variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods (1)

8/17/2019 Variation and Commonality in Phenomenographic Research Methods (1)

1/14

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20

Download by: [Cape Peninsula University of Technology] Date: 06 April 2016, At: 02:45

Higher Education Research & Development

ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Variation and commonality in phenomenographicresearch methods

Gerlese S. Åkerlind

To cite this article: Gerlese S. Åkerlind (2012) Variation and commonality inphenomenographic research methods, Higher Education Research & Development, 31:1,115-127, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2011.642845

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845

Published online: 23 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1770

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cher20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cher20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07294360.2011.642845http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20


2/14

Variation and commonality in phenomenographicresearch methods

Gerlese S. Åkerlind ∗

Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

This paper focuses on the data analysis stage of phenomenographic research,elucidating what is involved in terms of both commonality and variation inaccepted practice. The analysis stage of phenomenographic research is often not

well understood. This paper helps to clarify the process, initially by collectingtogether in one location the more concrete of the existing descriptions of

phenomenographic analysis. The analytic process is then further elucidated by aunique analysis of variation in practice, based on the principles underlying that

practice. This work was inspired by the ongoing efforts of John Bowden toclarify the nature and rigour of phenomenographic research methods,commencing in particular with Bowden and Walsh’s volume in 1994.

Introduction

Phenomenography is a relatively new approach to educational research, with the first

publications describing the approach appearing in the early 1980s (Marton, 1981,1986). However, it has reached a surprising degree of popularity over the subsequent

25 years, particularly in the UK, Australia and Hong Kong, as well as in Sweden, its point of origin (Bruce and Gerber, 1997). As a research approach, phenomenography

initially emerged from a strongly empirical rather than theoretical or philosophical

basis. Indeed, it is only recently that epistemological and ontological assumptions, a

theoretical basis and specification of methodological requirements underlying the

approach have been more clearly developed (Bowden & Walsh, 1994, 2000; Dall’Alba& Hasselgren, 1996; Marton & Booth, 1997; Bowden & Marton, 1998; Bowden &

Green, 2005). Most recently, these developments have led to the proposal of a Variation

Theory of learning and awareness, with associated implications for approaches to learn-ing and teaching (Marton & Tsui, 2004).

While methodological debates and critiques of phenomenography have become

more common over the past decade, these debates typically neglect to address the

issue of accepted variation in phenomenographic practice. This encourages a lack of awareness of this variation among all but the most active phenomenographic research-

ers, and can lead to confusion about the nature of the approach. Aggravated by the rela-

tive lack of published discussion of phenomenographic methodology, this has led to asituation in which critiques of the research approach may be founded on misunder-

standings of the nature of phenomenography (e.g. Francis, 1996; Webb, 1997), and

ISSN 0729-4360 print/ISSN 1469-8366 online

# 2012 HERDSA

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845

http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Email: [email protected]

Higher Education Research & Development

Vol. 31, No. 1, February 2012, 115–127


3/14

phenomenographic contributions to the research literature are often assessed by journal

reviewers without a clear awareness of the unique methodological requirements of the

approach.

To help address these issues, this paper provides a comprehensive review of methodological approaches to phenomenographic research, with a focus on the

views expressed in discussions and literature from the mid-1990s onward. In this

review, both commonalities and variation in methods among phenomenographic

researchers are presented, with a particular emphasis on the data analysis stage of phenomenographic research. The data collection stage has been more thoroughly

addressed elsewhere (e.g. Sandberg, 1994; Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Bowden &

Green, 2005).

Aims and outcomes of phenomenographic research

Traditionally, the object of study of phenomenographic research has been described asvariation in human meaning, understanding, conceptions (Marton, 1981) or, more

recently, awareness or ways of experiencing a particular phenomenon (Marton &Booth, 1997). Outcomes are represented analytically as a number of qualitatively

different meanings or ways of experiencing the phenomenon (called ‘categories of

description’ to distinguish the empirically interpreted category from the hypothetical

experience that it represents), but also including the structural relationships linking

these different ways of experiencing. These relationships represent the structure of the ‘outcome space’, in terms of providing an elucidation of relations between different

ways of experiencing the one phenomenon.

