Handbook of Teaching and Learning Social Research Methods 1800884265, 9781800884267

Citation preview

HANDBOOK OF TEACHING AND LEARNING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS

Handbook of Teaching and Learning Social Research Methods Edited by

Melanie Nind Professor of Education, School of Education, University of Southampton, UK

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Melanie Nind 2023

Cover image: Solstice Hannan on Unsplash. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2023941861 This book is available electronically in the Sociology, Social Policy and Education subject collection http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781800884274

EE VS P

ISBN 978 1 80088 426 7 (cased) ISBN 978 1 80088 427 4 (eBook)

Contents

List of figuresviii List of tablesix List of contributorsx Acknowledgementsxxvii 1

PART I

Introduction to the Handbook: putting pedagogic models to work in research methods education  Melanie Nind

1

TEACHING AND LEARNING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS IN THE CLASSROOM

2

Research literacy and the relationship between research and teaching: the case of research about teaching about research 15 Martyn Hammersley

3

Feminist pedagogies: careful(l) ethics in teaching qualitative research methods  27 Kelly W. Guyotte, Stephanie Anne Shelton and Maureen A. Flint

4

Facilitating learners’ reflexive thinking in qualitative research courses  Amy Orange

39

5

Pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research  Thalia Mulvihill and Raji Swaminathan

51

6

Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods: teaching the ‘breadth and depth method’ for analysis of ‘big qual’ Sarah Lewthwaite, Lynn Jamieson, Emma Davidson, Rosalind Edwards, Melanie Nind and Susie Weller

7

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs: pedagogical strategies and adaptations Nataliya V. Ivankova and Vicki L. Plano Clark

8

Teaching mixed methods using an open-space learning approach  Rebecca Johnson and Marie Murphy

9

Active learning, constructive alignment, and research methods: toward a programme level approach  Tom Clark and Liam Foster

10

Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry  Candace R. Kuby v

67

85 106

119 134

vi  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods 11

Shaping researcher learning through scribbles: embodied pedagogical practices in classroom inquiry  David Higgins and Ali Rostron

150

12

Teaching and learning social research methods in social work: challenges and benefits of experiential and applied learning contexts  Sandra Lopes and Sandra Saúde

166

13

Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing: a developmental approach  Kathryn Roulston and Brigette A. Herron

182

14

What are we teaching for? Humility and responsibility in social science research198 Jennifer R. Wolgemuth, Yi-Hsin Chen, Liliana Rodríguez-Campos, John Ferron, Eunsook Kim, Robert F. Dedrick and David Lamb

PART II

TEACHING AND LEARNING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS ONLINE

15

Using intentionality to frame how we teach research methods online  Cheryl Hunter, Tamara Hoffer and Joshua Hunter

214

16

Experiential pedagogies in the online space  Nicole Brown, Helen Butcher, Belen Febres-Codero and Chuying (Trista) Wu

226

17

Back to the basics: teaching research online in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic  Maja Miskovic and Jamie Kowalczyk

240

18

‘No choice’ but remote learning: non-traditional students making sense of social research methods  Rossana Perez-del-Aguila, Heather Allison and Naveed Kazmi

255

19

The use of online materials to support the development of quantitative skills  Steve Cook and Duncan Watson

20

Teaching and learning research methods and statistics in eLearning environments pre-, during, and post-pandemic Adam J. Rock, Kylie Rice, Natasha M. Loi, Einar B. Thorsteinsson and Methuen I. Morgan

21

“Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies to build community in an online mixed methods research methods course Jori N. Hall and Sara Campbell

299

22

Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies: challenges, solutions and opportunities  Christina Silver, Sarah L. Bulloch, Michelle Salmona and Nicholas W. Woolf

316

272

285

Contents  vii 23

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  Janet Salmons, Andy Nobes, Nicola Pallitt and Tony Carr

332

PART III TEACHING AND LEARNING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS IN THE FIELD AND OTHER CONTEXTS 24

An analysis of doctoral supervision as pedagogic practice in social science and the role of social research methods in supervision  Rosemary Deem and Sally Barnes

25

Pedagogical approaches in inclusive research  Edurne García Iriarte, Maria Pallisera, Judit Fullana, Brian Donohoe, Kathleen McMeel and Marc Crespo

26

Research methods learning in temporary online communities during Covid-19  381 Andy Coverdale, Melanie Nind and Robert Meckin

27

Understanding research methods textbooks: pedagogy, production and practice  396 Patrick Brindle and Sarah Lewthwaite

28

Rethinking safeguarding: an opportunity to establish a decolonial teaching framework for social research practice  Leona Vaughn

29

Managing distance when teaching, learning, and doing oral history: a case study from Vietnam Siobhan Warrington, Laura Beckwith, Hue Nguyen, Graham Smith, Lan Nguyen, Thuy Mai Thi Minh, Chamithri Greru, Tanh Nguyen, Oliver Hensengerth, Pamela Woolner and Matt Baillie Smith

351 366

412

427

Index443

Figures

6.1

Cycle of action and reflection, deployed iteratively across three phases to develop effective training and then actively researching this approach through teaching

75

Cards 5 ‘walk through’, 6 ‘browsing the archive’ from the ‘big qual’ learner evaluation card deck developed by Lewthwaite et al., comprising 15 x A6 cards. Each has a number, title, illustration, positioning statement, question(s) and space for additional comments on the reverse

76

Cards 8 ‘hands-on with data’ and 9 ‘metaphor’ from the ‘big qual’ learner evaluation card deck developed by Lewthwaite et al., comprising 15 x A6 cards. Each has a number, title, illustration, positioning statement, question(s) and space for additional comments on the reverse

77

7.1

Socio-ecological framework for the field of mixed methods research

87

7.2

Approach to teaching MMR in the graduate certificate in Applications of Mixed Methods Research

90

7.3

Spiral curriculum approach to teaching MMR in an Educational Studies program that trains research methodologists 

92

11.1

Drawing 1 the journey

154

11.2

Drawing 2 exploring self

156

12.1

Flowchart of the complementarity of the curricular units’ objectives

173

12.2a

Research in social sciences: Meanings

173

12.2b

Research in social sciences: Meanings

174

12.3

Difficulty encountered in performing curricular activities (from one to ten)

175

12.4

Utility according to the context of use

176

16.1

Online worksheet – plagiarism activity

231

23.1

Key questions used to compare approaches

334

28.1

The role of power in safeguarding for research

420

29.1

Zoom 15: Celebration event, with silly hats (screen shot)

434

6.2a

6.2b

viii

Tables

2.1

Three models of the role of research in relation to teaching

18

6.1

Typology of social science research methods pedagogy

73

7.1

Mixed methods research courses offered through the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the University of Cincinnati

89

7.2

Examples of pedagogical goals and strategies for teaching MMR

93

9.1

Modules within ‘the methods spine’

124

13.1

Sequence of activities: Moving from review of interviews derived from popular media to independent practice

186

23.1

Types of content offered

343

23.2

Types of learning experiences offered

344

23.3

Types of learning experiences offered

345

29.1

Training sessions and research over a three-month period in 2021

431

ix

Contributors

Heather Allison EdD is a Senior Lecturer and the MA Education Course Leader at London Metropolitan University. She has extensive post-compulsory teaching experience working with students from diverse backgrounds and levels. Heather is qualified in both qualitative and quantitative research methods, but focuses on teaching qualitative research to BA and MA Education students as well as supervising PhD students. Heather’s academic interests are student access and educational performance with reference to gender, ‘race’/ethnicity and social class. Heather is also an international Technical Official in the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) and a member of the IWF Women’s Commission.  Matt Baillie Smith is a human geographer and Professor of Development at Northumbria University. His research focuses on civil society, citizenship and development, with particular interests in volunteering in humanitarian and development settings, and young people and the climate emergency. His work has covered areas including international volunteering and the ‘gap year’, gender and volunteering in conflicts and crises, volunteering and displacement, sustainable development education and global citizenship and civil society activism. He has led a number of large projects funded by Research Councils, NGOs and humanitarian actors, and works in partnership with a range of development and humanitarian organisations in the UK and globally. His work has been published in journals including Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Geoforum, Antipode, Voluntas, Health and Place and Geopolitics. Sally Barnes is Professor Emeritus of Doctoral Education at the University of Bristol. She has had a long and distinguished career supervising and managing doctoral candidates within her School, Faculty and as Director of the collaborative ESRC-funded Southwest Doctoral Training Centre (SWDTC) with the universities of Exeter and Bath. In 2017 this partnership was expanded to include Plymouth and University of the West of England as part of the Southwest Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP). She has also written about and led workshops on doctoral supervision in the UK and Norway. Laura Beckwith holds a PhD from the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa. Her fieldwork looked at how urban farmers in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, responded to the combined effects of environmental change and urbanisation. She previously completed her MSc in Environment and Sustainable Development from University College London and a BA in International Relations from the University of British Columbia. She is currently employed at Northumbria University as a Post-doctoral Research Fellow. Patrick Brindle is Programme Director on the postgraduate publishing programmes at City, University of London. Prior to joining City, Patrick worked in academic publishing for 15 years. He has been a development editor at Pearson Education, a commissioning editor at Oxford University Press, and was Publisher for Research Methods at Sage. He has published over 200 editions of research methods books and was the editorial lead on Sage Research x

Contributors  xi Methods Online. Before going into publishing, Patrick was a researcher and tutor at Cambridge University where he taught research methods, philosophy of method, and the history of the social sciences. Patrick has a PhD in History from Cambridge University, and his thesis Past Histories: History and the Elementary School Classroom (1998) looked at, amongst other things, textbooks as learning tools mediated by classroom practice. He continues to teach research methods to his students at City today. Nicole Brown is Associate Professor at University College London, and Director of Social Research and Practice and Education Ltd. Nicole works as module leader, ethics coordinator, workshop instructor, consultant and coach. She gained her PhD in Sociology at the University of Kent for her research into the construction of academic identity under the influence of fibromyalgia. Nicole’s research interests relate to physical and material representations and metaphors, the generation of knowledge and, more generally, research methods and approaches to explore identity and body work, as well as to advance learning and teaching within higher education. The underlying principle for Nicole’s work is that research, teaching and social activism are inextricably interconnected, and she explores that through Practice As Research frameworks. Her books include Lived Experiences of Ableism in Academia: Strategies for Inclusion in Higher Education, Ableism in Academia: Theorising Experiences of Disabilities and Chronic Illnesses in Higher Education, Embodied Inquiry: Research Methods, and Making the Most of Your Research Journal. Nicole’s most recent creative nonfiction has been published in the Journal of Participatory Research Methods, So Fi Zine and The AutoEthnographer. She tweets as @ncjbrown and @AbleismAcademia. Sarah L. Bulloch PhD is a social researcher passionate about teaching methods, with expertise in qualitative and quantitative analysis, as well as mixing the two. She has worked in academic, government, voluntary and private sectors. Sarah teaches introductory and advanced workshops in several CAQDAS packages as a Teaching Fellow for the CAQDAS Networking Project at the University of Surrey https://​www​.surrey​.ac​.uk/​computer​-assisted​-qualitative​ -data​-analysis and as an associate of Qualitative Data Analysis Services www​.qdaservices​.co​ .uk. She also supports researchers in their planning and development of quantitative analysis skills.  Helen Butcher is a Senior Communications and Engagement Officer at West Sussex County Council. Helen has more than 20 years of experience as a researcher and is a member of the Social Research Association, LARIA (the Local Research and Intelligence Association), The Consultation Institute and Toastmasters International. Having achieved a First-Class BA (Honours) degree in Social Studies, Helen was employed by the University of Chichester to explore ‘Minority Experience in the Chichester District’. She has co-authored the Policy Press book ‘It pays dividends’: Direct Payments and Older People for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Helen has a keen interest in using creative research methods and has employed collaborative inquiry to explore ‘Young People’s Travel Behaviour and Solutions’ and to evaluate local services. Helen is a strong believer in lifelong learning and is currently completing an MSc in Science Communication and Public Engagement at the University of Edinburgh. Sara Campbell is an Assistant Professor in the Master of Arts in Sport Coaching and Kinesiology and Sport Studies programs at the University of Denver. Her research interests are in sport coaching, mixed methods and program evaluation.

xii  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Tony Carr, PhD, is an educational technologist and convenes the e/merge Africa project. He has lived in Durban, London and Cape Town, and after an earlier career as a Business and Economics educator a fascination with online interaction led to his work since 2000 as an educational technologist. His operational and research interests include online collaboration, communities of practice in staff development, online facilitation and online professional networks including the e/merge Africa network, which is mainly for educational technology practitioners and researchers in African higher education institutions. Yi-Hsin Chen is Associate Professor of educational measurement and research in the College of Education at the University of South Florida. He teaches statistics and measurement courses, including Introduction to Statistical Analysis in Education, Foundations of Measurement and advanced psychometric courses (e.g., Item Response Theory, Computer-based Testing and Rasch Models). His research interests are focused on applications of item response theory, cognitive diagnosis modelling, and structural equation modelling to educational and psychological data, as well as examinations of accuracy and precision of robust statistical approaches for traditional t-tests and ANOVA tests. Tom Clark is a Lecturer in Research Methods at the University of Sheffield. He has published widely across the social sciences and has well-established interests in learning and teaching in higher education. He is the co-author of How to do your Social Research Project or Dissertation (with Liam Foster and Alan Bryman), and Bryman’s Social Research Methods (with Liam Foster, Luke Sloan, and Alan Bryman). Steve Cook, Professor of Economics at Swansea University, is a time series econometrician with interests in both econometric and pedagogical research. His discipline-based research has resulted in numerous publications in econometrics, statistics and mathematics journals on a wide range of topics including methodology, modelling and numerical simulation. Steve’s pedagogical research activities essentially comprise two components: the publication of pedagogic research articles and the development and publication of interactive teaching innovations. His pedagogic activity has focussed upon widening participation, flipping and the development of delivery and assessment in relation to quantitative methods. Steve is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and Senior Fellow of the Staff and Educational Development Association in the UK.  Andy Coverdale is a Research Fellow in the Education School and the Centre for Research in Inclusion (CRI) at the University of Southampton. He is interested in working collaboratively with people with learning disabilities and using participatory and inclusive research methods. His recent work includes exploring ‘self-building’ in learning disability communities and the teaching of digital accessibility in academic and workplace settings. Marc Crespo lives in Vilafant (Catalonia, Spain). After graduating from high school, he enrolled in a Supported Employment Agency and he currently works as an administrative assistant in two companies. In 2017, Marc joined the Advisory Committee that collaborates with the Diversity Research Group of the University of Girona. He loves participating in the Advisory Committee because they research interesting subjects, he learns a lot, and it is an opportunity to make friends. He is convinced that working in this team helps to improve the living conditions of people with disabilities.

Contributors  xiii Emma Davidson is a Lecturer in Social Policy and Qualitative Research and a member of the Research Training Centre (RTC) within the School of Social and Political Sciences. She is a co-director at the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships, and co-founder of the Binks Hub, an interdisciplinary initiative focused on arts-based community-led research. Emma teaches and researches qualitative research methods, and has a special interest in qualitative data analysis, and techniques for working with large volumes of qualitative data. She is interested in community studies and most recently has been engaged in a Leverhulme project on public libraries in austerity. Robert F. Dedrick is Professor and Coordinator of the Educational Measurement and Research Program at the University of South Florida. He specialises in the development and validation of psychological and educational measures. Rosemary Deem is a sociologist, Doctoral School Senior Research Fellow and Emerita Professor of Higher Education Management at Royal Holloway (University of London). She is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and co-editor of Higher Education. She was awarded an OBE for services to higher education (HE) and social sciences in 2013. Her roles include Graduate School Director, Lancaster University 1998–2000; Faculty Graduate Director 2004–2006, Bristol University; Doctoral School Director, Royal Holloway 2014–2019; member of Peer Review College, European Science Foundation co-convenor, Higher Education Network, European Educational Research Association 2015–2018; and chair, UK Council for Graduate Education. Rosemary researches doctoral education, inequalities in HE, academic work, HE leadership, governance, management and HE policy. Brian Donohoe has worked at the National Federation of Voluntary Service Providers in Ireland since 2005. In early 2012 he became secretary of the Inclusive Research Network. He is co-author of several inclusive research reports and articles in academic journals, such as the British Journal of Learning Disabilities. Brian is also author of over 40 poems, under the pseudonym of Barry Jacob. One of his poems is about the Inclusive Research Network, which can be found at www​.fedvol​.ie (IRN section). Brian has recited his poems in the radio show ‘Pauline’s poems’ at www​.rcb​.ie. Rosalind Edwards is Professor of Sociology and a fellow of the National Centre for Research Methods at the University of Southampton. She is a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and a founding and co-editor of the International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Rosalind has published widely on research methods, including What Is Qualitative Interviewing? (Bloomsbury 2013, 2nd ed., due 2023) and on the Breadth-and-Depth Method of analysing large amounts of qualitative data. She also researches and writes about families and family policies, most recently Challenging the Politics of Early Intervention (Policy Press, 2017). Currently she is working on an EU-funded collaborative cross-national project about life course perspectives in studying youth transitions, an ESRC project on parental social licence for operational data linkage, and a British Academy project on wives’ roles in classic British community studies. Belen Febres-Cordero is a PhD candidate in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. Belen’s work is at the intersections of critical health, feminist and community-engaged research, and communication for self-representation and social change in Latin America. Her doctoral project collaborates with women who have migrated from rural

xiv  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods parts of Ecuador to the country’s capital city and with local community media to share alternative experiences of wellbeing and collectively consider their relation to structural factors shaping health. John Ferron is a professor in Educational Research at the University of South Florida. He teaches courses in educational statistics and has research interests that focus on the development and application of statistical methods for educational research, including methods for the design, analysis and meta-analysis of single-case experimental designs. Maureen A. Flint is Assistant Professor in Qualitative Research at the University of Georgia, where she teaches courses on qualitative research design and theory. Her scholarship braids together her interests in the theory, practice and pedagogy of qualitative methodologies and questions of equity and justice in higher education contexts. Specifically, her work has explored the generative potential of sonic, visual and artful methodologies and furthered approaches to qualitative research design through posthuman, feminist and critical materialist philosophies. Maureen’s work has been published in International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Qualitative Research, The Review of Higher Education, and Journal of College Student Development, and representations of her artful inquiries can be found on her website at  www​.maureenflint​.com. Liam Foster is a Senior Lecturer in Social Policy and Social Work at the University of Sheffield, who specialises in pensions and theories of ageing. Liam also has a longstanding interest in methods and has published widely in this area, including Beginning Statistics for Social Scientists (with Ian Diamond and Julie Jefferies), Bryman’s Social Research Methods (with Tom Clark, Luke Sloan and Alan Bryman) and How to do your Social Research Project or Dissertation (with Tom Clark and Alan Bryman). Judit Fullana is Associate Professor in the Department of Pedagogy, University of Girona. She teaches undergraduate Social Education and postgraduate Diversity and Inclusive Education. She has researched the social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities, issues related to supported employment, the transition to adult life, independent living and, currently, social relationships and personal support networks. She has also contributed to the development of inclusive research projects. Publications as well as more details about her work can be consulted at https://​recercadiversitat​.wixsite​.com/​diversitat/​publicaciones. Edurne García Iriarte is Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, where she teaches modules on disability and human rights and citizens’ participation in research and policy. She has also been the university supporter of the Inclusive Research Network, a pioneer Irish inclusive research group, for over ten years. Her research focuses on the social inclusion of people with lived experience of disability and on participatory research approaches. Publications of her work can be accessed at https://​www​ .tcd​.ie/​research/​profiles/​?profile​=​iriartee. Chamithri Greru, PhD, is a Research Fellow at the Department of Social Sciences, Northumbria University, with a background in design research. She is currently working as part of the Living Deltas Hub exploring the lived past, present and futures of delta dwellers in India, Bangladesh and Vietnam through the use of creative and participatory research methods. Her research focus is on developing collaborative methods and tools to foster social innovation, local development and participation. During her PhD, she explored

Contributors  xv intersections between craft and design with a focus on participatory approaches to heritage management, with research carried out in Scotland, India and Sri Lanka. Kelly W. Guyotte is Associate Professor of Qualitative Research at The University of Alabama and the Director of Diversity Initiatives and Faculty Development for the College of Education. Always inspired by her background in the visual arts, her research interests include issues of gender and equity in higher education, artful inquiry practices, STEAM (STEM + art) education, as well as qualitative pedagogy and mentoring. Kelly’s work has been published in various journals such as Qualitative Inquiry, International Review of Qualitative Research, Gender and Education, and Critical Studies in Education. She is also co-editor of the book Philosophical Mentoring in Qualitative Research: Collaborating and Inquiring Together (Routledge). Jori N. Hall is a Professor in the Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methodologies program at the University of Georgia. Jori is concerned with social inequalities and the overall rigour of social science research. She has published numerous peer-reviewed works in scholarly venues; authored the book, Focus Groups: Culturally Responsive Approaches for Qualitative Inquiry and Program Evaluation; and was selected as a Leaders of Equitable Evaluation and Diversity (LEEAD) fellow by The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Jori is the 2020 recipient of the American Evaluation Association’s Multiethnic Issues in Evaluation Topical Interest Group Scholarly Leader Award for scholarship that has contributed to culturally responsive evaluation. She is also an interim editor for the American Journal of Evaluation.  Martyn Hammersley is Emeritus Professor of Educational and Social Research at The Open University. He has carried out research in the sociology of education and the sociology of the media, but much of his work has been concerned with the methodological issues surrounding social enquiry. His books include (with Paul Atkinson) Ethnography: Principles in Practice (Fourth edition, Routledge, 2019), The Politics of Social Research (Sage, 1995), Taking Sides in Social Research (Routledge, 2000), Questioning Qualitative Inquiry (Sage, 2008), Methodology: Who Needs It? (Sage, 2011), The Myth of Research-Based Policy and Practice (Sage, 2013), The Radicalism of Ethnomethodology (Manchester University Press, 2018), The Concept of Culture (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), Troubling Sociological Concepts (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020) and Methodological Concepts (Routledge, 2023). Website: http://​ martynhammersley​.wordpress​.com/​. Oliver Hensengerth, PhD, is an Associate Professor in International Development at Northumbria University. He works on water governance with a particular interest in transboundary water cooperation, water-energy-food nexus, floods and droughts, and hydropower. Conceptually, he is interested in questions of environmental justice, relationships between water and identity, and governance across scales. A political scientist by training, Oliver’s work is interdisciplinary and includes long-term collaborations with, inter alia, human and physical geographers, hydraulic engineers, and legal scholars. His research has been funded by NERC, GCRF, the British Academy, the Newton Fund and other funders. His work is published in key international journals, including Energy Policy, Public Policy and Administration, Frontiers in Environmental Science, Sustainability, and the Journal of Water Law. Brigette A. Herron is a research professional at the University of Georgia, and holds a PhD in adult education. Her research interests include teaching qualitative research methods and

xvi  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods interviewing, feminist pedagogy in adult and higher education, and examining the influence of philanthropy and dark money on curriculum and pedagogy. She is the co-author of Philanthropy, Hidden Strategy, and Collective Resistance: A Primer for Concerned Educators (with K. deMarrais, T. J. Brewer, J. Atkinson, and J. Lewis, 2019), co-editor of Conservative Philanthropies and Organizations Shaping U.S. Educational Policy and Practice (with K. deMarrais, and J. Copple, 2020), and has contributed a chapter in Interactional Studies of Qualitative Research Interviews (edited by K. Roulston, 2019) and an article about teaching interviewing in LEARNing Landscapes (with K. Roulston, 2021). David Higgins is a scholar with the University of Liverpool in Management and Entrepreneurship. He has several years’ experience teaching and researching in entrepreneurial learning/education in the university sector. David is an active scholar in the field of entrepreneurial learning and education hosting over 30-plus publications to date in journals, books, book chapters and conference outputs. David has published his work in journals such as International Small Business Journal, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, serving as guest editor for IJBER and Industry and Higher Education. His research activity is focused towards exploring practice-based, processual as well as dialogic approaches to entrepreneurship education and learning, reflexive learning and practical wisdom. His current research explores the role of dialogism in entrepreneurship teaching practice. Tamara Hoffer is currently an instructor in the department of Teaching, Leadership, and Professional Practice in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of North Dakota. She received her MS Special Education Strategist from the University of North Dakota. She teaches graduate coursework to prepare teacher candidates in emotional behaviour disorders and assessments of students with special needs, all delivered online asynchronously. Tamara is pursuing a PhD in Teaching and Leadership at the University of North Dakota and her research focus is online teaching pedagogy, coaching and preparing teacher candidates. Prior to teaching in higher education, she spent several years teaching at the middle and high school levels, in both business and special education and coaching high school athletics.  Cheryl Hunter is currently an Associate Professor and Department Chair of Teaching, Leadership, and Professional Practice in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of North Dakota. She received her PhD in History, Philosophy and Policy Studies at Indiana University with a concentration in International and Comparative Education and a focus on qualitative research methodology. As a Spencer Foundation Fellow at Indiana University, she worked closely with the Sociology faculty exploring the national discourse of public school vouchers and education policy implications, as well as the use of narrative methodologies for pedagogical purposes. She was a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Cleveland Clinic College of Medicine where she focused on the areas of teaching pedagogy, assessment and effective practice within the framework of medical education.  Joshua Hunter is currently an Associate Professor at the University of North Dakota in the College of Education and Human Development. He earned his PhD from Indiana University in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and has worked in a multitude of outdoor education settings. He teaches graduate courses in socio-cultural foundations of education, qualitative research methodologies and advanced ethnographic research. In addition, he is the Director for the Outdoor Leadership and Environmental Education program for undergraduate

Contributors  xvii students. His research interests include outdoor and place-based education, wilderness experiences, environmental interpretation and experiential learning in diverse biocultural settings.  Nataliya Ivankova, PhD, MPH, is Professor in the School of Health Professions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). As an applied research methodologist working at the intersection of mixed methods, qualitative, community-based, action and translational research, she is internationally recognised for her empirical and methodological publications. She shares her research expertise through teaching mixed methods and qualitative research courses, conducting workshops and guest lectures, mentoring doctoral students and junior faculty, and serving as key personnel on funded research projects. At UAB, she directs an online graduate certificate program in Applications of Mixed Methods Research and oversees the design and analytical aspects of qualitative and mixed methods studies through the Center for Health Informatics for Patient Safety and Quality. She is a founding co-editor of the Mixed Methods Research Series (Sage) and serves as an associate editor for the Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Lynn Jamieson is a Professor in Sociology at the University of Edinburgh and a founding co-director of the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships. She has taught across and worked with a range of approaches to research involving qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods of data collection. Her interests focus on researching the complexities of intimacy, personal life and theorising that acknowledges possibilities of ‘the personal’ effecting positive social and global change. She is ‘editor at large’ of the journal Families Relationships and Societies and a co-editor of the Palgrave Macmillan monograph series Studies in Families and Intimate Life. Rebecca Johnson, PhD, is a Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham, and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. She has been conducting research in public health and health services since 2008 and teaching since 2009 at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. A particular area of interest for Rebecca is mixed methods. She co-led the Mixed Methods for the Health Sciences module at Warwick Medical School from 2015 to 2019, and has delivered numerous mixed methods workshops in the UK and Ireland, including for the UK National Centre for Research Methods. Rebecca co-founded and co-ordinated the Qualitative and Mixed Methods Interest group at the University of Warwick from 2015 to 2019. She has won awards for her innovative approach to mixed methods teaching and was Highly Commended in the 2018 Warwick Awards for Teaching Excellence. Rebecca currently teaches mixed methods as well as health policy at the University of Birmingham. Naveed Kazmi, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Education at the London Metropolitan University. He has extensive experience of working at various levels in education in the UK and overseas. He currently teaches on a range of modules at BA and MA level in education alongside supervising PhD students. Teaching research methods on undergraduate and postgraduate education studies degrees is his special interest. His research interests include the teaching and learning of research methods and curriculum theory and construction. Naveed is currently a school governor. Jamie Kowalczyk is an Associate Professor in the College of Education at Concordia University Chicago. She also serves as the university’s Assistant Provost of Academics. Jamie’s research interests include education reforms related to immigration and integration,

xviii  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods intercultural and inclusive education, and the translation of globally circulating policy discourses within particular contexts that serve to exclude through abjection even when the stated efforts are for inclusion. Her methodological interests have ranged from the problematisation of context in comparative education research and the use of methodologies from human geography to explore the shifting boundary work in refugee education. Candace R. Kuby is Associate Provost for Faculty Success and Professor of Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum at the University of Missouri. Dr Kuby’s research interests are: (1) the coming-to-be of literacies when young children work with artistic and digital tools; and (2) approaches to and pedagogies of qualitative inquiry when thinking with poststructural and posthumanist philosophies. She is author of several books such as Speculative Pedagogies of Qualitative Inquiry (2020); and journals in which her scholarship appears include Qualitative Inquiry; International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education; Journal of Early Childhood Literacy; Journal of Literacy Research; and Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies. David S. Lamb is an independent scholar and former instructor in the Educational Measurement and Research Program at the University of South Florida. He specialises in GIS and quantitative methods with an emphasis on data science techniques. His research focuses on examining movement patterns and developing methods to understand spatiotemporal data in several fields and disciplines including education, public health, health and transportation. Sarah Lewthwaite is a Senior Research Fellow and UKRI Future Leaders Fellow at the University of Southampton where she leads Teaching Accessibility in the Digital Skill Set as principal investigator. This programme of research, funded by UK Research and Innovation, investigates pedagogic dimensions of digital accessibility education in academic and workplace settings. Sarah has a continuing interest in advanced research methods pedagogy and teaching development. Previously she worked as a Research Fellow at the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods on the Pedagogy of Methodological Learning study with Professor Melanie Nind. Subsequent studies focused on innovation in teaching Big Qual, and methods textbook pedagogy. Sarah has over 15 years’ experience in higher education, methods and disability research, with publications across these fields. She is a member of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, Education and Outreach Working Group: Curricula Taskforce, developing curricula to support teachers of digital accessibility worldwide. Natasha M. Loi, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of New England, where she teaches courses on lifespan development and organisational behaviour. She has several years’ experience teaching using an online modality and has previously published research examining how eLearning environments can assist psychology students in their engagement with research methods and statistics. Her research interests are principally in the areas of applied organisational and health psychology, with a focus on workplace incivility/ bullying, health outcomes, and ways to improve wellbeing. Sandra Lopes has a degree in Sociology, a master’s degree in Social Demography, a PhD in Sociology and a specialisation in methods and techniques of social research. She is a sociologist and an Adjunct Professor at the Higher School of Education of the Polytechnic Institute of Beja (IPBeja). She has been teaching social research methods since the beginning of her professional activity at IPBeja in 1998. She is a researcher at CICS.NOVA – Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences (Portugal) and a member of Laboratory of Territorial Animation

Contributors  xix (LabAT) of IPBeja. Her research interests include municipal cultural policies, sociocultural impact assessment, education and entrepreneurship, and qualitative and mixed methods research. Thuy Mai Thi Minh is a lecturer in the Tourism, Culture and Art Faculty of An Giang University. She has ten years of research and teaching experience in tourism and culture at An Giang University. Her main field of study is culture influenced by environmental and socioeconomic factors and assessing the impacts that lead to the transformation and development of cultural heritage. She also studies cultural factors as attractive tourism resources. Kathleen McMeel lives semi independently within the Brothers of Charity services Ireland. Kathleen has a certificate in communications and presentations and in human rights and citizenship from Limerick Institute of Technology. Kathleen completed the leadership and advocacy course in Limerick Institute of Technology in 2017 and she is now a local representative in an Advocacy Group representing BOCL Bruff. Kathleen is a member of the Inclusive Research Network steering group and has participated in a Research Group at the University of Limerick in Rights and Disability. Kathleen is a great advocate for people with intellectual disabilities. Robert Meckin is a Presidential Fellow in the School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, and Research Fellow at the National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM). He is interested in methods in the social and natural sciences. His recent work includes considerations of sensory modes of knowledge production; an NCRM edited collection on contemporary investigative methods; different collaborative efforts in the interdisciplinary field of synthetic biology; and approaches to knowledge production in the field of computational social science. He continues to explore creative and sensory methods for uncertain times and for the social dimensions of health therapies. Maja Miskovic is a Professor of Research at Concordia University Chicago, where she also serves as Dean of the College of Education. Maja supervises doctoral students and teaches research design and qualitative research methods. Her research interests are doctoral studies, particularly in the context of online education, research design, and qualitative methodology. Her recent publications appeared in The Qualitative Report, International Research in Higher Education, and International Journal of Multicultural Education. Methuen Morgan, PhD, is a farmer, Director, and a casual academic at the University of New England. The title of his PhD thesis was ‘Striking the balance: Farmers’ responses to coal seam gas and climate change’. Methuen is the co-founding Executive Director of Meralli Solar – a solar construction company specialising in providing commercial scale solar projects in rural and regional Australia. Meralli Solar uses a unique adaptable framing system which provides the most cost-effective supply of photovoltaic power in Australia today. Thalia M. Mulvihill, PhD, is Professor of Higher Education and Social Foundations in the Department of Educational Leadership at Ball State University. Thalia is a historian and sociologist of higher education. She teaches several qualitative research methods and academic writing courses for doctoral students and has authored eight books as well as 90 refereed publications, co-edits The Teacher Educator journal, and is the recipient of numerous teaching, research and mentoring awards.

xx  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Marie Murphy, PhD, is a Research Fellow in Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham and Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, with a background in public health nutrition. Marie has been using mixed methods research since beginning her research career in 2011. Marie teaches public health to undergraduate and postgraduate students, and has been involved in teaching mixed methods research since 2015. This includes teaching on the module Mixed Methods for the Health Sciences at the University of Warwick 2015–2019. Marie has presented on teaching threshold concepts in mixed methods at the Mixed Methods International Research Association International Conference. Hue Nguyen is an English lecturer at An Giang University. Her main interests have always been social and intercultural issues. She is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Macau, with a focus on intercultural awareness and competency of ESL learners. She has participated in many initiatives, conferences and intercultural activities that encourage students to engage with their communities towards positive change. Lan Nguyen is Head of Department at the Center of Monitoring and Technology Environment Resources of An Giang Natural Resources and Environment Department. She has a master’s degree in Environmental Engineering (2012) and is currently enrolled as a doctoral student at Can Tho University on analysis of surface water quality in major rivers in An Giang province. Lan has 16 years’ experience in environmental monitoring and is an active member in many planning teams of government environmental and social projects in An Giang province. Lan manages the intergenerational research as part of her role in the Living Deltas Hub. Tanh Nguyen obtained his PhD in Agricultural and Biological Engineering at the University of Florida; Master’s and Bachelor’s in Environmental Sciences at Can Tho University. His postdocs were in socio-ecological system at Idaho State University, and ecological simulation at Stephen F. Austin State University. Tanh is currently a scholar in crop and greenhouse gas simulation at Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsuhe Institute of Technology; Director of Climate Change Institute and Dean of Engineering, Technology, and Environment at An Giang University, Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City; AgMIP-Vietnam Network Lead for sustainable agriculture; and Co-PI for Living Deltas Hub and other projects. Tanh’s research is in simulation of socio-crop-ecological system for decision-making. Melanie Nind, PhD, is Professor of Education at the University of Southampton, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. She is Deputy Director of the South Coast Doctoral Training Partnership and a co-director of the Economic and Social Research Council-funded National Centre for Research Methods, where she has had led a programme of research on the pedagogy of methodological learning. Melanie is editor of the Bloomsbury Research Methods for Education book series and a former editor of the International Journal of Research and Method in Education. Her particular interests lie in the fields of methodology, learning disabilities, inclusive pedagogy and inclusive research, and her books include Research Methods for Pedagogy (with Curtin and Hall) and What is Inclusive Research? (both Bloomsbury Academic). Andy Nobes is Project Manager of AuthorAID, and a Programme Specialist at INASP. His work is focused on helping researchers develop their research writing and communication skills through online resources, courses, mentoring and peer learning. Andy has been instrumental in the development of the AuthorAID online courses in research writing and proposal

Contributors  xxi writing, which have evolved into Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and has trained over 40,000 researchers in LMICs. Andy has also been involved in training journal editors in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka in digital publishing practices. Amy Orange is a User Experience Researcher at Ad Hoc, where she seeks to understand and improve people’s experiences with the US federal government’s digital services. She is also a senior editor at The Qualitative Report, a multi-disciplinary academic research journal. Previously, she was an Associate Professor and taught graduate courses in qualitative research methods and research methodology. She received her PhD in Educational Research, Statistics, and Evaluation from the University of Virginia and her BA in Rhetoric and Communication from the University of California. She worked as an elementary and middle school teacher prior to her time in higher education. Maria Pallisera is a Professor in the Department of Pedagogy, University of Girona, where she teaches in Social Education and Social Work degrees, and Masters programmes in Diversity and Inclusive Education. She has researched and written about several issues related to the social inclusion of people with disabilities (independent living, transition to adult life, supported employment), as well as inclusive research. Currently, she is involved in researching about supporting people with intellectual disabilities to improve their social networks. See https://​recercadiversitat​.wixsite​.com/​diversitat for more details about her work. Nicola Pallitt, PhD, coordinates the efforts of the Educational Technology Unit in the Centre for Higher Education Research, Teaching and Learning (CHERTL) at Rhodes University and offers professional development opportunities for academics to use technologies effectively in their roles as educators and researchers. Nicola provides learning design support and consultation in relation to teaching with technology (technology integration) and blended and online teaching and learning. She also supports lecturers to design appropriate technology-mediated learning experiences for their students. Nicola supervises postgraduate students and co-teaches formal courses in Higher Education. She is part of the e/merge Africa team.  Rossana Perez del Aguila, PhD, is Lecturer and Staff Tutor in the School of Social Sciences and Global Studies at the Open University (since 2019). She is currently a member of the module team ‘Social Research: Crime, Justice and Society’ (DD215), leading teaching and staff development. She also teaches ‘Issues in Research with Children and Young People’ at the Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies. She has previously led research methods across undergraduate and post-graduate curriculum in Education. She was Course Leader for the Master and Doctorate in Education at London Metropolitan University. Rossana’s research interest includes the sociology of childhood, and teaching and learning of research methods. Vicki L. Plano Clark, PhD, is Professor of Research Methods in the School of Education at the University of Cincinnati. She is an applied research methodologist who studies, teaches, mentors, consults and writes about the adoption and use of mixed methods research across educational, social and health science disciplines. Her scholarship focuses on resolving methodological issues associated with mixed methods designs and understanding larger contexts that influence the application of mixed methods research. Her writings include Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2018, co-authored with John W. Creswell) and Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field (2016, co-authored with Nataliya V. Ivankova).

xxii  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods She currently serves as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Mixed Methods Research and co-editor of the Mixed Methods Research Series with Sage Publishing. Kylie Rice, PhD, is a clinical psychologist and academic involved in the science and practice of teaching professional psychology. Kylie has effectively adapted professional skills and competencies to an eLearning format, and is involved in the evaluation of online learning, professional competencies, and simulation activities. Kylie is committed to the scholarship of teaching and learning, and helping professional psychology students to become effective scientist-practitioners. Her research interests include psychology within educational contexts, competency development, and student success and wellbeing.  Adam J. Rock, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of New England. Adam has extensive experience teaching research methods and statistics in eLearning environments. Liliana Rodríguez-Campos is a Professor and the Director of the Graduate Certificate in Evaluation at the University of South Florida. She is nationally and internationally recognised for her collaborative approach to evaluation. Among other publications, Liliana is the author of the books Collaborative Evaluations Step-by-Step; Collaborative Evaluations in Practice; and Collaborative, Participatory, and Empowerment Evaluation. Liliana has facilitated many training sessions and presented her work in more than 30 countries. Currently, she serves on the board of directors at the Evaluation Capacity Development Group. Liliana has been awarded with several honours, including the American Evaluation Association’s Marcia Guttentag Award. Ali Rostron is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Liverpool Management School, and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. She works on a range of online international postgraduate programmes including the Doctorate of Business Administration. Before academia, Ali spent many years as a manager in the charity sector and local government. Her research focuses on manager identity, education and development, examined particularly through narrative and autoethnography. Kathryn Roulston is Professor in the Qualitative Research Program at the University of Georgia, where she teaches qualitative research methods. Her research interests include qualitative research methods, qualitative interviewing, and analyses of talk-in-interaction. She is the author of Interviewing: A Guide to Theory and Practice (2022), co-author of Exploring the Archives: A Beginner’s Guide for Qualitative Researchers (with Kathleen deMarrais), and editor of Interactional Studies of Qualitative Research Interviews (2019). She has contributed chapters to The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft (2012, 2nd ed., edited by Gubrium, Holstein, Marvasti and McKinney), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (2014), The SAGE Handbook of Data Collection (2018) and the SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design (2022, edited by Uwe Flick), as well as articles to Qualitative Research, Qualitative Inquiry, among other journals. Michelle Salmona is President of the Institute for Mixed Methods Research (https://​ immrglobal​.org/​) and an international consultant in program evaluation, research design, and mixed-methods and qualitative data analysis using data applications. Michelle is also an Adjunct Professor at the University of Canberra, specialising in qualitative and mixed methods research. As a project management professional and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education

Contributors  xxiii Academy, her research focus is to better understand how to support doctoral success through strengthening the research process and build data-driven decision-making capacity through technological innovation.  Janet Salmons is a qualitative methodologist, writer and artist. She manages Methodspace, an online community for social and behavioural research methods which enables scholars and students to share experiences and solve problems on a global scale. Her latest book, Doing Qualitative Research Online, 2nd ed. (2022), helps students and researchers across the social sciences looking to do qualitative research online. Janet received a BS in Adult and Community Education from Cornell University, an MA in Social Policy Studies from the SUNY Empire State College, and a PhD in Interdisciplinary Studies and Educational Leadership at the Union Institute and University. She lives and works in Boulder, Colorado. Sandra Saúde has a master’s degree and a PhD in Sociology, with a specialisation in the sociology of development. She is a sociologist and a Coordinating Professor at the Polytechnic Institute of Beja (IPBeja). She has been teaching social research methods since the beginning of her professional activity at IPBeja in 1995. She is a researcher at CICS.NOVA – Interdisciplinary Centre of Social Sciences (Portugal), a member of Laboratory of Territorial Animation (LabAT) of IPBeja and a member of ANGEL – Academic Network on Global Education and Learning. Sandra has participated in and coordinated several Portuguese and European funded research projects over the past 20 years in the fields of sustainable development and (post-) development. Her research interests include sustainable development; global and critical citizenship education; new teaching and learning methodologies; and qualitative and mixed methods research. Stephanie Anne Shelton is Associate Professor of Qualitative Research and Program Coordinator of the Educational Research Program in the College of Education at The University of Alabama, and affiliate faculty member in the Department of Gender and Race Studies and the Gifted Education Program. Publications have appeared in journals such as Qualitative Inquiry, the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Qualitative Research Journal, GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, the Journal of Lesbian Studies, English Education, Sex Education, and Teaching and Teacher Education, as well as four books. She was the 2020 recipient of the American Educational Research Association’s Early Career Award in Measurement and Research Methodology and the 2021 recipient of the NCTE LGBTQ+ Leadership and Advocacy Award. Christina Silver, PhD, is Director of Qualitative Data Analysis Services, www​.qdaservices​ .co​.uk, providing training and consultancy for qualitative and mixed methods analysis. She also manages the CAQDAS Networking Project (CNP), based in the department of Sociology and the University of Surrey, https://​www​.surrey​.ac​.uk/​computer​-assisted​-qualitative​-data​ -analysis, leading its capacity-building activities. She has trained thousands of researchers in the powerful use of CAQDAS-packages, and has an in-depth knowledge about the full range of available options. She developed the CAQDAS pedagogy, the Five-Level QDA method with Nicholas Woolf. She is Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Graham Smith has many years’ experience designing and delivering undergraduate and post-graduate courses in oral history, and supervising PhD students. As a member of the Oral

xxiv  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods History Society for many years and now Director of the Oral History Unit and Collective at Newcastle University, he has also collaborated with oral history initiatives situated outside academia, based in communities (of geography and of interest). He co-designed the original community workshops delivered by Oral History Society and the Society’s Advanced School in Oral History at the Institute of Historical Research in London. He currently holds the Chair in Oral History at Newcastle University. Eun Sook Kim is Associate Professor of Education Measurement and Research at the University of South Florida. She has a broad interest in research methodology and psychometrics, including structural equation modelling, multilevel modelling, latent class analysis, and factor mixture modelling. Her focal research interests include measurement invariance testing in multilevel and longitudinal data. She has recently focused on the factor mixture approach to testing measurement invariance, particularly with multilevel data and with a large number of groups. She has joined research groups studying propensity score analysis, multilevel confirmatory factor analysis, Bayesian estimation, and robust ANOVA in collaboration with faculty and graduate students. Raji Swaminathan, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Educational Policy and Community Studies in the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Raji’s research and teaching interests span innovative methods in qualitative research, urban education and international alternative education. She has authored seven books and has been the recipient of several teaching and research awards. She conducts professional development for teachers in alternative schools internationally. Einar Thorsteinsson is a Professor in Psychology at the University of New England. His research focus is in the area of health psychology and covers adolescent health; mental health such as depression, anxiety, and wellbeing; health inequalities (e.g., effects of socioeconomic status, disability, stigma, gender, race, education, minority status); nutrition; exercise; the effects of sexual orientation on health; and adolescent coping. His research is driven by strong domestic and international collaborations, including the international Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) research network. Leona Vaughn studies and teaches risk and vulnerability theory and concepts and their impacts on racialised and minoritised populations, especially women and children. A sociologist with extensive experience in equalities and social justice, she has delivered interdisciplinary international research projects with academic, civil society and community-based partners. Leona gained her PhD from the University of Liverpool where she studied counter-terrorism policy implementation, risk and prevention in safeguarding children. She undertook postgraduate research on lived experiences of modern slavery and was Research Director for the UK Collaborative for Development Research international consultation on safeguarding, part of the academic research community’s response to the abuses revealed in Haiti. She holds a tenure-track Derby Fellowship at the University of Liverpool on Slavery and Unfree Labour research, specifically exploring decolonial research methodologies, and currently works for the United Nations University Centre for Policy Research. Siobhan Warrington is a Senior Research Associate at Newcastle University’s oral history unit working full time on the Living Deltas Hub. Since 1999 she has supported community groups and NGOs around the world to use oral history methods to record and communicate

Contributors  xxv the knowledge and experiences of women and men who have first-hand experience of poverty, displacement, environmental change, HIV and AIDS. She has also designed and delivered research and evaluation projects and participatory research for many international NGOs, including a body of work on ethical image-making. She is editor of the International Work section of the Oral History journal. Duncan Watson, a Professor of Applied Economics at University of East Anglia, is a labour economist who originally specialised in the study of the welfare effects of the minimum wage. While retaining a commitment to this field, much of his recent research has been more eclectic and cross-disciplinary in its nature. This includes: housing market analysis; behavioural economics and finance; and conflict economics. As a Higher Education Academy Senior Fellow, he is increasingly focused on developing pedagogical research within economics. He is Chair of Ecuator, an organisation which is committed to advancing quantitative-based analysis to improve teaching quality.   Susie Weller, PhD, is a Senior Research Fellow in Clinical Ethics, Law and Society at the University of Oxford. She is also affiliated with the National Centre for Research Methods and is an Honorary Researcher at the University of the Witwatersrand. Susie has 20 years’ experience of conducting research with children, youths and families. She has expertise in qualitative longitudinal research (QLR), creative, participatory and remote methods, and qualitative secondary analysis. Susie is currently working on the Ethical Preparedness in Genomic Medicine (EPPiGen) study – a Wellcome Trust-funded project exploring the ethical and social challenges that arise for those living and working with genomic results. Concurrently, she is a Senior Researcher on the EU Horizon 2020 YouthLife programme, and senior advisor on Bukhali, a QLR study of women’s journeys to motherhood in Soweto, South Africa. Recently, she was Co-Investigator of TeC-19, an international QLR study of teenagers in Covid-19 times. Jennifer R. Wolgemuth is an Associate Professor in Educational Research at the University of South Florida where she directs the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research. Her research agenda focuses on ethics and validity in social science research. Drawing on critical, poststructural, and new materialist theories, she explores inquiry as an agential process that simultaneously investigates and creates lives and communities to and for which the researcher is responsible. Nicholas Woolf, PhD, is a Qualitative Research Consultant and teacher of ATLAS.ti, and Emeritus Advisor for Qualitative Data Analysis Services, www​.qdaservices​.co​.uk. He has taught graduate classes in qualitative methods, including at the University of Iowa, and since 1999 has taught approximately 300 workshops throughout North America for several thousand students. He has conducted and consulted on dozens of research projects in widely diverse fields, ranging from PhD dissertations to large-scale multinational studies. Nick gave the keynote address, ‘Analytic Strategies and Analytic Tactics’, at the first ATLAS.ti User’s Conference in Berlin, Germany, in 2013, after which he developed the CAQDAS pedagogy, the Five-Level QDA method with Christina Silver.  Pamela Woolner, Reader in the Use and Design of Educational Space at Newcastle University, has been researching educational environments for nearly two decades. Through a range of collaborative and participatory projects with schools, she has also developed knowledge and

xxvi  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods experience of methods to support the engagement of stakeholders, including staff, students and the wider community. Pam’s published work includes an interdisciplinary edited collection, School Design Together (2015), exploring the participatory design of school space, and her recent collaboration with the Council of Europe Development bank (CEB), Constructing Education (2021), proposes a framework to guide collaborative activities through planning and building educational premises. Actively engaged with social science research methodology, she teaches on a range of research methods courses within and beyond education, leads an annual visual methods training event for doctoral researchers and is the book review editor for the International Journal of Research and Method in Education. Chuying (Trista) Wu is a third year undergraduate student of the BA Education Studies program at UCL.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the UKRI Economic and Social Research Council/National Centre for Research Methods in the UK for funding and supporting pedagogic research for social research methods. I am particularly appreciative of Rose Wiles, who set me off on the path of exploring research methods pedagogy. I also owe a debt of gratitude to all the good people who kindly reviewed chapters for the handbook: Rachel Ayrton, Koen Bartels, Patrick Brindle, Christian Bokhove, Michaela Brockmann, Nicole Brown, Sarah Campbell, Jackie Carter, Tom Clark, Debbie Collins, Andy Coverdale, Steve Cook, Emma Davidson, Christian Dogoru, Gabi Durrant, Ros Edwards, Mark Elliott, Maureen Flint, David Galbraith, Edurne Garcia Iriate, Achala Gupta, Kelly Guyotte, Jori Hall, Martyn Hammersley, David Higgins, Michelle Holmes, Cheryl Hunter, Rebecca Johnson, Michael Klein, Jamie Kowalczyk, Candace Kuby, Yenn Lee, Sarah Lewthwaite, Sandra Lopes, Nora McIntyre, Robert Meckin, Adrian Millican, Maja Miskovic, Amy Orange, Kate Orton-Johnson, Nic Pensiero, Elizabeth Pope, Adam Rock, Jo Rose, Kathryn Roulston, Janet Salmons, Jane Seale, Neta Shaby, Rachel Shanks, Stephanie Shelton, Christina Silver, Rebecca Taylor, Athina Thoma, Siobhan Warrington, Susie Weller, Sophie Woodward.

xxvii

1. Introduction to the Handbook: putting pedagogic models to work in research methods education Melanie Nind

A LANDMARK IN THE PEDAGOGICAL CULTURE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS EDUCATION This Handbook represents a significant marker in the development of a pedagogical culture in research methods education. More than a decade has passed since Wagner, Garner and Kawulich (2011) first brought to our attention the state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences, highlighting the limited attention given to pedagogical culture in this field. They argued that, compared with other disciplines, there was limited pedagogical culture, that is, limited ‘exchange of ideas within a climate of systematic debate, investigation and evaluation surrounding all aspects of teaching and learning’ (p. 75). Wagner et al. bemoaned the paucity of pedagogic research on which to build either pedagogic culture or a unified approach to teaching social research methods, meaning that research methods education was not, at that time, an established field. For Earley (2014), the problem was exacerbated by the extant research being dispersed across journals rather than cohered together in one place. He concluded that, ‘Left to their own devices, research methods teachers must rely on a network of peers, scattered research literature, and much trial-and-error as they develop and improve upon their own research methods courses’ (Earley, 2014, p. 243). Much has changed in the development of a pedagogical culture for research methods education in the social sciences since then. Conducting a narrative literature review of papers published 2007–2014, we found reason to be hopeful about the ways in which teachers in the literature were ‘developing conceptually or theoretically useful frames of reference when reflecting on their teaching practice’ (Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014, p. 204). More recently, in a review of the literature since the period covered by Earley (2014) and Kilburn et al. (2014), we again found evidence of ‘an interested body of methods teachers willing to write about their practices and their rationale for them’ (Nind and Katramadou, 2022, p. 21). Moreover, as with our earlier finding, the ‘how to’ aspect of research methods pedagogy was getting systematic attention, helping to make this Handbook possible. Books on teaching research methods have emerged too, giving practical suggestions (Dawson, 2016) and focusing on particular kinds of methods (Garner, Wagner and Kawulich, 2009; Hurworth, 2008; Swaminathan and Mulvihill, 2018), or learners (Garner, Wagner and Kawulich, 2009; Kellett, 2005), or challenges (Nind, Kilburn and Luff, 2017). Similarly, the collection of chapters in this Handbook represents a positive manifestation of building pedagogical culture. Readers will not find in the chapters that follow a unified approach to teaching social research methods, nor will they find much evidence of research of practice beyond the authors’ own pedagogic backyards, but they will find a vibrant mix of research, scholarship, peda1

2  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods gogic reflection and advice. All aspects of teaching and learning are covered here, spanning introductions to research methods through to post/doctoral learning, the physical classroom to the digital sphere, and formal curricula to informal contexts. What unites the authors is a passion for the ‘craft’ (Hammersley, 2004) of teaching research methods well. Importantly for pedagogical culture, the field represented here has moved on from trial-and-error and reinventing the wheel in each pedagogic encounter, to people drawing on pedagogic theory and previous research, such that the Handbook represents a critical juncture in cumulative knowledge-building. This Handbook is a personal landmark as well as a landmark for the field. Over the last decade I have been teaching research methods and researching the teaching of research methods and I have not tired of either. Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK, as a co-director of the National Centre for Research Methods, I saw the relevance of the arguments of Wagner et al. (2011) and Earley (2012) for the Centre. We were funded to provide training in advanced research methods in the social sciences and cognate disciplines, and to create a step change in research capacity. Yet, despite much dialogue about which courses to run, there had been little dialogue and no research about pedagogic practice in our work. My work in the Centre became focused on addressing this gap with a comprehensive programme of research. In collaboration with (at different times) Debbie Collins, Angeliki Katramadou, Daniel Kilburn, Sarah Lewthwaite and Rose Wiles, I have been conducting reviews of the field (Kiburn et al., 2014; Nind and Katramadou, 2022) and fieldwork with both methods teachers and learners (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016; Nind, 2019; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018a, 2018b, 2020; Nind et al., 2020; Nind, Kilburn and Wiles, 2015). As an educationalist turned methodologist, and a teacher-researcher, it has been satisfying to research and teach research methods, valuing the way that they are, as Hsiung (2016, p. 67) puts it, ‘inter-dependent and mutually reinforcing’. In inviting contributions to the Handbook, I was able to link up with other teacher-researchers who see the synergies too. The selection of authors is primarily the outcome of my immersion in the field, including the systematic review of literature 2014–2020 written in English. The Handbook contributions mainly come from the UK, USA, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. While we hear a little from authors based in Africa, Japan and Vietnam, I regret that despite my efforts I could not realise more input from the Global South, which would have enriched the volume. Nonetheless Leona Vaughn (Chapter 28) and Siobhan Warrington and colleagues (Chapter 29) provide plenty of stimulus for thinking beyond dominant colonising/Global North perspectives in teaching and learning social research. I am glad that readers can find the voices of learners across the Handbook, notably in chapters 10 (Kuby), 11 (Higgins and Rostron), 16 (Brown et al.), 18 (Perez del Aguila, Allison and Kazmi), and 29 (Warrington et al.). There is also planned diversity in the coverage of teaching and learning qualitative methods, quantitative methods, mixed methods and wider research practices. Once again, where there is imbalance (i.e., more chapters about teaching and learning qualitative methods) this results from a combination of my own networks and imbalance in the literature (see Nind and Katramadou, 2022). While I could have structured the Handbook contents around teaching in the established paradigms, I chose instead to privilege learning context: classroom/lab, online/digital spaces, and/or field/other. While this cuts across some aspects of dichotomous thinking about research methods as qual/quant, there are blurry edges where some chapters could have reasonably fit in more than one of the sections. The third section on teaching and learning in the field and other contexts is important because,

Introduction to the Handbook  3 from the sociocultural standpoint in which much of the Handbook is situated, learning happens everywhere. It seemed important to include the learning spaces of research projects, textbooks, online resources and doctoral supervisions. In whatever way readers choose to use the Handbook and negotiate its structure, the enthusiasm of its authors for working with the challenges that are inherent in research methods pedagogy will resound.

UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY I turn now to the ambition that the Handbook makes progress in how we can begin to know research methods pedagogy beyond our own practices and contexts. To do this I use three core frameworks: Martyn Hammersley’s models of the teaching-research relationship (see Chapter 2); the typology of approach, strategy, tactics and tasks that Sarah Lewthwaite and I generated in our research together for the National Centre for Research Methods (see Nind and Lewthwaite, 2019); and the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Nind, 2019; Shuman, 1987). I address these in turn. The Teaching-Research Relationship It is reasonable to expect research methods educators to base their teaching on firm foundations, despite Daniel’s (2018) finding that for many university academics tasked with teaching research methods, this is not a subject they strongly identify with, or have sufficient expertise in. Equally, it is helpful to critically reflect on where our personal pedagogical approaches come from, to understand the roots of various practices, be they experiential, theoretical, research-based or a mixture of these (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016). Jennifer Wolgemuth and colleagues (Chapter 14) indicate the complexity of research methods pedagogy in relation to social research when they state: Social science research classrooms, like all classrooms, are lively social and material spaces (whether physical, virtual, or both) that produce social science – what it is (and is not), how it’s (best) done, who can do it, and so on … It follows that teachers of research are not only responsible for how and what they teach, but also why they teach it and what that teaching makes possible. (p. 200)

For some of the chapter authors, reflections on the interaction between social research and pedagogy are part of an everyday, ongoing project of experiential learning. For others, the role of reflection is subservient to the need to conduct research to establish the foundations of ‘what works’ on which to build. It is very useful therefore, to engage with some of the core ideas that Martyn Hammersley shares in Chapter 2. (This chapter made me reflect on my own complex and shifting relationship with research as the basis for teaching and pedagogic policy in the methods training arena.) Here we see the debates about whether it is necessary for teaching practice to be ‘evidence-based’, including what kinds of evidence count most and how strongly one might adhere to the need for some or all teaching techniques to have been shown by research to be effective. Hammersley shows how, alongside the hardline evidence-based practice movement, there exists a stance in which the relationship between research and practice can be weaker, ‘evidence-informed’ rather than ‘evidence-based’. Similarly, Steve Cook and Duncan Watson (Chapter 18) use the work of Healy and Jenkins (2009) to contemplate research-involved teaching of methods as ‘research-led’, ‘research-orientated’ or

4  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ‘research-tutored’. I find in Hammersley’s framing of the arguments into engineering, strong enlightenment and moderate enlightenment models (see p. 19) to offer a critical framework that can be used to reflect on the chapters that follow. To illustrate the different positions, we might say that Clark and Foster in Chapter 9 adopt more of an engineering stance focused on documenting facts about the effectiveness of quantitative methods pedagogy, having faith that methods of research must be capable of providing such facts, and conceiving effective teaching as the adoption or refinement of pedagogical techniques that serve the intended learning goals. For them, ‘there remains a need for continuing research concerning “what works” in research methods teaching, both in terms of form and content’ (p. 132). However, they soften their stance by acknowledging the complexities of assessing what works. They are concerned with the evidence base for their preferred active learning, as well how learning is experienced by diverse individuals in diverse contexts. Also concerned with teaching quantitative methods, Adam Rock and colleagues (Chapter 20) draw heavily on the available pedagogic research on efficacy for their approach. There is faith in research to underpin pedagogy in the Handbook. In Chapter 12, Sandra Lopes and Sandra Saúde narrate their drive to explore: ‘What pedagogical strategies should be developed to promote a stimulating, deep, impressive, significant learning experience to [social work] trainees?’ (p. 171). The teaching-research relationship giveaway here is the reference to what should happen, indicating there might be a right way and that right way might be found in research, albeit the ‘softer’ case study kind of research. In Chapter 18, Rossana Perez del Aguila, Heather Allison and Naveed Kazmi seem to provide credibility for their learning about research methods pedagogy for non-traditional students during the COVID-19 pandemic by locating the learning in an interview study of participants’ experiences of learning rather than just their own reflection on experience. While not necessarily research, we find that Janet Salmons and colleagues (Chapter 23) in the organisations that support research learning in informal and semi-professional online spaces are concerned with success measures to know whether they are being effective. At the other end of the spectrum, research is seen as a resource for teachers to use in making sense of practice decisions, with views on what constitutes educational effectiveness or improvement much more open. Here, for example, Kathryn Roulston and Brigette Herron (Chapter 13) writing about teaching the art of qualitative interviewing illustrate how much can be learned from case examples of classrooms and students’ work. Kathryn is clear that her teaching ‘has been informed by’ (p. 186) her research on how students orient to class activities and by her ongoing reflections on practice. Roulston and Herron’s ‘developmental approach’ to teaching interviewing is the product of both research and practice. We see contributors like Nataliya Ivankova and Vicki Plano Clark (Chapter 7), Candace Kuby (Chapter 10), and Kelly Guyotte, Stephanie Shelton and Maureen Flint (Chapter 3) who are less concerned with practice being prescribed by research evidence and more concerned with practices that emerge from pedagogic stories and conversations, grounded in values and theories and even emotions (see also Coverdale, Nind and Meckin, Chapter 26; Higgins and Rostron, Chapter 11). Leona Vaughn (Chapter 28), in her work on decolonising social research in the classroom, refers to a process of ‘continuously learning through my own research and teaching experiences’ (p. 413). Nataliya Ivankova and Vicki Plano Clark (Chapter 7) see no need for apology in advocating pedagogic strategies grounded in their ‘experiential, methodological, and pedagogical MMR [mixed methods research] practices’, rather than in pedagogic research.

Introduction to the Handbook  5 To continue this theme, like many of the authors in this volume, Kelly Guyotte and colleagues reflect on their own learning as pedagogues, not seeing themselves or other researchers as the expert, but seeing pedagogy as ‘enacted with’ students, emerging as much from failures as successes. Likewise, Thalia Mulvihill and Raji Swaminathan (Chapter 5) focus on ‘collaboration pedagogies’ that ‘talk back to the idea of the superior or dominant knower in the classroom who imparts knowledge or wisdom to those who do not know’ (p. 58). In the ‘semi-autoethnographic accounts’ of Rosemary Deem and Sally Barnes (Chapter 24) talking about supervision pedagogy, and Chapter 13 by Jennifer Wolgemuth and her longstanding colleagues, we see the importance of dialogue as much as research in informing pedagogical understanding and development. Candace Kuby is perhaps most radical, in urging us not to think in terms of pedagogies to aid learners to master research methods, preferring instead that we accept the uncertainties of our work as pedagogues and of research inquiry. I would see much of the content of the Handbook as coming from a moderate enlightenment position, with teacher-researchers (for the authors are both teachers and researchers) concerned with bringing about pedagogic change based on evaluating situations, policies and practices, understanding pedagogic situations within the context of wider theoretical frameworks, and using various kinds of research evidence along the way. For Nicole Brown and fellow authors (Chapter 16), learners’ voices provide an evaluative tool. Likewise, for Edurne García Iriarte and colleagues (Chapter 25), reflection by learners (who are researchers with intellectual disabilities) on what facilitates learning is the best kind of evidence to inform practice in the business of working out what works well and less well and what learning strategies learners like. For Christina Silver and colleagues (Chapter 22), the investment in building cumulative professional pedagogic knowledge supported by collegiate reflection is huge. They comment on the power of this: Continually reflecting on practice is a key way teachers ensure their pedagogy is effective and sharing practice with others is a powerful form of reflection. Several of the teachers whose practice we discuss here commented on how explaining their practice to us for this chapter was illuminating for them. We ourselves also experienced this. (p. 331)

Jori Hall and Sara Campbell (Chapter 21) formalise reflection by trusting reflective case narratives (Becker and Renger, 2017) to ‘transfer knowledge, convey lessons learned, and share ideas’ (p. 305). At the heart of their reflective practice is using the learning and critical insights from complex experiences (McClish-Boyd and Bhattacharya, 2021) and multiple data sources and perspectives to improve pedagogy. Throughout the Handbook, the teaching-research relationship is fascinating. There are rich case studies of pedagogy here, including the informal learning of facilitators and learners in the context of the challenges of researching the COVID-19 pandemic (Coverdale et al., Chapter 26) and in the context of geographic, cultural and linguistic distance (Warrington et al., Chapter 29). Sometimes the research methods themselves have a pedagogical function as we discuss in Methods that Teach (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018b). This is evident in terms of the visual metaphor exercise employed in the knowledge exchange workshops described by Coverdale et al. (Chapter 26) in which social researchers learned from and alongside each other, and in the oral history method, which Siobhan Warrington and colleagues (Chapter 29) acknowledge is ‘a pedagogy in itself’. In the more formal learning context, as with much of the work in the research methods pedagogy arena (Nind and Katramadou, 2022), ‘close-to practice’ research (Wyse et al., 2020) dominates. This does not make the work ‘less scientific’

6  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods (Wyse et al., 2020, p. 4) but it does show the ways that, for methods teachers, critically analysing evidence from everyday pedagogic encounters is highly valued. The Interweaving of Approach, Strategy, Tactics and Tasks in Research Methods Pedagogy I now turn to a second framework which provides a tool for understanding research methods pedagogy and for synthesising key messages from the Handbook and wider literature. The conceptual-empirical typology of teaching approach, strategy, tactics and tasks was generated through our analysis of interview and focus group data with diverse methods teachers, rigorous scrutiny of transcripts of video-stimulated recall, reflection and dialogue, and further developed during in-depth case studies as part of our Pedagogy of Methodological Learning study (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2020). The research design enabled insight into aspects of pedagogy that are visible and aspects that are not – that require probing into the tacit knowledge, or rather the ‘knowing-in-practice’ (Polyani, 1958), of methods teachers. While tasks, at the action end of the typology can be seen, and tactics possibly inferred from these, it is dialogue that produces understanding of the teachers’ strategies and approaches and of how coherently these are connected and translated into practice. The ‘meaningful entities’ (Braun and Clarke 2016, p. 740) – analytic constructs – of approach, strategy, tactics and tasks support the process of appreciating the decision-making involved in research methods pedagogy. The approach is ‘how the teacher goes about their pedagogic work in a way that coheres around a theory, set of values or principles’, the strategy is the ‘goal directed planning for implementing the approach’, the tactics make this more ‘procedural and specific to the context’ and the tasks are what the learners (or teachers) do (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2020, p. 473). Some of the Handbook contributors make conscious use of the typology (notably, Lewthwaite et al., Chapter 6) or something similar (Silver et al., Chapter 22). Some focus most on one dimension or layer of the typology, such as the focus on strategies in teaching mixed methods research developed and shared by Nataliya Ivankova and Vicki Plano Clark (Chapter 7), or on strategies in teaching research methods to social work students discussed by Sandra Lopes and Sandra Saúde (Chapter 12), or the detailed description of tasks in teaching collaborative qualitative research by Thalia Mulvihill and Raji Swaminathan (Chapter 5). Some contributors make the teaching approach explicit while for others this is implicit. The approaches may be based on well-rehearsed learning theory, or be more bespoke. In the latter category, Jennifer Wolgemuth and colleagues (Chapter 14), for example, present an approach built on the concepts of humility and responsibility, which guides their relationships with students, aims, hopes and expectations; their concept-based approach reminds them ‘that we must not overstate the “truth” or “fixity” of our research epistemologies, methodologies, and methods’ (p. 201). Approaches may be a mix of established and original as in the application by Rebecca Johnson and Marie Murphy (Chapter 8) of open-space learning for students of mixed methods. As with the teachers (even expert teachers) in the Pedagogy of Methodological Learning study, for the Handbook chapter authors, articulating their pedagogic work/research allows scope to place their emphasis at different stages of distance from the here and now of the pedagogic encounter. Similarly also, we find here ‘revoicing, rehearsal or re-enactment of teachable moments as illustrations, showing how tactics are responsive to situations as well as pedagogic values and methodological priorities’ (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2020, p. 473).

Introduction to the Handbook  7 Chapter 11 by David Higgins and Ali Rostron and Chapter 14 by Cheryl Hunter, Tamara Hoffer and Josh Hunter are good examples. Analysis of the wider literature indicates a preference among research methods teachers for active and experiential learning approaches, and a valuing of student-centred learning, reflective learning, problem-based learning and collaborative learning (Kilburn et al., 2014; Nind and Katramadou, 2022). In this respect too, the Handbook authors are representative of the wider body of engaged teacher-researchers. Readers interested in the flow between approach, strategy, tactics and tasks will see this in Chapter 16 in which Nicole Brown makes very explicit the enactment of her experiential approach to teaching qualitative methods; this is informed by social constructivism and the work of Kolb (1984, 2014) on the cycle of experiencing, reflecting, thinking and acting. Her strategy is to start by giving learners the space to experience research methods and then to provide them with the tools to reflect and critically interrogate research action. As naturally happens, tactics and tasks merge in the description of how she creates online breakout rooms for small group tasks plus post-session tasks. Similarly, in Chapter 13, Kathryn Roulston and Bridgette Herron show how the developmental approach to teaching qualitative interviewing unfolds in their strategies, tactics and tasks in a carefully scaffolded process. In their articulation of a programme level approach to teaching quantitative methods, Tom Clark and Liam Foster (Chapter 9) have an explicit active learning approach based on learning by doing attached to the needs and interests of the students, giving them space to ‘shape their own learning through considered activity, accompanied by support and guidance from educators’ (p. 122). Their active learning strategies are evident in their organisation of learning and assessment and in their discussion of what they avoid doing as well as what they opt to do. They choose a narrative over mathematical approach in their workbooks so that students understand the principles of specific quantitative methods. They are clear about the goals they are addressing – to support students to experience negotiating research problems in teams and in making their own informed decisions. Tactically, they utilise clear guidance embedded in the workbooks co-designed and developed with students and collaborative assessment tasks so that they are undertaken in a supportive environment. Their tasks, such as a ‘group-based research poster that uses student-generated survey data to respond to a specific research brief, and an individual project report based on the analysis of secondary data’, are designed to ‘enable students to experiment with the data and the research instruments’ (p. 127). For a deeper focus on approach (defined in the typology as cohering around a theory of set of values or principles), readers might refer to the acknowledgement by Thalia Mulvihill and Raji Swaminathan (Chapter 5, p. 61) that: Choosing a pedagogical approach in a classroom is not an apolitical act. What we choose and how we implement that choice is reflective of our belief systems both in terms of outcomes and process.

Or they might look at Chapter 3 in which Kelly Guyotte and colleagues present their explicit feminist and anti-racist engaged pedagogy influenced by the work of bell hooks. Their discussion of their strategies and classroom tactics continuously refers back to underpinning values, as Kelly puts it, ‘staying pedagogically faithful to the complexities and fluidity of theories that we were all reading’ (p. 29). In many ways the chapter shows their strategies as an enactment of their values, illustrated with reflections on the practice of, for example, ‘offering honest, open discussion of my own failures and uncertainties’ (Stephanie, p. 29) or ‘taking pedagogical risks’ (p. 32) thereby showing their vulnerabilities (Kelly), or in their choice of texts

8  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods (Maureen). Tactics unfold in on-the-spot decisions – ‘I decided to’, ‘I told them during our first class meeting’ and so on; this includes tactics for adapting to the pandemic lockdown. In keeping with their values position, these authors’ exposition of tasks includes not just what students do, such as reading a theoretical text together, but what they do, such as, ‘I share my own experiences as a first-generation student, candid and vulnerable with my own fears and frustrations’ (Stephanie, p. 34). In Chapter 21, Jori Hall and Sara Campbell provide a thorough follow through of their explicit approach to teaching mixed methods based on the Community of Inquiry pedagogical framework developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), and influenced by the work of John Dewey (1933) on Practical Inquiry. They explain their strategies for implementing this approach in the online mixed methods class using a mix of traditional technologies (discussion boards, videoconferencing) and avatar-based technologies. This is goal-directed in terms of seeking to create a sense of community and enjoyable learning experiences for working through mixed methods issues, as Hesse-Biber (2015) advises, as well as a high level of engagement as advocated by Ivankova (2010). Hall and Campbell share three ‘instructional strategies’, which are unpacked in their transition to detailed tactics. The first involves moving into the terrain of which readings to provide, what to require students to do with them, how to use the discussion boards to promote reflection and student-to-student interactions. The second is about using synchronous video-conferencing for exposition and discussion, and the third is about providing options for exchanging feedback, including as an avatar in a virtual world. Moving beyond the in-person or online classroom we find discussion of collaborative, dialogical, co-learning approaches alongside active, multisensory and experiential learning in the process of democratising conducting and learning about research methods in the field (Chapter 25, García Iriarte et al.). In common with other authors, Edurne García Iriarte and colleagues, in their process of sense-making and exploration of the pedagogy, move between their own practice and approaches and theories found in the literature. They are able to contextualise their strategy of using drama, role play and puppets in terms of the practices of others. We also find insights into the approach, strategies and tactics employed by publishers and authors in the world of textbooks (Brindle and Lewthwaite, Chapter 27) and organisations providing resources for researchers to use outside of structured curricula (Salmons et al., Chapter 23). Echoing Tom Clark and Liam Foster (Chapter 9), the power of the narrative form in teaching research methods and reaching diverse learners, particularly anticipating learner needs and potential confusions, is evident. The strategies of textbook authors address in particular the challenge of how to structure the material, which pedagogic hooks (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016) to use, and how to promote reflection and scaffold the learning, with use of humour (see also Rock et al., Chapter 20) and storytelling (see also Guyotte et al., Chapter 3) being valuable tactics.

BROADENING AND DEEPENING THE PCK OF METHODS TEACHERS The reference to storytelling and humour brings us neatly to the pedagogical content knowledge shared in the Handbook. Storytelling is a pedagogic device used by the Handbook contributors to communicate their PCK in the context of research methods teaching (see e.g.,

Introduction to the Handbook  9 Orange, Chapter 4) and doctoral supervision (Deem and Barnes, Chapter 24). PCK is about translating subject content (in our case, social research methods) for learners, combining that content knowledge with pedagogical knowledge to make the subject matter knowable to learners. I have explored this in detail previously (Nind, 2019) and do so again in the Handbook (Lewthwaite et al., see Chapter 6). I remain fascinated by the capabilities of skilled methods teachers to pre-empt learners’ misconceptions, to devise pedagogical hooks to connect and engage learners with the content, and to choose the stories, examples and tasks that will help learners to overcome barriers to understanding (see, e.g., Johnson and Murphy, Chapter 8). In this part of the chapter, I pursue a key idea from Nind (2019) and adapted from Shulman’s early research: How do methods teachers teach their social research methods to people who don’t know how to use (or read) them? Part of the answer lies in the way that they translate an approach into strategies, tactics and tasks – or understand the tasks and tactics they employ in terms of wider approaches and strategies (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2020). It is this ‘how to’ element that Earley (2014) felt was missing from the literature. Without sufficient development and sharing of PCK the major challenges of teaching research methods linger unresolved: how to make methods relevant and interesting; how to inspire and motivate learners; how to dissipate anxiety about learning (quantitative) methods; and how to avoid misconceptions about research and research methods (Earley, 2014; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018a). In the Pedagogy of Methodological Learning study, the distinctive PCK of the participating methods teachers was surfaced. That is, methods teachers know how to teach with, through and about data, to use data as their pedagogic hook. They know about what kinds of data to use, when and how, plus what data stories to tell alongside explaining the theory/logic behind research decisions. Readers can learn from the PCK evident in the Handbook, including the PCK around using data which is made particularly explicit by Lewthwaite et al. (Chapter 6) and around teaching methods in the online context, dealt with directly by Maja Miskovic and Jamie Kowalczyk (Chapter 16). Among qualitative teacher-researchers there is a shared understanding that a major challenge is teaching the level of reflexivity needed (Nind, 2019; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018a) and Amy Orange (Chapter 4) has the PCK to advocate for the building of trusting relationships as critical to this. Similarly, for teaching and learning reflexivity, David Higgins and Ali Rostron (Chapter 11) stress the importance of dialogue, of knowing students and students knowing themselves; they reflect on the ways in which drawing can serve as a reflexive tool in the research methods classroom. Kathryn Roulston and Bridgette Heron (Chapter 13) show their extensive PCK regarding the teaching of qualitative interviewing in response to students’ needs to ‘slow down, relax and enjoy the experience’ (p. 186), to learn how to pose clear questions, follow up, cope with the unexpected, sensitive topics and their own responses. For Leona Vaughn (Chapter 28), ‘developing learning tools for social research which approach safeguarding as research praxis’ (p. 416) forms the foundation of a teaching framework for promoting ‘anticolonial’ research. Equally, she argues, developing underpinning knowledge is necessary so that educators and researchers seeking to ‘decolonise’ research are supported to be able to reflect and see the harm. Among mixed methods teacher-researchers there is recognition of the complexity of the subject matter to be taught and learned (Creswell et al., 2003; Hesse-Biber, 2015). Nataliya Ivankova and Vicki Plano Clark (Chapter 7) appreciate the necessary content knowledge in arguing for ‘a solid knowledge base about mixed methods research, its theoretical premises, methodological principles, and procedures’ (p. 92). They use their PCK to translate various

10  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods mixed methods viewpoints and practices via their tactical choice of textbook reading and concepts and perspectives for discussion. Rebecca Johnson and Marie Murphy (Chapter 8) note that ‘Pedagogically, the teaching of mixed methods is still developing’ (p. 107), making the shared PCK less mature. Nonetheless, recognising the challenges that teaching mixed methods introduces, and the level of confidence that learners need in order to examine their assumptions from multiple perspectives ahead of integrating methods and data, Johnson and Murphy use the concept of threshold concepts in their translation of content. For teachers of quantitative and statistical methods, the distinctive PCK (Nind, 2019) concerns translating technical language into accessible or visual language (Vogt and Johnson, 2011; Wild et al., 2017), structuring the linear process and logics and developing workbook material for practice (Lewthwaite, 2021), as well as addressing any statistics anxiety (Ralston, 2020). Adam Rock and colleagues (Chapter 20) show their developing PCK in addressing these in the online environment, thereby lightening the challenge for teachers and learners alike. Steve Cook and Duncan Watson (Chapter 18) focus on the challenges as part of quantitative skills development and address the role of PCK in choosing which technology to use, when and how. PCK for teaching online has become a massive focus since the COVID-19 pandemic and the Handbook has much to offer here. Adam Rock and colleagues (Chapter 20) make important distinctions between what we need to know for teaching (quantitative and statistical) methods online as a response to crisis and teaching methods online as a carefully measured approach. Maja Miskovic and Jamie Kowalczyk (Chapter 16) focus on the pandemic and, in their case, how it has altered teaching of qualitative methods to professional doctorate students. Kathryn Roulston and Bridgette Herron (Chapter 13) move between teaching interviewing in person and online, illustrating how PCK can cross contexts. Cheryl Hunter, Tamara Hoffer and Joshua Hunter (Chapter 14) illustrate the PCK needed to ensure online learning of qualitative research methods is dynamic, participatory and reciprocal. For this they adapt the Community of Inquiry model (Akyol and Garrison, 2011), appreciating the fit with the pedagogic challenge. Christina Silver and colleagues (Chapter 22) work sequentially, first considering the challenges of integrating the teaching of qualitative data analysis and CAQDAS-packages in offline contexts before moving to online contexts, where the PCK shifts a little. They note too that expertise in teaching qualitative data analysis predates CAQDAS and teaching online; the direction of travel has brought additional pedagogic challenges, some ubiquitous to online teaching and learning, some distinct to the subject matter. They illustrate the technological assets and deeper insights into pedagogic use of different kinds of spaces that are needed alongside existing PCK.

ONGOING DELIBERATIONS IN RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Alongside the practical guidance, research evidence and reflective insights, the Handbook sheds light on many of the ongoing deliberations around research methods pedagogy. For example, while there is ready acceptance of active learning in teaching research methods across the paradigms, there are many options for combining this with experiential learning, for making it student-centred and collaborative (Nind and Katramadou, 2022). The Handbook shows the potential for combining approaches, embedding active learning at the programme

Introduction to the Handbook  11 level (Clark and Foster, Chapter 9), and retaining active learning when teaching online (Cook and Watson, Chapter 19). Similarly, the Handbook makes a contribution to ongoing deliberations about how to operationalise experiential learning approaches in research methods education. Our recent systematic review showed how drama (Chen, 2016) and photographs (Patka, Miyakuni and Robbins, 2017) were being used to support the engagement of learners of social research methods in critical reflection on their experiences with data/research, and the Handbook adds to this the use of drawing (Coverdale et al., Chapter 26; Higgins and Rostron, Chapter 11). There are additions too, to discussions of how to make optimal use of, and give real value to, learners’ prior experience and learning, their positionality and standpoints (e.g., Brown et al., Chapter 16; García Iriarte et al., Chapter 25; Hunter et al., Chapter 15; Orange, Chapter 4). It was more unusual for the systematic review (Nind and Katramadou, 2022) to unearth discussions of pedagogic approaches for postcolonial/decolonising methods, for feminist research or designed to fit post-qualitative inquiry. The pedagogies and deliberations here are relatively fresh and exploratory. It was this that led me to invite Kelly Guyotte, Candace Kuby, Jennifer Wolgemuth and Leona Vaughn as contributors who could add critical and theoretical perspectives, helping to give the Handbook a cutting edge on the state of the art of research methods pedagogy. It is my heartfelt view that teaching and learning research methods should not be the low point of the week for teachers and learners as Daniel’s (2018) survey suggests it can be. We have the tools, the knowledge, the insights here to make the opposite true. We can learn much from the people working across challenging and informal contexts and from the exceptional and everyday practices shared in this volume. And we can build our pedagogical culture and field.

REFERENCES Akyol, Z. and Garrison, D.R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250. Becker, K.L. and Renger, R. (2017). Suggested guidelines for writing reflective case narratives: Structure and indicators. American Journal of Evaluation, 38(1), 138–150. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2016). (Mis)conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with fugard and potts’ (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(6), 739–743. Chen, X. (2016). Challenges and strategies of teaching qualitative research in China. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(2), 72–86. Creswell, J.W., Tashakkori, A., Jensen, K.D. and Shapley, K.L. (2003). Teaching mixed methods research: Practices, dilemmas, and challenges. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 619–637). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Daniel, B.K. (2018). Contestable professional academic identity of those who teach research methodology. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(5), 548–561. Dawson, C. (2016). 100 Activities for Teaching Research Methods. London: Sage. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think (rev ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath. Earley, M.A. (2014). A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 242–253. Garner, M., Wagner, C. and Kawulich, B. (Eds.) (2009). Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences. Farnham: Ashgate.

12  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Garrison, R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in high education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Hammersley, M. (2004). Teaching qualitative method: Craft, profession, or bricolage? In C. Seale, G. Gobo and D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 549–560). London: Sage. Healey, M. and Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. York: Higher Education Academy. Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). The problems and prospects in the teaching of mixed methods research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 463–477. Hsiung, P.C. (2016). Teaching qualitative research as transgressive practices: Introduction to the special issue. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(2), 59–71. Hurworth, R.E. (2008). Teaching Qualitative Research: Cases and Issues. Rotterdam: Sense. Ivankova, N.V. (2010). Teaching and learning mixed methods research in computer-mediated environment: Educational gains and challenges. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(1), 49–65.  Kellett, M. (2005). How to Develop Children as Researchers: A Step-by-Step Guide to Teaching the Research Process. London: Paul Chapman. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. Lewthwaite, S. (2021) Case studies in research methods pedagogy – Teaching computational statistics through active learning.  https://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​id/​eprint/​4463/​ Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. McClish-Boyd, K. and Bhattacharya, K. (2021). Endarkened narrative inquiry: A methodological framework constructed through improvisations. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 34(6), 534–548. Nind, M. (2019). A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: Teaching advanced social science research methods. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 185–201. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018a). Hard to teach: Inclusive pedagogy in social science research methods education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1), 74–88. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018b). Methods that teach: Developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(4), 398–410. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2020). A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 467–487. Nind, M. and Katramadou, A. (2022). Lessons for teaching social science research methods in higher education: Synthesis of the literature 2014–2020. British Journal of Educational Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00071005.2022.2092066. Nind, M., Holmes, M., Insenga, M., Lewthwaite, S. and Sutton, C. (2020). Student perspectives on learning research methods in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(7), 797–811. Nind, M., Kilburn, D. and Luff, R. (Eds.) (2017). The Teaching and Learning of Social Research Methods. London: Routledge. Nind, M., Kilburn, D. and Wiles, R. (2015). Using video and dialogue to generate pedagogic knowledge: Teachers, learners and researchers reflecting together on the pedagogy of social research methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 561–576. Patka, M., Miyakuni, R. and Robbins, C. (2017). Experiential learning: Teaching research methods with photovoice. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 9(2), DOI:10.7729/92.1183. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Ralston, K. (2020). ‘Sociologists shouldn’t have to study statistics’: Epistemology and anxiety of statistics in sociology students. Sociological Research Online, 25(2), 219–235. Swaminathan, R. and Mulvihill, T.M. (2018) Teaching Qualitative Research: Strategies for Engaging Emerging Scholars. New York: The Guildford Press. Vogt, W.P. and Johnson, R.B. (2011). Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences. New York: Sage.

Introduction to the Handbook  13 Wagner, C., Garner, M. and Kawulich, B. (2011). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: Towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 75–88. Wild, C.J., Pfannkuch, M., Regan, M. and Parsonage, R. (2017). Accessible conceptions of statistical inference: Pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps. International Statistical Review, 85(1), 84–107. Wyse, D., Brown, C., Oliver, S. and Poblete, X. (2020). Education research and educational practice: The qualities of a close relationship. British Educational Research Journal, 46(5), 1111–1130.

PART I TEACHING AND LEARNING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS IN THE CLASSROOM

2. Research literacy and the relationship between research and teaching: the case of research about teaching about research1 Martyn Hammersley

INTRODUCTION This chapter examines the contribution of pedagogical research to the teaching of research methods against the background of longstanding debates about the relationship between educational research and practice. One aspect of that relationship is the degree and kind of ‘research literacy’ required on the part of teachers. After outlining different conceptions of the relationship between research and educational practice, I draw on my own experience as a teacher of research methods to reflect on the complexities of the relationship in this particular field. The discussion highlights problems surrounding what ‘research literacy’ means, and suggests that there are additional barriers to the use of research by educational practitioners. I conclude that the practical contribution research can make to teaching research methods may be rather more limited and uncertain than is widely assumed. And this has implications for the role of educational research more generally.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND PRACTICE It has long been argued that professions are, by their nature, based on distinctive bodies of research knowledge. In the case of teaching there are two aspects to this: the subject knowledge and skills to which students are to be introduced; and pedagogical knowledge about how best to teach this knowledge or to bring about the desired forms of learning (see Nind, 2020). The contribution of research to the first of these aspects is usually relatively uncontroversial, but that is certainly not true of the second. Here, the nature of the contribution that research can make has been the focus for much disagreement and discussion. (For an interesting historical and theoretical discussion of these two aspects of professional knowledge in teaching, see Shulman, 1986. A somewhat similar distinction can be found in medicine and law, and this is sometimes treated as showing their character as both sciences and arts: their scientific basis is medical or legal knowledge, whereas how best to deal with patients or to win cases in court is an art. In these terms, evidence-based medicine was aimed at rendering the artistic element scientific.) An influential view of the contribution of research in recent times has been the idea that practice should be ‘evidence-based’, with research (of a specific kind) supplying evidence about the effectiveness of particular pedagogical techniques. (However, as Shulman’s 1986 discussion illustrates, this conception of the role of research in relation to teaching 15

16  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods long predates the evidence-based practice movement.) In its strongest form the notion of evidence-based practice requires that professionals should only use those techniques that have been shown to be effective by research. And it has sometimes been argued that the evidence about effectiveness must come from experimental research – in particular, from randomised controlled trials, findings from these being synthesised in systematic reviews. This is what I will call the classical model of evidence-based practice, which arose out of evidence-based medicine (Hammersley, 2013). Over time this classical model was liberalised in some quarters: what could count as research evidence was broadened; and a more mediated, and therefore weakened, relationship came to be assumed between research and practice. This has sometimes been graced with the label ‘evidence-informed practice’, and that label indicates how far the initial, apparently very strong, claims about the role of research are being watered down. After all, who would argue that teaching should not be evidence-informed? In practice, though, there is frequently flip-flopping between the classical and the more liberal conception of the role of evidence in relation to practice. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the evidence-based medicine movement there was sophistication on the part of some advocates about the use of research evidence by practitioners. A stereotype of what I have called the classical model has research findings telling practitioners ‘what works’ and what does not work, and therefore what they ought and ought not to do. This interpretation was reinforced when the notion of evidence-based practice was incorporated into the sorts of quality assurance systems characteristic of ‘new public management’; these systems were seen as making discretionary action on the part of practitioners vulnerable to bureaucratic or legal challenge. Yet some early advocates of evidence-based medicine had emphasised that clinicians must assess any research evidence in terms of both its validity and its relevance to the particular cases they are dealing with; treatment decisions necessarily being a matter of judgment. Furthermore, some effort was made to provide clinicians with the necessary background knowledge about research for this process of assessment to be possible (see, Greenhalgh, 2014; Straus, Glasziou, Richardson et al., 2019). In short, there was a concern with enhancing their research literacy, so that they could understand, evaluate, and use research evidence about the effectiveness of clinical techniques to improve their practice. Moreover, it was often recognised that this evidence had to be blended with other sorts of information and understanding that arose out of professional experience. In the field of education, attention to the need for research literacy initially arose in a rather different way: from schoolteachers being encouraged to carry out research. It had long been the case that some teachers had taken courses concerned with doing educational research. But they were a small minority and, very often, this was part of their transition from being schoolteachers to academics involved in teacher education. However, in the 1970s, in the UK and elsewhere, there was an action research movement that was specifically designed to enable teachers to carry out investigations in their own classrooms (Elliott, 1991; Pine, 2008). This required them to be introduced to some elements of research methodology. And this idea was revived in the wake of the evidence-based practice movement, with teachers being encouraged to do research and submit it to ‘what works’ clearinghouses. Much more recently, ‘close-to-practice’ research has been promoted, this again designed to involve schoolteachers in the production and use of research evidence (Wyse et al., 2021a). Looking across these developments, we find considerable variation both in ideas about the nature of research and in conceptions of its relationship to practice, the latter often reflecting differing views about the nature of education. There are also significant divergences in

Research literacy and the relationship between research and teaching  17 assumptions about what, and how much, teachers need to know about research methodology – in short, what level and kind of research literacy is required on their part. For instance, must any research they carry out meet normal academic standards? Should the standards be different for teacher research? Or do conventional standards themselves need revising? (For some discussion relating to this, see Furlong and Oancea, 2005; Hammersley, 2008; Oancea and Furlong, 2007) The example of classroom action research is useful for illustrating variation in assumptions about both research and education. Several versions of this have been proposed: 1. There is what might be called means-focused action research, concerned with finding solutions to immediate practical problems so as to improve the effectiveness of current forms of teaching. There are some parallels here with the evidence-based practice model, except that the research is rarely strictly experimental, and is often qualitative in character (see, for instance, Hustler, Cassidy and Cuff, 1986). 2. Action research concerned with investigating what should be taught as well as how it is to be taught. An example would be Stenhouse’s (1975) notion of the teacher as researcher. Included in the focus here are the assumptions on which curriculum and pedagogy are based, and there is also often an emphasis on understanding the perspectives of children and students. (For an assessment of Stenhouse’s arguments, see Hammersley, 1993; and for a sceptical view of action research more generally see Hammersley, 2004a). 3. Action research concerned with the professional and personal development of individual teachers, for example through the development of ‘living educational theories’ (Whitehead, 1989). 4. ‘Critical’ action research focused on discovering ways of bringing about socio-political change, this being seen as an essential prerequisite for improving education. This research is primarily concerned with the ways in which schooling functions within society, how this is realised through classroom processes, and how change can be generated (see Carr and Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis, 1988). To one degree or another, all of these versions of action research continue to have influence, particularly in the context of education courses in universities. Indeed, despite the earlier role of networks of practising schoolteachers engaging in research, most action research has been carried out by students doing higher degrees in education. By contrast, the proportion of schoolteachers engaging in independent research, or for that matter drawing on published educational research in any sustained way, is probably relatively small. Unlike the classical notion of evidence-based practice, much action research prioritised qualitative methods. And, very often, this reflected a different conception of the relationship between research and practice. As we have seen, while some action research was technical, in the sense of being aimed at finding solutions to classroom problems, much of it was equally or more concerned with reflecting on aims, or with pursuing emancipation from cognitive or institutional constraints arising from the wider society. Furthermore, education was conceived not so much as a matter of acquiring knowledge and skills, even less as passing tests and examinations, but more as producing a deep or broad understanding of the world, enabling the discovery of what is worthwhile in life, or facilitating ‘self-realisation’ or ‘social change’. However, there has often been some ambiguity or even ambivalence here. For example, the recently promoted notion of ‘close-to-practice’ educational research seems to lean towards the technical model, but its promoters deny this (Hordern, 2021; Parsons, 2021; Wyse et al., 2021a

18  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Table 2.1

Three models of the role of research in relation to teaching

Engineering Model

Strong Enlightenment Model

Moderate Enlightenment Model

Focus on documenting facts about the

Focus on understanding situations within

Research supplies practitioners with

effectiveness of pedagogy

the context of a comprehensive theoretical resources of potential use that are diverse framework

in character, from specific facts to theoretical ideas

Methods of research must be capable of

Concerned with evaluating existing

The assumption is that these may help

providing such facts

situations and policies with a view to

practitioners to make sense of situations

bringing about personal or political

and of their own practice in ways that

change

enable them to improve it

Teaching is conceived as the adoption or

Teaching/education may be viewed as

There are no assumptions built into

refinement of pedagogical techniques that

a process of emancipation from error or

the research about what constitutes

will serve the intended learning goals

constraint

educational improvement: this is for practitioners and stakeholders to decide

and b). There is clearly an issue about which conceptions of teaching and education are compatible with which conceptions of research; but there is, nevertheless, considerable flexibility. It is also worth giving some attention to the parallel development and influence of the notion of reflective practice (McLaughlin, 1999; Schön, 1983, 1987; Zeichner, 1994). This arose precisely out of the sense that there was a large gap between the knowledge produced in universities, taught as part of professional education, and what practitioners needed to know, and more especially how they needed to think, in order to do their work well. In one version, teaching was seen as a craft whose improvement depended primarily upon the adoption of a reflective attitude, both in the midst of practice and subsequently in thinking about what went well and what went wrong, as well as what to do in the future. However, like action research, reflective practice came to be academicised to a considerable degree, being incorporated into education courses (and ones in other professional areas too, such as nursing). And in these contexts, especially, it was often argued that reflection on action should draw on the results of educational research; this research usually taking an ‘interpretive’ or ‘critical’ form. Against this background, one way of conceptualising variation in how the research-teaching relationship can be viewed is to contrast ‘engineering’, ‘enlightenment’, and ‘craft’ models. (For discussion and references dealing with the engineering and enlightenment models, see Hammersley, 2002, Chapter 2; on teaching as a craft, in the context of teaching qualitative research methods, see Hammersley, 2004b.) In the engineering model research is treated as determining what are effective means for achieving pre-given goals. The evidence-based practice model, but also some varieties of action research and close-to-practice inquiry, clearly approximate to this. The enlightenment model is more complex and variable in what it involves: we can distinguish between a stronger and a more moderate version. The first treats research as producing a theoretical perspective in terms of which practice can be reconceptualised and transformed. ‘Critical’ action research would be an example, perhaps also Whitehead’s (1989) notion of ‘living educational theory’. The second, ‘moderate’, version of the enlightenment model treats research as providing resources that can be used by practitioners, who are assumed to operate more or less in the manner of reflective practice. However, as I hinted, there are versions of the latter that treat teaching as a craft, and here little or no role is allowed for research: the notion of communities of practice centred on apprenticeship would be more relevant (Lave and Wenger, 1991).

Research literacy and the relationship between research and teaching  19 Table 2.1 summarises features of the three models that do treat research as having a role in relation to practice. All three of these models assume some notion of research literacy, but what this comprises can vary quite sharply. It also makes a difference, of course, whether teachers are assumed only to be ‘consumers’ of research findings or are to carry out investigations themselves. In addition, some commentators see the importance of research literacy as offering teachers a means to evaluate critically the official ‘guidance’ about best practice to which they are increasingly subjected, this being at least purportedly based on research (see Boyd, 2022). In the remainder of this chapter I will focus on the role that research about teaching research methods can play in teaching research methods. This will enable us to examine issues surrounding research literacy in more detail, as regards both its nature and its significance for the relationship between research and teaching.

THE PECULIAR CASE OF RESEARCH ABOUT TEACHING ABOUT RESEARCH At face value at least, the issue of research literacy does not arise as a problem in this case: those who teach research methods can surely be assumed to have sufficient knowledge and skill to understand and assess research findings (see Hammersley, 2016). Given this, the way is open for them to make use of research in improving their practice, in a way that may not be true for other types of teachers. At the same time, this case reveals some of the complexities involved in what constitutes research literacy, since the task here (in part at least) is precisely to generate research literacy on the part of students. I have spent much of my career teaching research methods, across several types of courses, many of these involving students who were teachers. And in what follows I will draw on this experience. I hasten to add, however, that I have few illusions about my own abilities as a teacher. Furthermore, I am on record as doubting whether it is possible to teach social research methods well today (Hammersley, 2012). Courses introducing students to social research methodology have grown hugely in number since the early 1970s, when I began my career. They have changed in character as well, in several respects. For one thing, originally they were intended to enable students to do their masters’ level or PhD projects, and this was usually within quite narrowly-defined and coherent disciplines. However, with the expansion and fragmentation of the psychological and social sciences, a growing emphasis on interdisciplinarity, an emerging commitment to produce ‘generic’ social scientists who are capable of using the full range of methods, and an emphasis on a broad need for research literacy, the character and assumed needs of the student body have diversified considerably. This clearly has implications for what should be taught on research methods courses; in other words, for the content of ‘research literacy’. What is Research Literacy? From the beginning it was recognised that teaching research methods involved some difficulties. One main concern centred on how to facilitate students’ understanding of statistical analysis since, early on, the use of this was generally deemed to be essential. Another issue was how to encourage students (perhaps especially those who were or had been occupational

20  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods practitioners in the area they were investigating) to adopt the objective attitude required for a research perspective, avoiding their tendency immediately to evaluate what was being investigated in terms of existing attitudes. The first of these problems eased over time, not so much because of growing skill in teaching statistics (though this certainly occurred) but because quantitative analysis came to play a less central role in research methods courses, occasionally not being included at all. Equally important, the task was facilitated by the availability of computer packages, so that students no longer needed to know the formulae for various statistical tests and how to calculate the results. These changes did not mean that the problem disappeared, but it became less salient. At the same time, another problem grew in difficulty. In the 1960s and early 1970s courses included, at most, only a very brief introduction to the philosophical ideas taken to underpin social and educational research. However, with the rise of qualitative methods – which often challenged quantitative research on ontological, epistemological, and/or axiological grounds – this was no longer adequate. Students had to be introduced to the debates at the centre of the ‘paradigm wars’ (Gage, 1989; Guba, 1990) that were taking place. Furthermore, the subsequent fragmentation of qualitative research itself, again on ‘philosophical’ grounds, has exacerbated this problem. Just as some students struggle with statistics, many also have great difficulty in grasping philosophical ideas and their relevance to social research. This complicated an inherent problem about coverage: what range of approaches and topics should be included in research methodology courses, and in what detail? Decisions have to be made regarding how much to concentrate on ‘the basics’ versus introducing students to broader or more advanced matters. For example, do students need to know what ‘multiple regression’, ‘structural equation modelling’, and ‘factor analysis’ involve? Or must they simply understand that we can try to identify what causes what, or what is associated with what, by comparing variation in relevant factors across and within cases?2 Do they have to understand the mathematical proof behind the chi-squared test, or ‘just’ when and how to use it? And should they be introduced to the debates about the misuse of significance testing (Morrison and Henkel, 1970; Oakes, 1986)? (Aside from the practical aspect of student need, there is also a question about whether some of the advanced statistical techniques employed are legitimate given the nature of social science data. Another issue is whether the focus on numeracy obscures a more fundamental problem of academic literacy: see Hammersley, 2014.) Equally important, what about the balance in coverage between quantitative and qualitative methods? Furthermore, do students need to know what it means to adopt a realist approach to qualitative research (Maxwell, 2011) or can we assume that they will be realists by default? If so, should this be challenged? And what about constructionism, postmodernism, and ‘new materialisms’: do students need to know about these? Should some methodological ideas or approaches be excluded; if so, on what grounds? Also at issue here, of course, is what students are capable of: what level of background knowledge and skills do they have, and what can they reasonably be expected to acquire during a course? Crucial here, in part, are their prior levels of numeracy and capacities for philosophical thinking. Might a little learning (superficial or even inaccurate) about some matters be worse than none at all? It may seem that such judgments would vary depending on whether the aim is to prepare students to carry out research themselves or simply to enable them to read and understand research reports. In my experience, though, this makes less difference than might be expected. For example, if one is committed to helping students understand published quantitative research, some means must be found of informing them not just about the basics but also about

Research literacy and the relationship between research and teaching  21 a range of quite advanced statistical techniques, since these are widely used in the literature. Similarly, for reasons already explained, understanding qualitative research today requires that one grasps difficult philosophical ideas, or at least has some understanding of terms like ‘epistemology’ and ‘ontology’ (which are frequently deployed as if their meanings were obvious and unproblematic). Much more significant, I suggest, is the question of whether one is preparing students to be generic researchers or whether the task is to facilitate their work on a particular research project, such as their own PhD work. Even this is a dimension rather than a dichotomy, in practice, particularly as a result of increased emphasis on the employability of PhD students. It should be clear from this that the concept of research literacy is complex and its content and character are contentious. Of course, the source notion of literacy is itself problematic. When I was learning Russian as a teenager, did the fact that I could read out loud a passage with relatively flawless pronunciation mean that I was literate in Russian; even though I did not always understand what I was reading? (Today I cannot even pronounce the words correctly, indicating that even at this basic level literacy is not a permanent acquisition!) Similar issues arise in the case of young children learning to read. Judgments have to be made about degrees and kinds of literacy. It is not surprising, then, that the same is true of research literacy. The Contribution of Pedagogical Research to Research Methods Teaching As I noted earlier, while lack of research literacy could be a barrier to the use of research for many teachers, this should not be the case with teachers of research methods: as researchers themselves, it might reasonably be assumed that they are sufficiently research literate to make use of pedagogical research relevant to their teaching, and indeed to carry out such research. Yet, I suggest, this sort of research seems to play little role in relation to most teaching of research methods. Certainly, up to now this field has been little influenced by what I referred to earlier as the classical model of evidence-based practice: I know of no randomised controlled trials. Furthermore, most of the literature consists of accounts by research methods teachers of problems they have faced and strategies they have employed to deal with them (Earley, 2014; Nind and Katramadou, 2022). Moreover, even the third-party research that has taken place (that is, research carried out on others’ practice) has often been more concerned with documenting teachers’ experiences and views, or with developing these through dialogue, than with investigating or assessing the effectiveness of their practices (see, e.g., Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016a; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018; Nind et al., 2015. Interestingly, Earley (2009) applies the notion of reflective practice to the learning of research methods, while Roth (2009) emphasises the role of apprenticeship.). In line with this, a central theme in much of this literature has been the need for a pedagogic culture: the belief that teachers of research methods should engage in more sustained discussion with one another about how best to do their work (see Garner et al., 2009; Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014; Nind, Kilburn and Luff, 2016; Wagner, Garner and Kawulich, 2011). For the most part, the focus has been on the practical value of different strategies, with a strongly student-centred emphasis: in other words, the concern has been with ‘pedagogical content knowledge’ (Nind, 2020). (This is illustrated by summary guidance provided on the basis of a major piece of pedagogical research: see Lewthwaite and Nind, 2015, 2016b; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2015.) This is an important topic, but as I have emphasised there are deep

22  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods divisions among social researchers about the goal of social inquiry and what forms it should (and should not) take, and these surely affect the aims of teaching research methods. The only pedagogical issue related to this that has been given much attention, as far as I can see, is whether teachers should induct students into their own adopted approach, or introduce them to the range of approaches in the field so as to enable them to decide for themselves which one to select. The latter is probably the predominant orientation, but there is also a more pragmatic approach whose recommendation is that methods be selected according to their fitness for purpose. This is especially common on the part of advocates of ‘mixing methods’: of combining quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis. But there is a danger here that students will remain unaware that some of the assumptions on which they are relying in their work are highly contentious among fellow researchers. A side point worth mentioning is that some of the literature on teaching research methods, as with educational research more generally, seems to be ‘mission-oriented’: a conception of what is good practice is presupposed, and part of the aim is to persuade others to bring their practice into line with it. For example, considerable emphasis is placed on student engagement, with more didactic forms of teaching being discouraged. (A recent book – Dawson, 2016 – exemplifies this emphasis on activities.) There are at least two arguments in support of this. First, a claim that ‘active engagement’ motivates students, with motivation obviously essential for learning. Second, that active engagement leads to deeper forms of understanding. While I have sympathy with this emphasis, and have often used activities and projects in courses, students obviously do need to acquire a considerable body of knowledge, and it may often be more effective, or efficient, to present this knowledge more didactically; nor does this necessarily imply a lack of ‘involvement’. Equally important to note, activities do not always lead to the learning that was intended; indeed, I would say that some types frequently do not do so for many students (see Hammersley, 2019). Why does third-party research evidence play so small a role in the teaching of research methods? This may arise from inertia and laziness, of course, or from time pressures. But, over and above this, I think there are some genuine problems about the usability of research findings for teaching, in this field as in others. This is especially obvious if we think in terms of the engineering model. A key problem here is that teaching rarely involves deploying standardised techniques, on analogy with dispensing specially prepared medicines. (See Nind and Lewthwaite’s, 2020, attempt to distinguish approaches, strategies, and tactics.) Instead, there is flexibility and variability in how teachers use any particular pedagogical strategy in presenting material to students, trying to shape their learning, or helping them to acquire skills and practical wisdom. This flexibility and variability is largely produced by the interactional character of the teacher-student relationship: teachers must adapt to the particular students they are dealing with, and to how particular teaching sessions progress. This certainly affects any attempt to carry out randomised controlled trials, and exacerbates the problem of generalising from research findings: what ‘works’ in one situation will not necessarily ‘work’ in another (Cartwright, 2007). But, even if we adopt a broader view of the sort of research that could be of value in informing practice, this issue of applying the findings to new situations still arises. Furthermore, variation in views about the nature of social research, and in the aims of teaching about research methods, means that any notion of what ‘works’ or does not ‘work’ is open to dispute. Finally, we should note a tension between the concern of research with what is true, and the preoccupation of practitioners with what will be useful in

Research literacy and the relationship between research and teaching  23 their teaching. What is true is not always useful, and what is false or a matter of faith may be useful – a point made a long time ago by William James (1897). For these reasons, in terms of the models of the relationship between research and practice I identified earlier, it would seem that, at best, research can only play the sort of role outlined by the moderate enlightenment model. Indeed, some will argue that teaching is closer to a craft, so that research can make even less of a contribution. (Much the same can be said about research itself – ironically, this too is not usually ‘evidence-based’: see Hammersley, 2013, Chapter 3.) It might be added that, if we researchers do not view the engineering and strong enlightenment models as applying to our own teaching – indeed, if we assume that research can make only a relatively modest contribution to this, at best – perhaps we need to moderate our claims about the contribution that research can make to others’ practice, and to policymaking? I suggest that our failure to engage in much systematic third-party research on how we teach research methods reflects a more realistic assessment of the practical value of social research than the grand claims we sometimes make for it (see Hammersley, 2015).

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY In this chapter I began by outlining the history of ideas about the relationship between research and teaching: from more recent notions of evidence-based practice to conceptions of action research and reflective practice. I noted that even though the currently predominant model is a technical or engineering one, both in terms of the conceptualisation of research and of teaching, in principle there is considerable scope for variation in how the nature of both are understood. And this clearly has implications for the relationship between them, and for the notion of research literacy. I used the peculiar case of research about teaching about research to illustrate some of the difficult issues involved. What is peculiar about this case is that, at face value at least, here research literacy on the part of teachers is not an issue. Indeed, the aim of teaching in this field is, to a large extent, precisely to produce research literacy on the part of students. But the host of complexities and disagreements about what should be taught, and how, reveal how problematic the notion of research literacy can be. Furthermore, I noted that most social researchers do not seem to have believed that their own teaching must be evidence-based, in the sense of being informed by third-party empirical research. The literature on research methods pedagogy is predominantly concerned with sharing experience and ideas, rather than testing the effectiveness of techniques, or even exploring practice through interpretive or ‘critical’ forms of inquiry. Furthermore, as far as one can tell, it does not seem to be widely used by teachers of research methods. (I have to admit that I have not made much use of it myself.) I suggested that this may reflect genuine issues about the relationship between what is true in general and how this relates to the particular situations that practitioners face, as well as the difference between what is true and what is useful. So, while I accept that the literature on teaching research methods can be of value in suggesting new strategies for teaching particular topics, or in throwing doubt on some of our assumptions about teaching, about our students, or about the wider contexts in which we work, I believe that pedagogical research is likely to have much more limited practical value for teaching about research methodology than is sometimes assumed. And this reflects a more pessimistic assessment of the practical relevance of research than is implied in many claims

24  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods made for the value of educational research more generally. My position is closest to a notion of reflective practice in which teachers draw selectively on research findings, but primarily on their own and others’ experience in order to clarify what is to be done, why, and how it can best be achieved. In short, while research may be an important resource for teachers, it is by no means the only valuable one, nor can it usually offer immediate solutions to the problems they face, whether these are practical difficulties or existential dilemmas.

NOTES 1 2

This chapter is based on a paper given at a workshop on Research Literacy in Education, Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo Metropolitan University, September 2022. That paper will appear in the journal Professions and Professionalism. I am thinking here, for example, of some of the basic techniques for ‘exploring data’ such as those outlined in Marsh 1988.

REFERENCES Boyd, P. (2022). Teachers’ research literacy as research-informed professional judgment. In P. Boyd, A. Szplit and Z. Zbróg (Eds.), Developing Teachers’ Research Literacy: International Perspectives. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Libron. Available at: DevelopingTeachersResearchLiteracy2022BoydSzplitBrogEds. pdf Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical. Lewes: Falmer Press. Cartwright, N. (2007). Are RCTs the gold standard? Biosocieties, 2(1), 11–20. Available at: (7) (PDF) Are RCTs the gold standard? (researchgate.net) Dawson, C. (2016). 100 Activities for Teaching Research Methods. London: Sage. Earley, M.A. (2009). Developing reflective researchers. In M. Garner, C. Wagner and B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 103–110). London: Ashgate. Earley, M.A. (2014). A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 242–253. Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Furlong, J. and Oancea, A. (2005). Assessing Quality in Applied and Practice-Based Educational Research: A Framework for Discussion. Oxford: Oxford Department of Educational Studies. Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A ‘historical’ sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10. Garner, M., Wagner, C. and Kawulich, B. (Eds.) (2009). Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: Ashgate. Greenhalgh, T. (2014). How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine, 5th ed. Chichester: Wiley/BMJ Books. Guba, E. (Ed.) (1990) The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park: Sage. Hammersley, M. (1993). On the teacher as researcher. Educational Action Research, 1(3), 425–445. (Reprinted in Hammersley, M. (Ed.), Educational Research: Current Issues. London: Paul Chapman/ Sage.) Hammersley, M. (2002). Educational Research, Policymaking and Practice. London: Paul Chapman/ Sage.  Hammersley, M. (2004a). Action research: A contradiction in terms? Oxford Review of Education, 30(2), 165–181. Hammersley, M. (2004b). Teaching qualitative method: Craft, profession, or bricolage? In C. Seale, G. Gobo and D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 549–560). London: Sage. Hammersley, M. (2008). Troubling criteria: A critical commentary on Furlong and Oancea’s framework for assessing educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 747–762.

Research literacy and the relationship between research and teaching  25 Hammersley, M. (2012). Is it possible to teach social research methods well today? Discussion paper presented at HEA Social Sciences Teaching and Learning Summit: Teaching Research Methods, University of Warwick, 21–22 June 2012. Available at: Microsoft Word – Hammersley_fullpaper (wordpress.com) Hammersley, M. (2013). The Myth of Research-Based Policy and Practice. London: Sage.  Hammersley, M. (2014). Statistics is not enough. Available at: statistics-is-not-enoughf.doc (live.com) Hammersley, M. (2015). The mis-selling of academic social science. Unpublished paper available at: the-misselling-of-social-sciencefinal-2-3.doc (live.com) Hammersley, M. (2016). Glossing inadequacies: Problems with definitions of key concepts in some methodology texts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(6), 731–737. Hammersley, M. (2019). Reflections on teaching research methods. Available at: reflections-on-teachin g-research-methodsfff.pdf (wordpress.com) Hordern, J. (2021). Why close to practice is not enough: Neglecting practice in educational research. British Educational Research Journal, 47(6), 1451–1465. Hustler, D., Cassidy, A. and Cuff, E.C. (Eds.) (1986). Action Research in Classrooms. London: Allen and Unwin. James, W. (1897). The will to believe. In The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green. (Reprinted in W. James, Selected Writings. London: Dent.) Kemmis, S. (1988). Action research. In J.P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational Research Methodology and Measurement (pp. 42–49). Oxford: Pergamon. (Reprinted in M. Hammersley (Ed.), Educational Research: Current Issues. London: Paul Chapman/Sage.) Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2015). The NCRM quick start guide to: Teaching advanced research methods.  http://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​3746/​ Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016a). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016b). The NCRM quick start guide to: three approaches used in research methods teaching.  http://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​4021/​ Marsh, C. (1988) Exploring Data: An Introduction to Data Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Polity. Maxwell, J. (2011). A Realist Approach for Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McLaughlin, T.H. (1999). Beyond the reflective teacher. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 31(1), 9–25. Morrison, D. E. and Henkel, R.E. (Eds.) (1970). The Significance Test Controversy. London: Butterworths. Nind, M. (2020). A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: Teaching advanced social science research methods. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 185–201. Nind, M. and Katramadou, A. (2022). Lessons for teaching social science research methods in higher education: Synthesis of the literature 2014–2020. British Journal of Educational Studies, https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1080/​00071005​.2022​.2092066 Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2015). The NCRM quick start guide to: Ten principles for effective pedagogy.  http://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​3766/​ Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018). Methods that teach: Developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 41(4), 398–410. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2020). A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 467–487. Nind, M., Kilburn, D. and Wiles, R. (2015). Using video and dialogue to generate pedagogic knowledge: Teachers, learners and researchers reflecting together on the pedagogy of social research methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 561–576. Nind, M., Kilburn, D. and Luff, R. (Eds.) (2017). The Teaching and Learning of Social Research Methods. London: Routledge.

26  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Oakes, M. (1986). Statistical Inference: A Commentary for the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Chichester: Wiley. Oancea, A. and Furlong, J. (2007). Expressions of excellence and the assessment of applied and practice-based research. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 119–137. Parsons, S. (2021). The importance of collaboration for knowledge co-construction in ‘close-to-practice’ research. British Educational Research Journal, 47(6), 1490–1499. Pine, G. (2008). Teacher Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Roth, W-M. (2009). Apprenticeship: Induction to research through praxis of method. In M. Garner, C. Wagner and B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 111–118). London: Ashgate. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. New York: Jossey-Bass. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Straus, S., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W.S. and Haynes, R.B. (2019). How to Practice and Teach Evidence-Based Medicine, 5th ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier. Wagner, C., Garner, M. and Kawulich, B. (2011). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: Towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 75–88. Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, how do I improve my practice? Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41–52. Wyse, D., Brown, C., Oliver, S. and Poblete, X. (2021a). Education research and educational practice: The qualities of a close relationship. British Educational Research Journal, 47(6), 1466–1489. Wyse, D., Brown, C., Oliver, S. and Poblete, X. (2021b). People and practice: Defining education as an academic discipline. British Educational Research Journal, 47(6), 1512–1521. Zeichner, K. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice in teaching and teacher education. In I. Calgren, G. Handal and S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ Minds and Actions: Research on Teachers’ Thinking and Practice (pp. 9–27). London: Falmer Press.

3. Feminist pedagogies: careful(l) ethics in teaching qualitative research methods Kelly W. Guyotte, Stephanie Anne Shelton and Maureen A. Flint

Since there is no clear entry point into this work, we begin with a conversation: a story of three feminist pedagogues and qualitative inquirers who take seriously the work of teaching qualitative research. We three have been collaborating as teachers and scholars for more than seven years, beginning even before Maureen started her doctoral studies, even before Kelly and Stephanie became official colleagues (or qualleagues, as we affectionately call one another). There is no clear genesis of where and how we began: it is a messy origin story, and we are okay with that. Over the past seven years and more, we have navigated within, and nonlinearly shifted through myriad roles: teacher, student, co-teacher, collaborator, co-researcher, colleague, friend…. Thus, the feminist pedagogical story we tell here starts in the before and ends in the not yet, a collapsing of pastpresentfutures, as we continue to think/write/create/research together, and as we explore the careful and carefull ethical practices that inspire and inform our teaching of qualitative research. The conversation that sparked the writing of this chapter happened on a Friday afternoon that was grey and rainy across our geographies. Nestled within our Zoom boxes, we zigzagged between narratives of care. Like Haraway’s (2016) string figures, we did what we often do, we passed stories back and forth, stories of teaching and of life. Through showing pets and sharing family pictures that made us smile with warmth, then speaking of teaching-related frustrations that tugged at our hearts, we came to discuss practices of care as they have been enacted pedagogically in our teaching of qualitative research, and the ways that care connects with theory. In this conversation, we followed care around (Ahmed, 2017). We considered how care wandered through our classrooms, through our engagements with students, all the while noting the ways that theory threaded those explorations together. We allowed ourselves to be surprised by care, especially when Stephanie asserted a time in her teaching when she did not care. We wondered together: Could not care actually be care? Could choosing to not care about problematic policies or marginalising expectations be a form of care – for students and ourselves? We also began to think about the differences between careful and carefull. Carefulness, we considered, is often problematically guided by formalised procedures such as policies and institutional review board guidelines, enacted solely as cautionary efforts to keep researchers accountable to institutional, organisational, and/or disciplinary structures. This juxtaposes with carefullness, which we see as an abundance of care spilling into and through our feminist work; that which is fluidly guided by our intimate connections, by the immanence of particular moments, and by the powerful scholarship on feminist ethics of care (Bozalek et al., 2021; Brannelly et al., 2015) that have sought to empower marginalised voices and reshape education. As we followed care/not care and careful/carefull, we asked more questions: What does it mean to care? What does care look like? What are the nuances of care in our teaching of qualitative inquiry? What does thinking with care make possible? How do the differences 27

28  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods between careful and carefull come to bear in our teaching? How do we enact an ethics of careful(l)ness in our pedagogies? How does thinking with and through theory inform care and careful(l)ness? Tugging at and examining these threads, tied to and with care, led us to these questions and others still. As we thought and shared, passing threads of conversation over and under to one another, we noted that we were weaving an understanding of care informed by feminist theories and pedagogies. We noted, just as fibres might be multicoloured, that ways that we read, understood, and enacted feminist theory and teaching were a kaleidoscope of possibility, often contextualised by students and institutions, but with care always at the seams, strengthening us and our pedagogical efforts. We recalled bell hooks’ (1994/2020, p. 61) assertion that ‘Theory is not inherently healing, liberatory, or revolutionary. It fulfils this function only when we ask that it do so’. With hooks, this chapter is inspired by conversation, questions, and theory; hooks notes that instructors grow pedagogically, empower students and themselves, and infuse teaching with joy when we choose ‘to be vulnerable’ with ourselves and others, about our teaching (p. 21). This chapter weaves in that personal vulnerability in a pedagogical engagement with feminist theory in our qualitative teaching; it is an exploration of how care for students, our discipline, one another, and ourselves manifests and becomes enacted. As feminist scholars and pedagogues, we think it only response-able to provide insight into what you can expect here. As you may have realised, this is not a traditional research methods book chapter. Taking up hooks’ (1994/2020) call to practice theory, not just talk about it, we ground our writing in varied feminist practices such as storytelling, disrupting temporality, and homework (Ahmed, 2017; Visweswaran, 1994). In doing so, we speak from where we are located, from our ongoing work as feminist pedagogues, and we do so with emotion and carefullness. And we know that, in keeping with feminist practice, this work that we offer is not finished. We are becoming, together, in concert – not to become toward something – but rather, to stay in the muddle of doing, living, trying (not) to care. Thus, our writing reflects our in-between-ness, our becomings together, and we feel stays true to our feminist theory. In each section, we offer a provocation related to care, followed by individual narratives, and then write collectively to consider how those experiences have shaped being pedagogically careful(l). To centre personal experiences and communal considerations is to practise feminist theory; integrating feminist tenets in our writing reflects who we are pedagogically. Borrowing from Jackson and Mazzei (2012), we also ground this chapter in teaching with theory, which opens theory to particular ways of knowing and being, as well as congruent ethical positions within our classroom practices. To teach with theory is to allow theory to infuse how we teach, how we interact with students and one another, our pedagogies. Even through constructing this very paragraph, we think with feminist theory with the intent to show care to you, our reader. Feminism, then, is what we do through our research, our teaching, and our writing.

PROVOCATIONS OF CARE In what follows, we follow care and our conversations about care/carefulness/carefullness through four provocations that were generated through our storying of feminist qualitative pedagogies. We present this content in a dialogic manner, preserving the ways in which our individual pedagogical experiences and practices contribute to our collective thinking, staying

Feminist pedagogies  29 theoretically faithful to our valuing of storying as/in feminist inquiry. Thus, we think with and write with feminist theory. We begin with our first provocation: caring begins with not caring. Caring Begins With Not Caring Stephanie: bell hooks (1994/2020, p. 58) wrote that she ‘came to theory because I was hurting – the pain within me was so intense that I could not go on living’. I came to theory, and it hurt. Rough, abrasive, bruising pushes. Intimidating terminology, incomprehensible readings, condescending discussions. In a doctoral feminist pedagogy course, everything changed. I considered, for the first time, how theory might be something that ‘respects and cares for the souls of our students’ (hooks, 1994/2020, p. 13), rather than cowing them. I became careful(l) in my own teaching of theory and methodology as a result. I carefully emphasised ‘theory as a healing place’ for students (hooks, 1994/2020, p. 61), and celebrated students’ realisations that their hurts and fears found balm in research. Frameworks such as Black Feminist Thought (Collins, 2008), Feminist Theory (hooks, 1994/2020), and Queer Feminist Theories (Young, 2021) emphasised the value of their/our experiences and stories as critical to scholarship rather than detracting from it. I was carefull, intentionally full of care for students and myself, as I shared my own uncertainties and fears, choosing to be ‘vulnerable in the classroom, being wholly present’ (hooks, 1994/2020, p. 61) in an effort to humanise theory, qualitative methodologies, doctoral studies, them, and myself. Higher education sustains patriarchal norms by positioning the professor as objective, detached expert; it is a space ‘where knowledge and information continue to be presented in the conventionally accepted manner’ of teacher as sole expert, and pedagogy as something done to students rather than enacted with them (hooks, 1994/2020, p. 143). I did not care for these norms, and these norms did not offer care to students. Offering honest, open discussion of my own failures and uncertainties was ‘really scary’ (p. 143) while also disruptive and liberating. Theory ceased to be esoteric and elitist, because we engaged with concepts together. In doing so, we did not care about academic norms or traditional teaching; instead, we embraced the notion that ‘any theory that cannot be shared in everyday conversation cannot be used’ in ways that empower students and support ethical, careful(l) research (hooks, 1994/2020, p. 64). Kelly: In my third year on the tenure track, I taught a readings course on post-qualitative inquiry (Guyotte et al., 2020). (Maureen, you were actually enrolled in the class. Do you remember?) At the time, I considered myself new to these theories, therefore, I felt tremendously anxious about being looked to as the ‘expert’. When I thought of the ways these theories push back against power, hierarchy, and binaries, I decided to position myself alongside the students as a learner. I told them during our first class meeting that I did not have all the answers – and that I had a lot of questions – and that we would muddle through it all together. I stopped caring about being the expert that I felt was necessary in a patriarchal academy and allowed myself to be vulnerable in that classroom like I had never before, staying pedagogically faithful to the complexities and fluidity of theories that we were all reading. Being carefull in that class profoundly affected how I thought (and think) about teaching/learning as entangling practices. hooks (1994/2020, p. 21) explains, Engaged pedagogy does not seek simply to empower students. Any classroom that employs a holistic model of learning will also be a place where teachers grow, and are empowered by

30  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods the process. That empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable while encouraging students to take risks. To not care was actually a radical shift of power toward feminist (em)powerment, and to be carefull pedagogically opened us all toward generative and necessary vulnerability as qualitative researchers. Maureen: On the topic of pushing back, it was my first year as a tenure-track faculty member when I was first told that I should consider not publishing with Kelly and Stephanie. It was well-meaning advice, built on the premise of the patriarchal academy that devalues connection and collaboration, where you achieve tenure based on the contributions you ostensibly make as a singular and individual scholar to your field. It was well-meaning advice, by mentors looking out for me, wanting me to succeed, to assimilate, to be legible to an academy that might look at our collaborations and wonder if I, as a former mentee and advisee of both Kelly and Stephanie, had actively contributed to our writing/publishing partnership, or if I was ‘riding on their coattails’. I remember having a gut reaction to this advice. It felt wrong, even though I knew it was ‘right’. To do away with this partnership to better fit in line with the expectations of a patriarchal academy seemed counter to the very work we were doing – the very ethic of feminist scholarship. Indeed, the work that began our first formal collaboration – a study of women doctoral students – had continually emphasised the role of relationships, of collaboration, of care-for-one-another (Flint et al., 2021; Guyotte et al., 2021; Shelton et al., 2019). To practice feminist care can be to not care – to not care about the structures of patriarchy, to work in opposition to them, to disregard them. Together: Through our respective considerations of the pedagogical provocation ‘Caring begins with not caring’, we notice several threads interwoven through these vignettes, which we pull apart here. Certainly, our feminist pedagogical practices led us to confront vulnerabilities. For Kelly and Stephanie, this meant embracing that the inquiry classroom can and perhaps should be a vulnerable space for teachers, mirroring the very vulnerability carried and experienced by the students with whom we engage(d). These vulnerabilities have the potential to disrupt power hierarchies among teacher/student, whereas care must shift from internally focused carefulness (what will they think of me?) to a collective and relational carefullness (how do we enact care together?). This shift manifests pedagogically, as we disrupt the hierarchical and often patriarchal norms of higher education to intentionally bring vulnerability and humanity into classroom content and interactions. Tightly connected to vulnerability, we see the notion of fear within this provocation. For Stephanie, carefullness meant sharing her fears with her students, for Kelly it meant pushing back against her fears of how her students perceived her, and for Maureen fear was what she responded to – another’s fear that publishing with Kelly and Stephanie would be an obstacle to her scholarly success. Interestingly, Maureen’s response to not care – to not heed well-meaning advice – was actively inspired by the feminist pedagogical relationship between her, Kelly, and Stephanie. As feminist pedagogues, we three made the choice to not care about the patriarchal norms of the academy through our work together, even as we see these norms and understand how they operate. We have, instead, opted toward vulnerability in our teaching, and we have embraced collaboration in our scholarship; both of which are not typical practices in an academy that teaches us to be careful about how we present ourselves as (solo) scholars and (expert) teachers. However, through enacting carefullness by not caring, we have and continue to seek ways to subvert such norms, staying true to our feminist pedagogical positionings.

Feminist pedagogies  31 Caring Begins With Being Care-full, Carefully Minding the Structures Maureen: This past summer I audited an online dialogue workshop as part of my work as a Sustained Dialogue Associate (https://​sustaineddialogue​.org/​). The workshop was geared toward training folks who were interested in leading dialogues in the future. The participants spent a lot of practice time leading dialogues and sharing facilitation strategies, and our debriefs zigzagged between the dialogues themselves and our own work as practitioners and faculty at universities across the country. It was during one of these debriefs that two of the lead facilitators for Sustained Dialogue shared how they had begun explicitly countering white supremacy culture in their work culture (Fitzgerald and Grenier, personal communication; Okun and Jones, 2001). For example, they shared how they had begun interrogating logics of urgency by having frank discussions about how long tasks would realistically take and finding ways to set flexible deadlines. This stuck with me. In the fall, I incorporated their ideas into my classes. As I introduced my hopes for each class and my teaching philosophy, I pulled up the Okun and Jones (2001) document to offer an explicit grounding in how I understood anti-racist teaching. I linked these pedagogical commitments to methodology, sharing that I felt these orientations were also in line with the tenets of critical qualitative inquiry, which is ‘concerned about existence, performance, and impact of power relations’ (Cannella, 2015, p. 7) and that seeks to ‘create our own standards of evaluation… that celebrate resistance, experimentation, and empowerment’ (Denzin, 2015, p. 33). I gave examples of some of the ways that I was thinking about these tenets in my teaching – orienting to assignments as ongoing dialogues and offering students options to revise and resubmit (countering logics of perfectionism). I sought ways to normalise extensions, and presented rubrics both as opportunities to talk about what we wanted to learn from the assignment and creating the option to edit them (an idea inspired by Kelly, countering power hoarding and paternalism). And I noted, and shared, and reminded students (and myself) that disrupting white supremacy and anti-racist pedagogy is a process, I have not figured this thing out. To care can also be about how we respond to and care for the structures we come up against. As Ahmed (2006, p. 2) writes, ‘The approach is not simply about the arrival of an object: it is also how we turn toward that object’. To care about these structures can be to refuse them, or acknowledging how one comes up against them, how one makes them continuously visible, how one negotiates and attends to how they are co-implicated with them. Stephanie: A year ago, a group of Black women doctoral students came to me to discuss their frustration with Eurocentrism prevailing in qualitative research. Given their and my long-time efforts to make scholarship something personally meaningful and empowering, we explored this concern and offered suggestions for ways that educators and the field might shift (Summerville et al., 2021). That work pushed me to re-examine my courses and how I might better and explicitly address these issues and not leave this work to students. Fall 2021 marked me starting every class inviting students to engage with me in a ‘pedagogy of refusal’ (Tuck and Yang, 2014, p. 811). This pedagogy explicitly asks students to mind the structures that shape their personal and academic experiences. In doing so, students and I enact a ‘refusal to ourselves and our students’ of various oppressive educational and social systems (Tuck and Yang, 2014, p. 811). This pedagogy centres the visibility of systems ‘that form the deep structures’ of discrimination and exclusion within qualitative research, such as the absence and tokenism of Black women and women of Colour (Summerville et al., 2021), so that students might see, refuse, and disrupt these structures (Tuck and Yang, 2014). This framework empowers students to object to pervasive whiteness and cisheteronormativity in academia, in qualitative research, and to refuse to participate in or perpetuate those norms. This semester, that looks like critiquing articles and special issues in key qualitative journals that clamour for racial justice while citing only white scholars, that call for

32  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods queer methods while being trans-exclusionary. This is careful(l) work to empower students to see and refuse oppression through everyday learning and in qualitative scholarship. Kelly: I have also spent time reflecting on my courses, which has led me to realise that I’ve failed. A lot. For each pedagogical failure, I try to step back and learn and grow. My goal is not to be so careful that I never fail again; rather, I aim to be so full of care that when I fail, I can turn it into an opportunity to improve my practice. As Ahmed (2017, p. 24) cautions, ‘You begin to learn that being careful, not having things like that happen to you, is a way of avoiding becoming damaged. It is for your own good’. To work within the structures of the academy means that we cannot become so caught up in cautious carefulness that we lose sight of the growth that occurs when we take risks, driven, instead, by an abundance of care (i.e., carefullness) for disrupting the status quo. Since I started teaching qualitative research, I have felt increasingly comfortable taking pedagogical risks, all under the guise of carefullness, though the process has been slow and sometimes painful. The pain is sometimes due to my own growth and insecurities, and it is sometimes due to the pushback I feel from others about what is deemed ‘safe’ and ‘acceptable’ to discuss in the qualitative classroom. Sometimes, it’s even from discomfort in implementing new practices that challenge what I have ‘always known’ or ‘always done’. For instance, I recently revised my attendance policy and, like Maureen, normalised the process of asking for extensions. The structures are always there, but the students help me decide how much carefulness is necessary in my classroom so I can move careful(l)y forward, with them, with the risks that are worth taking. For our own good. Together: As we each thought-with the provocation ‘Caring begins with being care-full, carefully minding the structures’, all three of us describe in varied ways, to borrow from Maureen, that we ‘have not figured this thing out’. Working with/through/against the structures of our institutions, our fields, and research as a whole, here, we each contemplated what those structures do with us, as well as what we do with them, pedagogically. Thus, we now turn to wonder, how can we disrupt the structures that impede our abilities to be anti-racist, inclusive, equitable, refusing, carefull pedagogues? How can we do this while we are of these very structures? Our pedagogical mistakes and failures become part of our very refusals. They dislodge us from our places in the structure, whether gently or violently, and shake us from our views of the inside so we can see and do things anew. Mistakes like unnecessary rigidity, unintentionally perpetuating inequities, failure to see how privilege operates are ones we don’t see, until we do. When we see finally these things, as feminist pedagogues, we have an ethical obligation to do something to change these structures, to refuse (within) them. For Maureen, this meant making her pedagogical commitments visible to her students, which she thoughtfully and carefully aligned with her methodological commitments as a critical qualitative scholar. Doing critical work necessitates both an awareness and critique of structures that oppress and suppress, practices Maureen pushes back against in methodology and pedagogy. In a similar way, Stephanie’s work with a group of Black women qualitative students resulted in a change of practice in which she now invites her students to engage in a pedagogy of refusal that minds existing structures, and empowers them all toward both methodological and pedagogical change. With Kelly, failure was an important part of how she became aware of structures, nudging her to continually consider and revise her pedagogical practices. Among all three of us, carefullness is enacted with our students, much like an invitation toward envisioning how feminist pedagogies can help us ‘do better’. We three realise that we are always just figuring this thing out, but that, in supporting one another and learning with/from our students, we are never alone in our journey.

Feminist pedagogies  33 Care in Our Curriculum Kelly: It strikes me as odd the way that ethics is often centred in our conversations of doing qualitative research; however, we so often neglect the concept of care in these discussions. This is magnified in my introduction to qualitative research class where students are confronted with their positivist perspectives about how one does research, thereby un-learning that there is, in fact, one way to do research and one way to think about research ethics. The Care Collective (2020, p. 5) asks a simple yet poignant question, ‘What… would happen if we were to begin instead to put care at the very centre of life?’. I also add, of research. What happens if we centre care in our research practices? When we realise that ethical decisions are always and already decisions about care? Early in the semester, students typically have strong reactions to our readings about (un)ethical decisions in research (e.g., Ellis, 2007), but struggle to dialogue about the complexities and nuances of ethics (What does this mean to/for me and my work?). From there, I provoke and prod the students to remember that there is more to research than being careful by institutional review board standards, but that it is necessary to also be carefull in every decision and interaction along the way. Ultimately, I tell them, they must be able to sleep at night with the decisions they make as researchers, and as humans. Care, then, should be an integral part of our ethical research practices because we are always in relation to others, and what we do and say matter. Centring care in my curriculum disrupts the distancing of positivist research ethics and reminds students that ethical decisions are human decisions – they must be able to live well (Haraway, 2016) with choices they make. Maureen: In her text, Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer (2013) writes about carefull relationality as a way of living. This semester, this text was one that I assigned to the students in my Designing Qualitative Research class – students were placed in small groups where they read a theoretical text together, then presented the text to the class along with its theoretical and methodological implications for doing qualitative research near the end of the semester. I showed up at the last moment to class the week the Braiding Sweetgrass group presented, rushing down the stairs to the room where we met, having just scarfed down a hastily heated leftover dinner in the office microwave, which I ate while shooting off emails up until the last moment before class. I felt my energy, frenetic and hurried, rush into the room as I haphazardly opened the class and turned the instruction over to the group of students presenting. They paused, then invited the class to walk outside, guiding the class through a gratitude activity. As I sat outside, I watched the students wander around the courtyard of our building, finding a hidden creek, taking pictures of the lights winking on as dark fell, enjoying the crackle and snap of leaves underfoot. I sat and felt calm, peaceful – joyful even – as I watched the rest of the class wander and wonder. It was a stark juxtaposition to the frenetic energy I had brought into the classroom. It was a gift. Later, they posed the question to the class – what if we were to turn to our research as a gift? How might we research with gratitude and generosity? Their activity and the questions they asked, for me, were a gift, an act of care. In the months that followed, the questions asked by the students in that class have provoked me to think about teaching differently. I have tried to enter the classroom more slowly, creating opportunities for pause. I have wondered, what would it look like to orient to teaching as a gift – for both teacher and student? Stephanie: I can tell that she is about to cry. The class has a reputation, with many referring to it as the ‘mind fuck class’. Dense, heavy theory, and a curriculum designed to ask students to question everything they’ve learned about qualitative research. Weeks into the semester, her comments have suggested thoughtful engagement, particularly this evening. As students trickle out of the classroom for a short break, I see her, tears visibly shimmering in her eyes and barely constrained from sliding down her cheeks. I stop. I care that she is upset. But I must be careful(l) that I don’t

34  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods hurt rather than help. I ask gently, ‘What can we talk about that’ll help you?’ Lip trembling, she replies, ‘I just don’t know. Should I be here?’ I am stunned. Unquestionably one of the strongest students in the class, I venture, ‘Why would you wonder if you belong?’ We talk, in the time that the others are getting snacks and calling home, about her being a first-generation college student, about how incomprehensible her PhD trajectory is for her family… and sometimes for her. I share my own experiences as a first-generation student, candid and vulnerable with my own fears and frustrations. When class resumes, my shoulder is wet from her tears, but she is triumphant. She weaves theoretical concepts with personal experiences and inspires peers to do the same, humanising qualitative research, theories, and the classroom. Such careful(l) moments overflow the syllabus and curriculum, making care an integral part of teaching and learning. Together: Essential to feminist pedagogies is humanising the qualitative classroom and pushing curricula beyond what is mandatory and standard. hooks (1994/2020, p. 13) reflected that the most empowering pedagogies are ‘by those teachers who have had the courage to transgress those boundaries’ that often strip learning and teaching of care, gentle gifts, and shared support. To teach as a careful(l) feminist ‘respects and cares for the souls of our students’ and extends course content to include concern for their and our own wellbeing (p. 13). To move, then, as a carefull pedagogue requires that we remember the limitations of carefulness, which keep us bound by procedure and expected protocol. Instead, like hooks suggests, carefullness attends us to the excesses of care that humanises us as teachers and researchers, spilling into our curricula so that nothing and no one is left untouched by a pedagogy of a capacious care (Care Collective, 2021). Kelly’s efforts to emphasise the degrees to which research practices are human practices threads into Maureen’s students’ work to slow down academia in reflective and restorative ways, as well as through Stephanie taking the time to literally offer a shoulder for a student to cry on. In each moment, care was at the centre of what we taught and learned. The fullness of that care had the capacity to heal Maureen’s frazzled state when her students brought forth a lesson full of care, to empower Stephanie’s student as she grappled with her very belongingness, and to emphasise to burgeoning researchers in Kelly’s class that carefullness is critical to a scholarly life lived well. A curriculum of care enacted both on and by us, but with effects all the same. In adopting a feminist praxis – ‘action and reflection upon the world [and classroom] to change it’ (hooks, 1994/2020, p. 14) – our students’ and our own efforts seek to enact teaching, learning, and caring through pedagogy that is healing.

Care as Relationality, as Connection Kelly: I know we three have discussed this before, but it is very relevant to how I cultivate a pedagogy of care. Countless times students have reached out to me to discuss sundry personal things that have come to clash with their academic responsibilities as students in my classes. These meetings are often due to significant life happenings – such as deaths, illnesses, caregiving responsibilities, financial stress, to name a few – that impact their abilities to engage and participate in their qualitative work. I have and continue to be struck by their anxieties – not their anxieties about the necessary vulnerability in the space of these meetings, but their anxieties about asking for help, an extension, or simply a request to quietly slip out of the classroom or to turn off their video if needed. Time after time, they are genuinely surprised when I respond with care. When I suggest they take more time, when we explore campus resources together, when I slip them some tissues, or when I simply offer an empathic ear. The Care Collective (2020) explores creating care communities through valuing relationality and interdependence. When students express disbelief that an academic, like myself, would demonstrate carefullness, I cannot help but wonder how we might envision a different type of qualitative

Feminist pedagogies  35 classroom community. What would it look like to promiscuously care (Care Collective, 2020) as qualitative researchers/humans? How might we re-envision our classroom communities with a focus on interdependence, collaboration, and mutual support (Care Collective, 2020)? What if carefullness became the norm, not the exception? Stephanie: I remember when the COVID-19 lockdown happened. The email sent during spring break notified us that classes would shift online – effective immediately. I found myself scrolling through my syllabus, entirely unsure of how to proceed, of how to transfer key assignments and concepts to synchronous and asynchronous learning. My inbox continued to chime, this time with emails from students: ‘My kids are at home, too, so they may be noisy during class’. ‘My home internet is shaky, so my camera may have to be off. Sorry’. ‘I’m getting tested for COVID. I’ve got a fever and feel terrible’. Did I care more about being faithful to the originally planned curriculum, or about students’ (and my) new realities (Guyotte et al., 2022; Jones and Shelton, 2022)? Looking at the blinking cursor in my syllabus document, assignments I had desperately been trying to modify suddenly seemed less important. The hand sanitizer beside my entryway, the masks hanging on the back of the door emphasised how careful that I had to be in this pandemic. Students’ emails emphasised how carefull I needed to be. I highlighted and deleted whole sections of the syllabus, replacing research papers with comic strips, data collection assignments with Flipgrid videos. The next class meeting, students’ joy overflowed the Zoom boxes: ‘Thank you for caring about us’. Isolated and alone in my own home, I felt joy and connection flowing through the online boxes, as we created new relationships through this pedagogical carefullness. Maureen: It was my first semester teaching a fully asynchronous online course. I went into it thinking I knew what to do. I had taught the class as an in-person course, I had read articles on asynchronous teaching methods, talked with the faculty in my department who had developed the courses, looked over our master course on the learning management system (Paulus et al., 2010; Roulston et al., 2018a; Roulston et al., 2018b). And then, four weeks in, I was exhausted. The students were exhausted. I had gotten so caught up in the logistics of facilitating the course online, that I had lost sight of what it felt like to be in the class. Showing care asynchronously, when we were both words on a screen or a clip of audio playing with a video, I realised, required different modes of relating, different modes of care. hooks (2013, p. 172) writes that ‘experience coupled with awareness and critical reflections about what is happening around us and why it is happening is one of life’s great teachers’. After some thought, I made some pedagogical shifts, dropping discussion posts and providing expectations around how much time each activity or component should take, working in more time to have synchronous check-ins with students on their progress. I sent an announcement explaining these changes. Then, I felt a shift in the class. Not the joyful overflowing that Stephanie experienced, but a quiet trust, a tendril of care accepted. Together: Though likely the most common way we think about and demonstrate care – connecting and attending to relationality – for us, is entwined with the materialities of our teaching. The material is present in the very real effects of our teaching on the lives of the students with whom we engage, as well in our noticing, listening, and responding to those effects. Pedagogically, we must ‘unthink the boundaries of the classroom and remember that we are always already affected by what takes place outside of it – in fact, we have a responsibility to not pretend that these spaces are distinct’ (Guyotte et al., 2022). Practicing relational and connective carefullness requires that we attend to the confluences of life/classroom, and that we respond, responsibly. hooks (1994/2020) notes that while, traditionally, teaching is steeped in hierarchy and disconnection, feminist pedagogies require recognising ‘the presence of the teacher as someone who has a total effect on the development of the student, not just an intellectual effect but an effect on how that

36  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods student perceives reality beyond the classroom’ (p. 137). In our qualitative research courses, we each have recognised and practised a carefull response-ability that connects curriculum with care, concern, and reflection. We and students consider the ways that what and how we teach and learn shapes our relationships and lives within and beyond our classrooms. Certainly, we three can only speak about our perspectives as teachers; therefore, our stories about what we noticed and how we responded are always incomplete. Kelly noticing surprise when care is extended, Stephanie feeling joy after revising her syllabus, Maureen sensing trust when she, too, made alterations to her asynchronous class – these are the things we bear witness to even as we are rarely privy to the nuances of how our actions affect and linger. Even still, as feminist pedagogues, when we have the ability to respond in these moments of connection – a response-ability – we do. We normalise care, enacting care as a relational and perpetual qualitative pedagogy. This responsiveness bound with responsibility is what brings us closer to care as collective, to building a carefull pedagogical community (hooks, 1994) in our qualitative classrooms.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Just as there was no clear, definitive beginning for this work, this conclusion is not truly an end, either. As hooks (1994/2020, p. 203) noted, ‘commitment to engaged pedagogy’ is ongoing, constantly under consideration and revision. Feminist pedagogies demand deep, unceasing personal and professional analysis: ‘once you learn to look at yourself critically, you look at everything around you with new eyes’ (hooks, 1994/2020, p. 117). Our narratives have been instances when we looked and learned anew. A critical aspect of enacting carefullness is ‘the importance of honesty, of facing oneself’ (hooks, 1994/2020, p. 118). As we reflected and shared together, weaving our individual stories in a caring, supportive feminist collective, we constantly faced ourselves – our failures, our vulnerabilities, our lessons, our joys, our growth. Theory is an essential part of this carefull growth. hooks (1994/2020, p. 61) noted that ‘[t]heory is not inherently healing, liberatory, or revolutionary’, but that when approached through humanising, compassionate feminist pedagogies, ‘theory [is] a healing place’ for students and instructors. This healing ‘emerges from engagement with collective’ learning, caring, support, and reflection’ (p. 62). It disrupts ‘the gap between theory and practice’ by making theory the practice (p. 65). As we discussed in the introduction, we consider our pedagogy of carefullness as a type of ‘teaching with theory’, in which feminism is entangled with our practices both in and outside the classroom. Students and our engagements with qualitative methods weave pedagogical commitments to/of carefullness with reciprocal and gentle concern – for one another, students, and ourselves. Enacting a carefull pedagogy, then, is an ongoing but essential effort to create spaces ‘of emotional trust where intimacy and regard for one another can be nourished’ (hooks, 1994/2020, p. 132). Concepts that might intimidate – feminism, pedagogies, methodologies – become modes of care within and beyond our classrooms. Certainly, it bears noting that even though we have grounded our stories and discussions within the space of qualitative research classrooms, we do not suggest that carefull feminist pedagogies should or could only be implemented therein. In fact, we sincerely hope that our experiences reverberate with readers across varied disciplines and with diverse methodological orientations. What might it mean to enact a carefull pedagogy in a quantitative classroom? What are the implications of using feminist practices like those we detail in our stories in the

Feminist pedagogies  37 natural sciences? How might teaching with feminism push those who do not identify with this theoretical orientation toward new ways of engaging with students, with colleagues, with the world? We, therefore, invite further pedagogical reflection and writing that consider what carefullness makes possible elsewhere, by others outside of our scholarly triad. There is, in fact, no single ‘right’ way to practice a carefull pedagogy – even as there may be wrong ones, ones that contradict the philosophical underpinnings of feminism, that focus on carefulness at the expense of carefullness. So, we wonder, how might it manifest for you, as teacher and student? As we conclude this chapter, we find ourselves constantly provoked to consider what we are doing in our classrooms, how we are succeeding as well as how we are failing. As Kelly discussed above, failure is not a closure through our feminist lenses – rather, we see our failures as openings toward new ways of teaching, and new means of empowering students, and ourselves. Failure as productive. Thus, becoming a carefull pedagogue is more than reflecting backward on what happened, what was. Instead, it necessitates taking what we learn when we look back and as we extend our ethical practices always forward, co-creating new visions for careful(l)ness with one another, and with our students.

