse from field leaders and discussing methodological definitions of theory, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks. Additionally, we conducted a summative content analysis of 239 empirical articles from the Review of Higher Education over a 10-year period, with the goal of understanding how theories were framed and applied in a subset of research. We conclude by reiterating the importance of theory in the study of higher education and providing strategies for effective theory application.

This chapter draws on longitudinal and cross-sessional research to explore the use of Bottery's variant of portrait methodology in understanding the individual experiences of a group of Chinese top-up students when they study a one-year top-up programme in a UK university. The rationale for using Bottery's variant was to understand only the perceptions of these students in their particular context, during a specific period of time in their life. Data were collected three times using semi-structured interviews, and individual portraits were produced after each set of interviews, based on the interview transcripts. The findings of the research and also the comments of the participants suggest that the use of portrait methodology helped enhance the trustworthiness of the research and also self-awareness and self-reflection of the participants. Researchers may face challenges when adopting Bottery's variant of portrait methodology in research, in particular relating to portrait writing and rapport building with the participants.

In the context of rapid change in higher education, there is a great demand for powerful theory and methods to address key issues, particularly related to teaching and learning. This chapter traces the uptake of Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) in higher education studies in South Africa to make sense of how and why this theory has become so popular. LCT draws on the works of Bernstein and Bourdieu to provide a powerful theoretical and analytical toolkit with which to analyse social practices. In the chapter, we argue that the attraction of this theory is that it attends to a ‘knowledge blindness’ whereby much higher education research, particularly that focussed on teaching and learning, fails to consider the nature and effects of the discipline or field being learned. The use of this theory is illustrated in the chapter by reference to a number of publications. In doing so, we illustrate the importance of conceptual tools that allow an interrogation of what we are teaching, who we are teaching and how this social practice takes place.

This chapter aims to offer a focussed critical discussion of the combination of two qualitative data-collection methods used in a longitudinal multiple case study investigating the impact of intra-European mobility on the students' linguistic and intercultural development. The participant being the main (and often the only) source of data in higher education research, this chapter will centre on the use of shadowing as a data-collection strategy and on how this offered an other-report that favoured the co-construction and negotiation of meaning between the researcher and the research participant(s) in the narrative interview. Based on our experience shadowing and interviewing undergraduate students, we will stress: (1) the advantages of combining the direct and first-hand nature of the experience of the researcher with the participants' accounts of their experiences and (2) the need to not only rely on the participants' self-report(s) but also obtain an other-report about the phenomena being studied.