The structure of the outcome space represents one of the least understood aspects of

phenomenography. The assumption of structural relationships between different waysof experiencing is one of the epistemological assumptions underlying the approach

(Marton and Booth, 1997). Phenomenography espouses a non-dualistic ontology:

There is not a real world ‘out there’ and a subjective world ‘in here’. The world [as experi-enced] is not constructed by the learner, nor is it imposed upon her; it is constituted as aninternal relation between them. (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 13)

The phenomenographic proposition, that ways of experiencing represent a relationship

between the experiencer and the phenomenon being experienced, leads to the expec-

tation that different ways of experiencing will be logically related through thecommon phenomenon being experienced. Thus, a core premise of phenomenographyis the assumption that different categories of description or ways of experiencing a

phenomenon are logically related to one another, typically by way of hierarchically

inclusive relationships (Marton & Booth, 1997).

Consequently, the researcher aims to constitute not just a set of different meanings,

but a logically inclusive structure relating the different meanings. The categories of description constituted by the researcher to represent different ways of experiencing

a phenomenon are thus seen as representing a structured set, the ‘outcome space’.

This provides a way of looking at collective human experience of phenomenaholistically, despite the fact that the same phenomena may be perceived differently

by different people and under different circumstances. Ideally, the outcomes represent

the full range of possible ways of experiencing the phenomenon in question, at this par-ticular point in time, for the population represented by the sample group collectively.

116 G.S. Å kerlind


4/14

The phenomenographic focus on collective rather than individual experience is also

commonly misunderstood, and so worth clarifying here. Phenomenographic research

aims to explore the range of meanings within a sample group, as a group, not the

range of meanings for each individual within the group. This means that no one inter-view transcript (interviews represent the most common data source for phenomenogra-

pic analysis), for example, can be understood in isolation from the others. Every

transcript, or expression of meaning, is interpreted within the context of the group of

transcripts or meanings as a whole, in terms of similarities to and differences fromother transcripts or meanings (Åkerlind et al., 2005).

Marton and Booth (1997) present three primary criteria for judging the quality of a

phenomenographic outcome space:

1. that each category in the outcome space reveals something distinctive about a

way of understanding the phenomenon;2. that the categories are logically related, typically as a hierarchy of structurally

inclusive relationships; and 3. that the outcomes are parsimonious – i.e. that the critical variation in experience

observed in the data be represented by a set of as few categories as possible.

Phenomenographic interviews are typically audio taped and transcribed verbatim,

making the transcripts the focus of the analysis. The set of categories or meanings

that result from the analysis are not determined in advance, but ‘emerge’ from thedata, in relationship with the researcher. My focus, in this paper, is on variation and

commonalities in this analytic process of ‘emergence’.

Commonalities in practice

Paramount is the importance of attempting, as far as possible, to maintain an open mind

during the analysis, minimizing any predetermined views or too rapid foreclosure in

views about the nature of the categories of description. The researcher needs to bewilling to constantly adjust her /his thinking in the light of reflection, discussion and new perspectives. Maintaining a focus on the transcripts and the emerging categories

of description as a set, rather than on individual transcripts and categories, is also essen-tial in order to maintain focus on the collective experience. That is, reading of individ-

ual transcripts and defining of individual categories should occur within the context of

identifying similarities and differences among transcripts and relationships betweencategories, as a group.

The analysis usually starts with a search for meaning, or variation in meaning,

across interview transcripts, and is then supplemented by a search for structural

relationships between meanings. Although phenomenographic researchers would gen-

erally agree that the constitution of meaning and structure is a combined one, someemphasize the importance of not prioritizing the search for structure too early in the

process, as this may lead to not fully appreciating aspects of the meaning to be

found in the data (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Bowden, 2005). Conversely, others high-

light the danger of not considering structure until too late in the process, given that structure and meaning are supposed to be co-constituted in phenomenographic analysis

(Åkerlind, 2005a).

In the early stages, reading through transcripts is characterized by a high degree of openness to possible meanings, subsequent readings becoming more focused on

Higher Education Research & Development 117


5/14

particular aspects or criteria, but still within a framework of openness to new interpret-

ations, and the ultimate aim of illuminating the whole by focusing on different perspec-

tives at different times. The whole process is a strongly iterative and comparative one,

involving the continual sorting and resorting of data, plus ongoing comparisons between the data and the developing categories of description, as well as between

the categories themselves.

