Research, Teaching and Learning: making connections in the education of adultsPapers from the 28th Annual SCUTREAConference
Informal practitioner theory: eliciting the implicit
Yvonne Hillier, City University, England
Much has been written about informal theories used by professionals (Argyris and Schon, 1974, Bright, 1996, Usher and Bryant, 1989). Informal theory as described by Argyris and Schon refers to the many informal propositions, beliefs, views and attitudes we have about the world. Unlike academic theory which is subject to extensive analysis, criticism and testing, informal theory remains private, implicit and not rigorously tested. This paper describes how informal theory was elicited from a group of practitioners in the specialised field of adult basic education using Kelly's Repertory Grid, an in depth interview technique. It demonstrates that the Repertory Grid is an appropriate and highly successful technique in eliciting personal constructs about adult basic education. It argues that analysis of personal constructs provides the basis for the articulation of informal practitioner theory. Finally, the paper argues that informal practitioner theory could inform development of adult basic education practice.
Formal and informal theory
There has been much debate in recent years about how adult educators should have underpinning knowledge and understanding in addition to teaching skills (Hyland, 1993, Chown and Last, 1993). It has been argued that adult educators do not necessarily know about or find formal theories about adult education helpful (Bright, 1989, Brookfield, 1993, Usher and Bryant, 1989). This paper develops the argument proposed by Usher and Bryant (1989) that informal theories used by practitioners are helpful in examining their professional practice. It suggests that by identifying the informal theoretical perspectives, a practice based theory of adult education could be developed and tested.
Adult basic education is currently found throughout the post compulsory sector and encompasses a range of activities including literacy, numeracy, and language development. A recurring theme for basic education practitioners is that of good practice although it has proved difficult to find clear definitions of what this may mean (Hillier, 1994). Adult basic education practices and culture have developed within the field of adult education. The theoretical models used adult basic education professional development draw upon adult education theory. Although adult basic education practitioners can be seen to operate in a clearly defined field, their practice can be analysed from the same perspectives of adult education in general.
Adult education contains a rich and confusing literature on its practice. Theories of adult education practice themselves have various purposes; they address adult learning styles, they attempt to identify purposes and delivery, they explain adult education as social policy, adult education as a means of empowerment and of self-fulfilment. A newcomer to adult education, and adult basic education in particular, is likely to be bewildered and frustrated by the confusing application of source disciplines to the study of educating adults.
Thus, adult education practitioners encounter difficulty with formal theory. Yet practitioners do not operate in an atheoretical way (Gibson, 1986). Practice itself contains much tacit and implicit knowledge (Eraut, 1994). This knowledge is defined as practical theory by Carr and Kemmis (1986), and informal theory by Usher and Bryant (1989) It 'forms' their practice and enables them to make sense of what they are doing. Examining their informal practice could also inform and refine the formal theoretical analyses of educational practice. However, analysing formal theory is relatively easy compared with the tacit, implicit informal practitioner theory because the former has been made public and is available for scrutiny and debate. The task of educational theory, according to Usher and Bryant, is to 'make explicit what is largely implicit in informal practitioner theory' (Usher and Bryant, 1989, p91). Yet how is it possible to articulate what is implicit? A possibility is to use the processes of critical reflection to analyse the 'taken for granted' of everyday practice.
Reflecting and critically examining on practice (Schon 1983, 1987) may provide the framework for informal theory to be examined.Yet as Brookfield (1995) argues, encouraging practitioners to critically reflect is not easy. Not only do they need to identify deeply held and implicit assumptions about their practice, they must be able to analyse this in a way which can be meaningful not just to themselves but to others. Without this, practice will continue to operate in a superficially analysed way of Argyris and Schon's (1974)Model I and possibly block development of good practice.
Eliciting informal theory: Personal Construct Theory and Kelly's Repertory Grid
How, then, can the tacit, implicit and possibly unexamined informal practitioner theory be elicited so that it can be publicly espoused and critically reflected upon, and subsequently be used to inform formal theory? It requires a methodology able to identify hidden meanings, unexpressed ideas and ways of looking at the world. These meanings may not be articulated easily. Such meanings which form the basis of informal theory can be described as 'personal constructs', which, in this context, form an individualised conception of professional practice. This section of the paper contends there is a methodology appropriate for eliciting such constructs. The method is Kelly's Repertory Grid and is developed from his theory of Personal Constructs (Kelly, 1955).