REFERENCES Ahmed. S. (2017). Living a Feminist Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bozalek, V., Zembylas, M. and Tronto, J.C. (2021). Posthuman and Political Care Ethics for Reconfiguring Higher Education Pedagogies. New York, NY: Routledge. Brannelly, T., Ward, L. and Ward, N. (2015). Ethics of Care: Critical Advances in International Perspective. Chicago, IL: Policy Press. Cannella, G.S. (2015). Introduction: Engaging critical qualitative science: Histories and possibilities. In G.S. Cannella, M.S. Perez and P.A. Pasque (Eds.), Critical Qualitative Inquiry: Foundations and Futures (pp. 7–28). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Care Collective (2020). The Care Manifesto: The Politics of Interdependence. New York, NY: Verso. Collins, P.H. (2008). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge. Denzin, N.K. (2015). What is critical qualitative inquiry? In G.S. Cannella, M.S. Perez and P.A. Pasque (Eds.), Critical Qualitative Inquiry: Foundations and Futures (pp. 31–50). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Flint, M., Melchior, S.W., Guyotte, K.W. and Shelton, S.A. (2021). Spinning futures: Interrogating feminist pedagogy and methodology with speculative fiction. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​15327086211052666 Guyotte, K.W., Flint, M.A., Kidd, B.G., Potts, C.A., Irwin, A.J. and Bennett, L.A. (2020). Meanwhile: Posthuman intra-actions in/with a post-qualitative readings class. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(1), 109–121. Guyotte, K.W., Flint, M. and Shelton, S.A. (2021). Giving up as willful feminist practice. Gender and Education, 32(2), 202–216. Guyotte, K.W., Shelton, S.A. and Guy, K.H. (2022). Regard(less) as a feminist pedagogical practice. Feminist Pedagogy, 2(1), Article 4. Haraway, D.J. (2016). Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke. University Press. hooks, b. (1994/2020). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. hooks, b. (2013). Writing Beyond Race: Living Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Jackson, A.Y. and Mazzei, L.A. (2012). Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research: Viewing Data Across Multiple Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

38  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Jones, A.M. and Shelton, S.A. (2022). A transgressive pedagogy of tenderness in hybrid education. Feminist Pedagogy, 2(1), Article 3. Kimmerer, R.W. (2015). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions. Okun, T. and Jones, K. (2001). White supremacy culture. In K. Jones and T. Okun (Eds.), Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change Groups (pp. 1–8). Change Work. Available at: https://​www​ .thc​.texas​.gov/​public/​upload/​preserve/​museums/​files/​White​_Supremacy​_Culture​.pdf Paulus, T.M., Myers, C.R., Mixter, S.J., Wyatt, T.H., Lee, D.S. and Lee, J.L. (2010). For faculty, by faculty: A case study of learning to teach online. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 7(1), 1–16. Roulston, K., DeMarrais, K. and Paulus, T.M. (2018). Journeys to teaching qualitative research methods online. LEARNing Landscapes, 11(1), 217–231. Roulston, K., Pope, E., Paulus, T.M. and DeMarrais, K. (2018). Students’ perceptions of learning about qualitative inquiry in online contexts. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(3), 190–201. Shelton, S.A., Guyotte, K.W. and Flint, M. (2019). Patchedworked (wo)monstrosities: Woman doctoral students cutting together/apart. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 10(2–3), 112–146. Summerville, K.S., Campbell, E.T., Flantroy, K., Prowell, A.N. and Shelton, S.A. (2021). Finding ourselves as Black women in Eurocentric theory: Collaborative biography on learning and reshaping qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(4), 456–468. Tuck, E. and Yang, K.W. (2014). Unbecoming claims: Pedagogies of refusal in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 811–818. Visweswaran, K. (1994). Fictions of Feminist Ethnography. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Young, T. (Ed.). (2021). Queer and Feminist Theories of Narrative. New York, NY: Routledge.

4. Facilitating learners’ reflexive thinking in qualitative research courses Amy Orange

A few semesters ago, I was talking with Kathy, a doctoral student, about her research project for my qualitative research class. Kathy had worked as a teacher, school principal, and now worked at the district level providing professional development to new educational leaders. Based on her prior work experience, she felt she already understood why novice principals struggled and she viewed her research as a way to confirm what she already knew. She was planning a mixed methods study and for her class project, she wanted to interview novice principals to understand their professional development experiences and needs. My conversation with Kathy was not an uncommon experience, as many of my students talked about their research projects this way. The majority wanted to research topics they had direct experience with and this often made them feel as if they already had the answers. Helping students understand that we conduct research to learn new things is essential, and it is also important that they learn to reflect on their experiences. This is where reflexivity comes in, as students need to be able to understand how their prior experiences, beliefs, and subjectivities can affect their research, especially if they are conducting qualitative research studies.

DEFINING REFLEXIVITY Saldaña and Omasta (2021, p. 43) define reflexivity as ‘individual reflection on one’s own relationship with the data, the participants, the nature of the study, and even with one’s own self as a researcher’. They suggest that researchers ‘think of reflection as looking outward and reflexivity as looking inward’ (p. 43). Reflexivity involves the researcher’s critical assessment of their positionality, and how this may affect their research process and results (Berger, 2015; May and Perry, 2017; Pillow, 2003). Positionality can be conceived of as the researcher’s relationship with the topic they are investigating, their participants, and research process (Grix, 2019). Aspects of positionality include a researcher’s gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, political viewpoints, and employment (Chiseri-Strater, 1996). Positionality may influence a researcher’s ability to recruit participants; if a participant feels the researcher has had similar experiences to theirs, they might be more willing to openly share (De Tona, 2006). A researcher’s experiences and beliefs may influence how they write interview questions, interpret data, and decide which findings to include in the report (Kacen and Chaitin, 2006). While reflexivity may have been initially used as a way to show transparency and convince readers of the ‘truth’ of their results, this was often viewed as a positivist goal and most qualitative researchers acknowledge that the researcher influences the research (Finlay, 2002). Researchers and their participants negotiate meanings and co-create knowledge, so their relationships and the context of their interactions will also affect the research (Finlay, 2002). 39

40  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Reflexivity can also be used to explore ‘issues of power and privilege that exist between the researcher and the researched’ (Abrica, 2018, p. 1). While graduate students may often be cautioned to remain neutral and objective during their research, reflexivity can provide learners with ways to better understand how their experiences, beliefs, and values affect their research (Attia and Edge, 2017). Ng et al. (2019) differentiated between critical reflection and critical reflexivity. Critical reflection involves the researcher considering their assumptions, and how they influence their work (Ng et al., 2019). Critical reflexivity focuses on the researcher reflecting on how their positionality affects their knowing and their understandings of other’s social worlds (Ng et al., 2019). In practice, a researcher engaging in critical reflexivity may challenge their assumptions about how knowledge is constructed or power dynamics. By understanding how their beliefs are influenced by their social worlds, researchers can see how their position can help, or hinder, them from understanding the experiences of others (Ng et al., 2019).

BARRIERS TO ENGAGING IN REFLECTION AND REFLEXIVITY It is equally important to understand that one can easily get sidetracked when engaging in reflexivity. Finlay (2002) compares it to a swamp, saying that it is ‘full of muddy ambiguity and multiple trails’ (p. 212). There is no single way to ‘do’ reflexivity and researchers may take different approaches to fit their needs at the time. Researchers with strong emotional involvements with their topics or participants may feel overwhelmed or face feelings of doubt or anxiety when they reflect on their stances (Probst, 2015). Reflexivity may be a difficult process for researchers, especially if they realise they are in privileged positions, compared to their participants, or that they may have contributed to systems that have been inequitable or harmful to participants (Rowland and Kuper, 2018). Researchers may feel vulnerable, scared, or traumatised when considering how their experiences influence their research (Probst, 2015). Researchers may also spend considerable time on self-reflection and become lost as they struggle to know how much is enough, as well as what to disclose, when it comes to engaging in reflexive practices (Finlay, 2002; Pillow, 2003). Being aware of positionality is a starting point for researchers, but simply discussing it does not mean issues have been addressed (Pillow, 2003). Even with support and background knowledge of reflective practices, doctoral students may struggle with understanding what reflexivity means and how to incorporate it into their research (Orange, 2016; Taylor, 2011; Yarwood et al., 2015). Yarwood et al. (2015) wrote about working collaboratively to question their assumptions, beliefs, and thought processes when they were doctoral students, acknowledging that some doctoral students may be hesitant to discuss their perceived weaknesses with their professors. I (Orange, 2016) found that many of my doctoral students initially had difficulty with reflexivity. However, they reflected in greater depth and detail when provided with optional prompts to guide their journal entries (Orange, 2016).

Facilitating learners’ reflexive thinking in qualitative research courses  41

ENGAGING IN REFLEXIVE PRACTICES As qualitative researchers, we need to be able to relate to other people’s experiences and realities (Attia and Edge, 2017). We need to consider our own experiences, and how they affect our research processes as well. Qualitative researchers both affect the research, and are affected by it (Cole and Masny, 2012; Lichtman, 2012; Saldaña and Omasta, 2021), making reflexivity an essential component of the research process. However, many learners need to critically reflect on their own experiences and beliefs to consider how they may affect their research; by teaching them how to do this in qualitative research courses, we help them strengthen their research skills while also attending to their development as researchers. The call for the inclusion of reflexivity training occurs across a number of academic fields, including business (Farrell et al., 2018), education (Feucht et al., 2017; Glanz, 2009; Orange, 2016; Reyes-Chua and Al-Shlowiy, 2020) and health care (Ng et al., 2019). Reflective experiences play an important role in teacher education and both pre-service and in-service teachers are encouraged, and taught, to reflect on their teaching practices (Glanz, 2009; Reyes-Chua and Al-Shlowiy, 2020). This reflection should encompass both what went well and what did not, so that teachers can improve their practices (Glanz, 2009; Reyes-Chua and Al-Shlowiy, 2020). Farrell et al. (2018) call for the use of reflexivity for doctoral students in business administration to enable them to critically explore relationships between research and practice. Reflexivity can be approached in many ways, including reflective journals (Farr and Riordan, 2015; Orange, 2016; Rainford, 2016), blogs (Farr and Riordan, 2015; Rainford, 2016), social media postings (Rainford, 2016), videonarratives (Taylor, 2011) and discussions (Farr and Riordan, 2015; Wlodarsky, 2021). All of these mediums allow researchers space to consider their own stances, beliefs, and subjectivities, an essential part of the qualitative research process (Dodgson, 2019; Gemignani, 2017; Hesse-Biber, 2017; Lichtman, 2012). Engaging in reflexivity can lead to growth for qualitative learners. For doctoral students, reflecting on their own experiences and beliefs, and how these may influence their research, is an important part of their becoming qualitative researchers (Orange, 2016). I (Orange, 2016) saw how my doctoral students gained confidence in their research skills, and their progress on their journeys to becoming researchers, in their journals. Seeing how their beliefs, attitudes, prior experiences, and identities might influence their research helped them refine their research processes and sensitised them to some of the potential issues they may encounter when researching topics with which they had close connections (Orange, 2016). Yarwood et al. (2015) reflected on their collaborative efforts to meaningfully engage in reflexivity. One author considered how the collaborative conversations about reflexivity and reflection allowed her to make progress with her research (Yarwood et al., 2015). Another found that his background initially made him reluctant to engage with peers when reflecting on his research, but that he ultimately found it beneficial to do so (Yarwood et al., 2015). The third author felt that the conversations with her peers were a starting point for her reflexivity process, which led to her considering how her beliefs and thoughts influenced her relationships with her participants (Yarwood et al., 2015). All felt that the conversations they had furthered their understandings of themselves as researchers (Yarwood et al., 2015). Bain et al. (1999) also found that journaling helped graduate students in education become more reflective about their practices, and that nearly all of the student participants felt that journaling was beneficial to their growth. Students who engaged in dialogue about their journal entries appreciated having a different perspective on their experiences, and felt it strengthened

42  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods the conclusions they had drawn from their reflections (Bain et al., 1999). However, students who did not converse with anyone about their journal entries felt that the reflection process also provided a different view because they explored their actions and feelings in depth (Bain et al., 1999). Taylor (2011) explored the use of videonarratives with doctoral students. Students identified a critical incident they felt offered insight into their identities and recorded it (Taylor, 2011). A few weeks later, Taylor interviewed them, using the videonarratives to prompt a reflexive conversation. During the time between when the videonarrative was recorded and the interview, students could watch it again or share it with family, friends, and colleagues. Thus, the participants had already reflected on their videonarrative prior to the interview. The interviews explored students’ backgrounds and how they related to their research journeys and how they were constructing their academic identities (Taylor, 2011). Social media is gaining acceptance as a way to distribute research, engage with other academics, and generate new research data (Guerin et al., 2020). Some doctoral students use social media sites, such as Twitter, to feel more connected and to document their doctoral journeys (Guerin et al., 2020). Rainford (2016) reflected on his experiences using Twitter to discuss reflexivity in digital spaces. He concluded that Twitter interactions allow for doctoral researchers to develop their communicative reflexivity as they can engage with a wider range of people than they may be able to in their day-to-day lives. Often, doctoral students spend their time with others who have had similar experiences (Rainford, 2016); social media gives doctoral students access to multiple perspectives, and multiple experiences, which can help novice researchers make sense of their current circumstances. Blogs are another way doctoral students can engage in reflexive practices (Farr and Riordan, 2015; Guerin et al., 2020; Rainford, 2016). Sites such as Doctoral Writing, PhD Student, and A Happy PhD house blogs for doctoral students. In some cases, the blogs are written by doctoral students, while others are authored by professors. Guerin et al. (2020) analysed which aspects of the Doctoral Writing blog were viewed most frequently, and while writing practices led the list for both number of blog posts and views, entries related to identity and emotion ranked second. A search for ‘reflexivity’ brought up a number of posts where doctoral students reflected on their positionality as it related to their research, and where readers could share their experiences. While social media and blogs could be great spaces for novice qualitative researchers to engage in reflexivity, this would likely occur independent of the classroom setting, with students participating out of their own desires to grow as researchers in this manner. Conversations with learners can be a way to encourage them to engage in reflection and reflexivity (Attia and Edge, 2017; Bridges, 2014). However, not all learners are comfortable with this and they may feel vulnerable (Thomson and Walker, 2010), so creating a safe environment is important if this process is to be meaningful. When students are becoming researchers, they might be reluctant to open up about their experiences in the field (Thomson and Walker, 2010). They may feel that disclosing their positionality may affect how their peers view them. Providing multiple ways for students to engage with each other can help all students feel comfortable. Using anonymous discussion postings or blogs might help some students feel safer sharing, though this may be less effective in a program with a cohort model or at a smaller school, as students likely know a fair amount about each other already and anonymity may not be possible.

Facilitating learners’ reflexive thinking in qualitative research courses  43 Implementation of Reflexive Practices Going back to the opening example of Kathy’s researcher journey, we can explore how some of the above strategies can be implemented. Kathy was already keeping a journal to document her learnings from her research project. When she shared it with me, I noticed that the majority of her entries focused on rather superficial kinds of things, such as what readings she had done, when she had contacted potential participants, and when she had interviews scheduled. I suggested that she reflect more deeply on her experiences so she could identify possibly times when her positionality influenced her work. She admitted to being unsure of what to write, so we brainstormed some possible topics for her to reflect on in her journal. Kathy and her classmates also participated in anonymous discussion postings through our class learning management system to share their prior experiences and how they felt those might influence their class research projects. In most cases, students chose to not remain anonymous and identified themselves in their postings; this potentially showed that the students felt comfortable having conversations about their positionality with their peers, and they appeared to welcome the feedback they received from one another. Often, students had similar backgrounds, so they worked together to better understand how those experiences (as educators, first generation college students, etc.) could affect their research questions and data collection. This comfort may have been due to the cohort model employed in the doctoral program; these students had been in classes together for three semesters before they took the qualitative research course, and their interactions in class offered evidence of closeness with each other. I monitored the posts in case students had questions they needed me to answer, and occasionally contributed with my own experiences as a former elementary and middle school teacher. However, I rarely included my own perspectives until discussions seemed to have ended. This was intentional, as I did not want to influence students’ discussions, and I didn’t want anyone to feel as if they needed to present in a certain way. I did not comment on their positionality in the discussion postings, but did talk with each student about how their prior experiences might affect their research during our one-on-one meetings. Kathy and I also chatted about how her experiences would drive her curiosity, and might inform the topics on her survey and her interview questions, but that it was important for her to remain open to what she learned while collecting and analysing the data. She brainstormed the ways she felt her experiences might affect her research and we talked about ways she could try to stay open to hearing about participants’ experiences that might differ from her own and how she could use the literature and her peers to help her create interview questions that would allow participants to share their perspectives freely. We also considered how potential participants could perceive her current role, and how the power dynamic could affect recruitment and participants’ willingness to respond openly. One of Kathy’s concerns was that she would conduct her interviews like an administrator rather than a researcher, as she had done hiring interviews on her prior campus. She worried this prior experience might affect her ability to be flexible during interviews since, in her administrative role, she had had to make sure she asked each candidate the same questions in the same order during job interviews. At the end of our conversation, Kathy said she felt a bit overwhelmed by everything she needed to consider, but she felt that it would ultimately make her research more authentic, even if it would take more time and effort than she initially expected.

44  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

REFLECTIVE MODELS A number of reflective models exist and can be utilised with qualitative learners to encourage them to consider how their beliefs, experiences, and positionality may influence their research. While the models below are reflective, they could be framed so that students could use them as they engage in reflexivity. The following models are a sampling and not an exhaustive list; there are a considerable number of reflective models available to learners, with many coming from the field of teacher education. Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle Gibbs’ (1998) Reflective Cycle model involves six steps to encourage reflection: description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion, and action plan. The first step, description, involves detailing an experience, event, or activity in detail, and without judgment. Next, a learner would reflect on the feelings they had during the event. In the third step, the learner would evaluate the experience to determine what went well and what did not. The fourth step, analysis, would see the learner making sense of what happened and trying to identify why the experience went as it did. During the next step, a learner would make conclusions about their experience, which could involve reflection about what they learned or how the experience could have been more positive for everyone. In the final step, the learner would create an action plan so they would know how to approach a similar situation in the future. A shortcoming of Gibb’s model is that it does not include an emphasis on critical analysis or considering different perspectives; to implement this with qualitative learners, instructors would want to expand on it to help their students engage in reflexive practices. Integrated Reflective Cycle Bassott (2013) discussed how transitions can bring up a range of emotions and responses and that reflecting on these, and on their goals, can help people retain their motivation. The integrated reflective cycle shares some similarities with Gibbs’ (1998) model, but has fewer steps, which may be appealing to some learners. The steps in the integrated reflective cycle include the experience, reflection on action, theory, and preparation (Bassott, 2013). The main difference between this model and Gibbs’ is the inclusion of theory. For qualitative learners, theory could be looked at as related to their practices or the theories they may be using to guide their research, and they could reflexively examine their choice of theory. Brookfield’s Four Lenses Brookfield’s (1995) model also comes from teacher education, with the goal of considering situations from multiple viewpoints. The autobiographical lens encourages learners to reflect on how their previous experiences, and their personal stories, influence the situation. The students’ views lens asks learners to put themselves into the shoes of their students, to try to understand the situation from their points-of-view (Brookfield, 1995). If using this model with qualitative learners, they could look at things from the views of their participants. The colleagues’ views lens focuses on learners viewing the situation from the points-of-view of their colleagues, as their observations may help learners improve their work (Brookfield, 1995).

Facilitating learners’ reflexive thinking in qualitative research courses  45 Qualitative learners could define ‘colleagues’ as their classmates and their professors, as both could provide valuable feedback to the learners about their practices. The theoretical lens encourages learners to make sense of their experiences through the literature. This will help learners grow as they gain new knowledge and understanding (Brookfield, 1995). Learners would also want to relate their readings back to the other three lenses; this may help them think of new approaches to take and help them reflect on ways to apply theory to their practices (Brookfield, 1995). This model might work well to encourage qualitative learners to engage in reflexivity, as they need to consider varied viewpoints, including how their participants may view them, and how their prior experiences may affect the situation under discussion. Using Reflective Models with Qualitative Learners Any of the models above could potentially be used with qualitative learners to provide them with the space to reflect on their experiences and to consider how their beliefs, prior experiences, and subjectivities may be affecting their learning. For example, to utilise any of these models in a qualitative research class, students could move through a reflective cycle during a data collection activity. This would give them concrete information to work with and allow them to reflect on their research practices while also diving in a bit deeper to see how their positionality affected data collection. Learners could also engage with the models independently if they are seeking to become qualitative researchers, but not enrolled in coursework. To see how this might be implemented, I return to Kathy’s scenario. She conducted an interview with a novice principal so that she could better understand his experiences with professional development, and identify areas of need. Using Gibbs’ reflective cycle, her first step would be to describe the interview process. She could talk about where it was held, how long it lasted, what topics she covered in the interview, and any other information that might be relevant. Her next step would be to consider how she felt leading up to, during, and after the interview. In many cases, learners talk about being both excited and nervous before doing an interview, and the ranges of emotions they experience during the interview itself, so these would be areas for Kathy to reflect on during this step. She could also consider if she felt like there was good rapport between her and her participant and how her positionality may have affected that. During the third step, Kathy would evaluate the experience and reflect on what went well during the interview and what she might want to change the next time. This would also be a place where she could think about how her beliefs and experiences may have influenced the direction of the interview. Next, she would analyse the interview process to understand what is really going on. She might want to talk with peers to learn about how they approached interviewing, and gain some tips from them to improve her process. This would also be a place where Kathy could consider how her own experiences and beliefs might have affected the interview. Did she only follow up on responses that aligned with her own beliefs? Did she ask leading questions to nudge her participant towards the answers that would confirm what she thinks she wants to find? She would also explore how her positionality may have affected the interview. She would then draw conclusions, which would help her synthesise what she learned during the other steps. At the final step, she would develop an action plan, where she would determine what she would do differently the next time she conducted an interview and then implement that. This could mean refining her questions, her process, and anything else she felt was not effective during the interview. She would also consider how she

46  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods will know her practices have improved, which could involve going through the cycle again until she feels confident with her interviewing process, and with her role as the researcher. If Kathy used Brookfield’s (1995) four lenses to guide her reflexivity work, she could first broadly explore her personal experiences and consider how they relate to her research topic, her study design, and choice of methods. In Kathy’s case, as a Black female former principal, she could consider how her positionality is at play in her study. She could then focus more specifically on an interview she conducted with a novice principal to think about how her personal story influenced the interview. Did she only hear what she wanted to hear? Did her own experiences as a principal affect how she followed up on her participant’s responses? Next, she would try to understand how her participant experienced the interview. She could possibly ask the interviewee, or she could use her recording of the interview and any field notes to help her during this reflection. She would then engage with her colleagues to understand their viewpoints. This could be a conversation with a classmate, where they have the opportunity to discuss how their positionality affected data collection, with the classmate serving as a critical friend to Kathy. Kathy may also get feedback from her professor, whether that is comments on her interview transcript or a one-on-one conversation about the process. Finally, Kathy would return to the literature to help her make sense of her interviewing experience. She may read about interviewing techniques that would help her encourage participants to share their views openly. She may have noticed that her assumptions affected the content of the interview questions, and that some of her questions were leading, so she might go to the literature to help her phrase her questions differently or to broaden her topics. Using the four lenses would allow Kathy to have multiple perspectives to draw from as she seeks to understand how her experiences affect her research and to help her grow as a researcher. Critical Pedagogy Instructors cannot expect their students to engage in reflexive practices if they are unwilling to do so themselves. They need to examine power structures in their classrooms and their own positionality (Greene and Park, 2021). Modeling these kinds of behaviours helps learners better understand how to engage in these practices themselves. For example, when I would talk with my students about positionality and reflexivity, I would share some of my prior experiences with them and we would then consider how those might affect my research. I thought this was a good approach until a student asked about how my positionality might affect my teaching and we had a class discussion about that. This experience made me realise I needed to critically consider my selections of readings, my teaching style, and my assignments to make sure that I was not simply reproducing the ways I had been taught but that I was taking my students’ needs and experiences into account and creating learning experiences that would resonate with them. However, when I was a professor, I also found that some students wanted certain power structures in place; for example, I tried, unsuccessfully, to get students to call me by my first name because to me, using ‘Dr’ as a title reinforces power and can create distance. When I explained this to students, some said they could never call a professor by their first name because calling them by their title reflects respect. When I shared that I had not done anything to earn their respect, since this conversation happened in the first class of the semester, they explained that earning a doctorate deserved respect. While I may have disagreed with this, I needed to respect my students’ views and allow them to address me in a way that felt

Facilitating learners’ reflexive thinking in qualitative research courses  47 comfortable to them even if it was not my preference. Just because learners are given the opportunity to consider power in relationships does not mean they are always comfortable changing the structures. Critical pedagogy techniques can also be used to create a culture of caring, honouring students’ experiences. Students’ sense of self can influence their academic performance and sense of belonging (Leonardi and Meyer, 2016). For students to feel safe in their classrooms, instructors should build relationships with their students. Thiet (2017) recommends polling students about their prior experience with course content to help build community. She poses five questions about content to her students and has them vote using sticky notes, with a one to five rating that reflects their perceived level of experience in particular areas. She then has a few students share why they voted as they did, so that students in the class can see the range of previous knowledge. She notes that the instructor needs to set the tone for the discussion to ensure there are no judgments, and that it also provides an opportunity for her to reassure students with less experience that they can still be successful in the course. There are, of course, many ways to create safe spaces for learning while building community; this is but one example. This also points to the need for instructors to consider student feedback, observe student responses to lectures and class activities, and identify areas for improvement based on student work. Yet some instructors are not receptive to feedback, and student evaluations are a controversial topic, often seen more as a box to be ticked rather than a true measure of students’ experiences in a course (Gruendler, 2018). But learning from our learners and using that to inform changes to our practices, creates a better environment. If learners feel their voices are heard, and changes are made to meet their needs, an environment of trust is built and learners may feel more comfortable to engage in reflexive practices.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Supporting qualitative learners’ reflexive journeys as they become researchers is an important endeavour. By keeping the focus on specific issues in the research, qualitative learners cannot get mired in reflexivity, but can harness its strengths to help them grow as researchers. Qualitative learners need safe spaces to explore their positionality, and reflect on ways their prior experiences and beliefs may influence their research. Giving them an array of tools they can use to engage in reflexive practices will allow them to find ways to reflect that are appropriate and comfortable for them. One of the most common struggles I saw with novice qualitative researchers was the accessibility of materials. Often, textbooks and scholarly articles are written in ways that seem to create barriers to learning rather than inviting in learners. While it is important for novice researchers to understand academic language, it is also important to choose resources that present information in clear ways with real-world examples of the concepts being discussed. Another essential area to consider is the relationship between the learner and the instructor. Instructors need to create opportunities to authentically engage with their students, whether inside or outside of class. These engagements may help learners develop trusting relationships with their instructors so they be more willing to have conversations about their positionality

48  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods and how their experiences may influence their research projects. If students are hesitant to be open, or to engage in reflexive practices, the quality of their research may suffer. Students also seemed to experience growth and learning in their conversations about positionality with each other. A key piece of this is the level of trust students have with each other, as they are opening themselves up in rather personal ways and being vulnerable with each other. Without conditions in the classroom that build this trust and comfort, these discussions might not be as fruitful. Lively et al. (2021) discussed how the cohort model builds community in online doctoral programs, with students feeling that collaboration and shared learning contributes to their sense of belonging. However, instructors cannot always rely on students coming to their courses with existing positive relationships in place, and should develop their courses to create communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). This is especially important in online doctoral programs, where intentional interaction opportunities need to be provided so students can build relationships with each other (Lively et al., 2021).

REFERENCES A happy Phd. (2022, June 7). A Happy PhD. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://​ahappyphd​.org/​ Abrica, E.J. (2019). Institutional researcher reflexivity: How IR professionals can utilize researcher reflexivity in qualitative studies of community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(12), 880–890. Attia, M. and Edge, J. (2017). Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: A developmental approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 33–45. Bain, J.D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C. and Lester, N.C. (2002). Reflecting on Practice: Student Teachers’ Perspectives. Post Pressed. Bain, J.D., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Mills, C. (1999). Using journal writing to enhance student teachers’ reflectivity during field experience placements. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 5(1), 51–73. Barnacle, R. and Mewburn, I. (2010). Learning networks and the journey of ‘becoming doctor’. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 433–444. Bassot, B. (2013). The Reflective Journal. Palgrave. Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. Bridges, D. (2014). Conversation – In the construction and representation of research. In P. Smeyers and M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational Research: Material Culture and its Representation (pp. 201–213). Springer. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Jossey-Bass. Chiseri-Strater, E. (1996). Turning in upon ourselves: Positionality, subjectivity, and reflexivity in case study and ethnographic research. In P. Mortensen and G.E. Kirsch (Eds.), Ethics and Responsibility in Qualitative Studies of Literacy (pp. 115–133). NCTE. Cole, D.R. and Masny, D. (2012). Education and the politics of becoming. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 33(1), 1–3. De Tona, C. (2006). But what is interesting is the story of why and how migration happened. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(3). https://​doi​.org/​10​.17169/​fqs​ -7​.3​.143 Dodgson, J.E. (2019). Reflexivity in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation, 35(2), 220–222. Farr, F. and Riordan, E. (2015). Tracing the reflective practices of student teachers in online modes. ReCALL, 27(1), 104–123. Farrell, C., Oerton, S. and Plant, E. (2018). Doing a doctorate in business administration: The case for critical reflexivity. The International Journal of Education Management, 16(3), 370–379. Feucht, F.C., Brownless, J.L., and Schraw, G. (2017). Moving beyond reflection: Reflexivity and epistemic cognition in teaching and teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 52(4), 234–241.

Facilitating learners’ reflexive thinking in qualitative research courses  49 Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in qualitative research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230. Gemignani, M. (2017). Toward a critical reflexivity in qualitative inquiry: Relational and posthumanist reflections on realism, researcher’s centrality, and representation in reflexivity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(2), 185–198. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing. A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development 2013. Oxford Brooks University. Glanz, J. (2009). Classroom Strategies for the Beginning Teacher, 2nd ed. Corwin. Greene, M.V. and Park, G. (2021). Promoting reflexivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 5(1), 23–29. Grix, J. (2019). The Foundations of Research. Macmillan International. Gruendler, D.L. Jr. (2018). Student Evaluations of Teaching: Perceptions of Faculty Knowledge and their Relation to Learning (Publication No. 10928162) [Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Guerin, C., Aitchison, C. and Carter, S. (2020). Digital and distributed: Learning and teaching doctoral writing through social media. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(2), 238–254. Hesse-Biber, S. (2017). Sharlene Biber-Hesse Reflects on the Research Process [Video transcript]. SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://​methods​.sagepub​.com/​video/​sharlene​-hesse​-biber​-reflects​-on​-the​ -research​-process Kacen, L. and Chaitin. J. (2006). The times are a changing: Understanding qualitative research in ambiguous, conflictual and changing contexts. The Qualitative Report, 11(2), 209–228. Leonardi, B., and Meyer, E.J. (2016). Internal safety. In N.M. Rodriguez, W.J. Martino, J.C. Ingrey and E. Brockenbrough (Eds.), Critical Concepts in Queer Studies and Education (pp. 173–182). Palgrave MacMillan. Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide. Sage. Lively, C.L., Blevins, B., Talbert, S. and Cooper, S. (2021). Building community in online professional practice doctoral programs. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 6(3), 21–29. May, T. and Perry, B. (2017). Reflexivity: The Essential Guide. Sage. Ng, S.L., Wright, S.R. and Kuper, A. (2019) The divergence and convergence of critical reflection and critical reflexivity: Implications for health professions education. Academic Medicine, 94(8), 1122–1128. Orange, A. (2016). Encouraging reflexive practices in doctoral students through research journals. The Qualitative Report, 21(12), 2176–2190. Palaganas, E.C., Sanchez, M.C., Molintas, M.V.P. and Caricativo, R.D. (2017). Reflexivity in qualitative research: A journey of learning. The Qualitative Report, 22(2), 426–438. Pillow, W.S. (2003). Confession, catharsis or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. Probst, B. (2015). The eye regards itself: Benefits and challenges of reflexivity in qualitative social work. Social Work Research, 39(1), 38–48. Rainford, J. (2016). Becoming a doctoral researcher in a digital world: Reflections on the role of Twitter for reflexivity and internal conversation. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(1–2), 99–105. Reyes-Chua, E. and Shlowiy, A.A. (2020). The reflective EFL teaching diary. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 11(3), 35–48. Rowland, P. and Kuper, A. (2018). Beyond vulnerability: How the dual role of patient–health care provider can inform health professions education. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 23(1), 115–131. Saldaña, J. and Omasta, M. (2021). Qualitative Research: Analyzing Life. Sage. Taylor, C.A. (2011). More than meets the eye: The use of video narratives to facilitate doctoral students’ reflexivity on their doctoral journeys. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 441–458. Theit, R.K. (2017). An interactive, instant polling exercise to allay student anxiety in science courses. The American Biology Teacher, 79(6), 496–498. Thomson, P. and Walker, M. (2010). The Routledge Doctoral Student’s Companion: Getting to Grips with Research in Education and Social Sciences. Routledge.

50  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press. Wlodarsky, R. (2021). Tools that facilitate the reflective process: Supporting the learning and development of college educators. Perspectives In Learning, 19(1). Retrieved from https://​ csuepress​ .columbusstate​.edu/​pil/​vol19/​iss1/​8 Yarwood, G.A., Ogilvie, H. and Yianni, C. (2015). Working in collaboration: Three PhD students trouble reflexivity. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 3(2), 72–81.

5. Pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research Thalia Mulvihill and Raji Swaminathan

INTRODUCTION This chapter draws on the growing methodological literature related to collaborative qualitative research projects, specifically how those teaching and learning about research methods for collaboration can benefit from improved skills and abilities to design, implement, and share results from collaborative research projects. Collaborative qualitative research is increasingly required by funders and becoming the gold standard for combining scholars and approaches from multiple disciplines and professions to find solutions to complex problems. How then do we prepare novice researchers to gain the knowledge needed to create and participate in collaborative research? What skills and dispositions do they need and how can they adapt their qualitative research knowledge to address collaborative research projects? We focus on pedagogies for collaborative research design, data collection, and analysis through the constructs of communication, dialogue, power-sharing and reflexivity, and ethics to encourage novice scholars to become adept at collaborative qualitative research. The chapter also provides detailed suggestions for educators looking for ways to redesign their qualitative research methods courses for novice and early career researchers by incorporating what researchers have learned about collaboration and applying those lessons when designing learning activities. By increasing the capacity of novice researchers to engage in collaboration many benefits can be realised. First, they will be disabused of the idea that research is always and only a lone enterprise; they will learn to bring their individual strengths to the table and find ways to merge them, they will also engage in peer teaching and learning which serves to remind emerging scholars, one must remain agile within a collaboration. Further, we will address how those teaching qualitative research can utilise different pedagogical tools to address issues and questions regarding ethics of collaborative research, the different forms of power that can manifest in collaboration and promote an awareness of cultural competencies. The development of a pedagogical culture for preparing novice and early career researchers has been growing steadily (Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2020; Swaminathan and Mulvihill, 2018). Holistic pedagogical approaches to preparing novice researchers for educational research includes a focus on assisting them with developing a mindset for collaborative research. To that end we offer exercises as resources to help nurture a set of research skills, communication strategies, and project management tools for developing collaborative research projects. The pedagogies that can be used to teach research collaboration include envisioning collaboration as a high-impact-practice. There exists a growing collaboration literacy available for researchers to engage as they design, carry out, and disseminate their projects (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2018). For faculty teaching collaborative qualitative research, however, fewer resources can be readily found. Faculty often report needing to figure out a way to teach qualitative research methods in general that enable novice researchers to 51

52  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods carry out independent projects while simultaneously blending in ways for students to build and practice collaboration skills. Most higher education institutions offer courses in qualitative research methods in the social sciences and education fields. Many of these courses are focused on weaving together theory and practice. Students read qualitative studies and may also carry out a small field research project where they select participants, gather and analyse data, and learn to write up a report. However, while faculty employ several innovative ways to teach novice researchers, many of these field experiences are carried out alone by the students and collaborative data gathering or collaborative analysis is often not the focus. There is an increasing interest in collaboration across disciplines to carry out research that might lead to a deeper understanding and solutions for complex problems in society leading to a corresponding urgency to learn how to effectively carry out collaborative qualitative research. This means learning multiple skills of research braided with skills of facilitation, leadership, negotiation, listening, and advanced decision-making. Teaching qualitative research methods, like research itself, can be inductive or deductive. Deductive methods usually introduce a concept or theory followed by examples. Students learn the theory first and then learn to apply the theory or work on assignments to practice what they learned. Deductive approaches to research are usually used in quantitative research where the researcher gathers data to test a theory. Inductive approaches to pedagogy can be broadly classified under the umbrella term discovery learning. While the discovery method was elaborated on by Bruner (1961), the method has evolved into a variety of approaches whose primary characteristic is to present students with a problem or challenge leaving them to figure out how to solve it. Guided discovery, a variant of the method, works with the teacher providing resources to students on an as needed basis. Problem based teaching, case-based teaching, project-based teaching and learning are all different forms of discovery teaching and learning that have the potential to teach collaboration alongside the skills and tools of research. While these pedagogies have led to greater student learning and retention of knowledge, improved skill development, and application of material learned (Dochy et al., 2003; Prince, 2004; Prince and Felder, 2007), they also produced complications for instructors in terms of student resistance to the ambiguity in problem-based learning or student interpersonal conflicts occurring in group work situations or resistance to collaborative learning (Mills and Treagust, 2003; Prince and Felder, 2007). The research into these pedagogies often does not discuss how to tackle such issues, much less how collaborative practices need to be taught deliberately alongside content learning and problem-solving skills to increase communication and cooperation within groups. Team or group management is an essential part of pedagogies for collaboration. Addressing the differences between cooperative and collaborative learning (Panitz, 1999) offers an important level of specificity when operationally defining collaboration as a combination of complex skills at work, over a period of time, that requires relationship building more advanced than cooperative learning. Another essential ingredient for building pedagogies for collaboration includes capitalising on the knowledge about small group development theories and Tuckman’s work serves as an important foothold (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman and Jensen, 1977). Inductive approaches to research are usually used in qualitative research where data are gathered, and theory follows the data findings. In teaching collaborative practices in research, an inductive approach would mean creating an environment where collaboration would occur or where negotiations could be practiced. The skills of problem solving need to be extended

Pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research  53 to the process of collaboration so that interpersonal issues can be confronted and assumptions governing group processes can be challenged through dialogue. Teaching collaborative qualitative research is a challenge since it involves both teaching research methods and teaching collaboration. This could be undertaken by providing opportunities for group work in research classes, but that alone would not be sufficient to teach collaborative processes. For the latter, research methods classes would need to incorporate group work that produced a collaborative research project. One method for teaching research methods has been problem-based learning, a type of inductive or discovery method as described above. Ball and Pelco (2006) describe teaching a research methods course using problem-based learning or what they refer to as an ‘active cooperative learning approach’ (p. 147). They have students in groups from the beginning of the course and put them in several groups over the course of the semester, working on research problems. While instructors generate the general research problem on which the class groups work, each group then proceeds to come up with research questions that are student-led. Problem-based learning requires students to collaborate and come together in figuring out research questions, discuss the literature on which the question is based, find ways to gather data and conduct analysis and report or disseminate the findings. Student-led research projects like the ones that Ball and Pelco (2006) introduced into their class, are usually conducive to active learning and are the mainstay of several research methods courses. However, these projects may be either individual or group-based. Instructors at times tend to avoid group projects because of the difficulty in group processes that unless taught, often lead to difficulties. Often, the argument that students need to learn to independently conduct research is used to avoid or defer group projects and favor individual research projects in courses. To build a collaborative environment, one needs to focus on supporting and finding ways to encourage researcher skills of facilitation and communication. In successful research collaborations, feedback and communication facilitation are essential components of group work.

BUILDING FACILITATION AND FEEDBACK SKILLS FOR COLLABORATION Pedagogies ought to be focused on helping novice researchers elevate their communication skills. Scott (2019) offers a Radical Candor framework that may be useful for building the type of facilitation skills desired for these types of collaborations. The framework has four quadrants with three of the spaces representing non-desirable behavior: ruinous empathy, manipulative insincerity, and obnoxious aggression. The fourth quadrant represents the desirable behavior which is radical candor. Radical candor means being specific with praise and sincere with criticism. It assumes that the person giving the feedback is a caring individual who wants to be helpful. It also means giving feedback in a timely manner and, if possible, in person/synchronous via virtual or face to face meetings. It means criticising in private and praising in public. McGovern (2018) offers a way to take the radical candor approach into radical collaboration. She writes: The concept of radical collaboration means coming together across disparate but engaged domains in ways that are often unfamiliar or possibly uncomfortable to member organizations and individuals to identify and solve problems together to achieve more together than we could separately. In this

54  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods discussion, radical collaboration adapts the concept of radical candor to the desire and need to work together productively and collectively. (p. 6)

In collaboration, the feedback process would first involve developing working definitions (McGovern, 2018). Since groups are likely to come to the table with different understandings and experiences of the same concept, it is important to create the space for collaboration through developing working definitions that can be modified with new knowledge. In discussing radical collaboration, McGovern (2018) notes that in place of caring personally, radical collaboration would ask people to commit communally. Further, in place of challenge directly, it would be to engage interactively. Radical collaboration represents the desired behavior and process. The other three undesirable quadrants would be dominant coordination, exclusive interactions, and passive sharing. Dominant coordination would be a small group who would dictate the direction, exclusive interactions would again involve one or two people rather than the whole community and passive sharing would be detrimental to community building since the effort to share information and collaborate would be minimal. To bring the community together, it would need to adopt a framework of inclusion. The inclusive spirit would need to extend ensuring that no one was left out, all races, genders were represented, it would extend to ensuring that everyone had access to learning skills and to teaching the same to the larger group (McGovern, 2018). If research methods instructors wish to include collaboration as part of their pedagogies, they can experiment with several classroom exercises and activities. Peer feedback can teach collaboration through communication which involves listening and dialogue and a place to practice the act of radical collaboration. We offer the following exercise to assist researchers in thinking about giving and receiving feedback as integral to collaboration. Additionally, this exercise can serve to introduce students to working together while formulating a collaborative research question and determining the steps for conducting research. Exercise 1: Using Feedback and Dialogue to Advance Collaboration Guidelines: 1. Form groups of four. In pairs once you have determined your research theme, brainstorm ideas of how you will carry out your research. Write separately some quick ideas about people you think it would be beneficial to interview, additional types of data gathering besides interviewing you think may be productive and describe the sites and/or contexts from which you wish to gather data. 2. Share the ideas with your group. Two members of the group will observe while the other two members will serve as feedback partners discussing the ideas and giving feedback to each other. Observers will give feedback on what they saw in terms of the feedback session. 3. Questions for observers to think about include: 1. What was the tone of the feedback? 2. Did the feedback include questions or statements or both? 3. How specific was the feedback? 4. How helpful was the feedback?

Pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research  55 5. Does it fall into any of the quadrants given in the Radical Candor framework? If not, how would you describe or characterize the feedback given? Reflection questions for feedback partners: 1. What did you feel about giving feedback to the person with whom you are collaborating on the project? 2. How did you handle conflict or disagreement if any? 3. To what extent did giving and receiving feedback help you to learn how to improve on the same? 4. Did having observers influence the manner in which the feedback discussions unfolded? 5. What qualities do you think you might need to develop to give and receive feedback that is caring and critical at the same time? 6. How does creating environments for giving and receiving feedback further researchers’ ability to work in collaboration? Reflection questions for the group: 1. What do you see as some of the promises and challenges of collaborative research? Write one promise and one challenge and share with the group. How can dialogue enhance collaboration? 2. How can McGovern’s (2018) approach to using the principles of Radical Candor inform your collaborative research work?

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING AND LESSONS IN COLLABORATION Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a way to build on active learning pedagogies. PBL has been used in several disciplines since its initial introduction as case-based teaching in the medical professions (Duch, Groh and Allen, 2001). Cases are used in management, social work, and most applied disciplines to further understanding of content and promoting the practice of informed decision making (Savin-Baden and Major, 2004). It has the advantage of helping students develop group process skills for better collaborations. In such courses, the instructor acts as a facilitator. In groups, students conduct research and instructors are considered ‘floating facilitators’ (Duch, Groh and Allen, 2001). Since students are not well versed in group processes, it is important to teach the skills alongside the research methodology content, a point acknowledged by Ball and Pelco (2006) who drew on the work of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard University (https://​bokcenter​.harvard​.edu/​home) for ideas on teaching collaborative skills to their students. Teaching group roles, leadership, communication skills, and conflict resolution are all important components of teaching and learning skills for qualitative research. Allowing groups to be self-directed in their learning not only requires groups of students to learn skills of collaboration but it also requires the teacher or faculty to take on the role of facilitator. Role playing, simulations and games can all be used to model and process collaborative strategies while approaches to teaching and learning like PBL or case-based teaching can be used to provide opportunity to exercise and learn higher-order collaboration skills. To teach collaborative processes, the environment of the learning space needs to be taken into consideration.

56  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods For example, trust is a key ingredient in collaboration, and to engender trust, educators need to commit to cultivating learning spaces where risk taking is considered positive and failure is not feared, and where exploration and compromise are valued. For these dynamic learning spaces to manifest, norms and ground rules need to be established and nurtured over time. For example, respect during disagreements or the expression of strong feelings is a necessary component along with support for differing points of view. Role plays can help participants practice listening as well as ask open ended questions, how to resolve conflicts and keep the discussion moving forward. An exercise in introducing what roles make up collaborative processes can be used to get groups to think about the nuances of relationship building for productive collaboration. Exercise 2: Group Roles and Related Norms Goal: Learning to understand the different ways group roles can be enacted, performed, and used to share power and build collaboration. Process: Divide the students into groups and ask each group to come up with roles that can enhance discussion and collaboration in groups. In addition, ask each group to come up with what roles can enhance the learning environment of the classroom. Students may use index cards or similar virtual note taking tools for this activity. Guidelines: In your groups, think of as many roles as you can in a group that can help facilitate a group discussion. Begin this exercise by thinking of a time when a group discussion really worked well. Think about the reasons why it was successful. Think about the way the group interacted to help move the discussion or activity forward. Now think of a time when you were part of a group and it did not function well. Think of what made the group dynamics difficult or what challenges the group faced in interacting with each other. What characteristics or qualities allow for group success? What roles can people play that allow for a good discussion and collaboration in a group activity? What causes difficulties in group work? How do you ensure that one or two people do not dominate the group? How do you attempt to bring in those who might be reluctant to participate? How do you attempt to include participants who might be overlooked? What problems occur in group work? Reflection: After all the groups complete the exercise, ask groups to report on the roles that individuals can play to support the work of the group and roles that individuals can play to contribute to strengthening group dynamics or interactions. Have groups post the roles on a large poster or whiteboard. Facilitate commonalities and create one large collage of all the roles. For instructors, it may be useful to remember that for successful group work, roles of supporter, ques-

Pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research  57 tioner, challenger, fact checker, researcher or writer are all important. For successful group process facilitation or for group dynamics, roles of listening, supporter, facilitative questioner, leader are all important. Guidelines: For students: Once you have completed the individual and group exercise in finding roles that will facilitate or challenge group work and group dynamics, add your words to the class poster or whiteboard. Think about what each role would entail. Which role seems to be the most difficult? Which role might be easy to take on? What conditions do you think are most important for creating successful collaborative work? The above exercise helps students see the spectrum of roles that can be played and arrive at a shared understanding of group dynamics involved in collaborative research. The next exercise involves role play regarding how to problem solve with different roles in a group and how to best negotiate when different points of view are revealed. While the above exercise helps build collaborative skills and encourages thoughtful consideration of the complexity of collaboration, the following exercise can help students apply collaborative practice to research processes. Data analysis in groups can be a challenging and rewarding experience. Different perspectives can present a complex analysis while disagreements might create tension. Practicing working together on data analysis can help students learn more about the process of collaborative data analysis. Exercise 3: Group Work with Collaborative Data Analysis Guidelines: Step 1: Ask students to form a group of four or six. Step 2: Ask each group of students to think about collaborative data analysis. Allocate about 20 minutes for the decision regarding the steps for data analysis. Have each group member contribute to the joint writing space where they work out the steps involved in qualitative collaborative analysis. Step 3: Each student ought to be assigned a role. They can include, for example, supporter, questioner, challenger, listener, or fact checker. Let each student play the role assigned. A time limit of 30 minutes can be set for the discussion with each student playing their role. Reflection: 1. Each group needs to reflect and debrief on the activity. Have the students guess what role each person played and facilitate a discussion about the process. 2. How did the group function? 3. What was most challenging about the discussion? 4. What was most successful about the discussion? 5. What were the ways in which the group tried to resolve problems within the group discussion? 6. To what extent did the process help or hinder working out a plan for collaborative analysis? 7. What will be gained or lost through collaborative analysis of data?

58  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods The above exercise can help novice researchers learn to work with different group dynamics and practice dialogue and problem solving. It helps students consider their roles and responsibilities in collaborative analysis.

COUNTERING THE SOLITARY LEARNER THROUGH COLLABORATION PEDAGOGIES A strong barrier to collaborative learning and teaching is the cultural tradition of the individual author, teacher, or learner. Pedagogies for fostering collaboration or what we refer to as ‘collaboration pedagogies’ have consequently had to persist in countering the cultural imperative of the sole learner or author. Further, such pedagogies talk back to the idea of the superior or dominant knower in the classroom who imparts knowledge or wisdom to those who do not know. They work against a hierarchical relationship in the classroom or a division between the teacher and students. However, we cannot assume that pedagogies leading to collaborative work in a classroom can always be equated with democracy and social change. Collaborative work can also take place in a hierarchy. Social constructivist philosophers Rorty (1979) and Gere (1987) explain that social constructivism sees knowledge as the product of collaboration, as socially constructed, and contextualised. However, if the strength of social constructivism is collaboration, the weakness is in assuming that all participants in a collaboration are similar or homogenous. In collaborative activities it is important to pay attention to the ways in which power is defined and distributed in these activities. Pedagogies include small group discussions or peer responses and collaborative writing. Thralls (1992) focusing on language and Sullivan (1994) focusing on technology, both argued that the act of writing is compositional and therefore in most contexts needs to be understood as a collaborative act even if the collaborative process is not always visible. The writer engages with a specific audience while writing, and their word choices or tone is a response to the intended audience. Miller (1994) suggested that the best way to imagine a pedagogy that developed collaboration skills and dispositions was to consider it a workshop where peers could work on and tinker with each other’s work. Collaborative writing and thinking together in such workshops presented a space where students can practice facilitation, listening, peer feedback, and advance these processes through collaborative writing. LeFevre (1987) introduced the idea of collective invention and collaborative invention, both of which challenge the accepted ideas of individual authorship. Collaborative invention would be a group of people generating ideas together. It can be put into practice by discussions within a group of a particular task or project that they wish to do together. Small group discussions can serve as steppingstones to progressively more complex collaborations in projects. Small group discussions, or chances for interpersonal dialogues in classrooms, can serve the purpose of building trust in groups, and for learning how to resolve minor conflicts and for getting to know relative strengths and weaknesses of each individual as they begin to work together. Collaborative projects can be of several types and require different kinds of collaborations. One type might require groups working together and individually where tasks are divided up between the group members because of the scope of the task or the amount of work involved. A second type of collaboration can occur when the group members divide tasks according to specialty. For example, in grant funded projects where members from several disciplines

Pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research  59 gather, they might each contribute discipline specific ideas and work together. In a third type of collaboration, a group might want to synthesise diverse ideas to bring forward a unique perspective or suggest solutions to problems. In all types of collaboration, the possibilities for equal participation as well as hierarchy exist. Power within collaborations can manifest in several ways. Some tasks are discussed in a group while others might be assigned by group leaders. In a dialogic collaboration, one expects all aspects of the work to be discussed while in hierarchical collaborations, tasks might be divided and assigned (Lunsford and Ede, 1994). Dialogic collaboration can result in discovery while hierarchical collaboration might be more efficiency oriented. When research methods faculty teach novice researchers the art and science of collaboration, they might consider how to intentionally design projects and related assignments so that student-led collaborations can routinely occur. Some examples of what successful and unsuccessful research collaborations look like can help expose them to models, sharpen their ability to effectively evaluate working collaborations, and further spur ideas for the contours of this way to approach research. A discussion about power within collaborations can also help the group become aware of the tensions and dynamics of working together. In research projects, one of the main obstacles to collaboration is the differences in preparation among members of the group for the tasks assigned. As a member of a collaborative group, one needs to prepare emotionally to be critiqued and for one’s ideas to be edited out at the cutting table. Similarly, in a group one also needs to be prepared regarding how best to work with or tackle anyone who is not carrying their share of the work, leaving it for others to pick up to get the project completed. Exercise 4: Simulation Goal: Learning to become aware of different ways in which groups can be constituted. Process: Let the class know this is a simulation. Ask students to choose groups for a collaborative project. Once the groups have formed, ask the students in each group to reflect on: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

How were the groups formed? What was the rationale by which they decided to be in the group they were? What was the rationale for group numbers? What other possible ways can groups be formed? What different criteria can we use to form groups? What are the pros and cons of each way of constituting groups?

The groups will generally come to the realisation that they tend to choose groups for collaboration based on existing relationships or convenience. For example, students sitting near each other may decide to form a group. Other ways of constituting groups might look at project specific needs or skills (a historian or someone interested in archival research, another interested in interviewing or someone who might be interested in literature reviews or participants who describe writing as their strength etc.). The pros and cons of each way of constituting groups can be discussed. One point that may come up is the argument for or against a random selection of groups to create equity or mitigate against personal bias. It may be worth pointing out

60  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods that random selection might come with its own problematic outcomes with perhaps all writers in one group. The pros and cons of all selective processes need to be discussed. Lunsford and Ede (1994) explain that collaborative groups should anticipate conflict and be prepared to work through the differences. This means becoming aware of the dissenting opinions in the group and not try to suppress them or erase or overpower them. Instead, groups should be aware that conflict can be creative, and that the minority view can present a perspective that was previously not considered. The following exercise can be used to think about conflict resolution in group work. Exercise 5: Conflict Resolution Goal: Learn to understand reasons for conflict in groups. Guidelines: 1. In a group of four to six, brainstorm a list of reasons why conflicts can arise in group work or collaborative projects. 2. What solutions can be proposed to address the concerns that lead to conflict? 3. What types of solutions would you propose for resolving conflicts? Pedagogically, it is worth questioning how to assess collaborative work and to ask to what extent collaborative work should be assessed individually. For faculty teaching collaborative research, it might be important to consider whether to utilise self-assessment and peer assessment as additional ways to democratise the assessment process. What this should look like and how to encourage a fair peer assessment might be questions to discuss with novice researchers. Gweon, Jun, Finger and Rose (2015) suggest five assessment categories for evaluating group work in classrooms. The first is goal setting where one can evaluate the goals discussed in the group. The second category is progress, which would require one to see if the group discussed together the progress made since the last meeting. The third is knowledge and seeing if knowledge is shared with the group. The fourth would be participation or seeing if work during the meeting is carried out equally by all members. The fifth would be teamwork, which would mean observing whether everyone’s point of view is taken seriously, and no one is silenced. Other scholars have suggested self-assessment and peer assessments as additional ways to evaluate group work or collaborative work. Often, these types of assessments can indicate how well experiments with collaboration pedagogies worked.

LEARNING FROM COLLABORATIVE ETHNOGRAPHIES TO CRAFT COLLABORATIVE PEDAGOGIES Collaborative ethnographies (Campbell and Lassiter, 2010) can lead to and teach us about pedagogies to foster research collaboration. Campbell and Lassiter (2010) described a project in which alongside faculty and students, community groups worked to advance the democratic project of civic engagement and learning. The project, The Other Side of Middletown, was a follow up that would fill the crucial gaps in the study of Middletown by Robert and Helen Lynd in the 1920s of Muncie, Indiana. Muncie, in the popular public imagination, was seen as

Pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research  61 a typical representation of a small city in the United States. Although the typicality of Muncie has been debated by scholars, nevertheless, the myth of typicality continued to persist. It was Hurley Goodall, an African American activist who discovered, while reading Middletown studies, that the study had a serious gap. The researchers had left, and effectively erased, the African American experience from Middletown despite a sizable African American population. Goodall himself began gathering evidence and published research on the Black Middletown for the local community (Goodall and Mitchell, 1976). In 1996, Campbell, Lassiter and Goodall started to collaborate to bring African American history to the forefront of the history of Middletown. The surrounding community, Ball State University, the researchers, and students formed a collaborative group to research the history of African Americans in Muncie. They started with a challenging situation wherein community memories of ‘researchers’ were less than pleasant. In the 1980s a group of researchers had received a grant to study and document the history of African Americans in Muncie, and it had come to nothing, leaving the community skeptical of researchers. Alternatively, The Other Side of Middletown was designed to be a collaborative ethnography with a participatory approach. The process of research and writing started with conversations and dialogues on race relations that continued throughout the project as these dialogues extended into the broader community. Collaborative ethnographic projects have the potential to destabilise power relations and create a more democratic space that can extend from dialogues and writing to activism. They also have the potential to become public scholarship and allow for the results to be more accessible to the public. They can encourage ethically responsible practices in research that are based in reciprocity and can generate a ‘responsible form of activism’ (Marcus, 1999, p. 18). Campbell and Lassiter (2010) point out that the collaborative ethnographic work involved in The Other Side of Middletown also produced a collaborative pedagogy in which all researchers, faculty, students, and community members were teachers and learners simultaneously. The project also included and involved community members as teachers and learners, thereby creating potential pedagogies with diverse voices.

COLLABORATIVE PEDAGOGIES: TRANSFORMATION OR STATUS QUO? Choosing a pedagogical approach in a classroom is not an apolitical act. What we choose and how we implement that choice is reflective of our belief systems both in terms of outcomes and process. On the face of it, pedagogy for collaboration might appear to be a democratic choice, however, as Mayberry (1998) cautions us, collaborative approaches to pedagogy may at times serve to reproduce the dominant discourse or reinforce the status quo. Collaboration itself may not produce an environment in which change can flourish. Mayberry (1998) gives us the example of science education where collaboration may not serve to disturb power hierarchies nor make classrooms inviting to scholars of color or to women. Collaboration can serve to reproduce or transform existing power relations. As a reproductive system it can serve to encourage students to learn the language of the dominant discourse in science. As a transformative system it can serve to invite students to call into question and analyse existing science systems and their relationship to oppression. Feminist pedagogy, according to Mayberry (1998), serves to challenge power relations and assumptions about

62  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods knowledge and education. Calls for collaborative pedagogical models began to be implemented in the 1980s after several research studies showed the difference that collaboration could make for improving student learning. In collaborative learning, the classroom is structured so that a student is not learning alone, instead a group works together to pose questions, explain concepts to each other, problem solve and find solutions. While collaborative learning can provide a positive learning experience, it does not always provide a critical thinking environment (Mayberry, 1998). Instead, collaborative learning groups learn to master the conventions and discourses of a particular discipline (Brown, 1995) with little attention to how race, class, or gender can shape how knowledge is produced and used. This means that the use of collaborative pedagogies can serve to provide students with skills and knowledge to join and be part of established knowledge communities rather than transform them. The intent to transform or create change requires faculty to be intentional about creating collaboration pedagogies in classrooms. Feminist pedagogies, for example, or critical approaches can bring attention to issues of difference, diversity, and the power relations. Feminist pedagogies corrected the omissions of critical pedagogies and liberation pedagogies by bringing attention to gender alongside race and class. Feminist pedagogies questioned power hierarchies and called into question the power relationship inherent in knowledge production and its dissemination. Collaboration pedagogies as utilised by teachers whose primary aim is to train students to master discourses are quite different from pedagogies promoting collaboration that are utilised through a critical approach or framework that in turn results in a questioning of unequal social relations or in questioning taken-for-granted power hierarchies in society. In this sense collaborative pedagogy can permeate the curriculum through conversation as a powerful tool that empowers students not merely to master the dominant discourse but try to change it.

COLLABORATIVE PEDAGOGIES: METAPHORS AND COMPETENCIES Woods (2011) uses the metaphor of the spiral to outline the pedagogical strategy she used to teach entrepreneurship to Maori students. The spiral represents the collaborative spiral of learning. Woods (2011) discussed her own reflective stance and her pedagogical insights as she found that the spiral best represented the stages of acquisition, adaptation and sharing of knowledge. The spiral had a symbolic meaning within the Maori context making her choice culturally appropriate and sensitive. Explaining that innovation is a ‘double spiral of creation where opportunity and heritage come together’ (Woods, 2011, p. 163), she described the collaboration between herself and students as a double spiral of learning. This imagery helps remind people that the process is iterative and not linear. The image of a spiral for developing collaborative pedagogies is also apt for qualitative researchers. Collaborations do not usually work in linear form, are multidimensional, and are iterative. With each stage completed, or as we go up or down the spiral, we can see or perceive from a different vantage point. In teaching collaborative research, the use of the analogy of spiral can help student researchers to understand the nature of learning and the process of collaborative research. The process of research as well as the process of collaboration can be understood through a spiral metaphor. Just as recruitment, data gathering, and data analysis are

Pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research  63 conducted multiple times through successive iterations, the nature of the collaboration can also change depending on the stage of the collaboration and the context. Bainbridge, Nasmith, Orchard and Wood (2010) outlined a framework of six competency domains for interprofessional collaboration. The different domains are: 1. role clarification – this means that all participants should be aware of each other’s roles; 2. client/community/family centered – the values of the community partners or the client should be kept in mind during the collaboration; 3. team functioning – the group should learn group processes and how teams function; 4. leadership – the teams should understand leadership that can be applied to collaborative teamwork; 5. interprofessional communication – all teams should communicate with each other in a respectful and responsive manner; 6. interprofessional conflict management – all teams need to be knowledgeable about interprofessional conflict resolution and strategies to deal with conflict. Identification of these competencies can be valuable, including the teaching of these competencies for collaborative research teams. The exercises offered in this chapter can be used to teach collaborative skills in each of these domains.

COLLABORATION PEDAGOGIES AS IMPROVISATIONAL PERFORMANCE Sawyer (2004) used the metaphor of improvisational performance to convey how to address the complexities of teaching. Rather than think of the teacher as a performer, or of teaching as a performance, a more specific improvisational performance metaphor allows space for the necessary innovations of co-creation. Dialogue makes way for a form of collaborative and collective learning. Adapting this metaphor to help elucidate the pedagogical thinking needed to teach collaborative research leads us to becoming more aware of the transformative power of dialogue-based pedagogies in service to building collaboration. One part of learning collaboration includes building group trust. Relational pedagogies designed to accentuate relationship building as a vehicle for deep learning can benefit from experimenting with improvisational dialogue on the issue being researched. Improvisational dialogue might be centered around imagining scenarios. For example, researchers could dialogue about what they might like to see happen at different stages of relationship building with participants through a series of imagined conversations created via improvisational dialogue. They can also discuss together what the obstacles or barriers might be to achieving the desired outcomes. Exercise 6: Improvising a Scene Goal: Learning to anticipate the ‘what if’ scenarios. Guidelines: In groups of four or six, think of a research project that involves multiple stakeholders. Role play the different stakeholders, with two taking on the role of researchers, two participants and

64  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods two people perhaps interested in investing in the outcome. Start an imaginary dialogue with each other based on the following questions: 1. What challenges exist to carrying out this research? 2. Who will benefit from this research? 3. What roles should each person play in the research process? Reflect: 1. What did you learn from improvisational dialogue? 2. What was most surprising? 3. What was the most difficult part of doing this activity? 4. In what way does this teach us how to conduct collaborative research? Most students will find improvisation difficult at first and perhaps even become self-conscious. However, the language of role play can ease those anxieties and they will usually enjoy the interaction. Further, the imaginative exchange can help them brainstorm both issues as well as solutions in a spirit of collegial exchange. In role plays even emotions such as anger on the part of participants can be an anticipated reality, and one that needs to be confronted and addressed. Such opportunities to negotiate and problem solve or resolve conflicts can help collaborative research partners to become adept at furthering the dialogue in actual research settings.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Faculty teaching research methods within the social sciences are faced with the challenge of preparing scholars ready to take on complex research problems as multidisciplinary cross-sector teams. Developing new ways to coach and mentor novice researchers into becoming innovative collaborators ready to leverage the benefits of interdisciplinary critical will take an ongoing evaluation of the pedagogies faculty enact. Indeed, while at one level, almost all research requires some form of negotiation and collaboration, an intentional pedagogy that centers collaboration has rich possibilities. Collaboration pedagogies that can perform the dual roles of teaching research methods while also centering collaborative skills can meet the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to complex research questions. In this chapter, we have described and suggested some ways in which faculty can approach this teaching challenge as well as through a series of exercises that can be adapted for experimentation. One important implication for continuing to build pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research is the opportunity to explore more substantially how collaborative research designs may become a more viable option for some doctoral students (Mulvihill and Swaminathan, 2023). If novice researchers grow their experiences with collaborative research designs collaborative dissertations may evolve as a new model for preparing the next generation of researchers. Collectively, the community of scholars contemplating new advances for teaching research methods will no doubt need to include models of collaboration to effectively address the complexities of knowledge creation needed for our world today.

Pedagogies for collaborative qualitative research  65

REFERENCES Bainbridge, L., Nasmith, L., Orchard, C. and Wood, V. (2010). Competencies for interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 24(1), 6–11. Ball, C. T. and Pelco, L. E. (2006). Teaching research methods to undergraduate psychology students using an active cooperative learning approach. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 147–154. Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4–12. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Education Review, 31(1), 21–32. Campbell, E. and Lassiter, L. E. (2010). From collaborative ethnography to collaborative pedagogy: Reflections on the other side of Middletown project and community-university partnerships. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(4), 370–385. Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, Harvard University. (2019). https://​bokcenter​.harvard​ .edu/​home Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. and Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568. Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E. and Allen, D. E. (2001). The Power of Problem-Based Learning: A Practical ‘How To’ for Teaching Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications. Carbondale, Illinois: SIU Press. Gweon, G., Jun, S., Finger, S. and Rosé, C. P. (2017). Towards effective group work assessment: Even what you don’t see can bias you. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 165–180. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. LeFevre, K. B. (1987). Invention as a Social Act. CCCC Studies in Writing and Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Lunsford, A. A. and Ede, L. (1994). Collaborative authorship and the teaching of writing. In M. Woodmansee and P. Jaszi (Eds.), The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature (pp. 417–438). Durham: Duke University Press. Marcus, G. E. (1999). Critical anthropology now: An Introduction. In G. E. Marcus (Ed.), Critical Anthropology Now: Unexpected Contexts, Shifting Constituencies, Changing Agendas (pp. 3–38). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Mayberry, M. (1998). Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparative roles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 443–459. McGovern, N. Y. (2018). Radical collaboration and research data management: An introduction. Research Library Issues, 296, 6–22. doi:10.29242/rli.296.2 Miller, J. E., Trimbur, J. and Wilkes, J. M. (1994). Group dynamics: Understanding groups’ success and failure in collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth and S. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative Learning: Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques (pp. 33–44). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 59. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mills, J. E. and Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education – Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2–16. Mulvihill, T. M. and Swaminathan, R. (2020). Arts-based Educational Research and Qualitative Inquiry: Walking the Path. Abingdon: Routledge. Mulvihill, T. and Swaminathan, R. (2022a). Critical duoethnography: A social justice research methodology for educational researchers. In E. Throne (Ed.), Social Justice Research Methods for Doctoral Research (pp. 47–67). Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global. Mulvihill, T. M. and Swaminathan, R. (2022b). Oral History and Qualitative Methodologies: Education Research for Social Justice. Abingdon: Routledge. Mulvihill, T. M. and Swaminathan, R. (2023). Collaborative Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2020). A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 467–487.

66  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Onwuegbuzie, A., Wilcox, A., Gonzales, V., Hoisington, S., Lambert, J., Jordan, J., Aleisab, M., Bengeb, C., Wachsmannb, M. and Valle, R. (2018). Collaboration patterns among mixed researchers: A multidisciplinary examination. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 437–457. Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. https://​files​.eric​.ed​.gov/​fulltext/​ ED448443​.pdf Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. Prince, M. and Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20. Rorty, R. (1979/2009). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Vol. 81). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Savin-Baden, M. and Major, C. H. (2004). Foundations of Problem-based Learning. Berkshire: Open University Press. Scott, K. (2019). Radical Candor: Fully Revised & Updated Edition: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Sullivan, P. (1994). Computer technology and collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth and S. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative Learning: Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques (pp. 59–67). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Swaminathan, R. and Mulvihill, T. M. (2018). Teaching Qualitative Research: Strategies for Engaging Emerging Scholars. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Swaminathan R. and Mulvihill T. (2022) Synergistic pedagogies in virtual spaces: Preparing social justice educational researchers through SoTL. In L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (Eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education (pp. 85–105). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Thralls, C. (1992). Bakhtin, collaborative partners, and published discourse: A collaborative view of composing. In J. Forman (Ed.), New Visions of Collaborative Writing (pp. 63–81). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook. Tuckman, B. W. (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. Tuckman, B. W. and Jensen, K. (1977). Stages of small group development. Group and Organisational Studies, 2(4), 419–427. Woods, C. (2011). Reflections on pedagogy: A journey of collaboration. Journal of Management Education, 35(1), 154–167.

6. Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods: teaching the ‘breadth and depth method’ for analysis of ‘big qual’ Sarah Lewthwaite, Lynn Jamieson, Emma Davidson, Rosalind Edwards, Melanie Nind and Susie Weller

INTRODUCTION Archived data from qualitative research projects remain radically under-used for teaching, learning and researching despite the accumulation of projects curated in carefully managed research data repositories that request a high standard of documentation from depositors and are primarily populated by quality-assured projects that have been funded, peer-reviewed and published. The benefits of working with pre-existing high-quality well-documented data are taken to a new level when ways of doing this build on learners’ own interests, and encourage new questions to be asked of the data. In this chapter, we discuss teaching a new challenging but mutually rewarding method for teachers and learners, the ‘breadth-and-depth method’. This approach offers iterative steps for navigating, accessing and searching within existing qualitative data, and constructing a new data assemblage for analysis. The analysis involves techniques for sifting and sampling that combine user-friendly forms of computer-aided ‘data mining’ textual analysis with conventional qualitative analytical approaches (Davidson et al., 2019). This breadth-and-depth method was developed to leverage added value from large volumes of qualitative data (‘big qual’) and to enhance the reach of qualitative researchers while respecting the fundamental principles of in-depth qualitative analysis. Such aims highlight the importance of training and of integrating pedagogical skills and reflections into the development of the method. In the chapter, we describe a collaboration which put the development of the method in dialogue with reflection on modes of teaching through data, the use of worked examples and metaphors for articulating and structuring the acquisition of new concepts and knowledge, and the use of peer-learning to enrich learning and manage diversity. Through this collaboration we have been able to examine what it takes to develop both a research method and the pedagogy for teaching that method simultaneously. Teaching any research method requires Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK, Shulman, 1986), that is, the mix of knowledge about what to teach and how to teach that includes an understanding of common misconceptions and ways to make the subject matter comprehensible to learners (see Nind, 2019 for a discussion of PCK particular to teachers of social research methods). As the breadth-and-depth method is new, researchers and teachers of research methods are likely to be developing methodological competence and PCK simultaneously. For us this process was aided by bringing the developers of the method (Emma Davidson, Rosalind Edwards, Lynn Jamieson and Susie Weller) into dialogue with pedagogic researchers (Sarah Lewthwaite and Melanie Nind). Each team had previously received funding as part of the UK’s 67

68  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM) research programme (‘Working across qualitative longitudinal studies: A feasibility study looking at care and intimacy’ http://​bigqlr​.ncrm​.ac​.uk; ‘The pedagogy of methodological learning’ http://​pedagogy​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​).  NCRM supported this new collaboration: ‘Big qual analysis: innovation in method and pedagogy’ (https://​www​.ncrm​.ac​ .uk/​research/​collaborative/​BigQual​.php). Beginning to teach the method and initial dialogue about how we were teaching it took place alongside the development and dissemination of the method. This combined process enabled our teaching and research practice to be enhanced by a pedagogical language and the underlying knowledge it expresses. Our aim in this chapter is that other research methods teachers who are themselves learning the breadth-and-depth method, or researcher/teachers brokering other new methods and techniques that must be quickly and effectively cascaded to new audiences, can benefit from our account of the combined learning and teaching of this methodological approach. Advantages of Secondary Data Analysis for Researchers, Teachers and Learners For many research topics, there are existing qualitative data which will ‘fit’ a researcher’s new research questions, albeit that these questions were not the focus of the original projects (Hammersley, 2010). The possibility of finding appropriate data for any new project has increased with a growing number of archived qualitative research projects providing data that cover a diverse array of topics, and reflect a range of qualitative methods. In several national contexts there are substantial and expanding archives of quality-assured qualitative data, gathered by experienced researchers and reported on in peer reviewed publications. For example, in the UK, major funders require that data be made available for re-use in repositories such as the national UK Data Archive. The sharing and re-use of data is regarded by funders as a way of maximising its value, and as vital to research accountability and transparency. This necessitates curation of the data and metadata to make the data discoverable and reduce ethical risks. Re-use and secondary analysis that reassembles existing data to ask new questions can be as original and creative as producing primary data. In designing the breadth-and-depth method, we drew on work which already effectively illustrated this point (e.g., Seale and Charteris-Black, 2008). The same challenge of bridging between theory and evidence that is confronted in primary data collection is also met by the researcher re-using data when justifying the fit between their particular data assemblage and their articulated aim, objectives and research questions. Researchers have written about potential theoretical gains and key benefits of bringing together qualitative data in a new assemblage drawn from different projects (Davidson et al., 2019; Dodds et al., 2021; Edwards et al., 2021; Irwin et al., 2012: Purcell et al., 2020). Working across multiple qualitative datasets allows for greater diversity of participants and cases than is typical of a single qualitative study, expanding the possibilities for comparison between participants with different characteristics and circumstances. Drawing on data across projects may also create new possibilities for theoretical generalisation by facilitating understanding of how social processes are manifested in different contexts. Finally, innovative insights might also be generated by bringing together the different theoretical, disciplinary and epistemological perspectives that shaped different research studies and the materials they produced. Possibilities for comparative analysis are opened up by new data assemblages in questions such as ‘How do different people talk about …?’ or ‘How do different groups experience …?’. Projects conducted with similar participants at different historical times or at different

Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods  69 ages and stages of the life-course might be used to ask comparative questions about change over time. Such questions might be seeking knowledge of practical value, for example policy makers seeking to customise messages or interventions, or to confront theoretical assumptions within disciplinary debates about underlying social processes of social differentiation or convergence with research evidence. Projects with similar topics and research participants, but different methodologies, might be assembled to address comparative questions about theory-method-evidence links. Introducing the Breadth-and-depth Method The breadth-and-depth method was designed as a particular approach to the secondary analysis of large volumes of qualitative data, where the extent of qualitative data is beyond the normal reading capacity of solo researchers and small research teams (‘big qual’). It was developed with the intention of encouraging the re-use of qualitative data that both enables analysis of ‘big qual’ and retains the principles that underpin the conventions of qualitative research (Davidson et al., 2019). Most carefully conducted in-depth qualitative social science research is small scale. In the breadth-and-depth method, increase in scale is achieved by creating assemblages of data from different qualitative projects that speak to the substantive secondary research endeavour, while attending to the distinctiveness and original purpose of projects. The method supports the generation of new knowledge to answer new research questions. The new (re-assembled) dataset is built from pre-existing qualitative data attending to the documentation provided by the original researchers, and subsequent steps in the process enable researchers to work from breadth to depth. To conceptualise and teach the method, its originators developed metaphors from archaeology (Davidson et al., 2019, Edwards et al., 2020). The method is described as if the researchers are field archaeologists seeking new ‘finds’ of a particular kind in what they expect to be a promising area, starting from an aerial survey of the landscape, choosing a segment on the ground for detailed ‘geophysical survey’, then digging some shallow test pits before settling on the site or sites of the main ‘dig’. The method starts with an overview of the text-based qualitative data available, looking for particular topics and theoretical interests, selecting and constructing an assemblage of data for detailed mapping using computational tools for textual analysis, followed by a preliminary analysis of a sample of short extracts before identifying texts for in-depth qualitative analysis. However, just as test pits might yield nothing and send the archaeologist back to re-examine the aerial photographs to find another starting point, so too in this method. Steps might be backwards as well as forward. For the qualitative researcher, understanding is deepened by constantly referring back to the wider context of the data under analysis. This might mean, for example, reading the whole transcript of an interview again and again. At the same time, constant comparison across apparently similar data extracts, for example, across multiple interview transcripts, helps tease out and theorise difference, nuance, levels and layers of meaning. This ‘depth’ approach sits in contrast to the increasingly popular procedures used in computational text analysis. These typically strip the data of context by reducing texts to ‘bags of words’ that can be compared for the relative frequency or probability of the occurrence of words that are presumed to carry meaning, or for patterns of co-location and proximity of words considered meaningful. At the outset words that are not seen as carrying meaning like ‘the’, ‘and’, ‘so’, and the like are discarded. Computational techniques using algorithms for this form of text analysis are often

70  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods labelled ‘data mining’. This is an arguably unhelpful terminology, since it implies easy extraction and depth, when the procedures are better described as surface scraping or mapping in recursive searches for a collection of words that might represent a semantically coherent word collection in the data, whether called a ‘topic’, ‘theme’ or ‘concept’. Whatever the term used for the results, the basic techniques of ‘text mining’ are superficial in comparison to the range of factors being weighed up by a qualitative researcher exploring topics, themes or concepts during in-depth qualitative analysis. However, without employing computational methods for text analysis, it is not possible to get purchase on volumes of data too great to be worked on by conventional qualitative methods and take advantage of the accumulating volumes of small qualitative projects with data that might usefully be pooled and brought into comparative dialogue. Using a breadth-and-depth approach, the results of so-called data mining techniques are not being treated as the end-point, but as one step in an iterative process between breadth and depth. The results produced by forms of computational text analysis are the starting points for sampling short extracts of data in a later step.

AN ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH TO TEACHING A NEW METHOD The newness of the breadth-and-depth method poses challenges for both teachers and learners. For learners already immersed in qualitative research it builds on and strengthens prior knowledge and adds the new skills required for computational text analysis. As will be discussed, for these learners, this is the step that may feel unfamiliar. For quantitative researchers this part is likely to be less of a challenge, but significant additional investment may be required to gain the perspective and skills typical of qualitative research without which the approach will be incoherent. In both cases, learning is facilitated by simultaneously retaining a sense of the whole process and the modular steps which break the process down. Starting with pre-existing qualitative material or archived data produced by funded and published researchers has advantages for teachers and learners of insight into good practice, strengthening critical reflection on data collection, operationalising theory, and theory-evidence links. Secondary data analysis involves attention to how data were created by the primary researcher through scrutiny of metadata and publications describing how the primary researchers gathered their data. However, a ‘backstage’ (Goffman, 1959) view of data analysis – showing the realities, rather than the brief, para-phrased or curated ‘frontstage’ accounts of research methods that can constitute peer-reviewed accounts of methods practice – is likely to complement and extend prior learning which is enriched with ‘hands on’ learning-by-doing data analysis, combined with learning both computational ‘text mining’ type techniques and techniques of qualitative data analysis. While, like all methods, the breadth-and-depth method could be taught in a variety of ways, our approach foregrounds active experiential learning of each step in the method, while reminding learners that these steps are part of a whole. Each offers gains in learning through practical activity. The first step, ‘aerial surveying’ involves overviewing the data and constructing a corpus. This can include searching for data available in a data repository to discover new material of relevance to the researcher’s interests. It is also concerned with the iterative process of refining research questions and assembling relevant data and mindfulness of data

Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods  71 preparation necessary for the next step. The second step, ‘geophysical surveying’ focuses on recursive surface ‘thematic’ mapping using data mining tools. This step is concerned with the use of at least one of the variety of tools and programs for computational textual analysis in order to provide a detailed ‘surface map’ of the new data assemblage. The third step, ‘test pit sampling’ is concerned with conducting a preliminary analysis and comprises reading a sample of short extracts of data identified by computational analysis as ‘on topic’ to check their relevance or ‘fit’ to the research questions. The fourth step, ‘deep excavations’ involves in-depth interpretive analysis and the more detailed reading required by conventional techniques of qualitative data analysis using texts whose selection is justified by the prior steps. As we have indicated, the novelty of the individual steps will be different according to the learners’ backgrounds but the whole method will be new for all. Explaining with Metaphor At an early stage in their discussions, the breadth-and-depth method development team became convinced of the value of an extended archaeological metaphor in shedding light on the complex and messy processes of handling large volumes of qualitative material, and in reconciling breadth with depth. The metaphor was first encountered in reviewing the work of other authors similarly grappling with analysis involving breadth and depth. Seale and Charteris-Black (2010) use analysis of keywords across a thousand-plus texts before selecting a sample of interviews for in-depth scrutiny. They described their text analysis as being: … like an aerial view of a landscape, whose undulations and patterns of vegetation growth reflect the outline of ancient buildings, only possible to see from the air. At this point, the ‘aerial archaeologist’ descends to ground level and starts to dig (p. 537).

The metaphor helped to orient each team member and had real purchase in putting across the notion of datasets that comprise ‘big qual’ as a landscape, a whole vista to be scanned, to the idea of digging down from interesting features to get into the complex contextualised detail. It helped the team to think about what lay beneath the corpus of material being analysed, and to work extensively and intensively to identify and excavate meaning. In early discussions of pedagogy for the method, we understood that the archaeological metaphor provided a useful starting point. In methodological learning, metaphors are commonly used as a pedagogic resource (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018a). Puschmann and Burgess (2014, p. 1690) observe that they are a ‘common instrument of human cognition, activated when seeking to make sense of novel and abstract phenomena’. In this respect, their place in both research and research teaching is well founded. The archaeology metaphor allows us to parcel concepts and communicate discrete but related methodological steps. Giving Time and Space to Reflecting on Learning Our early work together researching our teaching of the method in an action research style project brought about many pedagogic improvements. We learned from the systematic inclusion of periods of reflection on learning in our timetable of activities in which we used both peer discussion and self-reflection by learners aided by prompts on feedback cards (detailed

72  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods later). We introduced systematic consideration of what we needed to know about the prior knowledge of learners. Over the course of the collaboration (pre-pandemic, in 2018), we sought to be innovative in the design and delivery of resources for the teaching of this novel analytic approach. Using participatory action research and working closely with key stakeholders – including partners at the Timescapes Archive – we developed, evaluated and shaped resources through cycles of action and reflection across three face-to-face events. First, with doctoral students and early career researchers via NCRM short-course training on ‘big qual’ methods (one day). Second in workshops with researchers/trainers for capacity building on ‘big qual’ via the ESRC Research Method Festival (2018), and finally through a one-day train-the-trainers event with teachers and other stakeholders focussed on the teaching of ‘big qual’. We knew from our first workshops that secondary analysis of qualitative data and the label ‘big qual’ can attract students and researchers with very different substantive and methodological interests and expertise. Knowing your learners is key to generating PCK in terms of anticipating where they are likely to struggle with the material (Shulman, 1986, 1987). We discussed pre-requisites and how to make these clear, and we developed a system of pre-registration that required participants to declare prior learning and experience of actively doing and/or teaching forms of qualitative and quantitative research. We also reflected on how relevant knowledge of who is in the room can be important for learners as well as teachers. Course participation can facilitate buddying with peers and learners may wish to identify those with matched or complementary skills to suit their own approach to peer supported learning. So, as well as seeking information in advance from participants in the opening session in an early exercise we distributed different coloured hats to be worn to represent particular prior experiences. Although there are multiple alternative low-key ways of making the experience in the room visible (from sticky labels to a show of hands), this playful visual display also acted as an icebreaker and served to make our pedagogy visible. Allowing flexibility within the teaching was also vital and informed by both formal ‘getting to know you’ activities and informal discussions. Limited time is a known challenge in short-course teaching (Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014a). To mitigate this, we used advance materials (‘flipped classroom’ methods, see Earley, 2016) to ensure course participants gained an overview of the method through reading research papers, watching videos or listening to podcasts, in advance of teaching, thereby saving time on exposition. An advanced activity linking students to the data archive – Timescapes Qualitative Longitudinal Data Archive (Timescapes Archive hereafter, https://​timescapes​-archive​.leeds​ .ac​.uk/​) – we would use in class also helped connect students to the subject matter ahead of teaching. Taken together, these tasks orientated students in the method.

THINKING WITH PEDAGOGIC CONCEPTS Starting Points: Language Our discussions as developers of the method and keen pedagogic researchers helped to surface taken-for-granted approaches to teaching and assumptions about learning. To help the breadth-and-depth method team recognise the pedagogies already at play, the pedagogy team developed a short glossary for methods teaching (subsequently published as a Quick Start

Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods  73 Table 6.1

Typology of social science research methods pedagogy

Category

Characteristic

Approach

How the teacher goes about their pedagogic work in a way that coheres around a theory, set of values or principles

Strategy

Goal directed planning for implementing an approach

Tactics

Translation of strategies when the planning becomes procedural and specific to the context

Tasks

What learners (or teachers) are required to do, or actually do

Guide, Lewthwaite and Nind, 2018) to aid access to the pedagogical repertoire of approaches and techniques that characterise methods teaching and to help us talk about research methods pedagogy. Using ‘methods that teach’ (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018b), lines of enquiry were designed to make implicit thinking explicit, naming it to help make it open to scrutiny and facilitate development. Tools to Think With: Using a Typology In the next cycles of teaching the method and reflecting on how to improve the teaching, the pedagogy team made increasing use of a typology of social science research methods pedagogy developed in prior work (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2019). This distinguishes the pedagogic approach, alongside teaching strategy, tactics and tasks as outlined in Table 6.1. This typology is not hierarchical, though there is a movement from the more conceptual, abstract (approach) towards action and in-class practice (task). When discussing the pedagogy of ‘big qual’ analysis, our typological lens allowed us to forge new understandings of what was happening in the classroom and in the design of lessons. It also gave us more lucid insight into known challenges and opportunities when articulating the method, as well as opening up new vistas of pedagogy for closer investigation. In cross-team discussions, we began at the approach level and identified three key elements of pedagogical content knowledge that underpinned all pedagogic decision-making in the development of teaching the breadth-and-depth method: ● Holistic approach: The method is holistic and it needs to be represented as a whole method in which learners of it consider the whole process. Without this overarching commitment, the steps constitute several disparate methods. ● Methods for a purpose: The method applies a qualitative/sociological imagination to a quantitative-scale of qualitative data. Researchers start with a clear purpose and are not simply ‘fishing’ with no sense of who or what they are looking for in the data. Purpose is based on researchers’ motives and questioning, and a given ‘point of view’. This standpoint underpins all communications about the method. ● Iterative logic: The teaching seeks to convey the logic of the method, so students can navigate the process themselves, and engage in effective methodological decision-making. This may include the need to move back-and-forth between steps. In practice, the related pedagogical approaches clearly evident in the planning and teaching included: ● Active learning: using activities to connect students to the method, and to give opportunities to practice techniques.

74  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ● Experiential learning: giving students simulated (if not authentic) opportunities to engage with archives and software, to raise authentic issues and gain tacit knowledge concerning the nature of secondary analysis in practice. ● Student-centred learning: using ‘methods for a purpose’ related to student research questions and motives. ● Standpoint/reflexivity: expressing an interpretative standpoint including critical engagement. ● Collaborative learning: teachers and learners embarking upon co-discovery in the use of the archive; knowledge is co-constructed with learners in dialogue. Core strategies for ensuring the pedagogic values of these approaches were carried through included: 1. Using the metaphor as an entry point for checking understanding as well as communicating the method. 2. Modelling, which involved showing the process and what an end point might look like. Modelling helped to convey the logic of the method. We used walk-through and ‘think aloud’ demonstrations of archives in use and text-mining software as well as behind-the-scenes vignettes when discussing some of our own research projects. 3. Explaining the method, introducing and locating it within ‘big qual’ analysis. Expositions using a fully worked example (illustrating the research process from beginning to end) to demonstrate the method in action, were identified by students as being of particular value. 4. Scaffolding, which comes from the learning theories of Vygotsky (1978) and Bruner (see Wood et al., 1976) to support students to achieve more than they could alone by collaborating with a more knowledgeable peer or teacher, and practising in a playful/experimental environment. 5. Engaging in dialogue to build on expertise in the room (peer-learning) and to make the work with data student-centred. 6. Drawing connections between the students’ research experience/interests and the archive. 7. Working hands-on with the data to practice parts of the methods. A multitude of tactics were visible in class as the values were strategically put into practice. Generic teaching tactics included, for example, all team members helping to facilitate small group and pair work and contributing spontaneously to group discussions and question and answer sessions (Q&A). Moving round the room during expositions, using Q&A to draw out ‘teachable moments’ concerning areas where students struggled with threshold concepts or orientating to qualitative and thematic rather than numerate concerns in the data, showing how the teaching teams’ approaches and strategies were expressed in a responsive, tactical way. More specific teaching tactics included attention to the iterative nature of the method by going back-and-forth during Q&A and exposition to bring learners’ attention to the whole of the method as a dynamic process. The centrality of teaching with and through data, and the team’s commitment to active learning steered the teaching tasks. These were articulated in three waves: prior to teaching, during the session and in closing. Prior to teaching, tasks included completing a reflective ‘about you’ questionnaire, listening to podcasts, reading academic papers, and exploring the Timescapes Archive. During the session, each step of the method involved a further range of tasks. Step one included a guided archive walk-through on-screen; a ‘think aloud’ demon-

Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods  75 stration of the research process, and a hands-on activity. Learners then selected data sets using contextual metadata. Step two included simple text-mining activities using accessible freeware (Antconc). Step three required active listening for a behind-the-scenes account of the method in practice, followed by a Q&A to consolidate learning and facilitate peer learning. Step four required learners to undertake an in-depth qualitative analysis activity that integrated learning-by-doing with peer-learning through pair-work. In closing the session, again we sought to consolidate learning and encourage reflexivity through reflection and discussion with the group. Learning extension was encouraged through independent, self-directed learning opportunities to return to materials and activities from steps one to four. An annotated lesson plan (see further resources) was initially developed to effectively communicate teaching and pedagogy across a distributed team. This was compiled for each of the three cycles of action and reflection (Figure 6.1), offering greater granularity on the schedule, content and rationale. These plans were designed to describe not only what would be done, but also the pedagogic decision-making and intentions underpinning them.

Figure 6.1

Cycle of action and reflection, deployed iteratively across three phases to develop effective training and then actively researching this approach through teaching

REFLECTIONS ON PEDAGOGY FOR ‘BIG QUAL’ ANALYSIS Reflective Process To develop the teaching of rigorous secondary data analytic practice across multiple qualitative data sets, the project adopted an iterative, action research approach, working with stake-

76  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods holders (researchers, trainers and archivists) and in partnership with the Timescapes Archive involving collaboration with its director, Kahryn Hughes. We engaged stakeholders in three key events, each one serving to shape our ideas and pedagogy. Our first event comprised a one-day course for doctoral and early career researchers under the remit of the UK’s National Centre for Research Methods. This used teaching developed from existing materials, research-informed teaching discussions during lesson planning and input based upon the teasing out of implicit pedagogy. We used observational note-taking to record discussions and identify moments of particular pedagogic interest while learners used a novel bespoke evaluation card deck to respond to both content and pedagogy at regular, prompted intervals across the course. Moments of reflection were timed to coincide with distinct activities and pedagogic moves, at approximately 30-minute intervals.

Figure 6.2a

Cards 5 ‘walk through’, 6 ‘browsing the archive’ from the ‘big qual’ learner evaluation card deck developed by Lewthwaite et al., comprising 15 x A6 cards. Each has a number, title, illustration, positioning statement, question(s) and space for additional comments on the reverse

The action was indicated by a team member ringing a bell. This reflective practice was welcomed by learners, who saw value in the pedagogy being made visible and in reflecting on their learning (note: the bell itself as a cue was not always popular!). The card question design sought to explore how learners experienced tasks, teaching strategies and approaches (‘pedagogy as experienced’, Nind, Curtin and Hall, 2016). The cards were designed to prompt reflections on learning and engagement, as opposed to more passive satisfaction metrics.

Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods  77

Figure 6.2b

Cards 8 ‘hands-on with data’ and 9 ‘metaphor’ from the ‘big qual’ learner evaluation card deck developed by Lewthwaite et al., comprising 15 x A6 cards. Each has a number, title, illustration, positioning statement, question(s) and space for additional comments on the reverse

Resulting insights were very useful. For example, when questioned on the subject of the archaeological metaphor (Figure 6.2: card 9) and whether it had utility for learning, learners drew attention to how the metaphor worked well at times, and less so at others, and how metaphors can be ‘A powerful clean way to convey meaning and communicate. [But] Only if they make sense. Sometimes have to be explained to non-native speakers’. Other responses highlighted learning activities that were otherwise invisible to the teaching team. When questioned on the use of ‘behind the scenes’ teaching strategies, learners identified the importance of vivid accounts of real-world practice for helping them to understand complexity, the time required and identifying the delicate balance between ‘interpretive ... and automotive process’. One person noted how this led to peer-learning in that: ‘This inspired others to talk about their specific contexts and the challenges, so we saw behind their scenes too’. Such responses indicate how particular teaching strategies can serve multiple pedagogic ends, not all of which may be known to the teacher in the moment. Our second stakeholder event was a workshop (at the NCRM Research Methods Festival) to test our emergent materials and insights with researchers, learners and teachers of methods. In this 90-minute session, participants interested in teaching the method discussed the developing pedagogy and learner feedback prompted by the evaluation card deck, offering insights from their own pedagogic practice and methods learning.

78  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Our third stakeholder event was a course in the ‘Train the Trainers’ workstream of NCRM. Here we sought collaboration with experienced teachers of methods, specifically archival and secondary analysis research, big data and related qualitative and quantitative approaches. This workshop animated our emergent findings and expanded our plans for development of Open Educational Resources (freely available digital teaching and learning resources to result from the project). It also consolidated our thinking and understanding of pedagogic need in several key areas. Over the course of our teaching, stakeholder engagement and cycles of reflection and action, we identified the following challenges, opportunities and areas for careful consideration. Developing Pedagogic Resources Opportunities and decisions around which pedagogic resources to use in teaching are constrained when teaching a new method. This project has highlighted the need to develop materials from scratch, but also to be tenacious in the repurposing and delivery of materials from related fields. Re-using and borrowing from neighbouring methods and fields can supply important learning and teaching resources. Drawing teachers together helped us to identify important areas of need (in terms of data) and to establish some limits in ‘new methods’. An important pedagogic starting point for the teaching of ‘big qual’ analysis has been the re-purposing of the communicative practices associated with research. The ‘archaeological metaphor’ and its four-step model have served a dual purpose: articulating the method to and within the team and to a methods audience (Davidson et al., 2019), and again later in teaching to learners. This demonstrates how the teaching of new methods can begin in research communication and dissemination. The use of the typology to elicit and name the pedagogy of the breadth-and-depth method team’s communicative strategies and their underlying approaches to teaching shows how research can identify informal pedagogies. Once structured through (typological) reflection, these pedagogies constitute an important starting point for teaching development in social research methods education. The Data Challenge Methods teaching is frequently characterised by teaching through and with data (Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014a). As teaching the breadth-and-depth method often involves archived material, data was a core concern, and within it, particular challenges arose. This significant challenge for teaching ‘big qual’ relates to the balancing of student interest and motivation, with the parameters of the data stored in archives. Should students be provided with topics by the teachers that are known to be addressed well in the archive that is being used? Or should students pursue their own substantive interests and scour the archives for relevant data that they can work with? From a pedagogic perspective, students generating their own research problems when they engage with the archive during in-class activities is highly desirable. It has benefits for engagement, motivation, and potentially later use of the method in practice (Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014a, 2014b; Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016). In practice, however, archives remain a challenge for teachers. They are designed primarily for the preservation of materials and teaching is a secondary concern. Accessing, browsing and searching are therefore challenging. If a learner-instigated search occurs, there is the risk that a learner searching the archive will not find metadata indicating that there are data sets immediately relating to

Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods  79 their topic. Whilst this is a relevant problem (and authentic challenge) for secondary and archival researchers, exposing learners to this too early in the learning process could lead to disengagement and dismissal of the method. To resolve this, teachers may present learners with questions designed to ensure students can locate relevant data, privileging this over authentic learning experience of using the method for genuine discovery. Getting the right balance here is an issue that teachers conveying the breadth-and-depth method of working with ‘big qual’ merged datasets continue to reflect on. This highlights ongoing tensions in the balance between student-led and teacher-led methods pedagogy, which incorporates additional questions that resonate with other teaching scenarios – is it possible for students to bring their own research questions, data or software to class and for this to be manageable within a short course? Recognising that large-scale qualitative teaching datasets would be invaluable for ‘big qual’ teaching purposes as they are in quantitative research, the development of qualitative teaching datasets (e.g., Weller et al., 2019) is a welcome development, creating new qualitative teaching affordances, including the opportunity to embed ‘big qual’ analysis in other areas of the social science curriculum. The Value of Examples The very newness of the method meant that the teaching team had limited examples to draw on to illustrate the method in practice. Examples can be important pedagogic hooks – grounding a method in data and evidence (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018a). This highlights the need for foundational work to develop and generate published examples for learners and teachers to draw upon. This requires time and investment prior to teaching. Without such materials, proof-of-concept is lacking, and the credibility of a method may be hard to communicate. To broaden the repertoire of examples available, teachers can draw on associated methods and domains. As innovation in methods tends towards incremental change rather than atomistic revolution (see Wiles et al., 2013) innovative methods can be articulated whilst maintaining connections to more established methodological resources, by repurposing resources for the new domain. For breadth-and-depth analysis, this has meant making a case for ‘big qual’ methods as a whole using both research undertaken by the breadth-and-depth method team (e.g. Edwards et al., 2021), as well as the concomitant achievements of other large-scale qualitative research with secondary data. Examples were used to important pedagogic ends within the teaching. First, they were used to demonstrate the importance of the method in the ‘real world’, its potential impact and ability to address research questions that cannot be met in other ways. This supplied a critical starting point for teaching – a pedagogic hook to motivate and draw learners in – underpinning subsequent use, and refuting any residual ‘culture of uneasy suspicion’ (Mason, 2007, 1.1) surrounding qualitative secondary analysis. Second, examples illustrated in a concrete way how the method can be used from beginning to end, expressing the method as a cohesive whole (in line with the team’s pedagogic commitment to a holistic approach) and assisting understanding. Research Texts A lack of additional research texts, bibliographies, theses, research papers, proposals, templates, textbooks, wikis, repositories and guidance represent a significant challenge in

80  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods teaching for innovative methods. Pooling teaching resources at methodological frontiers can help, recognising that teaching and research peers themselves represent a pedagogic resource. The need for the development of pedagogical culture in research methods to support effective teaching is well documented (Nind, Kilburn and Luff, 2015; Wagner, Garner and Kawulich, 2011). For new methods this is a particularly pressing concern as the generation of teaching data, pedagogic literature, slides, prompt sheets, handouts, activities and other teaching materials takes time. Establishing teaching networks where expertise is shared and teaching issues can be effectively reflected upon and debated offers routes to the effective pooling and scaling of experience and expertise beyond ‘trial and error’ (Earley, 2014) to a more developed teaching repertoire. Underpinning this, we note that methodological innovation is frequently led by research communities who do not have a teaching or educational background. At the same time, research teaching development is not necessarily recognised or rewarded in the disciplines. Developing a shared pedagogic vocabulary to facilitate conversations that can articulate and scrutinise practice and theory remains important for the teaching of innovative methods. Learners as Resource Pedagogic challenges are frequently a catalyst for pedagogic development (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016). Diversity of student experience has proved to be both a challenge and an opportunity in the delivery of ‘big qual’ analysis teaching. More experienced learners can constitute a useful resource for teachers. It is common for experienced researchers to attend short course training. These learners may be seeking to develop their skills in a method similar to those which they already use, to build incrementally on methods they use, or they may be seeking opportunities to network with others who practice similar methods (Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014a). Within our learner cohort, participants included both doctoral researchers and research fellows who also taught methods. The group also included learners experimenting with traversing disciplines (including students of linguistics who brought significant text-mining experience, and students of computer science, bringing insights from web archives and social media research). While expert learners can be perceived as a source of challenge or anxiety for teachers, harnessing learner expertise for peer learning was found to be a huge resource in the delivery of teaching around ‘big qual’ analysis as an innovative method space, where other resources could be limited. This requires student-centred approaches balanced with teacher-led pedagogy, that implicitly recognises the importance of diverse knowledge and knowers, as well as the place of interdisciplinary knowledge in the classroom. Short courses represent an opportunity for participants to build relationships with one another for learning purposes; recognising the importance of these social processes alongside individual learning aims proved important for learners who actively sought ongoing connections with one another. Pair work, group work and whole-group discussions assist both the mutual construction of knowledge (James and Pollard, 2011) and lasting connections beyond the course. For (doctoral) researchers, the benefits of being in a learning community were a defining feature of (pre-pandemic) in-person courses that they actively sought. To harness learner expertise and prior experience requires getting to know more about learners quickly. Even in a one-day course, time spent finding out about course participants and their prior learning is time well spent (see also Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014a). This allows teachers to draw on the expertise of learners in the room more effectively. It also means

Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods  81 that teaching can be better pitched for participants – helping to locate the course within their wider learning journey. The Cross-paradigm Challenge Engaging prior experience also has particular importance for the breadth-and-depth method and for ‘big qual’ analysis more broadly, as learners from exclusively qualitative or quantitative backgrounds may require greater scaffolding and exposition to facilitate engagement with the method. This cross-paradigm challenge is a frequent issue for mixed-methods teachers (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016). As the breadth-and-depth method is a qualitative method applied through a mix of qualitative and quantitative sub-methods this generates some tensions that teaching must manage. In sum: ● Students from highly quantitative backgrounds can struggle with the qualitative nature of the in-depth analysis of the final step. ● Students from highly qualitative backgrounds express tension/discomfort with the quantitative nature of the second step and the recursive surface thematic mapping using text mining or semantic analysis tools. These tensions gesture to how a ‘method with a purpose’ approach requires strategies, tactics and tasks to manage where different groups of students struggle as the method is cascaded through the four steps. Time invested in getting to know course participants is time well spent, as it allows teachers to pre-empt conceptual thresholds, and also assess how peer-expertise can be used, where a diverse group makes different methodological perspectives available for peer-learning, for example in pair and small group work around those conceptual thresholds. An additional known challenge that is acute for methods that broach qualitative/quantitative divides relates to language. People we have taught the breadth-and-depth method have demonstrated varied levels of familiarity with complex concepts, for example keyness used in text mining to convey the statistical significance of a keyword’s frequency in a given corpus, relative to a reference corpus. We have also noticed a need for explicit and repeated emphasis on different use of language. For example, ‘representative’ or ‘generalisation’ in the qualitative sense are very different to their use in quantitative practice. Given that ‘big qual’ analysis deploys some quantitative tools, but engages the qualitative imagination, it was necessary to maintain a focus on the qualitative use of language with learners and spot confusion and misuse of terms where possible.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY This chapter has described a unique collaboration between academic research teams with specialisms in ‘big qual’ research methods and research methods pedagogy, to develop ‘big qual’ methods teaching and Open Educational Resources for the teaching of a breadth-and-depth method for ‘big qual’ analysis. In the application of a typology for the teaching of social science research methods pedagogy, we have responded to challenges relating to a lack of shared pedagogic language, the implicit nature of much pedagogic activity, and the challenges associated with cutting edge methods where the necessary teaching and learning resources

82  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods must be brokered or designed from scratch to succeed. The breadth-and-depth team learnt from and built on the foundations of the joint methods and pedagogy initiative that we describe here, to design a three-day course teaching the method, held online in 2020 in response to Covid-19 restrictions (2020/2021). The course was tailored for around seven hours of study across the three days, with a mix of self-directed learning through informative ‘bite-size’ videos, annotated reading lists, and step-by-step activity explanations, as well as live online guidance from the course tutors as participants worked their way through the steps involved in the method. There were also open classroom sessions where participants could meet and chat with each other. When teaching online, we experienced renewed challenges around managing learner expectations, facilitating peer-learning, and managing tools and platform dynamics. In these activities, the breadth-and-depth team’s pedagogic strategies – our reflected knowledge of the pedagogic purposes and practices necessary and developed through collaboration – meant we could continue to make good use of active learning, experiential learning and student-centred learning in the online environment. We found that to facilitate buddying with peers is more of a challenge online, since opportunities for sharing are more constrained than when co-present. It is even more important that the recruitment materials and pre-circulated documentation orient participants to the aim, structure, time commitment and expected pre-requisite knowledge, thus maximising the likelihood of shared expectations and a sense of common purpose. As part of pre-registering, participants can be asked for brief biographies of their research methods experience and interests, along with permission to share these enabling participants to know who is ‘in the room’. Participants can be encouraged to use on-course tools to network during the course. In a ‘live’ opening session of the course, teachers and participants exchanged ‘ice-breaker’ information to help create a sense of informality and inclusion, complementing the more formal information circulated. A teacher-led overview elaborated the pre-circulated documentation, encouraged questions and explicitly noted that teaching and learning are enhanced by shared reflection on the learning process. The subsequent sessions provided a sequence that actively engaged participants in the four steps of the method. Each session combined access to pre-recorded tell-and-show teacher-led material (video or podcast, complementary summary handouts and sign posting to additional resources), a timetabled period of ‘hands on’ activity and opportunity for reflection on and sharing of learning with peers and asking questions of teachers using a combination of discussion boards and a timetabled live chat. The active learning tasks were designed to enable participants to play to their own substantive research interests as well as share and discuss a common activity, whether searching archives for relevant data or applying a text-analysis program or a qualitative technique to pre-given data. The course ended with a final session reflecting both on the method that was being taught and on the learning process, to facilitate continuing reflexive teaching (and learning) practice. For the future, we recognise the need for ongoing development which would benefit from further collaboration across disciplinary and institutional divides. The role of data facilities and archives in this pedagogic culture-building is important. Further we recognise an ongoing need to attend to the distinct PCK that new methods require, and how working with learners to co-constitute this knowledge can lead to deep pedagogic insight.

Enhancing the teaching of qualitative methods  83

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/ L008351/1] via the National Centre for Research Methods Innovation Fund. We thank Kahryn Hughes, Director of the Timescapes Archive, for her role in developing our thinking around capacity building in the re-use of archived ESRC qualitative data sets.

REFERENCES Davidson, E., Edwards, R., Jamieson, L. and Weller, S. (2019). Big data, qualitative style: A breadthand-depth method for working with large amounts of secondary qualitative data. Quality and Quantity, 53(1), 363–376. Dodds, C., Keogh, P., Bourne, A., McDaid, L., Squire, C., Weatherburn, P. and Young, I. (2021). The long and winding road: Archiving and re-using qualitative data from 12 research projects spanning 16 years. Sociological Research Online, 26(2), 269–287. Earley, M. (2014). A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 242–253. Earley, M. (2016). Flipping the graduate qualitative research methods classroom: Did it lead to flipped learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28(1), 139–147. Edwards, R., Davidson, E., Jamieson, L. and Weller, S. (2021). Theory and the breadth-and-depth method of analysing large amounts of qualitative data: A research note. Quality and Quantity, 55, 1275–1280. Edwards, R., Weller, S., Davidson, E. and Jamieson, L. (2021). Small stories of home moves: A gendered and generational breadth-and-depth investigation, Sociological Research Online: https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1177/​13607804211042033 Edwards, R., Weller, S., Jamieson, L. and Davidson, E. (2020). Search strategies: Analytic searching across multiple data sets and within combined sources. In K. Hughes and A. Tarrant (Eds.), Advances in Qualitative Secondary Analysis (pp. 79–100). London: Sage. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Hammersley, M. (2010). Can we re-use qualitative data via secondary analysis? Notes on some terminological and substantive issues. Sociological Research Online, 15(1), 1–7. Irwin, S. and Winterton, M. (2012). Qualitative secondary analysis and social explanation. Sociological Research Online, 17(2), Article 4: http://​www​.socresonline​.org​.uk/​17/​2/​4​.html James, M. and Pollard, A. (2011). TLRP’s ten principles for effective pedagogy: Rationale, development, evidence, argument and impact. Research Papers in Education, 26(3), 275–328. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R.A. (2014a). Short courses in advanced research methods: Challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning. Project Report. NCRM. http://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​3601/​2/​ advanced​_methods​_short​_courses​.pdf Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R.A. (2014b) Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2018). The NCRM Quick Start Guide: A Glossary for Methods Teaching. Manual. NCRM, Southampton. http://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​4227 Mason, J. (2007). ‘Re-using’ qualitative data: The merits of an investigative epistemology. Sociological Research Online, 12(3):  http://​www​.socresonline​.org​.uk/​12/​3/​3​.html Nind, M. (2019). A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: Teaching advanced social science research methods. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 185–201. Nind, M., Curtin, A. and Hall, K. (2016). Research Methods for Pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury.

84  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Nind, M., Kilburn, D. and Luff, R. (2015). The teaching and learning of social research methods: Developments in pedagogical knowledge. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 1–9. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018a). Hard to teach: Inclusive pedagogy in social sciences research methods education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1), 74–88. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018b). Methods that teach: Developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 41(4), 398–410. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2019). A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 467–487. Purcell, C., Maxwell, K., Bloomer, F., Rowlands, S. and Hoggart, L. (2020). Toward normalising abortion: Findings from a qualitative secondary analysis study. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 22(12), 1349–1364. Puschmann, C. and Burgess, J. (2014). Metaphors of big data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1690–1709. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.  Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. Seale, C. and Charteris-Black, J. (2008). The interaction of age and gender in illness narratives. Ageing and Society, 28(7), 1025–1045. Seale, C. and Charteris-Black, J. (2010) Keyword analysis: A new tool for qualitative research. In I. Bourgeault, R. Dingwall and R. De Vries (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health (pp. 536–558). London: Sage. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, C., Garner, M. and Kawulich, B. (2011). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: Towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 75–88. Weller, S., Davidson, E., Edwards, R. and Jamieson, L. (2019). Big Qual Analysis: Teaching Dataset.  University of Leeds https://​doi​.org/​10​.23635/​14 [Dataset] – also: https://​eprints​.soton​.ac​.uk/​ 435573/​ Wiles, R., Bengry-Howell, A., Crow, G. and Nind, M. (2013). But is it innovation? The development of novel methodological approaches in qualitative research. Methodological Innovation, 8(1), 18–33. Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89–100.

FURTHER RESOURCES Lewthwaite, S., Jamieson, L., Weller, S., Edwards, R. and Nind, M. (2019b). Teaching how to analyse large volumes of secondary qualitative data. NCRM Online Learning Resource. https://​www​.ncrm​.ac​ .uk/​resources/​online/​teaching​_big​_qual/​ Lewthwaite, S., Weller, S., Jamieson, L., Edwards, R. and Nind, M. (2019a). Developing pedagogy for Big Qual Methods: Teaching how to analyse large volumes of secondary qualitative data. NCRM Working Paper. http://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​4247/​ Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018c). Pedagogy of methodological learning: Expert panel interviews and methods teacher focus groups. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive. 10.5255/ UKDA-SN-853130 Weller, S., Davidson, E., Edwards, R. and Jamieson, L. (2019). Big Qual Analysis: Teaching Dataset. University of Leeds, UK: Timescapes Archive. https://​doi​.org/​10​.23635/​14

7. Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs: pedagogical strategies and adaptations Nataliya V. Ivankova and Vicki L. Plano Clark

INTRODUCTION With the growing demand for mixed methods research (MMR) there is a similarly increased interest in learning about this research approach. Graduate students, researchers and professionals are among the many audiences who are eager to acquire knowledge of and skills in MMR which meaningfully integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches within the parameters of one study to achieve a better understanding of complex problems. Responding to these demands, academic institutions and professional organisations have been offering formal and informal training in MMR in various learning environments and modes. These multiple MMR teaching venues focus on different learners (e.g., beginning/advanced graduate students, post-docs, and professionals) and address a variety of MMR learning goals (e.g., as consumers, reviewers, researchers, methodologists). Teaching about MMR also attracts not only MMR experts but other methodologists, researchers, content specialists and practitioners, who often bring their own understanding of MMR influenced by personal backgrounds, epistemological practices, and training in MMR (Frels et al., 2014; Hesse-Biber, 2015; Ivankova and Plano Clark, 2018). This diversity in teaching MMR expands learning opportunities for those who want to adopt MMR, but it also creates challenges for learners to identify training venues that will address their needs. The rapidly evolving field of MMR with continued debates, diversity of viewpoints, and emergent practices, contributes to inconsistencies in teaching about MMR. Furthermore, pedagogical knowledge about how to teach MMR for different learners remains limited (Johnson, Murphy and Griffiths, 2019) with most recent literature focusing mainly on MMR course design and evaluation (Guetterman et al., 2019; Hou, 2021). Having a repertoire of pedagogical strategies to address different MMR teaching and learning goals can help MMR instructors to adapt their pedagogical practices more effectively to learners’ needs, resulting in better teaching and learning outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to address the gap in pedagogical knowledge by sharing our experiences with teaching MMR in a variety of courses guided by the socio-ecological framework for MMR. We describe six types of pedagogical strategies addressing different teaching goals and discuss how they can be adapted to varied learning contexts. We conclude by offering recommendations to other instructors who teach MMR and call for further exploration of MMR pedagogy.

85

86  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

GUIDING FRAMEWORK FOR CONCEPTUALISING THE CONTENT OF MMR COURSES Instructors’ pedagogical practices are shaped by a variety of personal experiences and assumptions about what it means to teach and learn the content of interest. In the context of teaching MMR, instructors necessarily bring assumptions about how MMR is defined, what topics are relevant, and how the topics might be best organised to promote student learning. We define MMR as the intentional combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to address a research purpose and questions (Plano Clark and Ivankova, 2016). Such combinations can manifest in many different ways and may include different epistemological stances, questions, data types, analysis techniques, interpretations, and language associated with quantitative and qualitative approaches (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner, 2007). Our teaching acknowledges the diversity of perspectives about MMR and the numerous possible MMR approaches while emphasising the considerations involved when researchers design, implement, report, and review MMR studies. As our teaching experiences expanded across our careers, we engaged in a joint reflective process to develop a framework that usefully describes the field of MMR and could support our various teaching efforts (Ivankova and Plano Clark, 2018). We developed a framework for the field of MMR as a means to conceptualise the content that is needed to learn about MMR. The socio-ecological framework for the field of MMR identifies the primary topics of interest within the field of MMR and describes the interactions that occur among these topics (Plano Clark and Ivankova, 2016). As pictured in Figure 7.1, this framework is organised within three interconnected levels. The MMR process is the core of the framework and includes the elements found within any application of MMR. This process includes the study purpose and research questions; the decisions for the quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods and their timing, integration, and priority; and the inferences drawn in response to the methods to address the study intent. The MMR content considerations are represented by five overlapping circles that encompass and inform the MMR process. These represent the evolving knowledge and ongoing debates in the field about how MMR is defined, rationales for why it is used, design types that provide methodological logics, quality standards and considerations, and opportunities for intersecting MMR with other methodological approaches. The third and outermost level describes contextual influences for MMR. The MMR contexts include researchers’ assumptions and background, ethical and interpersonal interactions, and social priorities and disciplinary conventions for the use of MMR. We find this framework to be particularly useful for conceptualising the teaching of MMR (Ivankova and Plano Clark, 2018; Plano Clark, Ivankova and Yang, 2023). For example, it organises the field of MMR into nine major topics, which can provide a structure for what is taught about MMR. This is particularly useful when conceptualising a course that introduces the content and debates associated with MMR for consumers and producers of research. The framework also highlights the many considerations and influences that go into the planning, implementation, and dissemination of an MMR study through the interactions within and among the different levels. This is useful in a course that focuses on mixed methods design and application because it acknowledges the important role of contexts in the planning of real-world applications of MMR. Across various courses and learning situations, the use of a framework for MMR also provides beneficial consistency in terms of key concepts and the opportunity for enhanced learning as the topics within the framework are examined from dif-

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  87

Source: Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Plano Clark and Ivankova (2016).

Figure 7.1

Socio-ecological framework for the field of mixed methods research

ferent perspectives. Therefore, this framework provides a concise overview of the content that we teach in our courses about MMR. In the sections that follow, we first introduce our MMR teaching contexts and then describe the pedagogical practices that we use when teaching about MMR.

TWO CONTEXTS FOR TEACHING MMR As highlighted by the socio-ecological framework for the field of MMR, contextual influences play an important role in all aspects of MMR, including teaching about it. Pedagogical practices are shaped by many personal, interpersonal, and social contexts, such as instructors’

88  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods preferences, students’ backgrounds and needs, course and programme goals, disciplinary conventions, and so on. To highlight contexts that are important for understanding our teaching of MMR, we briefly explain these contexts and describe the MMR courses that we teach in our programs in Table 7.1. Some of the courses overlap and some are distinct as reflected in the university affiliation in parentheses for each course. We refer to these courses in the descriptions below as well as our discussion of the pedagogical strategies that we use to teach about MMR. Nataliya Ivankova’s Approach to Teaching MMR Nataliya Ivankova, who was trained as a linguist with a focus on discourse analysis, stylistics, and interpreting, developed a keen interest in MMR in her doctoral training. During her studies, she assisted with teaching an MMR course, consulted with MMR projects, and completed her doctoral dissertation using an MMR design. She developed and taught her first course on designing and conducting MMR studies in the Educational Psychology Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham in spring 2005. Over the years Nataliya developed and taught several MMR courses building on her experiences working on MMR projects, conducting MMR training, and advising doctoral students on MMR dissertations. This experience culminated in creating a graduate certificate program in Applications of Mixed Methods Research, which includes four required MMR courses: MMR I: Introduction to the Field; MMR II: Designing and Conducting a Mixed Methods Study; Mixed Methods Applications in Action and Community-Based Participatory Research; and Writing Effective Mixed Methods Grant Proposal (see Table 7.1). This interdisciplinary program offers professional and methodological advancement to researchers, faculty and post-masters’ students and aims to build their research capacity in MMR with a strong focus on application of developed knowledge and skills. The courses are semester-based and are offered online via the Canvas learning platform with 50 percent of class sessions occurring in real-time via Zoom. Nataliya’s context is focused on assisting diverse learners ranging from doctoral students to post-doctoral fellows, and to faculty and researchers from varied disciplinary backgrounds in acquiring applied knowledge and skills in MMR based on their needs. In teaching about MMR to address different learning goals, Nataliya relies on her teaching philosophy of constructivist learning theory and belief that research methods instruction should be grounded in application to real life situations and contexts. Hence, she is using the principles of learner-centred instruction and scaffolding pedagogical strategies to create a learning environment that enables co-creation of learning and promotes immediate application of MMR knowledge and skills to students’ research topics. As shown in Figure 7.2, learners’ professional and methodological advancement is the overarching goal for teaching about MMR. These goals are supported by pedagogical strategies aimed at creation, evaluation, application and communication of MMR knowledge and skills in every course. While each course has a different focus and covers different aspects and practices of MMR, the courses are interconnected within the program, each contributing to developing overall MMR knowledge, skills and dispositions in a unique way. Moreover, each course follows a spiral curriculum approach in that the content unfolds from basic to more advanced concepts (Harden and Stamper, 1999), as guided by the socio-ecological framework. The focus is on learning about the MMR process, methodological considerations and contexts as applied to each course purpose and objectives. The cohesiveness

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  89

Table 7.1

Mixed methods research courses offered through the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the University of Cincinnati

Course Title

Course Description

Mixed methods research (MMR) I:  The course provides students with an introduction to MMR guided by a socio-ecological Introduction to the field (UAB,

conceptual framework for the field of MMR. Students learn about the essence of MMR,

UC)*

its fundamental principles, and the main perspectives, issues, and debates involved in the application of this research approach. Students examine the process of MMR, including its definition, rationales for using it, the key characteristics, basic design applications, means of assessing the quality of MMR inferences, and how MMR intersects with other methodological approaches and theoretical frameworks. Students also learn how the MMR process is shaped by personal, interpersonal, and social contexts to inform their own MMR practice.

Mixed methods research (MMR) II: The course provides students with knowledge and skills of designing and conducting Designing and conducting a mixed

MMR studies in social and health sciences and addresses the following topics: philosophy

methods study (UAB, UC)

and epistemology of MMR; types of research problems addressed; specification of MMR purpose statements, research aims and research questions; core MMR designs and their advanced applications; approaches to sampling, data collection, analysis and integration in MMR designs; quality assurance and procedures for reporting MMR studies. Students get applied knowledge of choosing an appropriate MMR design, following the steps in designing and conducting an MMR study and visually presenting the process and procedures of an MMR study within a proposal for an MMR study or a journal manuscript for a completed study.

Mixed methods applications in

The course provides students with applied knowledge of how to intersect MMR with action

action and community-based

and community-based participatory research approaches to address problems of practical

participatory research (CBPR)

importance. In a simulated learning environment, course participants go through the steps of

(UAB)

designing stakeholder-informed, context-specific, and action-oriented MMR studies. Using an MMR framework for action research and a mixed methods action research study process model, students learn how to choose an appropriate MMR design and strategies for sampling, data collection, analysis, and validation in collaboration with community partners to facilitate a meaningful change. Students also learn how to develop a plan for an action/intervention as part of the mixed methods action research study process.

Writing effective mixed methods

The course addresses the logistics of developing competitive MMR grant applications for

grant proposal (UAB)

early career or research funding mechanisms with a special focus on MMR epistemology for specific aims, innovation and significance, research plan, human subject protection, project team, resources, and budget. Students learn about intersecting MMR with other methodologies, integrating multiple methods and data sources, and establishing analytical rigour. Students also learn about how to review an MMR grant proposal and how to address reviewers’ feedback.

Special topics (advanced mixed

The course supports students in forming an interdisciplinary community of MMR practice.

methods sections) (UC)

The community members develop a class charter and select advanced MMR topics of interest to examine and apply within individuals’ ongoing MMR practice. Examples of advanced topics include advanced joint displays, data analysis software, preparing application materials for MMR academic positions, and making a methodological contribution. Students lead discussions, provide written and oral feedback on each other’s MMR efforts, and provide peer support in each class session. Students produce products in line with their program and career goals.

Note: *UAB: University of Alabama at Birmingham, UC: University of Cincinnati.

90  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

Figure 7.2

Approach to teaching MMR in the graduate certificate in Applications of Mixed Methods Research

and interactivity of the courses allows the learners to develop a multi-faceted experience with MMR and provides opportunities to master its applications in interdisciplinary contexts and real-life situations. Vicki Plano Clark’s Approach to Teaching MMR Vicki Plano Clark originally trained in the field of physics, but her interest in how people learn through research processes led her to the field of research methodology and questions about the processes of combining ways of knowing within MMR. She completed her doctorate in research methodology with a focus on MMR in 2005; her training included coursework in MMR, serving as a teaching assistant for a MMR course, and consulting on numerous MMR projects. Her dissertation research examined the adoption and use of MMR across three disciplines, which highlighted the important role that teaching and formal courses was playing in establishing MMR as an accepted methodological approach. Currently, Vicki teaches about MMR within the Educational Studies doctoral program, which trains both substantive scholars and research methodologists, plus graduate students across the campus. The teaching of MMR in this context needs to be interdisciplinary and serve a wide range of student interests from wanting to understand, apply, and even advance MMR. The primary courses occur in a two-semester sequence: MMR I and II (see Table 7.1). Interested students have two additional options beyond this sequence. Students wanting more support can retake the MMR II course to engage with new concepts and/or previous concepts at a deeper level. Vicki also offers an Advanced Special Topics course where students engage

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  91 in an interdisciplinary community of MMR practice and advance their expertise and professional goals related to MMR. Historically, these courses were offered using an in-person format, but with the COVID-19 pandemic, they have also been taught as fully remote and in a hybrid/hyflex combination format. Vicki’s context is focused on helping emerging scholars across disciplines to develop their ability to understand, review, implement, teach, and advocate for MMR within their own anticipated professional settings. Figure 7.3 shows how the courses and pedagogical goals within the courses combine to create an opportunity for students to develop their MMR expertise through a spiral curriculum approach (Bruner, 1960; Harden and Stamper, 1999). This encompasses explicit and intentional revisiting of MMR topics within and across the courses to increase knowledge and build competencies over time. Each course engages with the content topics of MMR shown in Figure 7.1, which are noted along the spiral in Figure 7.3 using the levels of the socio-ecological framework for MMR: MMR process, MMR considerations, and MMR contexts. Each course addresses these topics through at least two iterations but does so with different learning goals and with an increasing level of complexity and sophistication building on what was previously learned. These different learning goals, which we describe in the next section, appear on the right side of Figure 7.3. Students enrol in subsequent courses depending on their interests, career goals, and ability to take additional coursework.

PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING MMR During the years of developing and teaching MMR courses, we reflected on our pedagogical strategies to achieve different learning goals. The use of the socio-ecological framework as a guiding conceptual model helped us capture the content and complexity of MMR (Ivankova and Plano Clark, 2018; Plano Clark and Ivankova, 2016) and adjust our pedagogical strategies to the needs of diverse students and various learning goals. Furthermore, we examined the literature about teaching research methods in general and MMR in particular; shared our pedagogical innovations at professional conferences; talked with colleagues interested in teaching about MMR all over the world; and reviewed students’ feedback in course evaluations. Informed by these experiences and selected elements of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001), we developed a set of teaching strategies organised by six pedagogical goals associated with teaching MMR. We introduce these goals and provide examples of pedagogical practices that align with the different goals and are situated within our different contexts for teaching MMR (summarised in Table 7.2). Of note, we present the strategies as learning activities that students partake in to achieve these goals. Strategies that Promote Knowledge of MMR Good knowledge of a subject matter is the foundation for its successful use in practice. From an epistemological perspective, the type of knowledge students generate has implications for the type and quality of inferences that students make by applying this knowledge in their MMR practice. Therefore, creating a solid knowledge base about MMR, its theoretical premises, methodological principles, and procedures, is an important task in teaching about different aspects of this research approach. However, understanding what constitutes MMR and how it is designed, implemented, and evaluated is complicated by the existence of multiple

92  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

Note: bold font indicates most important and relevant pedagogical goals in the course; regular font indicates pedagogical goals that are present in the courses, but at a lesser level; italicized font indicates pedagogical goals with little presence in the course.

Figure 7.3

Spiral curriculum approach to teaching MMR in an Educational Studies program that trains research methodologists

perspectives and methodological debates around these issues. To mitigate this complexity and to help students navigate the different viewpoints and reported MMR practices, our teaching strategies include students reading MMR textbooks; defining, describing, and identifying MMR methodological features; and discussing key MMR concepts and perspectives.

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  93 Table 7.2

Examples of pedagogical goals and strategies for teaching MMR

Pedagogical Goal

Example Strategies and Activities

Promote knowledge of MMR

Reading ● Read a comprehensive MMR textbook that aligns with the course objectives ● Examine additional readings consisting of book chapters, methodological articles, and exemplar studies ● Select recommended readings and MMR study examples of interest ● Prepare book reports based on suggested MMR texts Defining and describing ● Build comprehension from topics organised in a logical way ● Define and describe key MMR concepts and procedures ● Identify the MMR methodological features in exemplar studies ● Articulate one’s stance about MMR concepts Discussing ● Discuss key course concepts and perspectives based on the readings and study examples ● Exchange ideas about the MMR concepts with other learners

Promote evaluation of MMR

Judging ● Judge studies using MMR definition criteria ● Judge MMR studies using established typologies (e.g., design types, sampling strategies) Critiquing ● Provide feedback on peers’ thinking in small-group discussions ● Critique strengths and weaknesses in the use of MMR as reported by others ● Critique peer’s work and provide suggestions for improvements in formal review

Promote application of MMR

Trying ● Apply MMR to a research scenario ● Develop a research strategy for a hypothetical MMR study Modifying ● Provide suggestions for enhancing exemplar studies by using MMR ● Redesign exemplar study using MMR Designing ● Develop a complete MMR study plan ● Incorporate key MMR components (research questions, design, integration, procedural diagram, implementation matrix, and quality considerations) within the study plan

Promote communication about

Modelling

MMR

● Read texts and articles that model different styles, formats, and conventions ● Examine models of student products such as literature reviews, dissertation proposals, or grant applications ● Engage with guest speakers that model different approaches Strategising ● Be concise within time and space constraints ● Avoid jargon when communicating with others Representing visually ● Use visual representation of MMR studies alongside text description ● Draw procedural diagrams of MMR study activities ● Develop joint displays of MMR study results ● Organise information in outlines ● Signal information with headings and subheadings

94  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Pedagogical Goal

Example Strategies and Activities

Promote professional

Peer mentoring and co-teaching

advancement with MMR

● Serve as a peer-mentor to another student ● Lead a learning activity in class Using simulation ● Prepare and participate in a simulation activity as part of the course ● Reflect on simulated activities Developing authentic products ● Develop a publishable MMR manuscript ● Develop a dissertation proposal ● Develop an MMR grant application ● Prepare a one-page MMR study overview or conference abstracts ● Draft a research statement for an employment application

Promote methodological

Advocating

advancements of MMR

● Examine methodological publications by doctoral-student authors ● Imagine developing a coursework project into a methodological publication ● Consider potential conferences and journal venues for sharing methodological work Undertaking ● Differentiate planned procedures in terms of what is known and what is innovative ● Identify and discuss potential methodological contributions in small groups ● Develop formal presentations and documents that describe methodological contributions

Reading Selecting effective readings for a course is key in creating a good knowledge base. In most courses, we have a major textbook that conveys the main concepts of the course and aligns with its learning objectives. We select these textbooks because we want them to be comprehensive and reflect contemporary thinking about MMR while aligning with our own stances as MMR scholars. We supplement these textbooks with multiple methodological and empirical MMR readings that provide students with current thinking on the MMR topics, expose students to different authors’ perspectives on MMR concepts, and illustrate their application in MMR studies. Recent methodological publications are particularly important when newer editions of textbooks are not yet available. For example, in MMR Applications in Action and Community-Based Participatory Research, students read methodological articles, such as DeJonckheere et al. (2019), Ivankova and Wingo (2021), and Lucero et al. (2018) to augment the textbook. We also provide recommended readings for those who want to expand their knowledge of the discussed topics. In MMR II, students choose an additional book from a list of recommended MMR textbooks and present a report based on the topics and ideas covered in the book and/or incorporate the book’s ideas in their final project. This assignment provides an opportunity for students to thoroughly read and reflect on another book to enhance and broaden their knowledge about designing and conducting an MMR study. Defining and describing Another set of strategies aims at helping students to define and describe the MMR concepts. For students to understand and articulate the learned concepts, it is important to create a logical sequence of topics and assignments to elicit students’ processing of the information in a systematic way. In MMR I, we structure the course following the socio-ecological framework for MMR starting with the MMR process, the centre piece of the framework, and then logically considering the many influences that shape the process of designing and conducting MMR

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  95 (Ivankova and Plano Clark, 2018). Students get exposed to the major perspectives on the methodological considerations for MMR and learn to define and identify these methodological features in MMR studies in their field. For instance, when discussing different definitions of MMR, we ask students to explore how the researchers define or describe MMR in a published study of their choice and how these definitions reflect MMR definitions in the course readings. As students matriculate in the course, they create their own stances toward MMR that inform their further approaches to MMR. We apply the same logical principle in building students’ comprehension of MMR in all courses. Discussing Learner-to-learner interactions about the course concepts has been reported as an effective learning strategy that promotes active learning (Oyarzun et al., 2018). Students’ engagement in course discussions reflects the extent to which students comprehend the information. It is also critical for furthering the learning of all course participants because it creates a collaborative learning environment. Therefore, discussing is an essential teaching strategy in all courses. We use small-group and whole-class discussions with instructors acting as facilitators to discuss MMR concepts based on the course readings, to brainstorm about MMR strategies, to identify MMR methodological features in exemplar studies, to debate the critical MMR issues, to share philosophical stances toward MMR, and so on. Since our courses enrol diverse students from different disciplines, backgrounds, professional affiliations and status, such discussions help promote critical thinking and free exchange of ideas about MMR. Recognising and accepting a different point of view helps students better understand the influences of different contexts on the MMR practice. Strategies that promote evaluation of MMR Within pedagogical frameworks, evaluation is used to describe the cognitive processes involved when students make judgments that are based on learned criteria or existing standards (Krathwohl, 2002). Students who are able to evaluate within a certain content area are able to judge whether criteria are met in a given situation or action and critique it in terms of standards. The processes of evaluating are important and relevant to learning MMR, but also complex. The field of MMR includes a wide variety of criteria (such as what counts as MMR), typologies (such as different types of MMR designs), and standards (such as quality standards for MMR studies). Furthermore, within a given topic, there are diverse perspectives about which criteria matter, how typologies should be organised, and what standards should be used. Although knowledge about MMR concepts is essential, learners of MMR also need to be able to make nuanced and defensible judgments based on existing knowledge. Since students will need to evaluate their own approaches to MMR as well as other’s use of this methodology, we make extensive use of pedagogical strategies that promote evaluation through judging and critiquing. Judging Because of the utility and importance of many established sets of criteria and types within MMR, we describe many of our pedagogical practices as examples of judging where students make evaluative determinations related to existing criteria. When students are learning about a specific MMR topic, a common activity is for students to work in small groups to apply the discussed MMR criteria to articles selected by the instructor. For example, in MMR I, students

96  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods learn about different typologies of designs (e.g., Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018; Greene, 2007; Tashakkori, Johnson and Teddlie, 2021) through readings and lecture. Students then work in small groups to determine the type of design used within an assigned empirical article based on the criteria found within different established typologies. By carefully selecting a small number of articles that represent a range of MMR design types and having each group share their judgments, the class as a whole experiences multiple examples of how to evaluate articles in terms of specific criteria within MMR. In MMR II, students learn about different quantitative, qualitative, and MMR sampling strategies (e.g., Fetters, 2020) and then make judgments about the strategies used in published studies to apply them in their own study. Critiquing As students develop a greater understanding of an MMR topic, they are well positioned to engage in activities that require them to critique the use of MMR by others. Informally critiquing other students’ work occurs as an explicit component of many class sessions. Students regularly have time to discuss their on-going work on class-related projects in small groups, and their peers are tasked with providing feedback about the ideas and application of MMR concepts. Critiquing can also be more formal, such as occurring in article critique assignments. In these assignments, students select one or more articles of interest, apply mixed methods quality standards (e.g., Curry and Nunez-Smith, 2015; Hong, Gonzalez-Reyes and Pluye, 2018; Onwuegbuzie and Johnson, 2006), and write a formal paper that identifies strengths and weaknesses within an MMR study’s design and report. Such critique assignments are useful across a variety of MMR courses with students selecting documents that are relevant for the larger course objective. Engaging in formal critiques also occurs in peer review assignments where students provide assessment and suggestions about their peers’ work. This serves to enhance the development of MMR expertise for the person providing the critique as well as to provide useful feedback to all students. Examples of formal peer review assignments include students providing a written anonymous review on a peer’s written work (e.g., literature review draft; one-page study overview; grant application) or oral presentations. Strategies that Promote Application of MMR Effective acquisition of research methods requires their application, whether to hypothetical studies or to real-world situations (Patten and Newhart, 2017). Application is at the core of learning about MMR, which aligns with our philosophy of teaching research in practice. The goal is for students to apply knowledge to produce a tangible outcome or deliverable in the form of an MMR study proposal, review paper, journal manuscript, grant application, or a stakeholder-informed action plan for a mixed methods action research study. We use multiple strategies to promote the application of MMR concepts and procedures to facilitate students’ knowledge of and skills with MMR. These strategies fall into three broad categories: trying MMR principles and procedures applied to a hypothetical research scenario, providing modifications to enhance an exemplar study with MMR, and designing a complete MMR proposal. Trying The ability to use information and apply it in different contexts is a higher level of processing information than understanding in Bloom’s learning taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002). Asking

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  97 students to apply the learned concepts and skills to a research scenario or a hypothetical research problem before beginning to think about application to their own research topics allows students to try the new knowledge and skills in a more focused and supportive way. For example, students can all work together or in small groups on one research scenario and benefit from a shared learning experience enhanced by diverse perspectives and group thinking. In MMR II courses, students practice applying MMR study design concepts to a provided research situation; or in an MMR grant proposal course, students learn how to write MMR aims based on a given research scenario. Alternatively, students are asked to try the new information by applying it to hypothetical research problems from their disciplines. In more advanced courses focused on designing and conducting MMR, students can work individually or in groups on developing a research strategy for a hypothetical study to learn the procedural steps and refine their knowledge of the methods. Modifying Another important application strategy is when students provide ideas for how MMR can enhance an existing study or a research proposal. This strategy can be used in multiple ways from small-group or whole-class discussions based on an assigned published MMR study, to individual assignments based on the MMR article of their choice or grant proposals involving MMR. Students can suggest ideas about changing the timing in qualitative and quantitative data collection; rethink a type of MMR design; propose new or better integration strategies; add a missing procedural diagram or a joint display, and so on. On a more advanced level, students learn how to use their knowledge about MMR to make it a stronger MMR study, such as helping revise original MMR grant applications shared by faculty members whose proposals were not funded from the first submission, or modifying an exemplar quantitative or qualitative study to apply MMR. Such enhancements require conceptual, experiential, and inferential knowledge of the MMR research process (Tashakkori et al., 2021) to result in a well-designed MMR study. Designing Applying skills to designing an MMR study or an MMR grant proposal is a higher-order strategy that builds on the synthesis of the information mastered in the course. It corresponds to the highest level of creation in Bloom’s taxonomy that implies ‘putting elements together to form a coherent or functioning whole’ (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 4). Students learn how to put together the MMR process ‘building blocks’ that they have been learning about in the course to design an MMR study on the topic of their research interest. Most of our courses capitalise on this pedagogical strategy to provide students with the skills they will need in their future MMR practice. For example, students write a proposal for an MMR study that requires conceptualisation and explanation of all components of a study research process. These components include writing MMR research questions and study aims (Plano Clark and Badiee, 2010), describing an MMR study core or complex design (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018; Tashakkori et al., 2021), explaining integration or points of interface in the study (Morse and Niehaus, 2009), developing study procedural diagram (Ivankova, 2015), implementation matrix (Fetters, 2020), joint displays (Guetterman et al., 2015), and addressing MMR quality (Curry and Nunez-Smith, 2015). These course projects then serve as a foundation for students’ dissertation study proposals, research grant proposals, and proposals for mixed methods action research studies to be implemented in community settings.

98  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Strategies that Promote Communication About MMR The ability to communicate about MMR is another important goal for our teaching about this research approach. Communication is an important part of comprehension and understanding (Krathwohl, 2002), suggesting that learners need to engage with and make sense of different ways that MMR is communicated to them. Furthermore, emerging scholars and established researchers need to be able to effectively communicate about their research through verbal and written forms to a variety of stakeholders both within and outside of their disciplinary research community. Thus, MMR learners also need to develop metacognitive knowledge for communicating, which involves being strategic for different audiences and responsive to one’s own stances (Krathwohl, 2002). Communication about MMR is particularly challenging (Fetters, 2020; Sandelowski, 2003) because: (a) scholars need to communicate to different audiences with varying levels of awareness and acceptance of MMR; (b) the MMR field is still developing its conventions for how MMR is communicated; and (c) the complexity of MMR is difficult to describe, particularly within standard communication constraints such as time and word limits. Thus, we incorporate strategies to help students engage with and develop their skills for communicating about MMR in oral and written forms to a variety of audiences, which we discuss in terms of modelling, strategising, and representing MMR visually. Modelling One strategy for helping students develop their communication about MMR is extensive modelling. For example, assigned readings intentionally include a variety of formats (e.g., methodological discussions, empirical reports), styles (e.g., realist, theoretical, personal commentary), and disciplinary conventions to demonstrate different ways that MMR is communicated by others. Models of anticipated products are also highlighted, including example literature reviews, dissertation proposals, grant applications, and dissertations. Class discussions consider not only the content of these examples, but also their communicative strategies such as the use of headings, tables, and figures; content organisation; and avoidance of jargon. Another example of modelling experience and communication of MMR is guest speakers (e.g., current and former doctoral students, faculty, and MMR experts) who model how to communicate about MMR experiences to others. Strategising The complexity of MMR necessitates that students become strategic in how they communicate about it and we incorporate practices to foster students’ awareness of such strategising. We regularly provide constraints on students’ communications to help them practice being concise, such as asking students to pick one salient point to share from a small-group discussion, allowing two minutes for each student to describe their mixed methods study topic, or setting a ten-minute time limit for a formal project presentation. Similarly, written assignments may include strict word/page limits. For both kinds of communication, students receive advice and feedback about the information to include within the allotted time or space to help them strategise how they communicate. Another common challenge with communicating about MMR is an overreliance on technical terms that are perceived as jargon by multidisciplinary audiences and audiences less familiar with MMR. In addition to talking about this issue in class, we intentionally have students from different disciplinary and methodological backgrounds work together on assignments and projects. This can provide valuable opportunities

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  99 for practicing communication and receiving in-the-moment feedback about examples of using jargon without sufficient explanation to help them become cognisant of the level of understanding held by different audiences. Representing visually Effective communication about MMR also involves being able to organise and present information visually (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). Examples include procedural diagrams (Ivankova, Stick and Creswell, 2006), implementation matrix (Fetters, 2020), and joint display tables (Guetterman et al., 2015). We routinely ask students to create visual representations of MMR studies alongside text descriptions to develop their skills for creating and optimising such visuals. Relatedly, we encourage students to pay close attention to how they organise information about MMR studies and be strategic in how they use headings and subheadings to visually signal the organisation of an MMR study and to make the information clear. Strategies that Promote Professional Advancement with MMR Professional advancement is at the core of graduate studies. Our courses enrol students from diverse backgrounds and professional roles: masters and doctoral students, novice and seasoned researchers, faculty, and professionals who want to learn a new methodology or enhance their existing knowledge and skills in MMR. They receive applied training in all aspects of MMR and are encouraged to produce deliverables at the end of each course that would provide them with some form of professional advancement, such as a journal article, conference abstract, or an application for research funding. Professional advancement with MMR can be cultivated in several ways: through peer mentoring and by providing students opportunities to co-teach some course components; by creating real-life encounters with MMR through simulation activities; and by developing authentic MMR products as the culminating experience. Peer mentoring and co-teaching Teaching others while learning is an effective way to process and retain information (Topping, 2005). Peer mentoring facilitates a learning environment that prepares students to work on an MMR project team that often brings together researchers with different levels of proficiency in MMR. It also helps students develop pedagogical skills for future positions in academia. Students can engage in peer mentoring in different ways. We consider students’ background knowledge and experience with MMR in assigning them to small groups for class assignments or to project teams. Diverse teams in terms of levels of knowledge about MMR and discipline helps to recreate real-life situations of engaging community partners with research and building their MMR capacity. Furthermore, students can be invited to co-teach certain aspects of a course by leading a learning activity or preparing a presentation on a particular topic. For example, students prepare short presentations and lead discussions on individually assigned articles dealing with different perspectives on or approaches to integration (e.g., Bazeley and Kemp, 2012; Johnson et al., 2017; Pluye et al., 2009; Uprichard and Dawney, 2019). This allows students to focus on the article in more depth, as well as practice their discussion skills. In the Advanced Special Topics course, students lead discussions and activities on the chosen advanced MMR topic to gain MMR teaching experience and feedback in a supportive environment.

100  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Using simulation Simulation as a form of role-playing to acquire certain skills in an artificially created learning environment is becoming an increasingly popular pedagogical strategy in teaching applied knowledge and skills and preparing students for their professional roles (McCoy et al., 2016; Sinclair and Ferguson, 2009). Instructors can use simulation to support professional MMR advancement by exposing students, for example, to the dynamics of a research team working on an MMR project or structuring mock MMR grant review sessions. Simulation is also used for students to learn how to engage community partners as collaborators in a mixed methods project by conducting simulation activities that follow the steps in designing context-specific, stakeholder-informed and action-oriented MMR studies (Ivankova and Johnson, 2022). Using provided simulation scenarios, student teams work on designing MMR studies to address different practical issues, such as slow COVID-19 vaccination uptake in a local community. During each team’s simulation activity, the rest of the class is actively engaged as stakeholders reacting to the team’s actions and helping create a natural environment reflecting real-life interactions. Each simulation activity is followed by a debriefing (reflective learning) session during which the team and the rest of the class evaluate their performance. Developing authentic products A core component to our teaching of MMR is a focus on students developing authentic products relevant to their professional goals and disciplinary norms. These products provide motivation and context for students’ learning, application, and communication about MMR. Examples of culminating products include: (a) methodological review of the use of MMR within a student’s area of interest reported as a manuscript for a journal; (b) dissertation proposal; and (c) MMR grant application for a funding agency. These authentic culminating projects foster students’ professional development because they are gaining experience with MMR and with developing scholarly products and incorporating MMR into those products. We incorporate explicit instruction and feedback related to these products on topics such as strategies for effective MMR grant-writing (Guetterman et al., 2019) and MMR reporting and publishing strategies (Fetters, 2020; Levitt et al., 2018; O’Cathain, Murphy and Nicholl, 2008). Although the culminating products are aligned to the specific course objectives, we provide choices to students to select a course deliverable that will enhance applied learning and instil the skills that students will need to make them successful in their future research and academic careers. Strategies that Promote Methodological Advancement of MMR A final pedagogical goal that we have selected to highlight is for learners to consider engaging in work that advances the methodology of MMR. This goal is important for courses serving students who are training to become research methodologists. The ability to contribute to the advancement of MMR is not limited to an elite few that explicitly identify as research methodologists. Although the field of MMR has matured (Molina-Azorin and Fetters, 2022), it remains a vibrant and growing methodological area with considerable opportunities for new developments. We believe that all students of MMR have the capacity to view themselves as potential contributors to the field. Therefore, we include pedagogical practices of advocating and undertaking to help students embrace their potential for advancing MMR.