A primary feature of the constitution of categories of description is the search for key

qualitative similarities within and differences between the categories. In practical terms,transcripts or selected quotes are grouped and regrouped according to perceived simi-

larities and differences along varying criteria. At times the groupings precede explicit

description of the similarities and differences, at other times the groupings are madeaccording to tentative descriptions for categories, as a checking and validation procedure:

categories are tested against the data, adjusted, retested, and adjusted again. There is,however, a decreasing rate of change and eventually the whole system of meanings is

stabilized. (Marton, 1986, p. 42)

Concrete descriptions of practice

So far, the description provided of phenomenographic analysis has been at the level of

general principles on which most phenomenographers would agree. However, this level

of detail does not provide a concrete description of what phenomenographic researchers

actually do. Indeed, there is a dearth of such concrete descriptions of practice in the phe-nomenographic literature, with only occasional exceptions (notably, Bowden & Walsh,

1994, 2000; and recently, Bowden & Green, 2005), a point on which phenomenogra-

phy has been criticized. Consequently, a series of accounts from the literature are pre-sented below, to give a more concrete indication of what the process, and variation inthe process, of phenomenographic analysis can look like in practice:

The first phase of the analysis is a kind of selection procedure based on criteria of

relevance. Utterances found to be of interest for the question being investigated . . . areselected and marked. The meaning of an utterance occasionally lies in the utterance

itself, but in general the interpretation must be made in relation to the context from

which the utterance was taken . . . The phenomenon in question is narrowed down toand interpreted in terms of selected quotes from all the interviews.

The selected quotes make up the data pool which forms the basis for the next and

crucial step in the analysis. The researcher’s attention has now shifted from the individ-ual subjects (i.e. from the interviews from which the quotes were abstracted) to the

meaning embedded in the quotes themselves. The boundaries separating individuals

are abandoned and interest is focused on the ‘pool of meanings’ discovered in the

data. Thus, each quote has two contexts in relation to which it has been interpreted:

first, the interview from which it was taken, and second, the ‘pool of meanings’ towhich it belongs. The interpretation is an interactive procedure which reverberates

between these two contexts . . . As a result of the interpretive work, utterances are

brought together into categories on the basis of their similarities. Categories are differ-

entiated from one another in terms of their differences. In concrete terms, the processlooks like this: quotes are sorted into piles, borderline cases are examined, and even-

tually the criterion attributes for each group are made explicit. In this way, the

groups of quotes are arranged and rearranged, are narrowed into categories, and finally are defined (Marton, 1986, pp. 42–43).



6/14

[We] independently assigned the transcripts to particular draft categories . . . In dis-

cussing the categorisation of those transcripts, our focus was on determining the quali-

tatively different ways in which these students understood learning [the phenomenon

under investigation]. This process occurred at two levels of analysis. First, weattempted to identify the conception of learning that was evident in each transcript

and second, we sought to clarify the features of each conception by comparing and con-

trasting it with the other conceptions that were emerging . . . When we had agreed on the

categorisation of many of the transcripts, we attempted to describe the most character-istic features of each conception, with constant reference to the transcripts . . .

At each stage of our discussions about what characterized each conception we read

the transcripts again, each time from a slightly different perspective as our initial under-standing of them developed . . . We sought to formulate progressively more complete

and refined descriptions of the six conceptions. As we did this, we continually

sought evidence within the transcripts that either was consistent with our draft cat-egories or conflicted with them. This procedure was carried out within each transcript

so that we always considered the transcript as a whole. In addition, we looked for com-monality from one transcript to another within the same category. Through this process

we jointly drafted categories of description based on the evidence in the transcripts. Inrefining those categories we engaged in a process of discussion that involved formulat-

ing or justifying each aspect of a category, referring back to the relevant transcripts as

we did so (Dall’Alba, 1994, pp. 79 –80).

She [the research assistant] was asked to read through the whole set of transcripts . . .several times until she felt she was reasonably familiar with them. She was then to try to

construct a set of categories which she felt encompassed her perceptions of what the

students were trying to say. She then went back over the transcripts, adjusted the cat-

egories, and cycled between the categories and the transcripts until she felt she had areasonably stable set of categories. When she had completed this task, we met to

discuss the set . . . My task at this stage was to read through the transcripts, decide

whether I felt they reasonably represented the conceptions reflected in the transcripts,and to adjust the categories in a way to construct a more logically related set. This

was done by analysing the categories in terms of their structural and referential

aspects. After some detailed discussions we agreed on a set of more logically related categories. The research assistant took this set, again cycled between the categories

and the transcripts, adjusted the categories and produced a third set. We then cycled

through the whole process, until we felt we had developed a reasonably stable set of

categories . . .

