G. Coates | "Student Projects in the Post-Modern Era : Is
a Post-Modern Methodology Possible?" |
The goals did not reveal, from the beginning, All things to us; but in the course of time, Through seeking, men find that which is better. Let us conjecture that this is like truth. But as for certain truth, no man has known it, Nor will he know it, neither of the Gods, nor yet of all the things of which I speak. And even if by chance he were to utter the final truth, he would himself not know it; For all is but a woven web of guesses. (Three Fragments of Xenophanes).
Introduction.
This paper stems from a conversation with a number of students undertaking research
projects on a number of different courses within higher education.
When we observe students undertaking methods projects in HE courses it becomes clear that
they are doing what is expected of them and as such they are conforming in order to gain
the acceptance and approval of those who set the tasks. This conformism results in
adherence to traditional methods of sociological inquiry, quantitative (questionnaires) or
qualitative methods (interviews) since many course structures and content channels them
towards such activity.
If we stand back and observe the extent of the conformity, we can see the sense of
pre-destiny and despair in students' responses. Since to them it has become increasingly
obvious through a process of greater awareness cultivated by exposure to many new and
stimulating ideas, that they are being pushed towards particular ways of perceiving the
world - both theory and praxis. These are based on increasingly insecure epistemologies
which now serve to convey repressive forms of knowledge (explicitly and implicitly) and
therefore uphold existing power structures.
For example feminists have pointed out the androcentric nature of sociological knowledge
which is often confused as the absolute objective truth, this they claim omits the
questions and experiences of women (Stanley 1990). The university therefore, was a
microcosm of a repressive society which fails to encourage or question those theories of
knowledge which now serve to uphold the positions of some groups in society at the expense
of others (Foucault 1980, Lyotard 1985).
Hence the university and the particular social scientific epistemologies it espouses,
renews itself on its own with no constraints, claiming that through adherence to
rationality and technical/scientific knowledge we continue down the path of progress and
emancipation. Lyotard (1984:185) for example, maintains that the 'great function' of the
universities is to expose the 'principles and the foundations of all knowledge.' To this
end our search for truth and knowledge should be 'a language game governing ethical,
social and political practice that necessarily involves decisions and obligations,' which
are 'utterances expected to be just rather than true and which in the final analysis lie
outside the realm of (social) scientific knowledge.' The university has now stopped being
speculative and just, it is now highly functional in reproducing fodder for the
technological culture with its reason and rationalism in the name of progress.
Hence this project is an attempt to investigate the possibility of an alternative
methodology based in the postmodernist theories of recent decades. It is a return to
speculation in the name of social justice and as such it does not meet any criteria
outlined in the specifications and procedures necessary for evaluation, since like most
idealistic ventures it is more theoretical than practical.
The extent of the requirement to conform to traditional methodologies can be illustrated
by a conversation between a lecturer and a student project group that wanted to undertake
some form of post-modern research. On explaining what they were attempting they were met
with the response that they "...[we]re going to have to do something" in the way
of research, since this is largely a theoretical exercise. The students responded by
stating that they were in fact going to perform and record a number of interviews.
This illustrates the extent to which students are subjected to the 'hidden mechanisms'
which operate to convey particular forms of knowledge and ensure its survival even though
the production of knowledge is complicit with power and domination and as such, has been
shown to be repressive (Foucault l972; 1977; 1980).
Thus the task for us is to outline the basic epistemological principles upon which we wish
to draw, before then attempting to create a methodology around these fundamental
principles to see if it is at all possible to reach a truer or less false version of
social reality. In doing so we shall challenge the power structures of modernist based
epistemologies and methodologies. This paper then is an investigation into the possibility
of a post-modern methodology.
Relevant Postmodernist Principles.
... in the post-modern, the central question is how to locate, identify, set apart a particular world, knowing well that this world is only one of many possible and co-existing, and that the exploration of this world however profound, is unlikely to bring us closer to any universally binding truth or findings able to rightfully claim either general or exclusive validity. (Bauman 1988:794)
Postmodernists recognise the human presence in reality. The mind and
reality are intertwined truth therefore has no autonomy (Murphy 1988). Truth is a contract
enacted between persons rather than a structure or fixed absolute entity. Reality is
something which results from on-going motivated action. It has no authority to legitimise
and validate itself, it has no code to refer to in order to reveal meaning. It has a
multiplicity of interpretations which stop short of acquiring authoritative status and
thus offers no solutions or conclusions.