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  101 Advocating Strategies that promote students’ interest in advancing the methodology of MMR start subtly by advocating for the possibility of this kind of work. For example, we assign methodological readings that were published by emerging scholars and based on work completed during their doctoral programs – and discuss explicitly the fact that these innovative methodological publications were derived from the author’s doctoral work. This serves to help MMR learners imagine themselves as someone who could develop methodological publications. Such readings include methodological reviews of the use of MMR (e.g., McKinley, 2019), discussion of an innovative joint display for integration results (Bustamante, 2019), and the conundrums experienced when using an advanced MMR design for a dissertation (Walton et al., 2020). Another example of advocacy is advising students that the work they have done for an MMR course has the potential to be further developed into a methodological manuscript and suggesting potential venues for disseminating methodological work. Undertaking For students who have an interest and desire for advancing MMR, more explicit pedagogical strategies are possible by asking students to undertake methodological work. For example, when students design an MMR study, they can differentiate the planned procedures that are known based on information in the literature and those that can be considered as innovative and/or extending the literature. In the Advanced Special Topics course on MMR, after direct instruction and advice about recommended processes for developing methodological advancements, students work in small groups to identify and discuss a potential methodological contribution that could emerge from their current and planned use of MMR. Using a worksheet as a guide, students think through issues such as what about their project is innovative, what gap in the methodological literature might exist, what audiences would benefit from the new knowledge or practices, and what venues might be appropriate for reaching those audiences. As ideas develop, students share presentations and/or papers written from the stance of advancing MMR and receive ongoing informal and formal peer and instructor feedback. Adapting Pedagogical Strategies to Different MMR Teaching Contexts The previous section has described the pedagogical strategies that we employ in our daily teaching of MMR. As useful as we hope these descriptions are, good teaching requires knowledge about when and how to employ strategies in addition to having a repertoire of possible strategies. Research on teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge across disciplines has highlighted that teachers’ development and application of pedagogical practices is complex and ‘highly specific to the content, situation, and person’ (Driel and Berry, 2012, p. 27). In this section we describe how the pedagogical strategies can be adapted to different contexts, such as course type, objectives, and delivery formats when teaching MMR. Pedagogical adaptations to course type and objectives The course type and objectives are important considerations for selecting and using pedagogical strategies when teaching MMR. We adapt and combine our strategies in different ways depending on the course level (beginner or advanced) following a spiral curriculum approach. For example, in the beginner level course, more emphasis is placed on promoting knowledge and evaluation of MMR. In more advanced courses we prioritise application and methodo-

102  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods logical and professional advancement. The same strategies can be differently applied across different level courses. For instance, reading and discussion are common strategies used in every course. However, the content of the reading material (introductory and comprehensive vs. nuanced and specialised) and related assignments (identifying and describing vs. applying and modelling) differ across courses. Similarly, the content and goals of discussions vary from exploring the key concepts and perspectives on MMR at the beginner level to exchanging ideas on study designs and potential methodological contributions at a more advanced level. Pedagogical adaptations are necessary to align learning practices with the course purpose and objectives. The choice of strategies is closely related to the desired students’ learning outcomes, such as understanding and evaluating MMR and its contexts, designing an MMR study (a dissertation or a grant proposal), developing engagement with MMR to address a community-based problem, and establishing a community of practice for professional and methodological advancement. For example, learning how to design an MMR study requires using multiple application strategies from trying, to modifying, and to designing. However, depending on the type of proposal (dissertation or grant), these strategies may carry a different weight with more focus on designing for those who already have experience with MMR. Another example is adapting pedagogical strategies to a seminar style course where students are encouraged to lead on MMR topics and debates. It is also important to be flexible and adjust teaching strategies to learners’ needs. In our courses, we teach diverse students including doctoral students, researchers, and professionals. They enrol in MMR courses to learn about MMR and to apply it to their needs. One example of adapting a pedagogical strategy to meet the needs of diverse students is changing the course deliverable from a research proposal to a report on a complete MMR study for those students who already have an MMR study underway. Doing so allows students to create a course product that better meets their professional needs. Pedagogical adaptations for course delivery formats Another important context for teaching MMR is the delivery format used for the course. The MMR courses listed in Table 7.1 have involved traditional in-person teaching, synchronous online teaching via web conferencing (e.g., Zoom), and asynchronous online teaching. Furthermore, with the need for increased flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic, some MMR courses were delivered using a hybrid format that combined both in-person and remote delivery formats. The pedagogical strategies described in this chapter have been successfully applied within all of these formats, but at times required adaptations. For example, we noted the importance of small-group discussions for teaching MMR. Small-group discussions mostly occur in real-time by grouping students in close physical proximity within campus-based courses and via breakout rooms via web conferencing in an online mode. In an asynchronous mode, small-group discussions occur via a discussion board. Such discussions are particularly important in online courses where students have limited in-person interactions. While the general structure of small-group discussions remains the same across formats, the nature of the questions, the directions for the discussion (e.g., paper handout vs. electronic file), and how students share with the full class may be adjusted. Furthermore, the instructor has more flexibility in making group assignments within the virtual environment (e.g., organising groups randomly, by students’ disciplines, by MMR design type, etc.), which is not as easy to do logistically when students are all in person in a classroom.

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  103 As another example, the requirements for formal presentations about MMR projects may be adjusted to fit the course context by using in-person presentations, screen sharing within web conferencing, and/or recorded narrated presentations using PowerPoint slides. Presentations in real-time, whether in a real or virtual classroom, have the advantage of dialog among students in response to questions in real-time. Recorded presentations offer increased flexibility of watching them at a convenient time and the ability to rewatch aspects for deeper engagement with the information, but questions and feedback do not occur in real-time. Using simulation in a virtual format is another example of how pedagogical strategies that were originally developed for in-person learning environments can be adapted and successfully used in an online course.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY In this chapter, we described our approaches to teaching MMR organised around six pedagogical goals of promoting students’ MMR knowledge, evaluation, application, communication, and professional and methodological advancement with MMR. We also described the type of strategies for each goal and illustrated them with some examples from our courses. These strategies and how we adapt them to different learning purposes and course contexts are grounded in our experiential, methodological, and pedagogical MMR practices, which are guided by the socio-ecological framework for MMR and a spiral curriculum model. Although we find these pedagogical strategies effective as reflected in students’ course evaluations, we do not consider using them as an ultimate approach to teaching about MMR. Instructors of MMR should carefully consider the choice of strategies that best fit the learners’ needs. Teaching goals and pedagogical approaches may vary depending on the level and type of learners, the course purpose, and a delivery format. The evolving field of MMR also calls for exploring and trying new pedagogical strategies to teaching about novel MMR methodological concepts and procedures in response to the growing complexity of MMR (Johnson et al., 2019; Poth, 2018). Adapting pedagogical approaches from other research methods and substantive courses, as we illustrated with our use of simulation, can help instructors of MMR expand their repertoire of teaching strategies, as well as identify effective combinations of strategies for their unique teaching contexts. Thoughtful engagement with MMR pedagogical practices will help expand our knowledge about effective teaching of MMR and will contribute to the emergent pedagogical literature about MMR.

REFERENCES Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman. Bazeley, P. and Kemp, L. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 55–72. Bruner, J.S. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bustamante, C. (2019). TPACK and teachers of Spanish: Development of a theory-based joint display in a mixed methods research case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 163–178. Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

104  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Curry, L. and Nunez-Smith, M. (2015). Mixed Methods in Health Sciences Research: A Practical Primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DeJonckheere, M., Lindquist-Grantz, R., Toraman, S., Haddad, K. and Vaughn, L.M. (2019). Intersection of mixed methods and community-based participatory research: a methodological review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 481–502. Fetters, M.D. (2020). The Mixed Methods Research Workbook: Activities for Designing, Implementing, and Publishing Projects. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Frels, R.K., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L. and Collins, K.M. (2012). Challenges to teaching mixed research courses. Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(2), 23–44. Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guetterman, T.C., Creswell, J.W., Deutsch, C. and Gallo, J.J. (2019). Process evaluation of a retreat for scholars in the first cohort: The NIH mixed methods research training program for the health sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 52–68. Guetterman, T.C., Fetters, M.D. and Creswell, J.W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. The Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. Guetterman, T.C., Sakakibara, R.V., Plano Clark, V.L., Luborsky, M., Murray, S.M., Castro, F.G., Creswell, J.W., Deutsch, C. and Gallo, J.J. (2019). Mixed methods grant applications in the health sciences: An analysis of reviewer comments. PLOS ONE, 14(11), Article e0225308. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1371/​journal​.pone​.0225308 Harden, R.M. and Stamper, N. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143. Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). The problems and prospects in the teaching of mixed methods research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 463–477. Hong, Q.N., Gonzalez-Reyes, A. and Pluye, P. (2018). Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24(3), 459–467. Hou, S.I. (2021). A mixed methods process evaluation of an integrated course design on teaching mixed methods research. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 15(2). Doi​.org/​ 10​.20429/​ijsotl​.2021​.150208 Ivankova, N.V. (2015). Mixed Methods Applications in Action Research: From Methods to Community Action. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ivankova, N.V. and Johnson, S.L. (2022). Designing integrated mixed methods action research studies. In J. Hitchcock and A. Onwuegbuzie (Eds.), Routledge Handbook for Advancing Integration in Mixed Methods Research (pp. 158–173). UK: Routledge. Ivankova, N.V. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Teaching mixed methods research: Using a socio-ecological framework as a pedagogical approach for addressing the complexity of the field. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(4), 409–424. Ivankova, N.V. and Wingo, N.P. (2021). Intersecting mixed methods and community-based Participatory action research to promote patient-centeredness in research. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of Social Inclusion, Research and Practices in Health and Social Sciences (pp. 1–19). NY: Springer. Doi​ .org/​10​.1007/​978​-3​-030​-48277​-0​_90​-1 Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W. and Stick, S. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. Johnson, R.E., Grove, A.L. and Clarke, A. (2017). Pillar integration process: A joint display technique to integrate data in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 301–320. Johnson, R.E., Murphy, M. and Griffiths, F. (2019). Conveying troublesome concepts: Using an open-space learning activity to teach mixed-methods research in the health sciences. Methodological Innovations,  12(2), 1–14. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​2059799119863279 Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. Levitt, H.M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J.W., Frost, D.M., Josselson, R. and Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal articles reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed

Teaching mixed methods research to address diverse learners’ needs  105 methods research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. American Psychologist,  73(1), 26–46. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1037/​amp0000151 Lucero, J., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., Alegria, M., Greene-Moton, E., Israel, B. and Schulz, A. (2018). Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(1), 54–55. McCoy, L., Pettit, R.K., Lewis, J.H., Allgood, J.A., Bay, C. and Schwartz, F.N. (2016). Evaluating medical student engagement during virtual patient simulations: A sequential, mixed methods study. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), Article: 20. McKinley, K.M. (2019). Assessing mixed methods research quality in the European student mobility literature. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(4), 433–449. Molina-Azorin, J.F. and Fetters, M.D. (2022). Books on mixed methods research: A window on the growth in number and diversity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(1), 8–16. Morse, J.M. and Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed Methods Design: Principles and Procedures. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E. and Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research Policy, 1(2), 92–98. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Johnson, R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63. Oyarzun, B., Stefaniak, J., Bol, L. and Morrison, G.R. (2018). Effects of learner-to-learner interactions on social presence, achievement and satisfaction. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 3(1), 154–175. Patten, M.L. and Newhart, M. (2017). Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of The Essentials. UK: Routledge. Plano Clark, V. and Badiee, M. (2010). Research questions in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (2nd ed.) (pp. 275–304). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Plano Clark, V.L. and Ivankova, N.V. (2016). Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Plano Clark, V.L., Ivankova, N.V. and Yang, N. (2023). Frameworks for conceptualizing mixed methods research. In R. Tierney, F. Rizvi, K. Ercikan and G. Smith (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (4th ed.) (pp. 390–401). Elsevier. Pluye, P., Grad, R.M., Levine, A. and Nicolau, B. (2009). Understanding divergence of quantitative and qualitative data (or results) in mixed methods studies. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), 58–72. Poth, C.N. (2018). Innovation in Mixed Methods Research: A Practical Guide to Integrative Thinking with Complexity. London: Sage. Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 321–350). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Sinclair, B. and Ferguson, K. (2009). Integrating simulated teaching/learning strategies in undergraduate nursing education. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 6(1). Doi: 10.2202/1548-923X.167 Tashakkori, A., Johnson, R.B. and Teddlie, C. (2021). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Topping, K.J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645. Uprichard, E. and Dawney, L. (2019). Data diffraction: Challenging data integration in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 19–32. Van Driel, J.H. and Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 26–28. Walton, J.B., Plano Clark, V.L., Foote, L.A. and Johnson, C.C. (2019). Navigating intersecting roads in a mixed methods case study: A dissertation journey. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 436–455.

8. Teaching mixed methods using an open-space learning approach Rebecca Johnson and Marie Murphy

INTRODUCTION Mixed methods can be defined as an approach to research where an ‘investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of inquiry’ (Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007, p. 4). It is an approach that crosses disciplines used in traditional social science including health science, nursing, economics, political science and comparative politics, psychology and education (Fàbregues, Paré and Meneses, 2019; Greene, 2007); after all ‘Divisions among disciplines are purely provisional’ (Docherty, 2010, cited by Monk et al., 2011, p. vii). Yet mixed methods is not without its critics, wading into the ‘paradigm wars’ around the virtues and vices of qualitative and quantitative philosophies of science, whether or not they ought to be or can be combined (Sommer Harrits, 2011; Symonds and Gorard, 2010). The paradigm wars in mixed methods reflect how core philosophical beliefs about the nature of knowledge (our ontological knowledge), and how we come to know things (epistemic knowledge), are in conflict within mixed methods within a singular study design (Madondo, 2015; Onwuegubuzie and Leech, 2005a). From one perspective, quantitative methodology is oriented within an objectivist tradition, viewing knowledge as that which can be independently, objectively measured, while qualitative methodology can be underpinned by more subjectivist traditions, contending (at its more extreme end) that there can be no true objectivity, with everyone viewing the world through their own subjective lens (Hammersley, 1992; Lund, 2012). Yet mixed methods has continued to grow into a popular approach for undertaking scientific enquiry. The popularity that mixed methods is afforded may be due to the pragmatic, utility-focused epistemology behind it which emphasises research-problem led methodology (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). More recent advancements also reflect developments in theorising methodology from a critical realist perspective (Mukumbang, 2021). It is clear that the foundations of mixed methods are multi-faceted, purposeful rather than unquestioning and historical; buoyed by Mertens (2010) idea that ‘If researchers do not acknowledge (or know) the philosophical assumptions that underlie their works, this does not mean that they have no philosophical assumptions. It merely means that they are operating with unexamined assumptions’ (p. 9). Mixed methods does not deny either underpinning qualitative or quantitative philosophy and instead draws on the key resources that each paradigm or method has to offer for research problems which extend beyond the gates of traditional disciplinary approaches. Pedagogically, the teaching of mixed methods is still developing (Frels et al., 2014; Poth et al., 2014; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). There are shared learning aims expected within mixed methods education: critical, creative thinking which is applied to practical or pragmatic research problems; the integration or mixing of ideas and concepts as well as methods of 106

Teaching mixed methods using an open-space learning approach  107 collection and analysis; a close consideration of the importance of synthesis beyond summary, which moves multi-method work into mixed method work; conglomeration of multiple, usually heterogeneous perspectives, either methodologically or in terms of data (Frels et al., 2014; Johnson, Murphy and Griffiths, 2019). Mixed methods carries its own challenges. It requires researchers to remain aware of methodological boundaries in order to minimise sources of bias and their detection and prevention; to understand approaches to validity and reliability and how they differ across disciplines; and it requires a degree of confidence from which students examine their assumptions, from multiple perspectives, in order to determine the most appropriate weighting of each method and where, when and how to mix them. It is on this basis that the challenges of teaching mixed methods begin. While integrating methods and data may come naturally to some, it poses distinct challenges for many. Mixing methods can be considered a threshold concept. Threshold concepts are considered ‘conceptual gateways’ to previously challenging ways of thinking about something (Meyer and Land, 2005). Reaching these thresholds, students can stagnate in their learning or plateau if they cannot be overcome. In mixed methods, threshold concepts are particularly relevant because of the need to address and compress multiple disparate, sometimes conflicting methodological domains into one interwoven methodology. Teaching threshold concepts is a process, one which ‘moves through creating and embedding contextually relevant and empirically grounded teaching and learning strategies that support threshold concept learning’ (Timmermans and Meyer, 2019, p. 355). A recent framework consolidating learning on threshold concepts outlined the following principles in order to best integrate threshold concept knowledge into educational practice (Timmermans and Meyer, 2019) – effective teaching: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Focuses on promoting student learning. Maintains a focus on transformative learning. Supports emotion and motivation as core dimensions of learning. Enacts and cultivates care. Encourages a celebration rather than suppression of differences. Enacts and encourages reflective practice. Encourages communication.

These seven principles act as a useful guide to ensure that as educators we are aware and taking steps to address the challenges faced when presented with troublesome concepts; they apply in general to wider student learning. However, the principles do not fully address all the challenges faced in methodological conceptualisation and application. In the case of mixed methods, we need to move beyond these principles to tackle the challenges of the mixed methods classroom. Our awareness of these challenges in teaching mixed methods led us to open-space learning (OSL), a transdisciplinary approach to engage teachers and learners together, originating from The University of Warwick CAPITAL (Creativity and Performance in Teaching and Learning) and Reinvention Centres. OLS opens ‘public space as well as private spaces in which we learn’ through aiming to enhance the student experience of learning by ‘actually giving students the possibility of experience’. Experience involves ‘not knowing the outcome of particular avenues of exploration, but being willing to take the opportunity that the opening of a space affords them’ (Docherty, 2011, p. vi).

108  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods OSL sits neatly within a larger context of learning theories, reflecting aspects of humanist learning theory with a learner-centred approach; transformative learning theory, focusing on challenging established assumptions; and social theories of learning which can incorporate communities of practice and reflect contextual/behavioural modelling (Mukahalalati and Taylor, 2019). Together, these learning theories combine to reflect experience as a key mode for learning, the consideration of multiple perspectives, and places a high value on pragmatic real world understanding of phenomena (Stewart, 2012). Linking learning theory into research pedagogy, Nind’s research team conducted interviews with research methods teachers, finding how teachers reflected the importance of ‘doing – and not just reading or hearing about – research was the key’ (Nind, 2020, p. 192). OSL offered similar insight to our mixed methods classroom in that ‘spaces are opened in order to promote experiential learning, creative teaching, and embodied research’ (Monk et al., 2011, p. 92). We discuss two of our key challenges for teaching mixed methods, and we describe ways we have used an OSL mindset and classroom approach to help address these challenges, simultaneously advancing our teaching and maximising the learning experience for our students.

TWO KEY CHALLENGES IN TEACHING MIXED METHODS Teaching mixed methods research carries with it distinctive challenges. The challenges we discuss here reflect over a decade of teaching mixed methods to postgraduate students from a variety of social science related disciplines. We have outlined each challenge and named three different aspects of each. Challenge one: Overcoming barriers related to established epistemologies. 1. Existing epistemic ideas are FIRM (Foundational, Integral to the identity of the researcher, Replicable and established in the scientific domain, Modifications to the cannon are not always welcome). 2. Resistance and discomfort exist around leaving the confidence built up around one’s methodological boundary. 3. Movement into new territory/tribe is destabilising. Challenge two: Confronting and recognising the distinction between summary and synthesis. 1. Summary is a necessary step in the process of understanding and consolidating knowledge, but it is not our key outcome of interest. 2. Recognition and acceptance that synthesis is the outcome of interest – the forging of new insights which have drawn on the multiple sources of evidence to support or refute various findings. 3. Realisation of the distinction between methodological integration and analytical integration. These challenges lend themselves to OSL’s antithetical view on traditional pedagogy, utilisation and conceptualisation of classroom space. In our thinking, we have particular issues which we feel are non-conventional, and we wish to use nonconventional avenues to work to address them with our learners. Using OSL to address mixed methods teaching and learning challenges allows us to support the development of high-quality researchers. The techniques used to identify, include, and incorporate these challenges into our classroom are described

Teaching mixed methods using an open-space learning approach  109 and discussed below, characterised using Monk’s six spaces: transgressive, transitional, transcendent, transrational, transactional, transdisciplinary. In no particular order, we raise these characterisations throughout the chapter. When we apply OSL to enhance our teaching of mixed methods research, we bring forward an a priori agreement that this is a space in which we can get things wrong (not a space where everything is right). Key Challenge One: Overcoming Epistemic Barriers Students come into mixed methods through a prior and predominant methodology. Typically, qualitative, or quantitative with its accompanying epistemic foundations. It is only in the most recent iterations where students are coming into the classroom identifying themselves as foundationally mixed (though this could be an effect of selection bias!). Concerning our first challenge, addressing multiple, sometimes opposing, views in an open space can reform and reshape these established epistemological barriers. Equally, barriers are not always a detriment. They can protect, as well as prevent. In terms of research methodology, they can create criticality and drive quality – would we value the results of a systematic review where all the types of research were considered, from most to least rigorous? Barriers support the pursuit of validity and reliability, trustworthiness and authenticity. They nudge us to consider others’ views and examine the origin of our own. They aid criticality. In teaching mixed methods, we do not aim to completely dismantle these barriers to permit everything. Instead, we reshape and reformulate these barriers around a focal point – usually a research question, which may warrant both qualitative and quantitative methods to garner the highest quality response to answer the question. Mixed methods requires reshaping epistemological barriers, and our teaching must reflect that. However, this is not easily done. In response to this, we aim to create a transgressive learning space, one which breaches a traditional social boundary. The open space becomes transgressive, as traditional barriers between facilitator and participant are suspended in the active and reciprocal engagement of participants, and the idea of ‘failure’ is honoured (Monk, 2011, p. 4).

In the context of mixed methods, a transgressive teaching and learning space is one where the breaking down and reshaping of traditional barriers between quantitative and qualitative methodologies and ways of thinking (positivist/objectivist versus postpositivist/subjectivist thinking) takes place. Meyer and Timmermans (2016) describe how discipline-specific ways of knowing and being identify a person as being part of a ‘disciplinary tribe’, reflecting also the prescribed academic behaviours within conceptualisation and discourse (see also Beacher and Trowler, 2001). Teaching with an awareness of threshold concepts within a discipline can support educators to address the threshold concepts themselves. A transgressive approach in mixed methods OSL functions by laying bare the methodological boundaries for multiple disciplines (addressing the threshold and hesitancy to move ‘out of bounds’ of the disciplinary tribe). Mixed methods offers a pragmatic start point – a research problem – rather than a solution (a research method). Each methodological discipline has its strengths and weaknesses exposed, and discourse is opened within the classroom. For the applied researcher, exposure

110  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods to this open discourse on the value of each methodological contribution is a critical element to crafting high quality research. The OSL approach to reshaping facilitator/participant roles in the mixed methods classroom enables teacher and learner to begin inhabiting different conceptual spaces and destablising those FIRM notions of singular dominance in one method or the other. Allowing and encouraging reciprocation from learner to teacher, learner to learner and teacher to learner early on helps create this space. An aim is for the space to reflect a networked learning experience, one where everyone has the opportunity to learn from each other. Practice example: When teaching mixed methods using OSL the expectation for the group from day one is that we are learning together. Students are asked to come to the class with a research question in mind. In the classroom, each student introduces themselves, their topic, and what elements they think might be mixing. There are no expectations surrounding what they bring to the classroom other than that they have given thought to a research topic, problem or question which might be addressed using mixed methods. Students filter into the classroom, with round table seating rather than lecture-theatre style. Once settled and session introduction is made, the facilitator asks each student to describe their research topic. The facilitator articulates this back to the class, and learners are invited to contribute, further articulate, and question one another in a supportive, collaborative, exploratory way. For advanced students particularly (PhD candidates) this provides an opportunity to begin verbalising their research. They are both teacher and learner. The students ‘take the stage’ and are teaching the rest of the class, including the teacher. Though this is a simple activity, it allows students space to begin opening up, and exposure to different ideas, approaches, methods, and disciplines as well as confronting their own verbalisations. This sets the precedent for the whole module for open, honest intellectual discourse amongst a group of researchers.

The OSL classroom also fosters a space, as viewed by Monk, that is transactional. Transactional in the sense of an open and free exchange of ideas in which participants do not compete to bank knowledge as private capital but freely exchange and collectivize their learning (Monk et al., 2011, pp. 4–5).

In the example from practice, something as simple as ‘round robin’ introductions becomes both pedagogically transgressive, and conceptually transactional. This is as much about the free and open exchange perspective that the facilitator/educator takes on and reflects to the learners/researchers, than anything else. Their attitude to the space sets the scene of an engaged, open and transactional space. It requires confidence, and it requires vulnerability. Just as we wish for our students to lower down their discipline specific tribal boundaries, we as educators need to do so as well. The free-form exchanging of ideas simultaneously opens students and educators/facilitators to vulnerability via ‘pedagogy of vulnerability’ (Brantmeier, 2013) – the kind of transformative pedagogy that results in deep learning, and the potential for self-transformation. Collectivised learning works well as a function of mixed methods education. The methods we teach are advanced, complex and require substantial prerequisite knowledge. When we collectivise our approach to research as one where through our connection we enhance the quality of research mutually, students see the immediate benefits of this, and their confidence grows. In the mixed methods OSL classroom, failure is honoured. This means that educators take a lead role in demonstrating that ‘getting it wrong’ is an integral part of the learning process

Teaching mixed methods using an open-space learning approach  111 and that as a class we invite these failures, knowing that failure is normal and expected in the research process. Much contemporary dialogue exists on failure and the expectation of getting comfortable with it, yet there is no doubt that in research, failure can feel high stakes. It is therefore important for our learners that they are exposed to failure as ‘a generative, unsettling and revelatory force’ as well as appreciating how ‘it feels like shit’ (O’Gorman and Werry, 2012, p. 1). In the mixed methods OSL classroom, failure is not an overt topic of discussion, but it is present particularly when students are formulating their mixed methods research plans as the sessions progress. Practice example: Early in our module, students begin to map a mixed methods study design of their own choosing. Large pieces of paper are used for students to spread out their ideas. They start with their research question and step by step build their study design visually – drawing out each step in their proposed process. Early on in this exercise, they often get aspects of this ‘wrong’, in the sense that problematic areas from an implementation perspective become apparent. Students are encouraged to discuss their designs with other students and identify areas of strength and weakness. Educators/group facilitators float the room, moving from learner to learner offering guidance and insight. The visualisation exercise is simple but sheds light on inescapable faults in their early designs. They confront their failure. The OSL approach provides the attitude and space for making obvious that which some students might be reserved about (the discomfort of not knowing or knowing incorrectly). We provide a space for all the students to collectively ‘get it wrong’, recognise this as part of the process of understanding, and focus on refining their study design.

Sanscartier (2018) provides an explorative example of the type of transgressive thinking that allows for breakthrough innovations, understanding, and nascent insights from learners through ‘craft attitude’ in mixed methods. He defines craft attitude as ‘a disposition (not a paradigm, method, or design type) towards the mixed methods research process that (a) is comfortable with uncertainty, (b) favors non-linearity and recursiveness in research design, and (c) treats research as an exercise in storytelling, about both the research object and our engagement with that object’ (Sanscartier, 2018, p. 47) The craft attitude reflects the spirit of OSL’s transgressive, transcendent aims, beginning with a standpoint which is unstable and uncertain, reflects movement through the research process, and conveys the importance of what is being focused on, relative to who is doing the focusing. The navigation of mess, as Sanscartier (2018) describes it, allows a breathing space for creative transgression. Key Challenge Two: The Difference Between Summary and Synthesis Concerning our second challenge, confronting and recognising the difference between summary and synthesis can be a confusing and disorienting experience for learners. Why is this distinguished as a confrontation? Because our teaching experience reflects a resistance to reaching across this gap of understanding nascent concepts. Synthesis in mixed methods can be defined as ‘a critical conceptual foundation and anchor point from which students build their subsequent learning. Once negotiated, it transforms students’ understanding of (1) the mixing of methods and (2) the generation and crystallisation of new insights emanating from mixed-methods research findings’ (Johnson, Murphy and Griffiths, 2019, p. 2).

112  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Guetterman, Molina-Azorin and Fetters (2020) highlight how the integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods is the defining feature of mixed methods research, yet even within the field, advanced techniques for analytical integration remain somewhat illusive, even being referred to as ‘the trickiest’ to undertake (Yin, 2006), with few studies describing systematically the components and process of integration (Johnson, Grove and Clarke, 2019). Integrating methods are ‘predominantly employed to explore broad, complex, and multifaceted issues and to evaluate policies and interventions’ (Mukumbang, 2021, p.1). This refers to Fetters and Freshwater’s (2015, p. 116) necessity ‘to produce a whole through integration that is greater than the sum of the individual qualitative and quantitative parts’. The integration of data within mixed methods therefore reflects the challenge to articulate that which has been integrated sufficiently, as well as the imperative to do so. Teaching future mixed methods researchers to integrate, via synthesis, is of value to spend time getting it right. While part of synthesis is summative in nature, summary is not enough by itself to generate and reflect new insights. It is what synthesis produces that contributes value in research. This can be a major challenge to recognise for students. While experiencing the confusion and displacement of thought processes can at times be confrontational, pushing through that threshold creates a solid foundation from which to build confidence for executing high quality mixed methods research. In our use of the OSL approach, the educator prepares for these expected challenges by recognising and addressing this confrontation and welcoming it to be worked through in a space the students and the teacher can be vulnerable. We describe an OSL-inspired activity used in our classroom, and we reflect how it addresses aspects of both challenges. Practice example: We ask students to work in small groups with a set of cards, featured images or text (to represent qualitative data), and tables, figures or graphical representations (to represent quantitative data), all themed around specific health-related topics. Students are instructed to use the open space available (i.e., the floor or tables posited informally around the room) to physically move the cards around and think about how the cards ‘tell a story’. The facilitator provides intellectual space by initially stepping out of the room, before returning to circulate the room to observe, clarify and prompt exploration where needed. After some time, each group are asked to articulate their ‘story’ with the rest of the class, demonstrated through the physical organisation of their cards. Groups vary in their approach, with some providing linear narratives of the data (more indicative of ‘summary’), whilst others provide thematic overviews (moving towards ‘synthesis’), or in-depth consideration of the issues presented on the cards (e.g., acknowledging divergent or contradictory data; observing multiple interpretations or perspectives on the data), demonstrating integration and generating new insights on the data presented (indicative of ‘synthesis’). The facilitator can use these different approaches to demonstrate the difference between summary and synthesis. We found that a successful element of facilitation is selecting the group with the most advanced comprehension of the activity to present last, providing ‘building blocks’/a process that helps move students’ understanding from summary to synthesis in a collaborative and experiential way.

An Activity to Address Both Challenges transcendent, as the work moves beyond the typical focus on auditory learning styles that dominates the modern university (Monk et al., 2011, p. 4).

Teaching mixed methods using an open-space learning approach  113 In the mixed methods classroom, we can move our learning into different physical space or pedagogical space. In the activity above, we aim to address both of our key challenges and transcend typical university learning approaches by removing indicators of the traditional classroom space, with reasonable discretion and accommodating the needs of our students. This activity is mobile; we move outside, we remove bags and accessories to learning, tables and chairs, and instead focus on what we share in our spaces – our fellow learners. The activity cards are a prop for the discussion between students. There is little in the way of distraction. Taking this approach does two things. One, it primes the learner for uncertainty (something unexpected has happened). This destabilises the learner. They can feel exposed, defensive, out of their depth, resistant, alert, excited. Two, it opens both teacher and learner up to possibilities. Traditional classroom norms are set aside, expectations are opened up, and from this point we begin to transcend conceptually traditional modes of learning. Practice example: When students use the activity cards, they often do not ‘get it’ straight away. There is disagreement, negotiation and discussion of ideas and potential organisation and then synthesis of the cards. Some groups home in on the big picture straight away, while others break down the cards, and organise and categorise the information first. Some groups do not move beyond the point of summary and in a sense, this is a failure. It is a failure that is illuminating however because it creates acknowledgement of conceptual space to be bridged. After this point, students can reorient and rebuild and can come to understand how quantitative and qualitative data can begin to be linked – and then synthesised. Because we have already spent time earlier in the module on indicating the ‘okayness’ of failure, this is only a minor issue and students during this activity spend less time trying to get it ‘right’ and more time trying to understand the activity aim.

The OSL activity described is demonstrative of students crossing the threshold from summary to synthesis via a transitional and transformative space, with students reporting experiencing ‘a different perspective’ and ‘broadening own thoughts’ over the course of the module (Johnson, Murphy, and Griffiths, 2019, p. 10). Epistemic barriers from challenge one are overcome in this transformative space, with students making statements about the ‘fear’ and ‘challenge’ involved in crossing these epistemic boundaries (Johnson, Murphy, and Griffiths, 2019, p. 10). Another learning point of the activity is the necessity of groups to negotiate individual perspectives, providing transactional space where students freely exchange ideas to ‘collectivise their learning’ and transdisciplinary space, where divisions are suspended within their learning experience during the activity. Our feedback from students reflected this impact, with one student noting it was ‘good for developing group negotiating skills and highlighting different perspectives and perceptions of the data’ – and another talked of being able to ‘transfer more comfortably’ between qualitative and quantitative perspectives (Johnson, Murphy, and Griffiths, 2019, p. 10). Though the activity was designed firstly to address an emergent challenge in teaching mixed methods (challenge two), it quickly became apparent the benefit that collectivising learning to cross that threshold aided improved understanding of the ‘epistemological continuum’ on which to anchor their knowledge building (Niglas, 2007; Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005b). The activity has now been given a key structural role in the module, being delivered on both the first and last day of teaching sessions to demonstrate to students how their conceptual thinking on mixed methods has advanced and how their ability to integrate and synthesis

114  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods data has become clearer, easier and more refined. It provides students with an opportunity to self-examine their assumptions, identify how or if they have shifted, and support good reflective practice as part of their ongoing development as researchers.

DISCUSSION In this chapter we have described some of the conditions under which teaching mixed methods can be challenging, and some of the techniques we have used to overcome these challenges, drawing on the OSL approach. Examples from teaching practice have been used to illustrate and add experiential weight to how and why an OSL perspective might be particularly helpful in mixed methods. We have addressed the issue surrounding integrating possible conflicting ontological and epistemological disciplinary boundaries, their value as well as limitations, and the role of the threshold concept. As research methods educators, we eventually become so familiar with our research practice (how we do our research), that the knowledge of how becomes tacit. From an organisational perspective, Tsoukas (2005, p. 108) describes tacit knowledge in the following way: the knowledge which people use in organisations is so practical and deeply familiar to them, that when people are asked to describe how they do what they do, they often find it hard to express it in words.

With an OSL approach, we are aiming to acclimatise students, as apprentices of the ‘craft’ of research method practice, to know how we do what we do. We are aiming to guide students through their threshold concepts, to get them to a point of understanding where they have begun the process of tacit learning and understanding, so they can continue to build their understanding independent of our own. In doing so, we support the advancement of innovative solutions to complex problems which cannot always be solved using conventional wisdom or existing practices (see also Poth, 2018). Using OSL in mixed methods has afforded us that ability during our experiences of teaching. Learners’ experiences of OSL (navigating destabilising experiences, collectivising learning, bridging transdisciplinary boundaries) replicates the interdisciplinary, collaborative and complex nature of mixed methods research practice. This goes some way to inducting the mixed methods learner to the ‘craft attitude’ required of a mixed methods researcher, as defined by Sanscartier (2018). Indeed, Sanscartier outlines the need for a mixed methods curriculum to include ‘hands on experiences’ to enhance the ability of researchers to adapt to ‘mess’ and nonlinearity during the research process. As if in response, Ochoa et al. (2018) add constructive examples from cultural studies and offer a range of OSL activities which can be applied in mixed methods as well as wider social science methods education, observing that students who have been involved in OSL report ‘an increased openness to experiment and risk’ (p. 513). Like others teaching in the mixed methods research, in using this approach, our goals are for creative, practical and critical thinking, integration and examination of students’ philosophical assumptions (Frels et al., 2014; Mertens et al., 2016). One of the ideologies of OSL is a wish to ‘match dynamism and originality in research with the same in pedagogy’ (Monk et al., 2011, p. 117). This aligns well to the transdisciplinary nature of integrating bounded methodological traditions suspending and destabilising disciplinary boundaries and works toward addressing FIRM barriers to learning (Monk et al., 2011).

Teaching mixed methods using an open-space learning approach  115 Adopting the OSL approach and reflecting on its value has fostered recognition of four pedagogical aspirations for teaching mixed methods to researchers, and we think it could also apply to wider social science methods teachers considering teaching methods in a transdisciplinary way. We aspire to create a mixed methods learning environment for researchers that is: ● Dialectic – Identifying and naming the disciplinary boundaries in order to accept them and move beyond them. Doing so creates an atmosphere of conversation and critique with minimal criticism. ● Intentional – Teaching openly is as much about our attitude as teachers as it is construction of the space and content. OSL enables us to create open space physically and cognitively in our classroom spaces. We foster a learning environment that welcomes failure as a means to greater understanding, that is shared across teacher and learner, and has a purpose, rather than being an undesirable endpoint. ● Liminal – Learning spaces are inherently rich liminal spaces, and we want to continue to emphasise the possibilities for learning where this uncertainty is embraced and encouraged. By destabilising some assumptions of prior learning, we cultivate new opportunities for growth in our developing researchers. ● Plural – The interactivity and amalgamation of different perspectives and experiences allows learners to mutually refine concepts over an intense and rich, but short, period of time in order to deepen their understanding of what mixed methods can be as they come to apply it in their research. Challenges in Using OSL and Ways Forward Although we have espoused the benefits of using OSL for teaching mixed methods research, it is important to acknowledge some potential challenges, drawing on our own experiences as we have moved from novices to experienced users of the approach. We have talked about the role of OSL in destabilising the learner, but it can also be a destabilising experience for the teacher, particularly those used to more traditional and hierarchical modes of teaching and learning delivery. It requires certain skills of the teacher, some of which align with the skills developed by learners as ‘recipients’ of this method: in particular, a comfort with (intentional) uncertainty, a willingness to be vulnerable (accepting the risk of failure) and an openness to the reciprocal exchange of ideas, knowledge and interpretations (co-learning). This can feel like a departure from a stereotypical view of teacher-as-expert. It may require some ‘unlearning of cultural conditioning related to the teacher as knower of all’ (Brantmeier, 2013, p. 4). In our case, this was fostered through an institutional commitment to innovation and creativity in teaching and learning in higher education; and was enabled through institutional engagement with OSL as an approach and the provision of funding support to develop and pilot our OSL activity via the university’s Institute of Advanced Teaching and Learning. Institutional support is also key in being able to access non-traditional learning spaces on campus that allow for OSL, and confidence is required of the teacher in making a case for OSL in disciplines where traditional modes of teaching and learning delivery are the norm. As users of OSL, we acknowledge that we do not always get it right. We have passed through several iterations of our OSL activity, reformulating it, adapting our instructions and moving its positioning around within the structure of the module. The activity is now delivered at multiple points in our module where we believe students will get the maximum

116  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods benefit of the approach (enabling self-reflection on their learning journey) and is packaged to best meet our learning objectives around overcoming our two challenges described in this chapter related to established epistemologies and confronting and recognising the distinction between summary and synthesis. We have reached this point through open reflection on our experiences, student feedback and peer observation. Some potential challenges that we face in using OSL relate to the shift towards online learning generated/accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Some thought needs to be given to how OSL can be used in an online learning setting. Providing open physical space may be a key element of the OSL approach – providing embodied experiences and opportunities for transaction. However, can this physical space be translated to online learning? This requires teachers using OSL to be adaptive and creative. It will be interesting to observe emerging solutions to this challenge. Despite the potential lack of physical openness in online learning, there is still plenty of opportunity/scope for providing cognitive or intellectual open spaces in which to learn mixed methods research, especially utilising software that supports group discussion (e.g. breakout rooms), exchange and collaboration, and audio or visual engagement with materials (e.g. virtual pinboards, video discussion platforms). OSL asks teachers to think creatively and innovatively about how to engage students and create a co-learning environment. With the competing demands of research and administration activities upon academics’ time, it may be difficult for teachers in higher education to carve out time to do so, opting for more established methods that can be delivered comfortably and efficiently. However, mixed methods may be an ideal discipline in which to ‘try out’ innovative methods – mixed methods research has only started to be taught in higher education in recent decades, so there are potentially fewer ‘conventions’ in how it is taught. However, this also means that there are fewer examples to draw upon for ideas and best practice. By describing our experiences of using OSL, we hope to contribute towards an emerging dialogue in the teaching of mixed methods research. But we can look to other disciplines for support and ideas and consider how to apply these to mixed methods research teaching – some examples include the ‘long short walk’ (Ochoa, McDonald and Monk, 2018, p. 515) which invites students to undertake a directed walk as a group, study the environment deeply and discuss their reflections with their peers (e.g. thinking about what mixed methods data are available in environments and how they can help lead us to deeper understandings than single methodologies); and ‘role-play’, where students are asked to adopt a role/take on a character (e.g. acting as a research participant, or defending a study plan, ethics or grant application to a committee) which provides an opportunity for experiential and embodied learning.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY The concept of transdisciplinary thinking and doing exemplifies the movement of understanding that the students go through in mixed methods – coming from a quantitative background or a qualitative background into a mixed-thinking state of scientific consideration. Mixed methods opens up possibilities for student’s consideration and thinking about their research problems. An OSL approach to the teaching and learning space allows more open, broader consideration of the inputs, processes and outputs which can become part of a student’s methodological journey.

Teaching mixed methods using an open-space learning approach  117 Mixed methods research is continually forming and reformulating based on the pragmatic nature of the problems which we seek to understand, explore and explain. Teaching should be no different in our approach to innovation and enthusiasm for delivering quality. Wider social research practice (and by consequence research methods which guide this practice) is changing too, with shifts in expectations, the need for adaptive procedures, and ethical uncertainties emerging as the Covid-19 pandemic begins to recede (Coverdale, Meckin and Nind, 2021). Therefore, teaching mixed methods in a transdisciplinary, open way is an approach which may be already well-adapted for this emerging post-covid social research landscape.

REFERENCES Beacher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bowleg, L., Fielding, N., Maxwell, J., Molina-Azorin, J.F. and Niglas, K. (2016). The future of mixed methods: A five year projection to 2020. MMIRA: White Papers. https://​mmira​.wildapricot​.org/​ resources/​Documents/​MMIRA​%20task​%20force​%20report​%20Jan2016​%20final​.pdf. Brantmeier, E.J. (2013). Pedagogy of vulnerability: Definitions, assumptions, and applications. In J. Lin, R. Oxford and E.J. Brantmeier (Eds.), Re-envisioning Higher Education: Embodied Pathways to Wisdom and Transformation (pp. 95–106). Information Age Publishing. Coverdale, A., Meckin, R. and Nind, M. (2021) The NCRM Wayfinder Guide to Doing Ethical Research During Covid-19. NCRM. https://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​id/​eprint/​4460/​. Docherty, T. (2011) OSL practice. https://​warwick​.ac​.uk/​fac/​cross​_fac/​iatl/​sharing​-practice/​formative/​ archived​-projects/​osl/​osl​_practice/​. Fàbregues, S., Paré, M.H. and Meneses, J. (2019). Operationalizing and conceptualizing quality in mixed methods research: A multiple case study of the disciplines of education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 424–445. Fetters, M.D. and Freshwater, D. (2015). The 1+ 1= 3 integration challenge. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(2), 115–117. Frels, R.K., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L. and Collins, K.M.T. (2014). Pedagogical strategies used by selected leading mixed methodologists in mixed research courses. Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(2), 5–34. Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry (Vol. 9). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Guetterman, T.C., Molina-Azorin, J.F. and Fetters, M.D. (2020). Virtual special issue on ‘integration in mixed methods research’. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 430–435. Hammersley, M. (1992). Some reflections on ethnography and validity. Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(3), 195–203. Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. Johnson, R.E., Grove, A.L. and Clarke, A. (2019). Pillar integration process: A joint display technique to integrate data in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 301–320. Johnson, R.E., Murphy, M. and Griffiths, F. (2019). Conveying troublesome concepts: Using an open-space learning activity to teach mixed-methods research in the health sciences. Methodological Innovations, 12(2). https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​2059799119863279. Lund, T. (2012). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: Some arguments for mixed methods research. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(2), 155–165. Madondo, S.M. (2015). Mixed methods research: An airplane without a blackbox. General Education Journal, 4(2), 1–14. Mertens, D.M. (2010). Philosophy in mixed methods teaching: The transformative paradigm as illustration. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(1), 9–18. Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. (2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 68, 373–388.

118  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Meyer, J.H.F. and Timmermans, J.A. (2016). Integrated threshold concept knowledge. In R. Land, J.H. Meyer and M.T. Flanagan (Eds.), Threshold Concepts in Practice (pp. 25–38). Brill Sense. Monk, N., Rutter, C.C., Neelands, J. and Heron, J. (2011). OpenSpace Learning. A Study in Transdisciplinary Pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury. Mukhalalati, B.A. and Taylor, A. (2019). Adult learning theories in context: A quick guide for healthcare professional educators. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 6, doi:10.1177/2382120519840332. Mukumbang, F.C. (2023). Retroductive theorizing: A contribution of critical realism to mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 93–114. Niglas, K. (2007). Introducing the quantitative-qualitative continuum: An alternative view on teaching research methods courses. Learning and Teaching of Research Methods at University (pp. 185–203). http://​www​.cs​.tlu​.ee/​~katrin/​wp/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2013/​11/​Introducing​-the​-quan​-qual​-continuum​ .pdf. Nind, M. (2020). A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: Teaching advanced social science research methods. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 185–201. O’Gorman, R. and Werry, M. (2012). On failure (on pedagogy): Editorial introduction. Performance Research, 17(1), 1–8. Ochoa, G.G., McDonald, S. and Monk, N. (2018). Adapting open-space learning techniques to teach cultural literacy. Open Cultural Studies, 2(1), 510–519. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L. (2005a). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L. (2005b). Taking the ‘Q’ out of research: Teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Quality and Quantity, 39, 267–295. Poth, C. (2014). What constitutes effective learning experiences in a mixed methods research course? An examination from the student perspective. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 8(1), 74–86. Poth, C.N. (2018). Innovation in Mixed Methods Research: A Practical Guide to Integrative Thinking with Complexity. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Sanscartier, M. (2018). The craft attitude: Navigating mess in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 47–62. Sommer Harrits, G. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 150–166. Stewart, M. (2012) Understanding learning: Theories and critique. In L. Hunt and D. Chalmers (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 3–20). Abingdon: Routledge. Symonds, J.E. and Gorard, S. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(2), 121–136. Tashakkori, A. and Creswell, J.W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 61–77. Timmermans, J.A. and Meyer, J.H. (2019). A framework for working with university teachers to create and embed ‘Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge’(ITCK) in their practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(4), 354–368. Tsoukas, H. (2005). Do we really understand tacit knowledge. In S. Little and T. Ray (Eds.), Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader (pp. 107–126). Sage. Yin, R.K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41–47.

9. Active learning, constructive alignment, and research methods: toward a programme level approach Tom Clark and Liam Foster

INTRODUCTION Active learning can come in a variety of forms. This includes: collaborative learning (Hmelo-Silver, Chinn, O’Donnell et al., 2013), problem-based learning (Brundiers and Wiek, 2013; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan and Chinn, 2007), project learning (Imaz, 2021), inquiry-based learning (Clark and Foster, 2017; Spronken‐Smith and Walker, 2010), and even service-based learning (Limoncelli, 2017). What all these forms emphasise, however, is an approach to learning that is both research-led, student-focussed, and grounded in activity. Active learning is, therefore, concerned with ‘valuing learning by doing and application of knowledge’ (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2020). Shaped around the needs and interests of the student, active learning is designed to be theoretically informed in scope and practice based in outcome. This entails students ‘doing things’ and being required to ‘think about the things they are doing’ (Bonwell and Eison, 1991). Of course, active learning is not new to the social sciences or pedagogy more generally, with the antecedents apparent in constructivist literature located in the philosophy of education (Gunn, 2017). Dewey (1938), for instance, advocated learning by practice and experimentation – effectively ‘learning by doing’. It has also been reported to have many benefits. This includes: increased retention of skills; enhancements in critical literacy; a more nuanced understanding of the research process; increased perception in the ownership of learning; heightened appreciation of theory; and, higher levels of satisfaction with the learning experience (Alt, 2015; Clark and Foster, 2017; Levy and Petrulis, 2012). The application of active learning to the teaching and learning of research methods has also not gone unnoticed (e.g., see Carter, Brown and Simpson, 2017; Gunn, 2017; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018). However, little attention has been given towards how such activity might be constructively aligned across modules and within disciplinary programme structures (Clark and Foster, 2017). According to Biggs and Tang (2011), constructive alignment is concerned with how teaching components interact within a teaching system, but also how such processes are experienced and understood by the learner. This means that considered attention needs to be paid not only to the content and effectiveness of particular activities, but also how that activity is sequenced across learning contexts, and how this is received, understood, and utilised by learners into, across, and beyond the programme. Research methods can provide the tangible skills, not to mention more generally helping people to critically navigate information in a research saturated world (Andersen and Harsell, 2005; Eick, Larsen and Geiger et al., 2021; Paxton, 2006). However, greater consideration of how active learning in research methods teaching can be coordinated and understood across 119

120  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods a programme is necessary for such skills and benefits to be accrued. This chapter will articulate a vision for active learning in the teaching and learning of research methods in higher education. Using the case study of the Sociology and Social Policy Programme at the University of Sheffield, it will offer a broad overview of the advantages of using the principles of constructive alignment at a programme level and discuss a range of opportunities and challenges in the implementation of such an approach across quantitative and qualitative curricula.

ACTIVE LEARNING AND RESEARCH METHODS It would be something of a truism to suggest that some things are not particularly suited to learning through reading, writing or thinking alone (Gibbs and Habeshaw, 1989). Reading about how to ride a bike, for example, is unlikely to prepare someone to be a cyclist. The kinaesthetic awareness necessary to coordinate the sensory organs with intricate muscular movement requires considerable experience to be able to stay upright and keep going in the desired direction. This is then all overlaid with the practical experience necessary to be able to navigate through traffic, while trying to balance road/highway regulations with the ‘unwritten rules of the road’. To these ends, certain practices and processes are much more suited to ‘learning by doing’ and some things require practice to be able to do them well. At the same time, it is important to recognise that experience alone is unlikely to provide all of the necessary learning to understand the nuances of an activity. While many guitar players will proclaim to be ‘self-taught’ – usually by suggesting they began playing by imitating the patterns and progressions of their favourite records – they will often accompany this procedural experience with some knowledge of music more generally, whether it be through reading musical notation or tablature, or developing some understanding of musical theory and what sorts of notes are likely to go together. This distinction between knowing and doing is sometimes referred to as the difference between declarative and procedural knowledge – and both are usually necessary to be able to do something successfully (Biggs, 2003). The former develops knowledge of a topic, and the latter provides experience of how to do it. This basic principle is why many educational practitioners will attempt to combine some form of theory and practice (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018b). Therefore, standard models of teaching and learning within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) will often involve strategies involving some form of alternating lectures and seminars or workshops. Lectures are thought to be effective at delivering declarative knowledge to large audiences, with seminars or workshops better directed toward small group activities that promote practical or procedural knowledge (Clark and Foster, 2017; Clarke and Lane, 2005). That said, such arrangements do not necessarily enhance the learning experience, with a focus on active learning often considered to be essential to understanding and experience (Race, 2020). The week-by-week mechanistic rehearsal of substantive knowledge followed by practical classes that require students to follow routine instructions without any input into the development of the activity are unlikely to inspire even the most enthusiastic learner. Therefore, many models of pedagogy will typically develop the binary distinction between the declarative and procedural to articulate more considered ways of understanding the process of learning. This may include the promotion of reflective cycles of thinking, planning, experiencing and reflecting (Gibbs, 1988); or the movement through a series of stages of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst et

Active learning, constructive alignment, and research methods  121 al., 1956). Variations on such themes may also include some sustained focus on learning how to learn (Fink, 2013); the necessity to take ownership over the learning experience; or, on the more social elements of learning that include collaboration, cooperation, and partnership (Healey, Flint and Harrington, 2016). A more detailed comparison of these ideas is beyond the scope of this chapter, but what all these enhanced models share is a commitment to recognising the value of actively participating in the learning process. To this end, the term ‘active learning’ is often used to describe specific approaches to teaching and learning that retain this broad commitment to ‘learning through doing’. Active learning, therefore, specifically seeks to develop tasks that require hands-on engagement and teaching methods. Learners are treated as holistic individuals who have a variety of different knowledges and experiences. The role of the educator is, therefore, less concerned with the transmission of information and didactic modes of teaching, and instead becomes more of a transformational one where students can shape their own learning through considered activity, accompanied by support and guidance from educators. As we have already emphasised, there are any number of variations and terms employed which are associated with this theme that have been discussed in the literature – usually with their own nuance or emphasis – and they have been applied in teaching and learning in a variety of disciplinary arenas (Gunn, 2017). It is unsurprising therefore, that the value of adopting active learning has not gone unrecognised by those involved in the teaching of research methods (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016). The broad commitment to activity is, for example, explicitly contained within Robert Park’s clarion call to the sociology students at the Chicago School and their students to ‘get the seat of their pants dirty in real research’. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that using active learning in research methods teaching tends to be underpinned by three interrelated goals: an emphasis on research process; gaining experience of conducting research; and critical reflection on research practice (Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014). While such assumptions cannot be assumed (Wagner, Garner and Kawulich, 2011), and the current evidence base is limited by the usual constraints associated with the scholarship of learning and teaching (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018), there is evidence of a growing pedagogic culture related to research methods that encourages more active forms of learning (Gunn, 2017). There is also an ever-growing number of methods-related resources for teachers to adapt and make use of, and there are even entire handbooks devoted to describing classroom activities (see Dawson, 2016).

CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT WITHIN PROGRAMMES As variously highlighted by Lewthwaite and Nind (2016), and Nind et al. (2020), active learning can be used to provide direct experience of the research process, promote critical understanding, and encourage reflection, all in a theoretically informed manner. Not only can this enhance ‘deep learning’ of the skills and capacities that underpin research methods, but it can also enable the student to take ownership over their own learning. One of the key goals of active learning is to help achieve the long-term targets of the student (Patton, 2015). However, adopting a strategy which merely gives students ‘one off’ piecemeal tasks associated with the research process does not inevitably lead to such benefits. Merely clicking through a series of heavily prescribed instructions in SPSS or NVIVO, for example, is not likely to enable the learner to experience the nuanced processes of either quantitative or qual-

122  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods itative analysis – which are fully embedded within the wider aspects of the research process. A distant demonstration of how to do something is not the same as understanding what you are meant to be doing, or evidence of being able to do it yourself for your own purposes. Similarly, merely having experience of something is not an inevitable precursor of being able to do it better, regardless of how many times you might attempt it. For example, many people have the capacity for both speaking and listening, and are very well practised at both, but that does not mean they will be able to seamlessly conduct a semi-structured interview for the purposes of a focussed research project. This requires a variety of skill and knowledge which differs markedly from everyday speaking and listening. It is similarly unlikely that someone will be able to understand how the process of conducting an interview is informed by the aims and research questions, the wider literature, and the intended form of analysis, unless a more connected approach is taken to the teaching. Indeed, Nind et al. (2020) have highlighted the importance of generating a holistic understanding of how students experience research methods across a whole programme, rather than as single ‘atomistic’ events (c.f. Wray and Wallace, 2011). Therefore active-learning approaches to research methods need to be considered within the wider ecosystems of teaching and learning in which they exist. One pedagogical framework that is particularly suited to thinking more widely about how the active learning of research methods might ‘fit together’ is constructive alignment. Now very well established within the pedagogical literature, especially in relation to higher education, constructive alignment combines a constructivist approach to learning with an outcomes-based approach to teaching (Biggs, 1996; Biggs and Tang, 2011). In doing so, it places an emphasis on how learning is experienced as well as the processes through which learning takes place. Learners actively create meaning through their experience of inter-connected curricula – and, in order for the learner to make better sense of these processes, curricula should strongly correspond with each other. To achieve this, the framework requires the considered alignment of learning objectives, teaching and learning activities, and assessment – and this basic principle can be used to guide instructional design at all stages and levels of development (Fung, 2017). The logical outcome of the framework suggests that if a single task is to ‘make sense’ to a learner, then it needs to have an explicit purpose not only within the individual session in which it takes place, but also the aims and outcomes of the module within which the session is situated, and the wider aims of the programme itself. This is because any tasks contained within a session are embedded within a nexus of interconnected experiences that exist across a whole teaching system – all of which is actively interpreted and understood by learners. Within such a framework, teaching is no longer a matter of simple transition from teacher to learner, with the learner required to understand, store, and reproduce information or practice. Instead, the focus is on the learner, who brings an accumulation of other learning experiences to each and every learning situation, and actively seeks to make sense of those experiences. Crucially, this means that the quality of any learning that takes place is determined not only by the delivery of course material, but how that material variously resonates with the motivations, understandings, and purposes of the learner. The key concern for the teacher becomes not only what material is delivered and how, but what the learner can do with that material, both within that teaching context and elsewhere (c.f. Shuell, 1986). This learning process should enable students to compare, contrast, critique and challenge, throughout their learning and beyond it (Gunn, 2017). Indeed, Biggs (2014) argues that constructive alignment provides a ‘web of consistency’ where outcomes are reflected in the learning activities and assessments that exist within programmes and across learning experiences. This enables the development of a more

Active learning, constructive alignment, and research methods  123 coherent, and less fragmented programme that has meaning and use for the learner (Earley, 2014; Rust, 2000). Of course, the relative importance of aligning learning outcomes, course content, and assessment, will be familiar to many of those who experienced the routine administration of teaching and learning. Constructive alignment is now thoroughly embedded within any number of ‘quality assurance’ processes associated with teaching standards. It has, for example, been explicitly referenced in a number of pan-European policy documents, including ‘the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area’ (De Lel et al., 2018). It should be unsurprising, therefore, that one of the central critiques of this approach has been the top-down imposition of it by those in management keen to be seen to ensure teaching standards and accountability. Loughlin, Lygo-Baker and Lindberg-Sand (2021), for example, note that Quality Assurance (QA) processes which claim to be founded on the principles of constructive alignment have actually created a chasm between active learning and ‘the frequently observed delivery of transmissive lectures’ that can easily be made to fulfil the requirements of QA (also see Trowler, 1998). This suggests: While active learning features in policy documents and academic development programmes, the rationale lacks the coherence of an overarching framework and contributes to a reductive approach to curriculum design (Loughlin et al., 2021, p. 127).

Therefore, the realisation of constructive alignment within a task, module or programme is not an inevitable outcome of the implied pedagogy associated with teaching administration – particularly where research methods are concerned. Ironically enough, constructive alignment might often exist in theory, but not necessarily in practice.

DEVELOPING A ‘RESEARCH METHODS SPINE’ Given the potential disparity between the theory and practice of constructive alignment, it is worth outlining how we attempted to incorporate both active learning and constructive alignment when taking a ‘whole programme’ approach to research methods, or what we have referred to as ‘a research methods spine’. Based at the Department of Sociological Studies (SCS) in the University of Sheffield, the methods spine was developed over a period of around five years (2010–2015) for use within the single honours programmes BA (hons) in Sociology, and the BA (hons) in Social Policy and Sociology. These programmes combined typically recruit around 80 to 100 students per year and are designed to explore the key issues and debates within sociology and social policy, with an emphasis on the application of sociological insight to social problems and policy solutions. The programmes are taken over three years, with each year requiring the completion of 120 credits. These credits come in the form of a number of core and optional modules, typically broken down into ten or 20 credit modules. The first year contains 100 credits of core material and only 20 optional credits. There are a further 60 core credits and 60 optional credits during year two, with the 40-credit dissertation module being the core requirement of year three. Within the core offering there are modules at all three levels dedicated to research methods (see Table 9.1). These modules use a scaffolding approach, enabling students to build upon their knowledge, experience and skills developed in other methods modules (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). Furthermore, there is an emphasis on

124  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Table 9.1 Level Semester

Modules within ‘the methods spine’ Level 1

Level 2

(120 credits in total)

(120 credits in total)

(120 credits in total)

Semester 1

Semester 1 and 2

Semester 1

Semester 2

Research methods Introduction to

Doing Social

modules

Social Research

Research

Credits

10

10

Level 3 Semester 2

Doing Quantitative Doing Qualitative Sociological

Sociological

Research

Research

20

20

Dissertation 40

Lectures, seminars, computer

Teaching delivery

Lectures,

Lectures, seminars,

Lectures, seminars, workshops,

self-directed

Lectures, one-to-one

online resources,

interview sessions,

workbooks,

workshops,

supervision, group

workshops and

online resources

online resources,

online recordings, supervision and online

quizzes

and workshops

student-led study

and surgery

sessions, drop

sessions

resources

ins and online recordings Research

Multiple-choice questionnaire assessing ability Assessments

to find and evaluate research information, and a seen exam

Other modules

Research report, individual presentation, and portfolio (including interview participation, and individual reflection)

Individual report

proposal for

using secondary

a dissertation

data accessed

project;

through the UK

a research

Data Service, and

website detailing

A 12,000 word

a group poster

findings from

research-based

responding to

a group-based

dissertation

a research brief

qualitative

using primary

project; and

data collected by

a critical

students

overview of the

Disciplinary

Disciplinary

Disciplinary

research process Disciplinary

modules (total 50

modules (total 50

modules (total 40

modules (total 40

credits)

credits)

credits)

credits)

Disciplinary modules (total 80 credits)

other modules to draw on ‘real world’ research incorporating various methods. Together the methods modules constitute the research methods spine. From the outset, the research methods spine aimed to ensure that learners gained a robust understanding of method that could be used to underpin the whole programme, whilst ensuring they could develop a range of identifiable skills that could be utilised in future employment environments. Given that social science students need to be able to understand the social world and the various ways in which it can be explored, it was important that the curriculum incorporated methodological pluralism (Eick et al., 2021), with a focus on qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research (Payne and Payne, 2004). To do this effectively, the spine went some way beyond the usual didactic rehearsals of the advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative methods that were common at the time, and that can constrain the development of more active forms of learning (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016). In pushing beyond these more conservative approaches, the knowledge and skills developed through the spine enables other

Active learning, constructive alignment, and research methods  125 substantive modules within the programmes to offer more innovative forms of research-based assessments, with students given the space to develop a range of tangible research skills that can be used to solve research questions and problems in contexts that were relevant to them. All of this culminates in a research-based dissertation, which provides a ‘capstone’ opportunity for students to utilise and demonstrate the skills and knowledge that they have developed across the degree programme (Clark and Foster, 2017). The methods spine promotes active learning but also recognises the need for various forms of teaching and resources to support and guide students through what is often unfamiliar terrain. It also encourages a reflexive approach to ‘finding out’, and was designed to allow students to clearly chart how their skills have developed across the degree, offering clearly delineated benchmarks from which students can see their progress. This includes the successful completion of four discrete student-led research projects that require the deployment of a variety of quantitative and qualitative techniques as well as the skills that support the production of research and critically informed knowledge more generally (see Table 9.1). Active learning strategies are evident in the assessment within the spine which requires students to: experience the problems of working within team-contexts and negotiate them; develop the confidence to work with autonomy; make critically informed decisions or seek supervision where appropriate; develop the flexibility to produce written, oral, and visual material according to conventional requirements of format and style; and, think reflexively about their practice in order to improve it. Ultimately the modules provide students with a theoretical and practical foundation for conducting independent social research. The first methods module students undertake is ‘Introduction to Social Research’, a year one semester one module that aims to introduce students to the theoretical, methodological and practical issues in conducting empirical social research. The module content covers a range of issues essential in the ‘reading’ of research. This includes introductions to the importance of social research; issues of ontology and epistemology; research design and sampling; quantitative and qualitative techniques of data collection and analysis; research quality; and ethics. Associated seminars also provide students with the opportunity to explore these issues with reference to an accessible research topic – fear of crime – so they can see how these issues matter in practice. This topic is also addressed in greater detail in a core crime module students undertake, adopting a tactic of enabling students to explore linked topics across modules. Indeed, the module content equips students with the necessary research tools to critique their readings, lectures and seminar discussions elsewhere on the programme (Eick et al., 2021). By integrating research knowledge with study skills, it also utilises skills resources associated with the university library to provide students with the basic literature searching skills necessary to undertake an undergraduate degree, as well as offering writing support and advice. It is assessed by a ‘seen’ exam (80 percent) – whereby students are given nine questions based on the lectures and told only five of them will appear, and a multiple-choice questionnaire (20 percent) that examines their ability to find and evaluate research information. ‘Doing Social Research’ was designed to be taken in semester two of year one and it aims to build on the research knowledge gained in the introductory module. It gives students the opportunity to develop practical experience of conducting research, from project planning through to writing up research findings. The module also operates to give students a wider appreciation of the department by asking them to conduct team-based research projects on the research of particular members. Not only does this allow them greater insight into the realities of the research process, but it also allows them to develop a greater sense of affiliation with the

126  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods department. Sessions for the module are initially lecture-based before a series of student-led workshops are employed to investigate the research of their allotted member of staff. This active learning strategy entails providing clear guidance in order to undertake the required task but emphasises the importance of student responsibility and autonomy within the confines of the module guidelines. The assessment strategy requires students to produce a research report and present the findings of the project to their team-members, with the best presentations taken forward to an end-of-semester departmental event. In completing a weekly portfolio, they are also required to reflect on the process of learning about and producing research. Building on their knowledge and experience of the research process developed in year one, the specific techniques of quantitative provision are developed in year two in the module ‘Doing Quantitative Sociological Research’. The module aims to provide students with the theoretical foundation and practical experience required to conduct independent quantitative social research. Teaching material for the module consists of a variety of lectures, seminars, workshops, student-led study sessions, drop ins and online recordings. Former students from organisations which utilise quantitative research in their employment, such as the Department for Work and Pensions (UK) and the Office for National Statistics (UK), have also contributed guest lectures to give students examples of ‘real life’ applications of quantitative research. A series of bespoke inquiry-based workbooks to support the development of quantitative skills have also been created to reflect the wider interests of the programme, as well as the needs for the use of active learning strategies within the methods spine. These workbooks were developed in two stages, and alongside two groups of students who were encountering social statistics for the first time (see Clark and Foster, 2017). Engaging students in the design, integration, and development processes of embedding the workbooks within an aligned methods curriculum is especially helpful in developing an inquiry-based approach to the development of quantitative skills (Healey et al., 2016). Written in a narrative style and incorporating ‘questions for revision’, worked examples using national datasets, and critical discussion the workbooks culminate in a ‘step-by-step’ guide to analysing data using SPSS. The narrative, rather than mathematical, approach employed by the workbooks was designed to ensure that students understand the principles of specific quantitative methods, before developing the ability of students to use them for research purposes. Utilising a range of examples drawn from specific departmental interests, the workbooks form a cornerstone of a seminar structure that requires students to explore a range of research techniques. These sessions provide a learning space that students can use as a bridge to establish their understanding of research concepts and instruments whilst developing their understanding of their use in the practice of research. That is, they allow students to progress from knowing ‘that’ to knowing ‘how’. This approach to methods teaching focuses on tasks which enable students to experiment with the data and the research instruments. The assessment consists of a group-based research poster that uses student-generated survey data to respond to a specific research brief, and an individual project report based on the analysis of secondary data. The group-based activity, worth 50 percent of the final module mark, requires students to undertake an ethical review process, develop research questions, complete a literature review, navigate sampling decisions, design data collection tools (a questionnaire) and collect and analyse the data, before presenting it in the form of a poster. This collaborative approach developed students’ skills and experience of working collectively (Garfield and Ben-Zvi, 2007). This is useful in providing a supportive environment, recognising the challenges students often face with maths anxiety (Eick et al., 2021; Ralston et al., 2016; Williams

Active learning, constructive alignment, and research methods  127 et al., 2016). This maths anxiety is associated with a lack of sustained and widespread mathematics training among students in secondary schools, especially those who subsequently undertake higher education programmes in the social sciences (Williams et al., 2016). This can create an impediment to quantitative methods training. The second assessment, also worth 50 percent of the module mark, requires students to produce a research report using data from a teaching dataset (the Health Survey for England, the Labour Force Survey or the Crime Survey for England and Wales). In doing so it employs a tactic of enabling students to utilise skills developed in the module workshops to research areas of their interest, whilst fitting with their disciplinary context (Leston-Bandeira, 2013). Taken in the second semester of year two, ‘Doing Qualitative Sociological Research’ aims to provide students with the knowledge and the experience to plan, organise, and undertake qualitative research using primary data. Teaching for the module involves a series of lectures designed to take students through the process of qualitative research, accompanied by a series of student-led workshops within which teams carry out a series of tasks that contribute to the completion of the research project. This includes generating ideas; conducting literature searches; writing research rationales; negotiating ethics; designing semi-structured interviews and/or fieldwork observation; analysing data; and using Google sites. Students also have access to a wealth of material online to support their projects and reflection, and which is fully aligned with the weekly tasks. This includes instructional videos, interview transcripts, field notes, podcasts, online tutorials, and worksheets. Three summative assessments are used to assess the learning outcomes: a 1,000-word research proposal for a dissertation project on a topic of the student’s choosing (25 percent); a website of findings from a group-based qualitative project (25 percent); and a 2,000-word critical overview of the process of a team-based qualitative project, drawing out the main methodological issues that the student encountered in the process of data collection and analysis (50 percent). Therefore, the module employs an active learning strategy which requires students to experience aspects of the research process and asks them to critically reflect on that experience, not to mention enhancing their digital capabilities. In turn, this again helps to prepare students for the realities of doing research before they embark on their final year dissertations. Indeed, the research proposal is intended to provide a credit bearing platform from which students can develop ideas for their dissertations, with students given a valuable opportunity to receive feedback on their research ideas before they embark on their dissertation module. The final modules of the methods spine are the ‘Dissertation in Sociology’ and ‘Dissertation in Social Policy’. These are 40 credit modules that are taken in year three and assessed through the production of a 12,000-word thesis. This involves either the gathering of primary data, the secondary analysis of data already collected, or desk-based theoretical enquiry (which requires critiquing literature and methodological reflections) – with the majority choosing to collect primary data. The dissertation is the culmination of the entire methods spine and gives students the opportunity to conduct an original piece of research on a topic of their own choosing. As such, the module enables students to draw upon both their previous knowledge and experience in the earlier part of the programme to explore their own interests in sociology and/or social policy. This is where the benefits of employing a scaffolding approach across the programme are particularly evident (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). Alongside group and individual tutorials throughout year three, students also have the opportunity to attend a series of lectures and interactive workshops on the process of doing a dissertation. This includes sessions on topics such as ‘getting started’, ‘literature searching’, ‘quantitative and qualitative

128  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods analysis’ and ‘writing a dissertation’. These strategies are also aimed at reducing the sense of isolation which can be apparent when undertaking an individual research project of this scale (see Clark, Foster and Bryman, 2019).

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES There are, of course, lots of challenges associated with using active-learning approaches to implement research methods training across a whole programme, many of which we had to contend with in relation to the methods spine. Although these may also be issues encountered elsewhere in programme design, they are particularly relevant to methods development. These include staff resources; the question of what to teach; the need for ethical review; the large class sizes; and the need to embed and reinforce research experience in modules not readily associated with research methods. In the first instance, taking whole programme approaches inevitably requires the involvement of other staff – some of whom may not be entirely committed to the design, implementation, and development of what are often seen to be advanced pedagogies and complex integrated curricula. This is compounded by the fact that research methods are frequently seen as ‘a necessary evil’ by many faculty staff (Williams et al., 2004), with delivery often left to early career researchers who lack the leverage to teach something more commensurate with their expertise (Clark and Foster, 2017). Consequently, there is a frequent reliance on teaching methodologies that staff are comfortable with rather than those required by the needs of a programme. Therefore, the implementation of active approaches requires leadership, vision, and persuasion over time – all of which requires considerable effort and commitment from management positions that often exist well over and above those concerned with the immediacies of teaching. Developments to the research methods programme at the University of Sheffield required support from the Director of Learning and Teaching and took place within the context of a larger programme review, which enabled a reflection of how research methods fitted within the programme. This required repeated recognition that additional resources would be required to develop and maintain these modules. Secondly, ‘research methods’ is a very wide topic with a very long history, and recent developments in society have only increased that scope further. Technological innovations have affected the kinds of data collection and analysis that can be conducted, leading to the development of software that enables more sophisticated forms of analysis. The emergence of Big Data, for example, has presented new possibilities and the advancing of digital methods as well as opportunities to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches (Sloan and Quan-Haase, 2017). This inevitably means that a process of selection is required in terms of what to teach. The decisions about the focus depend on individual preferences and experiences, departmental and faculty identities, and funding requirements, not to mention more mundane practicalities like teaching space and access to platforms, software, and computers. However, one of the central features of constructive alignment is the emphasis on the learning journey of the student. This means considering and appreciating where they have come from as well as where they might be going – and many will not be going on to be professional social scientists. Therefore, it is also important to consider what sort of skills can be applied in a wide range of employment areas. In these terms, tasks which involve having experience of designing

Active learning, constructive alignment, and research methods  129 a meaningful questionnaire and imputing the results into a basic spreadsheet is likely to be of more value to a greater number of students than attempting to ‘code’ using advanced quantitative software. Similarly, having practical experience of conducting a semi-structured interview and organising the data is likely to be useful in a wide range of contexts. This is not to say that more advanced, innovative methods should not be taught, but they are not, in and of themselves, necessarily more meaningful from the perspective of the learner. There is, however, an associated problem here. Research methods modules are frequently ‘core’ curricula within a programme. This means that they are a very useful vehicle to deliver whatever university priorities are in the process of being developed and evidenced because these courses are in contact with whole cohorts. This exacerbates the problem of ‘what to teach’ and modules can quickly become overloaded with study skills, careers talks and wellbeing advice, on top of content that is already subject to considerable pressures of expected content. To negotiate such challenges, we linked these kind of sessions to research methods as a substantive concern. For instance, we have employed strategies such as applying the requisite study skills (such as referencing) to methods literature or emphasising the value of methods skills in the careers provision, even involving former students who utilise those methods in their current careers. This assists in highlighting the relevance of social research methods to the ‘real world’. Thirdly, ever-increasing requirements of university Ethical Review Boards (ERBs) can make the practice of student projects seem unattainable. Debates about the nature and relationship between student-led research and professional research are notable by their paucity. But the assumption that all research should necessarily go through the rigours of review as envisioned by ERBs – regardless of whether it is a learning experience or not – means that it can be difficult to design programme-led approaches that satisfy the various remits of the review process, not least because any student-led research activity needs to be completed within relatively short-time frames and not be too onerous on either staff or students. Negotiating such protocols and constraints often involves considerable agility, not to mention precise planning and execution. This required considerable advanced planning in relation to the methods spine. Fourthly, the large classes that are typical of research methods courses are not always congruent with the requirements of active-learning – namely, repeated practice, formative feedback, and individualised learning (Kilburn et al., 2014). It is not hard to see why teaching research methods can all-too-easily become overwhelming within university cultures that frequently prioritise research rather than teaching (see Mulryan-Kyne, 2010). Again, this requires considerable commitment from department and faculty leadership over time because of the staffing costs associated with such learning. The final issue we will reflect on here concerns how to effectively integrate research methods with the substantive curriculum of a programme, that is, how to combine subject knowledge with the appropriate methodological experience needed to understand, critique, and contribute to that substantive base (Williams et al., 2016). Indeed, there is a danger that modularisation of degree programmes can often tacitly divorce research methods modules from wider programme content. It is unsurprising, therefore, that a number of commentators are supportive of ‘embedding’ method across a programme and, broadly speaking, there are three ways to integrate the substance and method. The main format of embedding is to suggest that research methods content should be dispersed across the substantive curriculum (Leston-Bandeira, 2013). This is largely the approach taken by the UK’s Q-Step programme that was designed to promote a ‘step-change’ in quanti-

130  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods tative social science training. The initiative ‘is based on the empirically-informed premise that addressing this shortage of social science researchers will not be met by developing additional “stand-alone” modules of statistical training’ (Nuffield Foundation, 2013, p. 3; see Grundy, 2020 for a recent overview). However, Howard and Brady (2015) also note that integration can also be achieved through ‘reverse embedding’. This means using subject knowledge within the context of methods focussed modules so that department, faculty and/or disciplinary interests can be used to develop methodological experience. This is the tactic we employed when developing the quantitative workbooks. All of the examples we used directly related to core concerns within the wider programme. The major benefit of this is that it helps to ensure that research methods are made relevant to learners, which in turn supports constructive alignment elsewhere on the programme. This can sometimes be difficult to achieve when using ‘off the peg’ research methods textbooks or resources because they often lack disciplinary focus. Of course, the downside is that it can require the bespoke tailoring of examples, activities, and content to wider organisational concerns which are themselves often presentational, performative, or fleeting. As a result, care needs to be taken to ensure the longevity of the curricula. Of course, embedding and reverse embedding are not mutually exclusive, and a third approach is to simply incorporate both techniques: method speaks to substance, and substance speaks to method. As the tenets of constructive alignment suggest, any component of a programme needs to be seen as a part of a whole system of teaching and learning (Biggs and Tang, 2011). Therefore, research methods need to be suitably embedded within the course curriculum and the course curriculum embedded within research methods. A key challenge here is involving other staff, who see the prospect of embedding as a constraint on ‘their’ module design. As such a move away from ‘ownership’ of individual modules may be necessary, in order to encourage a commitment to the wider programme and constructive alignment. Again, this does take considerable commitment and leadership to implement and maintain, but it is possible.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Although successfully implementing active learning can be challenging, it is evident that it has the potential to enhance research methods teaching, and it can be used to increase educational gain over and above purely didactic approaches to learning and teaching. However, any benefits can only be accrued if they are employed in an appropriate manner (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). Approaches which fail to suitably embed active learning and constructively align the development of skills and knowledge across a programme are likely to be of limited value (Sweller, Kirschner and Clark, 2007). Earley (2014) demonstrates that students on methods courses typically fail to see the relevance of the course in relation to their studies, or indeed, their lives, if those methods are not made relevant to them. Therefore, constructive alignment within programmes cannot be assumed by the satisfactory completion of paperwork and instead needs to be explicitly highlighted to students to promote a greater understanding of the links between modules: ‘active learning pedagogies need to be appropriately deployed with intelligent care, which places the onus on the instructor’ (Gunn, 2017, p. 250). This requires clear instruction, a supportive environment, an awareness of the knowledge base, and oppor-

Active learning, constructive alignment, and research methods  131 tunities for feedback and reflection. All of this involves a sustained commitment to resources, considerable planning, and a good degree of inspirational teaching. We have used the example of the methods spine that we developed at the University of Sheffield to show how we constructively aligned the programme. Our own emphasis on principles of active or inquiry-based learning received support from management within the department and the wider university, and we explicitly sought to develop curricula in partnership with students. This represented a ‘shared community dialogue’ (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018). Such effective collaboration is crucial to successful programme design (Yanamandram and Noble, 2006). Indeed, active learning approaches and the process of constructively aligning programmes requires considerable time and effort and across communities of learning and teaching. However, if done well, it facilitates learners to accumulate and scaffold knowledge and skills throughout a degree programme, enabling them to make connections between their learning and the wider world. Of course, there remains a need for continuing research concerning ‘what works’ in research methods teaching, both in terms of form and content, but also the value of emerging methods to students as they move into employment. But this chapter demonstrates that any attempt to assess ‘what works’ should not be composed of the evaluation of individual activities or events, but as a wider process of learning that exists within, across, and beyond a much wider teaching ecosystem.

REFERENCES Alt, D. (2015). Assessing the contribution of a constructivist learning environment to academic self-efficacy in higher education. Learning Environments Research, 18(1), 47–67. Andersen, K. and Harsell, D.M. (2005). Assessing the impact of a quantitative skills course for undergraduates. Journal of Political Science Education, 1(1), 17–27. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching and assessing course objectives. Teaching and learning in higher education: New trends and innovations. University of Aveiro, 13–17 April 2003. Biggs, J. (2014). Enhancing Learning: A Matter of Style or Approach? Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. London: Routledge. Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill. Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W. and Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company. Bonwell, C.C. and Eison, J.A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. Brundiers, K. and Wiek, A. (2013). Do we teach what we preach? An international comparison of problem-and project-based learning courses in sustainability. Sustainability, 5(4), 1725–1746. Carter, J., Brown, M. and Simpson, K. (2017). From the classroom to the workplace: How social science students are learning to do data analysis for real. Statistics Education Research Journal, 16(1), 80–101. Clark, T. and Foster, L. (2017). ‘I’m not a natural mathematician’: Inquiry-based learning, constructive alignment and introductory quantitative social science. Teaching Public Administration, 35(3), 260–279. Clark, T., Foster, L. and Bryman, A. (2019). How to Do Your Social Research Project or Dissertation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clarke, K. and Lane, A.M. (2005). Seminar and tutorial sessions: A case study evaluating relationships with academic performance and student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(1), 15–23.

132  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Dawson, C. (2016). 100 Activities for Teaching Research Methods. London: Sage. De Lel, G., Crosier, D., Donkova, R., Horvath, A., Kocanova, D., Kremo, A., Parveva, T. and Riiheläinen. J. (2018). The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Dewey, J. (1938). Experiential Learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Earley, M.A. (2014). A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 242–253. Eick, G.M., Larsen, E.G., Geiger, B.B. and Sundberg, T. (2021). Beyond the numbers: The impact of quantitative teaching on overall student performance. Journal of Political Science Education, 17(sup1), 693–702. Fink, L.D. (2013). Creating Significant Learning Outcomes: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fung, D. (2017). A Connected Curriculum for Higher Education. London: UCL Press. Garfield, J. and Ben‐Zvi, D. (2007). How students learn statistics revisited: A current review of research on teaching and learning statistics. International Statistical Review, 75(3), 372–396. Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit. Oxford Polytechnic. Gibbs, G. and Habeshaw, T. (1989). Preparing to Teach. Melksham: The Cromwell Press. Grundy, S. (2020). The past, present and future of Q-Step – A programme creating a step-change in quantitative social science skills. Numeracy, 13(1): Article 2. DOI: https://​doi​.org/​10​.5038/​1936​-4660​ .13​.1​.2 Gunn, A. (2017). Critical debates in teaching research methods in the social sciences. Teaching Public Administration, 35(3), 241–259. Healey, M., Flint, A. and Harrington, K. (2016). Students as partners: Reflections on a conceptual model. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 4(2), 8–20. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Chinn, C.A., O’Donnell, A.M. and Chan, C. (Eds.) (2013). The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning. London: Routledge. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G. and Chinn, C.A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. Howard, C. and Brady, M. (2015). Teaching social research methods after the critical turn: Challenges and benefits of a constructivist pedagogy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 511–525. Imaz, J.I. (2021). ‘How has your city changed?’ Using project-based learning to teach sociology of education. Education and Urban Society, 53(9), 1019–1038. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. Leston-Bandeira, C. (2013). Methods teaching through a discipline research-oriented approach. Politics, 33(3), 207–219. Levy, P. and Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year university students experience inquiry and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 85–101. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. Limoncelli, S.A. (2017). Globalising service-learning in the social sciences. Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 25–40. Loughlin, C., Lygo-Baker, S. and Lindberg-Sand, Å. (2021). Reclaiming constructive alignment. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(2), 119–136. Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 175–185. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018). Methods that teach: Developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 41(4), 398–410. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2020). A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 467–487.

Active learning, constructive alignment, and research methods  133 Nind, M., Holmes, M., Insenga, M., Lewthwaite, S. and Sutton, C. (2020). Student perspectives on learning research methods in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(7), 797–811. Nuffield Foundation (2013). Programme Background: Promoting a Step-Change in the Quantitative Skills of Social Science Undergraduates. Nuffield Foundation, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Patton, C.M. (2015). Employing active learning strategies to become the facilitator, not the authoritarian: A literature review. Journal of Instructional Research, 4, 134–141. Paxton, P. (2006). Dollars and sense: Convincing students that they can learn and want to learn statistics. Teaching Sociology, 34(1), 65–70. Payne, G. and Payne, J. (2004). Quantitative methods. In G. Payne and J. Payne (Eds.), Key Concepts in Social Research (pp. 181–186). London: Sage. Race, P. (2020). The Lecturer’s Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge. Ralston, K., MacInnes, J., Crow, G. and Gayle, V.J. (2016). We Need to Talk About Statistical Anxiety. A Review of the Evidence Around Statistical Anxiety in the Context of Quantitative Methods Pedagogy. (Working paper 4/16). Edinburgh: National Centre for Research Methods. Rust, C. (2000). Do initial training courses have an impact on university teaching? The evidence from two evaluative studies of one course. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(3), 254–262. Shuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 411–436. Sloan, L. and Quan-Haase, A. (2017). A retrospective on state of the art social media research methods: Ethical decisions, big-small data rivalries and the spectre of the 6Vs. In L. Sloan and A. Quan-Haase (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Media Research Methods (pp. 662–672). London: Sage. Spronken‐Smith, R. and Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry‐based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723–740. Sweller, J., Kirschner, P.A. and Clark, R.E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121. Trowler, P. (1998). What managerialists forget: Higher education credit frameworks and managerialist ideology. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 91–110. Wagner, C., Garner, M. and Kawulich, B. (2011). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: Towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 75–88. Williams M., Collett, C. and Rice, R. (2004). Baseline Study of Quantitative Methods in British Sociology. Birmingham/Durham: C-SAP/BSA. Williams, M., Sloan, L., Cheung, S., Sutton, C., Stevens, S. and Runham, L. (2016). Can’t count or won’t count? Embedding quantitative methods in substantive sociology curricula: a quasi-experiment. Sociology, 50(3), 435–452. Wray, A. and Wallace, M. (2011). Accelerating the development of expertise: A step-change in social science research capacity building. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(3), 241–264. Yanamandram, V. and Noble, G. (2006). Student experiences and perceptions of team-teaching in a large undergraduate class. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 3(1), 56–74.

10. Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry Candace R. Kuby

INTRODUCTION Since 2015, I have researched the teaching of (or pedagogies of) qualitative inquiry focusing on both introductory qualitative research courses that I’ve taught and advanced courses (e.g., narrative inquiry, philosophical perspectives in educational research, poststructuralism and research). Much of this research was done alongside Rebecca (Becky) Christ and other students I’ve taught over the years. Becky was a doctoral student who I taught and in 2015 I invited her to co-research with me on pedagogies of qualitative inquiry. Since then, we’ve co-taught and co-researched and continue to do so since her graduation. For example, I’ve co-written on teaching/learning when thinking with theories in a poststructural inquiry course (Kuby et al., 2016), a manifesto for teaching qualitative inquiry with/as/for art, science, and philosophy (Kuby and Aguayo, 2016), paradigm(ing) and how we teach paradigms in qualitative research courses (Kuby and Christ, 2018), us-ing and the lively packets of relations in qualitative inquiry courses (Kuby and Christ, 2019), how the textbooks we teach with matter (Kuby and Christ, 2020a), and speculative wombing pedagogies (Christ and Kuby, 2020). Most recently, Becky and I co-authored a book titled, Speculative Pedagogies of Qualitative Inquiry (Kuby and Christ, 2020b). We conceptualised inquiry as uncertain (w)rest(full) relational liveliness. We build on years of teaching qualitative research classes and pedagogical acts inspired by post-philosophies. We write, ‘Speculative pedagogies of qualitative inquiry notice the unexpected, take risks, wonder…’ (Kuby and Christ, 2020b, p. 154). We question if inquiry can be taught and thus propose (in)query as a way to signal a lively act of being in-query which honours the etymological roots and musings of the word and opens up newness at the same time. My earlier writing used the phrase ‘qualitative research’ whereas my newer writing uses the phrase ‘qualitative inquiry’. This was an intentional writerly move to resist the often formulaic and fixed research practices of qualitative research; to invite research to be inquiry – uncertain, unpredictable, and emergent. Thus, we conceptualise speculative pedagogies by drawing together various philosophers and theorists who might get labelled as poststructural, posthuman, feminist ‘new’ materialist, and/or indigenous – thinkers who see our knowing, being, and doing with/in the world as mutually constitutive (or an ethico-onto-epistemological approach to philosophy). We write that we are ‘…advocating for an art of noticing, speculating (looking, seeing) of uncertain, (w)rest(full), relational liveliness…as instructors of qualitative inquiry there are world-making processes all around us and that we are a part of…’ (Kuby and Christ, 2020b, p. 137). Thus, post-philosophies shift how (pedagogies) one teaches, what is taught (content), as well as expectations for learning and assessments. The book is structured around several aspects of speculative pedagogy: trust(ing), navigating and negotiating, and e/intervening. 134

Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry  135 In this chapter, I build on my previous scholarship on speculative pedagogies of qualitative inquiry and focus-group conversations with graduate students from several qualitative research courses. Through research ethics review board approval at my university, I invited students (after the semester concluded) to talk with me about their experiences of learning. Most of these focus groups happened one semester after the course. A few were one-on-one conversations due to scheduling needs of the students. Some students had taken more than one course with me and chose to participate in multiple focus groups over the years. And for some students, I followed up with them several years after my introductory qualitative research course to see how their thinking on teaching/learning qualitative research might have shifted as they neared the end of their PhD program. As I begin this chapter, it is important to note that context matters as different institutions and countries have different educational systems for graduate students. For example, in the USA PhD programs are set up as coursework for several years and then a dissertation. At my university, we have a two-course introductory sequence for qualitative research, Qual I and Qual II. In addition, our advanced classes beyond Qual I and II are called Qual III courses. We also provide seminars and learning opportunities through mentoring that prepare our students to be(come) qualitative researchers. Thus, I acknowledge, not all readers have qualitative research courses at the PhD level the way I describe in my writing. This chapter mainly focuses on conversations with students in 2019 who took an introductory qualitative research course with me. However, conversations over the years with students in other courses also influenced my thinking and writing. In preparing for this chapter, I read back through the most recent years of focus group transcripts and chose to focus on ones I had not written about in previous publications and narrowed to only include focus groups from the Qual I course (not advance Qual III classes). As I read transcripts and relistened to audio files, I revisited the call for chapters and the aim of this book as well as philosophical and theoretical readings that inform my pedagogy. I structure this chapter around the following aspects and weave in focus group conversations (all student names are pseudonyms) alongside theoretical and philosophical ideas: 1) un/structuring; 2) playing and experimenting; 3) befuddling together; and 4) un/certainty and un/mastery. My invitation is for you to sit with these sections of writing, both ideas from theorists and philosophers as well as conversations with my students. My hope is that it will provoke ideas, thinking and (new) ways of thinking and doing pedagogy(ies) of (qualitative) inquiry in your context.

UN/STRUCTURING: ‘LOOSE, BUT TIGHT’ You knew that everything was there for a pedagogical reasoning, because there was something we were trying to learn out of it, but at the same time there was the freedom to get at it in your own way. Dig into things more relevant to you. I super, super appreciated that style. – Christa

‘Loose, but tight’, is a phrase by Christa (in a transcript below) that connects to her statement here; this idea of pedagogical reasoning and at the same time freedom. Christa’s comments were made at the end of a focus group discussion where I had asked: ‘Is there anything that confused you at first; so content or what I was asking you to do, that now you get and understand why I was asking you that?’ This notion of loose or freedom to get at learning in your own way while at the same time tight or knowing that everything in the syllabus, assignments, and how class time was structured was there for a reason illustrates a resistance to a binary

136  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods of structured learning vs. unstructured. Students experienced the course as both: un/structured(ing). What does it mean (or produce) to pedagogically embrace a logic of both/and? Candace: Tell [me] about your experience or reactions to the course, was it what you anticipated? Kara: Quite a surprise. [I] only knew about the Creswell Five [i.e., ethnography, narrative inquiry, phenomenology, case study, and grounded theory discussed in John Creswell’s books] and that was all about qualitative research. Didn’t know about paradigms…hearing about your paradigm… helped open things up. Sally: Same, I didn’t really have much expectation…[The course] was a huge learning opportunity, especially in the philosophical realm and of looking at research and understanding. I came from physics; I had never questioned how people come to know things or view reality and how that even interacts with research. It [the course] was very eye-opening. Lianne: [I] Didn’t go into course with a lot of expectations either. I had done qualitative research as an undergrad [student]. I hadn’t heard the ‘pushback’ between quantitative/qualitative until grad[uate] school…I assumed it [qualitative] would be easier without the math piece, but I feel like it ended up being a lot harder than quant[itative] just because it’s so complex. Kara: I was expecting more methods; [the] how to go about doing qualitative research, rather than the foundation or backbone of qualitative research. Sally: I expected it to be more like all the other classes I’ve ever had, where it’s structured – going through steps, you build upon certain things. I feel like the class did a good job of making me see why it wasn’t structured in that way, because [there are] many different ways of thinking and being, [and] how many different methodologies there are. It would be difficult to take you [students] through a strict, structured way that I am used to with other classes. Lianne: I knew you would be a different type of teacher and have a different type of structure…I had heard things [laughter from the group]…the course would be more creative, not typical.

Binaries. Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research. Structured vs. Unstructured. Qualitative Methods vs. Foundations of Qualitative Research. Discourses of binaries produce our world. Produce research beliefs and practice. Produce pedagogies and learning. These binaries or binary logics connect to writings from several philosophical thinkers and scholars. Ezekiel Dixon-Román (2016), a scholar who reconceptualises the technologies of quantification, specifically psychometrics, from critical and feminist ‘new’ materialist perspectives, writes: …the Cartesian split…has reinscribed binaries such as that between mind and body, and nature and culture. Quantum anthropologies is a new materialist theory of the entanglement of the world, of which we are not outside viewers, but rather always inside intra-acting observers of the world’s in-process ontological fabric (p. 162).

Dixon-Román, inspired by Jasbir Puar’s queer methodological philosophy, encourages scholars to work with/in tensions between multiple methods and theories as this has potential to produce more complex, nuanced, and enhanced social understandings. In feminist Chicana scholar AnaLouis Keating’s book on post-oppositional politics of change, Keating discusses

Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry  137 how binary structures flatten out commonalities, reducing them to sameness. Keating (2013, p. 7) writes: Our overreliance on…binary forms…limits activist-scholars in at least three interrelated ways:…1) we’re locked into the existing systems;…2) we can’t imagine alternatives to the status quo, with its essentializing dichotomous definitions of reality; and 3) we internalize our oppositional approach so thoroughly that we use it against each other.

Essentially binary thinking limits our vision and thinking for change. It also a/effects our relationships. And pedagogies. We’ve become trapped, as Keating writes. For the teaching of qualitative research, there are many binary logics at work in the academy. Beyond the obvious of qualitative vs. quantitative, they show up in how we organise and structure courses and seminars. For example, we teach ‘theory’ classes and then separately teach ‘methods’ (or practice) classes. Yet we encourage students to not think of the theory/practice divide in their research. Keating proposes thresholding, instead of binary thinking, and draws on the work of Chicana scholar Gloria Anzaldúa, Native American scholar Paula Gunn Allen, and Black scholar Audre Lorde. What might thresholding look like in the pedagogy of qualitative inquiry? How might this notion of un/structured(ing) provide spaces for thresholding? In addition, indigenous scholars like Robin Wall Kimmerer (2013) who illustrates this through each beautiful chapter of her book, demonstrates a resistance to binary logics and what they produce in the world. Wall Kimmerer’s chapter on the animacy of grammar shows how language – like verbs and nouns – produce how we see and experience things like water (a bay). I love this quote, ‘a bay is a noun only if water is dead’. Thus, the language we use produces the world. How might we consider the language we use in teaching research courses, words like paradigm, methods, epistemology, and so forth? How might we think about opening up meanings, concepts, and ways of inquiring about our world through our (material) discursive moves? Candace: Any suggestions for me teaching the class again or educators more broadly (who are preparing people to be qualitative researchers)? Kara: The disruptive book was huge [Brown, Carducci, and Kuby, 2014]!…[I]t’s okay to disrupt the way things have always been. That it is okay if you don’t fit in one of the boxes. Sally: I like that the class was more about opening up than it was about the how-to. I feel that’s truly respecting the nature of qualitative research more. [You focused] so much on opening our minds, a lot of it was exploratory, especially for Qual I, [it] was super beneficial. I would caution against, more structure or making it more, [how] a typical research course would be. Although I haven’t taken another research course [laugher from the group].

The textbooks we choose matter in fissuring structures of doing qualitative research (Kuby and Christ, 2020a). Pairing a book such as my disrupting qualitative research book (Brown, Carducci and Kuby, 2014) with more traditional introductory texts (Savin-Baden and Howell Major, 2013), provided a tension or frictions for students to think through. Often I’d pair a chapter(s) from each book for the week’s readings, rather than read the more ‘traditional’ one first and then later get to ‘disruptive’ forms of doing qualitative research. Rather than

138  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods perpetuate that binary (i.e., old/acceptable ways of doing qual vs. new/innovative approaches), we worked them with each other simultaneously. Candace: Is there anything that confused you at first; so, content or what I was asking you to do, that now you get and understand why I was asking you that? Also, is there anything that you would tell me or the broader research community that would be helpful for teaching the course? Lori: I think with such difficult content, all that confusion that students feel, the best thing about the class was that pedagogically you were just sound. Everything was so tight. I’ve never seen a syllabus like yours. [It is] Super thought out, not only details about assignments and things like that, but you clearly had merged your theories with the way that you created or designed the course. I remember the first day, there were quotes [printed out and cut up on the tables around the room] and we wrote about them. From beginning to end, you could see the whole course was really well thought out, and well designed, and just functioned. When you have content that’s so difficult for students to enter into the first time, that [the way the course was designed] created a foundation. Every day in class, it was a very clear structure, and there was an agenda. And also, just space, you created space, [you are] very good at leaving space for silence, and questions, and time to think. All of those choices that you made as a teacher made the content okay, because you [we, students] were secure in the mechanics of the class, so that you could just worry about the challenging things. Also, with such a large group of people [about 20], where nobody really knows each other, all the ways we had to interact – all of those choices – really clearly thought through and it made doing the thinking possible. Christa: It was a prime example of loose, but tight. Lori: Yeah.

Loose, but tight. Space and agenda. Content and mechanics. These are pedagogical choices that made doing the thinking possible. Students need both space and a structured agenda. They need challenging content and the mechanics or structure of a class that make it possible to think. Rosi Braidotti in her writing on critical posthumanities discusses both the critical and the creative. As Braidotti (2019, p. 44) writes: The point of encounter or assemblage of the critical posthumanities acknowledges the porous nature not only of their institutional boundaries but also of their epistemic core, which gets redefined in terms of relational capacity. The driving force for knowledge production is therefore not the quest for disciplinary purity, or the inspirational force of radical dissent, but rather the modes of relation these discourses are able and willing to open up to. 

What is the driving force for knowledge production as we teach students to be(come) qualitative researchers? Is it disciplinary purity, a force to resist dominant or taken-for-granted approaches, or something altogether different? As Braidotti suggests, perhaps the force is/ should be possible modes of relations and an opening up to something else.

PLAYING AND EXPERIMENTING: ‘I GAVE MYSELF PERMISSION…I HAVE TO PLAY STILL’ I am going to play… I gave myself permission [in diffraction assignment]…the realization… the joy from doing it…I still got a ton out of it cognitively, probably more than what I would have gotten out of it [course readings]. And as a teacher [myself], [I’m] thinking, we just have to give our students a place to play and think. It was valuable for us [in the Qual I class] therefore it is

Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry  139 valuable for our students too…[This is] A life lesson as an academic. I have to play still. I have to enjoy what I am doing. – Lori

Connecting to the statement in the previous section by Lori, that the course was ‘really clearly thought through and it made doing the thinking possible’, to the quote immediately above about play, this section explores how playing and experimenting provide playgrounds for thinking. Lori was articulating the play, experimentation, and thinking that was produced when she was asked to diffractively read authors and books through/with one another while also working with artistic and/or digital materials. Instead of traditional reading responses, I invited students to diffract, inspired by philosophical writings by Barad (2007) and qualitative inquiry scholars who have written about diffractive methodology (e.g., Mazzei, 2014). Dixon-Román (2016) writes, A diffractive methodology, as articulated by Barad, is a transdisciplinary approach of putting the theories of different disciplines in conversation…[which might] rescue, recover, recuperate, or illuminate the other; making visible that which was excluded by the boundary-making practices of the disciplinary theory (p. 165).

In other words, put various authors and concepts that sometimes might seem incompatible in conversation with one another – see what is produced! For example, diffractive invitations produced for students’ spaces to think differently about philosophical and theoretical concepts specifically in relation to inquiry practices and their research foci. These diffractive experiences also produced woven baskets, 3D weaving structures, visual arts and paintings, interactive dictionaries, and concept mappings (see Kuby, Christ, Hermann, Price and Wilson-Kleekamp, 2024). Another assignment was created around Jackson and Mazzei’s (2012) writing on thinking with theories. Students were invited to read a theory, bring in printed copies of their transcripts, quotes from the theorists, and field notes and see what is produced when thinking and working them together, literally, physically. Students shared how invitations to think-with theory, data, literature reviews, transcripts, textbooks and crayons, glue, coloured paper, clay produced new thinking for them. These lively relations were both uncomfortable but also generative in new thinking (a both/and logic) (see Kuby and Christ, 2019). Candace: [The] thinking with theory assignment…What was it like to have that space to play and think with theory and data? What did that produce for you? Difficult for you? How is it influencing the work you do now? Lianne: It was exciting. I liked the actual getting-in and playing with the data…I really enjoyed that piece of it. Writing the paper, not so much – but the actual working with data, I really liked. Sally: Also, initially, a conception might be that picking a theory and having to write from that theory might be constricting. But what I found was that it prevented me from falling back into the traditional ways of analysis and kind of thinking that I typically go through when I’m writing, in the same way I’ve been writing essays my whole life, the kind of natural, more positivistic way that I progress in my thinking. It really opened up a lot of newness for me to try to take on almost

140  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods a different person’s perspective and lens while doing analysis. I thought that was pretty challenging but it made me think a lot more, not just about what I was looking at, but my own thinking. Kara: Emphasised reflexivity, too, which is basically what you [Sally] are saying, it forced us to think about our own thoughts behind it. Candace: Does it feel different than the notion of applying a theory? Often you read about in Qual books about having a theoretical framework and applying it. Did it feel like you were applying a theory? Did that feel differently than the thinking with theory? Do you see those as different in any way? Lianne: It feels different to me, but I don’t know that I can tell you how. Kara: It was almost like we were trying to live in a theory. Lianne: It was like an experiment, like, ‘I’m gonna try this on’. Sally: I feel like, applying a theory, now makes no sense to me. If I think of theory as a tool, and if somebody gives me a different hammer, but I’ve already hammered in the nail, it’s not gonna do anything. It’s not gonna change what’s already happened, right? I see how it’s not that simple to apply a theory, but I think thinking with theory just brings the theory, earlier on, into the process of research. Lianne: I think the verbiage brings into account like a different action, like a different type of activity. I get the impression, if you’re going to think with a theory, you have to start that way at the beginning and all stages, in planning. While applying is kind of like you do all this [planning, beginning stages] and then it is time for the experiment and we are just going to ‘apply it’. You know, an after kind of feeling.

Verbiage, an action produces a different activity. In previous writings, my colleague and I write about the doing or lively ways thinking and being come into the world. For example, paradigming as a do/thing – both a noun and a verb – rather than solely a noun (Kuby and Christ, 2018). Or us-ing, and the lively relations in classes – us as nouns but also as verbs who come to be in lively, emergent relationships (Kuby and Christ, 2019). The students discussed how thinking with theory and data produced feelings and experiences that they couldn’t explain or had a difficult time putting into words. It felt different to think with theory rather than the notion of applying theory. It was about living the theory to bring about a different action. As Deleuze and Guattari (1980/1987, p. 15) write, ‘Thought is not arborescent, and the brain is not rooted or ramified…’. They also distinguish between thought and thinking: ‘Thinking is thought through concepts, or functions, or sensations… (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994, p. 198). Colebrook (2002), a Deleuzian scholar writes, ‘Thinking is not generalising’ (Colebrook, 2002, p. 36, emphasis in original). Accordingly, Deleuze and Guattari write about thought without image or in response to prevalent, rational images of thought or dogmatic images of thought. As Deleuzian scholar, Smith (2012, p. 91) writes: Thinking is never the product of voluntary disposition, but rather the result of forces that act upon thought involuntarily from the outside; we search for truth, we begin to think, only when compelled to do so, when we undergo a violence that impels us to such a search, that wrests us from our natural stupor. What calls for thought…is the perpetual fact that ‘we are not yet thinking’.

Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry  141 Opening up newness. Preventing me from falling back into traditional ways. Forced us to think about our thoughts behind it. The invitations to think with theory and data and field notes and transcripts and artistic tools entangled together to produce newness and wrested students from their natural stupor. Perhaps they were not yet thinking (before) and this felt different to them. As Manning and Massumi (2014, p. vii) write, ‘Every practice is a mode of thought, already in the act’. Our experiences, our practices, our making, our creating is thought in the act. A thinking through data-theory-and… Candace: Paradigms is a concept or word that came up a lot over the semester. We talked about how to define them, overlaps between them. The question of if you can have more than one. Can your paradigm change with each research study? So how do you understand paradigms now? How are you feeling toward them now? Kara: I do think you don’t have to stay in one [paradigm]. They are not necessarily fluid, the paradigm itself doesn’t change, but you can flow in and out of one or the other…If you were to draw a continuum, positivism at one end and poststructural at the other end, it’s not strictly a continuum…past a point, there’s a lot of blurry areas. Up to a point, paradigms are clear cut, but after that, they’re more about constellations. Candace: Can you say more about constellations? Kara: There are points when paradigms kind of touch each other and can interact. I don’t have a good example to describe that. This also speaks to my limited understanding of paradigms. Candace: What happens when they touch and interact? Kara: Ummm. Candace: What gets produced? Or what happens? Kara: I want to say new methodologies come out of it. [pause] You have to produce a new way. [pause] Candace: You can keep thinking. Sally: I love constellation references, right? And that was such a beautiful way to say it…I would interpret that as, so I don’t know if this is exactly what you meant, but constellations, historically, and depending on the culture that was looking at them, were defined and connected differently, by different cultures, and they meant different things – but the stars themselves were the same stars that both cultures were looking at. But they were defined differently…That’s how I felt with paradigms…a way of categorizing the stars, but you can always acknowledge there are multiple ways of doing that, but sometimes they overlap, or come together and create new meaning when, for instance, all the constellations that have a certain line across the sky delineate your zodiac.

Students also talked about playfulness and thinking in relation to paradigms. Different ways of doing and being. Overlap. Come together. Create new meaning. Constellations of methodologies. While students voiced that they felt they had a limited understanding about paradigms, they also embraced them as active, verbing things that could overlap and come together to create new meaning. As I’ve written about before (Kuby and Christ, 2018), paradigms are often described as fixed things, presented in textbooks in neat boxes or tables. Students are often asked to choose one paradigm and stick with it for an assignment or for their research

142  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods projects. However, when thinking of paradigms as constellations it opens up thought and new ways of thinking. St. Pierre (2016) writes that for educational researchers ‘training too often gets in our way, prevents us from recognizing the ‘new’ that is always already there in the world, and shuts down futures that might be – an education-to-come we might desire’ (pp. 2 and 3). What if we let go of the fixed, taken-for-granted assumption(s) about paradigms and their relationship to methodologies and/or inquiry? What might it produce for (student) researchers? Drawing on Deleuze, Olsson (2009, p. 94) writes ‘Thought happens through encounters’. What if we invited students to experience paradigms and methodologies without pre-set ideas of what they should be or do in the world? Encounters. A wild empiricism of paradigms and methodologies, as Olsson writes. Candace: It sounds like [some of you] you’re constructing your own paradigms, not necessarily trying to fall into a pre-existing paradigm, but thinking about ‘What is my own personal paradigm?’ And it may not be named or labelled in the world right now. Lianne: The hard thing about paradigms is that they’re categorical [laughs], but I think that people don’t fit neatly into categories. I would go through and be reading and [ask], ‘Which one am I? Which one am I?’ And I still can’t tell you which one I am because I could go through and say, ‘Okay, I think that so I could fit here, or I could believe that, but I think that individually we create our own meaning, but also socially we create our own meaning, so we do both.’ Candace: So, do these [paradigms] matter for research? Lianne: I think it depends on the [research] question. I think it depends on the question. Or how you want to measure the question. Sally: Context. Lianne: Yeah.

Students playfully experimenting in creating paradigms, merging them and diffractively reading them with and through one another. They wonder if paradigms even matter for research. These are some radical articulations to what is often presented in introductory qualitative research books. How will (y)our students put paradigms to work? How will they paradigm? Barad (2013, p. 23) writes, ‘we inherit the future’. ‘The ways we teach paradigms(ing) is the future we will inherit’ (Kuby and Christ, 2018, p. 303).

BEFUDDLING TOGETHER: ‘I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS NO JUDGMENT ATTACHED TO THE SPACE’ I feel like there was no judgment attached to the space. When we came in, ideas were presented as dichotomies or multiple perspectives, and all perspectives being acceptable. – Lianne

Pedagogies are relational and inspired by post-philosophies, come to be in the moment. Students discussed our courses as very personal spaces, strong communities, and as ‘safe spaces’. I acknowledge the phrase ‘safe space’ can be problematic in that it begs us to question safe for who? However, as this was the phrase students used, I wanted to hear more about what made it feel safe. As Lianne shares, she felt like there was no judgment in a space, even in the structure of the academy with the expectation of grades. She felt that all perspectives were accepted in the learning community. The everyday, perhaps mundane interactions of courses,

Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry  143 like the syllabus, the language used to facilitate discussion, how students were partnered for group work, and how feedback was given on assignments all mattered in producing a ‘safe’ space for learning. Candace: What conversations, readings, or assignments were helpful, uncomfortable, you disagreed with, or challenged you? Kara: Z Nicolazzo’s [a chapter in Brown, Carducci, and Kuby, 2014] because it is about identities from The Borderlands [by Gloria Anzaldúa], like non-normative identities was uncomfortable in the sense that it was stretching me. I really liked reading it, it was really an emotional read, but I think it helped me think differently…Really got my attention. Sally: I feel like ‘stretch’ is such a good word. [laughter from group] Lianne: Yeah, I felt stretched, but it never felt bad. I remember feeling befuddled all the time, trying to understand what was happening, I felt like the only one, I don’t understand. I just remember soaking everything in, and even if I didn’t have an opinion one way or the other. I was just like, ‘oh, that is interesting’…I was stretching my perception of the fields but in a pleasant way. Sally: I completely agree. That class [Qual I] was the first class that made me question my own initial reactions to the unknown, to ambiguity. Typically, it is very uncomfortable to sit in tension, to sit in that unknown space. I feel like the class created a safe way to do that…If I had to point to any reading that did that for me was the Lather (2006) paradigm reading, because you warned us before you even assigned it: ‘This is heavy and this is super jargon infused, it is a lot of new words and terminology, and it is super philosophical.’ I remember reading it and being, ‘Oh God! I am not cut out [for this].’ But you had said something before we got the reading: ‘Sometimes it is best to just let things wash over you.’ That was so meaningful to me, because it gave me permission to not understand it, but I can still try. You don’t have to understand every single thing that you read.

Stretch. Feeling befuddled all the time. I don’t understand. Soaking everything in. That is interesting. Made me question my own initial reactions to the unknown, to ambiguity. It is interesting that after a question about conversations, readings, or assignments, students chose first to discuss feelings and how they experienced the pedagogical space. Margaret: I don’t know if this is considered an assignment, but I really enjoyed all of the time in class to make things, cut things, and move things around. It really helped me organise my thinking around certain things and see different patterns. Appreciated those opportunities too, to do that. Lianne: I appreciated that too, because I am a very creative and artsy person, but I feel like when I’m in school I have no brain power to be able to do that. When I am in a semester, I don’t paint, I don’t scrapbook, I don’t quilt, I don’t knit, I can’t be creative because I don’t have the capacity for it. I can only do this [schoolwork] or this [creative/artsy]. That class [Qual I] was the first time that I felt I could mesh my creative side and my academic side…it was a safe space to screw up. [laughter]

Again, rather than focus on an assignment or reading, students discussed broader pedagogical moves of being invited to create. A binary sneaks in: creative vs. academic. Doctoral coursework had not provided a space for Lianne to be both creative and academic. However, the introductory qualitative research course gave her the invitation to do so and it produced a space to think-work-create through difficult course content and to have a ‘safe space to screw up’. Invitations for students to create and work with materials, in ways they weren’t used to in doctoral classes, intervened on/with them. As I write about in relation to young children composing literacies with artistic and digital tools (Kuby and Gutshall Rucker, 2020), drawing

144  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods on post-philosophical concepts, we can (re)claim and (re)think the notion of intervention so prevalent in educational scholarship. ‘Perhaps we can reclaim intervene…and think of it as entering (as one is be[com]ing) and being in relationships to/with other materials-discursive bodies…’ (p. 23). Candace: So, what made it a safe space? I’ve heard two of you say that phrase, are there tangible things that made it feel that way? At least for the two that felt that way. Sally: I don’t know about tangible, I think part of it is the nature of what we’re learning lends itself to a lot of different ideas, and you constantly said this phrase, something that stuck out to me was: ‘Different ways of being and knowing.’ I think in my mind, acknowledging different ways of knowing makes something safer for me to be wrong, or creates a space where there’s not really such a thing as being wrong, necessarily? You can think what you think, and then transform that, you’re not necessarily fixing yourself or fixing your old ideas. That is more safe to me, because academia has such a typical culture of ‘you’re wrong’ or ‘you’re right’ – it’s not a spectrum, it is very black and white. Lianne: I feel like there was no judgment attached to the space. When we came in, ideas were presented as dichotomies or multiple perspectives, and all perspectives being acceptable. You [Candace] would preface things with, ‘this is really difficult, this is really hard,’ ‘it’s okay if you’re struggling with this,’ or ‘maybe you think this or you don’t think this at all.’ The demeanour, how things were presented was all in a way that I felt like I could experience this, however, my reaction, my response, I could be authentic and that would be 100 percent acceptable, and I wouldn’t be judged for it. I think it lent itself to other students, like when you [Candace] modelled that, I didn’t feel that other students judged me, that I felt like I was able to talk with other students, ‘I’m really struggling with this. How are you doing?’ They’d [say], ‘I could not even understand this!’ [laughter] You know? It lent itself to a community feeling, I think. Kara: I like that you asked us to critique things in thinking with theory [assignment]. You asked us to really analyse the theory itself…I felt that was very safe, maybe not for everybody, but it felt safe for me, to be able to analyse a theory, and not my effort with the theory, if that makes sense.

Safe to be wrong (situated in a binary: right vs. wrong). Academia is not a spectrum but operates in an either/or logic. Different ways of knowing and being produce a ‘safe space’ for learning/teaching. As instructors, how do we embody the valuing of different ways of knowing and being in our pedagogies? One way students expressed this was with language they heard throughout the semester, as Lianne pointed out above. Also, a demeanour in how things were presented. Thus, a material-discursive relationship: both language moves and material, embodied, affectual moves. In a similar way that I’ve (re)claimed intervene with inspiration from post-philosophies (see Kuby and Christ, 2020b; Kuby and Gutshall Rucker, 2020), Puig de la Bellacasa (2017) (re)claims care with more-than-human theories of speculation. Puig de la Bellacasa encourages us to have political and ethical imaginations that force us to live differently in the present, through our mundane, everyday encounters that produce the world. Seemingly mundane acts, like a syllabus, a phrase repeated over and over in a course, and spaces to exist on a spectrum in the academy (rather than in a binary of right vs. wrong), all produced a very personal, relational, ‘safe’ space of knowing/being/doing inquiry.

Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry  145

UN/CERTAINTY AND UN/MASTERY: ‘IT WAS HARD, BUT I LIKED IT’ It helped me to think out of the box and try to do things differently; try to express myself in a different way. It was hard, but I liked it. – Eddie

As noted before, post-philosophies shift how one teaches (pedagogies), what is taught (content), as well as expectations for learning and assessments. These shifts in my teaching and perhaps the learning environment for students was often hard. Knowledge is not ready made and waiting to be learned. Below, I discuss how sticking with problems/issues/troubles, which might feel uncertain, are actually productive for teaching/learning. Candace: Is there anything that confused you at first, content or what I was asking you to do in the course, that now you get or understand why? Eddie: No…you…It’s not just because you are here, but: You are the most organised professor I’ve ever seen in my life. I never saw [any]thing like that. So…For me there was no confusion. Everything was clear, organised, explained… Marie: Yeah, I agree. I think I even told you in the hallway the other day, I’ve stolen some of your little moves in my own [teaching]…the seating stuff and the agenda thing, and really being clear about why you’re doing what you’re doing. I think the things that just confused me were always the content of what I was reading…It was really hard work. I’m taking notes, I’m highlighting, I’m looking stuff up. It was a rigorous experience, reading and preparing for the course[…]I’m just thinking about confusion. I still feel like there were parts of the text I was confused about, and I think you made it very clear that no one was going to answer all of our questions right now, and you said, ‘It’s okay,’ you said many times, ‘Just sit in the discomfort, and just know that these other ways of thinking are out there, and you’re not going to understand everything,’ so that made it all fine.

Julietta Singh (2018) discusses vulnerable reading and collective vulnerability while reading, ‘…vulnerable reading resist disciplinary enclosure, refusing to restrict in advance how and where one might wander through textual engagement’ (p. 22). This type of vulnerable, collective reading allows spaces for new configurations, new thinking, and for the courses I teach, I hope new ways of thinking/doing inquiry. As Singh writes, this practice of vulnerable reading has the potential to move us away from mastery to envision other ways of being and knowing (and in our case doing inquiry) in the world. For many students the content of the qualitative research course was new, as it is typically one of the first research (methods) classes they have in a doctoral program. Students have a desire to know, to understand. Being invited to let readings wash over them and sit with uncertainty was different. As Singh writes, this type of vulnerable reading allows for ethico-political possibilities to emerge and for students to become other to themselves or becoming themselves differently. Ambivalence is vital. Candace: So sometimes in class I invited you to play with materials to process the readings or your theory [for thinking with theory assignment] or to work with your interview data. Can you comment to me about your experience with that? Eddie: [Laughs] It was difficult, very, very difficult…I am from Brazil. I was educated like Paulo Freire says, banking education. I was educated with the teachers giving to me to fill those blanks, those empty spaces. So, it was difficult for me to work with different things. If you give me a paper to write okay, I’ll do that; but if you ask me to do something different than that, it was almost impossible. In the beginning I was just observing what others were doing, and then I started doing some things, and by the end of the course I was more comfortable. It helped me to think out of

146  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods the box and try to do things differently; try to express myself in a different way. It was hard, but I liked it. Candace: Do you think it shaped your thinking about your data? Eddie: Yes, yes, that class [session] that you invited some professors to come to class [a panel], that was great. I forget her name but that woman opened a book [she had made with artistic materials]. That was not a book for me, and then I saw it was a book. And it was research; it was great. Candace: We had a panel with artists researchers and we had a panel with faculty members more broadly. Which one? Eddie: Artist researcher panel…I forgot her name, but when she showed us her book, it was difficult for me. That’s not a book [her artist creation]; this is a book [picking up a textbook on the table]. And then she opened her book and explained it. Wow!

Expectations of what research should look like. Expectations of what doctoral class learning should look like. These were both disrupted for Eddie. Can qualitative research look like an artistically made book? Is that research? These musings and experience for Eddie resist a fixed definition of qualitative research. Students felt if they could learn the steps or how-to of doing qualitative research, they could then become good qualitative researchers. St. Pierre (2016) and others (Kuby and Christ, 2020b) have written about the undoing, untraining, or unlearning of dominant mastery narratives on learning qualitative research. What does it mean to master qualitative research? ‘To define mastery would be a gesture toward mastering it’ (Singh, 2018, p. 12)? By defining what qualitative research is and the steps in doing it, we set up an illusion that it is fixed and there is a right way to do it. Mastery. How might we un-discipline the discipline of qualitative research? To embrace moments, like Eddie had, to have our thought shocked? To think otherwise? Singh (2018), quoting Jack Halberstam, writes of a ‘concern with disciplinary knowledge production and its erasures when he [Jack] argues that “disciplines actually get in the way of answers and theorems precisely because they offer maps of thought where intuition and blind fumbling might yield better results”’ (p. 17). I wonder, how might intuition and blind fumbling be generative and productive for inquiry? Candace: How did you define or understand qualitative research at the beginning, and how do you define or understand or conceptualise qualitative research now? Sally: I would say my initial conception of qualitative research, even early on in the class, was pretty simplistic compared to the way I understand it now. Honestly, I do think my respect for the field has increased by a ton. Now I want to do qualitative research and before, I am coming from wanting to be an astrophysicist, where numbers is our game. [laughter] But I initially just thought it was a ‘we don’t do numbers, but we do research thing’, and I didn’t understand much beyond that…I view it [qualitative research] as an extremely rigorous and valid form of research that truly, in a lot of circumstances fits better as a form of research than quantitative research or even mixed methods in some cases. So, it wasn’t just my understanding, but my attitude towards it, the way that I respect it. Margaret: Before the class, I really just literally thought qualitative research was just interviews and then coding things. That’s all I thought it was. I didn’t know. And also I had gotten a really negative vibe about [it] from [a previous experience]…In [my] field it [qualitative research] is seen as simplistic, ‘you just do this, you follow these steps, and this is how it goes.’ I’ve learned it’s not linear, [and] very much a way to help you understand things about people, the world, all different things, a way of understanding. But also pairing that with theory was definitely something new, but

Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry  147 now [I] understand that is part of it also. I feel it is really hard to explain, all the different pieces of it, but it is definitely not just simple and coding, like I thought it was at the beginning.

Again, students hoped for simplistic steps to master in order to learn qualitative research. How and why does this narrative circulate? Singh (2018) writes that discomfort, perhaps what we expect a course to be, is not so much as resistance or assimilation but about ‘inhabiting norms differently’ (p. 151). Inhabiting norms differently opens up spaces for possibilities of doing inquiry differently even within the norms. A both/and logic. Thus, ‘…the narratives of mastery [of perhaps, qualitative research] are always fragile, threatened, and impossible’ (Singh, 2018, p. 18). Candace: Is there anything that confused you at first, content or what I was asking you to do in the course, that now you get and understand the why behind it now? Kara: I think one aha moment for me was reading the Lather (2006) article a second time. It was beneficial to read, and the way you preface it with ‘letting it wash over you.’ I understood so much more the second time reading it [in a Qual II course], after having all the other readings we had. Sally: Yea, I would say there were a lot of things when I was like, ‘What? Different modes of thinking [connection to Freeman, 2016, book]? What do you mean? We just think.’ [laughter] And I was like, ‘metacognition who?’ [laughter] Later, reflexivity was such an aha moment! I was like, what on earth!? What do you mean yourself as a researcher? Why would that matter? ‘Cause I had literally never thought about myself as a researcher, my positionality, and all that reflecting, other than you need to be as unbiased as you possibly can. And I went from that viewpoint, all the way to the end where I was like ‘Bias is amazing, and we should put in [it] everything!’ [laughter] I really think it opened up a whole level of my cognitive abilities, almost…When you had us do so many things personal, like looking inwards instead of looking outwards, which is what I thought research was, that was kind of confusing, later but by the end of the course I really got it…I think. [laughter]

Vulnerable readings. Connections across time/space/classes/instructors. Looking inward/ outward. Listening. Singh (2018, p. 27) writes, ‘Listening, as opposed to voicing that which we “know”. Listening…might let each other in…to another’s ways of inhabiting the world; to being entities that are always touching and being touched by others…’. We are always, already touched by others even if we aren’t aware. And it isn’t predictable. I suspect this introductory qualitative research course was that for many students. Unpredictable. And touching.

DO NOT LOOK FOR (AND PERHAPS TEACH) METHODS I end this chapter with an invitation to sit-with, think-with, write-with the following quote in relation to your teaching: Look for and construct the production of sense through nonsense. Do not look for solutions; look for and engage in the construction of problems and how this relates to the sense under production. Do not look for knowledge, look at learning processes, that is, look for and construct how the involved bodies join a problematic field. Do not look for methods, look for and construct how the entire culture surrounding the entering of a problematic field proceeds; take into account thoughts, speech, actions, but also material and environments (Olsson, 2009, p. 119).

How might you (and your students) engage in the production of sense through nonsense? How might we not look for solutions (or how-to steps to do research) but engage in construction of problems or the uncertain nature of doing inquiry? How do we focus on learning processes

148  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods instead of mastery or at least in inhabiting the norms of doing qualitative research differently? How might we not go looking for methods (wow, imagine that!)? How might we look for problematic fields? How might living-with and thinking-with these questions open up new directions for research and pedagogy? As Singh (2018) offers, ‘In failing to master, in confronting our own desires for mastery where we least expect or recognise these desires, we become vulnerable to other possibilities for living, for being together in common…’ (p. 21, emphasis in original). As pedagogues, how can we set up teaching/learning spaces that don’t focus on mastery of how to do research methods? And remain open to other possibilities? These are pedagogical moves, inspired by post-philosophies, that embrace being together in un/certainty.

AUTHOR’S NOTE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Thank you to Erin Price, who served as a graduate research assistant on this project, assisting with the focus groups and transcribing. Thank you to all the students in these courses, specifically the ones listed by (pseudonym) name in this chapter. I appreciate your feedback and insights on this chapter.

REFERENCES Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Barad, K. (2013). Ma(r)king time: Material entanglements and re-memberings: Cutting together-apart. In P.R. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley and H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (pp. 16–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braidotti, R. (2019). A theoretical framework for the critical posthumanities. Theory, Culture, & Society, 36(6), 31–61. Brown, R.N., Carducci, R. and Kuby, C.R. (Eds.) (2014). Disrupting Qualitative Inquiry: Tensions and Possibilities in Educational Research. New York: Peter Lang. Christ, R.C. and Kuby, C.R. (2020). Speculative (wombing) pedagogies: |Rəˈzistəns| in qualitative inquiry. In N. Denzin, and J. Salvo (Eds.), New Directions in Theorizing Qualitative Inquiry: Theory as Resistance (pp. 24–38). Gorham, ME: Myers Education Press. Colebrook, C. (2002). Gilles Deleuze. New York: Routledge. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1980/1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. (trans. B. Massumi). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Dixon-Román, E. (2016). Diffractive possibilities: Cultural studies and quantification. Transforming Anthropology, 24(2), 157–167. Freeman, M. (2017). Modes of Thinking for Qualitative Data Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge. Jackson, A.Y. and Mazzei, L.A. (2012). Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research: Viewing Data across Multiple Perspectives. London: Routledge. Keating, A.L. (2013). Transformation Now!: Toward a Post-oppositional Politics of Change. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kuby, C.R., Aguayo, R.C., Holloway, N., Mulligan, J.A., Shear, S.B. and Ward, A. (2016). Teaching, troubling, transgressing: Thinking with theory in a post-qualitative inquiry course. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(2), 140–148 Kuby, C.R. and Aguayo, D. (2016). A manifesto for teaching qualitative inquiry with/as/for art, science, and philosophy. In C.A. Taylor and A. Bayley (Eds.), Posthumanism and Higher Education: Reimagining Pedagogy, Practice and Research (pp. 73–83). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Post-philosophies inspire the teaching/learning of qualitative inquiry  149 Kuby, C.R. and Christ, R.C. (2018). Productive aporias and inten(t/s)ionalities of paradigming: Spacetimematterings in an introductory qualitative research course. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(4), 293–304. Kuby, C.R. and Christ, R.C. (2019). Us-ing: Producing qualitative inquiry pedagogies with/in lively packets of relations. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(9–10), 965–978. Kuby, C.R. and Christ, R.C. (2020a). The matter we teach with matters: Teaching with theory, theorizing with (textbook) bodies. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(1), 71–80. Kuby, C.R. and Christ, R.C. (2020b). Speculative Pedagogies of Qualitative Inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge. Kuby, C.R. and Gutshall Rucker, T. (2020). (Re)Thinking children as fully (in)human and literacies as otherwise through (re)etymologizing intervene and inequality. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(1), 13–43. Kuby, C.R., Christ, C., Hermann, L., Price, E. and Wilson-Kleekamp, T. (2024). Multimodal inquiries inspired by post-philosophies: More-than-human relationalities that produce (critical) inquiry(ies). In M. Young and S. Diem (Eds.), Handbook of Critical Educational Research Qualitative, Quantitative, and Emerging Approaches (pp. 524–549). New York, NY: Routledge. Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57. Manning, E. and Massumi, B. (2014). Thought in the Act: Passages in the Ecology of Experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Mazzei, L.A. (2014). Beyond an easy sense: A diffractive analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 742–746. Olsson, L.M. (2009). Movement and Experimentation in Young Children’s Learning: Deleuze and Guattari in Early Childhood Education. New York: Routledge. Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017). Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Savin-Baden, M. and Howell Major, C. (2013). Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge. Singh, J. (2018). Unthinking Mastery: Dehumanism and Decolonial Entanglements. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Smith, D. (2012). Essays on Deleuze. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. St. Pierre, E.A. (2016). Untraining educational researchers. Research in Education, 96(1), 6–11. Wall Kimmerer, R. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. Canada: Milkweed Editions.

11. Shaping researcher learning through scribbles: embodied pedagogical practices in classroom inquiry David Higgins and Ali Rostron

INTRODUCTION Teaching is messy. As well as dealing with different abilities and needs, understanding and assumptions, one can never know for certain what students are thinking, how they will engage with teaching methods or with what outcomes (Higgins, 2021). Such messiness is exacerbated when the subject matter is complex, emergent, contestable or transgressive. Learning to do good quality research is an important element of academic study, and the quality of research skills is in large part dependent on the methods we use as educators. However, we still know relatively little about what happens in the classroom, what teaching methods educators employ, how effective these methods are, what rationales underpin them and how they contribute to what is learned and achieved by students. Very often pedagogical practices used in qualitative research methods teaching are focused on cognitive rather than applied practice (Blume and Weatherston, 2018). Doctoral study is an intense process which can offer a profound learning experience and is likely to heavily influence and impact the researcher’s future practice and identity (Acker and Haque, 2010; Acker and Haque, 2015; Hopwood, 2010). However, the ways in which students are prepared for such a journey commonly focus on providing instructions in different research methods and their theoretical bases, rather than how a researcher learns to select and use these methods (Cassell and Symon, 2004; Eisenhart and Jurow, 2011; Koro-Ljundberg, 2012). For example, Denzin and Lincoln (2005) describe the qualitative researcher as a type of “crafts person” who moulds and weaves their observation, interpretation, and “self” skilfully to produce insightful and purposeful research outcomes. But how do students respond to such descriptions of researchers, and how can we prepare them to learn and develop such meta-skills? The potential of visual representation in learning and teaching is gaining increasing attention (Buckley and Nerantzi, 2020). In this chapter, we seek to give the reader insight into practices and experiences of using drawing as a pedagogical method to facilitate learning in a UK qualitative research methods module for doctoral researchers. We demonstrate how drawing can provide a method of surfacing student perceptions and feelings about qualitative research methods. Drawing can help to extend the student’s voice through visual expressions, offering greater opportunity to participate in dialogue. Such a pedagogical approach also has the capacity to enable students to relinquish conceptions of conforming, and enable imagination. We illustrate how students, through creating graphic stories inclusive of symbols, metaphors and rules of spatial organisation, were able to articulate new viewpoints, relationships and dialogues – with one another and with the drawings themselves. 150

Shaping researcher learning through scribbles  151

WHY WE NEED TO THINK MORE ABOUT TEACHING RESEARCH METHODS Universities are placing increasing attention on training and equipping postgraduates with the necessary skills to conduct research, with most doctoral degree programmes requiring students to undertake some form of research methods training. Universities also typically offer, and often require completion of instructional courses or teaching qualifications which aim to support academic teaching practice and pedagogical development. However, for many higher education (HE) institutions, especially research-focused ones, teaching can remain a secondary concern to research, with academic positions acquired primarily on research performance, and where teaching is assumed to be an extension of research competence rather than a practice in its own right (Hockings et al., 2009; Kreber, 2010; Nevgi and Löfström, 2014; Skelton, 2012). Research intensive institutions have the capacity to facilitate the development of staff as highly competent researchers, for example through networking, collaboration and research seminars, but teaching practice itself typically takes place away from other academic colleagues. Although the importance of sustained pedagogical initiatives, which also create space for academics to explore and share their practices and experiences, are recognised (Eisenhart and Jurow, 2011; Gibbs and Coffey, 2004; Stes et al., 2012), such activities may be underdeveloped or not prioritised. In the case of teaching research methods, there may be a further assumption that the academic, as an experienced researcher, is automatically qualified to teach it as a topic; and that postgraduate and doctoral students are similarly more competent students and in less need of effective teaching (Skelton, 2013; Smith, 2010). Scholarly literature in the specific field of qualitative research methods has sought to develop discussion on issues such as curriculum design or methods of teaching (Garner et al., 2009; Newstead 2009; Nind and Katramadou, 2022; Preissle and deMarrais, 2011; Waite, 2011b). However, there are also particular arguments for focusing on developing pedagogies for qualitative research methods. Compared to quantitative methods, the “lack of a boilerplate” or agreed standards (Pratt, 2009) may make qualitative research daunting for new researchers. Qualitative research also requires researchers to practice a wider set of social, cognitive and reflexive skills, such as being sensitive to complex social situations (Lorenz, 2003) and the ability to appropriately adapt research designs to accommodate evolving research contexts, or “bricolage” (Pratt et al., 2022). Qualitative research can also be personally challenging for the researcher, both when reflexively addressing their own role and impact on the research, and in being prepared to question their assumptions and preconceptions. Brew (2003) therefore calls for a pedagogical approach to research methods which places students and conceptual change at the heart of teaching practice, where learning is a co-constructed process as opposed to simply transmitted. But teaching qualitative research also requires an understanding of students’ awareness and appreciation of research as a concept in itself (Roberson and Blackler, 2009; Snelson, 2019). We therefore offer an account of the experience of one of us (David) teaching doctoral students on a Qualitative Research Methods module, and how he used drawing as a means of enabling learners to think more critically about their own research practice. The module was part of a Masters of Research programme of study in entrepreneurship, delivered as a five-day teaching block in the form of workshops during 2018/2019. The students were full-time, from various disciplinary backgrounds, some with industry experience, with an average age of 23. The aim of the module was for students to gain an appreciative view of how to inquire criti-

152  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods cally into the dynamics of social practice associated with entrepreneurial behaviour, from the perspective of qualitative research. A key element was for students to demonstrate how they were learning to inquire critically into their own experiences as researchers and their selected research domain. A core module ingredient was therefore curiosity as students were encouraged to question their assumptions: who we are and what it is that we want to achieve; how we live and experience our own and others’ voices and conversations; and our relationship with our social world and recognising its dynamic and emergent nature. The teaching and learning strategy adopted sought to utilise a sociocultural theory of learning which focused on social interactions and the recognition of lived practice. David wanted to use the activity of drawing as a means of sense making (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) enabling the students to engage in the learning process (Rogoff, 2003). This method sat within a core strategy of creating a more collaborative pedagogical approach to learning, focusing towards developing the students’ self-engagement. This required a methodology focused on facilitation rather than instructive delivery and thus based on more participative values where both educator and learner act as co-participants in the learning process (Sambrook and Willmott, 2014; Tosey and Marshall, 2017). Rather than the voice of the educator being dominant, David saw his role as a facilitator and guide. As such, drawing was a purposeful technique to help the students in the articulation both of complex ideas (Alexander, 2015; Bonner et al., 2017; van Huizen et al., 2005) and their own experiences and perceptions.

DRAWING AS EXPRESSION Drawing is a form of exploring ourselves and the way we encounter and interpret the world within and around us (Duff and Davies, 2005; Garner, 2008; Rawson, 1969). Drawing pre-dates written language as a means of expression and is one of the most primeval and universal means of human articulation (Stiles, 2011). Drawing differs significantly from other modes of graphic representations such as the written word and numeration, in that drawing has no strict notation and ranges from imagined sketches and doodles to structured diagrams; it remains an unbounded form of articulation (Arnheim, 1969; Guillemin, 2004; Wolf and Perry, 1988). The pencil as our tool allows us to record, question and direct our thought processes, pulling our imagination to the forefront, surfacing our ideas. It can be an emotional release which encourages us to explore, to be brave, to create meaning and make sense (Feinstein, 1982; Kress and van Leeuwen, 2001; Lorenz, 2010; Mitchell, 1994; Strati, 1999). Drawing has been called the most critical and informative expression for making sense of ourselves and the way we encounter the world around us (Garner, 2008). To draw involves reflection, critical thought and awareness in regards to the composition of the image (Feinstein, 1982; Lorenz, 2010). Drawings in this sense are not simply stagnant images: they convey a movement of thought which is continuously developing. When we begin to draw we initially reach towards symbols which we recognise from our environment, or recognise through our life experiences. As we begin to explore our thoughts through drawing, these symbols may be redrawn and developed into our own symbolic code with the aim of improving the verbalisation of our thought (Coates and Coates, 2006; Cox, 2005; Kress, 1997; Matthews, 2003). The process of developing and re-developing symbols and their meanings through the drawings can thus facilitate exploration, invention, re-examination, readjustment, composition and conscious effort towards the expression of relations between the drawing and experience.

Shaping researcher learning through scribbles  153 The stimulus provided by drawing evidences the emerging co-construction of meaning, serving as a reflexive tool for developing the thinking process (Cox, 2005; Poland and van Oers, 2007; Robbins, 2009; Wright, 2007). According to Matthews (2003), the act of drawing guides our observations of the environment around us and our experiences of it: as we draw we isolate particular experiences which we consider to be important and relatable, combining social historical knowledge with new interpretations and thoughts. Through drawing we are able to express and play with ideas, learning through our expressions and giving them a form of voice or narrative. The image thus enables us to re-examine and assess our sense making, to talk about it to others, share ideas and bring them more clearly into consciousness. The reflexive nature of our dialogue helps to co-construct understanding, arrange a sequence of narrated events, to develop a sense of meaning and abstraction. In the following section we illustrate how using drawing in teaching practice holds the capacity to become a powerful method of thinking and learning.

LEARNING THROUGH DRAWING: DAVID’S STORY In the module I wanted the students to be engaged in an activity which enables them to recognise the importance of their own experiences, values, beliefs and assumptions. I viewed the use of drawing as a way of unsettling the students and challenging them to embrace a different way of interacting in the classroom while enabling their voice to come to the fore. At the start of the module I asked the students to self-organise into groups of three or four. I spoke to them about my approach to the delivery of the module. I felt it important to create a safe and secure place for the students. I took the time to talk about the use of drawing, and students were given time to ask questions about the practice of drawing and its relationship to their learning on the module. Initially some students expressed reservations about drawing, its appropriateness and their capabilities, with comments such as “I have not drawn since I was in play school” or “I can’t draw”. I reassured them that the quality of the drawing was not the focus (Gauntlett, 2007; Literat, 2013). The students were given A3 flipchart paper and an array of coloured pens/pencils to draw with, and then given the opportunity to verbalise their drawings. The two drawings presented here formed the basis of the module delivery. The stimulus for the initial drawings1 (Figures 11.1 and 11.2) presented in this chapter was a pre-module text from an edited Sage Encyclopaedia of Qualitative Methods (Given, 2008). This publication highlights the importance of language, culture, and paradigmatic approaches used in qualitative research, especially as interdisciplinary projects increasingly link researchers across varied fields of study, suggesting the need for the researcher to become more aware of these elements in their learning. Drawing 1 represents students’ combined image of the “research journey” and their collective fears and anxieties. The drawing depicts how they envisaged their journey as a winding path leading into mountains of knowledge which have to be gained and overcome: the use of landscape metaphors illustrates a laborious journey. The drawing also developed a visual focus in the classroom which enabled us to explore aspects of theory and practice through the drawing. For example, one student referenced the image of themselves against others who had taken the same journey, trying to imagine what the route ahead looked like. Another referenced the

154  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

Figure 11.1

Drawing 1 the journey

twisting pathway and mountains. The drawing heavily influenced the initial direction of the module, as it presented themes which were important to how the students related to aspects of qualitative inquiry, methodological design and ethical aspects of the research approach. Components of this drawing include contradictions: the defined path, but with twists and turns representing deviations and moments of confusion; the mountains representing obstacles to overcome, mapped against the passing of time – “I must complete this journey”. One student commented:

Shaping researcher learning through scribbles  155 For me this drawing represents the need for honesty between one another, how we are recognising and dealing with the issue of methods and our research journeys, there are many twists and turns, mountains to overcome. All of these influenced by our actions and choices, the judgement we make become so important. I am always afraid of – what if we miss something. In our last discussion, a thought struck me that any type of research which is focused towards human subjects must consider the choices (methodological) we make, the selection and reproduction of methods and how I can begin to learn and understand to represent my thinking in the research design.

The atmosphere in the classroom was serious, yet playful. The act of drawing became a mediating activity for stimulating conversation and debate with authority, sensitivity and respect. Each session included time for students to explore ideas and concepts such as listening, insight, context, empathy, complexity, simplicity and their own natural wisdom and instinct. Together the students sought to verbalise their drawings by exploring and debating the interconnectedness of these elements and their role in the research process. Through these conversations, the students started to add words to their drawings, finding and creating their own meaning of the language associated with qualitative research methods, collectively building a shared vocabulary, and acquiring a deeper, more personalised linguistic repertoire of understanding for the methods which could be applied to their own research work. As students used their drawings to question, it was as if the drawings themselves became another student, provoking and challenging the group, offering potential alternative views and questions. This in turn required the students to reflect more deeply on their assumptions and experiences, to make connections and on some occasions, unexpected revelations. One student announced: I am terrified that our dialogue will break down, I don’t want us to lose this thread. At the same time, I am so excited about what could be to come, from an academic perspective...we must be disciplined enough not to become…overloaded with theory, at the expense of this rich dialogue.

When students collectively gathered to draw, I observed a wide range of communication processes in action. They discussed and shared ideas about the drawing subject, deciding on what to draw and how to draw it, constantly informing one another, sense-checking the content of the drawing and the meanings of the emerging illustration (see also Coates and Coates, 2006; Hopperstad, 2008; Soundy and Drucker, 2010). At times, no verbal interaction was involved as the students simply collectively drew side by side, individually or in groups, fuelled by inspiration from the freedom of expression, comparing and contrasting their understanding and experiences, teaching and learning from one another. Drawing 2 developed through a discussion we held on the array of methods and approaches available to qualitative researchers. The students were quick to ask “What is the right method?” They were dismissive of the array of methods on offer and anxious to find the right approach to use. “Surely there must be a best used approach!” one student exclaimed. I suggested that this needs to be put into context and the student began to draw how they viewed the field of methods. Through their discussions, the idea of a tree emerged. The tree in this image represents knowledge: the strength of the trunk as assurance in the methods and lines on the trunk as the passing of time and the development of knowledge, suggesting the older the trunk is the more assured we can be about the “best method”. The image of the tree led to students contending with the idea of “difference”, and the different approaches to the use of qualitative research methods: “what is right for me and my research?” This reflected a point of tension in the student’s conversation, which they represented by placing a single person on a branch. The

156  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

Figure 11.2

Drawing 2 exploring self

lone figure, for them, represents a researcher who wanted to try something different. However, the branch is not as strong as the trunk. The figure is seated, but paralysed and “stuck”: the figure wanted to be creative and novel, yet they are isolated, driven by their passion to develop new knowledge, yet unsure. One student commented as they drew: Where is the passion? How can we use our practical wisdom or judgment as a means of how we make sense of things? I have so many questions in my mind about this, I can see it so clearly in this drawing but how do we articulate these ideas? That is me sitting on that branch! If I decide to develop my research in this way and take a chance, will I be able to articulate these ideas? This drawing is the closest I have got to really seeing what I am thinking and feeling. As I reflect on this image, even looking at my lone figure I feel so alive, attuned to the ideas of how I can produce. Bizarrely, this feels a little like preparing to go to confession in church, something I have not done since I was a child, but it makes the readiness of this subject all the more incongruous.

Shaping researcher learning through scribbles  157 The drawing also represented the students’ need to share their own identities as emerging researchers, and their vulnerabilities. It was interesting to see how this particular drawing enabled powerful and critical discussion, as the students began to visually explore the challenges, ambiguities and complexities of the research process. A critical revelation for me as an educator was the nature, content and depth of this particular drawing, surfacing issues associated with ethics, conceptual dilemmas, theoretical and assumptive misalignments amongst the students in terms of how they understood their relationship with the use of qualitative methods. One student commented in regards to this drawing: You know, the more I think about these issues the more important our voices become, the positioning of my voice by the research I am undertaking, MUST be the central focus of our conversation – BUT with this I feel a tension…will this thinking enable me to complete my doctoral journey, is choosing these methods a safe option?

The drawing enriched their ability to surface practical and theoretical tensions in the use of qualitative methods, the feeling of being “out on a limb” and the manner in which these tensions shaped the focus of their research practice. The drawings encompassed a form of “being”, offering a voice to the students and the collective learning of the classroom, aiding and supporting the framing and reframing of our understanding, analysing, refining and negotiating our perception of the entrepreneurial experience (Henderson, 2007). The drawings became a form of intervention in their learning process, affording time to pause and reflect on meanings. One student commented: The process of drawing gave me time to just stop and think, to take stock of our words and understanding of the ideas we were drawing, sometimes conflicting with my own previous assumptions. I have never done that before, QRM [qualitative research methods] are not simply a tool they are a living thing, for me anyway!

In the various groups students actively shared their ideas, while retaining a sense of collegial respect for one another. It was equally supportive to me as a teacher in regards of providing validity to this method of teaching. One student reflected: It was good seeing how you linked the use of QRM to lived experiences and then enabling us to visualise those commons experiences we all share, actually seeing them in a visual form was – whoop – did I actually draw that type of moment?