The next stage was to return to the individual transcripts and analyse them in terms

of the categories we constructed. We did this independently . . . we examined the cat-

egorisations, and where there seemed to be mismatches, we returned to the transcripts,

and either adjusted our categories, adjusted our categorisations or left the mismatchremaining, depending on our interpretation of the transcripts. This we repeated

several times over a number of meetings (Prosser, 1994, p. 34).

The matter of focus is all important. As you read the transcript there must be, to my

mind, a focus. In all of the analyses we have done, I have read all the transcripts manytimes – at least six and sometimes a dozen times. On each occasion, some new perspec-

tive is being sought in order to clarify what the student means. On each occasion, the

reading of the transcript is a new experience. To read the transcripts in order to querythe similarities and differences represented in say, version 3 of the categories of descrip-

tion, is a different experience from reading them all again in order to illuminate



7/14

version 10. The multiple readings are necessary in order to explore all possible perspec-

tives and because whenever an aspect is being queried it must always, I believe, be

explored with reference to the whole transcript rather than one small section of it

(p. 48).All the time I am reading a transcript, I have in the back of my mind the question

‘What does this tell me about the way the student understands terminal velocity [the

phenomenon under study]?’ In other words, what must terminal velocity mean to the

student if he or she is saying this or that? . . . Students often say similar things but their underlying meaning is different . . . Students also express similar ideas in quite

different terms. These similarities and differences can only be discovered by holding

all the ideas in mind at one time and trying to draw a picture that explains the underlyingmeaning of virtually the whole transcript. If the student understands terminal velocity in

this way, then it may be no surprise that he or she has described an aspect of the motion

in a particular way. But why has the student discussed another aspect of the motion inanother way if the way of seeing terminal velocity is as we thought? And so on

(Bowden, 1994b, pp. 50–51).All of the material that has been collected forms a pool of meaning. It contains all

that the researcher can hope to find, and the researcher’s task is simply to find it. This isachieved by applying the principle of focusing on one aspect of the object and seeking

its dimensions of variation while holding other aspects frozen. The pool contains two

sorts of material: that pertaining to individuals and that pertaining to the collective. It is

the same stuff, of course, but it can be viewed from two different perspectives to provide different contexts for isolated statements and expressions relevant to the

object of research . . . The analysis starts by searching for extracts from the data that

might be pertinent to the perspective, and inspecting them against the two contexts:

now in the context of other extracts drawn from all interviews . . .

now in the context of the individual interview.

One particular aspect of the phenomenon can be selected and inspected across all of

the subjects, and then another aspect, that to be followed, maybe, by the study of wholeinterviews to see where these two aspects lie in the pool relative to the other aspects and

the background. In a study that involves a number of problems for solution, for

instance, the analysis might start by considering just one of the problems as tackled and discussed by all the subjects, and then a selection of whole transcripts that

include particularly interesting ways of handling the problem. This process repeated

will lead to vaguely spied structure through and across the data that our researcher /

learner can develop, sharpen, and return to again and again from first one perspectiveand then another until there is clarity (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 133).

Variation in practice

Examining these descriptions of practice as a set provides a rare insight into what phe-

nomenographic research involves in concrete terms. At the same time, variation in prac-

tice amongst researchers is also highlighted.

Variation in the amount of each transcript considered

While all researchers would acknowledge the importance of the context provided by the

larger transcript in interpreting any one segment of a transcript, practice varies fromconsidering the whole transcript (or large sections of the whole) related to a particular



8/14

issue (Bowden, 1994a, 1994b; Prosser, 1994; Bowden & Green, 2005) to the selection

of smaller excerpts or quotes seen as representing particular meanings (Svensson &

Theman, 1983; Marton, 1986). In the latter approach, the smaller chunks are separated

from the transcript and combined for analysis in one decontextualized ‘pool of mean-ings’, though these segments are interpreted within the larger interview context

(Marton, 1986). In the former approach, while certain sections of each transcript are

inevitably seen as more pertinent to the research question than others, they continue

to be considered ‘in situ’ (Bowden, 2005).The underlying argument in favour of the ‘contextualized within the transcript’

approach appears to be that the whole transcript should be seen and treated as a set

of interrelated meanings, which can best be understood in relation to eachother. From this perspective, the ‘decontextualized from the transcript’ approach

carries the danger of reducing appropriate consideration of the context within which

the selected quotes are made, which might affect the perceived meaning (Bowden,1994a, 1994b).