Postmodernism emphasises multiplicity, plurality, fragmentation and indeterminacy. It
takes up a relativist and perspectivist stance - theories at best provide partial
perspectives on their objects. The various sciences and social theories are strategies by
which reality is divided up as a consequence of the struggle over truth by social groups
in the quest for power. Nietzsche's will-to-power is contemporary to this perspective.
Postmodernism may be seen as a challenge to traditional social theorist's notions of
knowledge and reality in as much as it is
... a critique of western representation(s) and modern 'supreme fictions'; a desire to think in terms sensitive to difference (of others without opposition, of heterogeneity without hierarchy); a scepticism regarding autonomous 'spheres' of culture or separate 'fields' of experts. (Foster 1985:5).
Post-modern theory then seems to provide us with a useful conceptual tool
which manipulates but does not transform or transcend since 'reality' is negotiable,
multiple, local, modest and provisional. This is an ideological form of revolution which
gives back power to the disempowered by exposing the complicity of knowledge and power
through the generation of a collage of minority discourses which reject the arrogance
inherent in those universal and totalizing hegemonic and homogenous discourses or
metalanguages.
A post-modern method then would emphasise relativism, reflexivity, the identification of
the multiple interpretations of a 'reality', the most immediate power relations at work
and their relation to the wider dynamics of power as well as the identification of the
source of their universal claims to authority which are usually appeals to some 'grand
narrative', 'meta-theory' or 'meta-discourse' (Derrida 1976; Foucault 1972; Lyotard 1985).
The idealistic aims of such a strategy would be the hope of achieving social sensitivity
as opposed to oppression as it exposes the complicity of knowledge with power.
Theory into Practice
Problems of the Method : Some Reflections
After outlining the broad principles of a post-modern method the obvious next step
is to put it into practice but this is where the problems begin.
Firstly there are the more obvious limitations of trying to follow the guidelines of a
post-modern method which has been outlined above. That is to say the most salient power
relations at work here are not available to immediate observation and this is where
subjectivity creeps in, in the attempt to establish such factors since it cannot be
achieved with absolute certainty (Craib 1992). Postmodernists would welcome this
subjectivity as valid, since they are part of the multi-textured cloth of reality but this
does not consider that mistakes may lead us astray. But astray from what? Do we mean the
'truth' by this? Even here rationalist based thought is in evidence.
Secondly, most most researchers who attempt this path reach a sticking point since they
are all drawn back towards some form of structured method or attempt to impose order - the
antithesis of what postmodernism is about. This point is illustrated by the fact that the
students mentioned above did interviews but arranged the results in a collage. In doing so
they asked each other whether they should group things together since they seemed related
in some way. This would have produced some kind of order and they eventually decided that
to emphasise the chaos they would just stick them on as they came to hand. However, even
at this stage they could not help feeling that the chaos ought to make some kind of sense.
Thirdly, the students observed their collage contained far more negative aspects of
relations between the public and police than positive ones, particularly from a 'black'
perspective. This was not due to their subjectivity alone but also due to the availability
of particular definitions or resources with which to work.
This latter point illustrates how subjectivity creeps in, perhaps at an unconscious level
and therefore presents a particular picture of social reality. It also highlights a
further problem of the post-modern method, that not everyone has access to media which
will give them a voice and that a process of selection occurs with those who do. For
example the students had to make decisions about what to include and exclude from the
collage. Thus they were led back to questions of 'what is it they were going to
demonstrate and how to go about that. This ineluctably drew them back towards some form of
organised structured activity.
The guidelines defined for a post-modern method seemed to suggest that nothing can be done
by these students other than present a collage of previously determined interpretations of
social 'reality' without judging the worth of any of those versions. This seems to suggest
that if they accept all viewpoints as valid then they must dissolve into some kind of
anarchy since there would be no ultimate grounds to be found for resolving any conflicts
that arise.