The simple act of drawing enabled the students to develop a common awareness and understanding of qualitative research methods by appreciating the complexity, messiness and interconnectedness not just of the research environment but also in our lived experience. Students reflected on their drawings, thoughtfully articulating their meanings and intentions, while retrospectively considering others’ views and insights, not only concerning the nature of the drawings but also the relationship between the drawing and their own understanding, by listening, talking, sharing and contemplating different ideas and approaches. The use of drawing as a teaching practice/method, gave richness to classroom dialogue, enabling students to become more fully absorbed in moments of learning and sense making, and to engage in deep conversations, which fed directly into their life experiences. Throughout the module students appeared to make connections between their assumptions, feelings, beliefs and behaviours in terms of how qualitative methods could be used and developed to gain insight into lived

158  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods experience. The practice encouraged students to reframe their experiences, taking more active control of their own learning and use this to effectively engage with their research approaches and methods of inquiry (Bhoyrub et al., 2010). The drawings represented an important form of voice for the drawer, acknowledging that sometimes we needed to be able to see it before we could say it. These symbolic representations of the pen in our conversations were used as a tool to record, pose questions and direct our thought processes: the act of drawing our ideas encouraged and extended our conversations by exploring meanings and making sense as we conversed (Kantrowitz, 2012). Drawing provided a valuable means of encouraging students to both reflect and act in their learning on the module, by providing a context in which to explore the interconnectedness of qualitative approaches to research and the various alternative possibilities to adopting such methods. By making connections to express their emotions, fears, anxieties, and tensions, and provoking questions which required answers, students shared with one another what was meaningful for them. The drawings acted as a broker for the students to explore what specific actions or emotions enabled or blocked them from using differing methods.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING The use of drawing holds the potential to engage with learning in a transformative and purposeful manner (Barton, 2014; Caldwell and Vaughan, 2011). Previous research has demonstrated the instrumental value of drawing and artistic practice (Dewey, 1934; Eisner, 2002; Langer, 1953). Drawing as an activity is broadly recognised as a visual language which helps one communicate with others (Brooks, 2009; Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, 1993; Hope, 2008; Kress, 1997, 2003). When learning new skills in the classroom environment, students may sometimes struggle to express themselves verbally, and lack the technical knowledge or the language to express thoughts and emotions about the subject. It is here that drawing can become an alternative to language. Drawing holds the capacity to act as a graphic narrative, an artistic expression which offers an alternative method of meaning making through figurative communication, which is multifaceted, symbolic and metaphoric. As learners, students use multiple forms of expression, such as language, drawing and other forms to aid our process of communication. The module positioned the use of qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research as an engaged practice, where students could relate and interact in order to test assumptions, challenge expectations and current understandings. The object of the module was to provide the students with opportunities to look more deeply into what and how they were beginning to understand their own practice and identity, to explore their experiences, interconnectedness and self-awareness. Through the module the students developed a sense of respect for one another by realising their limitations but equally encouraging one another to continually engage in the ongoing process of deep self-understanding. The in-classroom dialogue created by the students’ drawings was a powerful mechanism for their learning: having a conversation with another can allow beliefs and assumptions to be made available for examination and critiqued by the person sharing and the listener. Students also appeared to make connections between their assumptions, feelings, beliefs and behaviours in terms of how qualitative methods could be used and developed to gain insight into lived experience. The practice encouraged students

Shaping researcher learning through scribbles  159 to reframe their experiences, taking more active control of their own learning and effectively engaging with their research approaches and methods of inquiry. One student’s reflective feedback summarises what she gained from drawing in the classroom: I remember drawing freely, putting on paper the feelings and thoughts that went through my head at the time. Most times, during the process of drawing, I lost the idea that I was drawing for someone else, or that it was for a specific academic purpose, this was for me. It was just a drawing, but it was mine, it represented my understanding and journey. I was enjoying the process of discovery, visually making explicit my thinking to others, creating points of conversation, as I was drawing. The freedom it afforded us too was anchored in our thoughts and ideas in real experiences which we turned into images. Through our classroom conversation these images started to take another shape (re-drawing) through the metaphorical nature of the drawings content. I found myself getting lost thinking and inspiration I could not stop drawing, integrating that thought process into my learning on the module. My drawings defined for me a turning point for me.

The act of drawing had a profound impact on the students’ classroom dialogue and on their ability to learn. Their drawings acted as symbolic representations of their own experiences and insights, enabling them to talk about and experience their learning openly through both images and then their own words, and also develop a more authentic connection with one another. Art-based approaches to teaching encourage multimodal engagement, involving emotions, listening and observational skills, by drawing attention to the importance not just of language, but of expression and the nuances of human interaction that can help to bring the behavioural phenomenon of practice into focus, attuning the students to become more socially aware to how we can study lived experience. Drawing as a pedagogical technique also has implications for pedagogical practice, prompting us to become more appreciative of our position as educators. Drawing can enable us (students and educators) to recognise each other’s perspectives and to more clearly discern the relationship between our assumptions and values and the knowledge we share. Through questioning our own practices, we draw attention to the challenging nature of the subject matter, coupled to the subjectivity embedded in the modes of delivery. The familiarity with a subject area often shapes the issues which one considers appropriate to be taught. Through our engagement with drawing as a process of learning we can become more aware of our own assumptions and beliefs, and how these were represented in current scholarly debate. For us, how we come to learn is through a performance, an enactment as we come to make sense of the world around us, where the students are encouraged to ask questions with thought, awareness and attentiveness towards what is visible and invisible. The development or learning of new knowledge requires us to hold the movement of our conversations with the confusion of our voice and sight as we attempt to find meaning through our dialogue, as opposed to searching for defined and bounded ideas of existing knowledge (Shotter, 2010). The use of drawing as a teaching practice/method has the ability to give richness to classroom dialogue, enabling students to become fully absorbed and engaged in moments of learning and sense-making and enabling us to engage in deep conversations, which feed directly into the student’s life experiences. Furthermore, the socially situated nature of learning means that learning is not an end in itself, but about the self being challenged and provoked, equipping the students with the ability to become more fully aware and informed of their own practice and thoughts. The use of drawing as a method of teaching and learning is about expression and changing mindset, frames of reference and perspectives, by inviting others into conver-

160  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods sations through the imaginative dimensions to inform our understanding and learning (Dirkx, 2008; Mezirow, 2000). The action of drawing and expression can therefore be an important component to the student learning experience (Cranton and Taylor, 2012; Merriam et al., 2007). In the context of teaching qualitative research methods it is also about challenging “self-conceptions” of what it means to be a “researcher” (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992; Martin, 1992; Zubizarreta, 2004). While students were often highly positive about drawing, at times it was also frustrating. Some students were initially uncomfortable without clear directions about “what should we draw and how”. According to Baker, Jensen and Kolb (1997, p. 7), “as soon as the intention is to follow a method in order to make good conversation happen, the very essence of good conversation that is transformative is violated”. The importance of how we engage and interact with students to create good conversation opportunities is important in helping to create connections and offer new knowledge. It is important for students to understand and recognise the richness and diversity of learning. In this sense, our voice and our practice involves a delicate balance; not talking too much or too little, the importance of enabling, encouraging students to make connections in their conversations but at the same time refraining from spoon-feeding and making those connections for them.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY This account has been structured to allow the reader to appreciate the perspectives from which our values and beliefs are informed, as opposed to making a claim for authenticity and authority (Eliasoph, 2011). We have described one specific experience of using drawing as part of a module on qualitative research methods. From this experience we offer five pillars which informed David’s decision to use drawing and which we also view as critical to this teaching practice. 1. Become attentive to developing dialogue, based on the idea that meanings emerge as we interact in the classroom. Through our interactions we create a sense of shared understanding as we actively respond to each other’s drawings and comments, exploring new ideas and contesting existing ones. 2. Practice self-awareness: our conversations are an opportunity to recognise and interrogate moments of unknowing, and questioning our taken-for-granted assumptions. 3. Capitalise on learning moments when we were struck by something – a remark, an element of a drawing, a response to a question posed or a challenge – and use it to lead us to think or act differently. 4. Mediate boundaries and social tensions: as educators and students converse and challenge our normative behaviour we may surface contradictions, tensions and assumptions. This can help us to develop a more appreciative sense of knowing, affording us the ability to re-view, re-arrange and re-imagine our ideas identity and actions, enabling us to create movement and disrupt our “status quo”. 5. Reflexivity: being able to think about what actually matters and how to deal with dilemmas in our research and teaching lives from moment to moment requires us to become aware of what we do and why, and our impact on others.

Shaping researcher learning through scribbles  161 We believe that the challenge for us as educators is to explore how we engage with our teaching by learning from one another. Our own teaching focus is thus based on surfacing differences and making connections, which require us to listen, accept, and cross boundaries. This means facilitating and collaboratively interpreting multiple voices by creating movement between personal, cultural, theoretical and practical experiences. The aim of this chapter is to enrich existing discussions by demonstrating how drawing can help to support these goals. But beyond that, we wish to highlight the growing need to re-imagine our use of teaching methods for what they can afford to us by connecting the performative learning in action, seeking to understand our own actions and the actions of others as a collective set of experiences in a dynamic iterative manner. In the context of how we teach, including research methods, we must begin to recognise that there is a broad range of alternatives of pedagogical practice which can enable us to engage with the field in ever more creative ways to enable us to enact with different aspects of the field in more unique ways.

NOTE 1

Permission was obtained from the students to use this material (November 2021).

REFERENCES Acker, S. and Haque, E. (2010). Doctoral students and a future in academe? In L. McAlpine and G. Åkerlind (Eds.), Becoming an Academic: International Perspectives, (pp. 96–124). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Acker, S. and Haque, E. (2015) The struggle to make sense of doctoral study. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(2), 229–241. Alexander, R. J. (2015). Dialogic pedagogy at scale: oblique perspectives. In L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan and S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 429–440). Washington, DC: AERA. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996). Making Sense of Management. London: Sage. Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual Thinking. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press. Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J. and Kolb, D. A. (1997). In conversation: Transforming experience into learning. Simulation and Gaming, 28(1), 6–12. Barnacle, R. and Mewburn, I. (2010). Learning networks and the journey of “becoming Doctor”. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 433–444. Barner, R. (2007). The dark tower: Using visual metaphors to facilitate emotional expression during organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 120–137. Barton, G. M. (2014). The arts and literacy: Interpretation and expression of symbolic form. In G. M. Barton (Ed.), Literacy in the Arts: Retheorising Learning and Teaching (pp. 3–20). Zurich, Switzerland: Springer. Bhoyrub, J., Hurley, J., Neilson, G. R., Ramsey, M. and Smith, M. (2010). Heutagogy: An alternative practice based learning approach. Nurse Education in Practice, 10(6), 322–326. Blume, L. and Weatherston, R. (2018). Queering the campus gender landscape through visual arts praxis. In E. McNeil, J. Wermers and J. Lunn (Eds.), Mapping Queer Space(s) of Praxis and Pedagogy (pp. 71–103). Cham: Springer. Bonner, S. M., Somers, J. A., Rivera, G. J. and Keiler, L. S. (2017). Effects of student-facilitated learning on instructional facilitators. Instructional Science, 45(1), 417–438.  Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry‐based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 3–18.

162  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Brooks, M. (2009). Drawing to learn. In M. Narey (Ed.), Making Meaning: Constructing Multimodal Perspectives of Language, Literacy, and Learning through Arts-based Early Childhood Education (Vol. 2) (pp. 9–30). New York, NY: Springer. Buckley, C. A. and Nerantzi, C. (2020). Effective use of visual representation in research and teaching within higher education. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 7(3), 196–214.  Caldwell, B. and Vaughan, T. (2011). Transforming Literacy through the Arts. London: Routledge. Cassell, C. M. and Symon, G. (2004) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: Sage. Coates, E. and Coates, A. (2006). Young children talking and drawing. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(3), 221–241. Cox, S. (2005). Intention and meaning in young children’s drawing. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 24(2), 115–125. Cranton, P. and Taylor, E. W. (2012). Transformative learning theory: Seeking a more unified theory. In E. W. Taylor and P. Cranton (Eds.), Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 3–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dantzic, C. M. (1999). Drawing Dimensions: A Comprehensive Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005) Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K. (2010). The Qualitative Manifesto: A Call to Arms. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. New York, NY: Perigree Books. Dirkx, J. (2008). The Meaning and Role of Emotions in Adult Learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 120, 7–18. https://​doi​-org​.ezproxy​.biola​.edu/​10​.1002/​ace​.3 11 Duff, L. and Davies, J. (2005). Drawing: The Process. Bristol: Intellect Books. Edwards, C., Gandini, L. and Forman, G. (Eds.) (1993). The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Eisenhart, M. and DeHaan, R. L. (2005). Doctoral preparation of scientifically based education researchers. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 3–13. Eisenhart, M. and Jurow, A. S. (2011). Teaching qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed.) (pp. 699–714). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Eisner, E. (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Feinstein, H. (1982). Meaning and visual metaphor. Studies in Art Education, 23(2), 45–55. Feng, D. and O’Halloran, K. L. (2012). Representing emotive meaning in visual images: A social semiotic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(14), 2067–2084. Garner, M., Wagner, C. and Kawulich, B. (Eds.) (2009). Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: Ashgate. Garner, S. (2008). Writing on Drawing: Essays on Drawing Practice and Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Garner, S. [Ed.] (2008). Writing on Drawing: Essays on Drawing Practice and Research. Bristol and Chicago, IL: Intellect. Gibbs, G. and Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100. Given, L. M. (2004). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Guillemin, M. (2004). Understanding illness: Using drawings as a research method. Qualitative Health Research, 14(2), 272–287. Hall, E. (2009). Mixed messages: The role and value of drawing in early education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 17(3), 179–190. Hall, L. A. and Burns, L. D. (2009). Identity development and mentoring in doctoral education. Harvard Education Review, 79(1), 49–70.  Higgins, D. (2019). Introduction – A call to act through action! Action Learning: Research and Practice, 16(3), 203–204.

Shaping researcher learning through scribbles  163 Higgins, D. (2021). Seeking meaning in self: The dialogical process of storytelling and educating the professional practitioner. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning, DOI 10.1108/ HESWBL-02-2021-0026.  Higgins, D. and Smith, S. (2018). Scholarly practice and meaningful research: Utilising voice by enabling action…if it was only that simple! In D. Higgins, P. Jones and P. McGowan (Eds.), Creating Entrepreneurial Space Talking Through Multi-Voices, Reflections on Emerging Debates (pp. 175–189). UK: Emerald. Ho, A., Watkins, D. and Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42(2), 143–169. Hope, G. (2008). Thinking and Learning through Drawing in Primary Classrooms. London: Sage. Hopperstad, M. H. (2008). Relationships between children’s drawing and accompanying peer interaction in teacher initiated drawing sessions. International Journal of Early Years Education, 16(2), 133–150. Hopwood, N. W. (2010). A sociocultural view of doctoral students’ relationships and agency. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(2), 103–117. Hurworth, R. E. (2008). Teaching Qualitative Research: Cases and Issues. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics, 36(2), 135–150. Kantrowitz, A. (2012). The man behind the curtain: What cognitive science reveals about drawing. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 46(1), 1–14. Koro-Ljundberg, M. (2012). Breaking binaries and expanding notions of knowledge. Paper presented to the Eighth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, UrbanaChampaign, IL. Kress, G. (1997). Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London: Routledge. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge. Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Edward Arnold. Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge. Langer, S. (1953). Feeling and Form. New York, NY: Scribners. Lorenz, L. S. (2010). Visual metaphors of living with brain injury: Exploring and communicating lived experience with an invisible injury. Visual Studies, 25(3), 210–223. Lorenz, W. (2003). European experiences in teaching social work research. Social Work Education, 22(1), 7–18. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matthews, J. (2003). Drawing and Painting: Children and Visual Representation (2nd ed.). London: Paul Chapman. McAlpine, L. (2012). Identity-trajectories: Doctoral journeys from past to present to future. Australian Universities Review, 54(1), 38–46. Merriam, S. B. and Kim, S. (2012). Studying transformative learning: What methodology? In E. W. Taylor and P. Cranton (Eds.), Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 56–72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S. and Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, L. (2006). Child-centred? Thinking critically about children’s drawings as a visual research method. Visual Anthropology Review, 22(1), 60–73. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Newstead, C. (2009). Pedagogy, post‐coloniality and care‐full encounters in the classroom. Geoforum, 40(1), 80–90. Nind, M. and Katramadou, A. (2022). Lessons for teaching social science research methods in higher education: Synthesis of the literature 2014–2020. British Journal of Educational Studies, 1–26, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1080/​00071005​.2022​.2092066

164  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Poland, M. M. and van Oers, B. (2007). Effects of schematizing on mathematical development. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 269–293. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. and Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557–571. Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. and Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 56(1), 29–43. Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862. Pratt, M. G., Sonenshein, S. and Feldman, M. S. (2022). Moving beyond templates: A bricolage approach to conducting trustworthy qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 211–238.   Preissle, J. and deMarrais, K. (2011). Teaching qualitative research responsively. In N. K. Denzin and M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative Inquiry and Global Crises (pp. 31–39). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Preissle, J. and Roulston, K. (2009). Trends and issues in teaching qualitative research. In M. Garner, C. Wagner and B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 13–21). London: Ashgate. Rawson, P. (1969). Drawing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robbins, J. (2009). Analyzing young children’s thinking about natural phenomena: A sociocultural/ cultural historical perspective. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 3(1), 75–97. Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Sambrook, S. A. and Willmott, H. (2014). The rigor of management education and the relevance of human resource development: Natural partners or uneasy bedfellows in management practice? Management Learning, 45(1), 39–56. Shotter, J. (2010a). Situated dialogic action research: Disclosing “beginnings” for innovative change in organizations. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 268–285. Shotter, J. (2010b). Perplexity: Preparing for the happenings of change. In S. Low (Ed.), Managing in Changing Times: A Guide for the Perplexed Manager (pp. 135–176). Los Angeles, CA: Response Books. Skelton, A. (2013). Positively transformational or poisoned chalice? The impact of a course on higher education teaching at a research-intensive institution. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(8), 908–919. Smith, J. (2010). Forging identities: The experiences of probationary lecturers in the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 577–591. Snelson, C. (2019). Teaching qualitative research methods online: A scoping review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 24(11), 2799–2814.  Soundy, C. S. and Drucker, M. F. (2010). Picture partners: A co-creative journey into visual literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(6), 447–460. Stes, A., De Mayer, S., Gijbels, D. and Van Petegem, P. (2012). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: Effects on students’ learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(3), 295–308. Stiles, D. R. (2011). Disorganization, disidentification and ideological fragmentation: Verbal and pictorial evidence from a British business school. Culture and Organisation, 17(1), 5–30. Strati, A. (1999). Organization and Aesthetics. London: Sage. Strati, A. (2000). The aesthetic approach in organization studies. In H. Hopfl and S. Linstead (Eds.), The Aesthetics of Organization (pp. 13–34). London: Sage. Taylor, A. (2008). Forward – Re: positioning drawing. In S. Garner (Ed.), Writing on Drawing: Essays on Drawing Practice and Research (pp. 15–26). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tosey, P. and Marshall, J. (2017). The demise of inquiry-based HRD programmes in the UK: Implications for the field. Human Resource Development International, 20(5), 393–402. van Huizen, P., van Oers, B. and Wubbels, T. (2005). A Vygotskian perspective on teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 267–290. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1934.) Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shaping researcher learning through scribbles  165 Waite, D. (2011). Teaching the unteachable. Panel presentation to the Annual Meeting of the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, Champaign, IL. Wolf, D. and Perry, M. D. (1988). From endpoints to repertoires: Some new conclusions about drawing development. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(2), 17–34 Wright, S. (2007). Graphic-narrative play: Young children’s authoring through drawing and telling. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(8), 1–27. Zubizarreta, J. (2004). The Learning Portfolio: Reflective Practice for Improving Student Learning. Bolton, MA: Anker.

12. Teaching and learning social research methods in social work: challenges and benefits of experiential and applied learning contexts Sandra Lopes and Sandra Saúde

INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a reflection on the experience of teaching social research methodologies resulting from the teaching practice of about 20 years linked to the training of students of the first and second cycle in social work. The basic assumption was to question a matrix developed in pedagogic contexts and to understand the possible difficulties and added value of pedagogical work for the training of trainees in the field of research methodologies. In this reflection, we place ourselves as teachers and social researchers, a duplicity that allows us to reflect/discuss about our practice and the pedagogical proposals tested in an educational context. What guiding matrix should be put at the service of this learning process? We discuss the challenges that arose in the construction of these teaching-learning experiences and the way they were worked by us and our students.

TEACHING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS IN SOCIAL WORK Social work is a profession of social intervention that has been asserting itself as an academic discipline, where the field of research has gained increasing importance, namely for professional practice. Hardcastle and Bisman (2003) note that the role of research in social work is to inform social work practice – ‘to alter a particular set of phenomena in the world and to answer practice questions’ (p. 32). Fish (2015) agrees with this premise, arguing that the ‘ability to locate, understand and use research is vital for social work: it informs decision-making about appropriate interventions and contributes to evidence about what works’ (pp. 1060–1061). Furthermore, she maintains that research activity plays an important role in establishing and increasing the global status of the social work profession and, more importantly, the standard of practice of its graduates. Despite these premises, in the conception of the profession of social worker, it is (unfortunately) often a commonplace assumption that action – humanitarian help to people – is first and to do so, more important, thereby undervaluing the role of research in the process. According to many, however, failing to engage with research only complicates and/or delays the action. This devaluation of the role of the social worker as a producer of knowledge, results, according to Branco (2008), from four types of factors, namely: 1. ‘the social worker profession historically emerges as a profession of intervention and not of knowledge production. This genetic code, and a socio-historical mark, persists today’ (p. 50); many social workers and trainers of social workers with professional practice do 166

Teaching and learning social research methods in social work  167 not see the research dimension as an intrinsic component of their mission and professional attributions; 2. ‘culture and professional habitus, guided by the predominance of action to the detriment of knowledge (…) led to the consolidation of identity traits such as pragmatism and accommodation (Faleiros, 1997)’ (p. 50); 3. ‘the insufficient training of researchers (Faleiros, 1997; Martins, 1999)’ (p. 50). ‘This deficiency is associated by Martins (1999) to the positivist-functionalist matrix, which prevailed in the past in Social Work training and according to which the social worker was not formed in order to master the process of knowledge construction in the Social Sciences. Faleiros (1997), on the other hand, attributes this circumstance to the limitations and orientation of teaching in this domain that tends to be a transmission of technical knowledge disconnected from the practice of social workers’ (pp. 50–51); 4. weak articulation of research processes with intervention experiences provided by curricular internships, which does not favour the creation of a formative socialisation model in which students experience the potentialities, limits, and tensions of the articulation between knowledge and action. There are thus conditions that need to be reversed not only for the benefit of the construction of the scientific space of social work, but also, and above all, for the benefit of training and improvement of its professional mission. These processes need to be supported by a critical and constructive perspective (Adams, Dominelli and Payne, 2002). Practice must feed back to the theory it uses, in a permanent relearning to learn. For the theoretical corpus to acquire consistency, social work must consider research as a fundamental tool for the construction of professional practice. Therefore, the concern to produce knowledge should be an integral and inseparable part of the practice of the social worker. Regarding the teaching of research in social work training, we can find in the literature diverse analyses that cover a range of topics ranging from the analysis of the contribution of research in the professional practice of the social worker to the importance of the role of research methodologies in its formative profile, as well as the interest of students and professionals in research (Knee, 2002; Lundahl, 2008; Macke and Tapp, 2012; McCoyd et al., 2009; Phillips et al., 2012); the confidence felt and/or their own orientation towards research processes (Einbinder, 2014; Maschi et al., 2013; Morgenshtern et al., 2011; Stark and Cohen, 2007). The focus of much social work education literature has been due to the need for research to be an integral part of the entire educative process, with less attention on how to effectively teach research skills and techniques to social work students. A review of British social work research teaching, conducted by Fish in 2015, identified five models of teaching: ‘research informed teaching, educated consumers of research, research-mindedness, research capacity and reflective practitioner researchers’ (p. 1060). Fish (2015) further noted that often, research activity permeates the social work curriculum and, if effectively integrated, encourages a broad ‘research-mindedness’, which is ‘characterized by critical reflection, an understanding of the process of research… and the use of social work values to counter discrimination and oppression, incorporating an understanding of ethical principles’ (p. 1064). What Fish’s study also highlights is that there is inconsistency in research teaching approaches across social work schools, although the implications of contrasting curricula are yet to be explored.

168  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods The academic subject of research methodologies was integrated, in general, from the beginning, in the study plans of higher education courses in social work. However, and although this demonstrates a clear recognition of the foundational value of research in the profile of the social worker, much has still to be worked on and discussed in the domain of the pedagogical strategies in order to instigate the critical use of research to empower the action (Baikady, Pulla and Channaveer, 2014). Teaching methodologies in social work goes far beyond the development of the capacity to use methods and tools of social research; it must promote, in a consistent way, the questioning of the student about the practical and societal usefulness of research to construct a more just and inclusive society, structuring the mission of social service. The teaching of research methodologies implies to promote, within the future social worker, the awareness that research is structural for social intervention and, also, the development of the skills to do that.

PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES There is consensus that the mastery and use of social research tools contribute, to a large extent, to students being able to develop a critical and reflexive attitude and appreciation of rigour in the knowledge and social diagnosis of reality. Moreover, the truism that only with a mature description, analysis and critical reflection of reality is that it is possible for the future social worker to act in a reasoned way. What seems an absolute truth, indisputable, is not always configured as a need, ubiquitous and transversal, in the organisation of the academic work of the trainees. The reasons can be multiple and hold multiple dimensions of analysis. For example, some reasons arise associated with the difficulties and constraints that emerge from the conditions inscribed in the contexts and rhythms of learning teaching. From our two-decade work experience, we highlight the following: 1. an average number of trainees per high class (average of 50 students per class) that limits the use of more interactive pedagogical activities that can more effectively accommodate individual learning rhythms; 2. the unsuited teaching-learning time of the curricular units (concentrated in a single school year semester) to properly develop real experiential learning contexts of ‘how to do social research’; 3. an extensive content matrix present in the curricula (in a semester it is expected to explore contents that cover from the construction of the object of study, to observation and analysis of results – see Figure 12.1); 4. an evaluation format that gives some rigidity to the learning teaching process (given the impositions of compliance with the curriculum, in the formats and evaluation times to be adopted, etc.); 5. and the issues related to the construction of the pedagogical relationship established between educational agents (teachers and trainees). In addition, there is reflexivity associated with the exploration of programmatic contents, which allows a natural delay to the pedagogic processes due to the need for maturation: (i) on the construction, analysis and reflection on the objects of investigation; (ii) for the definition

Teaching and learning social research methods in social work  169 and understanding of research objectives; and (iii) to understand the stages and procedures of research, data collection and production of findings. These various factors that condition the teaching-learning contexts of social research methodologies are shared by teachers who teach these curricular units. On this subject, Adam, Zosky and Unrau (2004) observe: Research is the curricular content area that evokes the greatest amount of anxiety and the least sense of confidence among social work students. Being aware of students’ aversion to learning about research, social work faculty often struggle with how much research instruction is enough, particularly since most students are studying to be practitioners and not researchers. (p. 2)

In addition to the constraints inherent to the organisational rigidity of teaching-learning times and spaces, there is also the discomfort and anxiety shared by most students in the development of a learning experience that is based on learning to decide, and to apply, the strategies and the most adequate research resources in view of the problem(s) under study, the objectives and intervention needs. The decision process always creates discomfort, all the more so because in social research there are no fixed and unique paths; developing decision-making skills and managing the anxiety and discomfort felt by students are challenging and structural pedagogical goals of social research teaching. In the field of teaching social research methodologies, ethical issues also emerge as fundamental and as an additional factor in the need for adequate decision and action on the part of students. More important, good social research clearly demands a highly developed, ceaseless, daily engagement with ethics as a process – an engagement that far exceeds the requirements of currently existing ‘ethics committees’ and ‘human-subjects protocols’ on university campuses. It is increasingly clear that the conventional understanding of ethics as a code – rather than as a process, as we see it here— needs to be critically examined. (Cerwonka and Malkki, 2007, p. 4)

Research and intervening in social work implies a critical and interpretive appropriation of the ethical codes that are structurally underlying it; the student (researcher) has to know how to give an adequate response to the ethical challenges that arise in the research processes, constituting one of the fundamental competences to work, also, with the students. The ability to interpret and respond to the challenges posed by fieldwork, mobilising the theory and the available resources, is one of the fundamental skills to be developed with students (also one of the most challenging and stressful for them) and constitutes crucial pedagogical challenges for the teachers. Lewthwaite and Nind (2016), in their reflections on which pedagogical formats should be considered as good practices in teaching methods, concluded, based on their literature review that there is a ‘disjointed and under-developed discourse around the pedagogy or methodological learning’ (p. 414). They quote the systematic review conducted by Wagner, Garner and Kawulich (2011), which highlights ‘a lack of “pedagogic culture” in research methods teaching, concluding that there is little guidance available to teachers’ (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016, p. 414). Despite this evidence, there are some dynamics that may not be visible in a systematic literature review of the academic production in this field as Kilburn, Nind and Wiles (2014) pointed out; they conclude from a ‘deep reading of this literature’ (p. 191), that there is a growing focus on the diversity, and dissemination of methods and experiences used by

170  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods teachers to make the learning of research methodologies more meaningful to students. These authors have, with due generalisation care, ‘identified a small corpus within the literature that is characterized by thoughtful and well-informed reflections on the part of teachers who have translated their experiences of the teaching and learning of research methods into an emerging – even burgeoning – body of pedagogical knowledge for our field’ (p. 203). The hypothetical absence of ‘guidelines’ for teaching social research methodologies is often compensated by the profile of teachers who are mostly experienced researchers. Their practice helps them to organise the pedagogical path that they develop with the trainees. In other words, the construction of knowledge and the ways to explore it feeds on the complicity between a research and teaching practice. Training for teaching should therefore result from the confluence of an applied social research practice and an effective experience of teaching the contents related to social research methodologies. In the context of social work training, it is important to recognise, as Ferreira (2014, p. 337) argues, that the social worker is also a social scientist who needs scientific knowledge not only based on theories and intervention models, but essentially knowledge, research methodologies and quantitative and qualitative methods that allow her/him to analyse, interpret and make proposals for social and human development in the context of political, professional and scientific debate.

This implies the creation of pedagogical experiences that allow students to be able to develop a formative, individual and/or shared between peers, work, like a true research experience that allows them to: i) experience in practice the procedures; ii) feel doubts (and experience self-questioning); iii) produce results that may serve other studies; and iv) progress through the experience of a peer review and validation.

METHODOLOGY Starting from the research question: What pedagogical strategies should be developed to promote a stimulating, deep, impressive, significant learning experience to trainees? We developed a research path based on the pedagogic practices in two curricular units in a Portuguese higher education institution for which each of us is responsible, specifically: ● The curricular unit Research Methods and Techniques in Social Sciences, which is part of the second year of the study plan of the degree in social work. It is the only curricular unit in this field in the course. ● The curricular unit Advanced Research Methods in Social Sciences, which is part of the first year of the master’s in social work – social risks and local development study plan. We have both been teachers of these curricular units for some years and we have been systematically questioning ourselves about how to improve the dynamics and the learning process. The guiding questions that we bring to reflection are the following: 1. How can we capitalise on the added value of the consolidated experience in research in social sciences that we teachers have in the construction of the pedagogical activities that we propose for our students?

Teaching and learning social research methods in social work  171 2. What pedagogical strategies should be implemented in order to develop and consolidate a natural predisposition on our students (and future professionals) for the practice of social research? 3. How can the training experience become more meaningful for trainees in their current or future learning and/or professional practice contexts? Using a case study rationale with an exploratory matrix, information was collected from students who attended in the academic year of 2021/2022 the curricular units identified above. The training plans assumed in the two curricular units follow a logic of continuity based on the exit profile associated with the two training cycles, with repercussions on the research challenges posed to the trainees. The two identified groups of students were considered as cases. The analysis model that guided the data collection procedure aimed to identify and understand the students’ representations of the learning experience carried out in the curricular units. The following dimensions and indicators were considered: 1. What it means to research in the social sciences. 2. What importance is attributed to research methodologies for professional practice/professional profile. 3. Opinion on how the learning experience developed in terms of effort level; difficulties encountered; skills developed; and evaluation of the pedagogical strategies implemented during the semester. 4. Opinion on the value of learning in professional life and its future usefulness. The collection of evidence was based on indirect and direct observation. To support the indirect observation, an online questionnaire survey was applied to the two groups (two cases under analysis), at two different moments. The first questionnaire was applied in the first week of classes, focusing on the first two analytical dimensions mentioned (research in social sciences – meaning; importance attributed to social research skills). The second moment of inquiry was carried out in the last week of classes and explored the shared opinion about the learning experiences carried out and about the value attributed to them for the future. In both moments of data collection, anonymity and informed consent were guaranteed for the respondents. The use of this methodology was justified by the need to collect information that could be compared in two different moments of time and from two groups of students. We were interested in collecting as much information as possible at an early stage. Given the high number of students, especially attending the first cycle, the choice of questionnaire survey was the most appropriate while the use of diversified sources would make it possible to compensate any gaps in the use of this instrument. Moreover, the inclusion of open questions made it possible to gather more detailed information about the students’ opinions. Additionally, there was direct observation and naturalistic recording of information made by each of the teachers on: 1. the difficulties encountered in the teaching-learning process; 2. main problems identified in the activities developed by the students; 3. doubts shared by students in the classroom context, during tutoring and/or in the forum; and 4. the type and content of questions/doubts raised by students, and their evolution throughout the learning process.

172  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods A record was also added based on the main perceived difficulties experienced by students in the moments of learning assessment, whether in those involving individual written tests or in those that were conducted in a collaborative work format. In this sense, the aim was also to compare the expressed opinions of the students with the perceptions of the teachers (in this case, also researchers). These cross dynamics allowed us, in a logic close to action research, to consider new ways to develop teaching-learning paths, with small changes that were introduced throughout the semester as ways to better adjust the plan to the rhythms and needs of the students. Despite the continuous readjustment being a natural process in teaching practice, it assumed contours of greater formalisation and systematisation in the teaching formats that support the present analysis. The collected and produced data were subjected to content analysis that allowed identification of the structuring axes of meaning. The information collected by the online questionnaire survey was organised by a matrix of categories based on the indicators previously defined and enriched by a later analysis of the students’ statements. The main categories considered were: i) students’ perceptions about what it means/implies to do social research; ii) main learning difficulties felt by the students; iii) academic uses of the learning experience on social research; and iv) professional uses and utility of the learning experience and developed competencies. The information produced by direct observation was a challenge for us. It included more qualitative information organised by each of the teachers – their descriptions and perceptions about the students’ reactions to the activities developed. That information was shared, discussed, and reflected among teachers/researchers.

TEACHING AND LEARNING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS IN SOCIAL WORK TRAINING: FROM PERCEPTIONS TO PRACTICE The guiding matrix in the construction of the programme of the two curricular units sought to ensure a continuity and expansion of knowledge and methodologies applied to the domain of research. First to be worked on were the procedures, the research phases and their interrelationship, the research models, and the existing options of data collection techniques considering the research objectives and the fieldwork characteristics. In the second stage, we developed an application of the contents based on the connection action/praxis inherent to the social worker. The structure followed the pedagogical model of learning construction: knowledge, understanding and application: from knowledge to application in practice. Thus, the intention was to stimulate the trainees to perceive the usefulness of the curricular unit contents in their academic path and future professional activity. One of the first questions that emerged in the analysis was to understand how the curricular matrix is evident in the objectives defined in each curricular unit and how this had echoed, or not, in the students, (surveyed) representations about the learning process that they passed through (in the first cycle and second cycle contexts). Three complementary indicators were explored: one relating to the description of what it is to research and, the other on the subjective perception of the effort expended, in general, in the learning process and, specifically, in the tasks carried out to support it and, finally, the measurement of the value of learning acquired to the academic, professional, and daily activities. Regarding the first indicator, we compared the descriptions of the two observed groups about what research in social sciences means for them. The words used to describe what does

Teaching and learning social research methods in social work  173

Source: Course descriptors. Own elaboration

Figure 12.1

Flowchart of the complementarity of the curricular units’ objectives

it mean to investigate denotes the existence of axes and marks that remain as guiding premises in their learning path. The words analyse and know show continuity, as they are found in the discourse of the students of the first and second cycles (the latter, in most cases, attended the curricular unit of methodologies in the first cycle).

Source: Student survey. Own elaboration

Figure 12.2a Research in social sciences: Meanings In both cases of respondents, there are answers that match the curricular objectives and how they were organised in the workflow proposed. In a more in-depth analysis, some differences emerge between the words of the students of the second and first cycle, especially those related

174  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

Source: Student survey. Own elaboration

Figure 12.2b Research in social sciences: Meanings to the attributes of the research. In the case of first cycle students, the words mentioned are closer to attributes that advocate a more theoretical understanding of the process – perceive, discover, understand, explore, while in the students of the second cycle, attributes that refer to the use, action and potential for change that are associated with the act of research appear, for example, the following words are highlighted: problematise, diagnosis, transform, realities, utility, approach, act. With regard to the students’ concern about the effort expended in the curricular unit Applied Research Methodologies (first cycle), we conclude that the majority of students classify this as high. This was particularly relevant among students who are currently attending the second cycle (they responded, in unison, above the score of five, in a scale of one to ten) and who attended this curricular unit (or another very similar) in their past as students of the first cycle. This tendency to overvalue effort is also observed in the perception of the difficulty in performing the tasks proposed in the curricular units among the students who attended it in the past and those who attend it in the current school year (Figure 12.3). However, the number of those who indicate high levels of effort decreases. Among other explanatory variables, this evidence leads us to reflect on the possibility of there being benefits associated with the changes introduced in the work carried out with the students. Between contexts and formative moments, we introduced work formats driven by the need to respond to the constraints imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic context we were all experiencing. We tried to reduce the negative effects of face-to-face remoteness between teachers and students caused by the decisions of confinement and closure of schools. To this end, interactive formats were created in a distance learning modality, in synchronous and

Teaching and learning social research methods in social work  175

Source: Student survey. Own elaboration

Figure 12.3

Difficulty encountered in performing curricular activities (from one to ten)

asynchronous moments, which would allow the students to follow the work and would simultaneously confer autonomy to their action. In the records made throughout the teaching (in the monitoring and evaluation of the work of the trainees) we found, for example, with great regularity, that almost all students are able to describe theoretically what the stage of departure means (understood as a problem that is considered as an object of study from the basic perspective of Quivy and Campenhoudt (1996)) and what the characteristics and formats should be (Manson, 2002). However, when faced with real problems (in the format of practical case studies), among other areas, they had immense difficulties in implementation at the level of an inability to maintain neutrality in the demarcation of the object; of only being able to focus on an intervention perspective (on what they should do) rather than putting a perspective of research in advance (need for understand to intervene). The difficulties experienced in performing the curricular unit tasks which were expressed by the students of the first cycle are, in general, related to the misadjustment between the ‘time to work on the contents of the curricular unit and apply’. In the case of the students in the second cycle, there is also evidence of the difficulty of time management since, in most cases, they combine academic and professional activity. When asked about which strategies can be adopted to minimise difficulties, the students of the first cycle mentioned those linked to the need to (re)size the learning programme and reduce the workload. Advanced training students, attending the second cycle, suggest moments of ‘greater training and content application in experimental contexts’ either through practical work dynamics like problem-solving, creation of discussion spaces and, they also mentioned ‘the added value of peer-sharing’. They placed a focus on the need they felt to present their doubts to colleagues who are in a more advanced phase of research of their thesis project or have already completed their research work. This need to resort to peers to share their doubts was interesting, and refers to a construction of knowledge from a significant learning base – ‘those who have been in the same place where I am, had felt the same needs, doubts, and same concerns as me? And have they been able to solve them?’ (question placed by a master student in a classroom, Jan 2022). Upon examining the answers about the usefulness of the contents of the curricular units, two categories of analysis were observed: those related to the usefulness associated with the

176  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods understanding of social reality and another, more reflexive, related to the usefulness of learning applied in a future action, for example in a professional context. It was found that, between the first and second moment of the inquiry, there is a reinforcement of the perception of utility, especially in the added value for professional action and in the way this usefulness is related to contexts of professional activity, namely: in the understanding of the problem, in a diagnostic phase, in decision-making at the level of the intervention model and construction of the action plan. The students mention the importance of learning research methodologies and their use in their academic activity. They told above all of the contributions made in the organisation/ planning of their action during the internship (held in the last year of the course); and also how it contributes to capacity to organise research/do research in other disciplines. Some examples taken from the students’ statements illustrating the above about the academic use: The learning I have done in the curricular units of research methodologies has been useful; at the academic level it has helped greatly in the realization of the internship (second cycle student). It was remarkable in terms of internship, the use of the learning obtained in bachelor’s degree since they were applied throughout the internship. Very useful for building knowledge (second cycle student).

It is interesting to verify the transversality of the use of the skills acquired on the experimental contexts of learning. This association refers to the importance of creating the contexts of experimentation so that these experiences can constitute themselves as a set of predispositions, a habitus (Bourdieu, 2008) that guides and organises their practices. It was also motivating to observe how this usefulness gains expression in the students who followed their studies for the second cycle and are more reflexive about their past training about the usefulness in their academic and professional activity.

Source: Survey of second cycle students. Own elaboration

Figure 12.4

Utility according to the context of use

It was concluded, therefore, that the recognition of utility arises, above all, later in the academic (and experiencial) course of the student and does not happen at the moment (present) in which this student attends the respective curricular unit (Figure 12.4). This idea is reinforced in the statements of the second cycle students, especially those who are exercising their professional activity. This is visible at two levels of involvement: in a formative dimension and in the application to their professional context in the present. Whether these students are

Teaching and learning social research methods in social work  177 professionals or trainees in the professional context, uses associated with the added value of the use of methodologies in their professional action emerge in their answers. These opinions mentioned the importance for the professionalisation and construction of action of social workers on the ground. At the end of the semester, in the second moment of inquiry, when asked about the usefulness of the work performed in the semester, the usefulness of the learning performed for a more adequate construction of the professional profile is reinforced. The statements expressed the need for training in methodologies for professional exercise with a higher degree of incision, such as: Quite useful since it will allow the social worker to know which research methodologies are most effective vis-à-vis the target audience and context he wants to know and possibly act on (second cycle student).

As the main conclusions of this crossing of information, it is possible to confirm that the recognition of the importance, and usefulness of the use, of the learning of the methodologies arises upstream, whether in an advanced phase of training (the transition from the first cycle to the second cycle) and, above all, when students become professionals. In any of the training moments, the work spent on learning the methodologies is perceived as a high demand but, at the same time, as of extreme added value for the construction of professional action.

IDENTIFYING THE PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIES Based on our experience and critical analysis, we present some examples of pedagogical strategies that we have developed that others might find useful: 1. The creation of a forum on the online platform (Moodle) called questions about the contents of units, where students are encouraged to systematise their doubts and share them among colleagues. The fact that they have to formalise the issues and make their doubts understandable for themselves and to colleagues helps them to reflect on the curricular content and ways of applying it. The sharing of doubts echoed the questions between peers and, in some cases, students essaying the potential answers. This whole process was controlled, and accompanied, by the teacher. Additionally, in order to consolidate the motivation to a more active reflection on concrete doubts about the practice of social research, we decided to create an online glossary with entries corresponding to the definitions of the concepts present in forums (doubts). In the glossary, the entries associated with the concepts had the authors’ names (students). This option influenced the involvement of students and significantly increased the number of visits to the online resources. Even students who did not mention any doubt at the forum, felt encouraged to consult the information available on the online glossary. 2. Contexts of production of materials for shared use by the student collective. In this task, the students have as an evaluation element the performance of work about some points of the programme that could be made available to colleagues. These works, previously discussed with the students and certified by the teachers, constituted work documents alongside other bibliographic references used and cited by the students. The assumption is that the students who experienced the production of scientific content will thus experience the transition from consumers to producers of scientific information and, in this formative context,

178  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods verify the usefulness of the research done. This experience allowed a shared construction of information, on parity, between colleagues and teachers. In response to the challenge of constructing descriptive summaries about research methods, the students, in groups, were also concerned with understanding, systematising, and sharing their perceptions and doubts about the possible paths. 3. Periodic mentorings, via the online (Zoom) platform, for trainees who perform individual and collective work. These mentoring forums address the students of each of the groups and can be assisted by other students in the class to help them develop their own work, benefiting from the teachers’ clarifications. The existence of a complementary time (in addition to a curricular timetable) allowed a balance between collective and singular space of student’s work. The doubts were sometimes too specific and only felt by a few students. This space gained a specialised tutoring format, oriented to the student’s needs, although open to all students that intended to participate. This strategy benefited greatly from the context of the pandemic given the facility created by the online format (time management) using Zoom or other platform. This new way of working broke the constraints and the need for the logistics of the face-to-face meeting and facilitated the approximation between students and teachers. In concurrency, the tutoring format also became more informal, because it is more accessible and closer to the online work modes that students usually used. 4. Practical problem-solving, shared and discussed, in the context of classroom or virtual spaces (forums created on the Moodle platform, or in Zoom discussion forums) where the main constraints felt by the students in the exercises set were ascertained. The creation of forums for sharing information on the contents of the units became spaces for clarifying doubts mediated by the teachers, but at the same time they were spaces which favoured observation of the students’ learning dynamics and of the main difficulties encountered in the course of their work. The observation made by the teachers about the main doubts posed and the inhibitory difficulties felt by the students served to guide the way to explore the contents during the teaching of the curricular units. The perception of a greater difficulty made it necessary to equate teaching strategies that can counteract and relieve students of this predisposition which was mentioned by them several times in class or in the moments of mentoring and individualised tutorial follow-up. 5. Development of practical work, accompanied and assessed by teachers, that allows students to collectively experience the various stages of the research process. It also presupposes the collection and production of information near the professionals and institutions in an observation phase. This aspect allows students to approach professionals and understand the problem in the real context where it occurs. The applied component of this work and the contact with the problems in a real context (and in the voice of professionals) should contribute to a better perception of the usefulness of learning methodologies. Additionally, it allowed us to work individually and collectively on issues that are transversal to the research process, namely: how to manage the anxiety of contact with the fieldwork; how to resolve last minute changes that may arise, in terms of the possibility of data collection; how to comply with the correct criteria of ethical conduct in the fieldwork; how to respect individual susceptibility, particularly in cases of study participants with situations of particular vulnerability, for example, victims of domestic violence; how to manage the field of interaction and communication between researcher-participant in the study; these and other doubts are part of the investigation processes, and, particularly for

Teaching and learning social research methods in social work  179 the more inexperienced, as they are, the students, they generate greater discomfort. The concrete experience of developing the research process, as a pedagogical basis followed for the teaching-learning process, has the great plus of working not only on ‘learning by doing’, but, above all, forcing to reflect, to rebuild, to manage the doubts, fears and even the anxiety of the need for choice and decision. In this way, the competences of knowing how to be and act in social research are worked on, fundamental for any professional, particularly the social worker for whom research guides social intervention. 6. Seminar sessions, constituted as collaborative sharing forums, where students who are in an advanced stage of their master’s thesis present their work and answer questions posed by students who are at the beginning of their training. As we mentioned before, the recognition of the importance of the use of methodologies by students is not immediate and usually doesn’t happen when they are in their immediate formative contexts. As teachers, we have to be resilient. We have seen that, above all, those who attribute greater relevance to the field of research methodologies were the students who were at a later stage of their training, in particular, the students already practicing a profession. This evidence led us to create learning contexts that generated doubts based on experimental situations of professional context observations. It is expected that the perception of doubt generates a demand that implies students engage in research that produces answers/solutions/new questions. As teachers we felt like mediators of this process by facilitating access to information and, at the same time, helping students to create contexts that facilitate research that could generate responses. For instance, we promote open classes with master’s students who were in an advanced phase of their research thesis. They shared, with their less experienced colleagues, the ways in which their research projects were built and their difficulties in achieving them. This sharing between peers had effects on the motivation of the students. The level of questioning and motivation of the students increased considerably in the open class sessions, especially in the following classes, whereby in a kind of mirror effect, the students started to think about their own projects, taking into account the experiences shared by their more experienced colleagues. For teachers of social research methods, the fundamental idea/suggestion remains that more than the technical component (that is, working on the theoretical and epistemological assumptions of the research process) it is important, above all, to develop awareness, sensitivity and students’ ability to carry out research, always bearing in mind the objectives of the research processes, the ethical assumptions of their development and the appropriate adaptation to the characteristics of the fieldwork and the study participants. Social investigation implies research and construction of meanings and signifiers building the practice and theory of the various scientific fields. The teaching-learning experience will be more successful and rewarding if teachers and students are able to work these assumptions into practice, recreating in the classroom context (in person or online) and also in real research contexts, the stimulating challenge that is to investigate and seek to contribute to the identification of concrete solutions to the problems under study. The path followed by us, as teachers of social research for several years, has been this, through a continuous search for new ways and strategies to create more effective and rewarding learning environments for the student and, also, for the future professional. New methodologies and learning resources continually emerge that can and should be capitalised on to common experience; the experience we describe here also follows this assumption. The teaching and learning of social research methods should be an experience that

180  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods stimulates the challenge of discovery and for methodical doubt; based on that it is necessary to build up, with the students, a path of rewarding and edifying training that assures a better citizen and professional.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY To conclude, it seems important to plan teaching-learning contexts of methodologies that: ● allow the recognition of the usefulness of learning at the moment when it occurs with effective impacts throughout the student’s formative context; ● encourage students to have doubts, ask questions and think, in an individual and collaborative way, about the possibilities of answering these questions, leading them to conclude that there are no recipes and that they will have to build their expertise; ● enable recognition of their importance in training students in professional contexts (internships, experimental training, participation in academic projects with outputs for the community); ● foster a strong connection between students and professionals where the recognition of the need to master these skills is notable; ● allow monitoring of students through diversified, face-to-face and distance models that can respond to different learning rhythms and different needs of application methodologies. In the pedagogical practice we undertook, we tried to integrate these concerns and evidences. In all developed practices we intended to help students in their formative moments feel the need to research. We tried to follow an experiential learning paradigm (Delyser et al., 2013; Healey and Jenkins, 2000; Kolb, 1984; Noy, 2015), where the assumption is that learning only happens if it is meaningful for students, if they developed processes of divergence, assimilation, convergence and accommodation (Healey and Jenkins, 2000; Kolb, 1984). We chose a logic of involvement of students in their own learning process. We also hold them accountable for the products they have created and disseminated among peers. Analysing our work experiences, we consider that despite there being much to be done there are gains, especially when in the space of the students’ action we feel that there is a kind of incorporated, embodied predisposition (Bourdieu, 2008; Lahire, 2013) increasing in the continuity of their academic formation. This is revealed in the way some of the students act and their positions regarding the importance (and indispensability) of methodologies for organising their action in the contexts of internship and academic work. The experience we shared in this chapter is one of systematised doubts and pedagogical strategies (and their respective rationales) during the teaching-learning path of social research methods courses build up with two classes of social work students, in different training cycles. In the absence of ready-made pedagogic recipes, we have sought to develop and share guidelines that can be useful to teachers and students in this field to improve practice. We argue that despite the natural differences that come with different contexts, there are always common structural issues. We will become better teachers if we apply the assumptions of social research in practice, that is, if we always ask ourselves how we can do more and better to enable students to know how to do research and to become aware of its real scientific and professional usefulness.

Teaching and learning social research methods in social work  181

REFERENCES Adam, N., Zosky, D. and Unrau, Y. (2004). Improving the research climate in social work curricula. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 24(3–4), 1–18. Adams, R., Dominelli, L. and Payne M. (2002). Critical Practice in Social Work. New York: Palgrave. Baikady, R., Pulla, V. and Channaveer, R.M. (2014). Social work education in India and Australia. International Journal of Social Work and Human Services Practice, 2(6), 311–318. Baptista, M.V. (2001). Social Work Research. Lisbon, São Paulo: CPIHTS, Veras. Bourdieu, P. (2008). Practical Reason. On the Theory of Action. São Paulo: Papirus Editora. Branco, F. (2008). Research in social work in Portugal: Trajectories and perspectives. Locus Soci@l, 1/2008, 48–63. Cerwonka A. and Malkki L.H. (2007). Improvising Theory. Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DeLyser, D., Potter, A., Chaney, J. et al. (2013) Teaching qualitative research: Experiential learning in group-based interviews and coding assignments. Journal of Geography, 112(1), 18–28. Einbinder, S.D. (2014). Reducing research anxiety among MSW students. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34(1), 2–16. Faleiros, V. (1997). Strategies in Social Work. Sao Paulo: Cortez. Fish, J. (2015). Investigating approaches to the teaching of research in undergraduate social work programs: A research note. British Journal of Social Work, 45, 1060–1067. Hardcastle, D. and Bisman, C. (2003). Innovations in teaching social work research education. Social Work Education: An International Journal, 22(1), 31–43. Healey, M. and Jenkins, A. (2000) Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in Higher Education. Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185–195. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014) Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. Knee, R.T. (2002). Can service learning enhance student understanding of social work research? Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22(1–2), 213–225. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experimental Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Lahire, B. (2013). Dans les plis singuliers du social. Individus, institutions, socializations [In the Singular Folds of the Social. Individuals, Institutions, Socializations]. Paris: La Décourverte. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. Lundahl, B.W. (2008). Teaching research methodology through active learning. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 28(1–2), 273–288. MacIntyre, G. and Paul, S. (2012). Teaching research in social work: Capacity and challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 43(4), 685–702. Macke, C. and Tapp, K. (2012). Teaching research to MSW students: Effectiveness of the team-based learning pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32(2), 148–160. Manson, J. (2002). Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Martins, A. (2008). Research in Social Serviço in Contemporary Portugal. Paradoxes and challenges. Locus Soci@l, 1, 32–47. Monteiro, D. and Branco, F. (2021). The teaching of the research methodology in the initial training in social work: Between the transversality required and the predominance of qualitative methodology. New Trend in Qualitative Research, 7, 95–106. Noy, C. (2015). An aikidõka’s contribuition to the teaching of qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research, 15(1), 4–21. Quivy, R. and Campenhoudt, L.V. (1996). Manual of Research in Social Sciences. Lisbon: Gradiva. Wagner, C., Garner, M. and Kawulich, B. (2011). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 75–88. Webb, S.A. (2001). Some considerations on the validity of evidence-based practice in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31(1), 57–79.

13. Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing: a developmental approach Kathryn Roulston and Brigette A. Herron

INTRODUCTION Whether instructors teach in traditional on-campus learning environments in which they meet with students in-person (what we refer to as “face-to-face” instruction) or work with students at a distance (what we refer to as “online” instruction using “asynchronous” or “synchronous” tools), teaching qualitative interviewing involves preparing novice researchers to face a number of challenges. Novice researchers can find it difficult to pose clear questions and follow up on what participants say, feel challenged by unexpected events during their studies, surprised by their own responses, and struggle to manage interactions to do with sensitive topics (Roulston et al., 2003). The increasing number of methods texts on qualitative research methods (e.g., Tracy, 2020), along with specific texts on interviewing (e.g., Brinkmann and Kvale, 2015; Roulston, 2022) provide rich resources for learning about interviewing. In addition to engaging with readings from these sorts of texts, how might instructors facilitate activities that enable students to develop practical skills in interviewing? What do novice researchers need to know and be able to do in order to conduct qualitative research interviews effectively? We begin by discussing literature on teaching interviewing before discussing students’ learning experiences related to an interview project in an introductory qualitative methods course delivered in both face-to-face and online learning contexts. Students’ reflections and interview transcriptions provide insights into the issues that novice researchers encounter in learning how to conduct research interviews that inform instructors on how to prepare students for this work. Excerpts from students’ interview projects are drawn from a 2021 study where we collaboratively examined 12 graduate students’ work samples from two sections of a semester-long introductory qualitative research methods course that was taught by the first author. Seven students (of 17 total) were in a face-to-face section, and five students (of 20 total) were in an asynchronous online section delivered using the institution’s Learning Management System (LMS). The asynchronous section was supported by synchronous meetings that students could choose to attend, while the face-to-face section was supported by resources in the LMS. We conclude the chapter by providing recommendations for how instructors might scaffold instruction for students with different levels of expertise to develop the knowledge, skills, and reflexive capacities to competently use qualitative interviews in their research.

182

Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing  183

LITERATURE REVIEW Scholars of qualitative inquiry have written about pedagogical strategies to teach interviewing. In a review Roulston (2012) identified two strands emphasised by educators. The first approach involves encouraging students to practice interviewing using coursework and/or independent projects. The second strand involves encouraging students to reflect on interviews and interview transcripts, whether generated from their own research or looking closely at interviews of others. Similarly, Hoover et al. (2018) reported training three undergraduate students to conduct qualitative interviews. They proposed encouraging development across three domains: procedural (learning about practical issues of how to interview), interpersonal (managing human interaction), and reflexive (encouraging interviewers to reflect on action). The domains of procedural and interpersonal skills relate to issues that can be developed through practice, while the reflexive domain concerns students reflecting on interviewing practice. This case also found that as students increased skill levels within these domains, they moved through three development stages, from directed interviewer, guided interviewer, to collegial interviewer. Hoover et al. (2018) suggested that this framework can support training undergraduates to conduct qualitative interviews. Similarly, Miller et al. (2020) found that journalism educators described a variety of pedagogical approaches they used with students learning to conduct interviews. These included issues related to practice (observation, simulation, and direct experience) and reinforcement or feedback from instructors or peers, which could be considered an attempt to encourage reflection amongst students about their work. Other scholars have focused on the importance of learning about the method within a group context. Sattin-Bajaj (2018) described an approach to training a team of researchers to interview middle school students and their parents, emphasising the ability to ask unscripted and follow-up questions through learning in a team context. Additionally, Makagon (2013) noted the importance of group learning to help students understand more about conducting qualitative interviews in ethnographic fieldwork. Instead of individual researchers working alone, Makagon described students interviewing participants as part of a team during fieldwork. This approach allowed students to process and understand some of the complex issues that can arise in interviews, including challenges related to recruiting participants, researcher-participant relationships, the impact of the temporal and spatial scenes where interviews take place, and nuances of translation during interviews. Similar to Sattin-Bajaj (2018), Makagon’s approach emphasised the importance of collective fieldwork and experiential learning to teaching qualitative interviewing. Scholars have also reported on innovative ways to teach qualitative interviewing that emphasise practice and reflection. For instance, Kara and Brooks (2020) explored the potential of comics to bridge the gap between classroom learning and practice for inexperienced researchers. The comic, Conversation with a Purpose, created by Helen Kara and illustrated by Sophie Jackson, is an example of a resource that instructors can use to support teaching qualitative interviewing, and is freely available on Kara’s website.1 Conversation with a Purpose deals with the ambiguities of qualitative interviewing through the story of a student’s first real-world interview. These included interviewing strangers, dealing with the emotional aspects of interviewing, building rapport, and reflecting on practice. The authors offer discussion questions to prompt readers’ reflections on interviewing, noting that comics are useful, although under-utilised, tools for teaching qualitative methods (e.g., see Galman,

184  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods 2007). We believe that comics could be used to encourage students’ practice and reflection in either online or face-to-face teaching contexts. We, Herron and Roulston (2021), described an approach to teaching in-depth interviewing in which the tools of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis are used to help students “slow down” and “dig deep” into the social aspects of interview practice by focusing on interview excerpts and the micro aspects of talk. Drawing from case examples in undergraduate and graduate level classrooms, this approach encourages critical reflection about interviewing practice across various levels of student experience and uses a variety of sources for interview excerpts, including archived collections and media and celebrity interviews (Herron and Roulston, 2021). While the bulk of work on pedagogical strategies explores teaching in face-to-face contexts, we have located one example in which instructors used a virtual environment to teach students how to conduct research interviews. Kawulich and D’Alba (2019) taught a qualitative research methods course in the 3-Dimensional Online Environment Second Life. This allowed students in a doctoral level research class to practice conducting interviews with other users interacting and role-playing using avatars. Students found conducting a project in Second Life to be an innovative way to develop their research skills, since it involved recruiting participants, conducting interviews, and taking fieldnotes of observations. Students reported on the affective aspects of conducting research, and reflected on the challenges they encountered conducting research online. Participants reported the activity as useful for developing skills related to creating interview questions and conducting interviews. There is a growing body of literature that examines how interviewing skills are taught for the purpose of qualitative research as well as for professional purposes such as journalism. Key components of instruction include facilitating learning opportunities in which students develop knowledge and skills in (1) navigating the practicalities of interviewing; (2) managing interpersonal interactions; and (3) reflecting on action (i.e., developing reflexivity). Some scholars have shown that students benefit from developing these skills through team research, and how these activities might be facilitated in a virtual environment. We next introduce what we bring to the teaching of qualitative interviewing.

OUR PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING INTERVIEWING Kathy: My teaching of qualitative research interviewing has been informed by my research on how students orient to class activities in a semester-long course on interview methods (Roulston et al., 2003, Roulston et al., 2008). In both research and teaching I have observed similarities in the challenges that novice interviewers face: they frequently find it difficult to both listen to what interviewees say and formulate what to say next, and they are disconcerted when the unexpected occurs. And sometimes other challenges emerge – recruiting participants for a study can be more difficult than anticipated, or managing the technical issues of recording and transcribing interviews might involve learning new technical skills. And this is before working on how to analyse and interpret interview data and represent the findings of their studies! As much as I urge students to slow down, relax and enjoy the experience, some students come to initial interviews feeling anxious about meeting course requirements. For example, one student captured the quandaries of learning how to interview thus:

Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing  185 I think I over-prepared and asked too many questions. I seemed to forget the human element of the interview, and I don’t know if I was so focused on meeting the time limit or obtaining a usable recording that I forgot to enjoy myself and my research participant. (Hannah, face-to-face student, pseudonyms are used throughout)

Sometimes students focus on eliciting information from participants that aligns with their own preconceptions of what they hope to find. When this happens, transcripts tend to be densely populated with awkwardly formulated questions that have assumptions about what interviewers believe the answers to be. If students fail to recognise the attributes of their own talk, they can miss opportunities to develop their skills as reflective researchers. In teaching, I’ve found that students learn much from their initial interviews, and when provided with prompts for what to observe, ably make plans for future practice. Brigette: I became interested in teaching interviewing after doing an independent study with Kathy where I conducted a membership categorisation analysis (MCA) of a “failed” interview from a master’s level research project. My in-depth revisiting of my practice as a novice interviewer helped me appreciate the ways I both overestimated and underestimated my ability to conduct interviews (Herron, 2019). With the benefit of more experience, I would advise my former self that while interviews may be conversations with a purpose, effective interviewing has more to do with good listening than being a good conversationalist. A good interviewer knows how to follow up on important topics, remain present, and listen attentively to participants. However, conducting interviews effortlessly requires practice and the ability to look back on times when we have been poor listeners, distracted, concerned with a particular aspect of our research, or preoccupied with how interviewees perceive us. Imparting this understanding to novice interviewers is challenging, especially in light of the portrayals of “good interviewing” in popular media. When teaching undergraduates about interviewing in online and face-to-face settings, I was surprised by students’ perceptions – mostly from popular media – of what makes a good interviewer. I have trained adult professionals to conduct interviews as part of a grant-funded research project, and just like undergraduate students, they often shared the same examples of celebrity interviewers as exemplifying good interviewing. Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, Howard Stern, Terry Gross, Barbara Walters, and more — are mentioned as examples of interviewers to imitate. A challenge for instructors involves helping students from various backgrounds recognise that what works in a highly edited celebrity interview might not work in “real world” research interviews. Rather than emphasising being entertaining or sensational, how can we as educators highlight the crucial skill of listening and being present in the interview moment? This is also made difficult by students’ desires for step-by-step guides for the “correct” technique. In reality developing “good” interview practice often has the prerequisite of stumbling through messy, uncomfortable practice, and reflecting on the journey.

A DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH TO TEACHING INTERVIEWING In this chapter we outline a developmental approach to teaching interviewing that we have explored through practice and research (see Table 13.1). This approach involves (1) examining interviewers’ practices (e.g., through popular media or archived research interviews); (2)

186  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Table 13.1

Sequence of activities: Moving from review of interviews derived from popular media to independent practice

Activities and descriptions

Student learning outcomes

1. Examining other interviewers’ practices (e.g.,

Students will be able to:

media or archived interviews)

Identify the contextual features of interviews (e.g., setting, editing, framing,

Instructor-led activity with class discussion

persons involved etc.)

Individual reflection using instructor-selected

Identify key features of interview interaction (e.g., turn-taking, interruptions

excerpts

etc.)

Individual reflection using self-selected excerpts

Analyse how interviewers pose questions and follow-up on interviewees’ answers Interpret the purpose and credibility of the interview

2. Contributing to a class project

Identify potential ethical issues relative to the interview Students will be able to:

(instructor-initiated) or developing

Describe how interview guides relate to research questions posed

a collaborative interview project on

Conduct an interview using an interview guide

a class-selected topic

Accurately transcribe interview data using appropriate technologies

Conduct individual interviews using instructor or

Analyse how interviewers pose questions and follow-up on interviewees’

class-developed interview guide

answers

Transcribe interviews

Assess the effectiveness of an interview for generating data to meet the needs

Engage in peer review of interviews

of the research project

Contribute to analysis and interpretation of

Analyse and interpret interview data for presentation (e.g., a collaboratively

interview data

written report, a poster presentation, or a presentation to the class and/or

Present findings from the study in text or oral

stakeholders)

formats 3. Developing and conducting a self-initiated

Students will be able to:

interview project

Develop an interview guide

Develop an interview guide

Conduct an interview

Conduct individual interview/s using interview

Analyse how interviewers pose questions and follow-up on interviewees’

guide

answers

Transcribe interview/s

Analyse the interviewer’s contribution to the co-construction of interview

Analyse the interviewer’s actions in the interview/s

data

Contribute to analysis and interpretation of

Describe the interviewer’s subject positions relative to the interview project

interview data

and participant/s

Present findings from the study in text or oral

Assess the effectiveness of the interview for generating data to meet the

formats

needs of the research project Analyse and interpret interview data Report on the findings of the project using text or oral formats (e.g., a written report, a poster presentation, a class presentation, a screencast, or a podcast) Identify ethical issues relative to the research project

Source: Adapted and reprinted from Roulston and Herron (2022). Teaching interviewing in qualitative research: Learning from cinematic society. In J. C. Richards, A. Skukauskaite and R. Chenail (Eds.), Engaging Students in Socially Constructed Qualitative Research Pedagogies. Brill/Sense. By kind permission from Brill Academic Publishers, 11 January 2022.

conducting a class-based project involving the conduct of interviews on an instructor-initiated or class-selected topic; and (3) developing a self-initiated interview project. With the consent of students, we include illustrative excerpts drawn from interview projects that students undertook as part of qualitative coursework.

Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing  187 For students conducting a first research interview, we endeavour to structure activities where students can deeply reflect on their practice. Whatever type of interview is selected, all speakers come to interviews with different conversational skills and positionalities that inform how they take up and orient to what interviewees say. It is crucial for interviewers to recognise their own conversational practices and think about the implications for the data they plan to generate in their research. For example, if speakers tend to express empathy for others through agreement in ordinary conversation, it could be challenging for them to follow up with interviewees when they disagree with what has been said. Over-identifying with participants through expressions of agreement can also lead to interviewers sharing their own stories in ways that hinder participants’ narrations. This does not mean that we support a rule-based and prescriptive approach to the conduct of interviews in qualitative research. Rather, we are advocating that novice researchers can benefit from initially learning about interviewing through a relatively structured instructional approach before experimenting with other styles of interviewing. We believe that well-prepared students have a solid grasp of various theorisations of interviews in methodological literature, demonstrate skill in listening to interviewees and eliciting detailed accounts, show the capacity to reflect on their practice, and understand the implications of their actions for the generation of qualitative data. We have written elsewhere about the kinds of preparatory activities that teachers can use to prompt students to examine other interviewers’ practices (Roulston and Herron, 2022). When introducing qualitative interviewing, instructors can make use of a range of resources for students to observe how interviewers ask questions, what works, and what is less effective in eliciting interviewees’ accounts. This aligns with Miller et al.’s (2020) idea of observation as an initial step in learning to interview. Students can draw on interviews in cinematic society (Denzin, 2018) and use archived research projects to learn about practice by critically examining others’ interview interaction (Hsiung, 2016) (see Table 13.1 [1]). In this chapter, we focus on the next step, in which students conduct an interview using a shared topic (see Table 13.1 [2]). Kathy has used a professional life history guide adapted from one developed by a colleague, Judith Preissle, in which students recruit a participant to learn about how they came to their current occupation. Instructors can also make use of a collaboratively developed interview guide concerning a student-selected topic as the basis for a class project or take advantage of opportunities for students to conduct interviews for another stakeholder. For example, Kathy’s students have conducted oral history interviews for a centennial celebration at her institution, worked with the research coordinator for a funded project, and conducted interview projects to gain client feedback concerning services for other campus units. These projects challenged students to interview strangers. An advantage of students conducting interviews on the same topic is that they can examine how others activate the same interview guide with different participants. Thus, students gain a sense of the flexibility of semi-structured interviews to generate different accounts depending on the speakers involved. As a beginning activity, conducting a supervised interview project on a topic that is not necessarily related to students’ individual research interests can provide rich material for them to examine how they ask questions and respond to interviewees. By focusing on the development of the practical skills involved in interview research (recruiting a participant, scheduling interviews, asking questions and following up on talk, and transcribing talk), a course project can serve as a low-stakes activity in which students can reflect on what they

188  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods did. Activities that allow students to make mistakes in a supportive environment prepare them to engage in higher-stakes projects such as thesis or dissertation research or funded projects. Instructors working with advanced students who have prior experience in research interviewing, or who teach semester-long coursework on interviewing might move from conducting practice interviews in classroom contexts to facilitating spaces for students to conduct individual projects approved by ethical review boards (Table 13.1 [3]). Next, we discuss novice researchers’ experiences in conducting a course-based interview project in an introductory qualitative methods course. Most of the students whose work we examined for this chapter were conducting their first research interview, and all gave their permission to use excerpts from transcriptions and reflections for this chapter. We provided all participants with a draft of this chapter for review and comment.

WHAT STUDENTS CAN LEARN FROM A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROJECT Structured interview projects allow students to gain experience in a non-threatening context and analyse their interviewing skills. Students typically report enjoying conducting an interview. This provides practical experience with qualitative research methods and allows students to relate their embodied experiences to the theories and methods they have read about. Students learn that generating data using interviews is not as simple as it seems, and is but one part of a larger sequence of activities. For example, Diane, an online student, wrote: Qualitative research interviewing processes are involved and complex. The process is beyond the time of the interview with the participant. Interviews take preplanning, self-reflexivity, interview set up, media selection (e.g., in-person, online), tool selection (e.g., recorders), technological ability, consent, self-learning (e.g., how to conduct a qualitative research interview), engagement with the interviewee, follow-up with the interviewee, transcription, file conversions, note taking, theme analysis, paper writing, and much more.

Overall, we observed that this scaffolded learning activity allowed students to (1) develop the ability to reflect methodologically on their interview practice; (2) learn and practice procedural skills involved in interviewing; and (3) consider design issues. Let’s look at examples of the issues that students discussed in their reflections and that we observed in transcripts. Developing the Ability to Reflect Methodologically on Interview Practice Guiding reflection questions (see Roulston et al., 2003) provided students prompts for what to look at in interview transcripts, while assigned readings provided insights from methodological literature. A structured interview assignment provides students with an opportunity to learn about their interviewees’ life experiences while simultaneously developing their skills in conducting, transcribing and reflecting on interviews and planning for future practice. For example, Janice, a face-to-face student, commented: Overall, conducting this interview was a wonderful experience and allowed me to analyse my current skill level and potential areas of improvement. I believe that practicing interviews will increase my comfort levels and improve my overall interviewing skills. Furthermore, I think I need to determine which interviewing stance I want to take prior to the start, which will help guide me in deciding what

Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing  189 questions to ask. Not only did this experience help me with interviewing skills, but also provided me with new information and knowledge about the topic of homeschooling in America. Therefore, I am excited for the experiences that future interviews may bring.

As another example, Ian (another face-to-face student) recognised his need to speak more slowly and undertake more preparation for the questions he wanted to ask: In conclusion, I enjoyed this task, and I learned a lot about how difficult it is to interview someone you know while also already having that rapport with them to be able to ask questions that might be difficult to ask others as well as receive honest answers from others. I also learned that I need to slow down my talking and take notes during the interview. I also need to prepare more concrete questions ahead of time instead of just a list of topics that I would like to address during the questioning.

Others noticed missed opportunities to ask questions and other attributes of their own talk, as well as how their own subject positions were implicated in the ways they communicated with the interviewee. For example, Farrah (face-to-face student) commented: If Stephanie [interviewee] and I did not have a pre-established relationship, I believe that I would have faced some challenges with the interview such as a slow start, some pauses and breaks, and me having to prompt Stephanie with more follow up questions. The same experience could have occurred if Stephanie and I did not share the same racial and gender identity. Stephanie may have felt that she had to explain in more detail things that occurred in her department or may simply not felt comfortable telling me the truthful details of her racialised and gendered background.

Students also develop expertise in how to transcribe and format interviews, and gain a sense of the amount of time needed to do this work. For example, Diane wrote: The Zoom transcript was corrected and updated into a Word file in the format requested. The transcript took the longest since as I learned more, I kept editing the transcript. The interview being 50 minutes long and having to listen to the interview for each update, took an inordinate amount of time.

The process of transcribing and formatting interviews also helps students begin to recognise the various procedural skills needed for interviewing, a subject we discuss next. Learning and Practicing Procedural Skills Involved in Interviewing The ability to ask questions effectively, listen to participants intently, and follow up on what participants say is crucial to becoming an effective research interviewer. In their reflections, students talked about the challenges of listening to participants and following up on what they said. Let’s look at these issues in turn. Listening and attending fully to participants One of the challenges that students repeatedly discussed in their reflections was fully attending to what their interviewees were saying, while simultaneously thinking about what question to ask next or taking notes on what was being said. For example, Evan (a face-to-face student) reported: One of the most challenging aspects for me is that I had to remind myself a few times that the conversation was being recorded, and to be “present” with the participant.

190  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Janice discussed thinking about what her participant had just said during the interview and not being fully attentive: The first thing that stood out to me when I completed the interview was that when I formulated a question which would allow the interviewee to expand on a specific topic, in my own mind, I would perseverate on it, instead of fully listening to the rest of the response. As a result, during the transcription process, I realised I had missed out on several interesting points because of my inability to fully engage with some of the content.

Being able to fully attend to what interviewees say was challenging for these novice interviewers since they were still getting comfortable with how to ask follow-up questions. Our review of interviewers’ transcriptions indicated that many students struggled with asking clear, follow-up questions. Formulating clear, open-ended follow up questions Novice interviewers’ transcriptions frequently included examples of convoluted multi-part questions, leading questions, and closed questions. And sometimes, rather than asking follow-up questions related to what participants said to elicit further descriptions, interviewers failed to follow up, instead resorting to asking the next question on the interview guide. Other times, in an effort to keep the conversation going, students struggled to formulate clear, open-ended follow-up questions. For instance, Cheng (an online student), who was interviewing a friend who they had met online through a shared interest in sports fandom asked the following, Yeah. Okay. Okay. I got it. Uh, and also, I’m curious about, how’s the job networking in, in China, like, a way apply for this job? Do you, uh, do some preparation, like, you know, somebody in the industry or someone on the team, so that makes your job application process easier. Is there anything like that?

This type of wordy, unfocused question is typical of novice interviewers who are still adjusting to the practice of formulating clear follow-up questions while remaining present in the interview. Another student, Ian, commented on his use of these kinds of questions in his reflection: I noticed that as I interviewed, I tended to ask the questions to where it seemed more like a conversation. This was difficult because I noticed, when I played it back, that I got hung up with my words a few times.

In another example of students’ struggles with asking follow-up questions, Bo (online student) talked about forgetting to pose follow-up questions that she had prepared prior to conducting her interview: Before the interview, I prepared some potential follow-up questions such as “when you say…, what do you mean”, “that’s interesting, tell me more,” etc., since I don’t think the interview guide is fixed and the interviewer should 100 percent follow it…. If the situation changes, it is better to change the interview questions. I thought such follow-up questions might help me [deepen] understanding [of] the participant’s experience through the interview. However, it is hard for me to remember [to ask] these follow-up questions.

Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing  191 By identifying what occurred in her first interview, Bo can compare how she conducts future interviews concerning her own research interests, and try out the sort of follow-up questions that she prepared but failed to ask during this interview. Another student commented on the need to do more preparation on how they would follow up on topics that emerged spontaneously. Keith (online student) wrote: …after transcribing the interview recording, I realised that I had not prepared very well for those spontaneous conversations, and such conversations are much more common than I expected. The wording of the unplanned questions is not as good as those planned questions. Therefore, I not only need to prepare for the designated questions before the interview but also for the potential questions. Fortunately, Jim understood what I meant very well and provided meaningful answers to me.

In the transcripts that we examined, interviewers typically acknowledged interviewees’ accounts with numerous positive assessments (e.g., “awesome,” “that’s great,” “that sounds amazing”). Assessments like these are not problematic when discussing non-sensitive topics, nor when working with participants with whom one agrees. Yet by recognising this proclivity, students can think through how they will acknowledge participants’ responses when they discuss controversial topics, or when participants make offensive comments. Ian acknowledged tensions around expressing his opinions when interviewing his friend, Another thing that was difficult in this process was not being able to voice my own opinion when I asked her a question. I know that she read my face when she spoke because I know I was either nodding or shaking my head when she was answering the questions.

Acknowledging what can occur when an interviewer responds with frequent affirmations or facial expressions can help novice interviewers cope with the unexpected in interviews, such as a difference in opinion. Next, we explore the topic of dealing with the unexpected in more detail. Dealing with the unexpected Like Roulston et al. (2003) found, novice researchers struggled when unexpected things occurred. For example, Janice, who took a face-to-face class, talked about what happened when her interviewee expressed a political viewpoint she disagreed with. Rather than exploring the participant’s viewpoints further, Janice chose to ask the next interview question. She reported: “I think [my interviewee’s] responses sparked some negative feelings that I experienced before, which caused me to want to immediately end the topic, rather than continue it.” The more interviews one conducts, the greater the likelihood that one will encounter disagreeing viewpoints. By recognising her actions in this instance, and identifying alternative strategies to forward interaction, Janice is better prepared to explore participants’ viewpoints should this kind of event occur in future interviews. As a second example, faced with a family-member who had agreed to an interview but was reluctant to talk on the record, Geoff (a face-to-face student) was surprised by her request to not only turn the recording device off, but review the interview questions. After passing his sole copy of the interview guide to his interviewee, Geoff was challenged to restart the interview using the now shared interview guide: About three minutes into the interview, Robin said she felt uncomfortable and asked to stop the recording devices. I did so and Robin asked to see the interview protocol so she could think through

192  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods them a bit. It was an odd experience for me to share the interview protocol, but in the spirit of making her comfortable and being transparent I conducted the rest of the interview with the protocol facing Robin and we essentially shared the document. While I think this helped her feel more comfortable, it also led to some difficulties that I describe elsewhere.

These sorts of events are important in novice researchers’ learning trajectory, since they represent a fraction of the unanticipated things that can occur during a research study. We cannot predict what will occur during interviews, let alone larger studies. Exhibiting flexibility to deal with emergent situations, whatever they may be, is a critical skill for qualitative researchers to develop. Students also recognised design issues that had potential relevance to their own research. Let’s look at this further. Identifying Design Issues of Relevance to a Study Some students identified design issues of significance for their research. For example, these included the choice of language for conducting an interview, the value of interviews for learning about others’ lives, and thinking about space and place in interviewing. Let us look at these next. For students working with participants in cross-language research or interviewing participants in a non-native language, considering the implications of what language to conduct the interview in is an important design issue. Lin (online student), for example, interviewed a family friend, with whom she had never spoken using English. Ultimately, she chose to interview him in the shared non-native language of English. She wrote: One interesting thing I noticed is that the conversation atmosphere changed right after turning off the recorder and talking with Sam in Chinese. We were still talking about his job, but we two both felt more relaxed. When I listened back to the audio recording, I felt his answers were very “official”, compared to his talk that was not recorded. For example, he listed points while answering questions. It sounds more like answering questions to a job interviewer. Welch and Piekkari (2006) point out this may influence the accuracy and richness of data. They mentioned a study of interviewing Chinese middle managers in English, and their English use was called “corporate English – in other words, the English they [Chinese middle managers] heard in the workplace and used to perform their professional roles” (p. 428). I have never thought about this point, but it makes sense to me. Because when I told Sam that his answers covered a lot of my possible probes, and I ran out of most of my pre-prepared questions within the first 20 minutes, he told me that was because my questions were very similar to the behaviour questions in his job interview. He had to include multiple aspects within one answer. In this case, I do not think I am worried about the data accuracy; however, I wonder whether I would get richer or deeper answers if I had done this interview in Chinese.

Here, Lin reflected on a key design issue of relevance for anyone conducting cross-cultural research involving speakers of multiple languages. As Lin demonstrated in this reflection, novice researchers who conduct interviews with multilingual people can benefit from examining literature on translation, interpretation, and language of choice. Through generating interview data, novice researchers also learn how the interview method can be used to explore topics of interest. For instance, Bo reported: By doing these four steps [(1) specifying interview questions; (2) recruiting a participant; (3) conducting and transcribing the interview; (4) and reflecting on the process], I perceived that the semi-structured interview is a great methodology that allows both the interviewer and the interviewee

Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing  193 to be interviewed flexib[ly] to go into details. Besides, the semi-structured interviews also allow the interviewee the freedom to express their views, which can provide reliable qualitative data.

Farrah wrote of experimenting with how to think about her interview with different theoretical frameworks to further her understanding of Black women’s experience in the STEM field: I also let this interview be guided by a symbolic interactionism approach to understand how Stephanie’s interactions with individuals in her STEM field shaped her beliefs and attitudes about herself, how she conceptualises her racial and gendered experiences, and understand the relationships that she may have within individuals in STEM.

Interviewers also consider the space and place, and the technologies involved. For example, Geoff pondered potential reasons for why his interview of a family member proved challenging: …we did the interview in my dining room. In putting out my notebook and my recording devices, I think I made the space more sterile than necessary. Specifically, I think Robin felt she was entering a formal space with a different set of rules than the rest of the house. Before and after the interview, she was very open and highly emotive. Sitting at the table and having the recording devices appeared to make her uncomfortable and quieter though. While I attempted to rebuild rapport through reassuring utterances (e.g., “Okay”), we never reached a place with as much candour as she had with the devices off.

This reflection on the space in which the interview was conducted along with the impact of a recording device prompted Geoff to think about giving participants a choice about where they might be interviewed (“I think meeting in a space the participant controls and that they are already in would be useful.”). Of course, there may be times when researchers need to decide on the space and place for an interview for good reasons (e.g., the safety of the interviewer). Here, Geoff’s reflection on the place and space for an interview is a design issue worth considering (see Sand et al., 2021). Finally, when students genuinely reflect on their practice, they develop plans for what to do next. These plans will look different depending on what students experienced, and what they observed about their practice. For example, students whose projects we examined provided suggestions concerning how they might prepare and conduct interviews and reflect on what they do in the future: In the future, I would like to explore ways to engage more fully in a semi-structured interview approach, in which the interview is “more flexible and organic in nature” (Tracy, 2020, p. 158). (Anna, online student)

Often in these reflections, students highlighted the need for more practice to become more comfortable and adept at interviewing, and as Hannah explained, “Those lessons will come only from experience.” Her classmate Evan also explained, I wish I had spent this time more actively engaged with the participant. I think this issue arose for me simply because I am new at conducting interview studies. I am hoping that with more practice that the process will just become smoother…I hope to be able to practice this process more in order to be ready for when I do start [doing] research.

194  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Reflection on previous actions helped students plan for additional practice interviewing as they prepare to undertake more research. We next discuss caveats and recommendations for teaching interviewing.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHING As a caveat, we would like to point out that interview assignments like those described in this chapter can serve as a beginning to developing one’s interviewing skills. Numerous textbooks and methodological articles expand on the nuances of designing research using interviews, including theorisations of interviews, how researchers might attend to the needs of specific populations, or make use of various methods of elicitation to conduct in-person interviews. Methodological literature speaks to how researchers go about recruiting participants, and working with translators and interpreters to conduct individual, dyadic and group interviews in face-to-face and online contexts. There is enormous variety in how qualitative interview studies might be designed and conducted (Roulston and Halpin, 2022). We believe that the third stage (Table 13.1 [3]) in which students gain feedback on individual research projects in which they employ interviews will allow them to review literature concerning relevant methodological issues (for initial reference lists for interviews and focus groups, see https://​qualpage​.com/​resources​-for​-teaching/​). To conclude, we provide recommendations for instructors working with novice researchers as they begin to explore qualitative interviewing methods. These include recognising the limitations of course projects, supporting students in identifying question types, allowing for flexibility in course requirements, and tailoring online instruction. Recognise the Limitations of Course Projects Class projects conducted for course credit rather than as part of an authentic research project are just that: class projects. Students are guided by the criteria set by the instructor. For example, when looking at transcriptions of interviews conducted as part of the two introductory courses in qualitative methods we examined, we found repeated references to meeting the minimum duration requirement for the assignment (e.g., “We are almost successful to keep the time within 30 minutes”). This suggests that course requirements are, understandably, at the forefront of students’ minds when conducting interviews. And when students choose to interview friends and family members, they are unlikely to extend their development of interpersonal skills needed to interview strangers. As mentioned earlier, one way to provide an authentic experience for students is to facilitate projects in which students conduct interviews for an external stakeholder. The instructor might collaborate with another researcher or unit on campus to develop an authentic project that is reviewed by the ethics review board prior to a course. Support Students in Identifying Different Question Types and How These are Taken Up We found that some students did not recognise “leading questions,” “closed questions” or issues to do with including assumptions in the questions posed in spite of being provided with

Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing  195 prompts to identify these phenomena in transcriptions. In some instances, it may be useful to provide direct instruction using actual examples of different types of interview questions so that students are clear on what to look for. Concrete examples could be drawn from the instructor’s interviews, archived interviews, or with permission, prior students’ interviews. These examples can be supplemented by readings on practical aspects of conducting interviews. By examining different question formulations from actual interaction, students will begin to recognise how these work in interaction, and that interviewees do not always orient to particular kinds of questions in problematic ways. For example, participants sometimes provide short factual answers when asked closed questions, but this does not always happen. The lesson here is to help novice researchers identify and attend to the recurrent features of particular interviews that they conduct. Allow for Flexibility in Requirements for Assignments As we have argued in this chapter, when students have not conducted a qualitative interview, it is helpful to provide a structured activity as a starting point. More experienced students might be given the option of pursuing advanced activities. For example, they could develop their own interview guide, and explore a different interview model (e.g., photo or object elicitation) with a dyad or group. For example, one online student, Anna, came to the course having conducted qualitative interviews. She developed her own interview guide for the course project and experimented with graphic elicitation. Tailoring Online Instruction We believe that it is possible to facilitate rich learning experiences in the teaching of qualitative research methods, and interviewing in particular, in both face-to-face and online contexts. In the online course discussed here, students were provided with a video of a research interview that the instructor had conducted, together with a transcript (permission for using this interview for teaching and research purposes was granted by the participant). In the face-to-face class, the instructor modelled the conduct of an interview with a student volunteer. Nevertheless, one of the challenges in teaching coursework in asynchronous learning environments is that students do not always attend to instructions. When Kathy compared students’ assignments derived from in-person face-to-face delivery to asynchronous instruction, it was evident that some students (three of 20) in the online course did not follow the instructions, whereas this did not occur in the face-to-face class. It seems possible that some students did not review all of the course materials available to them in the LMS. Therefore, in online coursework, we find it useful to repeat instructions in multiple modalities (e.g., emailed written instructions, screencasts, synchronous online meetings), and provide reminders concerning what is expected of students. For both the online and face-to-face sections discussed here, the instructor used the same requirements for the interview assignment, and provided students with grading rubrics and examples of prior students’ work (e.g., reflection papers with former students’ permission) to help them understand the course requirements.

196  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY We have discussed a development approach to teaching interviewing in which students engage in a variety of activities in different phases of their development (i.e., reflection, working on course projects, and working on independent projects) as part of introductory and advanced coursework on interviewing and qualitative research methods (Herron and Roulston, 2021; Roulston et al., 2003; Roulston et al., 2008). Further research could examine how team research could support students’ learning, as well as how early career scholars’ interview practices develop over the course of an independent project. By drawing attention to the details of interview interaction, researchers gain an understanding of their conversational skills, and the kinds of events that take place when undertaking research interviews. Although researchers are steeped in interviews in contemporary society, conducting a “good” interview is not necessarily assured in any given encounter, since generating research data about a topic relies on mutual and sustained cooperation on the part of interviewer and interviewees. Preparing novice researchers to understand the practical, social and reflexive skills required of interviewers, we hope, will contribute to the advancement of high-quality research. Skilled interviewers, we believe, have learned to become good listeners, flexible in dealing with whatever comes up in an interview, and can emulate the improvisational qualities of jazz musicians that have been attributed to expert interviewers such as Studs Terkel (Roulston, 2022).

NOTE 1

See https://​drhelenkara​.files​.wordpress​.com/​2018/​06/​conversation​-with​-a​-purpose​.pdf.

REFERENCES Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage. Denzin, N. K. (2018). Performance Autoethnography: Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture. London and New York: Routledge. Galman, S. C. (2007). Shane, the Lone Ethnographer: A Beginner’s Guide to Ethnography. Lanham: Altamira Press. Herron, B. A. (2019). On doing “being feminist” and “being researcher”: Lessons from a novice interviewer. In K. Roulston (Ed.), Interactional Studies of Qualitative Research Interviews (pp. 79–101). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Herron, B. A. and Roulston, K. (2021). Slowing down and digging deep: Teaching students to examine interview interaction in depth. LEARNing Landscapes, 14, 153–169. Hoover, S., Strapp, C., Ito, A., Foster, K. and Roth, K. (2018). Teaching qualitative research interviewer skills: A developmental framework for social justice psychological research teams. Qualitative Psychology, 5(2), 300–318. Hsiung, P.-C. (2016). Lives and legacies: A digital courseware for the teaching and learning of qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(2), 132–139. Kara, H. and Brooks, J. (2020). The potential role of comics in teaching qualitative research methods. The Qualitative Report, 25(7), 1754–1765. Kawulich, B. B. and D’alba, A. (2019). Teaching qualitative research methods with Second Life, a 3-dimensional online virtual environment. Virtual Reality, 23, 375–384.

Teaching the art of qualitative research interviewing  197 Makagon, D. (2013). Collective fieldwork interviews in the classroom without walls. Qualitative Communication Research, 2(4), 356–380. Miller, S., Cepak, A. and Peng, Z. (2020). The pedagogical approaches to teaching journalistic interviewing competencies. Electronic News, 14(2), 78–96. Roulston, K. (2012). The pedagogy of interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. Marvasti and K. D. Mckinney (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft (2nd ed.) (pp. 61–74). Los Angeles: Sage. Roulston, K. (2022). Interviews: A Guide to Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage. Roulston, K. and Halpin, S. N. (2022). Designing qualitative research using interview data. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design (pp. 667–683). London: Sage. Roulston, K. and Herron, B. A. (2022). Teaching interviewing in qualitative research: Learning from cinematic society. In J. C. Richards, A. Skukauskaite and R. Chenail (Eds.), Engaging Students in Socially Constructed Qualitative Research Pedagogies (pp. 191–215). Leiden: Brill/Sense. Roulston, K., deMarrais, K. and Lewis, J. B. (2003). Learning to interview in the social sciences. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 643–668. Roulston, K., McClendon, V. J., Thomas, A., Tuff, R., Williams, G. and Healy, M. F. (2008). Developing reflective interviewers and reflexive researchers. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 231–243. Sand, A.-L., Skovbjerg, H. M. and Tanggaard, L. (2021). Re-thinking research interview methods through the multisensory constitution of place. Qualitative Research, 22(4), https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 1468794121999009. Sattin-Bajaj, C. (2018). On the same page: A formal process for training multiple interviewers. The Qualitative Report, 23(7), 1688–1701. Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Welch, C. and Piekkari, R. (2006). Crossing language boundaries: Qualitative interviewing in international business. Management International Review, 46, 417–443.

14. What are we teaching for? Humility and responsibility in social science research Jennifer R. Wolgemuth, Yi-Hsin Chen, Liliana Rodríguez-Campos, John Ferron, Eunsook Kim, Robert F. Dedrick and David Lamb

A growing body of literature advocates fostering a “pedagogical culture” among instructors of quantitative, mixed, and qualitative social science research (Garner, Wagner and Kawulich, 2009; Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014). As a set of shared practices and norms, this pedagogical culture includes goals such as learning research by doing research and making “real world” connections (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016), critically reflecting on the research process (Early, 2009), appreciating methodological diversity (Roulston and Bhattcharya, 2018), and developing relationships (Garner and Sercombe, 2009), as examples. We, faculty members in an education research program, have certainly used and embraced these and other strategies in our teaching of statistics, measurement, evaluation, mixed methods, and qualitative research. We are also cognisant that teaching research is not just technical – about developing skills and dispositions; cultural – about enculturating learners into social science research (and teaching) disciplines; or philosophical – helping students grasp and reflect on social science epistemology. Teaching research is also onto-epistemological (e.g., Barad, 2007) – it demarcates and makes manifest (ontos = being) possibilities for (legitimately, scientifically, interpretively) knowing in and about the social world. Social science research classrooms, like all classrooms, are lively social and material spaces (whether physical, virtual, or both) that produce social science – what it is (and is not), how it’s (best) done, who can do it, and so on (see Ulmer, Kuby and Christ, 2020). It follows that teachers of research are not only responsible for how and what they teach, but also why they teach it and what that teaching makes possible. Some methodological scholars worry the latter responsibilities are not deliberated enough (e.g., Biesta, 2010). They critique social science research, particularly in education and health, as being so thoroughly technocratic (narrowly focused on the skilled use of methods) that it systematically ignores vital, critical questions about the value and ethics of social research (Biesta, 2010, 2021). Given our position that teaching social science research makes social science research and that we are responsible for that manifestation, we argue any articulation of a pedagogical culture of teaching social science research must consider the ethical question: “What are we teaching for?” What are we teaching for? It’s a question we’ve individually and collectively wrestled with for most of our careers. Housed in a College of Education in the United States, we (Jenni, Yi-Hsin, Lili, John, Eunsook, Bob and David) are seven current and former faculty members in a Measurement and Research program. Like many research faculty, we teach masters and doctoral level research methods courses for all graduate students in the College. Yet our program also enrols its own doctoral and masters level students who specialise in statistics, 198

What are we teaching for?  199 measurement, research design (quantitative, qualitative, and/or mixed), and evaluation. The question of “what we are teaching for” therefore applies both to students who use research methods in their own disciplinary areas (e.g., Elementary Education) and to students for whom research methodology is their discipline – our students, students like us who we expect will define themselves personally and professionally as methodologists, qualitative inquirers, statisticians, and/or researchers. How can we best teach, train, support, and mentor future methodologists? What do we want for them? What difference(s) do we hope they will make? These questions figure prominently in our program-level conversations about hiring new faculty members, developing marketing materials, deciding what courses to require, proposing new graduate degrees, and so on. We’ve learned over the last decade, and more, that answers to these questions require considerable reflection and, importantly, are only available through our (shared) vision for the future of social science research and the broader social world(s) it informs. While it might be possible to systematically ignore (conversations about) our underlying hopes and dreams for social science, ignoring them cannot diminish their influence. The culture, pedagogical or otherwise, of social science research is constituted by what we value and hold to be virtuous. We engage the question “what are we teaching for?” to reflect and articulate (our) individual and shared values and ethics of teaching social science research methodologies and methods. It is, importantly, a working question that we expect can never be answered authoritatively or finally. What we offer in this chapter is a product of our ongoing conversations and efforts to “put words to paper.” It is a snapshot of where we are to-date, individually and collectively, in our diverse thinking about research pedagogy. Put in broader context, our thinking is surely informed by the socio-material realities of 2020 and beyond: a global pandemic; heightened attention to anti-black racism and a powerful backlash in the US; worldwide suspicion and outright rejection of science; personal responses to our university’s decision (later rescinded) to close our College of Education; to name a few. In a world that can feel isolating and out-of-control, coming to a collective, collegial understanding of why we do what we do (teach and study social science research) and why it matters offers an oasis of connection and meaning amidst the chaos. Perhaps the stakes are now higher. Perhaps what and how we teach matters just a little more. Perhaps we need to defend the integrity and value of social science. Whatever the case or level of urgency, we understand ourselves as teaching social science research into and for a world of increasing complexity and, lately, even conflict. We understand ourselves as teaching students for that world (Biesta, 2021). We understand ourselves as teaching social science research that is up-to-the-task of both informing and improving the social world, as well as social science research itself. We expect this means teaching researchers and methodologists to work reflectively and critically within uncertain socio-political climates to design and conduct inquiries responsive to dynamic and contentious personal, educational, social, methodological, and political problems.1 No small task, we know. In this chapter, we discuss the twin ethical concepts, humility and responsibility, that align with our understandings and help us to our aims. Even as their meanings and enactments vary across our classrooms and sub-disciplines, these concepts nevertheless guide our pedagogy, relationships with students, hopes for the broad field of social science, and expectations for the methodologists and researchers our students will become. Humility reminds us that we must not overstate the “truth” or “fixity” of our research epistemologies, methodologies, and methods. Social science is, after all, a pluralistic human creation and endeavour (e.g.,

200  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Feyerabend, 1975; Kuhn, 1962). What it is, how it is done, and what knowledges of the world it manifests all have multiple (relatively equal and contestable) accounts that are always up for revolution, revision, attenuation, and/or improvement. Responsibility means we centre teleological (or consequential) ethics in how we teach social science research. That is, we understand ourselves as responsible for the realities and truths that teaching social science research epistemologies, methodologies, and methods manifest. We know, for example, that a narrowly defined and/or technically focused social science research has excluded (and in many cases still does) the perspectives of women, Indigenous peoples, people of colour, and other historically marginalised groups (see, Mertens and Ginsberg, 2009). Consequently, social science research risks failing to address the needs of marginalised communities from their own perspectives and may produce findings of limited value to address those needs, let alone redress inequalities (for recent examples, see O’Neil, 2017; Perez, 2019). The extent to which we teach social science research that incorporates, includes, and/or centres excluded perspectives is our responsibility. Humility and responsibility are integral to our pedagogy and as such underlie the pedagogical culture we want for our program. We do not hold, however, that these specific concepts should orient all social science research faculty and their programs, nor do we believe they are sufficient to describe and guide the ethics and values underlying the field’s pedagogical culture. What we do suggest, and hope to demonstrate in this chapter, is that there is deep value, maybe even a necessity, in ongoing and open engagement with the question: “What are we teaching for?”

HUMILITY: TEACHING FOR… … working reflectively and critically within uncertain socio-political climates to design and conduct inquiries responsive to dynamic and contentious personal, educational, social, methodological, and political problems.

If our desire is to produce reflective, critical, and responsive researchers and methodologists, then we must muster some degree of humility in our pedagogy. By humility we broadly refer to the act of being humble with respect to one’s position, authority, beliefs, knowledge, and so on (e.g., Church and Samuelson, 2017). While humility might entail undermining or sidelining one’s authority or accomplishments to invite new ideas and relationships, doing so does not signify a lack of confidence or self-esteem. Quite the opposite. We argue that it takes considerable confidence and courage to abdicate authority, to resist resting on one’s laurels. At the same time, it also takes considerable confidence and courage to assert one’s authority and accomplishments in the face of oppressive authority, particularly true for women, people of colour, and individuals of other marginalised identities. Our account of humility is strategic. It includes enacting humility when doing so seems likely to open spaces for being and thinking differently, and enacting confidence when humility might be read as legitimating oppression. For us, humility as a virtue stands in stark contrast not to confidence, but to arrogance, overconfidence or excessive pride in one’s beliefs and abilities. Our understanding of humility also includes what social scientists (e.g., DeWall, 2017; Jarvie and Burke, 2019; Krumrei-Mancuso and Rouse, 2016) and philosophers (e.g., Whitcome et al., 2017) describe as “intellectual humility” – always acknowledging the possibility we might be wrong or missing something.

What are we teaching for?  201 Intellectual humility means being transparent about limitations and admitting errors, both ideals associated with normative accounts of social science, and yet not well-incentivised in the academy (Hoekstra and Vazire, 2021). For us, intellectual humility also means acknowledging the “limitations” (oppressions, marginalisations, exclusions, inequities) produced and enabled within and through many manifestations of social science. While humility in both the virtue and intellectual sense overlaps and emerges at all levels of social science pedagogy, we find humility “as a virtue” best frames the ethics involved in actively appreciating social science as epistemologically diverse and honouring the truth and value of others’ perspectives and experiences. In this way humility is closely associated with other virtues like empathy, care, and empowerment. Intellectual humility attunes us to the limitations of our methods, methodologies, and epistemologies and keeps us working to improve them, whether it be for greater precision, better interpretation, deeper caring, advancing social justice, opening of possibilities, or all the above. Below we explain and illustrate through individual reflections the ways in which humility orients our social science research pedagogy. Humility as Honouring Diverse Ways of Knowing In social science research, there is no one, or even best, way of knowing. Additionally, epistemologies take shape, rise to dominance, and change over time. While some might adopt relativist positions with respect to the multiple epistemologies available in social science (e.g., Ashton, 2019), others may hold more pragmatic or critical ones – multiple epistemological positions are needed to generate useful knowledge about different aspects of social life (e.g., Morgan, 2014) or include marginalised worldviews (Roulston and Bhattacharya, 2018). From our perspectives, even if there exists an ultimate epistemological position that could articulate once-and-for-all the process of knowing through social science, it is not yet available to us. (For the record, we are pretty sure no such epistemology exists, but we’ll leave that project to the philosophers.) We take this epistemological state-of-affairs to mean we should remain always humble with respect to the authority of social science and its epistemological pluralities. Both John and Yi-Hsin’s reflections below illustrate the pedagogical practice and advantages of this position. Amongst other benefits, teaching with humility can strengthen relationships with students, foster respect for and valuation of multiple perspectives and experiences, and open possibilities for learning for both the teacher and student. John. Sometimes the opportunity to show humility comes in one-on-one interactions with students. I recall at the beginning of one semester, on the day prior to the first meeting of my introductory statistics course, a student came to my office, sat down, and started to cry. “I am so scared, my major professor says I have to take your course, and I don’t think I can.” Why was the thought of taking a statistics course creating so much fear? It seemed as if this course was being given a position of too much power, as if mastery of this one way of thinking had been built up to be an absolute arbitrator of who was worthy or not worthy as a researcher. As our conversation continued, they shared their passion for helping students in the schools, along with successes in their research experiences as a doctoral student. I found that communicating my interest in their research, as well as my appreciation and valuing of qualitative methods was helpful. I also found that by mentioning some of the limitations associated with statistics, and some of the weakness inherent in statistical thinking, that it became less intimidating. We came to find out that we shared beliefs about the complexity of education and the individuals involved, appreciated the challenges in studying educational problems, and valued the diversity of issues needing research.

202  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods From these shared beliefs, it became possible to frame the course as an opportunity to explore a way of thinking that some researchers find helpful in some situations. Yi-Hsin. In my teaching to convey the importance of humility, I often emphasise to respect and cherish each other’s opinions and ideas by constructing friendly and supportive learning environments in classrooms. I encourage students to bravely express their thoughts in the discussions and, simultaneously, to understand and value the unique viewpoints from others.

Humility as Honouring Uncertainty, Limitations, Imperfections Our methods, methodologies, and even epistemologies are uncertain, limited, and imperfect. Just as there is no one best way of knowing (epistemology) in social science, there is no one certain or fail-proof way to “get at” social reality (methodology). That is, we can never be certain whether or how well our methodologies measure, capture, represent, interpret, describe (and so on) and therefore produce knowledge about our social world. We are right to be suspicious, for example, whether our interview studies produce “true” accounts of participants’ experiences and perceptions (e.g., Scheurich, 1995). We are also right to question the extent to which our statistical models map onto the realities they are meant to represent (Box, 1976). Some argue that the philosophical distinction between epistemology and ontology, central to many accounts of social science, is itself what produces this uncertainty (as a problem). Instead of holding that methodologies are ways of knowing (epistemology) about an external world (ontology), philosophers of science, such as Karen Barad (2007), characterise research methodologies as onto-epistemological. Instead of being external to the social world, our methodologies and methods are part of the ongoing production and knowing of social reality. What we know through interviewing is what we know through the process of interviewing. What we know through measurement is what we know through the process of measurement. Regardless of one’s stance on the relationship of social research to/with its object(s) of inquiry, there can be no doubt that our methods, methodologies, and epistemologies are uncertain (also limited and imperfect). For us this provides clear reason to remain humble with respect to teaching social science. Eunsook, Yi-Hsin and John discuss this humility in teaching statistics and measurement. They note benefits of humility that include critical reflection and openness about research, a deeper understanding of methods and methodologies and the possibility of improving upon them, knowledge that there are multiple ways for researchers to approach their projects, and greater transparency and nuance in reporting and drawing conclusions from research. Eunsook. Researchers attempt to describe and explain reality by disentangling the entangled. When thoughtfully designed and controlled appropriately, the disentangled picture can reflect reality even better, although it is never “the reality”. In a sense it is an art and I often see the “beauty” of research. However, in the very same sense, all models are wrong (Box, 1976) because the researcher’s model is an approximation of reality, not the truth. This is what I mean by humility. Because all models are wrong, one fundamental and critical part of research is to evaluate the researcher’s model. In my teaching, I put an emphasis on model evaluation as a standard research practice to explicitly disclose the limitations of the study. Fundamentally, in model evaluation, we test the extent to which the researcher’s model fits the data that are assumed to be representative of reality. However, model evaluation is also prone to errors and subject to

What are we teaching for?  203 the researcher’s decision or selection of methods. Thus, it is emphasised that the researcher’s model should be evaluated from multiple perspectives and it is important to acknowledge that the researcher’s model is not the model but a model that approximates reality. I introduce the concept of “equivalent models” to students. Equivalent models are models that are specified differently based on different theories about reality, but yield identical fit to the data. In other words, Model A and Model B, which are different representations of reality are evaluated as equally good to describe reality. Then, which one is true: Model A or Model B? It simply says that your model is not the only model that fits the data and there could be tons of different models that are [an] equally well fit to the data. For a simple example, a researcher’s hypothetical model “X predicts Y” is statistically equivalent to the model “Y predicts X.” When a researcher chooses to present a model “X predicts Y” instead of “Y predicts X”, the researcher’s theory, discretion, and subjectivity are involved and it is critical to understand that research as a scientific process is not completely objective and absolute. Yi-Hsin: In the inferential statistics, we say “fail to reject” the null hypotheses when the p-value is greater than the alpha level we set. The reason for saying “fail to reject” instead of “accept” the null hypothesis is because we never know the true hypothesis. This is one of the typical reflections on humility in educational research. As a quantitative researcher, humility in educational research may mean that statistical methods we apply and statistical opinions we express all may have various degrees of limitations or uncertainties. In teaching and applying statistical and psychometric models, recognising the assumptions behind these models is important to appropriately use them. It also essentially reflects on the importance of humility in educational research. For instance, the assumption of the homogenous population that shares the same set of estimated parameters (e.g., item difficulty parameters) are implicitly behind Item Response Theory (IRT) models (e.g., unidimensional item response theory or IRT models). Thus, mixture IRT models are developed to relax this homogenous assumption and allow item difficulty parameters in different latent classes (i.e., unobserved or latent variable that represents groups of cases) to vary. Recognising and evaluating the assumptions behind the models make researchers and practitioners not only more appropriately use statistical methods, but also to think of possible robust alternatives, with attention to their limitations. Price and Murnan (2004), for example, encourage researchers to adequately delineate the limitations in their studies. It is not a unique situation that doctoral students and young scholars and researchers feel challenged to report or demarcate the limitations of their studies. Yet acknowledging limitations is what advances science, it gives rise to opportunities to make suggestions for future research. John: Each time I introduce a statistical method, I discuss not only the rationale for why we might choose to use the method, but also the limitations associated with the method. For example, teaching methods to estimate the effect of an intervention provides an opportunity to discuss the limitations associated with quantifying an outcome, limitations associated with averaging across individuals, limitations associated with pretending a sample is a random sample from a defined population, and limitations associated with distributional assumptions. By having an open discussion about these limitations, it may be less likely that novice researchers will overstate what is learned from a particular study, less likely that they will over-value a particular way of doing research, and in turn, more likely they will be open to a variety of approaches to research.

Responsibility: Teaching for… …working reflectively and critically within uncertain socio-political climates to design and conduct inquiries responsive to dynamic and contentious personal, educational, social, methodological, and political problems.

Research methods, methodologies, and epistemologies make possibilities for being and knowing manifest. As teachers of social science research, we are responsible for what

204  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods our instruction makes possible in our research classrooms. By responsibility we mean our ethical obligations to the processes and products of social science research as taught in our classrooms. Scholars of social science research draw important distinctions between “principle-based” ethics and “process” ethics (e.g., Koro-Ljungberg, 2010; Pollack, 2012). Principle-based ethics are those guidelines and codes given to us by our social science professional organisations (e.g., American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association) and institutional review boards. Bob. My sense of responsibility as a researcher and teacher of research has been shaped, in part, by the principles and standards that are articulated by the various professional organisations (e.g., AERA, NCME) and university committees (Institutional Review Board) that I am a member, by current scientific and social movements (e.g., open science, social justice), and by those who have mentored me and those whom I’ve mentored. These principles include my commitment to achieving the highest levels of knowledge and competencies defined by my field, respecting research participants and their rights, using methods that aim to enhance fairness and equity in all aspects of the research process, being transparent and open in the conduct and reporting of research, etc. One of my responsibilities is to share these principles and standards with students and model these principles in my actions with students.

We view these ethical principles and standards as surely necessary, but also insufficient guidelines for promoting responsibility in and for social science research. As Bob notes, his understanding of responsibility also derives from mentoring relationships and political and social movements. Indeed, relying solely on given principles and guidelines to frame our responsibilities risks reifying the technocratic impulses of social science inquiry that may take us further away from, rather than closer to, reflection on the values and ethics of social science. Our focus here is on process accounts of research responsibility, that is how we ethically act, relate, engage, deliberate, and so on as we are conducting research, particularly when we “face dilemmas without prescribed answers” (Koro-Ljungberg, 2010, p. 605). Our concern is with a kind of epistemological (or epistemic) responsibility, or the virtue of knowing well (Code, 2020). How do teachers of social science research manifest social science as a process of knowing well? What ways of thinking and being do we make possible? How do we describe the function and role of the researcher? Who do we depict as doing the research? How do we characterise the relationship between the subjects and objects of research? Our responsibility, we believe, is to strive toward depictions of social science that convey the complex social-political dynamics at play in the research process and enable future researchers to responsibly navigate them. There are many ethical positions available to teachers of social science research to frame researcher responsibility. In the sections below we describe ways we attend to responsibility in our social science research classrooms and the ethics or values that underlie our attentions, which include an ethic of care (e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 2013), an ethic of personal and critical reflection (e.g., Dewey, 1997; Foucault, 1989), and an ethic of social justice (e.g., Garcia, López and Vélez, 2018). Responsibility as Caring Social science research is, by name, a social endeavour, conducted within social contexts (nations, societies, communities, families, schools, and so on) to address social problems. Research teams too form social lives of their own. It is no longer news, thanks to sociologists of science (e.g., Latour and Woolgar, 1986) and social science (e.g., Law, 2004), that per-

What are we teaching for?  205 sonal, social, and political dynamics are part of, inseparable from, the research process. For us, and others (e.g., Early, 2009), doing inquiry well means attending to the ethics of research relationships of all parties to the research encounter, including those designated as researchers, participants, stakeholders, and so on. An “ethic of care” (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 2013) may be vital to promoting learning of social science research in our classroom environments and within research itself (e.g., Matteson and Lincoln, 2009). Some of this ethic was reflected in John and Yi-Hsin’s earlier discussions of humility. Below, Lili discusses “collaboration” as a perspective that operates both within her teaching and the methodology of collaborative evaluation. Undergirding her description of collaboration is a clear commitment to an ethic of caring, to fostering trust and respect in the classroom and in social science research and evaluation. The benefits of her approach include supportive classroom environments, richer dialogue and creativity, increased receptivity to feedback, and ultimately a stronger basis from which to make (ethical and otherwise) decisions. Lili. Responsibility in teaching research can be approached from a collaborative perspective. According to Rodríguez and Egea (2015), a collaborative approach to classroom management creates a supportive classroom environment where everyone feels valued. Faculty continue to be in charge of their classroom, but they create an ongoing engagement with their students contributing to teaching research in a way that is understood and used. For instance, there are six interactive components that could guide a collaborative approach to teaching research: (1) identify the situation; (2) clarify the expectations; (3) establish a collective commitment; (4) ensure open communication; (5) encourage effective practices; and (6) follow specific guidelines (Rodríguez and Rincones, 2013). As an example, to identify the situation, a faculty could obtain information about their students’ backgrounds and methodological preferences, before assigning them to work in teams. To clarify the expectations, a faculty member could assist students on how to collaboratively provide support to their personalised research agendas. To establish a collective commitment, a faculty could encourage students to choose their own teams and research projects (with a common research agenda goal). To ensure open communication, a faculty could support ongoing dialogue inside/outside of the classroom. To encourage effective practices, a faculty could promote a flexible classroom environment with emphasis on the appreciation of student differences (e.g., interests, values). To follow specific guidelines, a faculty could guide the learning process through knowledgeable modelling in the classroom. With a collaborative approach to teaching research, faculty can implement decisions more effectively if students have contributed to those decisions. A collaborative approach to teaching research can offer many advantages, such as opportunities for creative problem solving and receptivity to feedback. Also, it can cover a broad scope of practice, ranging from a faculty consultation with a student to full-classroom collaboration throughout the course. The biggest lesson learned using a collaborative approach to teaching research is how easy it is for students to buy-in to collaboration after they learn how to apply it themselves in the classroom. With this type of approach, it is possible to achieve a holistic collaborative learning environment, by providing a strong basis for decision making through long-term relationships. If properly used, it can help students better understand how to develop priorities and achieve a high level of mutual support within the research classroom.

Responsibility as (Personal, Critical) Reflection Researchers’ positionalities – beliefs, values, perspectives, subjectivities, and so on – always matter in at least some ways in the process of social science research. At minimum they

206  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods inform why and how researchers choose their topics and methodological approaches. In much qualitative research, researcher positionality is inextricable from the inquiry process. It follows that the qualitative researcher must then engage in the process of reflexivity, ongoing reflection and reflected action within the inquiry in recognition that knowledge production is situated and embodied (e.g., Etherington, 2004; Finlay and Gough, 2003; Milner, 2007). Regardless of whether researchers’ positionality is a problem, signaling “bias” (e.g., Roulston and Shelton, 2015), or a feature and possible strength (e.g., Subramani, 2019) of social science research, we hold that (ongoing) reflection is essential to being responsible researchers of all methodologies – it is central to epistemological responsibility, to knowing well. Below, Bob describes how he encourages personal reflection in his research classes as a starting point for planning research. While noting the importance of personally reflecting on research epistemologies, Jenni cautions against adopting them as identities, advocating ongoing reflection as a resistance to entrenched and ideological thinking in research. For both Bob and Jenni, benefits include deeper connections to research and better self-understanding and capacity for critique. Bob. A guiding principle that was instilled in me in graduate school is that when you conduct research you learn about the problem/topic at the focus of the research but also about the methods used in the research and who you are as a researcher (research self) in relation to your personal self. Research problem, method, and self are all intertwined. Just as I have choices in what I teach and how I teach, I am responsible for communicating to students that they have their own choices in the problems they select and the methods they choose to use. One of the first tasks students complete in a class I teach in developing a research proposal is to describe (the best they can) the purpose of their proposed study and the methods they might use. As part of this task, I ask that they provide some autobiographical information and how they are linked to the proposed inquiry (What led you to this topic? What, if any, is your personal connection to the topic? Why are you interested in this topic?). At this early stage, students are encouraged to see the linkage between the research problem, method, and their personal self. This is a great starting point when initiating research. Jenni. All doctoral students in our College of Education are required to take a three credit hour Philosophies of Inquiry course. There are many advantages to taking the course. Students learn about epistemology and ontology in social science research and their relationships to methodology and methods. They learn to think more deeply about social science research, which they can appreciate as epistemologically diverse. They are also encouraged to be personally reflective throughout the course – connecting research epistemologies to their own beliefs about the nature of truth and reality. This reflection is surely important, it encourages and deepens learning. At the same time, I’ve noticed a perhaps unintended outcome from this process – some students come to embrace a paradigm label as a researcher identity (what I elsewhere refer to as “paradigm essentialism”, Wolgemuth, 2016). Identification with a research paradigm (or methodology) might mean being less able to consider different (valid) ways of doing social science research. If my aim is to teach reflectivity as ongoing reflective action in social science, then adopting one position (as an identity) and staying within it seem counter to that aim. As Foucault (1989) said about the ethics of an intellectual – the purpose is “to engage a type of knowledge and analysis that is taught and received in the university in a way so as to modify not only the thought of others, but of one’s own as well” (p. 303). I do my best to work against the tendency to identify with research paradigms in my qualitative classrooms. For example, I remind students that they are not their research paradigms (I caution students not to say, “I am an X researcher”, but rather, “I do X research” or better, “Right now I am doing X research”.). I emphasise that anyone and everyone is perfectly capable of learning and doing all kinds of research projects, even if some take longer to learn and understand. I also ask students to design and compare qualitative studies on the same topic under different research epistemologies and methodologies (e.g., What would

What are we teaching for?  207 this study look like if you adopted a post-positivist orientation? How would the design change?). It is my hope students leave my qualitative classes adopting the ethics of an intellectual and therefore better prepared to think well.

Responsibility as Commitment to Social Justice We take seriously the insights critical scholars have and continue to offer the field of social science. Historically, and now, they profoundly alter the way social science research is conceptualised and conducted. Early feminist philosophers of science such as Sandra Harding (1992) and Donna Haraway (1988) showed how science privileged “male” ways of knowing that excluded women from participating in and benefitting from its findings. Harding, for one, introduced the concept of “strong objectivity” that still has much purchase for understanding the necessity and value of centring marginalised individuals in social science research – doing so produces more robust, less narrow findings. Critical race (e.g., Evans-Winters, 2019; Solórzano and Yosso, 2002), Indigenous (e.g., Smith, 2013), and queer (e.g., Browne and Nash, 2010) theories amongst many others have informed new and revised approaches to inquiry. Other examples include Charmaz’s (2014) constructivist version of grounded theory and the relatively recent emergence of QuantCrit – the use of quantitative methods to advance social justice (e.g., Garcia, López and Vélez, 2018). Critical scholars attune the field of social science to its historical (in)justices and urge us to take note and, indeed, action. For us, conducting responsible inquiry means being aware of historical injustices perpetuated in the name of social science and equipped with the skills and dispositions to safeguard against them. David illustrates this perspective in his description of teaching statistics where he introduces the history of social science research from a social justice perspective and incorporates discussions of injustice and equity throughout the course. His account importantly critiques social science research texts for relegating discussions of research ethics to a single chapter, which is typically placed at the end of the book. Jenni too highlights the importance of attending to histories of qualitative research with a focus on the experiences of marginalised participants. Drawing on Flint and Toledo’s (2022) account of making ‘good trouble’ in qualitative research (a concept they derive from both John Lewis and Donna Haraway), Jenni describes teaching strategies that bring historical injustice insights to the fore as part of learning and doing qualitative research that troubles power. Both argue that teaching social science with justice in mind promotes both a better social science and researcher responsibility to positively improve society. David. One of the secret perks to being a statistics instructor, is the ability to request evaluation copies of any number of quantitative methods books from publishers. My green metal office shelves are stocked full of these textbooks; useful when preparing for lectures on ANOVA and regression, or searching for practical real-world examples. Grab one at random and flip to the table of contents, and you would likely be hard pressed to find a discussion on ethical considerations, let alone a chapter dedicated to it. If the authors do include something on the topic, then it is typically stuck in the back where you are lucky to reach it in a single semester crammed full of other needs. This always struck me as an important omission. Over time, I began to include a lecture on the topic, drawing from research methods books. Initially, it would be in the final recapping lecture night, an afterthought. Then, eventually, it was moved to the fore, emphasising the underlying importance of understanding ethical research. Finally, I integrated the topic in

208  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods my discussion on data more broadly, linking it with ideas of samples and populations, validity, and reliability. The history and mechanics of ethical research, from the Nuremberg Code to the Institutional Review Board’s importance, are covered in as much depth as possible, and there are many shocking violations of human and animal rights to engage students with. But I have begun to integrate more and more the importance of ethical data collection and sampling. Recent summaries in pop culture like Caroline Criado Perez’s (2019) Invisible Women, or even Last Week Tonight with John Oliver’s (2019) Bias in Medicine episode, make the concept accessible and engaging. In Criado Perez’s book, she brings attention to the many times that a biased sample has been used to make an inference about a population it was not derived from. The example I continually return to in my courses is that of the crash test dummy. This is something most of us are familiar with, having seen them in commercials since at least the 1980s and maybe even in concert. Until very recently, these test dummies were based entirely on male physiology. As a result, the safety systems in cars better protect males than females. Pregnant women, especially, are at a higher risk of death during a crash. The example gives a tangible example of the dangers of collecting biased samples, and data that lacks diversity. The argument I make is that collecting diverse data is an ethical approach to research. Having diverse research teams allow us to see our mistakes in collecting data. It is not difficult to see an all-male team designing a test-dummy without thinking about how different all our bodies are. Finally, to continually present the problems of the ethical use of statistics, I often incorporate anecdotes about the early statisticians and the development of the methods. Some can be fun (for me, if not the students), such as the case of William Sealy Gosset, Guiness, and Student’s t-test. Others, show a darker history of injustice, such as the case of Sir Francis Galton and Eugenics… Jenni. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about justice and history and researcher responsibility. With co-authors Jonathan Cocker and Francyne Huckaby, I wrote a piece that argues for justice-oriented inquiry situated in an historical-present (Wolgemuth, Cocker, and Huckaby, in press). Doing-justice means qualitative inquiry should be designed with the justice histories of communities and constructs in mind. This project has prompted me to rethink my qualitative classrooms – the activities and readings I assign and the overall points I hope to get across. For example, I now assign readings that historicise qualitative research (e.g., Brinkmann, Jacobsen, and Kristiansen, 2020; Denzin and Giardina, 2009; Erickson, 2018). I am also trialing an assignment that asks students to produce a justice-oriented historical account of a theory or construct that guides their study and to explain how the version of the construct or theory they will use avoids past injustices. My aim is that these activities make good trouble. They bring historical truths to bear on discussions, designs, and enactments of methodological responsibility. Truths of the past can be painful and difficult to hear. But in the context of recent legislation in the US to ban critical race theory (CRT), to prevent schools and businesses from discussing the history and historical-present of anti-black racism (see, e.g., the Stop W.O.K.E legislation proposed by Florida’s Governor [DeSantis, 2021]), I think it’s more imperative than ever to attend to, report, and design inquiry with these truths in mind.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY We iterated this aim throughout the chapter as a reminder that humility and responsibility not only frame our ethics of teaching social science research, they are also ethics we hope

What are we teaching for?  209 guide future researchers and methodologists, even ethics we might wish for the field of social science. We experience and foresee social science as a necessarily collaborative social endeavour in a rapidly changing and sometimes tense political and social world. We want our teaching to prepare researchers to inquire into, to produce meaningful, helpful, insightful findings about, that uncertain social world. We teach for a social science comprised of researchers and methodologists who can navigate social complexity, think critically about research design, draw attention to exclusions and injustices in research, and respond decisively yet flexibly to shifting injustices and social dynamics. Being humble with respect to oneself and what social science has to offer alongside a strong sense of responsibility to the social world and how it can be known seem to us promising ways of working toward that vision of social science. Humility and responsibility are (useful) concepts that organised our responses to the question, “What are we teaching for?” They are concepts that we leverage, at least for now, to frame and characterise our program’s pedagogical culture. We have intentionally discussed them at this level, as applying to us, and connect them to our own teaching and mentoring. That is, we are humble with respect to the application and applicability of these ethical concepts to other program cultures, or even to a broader (unifying) culture of social science pedagogy. There are surely multiple (true, good) ethical concepts to orient multiple teaching cultures. We wonder how what we shared resonates across different disciplines, programs, classes, teachers, and are curious how other social science research teachers and programs might describe their ethics. At the same time, teaching (re)produces social science as a “thing”, and we understand ourselves as responsible to and for what social science is and becomes. We cannot ignore big picture questions about our field, our role(s) within it, and how we teach and train into it. The value is less in the possibility of coming to consensus on a set of ethical concepts or principles, and more in the process of critical reflection itself. That is, our responsibility as teachers of social science is to seriously and continually – individually and collectively – reflect on the question “What are we teaching for?”

NOTE 1

This statement is our working response to the question “What are we teaching for?”. It is a consensus statement born from the process of co-authoring this chapter – words that remained after multiple rounds of edits and revisions. In this sense, the phrase functions like a mission statement for our program, even if it’s not one we’ve formalised through a directed process of missioning and visioning. We iterate this phrase throughout the chapter as a guidepost and reminder of our overall aims and values.

REFERENCES Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Biesta, G.J.J. (2010). Why “what works” still won’t work: From evidence-based education to value-based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 29, 491–503. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​ s11217​-010​-9191​-x Biesta, G.J.J. (2021). World Centered Education: A View for the Present. London, UK: Routledge. Box, G.E.P. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 71(356), 791–799.

210  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Brinkman, S., Jacobsen, H.V. and Kristiansen, S. (2020). Historical overview of qualitative research in the social sciences. In P. Leavy (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.) (pp. 23–58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Browne, K. and Nash, C.J. (Eds.) (2010). Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Church, I. M. and Samuelson, P.L. (2017). Intellectual Humility: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Science. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Code, L. (2020). Epistemic Responsibility. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Denzin, N.K. and Giardina, M.D. (2009). Qualitative Inquiry and Social Justice: Toward a Politics of Hope. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. DeSantis, R. (2021). Governor DeSantis announces legislative proposal to stop W.O.K.E. activism and critical race theory in schools and corporations. [Press Release]. https://​www​.flgov​.com/​2021/​ 12/​15/​governor​-desantis​-announces​-legislative​-proposal​-to​-stop​-w​-o​-k​-e​-activism​-and​-critical​-race​ -theory​-in​-schools​-and​-corporations/​ DeWall, C.N. (2017). Fostering intellectual humility in public discourse and university education. In E.L. Worthington Jr., D.E. Davis and J.N. Hook (Eds.), Handbook of Humility: Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 233–245). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Dewey, J. (1997). How We Think. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. Early, M.A. (2009). Developing reflective researchers. In M. Garner, C. Wagner and B. Kuwalich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 103–110). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Erickson, F. (2018). A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed) (pp. 38–48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a Reflexive Researcher: Using our Selves in Research. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. Evans-Winters, V. (2019). Black Feminism in Qualitative Inquiry: A Mosaic for Writing Our Daughter’s Body. New York, NY: Routledge. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London, UK: New Left Books. Finlay, L. and Gough, B. (Eds.) (2003). Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science. Flint, M.A. and Toledo, W. (2022). Making good trouble: Becoming-with critical inquiry. International Review of Qualitative Research 14(4), 728–749. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​19408447211012649 Foucault, M. (1989). An aesthetics of existence. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault Live: Interviews 1961–1984 (pp. 303–311). New York, NY: Semiotext(e). Garcia, N.M., López, N. and Vélez, V.N. (2018). QuantCrit: Rectifying quantitative methods through critical race theory. Race Ethnicity and Education 21(2), 149–157. Garner, M. and Sercombe, P. (2009). Research as social relations: Implications for teaching research methods. In M. Garner, C. Wagner and B. Kuwalich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 81–90). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3), 575–599. Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?”. The Centennial Review 36(3), 437–470. Hoekstra, R. and Vazire, S. (2021). Aspiring to greater intellectual humility in science. Natural Human Behaviour 5(12), 1602–1607. Jarvie, S. and Burke, K.J. (2019). Intellectual humility and the difficult knowledge of theology. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy 16(3), 224–241. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies 62(2), 191–207. Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2010). Validity, responsibility, and aporia. Qualitative Inquiry 16(8), 603–610.

What are we teaching for?  211 Krumrei-Mancuso, E.J. and Rouse, S.V. (2016). The development and validation of the comprehensive intellectual humility scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 98(2), 209–221. Kuhn, T. (1962). Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London, UK: Routledge. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies 64(4), 413–430. Matteson, S.M. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2009). Using multiple interviewers in qualitative research studies: The influence of ethic of care behaviors in research interview settings. Qualitative Inquiry 15(4), 659–674. Mertens, D. and Ginsberg, P.D. (2009). Handbook of Social Research Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Milner, H.R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher 36(7), 388–400. Morgan, D. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for mixed methods research. In D.L. Morgan (Ed.), Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach (pp. 25–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Oliver, J. (2019). Last week tonight with John Oliver: Bias in medicine. Season 6, Episode 21. YouTube. https://​www​.youtube​.com/​watch​?v​=​TATSAHJKRd8 O’Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York, NY: Crown. Perez, C.C. (2019). Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. New York, NY: Abrams Press. Pollock, K. (2012). Procedure versus process: Ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research. BMC Medical Ethics 13, 25. Price, J. and Murnan, J. (2004). Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. American Journal of Health Education 35(2), 66–67. Rodríguez-Campos, L. and Egea, C. (2015). Collaborative approach to classroom management. In W. George Scarlett (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Classroom Management: An A-to-Z Guide (pp. 92–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rodríguez-Campos, L. and Rincones-Gómez, R. (2013). Collaborative Evaluations: Step-By-Step (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Roulston, K. and Bhattacharya, K. (2018). Teaching qualitative inquiry in the era of the big tent: Presenting proliferation and polyphony. International Review of Qualitative Research 11(3), 251–255. Roulston, K. and Shelton, S.A. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods. Qualitative Inquiry 21(4), 332–342. Scheurich, J.J. (1995). A postmodernist critique of research interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 8(3), 239–252. Smith, L.T. (2013). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London, UK: Zed Books. Solórzano, D.G. and Yosso, T.J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry 8(1), 23–44. Subramani, S. (2019). Practising reflexivity: Ethics, methodology and theory construction. Methodological Innovations 12(2). Ulmer, J.B., Kuby, C.R. and Christ, R.C. (2020). What do pedagogies produce? Thinking/teaching qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry 26(1), 3–12. Whitcome, D., Battaly, H., Baehr, J. and Howard-Snyder, D. (2017). Intellectual humility: Owning our limitations. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 94(3), 509–539. Wolgemuth, J.R. (2016). Driving the paradigm: (Failing to teach) methodological ambiguity, fluidity, and resistance in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 22(6), 518–525.

212  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Wolgemuth, J.R., Cocker, J.W. and Huckaby, M.F. (in press). Justice histories, historical injustices: Qualitative research with(in) the historical present. Routledge Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research.

PART II TEACHING AND LEARNING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS ONLINE

15. Using intentionality to frame how we teach research methods online Cheryl Hunter, Tamara Hoffer and Joshua Hunter

INTRODUCTION Through the lens of intentionality, we structure our online teaching around our intention to provide not only engagement in the learning experience but engagement that is interdependent upon instructor, content, and peer interactivity. Online learning cannot be limited to static “sit and get” information delivery but must be dynamic, participatory, and reciprocal (Darby and Lang, 2019). Students do not learn by “making sense of the world,” rather they construct meaning “as beings in the world they engage actively in its interpretation” (Soule and Freeman, 2019, p. 861) with their instructors, the content, and their peers. These interconnected relationships continue to develop and change as the course progresses. Creating this type of dynamic interconnectedness can be difficult in online learning, especially for asynchronous course delivery. Designing online courses to provide a learning environment that affords multiple opportunities to engage with the instructor, content, and peers takes thoughtful planning, strategic use of technologies, and continuous monitoring of the learning experience to maintain rigour. Thus, critical to intentionality is ensuring the online environment is structured to facilitate and nurture relationships between its members as they develop over time throughout the course. Structuring online coursework to prepare students to engage in the tangible world, as required in qualitative social research, but through virtual experiences entails intentional integration of learning theory, learning processes, and relationship-building. Teaching qualitative methods in the online environment requires using what we already know about online pedagogy and adapting to the specific needs of teaching qualitative research methods. For this reason, we adapt the Community of Inquiry model to fit what is unique about teaching qualitative research methods. The Community of Inquiry model establishes that students construct meaning in online and blended courses through teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence, and that deeper and more meaningful learning occurs at the intersection of all three (Akyol and Garrison, 2011). As instructors of qualitative research methods, the Community of Inquiry model speaks to the interconnectedness and interdependence of the instructor, student, and peer relationships and has the potential to cultivate and nurture deeper learning in the online environment. We attend to the intentionality of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in the development of our online teaching methods. The courses and classroom context from which this chapter is drawn stem from doctoral level courses which cover introductory and advanced qualitative methods, theories and research design. The courses include both asynchronous and synchronous components with 20 to 25 doctoral students and one instructor. Students in these courses are drawn from primarily practitioner fields, such as education, nursing and health sciences, and aeronautics. The courses are semester-based and approximately 15 weeks. Student working groups rotate; some 214

Using intentionality to frame how we teach research methods online  215 developed based upon shared interest and others constructed randomly. Peer and instructor feedback are both essential components of the learning process as students learn about and share experiences with qualitative concepts and methods. In addition to the learning management system, other interactive digital technologies are used.

INTERROGATING INTENTIONALITY We begin by jumping into the discourse of intentionality and situating our ideas of practice within this framework. Intentionality is a radical interdependence of subject and object in which the subject reaches out and into the object they are experiencing (Crotty, 1998). Intentionality is a central concept in phenomenology but finds resonance in multiple epistemological frameworks. Of central interest here is the realisation that both subject and object are necessary in the construction of meaning and thus have a reciprocal and relational dynamic in how meaning takes shape. As Husserl suggests, at its root, intentionality has a relational approach to understanding the dynamic between subject and object. In this way, research itself needs to be grounded in relationships and subsequently the study and teaching of research methods requires a deep look at how relationships frame our understanding of the field of research and how we model this to our students who are learning about the highly participatory and relational nature of qualitative research. This modelling needs to take into account the limitations, challenges and benefits of online instruction. To encourage qualitative researchers who value these participatory and relational ways of inquiry, our practices, activities and teaching must privilege participation, reciprocity and intentionality with instructors, among students and with content. The concept requires a reexamination of these relationships, “for phenomenologists, ‘intentionality’ refers to the fact that whenever we are in a state of consciousness – that is, thinking, perceiving, or daydreaming – our consciousness is always of some phenomenon” (Soule and Freeman, 2019, p. 859). Crotty (1998) says something similar by stressing that intentionality provides the underlying relationship between an object and subjective awareness of a conscious subject. Herein, “consciousness is always consciousness of something. An object is always an object for someone”. And, because of this, the object “cannot be adequately described apart from the subject, nor can the subject be adequately described apart from the object. From a more existentialist viewpoint, intentionality bespeaks the relationship between us as human beings and our world” (Crotty, 1998, p. 79). Intentionality here requires a deep form of relating between subject and object, a movement towards interaction rather than detachment. It necessitates a reexamination of how we participate and engage with each other. This is a tall order indeed for teaching qualitative methods online. Essential for our teaching is to situate methods that not only extend this argument for relational approaches, but model the centrality of relationships through interactive and immersive engagement through course design. This becomes even more important when the teaching of qualitative research moves online and into virtual spaces. Consider the challenges of exploring the immediacy of relationships, participatory engagement and reciprocity when the class itself has no physical, face-to-face experiences. Overcoming these challenges requires attention to how relationships between student and instructor, between student peers, and between students and content can be cultivated in online environments. Intentionality requires us as instructors to be involved in these evolving relationships and to bridge the gap between virtual

216  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods engagement in class and conducting qualitative inquiry in the face-to-face world. In this, there is a persistent and dynamic toggling between the virtual world of the classroom with the tangible world of everyday living and conducting research. Relationships in the online classroom should stimulate sensibilities that will be effective in the larger, non-virtual world, fostering a spirit of bricolage, a way of putting intentionality into action. Interpreting Levi-Strauss, Crotty (1998) describes the researcher as bricoleur, as someone “who makes something new out of a range of materials that had previously made up something different” (p. 50), characterising the bricoleur as a “makeshift artisan”, one who fashions out of “a collection of bits and pieces that were once standard parts of a certain whole” (p. 50), a re-imagining as a new whole. In this process of bricolage, the subject is fundamentally engaged with the objects of awareness and attention. This is an apt depiction of not only the researcher, but the instructor of research classes. This speaks to developing a sensitivity and sensibility in which invention and imagination help guide students in learning about and applying qualitative skills in practice. The bricoleur is highlighted in several texts concerning qualitative research. In describing the researcher-as-bricoleur, Denzin and Lincoln (2008, p. 9) explain that the “interpretive bricoleur understands that research is an interactive process shaped by his own personal history, biography, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity, and by those of the people in the setting”. Interaction is again a key ingredient in this approach and this assumes that researchers cannot be detached from the topics and phenomena they study. While Denzin and Lincoln are describing this interaction as part and parcel of the research process, this legacy of the bricoleur extends to the ways qualitative research is taught and skills and sensibilities are acquired. Here again we find the dialectical foundation between subject and object as budding researchers learn to find balance between objective and subjective realities. This dialectic nested within the learning of qualitative skills requires interactivity with instructor, peers and content to fully foster deep learning. Crotty (1998, p. 51) concludes by stressing how manifesting the bricoleur “requires that we not remain straightjacketed by the conventional meanings we have been taught to associate with the object. Instead, such research invites us to approach the object in a radical spirit of openness to its potential for new or richer meaning. It is an invitation to reinterpretation”. In this vein, Denzin and Lincoln (2011) encourage that bricoleurs are ultimately “inventors” (p. 584) who “cobble together stories” from at times disparate other stories and this requires of the instructor to attend to multiple relationships within the qualitative classroom in preparing students to meet the demands of a larger, qualitative world. We argue that intentionality is the most critical component in online learning, and involves structuring the learning environment to attend to presence in three areas: with the content as intentionality toward cognitive presence; with peers, as intentionality toward social presence; and the instructor, as intentionality toward teaching presence. What follows are specific examples for developing, structuring, and implementing the teaching of qualitative research methods in an online environment.

BRINGING INTENTIONALITY TO OUR TEACHING PRESENCE Bringing an intentionality to your teaching presence requires a unique approach when teaching qualitative research methods, specifically online. Darby and Lang (2019) define teaching presence as both designing and facilitating the learning experience within a course (pp. 79–80).

Using intentionality to frame how we teach research methods online  217 Teaching qualitative research methods requires demonstrating to students how they must interact with their method as future qualitative researchers. We explain to students how choosing to use qualitative methods in a research inquiry is a decision to actively make choices and engage in not only the research design, but to be the means of analysis. Students of qualitative inquiry methods learn they are the ones to sort, categorise, interpret – not a software program or algorithm. We teach students that they are the instrument and therefore as instrument, interact with the data. Therefore, as instructors of qualitative research methods, we intentionally model an interactivity with our students that mirrors how we expect them to interact within their research inquiries. We offer three examples, one that intentionally models the iterative process of qualitative research, one that models rapport-building, and the final example that does both through a process of coaching. At its core, coaching is concerned with rapport and trust and works best through a give and take or iterative approach, and our goals of coaching are to act as coaches and model this to students, so they may do so as well. Qualitative research is an iterative process and structuring online teaching to model that process requires the intention to embed an opportunity to build, refine, and improve on a single assignment, as opposed to one-and-done assignments. We assign students to build an interactive web-based learning “module” (using free webpages such as Wix.com) to cover a specific topic, such as learning about specific methodologies. Students work collaboratively to build the learning module, refine across the semester with targeted instructor feedback, present, and assess the learning module to prepare for final improvements. We provide a “menu” to explain the components needed and have a pre-designed sample for students to review (https://​cherylhunter​.wixsite​.com/​themethodologist). The components include the following: (1) home page, which orients the reader to the overall purpose and gives introductory information while guiding the reader to different components the reader will experience in the module; (2) blog pages, which are used to hone-in on specific concepts or ideas relevant to the module; (3) learning spaces are the crux of the module and where the reader is engaged with materials – such as videos, podcasts, readings, etc.; and (4) assessment, which collects information from peers for the final improvements. While the learning module is being created, the instructor engages in the module and provides feedback for refinement. This online strategy becomes a direct example of how the qualitative researcher in doing the inquiry is in a constant process of building, refining, and improving the interpretation. Drawing on our understanding of education research, teaching presence is roughly defined as “designing learning activities that require solutions and that provide facilitation and direction” to extend learning beyond simple exploration to integration and resolution of acquired knowledge or skills (Garrison, Anderson and Archer, 2010). While teaching presence is well-established in face-to-face courses, it requires thoughtful planning and execution in online learning environments. In online courses, especially asynchronous delivery, engagement can prove especially challenging because students can feel isolated from both professors, instructors, and from one another (Darby and Lang, 2019), so teaching presence must be established and consistently facilitated throughout the course so that students are not left to flounder on their own. Interacting with students frequently and consistently develops rapport and fosters the instructor/student relationship. Our second example below highlights our intentionality toward teaching presence by designing relationship-building into the online environment. Building relationships with students in the online learning community is as important as in face-to-face courses (Daily-Hebert, 2018; Darby and Lang, 2019), and doing so requires intentionality with course design and deliberate

218  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods communication strategies implemented by instructors. This easily parallels how we teach the building of rapport with participants as a method for deeper data collection. To build these relationships, establish teaching presence, and increase engagement, especially in our asynchronous courses, we create weekly five- to eight-minute video screencast recordings (with camera on) that briefly introduce the learning module content and give an overview of materials with a step-by-step to-do list for the week. We intentionally activate students’ prior knowledge by connecting the new content to what they have already learned in previous modules (or courses) and then set a purpose for acquiring the knowledge or skills in the module through examples for how the skills will be used in their qualitative research practice. In these short weekly overview videos, we also take care of any housekeeping items such as addressing common errors on previous assignments, answering frequently asked questions, or where to find items in the LMS site. Although engagements between students and instructors are done asynchronously in these weekly pre-recorded videos, we are deliberately facilitating and giving guidance for the lesson module, making the content meaningful, and nurturing the student-instructor relationship. While asynchronous, this engagement helps model the necessary steps in building rapport with participants within a qualitative study. Thus, our goal here is three-fold: develop a connection with our students, have students engaged with content, and model an approach to rapport building that is essential for successful research relationships. Developing rapport requires a commitment to fostering interactivity and reciprocity between researcher and participants, sharing important pieces of information and recognising the needs and goals of each other. Building rapport requires a level of trust and reciprocity, getting to know participants, answering their questions in open and transparent ways, understanding their needs and goals is every bit as important as the researchers. Ultimately, this is dependent upon an intentional interactivity in which relationships are privileged and sustained. Several things need to occur here and there is resonance between the teaching of qualitative methods online and building rapport in a qualitative study. These include maintaining presence, developing trust through reciprocity, tending to questions and concerns and aligning various goals of all participants. Getting to know our students’ prior knowledge is akin to getting to know our research participants and their lived experiences, even those that may at first seem to be beyond the confines of the research questions and situating these experiences within the research project we are sharing. Part of this is sharing a bit of ourselves and the on camera screencasts provide students with a more intimate account of ourselves and our process in teaching. While rapport in research may not require an extreme depth of personal accounts, nonetheless, researchers must be responsive to participant needs and be willing to share something of themselves in the process. After all, rapport assumes reciprocity, sharing and give and take. That is the only way to move research relationships away from static and shallow towards dynamic depth. Constant visual communication strategies allow an instructor to maintain presence, guidance and feedback throughout the learning process, similar to the needs of a researcher to maintain presence within a study as an essential ingredient as we work towards rapport. For our final example, we will use the concept of coaching in the design and teaching of qualitative concepts, specifically analysis techniques. Coaching as defined by Collins et al. (1987) is “observing students while they carry out a task and offering hints scaffolding, feedback, modeling, reminders, and new tasks aimed at bringing their performances closer to expert performance” (p. 16). We design our coaching sessions to incorporate the four essential

Using intentionality to frame how we teach research methods online  219 components for moving its recipients toward a desired performance: immediacy, specificity, constructiveness, and purposefulness (Cornelius and Nagro, 2014). Central to coaching are how and when feedback is delivered to novices while they are practicing their skills. Immediate, or timely feedback is critical for student engagement in online courses (Darby and Lang, 2019). In qualitative research methods courses where data analytic skills are developed, we employ small group synchronous coaching “labs” that provide immediate, specific, and scaffolded feedback as students learn to analyse research data. Education research supports that for learning to occur, immediate and specific feedback, either in the form of praise or correction, is critical when students practice foundational skills that are built upon throughout the course (Lang, 2016). In these coaching lab sessions, novice researchers construct and develop their analytic skills while receiving constructive and corrective feedback from experts and peers in real time with the goal of moving toward skill mastery as they learn to coach one another. Like Darby and Lang (2019) recommend in their book, Small Online Teaching: Applying Learning Science in Online Classes, we model how to give constructive feedback for the purpose of improving upon skills learned, then explicitly teach a step-by-step feedback strategy (Rosenshine, 1987), and finally students practice the feedback strategy with one another in context while analysing data samples. Our learning outcomes for students in these synchronous coaching labs are two-fold: (1) to develop and improve their data analytic skills through guided practice and specific individualised feedback; and (2) to learn to give honest and constructive feedback to fellow researchers to develop trusting relationships and effective research teams. Learning to give feedback while acquiring skills helps learners to think critically about the process or skills they are learning, thus helping them to engage with their peers to extend their learning (Community of Inquiry). This parallel learning activates “thinking about their learning” to help them construct meaning and master newly acquired skills more efficiently by coaching others. However, giving feedback to peers can be intimidating at first for fear of offending fellow colleagues or damaging those relationships. We do not make assumptions that all students have these people skills or the self-efficacy to critique others’ work. Breaking down this barrier by modelling and explicitly teaching a feedback strategy (Rosenshine, 1987), then practicing it in context with peers and the presence of the instructor, improves skill competencies (Lang, 2016) required in qualitative research collaboration. Another added benefit of conducting small group synchronous coaching sessions is that we can identify novice students’ thought patterns while they analyse the data, address any misunderstandings, and then ask nudge questions or give prompts by sharing our own analytic thinking processes (Barzilai, Zohar and Mor-Hagani, 2018). Doing so in small groups allows for all lab members to benefit from exposure to instructor feedback of peers’ practice attempts, rather than receiving just individual one-to-one feedback, thus extending learning across multiple possible circumstances (Lang, 2016). These are low-stakes and low-risk opportunities for students to develop their skills in a conducive learning environment (Darby and Lang, 2019). Also, we find that these sessions provide the necessary instructor and peer support for international students when language is a barrier. After learning how to analyse interview data in previous lessons during the term, students are placed into small research groups. Then, they sign-up for a synchronous coaching lab session with the professor. Students will work together to tease out codes, categories, and themes in research data samples provided by the instructor. As students work through this process, the instructor provides support and specific feedback, using the feedback guide. The

220  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods guide facilitates inquiry or “suggest don’t tell” to encourage students to ask the right questions of the data, rather than telling the students what to do (Adams, 2016). For example, when students struggle to identify codes or categories, we might ask, “Look at the data again, what patterns do you see? Does anything seem to repeat itself in the data?”, and then give continuous reminders or prompts of the steps they learned in previous lesson modules. As students learn to ask the right questions of the data, they begin to think more critically about the data. The instructor also encourages peers to coach one another during this process, thus moving the instructor from the driver’s seat of learning to a facilitative role and team members begin taking the steering wheel to independently support one another and engage with one another for deeper learning in a community of inquiry.