Conversely, while proponents of the decontextualized approach also agree on theimportance of considering the larger context when interpreting and selecting

excerpts from the transcripts, working with whole transcripts is seen as having thedanger of encouraging an analytic focus on the individual interviewee, rather than

the group of interviewees as a collective. Another possible argument in favour of

the decontextualized approach is that taking a whole transcript approach to analysis

may reduce the clarity of the key aspects of meaning that researchers search for, because the meaning a phenomenon holds for an individual may vary during the

course of an interview. Furthermore, from a practical point of view, it is obvious

that some statements within a transcript seem to address the research theme more

directly than others. Selecting excerpts that seem to exemplify meanings present in the larger interview, while removing perceived irrelevant or redundant com-

ponents of the interview, should assist in making the data more manageable (Svens-

son & Theman, 1983).

Variation in emphasis placed on collaboration

Another key variation highlighted by the above descriptions of practice lies in theemphasis placed on collaboration during the constitution of an outcome space. Most

phenomenographic researchers work individually during their data analysis.

However, some authors argue for the importance of bringing in additional researchersduring the analysis to encourage greater open-mindedness and awareness of alternative

perspectives, as a way of improving the final outcome space (Bowden, 1994b; Walsh,

1994; Trigwell, 2000).

The large number of existing phenomenographic doctoral theses indicates that high-quality phenomenographic research can be accomplished as an individual researcher

working on one’s own, though this does not preclude the possibility that group research

work may produce a better outcome. It is also relevant to acknowledge here that any

outcome space is inevitably partial, with respect to the hypothetically complete range

of ways of experiencing a phenomenon. So, what we are considering when we talk about better or worse outcomes is more or less complete outcome spaces, not right

or wrong outcome spaces. Thus, an individual researcher can, at the least, make a sub-

stantial contribution to our understanding of a phenomenon, even if group researchmight have taken that understanding further.



9/14

The practice of group versus individual phenomenographic analysis is discussed

and illustrated in detail in Bowden and Green (2005).

Variation in ways of managing the data

An obvious consideration during the analysis is finding appropriate ways of managing

the large amount of data involved. The aim is to consider the interview data as a set.Yet, it is an obvious impossibility to hold all possible aspects of 20 or more interview,

transcripts in one’s mind in an open way at one time. The need to handle the data set in

manageable components, without reducing its integrity, has been approached in differ-

ent ways by different researchers. The emphasis on an iterative process involving

looking at the data from different perspectives at different times is the most commonmethod.

Based on the numerous descriptions provided in Bowden and Walsh (1994,

2000) of different researchers’ approaches to phenomenographic analysis, various

foci that have been taken in reading transcripts or reviewing categories of descriptioninclude:

1. focusing on the referential (meaning) or structural components of the categories

of description;

2. focusing on the ‘how’ or ‘what’ aspects of the phenomenon;3. focusing on similarities and differences within and between categories and tran-

scripts associated with particular categories;

4. attempting to resolve or understand mismatches or inconsistencies between the

interpretations of different researchers involved in the project;

5. focusing on borderline transcripts and those transcripts in which there are aspectsthat do not fit the proposed categories of description; and

6. looking for the implications for all of the categories of description of a change in

any one category.

The obvious aim underlying each of the foci is to help illuminate some aspect of the

categories of description, leading to further clarification of the whole.

Some researchers also start the analysis using a preliminary sample of transcripts before bringing in the full set of transcripts (Prosser, 1994; Dahlgren, 1995; Trigwell,

2000; Åkerlind, 2005b). The preliminary analysis is then reconsidered in the light of the

additional transcripts. Selecting excerpts that seem to exemplify meanings present inthe larger interview transcript, while removing perceived irrelevant, redundant or

unhelpful components of the transcript, is another approach that has been used to

help make the data more manageable (Svensson & Theman, 1983). Reasonable restric-tions on the number of interviews is also recommended as a data management strategy

(Trigwell, 2000).

Variation in ways of constituting structure

As described earlier, a phenomenographic researcher aims to constitute not just a set of different meanings, but a logical structure relating the different meanings. This practice

has led to some criticism of phenomenographic research, with the suggestion that the

structure of the outcome space may potentially be imposed upon the data by theresearcher, rather than emerging from the data (Bowden, 1996, 2005; Ashworth &



10/14

Lucas, 2000). Walsh (1994) discusses variation in views among phenomenographic

researchers as to:

1. the degree to which the logical structure of the outcome space needs to emerge asdirectly as possible from the data; and

2. the degree to which it may more explicitly reflect the professional judgement of

the researcher.