Although this has its positive aspects i.e. that it does not foreclose any potential
avenue for the advancement of knowledge, and that it resists the universalisation of one
aspect of a multi-textured reality, its drawbacks outweigh these supposed advantages. For
example, they must abandon hope for distinguishing mistakes, errors and false or
misleading interpretations. If literally anything goes then horoscopes in daily newspapers
might well be considered as reliable and valid as any other means of understanding human
behaviour.
It seems somehow inadequate to simply describe the multiple versions of a socially
produced definition of reality and then say here it is. The students felt it was almost
inevitable that they make judgements of some kind whether they were intellectual, ethical,
prejudicial - whatever. They felt they had preferences for some definitions offered over
others. This feeling or drive towards making value judgements seems inescapable, they felt
driven to it even when they knew that there was no way they could prove in an absolute way
the truth of the basis of their value judgements.
There is gathering evidence, both in sciences such as physics and in the social sciences
that the dichotomy between subjective and objective knowledge can no longer be rigidly
maintained (Fielding and Fielding 1986; McLaughlin 1991). Powers states:
To see something is to interpret it as a thing of a certain kind. There is an interplay between our theories and 'what we see' The idea that certainty resides in uninterpreted experience is an illusion: There is no 'pre-theoretical' bedrock upon which knowledge can be built (1982:12 cited in Schwandt 1989).
Alfred Schutz also claimed:
Relevance is not inherent in nature as such it is the result of the selective and interpretive activity of man within nature or observing nature (1962:5).
Thus a thing that has no value does not exist. The thing has not created
the value; the value has created the thing. The students found themselves not asking the
question 'what is true about this?' when confronted with the collage of 'reality', but
rather 'what can we make of this?' They had to interpret the 'data' for whatever reason -
to make sense out of non-sense, to impose some kind of structure or order and to make
judgements of worth between the various competing claims with regards to its importance or
goodness. They also found themselves judging its usefulness as a whole or as relevant to a
specific situation or person/gender/race category etc. the students felt they had to make
a judgement of whatever kind in order to provide themselves with a basis upon which to
proceed or act. It is at this point that the decision to choose a particular method,
epistemology or ontology arose and it is at this point that a post-modern methodology
dissolves because to make a statement about the nature of 'reality' you inevitably create
the very thing postmodernism opposes - a grand theory.
The value judgements they found themselves making had the consequence of determining how
they saw the social world because the definition of problems seemed to point towards
application of a particular method and thus a particular way of perceiving the social
world. They made assumptions about the nature of 'reality' and what they were prepared to
accept as valid knowledge. They were back at square one - making choices between
quantitative and qualitative methods and thus choices between the particular view of the
social world each offered - it seemed ineluctable.
CONCLUSION.
The post-modern method then appears to tell us no more about 'reality' other than the
seemingly inevitable spiral towards imposing meaning through value-judgements. One way or
another we attempt to impose order on the chaos. It seems somehow inevitable; inescapable
even when we know that there is no way that we can ultimately prove in an absolute way the
truth of the meaning we impose. It seems ironic that we have this incredible capacity to
make meaning of what may ultimately be meaningless.
Try as we may to see our world as solid and real, we don't feel very securely at home in this interpreted world (Rilke 1968).
Thus in conclusion a methodology which adheres to the general principles
of postmodernism appears impossible because although the social world is a world of
multiple realities in the sense that members may focus on social situations in different
ways, this tells us more about the values of those who define such realities in terms of
their adherence to particular ontologies, epistemologies and methodology than about any
actual intrinsic meaning possessed by the object world (Schwandt 1989). This becomes
apparent as soon as one attempts to present the picture of a social situation without
reference to values. The account becomes a meaningless assemblage of items having
relationship to one another only through co-existence in locality and moment.
Perhaps the real task for the progression of sociology is the consideration of the values
we promote in the conduct of inquiry. Such questions may raise concerns regarding the
intrinsic value of the principles embodied in each paradigm (quantitative-qualitative) the
value of their consequences and their contribution to an overall view of what is good or
worthwhile to us in society. As Richard Rorty comments "true is just a name for what
is good in the way of belief" ('The Real Thing', Channel 4, 1992). Perhaps we then
may become concerned again with what is just rather than 'the truth' which has become
functional and oppressive in the name of power (Lyotard 1984).
The Research Process Experienced by one Group.