BRINGING INTENTIONALITY TO OUR COGNITIVE PRESENCE Intentionality in cognitive presence requires incorporating active learning “instructional activities that involve students doing things and thinking about what they are doing” (Bonwell and Eison, 1991) while giving students enough opportunities to practice so that they master content and skills (Guskey, 2007). Therefore, interaction in course content requires intentionality directed toward instructional activities over time with multiple opportunities, which improves both student engagement with content and retention of learned knowledge and skills for application to future real-world scenarios. Cognitive presence, or students engaging with the content, is achieved by organising and scaffolding necessary learning materials, activities, and supports (including technological) to help students progress from novices to experts. In online coursework, it is often more difficult to ascertain whether pre-requisite skills have been mastered than in face-to-face courses. In face-to-face courses, students have immediate and reciprocal feedback loops making probing questions possible. In online courses, these feedback loops are not immediate, which make probing questions less likely, nor do students always understand the learning expectations unless they are explicitly taught. Therefore, strategically providing scaffolding and “step stools” to address lagging or missing skills and helping students make connections with the content are critical for student success (Darby and Lang, 2019). Scaffolding in education refers to instructors providing successive levels of support that are incrementally removed as learners progress toward mastery of new skills or knowledge. Step stools, on the other hand, give students a boost to help students “access” or engage in the curriculum content materials. In online courses, instructors often make assumptions about students’ technological savviness, which can be detrimental to learners accessing or engaging with the content. Much like going to a new country and being unable to read the map or directions, navigating new concepts in qualitative research while also navigating online platforms that may also be new, without the language and skills, of either, can make a novice frustrated. Learners can be ill-equipped to navigate online courses without some type of interpretative mechanisms or “step stools” built into the course so that they can fully interact with the content. By predicting possible barriers that could limit access or engagement, we provide a step stool tool that quickly gets them over the obstacle so that students are not challenged by technology or nebulous learning expectations. Rather than spending valuable time and energy fumbling to learn how to access the content, we can instead challenge them to think critically. Step stools are not limited to technology but can also be developed to review or teach prerequisite skills, such as coding in

Using intentionality to frame how we teach research methods online  221 qualitative research, or to provide explicit instruction on thinking processes like teasing out categories and themes. We create brief screencasts with explicit teaching of these skills to provide a library of step stools, both for the technology and the qualitative content, that can be accessed by students as they need them. How might scaffolding and providing step stools look in an introductory qualitative research methods course? Starting with a specific content task, we create explicit demonstrations of how the professor tackles the task. Tasks are first broken down into component parts and then short videos are created of the professor demonstrating in real-time the tasks to be learned and practiced by the novice. For example, understanding how to develop coding schemes, constructing categories of associated codes, and recognising emergent themes from qualitative data can be difficult for novice researchers. Teaching students to “think critically” to solve problems should be done explicitly by instructors modelling and making transparent their own thinking processes and then breaking up the skills into manageable chunks or steps for skills acquisition (Rosenshine, 1987). This type of “think out loud” modelling helps guide students when learning analytic processes and helps novice researchers to develop their own systems of data analysis. To begin an explicit instruction task, we present a “big picture” overview video of the data analytic skills students will learn and set the purpose for learning how to code data, construct categories and identify themes. Next, to model the analytic process and highlight particular techniques, a screencast of the professor analysing field notes or interview transcripts and coding them is presented. Embedded in this screencast, as instructors, we work to articulate and explain how we establish the coding system and make explicit any strategies we utilise. An example of this is the presentation of examining a piece of data for significant statements and the subsequent reduction of these statements into discrete codes. In this example, we are able to model the analytic process of breaking data down and data reduction, essential first steps. Subsequently, we present a video that exhibits how we examine the coded transcript for patterns among the codes to develop categories and a video that encapsulates the process of examining the relationships among categories to construct overarching and emergent themes. These videos, which present the interpretive synthesis of raw data as it reaches a higher level of abstraction offer extremely important ways of making sense of the concrete statements, behaviours and expressions of participants as we move towards our interpretive models. A fifth and final video provides students access to the development of assertions which rely upon the aforementioned foundations of codes, categories and themes. By scaffolding the instruction in this way, our goal is to make our thought process transparent and provide a sequenced structure for the skills of coding, parsing data into categories, identifying themes and ultimately how these lead to an assertion. As the American anthropologist Harry Wolcott (2008) reminds us, the great majority of qualitative inquiry is mind work, those moments of interpretive insight and carefully crafting an evocative exploration of data that resonates with both participants and an audience. As researchers explore a particular topic, qualitative research is at its root an iterative process and the ability to reflect, go back to examples, apply a growing awareness and reframe practices sits well with this dynamic (Srivastava and Hopwood, 2009). Scaffolding allows for this type of interactivity and reflection. Similarly, our work in scaffolding the analytic process resonates with our intentional approach by encouraging interaction between the subjective and interpretive researcher and the data they are examining. In this way there is an interactive and iterative (Maxwell, 2013)

222  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods flow from concrete to abstract, from practice to theory and from data to researcher. The videos allow practical application of core ideas as students make sense of fundamental skills as they also develop their interpretive lens. We must begin with teaching fundamental skills as a way of slow stepping towards more abstract and theoretical ways of exploring data. As explained above, this slowing down further allows us to resist the assumption that graduate students are coming in with these skills and competencies, thereby building rapport while developing skills. In addition to scaffolding explained above, we further ask, “What barriers or challenges might students incur when engaging with this process?” to incorporate and develop step stools for students. Some step stools examples include: brief video tutorials for using commenting or highlighting tools in word processing programs; providing pre-created templates for observation field notes that include prompts for necessary components such as space/site descriptions; keeping track of time and how to keep discreet concrete observational notes and analytic/interpretive ideas; or exemplar work from previous students that include a brief screencast video in which we explicitly describe what made the model exceptional. An added advantage of providing video instruction is that students will have the opportunity to listen or watch repetitively if needed and video links can also be placed in a frequently asked questions (FAQs) repository for use across programs.

BRINGING INTENTIONALITY TO OUR ONLINE SOCIAL PRESENCE Intentional effort to build communities of inquiry within online courses and embed personal interactions among peers may be the most essential ingredient for engaging online learners. Small group research communities with embedded coaching sessions foster social presence through collaboration between students when solving case study problems or analysing data. Students extend individual learning through discussion, critical thinking, and problem solving with group members. This section describes how the use of peer focused research communities mimic collaborative research teams and provide both peer-to-peer and instructor-to-student coaching. In small research communities, students engage directly with research problems and inquiry while building relationships with each other and an awareness of the research process through online engagement. Social presence, or students engaging with one another, is achieved by facilitating and nurturing a cohesive learning community where participants can communicate purposefully, authentically express themselves, and develop interpersonal relationships (Darby and Lang, 2019; Garrison, 2010). In both face-to-face and online courses, fostering a community of learning takes thoughtful planning of purposeful activities aligned with learning outcomes. Developing relationships early in the course term helps to establish a trusting environment conducive to deeper learning; however, doing so in online spaces can be a bit trickier to navigate. For example, social and informal conversations happen authentically in those nooks and crannies of down time in face-to-face courses, whereas in online spaces they do not occur naturally unless students are placed in smaller groups or online breakout rooms. Below are two examples of how to engage social presence when teaching qualitative online. In teaching qualitative online, we use small (three- or four-person) weekly feedback groups concentrated on producing constructive and timely feedback on student writing.

Using intentionality to frame how we teach research methods online  223 The “three-minute feedback” structure is explicitly taught by identifying characteristics and structures of the process we want students to follow, modelled to students in a whole-group setting, and then practiced in real-time. Students receive an explanation of the purpose to the writing feedback group (giving regular and targeted feedback improves productivity), how to ensure the feedback is critical (how to give constructive feedback not focused on just the positives), and a structure to ensure equity across each person in the group (timer set and followed to ensure equity of time). We emphasise in this specific structure that the author of the writing is not to refute, explain, or question any of the feedback when it is given; the author is to only listen. In this feedback structure we emphasise, “if the reader doesn’t understand, it’s the author’s fault”. While this does overgeneralise, the point in this specific activity is to help the writer hear the feedback and digest it. Without allowing the author to respond during the session, the author is forced to sit with the feedback and we have found this helps students learn to react less quickly and more deeply consider the feedback given. While this is a technique to use in any class involving writing, it is also a direct connection to teaching how to do the peer-review process to check on researcher interpretation during analysis. We specifically build upon the students’ experience with the “three-minute feedback” process and then draw parallels to the process students will use for the peer-review process when we teach about trustworthiness and interpretive validity. This time, students provide their writing groups with data and interpretations. Since students are already primed to offer critical and constructive feedback, students are ready to look for alternative interpretations and challenge the researcher’s interpretations. We find that scaffolding the “three-minute feedback” for general writing then primes students in providing peers with critical feedback, which is essential when teaching students about interpretive validity techniques. Even in smaller breakout groups, social connectedness takes time to evolve. One way to facilitate these relationships in online spaces is to place students into small research communities at the beginning of the term and in which they will stick with throughout the semester. These small groups can emulate research teams, where members can acquire and practice their qualitative research skills with one another. Members learn to provide feedback to one another, simulating effective teaming and collaboration. Research in professional fields shows that learning occurs best when students have repeated practice in essential skills, receive feedback on their performances, and receive support in self-analysis to improve their performances (McLeskey, 2017). Incorporating deliberate coordinated practice opportunities of essential qualitative research skills into online courses is critical for preparing novice qualitative researchers to engage in complex data analytic tasks. This can be achieved through small group research communities that emulate research teams, where members practice their skills with one another and learn to provide feedback through synchronous zoom sessions or shared documents such as Google Docs, where members can edit and provide in real time or asynchronously. Professors can drop into small group sessions and provide feedback as well as view shared documents for accuracy. While our presence as instructors is important, the collaborative and constructive interactions among peers helps focus efforts and develop competencies through their own engagement with materials and skills: better to teach them to fish so they not only develop self-efficacy but also hone in on research relationships. Subsequently, scaffolding skills and building upon skills that have been mastered helps researchers to move from novice to expert. For example, when trying to identify themes in field notes, professors can show data collections of field notes and set up breakout rooms in teams with shared case study document files.

224  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Then students can be randomly assigned to breakout rooms for intervals of time to work in small groups conducting analysis. When the interval is complete, they are randomly assigned so that they attend each room, but with a variety of members in the course (café style). This practice allows students to apply research skills they have learned with their peers and be exposed to a variety of perceptions and interpretations of data, which simulates effective team research and moves the learner beyond the process to begin thinking critically through rich discussions (Darowski, Helder and Patson, 2020). In research communities, students must assume multiple roles: researcher, peer debriefer, coach, theorist and analysis support, among others, thereby gaining a wider appreciation for the holistic project of qualitative inquiry. Thus, they are not only honing technical skills, but they are developing those sensibilities and awareness required to be successful. Synchronous online delivery methods lend themselves to peer grouping with immediate feedback loops, but what about small research communities in asynchronous online courses? Although peers may not necessarily meet at the same time, fostering these relationships and practicing skills with one another is possible. For example, we utilise the platform VoiceThread for simulating small group work asynchronously. First, we might upload a couple of pre-recorded video interview examples and non-examples, then have students compare and discuss in the VoiceThread the interview skills they observe in the videos with what they have read or learned in the course. This is all done asynchronously on students’ own time; however, we set a deadline for all comments from participants. Next, we have small groups collaborate to develop their own interview rubrics according to best qualitative interview practices. Then, each student would conduct a short five- to eight-minute interview with someone they know and record it through a digital platform like Zoom or YouTube. All members would upload their recorded videos into the VoiceThread. Finally, students would watch their group members’ videos and give one another feedback using the interview rubric they created together. Practicing qualitative interviewing skills in this way helps students two-fold; they identify effective interview techniques by observing their peers as well as learn to give and receive constructive feedback. Attending specifically to the building of social presence through the use of research communities, or communities of inquiry, within online courses provides essential personal interactions among peers. Intentionality toward social presence may be the most essential ingredient for engaging online learners, building their own awareness of how relationships, rapport and interactivity with others is keenly suited beyond the classroom and into their qualitative research projects.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY We believe that by grounding our online teaching approach and curriculum design theoretically in an understanding of intentionality, we can structure the online learning environment to specifically attend to cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence, all with the broader goal to prepare students to engage in the tangible world of qualitative social research. We cannot teach qualitative methods in the online environment without drawing extensively on what we already know about online pedagogy. However, it does require us adapting best practices in online learning to meet the specific needs of teaching qualitative research methods.

Using intentionality to frame how we teach research methods online  225 By providing concrete examples of how we adopt and adapt online techniques specifically to the teaching of qualitative research methods, this chapter provides the qualitative research professor with methods to immediately implement in their online research courses.

REFERENCES Adams, R.S., Cardella, M. and Purzer, S. (2016). Analyzing design review conversations: Connecting design knowing, being and coaching. Design Studies, 45, 1–8. Akyol, Z. and Garrison, D.R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250. Bolliger, D.U. and Inan, F.A. (2012). Development and validation of the online student connectedness survey (OSCS). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 41–65. Bonwell, C.C. and Eison, J.A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ERIC Digest. Cornelius, K.E. and Nagro, S.A. (2014). Evaluating the evidence base of performance feedback in preservice special education teacher training. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(2), 133–146. Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darby, F. and Lang, J.M. (2019). Small Teaching Online: Applying Learning Science in Online Classes. San Fransico, CA: Wiley. Darowski, E.S., Helder, E. and Patson, N.D. (2022). Explicit writing instruction in synthesis: Combining in-class discussion and an online tutorial. Teaching of Psychology, 49(1), 57–63. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2008). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9. Guskey, T.R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31. Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McLeskey, J., Barringer, M.D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M. and Ziegler, D. (2017). High Leverage Practices in Special Education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, and Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform. Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 34–36. Saldaña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Soule, K.E. and Freeman, M. (2019). So you want to do post-intentional phenomenological research? The Qualitative Report, 24(4), 857–872. Srivastava, P. and Hopwood, N. (2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 76–84. Wolcott, H. (2008). Ethnography: A Way of Seeing (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

16. Experiential pedagogies in the online space Nicole Brown, Helen Butcher, Belen Febres-Codero and Chuying (Trista) Wu

INTRODUCTION Although the often competitive instead of altruistic nature of academic culture tends to value disciplinary and methodological expertise over pedagogical practices (Nind, Kilburn and Luff, 2015), the need for developing research and practice focusing on the pedagogy of research methods is becoming recognised in the social sciences (Garner, Wagner and Kawulich, 2009; Preissle and Roulston, 2009; Wagner, Garner and Kawulich, 2011). Several challenges regarding the pedagogy of research methods in the social sciences have been identified. Whilst research methods are employed in a great array of disciplines and fields, each with its own ontological considerations, theoretical orientations, methodological approaches, terminologies and perspectives (Preissle and Roulston, 2009; Wagner et al., 2011), there is significant emphasis on anglophone Western research traditions. Indigenous and other non-Western modes of inquiry remain less explored (Flores Farfán, Garner and Kawulich, 2009; Preissle and Roulston, 2009; Taylor, 2009). In addition, when it comes to the practices of teaching research methods, the instructors’ roles are unidentified (Wagner et al., 2011) and course goals may be unclear, resulting in negative attitudes amongst students (Earley, 2014). To resolve some of these difficulties when teaching research methods, a pedagogy with a strong focus on praxis is encouraged (Flores Farfán et al., 2009; Roth, 2009; Taylor, 2009). These approaches recognise the need to implement teaching strategies that are student-centred (Peyrefitte and Lazar, 2018), based on reflective, collaborative, experiential and active learning (Earley, 2014; Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014), and that are multi-faceted through the incorporation of different tools, such as video, photography, artistic writing practice, and creative and playful activities (Brown, 2018, 2019; Brown and Leigh, 2018; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2020). Drawing on constructivist pedagogies (Howard and Brady, 2015) instructors encourage learners to construct their learning experiences and critically evaluate the social research methods as a contested field. The consequence is empowerment and inclusivity, the deconstruction of the teacher-student hierarchy, and a revaluation of dominant views (Webb, Walker and Bollis, 2004). This is why research methods instructors in all sorts of contexts tend to set tasks for their learners to experience what it feels like to be surveyed or interviewed, and to critique that process. However, what happens when the learning environment is not a physical classroom but a virtual one? For this chapter, we (Nicole Brown, a research methods instructor collaborates with one of her undergraduate students, Chuying (Trista) Wu, and two research methods workshop attendees, Helen Butcher and Belen Febres-Cordero), explore the rationale, experience and impact of research methods delivery online. We argue that it is still possible to engage with and apply experiential learning, and that most classroom-based tasks can be adapted for virtual delivery. We commence with an introduction to experiential learning and considerations of online learn226

Experiential pedagogies in the online space  227 ing before presenting two different learning contexts as case studies. The first case refers to an undergraduate research methods module, whilst the second learning context is a stand-alone workshop that Nicole delivers on the topic of creative methods for data collection and analysis. After an outline of how experiential learning theory is applied in these settings, Trista, Helen and Belen offer their reflections with Nicole offering a commentary. We conclude with a look ahead at future developments to offer a stimulus for further discussions in this field.

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING In education, terms and terminologies are often in and out of fashion in waves. What was once considered as in vogue suddenly loses credibility and becomes discredited or forgotten. After some time, government guidelines and research resurface older ideas and repackage them as new, innovative or original approaches to teaching. The “flipped classroom” is a good example of that. “Flipping the classroom” in the twenty-first century means to focus on a student-centred learning experience that will require the learners to prepare for specific content-related discussions by independently studying and reading ahead of the in-class event. In reality, this is not so different from teaching medicine in Victorian times, where students were required to internalise particular course materials before they were allowed to attend a dissection. In that respect, experiential learning is no different. Kolb’s (2014) experiential learning theory began as a development of previously existing theories and thought experiments brought forward by John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, Jean Piaget, Paulo Freire and Lev Vygotsky. The basic principle and foundation of experiential learning lies with Kolb’s (2014) attempt to create an interdisciplinary learning theory that would be applicable for as many situations and different learners as possible to address learning and educational issues. To this end, Kolb’s (2014) experiential learning theory is intended as a basis for developing instructional designs and curricula in line with how individuals learn. In Kolb’s (2014, p. 39) words, learning is a “continuous process grounded in experience” with the educator’s role being “not only to implant new ideas but also to dispose of or modify old ones”. The famous four-step cycle to learning is then one tool within that broader conceptualisation to support learning. To enable that, the original cycle (Kolb, 1984) has been recreated to Experiencing – Reflecting – Thinking – Acting (Kolb, 2014), a cycle that now includes individuals’ orientation and disposition for and in each phase. According to Kolb (2014), each element is very clearly delineated with experiencing being followed on by reflecting about the experience, before moving on to thinking. This thinking phase is characterised by a critical interrogation and exploration of what was experienced and reflected upon. This stage is needed before we are able to act upon that learning. Whilst Kolb (2014) offers these theoretical foundations and pedagogic-philosophical underpinning for his models of learning, he does not offer a distinct or precise recommendation of or for best practice. Other scholars have sought to bridge that gap in their work (e.g., Beard and Wilson, 2018; Matsuo, 2015; McCarthy, 2016). Over time, experiential learning has emerged as a framework that is characterised by learners’ involvement as active participants in the process of learning, by knowledge being situated in time and place, by learners being exposed to novel experiences, by learning relating to the exploration of specific real-world problems and by critical reflection acting as a mediator of meaningful learning (Morris, 2020). One of the major issues with Kolb’s (2014) four-step cycle is the dualistic split between experience

228  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods and knowledge, as in practice the lines are much more blurred than the model may suggest (Kuk and Holst, 2018). For example, where exactly does reflecting stop and thinking start? How easy is it to separate the experiencing from the reflecting? How can this link between experience and knowledge be tapped into, when the classroom is a more superficial learning context than actual learning in real-life? And finally, how can experiential learning theory be applied in an online context?

CONSIDERATIONS OF ONLINE LEARNING There is no universally agreed definition of “online learning” (Bates, 2016; O’Brien, 2020), and the term is often used interchangeably with a range of differentially defined concepts in the literature including remote learning (Barbour, LaBonte and Kelly, 2020), educational or desktop videoconferencing (Lawson et al., 2010; Serhan, 2020), distance learning (Garrison and Shale, 1987; Nurieva and Garaeva, 2020), digital learning, virtual learning, e-learning (Uzunboylu, 2006) to describe educational courses that deliberately provide instruction using technology and via the internet (Anwar and Adnan, 2020; Kennesaw State University, 2021) in either synchronous or asynchronous modes (Khan, 2006; Nurieva and Garaeva, 2020; Pfister and Oehl, 2008). In practice, there is a continuum of online learning and blended approaches (Bates, 2016; Wang, Huang and Quek, 2018) between these extremes creating a “third space” of knowledge and discourse for learning experiences (Moje et al., 2004). Online education has often been stigmatised as a watered-down, inferior and lower quality option compared to traditional classroom learning (Hodges et al., 2020; Knipe and Lee, 2002; Solanke, 2020; Yang and Chen, 2007). Yet, following the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been an explosion of online courses (e.g., Dhawan, 2020; Joia and Lorenzo, 2021; Kim and Asbury, 2020). Online learning incorporating videoconferencing is becoming the “new normal” (Agarwal and Kaushik, 2020; Joia and Lorenzo, 2021) and can facilitate art workshops (Ross, Newstrom and Coleman, 2021; Skregelid, 2021), the development of clinical skills (Fatehi et al., 2014), language learning (Husu, 2000; Nurieva and Garaeva, 2020), the promotion of reflective learning, deliberation and discussion (Solanke, 2020), and problem solving (Hu et al., 2000). The effectiveness of online platforms such as Zoom has also been highlighted in facilitating small group work (Lawson et al., 2010; Morris, 2020) mirroring traditional face-to-face interaction (Hannan et al., 2021). Of course, online learning is not without its challenges and disadvantages. Although research suggests that online tools are generally stable nowadays (Nurieva and Garaeva, 2020; Tsarapkina, 2020), technical issues and breakdowns do obstruct participation (Nurieva and Garaeva, 2020; Tsarapkina, 2020). Unstable or poor connectivity (de Oliveira Dias et al., 2020; Demuyakor, 2020; Dharma, Asmarani and Dewi, 2017; Wang et al., 2018), the requirement for digital literacy (Nurieva and Garaeva, 2020), and the digital divide (O’Brien, 2020) represent the greatest obstacles to online learning. Literature also makes reference to organisational challenges (Pitcher, Davidson and Goldfinch, 2000), initial teacher discomfort performing in front of the camera (Nurieva and Garaeva, 2020), the lack of technical competence (Badia, Martın and Gomez, 2019; i Solé and Hopkins, 2007; Tsarapkina, 2020) and requiring technical support (Ross et al., 2021) as disadvantages. A number of studies suggest a teacher’s mastery of technology, their teaching style (Solanke, 2020) and their attitude towards interactive learning play a key role in the success of

Experiential pedagogies in the online space  229 online learning (Alqahtani and Rajkhan, 2020; Bhuasiri et al., 2012; Joia and Lorenzo, 2021). Another key issue is the absence of non-verbal cues which can lead to misinterpretations and disengagement (McKenny et al., 2021; Qui and McDouglass, 2013; Wiederhold, 2019). For teachers, therefore, online courses require higher levels of preparation and more engagement in holding students’ full attention (Nurieva and Garaeva, 2020). Forward planning using a variety of activities and employing a range of multimedia materials, images and gamification and the like can help to increase motivation and participation (Badia et al., 2019; Morris, 2020; Solanke, 2020). Ultimately, it remains the instructors’ role and responsibility to share learning materials, support step-by step learning, monitor student engagement and intervene when students become demotivated, distracted, or fail to participate.

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN ONLINE ENVIRONMENTS IN PRACTICE In early 2020, the move to teaching research methods online was not natural and planned, but a result of continuing to offer education and training during the Covid-19 pandemic. In many ways, consistency in education offers provided relief from the upheavals, uncertainties and anxieties instructors and learners experienced at the time. As such, many instructors focussed on maintaining a sense of normality by trying to recreate experiential learning opportunities in the online space. Additionally, it became evident very quickly that researchers needed to adapt to the new situation and develop different approaches to carrying out fieldwork, as the pandemic would not be resolved any time soon. That, in turn, meant that courses exploring research methods online would allow for a form of modelling and exemplification of approaches that learners could adapt for their own contexts and research projects. It is against this backdrop that the following two case studies need to be read. Context The module Research Education and Society: Qualitative Methods is taught over ten weeks at the start of the second year of an education studies degree programme in the UK. The module aims to introduce undergraduate students to the role of qualitative research in educational contexts and the social sciences more broadly by focussing on expanding students’ theoretical as well as practical understanding. Students on the course are offered opportunities to methodically evaluate benefits and drawbacks of particular methods and approaches to research as well as to critically reflect on key concepts relating to social science research and how they relate to education and society. The course follows a traditional structure of weekly lectures of 90 minutes in length followed by one-hour-long seminars of approximately 15 to 20 students per group. As the module is compulsory, the cohort tends to consist of 120 to 160 home and international students, most of whom have no experience with qualitative research. Many students will have participated in surveys or completed questionnaires, but never been interviewed as part of a research project themselves. The content of the course is therefore organised around philosophical frameworks and the basics of qualitative research, as well as theoretical and practical elements of what it means to conduct research ethically, systematically, diligently and robustly. And although questionnaires, observations and interviews are a particular focus in this course, students also

230  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods get introduced to the principles of Indigenous research paradigms and creative approaches to data collection and analysis. The module culminates in two assessment tasks: a presentation and a written essay. For the presentation students begin to apply thematic analysis on a given data set, and the written essay represents their first coherent research proposal, which students may build on if they select the dissertation module in Year 3. Creative Approaches to Data Collection and Analysis in Qualitative Research As part of her work as an independent scholar Nicole regularly delivers workshops and training sessions to delegates who wish to expand on their data collection methods and analytical frameworks. The research methods workshops are taught as stand-alone sessions of six hours of content delivery provided over two mornings. The workshop is suitable for anyone who would like to experience and learn more about alternative and/or complementary methods to collecting and analysing data in qualitative research. It is expected that participants will have some prior experience of and with qualitative research. As a consequence, the cohorts of attendees tend to encompass doctoral students and early career researchers based in higher education as well as more experienced researchers from independent research institutions, organisations and foundations in the third sector. Because Nicole runs these workshops from her Greenwich Meantime time zone, most delegates are from the UK and European or African countries in similar time zones of GMT, GMT±1, GMT±2. Occasionally, delegates join from further afield, such as Belen who joined from GMT–8. The workshop is intended to provide attendees with theoretical knowledge along with critical awareness of what creativity in qualitative research is and means, and also to equip delegates with practical tools and strategies for collecting, generating and analysing data using creative approaches, and to offer opportunities and scope to explore ethical considerations and the role of the researcher within the contexts of creative, arts-based and participatory research. The sessions are held online via Zoom in smaller groups of a maximum of 20 attendees to ensure the best-possible learning experience for attendees. Pedagogical Approaches and Learning Tasks In line with the pedagogical principles of social constructivism, drawing on experiential learning theory and focussing on the best practices of research methods teaching, Nicole always delivers learning contents related to research methods as a mixture of interactive group tasks, discussions and lectures. As per Kolb’s (2014) cycle, Nicole’s starting point is that learners need to have space to experience (experiencing) before they are given practical tools to systematically explore (reflecting) and critically interrogate (thinking). In practice, therefore, Nicole creates small-group breakout rooms where learners are commonly set two tasks. At first, learners pretend to be research participants and complete a research task using a particular creative approach (experiencing). Then, after ten minutes, learners use guiding questions to systematically explore ethical considerations, advantages and drawbacks of the approach just experienced (reflecting) for another ten minutes. The critical interrogation (thinking) phase then happens as a plenary discussion with Nicole supporting the process by introducing theories, frameworks and references to relevant literature. In the case of the undergraduate course, Kolb’s final stage of “acting” is assigned as post-session tasks that scaffold the creation of

Experiential pedagogies in the online space  231 the assignments. In the case of the one-off standalone workshops, delegates are expected to implement any learnings in their own contexts independently. At this stage we would like to exemplify this process using one activity from the creative methods workshop. Learners are introduced to the concept of generating data with research participants using sorting activities. In this case, the materials stem from research related to students’ understanding of plagiarism (see Figure 16.1). Initially, the task was developed for in-person situations, but was then adapted for the online research setting. Learners are provided with a PowerPoint slide containing categorisations and descriptions. In breakout groups learners are then asked to pretend to be research participants to complete the task. The task itself is to create a logical structure of categorisations and descriptions by moving the boxes of information around on the screen (Figure 16.1). There are no specific rules or guidelines around how groups complete the task and which logical structure is created by dragging and dropping the boxes. This is because in the original research task participants were also not constrained in any way so that the researchers were able to observe and identify students’ thought processes, understanding and misconceptions around plagiarism.

Figure 16.1

Online worksheet – plagiarism activity

Workshop delegates are given sufficient time to engage with the task playing the role of research participants, although in most cases they do not complete it entirely. In practice, the members of the breakout groups organise themselves quickly and start moving some of the darker orange boxes onto the lighter orange ones (in this printed chapter, the boxes appear in slightly darker and lighter shades of grey). However, there are some categories, such as “unintentional plagiarism” and “intentional plagiarism”, which would fit to several descriptions. Some groups duplicate these terms, other groups only assign them ones, and others leave these terms undone altogether. At this stage, it does not matter whether or not the groups have created and finalised an entire structure. The important factor is the experience of what it means to engage with a task in a focus group with strangers, as this replicates the typical

232  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods focus group situation. After approximately ten minutes, learners are asked to use four guiding questions to reflect on the task they have just engaged with. The four guiding questions are: (1) what is the data?; (2) how can we record that data?; (3) what are the ethical and practical implications of this task?; and (4) what are the advantages and drawbacks of this approach? Once learners have had time to reflect on these four questions in the breakout groups, they are moved back into the main room, where a plenary discussion ensues. To begin with, one breakout group is asked to initiate the discussion by responding to the first question, before the other breakout groups are asked to respond to the second, third and fourth question. In effect, each breakout group only responds to one question but members from all groups have an opportunity to add thoughts, additional discussion points or raise questions. In the case of the plagiarism activity, the conversation relating to the data revolves around opinions, understanding, knowledge and thought processes. It is at this point that the workshop instructor modifies learners’ understanding by highlighting how thought processes may be shaped by the fact that the activity is a focus group activity rather than a one-on-one situation. The subsequent open discussion enables learners to reconsider the impact of focus groups more broadly. When it comes to discussing practical and ethical implications, the conversations include details of data handling and data storage as well as the practicalities of dealing with a particular file format. Advantages and drawbacks elicited highlight that no one method ever is perfect, that any approach a researcher takes is flawed and that it is the researcher’s role to consider and potentially offset any limitations. Once this activity is completed, learners are asked to repeat the same stages with other course materials relating to a different data collection approach. Because of the repeated elements of the set tasks and the four guiding questions learners focus in greater depth on advantages and concerns of particular approaches, whilst also experiencing first-hand as research participants the benefits and frustrations of such tasks. Next, we hear from the learners themselves: Trista’s reflections I am a student in Nicole’s research methods module for undergraduate students. The structure and activities in the module enabled us students to gradually build on our research skills throughout the term. The module is designed to prepare us for our final research projects through the weekly topic, such as interviews, observations, questionnaires or analysis. Each week, we needed to finish a mini-task that is tailored to the weekly topic. In this way, the learning that occurs in the module is no longer for reaching a definitive end but more of a process to gain skills. We had many opportunities to confront disruptions of our prior experiences and were constantly modifying our knowledge to new information. The online readings, pre-recorded lectures, and extra video materials laid down the theoretical foundation to learn new research skills before entering our hands-on practice, the weekly mini-task. In the seminars, tutors offered guidance on completing the weekly mini-task, after which students had a week to reflect on our theoretical understanding and weave it in with our practice. The research practices are largely adapted to the online environment by using Google Forms to create e-questionnaires and by using the online video-conferencing platform Zoom to conduct interviews. In the following week, general feedback was provided by tutors to the seminar group to allow critical reflection on the completed mini-task and further modification of theoretical understandings. It is not difficult to see a dynamic process of knowledge creation in this module due to the constant adaptation to different learning experiences through learning materials, discussions

Experiential pedagogies in the online space  233 and the hands-on mini-tasks. For learning to be experiential, social interactions are crucial. As part of the course, Slido, an online interactive slide platform, was employed so that we could actively engage in whole-group discussion by typing our opinions and viewing others’ responses. Also, we were required to offer peers feedback on each other’s presentations. These Moodle forum discussions enabled everyone to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of one’s own and others’ works. Through these interactive activities, we were not only engaging with the theoretical knowledge and our own works but also with our teachers and peers. And in the final research proposal, we were able to invent ideas that were meaningful for the future development of society. In this way, we were no longer passive receivers or consumers of knowledge but active contributors and creators of knowledge. Helen’s reflections I had booked this workshop feeling very pleased indeed that it would not include the usual additional time and travel costs of face-to-face training. With work, study and family commitments my time is precious, so this aspect was a real bonus for me, even without the Covid-19 restriction considerations. Although I use a discussion board for my distance learning, and working from home using online meetings is now the norm, I was pleasantly surprised by the range of activities and the level of personal interaction and groupwork we were able to achieve through Zoom and using the breakout rooms during this two-day workshop. Having grown up during a time where creativity was discouraged and learning by rote was the norm, I appreciated our introduction to creativity and to the creative sorting methods, made real for us using the “Plagiarism” and other ranking group activities. For the plagiarism activity, we worked in small groups in the Zoom breakout rooms, and sorted cards listing different writing activities into categories of whether or not they constituted plagiarism. None of us had met each other previously, but both activities stimulated comfortable dialogue as one person was designated to move the pieces whilst we explored each other’s understanding of the different constructs and meanings as each piece was identified and sorted as we negotiated the placing of each item. This experience demonstrated the usefulness of sorting methods as research tools which illuminate decision-making processes and priorities and the reasoning behind them (Niemi, Kumpulainen and Lipponen, 2015). I have made use of the learning I gained about the sorting tools, which are both research and experiential learning tools (Niemi et al., 2015). So, I have incorporated a set of “research process” cards into the staff training I deliver on designing, implementing, analysing and reporting on a survey questionnaire. This approach helps me to gather data about the level of understanding of participants as well as facilitate group learning. I found the creative research methods workshop interesting and engaging – much more so than the faceless panel discussions of my distance learning course – and also very useful at a practical level, both in my employment and in my studies. There was plenty of variation in activity, which were interspersed with regular breaks which allowed for refreshment, regrouping and reflection. Belen’s reflections Although it could be thought that online activities do not support the same level of engagement as the ones in person do, often times they actually allow interaction to happen in the first place. That was the case with my participation in this workshop. I only realised that it was being held in the UK when I received a reminder a day before the event. Given that I live in Vancouver, Canada, this meant that the workshop was going to take place from 1:30 am to 5 am in my time

234  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods zone. Despite this difficult time and even though I was miles away from Nicole and from most attendees, I was able to take part in it and enjoy the same level of participation as everyone else. One of the activities that I personally liked the most was held on the second day of the workshop, focusing on data analysis. Nicole presented us with a text and divided us into small groups. Then, she asked us to, individually, write a poem with the data of the text she had shared with us. Finally, we were invited to share our poems with other people from the group. I was truly amazed to feel how my head was working in this activity – despite the fact that it was 4 am in my time zone – and I loved to see that there was not much difference in the process than when I use other methods or software, such as NVivo, for coding and analysing data. However, the result itself was way more unique and engaging. The poem that I wrote felt extremely personal, like all the poems that the other participants created. Although each of our poems was different and unique, through conversation and sharing we realised that our thinking process had not been that opposed, and that we had grasped and represented similar meanings and ideas from the original text. By attending the workshop and collectively completing the series of tasks, I noticed that the level of engagement that can be created in online spaces is not vastly different from the one that can be fostered in in-person activities. I now consider that, more than the mode of the delivery, the epistemology and methodology behind each activity for teaching social research methods is what turns it into a truly experiential learning opportunity. Nicole’s commentary The learners’ reflections highlight how experiential learning in the online space is still relevant and needed, especially when it comes to learning about research methods. For me, the key to successful content delivery in the online space is not necessarily about technical proficiency and the use of what is often derogatively described as “bells and whistles, all-singing, all-dancing” sessions. The success lies with the connections learners can make with the contents, and that these connections happen at the experiencing, reflecting and thinking phases. Experiential learning in the online space is, of course, marred by the usual challenges of online learning, such as issues around time zones, digital literacy, the use of and access to relevant technology, stability of internet connectivity (e.g., de Oliveira Dias et al., 2020; Demuyakor, 2020; Nurieva and Garaeva, 2020). The materials for the activities that Helen and Trista mention, for example, were shared in PowerPoint and PDF formats, as not everyone has Microsoft Office to access PowerPoint files. However, as Helen highlighted in her reflections the plagiarism activity does require learners accessing the PowerPoint version in order to move the categories around on the screen. Equally, there are assumptions made in relation to the rather intimate and private process of writing and sharing poetry that Belen described. It is absolutely true to say that I have particular expectations when it comes to attendees, their set-ups and their participation in my online sessions. But in my view, this is no different to me having particular expectations if I saw my learners in in-person contexts. The expectations may be different, but there will be expectations nonetheless. In effect, all my online sessions are taught in such a way that I can also teach them in in-person settings: instead of moving categories and boxes about on a screen, the in-person plagiarism activity requires attendees to move snippets of paper around; instead of physically sending small

Experiential pedagogies in the online space  235 groups into breakout rooms, attendees will be required to turn to their neighbours in the café-style layout of the room. The most important element in bringing experiential learning to life – online or in-person, for that matter – is by scaffolding the stages. I start with a doing-task (experiencing) before I ask learners to reflect on their experiences with a set of guiding questions (reflecting), which then leads into a joint critical interrogation in a plenary discussion (thinking). The only phase that is always difficult to incorporate within the scope of a workshop or module is Kolb’s (2014) acting, as it relies on individuals experimenting with and applying what was taught. Helen’s reflection is one example of how the ideas discussed with me do live on. In terms of expectations, I would like to mention here that I have high expectations of myself, too. I expect myself to lead by example and to “walk the walk”. And true to my applying experiential learning theory, I never ask my learners to complete a task that I have not tried myself first, as this helps me connect me to the course materials and the learning experience.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Learners’ experience of research methods courses has long been reported as being notoriously weak, disappointing and challenging (Spronken-Smith, 2005; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003; Winn, 1995) because of the huge gulf between theoretical teachings in courses and programmes and individuals’ attempts to practically apply the learning in real-world research settings. The publications that have addressed experiential learning, active learning, problem-based learning and learning-by-doing highlight how individual approaches and philosophies overlap, become misinterpreted and thereby shift in focus (e.g., Aguado, 2009; Carlisle and Ibbotson, 2005; Early, 2014). Consequently, it becomes more difficult to discern what experiential learning means and how it can be applied. But if there was very little research regarding the pedagogies of research methods before the Covid-19 pandemic (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016), then we find ourselves in entirely unchartered waters now. When in the spring of 2020 the UK and indeed the world first experienced the grip of the Covid-19 pandemic, the move to teaching online was naturally rushed. It felt that none of us had sufficient time to carefully plan a coherent syllabus. Instead, our response to moving everything online was that of an emergency. As a consequence, the learners’ first experiences of online content and delivery probably were hampered or felt like of a lesser quality. As the months wore on, it became clear that it is no longer sufficient to teach research methods per se, the research methods themselves needed to change, from in-person research to remote fieldwork. Again, this shift is significant in the development of research method pedagogy, as many research method instructors had actually not encountered remote fieldwork themselves. Like online learning is often seen as the weaker version of in-person learning, so is online data collection or remote fieldwork. The question of pedagogy is therefore tied up with a deficiency model, whereby it is the educator’s role to drum up enthusiasm for the weaker, lesser, more erroneous approach. With our contribution in this chapter, we show that remote fieldwork and the resulting pedagogy via online learning are equally exciting, offer endless opportunities and can – indeed should – be a conscious choice. After all, engaging online with research participants enables, empowers and offers inclusivity in ways that in-person work does not (e.g., Addeo et al., 2019; De Cesarei and Baldaro, 2015; Fox, Morris and Rumsey,

236  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods 2007; Jacobson, 1999). The teaching of research methods has taken quite a significant turn, but it is not a turn for the worse.

REFERENCES Addeo, F., Delli Paoli, A., Esposito, M. and Ylenia Bolcato, M. (2019). Doing social research on online communities: The benefits of netnography. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 9–38. Agarwal, S. and Kaushik, J. S. (2020). Student’s perception of online learning during COVID pandemic. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 87(7), 554. Aguado, N. A. (2009). Teaching research methods: learning by doing. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(2), 251–260. Alqahtani, A. Y. and Rajkhan, A. A. (2020). E-learning critical success factors during the Covid-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives. Education Sciences, 10(9), 216. Anwar, K. and Adnan, M. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2(1), 45–51. Badia, A. Martın, D. and Gomez, M. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of the use of Moodle activities and their learning impact in secondary education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(3), 483–499 Barbour, M. K., LaBonte, R. and Kelly, K. (2020). Understanding pandemic pedagogy: Differences between emergency remote, remote, and online teaching, written in conjunction with the Canadian eLearning Network. Available from: https://​vtechworks​.lib​.vt​.edu/​handle/​10919/​101905 [Accessed 11 March 2021] Bates, T. (2016). Online learning for beginners: 1. What is online learning?, Online Learning and Distance Education Resources. Available from: https://​www​.tonybates​.ca/​2016/​07/​15/​online​-learning​ -for​-beginners​-1​-what​-is​-online​-learning/​#:​~:​text​=​Online​%20Learning​%3A​%20A​%20form​%20of​ ,learning​%20in​%20a​%20virtual​%20environment [Accessed 8 April 2021] Beard, C. and Wilson, J. P. (2018). Experiential Learning: A Practical Guide for Training, Coaching and Education. London: Kogan Page. Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J. and Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers and Education, 58(2), 843–855. Brown, N. (2018). Exploring the lived experience of fibromyalgia using creative data collection methods. Cogent Social Sciences, 4(1), 1447759. Brown, N. (2019). Identity boxes: Using materials and metaphors to elicit experiences. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(5), 487–501. Brown, N. and Leigh, J. (2018). Creativity and playfulness in higher education research. In J. Huismna and M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and Methods in Higher Education Research Vol 4. (pp. 49–66). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Carlisle, C. and Ibbotson, T. (2005). Introducing problem-based learning into research methods teaching: Student and facilitator evaluation. Nurse Education Today, 25(7), 527–541. De Cesarei, A. and Baldaro, B. (2015). Doing online research involving university students with disabilities: Methodological issues. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 374–380. de Oliveira Dias, M., de Oliveira Albergarias Lopes, R. and Teles, A. C. (2020). Will virtual replace classroom teaching? Lessons from virtual classes via Zoom in the times of COVID-19. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy, 4(5), 208–213. Demuyakor, J. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19) and online learning in higher institutions of education: A survey of the perceptions of Ghanaian international students in China. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 10(3), e202018. https://​doi​.org/​10​.29333/​ojcmt/​8286 Dharma, H. R. C., Asmarani, D. and Dewi, U. P. (2017). Basic Japanese grammar and conversation e-learning through Skype and Zoom online application, Second International Conference on Computer Science and Computational Intelligence 2017, ICCSCI 2017, 13–14 October 2017, Bali, Indonesia, Procedia Computer Science, 116, 267–273.

Experiential pedagogies in the online space  237 Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0047239520934018 Earley, M. A. (2014). A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 242–253. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​13562517​.2013​.860105 Flores Farfán, J. A., Garner, M. and Kawulich, B. (2009). Bridging gaps: The quest for culturally responsive pedagogies in collaborative research methods. In M. Garner, C. Wagner, and B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 205–215). Abingdon: Routledge. Fox, F. E., Morris, M. and Rumsey, N. (2007). Doing synchronous online focus groups with young people: Methodological reflections. Qualitative Health Research, 17(4), 539–547. Garner, M., Wagner, C. and Kawulich, B. (2009). Introduction: Towards a pedagogical culture in research methods. In M. Garner, C. Wagner, and B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 1–10). Abingdon: Routledge. Garrison, D. R. and Shale, D. (1987). Mapping the boundaries of distance education: Problems in defining the field. American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 7–13. Hannan, T. A., Umar, S. Y., Rob, Z. and Choudhury, R. R., (2021). Designing and running an online Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) on Zoom: A peer-led example. Medical Teacher, 43(6), 651–655. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning, Educause [Online] Available from: https://​er​.educause​.edu/​ articles/​2020/​3/​the​-difference​-between​-emergency​-remote​-teaching​-and​-online​-learning [Accessed 1 April 2021] Howard, C. and Brady, M. (2015). Teaching social research methods after the critical turn: Challenges and benefits of a constructivist pedagogy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 511–525. Hu, C., Sharpe, L., Crawford, L., Gopinathan, S., Khine, M. S., Moo, S. N., et al. (2000). Using lesson video clips via multipoint desktop video conferencing to facilitate reflective practice. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 377–388. Husu, J. (2000). Supporting remote communities with a shared virtual classroom: A view of social contexts. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(2), 255–268. i Solé, C. R. and Hopkins, J. (2007). Contrasting two approaches to distance language learning. Distance Education, 28(3), 351–370. Jacobson, D. (1999). Doing research in cyberspace. Field Methods, 11(2), 127–145. Joia, Luiz A. and Lorenzo, M. (2021). Zoom in, zoom out: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the classroom. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(5), 2531. Kennesaw State University (2021). Online learning vs. remote learning. Available from: https://​dli​ .kennesaw​.edu/​resources/​idmodels/​online​_learning​_vs​_remote​_learning​.php [Accessed 14 March 2021] Khan, B. H. (2006). Flexible Learning in an Information Society: Hershey PA17033. Information Science Publishing (August 7, 2006), USA. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. Kim, L. E and Asbury, K. (2020). “Like a rug had been pulled from under you”: The impact of COVID‐19 on teachers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 1062–1083. Knipe, D. and Lee, M. (2002). The quality of teaching and learning via videoconferencing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 301–311 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Turning Experience into Learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. London: Pearson FT Press. Kuk, H. S. and Holst, J. D. (2018). A dissection of experiential learning theory: Alternative approaches to reflection. Adult Learning, 29(4), 150–157. Lawson, T., Comber, C., Gage, J. and Cullum-Hanshaw, A. (2010). Images of the future for education? Videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 295–314.

238  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. Matsuo, M. (2015). A framework for facilitating experiential learning. Human Resource Development Review, 14(4), 442–461. McCarthy, M. (2016). Experiential learning theory: From theory to practice. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 14(3), 91–100. McKenny, R., Galloghly, E., Porter, C. M. and Burbach, F. R. (2021). “Living in a Zoom world”: Survey mapping how COVID‐19 is changing family therapy practice in the UK. Journal of Family Therapy, 43(2), 272–294. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R. and Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. Morris, B. (2020). Why does Zoom exhaust you? Science has an answer. The Wall Street Journal. Available from: from https://​www​.wsj​.com/​articles/​why​-does​-zoom​-exhaust​-you​-science​-has​-an​ -answer​-11590600269 [Accessed 15 March 2021] Morris, T. H. (2020). Experiential learning – a systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1064–1077. Niemi, R., Kumpulainen, K. and Lipponen, L. (2015). Pupils as active participants: Diamond ranking as a tool to investigate pupils’ experiences of classroom practices. European Educational Research Journal, 14(2), 138–150. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2020). A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 467–487. Nind, M., Kilburn, D. and Luff, R. (2015). The teaching and learning of social research methods: Developments in pedagogical knowledge. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 455–461. Nurieva, G. R. and Garaeva, L. M. (2020). Zoom-based distance learning of English as a foreign language. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 11, 439–448. O’Brien, D. J. (2020). Feynman, Lewin, and Einstein Download Zoom: A Guide for Incorporating E-Teaching of Physics in a Post-COVID World, ArXiV ID: 2008.07441, Available from: https://​arxiv​ .org/​pdf/​2008​.07441​.pdf [Accessed 8 April 2021] Peyrefitte, M. and Lazar, G. (2018). Student-centered pedagogy and real-world research: Using documents as sources of data in teaching social science skills and methods. Teaching Sociology, 46(1), 62–74. Pfister, H. R. and Oehl, M. (2008). The impact of goal focus, task type and group size on synchronous net-based collaborative learning discourses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 161–176. Pitcher, N., Davidson, K. and Goldfinch, J. (2000). Videoconferencing in higher education. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(3), 199–209. Preissle, J. and Roulston, K. (2009). Trends in teaching qualitative research: A 30-year perspective. In M. Garner, C. Wagner and B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 13–21). Abingdon: Routledge. Ross, M. W, Newstrom, N. and Coleman, E. (2021). Teaching sexual history taking in health care using online technology: A PLISSIT-Plus Zoom approach during the coronavirus disease 2019 shutdown. Sexual Medicine, 9(1), 100290. Roth, W-M. (2009). Apprenticeship: Introduction to research through praxis of method. In M. Garner, C. Wagner and B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 111–118). Abingdon: Routledge. Serhan, D. (2020) Transitioning from face-to-face to remote learning: students’ attitudes and perceptions of using zoom during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 335–342. Skregelid, L. (2021). Zoom in on dry joy – Dissensus, agonism and democracy in art education. Education Sciences, 11(1), 28. Solanke, I. (2020). Editorial: Systemic racism and creative emotion – Back to basics; Peer review – Institutional hypocrisy and author ambivalence; a modest proposal on Zoom teaching. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 18(3), 673–686.

Experiential pedagogies in the online space  239 Spronken-Smith, R. (2005). Implementing a problem-based learning approach for teaching research methods in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), 203–221. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 61–77. Taylor, P. (2009). Researcher know thyself: Emerging pedagogies for participatory research. In M. Garner, C. Wagner and B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. 153–163). Abingdon: Routledge. Tsarapkina, J. M., Anisimova, A. V., Grigoriev, S. G., Alekhina, A. A. and Mironov, A. G (2020). Application of Zoom and Mirapolis Virtual Room in the context of distance learning for students. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1691(1), 100290. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1691/1/012094. Uzunboylu, H. (2006). A descriptive review of mainline e-learning projects in the European Union: E-Learning Action Plan and E-Learning Program. Available from: https://​files​.eric​.ed​.gov/​fulltext/​ ED491391​.pdf [Accessed 12 March 2021] Wagner, C., Garner, M. and Kawulich, B. (2011). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: Towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 75–88. Wang, Q., Huang, C. and Quek, C. L. (2018). Students’ perspectives on the design and implementation of a blended synchronous learning environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1). https://​doi​.org/​10​.14742/​ajet​.3404 Webb, L. M., Walker, K. L. and Bollis, T. S. (2004). Feminist pedagogy in the teaching of research methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 7(5), 415–428. Wiederhold, B. K. (2019). Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding “Zoom Fatigue”. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(7), 437–438. Winn, S. (1995). Learning by doing: Teaching research methods through student participation in a commissioned research project. Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 203–214. Yang, S. G. and Chen, Y-J. (2007). Technology-enhanced language learning: A case study. Computers in Human Behaviour, 23(1), 860–879.

17. Back to the basics: teaching research online in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic Maja Miskovic and Jamie Kowalczyk

INTRODUCTION This chapter takes the contextualisation of online teaching of qualitative research and research design as a matter of concern (Sobe and Kowalczyk, 2018), where context is understood as an assemblage of discursive and structural spaces that create particular norms and rules for naming and action. In the case of doctoral level research courses, designed mainly for working adults pursuing a professional degree, discursive contextual concerns include the tension between the public mission of higher education and the market competition that promotes a for-profit model, the social construction of the doctoral student and the researcher habitus (Bourdieu, 1972/1977; 1980/1990; 1991; 2004), the shift to vocationalism in higher education that deems scientific literacy obsolete (Grubb and Lazerson, 2016), and redirection of instructors’ focus from academic to students’ emotional and mental health needs (Watermeyer et al., 2020). The concerns that emerge in contexts of who, where and how, include an over-reliance on adjunct faculty due to the financial situations of many tuition-driven universities in the USA (AAUP, 2018), and the constraints of online learning environments (Greenhow, Lewin and Staudt Willet, 2021), where virtual experiences, both synchronous and asynchronous, shape the teaching and learning of research methodologies. Research courses in these contexts are much like Fenwick and Edwards’ (2011) ‘messy objects’, with boundaries that shape-shift due to their relations with the discursive and structural contexts outlined above. How does one teach research methods and adopt a research habitus or set of dispositions that have emerged over time in academia and that carry cultural norms in the places they are embodied, in such tumultuous assemblage? This chapter begins with an examination of how the practice of teaching doctoral-level research methods at open access universities in the USA occurs within multiple, changing contexts at once. We first describe changes in the student population of doctoral programs as well as changes in the aims and types of terminal degrees within higher education. Next, we trace the rise of online teaching, which accelerated during the Covid-19 pandemic, and how this learning modality further re-shapes the study of doctoral research methods. We then aim to take these overlapping contextual spaces as both challenging and productive parts of the educational work we engage in. To that end, we explore three ways to address challenges and leverage particular aspects of the messy online, open access teaching context: developing a researcher habitus, making the most of the heterotemporal communications patterns by teaching in the loop of lag time, and engaging students’ emotions as part of the teaching practice. Online qualitative research methods courses infrequently incite students to engage in what Wergin (2020) calls deep learning, which welcomes disorientation and meaning making out of chaos. Unlike an in person, face-to-face (f2f) classroom where constructive chaos may be 240

Back to the basics  241 managed in part through immediate and physical dialogue, the asynchronous online classroom is characterised by a communication lag that often moves the class backwards into circular engagement. Within this communication loop, the online class rehashes what the instructor assumes is already learned and known, with instructor and students in different ‘moments’ of the online dialogue. Despite the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) research methods instructors may have (see Nind, 2020), this communicative dynamic presents a challenge for the instruction of basic research methods in general and advanced courses in particular. After outlining various, intertwined contexts that frame online education, we examine teaching in the loop created by ‘lag time’ in asynchronous online teaching and learning where we emphasise a return to ‘basics’ – what it means to embody a researcher habitus, to ‘write well’, and to use available electronic teaching platforms to support the emotional aspects of doctoral work.

TEACHING AND SUPERVISING DOCTORAL LEVEL QUALITATIVE METHODS: HISTORICAL AND DISCURSIVE CONTEXTS AND SHIFTS In order to arrive at the current conditions of teaching research under the pandemic, we need to examine the overlapping pre-Covid-19 shifts and threads that formed the current discursive knot, whose untangling could facilitate the spread of institutional practices that have not been considered before. Massification and Vocational Transformation of Higher Education The USA has seen an expansion of universities in the twentieth century that led to the enrollment of a culturally, ethnically, and racially diverse student body; this trend is predicted to continue. Together with the already fluid demarcations between traditional and non-traditional students, these changes will blur the distinction between the missions of elite HEIs that are aligned with a more general, ‘liberal’ education program, and open access HEIs that are associated with technical education and professional degrees (Evans et al., 2020). This shift is not new. From its moral and ethical purposes of preparing intellectual and civic leaders, American higher education has transformed over time into what Grubb and Lazerson (2005) called occupational education, with an emphasis on specialised preparation and vocationalism. Doctoral degree programs are no exception, as the goal of a doctorate has moved beyond the production of original knowledge to improve the employability and build transferable skills of students (Wellington, 2013). This trend has led to the expansion of the second-tier comprehensive and ‘teaching’ universities that provide professional occupations academic status. The higher education market in the USA has also seen a number of changes and financial constraints that affect both the HEIs and individual students. The pre-pandemic financial conditions for many HEIs, especially small liberal arts colleges and less selective, regional universities, were already precarious due to the diminished state funds appropriated for education, budget cuts, and reduction in force (McClure and Fryar, 2020). The high cost of new technology infrastructures and software adds to financial pressures. There is growing public pressure about the cost of college and the resultant return on investment, which is creating increased demands for transparency of operations and evidence of the value of higher education. In particular, the last item regarding the return on investment and supposed declining

242  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods value of traditional higher education has led to more students choosing alternative knowledge pathways (credentials, certificates, badges) rather than traditional degrees (Beyer, 2021). Aagaard and Lund (2020) argued that this questioning of the purpose of traditional education and recent market orientation has brought up the digitalisation of higher education. EdD Comes to Life The EdD degree was created at Harvard College in 1921, to be replaced in 2012 by the PhD in Education (Basu, 2012). Following universities’, disciplinary societies’, and professional organisations’ debates on the nature and format of the doctoral studies and dissertation itself, the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate developed in 2007 the guiding principles of the doctorate of education. The EdD was conceptualised around the demands for social justice, preparing the candidates to solve the complex problems in a professional setting (Perry, 2015). Critiques of the EdD degree are plentiful and well known (e.g., Levin, 2005; Shulman et al., 2006; Wergin, 2011). Universities and individual programs interpret the EdD tenets differently, either emphasising the practical aspects of a terminal degree or emulating the PhD degree requirements as close as possible. The 2010 decision of the US National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to reclassify nearly 150 doctoral programs – 96 percent of them in the broader field of education – as something ‘less than’ a research degree is telling in this regard as well. This decision confines the doctoral degree in education to practice and profession that is somehow disconnected from the original intellectual achievement and a contribution to a nation’s economic and cultural growth. These assumptions are not without merit. Although highly competitive and elite EdD programs do exist, many EdD programs are open access, offer programs on a part-time schedule, and have classes that meet outside of the traditional work/school day. Importantly, programs such as these provide a pathway to a doctorate for populations that for a variety of reasons have traditionally had marginalised access to higher education. Online Teaching and Learning Take a Hold Even before the pandemic caused a massive shift to online education, this mode of teaching and learning had been an established platform for graduate students enrolled in programs specially tailored for adult learners or working professionals, with an emphasis on skills, ease of access, and flexibility. According to Protopsaltis and Baumi (2019), online teaching ‘is the fastest-growing segment of higher education’ (p. 2). In the fall of 2018, close to 40 percent of graduate students were taking either partially or exclusively online courses (NCES, 2019). Questions around the value and quality of graduate online degrees have persisted almost since the inception of the modality (e.g., Kumar and Coe, 2017; Slagle, Blankenberger, and Williams, 2021). One source of criticism comes from the assumption that ‘online learning… [is] inclined toward rudiments, toward direct instruction, toward autonomy, whereas campus learning is framed as intimate, nuanced, communal’ (Morris, 2018). What we know from studies on student motivation for selecting online instruction is that they pursue this path not because they want a less ‘intimate, nuanced, communal’ experience, but because they do not have access, whether it is a question of time or distance, to get to an on-campus learning environment. ‘But “nontraditional” doesn’t mean unacademic’ (Morris, 2018).

Back to the basics  243 By reframing this shift in instruction towards online learning from a deficit to asset discourse, this modality provides students with ease of access and flexibility, thus allowing students who would otherwise be excluded from higher education to pursue terminal degrees. These affordances are not given; they depend on teachers’ and students’ agency (Aagaard and Lund, 2020), as well as the social and cultural relations, systems, and structures that enable, what Bourdieu would call, technology practice (Apps, Beckman, and Bennet, 2019). Namely, students’ technology practice is shaped by their dispositions, which influences how they perceive technological affordance and their engagement with it. Furthermore, technology practice depends on students’ access to social capital: their network of support that would provide knowledge and resources toward becoming an active academic participant. The crucial caveat for the universities that mostly serve historically underrepresented students is to provide academic support and interventions, particularly in academic writing, in order for the enrolled students to actually complete their degree (Lehan and Babcock, 2020; Maldonado et al., 2022).

MESSY OBJECTS: TEACHING RESEARCH AND SUPERVISING DOCTORAL STUDENTS ONLINE In the previous section we provided an overview of the existing domains that have shaped USA online education in a ‘pre-Covid world’. What has been seen as problematic in that world could be now positioned as a potential solution. We now turn to the teaching and learning practices we observed and rely upon when teaching doctoral level research courses. This section addresses the following discursive and structural contexts: the social construction of the doctoral student and the adoption of a research habitus, the heterotemporal loop/lag time produced in asynchronous instruction, and students’ emotional as well as intellectual engagement in doctoral work. All of these contexts dominate our thinking about and doing teaching online, forming an assemblage that is necessarily contingent as it further intersects with our particular institutional context and teaching experiences. Additionally, we consider dissertation supervision as a form of teaching, as we actively intervene when candidates reach the dissertation stage conceptually and methodologically unprepared or struggling with writing (Halse, 2011). In the institutional context of teaching research methods to students obtaining a professional doctorate, we agree with Fertman (2018), who argued that writing is a ‘professional responsibility, as part of students’ progression from the practitioner to scholar practitioner as they create and implement practitioner inquiry agendas and write about their experience’ (p. 57). The assumption that doctoral students assume a self-directed role in this process and ‘learn how to write’ in a scholarly way on their own is erroneous. Therefore, we see ourselves teaching research methods and their embeddedness in epistemology and conceptual framework, as well as forms of academic writing while we are in the role of dissertation supervisors. Textbooks, journal articles, and discussion board prompts in research classes emphasise the intertwined nature of all elements in a study design. However, in guiding students through the stages of their dissertation research, the thinking about the specifics that need to be aligned (e.g., study purpose, research questions, and methodology) for the whole (e.g., the proposal) to make sense, we often find ourselves advising/teaching ‘in pieces’. This is contrary to our reasoning behind applying topic specific content and our epistemological positions. For instance, we believe that we cannot teach how to arrive at clear and ‘doable’ research questions

244  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods without assessing them in relation to other elements of the research design. In the f2f classroom, we do not provide an answer to a common student question, ‘Is my research question good?’ Instead, we ask a series of questions about the study problem, purpose, and desired and accessible sample. However, in the process of dissertation advising, when we teach research methods outside of and in addition to the boundaries of a course, we direct students to work on smaller units, asking them to focus on these elements separately before we encourage them to incorporate the smaller units into the whole. While this approach may lead to a clearer and well-structured written product, we wonder to what extent students are learning and if a research process is becoming an embodied practice. To address this dilemma, we turn to the notion of research habitus and the formation of a researcher. Fostering Research Habitus The move to fully online instruction due to the pandemic forced most universities into both asynchronous and synchronous online learning environments. The former are bodiless spaces while the latter allow one to be partially visible and present virtually. How has this radical shift changed the field of education and how we connect and learn? We approach this question through the work of Bourdieu, whose use of the concept of bodily hexis draws attention to the role of the body in the making of habitus, and for our purposes, the researcher habitus.  Bourdieu (1972/1977, p. 261) defined habitus as ‘a system of durable and transposable dispositions which, integrating all past experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and actions, and make it possible to accomplish infinitely differentiated tasks’. Furthermore, Bourdieu (2004) explored how habitus is related to bodily knowledge, arguing that ‘the body is in the social world but the social world is in the body’ (p. 71). In other words, habitus describes ways of acting that are socially and ‘durably inscribed in the body and in belief’ (Bourdieu, 1980/1990, p. 58); they manifest as bodily hexis, a ‘permanent disposition, a durable way of standing, speaking, walking and, thereby of feeling and thinking’ (p. 70) that are both ‘individual and systematic’ (p. 74). Therefore, the individual becoming something, like a teacher or a researcher, and the context or institution within which one becomes, like a classroom or a university, are intimately bound together. The relationship of how one shapes the role they take up and how the institutionally informed role shapes one is expressed through ‘a slow process of co-option and initiation which is equivalent to a second birth’ (1980/1990, p. 68). The work of becoming a researcher, then, is not just acquiring fluency in various methodologies and practices; it is also a slow process of developing a particular kind of habitus, which is inscribed in the body. Loxley and Kearns (2018) spoke to the researcher habitus in their work on ‘graduate attributes’, which seem to go beyond the programmatic and become part of an institutional ‘mission’ to produce a particular type of individual who is the embodiment of these attributes, knowledge and skills. It would be disingenuous to presume that ‘skills’ and ‘attributes’ were never part of doctoral education, however, what has occurred over the past two decades is their explicit codification and objectification within a corporate structure (p. 830).

Therefore, we ask, to what extent does the online context alter the learning of graduate attributes, or the researcher habitus? Georges and Libbrecht (2009) argued that today habitus is tied to one’s digital hexis, a self-representation of one’s bodily hexis informed by the technologies we use. For instance, in her study of the university distance learning students’ habits in Canada,

Back to the basics  245 the USA, and France, Wotto (2020) found that 71 percent of Millennials (age 25–32) say they connect more with mobile learning than content delivered via desktop or traditional methods. Also, smartphone learners complete course material 45 percent faster than those using a computer. However, we are curious about how a digital hexis that conflates mobility and speed with the ‘good’ may affect the depth of knowledge attainment. How might this digital hexis alter the thinking, writing and intellectual engagement of the researcher? Furthermore, how does this kind of digital hexis affect the researcher’s relationship to the academic community? A doctoral student enrolled in an online advanced qualitative research course, who participated in a Zoom session, described it this way: For me, full disclosure, this just whole process has been different. Both my undergrad and my masters were very much in person. And they were with people at different schools sometimes or in different fields. And I’m a talker and I love to interact with people. And I like to learn about what’s out there. What’s different, you know, what’s similar and, and it’s very hard in this space. Right. And then teaching last year from a computer and getting to know my students too that was very hard as well. And, but interesting how, how we had to then do community building and how that looked in this virtual setting. So to me, this [the zoom session] is awesome, ‘cuz I got to see faces in here. Just ideas that I…and very similar things that I’m going through, mother that also is working, and a mentor in my field, and doing other jobs. So I’m not the only one, that’s kinda all around.

If we return to Bourdieu’s (2004) dictum but replace it with ‘virtual’ – ‘the body is in the virtual world but the virtual world is in the body’ (p. 71) – we are prompted to consider the ways in which research practices in the social field of the academy are in a period of flux. Nonetheless, some aspects of the researcher habitus will carry over while new dispositions develop. One such carry-over may be ‘seeing faces’ in a synchronous setting. The use of virtual meeting platforms could serve as a digital bridge from f2f real-time classrooms to online instruction in that it provides the immediacy and visibility that one gets in the f2f classroom with the convenience of not having to travel to a particular site. We propose that the challenges and crises our students face may be in part the result of our collective inattention to their digital-cum-bodily hexis as researchers and scholars in the online learning environment. For this reason, we suggest making f2f encounters a priority to best support students as they adopt ways of seeing, thinking and acting as an academic researcher. Scaffolding Doctoral Research and Writing While Teaching in a Loop We illustrate this teaching in the loop with an exchange between the students enrolled in the research design class and the course instructor. The conversation occurred in the Zoom session, organised to support an asynchronous online class, conducted on Blackboard. This is the last course before students advance to develop the dissertation proposal. It is an 11-week course and we are in week five, when students are expected to have a developed methodological rationale for their dissertation research. The instructor is revisiting the types of qualitative research as presented in Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) textbook, which is a required reading in a basic qualitative research class. This material is reiterated in Creswell and Poth’s (2017) and Creswell and Guetterman’s (2019) textbooks, used in the advanced qualitative research class and research design. Student one has difficulties deciding on the appropriate methodology for her study:

246  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ‘I feel like it (the instructor talking about different methodologies) ties into the case study in a way, but that’s where I’m like, I’m going back and forth in my mind. I overthink way too much.’ Student two: ‘I’m with you, girl. I’m with you. I think, I think it’s a case study. Yeah. I mean, we’re overthinking it, you know, but yeah. I would say case study, cuz you’re only studying one school, right? Yes. Yeah. I mean they’re already a bounded unit. Keep it simple. Instructor: ‘Yeah. So then what would be a difference between a case study and a basic qualitative study?’ Student one: ‘Well, you’re gonna tell us, cuz I don’t know.’ [laughter]

This exchange is an example of what Roulston and Halpin (2020) called vulnerable expressions of students’ knowledge, where students reveal confusion about their own knowledge that was expected to be acquired a course or two prior, and which, in turn, affects their sense of uncertainty about the direction of their research. The vulnerability that is found in virtual f2f meetings is more productive because one can immediately receive a response and begin to work through the troubles expressed. This also is an illustration of a ‘dynamic compromise’ (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2020, p. 479) between our PCK strategies, tactics, and tasks. Had the question of the difference between a case study and generic qualitative research been posted in a written form on learning management system, like Blackboard, the instructor would have redirected students to a textbook (i.e., a procedure specific to the context). However, in this critical incident (in Nilsson and Karlsson, 2019) the instructor provided a short lecture, emulating a f2f classroom situation. Nilsson and Karlsson argued that critical incidents emerge in practice, prompting the instructors to interpret their meaning and analyse the consequences, which could be successful or unsuccessful. The instructor went back to the basics – reiterated the major tenets of different methodologies and reminded students of the sources used in prior classes. On the surface, student’s understanding of the subject was considered, which prompted the instructor’s selection of instructional practices that addressed the students’ question. However, we are concerned that this is a pedagogical ‘patchwork’, a performativity that could not resolve the structural changes that brought us into the current space of shortening the academic semesters in the name of efficiency and fiscal survival, rushing through curriculum to meet the expectations stated in the syllabi and monitored by accreditation bodies, and an emotionally exhausted faculty faced with seemingly never-ending institutional cuts. The stress of an online doctoral writing program includes the challenge of typically receiving only written feedback via Blackboard or email, both of which are experienced in ‘the loop’ created by lags in sending, receiving, and responding. The following is an example of the way in which students use email to vent their frustration over the revision process when conducted only through email: I have read your latest email three times in the last 18 hours and each time it has not inspired a motivation to rise to a challenge but rather has resulted in a mini-meltdown fraught with tears, stress, and anxiety so I guess it is time to air some serious frustrations with this program. (Doctoral student e-mail 7/23/2019)

The student goes on to list a variety of concerns she has with another member of her committee, drawing upon experiences in class prior to the dissertation writing phase, as well as concerns that the written tone of the committee member was perceived as disrespectful and unhelpful. The level of frustration is expressed at times with the use of all-caps and multiple exclamation points in the body of the email, as well as referring to temporal and financial challenges that further put pressure on completing the dissertation proposal:

Back to the basics  247 I still feel that Dr. Mark’s feedback is not very explicit in terms of WHY a problem exists, the feedback simply states WHAT the problem is and may contain a suggested rewrite. If I could understand WHY something is not appropriate it would be so much more meaningful (…) Dr. Mark read my drafts of chapters one and two and simply suggested making my research questions how/why questions WITH NO OTHER GUIDANCE. And now every time I submit something it’s a matter of fits and starts: the questions are great…wait, nope, the questions need work…now they are okay…now they need work. Ugh!!!! (Doctoral student email 7/23/2019)

Emails such as this give instructors an opportunity to gauge not only where a student is in terms of their writing process, but where they are in terms of stress and anxiety related to their work. Feedback in both areas can be used not only to design a response to the student in order to support continued progress with the proposal, but also to reflect on what more the institution can do to support all students more generally. In this instance, a meeting was set up with the committee members and the student to discuss her proposal. Not long after that short, synchronous meeting conducted with Blackboard Collaborate, the student sent the following email: When I began this doctoral program I made the Tom Petty’s Runnin’ Down my personal theme song for the duration of the program. (…) One might say the lyrics capture the essence of my experience learning about phenomenology. Using art as a hermeneutic writing tool to make comprehensible something that alludes us, draw the reader in, and then prompt reflection by the reader was suggested by vanManen (1997). All my life I have viewed the world through a natural science lens (…) While I have always been keenly aware and reflective of my lifeworld experiences in these various contexts, I have never dwelled on that awareness and reflection from a human science perspective. Saying that phenomenology is quite a different perspective for me would definitely be an understatement. There were times over the last few weeks that I was in quite a bit of angst as I grappled with the philosophical side of phenomenology. However, I cannot express how much this methodology feels like a coming home of sorts because it seems to me that to view the lifeworld through the human science lens would bring a balanced perspective with the potential to empower new personal and professional growth. (8/9/2019)

Following an opportunity to speak directly with the committee and to work through major feedback – that arriving at the dissertation proposal requires cycles of revisions and sometimes changing and rewriting one’s methodology – in an immediate way, the student was energised to read deeply in the area of phenomenology and ended with more all-caps to express her satisfaction. These virtual f2f learning environments feel liberating not only for students but also instructors. In the Zoom setting the instructor felt free to express doubts in her own teaching, as well. At one point, the instructor discloses: ‘Oftentimes we write on Blackboard, then I comment on your papers, and then there’re still things that it’s just…we cannot just type ten e-mails. And because Blackboard is asynchronous, I never know who reads what, who reads my comments. By the time I answer somebody’s question, the group moved on.’ While glimpses of students’ vulnerability are visible in Blackboard posts, they are inevitably self-edited, as the emulation of the f2f classroom’s back and forth feels like a form of speech, but without an interlocutor. We need to periodically move away from the abstraction of writing and impersonal technological space to one that feels immediate, and although not a course requirement, we offer the informal Zoom gathering in every term we teach. Cultivating opportunities for synchronous, virtual meetings while attending to the development of a researcher habitus, may also allow instructors and teachers to exit the loop at certain crucial junctures of asynchronous learning.

248  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Even though these add-on Zoom sessions occurred at the end of the doctoral program coursework, students were invited to share and discuss any topic they found helpful. The next excerpt that occurred in an advanced qualitative research class took a turn back in coursework time, as the student brought up the ‘graduate school reading’: I’m a mom, and I teach at a university, and I have two jobs, you know, so it’s, this is a lot for me. I’ve been creating a spreadsheet, which I’m pretty sure the other students have been doing as well, but I really don’t have a lot of time to page for page read all these research studies. So I’ve definitely been trying to kind of like skim and highlight when I can, but I think what I would need is probably at some point, a way to just condense it because I think I have too much and trying to figure out what’s important and what isn’t important, I think is where I’m struggling right now.

The researcher self is absent from the student’s self-positioning. Where is the space and time in students’ lives to read widely and in-depth rather than skim and highlight? As instructors, when and how do we facilitate the formation of such identity? This exchange reminded us yet again that doctoral reading remains an invisible part of coursework (Bjorn, Quaynor and Burgasser, 2022) and that introductory and remedial academic writing courses that teach explicit connections between reading, writing, and ‘doing research’ are essential. In examining our role and responsibility in this process, we are caught in the larger double-bind. In the light of declining enrolments and emphasis on margins and revenues, universities have adopted a corporate, for-profit mode of functioning that Watermeyer et al. (2020) called ‘deskilling and proletarianisation in higher education’, and yet are expected to operate as nonprofits, emphasising high quality and a mission of public service (Kaplan, 2021). Therefore, according to Kaplan (2021), expecting in depth knowledge in a particular subject is valuable but has become unrealistic. Since we struggle to provide students both the depth and breadth of knowledge, we are settling for that ‘they know something of many disciplines’ (Kaplan, 2021, p. 39). Emotional Engagement In their study on students’ discussion posts in asynchronous online qualitative methods, Roulston and Halpin (2020) described authoritative and vulnerable expressions of students’ knowledge. The posts mainly promoted positivity, encouragement, and support. This ‘unmistakably pro-social’ communication (p. 8) is noticeable on the Blackboard platform in the research courses we teach, but the tone of the written communication often changes significantly in the private thoughts expressed via emails. Such messages are full of frustration and anger, where students do not shy away from accusatory language towards the course instructors or comparing themselves with their peers to stress the unfair process they believe is unnecessarily cumbersome and expensive. The following excerpts from emails sent from a doctoral candidate who was working on her proposal to her dissertation chair illustrate the point: I expect to complete the chapter and send it to you within the next 10–14 days. This has been a difficult semester for me with more than normal family and friend drama, as well as my own anxiety over not wanting to teach any longer…at least at the secondary level I think. (3/26/2019) April was a rocky month; in addition to all the job stress I have been experiencing, I had to battle a case of vertigo in the middle two weeks of the month, and no sooner did I recover and a good friend

Back to the basics  249 in Wisconsin passed away suddenly. Needless to say, this slowed my progress down a bit, along with continually finding I needed to do more research as I wrote along. (5/2/2019)

We recognise these excerpts as representative of the kinds of emails we receive from students throughout the dissertation writing process; referring not only to the writing process, but to physical and emotional well-being, personal and professional lives, which are additional contexts for their research and writing processes. We understand this level of sharing as a sign of having developed a strong student-teacher relationship that includes a high degree of trust. Even in the pre-pandemic era, students seeking a professional doctoral degree felt anxiety and pressure due to negotiation of competing roles, making personal and familial sacrifices, and assuming an identity of researcher (Bolliger and Halupa, 2012; Buss, 2020). The pandemic exhaustion escalated and exacerbated the frequency and intensity of research anxiety, which may lead the students to unburden themselves in private emails and Zoom sessions with the instructors. Their composed, adult self that must function seamlessly at work often turns emotional and demanding, which in turn, makes course instructors feeling inadequate in their email responses. Pre-pandemic research also showed poor work-life balance of online instructors, who internalised, or self-imposed, the expectation that being hyper-engaged in challenging students and providing creative and thought-provoking questions in discussion forums was not sufficient; 24/7 online/communication presence was a must (Hansen and Gray, 2018; Montelongo, 2019). The highlights of the large-scale surveys focused on satisfaction of online instructors in the USA were better communication strategies (Howe et al., 2021), instructor-student interaction (Blundell, Castañeda and Lee, 2020), and interactions and relationships with students (Marasi, Jones, and Parker, 2020). The technology itself influenced faculty satisfaction, but to a lesser extent than the instructor-student satisfaction. A qualitive study with a small sample conducted in Denmark revealed that the 2020 online shift, ‘made teachers fundamentally question their identities as teachers, abilities to facilitate learning, and even the very essence of “the higher” in higher education’ (Tomej et al., 2022, p. 4). Pertinent to our argument, Marasi et al. (2020) found that faculty teaching online identified student evaluations as a major concern since they influence faculty’s reappointment or securing tenure and promotion. Significantly, faculty not only modified their teaching approach, but also reported lowering the course standards to prevent negative student evaluations. This pragmatic trade-off tells us that online teaching is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’, but prompts pedagogical choices and produces consequences that will continue to be negotiated as the post-covid reality has simply become the reality. The added emotional engagement may be seen as a misplaced requirement imposed on instructors and dissertation supervisors. We concur with Roulston and Halpin’s (2020) call to ‘examine how projections of vulnerability are handled by instructors’ (p. 8) and how such demands are influenced by one’s identity markers (age, gender, race and ethnicity, body ability, to name a few). Rather than consider this emotional engagement as beyond the scope of the instructor-student relationship, we argue that this kind of work is central to the development of trust in the student-instructor relationship, which allows for more risk-taking, openness to critique, and resilience (Van Kessel et al., 2022) in the face of challenges, old and new, in the field of academia (Kınıkoğlu and Can, 2021). Much like the changes to the researcher habitus as a result of a deepening mobile digital hexis, so too have the crises of the global pandemic begun to change some of the norms of fostering the researcher habitus in our students. We

250  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods cannot ignore the way precarity in the lives of our students is distributed differently, and we must use our roles as instructors to support the whole student (Liu et al., 2022).

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY In writing this chapter, we came across Jackson and Tinkler’s (2011) article on ‘back to basics’ in relation to the role and purpose of the viva in the PhD examination process in the UK. More than a decade later, we feel the urge to return to the basics of what it means to teach research methods in online courses as well as in the process of doctoral advising, which necessitates re-teaching of the research methods course content. Similarly to other second-tier universities in the USA that grant a doctoral degree, the students in our programs usually pursue a professional doctorate, are often the first in their family to participate in higher education, and some begin their studies with less than adequate academic preparedness. The Covid-19 pandemic has not so much altered the mode of teaching and communicating as exacerbated existing normative discrepancies discussed in this chapter. ‘Online education is constantly redefined to include a variety of emerging devices and practices, a dissociation of teaching and learning in space and time’, wrote Wotto (2020). We are in the midst of reconfiguring and reimagining our pedagogical practices within an assemblage of discursive and structural spaces; the norms and rules for naming and action within these spaces are in upheaval due to the forces that had already reshaped the higher education landscape as a result of the pandemic. For us, the Covid-19 reality is a discursive knot formed from different trends, which we are trying to untangle. Our online teaching that has become ‘messy objects’ speaks to the paradox of higher education that is reluctant and slow to change but at the same time is living through drastic shifts, both within and without. As research course instructors, we frequently question and reflect on our pedagogical content knowledge (Nind, 2020). The pandemic has brought to the fore the necessity to integrate technology as part of content-area pedagogy. The application of the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge framework in teaching online research methods (Snelson, 2019) is no longer a choice or preference. The all-encompassing uncertainty and hardship brought up by the pandemic exposed a heightened emotional and mental health component for both doctoral students and faculty. Attending to such needs cannot be side-stepped anymore, but acknowledged as part of thinking and doing the research online. The question is, how will HEIs that rely heavily on overworked and underpaid adjunct faculty meet this expectation. ‘The pandemic merged the macro- and micro-environments and, in the process, expanded our thinking about all the factors that affect quality doctoral education and foster student persistence’, noted Stevens et al. (2021, p. 13). Research (e.g., Blundell, Castañeda and Lee, 2020; Howe et al., 2021; Marasi, Jones, and Parker, 2020) shows that higher education faculty believe online courses are worthwhile, attracting more students who can study at their convenience and pace, but the lack of interactions typical for f2f classrooms hinders learning. Nonverbal communication disappears. Taking research courses online places greater responsibility on students to learn the content on their own. Student-directed learning paradoxically then generates additional work for the instructors, who, when the institutional support is insufficient, take up additional roles, such as writing coach or/and research librarian. It also dimin-

Back to the basics  251 ishes the social aspect of learning (learning from others) and exacerbates the well-studied phenomenon of stress and anxiety related to doctoral work. HEIs now have an opportunity to re-imagine the traditions that do not serve well students and faculty and develop modes of teaching better suited to meeting today’s challenges (Mintz, 2020). While the first year of the pandemic forced universities to complete online migration and assessments of trade-offs between the f2f and online modalities, the post-Covid university will most likely continue to rely on a blended/hybrid approach, with different disciplines considering a different on-line/off-line balance. In this way, questions related to the digital hexis of the academic researcher will continue to shape perceptions and practices for all. In particular, for those who are developing a research habitus in this liminal space, the instructor should consider how best to attend to student needs and to raise questions about the extent to which the virtual context shapes the quality of research and intellectual work. Developing an awareness of the ways that the virtual is inside the researcher will be critical moving forward as the field continues to manage the effects of the transition we are currently experiencing. To ‘emulate what works elsewhere and implement it to try to improve student outcomes (…) could facilitate the spread of effective practices to institutions that may never have considered them’ maintained Blankenberger and Williams (2020, p. 410). The boundaries that define what is the domain of HEIs and what is not are changing, opening the door to new forms of collaboration. For instance, rather than ignoring or going against vendors and agencies that offer doctoral students assistance with data analysis and interpretation, and academic reading and writing, HEIs should re-examine the possibilities of collaboration with those external agencies that employ highly educated academics and professionals and operate with academic integrity in order to address the holistic needs of today’s students.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research was approved by the Concordia University Chicago’s IRB.

REFERENCES Aagaard, T. and Lund, A. (2020). Digital Agency in Higher Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning. Routledge. American Association of University Professors (2018). Data snapshot: Contingent faculty in US higher ed. Available from: https://​www​.aaup​.org/​news/​data​-snapshot​-contingent​-faculty​-us​-higher​ -ed​#​.YsMIlYTMK3B Apps, T., Beckman, K. and Bennet, S. (2019). Engaging with Bourdieu’s theory of practice: An empirical tool for exploring school students’ technology practice. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 28(4), 413–423. Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 704–739. Basu, K. (March 29, 2012). Ending the first Ed.D. program. Inside Higher Education. Available at: https://​www​.insidehighered​.com/​news/​2012/​03/​29/​country​%E2​%80​%99s​-oldest​-edd​-program​-will​ -close​-down Beyer, R.A. (2021). Macro-trends shaping higher education. Higher Learning Commission Annual Conference. Chicago, Illinois, April 8, 2021.

252  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Bjorn, G.A., Quaynor, L. and Burgasser, A.J. (2022). Reading research for writing: Co-constructing core skills using primary literature. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 7(1), 47–58. Blankerberger, B. and Williams, A.M. (2020). COVID and the impact on higher education: The essential role of integrity and accountability. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(3), 404–423. Blundell, G.E., Castañeda, D.A. and Lee, J. (2020). A multi-institutional study of factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning. Online Learning, 24(4), 229–253. Bolliger, D.U. and Halupa, C. (2012). Student perceptions of satisfaction and anxiety in an online doctoral program. Distance Education, 33(1), 81–98. Bourdieu, P. (1972/1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1980/1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Bodily knowledge. In The Aberdeen Body Group. The Body: Critical Concepts in Sociology (Vol. 2, pp. 52–82). Routledge. Buss, R.R. (2020). Exploring the development of students’ identities as educational leaders and educational researchers in a professional practice doctoral program. Studies in Higher Education, 47(6), 1–15. Creswell, J.W. and Guetterman, T.C. (2019). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (6th ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall. Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2017). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). Sage. DeVaney, T.A. (2010). Anxiety and attitude of graduate students in on-campus vs. online statistics courses. Journal of Statistics Education, 18(1), 1–15. Evans, C., Rees, G., Taylor, C. and Fox, S. (2020). A liberal higher education for all? The massification of higher education and its implications for graduates’ participation in civil society. Higher Education, 81, 521–535. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s10734​-020​-00554​-x Fenwick, T. and Edwards, R. (2011). Considering materiality in educational policy: Messy objects and multiple reals. Educational Theory, 61(6), 709–726. Fertman, C.I. (2018). Facilitating and supporting EdD students’ scholar practitioner writing as an epistemological tool. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 3(2), 51–58. Greenhow, C., Lewin, C. and Staudt Willet, K.B. (2021). The educational response to COVID-19 across two countries: A critical examination of initial digital pedagogy adoption. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 30(1), 7–25. Grubb, W.N. and Lazerson, M. (2005). Vocationalism in higher education: The triumph of the Education Gospel. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(1), 1–25. Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., Greenhow, C., Cain, W. and Roseth, C. (2014). A tale of two courses: Innovation in the hybrid/online doctoral program at Michigan State University. TechTrends, 58, 45–53. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s11528​-014​-0768​-z Howe, D.L., Heitner, L., Dozier, A. and Silas, S. (2021). Health professions faculty experiences teaching online during the COVID-19 pandemic. ABNF Journal, 32(1), 6–11. Jackson, C. and Tinkler, P. (2001). Back to basics: A consideration of the purposes of the PhD viva. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 355–366. Kaplan, A. (2021). Higher Education at the Crossroads of Disruption: The University of the 21st Century. Emerald. Kınıkoğlu, C.N. and Can, A. (2021). Negotiating the different degrees of precarity in the UK academia during the Covid-19 pandemic. European Societies, 23(1), 817–830. Kumar, S. and Coe, C. (2017). Mentoring and student support in online doctoral programs. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 128–142. Lehan, T.J. and Babcock, A. (2020). Early intervention for struggling online graduate students: Processes and short-term outcomes. Learning Assistance Review, 25(2), 111–132. Liu, Y., Frazier, P.A., Porta, C.M. and Lust, K. (2022). Mental health of US undergraduate and graduate students before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Differences across sociodemographic groups. Psychiatry Research, 309, 114428. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114428 Loxley, A. and Kearns, M. (2018). Finding a purpose for the doctorate? A view from the supervisors. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 826–840.

Back to the basics  253 Maldonado, L.G., Dolfi, J.J., Bartlett, II, J.E. and Bartlett, M.E. (2021). Forward momentum: Providing supportive space for EdD students’ dissertation progression through weekly online writing sessions. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 6(3), 13–20. Marasi, S., Jones, B. and Parker, J.M. (2020). Faculty satisfaction with online teaching: A comprehensive study with American faculty. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 513–525. McClure, K.R. and Fryar, A.H. (2020). Vulnerable, fragile, and endangered? Financial rhetoric and reality at regional public universities. New Directions for Higher Education, 190, 41–58. DOI:10.1002/he.20366 Merriam, S.B. and Tisdell, E.J. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Jossey-Bass. Mintz, S. (December 17, 2020). The crisis higher education needs. Inside Higher Education. https://​www​ .insidehighered​.com/​blogs/​higher​-ed​-gamma/​crisis​-higher​-education​-needs Morris, S.M. (April 4, 2018). Online learning shouldn’t be ‘less than.’ Inside Higher Education. Available from: https://​www​.insidehighered​.com/​digital​-learning/​views/​2018/​04/​04/​are​-we​-giving​ -online​-students​-education​-all​-nuance​-and​-complexity Nilsson, P. and Karlsson, G. (2019). Capturing student teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) using CoRes and digital technology. International Journal of Science Education, 41(4), 419–447. Nind, M. (2020). A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: Teaching advanced social science research methods. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 185–201. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2020). A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 467–487. Park, J-H. and Hee, J.C. (2009) Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217. Protopsaltis, S. and Baum, S. (2019). Does online education live up to its promise? A look at the evidence and implications for federal policy. Center for Educational Policy Evaluation. https://​jesperbalslev​ .dk/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2020/​09/​OnlineEd​.pdf Roulston, K. and Halpin, S.N. (2021). Students’ interactions in online asynchronous discussions in qualitative research methods coursework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 24(4), 401–412. Slagle, D.R., Blankenberger, B. and Williams, A.M. (2021). Are online doctoral program graduates viewed as hireable for academic positions? The case of public affairs programs. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 7(1). https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​07377363​.2020​.1859349 Snelson, C. (2019). Teaching qualitative research methods online: A scoping review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 24(11), 2799–2814. Sobe, N.W. and Kowalczyk, J.A. (2018). Context, entanglement, and assemblage as matters of concern in comparative education research. In J. McLeod, N.W. Sobe and T. Seddon (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2018 (pp. 197–204). Routledge.  Street, H. (2010). Factors influencing a learner’s decision to drop-out or persist in higher education distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4), 1–5. Stevens, D.D., Chetty, R., Bertrand Jones, T., Yallew, A. and Butler-Henderson, K. (2021). Doctoral supervision and COVID-19: Autoethnographies from four faculty across three continents. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(5), Art 6. Tomej, K., Liburd, J., Stilling Blichfeldt, B. and Hjalager, A.-M. (2022). Blended and (not so) splendid teaching and learning: Higher education insights from university teachers during the Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 1–6.https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.ijedro​ .2022​.100144 Van Kessel, G., Brewer, M., Lane, M., Cooper, B. and Naumann, F. (2022). A principle-based approach to the design of a graduate resilience curriculum framework. Higher Education Research and Development, 41(4), 1325–1339. Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C. and Goodall, J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education, 81(3), 623–641. Wellington, J.W. (2013). Searching for ‘doctorateness’. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1490–1503.

254  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Wotto, M. (2020). The future high education distance learning in Canada, the United States, and France: Insights from before COVID-19 secondary data analysis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(2), 262–281.

18. ‘No choice’ but remote learning: non-traditional students making sense of social research methods Rossana Perez-del-Aguila, Heather Allison and Naveed Kazmi

INTRODUCTION Learning the craft of research forms an important part of the curricula of all undergraduate and postgraduate social science degrees (Garner, Wagner and Kawulich, 2009; Hosein and Rao, 2017; Reardon, 2006). Notwithstanding this growing profile of research methods, there is still limited literature in the area of pedagogy for this. Based on years of experience teaching research methods to many cohorts of students, we have observed that students find learning the skills of research is the most challenging part of their degrees (resonating with Howard and Brady, 2015). With this pedagogical issue in mind and building on the existing literature, this chapter draws on a qualitative study of an undergraduate and postgraduate Education Studies programme in a post-1992 university to explore how non-traditional students make sense of the theories, concepts, and application of social research methods, and what strategies they use to engage with online learning and assessment tasks. Post-1992 universities in the UK are former polytechnics or central institutions given university status in 1992. They are distinct from the ‘older’ research-intensive ‘traditional’ universities and differ in offering more vocational oriented programmes (Raffe and Croxford, 2015). This stratified higher education (HE) system has created opportunities for many culturally and socially diverse ‘non-traditional’ student groups who are working-class or the first family member to attend university, and/or were traditionally under-represented in HE (e.g., ethnic minorities, the disabled, mature students or from low-income households). These students are more likely to study in post-1992 universities (Allison, 2017; Ball, 2021; Thompson, 2019; Wong, 2018). We are aware of the deficit discourse model of learning relating to non-traditional students (Wong and Chiu, 2021) that often pathologises them as ‘diligent/plodding, conformist, passive, dependent, followers and Other’ (see Mendick, Alley and Harvey, 2015, p. 1). Contrary to such discourses, the students who participated in our research showed resilience in coping with the new and changing challenges of the pandemic. They displayed determination and perseverance and adopted creative strategies to learn the processes and skills of social research, while having to rely solely on the screen for the delivery of modules. Our findings suggest that when students were faced with the demands of the assessment tasks in their research methods modules, they had no choice but to become self-directed and resourceful learners. Collis and Reed (2016, p. 2) argued that ‘student resourcefulness and resilience’ have both ‘far reaching benefits in higher education and beyond’, and that non-traditional students in ‘pathway programs’ (pre-entry or foundation level) should have the opportunity to be prepared for these 255

256  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods skills. The students in our research felt obliged into developing these skills themselves during their learning journey. We critically examine their perceptions of the challenges, rewards, and value of learning qualitative research methods in their degrees and how they negotiated the sudden and unexpected transition from face-to-face to a virtual learning environment. There is evidence that the pandemic has further exacerbated social and economic inequalities (Blundell et al., 2021) and impacted on students’ learning experience in HE (Khan, 2021). Raaper, Brown and Llewellyn (2022, pp. 405–406) have emphasised that environmental challenges ‘deserve particular attention for the non-traditional students’ whose core concerns during the pandemic have been ‘issues related to study space, general wellbeing and financial pressures’. Their research with social science non-traditional students draws attention to the importance of family and friends support networks, and the ‘lack of systemic institutional support’ which is likely to further disadvantage these students. Similarly, in our research students missed the social aspect and the kinds of formal and informal support that were available to them in the face-to-face classroom environment (e.g., post-lecture support from the academic mentor or lecturers, the physical space of the library, and/or peer support). However, they learned to grapple with the complexities of the principles and processes of social research developing strategies to survive in the new learning world of Covid-19. The challenges experienced by ‘non-traditional’ students in HE are well-documented. Jin and Ball (2020) argue that lower academic outcomes for ‘non-traditional’ students are often explained away and legitimised by drawing on the discourse of meritocracy. Similarly, Reay (2018, p. 4) argues that in more contemporary times the exclusion faced by ‘non-traditional students’ is ‘no longer simply about exclusion from the system, but increasingly about exclusion within it’. We argue that the ‘non-traditional’ students in our research expected to be taught in similar ways to how they were taught at school, and often compared their university students’ experiences with those practiced in schools. The narratives show that at the beginning of their journey of learning research methods they expected more support from teachers and struggled to come to terms with the ethos of autonomous and self-directed learning in HE. Online rather than face-to-face learning exacerbated their already stressful university experience, but as a result students became more resilient, creative, and resourceful. Our research findings are situated in the broader context of an international health crisis and the move to ‘emergency remote learning’ (Hodges et al., 2020). In the UK, the Prime Minister announced the first lockdown on 23 March 2020 (Johnson, 2020) and students had no choice but to study remotely until the end of most Covid-19 restrictions in July 2021. It was during the last three months of this period that our study was conducted.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK We draw upon Foucault’s (1980, 1972/1989) notion of discourse as a theoretical perspective to illuminate the data and also as an extended metaphor to reimagine the pedagogy of social research. As such, we take the view that discourse is a highly productive system that leads to the ‘ordering of objects’ (Foucault, 1989, p. 54). Another important dimension of the Foucauldian discourse is its intricate, inextricable, and perennial relationship with power, creating what Foucault (1980, p. 131) refers to as the ‘regime[s] of truth’. We argue that scientific research is a product of the European Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, which created a discursive formation (Foucault, 1972/1989) that enabled people to speak about the

‘No choice’ but remote learning  257 creation of credible, authentic knowledge that invariably emerges from the crucible of empiricism and is, hence, accorded the status of ‘truth’. We maintain that the popular conception of the social sciences is still rooted within what Hughes and Sharrock (1997, p. 24) refer to as ‘the positivist orthodoxy’, which is operationalised through ‘the idea of research as hypothesis testing and theory corroboration’. Whereas there is now a rich and well-established tradition of interpretivist qualitative research within the social sciences, quantitative research informed by the positivist epistemology is still seen as the benchmark of epistemological rigour and credibility that is sustained through what Bloch (2004, p. 100) refers to as ‘the governing discourse of “hard science”’. Very often this epistemologically rigorous and credible research is the one based ‘on the language of randomised controlled trials and causal inference’ (Galvez, Heiberger and McFarland, 2020, p. 613). This credibility of quantitative research is not confined to the academy and permeates wider society and forms an important strand of what Foucault (2009, p. 351) refers to as the project of governmentality in contemporary Western democracies. Governmentality for Foucault (2009, p. 351) is predicated on a ‘quite particular relationship of power and knowledge, of government and science’. Hence, students come to HE with an image of credible research as the one that discovers causal links between social variables and which as such holds the key to ‘solving’ entrenched social problems. In line with Foucauldian theory of discourse (Foucault, 1980 and 1972/1989), we acknowledge that the popular conception of scientific research (and that of our student participants) is enmeshed within what Foucault (1980, p. 131) refers to as the ‘political economy of truth’ that is sustained by the amorphous and ubiquitous workings of power within society and, as such, transcends the confines of the academy. However, we take an optimistic stance with the hope that there is a ‘possibility of [working towards] constituting a new politics of truth’ (Foucault 1980, p. 133). We hope to do so by sensitising our students to the rich and varied possibilities that qualitative research holds for understanding the human world. Foucault’s theory enables us to understand the teaching and learning of qualitative research methods in a post-1992 university, set against the hegemonic discursive practices of natural sciences seen as offering the ultimate touchstone for ‘authentic’ knowledge. This technicist discourse is embedded in non-traditional students’ perceptions of research when starting university but dissipate in three years of studies where they gain a holistic understanding of the social world and come to appreciate the promise of qualitative methodologies. From an ontological position and as noted above, ‘non-traditional students’ in our study do not comprise a monolithic group. They have diverse lives and, as such, have unique and bespoke aspirations. Therefore, when trying to understand their identities and how they make sense of learning research methods, we do not presume a deterministic essentialist position (Butler, 1993). For example, we do not construct our participants as displaying stereotypical characteristics related to their ethnicity, age, gender, and social class with a view to compare them to the ‘ideal student’ (Wong and Chiu, 2021) who is often ‘White, middle class and masculine’ (Mendick, Alley and Harvey, 2015, p. 162). We aimed to understand how ‘non-traditional students’ navigated their way while learning about social research and how they emerged as knowledge creators by adopting the role of emerging social researchers.

258  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS IN THE UK Following successive policies of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1990s to increase the number of young people participating in HE by promises of increased employment opportunities (Allison, 2017), the number of students from non-traditional backgrounds have increased in recent years. However, ‘the gap between disadvantaged students and their advantaged peers remains significant’ from admission to graduation (Wyness, 2017, p. 3). Non-traditional students ‘are less likely to achieve the highest undergraduate degree outcome’ (Wong, 2018, p. 1). The Office for Students in England reported that the groups of full-time students achieving a first or upper second-class degree in 2019–2020 were 86.6 percent white compared with 68.2 percent Black and 78.8 percent Asian, 85.2 percent young (under 21) and 84.4 percent women. Only 59 percent of part-time students achieved a first or upper second-class degree, and attainment among minority ethnic part-time students was at 35 percent overall (Hubble, Bolton and Lewis, 2021, p. 16). At post-graduate level students are still an underrepresented group, but previous research has shown that ‘the introduction of master’s loans in England has widened the participation of less well-off students’ reducing social class differences (Mateos-Gonzales and Wakeling, 2022, p. 685). Large socio-economic gaps in HE participation (i.e., drop-outs, degree completion and degree classifications) have been explained by the different levels of human capital that students possess when arriving at university (Crawford, 2014). A significant body of literature has employed the concepts of habitus (dispositions), social capital and cultural capital to explain the experiences of working-class students (Crozier et al., 2008; Mountard-Brown, 2022; Reay, 2018; Reay, 2021). This shows that ‘the relationships of working class students to education cannot be understood in isolation from middle class subjectivities’ (Reay, 2001, p. 333) and they are the ‘lucky survivors’ (Mountford-Brown, 2022, p. 194) who ‘struggle to deploy and accumulate capitals in their everyday higher education experiences’ (Mountford, 2014, p. 61). Research in the Australian context has employed the same concepts to challenge the ‘deficit discourse’ around students from low economic backgrounds (McKay and Devlin, 2016) conceptualising ‘success’ as ‘bridging socio-cultural incongruity’ (Devlin, 2011, p. 1) and moving away from the idea that students need to adapt. Instead, it is argued that it is possible for the university to provide ‘academic and social support that develop[s] cultural capital’, if the habitus of these students is understood (Meuleman et al., 2014, p. 13). Other studies drawing on Bourdieu’s capitals have focused on the experiences of success of students from non-traditional backgrounds. Wong (2018) explored the educational background, experiences and/or trajectories of high-achieving non-traditional students at two post-1992 universities and concluded that previous academic skills, the desire to prove themselves, and the influence of significant others were key ingredients in academic success in their social science degrees. According to Wong (2018, p. 9) and Allison (2017, p. 53) these students persevere and develop some ‘dispositions of resilience’ ‘to successfully navigate the university systems and structures’, a characteristic that we also found in our research participants. Research suggests that irrespective of social and cultural capital, resilience offers another lens for understanding student success and it is a step towards increasing retention in the wider European context (Cotton, Nash and Kneale, 2017). ‘Success’ means different things to different students. Top marks for some ‘non-traditional’ students may not be as important as being able to hand in an assignment on time (Trowler, 2016, p. 219) and for our participants

‘No choice’ but remote learning  259 trying to make sense of the nature and logic of research methods whilst learning online during Covid-19 restrictions was the main concern at the time of our research.

TEACHING AND LEARNING RESEARCH METHODS ONLINE: WHAT DOES THE LITERATURE SAY? There is a paucity of studies on the pedagogy of online research methods courses. Snelson (2019) reviewed the literature on teaching practices in qualitative research concluding that more has been written about face-to-face teaching with limited information about online approaches. She found that online pedagogical practices were consistent with ‘instructional design approaches’ and ‘mediated by technology’ (p. 2800). Teachers employed media to create information about qualitative research topics, held online discussions, and integrated applied research and writing activities to give online learners experience with qualitative research practice. Metzer et al. (2019, pp. 5–6) also recognised the lack of literature on how research methods are being taught online and the difficulties of teaching research methods whether students are ‘on or offline’. Some authors claim that online learning ‘adds another layer to the difficulty’ (Seligman, 2020, p. 97) and teaching at a distance is even more difficult when teaching qualitative methodology (Hunter, Ortloff and Winkle-Wagner, 2014). Previous studies on the teaching and learning of research methods in HE (e.g., Howard and Brady, 2015) suggest that this is a relatively more demanding area of the curriculum. Students are required to grasp complex abstract principles and processes (Keenan and Fontaine, 2012) causing emotional anxiety (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018). Research has found that students’ aversion to methodology courses poses significant challenges for teachers and learners (Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014; Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016) and for most students ‘a research project is a monumental task to be avoided until the deadline looms’ (Badke, 2012, p. 1). Nind, Kilburn and Luff (2015, p. 1) pointed out that ‘the teaching and learning of research methods has occupied a comparatively marginal position within broader methodological discussions in the social sciences’. However, in recent years there has been a slow but increasing interest in researching the teaching and learning of research methods. Previous research showed that pedagogical research and culture was underdeveloped and offered little guidance for teachers (e.g., Earley, 2014; Hosein and Rao, 2014; Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014; Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018; Wagner, Kawulich and Garner, 2019), but a recent systematic review of the literature indicates that ‘the pedagogical culture around research methods education appears to be flourishing’(Nind and Katramadou, 2023, p. 259); there is now a substantial number of papers describing how research methods are taught. Guidance on good practice in teaching research methods in general has also started to emerge (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2015, 2017; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2015), and some specific resources on how to teach research methods online have been developed by the National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM) (Collins, 2019; Collins, 2020) and SAGE Campus (Meltzer et al., 2019). Most of the literature on the pedagogy of research methods relates to teachers’ views and their own understanding of how students learn (Nind and Katramdou, 2022). There is limited research drawing on students’ voices and their experiences of learning (see Hosein and Rao, 2017; Rand, 2016; Turner et al., 2018). Nind et al. (2020, p. 798) argued that understanding

260  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods how students learn ‘can contribute to [effective] teaching’. Their research with postgraduate research students showed that teachers should pay more attention to the social, emotional, active and reflective nature of methods learning. We hope that our contribution to this handbook will address this gap in the literature. We aim to shed light on how non-traditional students engage with social research methods and the strategies that they develop during their learning journey. We contextualise what students said within the reality of their own lives, their identity as learners, and the broader context of an international health crisis where students were forced to shift from face-to-face to remote learning.

STUDYING RESEARCH METHODS LEARNING: METHODOLOGY The study adopted a qualitative research approach as we wanted to get an in-depth understanding of our participants’ experiences of learning the skills of social research remotely in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. We used semi-structured interviews to give participants the flexibility to talk about matters that were important to them. Students were asked to reflect on various aspects of their journey of learning the skills of qualitative research. As the participants came from different levels and backgrounds there was a significant variation in the journeys that they had made. We also collected data from 22 non-graded self-reflective statements of second year students, and statistics of module results that are not part of this chapter. The study investigated the experiences of an ethnically diverse sample of ‘non-traditional’ students enrolled on either an undergraduate or postgraduate education studies programme in a post-1992 university in London. The research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the host university in April 2021. Nineteen interviews were conducted between May and July 2021. Interviews were recorded on MS Teams, transcribed with a professional service, and analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clark, 2022). Five male and 14 female students aged 21 to 60 years participated in the research.

LESSONS FROM THE STUDY ‘I Felt my Brain was in a Box’: The Covid-19 Context and Remote Learning Remote learning meant almost exclusive reliance on technology, which was unfamiliar territory for most mainstream institutions that had been delivering face-to-face programmes for decades. Teachers had to quickly put their courses online without time for planning and without appropriate resources due to crisis circumstances. This is not the same as online learning where there is sufficient time to plan and design content and student support (Hodges et al., 2020). The challenge of remote teaching and learning was exacerbated by the unequal access to technology amongst the students, which evidence suggests contributes to socio-economic inequality in student achievement (Britton, Drayton and van der Erve, 2021). In particular, students with caring responsibilities experienced additional financial challenges as Alyssa found: ‘At first, we didn’t have more than one laptop in the house so that was a challenge, but then the schools gave them all laptops so that made it easier’.

‘No choice’ but remote learning  261 In the context of the pandemic, in addition to the emotional stress and domestic responsibilities (including home schooling), working-class students were more likely to have unsuitable and limited study spaces, which had to be shared with other family members for other purposes such as eating and relaxing (Mates, Millican and Hanson, 2021; Reay, 2020). Overnight, some students turned their home into a school, university and library. Being at home affected students’ psychological well-being and motivation. Before lockdown, the library was a place where many students could focus on their study, meet and socialise with peers. Not having to access the university library and face-to-face lectures, students soon realised that the ‘convenience’ of ‘just roll[ing] out of bed at twenty [minutes] to ten and get breakfast and then sit[ting] down and enjoy[ing] the lecture’ and ‘not to commute’ was not the same as ‘having that traditional way of learning’ and ‘personal connections with teachers and classmates’. Some students found it very difficult not to be in a library space in which to study. They experienced social isolation and felt less productive. Maureen (second year student) elaborated on the additional stress that studying online put on the learning of research methods: During the lockdown I felt like my brain was in a box as well. I couldn’t think. I nearly had a meltdown. It’s like I couldn’t remember stuff, it was like … I was just on a journey by myself honestly. And it was very, very difficult to cope … . I was just home alone and see the same wall … . I definitely think [research] was more difficult because we are online … there’s a stress and anxiety that I think would have been much more different face to face because I think the support network would have been better … .

Thus, notwithstanding some advantages of remote learning experienced by some of our participants, many of them found the experience of learning research methods in this way stressful and more challenging. For teachers, teaching qualitative research methods remotely was also challenging, and not having the time to design an online curriculum meant that they did the best they could. ‘The Nitty Gritty Details’: Learning the Craft In this section, we hope to take the readers on a vicarious journey that started with a sense of significant challenge and apprehension for our students but, in most cases, ended with a feeling of intellectual fulfilment. Listening to the participants was a fascinating journey of learning and insight. The participating students found the process challenging and perplexing, even at times overwhelming, but in most cases novel and rewarding in the end, which led them to appreciate the promise of qualitative social research. This overarching finding aligns with what Wisker (2019, p. xxii) suggests: ‘Undergraduate research is challenging, rewarding and recognised as absolutely crucial in developing confidence, creative and critical thinking’. The participants found various aspects of conducting and writing about a research study difficult. Some students had to initially grapple with how the writing of a report about research they had conducted, was different from other coursework, especially conventional essays. For example, Sophia, a third-year student, said ‘for the essay, you have the essay instructions. Like, you know what you need to do, actually. So, it’s quite difficult to get lost’. For Sophia, the self-directed nature of a research study and the accompanying research report contributed to the challenge of it. John, another third-year student, commented on the challenge of having to decide on your own topic for your research: ‘… we’re still coming to terms with the key

262  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods concepts and the key issues in education. For us to know [and] have a real interest in what to study is quite challenging’. The apprehension was in part due to the fact that most participants had attended schools in England where the National Curriculum is based on the aims and objectives model (Kelly, 2009). In this model the focus is on ‘positivist and universal objective standards of “quality”’ (Trevor, Ince and Ang, 2020, p. 103). To achieve these ‘standards of quality’, the learning is primarily driven by the teacher to ensure that most learners meet the prescribed quality standards. Given this drive for efficiency, teachers in schools tend to provide bite-sized identical learning experiences to all pupils. Therefore, when pupils reach HE, the expectation of autonomous learning can appear challenging and overwhelming, especially in research modules where they are presented with a blank canvas with endless possibilities. Such views expressed by the participants made us acutely aware of the need in research methods classes to gradually acclimatise students to autonomous, self-directed learning and help them, over time, to see the promise this might hold for their intellectual and career development. This formed for us an overarching finding that emerged from our research. The challenge associated with research methods was not confined to autonomous learning. Many students found constructing a literature review and theoretical framework for their studies very onerous. Kiara, a master’s student, said: [It] is really difficult because I need to understand actually what is literature review? But the thing is we need to demystify … okay, the lessons are like that … . Ok lit review is this, lit review is this, lit review is this. But when I’m going to go to do my job, this doesn’t make any sense … .

Kiara’s views echoed those of many other participants. For example, Benis, a second-year student, said that writing your own literature review seemed ‘like a difficult task to accomplish’. Part of the challenge for many of the participants related to the amorphous and open-ended nature of social research. They found it daunting to create a good study, whilst working for most part on their own. This sense of being on one’s own was significantly heightened for our participants because of the sudden shift to online delivery. Tehmina, a third-year student, commented on the challenge of searching for relevant literature as she didn’t know the kind of thing she was looking for and was alone with that. This issue of students finding it difficult to be ‘on their own’ and navigate their way through a complex body of information has been identified by other writers too. For example, Badke (2012, p. 35) provides a detailed analysis of this important issue and suggests that ‘students seem unable to understand how the world of academic information functions’. As practitioners, it was an important insight that self-directed, open-ended learning presented a key challenge for many of our participants. We as academics are aware of the loneliness when doing research, especially those of us who have had the experience of doing a doctorate. However, perhaps, we underestimate the sense of isolation that research can generate for undergraduate students too. An important implication for us as practitioners is the need to introduce collaborative learning opportunities for our students during research methods modules. Another important area of difficulty encountered by our participants was understanding the nature, purpose, and use of a theoretical framework in research. Emily, a third-year student, found understanding the purpose of a theoretical framework one of the most difficult things: ‘a lot of us struggle with theoretical framework, what is [it] exactly, and [with] applying it’. Alyssa explained that she ‘wasn’t understanding that it was about [learning about] the

‘No choice’ but remote learning  263 [research] process’ because she ‘was trying to get all the nitty-gritty details, get the theoretical framework [right]’. John, another third-year student, also commented how online delivery had exacerbated the difficulty of learning about things like the theoretical framework. Although he saw the positives of the online delivery because it gave him ‘more time to spend on reading and writing’, he missed the opportunity to work collaboratively: if we had that [face-to-face classes] … we could have shared what methodology we were doing, what theoretical framework. We could have looked at each other’s research papers when they were finished to proofread.

Speaking to our participants, made us stop and think about the very nature of research methods and how they should be delivered. We argue that research methods modules are unique and different from other conventional modules as they sit on the cusp of theoretical learning and practical, real-life skills. And, negotiating this complex interface of theoretical knowledge and practical skills forms one of the key challenges for our students and by extension for us as practitioners trying to develop social research skills of the students whom we teach. Relying solely on conventional lectures is pedagogically insufficient in the context of research methods modules (Kazmi, 2022). We need to think creatively and provide the students with opportunities to practice merging theoretical insights within their empirical research projects. For many of our participants, initially at least, quantitative research was seen as more credible, authentic and ‘professional’. For example, one of the second-year students, Bahadar wrote in his reflective statement: In the context of my research question, I wanted to start off by doing a survey or questionnaire like the articles I chose to do a literature review on as I thought it would have been easier to do questions and surveys and bar charts as it looks professional and much more organised … . However due to the pandemic and in lockdown and learning from home, I decided to an interview instead with the people I knew … .

For Bahadar, surveys, questionnaires, and bar charts would have made his research ‘more professional’. And, due to the constraints of the lockdown he settled to do only interviews. Similarly, Stella, another second year, while reflecting on her pilot research study said that her ‘sample group was too small’, which led to her study ‘not being reliable’. We argue that the discourse of quantitative research having a higher epistemological status is very closely related to the discourse of technicism and precision in education mentioned earlier. The view that quantitative research is of higher quality comes from the discourse of natural science having, what Foucault (1980, p. 109) refers to as, a higher ‘epistemological profile’. We take the position that learning research skills, especially qualitative research, is a craft in which the learners need to immerse themselves. Sanscartier (2020, p. 47) suggests that researchers need to develop ‘the craft attitude [which] consists of comfort with uncertainty, a nonlinear/recursive approach to research, and understanding research as storytelling’. The comments of Patrick, a third-year student, resonated with this position: ‘rather than just relaxing’, he gave time in the summer holidays before the final year of studies to ‘find loads of different articles and collate them together’. The road leading to this intellectual transformation is neither short nor straightforward. It takes time and painstaking effort on part of the academics and the students alike. Helping students to see the social world in alternative ways and realise that qualitative, nonstatistical

264  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods knowledge is worthwhile and valuable is a long process, which involves posing difficult questions, questioning the status quo, and encouraging them to read academic literature including qualitative research. This transformation does not happen overnight and nor does it happen just within the research methods modules. The students during the three-year period of the degree are introduced to the diversity and complexity of the human world and how this makes it so very difficult to understand it through generalised laws like the ones that are used to understand the physical world. This focus on the contingent, complex, and abstract nature of the social world becomes especially sharp during the research methods modules within the education studies degrees. The above-mentioned tension between the discourse of teaching of research as a craft versus the discourse of efficiency and productivity in education produces significant pedagogical challenges, some of which will be discussed in the next section. An Emotional Journey: From Being Scared and Anxious to Becoming Critical and Confident The findings show that for many non-traditional students, learning how to do research was an emotional journey with some major challenges, and that remote learning deprived them of opportunities to engage in person with tutors and peers, and/or access academic support networks in the university (e.g., library, academic mentors). The initial stages of this journey were challenging because, as we have argued, popular conceptions of research are located within the hegemonic discursive practices (Foucault, 1980) of the natural sciences. Our findings indicate that the students, who have previously never dealt with in-depth research, found the introductory research methods module in the second year of their degree particularly demanding. However, understanding the processes of social research improved greatly in the final year of their undergraduate degree dissertation project. Similarly, postgraduate students also felt the anxiety of writing a research proposal, but by the time they completed this assessment task and/or were embarked on a lengthy dissertation, they understood the ontological and epistemological nature of qualitative research and enjoyed the feeling of discovery and achievement. During the interviews students did not talk about their perceptions of teaching, it was more about their perceptions of learning research methods. The fact that learning was online during the pandemic and there was no opportunity to interact with lecturers and students made the learning of qualitative research more stressful. Qualitative research is more abstract and fluid compared to quantitative research. It takes time to build the essential ‘relational’ skills (Hunter, Ortloff and Winkle-Wager, 2014, p. 7) and learn the ‘craft’ of doing research. Students are required to immerse themselves in it to start understanding its nature and processes, as illustrated by two second year students. Maureen explained that she was educated in the Caribbean and being in the university made her understand what children go through at school ‘if they don’t have that knowledge from their parents’. She wished the tutors had ‘broken down the language’ so she and other students could understand more. She said, ‘there was no clarification because people were scared to ask’ but as she went along, she ‘started enjoying it’, she ‘developed’ and ‘learned to persevere’. Similarly, Alyssa expressed feelings of fear and stress, but in the process, she ‘enjoyed it’; she learned to appreciate the importance of ‘reading’ and becoming more ‘independent’. She found the WhatsApp group valuable to keep going collectively as a group and construct some of the knowledge themselves.

‘No choice’ but remote learning  265 There are lessons that we can learn from the experiences of our participants. Teachers can help students to understand the language of social research by translating academic terminology into everyday language, a key point also identified by expert teachers in Lewthwaite and Nind (2016). Understanding the research terminology will give the students confidence to interact and construct knowledge in collaboration with other students. Teachers can make the online environment more engaging and less stressful when they have the time to plan and design online activities and provide opportunities for ‘small group learning, Q&A sessions and clinic sessions’ (Metzler et al., 2014, p. 9). Second year students studying social research methods require particular attention. The second year of studies is the first time that students have a compulsory research module in the curriculum, and it appears that since ‘they are acquiring new skills’ they feel more ‘insecure and anxious’ (Humphreys, 2006). There is some evidence about the unique character of the second year of university education (e.g., Webb and Cotton, 2019) and how it can be perceived by students as being more challenging (Milson et al., 2015). Interviews with third year students were also replete with evidence of students’ mixed emotions during the process of doing their dissertations, but at the same time their narratives drew on the discourses of achievement and becoming more ‘mature’ (see also Wass, Harland and Mercer, 2011). Despite asking the students to reflect on their experience of learning research methods online, they talked about their enjoyment of doing research and the support of the supervisor. These experiences suggest that ‘learning through doing’ (Metzler et al., 2014, p. 9) should be facilitated in online learning environments. Hands-on activities such as analysing interview transcripts and designing an interview/observation guide will better prepare students for their dissertation project and will ease some of the early anxiety that many of our participants felt. Tehmina was surprised how much she ‘really enjoyed’ research. She said: ‘[at the start] I was literally panicking so much. I was really stressed’. One of the key aspects that made it easier for Tehmina in her third year of studies was her supervisor because ‘there was someone there to guide you’. For third year students, conversations with supervisors are the ‘main scaffold for [developing their] critical thinking’ (Wass, Harland and Mercer, 2011, p. 1). The development of ‘critical thinking’ was valued in the research learning journey. Natalie (third year student) said that the research methods lecturer had taught her to ‘always question why, how, what and where’ and ‘question things’. The literature reveals that the use of online (synchronous and asynchronous) discussions in qualitative methods courses promote ‘meaningful reflection’ and ‘collaborative interaction’ (Snelson, 2019, p. 2807). Evidence from our interviews indicates that the use of questions by teachers had a significant impact on learners’ identities. Adrian felt that the way he saw the world was different, ‘a lot like from like a social constructionist perspective’. For John, [the module] was ‘life changing in terms of questioning things on a daily basis’ that he ‘wouldn’t have questioned before’. Rukhsana explained that she used to be ‘very limited in everything’ and now she ‘search[es] for more and read[s] more’. Nishat also said that she does not ‘just sit there and wait for things to happen’. She now ‘search[es] for it, tries different things’. The feeling of transformation for third year students was profound, and it was mainly about becoming critical and confident learners (Zaitseva, Milsom and Stewart, 2013). We found that despite the lack of time to plan the online course, it was possible to encourage ‘critical reflection on research practice’ when teaching online (Metzler et al., 2014, p. 7). Master’s students also reflected on their experience of studying a short research methods module remotely, writing the research proposal for their dissertation, and doing their disser-

266  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods tation. The emotional aspect of their learning was not as intense as the undergraduates, but like undergraduate students they recognised the challenges and opportunities that studying research methods offers. Amir discovered the meaning of qualitative research after receiving feedback on his research proposal and during data collection for his dissertation. It was not until he carried out his qualitative research, a face-to-face encounter (Keen, 1996), that he could confront his ‘fixed mind-set’ where positivism and quantitative methods occupied ‘a concrete mental space’ (Collins and Stockton, 2018, p. 6). Amir remembered that when he submitted his research proposal, feedback from the teacher was: ‘I was teaching you qualitative. You gave me quantitative research…’. It was only when he started data collection that he could understand the meaning of qualitative research. He recalled: ‘I was like, “Oh, wow. This is completely different; I wasn’t expecting it”. So, it changed the way I perceive things’. During the emotional journey of conducting a pilot study, doing the dissertations, and writing a research proposal, participants felt that they matured intellectually whilst learning remotely. Students used expressions such as: ‘my mind is wider’, ‘your mind opens up’ to illustrate the process of ‘growth’ and ‘self-discovery’ (see also Stewart and Darwent, 2014). Third year student Emily’s remarks reflected the sentiments of many of the ‘non-traditional’ students in our study: I think it really matures your mind, takes your mind to a new place as far as being able to think deeply about things, think critically. You know, I wasn’t brought up with parents that gave me that skill of critical thinking, they just accepted life as it was, and, yeah, it has really made me look at life differently.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Understanding students’ perceptions of research methods modules is fundamental to developing pedagogical practice in this important area of many social science degrees. The capacity to undertake and engage with research ‘requires a combination of theoretical understanding, procedural knowledge and mastery of a range of practical skills’ (Kilburn, Nind and Wiles, 2014, p. 191). Our data suggests that students struggled to understand the ‘nitty-gritty’ of the different aspects of the research process, and that they needed the academic year to develop not only the ‘craft attitude’ (Sanscartier, 2020) but also the practical skills of doing research. Social science research ‘is a messy process’ (Plows, 2018, p. xiii) and, particularly qualitative research, is ‘complex’ and ‘chaotic’ (Silverman, 2017, p. 17). ‘Becoming comfortable with uncertainty and discomfort’ (Braun and Clarke, 2022, p. 11) is an important skill that students acquire only by the experience of doing research. The participants in our study went through an emotional journey that took them from feeling anxious and scared to becoming critical and confident; but by doing their independent projects, they also probably lived one of the most satisfying experiences that according to Schutt, Blalock and Wagenaar (1984, cited in Keen, 1996, p. 166) ‘every undergraduate should experience at least once’. Contrary to current discourses, our data suggests that non-traditional students are knowledge creators and resourceful learners. Their narratives illustrate how their academic identities were transformed in their struggle to make sense of research, and the impact this had on their broader personal, academic and professional development. They learned to appreciate the value of qualitative research for their future professional careers that are not necessarily

‘No choice’ but remote learning  267 research orientated, as some of the research participants explained. The teaching and learning of qualitative research has sensitised them to the rich and varied possibilities of understanding the human world. Understanding students’ views on learning qualitative research methods is at the heart of creative pedagogies that motivate and engage learners. Listening to the emotional journey and transformation of our participants has been a fascinating learning experience. It has confirmed what works and provided new insights to inform our practice to better support non-traditional students. First, we must develop strategies in research methods classes to gradually acclimatise students to become self-directed and independent learners. Second, the application of theory into practice and more learning through doing should be embedded in the delivery of the curriculum. Third, the content of the classes should include challenging questions that develop students’ critical thinking skills at the start and throughout the research methods courses. Fourth, it would be easier for students to understand difficult concepts if we use simple language and everyday examples. This is particularly relevant to support second year students who often perceive the second year of studies as more challenging. Finally, interaction with peers and teachers is fundamental so students do not feel alone and feel supported in their learning journey. We need to encourage students to ‘just ask’ (Wong and Tiffany Chiu, 2019). Thus, it is through a rich combination of lectures, independent and directed reading, groupwork and peer-collaboration, and opportunities for thinking and reflection that helps students come to appreciate the promise of interpretivist qualitative research. Our experience of remote teaching showed that interactive and reflective methods are at the core of qualitative research learning whether online or in person, face-to-face. Listening to students’ voices, understanding their emotions, and how they learn should be the basis to develop contextualised ‘approaches, strategies, tactics and tasks’ (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2020).

REFERENCES Allison, H. (2017). But you’ve done well, haven’t you?: An exploration of the educational and social experiences of lone parents students in higher education. Doctorate in Education (EdD) thesis. London Metropolitan University. Available at: http://​repository​.londonmet​.ac​.uk/​1250/​[accessed: 23 September 2021] Badke, W.B. (2012). Teaching Research Processes: The Faculty Role in the Development of Skilled Student Researchers. Cambridge: Chandos. Bloch, M. (2004). A discourse that disciplines, governs, and regulates: The National Research Council’s Report on Scientific Research in Education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 96–110. Blundell, R., Cribb, J., McNally, S., Warwick, R. and Xu, X. (2021). Inequalities in education, skills, and incomes in the UK: The implications of the Covid-19 pandemic. Institute for Fiscal Studies. Available at: https://​ifs​.org​.uk/​publications/​15380 [accessed: 14 January 2022] Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis. A Practical Guide. London: Sage. Britton, J., Drayton, E. and van der Erve, L. (2021). Which university degrees are best for intergenerational mobility? Institute for Fiscal Studies. Department for Education and The Sutton Trust. Available at: https://​ifs​.org​.uk/​uploads/​Which​-university​-degrees​-are​-best​-for​-intergenerational​-mobility​.pdf [accessed: 15 October 2022] Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. London: Routledge. Collins, C.S. and Stockton, C.M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–10. Collins, D. (2019). Teaching social research methods online – NCRM quick start guide. Manual. NCRM. Available at: https://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​id/​eprint/​4246/​1/​Quick​-start​-guide​-teaching​-online​ .pdf [accessed: 13 October 2021]

268  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Collins, D. (2020). Teaching social research methods asynchronously online – NCRM quick start guide. Manual. NCRM. Available at: https://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​id/​eprint/​4437/​1/​Quick​%20start​%20guide​ %20to​%20teaching​%20SRM​%20asynchronously​%20​.pdf [accessed: 13 October 2021] Collis, R. and Reed, M. (2016). ‘Non-traditional students, non-traditional teaching: Pathways to academic success include resourcefulness and adaptation skills’. Higher Education in Transformation Symposium, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, 2–6 November. Ontario: Dublin Institute of Technology. Available at: https://​www​.researchgate​.net/​publication/​321483594​_Non​-traditional​_Students​_Non​ -traditional​_Teaching​_Pathways​_to​_Academic​_Success​_Include​_Resourcefulness​_and​_Adaptation​ _Skills [accessed: 11 January 2022] Cotton, D., Nash, T. and Kneale, P. (2017). Supporting the retention of non-traditional students in higher education using a resilience framework. European Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 62–79. Crawford, C. (2014). Socio-economic differences in universities outcomes in the UK: Dropout, degree completion, degree class. IFS working paper. W14/31. Available at: https://​ifs​.org​.uk/​publications/​ 7420 [accessed: 23 June 2022] Crozier, G., Reay, D., Clayton, J., Colliander, L. and Grinstead, J. (2008). Different strokes for different folks: Diverse students in diverse institutions – Experiences of higher education. Research Papers in Education, 23(2), 167–177. Devlin, M. (2011). Bridging socio-cultural incongruity: Conceptualising the success of students from low socio-economic status backgrounds in Australian higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 939–949. Earley, M. (2014). A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 242–253. Foucault, M. (1972/1989). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated from French by Tavistock. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Power Knowledge – Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (pp. 109–133). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (2009). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège De France 1977–1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Galvez, S.M.N., Heiberger, R. and McFarland, D. (2020). Paradigm wars revisited: A cartography of graduate research in the field of education (1980–2010). American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 612–652. Garner, M., Wagner, C. and Kawulich, B. (2009). (Eds.) Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences. Ashgate: Farnham. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. Available at: https://​er​.educause​.edu/​ articles/​2020/​3/​the​-difference​-between​-emergency​-remote​-teaching​-and​-online​-learning [accessed: 23 June 2022] Hosein, A. and Rao, N. (2014). The Role of Assessment in Teaching Research Methods: A Literature Review. York: The Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://​ www​ .advance​ -he​ .ac​ .uk/​ knowledge​-hub/​role​-assessment​-teaching​-research​-methods​-literature​-review [accessed: 5 December 2021] Hosein, A. and Rao, N. (2017). Students’ reflective essays as insights into student centred-pedagoties within the undergraduate research methods curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(1), 109–125. Howard, C. and Brady, M. (2015). Teaching social research methods after the critical turn: Challenges and benefits of a constructivist pedagogy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 511–525. Hubble, S., Bolton, P. and Lewis, J. (2021). Equality of access and outcomes in higher education in England. Briefing Paper. Number 9195. House of Commons Library. Available at: https://​ commonslibrary​.parliament​.uk/​research​-briefings/​cbp​-9195/​ [accessed: 22 June 2022] Hughes, J. and Sharrock, W. (1997). The Philosophy of Social Research (3rd ed.). London: Addison Wesley Longman. Humphreys, M. (2006). Teaching qualitative research methods: I’m beginning to see the light. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 1(3), 173–188. 

‘No choice’ but remote learning  269 Hunter, C.A, Ortloff, D. and Winkle-Wagner, R. (2014). Out of our comfort zones: Reflections about teaching qualitative research at a distance. The Qualitative Report, 19(45), 1–24. Jin, J. and Ball, S. (2020). Meritocracy, social mobility and a new form of class domination. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(1), 64–79. Johnson, B. (2020). Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 23 March 2020. Speech [television]. Available at: https://​www​.gov​.uk/​government/​speeches/​pm​-address​-to​-the​-nation​-on​ -coronavirus​-23​-march​-2020 [accessed: 12 January 2022] Kazmi, N. (2022). Developing novice researchers: Reimagining the dissertation module on BA education studies. Investigations, 13, Summer [online]. Available at: https://​repository​.londonmet​.ac​.uk/​ [accessed: 30 June 2022] Keen, M.F. (1996). Teaching qualitative methods: A face-to-face encounter. Teaching Sociology, 24(2), 166–176. Keenan, K. and Fontaine, D. (2012). Listening to our students: Understanding how they learn research methods in geography. Journal of Geography, 111(6), 224–235. Kelly, A.V. (2009). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). London: Sage. Khan, M.A. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on UK higher education students: Experiences, observations and suggestions for the way forward. Corporate Governance, 21(6), 1172–1193. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The developments of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2015). Teaching advanced research methods. NCRM quick start guide. Available at: http://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​3746/​ [accessed: 23 June 2022] Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2017). Three approaches used in research methods teaching. The NCRM quick start guide to. Available at: http://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​4021/​[accessed: 23 June 2022] Mateos-Gonzales, J.L. and Wakeling, P. (2022). Exploring socio-economic inequalities and access to elite post-graduate education among English graduates. Higher Education, 83(3), 673–694. Mates, L., Millican, A. and Hanson, E. (2021). Coping with COVID: Understanding and mitigating disadvantages experienced by first generation scholars studying online. British Journal of Education Studies, 70(4), 501–522. McKay, J. and Devlin, M. (2016). ‘Low income doesn’t mean stupid and destined for failure’: Challenging the deficit discourse around students from low SES backgrounds in higher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(4), 347–363. Mendick, H., Allen, K. and Harvey, L. (2015). ‘We can get everything we want if we try hard’: Young people, celebrity, hard work. British Journal of Educational Studies, 63(2), 161–178. Metzler, K., Mehrbord, L., Golding, L., Juttla, S., Collins, D., Fernando N. and Kirk, A. (2019). Teaching Social Research Methods and Data Science Skills Online: Using Lean Methods to Build Effective E-learning Solutions. A Sage White paper. Available at: https://​ group​ .sagepub​ .com/​ white​ -paper​ -archive/​teaching​-social​-research​-methods​-and​-data​-science​-skills​-online [accessed: 22 June 2022] Milson, C., Stewart, M., Yorke, M. and Zaitseva, E. (eds.) (2015). Stepping up to the Second Year at University. Academic, Psychological and Social Dimensions. London: Routledge. Mountford, V. (2014). Rules of engagement beyond the gates: Negotiating and capitalising on student ‘experience’. In Y. Taylor (Ed.), The Entrepreneurial University. Engaging Publics, Intersecting Impacts (pp. 61–81). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mountford-Brown, V. (2022). Zombies, ghosts and lucky Survivors: Class identities and omposterism in higher education. In M. Addison, M. Breeze and Y. Taylor (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Imposter Syndrome in HE (pp. 189–207). Champ: Palgrave Macmillan. Nind, M. and Katramadou, A. (2023). Lessons for teaching social science research methods of higher education: Synthesis of the literature 2014–2020. British Journal of Educational Studies, 71(3), 241–266. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2015). Principles for effective pedagogy. NCRM quick start guide. Available at: http://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​3766/​[accessed 18 June 2022] Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018). Hard to teach: Inclusive pedagogy in social science research methods education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1), 74–88.

270  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2020). A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 467–487. Nind, M., Holmes, M., Insenga, M., Lewthwaite, S. and Sutton, C. (2020). Student perspectives on learning research methods in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(7), 797–811. Nind, M., Kilburn, D. and Luff, R. (2015). The teaching and learning of social research methods: Developments in pedagogical knowledge. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 455–461. Plows, A. (2018). Introduction. In A. Plows (Ed.), Messy Ethnographies in Action (pp. xiii–xxv). Delaware: Vernon Press. Raaper, R., Brown, C. and Llewellyn, A. (2022). Student support as social network: Exploring non-traditional student experiences of academic and wellbeing support during the Covid-19 pandemic. Educational Review, 74(3), 402–421. Raffe, D. and Croxford, L. (2015). How stable is the stratification of higher education in England and Scotland? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(2), 313–335. Rand, J. (2016). Researching undergraduate social science research. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(7), 773–789. Reardon, D.F. (2006). Doing your Undergraduate Project. London: Sage. Reay, D. (2001). Finding or losing yourself? Working-class relationships to education. Journal of Education Policy, 16(4), 333–346. Reay, D. (2018). Working class educational transitions to university: The limits of success. European Journal of Education, 53(4), 528–540. Reay, D. (2020). English education in the time of coronavirus. Forum, 62(3), 311–322. Reay, D. (2021). The working classes and higher education: Meritocratic fallacies of upward mobility in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Education, 56(1), 53–64. Sanscartier, M.D. (2020). The craft attitude: Navigating mess in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 47–62. Seligman, R.A. (2020). How to Teach a Course in Research Methods for Psychology Students. Cham: Springer. Silverman, D. (2017). Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Snelson, C. (2019). Teaching qualitative research methods online: A scoping review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 24(11), 2799–2814. Trevor, G., Ince, A. and Ang, L. (2020). Towards a child-centred curriculum. In C. Cameron, and P. Moss (Eds.), Transforming Early Childhood in England: Towards a Democratic Education (pp. 100–118). London: UCL Press. Trowler, V. (2016). Nomads in contested landscapes. Reframing student engagement and nontraditionality in higher education. PhD thesis. https://​era​.ed​.ac​.uk/​handle/​1842/​23551 [accessed: 23 June 2022] Turner, R., Sutton, C., Gray, C., Stevens, S. and Swain, J. (2018). Student experiences of research methods education in college-based higher education. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 23(3), 348–367. Wagner, C., Kawulich, B. and Garner, M. (2019). A mixed research synthesis of literature on teaching qualitative research methods. Sage Open, 9(1), 1–18. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​2158244019861488 Wass, R., Harland, T. and Mercer, A. (2011). Scaffolding critical thinking in the zone of proximal development. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 317–328. Webb, O.J. and Cotton, D.R.E. (2019). Deciphering the sophomore slump: Changes to student perceptions during the undergraduate journey. The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 77(1), 173–190. Wisker, G. (2019). The Undergraduate Research Handbook. London: Red Globe Press. Wong, B. (2018). By chance or by plan? The academic success of nontraditional students in higher education. AERA Open, 4(2), 1–4. Wong, B. and Chiu, Y.-L.T. (2019). ‘Swallow your pride and fear’: The educational strategies of high achieving non-traditional university students. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(7), 868–882. Wong, B. and Chiu, Y.L.T. (2021). Exploring the concept of ‘ideal’ university student. Studies in Higher Education, 46(3), 497–508.

‘No choice’ but remote learning  271 Wyness, G. (2017). Rules of the Game. Disadvantaged Students and the University Admission Process. London: Sutton Trust. Available at: https://​www​.suttontrust​.com/​our​-research/​rules​-of​-the​-game​ -university​-admissions/​[accessed: 24 June 2022] Zaitseva, E., Milsom, C. and Stewart, M. (2013). Connecting the dots: Using concept maps for interpreting student satisfaction. Quality in Higher Education, 19(2), 225–247.

19. The use of online materials to support the development of quantitative skills Steve Cook and Duncan Watson

INTRODUCTION We start with an incontestable statement: quantitative methods (QM) training should occupy an integral role in Social Science higher education provision. It is therefore unfortunate that, over recent years, we have seen a growing UK literature questioning the level of quantitative skills (QS) achieved by this training (see, inter alia, British Academy, 2012; MacInnes et al., 2016; Mansell, 2015; Mason, Nathan and Rosso, 2015). These reports express concerns regarding a ‘quantitative skills gap’ amongst UK Social Science graduates, with the following quote capturing their negative tone: Undergraduate social science students in many universities in Europe, North America and Australasia reach much higher levels of achievement in quantitative skills than even their best UK counterparts (MacInnes et al., 2016, p. 7).

This QS deficit has clear implications for the subsequent capacity of learners to interpret, evaluate and undertake research. In turn, it threatens the future standing of UK research in the Social Sciences. Unsurprisingly, this longstanding concern regarding the development of QS has led to the emergence of numerous organisations and initiatives to improve both research methods training and research capacity, with the Q-Step programme and the National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM) being prominent examples for the UK. However, in contrast to what the above quote might suggest, concerns regarding the development of QS are not UK specific; as Kilburn, Nind and Wiles (2014) note, they are raised in other European countries, the United States and Australia. While it is clear that a strategic response is required to address the QS gap, its nature requires careful consideration. Mansell (2015, p. 15) argues that we should ‘ratchet up the quantitative content’ of Social Science programmes. However, an unquestioned increase in the volume of QM provision is not an option. As we highlight below, issues such as ‘anxiety towards quants’ (see Dreger and Aiken, 1957, for seminal research on this topic) and ‘academic stress’ (Zahaciva, Lynch and Espenshade, 2005) suggest such an approach is likely to prove counterproductive. Furthermore, QM and QS are not one and the same. In simple terms, relative to QM, QS is a broader, higher-level concept involving a range of skills including, but not limited to: the manipulation and appreciation of data; the selection, application and evaluation of quantitative techniques; recognition of the limitations of different QM approaches; and the ability to interpret and critique empirical research. Consequently, more time spent presenting QM will not necessarily result in increased QS. This chapter investigates the role of online methods in improving QS outcomes. It might be expected that this discussion will be dominated by technology issues. We instead suggest that the ease of access to technology within a multiplicity of forms, and its exceptionally 272

The use of online materials to support the development of quantitative skills  273 user-friendly nature, renders the adoption of technology a straightforward concern for the instructor. Therefore, it will be argued that there is a further need to consider the underlying pedagogical foundations of any approach adopted. While of similar importance within face-to-face (f2f) environments, the creation of online materials further stresses the importance of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The concept of PCK gained traction in the education literature following its introduction by Shulman (1986), with Nind (2020) providing a recent application to Social Science research methods teaching. Essentially, PCK involves the synthesis of an understanding of the discipline being taught and an understanding of how to enhance its learning via the use of appropriate pedagogical approaches. Therefore, the ‘content’ component of PCK emphasises the knowing of one’s discipline, which in turn requires engagement with research to capture its evolution through time and ensure the classroom presentation provides an accurate depiction of its current nature. Considering QS training, recognition of PCK reveals a series of immediate and challenging questions for the lecturer: In light of published research and developments in the subject area, which topics should be included on a module? What tests and models should be included for each topic selected given their prevalence in the literature and how should their relative properties be illustrated? What examples of research should be used to illustrate and demonstrate QM in practice to allow the development of QS? How can all of the above be presented in an accessible fashion using specifically constructed materials and resources? In terms of the practical implementation of QS training within an online environment, there is a natural incentive to attempt to provide a roadmap of how to use the available technological options. This is an unacceptable approach given the diversity of the possibilities available. Choices will naturally reflect a module’s aims, the preferences of its instructor(s) and institutional purchasing restrictions. Instead, the focus should be on how PCK should ultimately dictate the process. It establishes the ‘which’, ‘how’ and ‘when’ of technology’s use. Importantly, PCK will allow the instructor to work with technology to engineer tailored technology-enhanced learning for their modules and shift emphasis from the routine adoption of drab ‘off-the-shelf’ methods. Thus, as supported by pertinent examples from QM modules, an outlook which sees technology as an immediate solution to the creation of online resources is problematic. Driven by PCK, such resources must be created so that they are bespoke, interactive, address issues in the pedagogical literature and/or are linked to published research. It is argued here that QM can, and must, be treated differently to more theoretical or discursive subjects. This stand-apart feature reflects three key ingredients. First, QM permits greater adoption of experimentation. Derivation of empirical results can be re-traced and deconstructed to challenge the depth of understanding. Second, access to data permits the revisiting of scholarly research. The researcher’s empirical results can be reproduced and their robustness challenged by adopting alternative QM methods and data series. Consideration of ‘replication’ becomes a key element for the construction of online materials. Third, QM naturally supports a movement away from the routine ‘lectures plus seminars’ f2f experience. Promoting hands-on learning with all instruction occurring within computer labs allows adoption of an active learning and ‘rolling’ approach to instruction: material is presented and explained in small chunks; a data-based demonstration is provided by the instructor; and ‘hands-on’ computer experimentation is undertaken by the students. Shifting away from the restrictions imposed by a traditional lecture-based approach enables the ability to work with data, experiment with methods and consider results. There are greater opportunities for

274  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ‘learning-by-doing’ or active learning, so frequently championed within pedagogical research (see, inter alia, Freeman et al., 2014). Referring to the likes of MacManaway (1970), QM necessarily questions the value of traditional, or didactic, lectures which involve the delivery of information to a passive recipient (student). To achieve its objectives, this chapter proceeds as follows. In the next section, technological issues are considered. As a detailed account of the vast literature associated with the use of technology in higher education is beyond its scope, it will instead consider the history of technology-enhanced learning in QM and the current availability of user-friendly technological options. The discussion advances in the following section to focus on the pedagogical issues that should be considered in developing online materials capable of supporting the development of QS. The penultimate section considers practical issues, mapping out the need for ‘replication’ methods to solve the QS gap. Highlighting the value of online teaching methods, this leads to a discussion of how assessment, feedback and feedforward can be shaped further to support the development of QS. PCK is prominent throughout, shaping the approaches taken and guiding the choice of options made. This reflects, and drives, a view that when solid pedagogical foundations are in place, shifts between f2f, a purely online environment and hybrid conditions are relatively uncomplicated. The final section of the chapter provides some concluding comments and thoughts for the future.

THE TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION IN ONLINE LEARNING The implementation of online methods of education has a long history and, as noted by Harasim (2000), can be traced back to the early 1980s. The snowballing of interest is apparent in the multitude of surveys which review online, hybrid, blended, eLearning and flexible learning methods (e.g. Department for Education and Skills, 2003; Devitt-Jones, 2020; Kentnor, 2015; Moore, Dickson-Deane and Galyen, 2011; Ryan and Tilbury, 2013; Snowden, Devitt-Jones and Arnold, 2014). The regular application of online methods is made apparent by Kentnor (2015, p. 21) who states: ‘Online education is no longer a trend. Rather, it is mainstream.’ This has subsequently enabled a burgeoning literature into the critique of the methods adopted. Examples include the ‘redeeming of blended methods’ (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005) and uncertainties regarding different forms of online learning approaches (Moore et al., 2011). While some academics have been in the vanguard driving the adoption of technology by, for example, producing motion picture style trailers to introduce concepts and summarise sessions, others have simply become familiar with those technological options that have become part of everyday academic life, for example, Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and lecture capture. However, moving beyond such standard elements, there is now a vast array of technological options that instructors can adopt according to their preferences and software availability. Examples of uses and resources include: supporting the creation of asynchronous video-based materials (e.g. Loom, Videoscribe and Prezi Video); encouraging interactivity and feedback (e.g. Padlet, Wooclap, Vevox, Jamboard and Piazza); and offering presentational options (e.g. Prezi, Tex via Beamer or even improved use of PowerPoint). While user-friendly, further support in the adoption of these resources is available via cross-disciplinary organisations which discuss the use of technology (such as the Association of Learning and Teaching) and outstanding discipline-based institutions (e.g. The Economics Network). Consequently, it

The use of online materials to support the development of quantitative skills  275 is no surprise that the incorporation of technology is no longer the preserve of the ‘lone wolf’ innovator with knowledge of advanced technologies far beyond that of the typical academic. In addition to the above more general technological options, the teaching of QM introduces a myriad of options for the instructor according to the software used: for example, STATA, EViews, gretl, OxMetrics, R, SAS, SPSS and Excel. The number, and user-friendliness, of these resources prevents a discussion of what should be adopted and how it should be employed. Instead, the important issue is the instructor’s use of PCK. Going beyond the selection of appropriate general and specific technological resources, this focuses on the technology’s application in meeting QS teaching objectives. To support an instructor in the development of online materials, there is a vast body of pedagogical research support materials. With regard to the creation of videos, information on essential issues include: optimal video length; the speed at which material should be delivered; the use of alternative equipment; and ‘talking head’ inclusion (see, inter alia, Berg et al., 2014; Brame, 2014; Chen and Wu, 2015; Guo, Kim and Rubin, 2014; Mautone and Mayer, 2001; Wang, Antonenko and Dawson, 2020). This research draws to a large extent on ‘cognitive load theory’. Associated with Sweller et al. (1998, 2021), this concept considers how information is processed. Here, a focus of attention is the removal of extraneous cognitive load and the embedding of information in ‘long-term memory’, rather than the more restrictive ‘working memory’, to allow a deeper level of learning to be achieved. The relevance of this work is provided by Skulmowski and Xu (2020) where a more direct consideration of extraneous load in relation to online learning is presented. The wealth of support offered by pedagogical research in relation to video construction is further illustrated by the vast body of research contained in Mayer (2021), where the benefits of combining audio and visual delivery are championed. The advice from the above research can be crudely summarised as encouraging the production of short (circa six minute) videos, with clear signalling of important information by avoiding anything deemed extraneous. Considering this within the QS arena, this will involve demonstrating QM in action. If the instructor is operating within a fully online environment, these asynchronous resources will be complemented with synchronous hands-on sessions to replicate the computer lab experience. Within a hybrid environment, these videos can provide supplementary information. Discussion of video creation does, however, lead to an additional issue. Recent years have witnessed increased use of lecture capture, complemented by the emergence of a large associated literature. While some studies have been, to varying degrees, supportive of lecture capture (e.g. Chai and Guest, 2017; Dommett, Gardner and van Tilburg, 2019; Nordmann et al., 2019; Traphagan, Kucsera and Kishi, 2010), other research has highlighted problematic issues (e.g. Edwards and Clinton, 2019; Huyssen, 2018; Von Konsky, Ivins and Gribble, 2009; Williams, Birch and Hancock, 2012). While much of this latter research has focussed on the negative effect of lecture capture upon attendance, arguably a more important factor is the impact of lecture capture upon the nature of the lecture itself. Faced with a direct recording of a lecture, the lecturer can become more self-conscious which can introduce a reluctance to increase activity, attempt to experiment, and promote engagement (Jones, 2007). Such research indicates how the use of the pedagogical research guided videos discussed above may be preferable to lecture capture within a f2f environment.