This is a question of degree only, as the final outcome inevitably reflects both the data

and researchers’ judgements in interpreting the data.

Walsh suggests that too strong an emphasis on constituting structural relationshipsmay lead to potentially ignoring aspects of the data. I would argue, however, that the

search for structural relationships does not necessarily involve ignoring data. For

instance, where data are perceived as indicating variation that does not appear toform part of a logical relationship between categories, these data may be reported as

representing non-critical variation within one or more ways of experiencing, or assub-categories of a primary category of description (e.g. Åkerlind & Kayrooz, 2003,

pp. 341– 342). Furthermore, the structure of an outcome space need not always takethe form of a linear hierarchy of inclusiveness; branching structures or hierarchies

are also a possibility.

Validity and reliability: credibility and trustworthiness

Qualitative researchers are still traditionally expected to address issues of the validity

and reliability of their research, even though these notions derive from a positivist

approach to research that attempts to study an objective reality, rather than the moreintersubjective ‘reality’ that most interview-based qualitative research is attempting

to study (Guba, 1981; Kvale, 1996; Åkerlind, 2005a). Consequently, these notions

need to be reframed within the context of the ontological and epistemological assump-

tions of the research approach being used. Phenomenography has much in commonwith the assumptions underlying other qualitative research traditions, and thus draws

on their practices, as well as having differences that necessitate its own set of practices.

Validity

Validity is widely regarded as the extent to which a study is seen as investigating what it aimed to investigate, or the degree to which the research findings actually reflect the

phenomenon being studied. However, a phenomenographic researcher asks not how

well their research outcomes correspond to the phenomenon as it exists in ‘reality’,

but how well they correspond to human experience of the phenomenon (Uljens,

1996). With the widespread understanding that an interpretive process can never beobjective and, in phenomenographic terms, represents the data as experienced by the

researcher (Svensson & Theman, 1983; Bowden, 1996; Sandberg, 1996; Marton &

Booth, 1997), the focus of research quality shifts to ensuring that the research aims

are appropriately reflected in the research methods used (Bowden, 1994b; Francis,1996; Ashworth & Lucas, 2000).

Two types of validity checks, termed communicative and pragmatic validity by

Kvale (1996), are commonly practised within phenomenographic research, thoughthe extent to which each is utilized varies.



11/14

Communicative validity checks

In a context of multiple legitimate interpretations of the same data, a strong emphasismust be placed on a researcher’s ability to argue persuasively for the particular

interpretation that they have proposed. There is no longer a search for the ‘right’

interpretation, but for an interpretation that is defensible (Guba, 1981; Sandberg,1994, 1996; Kvale, 1996; Marton & Booth, 1997). Part of this defence involves

ensuring that the research methods and final interpretation are regarded as appropriate

by the relevant research community. The prevalence of research seminars, conference presentations and peer-reviewed journals provides an obvious source of such validity

checks.

However, the research community is not the only community that may be regarded

as a source of communicative validity. Within the qualitative research paradigm other

sources of feedback may include the individuals interviewed, other members of the population represented by the interview sample, and the intended audience for the find-

ings (Guba, 1981; Kvale, 1996; Uljens, 1996). Phenomenographic researchers com-

monly seek feedback from the last two groups, but not from interviewees

themselves. While phenomenographic research has been criticized for not employingthis method (e.g. Francis, 1996), seeking feedback from interviewees is not regarded

as an appropriate phenomenographic validity check for the following reasons. First,

the researchers’ interpretations are made on a collective, not an individual interview, basis. The aim is not to capture any particular individual’s understanding, but to

capture the range of understandings within a particular group. The interpretation is,

thus, based on the interviews (more precisely, the interview transcripts) as a holisticgroup, not as a series of individual interviews. This means that the interpretation or cat-

egorization of an individual interview cannot be fully understood without a sense of the

group of interviews as a whole.Furthermore, the researcher’s interpretation may go beyond the individual’s explicit

understanding at the time of the interview, due to the researcher’s search for underlying,

often implicit, meaning. In addition, the ontological assumptions underlying the phe-

nomenographic approach indicate that an individual’s experience of a phenomenon

is context sensitive, and so can change with changes in time and situation. Thus,there is no expectation that interviewees would necessarily be experiencing the same

understanding of the phenomenon at the time they are consulted over an interpretation

as they were during the interview.