We did not enjoy the research process. The actual content of the project was very
interesting and thought provoking though it was at times difficult to know what to do
since the nature of this project appealed to no set format and was largely theoretical and
as such we experienced no research 'process'. This produced insecurities within us about
whether it would be acceptable as a project given that it was supposed to be an
illustration of how one could perform actual research.
As for the actual practice we feel that group projects are not a good idea since everyone
has different ideas regarding commitment and how to work in groups. Some had more input
than others while some treated it as a trivial part of the course which would produce
itself (this has been a common observation and does not necessarily apply to this group
alone). This led to some carrying a greater burden than others with the consequence that
relationships become strained and overall the quality of the project (and our education)
suffers.
Having highlighted these difficulties to research tutors we were met with the response
that in the future maybe we would like to allocate marks among ourselves in accordance
with each individuals input. We feel this is inadequate because it would only lead to
further interpersonal conflicts which would detract further from the overall objective of
doing the project together which was problematic in the first place from an interpersonal
dynamics perspective. Those who had contributed little often think they have done more
than they actually have and anyway how do you measure someone's actual input?
Evaluating the Research Process.
In the first term the standard was set. Students repeated what they had done in the first
year and it was boring for them, creating little enthusiasm or commitment. This was amply
illustrated by the numbers who failed to attend lectures in the first term.
This paper is in itself a comment on the research workshop option, i.e. there is no scope
for speculation or experimentation. Challenging existing forms of methodology or exploring
new ones has not been encouraged - this option is therefore hardly progressive despite the
fact that tutors are only too aware of the limitations of each method. It is extremely
conformist asking students to do little more than to demonstrate how well they have
learned to jump through particular hoops.
Some comments from students were:
"Support from staff was minimal, something which should be noted given that we had never undertaken such a project before and that the project accounts for 70% of the option marks."
"Although we appreciate that we should be self-reliant we feel this is a responsibility we have to learn further even at this stage having done the project."
These comments are possibly a reflection of just how successful (or not)
the group work research exercise can be in terms of what students are supposed to have
learned.
References.
Videos
'The Real Thing', London Weekend Television. Televised August, 1992.
An investigation into post-modern philosophy and a radical reappraisal of the status of science in western culture. Is there no universal truth?
Writer: Michael luntely.
Produced by nick Metcalfe.
Bibliography.
Bauman. Z, 1988 'Sociology and Postmodernism', The Sociological Review, 36(4):790-813.
Best. S., Kellner, D. 1991 Post-modern Theory: Critical Interrogations. London : Macmillan.
Craib, I. (1992) Modern Social Theory: From Parsons to Habermas. Hemel Hempstead : Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Culler, J. (1983) On Deconstruction. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Derrida, J. (1976) Of Grammatology. Baltimore : Hopkins Univ. Press.
Fielding, N. G., Fielding, J. L. (1986) Linking Data. London : Sage.
Foster, H. (1985) Post-modern Culture. London : Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Hall. S., Held. D., Mcgrew. T. (1992) Modernity and its Futures. Polity : Blackwell.
Home Office : Criminal Statistics in England and Wales. 1991.
Luntley, M, 1992. "The Real Thing". Channel 4 Television Broadcasting Support Services. Haynes Cannon.
Lyotard. J-F. (1984) The Post-modern Condition. University of Minnesota Press.
McLaughlin, E. (1991) 'Oppositional Poverty: The Quantitative/Qualitative Divide and Other Dichotomies', Sociological Review, 39(2):292-308
Murphy. J. (1985) 'Making Sense of Post-modern Sociology', British Journal of Sociology. 39(4)
Schutz, A. (1962) The Problem of Social Reality The Hauge : Nijhoff.
Schwandt. T, (1989) Contemporary Journal of Ethnography. 17(4):379-403
Stanley, L. (ed) (1990) Feminist Praxis. London : Routledge.
The Economist. July 6th, 1991 Pg. 23-5. "Britain". Author Unknown.
The Guardian Weekend Magazine. 1st May, 1993. Pg:20. "Unforgiven".
Weedon. C, (1987) Feminist Practice and Post-Structuralist Theory. Oxford : Blackwell.
G. Coates is editor of The International Journal of Urban Labour and Leisure and is currently researching popular music and methodology.
© 1999-2000 International Journal of Urban Labour and Leisure |