276  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

ISSUES FROM PEDAGOGICAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH When considering the creation of resources to support the development of QS, arguably the major issue to consider from pedagogical research is ‘anxiety’. Examination of the issue of anxiety towards QM can be traced back to the concept of number anxiety presented by Dreger and Aiken (1957). Crudely, this notion relates to an inherent trepidation towards the study of quantitative disciplines impacting upon student engagement and performance, and consequently impeding the development of QS. Subsequent research has produced a large literature which has explored a range of intricacies: gender differences (Hembree, 1990); type of quantitative module (Paechter et al., 2017); academic stress (Zahaciva et al., 2005); and the relationship between anxiety and threats such as ‘academic procrastination’ (Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Unfortunately, the already negative issue of anxiety towards QM can be exacerbated by a potential two-way relationship between anxiety and performance. This vicious cycle is discussed by Carey et al. (2016) where poor performance stimulates anxiety under ‘deficit theory’, while anxiety prompts poor performance under the ‘debilitating anxiety model’. The presence of anxiety therefore presents a severe problem for the development of QS. However, it can be addressed via the promotion of ‘self-efficacy’. Here, there is a focus on building up confidence through the completion of tasks or achieving clearly set objectives. Stemming from the early work of Bandura (1977), self-efficacy can be viewed as a trait which overcomes anxiety and improves performance outcomes (Zahaciva et al., 2005). Important within any learning environment, it is also recognised as a key element within online learning, with Shea and Bidjerano (2010) referring to the promotion of self-efficacy via live interaction in a synchronous setting as a means of also reducing ‘learner demotivation’ (Park and Yun, 2018). Therefore, shaping QS training so that anxiety is reduced and self-efficacy, or confidence, is developed via the completion of tasks is vital. The above discussion has placed an emphasis on learning-by-doing, with a resulting call for all QM teachers to eliminate the standard lecture environment. This could alternatively be expressed as the championing of active learning as a means of developing QS. Active learning is a concept with a long history with, for example, Proud (2022) referring to its appearance in Crawford (1925). However, as illustrated by Prince’s (2004) failure to locate an agreed definition, active learning is a notoriously difficult approach to pinpoint. In light of this, recourse to the often-cited work of Bonwell and Eison (1991) is valuable. Here, active learning is referred to in terms of: emphasising student engagement over the transmission of information from the lecturer; providing a focus on ‘doing’ and the subsequent reflection upon ‘doing’; and the development of higher-order skills. Discussion of active learning leads naturally to consideration of the concept of ‘flipping’, whereby online resource provision promotes an emphasis on active learning within f2f (or synchronous online) sessions. However, particular care is required here as the associated literature contains mixed findings over effectiveness (see, inter alia, Blair, Maharaj and Rimus, 2016; Brown and Liedholm, 2002; Caviglia-Harris, 2016; Guerrero et al., 2015; Karabulut-Ilgu, Cherrez and Jahren, 2018; Sparks, 2013; Terry and Lewer, 2003). Recent research has perhaps offered support to navigate through these conflicting findings, highlighting the importance of the design of the supporting online resources. More specifically, Cook et al. (2019) and Webb et al. (2021) have presented evidence demonstrating improvements in performance resulting from the adoption of non-didactic forms of flipping, where the student is unconstrained in

The use of online materials to support the development of quantitative skills  277 how they utilise the online materials. In short, rather than providing out-of-class materials that simply replicate the traditional f2f experience, it is argued that materials should support experimentation. They should promote active engagement and challenge understanding beyond the linear progression typically achieved in textbook-based learning. Examples of this will be provided later in a discussion of online resources provided in the teaching of QM.

ENHANCING QS ONLINE MATERIALS We now turn to a more practical consideration of the demands of creating QM online materials, be it within purely online or hybrid environments or to support f2f teaching. To provide pertinent examples for the discussion, reference will be made to two modules: Econometrics and Forecasting. Open to students from a variety of backgrounds, neither requires training in mathematics beyond secondary education (GCSE-level for the UK). Being final-year undergraduate modules, there is also arguably more scope to incorporate research and experimentation. Rather than focusing on module-specific technical details, we look at two key elements: delivery and assessment. i. Delivery Our discussion so far has emphasised the following issues for the creation of online resources to support the development of QS: the use of active learning; the incorporation of research; and the utilisation of experimentation. With regard to the provision of videos, either as an asynchronous resource within a purely online environment approach or as supplementary material, the previously discussed advice from pedagogical research can be drawn upon to create short, focussed resources. These should be characterised by the demonstration of the application of QM, with minimal extraneous information and avoidance of the restrictive practices which arise from lecture capture. In a purely online environment, the ‘lab-based only’ approach can be mimicked through application-filled synchronous sessions to complement asynchronous demonstration and explanation videos. It may seem that, given the user-friendly nature of the ‘click record’ features offered by VLEs, video creation is straightforward. However, it is here where PCK is particularly important. To determine content, the following examples are issues that should be considered: the inclusion of interactive resources; the accessibility of materials, particularly supporting research articles; and the incorporation of experimentation. It is argued that here replication proves a useful tool, particularly in a developed, threefold form. In what follows, the discussion of replication is illustrated by reference to three specific online interactive resources (Cook, 2019, 2020, 2022) which employ replication in its alternative forms. Considering the three forms of replication alluded to above, the first form is ‘direct replication’. Based upon the reproduction of empirical results in published research, this form has been championed in a number of studies (see, inter alia, Janz, 2016; Smith, Yu and Schmid, 2021; Stojmenovska, Bol and Leopold, 2019). Such an approach not only brings the methods and approaches considered on a module to life by demonstrating their value in published research, it also affords the opportunity for students to become engaged with their reading. Rather than just being third-party observers, they navigate their way through research by selecting options within multi-stage reproductions of the published work. An example of this is provided by Cook (2020), which uses two empirical papers to introduce the topic of unit root

278  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods testing. Challenging students to reproduce the paper’s results and develop further findings, it provides a means to both test and develop understanding. Significantly, by offering a clear objective which also provides immediate indication of success, such replication can build confidence in the ability to apply methods, to understand the aims of research, and to deal with data-related concerns. The resulting confidence, or self-efficacy, counters the anxiety and stress that are counterproductive in QM. With Cook (2020) being an online resource, it can be considered in numerous environments: in a ‘class’ (whether f2f or online); as a flipping resource by requiring students to work through the analysis ahead of its discussion; or as a supplementary resource alongside other material. Importantly, the costs for the practitioner in adopting direct replication have been eased by the development of data archives associated with journals and organisations such as The Replication Network (https://​replicationnetwork​ .com/​), where information on replication and listings of replication studies are provided. Further to the above, this first form of replication can be extended to consider more recent methods or data sets to ascertain the continued value of the original publication. For example, a study can be revisited and it can be examined whether the findings reported hold when the sample period is extended, alternative data series are considered or alternative (perhaps more powerful) tests are employed. This has additional benefits in the form of exposing students to the concept of data revision and the evolving nature of research where ‘improved’ approaches for the analysis of data appear over time. Clearly this form of replication allows for experimentation to be introduced as students can explore studies to see whether conclusions change as a result of employing different methods and/or data series, or by simply varying the options selected within the method utilised within a study. The second form of replication proposed is ‘step replication’. Here, students are asked to undertake the hidden intermediate steps underlying the results presented automatically by software upon selection for the relevant option. An example of this approach is provided by Cook (2022), where two-step cointegration analysis is considered through a topical example: ripple effects in the UK housing market. Using an automated option, results concerning the presence of this concept are presented. However, subsequent analysis can be undertaken to challenge understanding by asking these results to be reproduced by undertaking the relevant steps oneself rather than letting the software do this automatically. For the method considered in Cook (2002), this involves challenging students to: choose the correct specification for the first-stage equation employed; select the relevant deterministic terms; optimise the degree of augmentation of the second stage testing equation in the correct manner; and recognise the correct formulation of the test statistic to employ. Again, this method of replication allows students to experiment with methods as they consider the various elements underlying the automated production of empirical results by software. In particular, the example considered above allows students to reflect upon changes to the options in terms of whether they are altering the analysis but are valid or whether they result in the adoption of an invalid approach. This can then be used to discuss the vitally important issue of establishing the validity of methods ahead of considering the results they produce. The third form of replication considered is ‘flexible replication’. Here, resources are developed to allow students to experiment with the impact of changing input variables upon resulting outcomes and test understanding of the generation of these findings by attempting their replication. These resources can be supplied with pre-installed inputs to illustrate particular features concerning the methods considered. Such tools can allow intuitive results to be observed that would otherwise be disguised within associated complex algebraic expressions.

The use of online materials to support the development of quantitative skills  279 An example of such an approach for the Forecasting module is provided by Cook (2019). This specific interactive resource is tailored to allow illustration of debates within the research literature on the merits of alternative forecast evaluation statistics employed in a range of disciplines. Incorporating and synthesising alternative elements of published research, an Excel-based resource is provided that allows students to gain a deeper understanding of the material considered by experimenting with different examples and considering the results that the resource automatically generates. ii.

Assessment, Feedback and Feedforward

It is indisputable that, despite its clear importance, delivery must be considered alongside assessment and feedback practices when formulating teaching provision. Considering research on assessment, a number of recent themes have emerged in a literature with a long history. One of the most prominent of these themes is the need to go beyond seeing assessment as just a gauge of understanding and instead value, and draw upon, its ability to support learning and the development of skills (Dann, 2014; Lam, 2016). In related research concepts such as ‘authentic assessment’ (Villarroel, Bloxham and Bruna et al., 2017) and ‘sustainable assessment’ (see Boud and Soler, 2016) are championed with the importance of incorporating realism, evaluative judgment, cognitive challenge and lifelong learning emphasised. This research supports the shaping of online assessment and further promotion of the development of higher-order data skills. The insights offered by the assessment literature also assist the creation of bespoke assessment which is particularly topical given recent debates on assessment security, especially within an online environment (see Dawson, 2021). In relation to QS, bespoke assessment can be created that requires, for example, responses to assessment tasks to be tailored to specific results generated from one’s own data analysis and related to particular elements from selected published research. Simple to construct, this could involve selecting a topic, selecting relevant data to allow empirical examination of this topic and then selecting specific research published on this topic. The challenge of the assessment would then be to undertake analysis in an appropriate manner and then produce a report clearly presenting the findings obtained and carefully relating them to the published work. Flexibility is clearly available to the instructor here as there is freedom in the choice of the data employed, the research selected and the requirements regarding methods employed in the data analysis. As a result, a number of variations are possible as it could be the case that, for example, the results of one’s own analysis and that of published research are supportive or conflicting; alternative methods are employed in the data analysis undertaken and in the paper; the samples considered different in specific ways that are known to influence the tests employed and so on. Consequently, the presentation of known ‘textbook’ material as a response is minimised and plagiarism can be reduced to support assessment security while developing QS via the demands of relevant, authentic assessment. Regarding feedback processes, this is also an issue which builds on an extensive literature. It stretches back to over a century ago via analysis into the impact of ‘knowledge of results’ (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996). Recent years have witnessed a movement from consideration of how academics should construct feedback (Nicol, 2010) to the campaign towards feedback literacy (Carless and Boud, 2018; Gravett, 2022) where the emphasis is instead upon increasing student engagement with feedback. Here, the traditional monologue from lecturer to student is eschewed in favour of the creation of a lecturer-student dialogue to allow the benefits from

280  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods feedback to be maximised. Rather than simply consider the provision of feedback at a limited number of discrete points during the course of a module, feedforward and formative exercises can be employed to allow learning to be gauged. Here, recent work on the development of evaluative judgment (Lam, 2016; Tai, Ajjawi and Boud et al., 2016) can be used to promote self-assessment of understanding. To achieve this, regular exemplars can be employed which can take a variety of forms, such as the provision of mock attempts at hypothetical assessment or short empirical analyses. In both cases these will obviously relate to topics covered on the module and can draw upon published research. Ideally these will be incomplete, or flawed in their nature, to allow the merits and limitations to be considered and evaluated. Through discussion of these materials within an online environment, a further and deeper understanding of topics can be developed. The discussion of assessment and feedback once again emphasises the importance of PCK given that decisions are required concerning the shaping of the required online materials. Considering assessment, decisions are required concerning, inter alia, the research articles selected; whether students asked to draw on the whole article, specific pages, or even specific tables and figures; the data to be employed in empirical analyses; how these empirical analyses link to published research; which modelling or testing options are employed in assessment exercises. Similarly, the construction of feedback, feedforward and exemplars requires PCK to allow these elements to maximise learning gains.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY So how might our approach target the identified QS gap in UK Social Science? It ultimately stresses that it is not simply a matter of ratcheting up the extent of QM provision. Due to psychological factors noted within pedagogical research, such a response could ironically be counterproductive. Rather than securing automatic gains through technology-based methods to create online materials, the process must be driven by PCK. To develop QS skills, instructors need to incorporate research, experimentation and active learning in their provision. While the creation of online resources is comprehensively supported by insights available from pedagogical research, it is argued here that the use of replication in a broad sense can be extremely beneficial (see Cook, 2019, 2020, 2022). By combining replication in the three forms of direct replication, step replication and flexible replication, it is argued that an environment can be created which enables full engagement with research, active learning and experimentation. While the above might be interpreted as a call for ‘research-led’ teaching, we would be disappointed with the drawing of this inference. Following the work of Healy and Jenkins (2009), we recognise that ‘research-led’ is just one of four approaches to the incorporation of research in teaching. Classifying according to coverage (‘content’ or ‘processes and problems’) and level of student activities (‘participation’ or ‘audience’), the following categories are pinpointed in this study: ‘research-orientated’ (content/audience); ‘research-based’ (processes/participation); ‘research-tutored’ (content/participation); ‘research-led’ (content/ audience). We argue that replication allows all of these forms of research-involved teaching to be addressed as it challenges students to: receive information of issues addressed in research and the methods employed; work directly with published research; consider the methods employed at a personal level, rather than from a distance; evaluate results presented in empir-

The use of online materials to support the development of quantitative skills  281 ical research and their implications for the different concepts examined; and extend research via the use of new methods and alternative data sets. As such, we are celebrating the adoption of ‘research-driven’ delivery, assessment and feedback, rather than adopting a research-led approach in which students are merely recipients of information on research and see content but not methods. For the instructor, it is important that they recognise that – despite user-friendly technological options – the development of online resources is not a straightforward proposition. There are key questions that need to be considered: Are the instructors extensively involved in the evolution of the disciplines and subjects they are teaching? Do they produce disciplinary research articles and read widely within the relevant research literature? Similarly, are instructors aware of developments in pedagogical research? Do they contribute to, or engage with, pedagogical developments? Intuitively, one would think that answering ‘no’ to any of these questions will make the creation of teaching provision to enhance QS a more difficult proposition. The suggestion that, being a technical subject, the instructor merely needs to know the material and be affable in their delivery, is no longer a satisfactory outcome. However, following Scott Jones and Golding (2015) it appears that the required PCK called for in this chapter is not as prevalent as might be desired and, if so, addressing this presents a further ‘gap’ to be addressed within the Social Sciences.

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions – A literature review. SAGE Open, 6(1). doi: 10.1177/2158244015621777. Berg, R., Brand, A., Grant, J., Kirk, J. and Zimmermann, T. (2014). Leveraging recorded mini-lectures to increase student learning. Online Classroom, 14, 5–8. Blair, E., Maharaj, C. and Primus, S. (2016). Performance and perception in the flipped classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 21, 1465–1482. Bonwell, C. and Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Washington, DC: George Washington University. Boud, D. and Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41, 400–413. Brame, C. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15, es6, 1–6. British Academy (2012). Society Counts: Quantitative Skills in the Social Sciences and Humanities. London: The British Academy. Brown, B. and Liedholm, C. (2002). Can web courses replace the classroom in principles of microeconomics? American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 922, 444–448. Carey, E., Hill, F., Devine, A. and Szücs, D. (2016). The chicken or the egg? The direction of the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1987. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233. Carless, D. and Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. Caviglia-Harris, J. (2016). Flipping the undergraduate classroom: Using online videos to enhance teaching and learning. Southern Economic Journal, 83(1), 321–331. Chai, A. and Guest, R. (2017). Exploring the links between online lecture recordings, cramming and academic performance. Australasian Journal of Economics Education, 14(1), 1–30.

282  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Chen, M.-H. and Wu, C.-H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers and Education, 80, 108–121. Cook, S. (2019). Forecast evaluation using Theil’s inequality coefficients. Bristol: Economics Network. https://​www​.economicsnetwork​.ac​.uk/​showcase/​cook​_theil [Accessed: 10 January 2022] Cook, S. (2020). Unit root analysis. Bristol: Economics Network. https://​www​.economicsnetwork​.ac​.uk/​ showcase/​cook​_unitroot [Accessed: 12 January 2022] Cook, S. (2022). Cointegration and spurious regression: Enhancing delivery via replication, empirical www​ .economicsnetwork​ .ac​ .uk/​ application and simulation. Bristol: Economics Network. https://​ showcase/​cook​_cointegration [Accessed: 10 August 2022] Cook, S., Watson, D. and Vougas, D. (2019). Solving the quantitative skills gap: A flexible learning call to arms! Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 17–31. Crawford, C. (1925). Some experimental studies of the results of college note-taking. The Journal of Educational Research, 12(5), 379–386. Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 21(2), 149–166. Dawson, P. (2021). Defending Assessment Security in a Digital World. Oxford: Routledge. Department for Education and Skills (2003). Towards an E-Learning Strategy. Bristol: HMSO. Dommett, E., Gardner, B. and van Tilburg, W. (2019). Staff and student views of lecture capture: A qualitative study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 23, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1186/​s41239​-019​-0153​-2 Dreger, R. and Aiken, L. (1957). The identification of number anxiety in a college population. Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 344–351. Edwards, M. and Clinton, M. (2019). A study exploring the impact of lecture capture availability and lecture capture usage on student attendance and attainment. Higher Education, 77, 403–421. Freeman, S., Eddy, S., McDonough, M., Smith, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. and Wenderoth, M. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, 8410–8415. Gravett, K. (2022). Feedback literacies as sociomaterial practice. Critical Studies in Education, 63(2), 261–274. Guerrero, S., Beal, M., Lamb, C., Sonderegger, D. and Baumgartel, D. (2015). Flipping undergraduate finite mathematics: Findings and implications. Primus, 25(9–10), 814–832. Guo, P., Kim, J. and Rubin, R. (March 4–5, 2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. AMC Conference on Learning @ Scale. Atlanta, GA. Healey, M. and Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. York: Higher Education Academy. Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 33–46. Hill, J. and West, H. (2020). Improving the student learning experience through dialogic feed-forward assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 82–97. Hong, J., Pi, Z. and Yang, J. (2016). Learning declarative and procedural knowledge via video lectures: Cognitive load and learning effectiveness. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(1), 74–81. Huyssen, D. (2018). Lecture capture: Dubious scholarship and market forces. USS Briefs Number 62, https://​medium​.com/​ussbriefs/​lecture​-capture​-dubious​-scholarship​-and​-market​-forces​-6f6c8dcb960d [Accessed: 15 August 2022] Janz, N. (2016). Bringing the gold standard into the classroom: Replication in university teaching. International Studies Perspectives, 17(4), 392–407. Jenkins, C. and Lane, S. (2019). Employability Skills in UK Economics Degrees: A Report for the Economics Network. Bristol: Economics Network. [Accessed: 15 January 2022] Jones, S. (2007). Reflections on the lecture: Outmoded medium or instrument of inspiration? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(4), 397–406. Jones-Devitt, S. (2020). Essential Frameworks for Enhancing Student Success: Flexible Learning. York: Advance HE.

The use of online materials to support the development of quantitative skills  283 Karabulut-Ilgu, A., Cherrez, N. and Jahren, C. (2018). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 398–411. Kentnor, H. (2015) Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1 and 2), 21–34. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. Kluger, A. and DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262. Lam, R. (2016). Assessment as learning: Examining a cycle of teaching, learning, and assessment of writing in the portfolio-based classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 1900–1917. MacInnes, J., Breeze, M., de Haro, M., Kandlik, M. and Karels, M. (2016). Measuring Up: International Case Studies on the Teaching of Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences. London: The British Academy. MacManaway, L. (1970). Teaching methods in higher education – Innovation and research. Universities Quarterly, 24(3), 321–329. Mansell, W. (2015). Count Us In: Quantitative Skills for a New Generation. London: British Academy. Mason, G., Nathan, M. and Rosso, A. (2015). State of the Nation: A Review of Evidence on the Supply and Demand of Quantitative Skills. London: British Academy and NIESR. Mautone, P. and Mayer, R. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377–389. Mayer, R. (2021). Multimedia Learning (Third edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moore, J., Dickson-Deane, C. and Galyen, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. Nicol, D. and MacFarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. Nind, M. (2020). A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: Teaching advanced social science research methods. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 185–201. Nind, M., Kilburn, D. and Luff, R. (2015). The teaching and learning of social research methods: Developments in pedagogical knowledge. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 455–461. Nordmann, E., Calder, C., Bishop, P., Irwin, A. and Comber, D. (2019). Turn up, tune in, don’t drop out: The relationship between lecture attendance, use of lecture recordings, and achievement at different levels of study. Higher Education, 77, 1065–1084. Oliver, M. and Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 17–26. Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Academic procrastination and statistics anxiety. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 3–19. Paechter, M., Macher, D., Martskvishvili, K., Wimmer, S. and Papousek, I. (2017). Mathematics anxiety and statistics anxiety: Shared but also unshared components and antagonistic contributions to performance in statistics. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1196. Park, S. and Yun, H. (2018). The influence of motivational regulation strategies on online students’ behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(1), 43–56. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. Proud, S. (2022). If you build it, will they come? A review of the evidence of barriers for active learning in university education. REIRE Revista d’Innovació i Recerca en Educació, 15, 1–14.

284  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Reimann, N., Sadler, I. and Sambell, K. (2019). What’s in a word? Practices associated with ‘feedforward’ in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1279–1290. Ryan, A. and Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible Pedagogies: New Pedagogical Ideas. York: Higher Education Academy. Scott Jones, J. and Goldring, J. (2015). ‘I’m not a quants person’: Key strategies in building competence and confidence in staff who teach quantitative research methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 479–494. Shea, P. and Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers and Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Skulmowski, A. and Xu, K. (2021). Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 171–196. Smith, L., Yu, F. and Schmid, K. (2021). Role of replication research in biostatistics graduate education. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 29(1), 95–104. Snowden, M., Devitt-Jones, S. and Arnold, C. (2014). HEA Flexible Learning Practice Guide. York: Higher Education Academy. Sparks, R. (2013). Flipping the classroom: An empirical study examining student learning. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 92(2), 65–70. Stojmenovska, D., Bol, T. and Leopold, T. (2019). Teaching replication to graduate students. Teaching Sociology, 47(4), 303–313. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. and Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. and Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P. and Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76, 467–481. Terry, N. and Lewer, J. (2003). Campus, online, or hybrid: An assessment of instruction modes. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Review, 41, 23–34. Traphagan, T., Kucsera, J. and Kishi, K. (2010). Impact of class lecture webcasting on attendance and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 19–37. Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C. and Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(5), 840–854. Von Konsky, B., Ivins, J. and Gribble, S. (2009). Lecture attendance and web-based lecture technologies: A comparison of student perceptions and usage patterns. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 581–595. Wang, J., Antonenko, P. and Dawson, K. (2020). Does visual attention to the instructor in online video affect learning and learner perceptions? An eye-tracking analysis. Computers and Education, 146, 103779. Webb, R., Watson, D., Shepherd, C. and Cook, S. (2021). Flipping the classroom: Is it the type of flipping that adds value? Studies in Higher Education, 46(8), 1649–1663. Williams, A., Birch, E. and Hancock, P. (2012). The impact of online lecture recordings on student performance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 199–213. Yang, D., Baldwin, S. and Snelson, C. (2017). Persistence factors revealed: Students’ reflections on completing a fully online program. Distance Education, 38(1), 23–36. Zahaciva, A., Lynch, S. and Espenshade, T. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46, 677–706.

20. Teaching and learning research methods and statistics in eLearning environments pre-, during, and post-pandemic Adam J. Rock, Kylie Rice, Natasha M. Loi, Einar B. Thorsteinsson and Methuen I. Morgan

INTRODUCTION Since the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, extensive changes have occurred in the way people around the world conduct their day-to-day lives. These changes have resulted in seismic shifts in how people socialise, work, travel, and learn. Beginning in those early months of 2020, governments around the world initiated various policies in an attempt to control the transmission of the virus within the community. These included, but were not limited to, closing non-essential businesses, schools, and universities, closing domestic and international borders and requiring quarantine for returning travellers, and restricting individual movement which led to people being required to socially distance when in public and to remain at home unless absolutely necessary otherwise. The unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the challenges people have faced as a result of the large-scale societal changes wrought by governments in an attempt to control the outbreak continue to be felt two years later. While at the time of writing in the majority of countries businesses have re-opened and most children are now physically back at school, many people still continue to work from home and universities are beginning to cautiously transition back to face-to-face learning. However, the lessons learned in the initial shift to online learning will likely remain at the forefront of teachers’ minds as they continue to negotiate eLearning environments. Prior to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, eLearning had expanded into the majority of areas of education delivery (Nof et al., 2015) and, therefore, Rock et al. (2016) argued that teachers of research methods and statistics should develop expertise regarding the effective use of eLearning technologies. Based on a review of definitions of eLearning, Rock et al. (2016) formulated the following definition: ‘the pedagogically driven use of mobile and non-mobile web-based technologies ranging from hypertext pages to avatar-populated VWs [virtual worlds] and virtual realities for the purpose of acquiring knowledge and skills’ (p. 2). This definition has numerous advantages including the often-neglected portable modality (i.e., mobile) of eLearning. Additionally, this definition makes explicit reference to pedagogy, which acknowledges Hughes’ (2008) caution that, ‘Technology, without the pedagogy can be a fetishised and empty learning and teaching experience – stylised but without substance or simply electronic information push’ (p. 438). This definition is also student-centred; that is, the focus is on learning rather than teaching.1 The aim of this chapter is to critically examine the teaching and learning of basic-to-intermediate quantitative research methods (e.g., correlational, quasi-experimental, experimental) and 285

286  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods statistics (e.g., t-tests, analysis of variance) in eLearning environments pre-, during, and post-pandemic. First, we critically appraise the use of eLearning technologies in the context of teaching and learning research methods and statistics in a pre-pandemic world focusing on pre-pandemic trends in eLearning (e.g., the increasing importance of the social web and mobile devices as eLearning tools), and principles associated with Pedagogy 2.0 and Presence Pedagogy. Second, we evaluate the challenges that the Covid-19 pandemic presents to teachers and learners of research methods and statistics using eLearning systems (e.g., emergency remote teaching, eLearning crack-up perception, Zoom fatigue), and assess the developing pandemic pedagogy in general, and in the context of teaching and learning research methods and statistics in particular. Subsequently, we contemplate probable futures and challenges in a new normal post-pandemic world that are relevant to eLearning and teachers of research methods and statistics (e.g., a return to a blended or hybrid model of learning versus the normalisation of emergency remote learning). Finally, a tentative post-pandemic research methods and statistics pedagogy is formulated.

TEACHING AND LEARNING RESEARCH METHODS AND STATISTICS IN ELEARNING ENVIRONMENTS PRE-PANDEMIC In an analysis of eLearning developments and predictions between 2004 and 2014, Martin et al. (2011) found two emergent themes relevant to research methods and statistics education. The first theme related to the importance of the social web (a network of podcasts, blogs, wikis and other applications designed for social interaction and collaboration; Chi, 2008) and mobile devices (e.g., smart phones, iPads, tablets) as eLearning tools. The second theme identified games as beneficial eLearning strategies (Martin et al., 2011). Subsequent studies have supported these findings (e.g., Arora et al., 2014; Bhalla, 2014; Yu et al., 2014). The first theme, the use of mobile devices, suggests a shift away from eLearning and toward mobile learning instead. Park (2011) stated that mobile learning (mLearning) involves ‘the use of mobile or wireless devices for the purpose of learning while on the move’ (p. 79). For example, StatHand is a statistical mobile learning tool or application that is designed to guide users through a series of simple, annotated questions to help them identify a statistical test or procedure appropriate to their circumstances. It further offers the guidance necessary to run these tests and procedures, then interpret and report their results (About StatHand, 2015: https://​www​.stathand​.net; see also Allen et al., 2016). It is worth noting that in mLearning mobile devices tend to complement rather than replace traditional eLearning and, in a strict, technical sense, rather than being a mobile technology, StatHand is an eLearning platform that also works with mobile devices. Anecdotally, some students report being able to multi-task, and divide their attention between mLearning devices and other tasks. For example, the present authors are aware of at least one learner who uses mobile learning technologies while simultaneously riding a horse on a farming property. However, one may question the effectiveness of such a multi-tasking approach; Winter et al. (2016) reported that, ‘Although multi-tasking has been routinely observed amongst students and is often cited as a beneficial attribute of the e-learner, there is evidence that many students found switching between competing activities highly distracting’ (p. 71). Lahiri and Moseley (2012, p. 11) reflected on the importance of mobile applications being based on evidence and pedagogical principles to prevent such tools leading ‘to frustration, inequity, shallow learning, and distraction from the

Teaching and learning research methods and statistics in eLearning environments   287 main purpose of enhancing learning and making students’ competent professionals’. Effective adoption of such mLearning tools may reduce statistics anxiety and, as such, teachers need to review how these strategies can be effectively integrated into curriculum, using pedagogical principles (Yu et al., 2014). The second theme, incorporating games as beneficial eLearning strategies (Martin et al., 2011), demonstrates the value in using immersive and engaging simulations (Bhalla, 2014). Readers are referred to Hwang and Chen’s (2022) systematic review and bibliometric mapping analysis of game-based learning applications and Gómez and Suárez (2021) for a ‘Protocol for a scoping review of quantitative studies on the design and use of serious games for enhancing teaching and learning in higher education’ (p. 100021). In a game-based learning qualitative meta-analysis, 34 of 65 articles found positive learning outcomes to be statistically significant, with only one article finding games to be less effective than traditional teaching methods (Ke, 2009). A second meta-analysis identified the benefit of instructional support being provided within game-based teaching methods to enhance learning outcomes (Wouters and van Oostendorp, 2013). This theme illustrates that increasing student engagement with statistics may be facilitated by applying gaming technology principles creatively within a supported environment. For example, gaming technology developers apply the key principle of facilitating ‘flow’ states in users, meaning people become so engrossed in the game that they are ‘in the zone’ (Annetta et al., 2009; Cowley et al., 2008; Squire, 2003). The difficulty level of the task or game is crucial in facilitating ‘flow’, as a user will divert their attention if they become frustrated or bored by tasks that are too easy or too difficult (Jamison, personal communication, 12 October 2014). Related to teaching undergraduate statistics and quantitative research methods, we observe that learner proficiency levels (novice, intermediate and advanced) appear to be associated with flow state. Learners at an intermediate level of proficiency tend to achieve a flow state, whereas advanced proficiency learners become bored by content that is too easy, and learners at a novice level become anxious or frustrated with content that is too difficult. This presents a challenge for teachers to facilitate flow states while having a mixture of proficiency levels in their classes. In one solution to overcome this challenge, we have had success separating learners into groups based on proficiency (i.e., novice, intermediate, and advanced) regarding the use of a statistical software package referred to as SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). This has proved to be successful in delivering content that is appropriate for each learner level. However, there are practical issues, such as increased workload and cost, with this solution. Nevertheless, this principle could be applied to optimise flow states with eLearning tools, in order to increase student engagement with statistical concepts. Prior to the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic, two pedagogies that we, the present authors, found particularly useful in the context of eLearning systems are Pedagogy 2.0 and Presence Pedagogy. McLoughlin and Lee (2008, p. 56) stated that, ‘Pedagogy 2.0 integrates Web 2.0 tools that support knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer networking, and access to a global audience with socio-constructivist learning approaches to facilitate greater learner autonomy, agency, and personalization’. Drawing on Karkoulia (2016), Alhassan (2017, p. 216) defined Web 2.0 as ‘the use of the Internet as an intermediary for interaction among individuals through tools and technologies such as blogs, wikis, or podcasts, rather than using the internet merely as an information provider’. Within a social-constructivist conceptualisation, learners construct learning actively through their own personal experience, alongside interactions with teachers and fellow learners (Farkas, 2012). In this model, learners co-create knowledge

288  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods within a learning community, replacing the traditional omniscient educator approach (Farkas, 2012). This model of Pedagogy 2.0 shares social-constructivist foundational similarities with Presence Pedagogy (Bronack et al., 2008). Presence Pedagogy specifically advocates that education benefits from the presence of others, interaction and community, and exchanged resources (Sanders and Melton, 2010). While this approach has been most often applied in a virtual worlds (VWs) context, it can be extended to an online learning environment (Bronack et al., 2008). For example, through online platforms such as discussion forums, students are able to interact with others and form a learning community, sharing resources and co-creating knowledge. Furthermore, forums enable teachers to facilitate learner engagement regarding the process of socially constructing knowledge. By way of example, within an eLearning course in basic to intermediate statistics and quantitative research methods in psychology at the University of New England (Australia) that two of us (Adam Rock and Methuen Morgan) facilitated, learners created and shared memes based on statistical concepts. One of these illustrations included Chuck Norris, a popular American actor and martial artist, with catch-cries such as ‘Negative correlation: The more Chuck Norris wants to kill you … the less chance you have of living’; and ‘Perfect Correlation: X = The amount of times Chuck Norris kicks you … Y = Bone fractures you sustain’ (Wendy Robertson, personal communication, Thursday 26 March 2015). These memes and concepts were integrated into subsequent lectures, demonstrating an effective, self-perpetuating, reciprocal feedback-loop between teachers and learners within an eLearning context. Here, learners invoked popular cultural themes in memes to illustrate statistical concepts, which catalysed the teacher to reference these themes in subsequent learning materials, further catalysing the learner community to build on this socially constructed knowledge by creating additional memes, which the teacher subsequently integrated into the next iteration of materials, and so on. This cycle demonstrates effective learner interaction and teacher facilitation of socially constructed knowledge within an online environment.

TEACHING AND LEARNING RESEARCH METHODS AND STATISTICS IN ELEARNING ENVIRONMENTS DURING THE PANDEMIC Crawford et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of 20 countries’ digital pedagogy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. The findings underscore the variability of higher education institution’s responses to the Covid-19 pandemic ranging ‘from having no response through to social isolation strategies on campus and rapid curriculum redevelopment for fully online offerings’ (p. 9). However, Karalis and Raikou (2020) asserted that it is important to note that the systems invoked in response to the Covid-19 pandemic were emergency arrangements rather than distance education systems. Consequently, numerous authors (e.g., Hodges et al., 2020) have applied the term emergency remote teaching in this context in which teachers must have the ability to seamlessly and effectively pivot formats while invoking theory and practice to continue to engage students and satisfy learning outcomes (Betts et al., 2021). Thus, emergency remote teaching is underpinned by what may be referred to as pivotal pedagogy, which Betts et al. (2021, p. 31) defined, as follows:

Teaching and learning research methods and statistics in eLearning environments   289 Pedagogical practices that engage learners in educational experiences through instruction, active learning, assessment (e.g., formative, summative, etc.), and feedback building upon theory, research, and authentic contexts supporting comprehension, application, and transfer of learning seamlessly across learning formats (e.g., in-class/onsite, blended, online) in alignment with learner needs and learning outcomes.

Pivotal pedagogy notwithstanding, due to emergency remote teaching, there was little time for teachers to formulate digital pedagogies for the early Covid-19 context. This unprecedented situation resulted in the extremely rapid digitalisation of higher education (HE) typically without, what Rapanta et al. (2021, p. 736) referred to as, the ‘“pedagogisation” of technology use in HE’. Other challenges to teachers and learners due to emergency remote learning involve a phenomenon referred to as eLearning crack-up perception (Akpinar, 2021), which may be defined as teachers and/or learners holding the view that the effectiveness of a particular eLearning system has been compromised in some way (Hasan and Bao, 2020). The various causes of eLearning crack-up perception include accessibility issues (e.g., inadequate internet access), learners’ intentions (e.g., students regarding eLearning systems as unmotivating), and social issues (e.g., teachers and/or learners lamenting the indirect nature of eLearning; Aboagye et al., 2021). Importantly, eLearning crack-up perception has been linked to increases in students’ psychological distress (Hasan and Bao, 2020). An additional challenge is Zoom fatigue, which refers to exhaustion due to extended use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems (Nadler, 2020). Nadler (2020) theorised that what he referred to as third skins explains how nuanced spatial differences between synchronous online consultations and face-to-face interactions results in participants not engaging as human agents but instead being “flattened” into a totality of third skin comprising person, background, and technology’ (p. 102613). Nadler hypothesised that this transformation coupled with participants’ bodies enduring a significant cognitive load to engage with this transformation generates CMC exhaustion. The logically related hypotheses that constitute Nadler’s (2020) theory require empirical testing. Other theories and corresponding empirical tests will, no doubt, emerge. Numerous authors have proposed strategies to combat Zoom fatigue such as reducing multi-tasking (Fosslien and Duffy, 2020; Peper et al., 2021), asynchronous lectures, small online groups, and switching activities (Toney et al., 2021). Referring to the transition out of the initial phase of emergency remote teaching, Crawford et al. (2020, p. 20) stated that, ‘Whilst many higher education organizations in countries where schools are closed have initially focused on transitioning to the online environment, the focus is now on online pedagogy’. In the context of teaching research methods and statistics in eLearning environments during the Covid-19 pandemic, the present authors suggest that factors that reduce statistics anxiety may serve to guide the pedagogies that are adopted, given the widespread prevalence of anxiety around learning statistics (Paechter et al., 2017). This strategy seems particularly pertinent given that the Covid-19 pandemic has heightened students’ anxiety (Zhai and Du, 2020). Statistics anxiety may be defined as: a performance characterized by extensive worry, intrusive thoughts, mental disorganization, tension, and physiological arousal ... when exposed to statistics content, problems, instructional situations, or evaluative contexts, and is commonly claimed to debilitate performance in a wide variety of academic situations by interfering with the manipulation of statistics data and solution of statistics problems. (Zeidner, 1990, p. 319)

290  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods More generally, Onwuegbuzie et al. (1997) stated that ‘statistics anxiety occurs when an individual experiences anxiety as a result of encountering statistics in any form at any level’ (p. 11). Previous research has found that, for example, humour (e.g., Schacht and Stewart, 1990; Wilson, 1996, 1999a, 1999b), the application of statistics to real-world topics (Dilevko, 2000; Wilson, 1999a), cooperative learning when students know their team members and trust them to produce work of a high quality (e.g., Wilson, 1999a), and the teacher’s positive attitude (e.g., Wilson, 1996) are linked to a reduction in statistics anxiety. (For more recent reviews see Chew and Dillon, 2014; Dowker et al., 2016.) Given the importance of the teacher’s humour, behaviour (e.g., providing support, reassurance), and general positive attitude in the context of teaching and learning research methods and statistics (Onwuegbuzie and Wilson, 2003), it is pertinent to consider Rapanta et al.’s (2020) discussion of how Anderson et al.’s (2001) work concerning the significance of teacher presence may be reconceptualised in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. A tripartite conceptualisation of teacher presence emerged from Rapanta et al.’s (2020) interviews, which consisted of the following: 1. Cognitive presence, which refers to how teachers consider a student’s willingness to engage with eLearning; 2. Social presence, which pertains to the channels of social communication that teachers must make available to preserve the spontaneity of student-teacher and teacher-student interaction during emergency remote teaching; and 3. Facilitatory presence, which concerns the teacher’s embrace of, for example, mentoring activities and facilitatory discourse. As previously stated, research (e.g., Wilson, 1999b) highlights the importance of teacher presence, particularly the teacher’s humour and empathy (e.g., providing reassurance and encouragement to students), in regards to reducing statistics anxiety (see also Church et al., 2021). More specifically, regarding teacher presence, in the current authors’ university department, some teachers of research methods and statistics include a discussion forum on their Moodle site titled ‘This Week’s Music Selection is…’, which is designed for students and teachers to post links to YouTube music clips and discuss their favourite music. This discussion forum reflects social presence and faciliatory presence whereby the teacher facilitates the manifestation of a social communication channel enabling interaction between class members with the aim of developing a sense of community. Similarly underscoring the importance of teacher presence, Nind et al. (2020) asserted that teachers of research methods and statistics ‘would do well to attend carefully to the social, emotional, active and reflective nature of methods learning’ (p. 808). The authors used a diary circle whereby participants made diary entries that allowed access to their research methods learning experience. In eLearning environments, students may make diary entries on discussion forums or in breakout rooms. Indeed, the present authors typically encourage their students to form online groups designed to provide peer support during their research methods and statistics journey. Haardörfer and Livingston (2021) provided an overview of the lessons they learned teaching quantitative methods in a public health course during the Covid-19 pandemic. For example, the authors note that platforms such as Zoom allow students to share their screens so that teachers can review syntax or statistical outputs and check for errors. This practice would not be possible in a traditional classroom due to social distancing mandates. It was also

Teaching and learning research methods and statistics in eLearning environments   291 recommended that teachers provide more flexibility regarding the availability of office hours (see also Church et al., 2021). This recommendation is consistent with the principles of social and facilitatory teacher presence (Rapanta et al., 2020) mentioned earlier, and also relates to findings suggesting that the teacher’s positive attitude is inversely related to students’ statistics anxiety (Wilson, 1996). Haardörfer and Livingston (2021) suggested the inclusion of ‘light’ activities in the eLearning environment and the encouragement of sharing (e.g., pictures of favourite outfits worn during the Covid-19 pandemic), with the aim of building a community. This aim is reflected in the present authors’ aforementioned discussion forum on their Moodle site titled ‘This Week’s Music Selection is…’. Rippé et al. (2021) outlined an empirically driven pandemic pedagogy whereby students’ perceived lack of control due to the Covid-19 pandemic is off-set by teachers using control-giving techniques (e.g., providing flexibility regarding deadlines, assignment topics, participating in synchronous Zoom sessions or listening to Zoom recordings). Such control-giving techniques may serve to enhance students’ self-efficacy and, thus, in the context of learning research methods and statistics, provide a treatment for statistics anxiety. In the final part of the main assignment of the research methods and statistics class of two of the present authors (Adam Rock and Methuen Morgan), a control-giving technique was developed whereby students are required to create an imaginary empirical study investigating any psychological content area they wish. More specifically, students are required to do the following: 1. Create an SPSS data file consisting of hypothetical data derived from an imaginary study of the student’s choosing. Students need to create two variables of their choosing in SPSS’s variable view and between 30 to 60 cases (i.e., imaginary participants’ scores) in SPSS’s data view; 2. Formulate a hypothesis pertaining to the two variables and perform the appropriate inferential statistical test, including the relevant assumption testing, to evaluate the hypothesis; 3. Perform the appropriate follow-up analysis (i.e., effect size); 4. Produce an APA (American Psychological Association) style results write-up. Students should report at least one statistical measure of normality (e.g., Shapiro-Wilk test) together with both the skewness and kurtosis values. Where appropriate, at least one set of confidence intervals should be reported. The appropriate effect size should be included, and the fate of the hypothesis should be clearly stated; and 5. Using plain language (i.e., non-technical terms) produce for the layperson an explanation of the results.2

TEACHING AND LEARNING RESEARCH METHODS AND STATISTICS IN ELEARNING ENVIRONMENTS POST-PANDEMIC Ní Fhloinn and Fitzmaurice (2021) surveyed 257 lecturers from 29 countries during the emergency remote teaching phase precipitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Fundamentally, the results suggested that a return to a blended teaching and learning model (i.e., a combination of face-to-face and online learning) would be the most effective moving forward rather than, for example, the normalisation of emergency remote eLearning. Similarly, El Rizaq and Sarmini (2021) surveyed 28 learners and 40 teachers across five Indonesian provinces and found that participants considered blended learning to be the most appropriate model in terms of future

292  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods education. Numerous other researchers (e.g., Arnove, 2020; Benito et al., 2021) advocate blended or hybrid models of learning as the future of education. Subsequently, the goal is ‘identifying the suitable blended learning model for future education sustainability in every level of education’ (El Rizaq and Sarmini, 2021, p. 171). As a starting point, two of the present authors (Adam Rock and Methuen Morgan) have implemented a blended learning model for their research methods and statistics classes, which consists of two-weekly face-to-face (i.e., delivered onsite for on-campus students) lectures, one-weekly face-to-face SPSS tutorial (i.e., laboratory session), and one-weekly Zoom question and answer session. All sessions are recorded (the onsite sessions are recorded using Echo360) and uploaded to our Moodle eLearning system for all students to use as asynchronous learning resources. Anecdotally, our on-campus students appreciate the opportunity to participate in face-to-face, synchronous classes and our external students are grateful for the prospect of engaging with synchronous Zoom sessions. Deciding on the best kind of blended model of learning should be informed by theory, practice, empirical evidence, and the recognition that ‘one size does not fit all’. Consequently, it may be prudent for teachers to co-create blended models with learners. This co-creation is consistent with Rippé et al.’s (2021) pandemic pedagogy and its central focus on control-giving techniques.  We emphasise that a much wider portfolio of eLearning tools is now available in the post-pandemic world and teachers need to be trained and skilled in delivering in all of these forms. Indeed, a meta-analysis conducted by Naidu and Laxman (2019) found that a ‘lack of teacher confidence’ (p. 134) was the primary inhibitor regarding teachers embracing eLearning, thus, indicating a strong need for effective teacher-level eLearning training programmes. Such programmes will facilitate teachers’ embodiment of pivotal pedagogical principles (Betts et al., 2021) such as the mastery of, and ability to transition seamlessly between, various eLearning modalities.  Rapanta et al. (2021, p. 727) asserted that, ‘I think we might find the post-Covid times will be more open to more intelligent and diverse arrangements for both formative and summative assessment, and more open to including students in the discussion’. Importantly, numerous studies (e.g., Onwuegbuzie, 1998, 2000; Onwuegbuzie et al., 1997) have found that a closed-book final examination is one of the most anxiety-provoking factors for students studying statistics. Furthermore, logistical issues associated with ProctorU invigilated online examinations (e.g., unstable internet connections) during the emergency remote teaching phase suggests that it may be prudent to replace examinations with performance-based assessments (Rapanta et al., 2021), which Onwuegbuzie (2000) found to be the most preferred form of assessment for learners of research methods and statistics. Performance assessments may be defined as ‘presenting students with tasks, projects, or investigations, then evaluating the products which emerge in order to assess what students have learned and what they can accomplish’ (Onwuegbuzie, 2000, p. 323; see also Stenmark, 1991). Thus, the focus is on what the learner is capable of doing in addition to what the learner knows, with value being placed on essential and transferable skills (Rapanta et al., 2021). Cahapay (2020, p. 2) stated that, ‘The coming new normal post-COVID-19 era can be a teachable moment for content that is significant, relevant, and useful’. Importantly, previous research (e.g., Dilveko, 2000; Wilson, 1999a) suggests that applying statistics to current news stories, and real-world situations in general, is related to a reduction in statistics anxiety. Cahapay (2020) noted that, for example, Flannery (2020) conducted a study where teachers who built relevant real-world content into their classes were interviewed. Flannery notes that

Teaching and learning research methods and statistics in eLearning environments   293 one teacher worked with their students on the topic of a new normal phenomenon referred to as social distancing (see also Higgins et al., 2021). Prior to the pandemic, in the present authors’ research methods and statistics course the main assignment focused on (1) the relationship between perceived physical attractiveness and psychopathology; and (2) the relationship between alcohol consumption and memory performance. However, adapting these topics to a focus that is more pertinent to the post-pandemic new normal promises to provide a teachable moment with relevant, real-life application. Given that eLearning systems are ubiquitous in nature (Nof et al., 2015), teachers of statistics need to be able to effectively use these technologies to engage learners (Rock et al., 2016). Neuwirth et al. (2021) argued that the understanding and application of eLearning etiquette may serve to enhance learner engagement. They suggested that in synchronous environments (e.g., Zoom), the behavioural engagement of learners can be accomplished via, for example, encouraging learners to use the chat function, turn on their video camera, use tools such as raise hand, and unmuting microphones. In asynchronous modalities, learners’ behavioural engagement can be achieved through online discussion forums directly prior to, or immediately after, lectures and tutorials to fully address questions.

TOWARDS A POST-PANDEMIC RESEARCH METHODS AND STATISTICS PEDAGOGY The present authors suggest that an effective post-pandemic pedagogy will be based, at least in part, on a hybrid of pre-existing pedagogies that apply to the synchronous and asynchronous modalities of eLearning environments. First, we expect that Pedagogy 2.0 (McLoughlin and Lee, 2008) and Presence Pedagogy (Sanders and Melton, 2010), with their emphasis on social constructivist principles will continue to guide teachers and learners regarding the co-creation of knowledge within eLearning modalities. Second, we anticipate that the relevance of pivotal pedagogy (Betts et al., 2021) will not be restricted to the emergency remote teaching phase. Indeed, we suggest that during the new normal post-pandemic era, eLearning systems will continue to proliferate and a plethora of blended learning models will emerge, thus, requiring teachers to seamlessly and effectively pivot formats while facilitating student engagement. However, we acknowledge the potential for increased workload and anxiety among teachers attempting to remain abreast of new technology and the potential proliferation of learner to teacher communication channels that require monitoring. Third, given the importance of teachers’ characteristics regarding the reduction of students’ statistics anxiety (e.g., Onwuegbuzie and Wilson, 2003), we suggest that any effective research methods and statistics pedagogy must take into consideration the cognitive, social, and facilitatory presence of teachers (Rapanta et al., 2020). Finally, we argue that even as the negative effects of the Covid-19 pandemic dissipate, adverse events such as climate change will continue to occur and, thus, exacerbate individuals’ perceived lack of control. Consequently, Rippé et al.’s (2021) pandemic pedagogy with its focus on control-giving techniques will continue to be relevant in the post-pandemic era, particularly as a method of reducing students’ statistics anxiety.

294  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY We, the present authors, decided that it would be prudent to close with some of our personal reflections, which is something we rarely do in our academic publications due to our grounding in the scientific method, which focuses on rigorous systematic observation, value neutrality, and so on. However, perhaps we are not in that antiquated era anymore. When we agreed to write this chapter in November 2020, we did not have a sense of what the state of the socio-cultural-educational landscape might be subsequent to the emergency remote teaching phase or, indeed, what might constitute the new normal (e.g., social norms and mores regarding teaching and learning) in a post-pandemic era. We wondered if the new normal would be completely online teaching or a blended model of learning. In the week commencing 28 February 2022, two of us (Adam Rock and Kylie Rice) delivered our first class on-site, face-to-face, for two years. The week prior there was concern regarding whether teachers would be mandated to wear masks because such practices would compromise the audio quality of the on-site lecture recordings that were to be uploaded to the online platform (i.e., Moodle) for all students to access. In addition to our institution’s return to synchronous lectures for on-campus students and asynchronous lectures for off-campus students, Adam had chosen to continue to deliver a Zoom question and answer session every week so that all students in that cohort would have the opportunity to participate in real time, thus, working towards bridging the gap between the on-campus and off-campus learning experience. We are mindful that over two decades ago, Virilio and Lotringer (1997) asserted that due to advances in technology in a postmodern world, spatial and temporal dimensions no longer performed a meaningful function regarding human cognitions and behaviours. We contend that, at the very least, the temporal dimension continues to constitute a logistical issue for teachers and learners (e.g., miscalculating time zone differences). Perhaps the solution to such enduring logistical issues will be arrived at via collaborative insight and empathy between teachers and learners and based, at least in part, on pivotal pedagogical principles (Betts et al., 2021) such as the mastery of, and ability to transition seamlessly between, numerous eLearning modalities. In any event, moving forward, we contend that teachers of research methods and statistics in eLearning environments should be cognisant of how correlates of students’ statistics anxiety may interact with COVID-19-related variables (e.g., feelings of a loss of volitional control). Such an awareness will serve teachers well regarding the formulation and application of effective pedagogical principles, practices, and assessments as we enter the new normal in a post-pandemic world. 

NOTES 1 2

See Maki (2021) for an overview of emerging eLearning tools. While this assessment task performs the function of a control-giving technique, it is not restricted to the online learning context and, therefore, may also be used in the context of a blended learning model or a face-to-face learning model.

Teaching and learning research methods and statistics in eLearning environments   295

REFERENCES Aboagye, E., Yawson, J.A. and Appiah, K.N. (2021). COVID-19 and e-learning: The challenges of students in tertiary institutions. Social Education Research, 2(1), 1–8. About StatHand (2015). Available at: https://​www​.stathand​.net/​Home/​About Akpınar, E. (2021). The effect of online learning on tertiary level students’ mental health during the Covid-19 lockdown. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 30(1), 52–62. Alhassan, R. (2017). Exploring the relationship between Web 2.0 tools self-efficacy and teachers’ use of these tools in their teaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 217–228. Allen, P.J., Roberts, L.D., Baughman, F.D., Loxton, N.J., Van Rooy, D., Rock, A.J. and Finlay, J. (2016). Introducing StatHand: A cross-platform mobile application to support students’ statistical decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 288. Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D.R. and Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Annetta, L.A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S.Y. and Cheng, M.T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74–85. Arnove, R.F. (2020). Imagining what education can be post-COVID-19. Prospects, 49(1), 43–46. Arora, C., Kaur, C., Gupta, A. and Bhardawaj, A. (2014). A review of recent e-learning trends: Implementation and cognitive styles. International Journal of Information and Computation Technology, 4(3), 215–220. Benito, Á., Dogan Yenisey, K., Khanna, K., Masis, M.F., Monge, R.M., Tugtan, M.A., Araya, L.D.V. and Vig, R. (2021). Changes that should remain in higher education post COVID-19: A mixed-methods analysis of the experiences at three universities. Higher Learning Research Communications, 11, 51–75. Betts, K., Delaney, B., Galoyan, T. and Lynch, W. (2021). Historical review of distance and online education from 1700s to 2021 in the United States: Instructional design and pivotal pedagogy in higher education. Journal of Online Learning Research and Practice, 8(1), Article 26963. Bhalla, S. (2014). E-learning: Tools, techniques and trends. International Journal of Engineering Science Invention Research & Development, 1, 82–87. Bronack, S., Sanders, R., Cheney, A., Riedl, R., Tashner, J. and Matzen, N. (2008). Presence pedagogy: Teaching and learning in a 3D virtual immersive world. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 59–69. Cahapay, M.B. (2020). Rethinking education in the new normal post-COVID-19 era: A curriculum studies perspective. Aquademia, 4(2), Article ep20018. Chew, P.K. and Dillon, D.B. (2014). Statistics anxiety update: Refining the construct and recommendations for a new research agenda. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 196–208. Chi, E.H. (2008). The social web: Research and opportunities. Computer, 41(9), 88–91. Church, F.C., Cooper, S.T., Fortenberry, Y.M., Glasscock, L.N. and Hite, R. (2021). Useful teaching strategies in STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine) education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(11), Article 752. Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M. and Hickey, R. (2008). Toward an understanding of flow in video games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 6(2), 1–27. Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., Magni, P.A. and Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 1–20. Dilevko, J. (2000). A new approach to teaching research methods courses in LIS programs. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 41(4), 307–329. Dowker, A., Sarkar A. and Looi, C. (2016). Mathematics anxiety: What have we learned in 60 years? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 508. El Rizaq, A.D.B. and Sarmini, S. (2021). Secondary school teachers and learners perspective for future of education post COVID-19 pandemic. Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan dan Ilmu Tarbiyah, 6(1), 171–182. Farkas, M. (2012). Participatory technologies, pedagogy 2.0 and information literacy. Library Hi Tech, 30, 82–94. Fosslien, L. and Duffy, M.W. (2020). How to combat Zoom fatigue. Harvard Business Review, 29, 1–6.

296  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Gómez, R.L. and Suárez, A.M. (2021). Gaming to succeed in college: Protocol for a scoping review of quantitative studies on the design and use of serious games for enhancing teaching and learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100021. Haardörfer, R. and Livingston, M. (2021). Teaching statistics in public health during COVID-19: Lessons learned from spring 2020 and recommendations for the future. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 7(1), 25–28. Hasan, N. and Bao, Y. (2020). Impact of ‘e-Learning crack-up’ perception on psychological distress among college students during COVID-19 pandemic: A mediating role of ‘fear of academic year loss’. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, Article 105355. Higgins, R., Murphy, F. and Hogg, P. (2021). The impact of teaching experimental research on-line: Research-informed teaching and COVID-19. Radiography, 27(2), 539–545. Hodges, C.B., Moore, S., Lockee, B.B., Trust, T. and Bond, M.A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review https://​er​.educause​.edu/​articles/​ 2020/​3/​the​-difference​-between​-emergency​-remote​-teaching​-and​-online​-learning Hughes, J. (2008). Letting in the Trojan mouse: Using an eportfolio system to re-think pedagogy. In Proceedings of Ascilite, Hello! Where are you in the Landscape of Educational Technology? Melbourne. Available at: http://​www​.as cilite​.org​.au/​conferences/​melbourne08/​procs/​hughes​.pdf [Accessed 2 February 2022] Hwang, G.J. and Chen, P.Y. (2022). Interweaving gaming and educational technologies: Clustering and forecasting the trends of game-based learning research by bibliometric and visual analysis. Entertainment Computing, 40, 100459. Karalis, T. and Raikou, N. (2020). Teaching at the times of COVID-19: Inferences and implications for higher education pedagogy. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(5), 479–493. Karkoulia, K.C. (2016). Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of Web 2.0 tools in EFL teaching. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 46. Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In R.E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (pp. 1–32). IGI Global, Kent State University. Lahiri, M. and Moseley, J.L. (2012). Is mobile learning the future of 21st century education? Educational considerations from various perspectives. Educational Technology, 52, 3–13. Maki, P.L. (2021). The evolving landscape of 21st-century learning technologies. In P.L. Maki and P. Shea (Eds.), Transforming Digital Learning and Assessment: A Guide to Available and Emerging Practices and Building Institutional Consensus. Sterling, Virginia, Stylus Publishing. Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M. and Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893–1906. McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M.J. (2008). The three P’s of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10–27. Nadler, R. (2020). Understanding ‘Zoom fatigue’: Theorizing spatial dynamics as third skins in computer-mediated communication. Computers and Composition, 58, Article 102613. Naidu, S. and Laxman, K. (2019). Factors inhibiting teachers’ embracing eLearning in secondary education: A literature review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 124–143. Neuwirth, L.S., Jović, S. and Mukherji, B.R. (2021). Reimagining higher education during and post-COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 27(2), 141–156. Ní Fhloinn, E. and Fitzmaurice, O. (2022). Any advice? Lessons learned by mathematics lecturers for emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(3), 566–572. Nind, M., Holmes, M., Insenga, M., Lewthwaite, S. and Sutton, C. (2020). Student perspectives on learning research methods in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(7), 797–811. Nof, S.Y., Ceroni, J., Jeong, W. and Moghaddam, M. (2015). Revolutionizing Collaboration Through e-Work, e-Business, and e-Service. New York, Springer. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (1998). The dimensions of statistics anxiety: A comparison of prevalence rates among mid-southern university students. Louisiana Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 23–40.

Teaching and learning research methods and statistics in eLearning environments   297 Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2000). Attitudes toward statistics assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 321–339. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Wilson, V.A. (2003). Statistics anxiety: Nature, etiology, antecedents, effects, and treatments – A comprehensive review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 195–209. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Da Ros, D. and Ryan, J.M. (1997). The components of statistics anxiety: A phenomenological study. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19(4), 11–35. Paechter, M., Macher, D., Martskvishvili, K., Wimmer, S. and Papousek, I. (2017). Mathematics anxiety and statistics anxiety. Shared but also unshared components and antagonistic contributions to performance in statistics. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1196. Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78–102. Peper, E., Wilson, V., Martin, M., Rosegard, E. and Harvey, R. (2021). Avoid Zoom fatigue, be present and learn. NeuroRegulation, 8(1), 47–47. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L. and Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923–945. Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L. and Koole, M. (2021). Balancing technology, pedagogy and the new normal: Post-pandemic challenges for higher education. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(3), 715–742. Rippé, C.B., Weisfeld-Spolter, S., Yurova, Y. and Kemp, A. (2021). Pandemic pedagogy for the new normal: Fostering perceived control during COVID-19. Journal of Marketing Education, 43(2), 260–276. Rock, A.J., Coventry, W.L., Morgan, M.I. and Loi, N.M. (2016). Teaching research methods and statistics in eLearning environments: Pedagogy, practical examples, and possible futures. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 339. Sanders, R.L. and Melton, S.J. (2010). The AETZone experience: A qualitative analysis of the use of presence pedagogy in a 3D immersive learning environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 62–70. Schacht, S. and Stewart, B.J. (1990). What’s funny about statistics? A technique for reducing student anxiety. Teaching Sociology, 18(1), 52–56. Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Games and Simulation, 2(1), 49–62. Stenmark, J. (1991). Mathematics Assessment: Myths, Models, Good Questions, and Practical Suggestions. Reston, VA, NCTM. Toney, S., Light, J. and Urbaczewski, A. (2021). Fighting zoom fatigue: Keeping the zoombies at bay. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 48(1), 40–46. Virilio, P. and Lotringer, S. (1997). Pure War (trans. Mark Polizzotti and Brian O’Keefe). Semiotext (e). Wilson, V.A. (1996). Factors related to anxiety in statistics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sothern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. Wilson, V.A. (1999a). Student response to a systematic program of anxiety-reducing strategies in a graduate-level introductory educational research course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Que., April. Wilson, V.A. (1999b). Reducing statistics anxiety: A ranking of sixteen specific strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL, November. Winter, J., Cotton, D., Gavin, J. and Yorke, J.D. (2010). Effective e-learning? Multi-tasking, distractions and boundary management by graduate students in an online environment. ALT-J, 18(1), 71–83. World Health Organization (2020, March 11). WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. Retrieved from https://​www​.who​.int/​director​-general/​speeches/​detail/​who​ -director​-general​-s​-opening​-remarks​-at​-the​-media​-briefing​-on​-covid​-19​-​-​-11​-march​-2020 Wouters, P. and Van Oostendorp, H. (2013). A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 60(1), 412–425.

298  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Yu, C., Lee, S.J. and Ewing, C. (2014, October). Mobile learning: Emerging trends, issues, and challenges in teaching and learning. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2126–2136). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Zeidner, M. (1990). Does test anxiety bias scholastic aptitude test performance by gender and sociocultural group? Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(1–2), 145–160. Zhai, Y. and Du, X. (2020). Addressing collegiate mental health amid COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Research, 288, Article 113003.

21. “Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies to build community in an online mixed methods research methods course Jori N. Hall and Sara Campbell

INTRODUCTION In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic left many people isolated in their homes and thrust many instructors into an online learning environment for the first time. Pivoting from face-to-face to online learning created the need for instructors to make immediate changes to their pedagogy. In particular, shifting to online learning left many mixed methods instructors ill-equipped given the associated challenges of learning and teaching mixed methods. For instance, students commonly struggle with constructing mixed methods research proposals (Hesse-Biber, 2015), developing mixed methods questions (Hesse-Biber, 2015), identifying their paradigmatic stance (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2011), and synthesising mixed methods data (Johnson et al., 2019). Further, mixed methods instructors often face time constraints covering course content (Fret et al., 2012) and lack adequate training in both qualitative and quantitative methodologies (Hesse-Biber, 2015). Although mixed methods content is inherently complex and online course delivery is challenging, online mixed methods courses can be delivered in ways that enable students’ mixed methods learning (Fret et al., 2012; Ivankova, 2010). However, to do so, mixed methods online courses need an arrangement of technologies that support student engagement and build a sense of community (Rovai, 2001; Rudestam and Schoenholtz-Read, 2010). Recognising there are many technologies to incorporate into online courses, including those that are more commonly used (traditional) and those used less often (non-traditional), we (Sara and Jori) drew upon existing online teaching and learning research, as well as our prior teaching experiences, to deliver a US graduate-level course – Mixed Methods Approaches to Research – for the first time online. As teachers, we wanted students to experience feelings of belonging and connection, despite the physical distance between us during the pandemic. We also wanted to develop an online course that responds to Ivankova’s (2010, p. 63) call for a “reevaluation of the traditional pedagogical strategies of teaching research methods and their applicability to online learning environments”. With these goals in mind, we used a mix of traditional and non-traditional technologies, which will be explained in depth later in the chapter, to implement our online mixed methods course based on the Community of Inquiry pedagogical framework developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000). In this chapter, we discuss our experiences developing our online mixed methods course. We begin by describing the Community of Inquiry framework. Next, we outline the reflective case narrative methodology we used to study and learn from our pedagogical practices. The chapter closes with our findings and lessons learned.

299

300  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

THE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY FRAMEWORK The Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 2000) postulates that the development of a classroom community and the pursuit of inquiry are based on three forms of presence: (a) cognitive, (b) social, and (c) teaching. These forms of presence, which are described in greater detail next, interact with one another to support higher-order thinking and classroom community building in online education. We viewed this framework to be appropriate as it was established for online teaching in higher education and promotes active learning experiences with peers, the course content, and the instructors. Further, this framework allowed us to leverage the power of technology to build an online classroom community. Cognitive Presence Cognitive presence is defined as the “extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). Based on John Dewey’s (1933) model of Practical Inquiry, cognitive presence takes place through four phases of experience and reflection. In the first phase, students experience a triggering event where an issue, dilemma, or problem emerges from an experience. For example, a teacher may ask students to develop mixed methods research questions. In the second phase, exploration, students explore resources, brainstorm, question, and exchange ideas related to the triggering event. For instance, a student might reflect on their worldview and dialogue with peers to explore different ways to construct mixed methods research questions. The third phase, integration, involves negotiating divergent ideas and selecting those that are most applicable or relevant to the triggering event or issue. Building on the example above, a student might decide to construct one qualitative research question and one quantitative research question for their mixed methods study. The fourth phase is a resolution to the dilemma. Here, students personally or vicariously apply a proposed solution that leads to a new triggering event. If the proposed solution resolves the dilemma, the teacher might introduce a new triggering event (e.g., exploring mixed methods designs to answer research questions). If the proposed solution does not resolve the dilemma, the student is confronted with a new experience that requires further exploration (continue to revise mixed methods research questions). Cognitive presence is tied to both psychological and sociological processes. Collaboration between members of the community (students and instructors) is essential to helping individuals “negotiate meaning, diagnose misconceptions, and challenge accepted beliefs” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 91). Social Presence To promote and sustain cognitive presence in the Community of Inquiry framework, social presence is necessary (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison and Archer, 1999; Swan, Garrison and Richardson, 2009). Social presence is the ability to project oneself socially and emotionally, as a “real” person, or to show one’s personality (Garrison et al., 2000). As members of the community share emotions and build connections with one another, group interactions become more appealing and engaging, and thus lead to increased persistence in the pursuit of inquiry (Borup et al., 2012). Social presence encompasses three dimensions including affective expression, open communication, and group cohesion (Swan et al., 2009). Evidence of affec-

“Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies   301 tive expression includes emotional expression such as emojis, use of humor, or self-disclosure. Open communication occurs when members of the community refer to others, ask questions, or express appreciation. To develop group cohesion, community members might refer to someone by name, use inclusive pronouns, or express salutations (Armellini and De Stefani, 2016). These dimensions of social presence make up “the participant’s ability to identify with the community, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop interpersonal relationships” (Garrison et al., 2010, p. 7). Teaching Presence According to Garrison et al. (2000, p. 96), “appropriate cognitive and social presence, and ultimately, the establishment of a critical Community of Inquiry is dependent upon the presence of a teacher”. They go on to define teaching presence as “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes” (Anderson, Rourke and Garrison, 2001, p. 5). Like the multi-dimensional nature of cognitive and social presence, teaching presence consists of three components including design and organisation, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction (Anderson et al., 2001). The first element, design and organisation, occurs primarily before the course commences. The teacher builds the curriculum, including learning objectives, course content, group and individual activities, and assignments. In the second element, facilitating discourse, the teacher regularly reads or comments on student work to establish and maintain discourse in the community. For example, the teacher may probe for additional responses, connect students who have divergent or convergent ideas, acknowledge contributions, or keep the community on the topic of interest. Direct instruction occurs when the teacher presents content, poses questions, focuses the dialogue, confirms understanding, diagnoses misconceptions, and refers students to resources.

TRADITIONAL AND NON-TRADITIONAL ONLINE TECHNOLOGIES To implement the Community of Inquiry framework, we used traditional (discussion boards, videoconferencing) and non-traditional technologies (avatar-based). In this section, we briefly describe each technology, its connection to higher education, and how it can contribute to establishing a sense of community in an online mixed methods course. Traditional Online Technologies Asynchronous discussion boards facilitate online communication between instructors and students in higher education settings. Instructors in higher education commonly use discussion boards to enable students to access and engage course materials – an integral aspect of cognitive presence (Garrison et al., 2000). Instructors post videos, documents, and questions that prompt students to complete a task, explore, or problem solve through self-reflection. As evidenced in other online mixed methods courses, discussion boards have been known to drive student engagement, help students connect mixed methods content to their experiences, clarify understandings, and reflect on their learning of mixed methods (Ivankova, 2010). Although

302  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods asynchronous forums lack social presence (Lee and Tsai, 2011), as they do not capture non-verbal communications (facial expressions), they do advance a sense of community when students exchange ideas/information, and collaborate with each other (Sher, 2009), supporting open communication and group cohesion (Armellini and De Stefani, 2016). It should also be noted that discussion boards create a “social obligation” to post among students; that is, students feel compelled to respond to a post from peers – especially when they receive positive comments (Chapman et al., 2007). Videoconferencing – synchronous audio and video communication technology – was initially perceived as an effective medium to deliver traditional pedagogies (i.e., lectures) to large numbers of remote university students (Lawson et al., 2010). Yet, with technological and pedagogical advances, videoconferencing has increasingly become more learner-centered, promoting strategies such as role-play and group work. The literature on synchronous platforms notes these technologies enable “real-time interactions” (Blau et al., 2017), allowing instructors and students to project themselves socially and emotionally, which is critical for social presence. While we were unable to identify any literature on the use of videoconferencing platforms for online mixed methods instruction specifically, Zoom has become the main online technology used in higher education following the Covid-19 pandemic (Bond et al., 2021). Additionally, the use of Zoom tools (i.e., chat boxes, breakout rooms, and webcams) “support open communication and the fostering of personal or closer relationships” (Bedenlier et al., 2021, p. 6). As a result, students experience less isolation, thereby strengthening the online community (Khan et al., 2021). Videoconferencing platforms can also establish teaching presence in online courses as they enable instructors to provide direct instruction, answer questions, and correct misconceptions. Videoconferencing, then, can be especially advantageous when teaching mixed methods online to clarify mixed methods topics that challenge students such as identifying their philosophical assumptions and analysing data (Hesse-Biber, 2015; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2011). Non-traditional Online Technology Non-traditional online technologies are tools that are innovative but used less often for online instruction. Avatar-based technologies are such an example. Avatar-based technologies bring students together synchronously in a shared virtual environment as avatars. Avatars are a visual embodiment that conveys a user’s identity, presence, location, and activities in a virtual environment (Annetta and Holmes, 2006; Gomes de Siqueira et al., 2021). Early avatar-mediated platforms developed in the 1980s provided basic features: the use of cursor keys to move avatars and written messages for communication (Gomes de Siqueira et al., 2021). Since the 1980s, avatar-mediated platforms have evolved, providing more complex technologies and highly interactive virtual environments (Choi et al., 2021). In current avatar-based environments, users can interact with content and communicate with others using different types of media (audio, video, graphical gestures) (Annetta and Holmes, 2006). For instance, Second Life, a well-researched and popular avatar-based platform, offers users the ability to create avatars, generate three-dimensional (3-D) content, and interact with others in virtual worlds (Sala, 2016). Because these features facilitate interactions with content and other users, avatar-based environments can be suitable for advancing cognitive and social presence. Further, like videoconferencing, avatar-based environments can serve to promote

“Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies   303 interactive experiences and establish teaching presence when used for direct instruction in the online community. While virtual worlds can provide powerful fully immersive 3-D learning environments, the software requirements are relatively expensive and cumbersome. In addition, many of these virtual worlds require virtual reality headsets, which can present challenges to instructors who wish to prioritise affordability and accessibility to their students. Notwithstanding, avatar-based technologies can be useful to complement traditional technologies in online courses as students increasingly experience Zoom fatigue and burnout (Bailenson, 2021). Our review of the online literature solidified our decision to incorporate these particular traditional and non-traditional technologies in our online mixed methods course. Overall, we considered combining these asynchronous and synchronous technologies critical to afford students different modes for communication (audio, video, written) and types of engagement, which is important for online instructors to address differences in students’ learning styles – another challenge to teaching mixed methods online (Ivankova, 2010). Second, we viewed the discussion boards and videoconferencing technologies as particularly beneficial to establish a sense of community by fostering peer relationships, which sets the foundation for enjoyable learning experiences and opportunities for students to work through mixed methods issues (Hesse-Biber, 2015). And third, we regarded the videoconferencing and avatar-based environment as particularly useful to support instructor supervision of methodological development and a high level of student engagement with course content – two common learning challenges specific to mixed methods pedagogy (Ivankova, 2010). Our chapter is intended to contribute to the limited but increasing pedagogical culture of teaching research methods in general (Nind and Katramadou, 2022) and teaching mixed methods online specifically (Hesse-Biber, 2010; Ivankova, 2010). Accordingly, in the next section, we discuss our study, further detailing how we used the aforementioned technologies in our online mixed methods course and examined the same.

STUDY DESIGN To critically examine the mix of traditional and non-traditional technologies employed in our online mixed methods course, we used reflective case narrative methodology (Becker and Renger, 2017). The overarching goal of reflective case narratives is to transfer knowledge, convey lessons learned, and share ideas (Becker and Renger, 2017). As suggested by its name, the methodology is situated at the intersections of reflective practice, case study research, and narrative inquiry. Briefly, reflective practice involves assessing one’s actions to improve future responses (Kinsella, 2009). For our study, reflective practice involved assessing how our online course design stimulated a sense of community. Reflective practice also involved critically reflecting on how the online design supported learning and teaching mixed methods research, with the goal of using what was learned for instructional improvement. Case study methodology involves understanding the complexity of a bounded system or case (Stake, 1995). For this study, case study methodology guided our determination of the parameters of our investigation and the examination of the complexities and uniqueness of our online mixed methods course. We came to understand our case – the online mixed methods course – through the use of multiple data sources (see Data collection section). Collecting and

304  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods reviewing multiple data sources enabled us to examine different perspectives and assess the impact of the course. Narrative inquiry is a way to make meaning of our lived experiences through a reflective retelling of events (Thomas, 2012). It also honors the complexity and improvisational nature of our experiences (McClish-Boyd and Bhattacharya, 2021). A narrative orientation was instrumental to develop critical insights from the data, share our experiences (including missteps), as well as contextualise, and reflectively make meaning of our findings. Our reflective case narrative was guided by the following research questions: 1. In what ways did the graduate students experience a sense of community in the online mixed methods course? 2. What technologies supported students’ sense of community in the online mixed methods course? 3. What were the key lessons learned when designing and implementing the online mixed methods course? The Case This graduate-level, mixed methods course was delivered over 15 weeks in the fall of 2020 at a southeastern university in the US. Because this course took place during the Covid-19 pandemic, the course was delivered fully online for the first time. Graduate students enrolling in the course (n=19) came from various disciplines, including education, engineering, family and consumer science, journalism, and public health. All students had a basic familiarity with quantitative and qualitative social sciences. Many students were in their third or fourth year of a PhD program and were thus working towards developing or completing their dissertation. Course content included a required text, Developing a Mixed Methods Proposal: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers (DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz, 2017). Course content was also provided via modules that included mixed methods journal articles, book chapters, and other supplemental materials (videos, power points, case examples) to support students’ learning. Our instructional team comprised Jori (first author), who served as the lead instructor, and Sara (second author) who served as a teaching assistant (TA). Jori has extensive experience teaching mixed methods courses and conducting mixed methods research, while Sara has expertise in pedagogy. We both had experience teaching online courses using traditional technologies such as discussion boards and videoconferencing. However, neither of us had experience with avatar-based environments. The course objectives for students were as follows: ● Students will develop an understanding of the contemporary interest in mixing methods. ● Students will develop an understanding of theoretical frameworks for mixing methods. ● Students will generate a unique contribution – theoretical, practical, or both – to the mixed methods conversation and literature. To assess if students achieved the student learning outcomes, we evaluated them on participation (25 points), a mixed methods proposal design presentation (25 points), and a final mixed methods proposal (50 points). Course participation was based on the quality and quantity of discussion board posts. Grading rubrics were used to assess student presentations and their final mixed methods proposal, the culminating project in the course.

“Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies   305 We used three instructional strategies to build our online community and achieve our mixed methods course objectives. Our first instructional strategy involved providing students access to weekly assigned readings or resources via modules on mixed methods topics and using discussion boards to promote reflection and student-to-student interactions. To do this, we paired students with a partner for the majority of the semester. Then, every other week, based on the content provided in the modules, we asked students to respond to prompts, develop components of their mixed methods proposal, provide peer feedback, and share personal challenges and successes they encountered. These strategies were primarily intended to support students’ development of their mixed methods proposal throughout the course. Content covered for these asynchronous sessions included such topics as defining mixed methods social inquiry, formulating mixed methods questions, mixed methods designs and diagrams, and data analysis. Students were invited to compose their discussion posts in their preferred format (i.e., video, illustration, diagram). For example, for Module 2: Defining mixed methods social inquiry, students were asked to respond to the following discussion post prompts (DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz, 2017, p. 11): 1. What is your experience with quantitative and qualitative research? Do you feel comfortable conducting both quantitative and qualitative research? 2. Are you familiar with mixed methods designs? Do you feel confident engaging in mixed methods study? 3. What is your timeline for implementing your research study? Can you effectively conduct a mixed methods study within that time frame? Respond with a video, illustration, diagram, or any other visuals. Make sure to mention/cite the readings in your response. Post your initial response before Thursday at midnight. Respond to your partner in any format you choose before Sunday at midnight. Our second instructional strategy involved delivering module content on mixed methods topics through synchronous video-conferencing sessions (Zoom) on the weeks asynchronous sessions were not offered. These video-conferencing sessions typically began with the lead instructor reviewing the topics associated with the course readings such as frameworks for mixed methods, purposes for mixed methods, and mixed method quality issues. Near the end of the lessons, students were divided into small breakout rooms to discuss prompts provided by the instructor. During the beginning of the semester, we used part of our Zoom session to discuss course goals, assignments, and our desire to establish a community in the online course. Toward the end of the semester, there were instances where guest speakers were brought in for videoconferencing sessions to discuss how they carried out mixed methods projects. Our third instructional strategy included providing options for students to meet one-on-one with the lead instructor to receive direct feedback on their mixed methods proposal. If a student requested a meeting, they could decide to meet the lead instructor as an avatar in a virtual world, or through Zoom. We selected Hubs by Mozilla (Hubs) as the most appropriate platform for avatar meetings because it did not require students to purchase a headset or download software. Hubs is a web-based (internet connection) platform that is accessible on multiple devices (laptops, smartphones). Students who opted to meet as an avatar were simply sent a hyperlink that directed them to a webpage where they selected an avatar and entered the virtual room. Once in the room, students could move about the room using auto-generated

306  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods instructions on the screen. In Hubs, avatars can share media (photos, PDF files), express emotion through emojis, and converse with one another in a chosen setting such as outer space, a boat, or by the river, for example. Because we were unfamiliar with teaching as avatars in the virtual world, we met regularly in Hubs before and during the course so we could vet the platform and become accustomed to its many features and functions. We learned how to create a virtual room, customise avatars, bring 3-D content into the virtual environment, and interact with each other. Data Collection Multiple data collection methods were used to reflect on the course including (a) instructor fieldnotes; (b) student materials; (c) an online student survey; and (d) end-of-course evaluations. We composed instructor fieldnotes after avatar meetings with students and each other. Student discussion posts and assignments were collected to see how students engaged with one another and the course content throughout the semester. At the end of the semester, students were sent a link to an online survey designed to understand their perceptions of the technologies used. The survey asked both open and closed-ended questions. Finally, the end-of-course evaluations asked students to provide demographic information and respond to open and closed-ended questions related to the course instruction, content, format, and responsiveness to teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic. Data Analysis The qualitative and quantitative data were analysed in phases. In the first phase, we analysed the qualitative data from our fieldnotes, course materials, and open-ended responses from the survey and end-of-course evaluations. We started close to the data and identified emerging categories and themes (inductive reasoning), then we used the Community of Inquiry framework to make theoretical connections within the themes we established (deductive reasoning). In the second phase, we analysed the quantitative data from the closed-ended questions in the online survey and the end-of-course evaluations. In the third phase, we integrated the qualitative themes and the quantitative data. To accomplish this, we compared and contrasted the findings across strands to identify areas of convergence or divergence (Greene, 2007). In line with reflective case narrative methodology, we viewed the data with an open mind and willingness to be teachable. We were ready to admit our faults, identify obstacles, and commend our successes to learn and share knowledge. All names used throughout the findings are pseudonyms.

FINDINGS Our findings are organised by four themes. The first discusses how our online mixed methods course design, including traditional and non-traditional technologies, established a sense of community and provided a positive mixed methods learning experience for students in general. While brief, this theme sets the foundation for the other themes that are longer as they provide details on how the graduate students experienced the online platforms and how the platforms connect to the Community of Inquiry framework. As such, these themes overlap at times, illustrating their interrelatedness.

“Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies   307 “We had Options!”: Mixing Online Technologies Provides Flexibility for Students As discussed, we intentionally used a mix of traditional and non-traditional technologies in our online course design. Many students mentioned how the overall mix of technologies was vital to establish a sense of community and access mixed methods research. Students perceived our online course design as especially beneficial because it offered flexibility: We had options! That’s important in a middle of a pandemic where we can’t experience a sense of community in the classroom. It still felt like a community and the semester went great.

As we will discuss further in the themes that follow, the flexibility offered by our online course design established a sense of community by allowing students different opportunities to meaningfully interact with their peers, the content, and the instructor. Further, the mix of technologies kept the pace of the course manageable and prevented the burnout associated with the overreliance on videoconferencing, which is common in online courses. For instance, students reported the mix of technologies “kept me engaged and interested”, “prevented Zoom fatigue”, and made the “course more dynamic and interactive”. Further, the end-of-course evaluation demonstrated that students “never felt overwhelmed (or underwhelmed) by the course”. These findings indicate how mixing technologies can help establish a sense of community, manage the pace of the course content, and limit high levels of frustration or boredom. Taken together, the findings are highly related to teaching presence in the Community of Inquiry framework, and more specifically the dimension of design and organisation. That is, our intentional mix of traditional and non-traditional technologies in our online course design helped to sustain student engagement. This is encouraging as student engagement is exceptionally challenging in the context of mixed methods teaching and learning as a result of the complexity of mixed methods research itself (Fret et al., 2012). In what follows, we detail the extent to which the different technologies enabled mixed methods teaching and learning, beginning with the discussion boards. “I, Too, Had Many of the Same Struggles”: Mixed Reactions to Asynchronous Discussion Boards The discussion board posts facilitated a sense of community among most, but not all, of the students. Working with the same peer partner throughout the semester and exchanging thoughts about the discussion board prompts enabled students to build a relationship with their peer partner and better understand their mixed methods work. This theme connects to both social presence and cognitive presence in the Community of Inquiry framework, as illustrated by the following quote from Bessie: I especially liked having one discussion partner throughout the course, because I felt I could connect with that person’s work without just randomly commenting on other students’ posts throughout the semester. This helped establish a relationship with that student, something difficult to achieve in a virtual classroom.

The online format provided opportunities for continuous partner discussions (social presence) and feedback related to their mixed methods work (cognitive presence), which is vital to support students’ application of mixed methods course content (Ivankova, 2010). Other stu-

308  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods dents mentioned how the partnership elicited a sense of “accountability”; that is, students felt responsible to respond to their partners in a timely and respectful manner. This relates to how social obligation is created in online communities when students feel compelled to respond to others’ posts (Chapman et al., 2007). This also aligns with the Community of Inquiry framework, which theorises that persistence (accountability) is enhanced when members of the community build connections with one another (Borup, West and Graham, 2012). In the Community of Inquiry framework, cognitive presence takes place through a cycle of (a) triggering event (problem); (b) exploration; (c) integration; and (d) resolution. The partner discussions enhanced cognitive presence for some students, especially in the exploration phase. For instance, Ellen commented: I was able to see the project my partner was working on and hear about some of the topics that she was struggling with in relation to mixed methods research. I, too, had many of the same struggles, so we were able to connect through this medium.

Ellen’s quote signifies enhanced cognitive presence, whereby students encountered a problem and relied on the community to explore resources, brainstorm, question, and exchange ideas (exploration). Quantitative data from the online survey supports this assertion; students ranked discussion boards as the most meaningful for engaging with their peers when compared to Zoom and avatar-based meetings in a virtual world. Here, we note how the discussion board platform made it possible for students to work collaboratively, resulting in more interactive learning opportunities which are critical for them to learn mixed methods content (Hesse-Biber, 2015). Related to the first theme, the discussion board also gave students flexibility in that it allowed them to post in a variety of formats. As Lyda commented, “For discussion boards, I liked that we had flexibility in how we shared (drawings, recordings, text, etc.)”. This relates to teaching presence, as we consciously desired to value different forms of knowledge, especially those from the arts and humanities, which are often marginalised in academic work. The discussion board also relieved the pressure of students having to respond instantaneously, allowing them to respond to comments at their own pace. As Elijah put it, “Sometimes, I can’t find words to say with other students when I engage in discussions with them [on Zoom]. However, if I interact with them in asynchronous discussion boards, I can express my opinions in detail and at ease”. However, not all students demonstrated enhanced social and cognitive presence in relation to discussion board posts. Lyda, for example, shared: I do not like the discussion posts to coordinate with paired partners. I wish instead we were given the option to meet with them (Zoom) and discuss suggestions for each other’s proposals. I think some of the good feedback may have been lost in a written discussion board format.

Similarly, Samuel indicated he did not always feel capable of helping his partner find a resolution to the problems they were facing: For eLC discussions, we selected our own partner for the whole semester based on our research interests and other common backgrounds. So, we learned about each other’s research throughout the semester and provided feedback to each other. I learned a lot from my partner, but I also felt like sometimes I was unable to give substantive suggestions or comments.

“Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies   309 As we reflected upon this quote, we wondered if students may have struggled to provide substantive peer-to-peer feedback due to their varying disciplines. Seemingly, this could be a challenge that other mixed methods teachers are experiencing (knowingly or unknowingly) and thus could be explored further in future scholarship on teaching mixed methods research. Indeed, others have noted that a key challenge in teaching mixed methods research is meeting the learning needs of all students (Ivankova, 2010). These comments also indicate that more teaching presence would have been beneficial to promote discourse in the online discussion posts. While we did monitor the discussion boards and read responses, we did not comment on conversations or provide feedback. Indeed, the instructor’s active involvement in online discussion is necessary to stimulate mixed methods discourse and support students’ learning of challenging mixed methods topics (Ivankova, 2010). In short, while most students felt the discussion boards enhanced community building in the mixed methods course, enabling collaborative learning experiences, peer-to-peer feedback, and community problem-solving, a few students thought the discussion board format limited peer-to-peer feedback or felt they could not adequately respond to their peer’s posts. “These Assignments Made the Final Paper Less Intimidating and Well-thought-out”: Proposal Development Supports Students’ Application of Mixed Methods As expressed in the literature on mixed methods teaching and learning, helping students overcome difficulties associated with the development of a mixed methods proposal is a major challenge (Fret et al., 2012; Hesse-Biber, 2015). Given this, it is notable that the findings suggest that providing students content and assignments related to components of a mixed methods proposal was a key learning strategy in helping students apply the course content. Instead of asking students to draft their mixed methods proposal at the end of the semester, we scaffolded weekly assignments related to the proposal. For example, in week four, they drafted their mixed methods research questions, in week five, they provided a diagram for their mixed methods design, and in weeks six and seven, they drafted their analysis procedures. Each of these tasks were associated with course content. Breaking the content up into smaller assignments enabled students to incrementally apply what they learned to their proposal (the final project). The following quotes from the end-of-course evaluation evidence how these culminating assignments assisted students with understanding mixed methods content and completing their mixed methods research proposal: The content is well-organized and assignments are planned out well to help us build up our own mixed methods proposal. I appreciated that it [the online course] was focused on preparing us for real-world application and each assignment built towards the same, culminating project. The assignments required us to apply the material we were reading and helped us work towards composing drafts for our final paper in the course. These assignments made the final paper less intimidating and well-thought-out.

These quotes reflect cognitive presence as students’ experiences developing a mixed methods proposal indicate their progression from a triggering event to resolution. The assignments facilitated students’ ability to move from experiencing a problem (a mixed methods proposal) to purposefully exploring, making sense of, and applying course content to a relevant project.

310  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Students further elaborated, stating the content was valuable to establish the “credibility” of their mixed methods design, expand their knowledge “exponentially” and prepare them for the “real-world application” of mixed methods research. By the end of the course, students learned about mixed methods research and felt confident enough to use what they learned for their future research/work. For example, when asked to describe how the course was beneficial, Elijah posted the following on the discussion board: I had a chance to develop a MM research design at the end of the semester, which allowed me to think about core questions like what is my rationale for using this MM research design, and how I am going to collect, analyse, and conclude my data. By doing so, this class gave me some confidence and knowledge about how to prepare MM research.

The quantitative data from the end-of-course evaluations aligns with these findings. For example, students agreed or strongly agreed that the Assignments and activities were useful for helping me learn (4.93 on a five-point Likert scale) and The course challenged me to think and learn (4.87). These findings evidence teaching presence in the sense that students perceived the curriculum of our online course, including assignments, as effective to support their learning. Overall, students reported benefiting from the design and organisation of the mixed methods and opportunities to apply what was learned to their own work. “I Was Able to Interact With the Instructor”: Synchronous Sessions Facilitates Teaching Presence As instructors, when planning the online course, we wanted to make sure we connected with students and provided individual feedback on students’ mixed methods proposals. To do this, we relied upon large group synchronous (via Zoom) and one-on-one sessions (via Zoom or as an avatar in a virtual world). The survey indicated that one-on-one Zoom and avatar-based virtual environment sessions were the highest ranked for engaging with course instructors. Specifically, students expressed how these technologies facilitated our ability, as instructors, to (a) provide personalised and timely feedback; (b) facilitate rich conversations; and (c) address questions or concerns. The following quotes from the online survey illustrate these points: I ranked the avatar meeting as most meaningful because I was able to interact with the instructor one-on-one and receive personalized feedback on my work. Avatar contributed most only in so far as it was how I met with the professor. The conversations with the professor helped me most in developing my dissertation. The synchronous zoom meeting allows us to ask questions directly and get immediate feedback from the instructor…The one-on-one Zoom meeting with the instructor is most helpful because we had a deeper conversation than we could normally have in a class Zoom meeting.

These findings suggest that the instructor’s presence was evidenced through in-depth dialogue and the instructor answering students’ questions. While some students viewed the Zoom and avatar sessions as helpful to connect with the instructor and receive methodological guidance, others preferred not to meet one-on-one as an avatar; the online survey data indicated a few reasons for this. First, students reported they were unfamiliar with the virtual environment. As one student shared, “It is not something that I am familiar with and have never done before”. Second, they preferred to see the instructor’s

“Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies   311 face and body language. For instance, one student noted, “I prefer seeing my professor’s own facial expressions and body language over that of an avatar”. We also noted this in our personal fieldnotes. Sara wrote, “We laughed together, but our avatars remained expressionless” and “I heard my colleague on the screen, but all I could see was a red-eyed lego looking avatar bobbing up and down on the screen”. It was also noted that “none of the avatars look like me”. In other words, meeting as an avatar was not perceived as providing “human interaction”; thus, in many ways, it hindered social presence. Last, while appealing, learning an additional technology was considered too overwhelming given students’ other commitments. One student put it like this: “As a full-time student and as a computer science teacher, I have been over-run this semester, but I like the idea of avatar engagement, it was just a bridge too far under my workload”. These findings suggest that while synchronous one-on-one sessions can help to establish teaching presence; they were insufficient to establish social presence in our course. Social presence requires students to project themselves emotionally or to feel a connection to the instructor (or each other). Without this, one-on-one instructional sessions are limited in their ability to appeal to students or facilitate meaningful engagement. Further, while some students may appreciate an alternative technology as an option for online engagement, others can feel overwhelmed or uncomfortable learning new technologies. These reactions are important because they indicate how we, as instructors, could have offered more support to help students feel comfortable with navigating the avatar-based technology.

DISCUSSION We intentionally selected discussion boards, videoconferencing, and avatar-based sessions to implement the Community of Inquiry pedagogical framework in our online mixed methods course. Overall, our study reveals mixing these technologies established the three forms of presence – albeit to varying degrees – necessary to develop an online community, and supported mixed methods teaching and learning. Our findings indicate that the mix of technologies facilitated cognitive and social presence as these technologies offered graduate students a high degree of flexibility or range of opportunities to engage with the mixed methods topics in the course, their peers, and the instructor. Specifically, discussion boards contributed to cognitive and social presence as the majority of students were able to respond to discussion prompts at their own pace, as well as collaborate and work through methodological challenges with their peer partners. Most notably, our peer partner pedagogical strategy for discussion board activities contributed to students “constructing meaning through sustained communication” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89), resulting in students feeling connected and responsible for providing continuous feedback on each other’s mixed methods work. These findings affirm the use of student-centered learning strategies in mixed methods courses, namely peer collaboration, as they are effective to help students reflect on their learning and share strategies for applying content (Hesse-Biber, 2015). Admittedly, there were some limitations to using the discussion board platform. Similar to students in other online mixed methods courses, a few students in our course desired face-to-face interactions and “did not recognize the benefits of an asynchronous format of module topical discussions” (Ivankova, 2010, p. 58). Students’ mixed reactions to the discus-

312  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods sion board illustrate the complexities associated with accommodating differences in students’ learning needs in online mixed methods courses (Ivankova, 2010). Another strategy that supported teaching and cognitive presence was intentionally including weekly readings and assignments in our course design that aligned with different mixed methods research components. Doing so enabled students to incrementally apply the mixed methods content, which was critical to students’ development of their mixed methods proposals – a key learning outcome. Using large group Zoom sessions and one-on-one sessions (via Zoom or avatar-based environments) enabled us, as instructors, to give feedback to students, thereby establishing teaching presence. In particular, the large group Zoom sessions enabled both instructors to explain course content, make comments to students, and structure interactions among peers during breakout room sessions (Wiesner et al., 2018). The one-on-one sessions enabled teaching presence as students were able to receive in-depth feedback about their mixed methods proposal from the lead instructor. In short, these synchronous platforms enabled both instructors to establish connections with the students through personalised attention, dialogue, and feedback. These findings are similar to other research on mixed methods pedagogy that suggests high-quality online instruction must include feedback from instructors throughout the course (Ivankova, 2010). It should also be noted that although both the Zoom platform and avatar-based environment allotted for some teaching and social presence in terms of the instructor providing clarification on students’ mixed methods proposals and affective expressions through features such as a webcam and emojis, there were shortcomings to the avatar-based technology. Some students felt interacting as avatars restricted their ability to project themselves emotionally or see the instructors’ natural facial expressions. This finding aligns with other research that suggests that a reduction in a technology’s ability to deliver natural communication may result in a decline in online interaction as a result of decreased psychological engagement (Kock, 2005). Other students declined to use the avatar technology given their busy schedules. This finding is important as it affirmed our decision to make students’ use of this non-traditional technology optional as many graduate students are employed full-time and have limited time (or bandwidth) to learn more novel technologies. Therefore, mixed methods instructors need to carefully consider the potential limitations of non-traditional online technologies and establish a plan for how to support students’ use of these technologies. Based on these findings, we offer several lessons learned. 1. Mix technologies with intention. Identify key instructional and pedagogical strategies based on course objectives first, then consider which online technology tools will work best to deliver those strategies, and how they align with your pedagogical approach. 2. Reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of integrating technologies in online courses, particularly as it relates to the extent to which they serve student learning outcomes. Develop a sufficient understanding of the online technologies you plan to use, and practice using more novel or new technologies. This point is important given how new technologies emerge and older technologies evolve. 3. Design the online curriculum to include smaller tasks/activities that culminate into a larger project relevant to students’ interests/work to support students’ learning and application of mixed methods content.

“Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies   313 4. Pair students for a duration of the course. Doing so can assist learners’ in-depth understanding of the mixed methods content and sense of connection with others. 5. Incorporate feedback loops whereby students receive continuous feedback throughout the online course from their peers and the instructor. Receiving input is particularly critical for students to apply mixed methods content, work through challenging mixed methods topics, and stay actively engaged in the online course. 6. Communicate your instructional pedagogical strategies. Take time to share your goals for the online course with students, helping them to understand how the instructional strategies and technologies are intended to establish a sense of community learning outcomes. 7. Provide flexibility in the online course. Consider how students can be given options in the course, including the option to engage with new or novel technology and inviting students to respond to discussion posts in their preferred format (written reflections, videos, art-based). Also, consider optional readings for learners who want to delve deeper into the content and alternative modes to deliver course content (i.e., games) for learners to explore information, exchange ideas, and work through challenges. 8. Consider students’ familiarity with and bandwidth for learning non-traditional technology and the resources (time, funding, devices) needed to support their use, especially since graduate students typically have busy schedules and limited time to learn new technologies.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY To date, there are few empirically-based discussions on teaching and learning mixed methods online (Fret et al., 2012; Ivankova, 2010). Our experiences developing and implementing an online mixed methods course contributes to the limited but growing pedagogical culture of teaching mixed methods online (Hesse-Biber, 2015). In general, we feel that it is possible to establish a sense of community and combine traditional and non-traditional technologies effectively to produce positive learning outcomes in an online mixed methods course. Of course, our study is limited as we only explored the use of discussion boards, videoconferencing, and an avatar-based technology in the context of one graduate-level course. As such, future studies could explore other mixes of online technologies and the extent to which they support effective teaching and learning in mixed methods courses. While research on teaching mixed methods is limited, there has been a recent study examining the effectiveness of avatar-based virtual environments (Gomes de Siqueira et al., 2021). We are excited by this emerging research as it provides additional guidance on integrating this non-traditional technology. In our future endeavors, we aim to build on this developing research and the current study to implement and assess our future online mixed methods courses.

REFERENCES Abrami, P.C., Benard, R.M., Bures, E.M., Borokhovski, E. and Tamim, R.M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 82–103.

314  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Anderson, T., Rourke, L. and Garrison, D.R. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conference environment. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. Annetta, L.A. and Holmes, S. (2006). Creating presence and community in a synchronous virtual learning environment using avatars. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(8), 27–43. Armellini, A. and De Stefani, M. (2016). Social presence in the 21st century: An adjustment to the Community of Inquiry framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1202–1216. Bailenson, J.N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1), 1–6. Becker, K.L., and Renger, R. (2017). Suggested guidelines for writing reflective case narratives: Structure and indicators. American Journal of Evaluation, 38(1), 138–150. Bond, M., Marín, V.I. and Bedenlier, S. (2021). International collaboration in the field of educational research: A Delphi study. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(2), 190–213. Borup, J., West, R.E. and Graham, C.R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. Choi, D.H., Dailey-Hebert, A. and Simmons Estes, J. (Eds.). (2016). Current and Prospective Applications of Virtual Reality in Higher Education. Premier Reference Source. Hershey: IGI Global. Della Noce, D.J., Scheffel, D.L. and Lowry, M. (2014). Questions that get answered: The construction of instructional conversations on online asynchronous discussion boards. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 80–96. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think (rev ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath. Garrison, R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in high education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. Garrison, R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9. Gomes de Siqueira, A., Feijóo-Garcia, P.G., Stuart, J. and Lok, B. (2021). Toward facilitating team formation and communication through avatar-based interaction in desktop-based immersive virtual environments. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 1–18. Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). The problems and prospects in the teaching of mixed methods research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 463–477. Ivankova, N.V. (2010). Teaching and learning mixed methods research in computer-mediated environment: Educational gains and challenges. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(1), 49–65.  Kim, J. (2011). Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 763–777. Kinsella, E.A. (2010). The art of reflective practice in health and social care: Reflections on the legacy of Donald Schön. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 11(4), 565–575. Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward e-communication tools. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions, 48(2), 117–130. Lawson, T., Comber, C., Gage, J. and Cullum‐Hanshaw, A. (2010). Images of the future for education? Videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 295–314. McClish-Boyd, K. and Bhattacharya, K. (2021). Endarkened narrative inquiry: A methodological framework constructed through improvisations. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 34(6), 534–548. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Nind, M. and Katramadou, A. (2022). Lessons for teaching social science research methods in higher education: Synthesis of the literature 2014–2020. British Journal of Educational Studies. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1080/​00071005​.2022​.2092066 Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Frels, R.K., Leech, N.L. and Collins, K.M.T. (2011). A mixed research study of pedagogical approaches and student learning in doctoral-level mixed methods courses. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5(2), 169–199.

“Mixing” traditional and non-traditional online technologies   315 Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R. and Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71. Rovai, A.P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 33–48. Rudestam, K.E. and Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.) (2010). The Handbook of Online Learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Sala, N. (2016). Virtual reality and education: Overview across different disciplines. In H. Choi., A. Dailey-Hebert and J.S. Estes (Eds.), Emerging Tools and Applications of Virtual Reality in Education (pp. 1–25). Hershey: IGI Global. Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Swan, K., Garrison, R. and Richardson, J. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In C.R. Payne (Ed.), Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks (pp. 43–57). Hershey: IGI Global. Thomas, S. (2012). Narrative inquiry: Embracing the possibilities. Qualitative Research Journal, 12(2), 206–221. Weisner, O., Blau, I. and Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2018). How do medium naturalness, teaching-learning interactions and students’ personality traits affect participation in synchronous E-learning? The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 40–51. Wright, G.B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 92–97.

22. Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies: challenges, solutions and opportunities Christina Silver, Sarah L. Bulloch, Michelle Salmona and Nicholas W. Woolf

INTRODUCTION A continuing challenge in preparing students to undertake high-quality qualitative and mixed-methods research is integrating the teaching of qualitative data analysis (QDA) methods with the digital tools to do so – collectively known as Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS (CAQDAS)-packages. Although CAQDAS-packages have been available since the mid-1980s the integrated teaching and learning of methods and technologies remains a contested area with relatively few documented examples of integrated models. This chapter redresses this gap by presenting a typology of integrated models that can be adapted to different contexts.

INTEGRATING TEACHING OF QUALITATIVE METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES It is possible to undertake high-quality QDA without using dedicated CAQDAS-packages, and there are a wealth of examples using “pen-and-paper” methods and some advocates of general-purpose digital-tools, such as word processing or spreadsheet programs (Ose, 2016). However, the qualitative research landscape has changed dramatically since CAQDAS-packages first became available, with increasingly large datasets available in digital form, including online-generated material from individuals and publicly available documents from institutions. Whilst these can be analysed using “pen-and-paper” methods, they lend themselves to analysis using digital-tools, and the growing appetite for qualitative analysis of “big data” leads researchers to search for digital-tools that can manage large quantities of materials while conducting the in-depth, iterative and emergent analytic processes that characterise qualitative approaches. In addition, researcher work in teams necessitates collaborative platforms, especially when working together in-person is difficult. These trends mean that preparing learners for research careers involves equipping them with a literacy in digital-tools designed to facilitate analysis as well as knowledge about QDA methods. Educators need, therefore, to consider whether it is within their remit to integrate learning about digital-tools, when it is appropriate to do so, and how integration takes place.

316

Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies  317 The “Whether, When and How” Debate Advanced methods teachers have been discussing whether, how and when to integrate the teaching of qualitative methods with the techniques of using CAQDAS-packages since these digital-tools first became available. The “whether” concerns the appropriateness of integration. One approach ignores or side-lines CAQDAS-packages in methods teaching (described as “just methods” or “focus on methods” approaches), while a different approach integrates methods and the use of CAQDAS-packages in some way (Silver, 2020). The first approach is adopted for different reasons, and students are left to learn about CAQDAS-packages independently if so inclined. In line with Davidson, Paulus and Jackson (2016) and Paulus and Lester (2020), who argue for the importance of preparing qualitative researchers to use a variety of technologies to support their work, this chapter focuses on approaches that fall into the second or integrated approach in the “whether” debate. The “when” in the debate concerns three options for sequencing of integration: i) methods are taught first, followed by the teaching of CAQDAS-packages; ii) teaching of methods and CAQDAS-packages are interwoven; and iii) methods are taught via one or more CAQDAS-packages. These three models are discussed and illustrated in detail later. The “how” in the debate also includes three aspects. First is the mode of instruction, whether entirely in-person, entirely online, or blended; and if online or blended, whether delivery is synchronous or asynchronous. Literature about teaching qualitative methods focuses mainly on in-person teaching with online approaches rarely mentioned (Snelson, 2019). Therefore, this chapter focuses on integrated approaches in online and blended modes, with both synchronous and asynchronous examples. The second aspect of “how” is the available resources, including institutional factors (Xue, Du and Yang, 2021), time in the curriculum, and the teaching skills required to overcome the challenges of teaching in an online or blended mode in an integrated way, particularly when the emerging educational knowledge base is still underdeveloped (Bender and Hill, 2016; Snelson, 2019). The examples in this chapter discuss available resources and the challenges of the “how”. The third aspect of the “how” is pedagogies and instructional designs for integrated teaching and learning. It is difficult to discuss content (i.e. qualitative methods and the use of CAQDAS-packages) without also considering the pedagogy of how technology can be used to deliver online content. Teachers can draw on systematic instructional design approaches to guide development of online course content (Baldwin et al., 2018; Larson and Lockee, 2014; Snelson, 2019). However, documented approaches designed for online teaching are not always a good fit for teachers accustomed to teaching in-person (e.g. Hunter et al., 2014). The examples in this chapter illustrate different instructional designs for integrating methods and digital-tools, and we use the Five-Level QDA CAQDAS-pedagogy (Silver and Woolf, 2019) to frame our discussion of the challenges and opportunities of integration. Overview of the Five-Level QDA Method The Five-Level QDA method (Silver and Woolf, 2019) is a CAQDAS-pedagogy designed to overcome the challenges students face in using CAQDAS-packages in the way that experienced researchers have learned to do through long practice. The method is independent of any particular CAQDAS-package or research methodology. It is a way of thinking about how to

318  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods use cut-and-dried computer software as a platform for accomplishing the emergent tasks of a QDA. The key principle is to keep distinct the contrasting nature of strategies and tactics by “translating” between them. Strategies – “what you plan to do” – are the specific analytic tasks determined by the research project and methodology. These are to varying degrees emergent, in contrast with the step-by-step operations of software – the tactics. By translating back and forth between analytical tasks and the operations in the software, the emergent nature of a developing QDA can be best maintained. Experienced researchers have learned to do this intuitively. The Five-Level QDA method spells out a circular process of steps of translation between strategies and tactics. The process is always driven by the strategies – the next emerging analytic task – rather than by the tactics – the available capabilities of the software. However, the circular nature of the process also recognises that the strategies can be iteratively informed by – but not driven by – the capabilities of the software. The method provides a fully flushed out process to follow initially, but it soon becomes second nature to keep strategies and tactics distinct and to translate between them. Challenges of Integration We consider the challenges of integrating the teaching of QDA and CAQDAS-packages, first in offline contexts, then online. The development of QDA pedagogy and CAQDAS-packages have not, historically, been in sync (Davidson and Di Gregorio, 2011), with the latter only becoming available in the 1980s. Therefore, there is a historical precedent for QDA teaching taking place without integrating the teaching of CAQDAS-packages. From their advent the literature contains voices of suspicion and resistance to the use of CAQDAS-packages and their integration into teaching and learning (Paulus et. al., 2013) and variation in scholars’ uptake of these technologies continues today. Citing Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations theory, Paulus et al. (2013, p. 649) argue that “If senior scholars and graduate faculty are not using the tools in informed ways, it makes it less likely that the next generation will, either”. So, in part, the integration of CAQDAS-packages into QDA teaching has been hampered by the gradual and partial adoption of these tools amongst those teaching QDA and the concomitant delay in their use by their students. Many teachers of QDA do not have the skills, or the inclination, to integrate discussion about or use of CAQDAS-packages into their pedagogy. Even if teachers have skills in both QDA and CAQDAS-packages, integration does not necessarily happen. Integration needs to be planned for, requiring at least some change in curriculum design to include the use of technology into the content; more needs to be covered in the same amount of time. With pressures on teaching staff already high in many academic settings, it is challenging to cover more ground. The final challenge of integration in offline contexts explored here relates to physical teaching spaces and the provision of individual support. It is possible to teach many aspects of QDA to a lecture theatre full of students, augmented by occasional small-group work. Teaching CAQDAS-packages requires each student to have access to a computer (either individually, or in small groups) and the teacher needs to be able to support each student with any technical difficulties they might have operating the software. Any teacher thinking about integrating CAQDAS-packages into their QDA teaching would therefore need access to a different type

Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies  319 of teaching space and be prepared to dedicate more time to individual support needs. We discuss below in more detail the challenges of integrated teaching spaces. Turning to integrating the teaching of QDA and CAQDAS-packages in online contexts, commonly cited benefits include cost effectiveness, the ability to reach geographically-dispersed learners (Kalpokaite and Radivojevic, 2020) and the resultant improvement in equality of access to learning opportunities (Sife, Lwonga and Sanga, 2007). The functionality of eLearning platforms can also allow learners to move through materials at their own pace (Collins, 2019). When teaching online many of the offline challenges remain, but we are also faced with additional challenges. The first set we highlight are ubiquitous to online teaching and learning, the second are specific to teaching and learning QDA online; and the third set arise in relation to teaching and learning CAQDAS online. Teaching and learning online, irrespective of what is being taught and learned, requires intermediary technology (including the devices being used, the platform required to allow for interaction, and internet connections) to be both functioning and known to participants (Kalpokaite and Radivojevic, 2020). Learners must be equipped with technological assets as well as knowledge about them prior to partaking in the experience. The same holds for teachers, who must acquire additional skills to select and operate eLearning platforms (Collins, 2020). The digital divide, variously present in different countries, shapes inequalities in access to online teaching and learning opportunities. Where learning takes place online the onus is often on learners to provide their own access to equipment and knowledge of how to use it. These hurdles overcome, the teacher and learners must adjust their modes of interaction from those found in a physical classroom to modes more effective in online environments. Verbal contributions and interruptions are negotiated differently than when physically co-present and learners can sometimes be less comfortable in sharing opinions, particularly when their contributions are recorded. Additionally, being a good teacher is not the same in an online environment. For example, translating content from a synchronous classroom environment to an asynchronous platform is not simply a matter of posting recorded lectures and handouts. The methods and practices of reaching students online requires detailed instructional planning which incorporates scaffolding and weaving well-crafted steps of learning comprehension. In addition is the issue of “real life bleeding into the classroom” (Silver, Bulloch and Salmona, 2020). Depending on the physical location of participants, interruptions from others are a possibility. Sharing images via video-stream allows others into our lives and can lead to reluctance to do so, particularly where households are required to remain indoors, as during Covid-19 lockdowns. Absence of images of those present in the learning experience further reduces interaction (Silver et al., 2020). Teaching and learning qualitative research methods online is challenging due to the inherently social and interactive nature of what is being taught (Collins, 2019). Learners benefit from spaces in which to work collaboratively on activities to practice core tasks involved in QDA, such as interviewing and coding, for example. Creating these spaces online is possible but requires knowledge of the breadth of eLearning platforms available, both on the part of the teacher and learners. Teaching and learning CAQDAS-packages online poses its own challenges. To develop practical experience of using the software being taught, learners must be able to see both the trainer’s screen, where tasks are demonstrated, and their own screen, where they replicate those tasks. Learners with two screens are able to do this, but those with one screen must switch between views. Teachers mindful of this challenge can overcome it by explicitly speak-

320  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ing to the problem, structuring their sessions into “watch, follow, don’t do” and “watch, then do” sequences, as well as carefully narrating their own actions in the software to enable those who cannot see their screen to follow the actions (Silver and Bulloch, 2020). Additionally, “walking the room” is a common activity of an in-person CAQDAS teacher. By seeing learners’ screens we ascertain progress and identify who needs additional support. Screen sharing is a possible solution; but is time consuming and potentially ethically inappropriate when working with confidential data. It is also only possible when learners access the training and the software being taught on the same device (Silver et al., 2020). Successful use of CAQDAS-tools has been found to be reliant on individual learning support provided by the teacher in an in-person context (Salmona and Kaczynski, 2016). Teachers of these tools who are working online must find ways to continue to identify those in need of help. Finally, students’ perceptions that technology – both in the online environment and the CAQDAS-tools – are useful and easy to use, feeds into acceptance of the technology and its successful use (Salmona and Kaczynski, 2016; Silver and Rivers, 2015). Anyone teaching CAQDAS online must be aware that the resulting curriculum changes can be challenging, as reported in a study into the delivery of postgraduate qualitative research which involved a mix of online formats (Kaczynski, 2004). The learning challenges were reflected in course feedback from students: “The course was very labor intensive, integrating theory and two software programs presented demanding challenges” (p. 9). Models for Integrating Teaching and Learning of Qualitative Methods and CAQDAS-packages Integrating teaching and learning of the principles of qualitative methods with the techniques of using CAQDAS-packages involves bringing together understandings about what is planned in an analysis – the strategies – with how they can be accomplished using CAQDAS-packages – the tactics. Distinguishing between analytic strategies and software tactics is a key principle of the Five-Level QDA method, the CAQDAS-pedagogy developed to facilitate integrated learning of qualitative methods and digital-tools (Silver and Woolf, 2019). As such it is a relevant framework for reflecting on the three models of integration discussed here: methods-first, methods-interwoven, and methods-via. The methods-first model involves successive teaching of qualitative methods (strategies) and CAQDAS-packages (tactics), whereby methods are taught first, followed by how they can be operationalised in software, so that learning about CAQDAS-packages builds on learning about methods. The methods-interwoven model integrates learning about qualitative methods and CAQDAS-packages, whereby individual analytic techniques are taught in the context of their broader methodological framework (strategies) and then the different ways that analytic technique can be operationalised using software (tactics). The methods-via model involves integration whereby methods are taught using CAQDAS-packages (strategies are taught through tactics). We provide examples of each model before discussing the opportunities and challenges of each, and the possibility of hybrid versions. We then return to the Five-Level QDA method as a flexible framework for integrating the teaching and learning of qualitative methods and CAQDAS-packages in terms of how it can be used to explicitly scaffold the connection between strategies and tactics.

Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies  321 Methods-first model Gibbons’ (2021) Begin Qualitative Research with Quirkos workshop is an example of the methods-first model. An open-registration online workshop delivered over three consecutive half-day units, it is predicated on three principles: that qualitative research broadly follows a recognisable pattern framed by ontological and epistemological constructs; that the analysis process is iterative; and that manipulating digital-tools without a secure sense of research purpose is of limited value. The course first introduces the principles of qualitative research methodology using a cyclical research process framework with epistemology and meta-issues at the centre and surrounding high-level research phases. This comprises the first two units of learning (two thirds of the allocated time) and learners practice research tasks to achieve effective learning using a real-world research project. Discussion and guided reflection on tasks facilitate participants’ transfer learning to their contexts. The optional third unit puts these principles into practice using Quirkos software, and includes discussion of the benefits and limitations of using CAQDAS-packages for QDA, illustrates the use of Quirkos for different processes and provides opportunities to practice and test skills using Quirkos for analytic tasks. The unit is tools focused, with a “digital process model” comprising of four elements of digital processing: textual data, coding framework, management system and transformation system. The use of manual tools for analysis in the first two units is therefore linked with the use of digital tools in the third. An example of linking the methods and tools content in Gibbons’ methods-first model is the discussion of qualitative transcription for analysis, which builds incrementally from theory and practice in the first two units to the use of digital-tools in the third. In the first unit learners are introduced to transcription as a means of transformation and then each learner transcribes a short section of audio. The transcript excerpts are shared and discussed in the group to unpack analytic decisions. Examples of full transcripts and transcription protocols are then provided. In the second unit the full transcript is revisited in the context of preparing and transforming data, as a means to start considering coding methods. An example of a fully coded transcript is discussed to open up the concept of coding in general terms and which serves as a hook for later detailed discussion of coding before moving on to analysis. In the third unit, the same transcript is illustrated within Quirkos, along with several others, to introduce the handling and transforming of data within the software, and to facilitate the move from “pen-and-paper” methods used in the first two units, to the use of dedicated digital-tools. References to non-digital methods are made throughout the course to integrate learning from the first two units for those participating in all three units, or for whom reference to the non-digital is easier or preferable. These cross-references are the principal means by which the methods learning in the first two units are linked with the tools learning in the third unit. Gibbons’ online course uses a combination of lectures and demonstrations, peer and plenary discussion, quizzes and exercises, private reflection and journaling, and surgery spaces for individual questions. She uses several eLearning platforms including Padlet (for learners to get-to-know each other and to ascertain general digital confidence), Zoom breakout rooms (for small-group exercises and discussion) and Wonder room (for networking and discussion away from contact-time). Although learners are encouraged to take all three workshop units, it is possible to only attend units one and two (the strategy-level principles) or unit three (the tactics-level operationalisation). The overall aim of the course is to maximise analytical confidence and competence, regardless of the tools used.

322  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Methods-interwoven model Wright’s (2017) Qualitative Analysis Software Training (NVivo, ATLAS.ti and Quirkos) courses are examples of the methods-interwoven model. They were designed as blended-learning courses for post-graduate students at the University of Lancaster (UK) from 2017, combining in-person taught sessions with distance-learning modules and integrating the principles of the Five-Level QDA method and the instructional videos that augment those textbooks into the course content. During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic all sessions were delivered online via Microsoft Teams. In both the blended and fully-online modes instruction variously includes taught group workshops, one-to-one support sessions, pre-prepared video/text resources, session recordings and discussion forums. Wright developed a model for integrating methods with the practical elements that he refers to as POETS (Preparation, Organisation, Exploration, Tagging and Synthesis). Using this framework, methods (strategies) are interwoven with technology (tactics) via three distinct teaching units: CAQDAS-workshops discussing the role of software and making informed choices by focusing on high-level research objectives, methodological and data needs and their fit to different programs; individual project support sessions where students book a series of one-to-one sessions to discuss the details of using their chosen CAQDAS-package as they go through the analysis process; and methods through CAQDAS weekly lectures that teach Braun and Clarke’s (2012) phases of thematic analysis and illustrate how they can be undertaken using CAQDAS-tools in video recordings. The extent and manner to which methods are interwoven differs in each unit, in relation to the content focus.  Methods-via models We describe two contrasting examples of the methods-via model. First, Salmona’s (2019) Dedoose Coding Class Project is an example of teaching an analytic method common to most QDA approaches (in this case, coding) via Dedoose, a web-based CAQDAS-package that facilitates real-time collaboration. This collaborative teaching and learning exercise is a three-hour class to learn techniques of coding and reflexivity about coding methods in QDA through the whole class engaging collaboratively in real-time by building a single common project in Dedoose. As Dedoose is web-based the class can be delivered either in-person using laptops or as a synchronous online class. The collaborative aspects of teaching and learning are embedded from the outset. Prior to the class the group decides on a contemporary social problem as a research topic. Learners find relevant data, and after signing-up for free trial access to Dedoose, the teacher prepares a class project which can be accessed by all. During the class the teacher demonstrates setting up an analysis, uploading and organising data, creating memos to track analytic processes, and so on, and learners add the materials they collected. The teacher can see and troubleshoot what learners are doing from her screen, and once the project is populated with data she facilitates methodologically-grounded discussions about what to do next, starting with agreement on the purpose and focus of the project, how this will frame the analysis, and how the agreed-upon focus can be accomplished using Dedoose’s tools – in this instance, the various coding tools. This leads to discussion about multiple meanings, how the research focus guides coding, and reflection about who the learners are and what they bring to the analysis as reflexive researchers. After some further independent coding work, rich discussions around shared and multiple meanings lead to consideration of developing relationships and patterns in the data as the

Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies  323 codebook develops. This example of the methods-via model is usually integrated into a larger course module but can easily be used as a stand-alone activity. A second example of the methods-via model of integration is Andes’ (2021) Qualitative Data Analysis with MAXQDA course. In contrast to the previous example, we discuss how this model can be embedded throughout a curriculum. Available as an open-registration online self-learning module, it is a self-paced course with a suggested time-allocation of two to three hours per week over seven weeks. Comprising of videos (of Andes speaking and screencast demonstrations of software operations) readings, practice exercises, quizzes, peer-graded assignments and a discussion forum, the course introduces the principles and practices of QDA in a fully integrated way with the techniques of using MAXQDA. Each week of learning covers a topic in which the methods learning (strategies) is fully integrated with the use of MAXQDA’s tools (tactics). Each unit of learning thereby builds on the previous to reflect an analysis journey and MAXQDA’s functionality is introduced incrementally as methods are introduced, discussed and operationalised through exercises. Throughout the course Andes draws on the specific techniques of several analytic methods (including Grounded Theory and Thematic Analysis) using a Tools and Processes framework to relate methods (strategies referred to as Processes, in this case the activities of retrieving, reviewing, reflecting and reducing) and technology (tactics referred to as Tools, in this case the core components of MAXQDA: segments, codes, memos, and variables). Using sample transcripts from an autoethnography, the methods-via integration happens in three ways: first, MAXQDA is introduced but its functionality is taught only as the methods are discussed, rather than separately from them; second, in the instructional videos in which a MAXQDA tool is introduced, Andes both contextualises its role in relation to an established analytic method (e.g. for memos she discusses Grounded Theory) and describes how the functionality of the tool within MAXQDA can be used in multiple ways to operationalise the Process (strategy, e.g. in relation to memos, reflection as analytic method); and finally, in instructional videos that demonstrate the software tool using the transcripts the students are studying, Processes (strategies) are enacted using the Tools (tactics, i.e. MAXQDA components). These examples illustrate what integrated online teaching and learning can look like. They are by no means exhaustive, and practice varies within models and when delivered in-person. To draw out more widely applicable considerations, we now discuss general opportunities and challenges for each model. Challenges and Opportunities of Integration Distinguishing between three models illustrates the variety in integrating the teaching and learning of qualitative methods with digital-tools designed for QDA. When considering whether to adopt or adapt these models it is important to consider the challenges and opportunities of each. We first elaborate the Five-Level QDA method which articulates the connection between methods (strategies) and technologies (tactics), and then consider the challenges and opportunities of each integration model in turn, before discussing examples of hybrid models. Translating between strategies and tactics when integrating methods and tools The Five-Level QDA method proposes that to move seamlessly between strategies (intentions around methodology and method) and tactics (appropriate use of CAQDAS-tools to operationalise strategies), it is necessary to translate analytic tasks that sit at the strategies level

324  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods into actions within the software (tactics) (Silver and Woolf, 2019). Explicitly foregrounding translation-as-a-process highlights that it is possible (and common) to have a separate (a) understanding of method(ology) and (b) proficiency in a CAQDAS-package, without them being effectively connected. If the choice and use of a tool within a CAQDAS-package does not effectively accomplish an analytic need, the Five-Level QDA approach highlights that it is the process of translation between strategies and tactics that has not been effective. Translation has to be a conscious activity until, with sufficient experience, the process happens automatically; until then, the Five-Level QDA approach suggests a series of steps to take to effectively translate strategies into tactics. Whilst no model of integration is inherently superior, translation is relevant to all three models because each has different implications regarding when and how translation takes place. For each model we highlight the challenges and opportunities in general terms, and then more specifically in terms of how and when translation occurs. Methods-first model When methods learning happens first, learners develop an understanding around strategies that they later bring to bear on learning around tactics. Where the facilitation of both learning elements is coordinated, or delivered by the same teacher as illustrated in Gibbons’ Quirkos course, the learners’ methods understanding can hone their interest at the point they encounter digital-tools. They may therefore be more likely to know which tactics are more or less important for their analysis, which can make for focussed tactics-level learning. However, if the teacher of methods (addressing strategies) and the teacher of digital-tools (addressing tactics) do not coordinate the experience for learners, there is a potential risk of disconnect because translation may not be addressed adequately or at all. This can result in tactics being taught without reference to strategies, and the crucial activity of translation falls by the wayside, or is left for learners to grapple with alone. Teachers of digital-tools who are conscious of this and committed to supporting effective translation can, and do, seek to refer to strategies to contextualise each tactics-level activity in the software. However, this is a heavy responsibility, particularly where learners differ in their prior knowledge of methods, or in their strategy-level needs (Silver and Rivers, 2015). For example, they might need to teach what coding means in QDA, discuss different approaches to coding based on the different methods required by the participants, as well as how to use the CAQDAS coding tools. Gibbons’ enaction of the methods-first model mitigates this issue because the same teacher delivers the strategies- and tactics-level teaching and learning. Methods-interwoven model When continually oscillating between learning about methods and digital-tools, as is the case in the methods-interwoven model, translation is embedded more explicitly. Returning to the coding example, a teacher might explain what coding means in QDA and set out some different approaches and thereafter illustrate what these look like within the CAQDAS-package. In doing so, she is likely to expressly use statements such as “if we want to accomplish a in a methods context then x, y or z tools in the software may help us”. Such statements express the act of translation from an analytic activity at the strategies-level to showcasing possible tools with which to accomplish it at the tactics-level. Learners can thus be equipped to use sound methods and at the same time effectively harness digital-tools to accomplish their analytic

Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies  325 tasks. This goal is explicitly embedded in Wright’s practice through his constant oscillation and explicit use of the Five-Level QDA method. Challenges with this model include teachers’ expertise and their willingness to adopt this approach, and the practicality of teaching spaces. Regarding teacher characteristics, the model works best when both elements are delivered by the same teacher, or by two working together seamlessly if each has expertise only in one element. In particular, where existing methods-only sessions are adapted to interweave CAQDAS-tools there must be sufficient expertise in the different ways that the software can be harnessed effectively for different methods. Regarding the practicalities of teaching spaces these have to support both the infrastructure and modes of interaction required for teaching and learning methods on the one hand, and digital-tools on the other, and most importantly, moving frequently between the two. Teaching and learning methods is often characterised by interaction amongst learners, with small group-work and discussions being common. A co-present teaching space might feature tables of four to six students sitting together with relevant materials placed centrally to work on together. Teaching and learning digital-tools, in contrast, introduces a screen into the learning space. Whilst some CAQDAS-packages enable synchronous team-working (such as Dedoose in Salmona’s example), others require each learner to be paired up with their own screen, rather than with other learners. A co-present space might feature learners sitting next to one another but facing their own screens to engage in hands-on use guided by the teacher. The challenge is to effectively oscillate between teaching and learning methods (typically small group work sitting around a table) and teaching and learning digital-tools (rows of computers with learner-computer dyads in the main). When the methods-interwoven model is delivered online, the infrastructural challenges are different. All teaching and learning occurs through learner-computer dyads, and the challenge is to harness the affordances of online learning platforms to move between small group work and solo work without the possibility of physically shifting. Provided teachers consider, and work to mitigate, the general challenges of integration raised earlier, they can seamlessly oscillate between learning about methods and digital-tools to accomplish effective translation. This is a key benefit of implementing a methods-interwoven model in online spaces. Methods-via models As well as the same general opportunities and challenges of the first two models, the methods-via model engenders additional opportunities and challenges. This model also explicitly involves translation, but rather than the direction being from strategies to tactics, the teaching and learning of methods and tools oscillates, like a pendulum. Learners may thus become more creative in how they combine elements of different methods in an analysis. This is because rather than their learning about CAQDAS-packages being framed by a particular methods context, they are invited to consider the range of possibilities that the tools provide, leading to the potential mixing and matching of elements of different methods. Provided they are equipped with a sufficient understanding of the importance of expressly linking actions within the software back to method and methodology, and they are transparent about this in the narration of their process, this can result in powerful and flexible use of both methods and digital-tools. In order for this to be effective, the same challenges discussed above regarding the methods-interwoven model must be overcome: teachers must be both expert and willing to integrate in this form. In particular, they must be familiar enough with the CAQDAS-packages

326  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods they are teaching to be able to communicate and illustrate that analytic tasks can be accomplished in different ways using software tools; in other words, be flexible and sophisticated in how they discuss the role of CAQDAS-tools in enacting methods. This is essential to avoid learners assuming that “x is the correct or only way of doing y method in z CAQDAS-package”, an assumption that can lead to ineffective use of the software in subsequent analytic tasks. Finally, infrastructure is again key: learners must be able to engage in actions within their researcher-computer dyad (except where the CAQDAS-package enables concurrent multi-use) and move into more discursive small-group environments to explore the relevance of that learning within the context of methods. Again, with adequate online learning platforms the online learning environment facilitates this oscillation. Adapting and combining models of integration As well as integrating methods and CAQDAS-tools in a methods-first, methods-interwoven or methods-via model, it is also possible to adapt and combine models. Indeed, Gibbons’ course, although structured as methods-first overall, is an example of embedding one model within another. Unit three takes a methods-interwoven approach in that most concepts discussed and tasks undertaken are centred on how Quirkos can be used to operationalise them, and therefore tools are used to illustrate methods. As such, when taken as a standalone course, this is an example of the methods-interwoven model even though the unit is also part of a larger methods-first model. To illustrate the flexibility and adaptability of the typology we provide two further examples that draw on all three models and that are, like Wright’s, framed by the Five-Level QDA method. Schmieder et al.’s (2018) Data Jams are collaborative workshops for teaching qualitative methods (strategies) and technology (tactics) that can be used in either methods-interwov en or methods-via models, depending on the context. Developed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Division of Extension) to support practitioners undertaking large-scale qualitative projects, they have been used since 2016 to build capacity in evaluation and analysis techniques for teams and individuals. MAXQDA is the technical backbone for Data Jams and as such strategies and tactics have been integrated from the outset.  A key element of integration is the open-source analysis planning tool QualPal, which consists of cards containing concrete analytic steps that Data Jam participants are tasked to bring to life as they design and execute their workflow in the software, thus supporting them translate between software tools (tactics) and method (strategies). Data Jams are intentionally flexible in design (in terms of the software that can be used, the mode of delivery and the instructional design) and can take place as one or multi-day sessions, be provided for individuals or teams, and can take place entirely in-person, as blended sessions (with both in-person and/or remote participants), or entirely online. Whether they are taught using a methods-interwoven or methods-via model depends on both the mode of delivery and the prior methodological experience of participants. For example, when working with community-based educators with little or no prior methods knowledge a methods-via model is adopted, in which a process for accomplishing project objectives through the use of MAXQDA introduces learners to methodologically-grounded techniques concurrently with learning the software. For example, the facilitator first models an analysis technique using MAXQDA, and after discussion the teams undertake the technique on their data together. In contrast, with a research team who bring knowledge of qualitative methods, a methods-interwoven model to oscillate between methods and software. For example, the facilitator would first demonstrate selected software features,

Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies  327 small groups would then work on their own, with support as required, and iteratively document their work for subsequent methodological discussion.  Using either model, collaborative analysis is at the heart of Data Jams. Participants do not learn software use in isolation, but work in dyads or small groups, taking turns “driving” the software. Building on the Five-Level QDA method, Schmieder (2020) has also developed an approach to integrating CAQDAS-packages into methods education that comprises strategy-level elements (methods, tasks and techniques) and tactics-level elements (components and objects) to construct “tools” which operationalise the “concrete here-and-now of analysis” (p. 690). Several technologies facilitate collaborative learning in Data Jams, including shared documents where participants collaboratively develop research questions, scope the analysis, summarise findings and comment on each other’s work, and communication tools, including video conferencing tools to enable visual chatting between participants at different locations.  Silver and Bulloch’s (2020) Computer Assisted Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Analysis: Harnessing NVivo module also illustrates the flexibility of the threefold typology of methods integration. Designed and delivered in-person for the 2019 Social Research Methods MSc (Department of Sociology, University of Surrey), it was redesigned for online delivery during Covid-19 (Silver and Bulloch, 2020). Comprising an optional week-long module after the compulsory semester-long Qualitative Field Methods course, it explicitly uses the Five-Level QDA conceptual framework of translation to scaffold theoretical discussions, achieves practical illustrations of the relationship between methods and digital-tools by oscillating between all three models of methods-first, methods-interwoven and methods-via. On one level the module is methods-first, because tactics-learning (our Harnessing NVivo module delivered by Silver and Bulloch together) is provided separately from and after strategies-learning (the prior Field Methods course delivered by one of the department’s lecturers). A challenge with methods-first models in which methods and technology learning are taught by different teachers – as is often the case within universities – is to ensure that tactics (harnessing software features) are always taught in the context of strategies (specific methods and analytic tasks). To mitigate these potential problems we reviewed and discussed the Field Methods course content with that lecturer, which allowed us to link our tactics-teaching to what had been covered in the strategies-teaching rather than assume what students already knew regarding qualitative strategies. The course structure is based on the principles of the Recurring Hourglass instructional design (Silver and Woolf, 2015) which repeatedly oscillates between strategies-level and tactics-level teaching and learning activities according to learning objectives and instructional strategies, and therefore reflects the methods-interwoven model of integration. This begins on day-one with a strategies-level session, continues in every taught session, and concludes on day-five with discussion and troubleshooting following students’ presentations of work-in-progress. The methods-interwoven model is also adopted within each learning session. For example, when setting up an initial research design within NVivo we first create a research question memo and facilitate a discussion about what would need to be accomplished to answer it. Students are therefore asked to think at the strategies-level for the first part of this discussion, and once a plan has been developed as a series of strategies-level tasks we ask how each task could be accomplished using NVivo. Drawing on knowledge accrued so far about what is possible in the software they identify and describe options for each task within the memo. This

328  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods exercise serves to forefront strategies-level thinking from the outset of the practical software sessions, and to emphasise from the outset that analytic tasks can often be accomplished in several different ways using the software. Throughout the course we also teach aspects of particular methods via the software. For example, we use the functioning of the NVivo coding scheme structure to teach the difference between the properties and dimensions of themes. This involves teaching the operationalisation of coding methods (strategies-level) by illustrating how codes in NVivo (tactics-level) can be used for a range of different purposes. For example, how the functioning of hierarchically organised codes in NVivo (being able to aggregate up through levels) allows top-level codes to be interrogated as themes and their properties/dimensions to be worked with separately; how alternative coding scheme structures can arise from the same list of codes when working inductively (thinking separately at the properties and dimensions levels); and how patterns and relationships between codes at any level can be later interrogated using query tools. The course assignment is another illustration of the methods-interwoven approach; in fact, one of its explicit aims is for students to demonstrate both strategies-level and tactics-level knowledge and practice through a) their understanding of the role and functioning of NVivo; b) their skills in harnessing software tools for a range of analytic tasks; and c) their ability to communicate the process of analysis. They are required to do this by submitting their assignment in two parts: a completed series of Analytic Planning Worksheets and an NVivo project containing the analysis they have undertaken and a “compound memo” (Davidson, 2004) that navigates the reader through their project. The assignments are assessed in relation to both strategies-level and tactics-level criteria and marks are given accordingly.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Integrating the teaching and learning of qualitative methods and digital-tools is necessary to ensure future generations of researchers are equipped with the necessary theory and practice to undertake and communicate high-quality research. The models presented here illustrate that this can be accomplished effectively in many ways, and the threefold typology of integration offers a flexible framework for designing and delivering teaching and learning encounters in different contexts; illustrating different ways of addressing the disconnect between meth(ology) understanding and proficiency in CAQDAS-packages. The concept of translating between strategies and tactics offered by the Five-Level QDA method adds a dimension to the typology by unpacking the relationship between qualitative methods (what we plan to do – our strategies) and software tools (how we plan to do it – our tactics) that can concentrate teachers minds when planning the delivery of this type of advanced methods learning. As teachers of qualitative methods and tools we have many opportunities, and as this chapter illustrates, the challenges involved in the integrated teaching of methods and CAQDAS-packages can be overcome when we reflect and share our own practice, and draw on the experiences of colleagues. Elements of these examples can be adopted and adapted to fit different pedagogic objectives and teaching and learning contexts. The hybrid examples show that the appropriateness of the model of integration is contextual and can themselves be integrated.

Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies  329 Continually reflecting on practice is a key way teachers ensure their pedagogy is effective and sharing practice with others is a powerful form of reflection. Several of the teachers whose practice we discuss here commented on how explaining their practice to us for this chapter was illuminating for them. We ourselves also experienced this. To our knowledge this chapter is the first to offer several examples of CAQDAS teaching that cover different qualitative methods and CAQDAS-packages presented together in the context of this type of strategies-tactics integration. The descriptions and discussions serve as a toolkit for teachers to make conscious decisions about how and when to integrate the teaching of methods and digital-tools, by both borrowing or adapting specific teaching and learning techniques and drawing on the opportunities provided by one model and avoiding the challenges of another. Although our focus in this chapter has been teaching and learning in online contexts, many of the opportunities and challenges transcend the online vs in-person divide and therefore the discussion here is relevant to all those who wish to integrate the teaching of methods and digital-tools. To facilitate the widespread embedding of effective integrated teaching and learning of qualitative methods and CAQDAS-packages, we encourage other teachers to share detailed descriptions and reflections of their practice, to augment the discussion presented here. The collation of examples of good practice in this chapter can be the basis of a broader and more detailed discussion amongst teachers that moves beyond isolated descriptions of a particular model of CAQDAS-teaching that characterise previous discussions.

REFERENCES Andes, K. (2021). Qualitative Data Analysis with MAXQDA Software. [online] Emory University on Coursera. Available at: https://​www​.coursera​.org/​learn/​qualitative​-data​-analysis​-with​-maxqda​ -software​#syllabus [Accessed 10 Dec. 2021]. Baldwin, S.J., Ching, Y.-H. and Friesen, N. (2018). Online course design and development among college and university instructors: An analysis using grounded theory. Online Learning, 22(2), 159–171. Bender, S. and Hill, K.G. (2016). Pedagogical considerations for effectively teaching qualitative research to students in an online environment. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 16(2), 93–103. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P.M. Camic, D.L. Long, A.T. Panter, D. Rindskopf and K.J. Sher (Eds.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol. 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological (pp. 57–71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Collins, D. (2019). Teaching Social Research Methods Online – NCRM Quick Start Guide. [online] UK: National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM) Social Sciences. Available at: https://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​ .uk/​id/​eprint/​4246/​1/​Quick​-start​-guide​-teaching​-online​.pdf [Accessed 8 Jan. 2022]. Collins, D. (2020). Teaching social research methods online: interview with Debbie Collins. National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM) News. Available at: https://​www​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​news/​show​.php​ ?article​=​5582 [Accessed 20 Nov. 2021]. Davidson, J. (2004). Grading NVivo: Making the shift from training to teaching with software for qualitative data analysis. Paper presented at the 2004 International Conference on Strategies in Qualitative Research with QSR Software. Durham, UK. Davidson, J. and di Gregorio, S. (2011). Qualitative research and technology: In the midst of a revolution. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed.) (pp. 627–643). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davidson, J., Paulus, T. and Jackson, K. (2016). Speculating on the future of digital tools for qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(7), 606–610.

330  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Gibbons, C. (2021). New Course! Prepare and Begin Using Qualitative Data. [online] Quirkos Qualitative Research Blog. Available at: https://​www​.quirkos​.com/​blog/​prepare​-and​-begin​-qualitative​ -research​-course/​[Accessed 12 Oct. 2021]. Hunter, C., Ortloff, D. and Winkle-Wagner, R. (2014). Out of our comfort zones: Reflections about teaching qualitative research at a distance. The Qualitative Report, [online] 19, 1–24. Available at: https://​nsuworks​.nova​.edu/​tqr/​vol19/​iss45/​3/​ [Accessed 17 Oct. 2021]. Kaczynski, D. (2003). Curriculum development strategies using qualitative data analysis software. Qualitative Research Journal, 111–116. Kaczynski, D. (2004). Curriculum development for teaching qualitative data analysis online. In QualIT2004: International Conference on Qualitative Research in IT & IT in Qualitative Research (pp. 1–9). [online] Brisbane, Australia. Available at: https://​eric​.ed​.gov/​?id​=​ED492010 [Accessed 12 Aug. 2020]. Kaczynski, D. and Kelly, M. (2004). Curriculum development for teaching qualitative data analysis online. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Qualitative Research in IT and IT in Qualitative Research. [online] Brisbane, Australia. Available at: http://​eric​.ed​.gov/​?id​=​ED4920 [Accessed 10 Feb. 2021]. Kalpokaite, N. and Radivojevic, I. (2020). Teaching qualitative data analysis software online: A comparison of face-to-face and e-learning ATLAS.ti courses. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43(3), 296–310. Larson, M.B. and Lockee, B.B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A Practical Guide to Instructional Design. New York, NY: Routledge. Paulus, T.M., Lester, J.N. and Britt, V.G. (2013). Constructing hopes and fears around technology: A discourse analysis of introductory qualitative research texts. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9), 639–651. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Salmona, M. (2019). Dedoose Training Materials (1st ed.). [online] Institute for Mixed Methods Research Resources, p.33. Available at: https://​immrglobal​.org/​Content/​PDF/​2019​.09​.14​.Dedoose​ %20Training​%20Materials​.pdf [Accessed 12 Dec. 2020]. Salmona, M. and Kaczynski, D. (2016). Don’t blame the software: Using qualitative data analysis software successfully in doctoral research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, [online] 17(3), Art 11. http://​nbn​-resolving​.de/​urn:​nbn:​de:​0114​-fqs1603117 Schmieder, C. (2019). Qualitative data analysis software as a tool for teaching analytic practice: Towards a theoretical framework for integrating QDAS into methods pedagogy. Qualitative Research, 20(5), 684–702. Schmieder, C. and Caldwell, K.E.H. (n.d.). Qual Pal. [online] The Data Jam Tool Kit. Available at: https://​fyi​.extension​.wisc​.edu/​datajams/​qual​-pal/​ [Accessed 19 Jan. 2022]. Schmieder, C., Caldwell, K.E. and Bechtol, E. (2018). Readying extension for the systematic analysis of large qualitative data sets. Journal of Extension, 56(6). Available at: https://​tigerprints​.clemson​.edu/​ joe/vol56/iss6/26 [Accessed 8 Jun. 2021]. Sife, A., Lwoga, E. and Sanga, C. (2007). New technologies for teaching and learning: Challenges for higher learning institutions in developing countries. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 3(2), 57–67. Silver, C. (2020). Teaching qualitative methods via software: The case of coding. Qualitative Data Analysis Services (QDAS). Blogpost. Available at: https://​www​.qdaservices​.co​.uk/​post/​teaching​ -qualitative​-methods​-via​-software​-the​-case​-of​-coding [Accessed 4 Feb. 2021]. Silver, C. and Bulloch, S. (2020). Teaching NVivo using the Five-Level QDA(R) Method: Adaptations for Synchronous Online Learning. Paper presented at QSR International Virtual Conference, Qualitative Research in a Changing World, 24 September 2020. Silver, C. and Rivers, C. (2015). The CAQDAS postgraduate learning model: An interplay between methodological awareness, analytic adeptness and technological proficiency. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(5), 593–609. Silver, C. and Woolf, N.H. (2015). From guided-instruction to facilitation of learning: The development of Five-level QDA as a CAQDAS pedagogy that explicates the practices of expert users. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 527–543. Silver, C. and Woolf, N.H. (2019). Five-level QDA method. In P.A. Atkinson, S. Delamont, R.A. Williams, A. Cernat and J. Sakshaug (Eds.), SAGE Research Methods Foundations. [online]

Integrating the online teaching of qualitative analysis methods and technologies  331 UK: Sage Publications Limited. Available at: https://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.4135/​9781526421036818833 [Accessed 10 Jan. 2022]. Silver, C. and Woolf, N.H. (2021). Integrating Methodology and Technology: The Five-Level QDA Method as a Framework for Teaching Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis. Paper presented at The Qualitative Report (TQR) 12th Annual Conference. Silver, C., Bulloch, S. and Salmona, M. (2020). Critical reflections on the “new normal”: Synchronous teaching of CAQDAS-packages online during COVID-19. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, The Editors Notebook. Available at: https://​ijsrm​.org/​2020/​12/​01/​critical​-reflections​ -on​-the​-new​-normal​-synchronous​-teaching​-of​-caqdas​-packages​-online​-during​-covid​-19/​ [Accessed 7 Apr. 2021]. Snelson, C. (2019). Teaching qualitative research methods online: A scoping review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, [online] 24(11), 2799–2814. Wright, S. (2017). Qualitative Analysis Software Training (NVivo, ATLAS.ti and Quirkos). [online] Lancaster University Research Training website. Available at: https://​www​.lancaster​.ac​.uk/​health​ -and​-medicine/​study/​phd/​#choosing​-an​-using​-software​-for​-qualitative​-and​-mixedmethods​-research​ -402011​-0 [Accessed 17 Nov. 2021]. Xue, S., Du, J. and Yang, Y. (2021). Institutional influences on teachers’ classroom technology integration: A multi-case study of teachers’ uses of mobile social media at universities in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​02188791​.2021​.1996332.

23. Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development Janet Salmons, Andy Nobes, Nicola Pallitt and Tony Carr

INTRODUCTION It is not enough for medical doctors to know the facts about body parts, illnesses, and remedies. To care for a patient, they need to know how the parts work together and how they respond to treatments. That knowledge is inadequate unless they can communicate with the patient. Similarly, researchers need to know about the practices involved in designing, planning, and conducting empirical studies. But as with the medical doctor, factual knowledge of methods is of limited use unless we understand how the pieces of a research project fit together. Additional soft skills in communication and trust-building are needed when data collection involves human participants. Beyond the study, researchers need to publish and present findings. How do we acquire research knowledge and develop the skills that are essential to successful inquiries that make a difference? Scholars study research methods throughout their higher education studies. Learning activities usually include some combination of formal coursework in research methodologies, methods, theories, and supervised research projects. We learn about the kinds of research conducted in our discipline(s) and we become familiar with seminal and emerging literature. While coursework is intended to provide research knowledge, hands-on projects are intended to provide experiential learning and skills-development. At the masters and doctoral levels we are expected to put what we have learned into practice by designing and conducting original research, and/or participating in large projects being conducted by our research supervisors. The accepted thesis, dissertation, publication or project demonstrates a degree of mastery. But are these research skills enough to serve us through our entire careers? Most likely, we will need to develop new capabilities in response to changing times. At some point we may find that due to changing technologies the approaches we used as students are now out of date. Expectations and standards have changed. New methods have been developed and adopted, or the nature of our field of study may have evolved. How do we learn about new and updated methods when we are busy meeting the demands associated with academic or professional careers? How can we navigate through low-resource settings to access up-to-date resources, training, and mentoring? Without a structured classroom framework, we construct our own strategies for learning and applying new research skills. Three styles of constructivist learning fit: radical, social, and cognitive. Principles associated with radical constructivism describe just-in-time learning experience that occurs when we independently seek out the information we need (Lenartowicz, 2016). When we build on what we know, we actualise cognitive constructivist principles. According to Jerome Bruner this means we acquire new information, transform the information for new tasks, and evaluate whether the new information fits (Bruner, 1977; Bruner and Kearsley, 2004; Stapleton and Stefaniak, 2019). When Knowles (1990) articulated 332

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  333 principles of adult learning theory, he pointed to the importance of problem-centred learning and applicable knowledge. For adult learners, this evaluative process is essential, because if the new information is not usable, we will move on. If we combine individual discovery and collaboration with others, the process of evaluation can be even richer. When we ask other researchers to share what they know or collaborate, so we learn together, we use social constructivist principles (Stapleton and Stefaniak, 2019). Lev Vygotsky observed that learning is a causal relationship between social interaction and individual cognitive change (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye and O’Malley, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978). To summarise, distinctive needs for constructivist learning in research methods include the following: ● as radical and cognitive constructivists we need access to applicable information, materials, and exemplars that clearly explain method(s) and dissemination of findings; ● as social constructivists we need to learn from knowledgeable researchers who can show how to integrate processes as needed to design and conduct research, and disseminate findings; ● as social constructivists we also need opportunities for peer learning, support and community, and for research collaboration with others who have multiple gradients of expertise; and ● as cognitive constructivists we need experiences that build on our existing understandings and allow us to practice new ways to put pieces of the research process together. To find the resources, experiences, and what Lev Vygotsky called the ‘knowledgeable others’ may require some help. In today’s world we can find people to learn from and with online, allowing us to home in on specific topics of interest not available in our own institutions or localities. Some organisations aim to use the internet to provide new research ideas, resources, and experts, and to help build networks of collaborative peers. To find out how they operate, we explore diverse examples: AuthorAID, e/Merge Africa and The International Research Collaborative for Established and Emerging Scholars collaboration (IRCEES), NVivo, SAGE Methodspace, and the Textbook and Academic Authors Association. They represent the for-profit and non-profit sectors and have varied missions. They share a commitment to helping emerging and experienced researchers enhance and update their scholarly skills. What can we learn from their experiences to improve our own efforts to serve the research community?