Pragmatic validity checks

Another aspect of qualitative research validity includes the extent to which the research

outcomes are seen as useful (Sandberg, 1994; Kvale, 1996) and the extent to which theyare meaningful to their intended audience (Uljens, 1996). The research aim becomes to

provide useful ‘knowledge’, where knowledge becomes defined as the ability to

perform effective actions (Kvale, 1996). Research outcomes may then be judged in

terms of the insight they provide into more effective ways of operating in the world

(Marton, 1996; Entwistle, 1997; Marton & Booth, 1997).Some researchers argue that it is in terms of this second purpose that the research

approach should be judged: ‘For researchers in higher education, however, the test is

generally not its [phenomenography’s] theoretical purity, but its value in producinguseful insights into teaching and learning’ (Entwistle, 1997, p. 129).



12/14

Reliability

From a qualitative research perspective, reliability may be seen as reflecting the use of appropriate methodological procedures for ensuring quality and consistency in data

interpretations (Guba, 1981; Kvale, 1996). Two primary forms of reliability checks

on the influence of the researcher’s perspective on the research outcomes are commonlyused with qualitative, interview-based research (Kvale, 1996). Both involve the use of

several researchers for evaluating or offsetting the potential impact of having only one

researcher’s perspective on the data:

1. Coder reliability check , where two researchers independently code all or a

sample of interview transcripts and compare categorizations; and

2. Dialogic reliability check , where agreement between researchers is reached

through discussion and mutual critique of the data and of each researcher’s interpretive hypotheses.

Both checks are used within phenomenographic research to varying degrees of popu-

larity; neither is uniformly used.The principle of dialogic reliability checks has been argued for strongly by

Bowden (1994b, 1996) and illustrated by Prosser (1994), though it is not common

in phenomenographic research at this stage. Similarly, while some phenomenographicresearchers argue for the value of employing a coder reliability check (Prosser, 1994;

Marton, 1996), others regard this as inappropriate for phenomenographic research

(Sandberg, 1994, 1996). (It is also possible for coder reliability checks to be used to inform revisions to the proposed outcome space, making this check more dialogic

in nature.)

Arguments for not employing a check of coder reliability reflect elements of thearguments presented above for not checking the categorization of interviews with theoriginal interviewees. That is, the set of categories of description are based on an analy-

sis of the set of interview transcripts as a group, not an individual transcript basis. This

means that a single transcript may represent more or fewer aspects of the phenomenon

being investigated than does a single category of description, making one-to-onematching of transcripts and categories of description difficult.

A common alternative to these particular forms of reliability checks is for the

researcher to make their interpretive steps clear to readers by fully detailing the

steps, and presenting examples that illustrate them (Guba, 1981; Sandberg, 1994,

1996; Kvale, 1996; Åkerlind, 2005b). Indeed, Sandberg argues that a danger of employing coder reliability checks is that it directs attention away from these more fun-

damental checks of research reliability. These checks involve documenting howresearchers have adopted a critical attitude towards their own interpretations, that is

how they have analysed their own presuppositions and the checks and balances that they have employed to help counteract the impact of their particular perspectives on

the research outcomes.

Summary

This paper has focused on the data analysis stage of phenomenographic research, elu-

cidating what is involved in terms of variation and commonality in accepted practice,including:



13/14

1. how much of each transcript is considered at one time during the analysis;

2. the emphasis placed on analytic collaboration with other researchers;

3. variation in ways of practically managing the large amount of data involved;

4. the degree to which the logical structure of the outcome space is seen as needingto emerge as directly as possible from the data versus more explicitly reflecting

the professional judgement of the researcher;

5. use of communicative and pragmatic validity checks; and

6. use of coder and dialogic reliability checks.

Acknowledgements

I first met John Bowden at a higher education conference in 1982; by chance, we sat next to eachother at the conference dinner. Over the subsequent 23 years, John has been a friend, colleagueand mentor, fulfilling each role to perfection. Thank you, John.

An earlier version of this paper was included in the non-refereed electronic proceedings of

the International Symposium on Current Issues in Phenomenography, held in Canberra, 2002.

References

Åkerlind, G.S. (2005a). Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis and thequalitative research paradigm. In J. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phe-nomenography (pp. 63–73). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Åkerlind, G.S. (2005b). Phenomenographic methods: A case study. In J. Bowden & P. Green(Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 103 –127). Melbourne: RMITUniversity Press.