Personal Construct Theory
Essentially, Personal Construct Theory is based on a view of 'man the scientist' (sic) (Kelly, 1969, p66). People construct theories of their reality and test these out as 'the world rolls along' (Bannister and Mair, 1968, p5). The construction of events enables them to make sense of the world as they see it. If people have idiosyncratic ways of construing the world, then this includes the informal theories that they have about their practice. The way that people construe their practice is their informal theory. The challenge is to make this informal theory or personal construction of practice explicit.
What are constructs? Our constructs are systematically organised and are bi-polar in nature. For example, the construct 'warm' could have many bi-polar opposites: 'cold', 'un-friendly' or 'uncomfortable'. The way 'warm' is defined is in terms of what it is not. Constructs are like 'a pair of goggles' through which we view sections of the world. Construing events is a process which allows discrimination and organisation of events and the anticipation of future possibilities. Constructs thus direct a person's outlook and in an ultimate sense control her or his behaviour.
Kelly developed The Repertory Grid as a technique which could elicit personal constructs. It uses a reflexive model of analysis and provides the first stage in a process of critical analysis of what has been implicit and unquestioned. The Repertory Grid Technique comprises an in depth interview in three parts: elicitation of elements, elicitation of constructs and the rating of constructs for 'fit' against the elements.
The technique consists of using a set of elements to draw out constructs which are then analysed to form a representation of a person's construct system. Elements represent the area to be investigated. They can comprise people known to the respondent, tasks in an occupation or products used in market research. In the case of basic education pracatitioners, the elements comprised tasks and activities representing their professional practice.
Once the elements have been elicited they are given to the respondent in threes known as triads. Each time, the respondent is asked to identify in what way two of the elements are similar and different from the third. For an adult basic education practitioner, a triad of activities could consist of 'training tutors', 'assessing potential students' and 'acting as technician for computers'. A possible combination selected by the respondent could be 'training tutors' and 'assessing potential students' placed together with 'technician for computers' as the 'odd one out'. If asked in what way the first two are similar and different from the third, the respondent might say that the former are to do with what is important and the latter an important but less enjoyable activity. Further probing might establish that the first two are linked because they relate to working with people, the latter with machines. Both are important to the respondent but what defines the difference is the person-centred aspect. This could be further explored through questioning by the interviewer until the respondent is unable to express any further differences. This way of describing the difference ultimately produces a bi-polar construct, entirely described in the respondent's own words.
After the constructs are obtained, each with two poles or 'opposites', respondents are asked to rate how much each constructs applies to each of the elements. The rating exercise results in a numerical grid with scores for each element and construct. Thus, a bi-polar construct 'unpredictable in expectations - predictable' would have a rating of 5 for unpredictable and 1 for predictable. Using this scale, each of the elements is given a score. An element 'staffing requirements' may be given a score of 4 because of the unpredictability of working with part time staff, whereas an element 'training administration staff' may have a rating of 2 as it is a tried and tested activity.
This grid of scores for constructs against all the elements is analysed to establish any similarities between constructs and elements normally using the statistical process factor analysis, either principal components or cluster analysis. This information is then interpreted to provide a focus for discussion with the respondent. The interpretation of the factors is a significant aspect of the technique. By identifying the ways of construing for the range of elements and then establishing key underlying factors, there is an ideal opportunity to discuss if this has meaning for the respondent and further probe into the tacit and implicit ways of thinking about the context under discussion.
Using The Repetory Grid with Adult Basic Education practitioners
A sample of thirty tutors and organisers of adult basic education was drawn from the North East London region. The tutors were involved in five areas of basic skills work: literacy, numeracy, special needs, government training schemes and open learning. Tutors and organisers all had a minimum of one year's experience in their role. They were interviewed twice, once to elicit the Repertory Grid and once to discuss the resulting factors.
The grids were analysed using principal components analysis on SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Each grid contained a minimum of nine constructs. There were usually three to four factors resulting from the factor analysis, although in some cases only two factors emerged. Each factor was then examined for constructs or elements which best exemplified it. A two dimension graph with the first two factors as axes was used to depict the results for each person's grid.
A significant departure from the Repertory Grid Technique was made in the follow up interviews. Normally, the researcher interprets the statistical information and identifies suitable labels for the principal factors which emerge. In this study, I asked the respondents to suggest suitable labels. In addition, some respondents found it useful to use diagrams to demonstrate their analysis of the statistical information. They appreciated the opportunity to make sense of what was an initially incomprehensible computer printout. This proved to be a particularly fruitful process, where much discussion took place.