KEY QUESTIONS To compare and contrast the programs of these five entities, we posed the same set of questions to each one (see Figure 23.1). These questions were crafted to solicit explanations about the scope and nature of each group’s efforts, responses about the motivations and purpose of the programmes, and strategies for evaluating success. Co-authors developed descriptive cases for their organisations: Andy Nobes for AuthorAID, Nicola Pallitt and Tony Carr for The International Research Collaborative for Established and Emerging Scholars (IRCEES) collaboration with e/merge Africa, and Janet Salmons for Methodspace. Janet Salmons also interviewed key personnel and collected documents for

334  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

Figure 23.1

Key questions used to compare approaches

NVivo and the Textbook and Academic Authors Association, which provided the basis for those cases.

FIVE CASES These cases, organised around the questions listed in Figure 23.1, demonstrate a spectrum of approaches to informal and semi-formal professional development designed to help emerging or experienced researchers to engage with research skills and methods, including writing up research for publication, and join a broader community. AuthorAID AuthorAID is a project run by UK non-profit international development organisation INASP (International Network for Advancing Science and Policy),1 which supports a community of early career researchers, focusing mainly on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). What does AuthorAID offer to whom? AuthorAID addresses all four essential needs for learning research methods by offering resources, experiences, coaching and mentoring by experienced researchers and academic writers, and an online community. AuthorAID content is geared towards researchers at different levels in their careers and is designed around INASP’s learning and capacity development framework, which covers three main levels: 1) building foundational knowledge; 2) skills strengthening; and 3) mastering competencies. The AuthorAID website supports over 25,000 researchers and publishes blogs and free resources on topics related to research methods, research communication and proposal writing. The project also supports a free online mentor-

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  335 ing system, a set of online journal clubs, and online courses, including massively open online courses (MOOCs) in research writing and proposal writing. MOOCs cover foundational knowledge in research writing and proposal writing (from the basics in research methods, literature review and research ethics, to writing and structuring a paper, identifying a target journal and navigating peer review). They are multidisciplinary, with distinct courses in natural sciences and social sciences. Courses run two or three times a year and support between 1,500 and 4,000 learners. AuthorAID has a very small full-time team, so courses are lightly facilitated by teams of volunteer ‘guest facilitators’. Content is hosted on an open-source learning management system (LMS), and is mostly asynchronous and has a low bandwidth, with limited video material except for selected recordings and clips, and occasional live video Q&As with facilitators. Self-study online courses cover foundational knowledge in critical thinking skills, grant proposal basics and search strategies. Content is available at any time and can be completed at the participant’s own pace. Online mentoring covers topics related to research that early career researchers seek support with to strengthen their skills or competencies, and which volunteer mentors are willing to support. Most commonly, mentors assist with article planning, data analysis and statistics, language skills, publishing skills, proposal development, and career advice. Mentoring is conducted via an online private messaging system. Mentor and mentees initiate contact based around specific tasks or may develop into a longer-term relationship. They can communicate entirely via the online system or can switch to an external form of conversation. Online journal clubs develop skills in critically reading research papers while learning about methodologies, statistics and writing. Members share challenges so that they can improve their research and writing competencies. Clubs are organised via facilitated social groups utilising low-bandwidth platforms. Online conferencing tools allow for focused critique and discussion of papers. AuthorAID’s target audience includes young and early career researchers. Almost all of the projects are free and open, except in cases of limited technological capacity (e.g. online journal clubs are restricted by size of WhatsApp groups). Over time, AuthorAID’s material has been adapted to the developing needs of researchers in LMICs, and in some cases is co-developed with members of the community. MOOCs are designed to be low-bandwidth, plain-language courses set at a foundational level, due to the audience, who are likely to experience network issues and have English as a second or third language. Pedagogical thinking is based on Garrison’s Community of Inquiry model (Garrison, 2007; Murugesan, Nobes and Wild, 2017), favouring social interaction (via social presence, teacher presence and cognitive presence) ahead of high bandwidth learning content. Self-study courses are based on a similar model, but remove time constraints, which may better suit those with busier lives and commitments, or more significant connection problems. However, these courses do not benefit from a community of learners that feature in the MOOCs. Online mentoring supports those who want to find a virtual mentor and connects researchers according to their needs/skills offered. The process is unfacilitated and unmatched, and therefore relies on mentees and volunteers being self-motivated to find each other using the database and online functionality. Online journal clubs are community-led, using popular low-bandwidth social platforms for quick communication. The groups function as small communities of practice, coordinated by an informal distributed leadership.

336  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Those with limited connectivity are also more likely to complete AuthorAID MOOCs than courses with a high level of video content. Online journal clubs also provide a need for a diverse range of international researchers to connect around their research topics – traditional journal clubs are often institutionally based and closed. The adult learners that join AuthorAID courses and other groups are (as Knowles notes) self-motivated and orientated to learning that is relevant to real life problem-solving and career development, rather than learning for the sake of it. They also bring their existing experience and skills to the learning as an additional resource. In this context the constructivist approach is particularly relevant. However, this can be challenging in some topics – for example there are very specific ‘best practices’ in research ethics; writing a grant proposal; and structuring a scientific paper. Adult learners in the AuthorAID courses are usually clear on what they want to achieve and understand that success may mean following a particular method or ‘playing the game’ of research publications. Therefore, a more prescriptive initial learning delivery may be required, but with the space to discuss with others and opportunities for testing and putting this learning into practice. Why does AuthorAID offer these learning opportunities? Early career researchers in LMICs often miss out on training in research skills and mentoring support due to capacity constraints and inequities in their regions or institutions. AuthorAID is funded as part of the International Network for Advancing Science and Policy (INASP) ‘Global Platforms for Equitable Knowledge Ecosystems’ programme. All initiatives are therefore designed with equity in mind – for example women researchers are able to take advantage of online learning more easily than face-to-face workshops, in particular courses with more open timings and deadlines. In line with INASP’s focus on equity in research systems, AuthorAID courses train researchers to produce research that can be published in international journals, but also to understand their role in national and international research ecosystems. This means encouraging them to produce research that is based on solving local development and policy challenges, and which can also be published in local and regional journals. How does AuthorAID measure success? One measure for success is completion rate: the average completion rate from 2015 to 2020 was between 40 percent and 61 percent for MOOCs but ranges between 25 percent and 50 percent for self-study courses. Another measure is gender diversity – approximately 40 percent of MOOC participants are women, but women are more likely to complete MOOCs than men – for example, from 2016 to 2021, the completion rate for women was 47 percent and for men it was 44 percent. Confidence increase is another useful metric; participants have been asked about their confidence in 11 key topics both before and after the course, with 53 percent reporting an increase across all topics. For online mentoring, success is measured by ‘tasks’ that are marked as successfully completed by both mentor and mentee, and positive feedback and resulting outputs that are recorded on the online platform. AuthorAID’s online journal clubs are still in their infancy, but success has been measured so far by the number of papers reviewed and active members (reviewing and facilitating) in the groups.

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  337 The International Research Collaborative for Established and Emerging Scholars (IRCEES) The International Research Collaborative for Established and Emerging Scholars (IRCEES) offers resources and peer-to-peer connections. IRCEES is a collaborative research initiative that came about through an affiliation between the e/merge Africa2 network and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT).3 The e/merge Africa network became affiliated to the AECT in 2016, and the IRCEES initiative started in 2017. Both entities focus on supporting professional communities in the field of educational technology. e/merge Africa is an online professional development network for educational technology practitioners and researchers working in African higher education settings. The network grew out of a series of online conferences which started in 2004, and began offering more regular online professional development processes from 2014. The Culture, Learning and Technology division of the AECT ‘focuses on intersections and syntheses of culture, learning, and technology with particular emphases on championing inclusiveness and equity for the entire spectrum of human identification from the individual, organizational, and behavioural contexts’ (AECT website, nd). The organisers of the research initiative created academic mentoring and research groups to support members of these entities. The groups set up within this initiative consisted of collectives of researchers and practitioners based in Africa and the United States of America (USA). Within this set-up, established scholars were arranged into groups (with different research interests) as intended mentors, with emerging scholars as mentees. In 2018, IRCEES organisers invited prospective mentors and mentees (emerging scholars) to apply to join a pilot research support group, through a call shared by the e/merge Africa network and the AECT Culture, Learning and Technology (CLT) division. While the USA-based mentors participate voluntarily, some African mentors were funded by the e/merge Africa network. Mentees participate voluntarily in their mentorship groups. What does IRCEES offer to whom? IRCEES is aimed at established and emerging scholars with an interest in international research in issues at the intersection of culture, learning and technology. Potential members with a Master’s degree, EdD or PhD in a field related to educational technology were invited to participate in IRCEES. IRCEES started as a collaboration with four mentorship groups connecting emerging researchers from e/merge Africa who are almost entirely based in Africa and emerging researchers recruited through the CLT division of the AECT who are predominantly based in the USA. The leadership of the mentorship groups has also been drawn from across both networks. Activities undertaken in the mentorship groups include peer review of research in progress, mentor feedback and collaborative research among the members of the mentorship groups. The intended goals and ways of working across groups evolved over time, although the broad purpose as stated in the IRCEES Charter (2018) is ‘to support each other as a community of practice in developing the abilities to investigate cultural patterns in research capacity, technology adoption, and collaborative possibilities’. The Charter also stated an intention to ‘learn from the process of optimising opportunities to disseminate knowledge and overcome challenges collaborating with people from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds’, which

338  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods would be ‘intentionally leveraged to support access and inclusion through open education resources and research’. IRCEES began with a call for participation by potential members, requesting that they share their research outputs so far and research interests. The following interest areas were identified: ● ● ● ●

critical approaches in educational technology; culture in the instructional design process; access, equity and quality in open, distance, and eLearning (ODeL); supporting historically marginalised and underserved learners group (IRCEES-SHMUL).

A mentor from Africa and one from the USA were then paired and matched with group members based on their expertise and research interests. Why does IRCEES offer these learning opportunities? The purpose of IRCEES is to develop a research community of practice to support educational technology faculty researchers and practitioner-researchers (IRCEES Charter, 2018). In particular, IRCEES aims to grow a community of researchers who are exploring the intersections of culture, learning and technology. IRCEES provides an open and supportive space for international research exchange and collaboration between established and emerging scholars in educational technology. The collaborative nature of IRCEES supports mentoring for early-career and aspiring researchers in African countries and those working in resource-constrained environments more broadly. To accomplish these goals, IRCEES embraces core values, including: ● Being open and willing to share research in progress. ● Demonstrating sensitivity to local contexts and mutual respect. ● Welcoming marginalised voices in the broader educational technology research community and a supportive environment for both traditional educational technology researchers and practitioner-researchers. ● Supporting research dissemination in a range of formats, that is, traditional outputs (journal articles, book chapters) and beyond. (IRCEES Charter, 2018) One of the groups co-designed their own approach based on the design question, ‘How do we create a research approach that provides us experiential learning, allows us to share our existing expertise, and feels like it supports us as learners?’ This group’s collaborative experiential research approach involves interpersonal and process-based principles valued by the group. It is relationship-focused, working towards inclusivity by co-creating opportunities for powerful participation. This group became interested in researching cross-cultural collaborative research, and current projects include online interviewing skills and collaborative coding. One of the group’s outputs includes a book chapter about their collaborative process (Pallitt et.al., forthcoming). How does IRCEES measure success? Small groups regularly reflect on their approach and progress during online meetings and as part of their research. The IRCEES group described above uses approaches drawn from digital team ethnography (Beneito-Montagut, Begueria and Cassián, 2017) to revisit artefacts from

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  339 earlier in the collaborative process such as documents and meeting recordings. For this group, the relationship that has developed over time and the human connection is what is valued and contributes to its success. It is not just research outputs that make group members happy – it is about sharing and applying what is being learned together to different contexts in the USA and Africa. IRCEES does not use membership numbers as a measure, recognising that scaling peer collaboration is challenging. Relationship-focused processes are hard to scale. As a small group working together that has co-created a process and deepened their thinking over time it can be challenging to include new people. Co-researching and co-authoring with multiple people is difficult and time to develop shared goals and ways of working together is essential. Rather than add members to existing groups, it is often preferable to encourage others to form their own groups. Methodspace Methodspace.com is a global, transdisciplinary, open-access research hub sponsored by SAGE Publishing. Methodspace offers access to experts and information about a variety of social research methods, instruction, and dissemination. The mission of Methodspace is to support the learning and development of researchers at all levels, from new students through to experienced scholars. What does Methodspace offer to whom? Researchers in the field need to update their knowledge with exposure to new methods and developments in the field. However, many researchers, even those working at academic institutions, lack access to robust digital libraries. Meanwhile, researchers need ways to reach new readers and share work in progress, ideas and observations, or publication announcements. Methodspace aims to serve these needs by offering a space where SAGE authors and other researchers, writers, editors, students or experts can contribute posts. Methodspace content covers designing, planning, and organising studies, collecting and analysing data, writing, reporting, and sharing results in conventional and new ways. Formats include original posts, curated collections of open-access scholarly articles, links to podcasts and media, video and written interviews. Posts accumulate into enduring collections of resources that can be accessed in the archives of the site. Each month Methodspace focuses on a different theme related to some aspect of research or academic writing. A researcher with expertise in the month’s topic is named ‘Mentor in Residence’. The Mentor in Residence participates in a conversational video interview and contributes original posts describing experiences, insights, and practical tips. Methodspace also offers webinars throughout the year using an interactive panel format with two to four presenters. The content on Methodspace is aimed at any researcher in social sciences, business, education, or the humanities. Methodspace serves the reader who wants to learn, whether for self-study or in conjunction with a formal course. Readership is global and includes academic, independent, and student researchers as well as researchers who work in government or NGO agencies, research institutes, and other settings. Methodspace has roughly 30,000 views each month, and the number is growing. Webinar registration is typically between 1,000 to 2,000.

340  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Why does Methodspace offer these learning opportunities? The pedagogical rationale for Methodspace is inherently radical constructivist. Given the nature of a blog, there is no facilitator or instructor present. Given this constraint, learning is entirely user-driven and learners construct their own mental models related to the concepts that fit their research projects (Dalgarno, 2001). Based in a commitment to inclusion, Methodspace also embraces sociotransformative constructivism with an ‘orientation to teaching and learning that pays close attention to how issues of power, gender, and equity influence not only what subject matter is covered but also how it is taught and to whom’ (Rodriguez and Berryman, 2002, p. 1019). Methodspace is attentive to these matters and committed to wide-ranging subject matter and diverse mentors, contributors, and webinar presenters. How does Methodspace measure success? Site analytics are used to track visits and length of stay on the site that indicates that visitors are reading or downloading the resources. Webinar attendance, persistence in staying through the event, and views of recordings are measures used to evaluate success. These indicators can also be used to identify topics that are of interest to Methodspace readers. NVivo NVivo offers access to information and resources about qualitative and mixed methods research methods, and opportunities to connect with peers and experts. NVivo is a company that develops and sells data analysis software. What do they offer to whom? NVivo focuses on research design and data analysis, as well as academic writing and ways to present results. The company’s online hub is a space for researchers to learn how to use the software and more broadly, how to design, conduct, and report on qualitative and mixed methods inquiries. It offers both fee-based and free options, including: ● A moderated certification programme for people who want to become NVivo trainers. Courses that combine self-paced modules and group meetings. Projects are shared and participants get feedback on their work. Certification examination must be completed. ● A Scholarly Writing Institute with recorded on-demand sessions. ● A webinar series with research experts from around the world, and access to archived recordings. ● An online community where people can ask for and give help to others. The community allows researchers to avoid the kind of isolation that can discourage them from making progress. ● An annual online conference. ● A blog about qualitative research and academic writing. ● Podcasts with experienced researchers. ● Case studies of qualitative and mixed methods research, and uses of NVivo. Over 10,000 NVivo community members include students and experienced researchers in academia as well as researchers in governmental agencies, nonprofit organisations, healthcare, and business settings. In 2021–2022 NVivo reached participants with thought leadership webi-

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  341 nars and user groups meetings: 29,466 registrations and 9,500 attendees. Forty-one podcast episodes had 19,230 downloads. Why does NVivo offer these learning opportunities? NVivo began by training users of its software products. In the process, it discovered that unless users understood data analysis principles, they would not be able to make the best use of the software. It expanded to include varied research topics and built the community of researchers. NVivo also developed new tools such as the Citavi reference manager, which allowed for a deepened commitment to the writing part of research practice. Courses are designed from a constructivist theoretical framework. While NVivo would like to encourage collaborative learning, it is difficult in the drop-in learning milieu. How does NVivo measure success? Registration and attendance for events, as well as downloads of on-demand videos are indicators of success; with podcasts, the number of downloads indicates level of interest. Course completion includes an examination for certification as NVivo trainers. Textbook and Academic Authors Association The Textbook and Academic Authors Association (TAA) offers access to information about how to disseminate different kinds of research findings, and opportunities to network with peers or to find knowledgeable coaches or mentors. TAA is a non-profit membership organisation based in the USA. It is multidisciplinary, with members who are doctoral students, early-career or established academic writers. TAA has approximately 2,300 members. What does TAA offer to whom? TAA offers instructor-, facilitator-, or peer-led learning opportunities that use both synchronous and asynchronous approaches. Eight to 12 educational webinars are given throughout the year – spring, summer, fall. They are run by members or other experts on topics relevant to researchers who are current or aspiring authors of scholarly journal articles or books. TAA also offers two kinds of facilitated writing groups: TAA Writing Gym and Month of Motivation. Both are open to members (non-members would need to join to sign up) and have a registration fee. Content focuses on strategies, tips and techniques, or professional advice that attendees can use to improve their writing and publishing so they are able to get their research to the desired audience. TAA webinars cover a variety of practical information scholars need including contracts and royalties, taxes, copyright, marketing (including social media for academics), indexing, ebooks, open access, self-publishing, visuals and illustrations. TAA’s Committee for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is working on developing content geared towards improving diversity in textbook and academic publishing. The TAA Writing Gym is a six-week asynchronous program that serves as an accountability partner as participants work to achieve their writing goals. In addition, TAA has also developed an advanced version of the Writing Gym called TAA Writing Gym: Heavy Lifters. Writing Gym is available three times per year. The Month of Motivation is a synchronous and asynchronous programme that is offered every month or by subscription. Attendees receive daily email messages containing moti-

342  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods vation, encouragement, and resources to advance their writing efforts all month long. They connect with other academic writers in four 30-minute Virtual Writing Accountability Sessions each week. During these sessions, they connect by video, share what they plan to work on during the session, write as a group for 30 minutes, and then share their next steps. Webinar offerings are for beginner to advanced academic writers. Most webinars are offered to members with occasional webinars open to the public and/or prospects. Writing Gym and Month of Motivation are mainly geared to beginners, but TAA has had several advanced-level authors participate simply for the accountability they provide. Why does TAA offer these learning opportunities? TAA recognises that many researchers face obstacles in their effort to disseminate what they learn. Writing blocks or the inability to negotiate the publication process can obstruct progress toward tenure and promotion needed to build a research career. TAA makes user-friendly learning options available for members who are juggling many demands in addition to writing. When considering new opportunities, TAA staff think about how to develop a programme that will be easy for busy members to use and does not require learning new technology or digesting long instructions. Priorities are driven by member interest and participation. For example, they recently discontinued a discussion forum feature on the site because members were not using it. Webinars are designed to provide peer-to-peer educational opportunities for members. Writing Gym and Month of Motivation programs aim to provide resources in a way that fits the needs of faculty writers who have limited time to devote to their writing and who need accountability and direct access to resources to be successful. The Writing Accountability Sessions offered through the Month of Motivation provide peer-to-peer interaction and support. All topics must be applicable to TAA’s audience of textbook and academic authors, and all presenters must be either textbook or academic authors themselves or work as an industry professional that serves those audiences. How does TAA measure success? Webinar success is measured by the number of registrants and the number of attendees as well as the percentage of registrants who attend. TAA also surveys respondents after each session and looks for positive comments. Success is measured differently based on topic however – niche topics may not attract as many registrants, but TAA still looks for a high registrant-attendee ratio and high ratings in surveys. Writing Gym and Month of Motivation are evaluated based on the number of members and non-members who sign up, through end of programme surveys that rate various aspects of the gym, and unsolicited feedback from participants. Case Summary All of the profiled organisations offer information and resources that are open-access to anyone, or that are available to members or course participants. This is an important factor for researchers not associated with academic institutions or those whose institutions do not have robust online libraries. As Table 23.1 shows, these materials relate to the key activities of researchers: doing research and reporting on it in different kinds of publications.

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  343 Table 23.1

Types of content offered

Type of Content

Offered by:

How to design and plan research

AuthorAID, Methodspace, NVivo

How to use quantitative methods for collecting and analysing

AuthorAID, Methodspace, IRCEES

data How to use qualitative methods for collecting and analysing data AuthorAID, Methodspace, NVivo, IRCEES How to use emerging or online methods

AuthorAID, Methodspace, NVivo, IRCEES

How to propose and write books or articles to discuss research

AuthorAID, Methodspace, TAA

methods or disseminate findings How to get published in peer-reviewed journals

AuthorAID, IRCEES, Methodspace, TAA

How to be inclusive and culturally aware in research or writing

AuthorAID, IRCEES, Methodspace, TAA, NVivo

partnerships How to network and collaborate with co-researchers and

AuthorAID, IRCEES, Methodspace, NVivo, TAA

co-authors

This content is problem-centred, as Knowles (1990) recommended. While scholarly literature and methodology texts are available from some organisations, others aim to provide more practical, how-to oriented materials. For example, NVivo makes available videos that show steps in the data analysis process which would be more useful to the busy professional than a full-length textbook. The learning experiences offered range from synchronous and asynchronous classes, discussions, to online events, as outlined in Table 23.2. They include more general access to large-scale events like webinars as well as in-depth one-to-one work with a mentor. They include learning experiences led by facilitators or instructors who might be paid staff or volunteers. They also include peer-led groups that could involve informal or rotating leadership to coordinate meetings or help set priorities. As noted, four elements are essential to learning research methods outside the formal classroom: access to scholarly resources, ability to learn from knowledgeable others, opportunities to connect and collaborate with peers, and practical experience using the method(s). When learning independently by reading materials or watching a presentation, the individual misses having specific guidance, reviews and feedback that can be important when trying to put research methods into practice. Mentoring, multi-session classes, and online forums allow for social learning, collaboration, and community-building. These kinds of interactions allow for input about how to overcome obstacles, such as how to gain access to a research site or how to draw out recalcitrant interviewees. However, these approaches ask for a time commitment by the learner. Also, having staff or volunteer facilitators is more labour and resource-intensive than posting materials on a website. Advantages and disadvantages of the approaches are laid out in Table 23.3.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Four elements drawn from different schools of constructivist thought align with professional development of researchers: access to scholarly resources, ability to learn from knowledgeable others, opportunities to connect and collaborate with peers, and practical experience using the method(s). As independent adult learners we can find all of these elements online. The

344  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Table 23.2 Offering

Types of learning experiences offered Type of Methods

Knowledgeable

Synchronous and/or

Learning

Other

Asynchronous

Facilitated

Access to information,

Instructor or facilitator

Synchronous meetings

multi-session

selected readings

and peers

and asynchronous

classes or groups

Experiences with research

Offered by AuthorAID, NVivo, TAA

reading and comments

projects Opportunities to connect Mentoring 1-1

Shared information,

Mentors

Synchronous meetings

AuthorAID, IRCEES

and asynchronous email

including suggested readings Opportunities to connect and chance to discuss experiences, ask questions about research projects, and get personalised feedback Peer exchange,

Access and share

critique or

resources

small-group

Opportunities to connect

support

and chance to discuss

Peers

Asynchronous

AuthorAID, IRCEES

Peers

Asynchronous

AuthorAID, NVivo,

experiences, ask questions about research projects, and get feedback Online forums or

Access and share

communities

resources

IRCEES

Opportunities to connect and chance to discuss experiences or ask questions about research projects Self-paced online

Access to selected

Written materials or

learning modules

resources that are

media

or classes

sequenced to encourage

Asynchronous

AuthorAID, TAA

methods learning Webinars and/or

Learn from experts, some

Presenters or

Synchronous

Methodspace, TAA,

online events

ability to ask general

facilitators

events available for

NVivo, AuthorAID

Blogs,

questions Access to information and

Written materials or

asynchronous viewing Asynchronous

AuthorAID, Methodspace,

informational

materials about research

media

sites, shared

methods

TAA, NVivo, IRCEES

private folders or archives

public web and social media offer much of value; however, finding organisations that offer research-focused learning opportunities can reduce distractions and cut the time involved in sifting through online clutter. Organisations interested in meeting the needs of researchers can make use of the examples presented in this chapter.

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  345 Table 23.3

Types of learning experiences offered

Type of Learning Experience

Advantages

Disadvantages

Facilitated asynchronous online

Facilitator can answer questions or give

Requires good design and engaged

courses

feedback about research designs or

facilitator team, otherwise courses can

projects

lack social and facilitator presence

Facilitator can help new researchers find

Increasing expectation that online learning

other members of the group who are

will include live sessions, so some might

using the same methods or facing similar

be disappointed with purely asynchronous

challenges

course

Low-bandwidth content easier to access for LMIC users Less human resources needed to run course Facilitation can be conducted in facilitator’s own time Participation and interaction can occur across multiple time zones Potentially scalable to MOOCs Facilitated multi-session classes or

In addition to the advantages listed above: Synchronous meetings can be difficult to

groups

With multiple interactions group members schedule, especially with multiple time

Mentoring 1-1

can develop rapport and trust

zones, and for example, for researchers

Facilitators can provide structure that

with family responsibilities

helps group members make progress

Probable bandwidth and power issues in

Mentors can customise experience to

some locations True mentoring requires time and

support individual research projects

commitment

More hands-on support ideal for

Matching mentors and mentees is time

mastering new skills and evaluating

consuming and difficult

competencies

Introduction can be required to ensure

Learning can develop the preferred pace

mentors and mentees have similar

of mentees

expectations, and are clear on roles and responsibilities Mentors and mentees can require additional third-party support and guidance, for example, with ethical issues and advice

Peer exchange, critique or

Possible to find collegiality and support,

Time commitment is needed to work on

small-group support

potential collaborative partners

an ongoing basis

Group can adapt and evolve to the needs of the members

346  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Type of Learning Experience

Advantages

Disadvantages

Online forums or communities

Peers can offer new insights and share

If unmoderated, can be victimised by

resources

spam

Members can get quick responses from

If on a commercial or social media

other community members

platform, might have privacy issues

Can play a pivotal role as the

Access or ability to use the platform might

communication hub of a community of

be an issue for some

practice

Participation in online forums can be

While forums and email allow for longer

difficult to sustain and keep active without

posts, group texts allow for quick, brief

a clear purpose and need; participation

responses

being rewarded and recognised as important by the organisation; and some initial investment and input from a moderator or community manager Each form has limitations and style preferences. Some prefer quick text message responses while those who write more formally find one-line comments superficial

Self-paced online learning modules

Flexible option, participants can select

Self-directed learning might mean

or classes

what to do when they want and choose

participants miss important points

material that fits their needs

Without a facilitator or peers, motivation to persist might be at risk given other

Webinars and/or online events

Good way to be exposed to ideas and

demands Typically, interaction is limited, and

experts

follow-up is not possible in one-time

Can be a good way of triggering

events

interesting and engaging community

Videoconference or online meeting

around a single event

fatigue

Can be a good way of signposting

Webinars for large numbers of people

resources and other opportunities within

may not always be able to provide

the project

sufficient interactivity or the opportunity to have your questions answered

Blogs, informational sites, or archives

Flexible option for finding information

Limited ability to ask questions

and just-in-time resources

Requires administrative capacity to maintain and update content, or edit and publish new material from others

Focus on Excellent Content Excellent content online means it is succinct and easy to find. For example, Methodspace offers blog posts and interviews that are to the point. Links to full-length articles are available for those who want more depth. Archives are organised by research stage so readers can find resources that relate to their projects. Here we provide some tips for organisations that want to serve the research community as an information hub: ● Keep content fresh and engaging. Make sure you have an ongoing source of up-to-date content relevant to researchers at different levels of expertise. Include both written materials and media.

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  347 ● Plan to actively manage the site. Keep in mind that relying on guest contributors means you need someone to invite, solicit and manage writers and edit their posts. Streamline the process with an online submission system to avoid excessive emails and document versions. ● Coordinate with a sponsor or partner. It is certainly possible to create and manage a blog as an individual. However, by associating with a professional association, education-related company, or other group, you can gain access to more content as well as more readers. ● Use varied means to reach interested researchers. Announce content on social media, email newsletters, or through other professional networks. Be Aware of Power Dynamics AuthorAID notes that for globally diverse learners it is important to be sensitive to issues of colonialism and epistemic injustice and provide a diverse range of voices and approaches. There are after all significant inequities and bias in global knowledge production, funding, and publishing. Some have argued that the dominance of epistemological and methodological frameworks of the Global North have disproportionally influenced the methodological practices and knowledge creation practices in the rest of the world, and lead to the marginalisation of more contextually relevant local or indigenous approaches. It is important to allow space for researchers to discuss (following principles of social constructivism) and critically engage with these issues and understand some of the underlying problems so that they can navigate the modern research ecosystem. Organisations that want to address imbalances in power dynamics can: ● Make sure content is multicultural and respectful. ● Invite members to co-design the approach. ● Draw examples from diverse, global researchers, not just well-known academics. Consider Connectivity and Language Issues for Global Audiences IRCEES and AuthorAID serve audiences that are likely to experience significant issues with connectivity and language. Whilst multiple technologies exist to automatically translate web pages and documents, expert help is required to ensure key terms and expressions are translated correctly. Additionally, it is important to have facilitators with relevant language experience – particularly when serving learners in Latin America, Francophone Africa and Southeast Asia, for example. Whilst low bandwidth content can reduce the impact of limited internet access, additional support is often required for those who experience long periods without access. For example, using a mobile app integrated with the LMS allows participants to download and complete exercises offline. Mobile compatibility is important because mobile data is often more accessible and reliable than wired broadband, but at a greater cost. In some cases, AuthorAID has provided selected participants with data bundles to ensure they can access the course regularly. It is also important when working in specific regions to liaise with in-country partners to be aware of possible upcoming nationwide internet outages. AuthorAID was able to plan ahead with pre-downloadable content for events in Ethiopia and Uganda.

348  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Organisations that want to reach readers and viewers throughout the world can work to ensure: ● A balance between accessibility and learner expectations. ● Low bandwidth communication options are available, while recognising that even learners with poor internet connection are increasingly expecting interactive content and videos. ● Translation software is highlighted. ● Live transcriptions of events allow participants to read when they might have a hard time understanding a speaker. ● Not rushing the decision about which platform to use; it might be better to meet your audience where they already are (e.g. social media or instant messaging app) rather than through a new platform or expensive bespoke solution. Commit to Ongoing Review Kim Pawlak, Director of Publishing and Operations for TAA, discussed the importance of being responsive to members or participants. Credibility is enhanced when the organisation makes requested changes or selects suggested topics. She observed: When providing resources to busy professionals, we want to ensure that we are being respectful of their time by listening to their needs. This requires soliciting regular feedback via direct requests, surveys and focus groups and using that feedback to make changes that reflect what our members say will be useful. Evaluating programs regularly and incorporating feedback from participants only serves to strengthen your offerings.

Membership organisations seeking to recruit and sustain members can: ● Be flexible and adapt to members’, participants’, or readers’ needs. ● Offer regular opportunities for input and feedback about content and type of learning experiences. Attend to Community-building Stacy Penna, NVivo Community Director, described the importance of bridging discrete events such as webinars or workshops by having an online space where people can engage with one another. She explained: Building the NVivo Community has allowed us to engage with our users on a new level. The community helps qualitative researchers share and learn from each other, network to acquire new skills with NVivo, and hear from qualitative research leaders. Creating a specific community beyond social media gives members more depth and value. The community has multiple facets: online forum, thought leadership webinars, podcast, conference, and user groups that go beyond a comment or tweet. The NVivo Community has grown because NVivo users and qualitative researchers find it valuable to their research journey.

Organisations that want to build online communities of researchers can make an effort to: ● Create a friendly environment. ● Welcome new members and participants.

Teaching research methods online: informal or semi-formal professional development  349 ● Address any conflicts or problems immediately. ● Ensure privacy in closed events. Summary The cases in this chapter show examples from organisations that offer self-directed and self-paced learning through interactive platforms that allow for some level of social learning and exchange. A spectrum of informal and semi-formal professional development approaches is available online to researchers today, sometimes to supplement existing face-to-face offerings or because similar offerings are not available locally. The cases demonstrate how instructional approaches are chosen to match the scale of their respective operations, and how an initiative or organisation aligns the type of learning opportunity with their mission and participant needs. The diversity represented in the cases also shows the important role of online communities in international research and scholarship. The online efforts described in the cases, together with information about their current projects available on their websites, can be useful for those involved in organisations and those designing informal and semi-formal professional development opportunities for researchers.

REFERENCES Bruner, J. (1977). The Process of Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. and Kearsley, G. (2004). Constructivist Theory. Retrieved from http://​tip​.psychology​.org/​ bruner​.html Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 183–194. Garrison, D.R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61–72. Knowles, M. (1990). The Adult Learner: Neglected Species (4th ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing. Lenartowicz, M. (2016). Linking social communication to individual cognition: Communication science between social constructionism and radical constructivism. Constructivist Foundations, 12(1), 48–50. Murugesan, R., Nobes, A. and Wild, J. (2017). A MOOC approach for training researchers in developing countries. Open Praxis, 9(1), 45–57. Pallitt, N., Grossman, H.M., Barlow-Zambodla, A., Liu, J.C., Kramm, N., Sikoyo, L. and Tshuma, N. (In Press). Chapter 8: Emerging principles for online cross-cultural, collaborative research. In Z.P. Shangase, D. Gachago and E. Ivala (Eds.), Co-Teaching/Researching in an Unequal World: Using Virtual Classrooms to Connect Africa, and Africa and the World. Delaware, USA: Vernon Press. Pre-print available here: https://​bit​.ly/​ch8principles Rodriguez, A.J. and Berryman, C. (2002). Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for understanding in diverse classrooms: A beginning teacher’s journey. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1017–1045. Salmons, J. (2019). Learning to Collaborate, Collaborating to Learn: Engaging Students in the Classroom and Online. Sterling: Stylus. Stapleton, L. and Stefaniak, J. (2019). Cognitive constructivism: Revisiting Jerome Bruner’s influence on instructional design practices. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 63(1), 4–5.

PART III TEACHING AND LEARNING SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS IN THE FIELD AND OTHER CONTEXTS

24. An analysis of doctoral supervision as pedagogic practice in social science and the role of social research methods in supervision Rosemary Deem and Sally Barnes

INTRODUCTION There are currently many concerns and debates about the state of doctoral education and supervision both in Europe and globally, particularly in light of the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on higher education institutions (European University Association Council for Doctoral Education, 2020), but for other reasons too. The perception of doctoral education being ripe for change is sometimes perceived as a new concern but has recurred numerous times in recent decades. One of the dimensions of the continuing debate is about developing supervision and supervision practices (Lee, 2018), activities which are both continually evolving and which need to be seen in disciplinary contexts as well as more generically. Another important element of the debate, particularly in the social sciences, is about the role of supervisors in helping their supervisees and incorporation of varied and innovative research methods teaching into doctoral education and supervision (Tazzyman et al., 2021). While good research on and analysis of doctoral supervision is longstanding (Burgess et al., 1994), much of the recent research on the topic is generic and often seeks to establish concepts of supervision or to categorise different types of supervision (Lee, 2020). Such work is important but at the same time can mask aspects of supervision linked to different disciplines or cognate subjects, such as differences in supervisory practices and the funding gap between STEM-related subjects and the social sciences and humanities (Atkinson and Slatta, 2021). Supervision practices are also closely linked to how doctoral students are funded. In the US doctoral researchers, if not funded, typically accrue massive debt. In the UK funding is a mix of research council, charity, outside organisations and institutional funding or self-funding, but most doctoral candidates have student, not staff status. In Australia, some student funding is available but, from a university perspective, their funding has become tied to doctoral completion (Bastalich, 2017). In much of Europe, the model of funding for full-time doctoral study in almost all disciplines is either a studentship awarded by a funding body for a particular doctoral programme or linked to research projects which PhD candidates undertake (as members of staff) and for which the supervisor, not the candidate, applies. Modes of funding and student or staff status both affect how doctoral researchers are treated and the extent to which they are visible in their institutions (Deem, 2022), as well as how and when supervision takes place and of what it consists. This chapter addresses two important questions about contemporary doctoral supervision in the specific context of the social sciences. First, ‘How and to what extent can the supervision of social science doctoral researchers be interpreted as a form of pedagogic practice?’ Here we draw on our own experiences of social science doctoral supervision over several decades. 351

352  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods The second question is ‘What is the role of social research methods in doctoral supervision activities?’ Here we reflect on our experiences of teaching research methods and discuss how research methods are integrated into supervisory practice, examine possible tensions between different supervisors over research methods (an issue in joint) and also refer to the resistance of some supervisors to formalised research methods training. We draw on Lee’s (2020) framework of research supervision. The framework encompasses five approaches: functionality, enculturation, critical thinking, emancipation and relationship development. Within each of these, supervisors support their doctoral researchers’ development of skills, values and know-how for them to complete their doctorates. We also draw on the research of Dowle (2020) in relation to the relevance of critical events in the lives of doctoral researchers and how doctoral supervisors can develop qualities to encourage prompt submission, namely epistemic agency, self-efficacy-oriented agency and relational agency. We consider Krathwohl’s (2002) taxonomy as ‘a framework for classifying statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction’ (p. 21). This taxonomy, unlike some previous learning taxonomies, emphasises not just knowledge but also the cognitive elements of learning. We explore the relationship between how social science supervisors work with supervisees on research methods and the formal research methods training provided for doctoral candidates. This connects to the extensive work undertaken by Nind and Lewthwaite on student and academics’ experiences of research methods teaching (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018a, 2018b; Nind et al., 2020). We suggest that those who both supervise doctoral researchers and teach social research methods may have different understandings of what happens when doctoral candidates co-create research methods knowledge and practice, compared with supervisors not involved in formal teaching of research methods. While much has been written about supervisory practices that support and contribute to the successful completion of the doctorate, this work has typically focussed on strategies and styles and less on the pedagogical underpinning of supervision.

METHODS We make use of semi-autoethnographic accounts of our own experiences of doctoral supervision and teaching research methods in the social sciences within a European context, as well as drawing on a wide body of relevant literature, in order to explore the various issues and debates that can help us answer our two research questions. Autoethnography is a reflexive research and writing process which describes and analyses personal experience in a systematic manner, bringing together the relationship of the self to broader social and cultural issues. Some writers have suggested it has particular value in the aftermath of the pandemic (Roy and Uekusa, 2020). Over time we engaged with our autoethnographic approach in a dialogic way, using video calls and emails to interrogate and develop each other’s stories of supervision and teaching research methods. In response to the first research question, we examine how supervision relates to different modes of doctoral study – full-time, part-time, remote/distance and blended – and to different forms of supervision, from apprentice models to supervisory team-based supervision and supervising groups of doctoral researchers at the same time. We also consider different kinds of doctorates such as monograph-based and professional doctorates. In response to the second research question, we utilise our own experiences of teaching

An analysis of doctoral supervision as pedagogic practice   353 research methods and reactions of other supervisors to research methods teaching to explore how research methods are integrated into supervision, alongside other aspects of thesis-related work. We also call on relevant literature and recent reports on the future of the doctorate (Hasgall et al., 2019; Nerad et al., 2019).

HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THE SUPERVISION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE DOCTORAL RESEARCHERS BE INTERPRETED AS A FORM OF PEDAGOGIC PRACTICE? The extent to which supervision of social science doctoral researchers can be seen as a pedagogic practice or as an integral part of research activity is often context-specific and varies by discipline too. Supervision has many descriptors and definitions. As other researchers have noted (Akerlind and McAlpine, 2017), whilst some supervisors do espouse pedagogies of supervision, these often consist of matters related to training of various kinds (and some of those notions are resisting training). This training emphasis does not always extend to the purposes of the doctorate, such as whether the doctorate is about producing an original piece of work or getting training in how to do research (Akerlind and McAlpine, 2017), an issue raised decades ago by the UK Winfield Report (Winfield, 1987). One classic work on doctoral study that does mention pedagogy (Delamont et al., 2000) successfully focuses on Bernstein’s (1975) weak and strong classification (content focused) and framing (mode of transmission) approach to pedagogy to help examine the doctoral experience. The book itself is a powerful anthropological account of doctoral study from the perspective of doctoral candidates and it is hard to think of any contemporary study which approaches the depth of understanding how doctoral education is experienced from the candidate perspective. It is not clear if supervisors think of what they do as a form of pedagogy. Yet, much has been written about it (Lee, 2018; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018) and the different frameworks used to explain the process. One of the earliest is Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956) which proposed a scheme to classify learning outcomes and educational goals. The six categories in the cognitive domain include: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and application. As supervision is often more than just cognitive activity, however, the later development of the affective domain (Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia, 1964) is very relevant. This taxonomy and the two-dimensional revision which emerged later (Krathwohl, 2002) could be seen as the pedagogical basis for many supervisors. A View from Sally’s Experience My first doctoral researcher arrived not long after I completed my own PhD. In the early 1990s we were still expected to supervise on our own. For a new supervisor this was a somewhat daunting task. And I was always so grateful of the support and encouragement I received from more experienced others. Long before I knew of Lee’s work, in my first session with a new doctoral researcher, we would discuss the kind of supervisor that they thought they wanted or needed. For example, was I supposed to chase them for work, or sit back and wait for them to come to me? Or how often did they want to meet and what did they expect to happen in those meetings? Or even how did they measure progress? In practice these techniques were implicitly using aspects of Lee’s framework to guide the new doctoral researcher to consider

354  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods how they hoped to manage and survive the doctoral experience. Many supervisor training programmes like those used in many parts of Europe and the UK draw on Lee’s framework. I have used the framework with Lee and others in supervisor workshops we have run in Bristol and Bergen. Indeed, many institutions in Norway have instituted supervisor training programmes to address the ongoing issue of low completion rates. A particular strength in these workshops is that the framework provided participants an opportunity to share and reflect and begin to have open conversations about what works and what is helpful. This is particularly useful in sessions with supervisors and doctoral researchers discussing together. A good supervisor will have a very broad range of methods and methodologies to draw on. Though, while as a supervisor, I hoped the doctoral researchers I worked with would use theoretical positions, methodologies, and methods I felt most competent to use: it rarely worked that way. Each doctoral researcher would arrive with ideas that then inevitably changed and developed over the course of their studies. As supervisors it is critical that we understand and can use other than our preferred theoretical positions – this will help us make better sense of our own position but also to build understanding and respect for others. My work with doctoral researchers from a wide range of cultures highlights this perfectly. My role was to support them in the directions they chose to go, questioning and helping to link their ideas with their emerging projects; to be able to hold the big picture in place while the doctoral researcher focussed on one element. In this way asking questions to support them to link elements together and keep a handle on how things developed. Ultimately, the decisions taken and the positions held were those of the doctoral researcher while I ensured that the final dissertation was a coherent whole with decisions, rationales, and processes clearly presented. In social sciences in the UK, team rather than individual supervision began with the changing requirements for doctoral researchers to have two named supervisors in the late 1990s and has remained in place as guidance (QAA, 2018). The massification of doctoral education put pressure on supervisors to develop new and more efficient ways of supervising greater numbers of doctoral researchers. My experience of doing this coincided with our introduction of a reading group within the Learning, Teaching with Interactive Technologies Research Centre (LKIT). Staff led a group of doctoral researchers from a range of cultures (Singapore, Chile, Brazil, UK, Italy) and from a variety of disciplines (mathematics, engineering, economics, TESOL). Initially, academic staff chose the readings – usually key sociocultural readings. The discussions we had on the readings were the most exciting I have ever attended. Cultural and disciplinary differences forced all of us to look much more closely at our own understandings and to modify them in many different basic ways. As a supervisor the discussions between doctoral researchers moved the depth and breadth of the group’s thinking forward. My own doctoral researchers would often remind me of discussions or positions taken by their colleagues and how this related to their own work. The resulting dissertations included some of the most thoughtful literature reviews I have ever had the privilege to read. But team or group supervision is much more than a reading group. In our group supervisions, we often had in-depth discussions of the methods and methodologies used and what alternatives we might have considered. The phrasing of individuals’ research questions and the implications on methods was always very interesting. There were, at times, heated discussions based on people’s individual preferences for using different techniques. One key issue was how to convince others that the results would be meaningful, given the range of cultures and the preferences for using certain techniques. Everyone contributed and learned from each

An analysis of doctoral supervision as pedagogic practice   355 other. We all learned so much about each other, ways of thinking, the practical issues concerning the different cultures and disciplines each was working in. Full-time doctoral researchers typically moved their projects along on a steady trajectory. They couldn’t afford to stop and start. For the part-time doctoral researchers, their projects typically went in a start and stop fashion. It was often difficult for these doctoral researchers to pick up where they last left off. Rather they often went back a few steps, getting back in gear but often changing direction. My experience is that part-timers tended to make major changes throughout their doctoral studies, whereas the full-timers did not. The resulting dissertations were no better or worse but they were very different. As a supervisor, my role was to support all my students to stay on track, keep them motivated and to feel valued at every step of the way. As a good socioculturalist I know I learn through interaction. That meant, with doctoral researchers, I would ask lots of questions, on every level. It meant always looking for coherence between the methods being employed and the research questions, methodology, results, interpretations. This is what Krathwohl’s (1998) chain of reasoning is all about. How every bit of a piece of research links to every other bit. To be a coherent whole there must be a clear logical flow. This helps both of us to better understand what the doctoral researcher was trying to produce and what the doctoral researcher meant by the words they chose to use. It also meant, gentle pushing or challenging to get the doctoral researcher to reflect on what they were wanting and to move to a deeper level, but also knowing when that was not the right thing to do. A View from Rosemary’s Experience Many research degree supervisors are probably unaware, even today, of the fast-growing literature on doctoral supervision (Denicolo, 2017; Gray and Crosta, 2018; Lee, 2018; Maguire et al., 2018; UK Council for Graduate Education, 2021; van den Hoven and Connell, 2016) and thus do not benefit from work typically written by those who are both supervisors and research educators. I remember when participating in an international evaluation of doctoral schemes in 2018 that the chair of the exercise was totally dismissive of my mention of research literature on supervision (they did not know there was any) and any idea that supervisor development might contribute to high quality supervision. This is not an unusual reaction and ideas about pedagogy in supervision, where they exist, are often implicit and often are not developed or much discussed. Supervision can at times be almost secretive, a form of magic with little or no development of supervisory skills and expertise, or so informal that it is barely visible; the assumption being that only other supervisors in that discipline and in that university can possibly pass on any knowledge about the art of supervising. On the other hand, collective events do happen sometimes and supervision is no longer just sitting in an office for an hour or so. At the Open University we took doctoral researchers to workshops and events where they and supervisors presented together or we taught doctoral researchers at great mini-summer schools, although in the 1980s sessions on managing your supervisor weren’t as popular as they became later. At Lancaster in the 1990s we held regular meetings of doctoral researchers and supervisors in Women’s Studies, where some doctoral researchers were surprised to learn that not everyone enjoyed supervising. We also used to go for a termly countryside walk with staff and

356  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods doctoral researchers, finishing with lunch or tea (non-walkers joining us for that). This went well beyond going out for an occasional meal with groups of doctoral researchers that was much more common at Bristol. Other support for doctoral researchers in general varies from almost nothing to a high level of research methods training, real attention to mental health and wellbeing (Levecque et al., 2017) and an inclusive research culture. There are, of course, also some other organisations that promote such dialogues, including national bodies like the UK Council for Graduate Education and the European Universities Association Council for Doctoral Education, but they tend to attract the converted, not the resistors.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS IN DOCTORAL SUPERVISION ACTIVITIES? A View from Sally’s Experience For me there are key differences between teaching a research methods unit and supervising a doctoral researcher. When teaching there is a set curriculum to get through and the focus is on specific techniques and procedures. The teacher largely determines what and how material is presented and how it will be used. The examples, typically come from the teacher. Supervision of doctoral researchers has a very different flow. The iterative process of trying out ideas and techniques is all based on the doctoral researchers’ ideas. They control the session. The role of the supervisor is much more to support them to think, ask questions and come to decisions based on a range of information. Yes, they need to know and understand how to use specific research methods. In my experience of teaching quantitative research methods, for example, doctoral researchers need to learn the basics of statistics, so they can make decisions based on knowledge and determine what is most appropriate for their research questions, data, and so on. In this way they can ensure their methodologies and methods align. This is very different from working with a statistics class where you try to instil the techniques and requirements for each statistical technique. In my ten years as Director of the ESRC SouthWest Doctoral Training Partnership (SWDTP), one of the most difficult tasks was to ensure all doctoral researchers in the social sciences, regardless of funding, completed basic research methods training at their home institutions. In some disciplines this was commonplace and happened seamlessly. In other disciplines there was pushback from supervisors and doctoral researchers on why they needed to take research methods classes at all. Very quantitative pathways objected to being required to learn about qualitative techniques; very qualitative pathways objected to learning quantitative techniques. Another difficult task was to manage the supervision of our interdisciplinary doctoral researchers. One goal of the SWDTP was to promote cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary working of academic staff. One way to do this was to require interdisciplinary doctoral researchers to have supervisors from different disciplines and different institutions. The supervisory team had to work quite hard to develop ways of working to support the doctoral researcher, ensuring all disciplines were incorporated into the research project. The cultures within institutions, and disciplines within them clearly had very different views of doctoral research methods training, and the role of supervision for doctoral researchers.

An analysis of doctoral supervision as pedagogic practice   357 A View from Rosemary’s Experience My experiences of supervision and teaching research methods are somewhat different to those of Sally, in that I have worked in several different UK higher education institutions and in different social science fields teaching qualitative methods. This provides a broad perspective on supervision and research cultures. Supervision for me has generally been closer to a research activity than a teaching activity. Indeed, in the days when England’s public higher education funding came from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, now superseded by the Office for Students (Shattock and Hovarth, 2020), doctoral education was initially categorised with year one being teaching-related and subsequent years as research-related. It then changed to all years being research-related, which will have affected institutional perspectives as well as supervisor views about what supervision entails and how it is defined. In some other European countries, it is more common that doctoral researchers are staff not students and are working on supervisor-driven projects not only in STEM fields (which is also common in the UK) but in the social sciences and arts/humanities too. Summer schools and special conferences for doctoral researchers are now also popular in Europe, run both by universities and learned societies and may be a good way of easing the transition to attending mainstream conferences and events. There are also bodies like EuroDoc, which is an international organisation based on a federation of national institutions for doctoral researchers and other early career researchers in EU and European Council countries, which offers training and online events. As Sally has noted, in the field of Education Studies it is common to recruit doctoral researchers with varied subject backgrounds, often with no previous knowledge experience of social sciences. My initial 1980s’ supervisees were mostly a mix of former school Physical Education teachers and Further Education teachers, most studying some aspect of gender and education in schools or gender and leisure, which was my main field of research at that time. All of them were women resident in the UK (in the 1980s the Open University did not have international students), and most were feminists but not necessarily that familiar with feminist academic literature. Most of my supervisees had some social science background and were all studying full-time, with external funding. In the 1990s at Lancaster, my supervision extended to supervising UK and international full- and part-time doctoral candidates in the Department of Educational Research. Some of the part-time doctoral researchers were academics, school teachers or education managers and other professionals enrolled on the part-time PhD in higher education, a programme which also had extensive course work prior to the (shorter) thesis. I also supervised some doctoral researchers based in Women’s Studies who mostly had some social science knowledge already. From 1996 onwards, I started to focus more on higher education rather than schools in my own research. At Bristol in the 2000s, my supervisees were school teachers or academics, some being international students in the UK for the first time, and with a split between PhDs and EdDs. Other Bristol supervisees were based in Hong Kong, where we ran an EdD part-time programme which I supervised on but did not teach, an interesting experience when email and the occasional phone call was mostly the only way to keep in contact, though colleagues who taught in Hong Kong were willing to hold short meetings with any doctoral researchers who were struggling. On moving to a senior management role at Royal Holloway in 2009, I continued to supervise some doctoral candidates I kept on from Bristol and a new candidate from the University of Gloucestershire.

358  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods When I first started doctoral supervision in the late 1970s, many candidates were supervised by just one supervisor. Fortuitously, however, my initial supervisions were a mix of solo supervision and group supervision, which was very helpful as someone new to the practice of supervision. Over my career, I have supervised more PGRs jointly than as a solo supervisor and prefer the former mode. Some of my Bristol solo supervised students from the EdD were based in Hong Kong and I never met them face-to-face. I was, however, already familiar with distance education of all kinds from my Open University experience. Distance supervision was much harder work than it would be today, without any affordable video-call software widely available (hence reliance on emails or phone calls) and it was particularly hard if a supervisee stopped communicating. It is, nevertheless, important to remember that remote solo and joint supervision existed long before the Covid-19 pandemic introduced it to many full-time doctoral researchers, who joined many part-timers already used to elements of it prior to the pandemic. My 1990s’ Lancaster supervisees were mostly jointly supervised with the other supervisors from different departments. I was always acutely aware of how supervision approaches had to be adapted for each individual candidate, whether the meetings consisted of both supervisors together or not. I also undertook some group supervision when I was at Lancaster (for the PhD in Higher Education). This was very productive and in student groups we had some great discussions about all kinds of issues, from literature and research ethics to writing, but this was in addition to standard supervisions. In general, joint supervision of whatever kind provides a richer environment for doctoral researchers. It also provides continuity of supervision, which can be an issue in solo-supervised doctorates for a variety of reasons, from personality clashes or radical change of thesis topic to supervisor illness or retirement. However, as researchers have noted, there are also downsides to co-supervision, including co-supervisors having different conceptions of how to feed back to their doctoral researchers and the degree of sensitivity that may be needed (Olmos-Lopez and Sunderland, 2016). There may also be academic disagreements between supervisors, which can be fruitful or anxiety-raising for the supervisee, or indeed both. Solo and joint supervision both amount to a good deal more than forms of pedagogy, since these practices also involve many elements of research practice; this is one of the reasons why supervision can be regarded as a highly skilled activity though it has no syllabus or learning outcomes. In the UK there has been considerable growth of institutional support for supervisors over several decades, particularly since the 1990s. This started with the Winfield Report (Winfield, 1987) on social science PhDs, which tried to put more emphasis on timely thesis completion and seeing doctoral research not just as a knowledge-related activity but also as a training process. The report had considerable influence over the future provision of doctoral education and supervision. Since then many institutional programmes for supervisors have been developed, with organisations like VITAE and UK Council for Graduate Education (established in 1994) offering national events and workshops. UKCGE has much more recently developed a scheme for accreditation of supervisors skills. The rest of Europe came much later to supervisor support and even now it is rarely compulsory (Hasgall et al., 2019).

An analysis of doctoral supervision as pedagogic practice   359

RE-CONCEPTUALISING DOCTORAL SUPERVISION AND DEVELOPING DOCTORAL RESEARCHER AGENCY Supervision is a complex activity which can be both enjoyable and challenging at the same and different times. As noted earlier in the chapter, the mix of skills and knowledge that new supervisees come with is variable. A number of supervisees regard research methods training as a distraction from getting on with their thesis and want to start collecting data even before they have clarified their research questions or read much literature. Others are enticed to attend every training session there is, whether required or not, which can also have its challenges. Some see year one as a nice easy time, meeting people and reading a few articles. So how do we best prepare doctoral students for what lies ahead? Lee’s (2020) enculturation, critical thinking, enabling emancipation, creating a relationship and supporting careers and academic writing, are all important features (Lee, 2020) that we recognise and build into supervision sessions. Dowle’s (2020) work on how to improve thesis completion involved interviews with key stakeholders in different disciplines and the use of the ‘rivers of experience’ technique (Denicolo and Pope, 2001; Pope and Denicolo, 1990). The latter encourages respondents to draw a river-shaped picture in which critical events are highlighted. Dowle focuses on rivers of experience of doctoral research journeys at one research-intensive UK university. Some of Dowle’s (2020) recommendations for supervisors (see pp. 257–261) include activities which are common in supervision regimes already. Using constructive questioning to discuss decisions (e.g. ‘What did you like about X’s paper?’), if framed supportively and adapted to the doctoral researcher’s thesis stage, can be very effective in helping them to justify what they are doing, not just to supervisors but others too (examiners, conference organisers, journal editors). A second recommendation, requesting regular writing, is a standard supervision technique that can be adapted to the stage of study – initial efforts may summarise a couple of papers or a first attempt at a theoretical framework, whilst for those in the final year, a draft chapter or two will be more usual. Regular writing helps with progress reviews, allows supervisors to give help with academic writing if needed or to suggest doctoral researchers attend an academic writing workshop or writing retreat, and reminds the researcher that the final aim is a monograph or several articles. A third recommendation, talking about what feedback itself is and how it might be done, is perhaps less common. Feedback style needs broaching early on in the supervisor/supervisee relationship, so all parties are clear what is expected and can agree deadlines for feedback on different types of writing, whilst being aware that receiving delayed feedback can be traumatic for some doctoral researchers. The form and style of feedback is also important, as is a reminder to the researcher not to take comments on their work personally. Not every student appreciates track changes or extensive written comments all over their work and some have a preference for feedback given orally at a supervision, although a post-supervision check is then advisable to ensure that what the supervisee took home from the meeting was broadly what was intended by the supervisor(s). Some supervisees react to critical feedback by blaming their supervisors rather than seeing it as a chance to improve their work. This can be very tricky to deal with. Dowle (2020) also emphasises the importance of supervisors responding to any critical events that supervisees advise them about. This can cover everything from illness, bereave-

360  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ment or pregnancy, to a sudden anxiety about writing. Sometimes it can be traumatic for the supervisor(s) as well as the supervisee. Critical events can be personal or thesis-related and inevitably impact on research experience and design. Rosemary recalls one supervisor asking if they were obliged to allow a doctoral researcher to take leave for the birth of their baby, as it was disruptive of the research, and a part-time doctoral researcher not wanting to take any leave before and after their children were born. Some critical events are positive – such as a conference paper or article accepted – and here it is important that supervisors can offer praise and congratulations rather than dismissing such achievements as unremarkable. Praise costs nothing and has a good effect on its recipients but is not much used in academic contexts. Celebration of success is a sign of a supportive research culture, which does not always exist for early career or other researchers (Moran and Wild, 2019) and is a longstanding issue for doctoral researchers (Deem and Brehony, 2000b). In addition, it is worth remembering Dowle’s (2020) argument about the importance of supervisors developing doctoral researchers’ sense of agency over their thesis. This matters because otherwise there is a danger that doctoral researchers will remain dependent on their supervisors throughout their studies. This can be a particular problem for international doctoral researchers working in an unfamiliar language and also those coming from higher education cultures where teachers and supervisors are seen as the font of all wisdom (Shen et al., 2017; Ye and Viv, 2015). To summarise, while social science doctoral supervision has a number of pedagogic elements and from some perspectives, also key competences (Taylor and Clegg, 2001), there is a good deal more involved than in standard higher education teaching, from developing research skills or explaining how to complete ethical approval forms, to encouragement of doctoral researcher work/life balance and explaining about open science. There is no complete curriculum for supervising, not even the VITAE research development framework (VITAE, 2009–2018) and the assessment of doctoral degrees comes right at the end of the process rather than being staggered, except in professional doctorates. Supervising also isn’t like most higher education classroom teaching in that each individual doctoral researcher needs a bespoke approach to their supervision.

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODS IN DOCTORAL SUPERVISION ACTIVITIES The issue of the relationship between research methods and supervision is a significant issue in the social sciences (as well as in some other disciplines) and tensions between the two have increased in recent decades as more systematic research methods teaching has become widespread in Europe, as in the UK from the early 1990s (Burgess, 1997; Burgess et al., 1994) following the Winfield Report (Winfield, 1987). Training concerns, including transversal skills and quantitative methods, are still a cause for debate in the UK as a recent Economic and Social Research Council report on the Doctorate indicated (Tazzyman et al., 2021). Training matters were also an issue for European HEIs in the 2019 EUA Council for Doctoral Education survey of member institutions showed: Concerning doctoral training activities, there was a clear focus on research competence training, albeit complemented by significant attention to transferable skills training. Dominating doctoral education are training activities focused on specific research competencies (e.g. advanced methods, up-to-date data knowledge, new techniques) (97%, with 75% finding it ‘extremely important’ and

An analysis of doctoral supervision as pedagogic practice   361 22% ‘important’) and generic academic competencies, which are not discipline-specific (e.g. grant writing, publishing, ethics) (82%, with 35% finding it ‘extremely important’ and 47% ‘important’) (Hasgall et al., 2019, p. 15).

Of course, informal training in methods can and does take place during supervision itself and in relation to very specific techniques. This can be helpful, especially if one supervisor has experience of using those techniques. However, this is not necessarily always an effective way of developing research methods skills and it also assumes that all supervisors possess the necessary expertise to provide this informal support. As Sally pointed out, not all supervisees necessarily end up using techniques that their supervisors are very familiar with, even if it looked that way when they enrolled. Some doctoral researchers using novel techniques may be teaching their supervisors. Some supervisors may put pressure on supervisees to adopt methods the supervisory team are familiar with, which can lead to all kinds of other problems, including doctoral researcher resentment. The resistance by supervisors to formal methods training for doctoral researchers typically takes more than one form. Firstly, some supervisors have a ‘learn only if you need to do so’ approach to research methods for doctoral researchers, which implies that the latter being taught something they will definitely need for their research is fine but that any attempt to build a wider skills base is neither appropriate nor feasible. Secondly, some supervisors see formal methods training as a form of taking their supervisees away from them and resent this, often by discouraging their doctoral researchers from attending training. Thirdly, supervisors may have no objection to methods training but oppose formal assessment of methods training, though the grounds for that are not obvious. Fourthly, some object to what they see as over-technicalisation, for example using software to analyse qualitative data rather than doing this manually, even though the principles of analysis are the same in both cases and hence equally useful to software and hand-crafted data analysis. Doctoral researchers may also have concerns about methods teaching, which some may think gets in the way of doing their research project and others, while agreeing it can be useful, consider it simply takes too much time (though supervisors need to advise otherwise if this comes up). There is, nevertheless, some truth in the latter point, as in the UK for instance, some funded students have a whole year specially devoted to methods and three years to write the thesis, while others are expected to fit methods tuition into three years of full-time thesis work. Nevertheless, supportive supervisors should encourage formal methods training. There is an interesting dimension to this. The experience at Bristol in the 2000s was that making the research methods programme for social science PGRs into a formal postgraduate award much enhanced its value amongst students, particularly as something to show to potential employers. However, some self-funded part-time students may see their research as a hobby (Collinson and Hockey, 1997) rather than as a career route and hence regard research skills beyond their own thesis needs as irrelevant, whilst others struggle to find the time and money to attend campus-based methods training. Remote research methods training during the pandemic may have been an easier route for some part-time students than face-to-face tuition, even though the pandemic has also caused many problems for doctoral researchers (Deem, 2021e; Else, 2021; European University Association Council for Doctoral Education, 2020; Jackman et al., 2022; Jung et al., 2020; Le, 2021). Some research students only want to study certain kinds of research methods: some favour quantitative only and regard qualitative methods as a way of introducing bias into research

362  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods data (Roulston and Shelton, 2015); others are happy to study qualitative methods but are scared of studying statistics or regard anything quantitative as positivism and want to stay well away. Not all doctoral researchers see learning qualitative methods as a cumulative process in which expertise is built over time. Rosemary has experienced doctoral researchers who think they do not need to learn anything more about interviewing as they interviewed a few people in their Master’s projects and are now experts; they are puzzled by needing to undertake a new set of interviews and further learning. There are several problems arising from resistance to research methods learning, whether it arises from doctoral researchers or from supervisors. Firstly, lack of such expert teaching can damage the thesis (possibly enough to require resubmission) and can adversely affect the future careers of those doctoral researchers who resist. It is highly unlikely that most social science supervisory teams between them will have enough methods expertise to provide all the necessary tuition for their supervisees and the worry is that some will not provide it at all. If they do not, a key dimension of supervision is absent. While teaching research methods requires a curriculum and learning objectives, those are not likely to exist in a supervision. The second problem is the danger that some supervisors who resist research methods training for their supervisees do not offer much, if any, informal teaching of it either. The third problem is that those supervisors who fail to engage in methods teaching, either in supervisions or in formal classes, may also make very problematic external examiners for other doctoral candidates. Thus, the ideal is that learning about research methods takes place both in formal classes and workshops and in supervision sessions, as well as in learned society workshops and at conferences and other such events. Doctoral researchers can also pass on their own experience, especially of new and innovative techniques, to other doctoral researchers in informal settings. Collaborative doctoral networks of whatever kind, whether national or international, can also provide very good contexts for enhanced learning about research methods (Deem et al., 2015), though these are not without their challenges too.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY We are not aware of any recent data or studies of whether European social science supervisors specifically think of doctoral supervision as pedagogy. Nevertheless, even if it were the case that regarding supervision as a pedagogy was a minority view, it does not mean supervision is necessarily neglected or seen as unimportant. The EU Salzburg Principles for doctoral research first set out in 2005 (European Universities Association, 2005) underlined the significance of supervision for doctoral education and this was reinforced in 2010 by an updated set of Salzburg II Principles (European Universities Association, 2010 ) and again in 2016 (EUA). A recent UK supervisor survey (UK Council for Graduate Education, 2021) found 91 percent enjoyed supervising and 82 percent thought their own research benefitted from it, with 85 percent also saying basic supervisory training is widely available. However, a European-wide HEI survey (Hasgall et al., 2019) suggested that whilst supervision protocols are common, only 43 percent of HEIs responding even had voluntary supervisor training. It is likely that the complexity of supervision practice is appreciated by supervisors, typically including knowledge and cognitive elements mentioned by Krathwohl’s (2002) taxonomy, though Dowle’s (2020) ideas about supervisors consciously developing different aspects

An analysis of doctoral supervision as pedagogic practice   363 of candidate-agency may be less widespread. However, supervisor resistance to research methods teaching remains problematic as it can affect the supervision process and the final thesis. UK supervision has become increasingly team-based (UKCGE, 2021) but this is less common in Europe, at 43 percent (Hasgall et al., 2019). The second question ‘What is the role of social research methods in doctoral supervision activities?’ is heavily bound up with question one. We suggest that research methods are really important in social science supervision, particularly in data-collection phases but much depends on supervisory knowledge and commitment. Changes of supervisor or disagreements within supervisory teams can cause tensions if candidates are using a methodology that not all supervisor(s) support. During the pandemic, supervision and research training became remote for considerable time-periods, with candidates often adopting new research methods, extending their study or changing their topics, with local and national regulations often hampering this (EUA CDE, 2020). We suggest that universities could improve support for supervisors and emphasise the importance of good supervision, be more sensitive to doctoral candidate work-life balance and use of time, encourage understanding of inclusivity and promote the importance of emphasising agency, and further integrate the formal and informal teaching of research methods.

REFERENCES Akerlind, G. and McAlpine, L. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: Variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1686–1698. Burgess, R. G. (1997). The changing context of postgraduate education in the United Kingdom. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Beyond the First Degree: Graduate Education, Lifelong Learning and Careers (pp. 3–18). Buckingham, UK, Open University Press. Burgess, R. G., Pole, C. and Hockey, J. (1994). Strategies for managing and supervising the social science PhD. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Postgraduate Education and Training in the Social Sciences (pp. 13–33). London, Jessica Kingsley. Collinson, J. and Hockey, J. (1997). The social science training-model doctorate: Student choice? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 21(3), 373–381. Deem, R. (2021, 28 May). (How) will Covid-19 change doctoral education? A critical appraisal. Society for Research into Higher Education Postgraduate Issues Network seminar series: ‘The Post-Pandemic Doctorate, Opportunities for Revitalisation of Theory and Practice: Re-Designing the Doctorate for the New Era of Global Online Higher Education’, Online, UK. Deem, R. (2022). On doctoral (in)visibility and reframing the doctorate for the 21st century. European Journal of Higher Education, 12(4), 373–392. https://​doi​.org/​https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​21568235​.2022​ .2105370 Deem, R. and Brehony, K. J. (2000b). Doctoral students’ access to research cultures: Are some more equal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–165. Deem, R., Barnes, S. and Clarke, G. (2015). Social science doctoral training policies and institutional responses: Three narrative perspectives on recent developments in and consequences of the UK transition to collaborative doctoral training. In E. Reale and E. Primeri (Eds.), Universities in Transition: Shifting Institutional and Organisational Boundaries (pp. 137–162). Rotterdam, Sense Publishers. Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. and Parry, O. (2000). The Doctoral Experience: Success and Failure in Graduate School. Tarragona, Spain, Falmer. Denicolo, P. (2017). Doctoral supervision reflections, perspectives and anticipations. In M. Reguero, J. J. Carvajal, M. E. Garcia and M. Valverde (Eds.), Good Practices in Doctoral Supervision: Reflections from the Tarragona Think (pp. 13–42). Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV) https://​doi​.org/​10​.17345/​ 9788484246534

364  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Denicolo, P. and Pope, M. (2001). Transformative Professional Practice: Personal Construct Approaches to Education and Research. London and Thousand Oaks, CA, Whurr. Dowle, S. (2020). Retheorising doctoral completions: Exploring the role of critical events, structure and agency [Royal Holloway, University of London]. Unpublished PhD thesis. Else, H. (2021 ). Sleeplessness and anxiety: PhD supervisors on toll of COVID pandemic. Nature News Issue. https://​www​.nature​.com/​articles/​d41586​-021​-03374​-w European Universities Association (2005). Salzburg Principles. https://​eua​.eu/​resources/​publications/​ 626:​salzburg​-2005​-–​-conclusions​-and​-recommendations​.html European Universities Association (2010). Salzburg II Principles E.U. Association. https://​ eua​.eu/​ downloads/​publications/​salzburg ii recommendations 2010.pdf European University Association Council for Doctoral Education (2020). The new balance. Insights from EUA-CDE online sessions on doctoral education and the coronavirus crisis. Online sessions report. https://​eua​-cde​.org/​downloads/​publications/​cde​-the new balance-online sessions-jun-20_report.pdf Gray, M. and Crosta, L. (2018). New perspectives in online doctoral supervision: A systematic literature review. Studies in Continuing Education, 41(2), 173–190. Hasgall, A., Saenen, B. and Borrell-Damian, L. (2019). Survey: Doctoral Education in Europe Today: Approaches and Institutional Structures. https://​eua​.eu/​downloads/​publications/​online eua cde survey 16.01.2019.pdf Jackman, P., Sanderson, R., Haughey, T., Brett, C., White, N., Zile, A., Tyrrell, K. and Byrom, N. (2022). The impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown in the UK for doctoral and early career researchers. Higher Education, 84, 705–722. Jung, J., Horta, H. and Postiglione, G. (2020). Living in uncertainty: The COVID-19 pandemic and higher education in Hong Kong. Studies in Higher Education, 46(1), 107–120. Le, A. T. (2021). Support for doctoral candidates in Australia during the pandemic: The case of the University of Melbourne. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 133–145. Lee, A. (2018). How can we develop supervisors for the modern doctorate? Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 878–890. Lee, A. (2020). Successful Research Supervision: Advising Students Doing Research (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Routledge. Levecque, K., Anseela, F., De Beuckelaerd, A., Van der Heyden, J. and Gislef, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46, 868–879. Maguire, K., Prodie, E. and Gibbs, P. (2018). Minding the gap in doctoral supervision for a contemporary world: A case from Italy. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 867–877. Moran, H. and Wild, L. (2019). Research Culture | Opinions Research | Qualitative Report Wellcome Trust. https://​wellcome​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​what​-researchers​-think​-about​-the​-culture​-they​-work​-in​ -qualitative​-research​.pdf Nerad, M., Peters, C., Scholz, B., Kohl, U., O’Carroll, C. and Bogle, D. (2019 ). Forces and Forms of Doctoral Education: Hannover Recommendations 2019. https://​www​.doctoral​-education​.info/​dl/​ Hannover​-Recommendations​-DocEd​-2019​.pdf Nind, M., Holmes, M., Insenga, M., Lewthwaite, S. and Sutton, C. (2020 ). Student perspectives on learning research methods in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(7), 797–811. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018a). Hard to teach: Inclusive pedagogy in social science research methods education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1), 74–88. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018b). Methods that teach: developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 41(4), 398–410. Olmos-Lopez, P. and Sunderland, J. (2016). Doctoral supervisors’ and supervisees’ responses to co-supervision. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(6), 727–740. Pope, M. and Denicolo, P. (1990). Adults learning – Teachers thinking. In C. Day, M. Pope and P. Denicolo (Eds.), Insights into Teachers’ Thinking and Practice. London, Routledge. Roulston, K. and Shelton, S. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods. Qualitative Enquiry, 21(4), 332–342. Roy, R. and Uekusa, S. (2020). Collaborative autoethnography: ‘Self-reflection’ as a timely alternative research approach during the global pandemic. Qualitative Research Journal, 20(4), 383–392. Shattock, M. and Hovarth, A. (2020). The Governance of British Higher Education. London, Bloomsbury Academic.

An analysis of doctoral supervision as pedagogic practice   365 Shen, W., Liu, D. and Chen, H. (2017). Chinese PhD. students on exchange in European Union countries: Experiences and benefits. European Journal of Higher Education, 7(3), 322–335. Taylor, S. and Clegg, K. (2001). Towards a framework for the recognition of good supervisory practice. In A. Lee and R. Bongaart (Eds.), The Future of Doctoral Research (pp. 224–238). London, Routledge. Tazzyman, S., Moreton, R., Wakeling, P. and Stutz, A. (2021). Review of the PhD in the Social Sciences. https://​esrc​.ukri​.org/​files/​skills​-and​-careers/​review​-of​-the​-phd​-in​-the​-social​-sciences/​ UK Council for Graduate Education (2021). UK Research Supervision Survey 2021 Report. http://​www​ .ukcge​.ac​.uk/​uk​-research​-supervision​-survey​.aspx van den Hoven, E. and Connell, J. (2016). Joint doctoral supervision across countries: Changes, challenges and considerations. In P. Blessinger and D. Stockley (Eds.), Emerging Directions in Doctoral Education (Innovations in Higher EducationTeaching and Learning), Volume 6 (pp. 259–280). Bingley, UK, Emerald. VITAE (2009–2018). Researcher Development Framework. Retrieved from https://​www​.vitae​.ac​.uk/​ researchers​-professional​-development/​about​-the​-vitae​-researcher​-development​-framework Winfield, G. (1987). The Social Science PhD: The Economic and Social Research Council Enquiry on Submission Rates. Economic and Social Research Council. Ye, L. and Viv, E. (2015). Chinese overseas doctoral student narratives of intercultural adaptation. Journal of Research in International Education, 14(3), 228–241.

25. Pedagogical approaches in inclusive research Edurne García Iriarte, Maria Pallisera, Judit Fullana, Brian Donohoe, Kathleen McMeel and Marc Crespo

INTRODUCTION Inclusive research, in which people with the label of intellectual disabilities are involved as part of the research team, is increasingly being recognised in the international academic literature and policy arena (O’Brien, 2022). Various approaches to inclusive research have been identified according to the type of collaboration between professional researchers and people who are experts in disability by experience (referred to as “expert researchers” in this chapter). The nature of the collaboration as well as training in inclusive research has been the subject of much debate in the literature. Scant research, however, exists on the pedagogy – the theory and practice of learning – underpinning research methods learning in inclusive research. This chapter, therefore, aims to present an exploration of the pedagogical approaches that facilitate learning about research methods in inclusive research. First, the chapter introduces inclusive research as an emerging inquiry approach and identifies key debates around training. Second, a review of the literature with a focus on key pedagogical approaches and strategies used in inclusive research is presented. Third, we present the results of a process of reflection by expert researchers to understand what facilitates learning in two inclusive research groups. The chapter concludes with key messages about pedagogical approaches in inclusive research and suggestions on how this area can be further explored. The chapter is written by university researchers, the first three authors, and expert researchers, the last three authors. University researchers wrote all sections of the chapter and then shared a draft of key points with the expert researchers for feedback, which was incorporated into the final version. The chapter includes quotes by five expert researchers, three of whom are authors of this chapter, while two decided to be authors of its easy to read version only (García Iriarte et al., 2022). The five expert researchers made choices about authorship and about having their comments identified with their names. All authors are members of the two inclusive research groups analysed in the chapter. Our position writing this chapter is therefore as “insiders” who actively collaborate in research that is relevant to people with the label of intellectual disability and that seek to have a positive impact on their lives.

INCLUSIVE RESEARCH Inclusive research is increasingly being published in renowned academic journals with a focus on disability (e.g., British Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, Disability & Society) and in other more generic areas (e.g., Qualitative Health Research, International Journal of Research and Method in Education) and used by policy makers to advance social policies concerning people with the label of 366

Pedagogical approaches in inclusive research  367 intellectual disability. For example, “Our Homes” report by the Inclusive Research Network (2015) informed Ireland’s housing strategy in 2021 and the Doctors and Us report (Inclusive Research Network, 2019) (see Box 25.1) was used in the development of national guidance for doctors on communication with persons with disabilities in 2021. In their seminal work about inclusive research, Walmsley and Johnson (2003, p. 10) state that inclusive research “embraces a range of research approaches that traditionally have been termed ‘participatory’, ‘action’, or ‘emancipatory’ (…). Such research involves people who may otherwise be seen as subjects for the research as instigators of ideas, research designers, interviewers, data analysts, authors, disseminators, and users”. Important nuances in relation to the social context in which inclusive research is conducted are explicit in a more recent definition: research that contributes to social change and that can be used to advocate for change, that draws from the group’s experience, and that is done by committed researchers that support the people affected by the issues being investigated (Walmsley, Strnadová and Johnson, 2018). The emphasis on social change and context also resonates with Nind (2016) who argues that researchers with the label of intellectual disabilities involved in inclusive research are “part of the context and crucial to it” (p. 34). As such, a range of themes have been explored through inclusive research projects with a particular focus on the rights of persons with the label of intellectual disability (e.g., independent living, relationships) and on their participation in inclusive research processes. Inclusive research is often conducted by a group of people with the label of intellectual disability, professional staff working in social services for people with disabilities, and university or professional researchers. Researchers’ involvement and research ownership in inclusive research varies across the groups undertaking this type of research and across projects by the same group, presenting a range of approaches to inclusive research. Bigby, Frawley and Rachmaran (2014) differentiate three types of collaboration: (1) advisory groups where experts by experience advise university researchers; (2) research led and controlled by expert researchers, where new methods are created from lived experience and skills; and (3) collaborative groups, in which different interests are recognised and respected and new methods emerge as a result of dialogue. What training, if any, is needed to collaborate in inclusive research is discussed in the next section.

INCLUSIVE RESEARCH TRAINING A number of issues are relevant when considering training in inclusive research: research roles, the process of knowledge production, the nature of learning, and empowerment. Firstly, research roles are based on mutual help and collaboration between researchers, who have research knowledge and skills, and those who are experts (in disability) by experience (Alba and Nind, 2020). Secondly, the process of collaborative knowledge production (co-production) is context-based, goal-oriented related to problems or challenges, interactive, and plural (Norström et al., 2020). As an interactive process, it aims for collaboration avoiding tokenism, through iterative and reciprocal learning between researchers and building trust through dialogue. A plural process means that different ways of learning and doing exist in knowledge production, theoretical or practical, valuing diversity (Darby, 2017). Thirdly, the nature of learning is collaborative (co-learning). In co-learning, knowledge is created collaboratively, from which, in turn, researchers gain new insights about them and others (Nolan et al., 2007). Fourthly, inclusive research has the implicit aim of expert researchers’ empowerment

368  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods and advancement in the protection of their rights (Boxall and Beresford, 2013). Empowerment in this sense is intricately related to co-production (transformation) (Needham and Carr, 2009) and to disability activism. People with the label of intellectual disability learn about research, about intellectual disability, about themselves as persons with the lived experience of intellectual disability through practices that democratise research and that contribute to the transformation of people, groups or communities (Fudge Schormans et al., 2020). The conflation of the above issues questions the use of traditional training approaches in inclusive research. As such, Nind, Chapman, Seale and Tilley (2016) question the idea of training researchers with the label of intellectual disability. They argue that training seeks to bring them under a research model that has excluded them and is ignorant of their knowledge, instead of adding their different forms of knowledge to the dialogue (Nind et al., 2016). Nind (2016) defends that in inclusive research, “people with the label of learning disabilities are needed and valued for their insider cultural knowledge or expertise by experience of what it is to be learning disabled” (p. 30). In this sense, Nind et al. (2016) identify that learning that occurs by immersion in the research context, and dialogic learning, learning together and examining each other’s perspectives, are approaches that value the knowledge resulting from the “lived experience” of researchers with the label of intellectual disability. In the immersion and dialogic approaches, new methods are created drawing from people’s genuine skills and knowledge and there is no need to train them in research methods (Nind et al., 2016). In keeping with Nind et al. (2016), Nolan et al. (2007) acknowledge that while there is a need to prepare everyone involved in relation to projects based on user participation in social care research, it is important to reject a traditional model of experts that provide knowledge to “novice” researchers, advocating for a model change that contributes to sharing everyone’s expertise. Nind (2016) provides details about different types of learning involved in inclusive research: (1) skills-based learning related to research (e.g., conducting interviews and data analysis, the research process, ethics, dissemination of findings); (2) methodological knowledge about inclusive research (e.g., what research is); (3) learning about what it means to be an inclusive researcher; (4) interpersonal learning (e.g., new roles, the limitations of research); and (5) problem-solving (e.g., making methods accessible). Whether learning occurs formally as part of research training or informally as part of a collaborative process of learning together and creating new methods, without formal training, little attention has been paid in the literature to the pedagogical approaches involved in inclusive research. Nind argues that informal learning is associated with practical knowledge which is more tacit in nature, and with self-directed learning, which may explain why the learning in inclusive research has not been examined before and remains implicit (Nind, 2016). Following Nind’s recommendation that more attention needs to be paid to informal lifelong learning as a socio-personal process and that the learning that happens as part of inclusive research can take place in learning communities, this chapter explores how learning about research methods is facilitated in inclusive research. To achieve this aim, we present a review of the inclusive research literature and an exploration of pedagogical approaches in practice, by expert researchers who are members of two inclusive research groups.

Pedagogical approaches in inclusive research  369

PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES AND MODELS IN THE INCLUSIVE RESEARCH LITERATURE This section presents the results of a review of the literature exploring pedagogical approaches, that is, the teaching and learning theories and strategies, used to learn about research methods in inclusive research. Finding extensive literature was not foreseen as, more generally, research about the pedagogy of research methods is limited (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018). However, learning about pedagogy may result in important benefits to inclusive researchers. For Nind and Lewthwaite (2018), creating a pedagogic culture is central to developing capacity in research methods. Furthermore, Rix, Hall, Nind, Sheehy and Wearmouth (2009), state that when pedagogical approaches are planned with and made explicit to learners, academic and social inclusion is enhanced in education. We searched Web of Science and Scopus databases using a bolean combination of the key terms: inclusive research, capacity building, pedagogy, teaching strategies, learning strategies, learning skills, research training and intellectual disabilities. Our analysis drew from 14 articles published between 2009 and 2021 reporting on empirical research. Six articles report on processes generally related to learning in inclusive research: support for co-investigators (Bigby and Frawley, 2010), collaboration (Bigby, Frawley and Ramcharan, 2014), competencies (Embregts et al., 2018), the meaning of being a researcher (Flood et al., 2013), research strategies and tools (Rojas and Haya, 2020), and links with advocacy (Johnson, 2009). Eight articles focus specifically on training. Four of them present the results of training evaluations of two research training programmes for people with intellectual disability experience: the Research Active Programme (Carey, Salmon and Higgins, 2014; Salmon, Carey and Hunt, 2014, Salmon, García Iriarte and Burns, 2017); and Learning How to do Research (Tuffrey-Wijne et al., 2020); two articles discuss training programmes for research teams, including people with and without disability experience (Sergeant et al., 2021; Strnadová, Cumming and Knox, 2014). One article reports on an inclusive research project to inquire about training needs (Morgan, Moni and Cuskelly, 2015) while another by Cumming, Strnadová, Knox and Parmenter (2014) explores to what extent mobile technologies can facilitate inclusive research processes through a training course. Papers not adopting an inclusive research approach were excluded. In an effort to better inform our review, we also drew, where relevant, from the related field of inclusive education (Nind, 2016). It is important to note, when discussing pedagogical approaches in inclusive research, that the traditional dyad of “teachers and learners” may not be relevant and this is replaced by a group that collaborates in the creation of knowledge, or as Nind (2016) puts it, where the teacher is the experience, as people learn together through their engagement in research. As we had anticipated, the review of the inclusive research literature revealed a lack of explicit references to teaching and learning theories. Pedagogical approaches were instead implicitly referred to and scarcely reported as part of the research approach in the articles reviewed. However, based on the narratives of the experiences, we identified three main pedagogical models or orientations that underlie the learning processes developed in inclusive research experiences: collaborative learning, dialogical learning, learning by doing and an applied framework, universal design for learning (UDL). These are not mutually exclusive approaches and some of the experiences incorporate elements from more than one of them. Although not specifically referred to in the inclusive research literature reviewed, collabora-

370  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods tive learning, dialogical learning, and learning by doing are associated with social constructivism, which we briefly introduce next. Constructivism as an educational theory understands knowledge as being actively constructed by the individual, and mediated by the individual’s experiences (Narayan et al., 2013). Social constructivism, by extension, emphasises the social nature of learning (Narayan et al., 2013). According to Vygotsky, who is considered the father of social constructivism (Churcher, Downs and Twyksbury, 2014), knowledge is constructed through dialogue and interaction with others (Vygotsky, 1978). In Knoblauch’s (2019) words, a social constructivist perspective understands that “knowledge is an essential part of any social action” (p. 325). A social constructivist approach points at the central role of language and social interaction (Narayan et al., 2013; Sheehy, Budiyanto and Rofiah, 2017) and critical reflection (Narayan et al., 2013) to facilitate learning. Collaborative Learning Collaborative learning occurs when a group of persons complete a task by helping each other through the process (Moore et al., 2020) and by developing, comparing and understanding multiple perspectives to establish “consensual meanings” (Karagiorgi and Symou, 2005, p. 20). Collaboration allows tasks to be shared among group members without the need for individuals to have to be specifically trained to perform certain tasks. Several articles reported on collaborative strategies to develop inclusive research projects. The research by Bigby et al. (2014) on the collaborative group approach departs from the mutual recognition of the abilities of each member: some had research skills and others had the experience and knowledge about their lives and trajectories. For Rojas and Haya (2020), the production of knowledge was the result of joint actions and of promoting conditions that would ensure equity in relationships and collaborative research. Promoting collaborative actions among researchers with the label of disability is indicated as a training strategy in some experiences (Carey, Salmon and Higgins, 2014; Salmon, García Iriarte and Burns, 2017; Sergeant et al., 2021; Strnadová et al., 2014). As an example, in the Research Active Programme, an inclusive research training programme (Carey et al., 2014), pairs were formed to help each other in working with the computer. Experiences such as those reported by Morgan, Moni and Cuskelly (2015) show that people with disability experience can help their peers to learn about research, although strategies such as peer-mentoring have not worked in all cases. For example, in the research by Strnadová et al. (2014) in relation to skills training and team building, some expert researchers felt more comfortable talking with researchers without disability experience. Building a relationship of trust constitutes the basis of collaborative learning, underlining its interpersonal and social dimension. In the research by Carey et al. (2014), dedicating rest spaces for coffee breaks is indicated as an opportunity to build group relationships. Dialogical Learning Closely related to collaborative methodologies are dialogical learning approaches. Dialogic practice is related to Freire’s (2003) concept of emancipation, where dialogue establishes egalitarian communication and builds cooperative educational processes in which social interactions are built between participants. In this way, dialogue establishes an alternative path to the dominant thinking to enable people’s emancipation (Lucio-Villegas, 2015). In

Pedagogical approaches in inclusive research  371 the experience narrated by Bigby et al. (2014), regular conversations were established so that team members felt comfortable challenging the research process, developing different roles, and establishing how relationships and information should flow. In Sergeant et al.’s (2021) study about training for inclusive research teams, what matters and what is needed was made explicit through the dialogue between trainers and participants: “It is not about what we think you should learn, but about what we have to learn together” (p. 242). In educational contexts, co-construction of knowledge can also be supported by the teachers through dialogue (Rix et al., 2009). Effective strategies to learn about specific subjects start with an awareness of where the learner is at and of their learning needs and then developing the understanding, knowledge and skills through small incremental steps, explaining what is to be learnt and making it relevant to a real problem (Rix et al., 2009). Learning by Doing Many of the research learning experiences reviewed were linked to the development of specific projects. Bigby and Frawley (2010), Embregts et al. (2018) and Strnadová et al. (2014) insist, based on their experience, on the need to learn in the natural contexts where the different tasks related to research are carried out, when the need arises to develop new skills. Cumming et al. (2014), Johnson (2009) and Morgan et al. (2015) propose that the learning of skills is not carried out in isolation, but rather that training is linked to a specific research project in order to understand it as practice. For example, Flood et al. (2013) and Rojas and Haya (2020) discuss how researchers learned to develop questionnaires and interviews, practiced with classmates and subsequently applied their learning to a real context. Learning by doing in real contexts favours meaningful learning, which resonates with the idea that complex learning allows building links between fragmentary knowledge rather than simply developing competence in fragmentary skills (Hopkins and O’Donovan, 2019). The inclusive research training programmes reviewed also provided opportunities to practice what was taught to consolidate and give meaning to learning (Salmon, García Iriarte and Burns, 2017; Tuffrey-Wijne et al., 2020). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Pastor, Zubillaga and Sánchez (2015) indicate that UDL constitutes a pedagogical action-oriented proposal applicable to a great diversity of educational models. It is not necessarily a new approach or theory of learning, but rather focuses on proactively considering student diversity for incorporation into planning and teaching. According to Rogers-Shaw, Carr-Chellman and Choi (2018), UDL provides a broad conceptual framework to accommodate the current diverse population of adult learners, conceptualising knowledge through learner-centred foci emphasising accessibility, collaboration, and community. Sergeant et al. (2021) directly refer to UDL as the framework guiding their research, implemented through a learning environment that recognised and valued diversity. Although without explicit reference to UDL, the Research Active Programme was also designed using accessible formats tailored to students with different learning styles and preferences and enabling great flexibility in the strategies used (Carey et al., 2014). Some collaborative strategies reported in the literature such as the creation of a climate of trust to learn together, teamwork and peer tutoring are aligned with the UDL principle of providing multiple pathways of

372  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods engagement. Diversity in learning styles or cognitive abilities and preferences requires that diverse methodological proposals be offered to carry out the different activities related to research, which aligns with the UDL principle of providing multiple means of action and expression. Some examples of UDL strategies identified in the literature are photovoice in data collection (Embregts et al., 2018), arts-based methods (Embregts et al., 2018), and the use of body mapping to enhance communication (Rojas and Haya, 2020). Summary Our review of the inclusive research literature found scarce discussion on the pedagogical approaches underlying the methods and strategies used to promote learning about research methods. Having more information on pedagogical approaches would allow us to look in greater depth into the methods that teach, or more in line with inclusive research, methods that promote learning, to assess their strengths and limitations in the context in which they have been developed. This knowledge would allow planning for learning processes in which all participants (researchers with and without the label of intellectual disabilities) have sufficient options to access information and produce knowledge together. As Nind (2016) suggests, the educational role is perhaps not to formalise the learning but to support meaningful participation in the learning site. The next section presents the perspectives of expert researchers on how learning about research methods in inclusive research is facilitated in practice.

PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES IN INCLUSIVE RESEARCH PRACTICE In this section, we describe an exploration conducted with members of two inclusive research groups to gather expert researchers’ perspectives on learning about research methods in inclusive research. It is important to note that while all, expert and professional researchers, learn in inclusive research, this project only sought to explore the perspectives of researchers with the label of intellectual disability. A secondary aim of this exploration was to start creating a pedagogic culture among all involved (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2017). Academic researchers from Trinity College Dublin (Edurne García Iriarte) and from the University of Girona (Maria Pallisera and Judit Fullana) designed the reflection process following three steps. First, university researchers identified key projects from each group to focus the discussion on pedagogical approaches. The project Doctors and Us (Inclusive Research Network, 2019) was selected as it was the most recent project conducted by the group and could provide a stronger base for discussion (see Box 25.1). Two projects on independent living, living with a partner (Puyaltó et al., 2019) and legal capacity, conducted by the team at the University of Girona, were chosen as the research topics had been decided by members of their advisory committee (see Box 25.2). Together, the three projects covered a variety of topics and research methods allowing for a potentially broader exploration of pedagogical approaches. The reflection process reported in this section received ethical approval from Trinity College Dublin and from the University of Girona. As an aside, we consider that expert researchers were not recognised on an equal basis to professional researchers by the relevant ethics boards and deeper discussions about “vulnerability risk” among university ethic boards are necessary

Pedagogical approaches in inclusive research  373 to protect the right of researchers with the label of intellectual disability to be acknowledged as researchers.

BOX 25.1 DOCTORS AND US STUDY The inclusive research network is a group of expert researchers, supporters and university researchers who conduct research on issues relevant to people with lived experience of intellectual disability in Ireland. Doctors and Us (Inclusive Research Network, 2019) is the fourth major study conducted by the Inclusive Research Network, about people’s experiences going to the doctor. A total of 12 focus groups involving 69 people with the label of intellectual disabilities were co-led by 15 expert researchers, seven supporters and two academics. A research team of about 15 (university and expert) researchers and supporters participated in all stages of the research process: design, data collection, analysis and dissemination. The study design was developed through dialogue among the research team members, small group discussions, manipulation of objects (e.g., post its) and peer support. These strategies were used to identify the research questions (i.e., what is it like for people with the label of intellectual disabilities to go to the doctor), the method of data collection (i.e., focus groups), to develop focus group questions and dissemination outputs. Researchers learned about the practicalities of field work through a) training workshops, and b) an easy to read booklet with step by step guidance about asking for consent and data collection. Colour-coding, reading out loud together, dialogue about main points and small group discussions were used to analyse and interpret the data. Dialogue between researchers, group work and small group discussions were used to decide on the dissemination outputs. Dissemination of findings took place via an easy to read report, oral presentations and drama. Several expert researchers had personal support by disability services staff and family members throughout the research process.

BOX 25.2 INDEPENDENT LIVING RESEARCH The Diversity Research Group of the University of Girona has collaborated with an advisory committee since 2012. Over the years, 35 people have made up this committee, participating in disability research advisory, collaboration and management activities. In the period 2015–2018, within a larger research project on independent living (Pallisera et al., 2017), two studies were conducted. The themes were decided by the committee: finding a partner and living together (Puyaltó et al., 2019) and legal capacity (what guardianship is and what is it for). Photovoice was used in the first study to stimulate personal narratives, dialogue and discussion about what to look for in a partner. A questionnaire was used in the first of the studies, and an interview in the second as data collection methods. The questionnaire was analysed collaboratively and the results were recorded on large sheets of paper with graphics that allowed the visualisation of responses. Researchers worked in two groups in order to facilitate everyone’s participation and to provide support conducting the interviews. Arts-based methods were used as a strategy to discuss and interpret the findings.

374  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Specifically, drama with puppets was used to represent possible scenarios of living together, related challenges, and to reflect on the difficulties, the roles and support needed to live independently. Multiple means of engagement and multiple means of action and expression were used. Second, two reflection sessions took place, one with each team, conducted via the videoconferencing platform Zoom (for the Inclusive Research Network members) involving two expert researchers and one academic researcher, and one in person (for the University of Girona group), in which three expert researchers and two academic researchers participated. The sessions lasted approximately one hour each. Academic researchers developed PowerPoint presentations with information about the projects and learning activities implemented in each project, and questions to facilitate the discussion on pedagogical approaches with the expert researchers (e.g., how do we learn about research methods? What works well and not that well?). Third, following the two reflection sessions, a peer-feedback online discussion was planned with members from both teams. Due to difficulties with online connection, however, this discussion was run in two sessions, a first online session with all academic researchers and only expert researchers from the Inclusive Research Network, and a second online session, with university researchers from the University of Girona and expert researchers from their advisory committee. Each of these sessions also lasted approximately one hour and each group provided feedback on the learning strategies used by the other group. A set of questions were developed to facilitate the provision of peer feedback (e.g., What learning strategies did you like? Which ones would you recommend to the other group to learn more?). Written notes from all the sessions were taken by the university researchers and formed the basis for the analysis.

LEARNING ABOUT RESEARCH METHODS IN INCLUSIVE RESEARCH In this section, we present three key themes identified by university researchers through thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) of the discussion notes: (1) we get stuff done alongside learning; (2) group work also enables more ideas to come up; and (3) images help to show your point of view to others. In this analysis, we include the comments by expert researchers in italics or block quotes and with their names, with permission by all of them, to differentiate them from those of the university researchers. Brian and Kathleen are members of the Inclusive Research Network and Marc, Tania and Cristina are members of the University of Girona advisory committee. “We Get Stuff Done Alongside Learning” Learning about research methods was perceived as practical and happening simultaneously to the process of conducting research. For example, Brian eloquently summarised the learning approach in the Inclusive Research Network as follows:

Pedagogical approaches in inclusive research  375 At the IRN [Inclusive Research Network] the way we learn is practical, we get stuff done alongside learning. In a classroom, you may not do any research in one or two years. You would be learning focus groups are X, Y, or Z, but you would not be doing any focus groups or interviews. You would not do any other thing rather than learning what the thing is. You just learn how to do it while we learn and do it at the same time. We get a project done and we learn how to do it in the process.

Brian’s analysis resonates with that of members of the advisory committee, who highlighted that they learn by talking, by doing things and in an easy way. More specifically, Brian presented role play as an example of learning practically how to ask questions: Role play, doing something, learning by doing. You may not pick something by reading but you may pick it up more by doing it, [for example] practising asking questions.

Drama was also among a few strategies that Marc identified as facilitators of learning: “It helps more with pictures, videos, or drama. It helps more than if it was just talking.” The comments above emphasise the practical nature of learning, which occurred in the process of “doing” research rather than only talking or reading about it. “Group Work Also Enables More Ideas to Come Up” Group work was discussed as a facilitator of learning because it provides space to share ideas and points of view: “sharing ideas that people have … [and to give] your own point of view” (Marc), “group work also enables more ideas to come up” (Tania). Working in groups facilitated peer-support, for example “if someone wants to ask a question and does not know how to express it, someone else in the group helps, that’s good, teamwork” (Tania). Marc provided an example of how group work could help develop interview questions: “I would do brainstorming in a small group. Then choose the questions.” Group work was identified as the site to construct socially situated meaning. Cristina provided the following example: “talking to the groups about situations they find. Trying to know the situation. From there, come up with ideas for the interview.” Expert researchers differentiated between large and small groups as facilitators of learning. For example, Kathleen stated that in small groups “people can ask questions”. Brian elaborated, saying that real discussions happened in small groups: “it helps throwing up ideas about something. Then we can feed back to the larger group. Larger groups work for a presentation up on the screen. For talking about stuff, it is better in small groups.” For Tania, small groups allowed people to work more equally: “better than larger groups. You don’t step on each other in smaller groups, you work better.” In online environments, small group work also functioned better (than larger groups), as Marc stated “small groups worked better online”. Overlap between collaborative learning and dialogical learning was reflected in the discussions held and, as shown in the above comments, at the core of group work was dialogue. As Tania stated “discussing is what we do most”. Small groups were identified as adequate settings to share ideas, help each other to express them and situate learning within the lived experience of researchers through dialogue.

376  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods “Images Help to Show Your Point of View to Others” Strategies that help with visualisation, written information, and working with puppets were discussed by expert researchers as facilitators of engagement, participation and understanding. Visualisation strategies were identified as important to engage researchers and to make the research process interesting. You have to look for strategies for people to have interest. With photos, you see better the ideas. You have to look for strategies so people don’t fall asleep. I was engaged because it is interesting. (Cristina)

Resonating with the above, Tania added “photos and video help people participate. It helps open the discussion”. Brian commented in relation to visual methods, such as video, that could “be useful to understand” and photovoice “may be useful as well … it uses pictures. Visual thing to it. Not a lot of text”. Brian provided an example of visualisation as a facilitator of understanding through colour coding in data analysis: You have to colour code and then sort it out, otherwise you would not have a clue. You have to pick out what comes up again and again, and sort it all out, you know? Colour coding helps people understand what information they are sorting out.

Peer feedback was provided by Tania on colour coding, who stated that it can be “useful to identify and highlight what is most important”. The use of images was also discussed as a strategy that can help to “explore a research theme” (Cristina), “see different points of view” (Tania), “see reality, understand better” (Marc) and “[choosing images] is easy, images help [understand]” (Cristina), “[choosing images] helps to show your point of view to others” (Cristina). Images were also favoured over text to help understanding. Brian, for example highlighted the difficulty of reading text. If you are not a very good reader, something written up on a board, you don’t follow it up that well, a presentation sometimes has too much writing in it, and written words don’t help, when language is too difficult, it can pass people by. If you are in a bigger group you may be shy about asking [if you don’t understand].

Kathleen added to Brian’s comment that presentations have to “be easy [to] read”. However, writing down ideas was also noted as a useful strategy for clarification and to help researchers remember: “writing on the board, the ideas are clearer” (Tania) and in relation to meeting minutes, “I liked writing down ideas and then giving them in paper the following day. It was good to remember what was important. What each one had said” (Tania) and “it is written, you can check it” (Marc). Working with puppets and video helped expert researchers to interpret the information. The following comment by Cristina serves as an illustration: It was useful because we thought about how parents approach it [the topic of living with a partner]. The video served to think about how to talk to parents. Using puppets [to represent parents and children] helped to understand better the situation.

Pedagogical approaches in inclusive research  377 Tania elaborated on the above point further by stating that working with puppets helped them prepare for telling parents about their research findings on independent living. It prepared them for the real situation “like real life. Instead of saying it in real life, you do it with puppets. It is a real representation”. Drama was also commented on as a strategy “showing a situation, a scenario. Something new” (Brian). A key aspect that emerged through the various discussions was that despite the relevance of practical, collaborative and dialogical approaches underpinning learning in inclusive research, learning is very individual and the use of strategies may need to change across people and across themes to help with learning: “learning is very individual, and strategies that may be useful for some, may not be for others” (Brian). Cristina highlighted that “it depends on the theme, you can approach the work in different ways”. For example, the choice of text versus images was clearly down to individual preferences as illustrated by the following quotes by expert researchers from the same group: “written things to help you remember” (Tania) “visual things are most helpful to remember” (Cristina). These reflections emphasise the relevance of UDL when planning research tasks. Two additional aspects that were different across the groups and that may impact learning were personal support, which some Inclusive Research Network members had, and using research handbooks for field work. In relation to being supported by staff (as personal supporters), the views of the other group members were varied: “if there are people who need it, it can be OK that there are support people. But I prefer to come [to the advisory committee] alone” (Tania). Marc also pointed that “coming on your own makes you feel more independent”. They also felt that they “would not feel free to talk about certain themes” (Cristina). Having a research handbook was seen as something useful: “it could be useful when you do interviews. If you have a script, you are more confident, you know what you have to do” (Tania). In all, expert researchers saw similarities in their ways of learning about research methods: “we learn in very similar ways, not radically different” (Brian). Researchers in both groups identified that they had learned about research methods in their respective groups: “people have learned very well in each project. People did not know how to do a particular thing and did it very well. Our group learns very well together” (Brian) and “I have learned how to do surveys and interviews, and to know people who have lived experiences” (Tania). Through the analysis of the reflection process we identified three themes that broadly correspond to the key approaches presented in the literature review: learning by doing, collaborative and dialogical approaches, which in the experience of expert researchers occurred simultaneously, and UDL, which was critical to accommodate individual diversity. These insights refer to three categories of learning in inclusive research identified by Nind (2016): methodological learning, problem-solving, and skills-based learning.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY This chapter has explored pedagogical approaches to learning about research methods in inclusive research. One of the key findings of the literature review is that pedagogical approaches have not been the focus of research and are mostly implicit in inclusive research. Inclusive research publications often report on access accommodations and the contextual learning

378  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods experiences of inclusive researchers but not on explicit pedagogical approaches. Lack of an explicit reference to pedagogy may in turn limit the creation of a pedagogic culture and capacity in research methods (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018). We have used an inclusive approach to explore this issue representing the first attempt – to the authors’ knowledge – to incorporate the views of expert researchers with the label of intellectual disabilities. The literature review provided theoretical grounding to interpret the experiences of expert researchers from a pedagogical lens. Key messages from the literature review and the analysis conducted with the two inclusive research groups indicate that inclusive research, although implicitly, 1) adopts a social constructivist perspective to learning, where learning is facilitated through: a) doing research projects (learning by doing), rather than theoretically or abstractly being informed about research methods; b) collaboration in small groups (collaborative learning); c) dialogue in socially situated contexts (dialogic learning); and 2) takes account of the individual learning needs of researchers by providing multiple means of representation and engagement (UDL). Despite the rich exploration of learning about research methods in inclusive research, this project only involved expert researchers who had verbal communication skills and spoke fluently about the topic. This approach bears two limitations. One, expert researchers’ views were reported while the views of professional researchers, who are also critical learners in this process, remain to be explored. Engagement with expert researchers who are non-verbal and those who have the label of multiple and profound intellectual disabilities would be useful to further advance our knowledge about pedagogical approaches in inclusive research. Furthermore, all authors were members of inclusive research groups and therefore shared an insider’s perspective. Further exploration of pedagogical approaches in other groups can widen the perspectives presented here. Nevertheless, this chapter provides an opportunity to reflect on how learning about research methods can be facilitated in the field, with groups of people whose interest in research methods is more practical than theoretical, as a means to solve a problem or to gain knowledge about an issue of importance to them. This exploration has also shown that engaging with expert researchers with the label of intellectual disabilities in this type of reflection process can generate rich data and important insights about the pedagogy of research methods.

REFERENCES Alba, C. and Nind, M. (2020). El giro inclusivo en la investigación socioeducativa. [The inclusive turn in socio-educational research]. In J. Sancho, F. Hernández, I. Montero, J. de Pablos, I. Rivas and A. Ocaña (Eds.), Caminos y derivas para otra investigación educativa y social [Paths and Drifts for other Educational and Social Research] (pp. 109–121). Barcelona: Octaedro. Bigby, C. and Frawley, P. (2010). Reflections on doing inclusive research in the “making life good in the community” study. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 35(2), 53–61. Bigby, C., Frawley, P. and Ramcharan, P. (2014). A collaborative group method of inclusive research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(1), 54–64. Boxall, K. and Beresford, P. (2013). Service user research in social work and disability studies in the United Kingdom. Disability & Society, 28(5), 587–600. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Carey, E., Salmon, N. and Higgins, A. (2014). Service users’ views of the Research Active Programme. Learning Disability Practice, 17(4), 22–28.

Pedagogical approaches in inclusive research  379 Churcher, K. M. A., Downs, E. and Twysksbury, D. (2014). “Friending” Vygotsky: A social constructivist pedagogy of knowledge building through classroom social media use. Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(1), 33–50. Cumming, T. M., Strnadová, I., Knox, M. and Parmenter, T. (2014). Mobile technology in inclusive research: Tools of empowerment. Disability and Society, 29(7), 999–1012. Darby, S. (2017). Making space for co-produced research “impact”: Learning from a participatory action research case study. Area, 49(2), 230–237. Embregts, P. J. C. M., Taminiau, E. F., Heerkens, L., Schippers, A. P. and Van Hove, G. (2018). Collaboration in inclusive research: Competencies considered important for people with and without intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 15(3), 193–201. Flood, S., Bennett, D., Melsome, M. and Northway, R. (2013). Becoming a researcher. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 288–295. Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Fudge Schormans, A., Allan, H., O’Neil Allen, D., Austin, C., Elbard, K., Head, K. J., et al. (2020). Research as activism? Perspectives of people labelled/with intellectual and developmental disabilities engaged in inclusive research and knowledge co-production. In M. Berghs, T. Chataika, T. El-Lahib and K. Dube (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Disability Activism (pp. 354–368). London and New York: Routledge. García Iriarte, E., Pallisera, M., Fullana, J., Donohoe, B., McMeel, K., Crespo, M., et al. (2022). How do we learn about methods in inclusive research. Trinity College Dublin. https://​doi​.org/​10​.25546/​98655 Hopkins, S. and O’Donovan, R. (2021). Using complex learning tasks to build procedural fluency and financial literacy for young people with intellectual disability. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 33, 163–181. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s13394​-019​-00279​-w Inclusive Research Network (2015). Our Homes. Home and Independence Project. Dublin School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin. http://​www​.fedvol​.ie/​Inclusive​_Research​ _Network​_IRN/​Default​.241​.html Inclusive Research Network (2019). Doctors and Us. What It Is Like for People with Learning Disabilities to Go to the Doctor in Ireland. Limerick: School of Allied Health, University of Limerick. http://​www​.fedvol​.ie/​Inclusive​_Research​_Network​_IRN/​Default​.241​.html Johnson, K. (2009). No longer researching about us without us: A researcher’s reflection on rights and inclusive research in Ireland. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 250–256. Karagiorgi, Y. and Symou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17–27. Knoblauch, H. (2019). Conclusion: The social construction of reality as a paradigm? In M. Pfadenhauer and H. Knoblauch (Eds.), Social Construction as a Paradigm? The Legacy of the Social Construction of Reality (pp. 325–338). London: Routledge. Lucio-Villegas, E. (2015). Paulo Freire. La Educación como instrumento para la Justicia Social [Paulo Freire. Education as a social justice instrument]. Revista Internacional de Educación Para La Justicia Social, 4(1), 9–20. Moore, B., Smith, C., Boardman, A. and Ferrell, A. (2020). Using video self-reflection to support collaborative learning for students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(1), 52–59. Morgan, M. F., Moni, K. B. and Cuskelly, M. (2015). The development of research skills in young adults with intellectual disability in participatory research. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62(4), 438–457. Narayan, R., Rodriguez, C., Araujo, J., Shaqlaih, A. and Moss, G. (2013). Constructivism – Constructivist learning theory. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio and S. Jackson (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Theories (pp. 325–338). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Needham, C. and Carr, S. (2009). Co-production: An emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation (Research Briefing 31). London: Social Care Institute for Excellence. Nind, M. (2016). Inclusive research as a site for lifelong learning: Participation in learning communities. Studies in the Education of Adults, 48(1), 23–37. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018). Methods that teach: Developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 41(4), 398–410.

380  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Nind, M., Chapman, R., Seale, J. and Tilley, L. (2016). The conundrum of training and capacity building for people with learning disabilities doing research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 29(6), 542–551. Nolan, M., Hanson, E., Grant, G. and Keady, J. (2007). Conclusions: Realizing authentic participatory enquiry. In M. Nolan, E. Hanson, G. Grant and J. Keady (Eds.), User Participation in Health and Social Care Research: Voices, Values and Evaluation (pp. 183–202). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 182–190. O’Brien, P. (2022). Inclusive research: Is the road more or less travelled? Social Sciences, 11(12), 582. https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​socsci11120582 Pallisera, M., Fullana, J., Puyalto, C., Vilà, M. and Díaz, G. (2017). Apoyando la participación real de las personas con discapacidad intelectual: Una experiencia de investigación inclusiva sobre vida independiente [Supporting real participation of persons with intelectual disabilities: An inclusive reserach experience about independent living]. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 5(1), 7–24. Pastor, A., Zubillaga del Río, A. and Sánchez Serrano, J. M. (2015). Tecnologías y Diseño Universal para el Aprendizaje (DUA): Experiencias en el contexto universitario e implicaciones en la formación del profesorado [Technologies and Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Experiences in the university context and implications for teacher training]. RELATEC: Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa, 14(1), 89–100. Puyaltó, C., Pallisera, M., Fullana, J. and Díaz-Garolera, G. (2019). Challenges of having a loving partner: The views of adults with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 68(1), 64–72. Rix, J., Hall, K., Nind, M., Sheehy, K. and Wearmouth, J. (2009). What pedagogical approaches can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms? A systematic literature review. Support for Learning, 24(2), 86–94. Rogers-Shaw, C., Carr-Chellman, D. J. and Choi, J. (2018). Universal design for learning: Guidelines for accessible online instruction. Adult Learning, 29(1), 20–31. Rojas Pernia, S. and Haya Salmón, I. (2020). Inclusive research, learning disabilities, and inquiry and reflection as training tools: A study on experiences from Spain. Disability and Society, 36(6), 978–998. Salmon, N., Carey, E. and Hunt, A. (2014). Research skills for people with intellectual disabilities. Learning Disability Practice, 17(3), 27–35. Salmon, N., García Iriarte, E. and Burns, E. Q. (2017). Research Active Programme: A pilot inclusive research curriculum in higher education. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 40(2), 181–200. Sergeant, S., Schippers, A. P., Sandvoort, H., Duijf, S., Mostert, R., Embregts, P. J. C. M. and Van Hove, G. (2021). Co-designing the cabriotraining: A training for transdisciplinary teams. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(2), 230–246. Sheehy, K., Budiyanto, Kaye, H. and Rofiah, K. (2017). Indonesian teachers’ epistemological beliefs and inclusive education. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 23(1) 39–56. Strnadová, I., Cumming, T. M., Knox, M. and Parmenter, T. (2014). Building an inclusive research team: The importance of team building and skills training. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(1), 13–22. Tuffrey-Wijne, I., Lam, C. K. K., Marsden, D., Conway, B., Harris, C., Jeffrey, D., Jordan, L., Keagan-Bull, R., McDermott, M., Newton, D. and Stapelberg, D. (2020). Developing a training course to teach research skills to people with learning disabilities: “It gives us a voice. We CAN be researchers!” British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 301–314. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Walmsley, J. and Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive Research with People with Learning Disabilities: Past, Present and Futures. London: Jessica Kingsley. Walmsley, J., Strnadová, I. and Johnson, K. (2018). The added value of inclusive research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(5), 751–759.

26. Research methods learning in temporary online communities during Covid-19 Andy Coverdale, Melanie Nind and Robert Meckin

INTRODUCTION In this chapter we discuss the pedagogy of a research methods project aimed at synthesising and sharing responses to methodological challenges arising in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. We focus primarily on the learning that arose from a series of themed online workshops that we ran for social researchers who were actively engaged in responding to these challenges. The research community was already sharing various ideas for support, for instance, in the narrative accounts, small wins and advice in blogs such as LSE Impact Blog,1 Methodspace,2 SRA blog3 and Items blog (SSRC),4 and in online events, webinars and resource lists. Deborah Lupton’s crowd sourced document Doing fieldwork in a pandemic5 was particularly widely distributed. Just as Nind and Lewthwaite (2018a) studied research methods pedagogy using ‘methods that teach’, we built an educative function into the project from the outset. Our working premise, partly due to the online activities of the research community, was that social researchers who were confronted with the challenge of keeping their research going during the pandemic would be motivated and able to learn from each other through a shared dialogue. As we had hoped, the educative strand of the study was very strong and, in this chapter, we discuss the creativity, openness and collegiality of the researchers participating in the temporary online communities that were forged in the workshops. This was an education in adapting research methods and methodology during the pandemic as social restrictions continued to evolve, changing the possibilities for research, and we use the experience to illustrate how capacity can be built for resilience and action in the conducting of social research in a time of crisis. To provide context, we begin this chapter by describing the project and the methods involved. We move on to explore the pedagogy involved in the creation of temporary (and ongoing) research communities committed to mutual learning and supported by a particular kind of facilitation. We employ the sociocultural theoretical perspective expounded by Nind, Curtin and Hall (2016, p. 10) in recognising that ‘opportunities and contexts for learning are all around us’, no more bound to classrooms ‘explicitly designed to promote learning’ than to research encounters; we are concerned with pedagogy ‘as something involving the support and promotion of learning’ and with the experiential and enacted aspects of pedagogy.

381

382  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

THE CHANGING RESEARCH PRACTICES STUDY Project Design Knowledge exchange workshops were conducted during Phase I of the UK National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM) research project Changing Research Practices: Conducting social research in the context of Covid-19 (August 2020 to February 2021) which was initiated in response to the methodological challenges created by the pandemic. The NCRM sought to fulfil its role as an internationally recognised and trusted source of methods knowledge, training and guidance by (i) establishing workshops in which methods knowledge pertaining to the new conditions we were living in could be generated and exchanged; and (ii) conducting a rapid evidence review of the published literature and a narrative review of the emerging grey literature. These core, contemporaneous elements of the project complemented and informed each other throughout. The iterative review process helped identify emerging methodological themes for the workshop topics and provided timely and relevant resources to share with the participating researchers during and after sessions (see below). The evidence review strand and workshop strand were both incorporated in the various outputs from the project. Workshop Details We ran eight workshops over a period of 11 weeks, with each workshop focused on a specific research method or methodological theme. These comprised: interviewing; researching with so-called hard-to-reach groups; participatory and deliberative methods; ethics; creative and sensory methods; online ethnography; surveys and longitudinal studies; and using secondary data. We sought participants for the workshops through established NCRM communications and targeted promotions. The learning community of participants comprised 56 researchers (with several attending more than one workshop). Attendance for each workshop ranged between five and 17 participants. The workshop series was notable for its mix of researchers from different institutions, social science disciplines, geographical regions, and career stages (doctoral researchers to professors). Several workshops also attracted researchers from industry, government and the third sector. Ongoing pandemic constraints in the UK made it necessary for us to run our workshops online and faced with the same array of complex choices as our participating colleagues, we chose to host the workshops using Zoom (see Lobe, Morgan and Hoffman, 2020, for a discussion of technical considerations). By the time we came to running the sessions, Zoom had become a well-established platform for video conferencing, including amongst the academic community, following its rapid rise in popularity during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. Zoom offered key requisite affordances for our workshops: video conferencing and chat functionality, the ability to share screens and record sessions, and we were confident most researchers participating in the workshops would be familiar with using the platform. At the same time, the situation was dynamic as Zoom was fixing security issues and, without notice, the default functionalities managed by our licencing institution appeared to change from time to time. The workshops orientated around our adaptation of a participatory metaphorical exercise and workshop icebreaker developed by the STEPS Centre, a global research and policy

Research methods learning in temporary online communities during Covid-19  383 engagement initiative. The ‘rivers of life’ exercise is presented as an effective visual metaphor for personal biographies that is widely understood across cultures, especially in relation to environmental concerns.6 In developing our use of this method for the purposes of representing research experiences during the pandemic, we recognised the potential of the river as a metaphorical narrative structure for a specified timeframe, and also the many potential metaphorical options evoked by its form and features. Prior to each workshop, we asked our participants to create a river-based image to represent their research activities and methodological adaptations over the previous 12 to 18 months. As prompts, we provided some examples of visual metaphors that they might consider incorporating in their images, but made it clear we were flexible about how the images were created. In enabling the participating researchers to prepare these in advance, the exercise provided a novel and creative way for them to reflect on and interpret their research and methodological adaptions in a time of crisis. This was implicit rather than explicit pedagogical work. The images became useful resources in their own right, whilst mediating their presentations within the workshop through a shared metaphorical artefact. Each workshop ran for 90 minutes with the option, after a short break, of an additional hour of discussion. The first section incorporated brief introductions and individual presentations before moving into a facilitated discussion for which, depending on numbers, we sometimes did as breakout groups. Data The workshops were audio-recorded and transcribed using an automated transcription service to assist with the referencing of key sections and incidents for analysis. The river images presented by the researchers provided a primary data resource, as distinct visual artefacts, and alongside the accompanying verbal commentaries as ‘image-accounts’ (see Meckin et al., forthcoming). Written field notes using a matrix-based template to record challenges, options, affordances and the effectiveness of adaptations supported the process of actively prompting discussions in under-explored territory and provided consistency across the workshops. The chat text was also saved to record open comments and messages from and between participants and the sharing of links and resources. These included those directed at specific participants though displayed openly that is, addressed to ‘everyone’. We recognise that other private messages that may have taken place between participants were not recorded. Working iteratively across the data, we developed key, interrelated themes from which we could identify and draw out useful examples. As summary accounts of each workshop, the field notes provided useful reference points to specific incidents in the presentations, discussions and exchanges to explore in greater depth.

A SPACE TO SHARE AND LEARN We shared with the researchers participating in the workshops parts of the ethnographic account and reflections of Tatiani Chemi, who teaches ‘creativity, arts-based methods in education and educational research, the role of emotions in education, and several theoretical and methodological perspectives related to these topics’ (Chemi, 2020, p. 2). She powerfully illustrates how, ‘the Covid-19 emergency was a tsunami that wiped away all my favored teach-

384  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ing tools’ meaning that creativity ‘was not an option anymore, but the necessary response to crisis’ (Chemi, 2020, p. 1). We have all been able to identify with her when she reflects: ‘My own fear was what made me react straightaway with a rejection: “it is impossible!”’ (p. 4), and we applaud when she reflects: I surprise myself by being a more responsive creative teacher than I thought. I am braver and more creative. This pandemic has demanded of me to rethink my teaching in digital forms. … Even when my first reaction was ‘it is impossible to digitalise this class!’ my creative little devil responded with an ‘… is it really?’ leaving me with a number of obstructions to remove from my path. (Chemi, 2020, p. 5)

In planning and conducting our research, we explored the research equivalent of this, to find our own creative little devils inside of us, without the need to do this alone. It is this pedagogic spirit that we sought to foster in our dual roles as researchers and educators. Next, we describe the rich pedagogic encounters that unfolded in the workshops and make use of the concept of pedagogy as specified, enacted and experienced (Nind, Curtin and Hall, 2016). The description is of a scenario in which the only specified pedagogy came from (i) the workshop topic specified ahead of recruitment to it; (ii) the research agenda to explore the methodological issues we were facing, how we were addressing them, strategies and resources we had used, and how we could help each other; and (iii) from our communal understanding of what was expected of us in the role of good researcher/research participant/colleague. To illustrate the pedagogy as enacted and experienced we describe how the participating researchers engaged in the workshops and reflect on their interactions and dialogue. We argue that the pedagogy was rich and worthy of analysis with a view to learning from it and potentially replicating key aspects. Our unit of analysis is the workshop session itself, as a space to explore and share research methods adaptations during the pandemic. However, it is useful to identify the interrelated roles of the various elements that made up these workshops. We have thought of these elements, drawing on various arguments in philosophy and science and technology studies, as heterogeneous assemblages of relationships between humans and nonhumans, materials and meanings (e.g., Latour 1993; Law, 2004). Our brief summary here then, is an account of these disparate elements that identifies these assemblages as actors within the workshops, each performing contributions that enact the pedagogy. Researchers A total of 56 researchers joined in our workshops. Their experiences, agendas, concerns and candour all helped enact the pedagogy we describe. At the same time, we were participant-facilitators, conducting research and learning about methods through these workshops. Whatever pedagogical insights emerged were largely due to the support of those who engaged with the project, and we reiterate our thanks to all who contributed. The Rivers Exercise In the ‘Research Rivers’ activity, we invited the participating researchers to visually represent the last year or so of their research experience as a river. We made some suggestions for representing their experience using the metaphorical tools of tributaries and confluences to show

Research methods learning in temporary online communities during Covid-19  385 the joining up of influences, rapids and whirlpools to indicate times of disruption, shoals as slower times and so on. While the images were made in advance of the workshops, we invited participants to share them as part of the process of introducing themselves, their research and their recent experiences. After the success of this in the first workshop, we subsequently turned it into the substantive section of the remaining workshops (Nind, Meckin and Coverdale, 2021). We believe the research rivers exercise established a necessary level of familiarity and trust between the participants and a sense of a shared experience that persisted throughout the workshop sessions, enabling continued engagement and discussion in a communal space that was seen as supportive and collaborative. Discussion Sessions and Online Chat The follow-up discussion sessions in each workshop provided participants with the additional opportunity to clarify and expand on aspects of their river presentations and to ask specific questions of colleagues. These discussions established common themes between the participants’ research foci and enabled greater exploration of the narratives presented in the first session. Partly through our own prompting, these sessions also tended to broaden the discussion to explore wider themes around research practices and the longer-term implications of the pandemic. With limited time to respond to each other’s image-accounts, the chat function served as a space for ongoing commentary during presentations, with some participants leaving comments or questions, which as facilitators we tried to feed into the subsequent discussions. It also became a complementary extension to the verbal discussions, and at times a space for distinct threads of discussion and engagement. In some cases, comments and shared resources sparked discussions both related to and separate from those discussions conducted verbally either between or after the river presentations. Platform A detailed analysis of the role of platforms like Zoom as online communicative spaces is beyond the focus of this chapter, but we acknowledge some key observations made over the course of the workshop sessions. The relatively small attendances were well-matched to the grid pattern of Zoom’s ‘gallery view’ that we are all now familiar with, arguably promoting a more democratic and collective display of the participants, though we recognise participants could choose and toggle between Zoom’s gallery and speaker view at any time during the workshops. Additionally, while we gave the participating researchers co-hosting and screen-sharing privileges primarily to enable them to show their river images, this also helped convey a sense of co-ownership of the virtual space, albeit temporarily. Rapid Evidence Review Importantly, for us as facilitators, many aspects of the participating researchers’ accounts correlated with trends and themes in the literature emerging from the ongoing rapid evidence review. This reinforced early findings and provided immediate and personalised reference points with which to explore in greater depth. We saw an example of this in the first two workshops with several researchers describing how they were negotiating with local contacts to conduct some of their fieldwork in the Global South while isolated in the UK. The greater reli-

386  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ance on, and increased visibility of local researchers became a recurring theme throughout the workshop series and a developing story in the literature. We used this to prompt discussions on how the pandemic has highlighted power differentials within the global research community and the potential for empowering previously marginalised groups. Covid-19 We have had occasion to think of Covid-19 as a research methods teacher, forcing us out of our methodological comfort zones in order to learn new approaches. It is difficult to encapsulate Covid-19 as a single actor – the pandemic has highlighted the entanglement of biology, geography, demography, policy, economy, education and sociality, among others, in historically unprecedented ways. However, we (as people in the workshops) routinely found rhetorical ways to gather together all that complexity in a single word or short phrase. Thus, Covid-19 became an actor in our workshops, an absent pedagogue, whose obscure teachings were rendered legible only through interaction and discussion.

THE EMERGENT PEDAGOGY OF THE TEMPORARY COMMUNITY In this part of the chapter, we describe the nature of the workshop engagement and dialogues so that readers can gain a feel for the emergent pedagogy. We have used pseudonyms for all participant-researchers. Dialogue and Reciprocity To establish a friendly and supportive environment we encouraged participants to leave their cameras on, particularly during periods of discussion, and we were relaxed about how they notified us of their intention to speak (either on camera or through Zoom’s hand up signalling device). At times, particularly towards the end of the workshops as participants became more relaxed and acquainted with the group, they would be confident to interject without requesting to speak, replicating the nuanced social behaviours of ‘reading a room’ in a physical setting. As facilitators, we interrupted discussions when we needed to bring people back to focus, and offered prompts when conversations waned or we needed to ensure specific discussion topics were covered. For example, our template included particular resources people had found useful and we would encourage participants to give references that we could add to our co-produced resource lists. We also had examples of participants taking on facilitation roles. Poppy’s open question on the practical and emotional aspects of remote working led to a lengthy response from her fellow participants. Mostly, people stayed close to the workshop theme, even though they set it in their wider contexts. The workshop on the theme of creative methods was summarised at the end by Dan as ‘embracing the creativity of crisis’. Whereas doctoral and early career researchers tended to focus on single studies or projects, some of the more senior researchers chose to describe how they managed multiple projects and research teams. These diverse insights enabled authentic and multilateral perspectives of research and academic practice. Participants also drew on expertise from negotiating or sitting on ethics committees and mentoring doctoral researchers. A senior figure and acknowledged

Research methods learning in temporary online communities during Covid-19  387 expert on the theme of online ethnography used the opportunity to share her expertise and was generous in giving advice and guidance in response to issues raised during the workshop. Participant-researchers discussed additional academic practices and workstreams such as teaching, bid writing and writing for publication. Alicia highlighted how career development loans had stopped during the pandemic. Several participants addressed the implications of the pandemic on the teaching delivered – primarily to doctoral researchers – but in responding to the challenges they are facing and how best to support them and provide guidance, training and resources. With the emphasis on their workshop’s core theme on using secondary data, Viv and Tina explored the wider context of skills development around research methods and a qualitative methods skills gap. Many researchers readily discussed the impact of the pandemic on their personal and family lives: how they and family members had caught Covid, dealt with home schooling, and other challenges. In some cases, researchers who had deliberately chosen, or thought not to include these elements in their image-accounts appeared open to bringing them into the follow-up discussions after seeing colleagues establishing grounds for doing so. In this emergent pedagogy then, as participants supported their own and others’ learning, they drew on their personal lives as well as their professional lives, creating a sense of close reciprocity among members of the online group by acknowledging that experiences outside of research were relevant and meaningful. The workshops enabled authentic narratives to be heard as part of the process of teasing out the pros and cons of methods adaptations. The much-discussed issue of digital exclusion for example, was illuminated by Ashley’s account of research participants standing outside coffee shops to access Wi-Fi. Narratives were also often complex, nuanced and ambiguous; aspects that were not necessarily visible in the type of rapid response, problem-solving, solution-led discourses that were evident early in the pandemic. They told of some surprising aspects of the disruptions caused by Covid, both positive as well as negative. Pauses in research were seen variously as opportunities to reflect and rethink research, explore new theoretical approaches, catch up with writing, apply for more funding, establish new research collaborations, and save on conference fees. For Dan, who attended two of the workshops, the opportunity to slow down and reflect on methods became a favourable and opportunistic aspect of lockdown. Being excluded from the sensory environments they were researching, led him and his colleagues to experiment with transferring the sensory dimension into remote, virtual and participatory methods. However, it also brought about new thinking on how sensory perceptions and research are likely to be altered ‘post-pandemic’. This was reflected in the way Dan presented some of the most theoretically and conceptually challenging ideas in all the workshops. In this emergent pedagogy, the roles of pausing, slowing and exploration took the place of the urgency of the early pandemic that featured in many of the river accounts. Indeed, there were no fixed answers and solutions, but rather unresolved problems and concerns that participants considered together through story and anecdote. The Emotional Intensity of Crisis Participating researchers acknowledged the workshops provided an opportunity to express frustrations, and to share emotional support with colleagues through the shared dialogue of the river presentations and subsequent discussions. For many the pandemic had placed a greater emphasis on reaching out, and the need for rapport building in the research and wider academic

388  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods communities. While the workshops took place more than six months after the time of the first lockdown in the UK and many other countries, this period of initial restrictions was pivotal in many of the river drawings. Visually it acted as a focal point and narratively as disruption to the status quo, calling actors to action, prompting emotional engagement as participants recalled the disruptive effects on their lives and their research. Confusion and disturbance were typically depicted by whirlpools, dams and waterfalls. Further, the metaphorical element of the rivers exercise generated often emotive verbal expressions to describe the turmoil and changes in pace experienced during the early months of the pandemic. Examples included ‘being swept away’, ‘wading through’ and ‘in the doldrums’. Participating researchers spoke candidly about the personal strains of dealing with many aspects of the pandemic. Donald considered himself as having robust mental health but admitted lone working had ‘started to get to him’, affecting his motivation and confidence. In the same workshop, Penny described how the researcher’s role had become increasingly multi-faceted during Covid, with researchers taking on roles of councillors, security guards and IT experts. She and others highlighted the need for institutional support for researchers’ emotional as well as intellectual labour. Empathising with a doctoral researcher in her workshop, Julie, a Research Associate emphasised ‘we are all at sea’, suggesting anxieties and confusion had not been career-stage specific during Covid. As a professor, Steve acknowledged the privileged position his seniority afforded him in ‘getting research going’ at a time of rapid response in research design and a necessity to get findings out quickly. However, ‘feeling overwhelmed’ by the disruption of moving to a new role and university during the early stages of the pandemic, he admitted he ‘felt useless’ at a time when many people from the communities in which he conducts his research were dying from Covid. While acknowledging restrictions had not affected her personally, Viv felt the ‘depleted energy’ of slowing down planned research and the impact on others, highlighting the relational dynamics of emotional work. Nigel noted the consistently high levels of anxiety in his participants, on not knowing when Covid would end. Many, like Nigel, addressed the ethical dilemma of continuing research at a time when people were losing jobs and suffering family bereavements, demonstrating an informed sensitivity to the wider societal experiences of their participants. The relational dimension extended to research stakeholders and practitioners. Nora and others spoke of the low priority schools gave to participating in research when they had many other challenges to contend with. Eva described the hesitancy of performance arts practitioners to engage further in research projects once methods transferred online. In other words, it was not just researchers’ emotions that emerged, but a sense of a wider intense emotionality affecting the whole research community, as participants and collaborators experienced their own anxieties, malaise and concerns. We saw expressions of support and empathy throughout the workshops. In response to hearing of a colleague’s personal circumstances, Penny gestured sympathetically on camera while writing on chat: ‘Eve so sorry to hear that!’ Others chose the chat function to express brief statements of advice, support or empathy, in response to presentations and discussions and particularly as the sessions came to a close, such as Helena’s exclamation to ‘be creative and open-minded!’. Our emergent pedagogy then was rich with affect, empathy and peer support communicated via the various channels the technology afforded.

Research methods learning in temporary online communities during Covid-19  389 Reflexivity Reflecting on their own research practices, several participating researchers identified the pandemic as a conduit for personal transformation. Ellie admitted to a tendency to work and make decisions too quickly, adding that the pandemic had taught her the value of having time to reflect: ‘Because of these workshops, I have recognised it’s an opportunity to slow that decision-making down, but in doing that I’m really confident that the decisions that I’ll now make will be better than the ones I would make quickly’. In contrast, Alison explained how she had had to respond rapidly to the challenges, making quick decisions with no time to look for guidance or resources, and that only now she was beginning to reflect on the consequences. In this sense, the workshops were facilitating experiential learning. However, in this dialogic space, localised reflexivity was shared and amplified. The exchanges highlighted that resilience, risk-taking, problem-solving, creativity and innovation are part of the research – and research learning – process. But there was an acknowledgement that Covid presented an epistemological shift and had introduced unprecedented challenges that required ‘radical reflexivity’ (Penny). As many participants also noted, the pandemic not only brought about radical changes to methods but the phenomena being researched and the type of knowledge being generated, bringing into question whether originally planned research was viable or even relevant anymore. For social researchers, the pandemic represented both a threat but also an opportunity, raising questions which, according to Erin ‘we should have been asking a long time ago’. There was a sense of going back to basics, of re-envisaging what research should and perhaps could be; a cultural change of enhanced collaboration and creativity borne of crisis, and underpinning ethical as well as epistemological foundations. Penny felt compelled by the ‘levels of kindness, compassion and generosity’ that had emerged, noting that this reminded ‘academics and researchers to be kind, which has worn off from the everyday grind of our workplaces’. Partly through our prompting as facilitators, discussions towards the end of workshops often extended to ‘post-pandemic’ research practices and the emergence of future trends, including thoughts on how Covid might have already brought about irrevocable changes. Several participants commented on how apparent cost-efficiencies in the increased use and reliance on technology and virtual methods may influence future research funding, and some raised concerns about the increasing precarity of research contracts. Others reflected on how the ‘craft’ of research is changing under Covid, predicting increases in home working and interdisciplinary research. Reflection and reflexivity were produced in this emergent pedagogy. Sharing Tactics The participating researchers drew their own lines between sharing their stories and finding methodological ways forward. Dara noted ‘being able to talk about it is fine, but being able to find solutions is even more important’. This solution-finding tended to be heavily situated in specific research contexts. As such, participants were alert to hearing or seeing something that connected with them, such as an adaptation to a method, a paper or resource. Usually, they made these connections over something more generic, so conversations evolved through sharing experiences, empathising, findings points of connection, or commenting on each other’s working solutions. Participants also used the workshops to make direct pleas for

390  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods guidance on particular questions, and peers stepped up with insights such as how collaborating with co-researchers could continue to work or how cultural probes might be a useful tool. The Chat function on Zoom enabled side conversations of specific practical suggestions or resources for specific peer inquiries. Some openly invited suggestions and several left the workshops with explicit plans for what they would do or look at next. Key methodological ideas caught the attention of others. When Issy described creating a YouTube video to explain the research project and participant consent process, Niccy responded with ‘that’s such a great idea, I’m definitely stealing that’. This led to reflections on whether fun, amateur videos worked better than more costly professionally made ones. Recruiting participants during Covid times was a challenge many shared. Inventive methods ideas were also welcomed. Dan recommended Sara Pink’s work on body cams as a way for participants to record daily experiences, Ollie suggested using the Google app Jamboard for generating data (an idea taken up by us to help facilitate subsequent workshops), and Vicky described using breakout rooms in Zoom to support participants when they became distressed. Thus, while specific issues were often not resolved, participants had a sense of options and inspirations that they might take to their own concerns and projects. Support and Resources Participating researchers spoke of the loosening of institutional ties and support structures, particularly for doctoral and early career researchers. The sudden lack of everyday interaction resulting from working from home directives combined with the slowness of universities to support researchers, particularly in the early stages of the first lockdown, left people to source their own support, sometimes in the face of ‘precious little information and consideration’ or ‘care and understanding’ (Eve). Networking with colleagues and other researchers had been crucial for Nel, not only in maintaining contact, but in sharing experiences and ideas, while for Nigel, the peer support he accessed through the doctoral researchers’ online community had been a ‘lifeline’. Steve acknowledged that, unlike early career researchers, those more experienced enjoyed networks which could serve as valuable resources. Penny described pro-active grass-roots academic support networks that had flourished online as ‘the most beautiful thing that has come out of Covid’, hoping these would continue post pandemic. Hearing other researchers’ experiences, challenges and solutions was crucial. Nonetheless, while participating researchers had accessed many resources – often in the heightened situation of needing to act quickly to the methodological challenges of the pandemic – some felt overwhelmed with information, emphasising the need for filtering and curating by authorial and trustworthy sources. The workshops and the materials we produced together performed a function in this respect, as researchers made the sessions into a peer-support platform and the resources were a wider critical synthesis of practically useful references and ideas. In the spirit of co-production, we sought ideas for resources that we could develop as part of the project. Suggestions included decision trees, methods maps, and practical user guides. Conversely, Nel identified the need for longer-form, context-heavy case studies, outlining all aspects of the researchers’ experiences around methods adaptations, describing the rationale of developing her own resource for doctoral researchers. Eva and Donald specifically highlighted the need for compiling examples of successful methods adaptations for ethics committees. In

Research methods learning in temporary online communities during Covid-19  391 this way, people were undertaking their own training needs analyses and thinking through pedagogic alternatives. When prompted, almost all participants shared their e-mail addresses on the chat function, indicating an openness to keep in touch. Several exchanges indicated interest in continued engagement to share resources and ‘swap notes!’, with the comment that ‘it’s more and more important that we stay connected and pick each other’s brains’. Here was evidence of participants taking ownership of the informal, peer learning activities cultivated in the workshops, and transferring them to their own research networks.

THEORISING THE LEARNING AS A TEMPORARY COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE At this point in the chapter, we reflect on the pedagogy of the workshops in light of the wider research methods pedagogy literature. Nind et al. (2020) established, through their longitudinal diary circle with doctoral and early career students of research methods, that learning is facilitated through a mix of training, doing and reflecting, with experts and peer support playing key roles. In some ways the experience of joining a knowledge exchange workshop as a research participant provided all of these in microcosm, the training element being the least obvious. Ordinarily, learning by doing is part of an active or experiential learning approach adopted by teachers wanting to expose learners to the complex decision-making and problem-solving involved in being a researcher (see e.g., Hsiung, 2016; Orange, 2016). In our Covid-19 scenario, the complex decision-making and problem-solving processes had become newly problematic, and the emotional labour involved was heightened; the researcher-participants had joined wanting to learn and support others and the pedagogy was intensified. Hsiung (2016, p. 67) argues that doing research and teaching research methods are ‘inter-dependent and mutually reinforcing’ and that insufficient attention has been paid to how teaching can contribute to doing research rather than the other way around. Nind et al. (2020) build on this to argue that, in research methods education, insufficient attention has been paid to how learning can contribute to teaching – and in turn to doing research. The workshops illustrate a scenario of a new complex relationship: when doing research in the crisis of a pandemic is the basis for learning to be a resilient and adaptable researcher, and when reflecting on this collaboratively extends and deepens the learning, doing and teaching of research. The pedagogy enacted in the workshops was the opposite of the ‘atomistic learning’ of research methods that Wray and Wallace (2011, p. 246), among others, oppose. In research methods education, experiential learning involves ‘reciprocity between teaching and learning and a coming together of teachers and learners, theory and practice, in addressing the challenges of doing real-world research’ (Nind and Katramadou, 2022; see e.g., Bartels and Wagenaar, 2018; Bogumil et al., 2017). In this context, experiential approaches are often integrated with collaborative, arts-informed, problem-based, and project-based pedagogic approaches (Nind and Katramadou, 2022). The workshops had a mix of all of these in that together, participants used words and images to narrate, analyse and reflect on the impact of the pandemic on their research designs and methods, participants and ethics. The problems and projects were authentic, relevant and meaningful, ensuring that interest, motivation and empathy were high.

392  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Research methods pedagogy is distinctive for ‘teaching with, through and about data’ (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018b, p. 80). As the workshops combined research and learning functions, the data at the heart of the learning was being drawn from the participants’ own projects and generated in the river metaphor image-accounts (Meckin et al., forthcoming). As such, they exemplified the power of data and narratives about generating and analysing data for learning about research practices. Reflexivity is key to methods learning work. With or without data, the ‘ability to locate and situate oneself, and one’s methods decisions within a wider methods landscape’ (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016, p. 426) is crucial. Once again, the social situation enabled by the workshops was the conduit for this and our careful and sensitive facilitation supported participants to go ‘behind-the-scenes’ of their research for others to learn from their messy realities, just as Sharlene Hesse-Biber among others has advocated (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016). For good experiential learning, dialogue is necessary to support collaborative sense-making and practical reasoning, and use of arts media can aid critical and reflective thinking (Nind and Katramadou, 2022). Similarly, these can help with the diversity of participants engaged in research methods learning, which is often a challenge to teachers (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018b) for whom facing people with different levels of preparedness and from different disciplines can be hard. Two key responses are to find out about the learners and to find themes, or data to teach with, that speak to them all (Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018b). In the workshops, diversity was an asset, with dialogue and knowledge sharing across multiple differences. Finding out about each other was in-built with the rivers exercise and responses to the Covid-19 situation provided a natural focus of common interest. While ordinarily teachers may be reluctant to lose too much time to familiarisation and warm up, the pedagogy of these workshops shows how telling about one’s research and oneself can be intermingled so that the learning encounter becomes personal. There is some acknowledgement in the research methods literature of the emotions involved in learning to do research or to be a researcher (Cooper, Chenail and Fleming, 2012; Lesko et al., 2008; Nind et al., 2020). This emotional dimension is not confined to novice researchers and the research methods classroom. Senior researchers noting their insecurities and feeling deskilled, but also drawing on their expertise, helped produce a story-telling learning environment. As the workshop experience showed, researchers continue their methodological learning throughout their careers; this is inherent to the human, uncertain, risky quality of social research. And reflecting on methodological issues continues to demand the engagement of affect, and not the emotional performativity of this that MacFarlane (2021) derides, but because researchers care about the topics, people and communities they research and have much invested in their research designs. Workshop participants shared emotions through their rivers of research and showed great empathy towards each other. The literature on affective atmospheres is a useful place to begin to consider this emotionally laden, digital learning environment. As a metaphor to capture lived experiences, ‘[a]tmospheres are perpetually forming and deforming, appearing and disappearing, as bodies enter into relation with one another. They are never finished, static or at rest’ (Anderson, 2009, p. 79). Indeed, it is possible to think digital data and online spaces as ‘assemblages of flesh, code, data, device, place, space and time generate feeling’ (Lupton, 2017, p. 6). Thus, in our methods workshops, these assemblages of bodies, activities, digital functionalities and motivations produced empathic, optimistic, egalitarian online learning atmospheres that were detectable at our lockdown desks. We hope this will encourage others not to fear making room

Research methods learning in temporary online communities during Covid-19  393 for this in methods learning encounters, especially as the ‘emotion-free zone’ that Leathwood and Hey (2009, p. 429) discuss neglects the way in which ‘emotions are intimately tied to the construction of knowledge’ (p. 432).

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY The Covid-19 pandemic has been disruptive and distressing and hardly the impetus for methods education any of us would choose. But as the workshops have demonstrated, it has been an opportunity to consider, learn about, and innovate with research methods. In some cases, this was done by necessity, at pace, with little reflection, while others were afforded unscheduled time to pause and reassess methodological and ethical aspects of their research. Thus, the workshops not only provided multiple perspectives, but included researchers at different stages of learning and reflecting. The workshops thus show the pedagogic value of diversity within a learning community. Many researchers face disruption and challenges in their research at various times, but these experiences are rarely shared and problems are rarely solved in the ways we saw in the workshops. The Covid-19 context enabled a communal experience and collaborative and supportive response across the social research community, and we can take lessons from how researchers have responded to the crisis. When researchers come together in mutual learning, we can learn from the pedagogy therein. As previously noted, several researchers participating in the workshops were also actively engaged in the teaching of methods, and they reflected not only on the changes to teaching practices brought about by Covid-19, but also on the challenges of providing timely guidance and support. Both providers and recipients of research methods teaching have learned that we are more adaptable and resilient than we could have imagined. We have found what Chemi (2020, p. 5) described as our ‘creative little devils’ within, to find solutions to the methodological challenges of the Covid-19 ‘social event that is disrupting our social order’ (Teti, Schatz and Liebenberg, 2020) and with this our research order. Initially this may have been a lonely process, but inevitably as social beings we seek out others from whom, and with whom, we can learn. Covid-19 has been a powerful lesson in how much we need each other. The pedagogy described in this chapter is primarily built on this recognition. We would therefore wish to sensitise methods teachers and learners to the importance of sharing professional and personal narratives. From a sociocultural standpoint, learning happens everywhere and methods for supporting learning are intertwined with social identities, power relations, and people’s purposes, and practices (Nind, Curtin and Hall, 2016). Research projects can provide rich learning spaces where, as in the case analysed in this chapter, pedagogic practice had to take account of the lived realities of everyone involved. Supporting methodological learning in the pandemic underlined how much people’s lived experiences are significant and relevant: they can become the object and vehicle of the pedagogy. In the workshops, learning, teaching, and doing methods collapsed into a series of interrelated action. There are no fool proof ways to learn, to teach or to research in times of crisis, but we can be clear that appreciating the challenges as shared challenges helps in the process of perceiving meaning and creating solutions.