Åkerlind, G.S., Bowden, J., & Green, P. (2005). Learning to do phenomenography: A reflectivediscussion. In J. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography(pp. 74–100). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Åkerlind, G.S., & Kayrooz, C. (2003). Understanding academic freedom: The views of socialscientists. Higher Education Research & Development , 22, 327–344.

Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: A practical approach tothe design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research. Studies in Higher

Education, 25, 295–308.Bowden, J. (1994a). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh

(Eds.), Phenomenographic research: Variations in method (pp. 1– 16). Melbourne:RMIT: EQARD.

Bowden, J. (1994b). Experience of phenomenographic research: A personal account. In J.Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenographic research: Variations in method (pp. 44–55). Melbourne, RMIT: EQARD.

Bowden, J. (1996). Phenomenographic research: Some methodological issues. In G. Dall’Alba& B. Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a methodology?(Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences No. 109). Gothenburg: Acta UniversitatisGothoburgensis.

Bowden, J. (2005). Underpinnings of phenomenography: Theory and practice. In J. Bowden &P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT UniversityPress.

Bowden, J., & Green, P. (Eds.). (2005). Doing developmental phenomenography. Melbourne:RMIT University Press.

Bowden, J., & Walsh, E. (Eds.). (1994). Phenomenographic research: Variations in method .Melbourne: RMIT University Press, (subsequently revised as Bowden & Walsh (2000)).

Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning . London: Kogan Page.

Bowden, J., & Walsh, E. (Eds.). (2000). Phenomenography. Melbourne: RMIT UniversityPress.

Bruce, C., & Gerber, R. (1997). Editorial: Special issue: Phenomenograpy in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development , 16, 125–126.



14/14

Dahlgren, L. (1995). Lars Dahlgren on phenomenography. In R. Gerber & C. Bruce (Eds.), Phenomenography: Qualitative research: Theory and applications. Video 2, Queensland University of Technology.

Dall’Alba, G. (1994). Reflections on some faces of phenomenography. In J. Bowden & E.Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenographic research: Variations in method (pp. 73–88).Melbourne: RMIT: EQARD.

Dall’Alba, G., & Hasselgren, B. (Eds.). (1996). Reflections on phenomenography: Toward amethodology? (Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences No. 109). Gothenburg: ActaUniversitatis Gothoburgensis.

Entwistle, N. (1997). Introduction: Phenomenography in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development , 16, 125–126.

Francis, H. (1996). Advancing phenomenography: Questions of method. In G. Dall’Alba & B.Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a methodology? (GothenburgStudies in Educational Sciences No. 109). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Guba, E. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal , 29, 75–91.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.

Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenograpy: A research approach to investigating different understand-ings of reality. Journal of Thought , 21, 28–49.

Marton, F. (1996). Cognosco ergo sum: Reflections on reflections. In G. Dall’Alba & B.Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a methodology?(Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences No. 109). Gothenburg: Acta UniversitatisGothoburgensis.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Marton, F., & Tsui, A. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning . Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.Prosser, M. (1994). Some experiences of using phenomenographic research methodology in the

context of research in teaching and learning. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenographic research: Variations in method (pp. 31– 43). Melbourne: RMIT:EQARD.

Sandberg, J. (1994). Human competence at work. Doctoral thesis. University of Gothenburg.Sandberg, J. (1996). Are phenomenographic results reliable? In G. Dall’Alba & B. Hasselgren

(Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a methodology? (Gothenburg Studies inEducational Sciences No. 109). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.(Subsequently republished as Sandberg, 1997).

Sandberg, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education Research & Development , 16, 203–212.

Svensson, L., & Theman, J. (1983). The relation between categories of description and an inter-view protocol in a case of phenomenographic research (Research Report No. 1983:02).Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Department of Education.

Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In J. Bowden & E.Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 62–82). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.

Uljens, M. (1996). On the philosophical foundations of phenomenography. In G. Dall’Alba & B.Hasselgren (Eds.), Reflections on phenomenography: Toward a methodology? (GothenburgStudies in Educational Sciences No. 109). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Walsh, E. (1994). Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh(Eds.), Phenomenographic research: Variations in method (pp. 17– 30). Melbourne:EQARD, RMIT.

Webb, G. (1997). Deconstructing deep and surface: Towards a critique of phenomenography. Higher Education, 33, 195–212.


variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods (1)

Documents