Schwandt (2000)

Whilst I have assumed a participatory epistemology I do not believe that that necessarily rules out a critical approach to knowledge and analysis. Similarly, I fully expect to find a strong constructivist leanings in at least some of my co-researchers. In fact, the participatory approach is possibly the one most likely to engage the broadest range of diversity and considerations.

Kaufmann (2000)

I read a paper like this. I have two responses:

1. Like my children often say "what the ...". and
2. Why bother?

To me, this is classic, Type 1 knowledge.

I get to the end of the paper and all I can ask is: what was Kauffman trying to say?

That there are many different perspectives?
That most of them are valid?
That we often learn from one another?

I'm sure that if perhaps I was better educated, this might have more meaning for me. I'm sorry. I feel there are more important questions that should be the subject of inquiry.

Denzin & Lincoln (2005) - CH 8

A participatory ontology in the context of an EdD is likely to explore the question"What is there that can be known within a workplace, a profession and universities about a particular topic. The reality of this subjective/objective knowledge is constructively co-created by a number of minds.

A participatory epistemology in such a context deals with constructively co-created findings based on practical knowing. Herron & reason (1996) discuss four ways of knowing:

1. Experiential (face-to-face)
2. Presentational (intuitive)
3. Propositional (based on theory), and
4. Practical (skills, competencies)

A participatory epistemology also implies critical subjectivity (and critical intersubjectivity).

Methodologies relevant to participatory research are based on political participation in collaborative action inquiry.

To me, a participatory research approach places the researcher in the neutral role of a facilitator working with a group of practitioners seeking to effect change in the workplace. The challenge, within an EdD will be in coursing and justifying the continual variations, directions and nuances, outcomes of group interaction and self-determination.

Guba and Lincoln (1989)

In Fourth Generation Evaluation, G&L outline the four generations as:

1. Measurement
2. Description
3. Judgement, and
4. Evaluation

IMHO, Guba and Lincoln (2005) identify Herron & Reason's Participatory Paradigm as a fifth generation.

What name should be given to 5th Generation evaluation?

The nature of the 'new' EdD research

What is the nature of the research that is implied in the 'new EdD at UNE' focus of improvement in the professional workplace?

Maxwell (2003:285) identifies that the new EdD at UNE comprises a hybrid curriculum spanning the university (U), profession (P) and workplace (W). In this context, the knowledge pursued in an new style EdD is more likely to what Gibbons (1994) terms Mode 2 type knowledge - knowledge that results from practitioner agency and/or reflection on practice (see Lee, Green and Brennan (2000).

The nature of research (which includes the evolution of knowledge) within a new style EdD at UNE is likely to be dramatically different to traditional research.

I quite like a populist (wikipedia) definition of research as "an active, diligent, and systematic process of inquiry aimed at discovering, interpreting, and revising facts. This intellectual investigation produces a greater knowledge of events, behaviors, theories, and laws and makes practical applications possible."

Crotty (1998:2) identifies four questions researchers need to address. These relate to methods, methodology, theoretical perspectives and epistemology. Guba and Lincoln (2005) consider three basic beliefs of alternate inquiry paradigms: ontology, epistemology and methodology.

Looking at Guba and Lincoln's Table 8.3 I anticipate that that most new style EdD research will be located counter to traditional objective/deterministic approaches. Rather the research will be dealing in a subjective/objective reality (often termed a participative reality) progressing via the collaborative critical subjectivity.

Rather than the development of theory for theory sake, I anticipate more the utilisation of theories for practical outcomes with a focus on action (negotiated change) in the workplace.

Traditional doctoral research is linear. In comparison, new research is cyclical. Traditional research is researcher-centric, new research should be (IMHO) researcher neutral. Traditional research is typically either experimental/manipulative, dialectical or hermeneutical. New research is political, practical and experiential.


Traditional PhD and older style EdD research, in comparison, is familiar and relatively easy. New style research is complex, risky but ultimately rewarding and perhaps more meaningful?