394  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6

https://​blogs​.lse​.ac​.uk/​imp​actofsocia​lsciences/​ https://​www​.methodspace​.com/​ https://​the​-sra​.org​.uk/​SRA/​Blog/​Blog​-Home​.aspx https://​items​.ssrc​.org/​ https://​docs​.google​.com/​document/​d/​1clGj​GABB2h2qbd​uTgfqribHm​og9B6P0NvM​gVuiHZCl8/​ https://​steps​-centre​.org/​pathways​-methods​-vignettes/​methods​-vignettes​-rivers​-life/​

REFERENCES Anderson, B. (2009). Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society, 2(2), 77–81. Bartels, K.P. and Wagenaar, H. (2018). Doubt and excitement: An experiential learning approach to teaching the practice of qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 18(2), 191–206. Bogumil, E., Capous-Desyllas, M., Lara, P. and Reshetnikov, A. (2017). Art as mode and medium: A pedagogical approach to teaching and learning about self-reflexivity and artistic expression in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 40(4), 360–378. Chemi, T. (2020). It is impossible: The teacher’s creative response to the Covid-19 emergency and digitalized teaching strategies. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(7), 853–860. Cooper, R., Chenail, R.J. and Fleming, S. (2012). A grounded theory of inductive qualitative research education: Results of a meta-data-analysis. The Qualitative Report, 17(52), 1–26. Hsiung, P.-C. (2016). Teaching qualitative research as transgressive practices: Introduction to the special issue. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(2), 59–71. Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by C. Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Abingdon: Routledge. Leathwood, C. and Hey, V. (2009). Gender/ed discourses and emotional sub-texts: Theorising emotion in UK higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 429–440. Lesko, N., Simmons, J., Quarshie, A. and Newton, N. (2008). The pedagogy of monsters: Scary disturbances in a doctoral research preparation course. Teachers College Record, 110(8), 1541–1573. Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. Lobe, B., Morgan, D. and Hoffman, K.A. (2020). Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–8. Lupton, D. (2017). How does health feel? Towards research on the affective atmospheres of digital health. Digital Health, 3, 1–11. MacFarlane, B. (2021). Methodology, fake learning, and emotional performativity. ECNU Review of Education, 5(1), 140–155. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​2096531120984786 Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018a). Methods that teach: Developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(4), 398–410. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018b). Hard to teach: Inclusive pedagogy in social science research methods education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1), 74–88. Nind, M., Curtin, A. and Hall, K. (2016). Research Methods for Pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Nind, M., Holmes, M., Insenga, M., Lewthwaite, S. and Sutton, C. (2020). Student perspectives on learning research methods in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(7), 797–811. Nind, M., Meckin, R. and Coverdale, A. (2021). Changing research practices: Undertaking social research in the context of Covid-19. Project Report, NCRM. https://​eprints​.ncrm​.ac​.uk/​id/​eprint/​4457/​ Orange, A. (2016). Encouraging reflective practices in doctoral students through research journals. The Qualitative Report, 21(12), 2176–2190. Teti, M., Schatz, E. and Liebenberg, L. (2020). Methods in the time of COVID-19: The vital role of qualitative inquiries. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–5. https://​doi:​10​.1177/​ 1609406920920962

Research methods learning in temporary online communities during Covid-19  395 Wray, A. and Wallace, M. (2011). Accelerating the development of expertise: A step-change in social science research capacity building. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(3), 241–264.

27. Understanding research methods textbooks: pedagogy, production and practice Patrick Brindle and Sarah Lewthwaite

INTRODUCTION Social science research methods textbooks are a resilient and highly cited area of academic publishing. However, little attention has been given to the pedagogies these resources enact. We use research by the authors to examine leading social science research methods textbooks. In addition, Patrick draws on 11 years of experience as a research methods publisher at Sage, observing and participating in the ongoing process of developing methods textbooks. By reflecting on publishing practice and combining this with textual research, we identify the explicit pedagogies such texts embody and draw on, and examine how textbooks seek to foster and support methods learning. Attending to methods textbooks can bring new insights to how we teach and learn about methods. Here, we consider textbook pedagogies in depth, ranging from the in-text ‘pedagogical features’ that connect learners to research and spur active learning; through to experiential approaches that deploy voicing and connection to real-world cases and data. We examine what we might mean by textbook ‘pedagogy’, and look at how publishing practices shape the range of pedagogies presented in texts. We argue that textbook design norms iteratively shape, constrain and respond to our ideas of methods pedagogy, class-based teaching and online learning. The under-researched role of authors and publishers as pedagogic ‘intermediaries’ in this process will also be explored, and we argue that textbooks need to be interpreted in part as ‘frames’ and as ‘models’ that are rooted in publishing cultures as much as in their classroom deployment. Understanding the interplay between these two sides of the life of methods textbooks is key to better evaluating textbooks as pedagogical agents. To best understand methods textbooks as pedagogical agents we need to interpret them not only textually as vehicles for content, but as a form of media that are deeply influenced by authorial and editorial traditions, by historical and sociological forces, and by the changing business models and economies of publishing. Methods textbooks are ‘mediated’. They are mediated as a form of media, as a ‘frame’ into which authors and publishers squeeze content according to historically-derived traditions of representation (Bhaskar, 2013, p. 4). And they are ‘mediated’ through the interplay of different intermediaries in co-creating and enacting the texts themselves. Such ‘intermediaries’ include the authors themselves, but also publishers, in the form of development editors, marketers and sales staff, academic peer reviewers, textbook adopters, and, finally, the instructors, students and scholars who are the readers and buyers of such texts. All of these actors operate within a chain of textbook development, linking the author and their interactions with the publisher at the beginning stage of a book, through to the lecturers and students who will become the book’s users and readers when it is published. At each point along this chain the textbook-as-pedagogy is negotiated and mediated in various 396

Understanding research methods textbooks  397 imperfect locales that each seeks to lay some claim to how the text should be shaped and understood. Changing technologies, and external – ‘exogenous’ – factors, form another layer of mediation, creating the conditions for new habits of consumption that in turn force authors and publishers to think again about the role and contents of their books. If we want to understand how the current ecosystem of methods textbooks came into being, we need to consider these factors holistically. In sum, this chapter interrogates the ways in which the teaching and learning of research methods ‘by the book’ can spur productive thinking about pedagogy, media and learning. We seek to augment the important work of scholars who analyse textbooks as texts as content vessels (Cannadine, 2011), by adding a sociological layer to our understanding of methods textbooks that sees them as co-created media, with their own unique history and niche. In so doing, we can examine ‘pedagogy’ as operating on two semi-distinct levels: pedagogy as a ‘frame’ embedded in publishing models, and pedagogy as ‘enactment’ embedded in the text itself.

RESEARCH METHODS TEXTBOOKS IN THEIR HISTORICAL AND PROFESSIONAL CONTEXT The Longue-durée in Textbook Publishing Textbooks are books designed to support learning. They are one of the oldest forms of publishing, predating scholarly journals, novels, newspapers and magazines, dating back to the dawn of European publishing in the late 1400s. Almost from the beginning, textbooks contained textual features that were designed to aid readers in better understanding their subject matter. These might include illustrations, commentaries, and even worked examples. The Libro de Abacho, a guide to practical arithmetic written for merchants and published in Venice in 1478, contained a number of worked examples drawn from real-world commercial scenarios that readers could use to practice and self-test their understanding of the book’s mathematical concepts (Jardine, 1997). Textbooks, then, have been a core and ever-present part of Western publishing. As guides to prescribed knowledge, they have often courted controversy and the attention of the censor and even the Inquisition’s policing of heresy. In fields such as religion, history and philosophy, textbooks have been used as ideological tools to shape the beliefs of society (Brindle, 1998). This longue-durée of the textbook plays a powerful role in shaping what publishers, authors and readers think of when they consider textbooks, and can be used as a point of comparison to consider how modern methods textbooks fit and diverge from the textbook tradition. Many of the elements of textbook design and writing in today’s methods texts are present because they conform to time-honoured expectations about what textbooks need to contain. As we shall see, contemporary methods textbooks are both part of and divergent from the long textbook mainstream, forming a unique sub-culture of textbook publishing that must be understood in its own terms. The norms and traditions of textbooks are also being challenged and reshaped by the digital revolution in learning and publishing. These two interwoven revolutions are creating the space for new kinds of textbooks and new kinds of learning in research methods.

398  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods The Influence of the ‘Adoption Model’ on Shaping Texts Bhaskar (2013) argued that publishing needed to be understood against four criteria: framing, models, filtering and amplification. Filtering is the process of selection or curation (later text editing and development) whereby publishers sift and reject low quality submissions and present the market with high quality content. Amplification is the process of making and enlarging markets through sales and marketing and distribution strategies. Framing and models are the more useful concepts in helping us understand how research methods textbooks have come to be the way they are. A ‘frame’, according to Bhaskar, is a normalised tradition of publishing (Bhaskar, 2013, p. 6). A novel is a ‘frame’ in trade fiction publishing, for example, and in educational publishing the ‘textbook’ is a frame. The content and format of novels and textbooks are ‘framed’ by publishers’ and readers’ pre-existing assumptions about how they should be embodied in their published (often meaning printed) form (Bhaskar, 2013). To Bhaskar, a ‘model’ is how different types of publication are delivered to the market in a sustainable way for both publishers and readers (p. 7). The ‘model’ of textbook publishing, for many decades, has been the ‘adoption model’. The ‘adoption model’ is characterised by publishers competing to secure the adoption of a ‘set text’ to support a particular course. Once a text is ‘adopted’ on the course, the adopting course leader would make that text a required purchase for all of the students on the module. In pre-digital times, the ‘adoption model’ was a business model. It dictated ways of doing business with lecturers and campus bookshops. It was also an editorial model. It created the need for publishers to adopt editorial practices to ensure the printed texts were the best possible match for course content. The ‘adoption model’ effectively created a publishing industry within an industry, dominating higher education textbook publishing in North America and Europe in the 1980s and 1990s. The predominance of this model has been criticised, particularly from within sociology, for subjecting social sciences to commercial influences that are in tension with learner needs (Kendell, 1999). Today, the adoption model is beginning to fray, as digital revolutions in publishing and learning create a more unstable and diverse set of publishing models. Yet we continue to see its influence in the continued prominence of core, what we might call ‘big beast’, methods textbooks such as Field’s (2017) Discovering Statistics (Sage), Bryman’s (2016) Social Research Methods (Oxford University Press) and Saunders et al.’s (2020) Research Methods for Business Students (Pearson). Authors and publishers working on textbooks for the ‘adoption model’ market work within a highly regulated, overlapping frame and model, designed to maximise the adoption potential of each text. Authors are supported by ‘development editors’ who work with authors to ensure that the text is a strong fit with course content around the world. Development editors conduct curriculum reviews by combing university websites to download module guides to keep an up-to-date list of the canon of must-have content that they can pass on to authors. An ongoing criticism of the textbook form has been the incongruence between canonical approaches, and those concepts and techniques advanced by newer academic research. In sociology, Hamilton and Form (2003) refer to this incongruous gap between textbook content and academic research as the problem of the ‘two sociologies’. A host of critics cite issues such as ‘missing terms’, concepts and outmoded material as characteristic of textbook forms (Best and Schweingruber, 2003, p. 103; Featherstone and Sorrell, 2007; Suarez and Balaji, 2007). Within the texts themselves, however, authors’ own accounts highlight the pedagogic thinking behind new editions. For example, the need to maintain state-of-the-art content (Groves

Understanding research methods textbooks  399 et al., 2009), changes in mediating technologies (Field, 2017), and the additions of changes in data and growth of distinct fields (be that Bayesian Statistics or eResearch). For authors, the most important consideration is that the textbook is pedagogically-led rather than market driven. Over the course of many editions, authors augment peer/adopter review with informal surveys and collegial advice (Miles, Huberman and Saldaña, 2014, p. xxii), reader/learner correspondence (Field, 2017) or through teaching: ‘As always, the process of teaching from the book taught us a great deal’ (Miles et al., 2014, p. xxii). Internet inspired ‘FAQs’ are also offered, with authors explicitly modelling these on questions raised by students and researchers (Flick, 2014; Groves et al., 2009; Patton, 2015; Silverman, 2015). While these do not constitute pedagogic research, they do indicate the proximity and influence of classroom practice. The role of methods textbooks as class texts is the product of many iterations of curricular research, close author management, targeted and repeated peer/adopter review. In this way, the ‘big’ texts in research methods (the Fields, Brymans and Saunders and others), more closely resemble core textbooks in disciplines such as business studies, psychology and medicine than they do fellow titles in the research methods catalogue. Most methods texts do not receive anything like this level of intensive and expensive ‘development’ because this long-tail of texts will not generate large adoption sales. When we extend our focus beyond the large core texts in methods, we encounter more hybridised shorter texts; designed with one eye on module course content, and with the other on the provision of methodological self-help. Such textbooks are less likely to be adopted as set texts, instead being bought by postgraduates and faculty interested in teaching themselves more about a method. Authors of such books have more autonomy to shape the manuscript and take their own position on controversial issues such as epistemology and methodology than would be the case on the more closely managed ‘big beasts’. Consequently, the amount of ‘textbook design features’ and the range of ‘ancillaries’ (websites, data sets and teaching materials) expected of such texts reduces substantially. Messages for practice ● Methods knowledge is dynamic and changing, learning resources need constant development to remain relevant. ● Authorial discourses within textbooks highlight the need for pedagogically driven content. ‘Pedagogy’ Means Different Things to Publishers and Educators This chapter is about ‘pedagogy’ but we recognise that the term ‘pedagogy’ is unusually problematic in any discussion of textbooks. To most scholars and educators, the term ‘pedagogy’ refers to the methods and processes of learning and teaching, or more specifically teaching in light of what is known about how learners learn (James and Pollard, 2011). Publishers also talk about pedagogy, occasionally in the same terms as scholars and educators, but mostly when publishers talk about pedagogy it is publisher-speak for the range of in-text design features that frame texts as textbooks. Typically, these pedagogical features or pedagogy would include a range of the following features: ● Lists of learning objectives. ● Highlighted key terms (and their definitions).

400  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ● Boxed features (presenting major issues, summaries, practical advice, additional explanation, or extension tasks). ● Vignettes. ● End-of-chapter review questions. ● Case studies. ● Annotated further reading lists. ● Checklists. ● Worked exercises. ● A range of visualisations (photographs, graphs, tables, diagrams, flow-charts etc.). ● Step-by-step guides. ● Research process templates. Many of these textual devices offer different routes to learning, through multiple visual representations and metaphor. Such pedagogical features supply varied access points to methods learning having particular resonance, for example, in quantitative methods (e.g. Field, Salkind) as readers connect with methodological logic. Some of these devices are specific to social science research methods, for example in the use of real-world research examples, data and messages from the field, inclusive of procedural and experiential insights on research conduct through practical hints and tips. More recently, authors themselves have used explicit pedagogy to draw to readers’ attention the moves being made and the pedagogy at stake. As Patton (2015, p. xxi) reflects to readers: boxed items of interest … supplement the text with examples and extended quotations from knowledgeable … theorists and practitioners. They are a way of highlighting experts’ insights, case study examplars, supplementary readings and additional resources.

Importantly, the inclusion of multiple perspectives, through insights from researchers, theorists and practitioners, marks a growing move towards a form of pedagogic polyphony: multiple teaching standpoints and voices, that arguably counters long-standing criticisms that research methods textbooks are static (Hood, 2006), lack nuance (Dixon and Quirk, 2018; Hood, 2006) and present knowledge as uncontested (Hood, 2006). Authors including other researchers’ experiences with methods challenges notions of conformity and consensus in ways that can foster reflexivity and introduce a strong experiential pedagogic dynamic (e.g. Corbin and Strauss, 2015; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Patton, 2015; Salkind, 2016). For example, Bryman (2015) includes ‘supervisor tip boxes’ and ‘student experience boxes’; authentic experiences to help readers gain insight into how a method works in practice. Other authors include researcher insights (Corbin and Strauss, 2015; Miles et al., 2014; Patton, 2015), anecdotal advice based on authors’ and researchers’ experiential knowledge in backstage accounts of the messy reality of research experience, contrasting with the often ‘perfect’ front-stage accounts of research that dominate journal papers. The next step for publishers and authors of methods textbooks will lie in revisiting content and pedagogy as part of the ongoing process of decolonising curricula. This process has already begun and will be an important additional dimension of the production and revision cycles of textbooks in the coming years as the worlds of research and higher education themselves become ever more globalised and pluralistic.

Understanding research methods textbooks  401 Messages for practice ● Methods textbooks highlight the richness of narrative forms, metaphors, representations, and checks of methods knowledge that can be harnessed for teaching. ● Using explicit pedagogy with learners allows learners to access and understand their learning journey. ● Presenting methods through multiple perspectives, inclusive of instructor and student perspectives enriches both methodological and learning approaches. The ‘Model’ and the Market – Research Methods as the Common Denominator of the Academic Profession in Social Sciences Prolific methods publishers understand that the market for methods texts in higher education is very different to the typical market for textbooks in disciplines such as chemistry, history or sociology. While social science academics are divided by their research topics and disciplinary boundaries, they are united in their need to conduct research. In short, research methods are a common denominator across the social sciences, uniting diverse postgrads and faculty through the need to acquire the skills and understanding necessary for the robust and sophisticated data collection and analysis required for doctorates and journal papers. Indeed, methods textbooks are amongst the most cited sources in the social sciences (Green, 2016). The breadth of this market, in combination with the massification of the higher education sector (Hornsby and Osman, 2014; Scott, 1995), has insulated methods publishing from the challenges of the digital revolution impacting textbook profitability elsewhere. Pedagogically, this meant methods authors were faced with an added difficulty as they were encouraged to make their manuscripts as discipline agnostic as possible to accommodate such a wide readership. An author from a sociology background might be encouraged to find examples and case studies, and write in a language, that would make their book comprehensible to readers in psychology, education or political science. This is no easy task, given the importance of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) within different fields (Shulman, 1986), and more specifically the PCK that is found in research methods teaching (Nind, 2020). PCK refers to the ‘special amalgam of content and pedagogy’ (Shulman, 1987, p. 8) that is indicative of how specific content is best taught. PCK identifies how teachers’ content and topic knowledge, and their pedagogic, teaching skill in delivering that content are integrated. As Shulman (1986) observes, effective teaching coheres around ‘the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanation and demonstrations’ (p. 9). PCK also identifies challenges – for example, concerning necessary prior knowledge, threshold concepts, anticipating where learners will struggle – and translates subject knowledge accordingly. In the publishers’ focus on generic titles to serve all social scientists, textbooks trade comprehensiveness for the complexity and specificity needed for learners in the disciplines, resulting in a lack of nuance (Dixon and Quirk, 2018; Hood, 2006) and the depth and sense of contingency needed for effective learning. The balance between breadth and depth in the textbook has also been identified as a source of conflict in the methods classroom. Hood (2006) writes critically, that as textbooks ‘require expertise on a wide range of material that is almost always broader than the expertise of the author’ they will contain ‘at least some material that is clearly in error’ (Hood, 2006, p. 207). For Hood, the failure of social science research methods textbooks represents a teachable

402  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods moment in the classroom, to ‘grapple with misleading and inaccurate statements’, ‘myths’ and ‘mainstream folklore’ (p. 207) with learners. Some authors skilfully meet this challenge. In his bestselling Discovering Statistics, Field’s (2015) examples and explanations draw empathetically on examples that a wide range of students will recognise and relate to, despite their disciplinary background, addressing the challenges common to learning statistics. Nonetheless, publishers’ concerns around framing methods texts within a profitable commercial model of methods publishing remains in tension with how texts might be received in a classroom setting or a specific disciplinary context. Messages for practice ● Commercial considerations in both publishing and academia can be an impetus toward generic pedagogy at the expense of content and pedagogy that is discipline specific. Delivering teaching that recognises the interests and PCK of a field and students’ disciplinary needs, whilst recognising the methods canon, requires reflexive attention on the part of practitioners. The Quantitative/Qualitative Divide in Methods Textbook Development Economic factors such as adoptability have had a large bearing on how pedagogy was imagined and developed in print and online texts (Fullerton, 1988; Shepard, 2001). Subject matter too, has a large bearing on the kinds of pedagogy enacted within methods texts, particularly in the divide between qualitative and quantitative methods books. Unlike academics, most publishers are disinterested in the epistemological paradigm wars that have coalesced in methodology over the last 60 years. Indeed, scholarly disputes over epistemology, say, or the relative merits of qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approaches, are generally good news for publishers because they create a market for a wider variety of publications adopting different standpoints. But publishers have developed pedagogy differently in quantitative compared to qualitative titles. Quantitative titles in particular have been regarded as being much easier to support with a wider range of in-text and digital pedagogical features. University statistics classes are often lab-based and connected to popular analytical packages such as IBM SPSS, R or Matlab. Top-selling statistics texts (such as Field, 2017) were soon supported by online Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), test banks, video walk-throughs of SPSS processes, and latterly quantitative datasets (and code libraries for machine learning) designed for teaching a particular statistical technique. Qualitative textbooks, in contrast, lacked digital investment. In short, routinised, MCQ-based digital learning tools are much easier to develop for quantitative learning and learning assessment compared to qualitative. This divide was underscored by the peer/adopter review process. Instructors and module leaders on large introductory statistics courses consistently requested practical exercises, teachable datasets and testing. Module leaders on qualitative methods courses rarely suggested they wanted such things. Messages for practice ● The close fit between quantitative methods content and the current affordances of online learning platforms create ever more pedagogical resources in this field. Digital resources

Understanding research methods textbooks  403 can be used and curated by teachers to expand student learning opportunities beyond formal courses. Recent Revolutions – Covid-19 and the Rise of New Media In methods textbook publishing, print has continued to be the dominant format in stark contrast to academic journals. However, in early 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic forced a digital pivot. Campuses and libraries shut. Many university courses remained entirely online throughout the academic year of 2020/21, forcing methods teachers to reconsider what works pedagogically, and to engage through online modes of delivery. Longer-term trends in media consumption had already begun to compel change in academic publishing. Video and YouTube as a platform was already spurring a ‘video-first’ development in self-directed learning. Alongside this, mobile phones and the emergence of podcast culture and audiobooks in trade publishing forced publishers to look afresh at audio content. Interviews with current methods publishers suggest that the challenges and opportunities posed by video and audio content are now part of the discussion around developing new forms of pedagogical content online. In the near term, textbooks are likely to increasingly blend text material with audio and video, and will be connected by ubiquitous mobile devices. Further, the emergence of Wattpad and AO3 as vehicles for user-generated content, along with the Bookstagram and Booktok phenomena, suggest a pivot in publishing more generally, with video, audio, social media and indie-authoring all starting to converge in how publishers plan to develop the next generation of textbooks. Messages for practice ● New digital media represent new challenges for research, but also for learning. Curating online sources of methods teaching in a variety of media will be of growing importance. Learners will need the capacity to discover and critically evaluate methods materials and resources as they continue their learning and professional development beyond formal education.

RESEARCH METHODS TEXTBOOKS AS A PEDAGOGIC CONTEXT At this point we turn away from the publisher perspectives that constitute and shape research methods textbooks, to take an alternative pedagogic view of the methods textbook as text. Earlier sections have discussed ‘pedagogy as specified’ (Nind, Curtin and Hall, 2016, p. 10), that is, the pedagogic models and frames of the textbook and publisher or authorial intent. Now we consider textbooks from the perspective of ‘pedagogy as enacted’ (Nind et al., 2016, p. 11), moving from a consideration of the extant forces shaping publication, to a consideration of the resultant textbooks themselves: how pedagogy is articulated and embodied in the content of the textbook. Here, we consider evidence of how authors balance a market mentality with the need to centre textbook content on the needs of learners and teachers. Through content analysis (Lewthwaite and Holmes, 2018), we observe how authors of leading methods textbooks nego-

404  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods tiate models and frames to engage methods learners. We also see the pedagogic content knowledge that is specific to methods learning enacted across these textbooks and – importantly – those sites of innovation within research methods textbook publishing that have potential to enrich thinking about research methods pedagogy more broadly. Anticipating Learner Needs A pedagogical struggle at the heart of textbook education lies in the need to address the broadest possible audience whilst ensuring that content is relevant, engaging and specific. The majority of the 30 leading methods texts we reviewed represent a hybrid of course books and how-to books (see Lewthwaite and Holmes, 2018). Course books deliver content sequentially, with a view to being facilitated by a teacher in class, with knowledge being accrued over the course of reading from beginning to end. How-to books support independent learning; chapters stand alone and signpost backwards and forwards to content in other chapters, anticipating that they will be dipped into by readers directing their own methods learning. This content analysis focussed on the pedagogic repertoire that the books enact, observing the ways in which methods textbooks attune to the needs of a diverse readership (Lewthwaite and Holmes, 2018). For methods textbooks to be effective, they must anticipate and answer the needs of learners, whilst addressing the mix of procedural knowledge, theoretical understanding and technical know-how that is unique to building methodological expertise (Kilburn et al., 2014). Authors must address multiple audiences simultaneously, and recognise that any one reader may use the text in a number of different ways, for various purposes as they gain expertise and experience (Bryman, 2015; Field, 2017). To do this, authors often use authorial direct address to demonstrate their pedagogical reasoning – the teaching and learning strategies that are voiced directly to the reader. These occur frequently in cover notes, prefaces to new editions, or through sections focussed on specific audiences, with starting points guiding readers alongside moves to define audiences. Starting points: Many books include a guide for how to use the textbook and these function in multiple ways: positioning the book, setting the pedagogic tone and relating the reader to the content for the first time. In introductory sections titled ‘Guide to the book’ (Bryman, 2015), ‘The nature of the book’ (Miles et al., 2014), ‘How to use this book’ (Field, 2017) amongst others, pedagogic issues such as content and approaches to difficulty are outlined for different audiences, giving access to the pedagogic decision-making in sophisticated ways. Many texts function effectively as multi-facetted pedagogic objects, and within these hybrid textbooks, content delivered through multiple modes of presentation is made explicit to readers. Modes for delivery include styling these sections as a readers’ ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ – ‘What background knowledge do I need’ (Field, 2017), ‘Why use this book?’ (Bryman, 2015), an invitation and imagined dialogue: ‘You might ask, what does the journey entail? Where do I start? How do I proceed? Which obstacles lie ahead?’ (Charmaz, 2014, p. 1), or more simply in a preface or introduction. Defining audience: Authors also define their audience early on, by stating who the book is for and by developing the foundations from which the book will build. Themes here include (as one might expect) multi-disciplinarity, for example, drawing attention to the use of examples from across social sciences and stating ‘relevant discussions’ for other disciplines such as health (see Miles et al., 2014). Within quantitative textbooks, necessary prior knowledge (statistical or technical) is often outlined (Field, 2017; Gelman and Hill, 2007; Greene, 2011)

Understanding research methods textbooks  405 allowing authors to pitch difficulty accordingly. Educational level (undergraduate, postgraduate or postdoc) is frequently stated. Competency for those outside formal education is also framed by some authors, who recognise (for example) a ‘beginning researcher’, or ‘staff specialists and managers’. Reference is more often (or simultaneously) given to the nature of the educational or research task at hand. Bryman (2015) identifies, first, undergraduates in social sciences, who will take a methods course, and second, undergraduates and postgraduates who are required to conduct a research project. Bryman (2015) explicitly highlights content accordingly: ‘Chapter 4 has been written specifically for students doing research projects’ (p. xxv). Whilst Bryman does not style these as exclusive categories, notably, textbooks often address ‘the project’ or ‘the course’. This can be for the teacher/reader, but the role of the book in support of courses is more readily attuned to student/reader perspectives, for example including repeated ‘suggestions for using the book in qualitative research methods courses’ (Bryman, 2015, p. 5). Dualism in Theory and Practice Authors such as Babbie (2012), Groves et al. (2009) and Silverman (2015) explicitly discuss the dualism between theory and practice early in their texts; authors highlighted that other books within their subject areas either presented extensive theory in abstract terms or detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to conduct research, de-emphasising the theories underpinning research methods. Many authors (Charmaz, 2014; Flick, 2014; Groves et al., 2009; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Yin, 2018) rejected the discourse of a ‘cook-book’ or ‘recipe book’ for research prioritising process, preferring to provide a solid foundation on both the theoretical principles of research and how these principles are reflected in research method techniques; bridging the gap between theory and practice. However, some authors (Bazeley and Jackson, 2013; Creswell, 2013; Krueger and Casey, 2014; Salkind, 2016) do distil content to a set of core ideas for readers planning to conduct research. Why isn’t this theory stuff and more in Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics? Simple. Right now, you don’t need it. It’s not that I don’t think it’s important. Rather, at this point in time in your studies, I want to offer you material at a level I think you can understand and learn with some reasonable amount of effort, whilst at the same time not be scared off from taking additional courses in the future. I (and your professor) want you to succeed. (Salkind, 2016, p. xxiv)

Scaffolding Learning Authors present varied techniques for sequencing content and providing scaffolding to support the reader on their learning journey (Babbie, 2012; Bryman, 2015; Field, 2017; Greene, 2011). Many leading methods textbooks are organised so that sections are broken down into key elements and build on one another to enhance on student learning (Corbin and Strauss, 2015; Miles et al., 2014; Salkind, 2016): My reorganizing decisions […] are based on pedagogical knowledge of how most university graduate students learn and on how I personally prefer to teach: progressing in a highly organized, systematic way, one building block at a time, towards a spiralled, cumulate synthesis. (Miles et al., 2014, p. xviii)

406  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods However, some authors acknowledge that readers may use the book as a reference source and use techniques to direct the reader. These books use a number of in-text features, such as detailed content pages, and chapter overviews which allows readers to easily discover elements that relate to their learning aims. Foreshadowing is used within the text (Bryman, 2015; Morgan and Winship, 2014; Scott, 2017; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013) providing readers with ideas and concepts and then highlighting the chapters where this will be discussed further on in the book in more detail. Taken together, such rhetorical and pedagogical devices gesture to both the ways in which authors make content accessible to learners in ways that meet their learning needs. Pedagogic Hooks In the classroom, ‘pedagogic hooks’ (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016, p. 422) motivate and connect students to methods, hooking them in and getting them interested in the topic. Among teachers, Nind (2020) establishes the PCK of methods teaching as being centred on ‘teaching with, through and about data’ (p. 194) in ways that motivate and build interest. In methods textbooks, pedagogic hooks involve research ideas, data or methods, and fundamentally seek to connect learners to research ‘so that they might see or know research in engaging ways’ (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016, p. 421). Real-world research and authentic data: A common hook is the inclusion of real-world research to demonstrate the principles of a method, its application, illustrate major issues, and highlight the method’s potential (see Gelman and Hill, 2007; Greene, 2011; Groves et al., 2009; Morgan and Winship, 2014). Fox describes selecting real world datasets that add ‘intrinsic interest’ and ‘embody a variety of characteristics’ (Fox, 2015, p. xxii). These accord with Nind’s (2020) observation that teachers’ PCK centres on ‘the value of immersion in authentic data (experiential learning) and the value of actively doing things with data (active or problem-based learning)’ (p. 195). Field (2017) also identifies the role of data in adding interest, having ‘trawled the world for examples of research on really fascinating topics’ (p. xxi). Authors also show research in use. Bryman (2016) includes ‘Research in the news’ textboxes, highlighting research in the media. Yin (2013) punctuates his text with case studies ‘deliberately drawing from different academic and professional fields’. These ‘concrete examples’ illustrate the text and the citations ‘increase your access to existing and (often) exemplary case studies’ (Yin, 2013, p. xxi). Humour: Field (2017), Patton (2015) and Salkind (2016) also harness intrinsic motivation further using techniques to make methods fun, acknowledging that learners are frequently anxious or intimidated by quantitative topics. Both Field (2017) and Salkind (2016) include humorous anecdotes and examples, in a personable and approachable style. Such an approach is also an acknowledgement that many students do not enjoy research methods and is an attempt to tackle this issue head on. Storytelling: Storytelling can articulate the application of methods to demonstrate its potential (e.g. Gelman and Hill, 2007; Krueger and Casey, 2014). Patton (2015) and Field (2017) include storytelling amongst a battery of hooks to engage readers in more experiential accounts of methods learning. Auto-biographical narratives serve to embody methods, alongside stories, cartoons, fictional characters and personas to develop narrative threads. Examples include Patton’s (2015) ‘rumination’ ‘written in a voice and style more empathetic

Understanding research methods textbooks  407 and engaging than traditional textbook style’ (p. 429). Field (2017) includes his school reports in his preface, and bookends his chapters with ‘My life story’: I strongly believe that people appreciate the human touch, and so I inject a lot of my own personality and sense of humour (and lack of) into my Discovering Statistics Using … books. (p. xvi)

Reflexivity Many textbooks promote reflexivity, and indeed explicitly articulate the centrality of reflection to methodological competence. Activities centred on reflection include directions to use research journaling alongside textbook activities (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2018) or use of questions that require the reader to reflect (Field, 2017; Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2018). More subtly, some (predominantly qualitative) texts use positionality and standpoints as threads across the text, expressed through vignettes of personal experience or an authorial standpoint that is explicit about the positionality of the text, relative to others and the wider methodological landscape (Charmaz, 2014; Lincoln and Guba, 1984; Silverman, 2015). In the case of Miles et al. (2014) reflexivity is baked-in, with contents including ‘Our Orientation’, as well as the deliberate use of ‘we’, and, when ‘opinions seem to diverge’ the text specifies ‘whose belief is being discussed’ (p. xviii). Deploying authorial voice in the first, second or third person (and alternating between these) draws attention to the ways in which research is situated and necessitates critical positionality – key issues for reflexive methodological learning (Kilburn et al., 2014). In this way, many author biographies also work to express expertise, and simultaneously model routes into methods and methodology, drawing out the positionality of the authors relative to one another – highlighting multiple perspectives – and creating a space for reader reflection that actively works against the reification of a monolithic/positivistic authorial voice (see Miles et al., 2014). Student-centred Pedagogy Authors also acknowledge learning over a life course. They understand that the reader/student/ beginner researcher is on a learning journey. While a textbook provides details on the process and techniques for research and learning opportunities, the readers’ learning belongs to them (Charmaz, 2014; Fox, 2015; Miles et al., 2014). Authors deploy holistic, student-centred approaches that recognise the challenge of methods learning. A number of authors include a direct address (Field, 2017; Kline, 2015; Mason, 2002; Patton, 2015). Miles et al. (2014) entreat readers not to ‘despair’ (p. 6). ‘I will speak to you (through my author’s voice) as one researcher to another, not as a statistician to the quantitatively naï ve’ states Kline (2015, p. 2); ‘this is one journey that you do not have to make alone’ (p. 3). Such expressions of fellowship acknowledge the emotional difficulty associated with learning research methods. In the same vein, Corbin and Strauss (2015) seek to ‘save others some of the struggles I faced’ (p. 82). Methods textbooks increasingly recognise that readers may feel anxious, desperate, or struggle with their learning (see Corbin and Strauss, 2015; Field, 2017; Salkind, 2016). The frequent use of second-person pronouns (‘you’, ‘your’ etc.) allow authors to step outside of the narrative and address readers more directly, in often more friendly or chatty tones. This trend

408  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods echoes growing research that holistically engages student experiences of research and the PhD as an embodied, situated and emotional experience (e.g. Nind et al., 2020). Building difficulty: Authors also use strategies to deal with difficult and complex content to ensure texts adapt to readers of differing competence. Some state that they include content for audiences of varying knowledge and expertise (Creswell, 2013; Flick, 2014; Greene, 2011; Groves et al., 2009). In Yin’s (2013) work, notes and tutorials provide further details and reading to the main content. Research tips allow readers to dip in and out of the text for their learning needs. Some authors are explicit about the varying degrees of difficulty, for example marking chapters, sections, and exercises with an asterisk for more challenging content and exercises (Fox, 2017), or giving difficulty ratings to activities, with Field (2017) denoting a scale from ‘introductory’ to ‘incinerate your brain’ (p. xxii). Textboxes frequently provide additional conceptual explanation, with more detail than in the body text (Babbie, 2012; Charmaz, 2014; Field, 2017; Patton, 2015). This may be used by readers to consolidate learning, or those who want to learn more: Thinking deeply boxes encourage you to consider an area in greater depth; either analysing a topic or issue further, or explaining the ins and outs of a current debate or significant discussion that has occurred between researchers. This feature introduces you to some of the complexities involved in using social research methods. (Bryman, 2015, p. xxx)

Messages for practice ● Innovation in textbook pedagogy demonstrates how teachers can anticipate learners’ needs. This can be done by addressing dualisms in theory and practice, scaffolding learning, deploying varied pedagogic hooks, encouraging learner reflexivity and using student-centred pedagogy. Such approaches can be applied both in dialogic ‘live’ teaching spaces, and also in digital learning environments. The rich pedagogic strategies methods authors deploy show how the PCK that is unique to research methods can be embedded in teaching materials and support resources to ensure pedagogy is holistically expressed for enriched learning that caters for diverse groups simultaneously.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY We have sought to combine two perspectives on methods textbooks, drawing insights on the role of negotiation between authors and publishers working in both pedagogical and commercial contexts and analysing the published outcomes of such enactments. With the Covid-19 pandemic, digital changes in learning and publishing are accelerating. Further scholarship is needed to attend to teaching datasets, gamification, and video and audio content as a much larger part of the ecosystem of publishing – interrelating educational research, sociological approaches and platform studies. Where we have not been in this chapter is into the classroom or in tracing the learner journey from the reader’s perspective. Such steps would allow us to better understand how texts are read and negotiated by students and how they are taught (or deployed) by teachers. Further research is necessary to accommodate the reception of methods textbooks (‘pedagogy as understood’, Nind et al., 2016) as a dimension of our understanding. Looking forward, further

Understanding research methods textbooks  409 theoretical analysis is available. Textbooks can be seen to represent a form of ‘symbolic capital’ (Bourdieu, 1984). Methods textbooks can be seen to be representing a specifically methodological form of symbolic capital and cultural capital, in terms of content and pedagogy. As publishers and academics grapple with the need to decolonise the curricula (and by extension the textbook) an understanding of the symbolic capital enacted by the methods textbook will need to come under closer scrutiny by future researchers. Authors also use an array of devices to encourage learning and facilitate access to the text for multiple forms of use. In this key respect, we find that textbooks are multi-facetted pedagogic objects that address a varied readership in a dynamic way. Along each point of the development chain, the content and the pedagogy of the book is mediated in a series of overlapping and imperfect locales. Authors provide the intellectual content and do the writing, but in textbook publishing their work is shaped by the demands of the adoption model, the views of reviewer/adopters, editors and the need for profit. From the initial blueprint of an idea, to a book being published and read, there are many points of mediation and co-creation. These include the editorial process (or locale) of peer/adopter review; the need to match to – align with – or develop course content; the need to broaden the examples and pedagogic repertoire to maximise, engage and motivate the readership; and onwards to the reception and renegotiation of the published text by methods teachers and learners in the classroom (another locale). Each of these points of mediation is a point of negotiation between the active agents at a particular stage of the process where neither party operates with absolute freedom. Authors negotiate with publishers on content and coverage throughout the writing and editorial process, with the resulting text – and the experience of that text – manifesting many compromises between the original visions and the pedagogy that is experienced. Behind such negotiations lie the larger historical, commercial, and authorial forces that also shape the texts: the frames and models theorised by Bhaskar (2013). Textbooks themselves are a kind of frame – a set of ideas and traditions that pre-shape what a textbook should look like and how it should be written. The textbook adoption system is the ‘model’ in which the books operate, further shaping what the books can and cannot do so as to maximise the adoption potential of each new edition. The textbook frame and textbook model are now undergoing digital disruptions that should also be scrutinised by future researchers. The result is the methods textbook ecosystem we see around us today, and the texts themselves. As textbook pedagogy iterates through this process, the pedagogical content knowledge that constitutes methods teaching is reconfigured by the textbook form. The dominant classroom pedagogies of methods teaching – teaching with, through and about data – and translating methods for learners (Nind, 2020) are articulated in new ways. In particular, we see innovative strategies to motivate, engage and address multiple diverse audiences simultaneously, and address the challenge of the textbook form through a range of inventive and anticipatory strategies for learning design. The challenge of learner diversity in the methods classroom is well known – be it in terms of discipline, level, motivation, cultural or methodological background and so forth (Lewthwaite and Nind, 2016; Nind and Lewthwaite, 2018). In this, textbooks demonstrate how methods teachers – in any context – can effectively engage diverse learners by using intrinsically motivating and engaging examples, content and form. Orientating to learners’ needs is key to this. By scaffolding and modelling ways in which learners can actively drive their own learning – promoting reflexivity – and offering tiered difficulty, authentic challenge, multiple perspectives with options to extend learning accordingly, learners join in their learn-

410  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods ing journey. Methods textbooks increasingly recognise the emotional journey that methods learners undertake, and the need for pedagogic approaches that support learners holistically. All have resonance as pedagogic priorities for learning development and design for diverse learners and learning contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the Society for Research in Higher Education who funded Lewthwaite’s prior work on the Pedagogy of Research Methods Textbooks study (2018), and Michelle M. Holmes who contributed as a Research Associate on the data collection and content analysis.

REFERENCES Babbie, E. (2012/11). The Practice of Social Research. USA: Cengage Learning. International Edition. Bazeley, P. and Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. London: Sage. Best, J. and Schweingruber, D. (2003). ‘First words: Do sociologists actually use the terms in introductory textbooks’ glossaries?’ American Sociologist, 34(3), 97–106. Bhaskar, M. (2013). The Content Machine: Towards a Theory of Publishing from the Printing Press to the Digital Network. London: Anthem Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brindle, P. (1998). Past Histories, History and the Elementary School Classroom. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Cambridge University: Cambridge. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage. Dixon, S. and Quirke, L. (2018). What’s the harm? The coverage of ethics and harm avoidance in research methods textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 46(1), 12–24. Featherstone, R. and Sorrell, K. L. (2007). Sociology dismissing religion? The presentation of religious change in introductory sociology textbooks. American Sociologist, 38(1), 78–98. Field, A. (2017). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. London: Sage. Flick, U. (2014). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Fullerton, S. (1988). Textbook publishers and academics: Renewing the relationship. Teaching Sociology, 16(4), 353–355. Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2007). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, E. (2016). What Are the Most-Cited Publications in the Social Sciences (According to Google blogs​ .lse​ .ac​ .uk/​ imp​ actofsocia​ Scholar)? LSE Impact of Social Sciences. Retrieved from: https://​ lsciences/​2016/​05/​12/​what​-are​-the​-most​-cited​-publications​-in​-the​-social​-sciences​-according​-to​-google​ -scholar/​ Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E. and Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey Methodology. New Jersey: Wiley. Hamilton, R. and Form, W. (2003). Categorical usages and complex realities: Race, ethnicity, and religion in the United States. Social Forces, 81(3), 693–714. Hood, J. (2006). Teaching against the text: The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 207–223.

Understanding research methods textbooks  411 Hornsby, D. J. and Osman, R. (2014). Massification in higher education: Large classes and student learning. Higher Education, 67(6), 711–719. James, M. and Pollard, A. (2011). TLRP’s ten principles for effective pedagogy: Rationale, development, evidence, argument and impact. Research Papers in Education, 26(3), 275–328.  Jardine, L. (1997). Worldly Goods: A New History of the Renaissance. London: W. W. Norton. Kendall, D. (1999). Doing a good deed or confounding the problem? Peer review and sociology textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 27(1), 17–30. Kilburn, D., Nind, M. and Wiles, R. (2014). Learning as researchers and teachers: The development of a pedagogical culture for social science research methods? British Journal of Educational Studies, 62(2), 191–207. Krueger, R. A. and Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lewthwaite, S. and Holmes, M. M. (2018). Social Science Research Methods Textbooks: Scoping Study Research Report. Society for Research in Higher Education: SRHE. Retrieved from https://​srhe​.ac​.uk/​ wp​-content/​uploads/​2020/​03/​Sarah​-Lewthwaite​-The​-Pedagogy​-of​-Social​-Science​.pdf Lewthwaite, S. and Nind, M. (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences: Expert perspectives on pedagogy and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 413–430. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, S. L. and Winship, C. (2014). Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nind, M. (2020). A new application for the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: Teaching advanced social science research methods. Oxford Review of Education, 46(2), 185–201. Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2018). Hard to teach: Inclusive pedagogy in social science research methods education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1), 74–88. Nind, M., Curtin, A. and Hall, K. (2016). Research Methods for Pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Nind, M., Holmes, M. M., Insenga, M., Lewthwaite, S. and Sutton, C. (2020). Student perspectives on learning research methods in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(7), 797–811. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (4th ed.). London: Sage. Reynolds, R. (2011). Trends influencing the growth of digital textbooks in US higher education. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27, 178–187. Salkind, N. J. (2016). Statistics for People who (think they) Hate Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students. London: Pearson. Scott, P. (1995). The Meanings of Mass Higher Education. Buckingham: SHRE and Open University Press. Silver, C. and Lewins, A. (2014). Using Software in Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage. Shepard, J. M. (2001). A response to market mentality. Teaching Sociology, 16(4), 393–395. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Suarez, A. and Balaji, A. (2007). Coverage and representations of sexuality in introductory sociology textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 35(3), 239–254. Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. UK: Pearson International. Tan, E. (2013). Informal learning on YouTube: Exploring digital literacy in independent online learning. Learning Media and Technology, 38(4), 463–477. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28. Rethinking safeguarding: an opportunity to establish a decolonial teaching framework for social research practice Leona Vaughn

INTRODUCTION Calls for ‘decolonisation’ of the academy, the ways in which academic institutions operate in a globalised world, as well as the curriculum and the research practices within them, have been renewed and increased in volume around the world. The calls want the academy to: ● address the historical asymmetries of power and voice (Bhambra, Nişancıoğlu and Gebrial, 2018); ● represent the diverse contributions of the global majorities that have been erased and overlooked due to colonialism – primarily the work and experiences of Black, indigenous and people of colour (BIPOC) and the varied voices within these communities such as queer voices and the voices of women (Smith, 2006, 2012); ● address the persistent exclusion and discriminatory experiences of students and staff from these communities through meaningful actions to decolonise (Johnson and Salisbury, 2018). It is therefore acutely important for teaching to consider how coloniality continually pervades knowledge production in multiple ways, even in the argued absence of ‘Empire’ (Moosavi, 2020). Educators and researchers outside of the established disciplines of postcolonial/anticolonial studies are increasingly grappling with what decolonisation means for their practice and teaching. My research spans issues of safeguarding in relation to social work practices for terrorism prevention, to safeguarding within research practices, especially in the field of antislavery and international development. In teaching and research I critically address the concept of risk, which is central to safeguarding, as one which is imbibed with power and innately biased; a colonial project, which I will unpack later in this chapter. At this point, I will outline my positionality as a critical approach to social research practices. In relation to their application in international development and social justice in particular, they can actively uphold racialised, gendered and generally oppressive power systems. I believe it is crucially important for research which claims to do the opposite, to accept this and address it. Relying heavily on claims that its foundations are rooted in fairness can allow for complacent practice to prevail through a lack of critical reflection. I refer to this as research which can do harm, by believing it is doing good. I have been working in the field of equalities and human rights for over 25 years but I, like many others, am continuously learning through my own research and teaching experiences. I have come to understand that decolonising social research in the classroom expands far 412

Rethinking safeguarding  413 beyond traditional notions of ethicality. It is also about epistemic, methodological and ontological injustices (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2019; Santos, 2014). We need to consider how research, which may be perceived as ethical because it has institutional ethical approval or because it can claim disciplinary foundations of orientation to social justice, can still cause harm in many ways. The recent and ongoing civil rights movement calling for Black lives to matter, ignited by police killings in the US, are undeniably relevant to the discussions on decolonising research. In 2020, I devised a research project to look at racialised risk narratives in ‘post-colonial’1 African countries at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (Vaughn et al., 2020). The research team, made up of UK and African scholars and activists, discussed a quote from a French academic medical practitioner about researching a vaccine at that time. Dr Jean-Paul Mira of Université de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, outlined their thoughts and justifications for urgent research in Africa, in ways which exemplify the obstinate colonial and racist tropes which continue to hinder the academy: ‘If I can be provocative, shouldn’t we be doing this study in Africa, where there are no masks, no treatments, no resuscitation? [A] bit like as it is done elsewhere for some studies on AIDS. In prostitutes, we try things because we know that they are highly exposed and that they do not protect themselves.’ (BBC News, 2020) The team discussed how in multiple ways this quote tells the public, and more specifically the research community, precisely who can be viewed as disposable in the advancement of research knowledge. It says that the poorest ‘others’ can be in some way held responsible for their own misfortunes, and therefore legitimately exploited to benefit ‘us’. The ‘us’ being defined by a number of things. Those who are not African, is certain. But also, those fortunate enough to not have to undertake sex work. Those with access to good healthcare. It clearly indicates who is the powerful and who is powerless in this narrative on safeguarding public health. International ‘development’ research is known to so often venerate Western thinking and prioritise the needs of the West over the needs of others (Kothari, 2006). This dynamic, however, is not exclusive to this field. In the US, it was discovered that human remains from the 1985 police bombing of a Philadelphia Black Liberation Group, including the bones of children, were being used in 2021 for an online anthropology course associated to two Ivy League universities, without the knowledge or consent of the families of the people killed (Pilkington, 2021). This case shares some characteristics of the 1990s’ Alder Hey scandal in the UK where children’s remains were kept for research without parents’ knowledge (Hall, 2001). The pertinent questions, amongst so many questions, that these situations have provoked are what do universities see as harm in their research practices? What prevented researchers from seeing that the remains of children deserved to be safeguarded from further harm post-mortem? What prevented them from seeing the harm to the bereaved families and their wider communities? Issues of race intersect with issues of age and class undoubtedly, within the elitist mindset that the pursuit of knowledge overrides the rights of ‘research subjects’. The asymmetries of power are clear. This power is a central tenet of coloniality, and colonial power dynamics appear in multiple ways in all forms of academic research (Datta, 2018). From who gets to determine research priorities and funding; to who gets to shape the research and who is deemed the ‘researched’; to who gets to be the researcher and whose time is considered remunerable. Colonial thinking underpins much of the multi-faceted contemporary experiences of systemic, institutional and individual discrimination and oppression within academic research.

414  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Progressive educators, teachers of research methods and researchers are therefore understandably looking for ways to disrupt the continued power and influence of colonial thinking. This chapter will focus on one of these ways: the teaching potential of decolonial ‘safeguarding’, as a framework for achieving anticolonial social research praxis (Carlson, 2017; Max, 2005; Smith, 2012).

WHAT IS SAFEGUARDING? Safeguarding in research encompasses a broad spectrum of actions which should be undertaken with the main aim of protection, or providing safety, for researchers and for those ‘being’ researched. Safeguarding is not only a policy and a process for universities and researchers to have, but it can also be understood as a research practice (Balch et al., 2020; Vaughn, Sandhar and Omony, 2022). The latter, however, is at present an under-explored and under-developed area of research in relation to methodologies and approaches. It is the legal and policy aspects of safeguarding in research which have been prioritised. The need for the establishment and growth of safeguarding policies and processes for research, especially international research contexts, urgently came to the fore in the UK as a response to claims of negligence and abuse (Orr et al., 2019). Primarily, the increased attention to safeguarding in research was driven by the Government’s response to whistle-blowing which had uncovered serious incidents of sexual abuse, harassment and exploitation in ‘international development’ work in Haiti, during a time of national emergency (DfID, 2018). Added impetus was then given to addressing this under-developed area of research policy development by documented reports of bullying and harassment of researchers and under-protection of students in overseas fieldwork (FERSA, 2018; Wellcome Trust, 2020). However, there is paradoxically a danger within ‘safeguarding’ efforts, particularly in the immediate aftermath of exposés of abuse or neglect. The principal effort is often given to instituting procedural ‘risk management’, over efforts to change ways of thinking about risk of harm and working with risk, especially from the perspective of those who are most likely to be harmed. This manifests regularly in institutional policy or national legislative responses to the risk of harm to people in situations that make them highly vulnerable to harm, such as poverty and social exclusion (Vaughn, 2019). For example, UK safeguarding2 legislation describes the legal responsibilities of the State to promote the welfare of children under the age of 18 and ‘vulnerable adults’,3 and protect those who are deemed to be at risk of harm. Harm is defined in the legislation as encompassing ‘physical, intellectual, emotional or social harms’. The responsibility to protect these priority groups (children and ‘vulnerable adults’) from harm extends to public authorities including health, social work and education establishments, such as universities. Protection from harm is explicitly referring to the responsibility to involve authorities in some way, such as health, social care or police. However, the promotion of welfare, or alternatively put, the actions to protect children and vulnerable adults, is more opaque and therefore often ignored. Academic institutions, and others, regularly interpret this legal responsibility for safeguarding in research as implicit encouragement to demonstrate, in the form of, for example, risk assessment or other risk management tools, that they have considered risks of harm and in turn avoided risky actions or decisions. From a cynical perspective, such risk assessments merely ‘tick the boxes’ to ensure that there is no organisational legal culpability or blame when

Rethinking safeguarding  415 harm occurs. It is a risk avoidant approach, rather than one which meaningfully engages with the issues underlying the risk of harm in research settings and the needs of those perceived to be ‘vulnerable’. Risk and vulnerability within these processes and tools are subjectively defined and often shaped by biased judgements (see Brown, 2011, 2014; Finucane et al., 2000; Olofsson et al., 2014). Regularly heteronormative, aged, ableist, gendered and racialised perceptions of risk and vulnerability are therefore inherently and dangerously colonial. The chapter addresses this directly in relation to critically engaging with these concepts in teaching safeguarding for research. Developing learning tools for social research which approach safeguarding as research praxis, as opposed to a potentially regulatory focused policy and procedure, is proposed in this chapter to bring possibilities for the development of a teaching framework which can lead to ‘anticolonial’ research (Carlson, 2017; Max, 2005; Smith, 2012). Theoretically linked to feminist, ‘liberatory’, anti-racist and ‘anti-oppressive’ practice, I suggest that anticolonial research has the potential to not only identify, address and remove coloniality from research practice, but also replace it with practices in social research which empower, centre and are led by those who are most at risk of being harmed (Vaughn, 2020). How we decolonise safeguarding to create a teaching and learning framework which can develop actively anticolonial social research practice for the entire life-cycle of research, from inception to sharing findings, is the focus of this chapter. I critically reflect upon primary research into safeguarding. This includes PhD research into safeguarding children from radicalisation in the UK (Vaughn, 2019); researching safeguarding meaning and practices to keep people safe in East and West African antislavery projects in the Antislavery Knowledge Network (Renton and Vaughn, 2020); and undertaking an international consultation on safeguarding and the development of guidance for research in international development contexts for UKCDR (Balch et al., 2020). In addition, I draw upon teaching experiences, specifically on social research methods for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, which are orientated towards the perspectives and needs of those who are potential victims of harm.

PREPARING TEACHERS OF RESEARCH AND RESEARCHERS FOR DECOLONISING RESEARCH PRAXIS Listening to the voices most affected by coloniality and giving careful consideration to how aspects of the research life cycle and processes of knowledge production can create and uphold coloniality, is key to preparing to ‘decolonise’ teaching and learning tools for all types of research. For social research, these are vitally important steps for planning ethical and socially-just research – research which actively plans to avoid creating and reinforcing various forms of harm. Indeed, creating and upholding coloniality in research should be considered as harms in and of themselves. These are harms which we should, firstly, be constantly aware of enabling as educators and researchers and, secondly, be actively working to safeguard against. So how does this happen when coloniality in research is so under-discussed? This quote from a respondent based in the Latin America and Caribbean region, to the UK Centre for Development Research (UKCDR) international consultation on safeguarding, sums up this conundrum: ‘Preventing means avoiding and in order to avoid you have to anticipate; you can’t see something that you do not have the mindset for’ (Balch et al., 2020, p. 25).

416  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Developing underpinning knowledge for educators and researchers aspiring to ‘decolonise’ research in order to avoid the harm of coloniality is therefore crucial to supporting the ability to see the harm. Understanding the related terms and concepts which explain why decolonisation is necessary and relevant for social research helps in creating an understanding of how decolonisation applies to the development of teaching and learning tools for planning, delivering and sharing research. To understand decolonisation, it helps to have an appreciation of what colonisation means. ‘Colonisation’ refers to the modes by which power has been exercised by entities (traditionally states/government) to control, dominate and subjugate others, most obviously observed within European imperialist endeavours and the social construction of race and racism (Akala, 2019; Andrews, 2021; Horvath, 1972). It was in the physical withdrawal of colonising powers from colonised countries that the term ‘decolonisation’ was originally used. It described the legal processes which former colonies or ‘postcolonial’ countries went through as part of their independence from the colonising powers. In this sense, it was a process to undo, through changes in governance, law and policy, the visible colonisation of countries. However, colonisation is argued to be more than this. Colonisation imported and left a damaging legacy in the Global South in particular. As a mode of domination and subjugation, colonisation utilises both ‘colonialism’ – that is, the administrative policies of government – and ‘coloniality’. The latter is more intangible, as the subsequent patterns of power established to physically and mentally dominate not only land and territory, but people and their behaviours. Understandings of what decolonisation could or should mean in terms of undoing coloniality is offered especially in the writings and theorising of ‘post-colonial’ African and African Diasporic thinkers (see e.g. Fanon, 1952; Nkrumah, 1965; Rodney, 1972; Wa Thiong’o, 1986). Their works draw attention to the actions required to repair the multifarious and long-lasting effects of colonisation on colonised countries and peoples, argued to be not merely economic subjugation, but also the enduring social, cultural and psychological domination of, for example, legal systems, language and education, in particular of history and knowledge. Coloniality can therefore be understood as the exercise of power to establish and maintain domination and inequality (Quijano, 2000). How coloniality manifests in the modern-day world is argued to be an intrinsic feature of the continued exploitation of the Global majority by the Global minority, or in other words, the domination and exploitation of the world’s poor by the world’s wealthy (Bhambra, 2020; Hesse, 2007; Mignolo, 2007). In relation to social research, the writings of those most marginalised in this space well describe what decolonising ontologies, methodologies, methods and epistemologies should look like. Voices of the ‘Global South’ have sought to re-establish the importance of indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing, often intellectually demeaned and dismissed in research practices (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2019; Santos, 2014; Smith, 2006, 2012). Social relationships which are colonial in nature share the signature of persistent inequality and unequal power relations, irrespective of whether or not they are within or between the Global North and South. Coloniality in social research transcends the geographies of post-colonial countries. Decolonising is not just about being concerned about research in those countries, which some people are misled to believe. Coloniality appears equally in domestic research settings. Classed, gendered, heteronormative, ableist, ageist and racialised social relationships are a common and substantial part of the spectrum of manifestations of coloniality in research (Smith, 2012).

Rethinking safeguarding  417 Understanding coloniality as a danger of entrenching inequality and maintaining unequal power relations through social research necessitates the development of teaching to address this as a potential harm that can appear throughout the research life cycle. By this I mean harmful to participants, to specific communities, to wider society; harmful to researchers, research practice development and to the quality and meaningful impact of research. Coloniality permeates and shapes the way social research is conceived, developed, delivered, as well as the knowledge it produces and how that knowledge is used. The need for an approach to teaching safeguarding in research which enables researchers to reflect on how they are personally affected by coloniality and think through how they can act against the harm of coloniality in research, becomes urgently clear. Nonetheless, safeguarding can also be a product of coloniality, an exercise of power to the detriment of those constituents most vulnerable to being harmed. For example, referring back to the Haiti scandals which instigated the shift towards safeguarding in research policy, the investigations and responses to these abuses indicate how the colonial dynamics of power and domination play out in practice. They reveal how, because of the way victims of sexual abuse and exploitation are negatively viewed in relation to class, gender, age and ethnicity in particular, perpetrators were able to exploit their vulnerabilities and also expect not to be held accountable for their actions. The official actions, or inactions, signal this to be the case. The revelations of sexual abuse of Haitian women and girls came about through whistle-blowing and an external inquiry, rather than through transparent reporting of safeguarding issues. Nor through any subsequent actions taken by the relevant international non-governmental organisations involved. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the scandal being exposed in the media, further evidence confirmed these dynamics. The victim-blaming narratives were strong and deeply colonial. Professor Mary Beard tweeted this in a response to the revelations: ‘I do wonder how hard it must be to sustain “civilised” values in a disaster zone’ (Ramaswamy, 2018). This quote indicates a view that the harm of paedophilia and sexual abuse is somehow ‘lessened’ by the fact that the [Western] perpetrators were ‘doing good’ in a disaster zone. This acutely demonstrates how colonial dynamics can shape the identification of what harm is; the perceptions of how bad the harm is; the view of who has been harmed and what actions are viewed as necessary to be taken to avoid or address it. This underlines how important it is to change the ways in which we teach and prepare future social researchers to decolonise their approaches to safeguarding in their work.

HOW DO WE DECOLONISE THE TEACHING OF SAFEGUARDING FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH? Social research is a discipline claimed to be built upon the foundations of exploring, revealing and upholding fairness and justice in society (Kitchener and Kitchener, 2009). Enabling harm in research is therefore something that is the antithesis of this. It is something that social researchers would very likely say that they don’t want their work to do. In teaching about safeguarding, students have talked about not wanting their work to hurt or upset a participant. They speak of wanting their work to never reproduce or support social harm, such as social inequalities. Safeguarding as a framework for producing anticolonial research holds the potential for teaching and learning which provokes thinking about and tackling these impacts on multiple levels and at multiple stages of research.

418  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Safeguarding in research, on first glance, appears to be a seemingly unlikely space for such a radical shift in teaching and research practice. In the way it currently exists, it is a space and concept led by policy and procedures. This emerging research policy area aims to safeguard research participants, researchers and the wider community from harm. It is supposed to consider, pre-empt and address harms, both pre-existing and potential, which may occur in the life cycle of research. Traditionally, safeguarding policy and procedure comes to the fore within the academy at the point where research is about to take place and is considered through to the stage of sharing research findings. Or, it comes to the fore after something has gone wrong. Either way, it can be critiqued as being oriented mainly towards the safety of the research institution; in a lesser sense oriented to the safety of researchers and in a negligible way, oriented to the safety of the research participants and the wider communities. As such, safeguarding often sits at the nexus of research ethics and researcher protection, even though it has the potential to mean so much more for teaching and learning research praxis. Increasingly, considerations are now made earlier in the research life-cycle about safeguarding participants and vulnerable communities, and their rights to not be harmed by research, for example, at the stage when research funders are determining research priorities or when researchers are developing the research idea and design. Policy examples, such as the safeguarding guidance of UKCDR, include specific illustrations of what harms in research can look like (Balch et al., 2020; Orr et al., 2019). Sexual exploitation, abuse or harassment, harms in research that as earlier referenced have received much media attention are rightfully explicitly addressed. Broader forms of violence, exploitation and abuse such as bullying, psychological abuse and physical violence, are also included. The structural or symbolic violence/ harm that research can cause or reinforce, such as the harm caused by coloniality, is also part of the illustrations. These examples may seem straightforward, but exploration in a teaching setting through the development or use of scenarios can unpack the multitude of ways they can manifest in the research life cycle. They provoke interesting discussion, ethical and moral conundrums, including discussion of when it is appropriate for a researcher to act on concerns of safety, without reinforcing colonial ideas or stereotypes. Deep considerations of research as a life-cycle, which starts before the research question is placed on paper and continues long after the research is completed and even published, leads to enquiries into how risk and harm is understood, especially when damage cannot always be personalised or seen. These discussions often settle on one shared characteristic of how and when abuse and harm can occur – a power differential is at play. It is at this point that power often becomes apparent to students as the common denominator of harm, and inherent to all approaches to safeguarding and ways of identifying, reducing, preventing and addressing harm. To decolonise how we implement safeguarding in research, we have to completely disrupt and trouble through teaching and learning what we think we know about risk, harm and vulnerability and how they apply in research praxis. In research processes and research relationships, some positions are perceived as being more powerful and having more influence than others. In a team of researchers, for example, hierarchies and experience brings a power dynamic. Between participants and researchers, there is an implicit power dynamic in how one group is designing, guiding and controlling the research conversation and the other only responding to it. With regards to acting on safeguarding and/or unethical issues in research, to prevent or protect people from harm, power and unevenly distributed responsibility can also operate in a way which reinforces colonial and oppressive practices or stereotypes experienced by spe-

Rethinking safeguarding  419 cific groups. Therefore, we have to develop space for students to think critically about power and its interlinking roles in social relationships. This should begin with self-reflection about power and how researchers identify where it attempts to shape, limit or circumscribe their own lives personally and in the research setting. An exercise could ask: ● Where in my life has power been exercised by someone else over my decisions or choices? ● What has been the impact of this? ● In what way does society exercise power over my decisions or choices (e.g. through law, policy, norms or practices)? ● What is the impact of this? This process of reflection may have a specific impact on marginalised researchers, discriminated along the lines of class, race, gender, sexuality and disability in particular. It may also sensitise all researchers to potential safeguarding situations which may impact on them in the research setting because of how others respond to their identity or perceived identity. The power of the teacher in this relationship is something to be alert to – reflections should be led by researchers with guidance but not domination by teachers’ personal judgements or assessments. Teachers should be prepared to be able to sensitively handle the outcome of the self-reflection exercise, including addressing any triggering of trauma and having knowledge of support services to signpost students to. Teachers should also be able to help researchers navigate and articulate what safety in the research setting looks like for them, specific to their needs. Power inveigles concepts and perceptions of who is at risk or who is vulnerable to harm, and in what ways that risk and harm manifests. Teaching safeguarding research approaches, methods and methodologies, is incomplete without a critical approach to the concepts of risk, vulnerability and harm as powerful colonial projects in need of problematising and disrupting. Figure 28.1 illustrates the interconnectedness of power in relation to the processes of safeguarding – defining harm, defining vulnerability, having the ability and responsibility to act to prevent harm and to intervene and address harm. These processes are often iterative, rather than sequential and are depicted in such a way to reflect this. When considering the power to define harm and vulnerability in particular, appropriate attention should be given to supporting learning about how these notions are traditionally shown to be very colonial, and paternalistic, especially in decisions or judgements about safety in research practice and in wider society. In research which developed domestic violence risk prevention models, for example, perceptions of danger and risk are shown as inherently ableist, classed, gendered, racialised and heteronormative (Hoyle, 2008). Perceiving disabled people as more in need of protection and less capable of agency is commonplace in research and society (Brown, 2014). Judging poor or working-class families as risky by holding them to imagined standards of behaviour, benchmarking the middle classes, is a norm in social policy (Shilliam, 2018). Having fixed notions of masculine and feminine traits and behaviours and how they are linked to riskiness, permeate ideas of who is in need of more or less protection in welfare practices (Hannah-Moffat and O’Malley, 2007). Envisioning people racialised by society as ‘the other’ and inherently threatening is often seen in risk assessments about dangerousness (Vaughn, 2019). How power and oppression impact on some groups more detrimentally than others is important to acknowledge and address in teaching ethical and safeguarding considerations for social

420  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

Figure 28.1

The role of power in safeguarding for research

research. For example, impacting disabled people more than non-disabled people; children and young people more than adults; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and gender diverse people more than cisgender and heterosexual people (Barnes, 2009; Bledsoe and Hobson, 2009; Dodd, 2009). Within investigations of how coloniality reveals itself in research practice, groups characterised as those most negatively impacted by power dynamics in society should therefore obviously be prioritised as more likely to experience harm in the research life-cycle. However, the danger here is that both ethics and safeguarding regularly ascribe these groups to be ‘vulnerable’, as if this is an inherent, and deficient, part of their identity. Seeing marginalised and oppressed groups only as victims or potential victims, rather than understanding that their vulnerability is relational to their experience of oppression and marginalisation in society, is highly problematic for research teaching and learning. This view re-inscribes their position of disadvantage in research hierarchies and relationships, further marginalising their voice and agency in the research life-cycle – replicating in research processes and the teaching or research processes vis-à-vis ‘protection’, the ways in which, for example, lower socioeconomic groups, such as poor working-class people or people seeking refuge or asylum, are often under the eye of the State more than others because of their ‘vulnerability’. Black and other racialised and minoritised groups have a long history of experiencing excessive surveillance and negative interventions, including academic research, on the pretence of grounds of ‘protection’

Rethinking safeguarding  421 (Roberts, 2000). In teaching the early part of the life-cycle of research then, teachers should encourage researchers to ask themselves at the stage of conceiving the research question: ● Are these groups that I want to research, simultaneously over-researched and treated as more ‘at-risk’ than other research groups? ● If so, how may I be complicit in this inequity, and/or the systems of oppression they experience such as racism, sexism, disablism, classism, homophobia or transphobia? ● What values and ethics do I therefore think are most important to my research? Guaranteeing prevention or removal of risk and harm in research is an impossibility. To claim that it is not, is in many ways a colonial endeavour because it does not engage with the reality of power, inequality, oppression and marginalisation that exist within society. Therefore, not only should actions be taken to address harm when it happens, but researchers should be given the skills to be proactive in their actions to anticipate and mitigate the real and potential risks and harms in the research life-cycle (Balch et al., 2020). Here, this chapter turns to how building the skills and abilities of researchers to safeguard research against the harm of coloniality can be facilitated by teaching social research.

SAFEGUARDING AGAINST COLONIALITY Teaching about safeguarding and how coloniality influences perceptions of risk, harm and vulnerability, as previously described, is crucial to developing a framework for research which can effectively safeguard against the harm of coloniality. However, this requires specific understanding of how coloniality affects how research is developed, delivered and used. Researchers exercise power in decisions about what forms of knowledges are used to inform the research questions; in decisions about the methods and approaches chosen to enquire into social issues; in decisions about how to analyse information and the knowledges used to do so; and in decisions about how to share the research findings. Coloniality is therefore a risk of harm at all these stages of the research life-cycle that need to be safeguarded against. Safeguarding here is a form of active decisions to ‘give up’ (Vaughn and Renton, 2020) and/or leverage researcher power at each stage of the lifecycle to empower those in danger of erasure or marginalisation. Teaching about this form of coloniality is essential to safeguarding against it; it requires critical reflection from both students and educators. Much has been written about the pedagogical and epistemic erasure of indigenous knowledges in academia – what Santos (2014) calls an ‘epistemicide’, a systemic and purposeful removal of knowledges from communities and populations treated as the ‘other’. The ‘other’ can be understood as including BIPOC communities and also other marginalised groups such as poor and working-class communities. Reflecting on what knowledges are used to teach social research, how they are taught and which knowledges are ultimately used to shape and frame research and analysis can be guided by questions such as: ● What types of knowledges do you draw upon for your research and who created them? For example, the ‘Cite Black Women’ campaign created in 2017 by Christen A. Smith challenges academics to ‘critically reflect on their everyday practices of citation and start to

422  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods consciously question how they can incorporate black women into the CORE of their work’.4 Citation is one way of increasing visibility of marginalised knowledges in academia. I not only took on this challenge for my own research, I also posed it to students regularly in lectures on decolonising research. For many, it made them actively review the knowledges that were most regularly used in social research methods and their area of study. It demonstrated how by paying attention to whose voices were being promoted more than others, helped them understand how inadvertent complicity in erasure, or ‘epistemicide’, was possible. Another question which guided them to consider the impact of this was: ● Are the communities you are researching, or who your teaching relates to, represented in the knowledge and expertise that you draw upon? This question draws out the power dynamics in research, as previously described. It assists students to consider the ways in which, for example, they can adjust their orientation within the process of deciding what the ‘research problem’ is that they want to explore. Considering the knowledges created by the groups affected, in relation to both social research methodologies as well as the topic, can safeguard against research questions which do not reflect the needs or experiences of these groups. For example, literature about the topic of modern slavery in the Global South can be argued as orientated towards Western ideologies. These often ignore local experiences of extreme poverty and theoretical approaches to, for example, racial capitalism, in favour of responsibilising poor communities for allowing slavery and exploitation to happen (Bhambra, 2020). Equally, research about children often has no input from children and young people in the literature or methods to reflect their experiences or perspectives (Canosa et al., 2019). Reflecting on the answer to the question above, therefore helps inform wider discussions about methods for knowledge creation – or what is commonly referred to as ‘data collection’. The following questions are used to help students to consider their role and power as researchers in creating this knowledge: ● How do you make your research work for your participants and research partners, or in other words how can it benefit them? ● Whose knowledge is invisible or at risk of becoming invisible in your research? How can you address this? The power differential in the research relationship often places the ‘researched’ in a passive role, providing information or data for research, rather than as experts in their experience and creators of knowledge. This question encourages students to think about knowledge erasure in this specific way, and what they can actively do to resist this. It also makes them think critically about benefit, and how their research can be more than a ‘contribution to knowledge’, for example, considering how to give visibility and power to participant knowledge through co-designing the research idea, proposal or question. I intentionally use the term ‘participant knowledge’ here to encourage researchers to think about the various ways that participants’ knowledge is already available to them. This could be available via previous research. It could mean using statistics, data or reports from, and/or working with, community groups or organisations. It could be using other forms of reliable, open source information. This form of co-creation of research, based on participant knowledge, can help researchers to think about methodological pluralism to achieve what is

Rethinking safeguarding  423 often referred to as ‘participatory research’ (Vaughn and Jacquez, 2020), which draws extensively, and regularly without remuneration, on research participants work to create research approaches, design and delivery. Co-creating knowledge in this way can be expanded across considerations of co-developing research methodology and methods, co-delivering research, co-authoring on research with non-academic partners and planning for co-distribution of findings in ways that are useful to the needs of the ‘researched’ community. An illustration useful for teaching the research practices which this question often draws attention to as needing to be safeguarded against are those such as: i. Interview questions which are experienced by participants as gratuitous, voyeuristic, extractive or boxing people into a ‘victim’ narrative (Kiconco, 2020; Vaughn, Sandhar and Omony, 2022). ii. Conceptualising knowledge or ‘data’ in a particular way which excludes the reality for participants, for example social media in the lives of children (Russell et al., 2016) or social commentary music as culturally specific practice for creating knowledge (Smith and Quartey, 2020). iii. Considering the economic harm of research, such as not compensating participants (in financial or other ways) for time given to research, and how this has an acute impact when research is enquiring into poverty. iv. Publishing norms and protocols for research, which do not always allow for co-authorship with non-academic partners. v. Considering the usefulness of research reports for participants and communities, and exploring other ways to share findings.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY Social research as praxis is not immune from power dynamics, irrespective of the claimed foundations. Through a lack of attention to power in the teaching framework for safeguarding in social research, existing harms can be reinforced and amplified, including colonial thinking and coloniality in research. The classroom needs to create space for safeguarding concepts of risk, harm and vulnerability to be interrogated for their colonial impact within research practice. This is a process of intentional decolonisation. Simultaneously, researchers need opportunities to explore coloniality in research thinking and practice, and how to safeguard against this harm. Teaching critical self-reflection helps them to understand the power dynamics in social research, and consider their role in how to safeguard against the harm of coloniality. Adopting research practices which centre those who are most vulnerable to harm in the research process can address the power imbalance which gives rise to coloniality. Nonetheless, the extent to which institutional policies for ethical approval and safeguarding as well as the research process allow for space and resources to deliberate and reflect upon coloniality in research as a risk of harm, is limited. Or indeed, it could be argued that research policy and processes are restrictive of researchers’ ability to proactively and intentionally undertake actions to safeguard against the harm of coloniality. This only serves to underline how important it is for classroom practices and learning tools to give

424  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods existing and future educators and researchers the knowledge and skills for decolonising safeguarding as research practice. In doing so, anticolonial social research can be made possible.

NOTES 1 2 3 4

‘Post Colonial’ is in inverted commas to reflect the fact that I, and others, would argue that colonialism and colonisation continue to the present day (Andrews, 2021). See Children’s Act, 2004; Children and Social Work Act, 2017; HM Government, 1998. ‘Vulnerable adult’ is defined as a person ‘Who is or may be in need of community care services by reason of disability, age or illness; and is or may be unable to take care of unable to protect him or herself against significant harm or exploitation’ (HM Government, 1998). Cite Black Women Collective https://​www​.cite​blackwomen​collective​.org/​

REFERENCES Akala (2019). Natives: Race and Class in the Ruins of Empire. London: Two Roads. Andrews, K. (2021). The New Age of Empire: How Racism and Colonialism Still Rule the World. London: Penguin Allen Lane. Balch, A., Garimella, S., Mansaray, B., Renton, L., Smith, A. and Vaughn, L. (2020). Safeguarding in International Development Research Report on Phase 2 International Consultation and Guidance. UK Collaborative on Development Research. Barnes, C. (2009). An ethical agenda in disability research: Rhetoric or reality? In D.M. Mertens and P.E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Research Ethics (pp. 458–473). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. BBC News (2020). ‘Coronavirus: France racism row over doctors’ Africa testing comments’. BBC News, 3 April 2020. Bhambra, G.K. (2020). Colonial global economy: Towards a theoretical reorientation of political economy. Review of International Political Economy, 28(2), 307–322. Bhambra, G.K., Nişancıoğlu, K. and Gebrial, D. (2018). Introduction: Decolonising the university. In G.K. Bhambra, K. Nişancıoğlu and D. Gebrial (Eds.), Decolonising the University (pp. 1–18). London: Pluto Press. Bledsoe, K.L. and Hopson, R.K. (2009). Conducting ethical research and evaluation in underserved communities. In D.M. Mertens and P.E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Research Ethics (pp. 391–406). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, K. (2011). ‘Vulnerability’: Handle with care. Ethics and Social Welfare, 5(3), 313–321. Brown, K. (2014). Questioning the vulnerability zeitgeist: Care and control practices with ‘vulnerable’ young people. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 371–387. Canosa, A., Graham, A. and Wilson, E. (2019). Progressing a child-centred research agenda in tourism studies. Tourism Analysis, 24(1), 95–100. Carlson, E. (2017). Anti-colonial methodologies and practices for settler colonial studies. Settler Colonial Studies, 7(4), 496–517. Datta, R. (2018). Decolonizing both researcher and research and its effectiveness in Indigenous research. Research Ethics, 14(2), 1–24. Department for International Development (2018). Enhanced Due Diligence: Safeguarding for External Partners. UK: DfiD. Dodd, S. (2009). LGBTQ: Protecting vulnerable subjects in all Studies. In D.M. Mertens and P.E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Research Ethics (pp. 474–488). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. FERSA (2018). Safeguarding Researcher and Participants: A Careful Balancing Act. 16 November 2018. Faculty of Education Research Students Association University of Cambridge Blog. Finucane, M., Slovic, P., Mertz, C., Flynn, J. and Satterfield, T. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2(2), 159–172.

Rethinking safeguarding  425 Hall, D. (2001). Reflecting on Redfern: What can we learn from the Alder Hey story? Archives of Disease in Childhood, 84(6), 455–456. Hannah-Moffat, K. and O’Malley, P. (2007). Gendered risks: An introduction. In K. Hannah-Moffat and P. O’Malley (Eds.), Gendered Risks (pp. 1–29). Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish. Hesse, B. (2007). Racialized modernity: An analytics of white mythologies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(4), 643–663. Horvath, R.J. (1972). A definition of colonialism. Current Anthropology, 13(1), 45–57. Hoyle, C. (2008). Will she be safe? A critical analysis of risk assessment in domestic violence cases. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 323–337. Johnson, A. and Salisbury, R.J. (2018). ‘Are you supposed to be in here?’ Racial microaggressions and knowledge production in higher education. In J. Arday and H. Mirza (Eds.), Dismantling Race in Higher Education, Racism, Whiteness and Decolonising the Academy (pp. 143–160). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Kiconco, A. (2020). Speaking about violence in Sierra Leone. In A. Bunting, A. Kiconco and J. Quirk (Eds.), Research as More than Extraction? Knowledge Production and Sexual Violence in Post Conflict African Societies (pp. 10–13). Beyond Trafficking and Slavery: OpenDemocracy. Kitchener, K. and Kitchener, R. (2009). Social science research ethics: Historical and philosophical issues. In D.M. Mertens and P.E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Research Ethics (pp. 5–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kothari, U. (2006). An agenda for thinking about ‘race’ in development. Progress in Development Studies, 6(1), 9–23. Max, K. (2005). Anti-colonial research: Working as an ally with Aboriginal peoples. Counterpoints, 252, 79–94. Mignolo, W.D. (2007). Introduction. Coloniality of power and de-colonial thinking. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 155–167. Moosavi, L. (2020). The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation. International Review of Sociology, 30(2), 332–354. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2019). Provisional notes on decolonizing research methodology and undoing its dirty history. Journal of Developing Societies, 35(4), 481–492. Olofsson, A., Zinn, J.O., Griffin, G., Giritli Nygren, K., Cebulla, A. and Hannah-Moffat, K. (2014). The mutual constitution of risk and inequalities: Intersectional risk theory. Health, Risk & Society, 16(5), 417–430. Orr, D.M., Daoust, G., Dyvik, S.L., Puhan, S.S. and Boddy, J. (2019). Safeguarding in international development research: Evidence review. London: UK Collaborative on Development Research. Pilkington, E. (2021). ‘Bones of Black children killed in police bombing used in Ivy League anthropology course’. The Guardian, 23 April 2021. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215–232. Ramaswamy, C. (2018). ‘How the fallout from Mary Beard’s Oxfam tweet shines a light on genteel racism’. The Guardian, 19 February 2018. Renton, L. and Vaughn, L. (2020). Power, Dignity and Voice: Enhancing Safeguarding in Efforts to Address Modern Slavery. Anti-slavery Knowledge Network: University of Liverpool. Roberts, D. (2000). Killing the Black Body. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle-Louverture Publications. Russell, D.J., Sprung, J., McCauley, D., Kraus de Camargo, O., Buchanan, F., Gulko, R., Martens, R. and Gorter, J.W. (2016). Knowledge exchange and discovery in the age of social media: The journey from inception to establishment of a parent-led web-based research advisory community for childhood disability. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(11), e293. Santos, B. de S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Shilliam, R. (2018). Race and the Undeserving Poor: From Abolition to Brexit. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing. Smith, L.T. (2006). Choosing the margins: The role of research in Indigenous struggles for social justice. In N.K. Denzin and M.D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative Inquiry and the Conservative Challenge (pp. 151–174). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

426  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Smith, L.T. (2012). Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books. Vaughn, L. (2020). Can research be anticolonial? COVID-19 Race and Risk. 8 July 2020. Available at: https://​covid19raceandrisk​.wordpress​.com/​2020/​07/​08/​can​-research​-be​-anti​-colonial/​ Vaughn, L. (2019). Doing Risk: Practitioner Interpretations of Risk of Childhood Radicalisation and the Implementation of the HM Government PREVENT Duty. PhD Thesis, University of Liverpool. Vaughn, L. and Jacquez, F. (2020). Participatory research methods – Choice points in the research process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods,  1(1), 1–13. https://​doi​.org/​10​.35844/​001c​.13244 Vaughn, L. and Renton, L. (2020). Decolonising Safeguarding in a Pandemic: Who has the Power to Define Risk and Harm? 12 May 2020, Discover Society. Vaughn, L., Kiconco, A., Quartey, N.K, Smith, C.S. and Ziz, I.Z. (2020). COVID-19 and Racialised Risk Narratives in South Africa, Ghana and Kenya. COVID-19 ODA Rapid Response Research Project Report. University of Liverpool. Vaughn, L., Sandhar, J. and Omony, G. (2022). Decolonising safeguarding during a pandemic: Lessons for research praxis in international social work. In M.C.S. Gonçalves, R. Gutwald, T. Kleibl, R. Lutz, N. Noyoo and J. Twikirize (Eds.), The Coronavirus Crisis and Challenges to Social Development (pp. 357–369). Cham: Springer. Wa Thiongʾo, N. (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. London: Portsmouth, N.H: J. Currey; Heinemann. Wellcome Trust (2020). What Researchers Think About the Culture They Work In. Available at: https://​ wellcome​.org/​reports/​what​-researchers​-think​-about​-research​-culture

29. Managing distance when teaching, learning, and doing oral history: a case study from Vietnam Siobhan Warrington, Laura Beckwith, Hue Nguyen, Graham Smith, Lan Nguyen, Thuy Mai Thi Minh, Chamithri Greru, Tanh Nguyen, Oliver Hensengerth, Pamela Woolner and Matt Baillie Smith

INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Chapter and the Project This chapter presents the experience of supporting research that used oral history alongside a range of visual research methods to explore the experiences and understandings of environmental change among younger and older women and men living in two rural areas of the Mekong Delta Region of Vietnam. The combination of oral history and visual methods enabled researchers to capture temporal and spatial understandings of place and a contextual understanding of environmental change that looks beyond the usual framings of climate change and its impact upon livelihoods to include a broader understanding of people’s relationship with their natural world including heritage, leisure, and well-being. The visual methods included participatory mapping and photography, and the production of seasonal calendars and timelines. Oral history interviews were recorded mainly with older women and men. The mapping and photography were undertaken as small group activities with separate groups of younger male and female research participants, and the seasonal calendars and timelines were with separate groups of older male and female research participants. This intergenerational research project is part of the Living Deltas Hub, a five-year international research initiative, funded by the UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund (UKRI/GCRF) working towards sustainable and equitable futures for those living in delta regions of the Mekong and the Red River in Vietnam and the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna river system of India and Bangladesh. The Living Deltas Hub represents a partnership of academic institutes from Vietnam, India, Bangladesh and beyond, consisting of over 100 researchers, and is coordinated by Newcastle University (UK). This chapter focuses on the teaching and learning component of the intergenerational research project, and in particular the experience of teaching, learning and doing oral history. As a case study it includes the facilitators’ pedagogical aspirations and plans, but also the realities and the unexpected challenges and successes faced by both facilitators and learners when teaching and learning in the context of multiple distances. It draws upon the experiences and reflections of the UK-based facilitators and the Vietnamese co-facilitator, as well as the

427

428  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods feedback and ideas shared by the Vietnamese learners. These learners included both university research staff and students. Introduction to Oral History, Oral History Pedagogy, and the Literature Oral history is both an emerging academic discipline and a practice that also lives outside academia (Smith, 2022). It is also described, ‘as a field of study and a method of gathering, preserving and interpreting the voices and memories of people, communities, and participants in past events’ (www​.oralhistory​.org). Modern oral history emerged after the Second World War with the recorded interview, however its ancestry can be traced to antiquity and is often claimed as the first kind of history (Thompson and Bornat, 2017). It exists, with variations in approach, across the world, for example, Ghana (Tsey, 2011), China (Jolly and Li Huibo, 2018) and India (Chowdhury, 2014). As well as an increasing number of national oral history associations throughout the world, the International Oral History Association brings together a network of oral historians through its bi-lingual (Spanish and English) website, online journal, and bi-annual conferences (see www​.ioha​.org). Within the UK, oral history has developed across university faculties, including the medical sciences, with historians, anthropologists, and sociologists making major contributions to the growth of oral history theory. It has tended to operate in interdisciplinary settings and as such is increasingly recognised as a useful research tool by environmental scientists and scholars of international development. Oral history has been taught in undergraduate and postgraduate classrooms and its presence within formal educational settings extends to primary and secondary schools, and adult learning environments. However, oral history has also been shaped, especially in its practice, by individuals and groups outside of formal education and with a diverse remit that includes heritage, culture, arts, and advocacy. Oral history courses within universities often consist of short weekly sessions over an academic term (typically ten to 15 weeks). In contrast, much oral history training that takes place outside academia tends to be through short workshops running anywhere between one to five days. While the content and aims may be similar – to improve research skills, including transcription, publication, and archiving (Smith, 2010) as well as supporting team working (Benmayor, 1998) – shorter workshops present ‘limited time for learners to process new information and reinforce lessons through repetition’ (Jones, 2019, p. 348). Jones goes on to explain that, ‘Topics that can be addressed – like oral history and memory and historiography of the methodology – and skills that can be practiced in a semester-long course fall by the wayside in workshops’ (p. 356). Almost all oral history teaching and training, whatever the mode of delivery, covers interviewing and recording with an emphasis on skills associated with interpersonal communication, critical thought, and reflexivity. And regardless of the setting, oral history training generally offers learners the opportunity to engage in ‘authentic research’, that is research that matters to learners and that has the potential of contributing to change (Jolieffe et al., 2016). Many of those involved in teaching oral history also recognise the claim made by Ritchie (2014, p. 188) that the use of oral history ‘helps students break loose from their textbooks and become their own collectors of information – and students remember best what they researched themselves’. Oral history has long been recognised as a pedagogy in itself, engaging students actively outside the classroom in both methods and problem solving. A 1990 conference paper by

Managing distance when teaching, learning, and doing oral history  429 King and Stahl argues, that ‘In addition to representing marginalized groups, oral history as a teaching approach can also be used to move the locus of curriculum control in the direction of students’ initiatives. In this way, oral history can be used as a pedagogy that empowers students.’ More recently Davey et al. (2016) claim that oral history provides undergraduates with a range of transferable learning outcomes. Smith (2010, p. 7) concurs, stating: ‘doing oral history will result in significantly improved research skills. Conducting the interviews will extend learning, with the potential of assisting students to develop and use a wider range of skills associated with interpersonal communication, critical thought and reflexivity.’ There are numerous resources (print and online) providing practical guidance and instructions on conducting oral history interviews and running oral history projects (Yow, Ritchie, Thompson, Perks, Zusman, Oral History Society (UK) website, Oral History Association (US)). There is a small body of literature on oral history pedagogy which focuses primarily on university teaching – taught courses as part of a degree or postgraduate degree curricula. According to Jones (2019) there is much less literature on the pedagogy of oral history workshops outside academia (note: it may be that this literature exists, but just not in published academic journals, see e.g., publications on www​.storyforall​.org.). This chapter addresses oral history pedagogy that cuts across academic and non-academic spaces. The teaching and learning occurred within a large international academic project, but it was not structured within an existing academic course or programme of study. It involved university staff and university students as both learners and researchers, who themselves supported a number of community researchers. Participatory Research and a Learner-centred Approach to Workshops Professors and researchers at An Giang University (AGU) in the Mekong region of Vietnam, and at Northumbria and Newcastle Universities in the UK, worked together to develop the research with the broad aims of exploring how older and younger people experience, understand, and respond to environmental change in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. A belief in the value of participatory and collaborative approaches shaped the development of the intergenerational research. Training and supporting a group of researchers who have a greater proximity (geographical and in terms of identity) to, and shared languages with, research participants was integral to the design of the research. Two staff researchers at AGU, Nguyễn Xuân Lan (an environmental scientist and project manager) and Mai Thị Minh Thuy (a Masters of Arts graduate specialising in tourism and culture) were assigned as research coordinators, who would also attend the online workshop sessions as learners and undertake research themselves. Hue Nguyen, an English Lecturer at AGU, took on the role of co-facilitator and translator throughout the project. Four students (Lâm Ngọc Duy, Cao Hoàng Uyên, Huỳnh Mỹ Linh and Phan Tuyết Cương), all undergraduates majoring in English, were recruited to be trained in research methods in order to undertake research alongside the two staff researchers. Four community researchers (Van Kim Ngan, Lê Anh Toàn, Sa Mah and Du Số, one male and one female in each of the two rural areas where research took place) were also recruited to organise and support research activities in each location. Research participants were older and younger women and men in rural communities of two districts in An Giang province: the research participants in An Phu district were Cham, a Muslim minority; those in Cho Moi district were Kinh, the majority population in Vietnam. All researchers (staff, student, and community) were paid for their time spent on the project;

430  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods research participants, many of whom rely on labouring and/or petty trade for their livelihoods, were also reimbursed financially for the time they spent engaged in interviews and other research activities. The original plan was for an in-person five-day workshop in Vietnam, with UK-based staff, Siobhan Warrington and Laura Beckwith facilitating training on oral history and visual research methods for all staff and student researchers. However, the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic in 2021 required a remote approach to research methods pedagogy for the UK-based facilitators and all research arrangements to be managed by AGU. A series of 15 online workshops were planned to take place around a series of research trips to the two rural communities. These online workshop sessions covered the aims of the Living Deltas Hub as well as the specific focus of the intergenerational research project and taught skills related to oral history and participatory visual methods (see Figure 29.1). The sessions lasted one to two hours and were delivered using the videoconferencing platform Zoom. The sessions were primarily in English with Vietnamese used at times with translation assistance from Hue Nguyen. The workshop sessions relating to oral history interviewing, researcher relationships and ethics build, in part, on the approach and methods developed by Olivia Bennett who founded the Oral Testimony Programme (OTP) at Panos London in 1993 with the publication of Listening for a Change: Oral Testimony and Development (Thompson and Slim, 1993), followed in 1999 with the manual Giving Voice: Practical Guidelines for Oral Testimony Projects. The OTP adapted oral history practice to support communities to communicate their first-hand experiences of issues affecting their lives including displacement, environmental change and conflict. A learner-centred approach informed the design and delivery of the workshop sessions: respecting and building on learners’ existing knowledge and skills, striving for active participation of learners in sessions, ensuring opportunities for practical experience, encouraging reflection and reflexivity, and investing in building good relationships and a team dynamic alongside the learning. The facilitators also recognised the need to be open and responsive to what worked for this particular group of learners in terms of content and style. Considering the typology of research methods teaching developed by Nind and Lewthwaite (2021) (approach, strategies, tactics and tasks) the approach and related strategies outlined above, suit an acceptance of a degree of flexibility and responsiveness when it comes to the choice of tactics and tasks used within teaching sessions. Facilitators were involved in supporting learners to develop skills (and comfort) with specific research methods to use with immediate effect as part of the intergenerational research. For the facilitators and the learners there were multiple foci at play: the teaching and learning, alongside the design and delivery of sensitive and effective research with rural communities. A rapidly changing context resulting from rising Covid infection rates and lockdown arrangements with travel restrictions also affected the design and implementation of the research itself. Even with a relaxation in lockdown rules, researchers were required to undertake Covid tests before visiting communities and be careful to practice full social distancing measures, always wear face coverings, and conduct all research activities in the open air. One of the agreed research sites withdrew their participation as Covid case numbers rose, and so another community, closer to AGU was identified. This last-minute change led to the whole team of staff and student researchers working together in each community, rather than splitting into two teams as was envisaged in the original design. This had advantages for team building,

Managing distance when teaching, learning, and doing oral history  431 Table 29.1

Training sessions and research over a three-month period in 2021

April 2021 14 April

Meet and recruit four student researchers

23–27 April

Coordinators visit two rural communities to introduce research, involve community in research plans, and recruit community researchers

28 April

Zoom 1: Introduction to each other, to the project, to the communities

29 April May

Zoom 2: What counts as knowledge: lived experience and voice

5 May

Zoom 3: Introduction to oral history Zoom 4: Oral history: practical tips

8–9 May

Students record oral history practice with family/friend

11 May

Zoom 5: Debrief about oral history practice

12 May

Zoom 6: Developing questions for interview topics

17 May

Zoom 7: Mapping

19 May

Zoom 8: Mapping and photography

21–22 May

Community-based researchers visit AGU for skills sharing session with staff and student researchers

24 May

Zoom 9: Preparing for site visit

28–30 May June

Conducting research in An Phu

1–4 June

Researchers transcribing interviews; organising data

9 June

Zoom 10: Learning from the first research experience

15 June

Zoom 11: Preparation for second visit to An Phu

17–19 June

Conducting research in An Phu (second visit)

22 June

Zoom 12: Learning from second research experience

28–30 June

Conducting research in Cho Moi

July 14 July

Zoom 13: Learning from the research in Cho Moi Part 1

15 July

Zoom 14: Learning from the research in Cho Moi Part 2

20 July

Zoom 15: Celebration event

as well as simplifying project-management and communication, and removing the need for multiple debrief sessions. The reality of funding deadlines required us to organise the training and support the implementation of the research with two rural communities within a three-month period: April–July 2021 (see Table 29.1). This time pressure, compounded by the last-minute changes to research plans due to Covid measures, impacted the approach to the training. In particular, it compromised the moments planned for practice and reflection; these inevitably became more hurried than was ideal. Multiple Distances: Pedagogical Realities The move to teaching oral history remotely introduced a physical distance between facilitators and learners. This, however, was not the only form of distance recognised in this particular pedagogical experience. This section explores the key areas of distance between the facilitators and learners – geography, language, and discipline – and explores the impact of those distances, and the implications for pedagogy. Examining these distances in relation to the aspirations and practicalities of research methods pedagogy is the purpose of this chapter, as a contribution to the handbook. However, this framing risks presenting these distances as somehow neutral conditions to reflect upon. Instead, we would argue these distances represent a context

432  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods of unequal power relationships inherent in international research projects that are coordinated by academic institutes in the Global North, funded by governments in the Global North, and for which English is the required language for much spoken and written communication. The Living Deltas Hub, like many other international research projects, strives for equity across all aspects of its work; these efforts are critical given the ways coloniality remains hard-wired into such projects. Geographical Distance The shift to online teaching and learning Instead of UK-based researchers travelling to Vietnam to facilitate research methods training workshops, as would have been the norm, we had to consider how we could deliver training remotely to researchers to enable them to record oral history interviews and facilitate participatory visual methods with women and men in rural communities. Rather than try to replicate the full-day timings of a face-to-face workshop, the training and support for researchers was designed to take place over a series of one-to-two-hour online sessions, once or twice per week over a period of several months. This approach was manageable for the participants who were working or studying full time, and it also enabled the planning of sessions before research visits to rural communities, as well as in between and afterwards to generate shared learning based on practice. It did, however, result in a reduction of contact learning hours by around 50 percent compared to a five-day in-person workshop. This, combined with the need to keep online sessions to between one and two hours for participants’ comfort and focus, resulted in significant changes to content, and to the number and style of learning activities that could take place. What remained intact however, was an overall learner-centred approach, and a commitment to creating an equal, supportive, friendly, and enjoyable learning environment. These principles are foundational for good learning and participatory research. In fact, it is felt they could be even more important in the context of a remote setting where full attendance and participation is more difficult to obtain. When a group of people come together for a residential workshop you can presume that everyone will be present for every session. Attendance at a series of online sessions feels less guaranteed; we are relying on participants’ motivation and commitment to log in at scheduled times. With this lack of guarantee there is perhaps an additional pressure on the facilitators to work hard to create sessions that are engaging and satisfying for participants and a learning environment in which participants feel comfortable. Despite the time pressures, it was important to take time at the beginning of each session to warm-up either through informal conversation, or specific activities. Communication with all of the learners revealed that the facilitators’ efforts to create a friendly and supportive environment were noticed and appreciated; the extremely high levels of attendance across all sessions also demonstrated learner commitment and engagement. Although some of the student researchers were known to each other previously as classmates, the schedule and facilitation also had to attend to the need for this group to become a team who could work well together and support one another while carrying out the research. Within and across the different online sessions the facilitators worked to maintain a staged approach to learning, employing different tactics and tasks to deliver input, support practice, and encourage individual and group reflection and dialogue. The opportunities for learning

Managing distance when teaching, learning, and doing oral history  433 were extended beyond the sessions themselves by providing handouts and reading materials and assigning practical tasks, in advance of, and in between, sessions. What was lost, what was gained? While all learners conducted practice interviews in their own time between sessions, the embodied aspect of practicing skills together is absent in remote training. We lost the learning that comes from role-play and practice with one another in-person, and the opportunity for facilitators (and learners) to employ this tactic spontaneously for clarification or demonstration purposes as required. Learners in a remote space are unable to practice and witness the use of body language and positioning to generate rapport, demonstrate active listening, and show empathy, all of which relate to best practice for the oral historian. Sheftel (2019, p. 346) states, ‘Oral history and teaching are both dynamic processes that involve intersubjective relationships’. Scholars of intersubjectivities in education recognise that it is through shared language, gestures, and gazes that teachers and students create a shared embodied culture within the classroom walls (Di Gesú, 2021). We recognise that the lack of face-to-face interaction will have limited the relationships developed between facilitators and learners. Similar losses have been experienced by oral historians around the world who shifted from in-person to remote oral history interviewing during Covid (Rickard, 2020). Although the intensity of a short face-to-face workshop can help to cement relationships, a remote approach with shorter workshop sessions running over several months provided more time for facilitator learner relationships to develop (see Figure 29.1). It also had the advantage of enabling reflection and learning alongside the researchers’ experiences of applying their new research skills in the real-world. The opportunity for facilitators and learners to engage throughout a longer process meant that learning was embedded throughout the research experience, rather than it all taking place prior to the research. This provided greater opportunities for facilitators to be responsive to learners’ needs and priorities and ultimately deliver a more learner-centred approach to the workshops. Language Distance The two UK-based facilitators do not speak Vietnamese and – as is typical of white British and North American researchers – we relied on the English-language skills of Vietnamese colleagues. The burden of working across languages is experienced unequally across international research projects given the reliance on the English language for most communications, reporting and publications. This burden appears to be rarely acknowledged in the context of international development research projects, despite this being symbolic of the existing coloniality of such partnerships. When it came to the recruitment and identification of researchers for this project, Tanh Nguyen (research supervisor at AGU) and Hue Nguyen (co-facilitator and translator) recommended the recruitment of English major students, rather than environmental science students with limited English language skills. Although the facilitators have experience of running some face-to-face oral history workshops with translation, it was recognised that this would be particularly problematic with the time constraints (and potential connection problems) of Zoom sessions. It was however, also decided that Hue Nguyen would join the project as a co-facilitator and be present at all Zoom sessions and any meetings between the facilitators

434  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods

Figure 29.1

Zoom 15: Celebration event, with silly hats (screen shot)

and the staff researchers (who were also coordinating the research). The staff researchers, also learners in the Zoom sessions, were less confident English speakers than the students. The facilitators developed the workshop content, and resources in English, however the value of translating some of these into Vietnamese was recognised. The resources that were translated included: a welcome pack for all researchers, a topic guide for oral history interviews, and guiding questions for mapping activities, along with information sheets and informed consent documentation for research participants. Translation into Vietnamese made these resources shareable with the community researchers, who did not speak English. During the ‘Introduction to oral history’ session, several examples of oral history interviewing were shared with the learners. These were video extracts taken from the YouTube pages of two oral history projects with Vietnamese diaspora: the Vietnamese American Oral History Project (https://​sites​.uci​.edu/​vaohp/​) at the University of California, Irvine, and the Vietnamese in the Diaspora Digital Archive (https://​vietdiasporastories​.omeka​.net/​) supported through the Vietnamese American Heritage Foundation. Sharing these resources was also important to demonstrate that Vietnamese oral history exists; oral history is not just a method designed and used by English speakers in the Global North. Another tactic used to decrease the impact of the language distance on learning was to regularly pose questions directly to the learners throughout the sessions, as a way of checking their understanding and reinforcing learning. One student researcher stated that this dynamic approach helped him to remain focused and attentive during the Zoom sessions. Learners were also encouraged to engage in discussions and answer questions posed by the facilitators in Vietnamese; this was made possible by the participation of skilled translator and co-facilitator Hue Nguyen in all sessions. It was clear from the readiness of learners to speak and share ideas in Vietnamese that this was welcomed; sometimes this happened spontaneously and at other times it was explicitly encouraged by the facilitators.

Managing distance when teaching, learning, and doing oral history  435 The issue of language in relation to learning was explored in feedback interviews with the staff and student researchers towards the end of their participation in the project. We were particularly interested in their experiences of learning new skills (oral history and visual methods) in English. All of the student researchers were appreciative of the opportunity, provided by their participation, to improve their English skills; but they also firmly believed it was better for them to learn these new skills by engaging directly with those who have an existing expertise in the methods, rather than going through a translator. One of the staff researchers did however suggest that due to the language differences they needed more time within sessions to respond to the facilitators’ questions in English; time for internal translation. She suggested that it would be helpful for facilitators to provide learners with an overview of the Zoom session, including perhaps key questions, in advance; she felt this would have enabled her to contribute more to those discussions. Limited learning around the data The facilitators’ lack of Vietnamese language skills within this project imposed a significant barrier on an aspect of collaborative learning that is critical to many oral history learning environments – the opportunity for ‘teachers’ and students, either one-on-one, or in plenary, to together review transcripts (or recordings) of the oral history interviews (Benmayor, 2000). This is a time for shared learning around the data, and also an opportunity to reflect on interview relationships and the interviewer’s techniques and strategies. Because the site of the learning is the interview produced by the students, in that collaborative learning endeavour the hierarchies between teachers and learners also flatten. In the case of this research project, the staff, student, and community researchers recorded their interviews and produced written transcripts of these recordings in Vietnamese. The tight schedule between field visits, and between field visits and training sessions, did not allow for translation of the data to take place within the three-month training and research period. This resulted in the facilitators designing feedback and analysis sessions despite not having the opportunity to review any of the data collected. This reality required the establishment of other ways that the learners could share their research experiences and data, that would enable facilitators to gain insights into the content of the data, as well as the researchers’ comfort with, and competence in, oral history interviewing and the use of visual methods, and how those methods worked in the particular contexts of this research. The UK-based facilitators relied entirely on the researchers’ self-reported assessments of their research for which we provided several platforms: research diaries; online sessions; and one-to-one engagement via email. For facilitators, the lack of time to manage a close review of translated transcripts within the learning journey meant that it was also harder to assess the effectiveness of our pedagogy and make any necessary adjustments. These various self-assessments became places to look for ‘clues’ as to whether the skills and ideas about oral history interviewing had been successfully learnt. For example, an entry from student researcher Duy Lam’s diary during the first field visit reads: ‘Just listen. Most of the time people still have more things to say, with a few pauses, so I need to wait a second, they will continue.’ Such clues helped to indicate that the researchers were successfully learning the methods even as we waited for the interviews themselves to be translated. During the online debriefing sessions we provided structured opportunities for the researchers to share their experiences around using each method and also the knowledge they had gained in relation to each of the broad research questions. These became highly interactive sessions,

436  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods rich in terms of knowledge shared between learners, and between learners and facilitators. In one of these debriefing sessions student researcher, Linh Huyn, shared her reflections on an interview with an older woman. It had been a difficult interview, with a narrator who, at times, had been unforthcoming. Linh shared her observations of the narrator’s negative emotional state and her understanding of how this affected the interview process and content. While this might seem obvious to a professional researcher or seasoned interviewer, for someone new to the craft this symbolises an understanding of something foundational to oral history (and other humanities and social sciences). That is, interviews are not a neutral process of knowledge extraction, rather they are laden with emotion, power relations, and subjectivities. Disciplinary Distance In addition to geography and language, researchers and facilitators collaborated across a disciplinary divide to implement this research. The four students had no prior research experience. All four were interested in, and had some knowledge of, the topic of environmental change. This interest or knowledge came from an engagement with international media; two of the researchers had also been involved in voluntary initiatives involving working with children and other young people on litter picking and tree-planting campaigns. None, however, had any academic training in environmental issues or social sciences, and some had limited experience of rural life. The two staff researchers based at AGU brought relevant existing experience and knowledge to the project, as well as a familiarity with the aims of the Living Deltas Hub. They both had significant experience of undertaking research in rural areas in relation to environmental change and cultural heritage. The research methods – oral history, and participatory mapping and photography – were, however, new to them, as well as to the students. This created a substantial distance to address: in addition to the practicalities of using these methods, learners would also need to be introduced to the disciplinary beliefs that typically underpin oral history and participatory methods, such as the recognition of different forms of knowledge and the appreciation of recorded accounts, photographs, and drawings by research participants as forms of data. These are beliefs which are not universally accepted across all disciplines. The absence of Vietnamese humanities or social science university staff assigned to this research not only limited our pedagogy, it also added an unwanted element of coloniality with white UK-based researchers ‘training’ Vietnamese researchers in research methods. The UK-based researchers worked towards developing equitable working relationships with Vietnamese colleagues and student researchers. However, despite our best efforts to create equal and respectful mutual learning relationships, we recognise that strong traces of coloniality remain in the overall set-up. Recognising these disciplinary distances in advance, the facilitators designed a number of introductory sessions that included the Living Deltas Hub and environmental change as a research topic. The staff researchers also delivered an introduction to the rural communities where the research would take place, based on their scoping visits and additional secondary research. Recognising that ‘Students who are expected to conduct interviews… need to be supported and trained in thinking about both the theories and practices of oral history’ (Smith, 2010, p. 7), we designed an additional introductory session that covered issues of power, voice and participation, with the principles and practicalities of these being repeatedly revisited over the sessions focused on methods and preparing for the research.

Managing distance when teaching, learning, and doing oral history  437 A disciplinary distance may also have contributed to a tension between indeterminacy and instruction in the teaching of participatory methods of an open-ended nature. While a degree of indeterminacy might ‘feel’ appropriate for facilitators teaching oral history and participatory visual methods, it seemed that the learners wanted more prescriptive instructions. This was in part to compensate for a lack of confidence in undertaking research methods new to them, but in the case of the staff researchers, it also stemmed from a familiarity with an approach to research which favoured an empirical approach. Interviews with the two staff researchers revealed an epistemological distance, which the facilitators had perhaps not fully appreciated in advance of the project. The staff researchers felt the research needed to be more focused and explained that they were used to working with tighter research questions and surveys or structured interviews with the length of a survey or interview being determined by the time it took for the interviewee to provide the required data. These approaches enabled a clear sense of completion for researchers. Oral history interviewing, in contrast, felt particularly unfocused and open-ended, with an inherent impossibility to know whether the research task is ever ‘complete’. This type of discomfort is recognised by Smith (2010, p. 6): ‘As already noted, [oral history] can seem counter-intuitive to students trained in strong positivism. It can take students out of their comfort zones.’ Sheftel (2019, p. 342) also explores the inevitable ‘indeterminacy’ of oral history pedagogy: Oral history is about making space for subaltern narratives and using ordinary people’s voices to create solidarity and change, while critical pedagogy asks how the classroom can create space for critical engagement with different kinds of knowledge, questioning authority, and fighting for the promise of democracy. Both are about unsettling dominant ways of knowing.

It is important to note that despite their expressions of discomfort, both staff researchers also recognised the value in letting narrators share what is important to them; and that an oral history approach could create, at times, a more natural conversation-like interview experience for the narrator. The distances that framed this pedagogical context, and the compressed teaching and learning time, required us to think beyond what feels right to us as facilitators, and think about what works for learners in their context and within our shared learning environment. A more instructive approach was needed to support learner-researchers with clear guidelines which led to additional guidance being given for the second research visit, particularly in relation to supporting the delivery of the participatory mapping and photography which had proved challenging for researchers during the first research visit. It is, however, important to recognise that the discomfort and confusion experienced on the first field visit is a normal part of the learning process. This was the first time the researchers were employing these methods in the real world, and regardless of any kind of distance (geographical, language, discipline) there will always be a period of uncertainty and lack of confidence when applying new learning for the first time. In addition to reflecting on the appropriateness of our pedagogical approaches and resources it is also important to think about how better to prepare learners for the inevitable discomfort they will experience during their first experiences of using methods new to them, with research participants they have met for the first time. The research diaries of the first field visit (and the second) demonstrate this initial discomfort, which relates to other factors, beyond the learner-researcher’s confidence and skill. Across all researchers there is a strong recognition of the importance of trust and relationship-building

438  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods with research participants, both of which take time. The multi-day visits (and a follow-up second visit to the same site a month later) meant that they could experience and appreciate the importance of time for establishing trust and relationships with research participants. The researchers experienced their own awkwardness and the research participants’ initial reticence during those first visits, but they also experienced this shifting over time as they became more familiar with one another. Thuy Mai Thi Minh, one of the staff researchers, recognised the importance of the multiple visits, not just in terms of relationships, but also in relation to knowledge: I think we had many interesting experiences in the first trip. We had some difficulties when we met people for the first time. After three working days, we got acquainted and conveyed the purpose of this research with them. Although the results are not so good, we have many helpful lessons. Reviewing the research results of this trip helps us to better understand their concerns and current life status, which will help us take a more suitable approach the next time.

In addition to disciplinary and epistemological distances between teachers and learners there were possibly also distances that related to cultures of teaching and learning. Over the last three decades, educational reforms in Vietnam have supported an approach of student-centred learning, with the belief that this supports skills required by the labour market, including independence, creativity, and cooperation (Thanh, 2010). Thanh argues that the effect of these reforms has, however, been limited by the societal norms and values of Confucianism which regard teachers as the definitive source of knowledge who always know better than students. Thanh also points to the cultural importance of not losing ‘face’ which in a classroom setting results in students being reluctant to express personal ideas or answer questions. Co-author of this chapter and educator Hue Nguyen confirms that despite the value given to student-centred learning, for students the desire to follow instruction and provide the right answers runs deep and is difficult to disrupt. Distance for Who? The distances described and explored above relate to distances between the facilitators and the learners. It is, however, important to recognise that not all of the learning happens in the interactions between teachers and learners. Learning, and perhaps even most of the learning (if one can ever quantify learning) happens in spaces beyond the workshop setting and in interactions between learners or between learners and research participants. The distances outlined in this chapter impacted upon oral history pedagogy, but they did not impact upon all of the learning that took place. These distances did not define the peer-to-peer learning that took place within this project when any hierarchical distance between teacher and learner also collapsed. Learning was happening between learners, between learners and the co-facilitator, and between learners and the research participants. This learning was not impacted by geographic or linguistic distance. As facilitators we might be aware of, or even initiate, some of these learning spaces (provision of additional resources, individual feedback sessions), but there will be lots of learning moments that we cannot see – spaces that are independently generated between peers – on social media, in cafes, in the field. For example, Hue Nguyen the co-facilitator, explained that there were three Zalo (Vietnamese version of WhatsApp) groups set up to support the research: one between herself and the students; another between her and the staff researchers; and a third for the whole team in relation to fieldwork arrangements. The

Managing distance when teaching, learning, and doing oral history  439 student researchers also talked about the importance of lunchtimes in the field to exchange experiences and support one another; and that when they came together for Covid-testing prior to fieldtrips, this was an important moment for face-to-face exchange about the research and methods.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH METHODS PEDAGOGY The Learning is Always Two-way For facilitators and teachers, every workshop and teaching session offers up possibilities for learning, particularly for facilitators who adopt a participatory, learner-centred approach, alongside a commitment to reflexivity. The learning is always two-way. Facilitators learn from the experience of facilitation but also from individual learners. Expected and unexpected encounters and exchanges with different individual learners and different groups of learners provoke reflections on pedagogy that consider content, structure, and specific tasks and activities, and ultimately lead to improvements in existing practice and the consideration of new ways of working. We learn about our own pedagogy, but we also learn about the application of research methods and about our areas of enquiry through the data generated by others and their insights into that data. The learning and reflection relating to oral history pedagogy in the context of multiple distances is outlined in the main body of this chapter and includes an appreciation of the additional importance of embedding practice and practical examples within the learning, and an awareness of the challenges posed by the absence of embodied practice between learners and facilitators. If the facilitators had been physically present would different teacher-learner relationships have formed? Would distances relating to language, background and discipline have been more easily overcome? Or would other distances, relating to power and cultures of learning have remained apparent? For the facilitators the distances also threw into stark relief the tension between instruction and indeterminacy when supporting others to adopt participatory research methods. Research Methods Pedagogy is as Much Craft as Knowledge Overall, we are also reminded that, even at a distance, research methods pedagogy is as much about supporting the development of skills as it is about imparting knowledge, particularly when that pedagogy is part of a real-world research project. When we teach research methods, we are trying to develop learners’ skills as well as impart new knowledge and so ‘doing’ research becomes an essential part of learning the craft of qualitative interviewing (Brinkman and Kvale, 2015). The researchers acquired skills and knowledge from the workshop sessions, but they also built on, or rather cemented that knowledge during the field work. Feedback from learners, in various forms, demonstrated that they had successfully applied what they learnt and were able to further develop their skills and knowledge based upon their own practice. Research methods pedagogy should be designed with consideration of research methods as craft, with an approach and strategies for learners to develop and use their skills in addition to acquiring knowledge about those methods. Teachers and facilitators of research methods

440  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods should provide opportunities for learners to practice and reflect upon their use of methods and in doing so hone their craft. Oral History and Visual Tools are More Than Methods This case study also shows that oral history and the related participatory and visual tools used within this project represent something more than methods. They embody approaches to research and knowledge that value subjectivity and individual experience, recognise multiple truths and contradictions, and celebrate knowledge and expertise based upon lived experience as opposed to professional or academic experience. Any training and support for oral history and participatory methods needs to communicate these principles and approaches to learners, particularly if existing research experience and epistemological standpoints are different to this. Embracing Different Media and Digital Tools The process of reflecting on the distances inherent in this research project has revealed ways in which oral history pedagogy can be strengthened. In particular, the usefulness of different media and digital tools for remote teaching of oral history could be further explored. While digital tools are certainly not new to oral history, the constraints imposed by Covid-19 as well as the opportunities created by the growing access to affordable internet connections worldwide offer the possibility of new approaches to online learning and collaborative research. More considered and regular use of the tools within Zoom such as breakout rooms, polling, and chat functions, as well as other platforms (such as Miro) that can be used in parallel have the potential to increase levels of interactivity within online training. It should be noted there was not time within this project to agree a virtual learning environment (VLE) that could be accessed and used by colleagues in different countries. This is certainly something we will look into in the future. Several researchers called for the use of video, or live role-play when teaching methods, to ‘show us how things are done’, stating that ‘it is much easier for us to understand if we can see it in action’. Final Thoughts In the end, was it possible for us to realise our aspirations for a learner-centred, collaborative learning environment, when the space was remote, and considering distances of language, discipline, and possibly learning cultures? The completed data set (56 oral history interviews, 25 interviews with young people, and accompanying visual data in the form of charts, maps and photographs), along with feedback from learners suggest that it was, but there were clearly compromises and challenges along the way. Sheftel (2019, p. 342) notes ‘Challenging dominant ways of knowing, democratizing our classrooms and our research, and embracing uncertainty are not straightforward processes to navigate.’ These aspirations become even less-straightforward in the context of multiple distances described and explored in this chapter. Despite the challenges, feedback from the student researchers also confirms the claims made for oral history as pedagogy with their recognition of the multiple transferable communication skills gained through their participation in the project. Co-facilitator Hue Nguyen, herself a university lecturer, explains the experience has provoked a consideration of different ways

Managing distance when teaching, learning, and doing oral history  441 of delivering research methods pedagogy in the university to overcome the current lack of enthusiasm by students to engage in learning research methods. Finally, recognising that these distances are the result, in part, of post-colonial systems of funding and operationalising international research, we have identified several ways that team members based in the Global North, can work towards more equitable ways of working with colleagues in the Global South. Firstly, we recognise that we have a responsibility to manage and accommodate the burden of these distances wherever we can. From organising training sessions at times that suit learners, to budgeting sufficiently for translation of learning resources and the time of a co-facilitator to ensure that researchers can work in their first language as much as possible. Secondly, we must do all we can to support and encourage the autonomy and independence of the learners, in terms of both the learning of research methods but also the doing of the research. In sum, we need to give more, enjoy letting go, and embrace the challenges and possibilities of working across multiple distances.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the student researchers, Lâm Ngọc Duy, Cao Hoàng Uyên, Huỳnh Mỹ Linh and Phan Tuyết Cương, who provided valuable feedback on their experience of the online workshop sessions and the research. We also wish to thank the four community researchers, Van Kim Ngan, Lê Anh Toàn, Sa Mah and Du Số, who supported the research across the two research sites, and the research participants – younger and older women and men who shared their time, experience, knowledge and ideas with the researchers. This research was undertaken with support from UK Research and Innovation, Grant/ Award Number: NE/S008926/1; with additional funding by the School of History Classics and Archaeology (HCA), Newcastle University, Northumbria University and Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City (VNU-HCM) Grant Number TX2023-50-01.

REFERENCES Benmayor, R. (1998). Technology and pedagogy in the oral history classroom. Works and Days, 16(1 and 2), 177–192. Benmayor, R. (2000). Cyber-teaching in the oral history classroom. Oral History, 28(1), 83–91. Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chowdhury, I. (2014). Oral history and oral traditions. Economic and Political Weekly XLIX, 49(30), 54–59. Davey, F., de Welde, K. and Foote, N. (2016). Oral history as inspiring pedagogy for undergraduate education in Our Schools Our Selves the voice of progressive education in Canada. Winter 2016, Canada: The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives https://​www​.policyalternatives​.ca/​our​-schoolsour​-selves​ -winter​-2016 [accessed 17 January 2022] Di Gesú, M.G. (2021). Building intersubjectivity in online learning: Pupils’ and university students’ perception of teachers’ social presence in technology-mediated teaching and learning processes. Human Arenas, 4(2), 338–349. Jolliffe, D., Goering, C., Oldham, K. and Anderson, J. (2016). The Arkansas Delta Oral History Project: Culture, Place, and Authenticity (1st ed.). Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. Jolly, M. and Huibo, L. (2018). Hearing her: Comparing feminist oral history in the UK and China. The Oral History Review, 45(1), 48–67.

442  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Jones, L.A. (2019). Is half a loaf better than none? Reflections on oral history workshops. The Oral History Review, 46(2), 347–359. King, J.R. and Stahl, N.A. (1990). Oral History as a Critical Pedagogy: Some Cautionary Issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Reading Forum (11th, Sarasota, FL, December 12–15, 1990). Nind, M. and Lewthwaite, S. (2020). A conceptual-empirical typology of social science research methods pedagogy. Research Papers in Education, 35(4), 467–487. Oral History Association https://​oralhistory​.org/​about/​do​-oral​-history/​ [accessed 13 January 2022] Panos Oral Testimony Programme (1999). Giving Voice: Practical Guidelines for Oral Testimony Projects. London: Panos London. Perks, R. and Thomson, A. (Eds.) (2015). The Oral History Reader (3rd ed.). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Rickard, W. (2020). Podcast: https://​blogs​.ncl​.ac​.uk/​oral​-history/​2020/​10/​06/​podcast​-episode​-wendy​ -rickard/​[accessed 15 January 2022] Ritchie, D. (2015). Doing Oral History: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Sheftel, A. (2019). Embracing the mess: Reflections on untidy oral history pedagogy. The Oral History Review, 46(2), 341–346. Sheftel, A. (2019). ‘You ask many questions, but you don’t give many answers’: Embracing the mess in conflict studies classrooms. The Oral History Review, 46(2), 401–418. Slim, H. and Thompson, P. (1993). Listening for a Change: Oral Testimony and Development. London: Panos Publications Ltd. Smith, G. (2010). Oral History. Historical Insights: Focus on Research series, Warwick: The Higher Education Academy. http://​www2​.warwick​.ac​.uk/​fac/​cross​_fac/​heahistory/​resources/​rg​_smith​ _oralhistory​_20111015​.pdf. [accessed 16 January 2022] Smith, G. (2022). Oral history in higher education in Britain, c. 1969–2021. Oral History, 50(1), 104–113. Tanh, P.T.H. (2010). Implementing a student-centred learning approach at Vietnamese higher education institutions: Barriers under layers of casual layered analysis (CLA). Journal of Future Studies, 15(1), 21–38. Thompson, P. and Bornat, J. (2017). The Voice of the Past: Oral History (4th ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press Tsey, K. (2011). Re-Thinking Development in Africa: An Oral History Approach from Botoku, Rural Ghana. Cameroon: African Books Collective. Yow, V. (2015). Recording Oral History: A Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences (3rd ed.). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Zusman, A. (2010). Story Bridges: A Guide for Conducting Intergenerational Oral History Projects. New York: Routledge.

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT RESOURCES https://​www​.ohs​.org​.uk/​ https://​www​.oralhistory​.org/​ https://​www​.ioha​.org/​ https://​storyforall​.org/​ Abrams, L. (2016). Oral History Theory (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.

Index

Aagaard, T. 242 academic procrastination 276 action research 16–18, 23, 70–72, 75–6, 89, 96–7, 172 active learning 53, 73, 95, 119–31, 274, 276 see also learning by doing Adam, N. 169 adult learning theory 333 Ahmed. S. 31–2 Aiken, L. 276 algorithms 69–70, 217 Alhassan, R. 287 Allison, H. 258 Anderson, T. 299 Andes, K. 323 Antislavery Knowledge Network 415 anxiety 9–10, 40, 80, 169, 178–9, 246–51, 259–61, 264–5, 272, 276, 278, 358, 388 maths anxiety 126–7 statistics anxiety 287, 289–94 AO3 403 Archer, W. 299 Association for Educational Communities and Technology 337 AuthorAID 333–6, 343–4, 347 avatar-based technologies 184, 302–3, 305–6, 310–13 Babbie, E. 405 Badke, W.B. 262 Bain, J.D. 41 Bainbridge, L. 63 Baker, A.C. 160 Ball, C.T. 53, 55 Ball, S. 256 Bandura, A. 276 Barad, K. 139, 142, 202 Bassot, B. 44 Baum, S. 242 Beard, M. 417 Betts, K. 288 Bhaskar, M. 398, 409 bias 59, 107, 109, 147, 206, 208, 347, 361–2, 412, 415 Bidjerano, T. 276 big data 78, 128, 316 ‘big qual’ 67–82 Bigby, C. 367, 370–71 Biggs, J. 119, 122

binary thinking 136–7, 143–5 Blackboard 245–8 Blankenberger, B. 251 blended learning 16, 214, 228, 251, 274, 286, 289, 291–4, 317, 322, 326, 352 Bloch, M. 257 blogs 41–2, 344, 346–7, 381 Bloom’s learning taxonomy 96–7 Bonwell, C. 276 Bookstagram 403 Booktok 403 Bourdieu, P. 244–5, 258 Brady, M. 130 Braidotti, R. 138 brainstorming 43, 54, 60, 64, 95, 300, 308, 375 Branco, F. 166–7 Braun, V. 322 breadth-and-depth method 67–82 breakout rooms 7, 102, 116, 222–4, 230, 232–3, 235, 290, 302, 305, 312, 321, 390, 440 Brew, A. 150 Brookfield, S. 44–6 Brooks, J. 183 Brown, C. 256 Bruner, J.S. 52, 74, 332 Bryman, A. 398, 400, 405–6 Bsiman, C. 166 Bulloch, S. 327 bullying 414, 418 Burgess, J. 71 Cahapay, M.B. 292 Campbell, E. 60–61 Care Collective 33, 35 careful(l) ethics 27–37 Carey, E. 276, 370 Carr-Chellman, D.J. 371 Chapman, R. 368 Charmaz, K. 207 Charteris-Black, J. 71 Chemi, T. 383–4, 393 Chen, P.Y. 287 Chicago School 121 Choi, J. 371 Christ, R. 134 Cite Black Women campaign 421–2 civil rights movement 413 Clarke, V. 322 ‘close-to-practice’ research 5–6, 16–18

443

444  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Cocker, J. 208 coding 147, 220–21, 234, 319, 321–4, 328, 338 cognitive constructivism 332–3 cognitive presence 214, 216, 220–22, 224, 290, 300–301, 307–9, 312, 335 collaborative learning 51–64, 74, 119, 121, 219, 369–70, 375–6, 435 Collins, D. 2 Collis, R. 255 colonial thinking 412–24 colour coding 373, 376 comics 183–4 Community of Inquiry framework 8, 10, 214, 219, 299–301, 306–8, 311, 335 cognitive presence 214, 216, 220–22, 224, 290, 300–301, 307–9, 312, 335 social presence 214, 216, 222–4, 290, 300–302, 307, 311–12, 335 teaching presence 214, 216–20, 224, 301–3, 307–12 Community of Inquiry model 214 Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS 316–29 conflict resolution 55, 60, 63 constructive alignment 119–31 constructivism 88, 119, 122, 207, 226, 332–3, 336, 340–41, 370 cognitive 332–3 radical 332–3, 340, 349 social 7, 58, 230, 287–8, 293, 333, 347, 370, 378 Cook, S. 3–4, 276–9 Corbin, J. 407 COVID-19 pandemic 35, 82, 100, 102, 116–17, 174–5, 178, 199, 229, 233, 235, 240–51, 256, 259–61, 285–94, 302, 304, 306, 319, 322, 358, 381–93, 403, 408, 413, 4340 Crawford, C. 276 Crawford, J. 288 Criado Perez, C. 208 critical events 359–60 critical pedagogy 46–7, 62, 437 critical race theory 207–8 critical thinking 62, 95, 114, 222, 224, 261, 265–7, 335, 352, 359 Crotty, M. 215–16 Cumming, T.M. 371 Curtin, A. 381 Cuskelly, M. 370 D’Alba, A. 184 Daniel, B.K. 3, 11 Darby, F. 216, 219 Data Jams 326–7 data mining 67, 70–71

Davey, F. 428 Davidson, J. 317 decolonisation 412–24 Dedoose 322, 325 deep learning 63, 110, 121, 216, 240 DeJonckheere, M. 94 Deleuze, G. 140, 142 Denzin, N.K. 150, 216 Dewey, J. 8, 227, 300 dialogical learning 369–71, 375–6 digital divide 228, 319 digital literacy 228, 234, 316 discussion boards 8, 82, 102, 233, 243, 301–5, 307–13 dissertation supervision 243–4, 249, 265 Dixon-Román, E. 136, 139 doctoral supervision 351–63 Doctors and Us report 367, 372–3 Dowle, S. 352, 359–61 drawing, learning through 150–61 Dreger, R. 276 Earley, M.A. 1–2, 21, 130 Ede, L. 60 Edwards, R. 240 Egea, C. 205 Eison, J. 276 El Rizaq, A.D.B. 291 eLearning see online learning 318 embedding 129–30 Embregts, P.J.C.M. 371 e/merge Africa 333, 337 emergency remote teaching 288–9, 294 engineering model 18 enlightenment model 18 ethical issues 169, 199, 232, 336, 382, 412–24 careful(l) ethics 27–37 humility and responsibility 198–209 Ethical Review Boards 129, 135, 260 eugenics 208 evidence-based practice 15–17, 22–3 excellent content 346–7 experiential learning 3, 7–8, 10–11, 70, 74, 82, 108, 168, 180, 183, 226–36, 332, 338, 389, 391–2, 406 Faleiros, V. 167 Farrell, C. 41 feedback 53–5, 58, 71–2, 77, 99, 113, 159, 183, 194, 215, 218–20, 222–4, 247, 266, 274, 279–80, 305, 307, 309, 312–13, 343, 348, 359, 366, 374, 376, 428, 435, 438–9 feedforward 274, 279–80 feminist pedagogies 27–37, 61–2, 134, 357 feminist philosophy 207

Index  445 Fenwick, T. 240 Fertman, C.I. 242 Fetters, M.D. 112 Field, A. 398, 402, 406–8 fieldwork 2, 127, 169, 172, 178–9, 183, 229, 235, 381, 385, 414, 438 Finger, S. 60 Finlay, L. 40 Fish, J. 166–7 Fitzmaurice, O. 291 Five-Level QDA method 317–18, 323–8 Flint, M.A. 207 flipped classroom 72, 227 Flood, S. 371 focus groups 135 Form, W. 398 Foucault, M. 206, 257, 263 four lenses model 44–6 Frawley, P. 367, 371 Freire, P. 227, 370 Freshwater, D. 112 funding 351, 361 gamification 229 Garner, M. 1, 169 Garrison, R. 299, 301, 335 see also Community of Inquiry framework gender 39, 54, 62, 189, 193, 216, 249, 257, 276, 336, 340, 357, 412, 415–17, 419–20 see also feminist pedagogies Gere, A.R. 58 Gibbons, C. 321, 324 Gibbs, G. 44–5 Goldring, J. 281 Gómez, R.L. 287 Goodall, H. 61 grant applications 89, 93–4, 96–8, 100, 102, 116 grounded theory 136, 207, 323 Groves, R.M. 405 Grubb, W.N. 241 Guattari, F. 140 Guerin, C. 42 Guetterman, T.C. 112, 245 Gweon, G. 60 Haardörfer, R. 290–91 habitus 244–5 Halberstam, J. 146 Hall, K. 369, 381 Halpin, S.N. 246, 248–9 Hamilton, R. 398 Hammersley, M. 3–4 Haraway, D.J. 27, 207 Hardcastle, D. 166 Harding, S. 207

Haya Salmón, I. 370–71 Healy, M. 3, 280 Herron, B.A. 184 Hesse-Biber, S. 392 Hey, V. 393 Hood, J. 401–2 hooks, b. 28–9, 34, 36–7 Hoover, S. 183 Howard, C. 130 Hsiung, P.C. 2, 391 Hubs 305–6 Huckaby, F. 208 Hughes, J. 257, 285 Hughes, K. 76 humility 198–209 Hwang, G.J. 287 ‘ideal student’ 257 improvisation exercise 63–4 inclusive research 366–78 Inclusive Research Network 367, 374–5 inquiry-based learning 119, 131 integrated reflective cycle 44 intellectual disabilities 366–78 intentionality 214–25 International Network for Advancing Science and Policy 334, 336 International Research Collaborative for Established and Emerging Scholars 333, 337–9, 343–4, 347 interviewing 182–96, 224, 265, 368, 423 see also oral history Item Response Theory 203 Ivankova, N. 88, 90, 94 Jackson, A.Y. 28, 139 Jackson, C. 250 Jackson, K. 317 Jackson, S. 183 Jamboard 390 James, W. 23 Jenkins, A. 3, 280 Jensen, P.J. 160 Jin, J. 256 Johnson, K. 367, 371 Jones, K. 31 Jones, L.A. 428 journal clubs 335–6 Jun, S. 60 Kaplan, A. 248 Kara, H. 183 Karalis, T. 288 Karkoulia, K.C. 287 Katramadou, A. 2

446  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Kawulich, B. 1, 169, 184 Kearns, M. 244 Keating, A.L. 136–7 Kentnor, H. 274 Kilburn, D. 1–2, 169, 259–60, 272 Kimmerer, R.W. 33, 137 King, J.R. 428 Knoblauch, H. 370 Knowles, M. 332–3, 343 Kolb, D.A. 160, 227, 230, 235 Krathwohl, D.R. 352, 355, 361 Lahiri, M. 286 Lang, J.M. 216, 219 Lassiter, L.E. 60–61 Lather, P. 143, 147 Laxman, K. 292 Lazerson, M. 241 learner evaluation cards 76–7 learner-centred instruction see student-centred learning learning by doing 7, 70, 75, 119–20, 179, 235, 274, 276, 369–71, 375, 377–8, 391 see also active learning Leathwood, C. 393 Lee, A. 352–4, 359 Lee, M.J. 287 LeFevre, K.B. 58 lesson plans 75–6 Lester, J.N. 317 Lewin, K. 227 Lewthwaite, S. 2–3, 121, 169, 265, 352, 369, 381 Lincoln, Y.S. 150, 216 Lindberg-Sand, Å. 123 Lively, C.L. 48 Living Deltas Hub 427, 436 Livingston, M. 290–91 Llewellyn, A. 256 Lotringer, S. 294 Loughlin, C. 123 Loxley, A. 244 Lucero, J. 94 Luff, R. 259–60 Lund, A. 242 Lunsford, A.A. 60 Lupton, D. 381 Lygo-Baker, S. 123 Lynd, R. &. H. 60–61 MacFarlane, B. 392 MacManaway, L. 274 Makagon, D. 183 Manning, E. 141 Mansell, W. 272 Marasi, S. 249

marginalised groups 200, 412–24 see also non-traditional students Martin, S. 285 massification of higher education 241–2 massively open online courses 335–6 Massumi, B. 141 maths anxiety 126–7 statistics anxiety 287, 289–94 Matthews, J. 153 MAXQDA 323, 326 Mayberry, M. 61–2 Mayer, R. 275 Mazzei, L.A. 28, 139 McGovern, N.Y. 53–5 McLoughlin, C. 287 mental health 240, 250, 356, 388 mentoring 64, 94, 99, 135, 178, 199, 204, 209, 290, 332, 334–8, 343–5, 370, 386 Merriam, S.B. 245 Mertens, D.M. 106 metaphors 62–3, 69, 71, 74, 77, 150, 159, 383–4, 388, 401 methods spine 123–9 methods-first model 320–21, 324, 326–7 methods-interwoven model 320, 322, 324–8 Methodspace 333, 339–40, 343–4, 346 methods-via model 320, 322–3, 325–7 Metzler, K. 259 Meyer, J.H.F. 109 Middletown projects 60–61 Miles, M.B. 407 Miller, J.E. 58 Miller, S. 183, 187 Mira, J.-P. 413 mixed methods research education 22, 39, 198, 402 addressing diverse learner needs 85–103 content of courses 86–7 definition of 106 key challenges in 108–14 online 82, 91, 102, 299–313 using open-space approach 106–17 mLearning 286–7 modelling 74, 93, 98, 108, 215, 219, 221, 409 Molina-Azorin, J.F. 112 Moni, K.B. 370 Monk, N. 109–10 Moodle 177–8, 233, 290–92, 294 Morgan, M.F. 370–71 Moseley, J.L. 286 motivation 22, 44, 78, 100, 107, 122, 177, 179, 229, 242, 246, 261, 333, 346, 388, 391–2, 406, 409, 432 multiple choice questions 402 Murnan, J. 203

Index  447 Nadler, R. 289 Naidu, S. 292 Nasmith, L. 63 National Centre for Research Methods 2–3, 68, 72, 76–8, 259, 272, 382 Ng, S.L. 40 Ní Fhloinn, E. 291 Nind, M. 9, 108, 121–2, 169, 259–60, 265, 272–3, 290, 352, 367–9, 372, 376, 381, 391, 406 Nolan, M. 368 non-traditional students 255–67 NVivo 121, 234, 322, 327–8, 333–4, 340–41, 343–4, 348 Ochoa, G.G. 114 Okun, T. 31 Oliver, J. 208 Olsson, L.M. 142, 148 Omasta, M. 39 online learning avatar-based technologies 184, 302–3, 305–6, 310–13 breakout rooms 7, 102, 116, 222–4, 230, 232–3, 235, 290, 302, 305, 312, 321, 390, 440 during COVID-19 pandemic 35, 82, 91, 102, 116, 174–5, 178, 229, 233, 235, 240–51, 256, 259–61, 285–94, 302, 304, 322, 381–93, 403 discussion boards 8, 82, 102, 233, 243, 301–5, 307–13 experiential pedagogies 226–36 interviewing 182, 185, 195 mixed methods 82, 91, 102, 299–313 for non-traditional students 255–67 professional development 332–49 qualitative analysis methods 316–29 in social work 174–5, 177–8 supporting quantitative skills 272–81 using intentionality to frame 214–25 videoconferencing 301–3, 305, 311, see also Zoom Onwuegbuzie, A.J. 290, 292 open space learning approach 106–17 oral history 5, 187, 427–41 Orchard, C. 63 Padlet 321 pair work 74–5, 80 Park, R. 121 Park, Y. 286 Pastor, A. 371 Patton, M.Q. 400, 406–7 Paulus, T. 317–18 Pawlak, K. 348

pedagogic hooks 406–7 pedagogical content knowledge 3, 8–10, 67, 72, 82, 241, 246, 273–4, 277, 280–81, 401–2, 406, 408 Pedagogy 2.0 287–8 peer review 67–8, 70, 96, 170, 186, 223, 335, 337, 343, 396 peer-learning 67, 74–5, 77, 80–82 Pelco, L.E. 53, 55 Penna, S. 348 Piaget, J. 227 Pink, S. 390 pivotal pedagogy 288–9 plagiarism 231, 233–4 Plano Clark, V. 90–91 podcasts 72, 74, 82, 127, 186, 217, 286–7, 339–41, 348, 403 poetry 234 positionality 11, 39–48, 147, 206, 407, 412 power dynamics 40, 43, 59, 61–2, 347, 412–13, 416–18, 420, 422–3, 436 PowerPoint 103, 231, 234, 274, 374 Practical Inquiry 8, 300 Preissle, J. 187 Presence Pedagogy 288 Price, J. 203 Prince, M. 276 privacy 346, 349 problem-based learning 7, 52–3, 55–8, 119, 235, 391, 406 professional development 39, 45, 100, 266, 332–49 project learning 119 Protopsaltis, S. 242 Proud, S. 276 Puar, J. 136 Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 144 Puschmann, C. 71 Q-Step programme 129–30, 272 qualitative research education 21, 37, 86, 106, 112, 121, 198, 214, 216–17, 224–5, 259–60, 263–4, 266, 361–2, 402 ‘big qual’ 67–82 collaborative learning 51–64, 74, 119, 121, 219, 369–70, 375–6, 435 drawing, learning through 150–61 enhancing teaching of 67–82 interviewing 182–96, 224 online 316–29 post-philosophy inspiration 134–48 reflexive thinking in 39–48 Quality Assurance 123 QualPal 326 QuantCrit 207

448  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods quantitative research education 20, 37, 86, 106, 112, 121, 136, 150, 207, 264, 266, 272–81, 285, 287, 362, 402, 404–5 queer theory 207 question and answer sessions 74–5 Quirkos 321, 324 Raaper, R. 256 racism 199, 208, 413 Radical Candor framework 53–5 radical constructivism 332–3, 340, 349 Raikou, N. 288 Ramcharan, P. 367 randomised controlled trials 22 Rapanta, C. 289–90, 292 Reay, D. 256 Recurring Hourglass instructional design 327 Reed, M. 255 reflective practice 5, 18, 21, 23–4, 40, 76, 107, 114, 188–9, 226, 303 reflective case narrative methodology 303–6 reflective models 44–7 reflexivity 39–48, 74, 140, 147, 160, 168, 176, 182–4, 389, 392, 402, 407, 409, 428 remote learning see online research methods Replication Network 278 Research Active Programme 369–71 research literacy 15–24 research methods education active learning 53, 73, 95, 119–31, 274, 276, see also learning by doing anxiety regarding see anxiety collaborative learning 74 constructive alignment 119–31 decolonisation 412–24 deliberations in 10–11 in doctoral supervision 351–63 feminist pedagogies 27–37, 61–2, 134, 357 humility and responsibility 198–209 inclusive research 366–78 intentionality 214–25 interviewing 182–96, 224, 265, 368, 423, see also oral history learning through drawing 150–61 mixed methods see mixed methods research education online see online research methods oral history 427–41 qualitative see qualitative research education reflexive thinking in 39–48, see also reflective practice safeguarding 412–24 in social work 166–80 teaching–research relationship 3–6, 15–24

textbooks 47, 94, 137, 139, 153, 243, 245, 277, 396–410, 428 understanding pedagogy 3–8 Vietnam case study 427–41 research rivers exercise 384–5, 388, 392 responsibility 198–209 reverse embedding 130 Rippé, C.B. 291–3 Ritchie, S. 428 Rix, J. 369 Rock, A.J. 285 Rodríguez-Campos, L. 205 Rogers, E.M. 318 Rogers-Shaw, C. 371 Rojas Pernia, S. 370–71 role play 8, 55–7, 63–4, 100, 116, 184, 302, 375, 433, 440 Rorty, R. 58 Rosé, C.P. 60 Roth, W-M. 21 Roulston, K. 183–4, 191, 246, 248–9 safeguarding 412–24 SAGE Methodspace 333, 339–40, 343–4, 346 Saldaña, J. 39 Salkind, N.J. 406 Salmona, M. 322, 325 Salzburg Principles 361 Sánchez Serrano, J.M. 371 Sanscartier, M. 111, 114, 263 Sarmini, S. 291 Sattin-Bajaj, C. 183 Saunders, M. 398 scaffolding 7–8, 74, 81, 88, 123, 127, 131, 182, 188, 218–23, 230, 235, 245–8, 265, 309, 319–20, 327, 405–6, 408–9 Schmieder, C. 326–7 Scott, K. 53 Scott Jones, J. 281 Seale, C. 71 Seale, J. 368 Second Life 184, 302 selection bias 109 self-efficacy 219, 223, 276, 278, 291, 352 Sergeant, S. 371 service-based learning 119 Sharrock, W. 257 Shea, P. 276 Sheehy, K. 369 Sheftel, A. 433 Shulman, L.S. 9, 15–16, 273, 401 Silver, C. 327 Silverman, D. 405 Singh, J. 145–8 Skulmowski, A. 275

Index  449 Slido 233 Smith, C.A. 421–2 Smith, D. 140 Smith, G. 428 Snelson, C. 259 social constructivism 7, 58, 230, 287–8, 293, 333, 347, 370, 378 social justice 201, 204, 207–8, 242, 412–13 social media 41–2, 80, 341, 344, 346–8, 403, 423, 438 social presence 214, 216, 222–4, 290, 300–302, 307, 311–12, 335 social research methods education see research methods education social work 166–80 St. Pierre, E.A. 142, 146 Stahl, N.A. 428 StatHand 286 statistics 198 statistics anxiety 287, 289–94 Stenhouse, L. 17 ‘step stools’ 220–21 stereotypes 257, 418–19 storytelling 8–9, 28–9, 111, 263, 392, 406–7 see also oral history Strauss, A. 407 Strnadová, I. 370–71 student-centred learning 7, 74, 82, 88, 108, 227, 250, 311, 407–8, 438 Suárez, A.M. 287 Sullivan, P. 58 Sweller, J. 275 symbols 150, 152, 158 Tang, C. 119 Taylor, C.A. 42 teaching presence 214, 216–20, 224, 301–3, 307–12 teaching–research relationship 3–6, 15–24 text mining 70, 74–5, 80–81 Textbook and Academic Authors Association 333–4, 341–4, 348 textbooks 47, 94, 137, 139, 153, 243, 245, 277, 396–410, 428 Thiet, R.K. 47 Thralls, C. 58 Tilley, L. 368 time zones 233–4 Timescapes Archive 72, 74, 76 Timmermans, J.A. 109 Tinkler, P. 250 Tisdell, E.J. 245 Toledo, W. 207 transparency 39, 68, 192, 200, 202, 204, 218, 221, 241, 325, 417

trust 9, 36–7, 47–8, 56, 58, 63, 109, 134, 205, 217–19, 222–3, 249, 290, 301, 332, 367, 370–71, 385, 437 Tuckman, B.W. 52 Twitter 42 UK Centre for Development Research 415, 418 UK Council for Graduate Education 358 UK Data Archive 68 UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund 427 universal design for learning 369, 371–2, 376–7 Unrau, Y. 169 videoconferencing 301–3, 305, 311 see also Zoom videonarratives 41–2 Vietnam case study 427–41 Virilio, P. 294 virtual learning see online learning Virtual Learning Environments 274, 277, 440 see also online learning VITAE 358, 360 VoiceThread 224 vulnerability 7, 28, 30, 35, 37, 110, 145, 147, 157, 178, 246–7, 249, 372, 414–15, 417–21, 423 Vygotsky, L.S. 74, 227, 333, 370 Wagner, C. 1–2, 169 Wallace, M. 391 Walmsley, J. 367 Watermeyer, R. 248 Watson, D. 3–4 Wattpad 403 Wearmouth, J. 369 Webb, R. 276 webinars 339–44, 346, 348, 381 WhatsApp group 264 Whitehead, J. 18 Wiles, R. 2, 169, 272 Williams, A.M. 251 Winfield Report 353, 358, 360 Wingo, N.P. 94 Winter, J. 286 Wisker, G. 261 Wolcott, H. 221 Wolgemuth, J. 3 Wong, B. 258 Wood, V. 63 Woods, C. 62 work–life balance 249 Wotto, M. 245, 250 Wray, A. 391 Wright, S. 322, 326

450  Handbook of teaching and learning social research methods Xu, K. 275 Yarwood, G.A. 40–41 YouTube 224, 290, 390, 403 Zoom 27, 35, 88, 102, 178, 189, 223–4, 228, 230, 232–3, 245, 247–9, 289–94, 302–3, 305, 307–8, 310, 312, 321, 374, 382, 385–6, 390, 430–31, 433–5, 440

breakout rooms 7, 102, 116, 222–4, 230, 232–3, 235, 290, 302, 305, 312, 321, 390, 440 Zoom fatigue 286, 289, 303, 307 Zosky, D. 169 Zubillaga del Río, A. 371