The study yielded 60 interviews transcripts, 30 grids and 30 graphs displaying the relationship between significant constructs and the first two factors derived from principal components analysis.The factors arising from the constructs and elements, although described idiosyncratically by each respondent, provided the basis for analysis of common themes. The search for commonality in the factors was intended to test for any coherence in basic education theory that may be held informally by its practitioners. It tested the existence of an 'ethos' of basic skills practice, usually described as 'good practice' by basic education practitioners. The full analysis of constructs and elements can be found in Hillier (1994).
A common theme for all respondents is one of 'student centredness and caring'. For 26 of the 30 respondents, this emerged in the first factor. Only one respondent did not have this theme in any of her factors. Given the wide range of backgrounds of the tutors and organisers, the boroughs in which they work and the level of their experience, it is remarkable that they appear to be in close agreement on how they construe their practice. During the feedback interviews where I asked respondents to label their factors, they often expressed a feeling of relief that the student centred factor had appeared and 'confirmed' their own perceptions of what they should be doing as good tutors or organisers.
The second and subsequent factors were more variable. These can be categorised in four ways: tension between student centredness and institution demands, 'ethos' of basic skills, reflection of practice and practical considerations. Factor labels of 'bureaucracy/accountability', and 'adhering to requirements' indicate the tensions between student centredness and institution demands. They reflect the wider issues in working in basic skills. 'Ethos' of basic skills is suggested by the labels 'strong brief', and 'seeing the way forward'. Reflection of practice is implied by labels 'ideas', talking-thinking' and practical considerations is identified in labels including 'planning and preparing' and 'delivery of course'.
The analysis of the factors suggests that practitioners' constructs about their work are pyramidal in structure, with the range of fourth and third factors at the base, rising to student centredness at the top. I suggest that student centredness is superordinately construed and directs practitioners' informal theory about their practice. The subsequent factors relate to tensions in this practice, through institutional or organisational demands which impinge on the ideal practice, issues of responsibility and issues of the purposes and through the vision that basic skills requires. Identification with the ethos, or 'following the party line' in part reflects the strong sense of identity that practitioners have with their work. From a fairly wide range of constructs obtained in the first interviews, the grid analysis provided a closely structured view of basic skills work.
Informal theory in practice
The interviews involved practitioners in, and enabled them to identify, the implicit and tacit beliefs which they hold about their work. The purpose of my investigation was to establish these as informal practitioner theory. To achieve this, I had collaborated with respondents on making sense of their constructs and factors. From this point, I began to develop my own analysis of the interview data. I used the factor analysis and factor labels to search for common themes which can be interpreted as tenets of informal practitioner theory.
I used two main approaches: analysis of the factors produced in the Repertory Grid methodology and categorisation of the transcript material. Analysis of the considerable transcript material derived from the Repertory Grid interviews is contained in Hillier (1994).
My data indicated two significant sets of constructs for practitioners: their core beliefs, which appear to be held prior to any involvement in basic skills teaching and an ethos of basic education which is adhered to and is resistant to change.
The homogeneity of the first factors identified by the analysis is particularly significant given that personal construct theory argues for people's idiosyncratic way of making sense of their environment. Across a range of boroughs, in the teaching of literacy, numeracy, special needs and employment training, tutors and organisers held a consistent interpretation of what basic education practice should be. It was a highly prescriptive view.
The clear adherence to student centredness, I would argue, is an example of a 'sacrosanct' system. Practitioners referred to student centredness as the fundamental aspect of their practice throughout the interviews. The ethos of their practice implied a deeply held belief of what basic skills practice should be. The ways of construing practice, however, do not constitute statements of theory. The construing could be described as an 'amorphous magma' of belief, value premises and propositions. How can this be used to provide a theoretical framework?
Theory, even if it is informally expressed, is implicit in the practical knowledge which respondents in my investigation use. They are concerned with 'messy' everyday situations. The notion of theory I use is in the original sense of theoria, ie 'directed to things that happen "always or for the most part"' (McCarthy, 1984, p2). The formulation of theory is an important stage in refining practical knowledge. Theory uses propositions which help to describe, explain and predict. Propositions allow for critical scrutiny. Defining propositions represents a formal development of hypotheses which will predict the occurrence of the phenomena. These hypotheses can subsequently be tested to inform formally held theories.