The Creative Analytic Paradigm and Generative Social Research within the Context of the Early-Years/Kindergarten Physical Learning Environment

Anthony Barnett^1,

¹Institute of Education, University of Worcester, Worcester, England

Cite this paper:
Anthony Barnett. The Creative Analytic Paradigm and Generative Social Research within the Context of the Early-Years/Kindergarten Physical Learning Environment. American Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 2(5):283-290. doi: 10.12691/education-2-5-8

Abstract

Innovative approaches to research methodology are a potential counterbalance to the dominance of established methods and may be more responsive to specific research aims. However, approaching research differently incurs risks associated with evaluation of quality of methods and outcomes. This article starts the process of engaging with key methodological issues to provide a foundation for developing an innovative approach. The starting point is a focus on categorisation theory related to qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. The article focuses on superordinate, basic and subordinate categories when responding to the stretching boundaries of qualitative research. Attention is then given to the concept of research paradigm; role of research questions; approaches to data collection and analysis; and to assessing quality as some of the starting points for developing an innovative approach. The creative analytic paradigm as a basic category and generative social research as a superordinate category are introduced and exemplified with reference to the early-years/kindergarten learning environment. The article then illustrates a subordinate category research design that involves the burgeoning of experience though time in response to evocative objects from the early-years learning environment. The resulting methodology is a straightforward and manageable form of meaning based reflective practice.

Keywords:
innovative research methodology paradigm reflective practice

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Agee, J. (2009) Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education [Online] 22, 4, 431-447. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09518390902736512
[2]	Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. & Kolb, D. (2002) Conversational learning: An experiential approach to knowledge creation [Online] Available from: http://learningfromexperience.com/research-library/conversation-as-experiential-learning/
[3]	Barnett, A 2013 Developing a creative analytic paradigm in relation to the early-years physical learning environment, Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Worcester.
[4]	Boden, M. (2005) Creativity. In Gaut, B. & Lopes, D. M. (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, London, Routledge. pp. 477-488.
[5]	Brown, T. & Jones, L. (2001) Action Research and Postmodernism, Buckingham, Open University Press.
[6]	Bruster, B.G., & Peterson, B. R., (2013) Using critical incidents in teaching to promote reflective practice, Reflective Practice, 14 (2) 170-182.
[7]	Bryman, A. (2007) The Research Question in Social Research: What is its Role? Int. J. Social Research Methodology [Online] 10, 1, pp. 5-20.
[8]	Cannella, G. S. (1999) The Scientific Discourse of Education: predetermining the lives of others - Foucault, education, and children, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood [Online] 1, 1, 36-44. Available from: http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rss/abstract.asp?j=ciec&aid=1502
[9]	Chandler, D. (2002) Semiotics: the basics, London, Routledge
[10]	Cresswell, T. (2004) Place: a short introduction, Malden, MA, Blackwell.
[11]	Dadds, M & Hart, S(2001) Doing practitioner research differently, London, Routledge.
[12]	Dey, I. (1999) Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry, London, Academic Press.
[13]	Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2004) Deleuze & Guattari: A Thousand Plateaus, London, Continuum.
[14]	Eisner, E. (2005) Reimagining Schools: the selected works of Elliot Eisner, London, Routledge.
[15]	Ejieh, M. U. C. (2006) Pre-Primary Educataion in Nigeria: Policy Implementation and Problems Elementary Education Online [Online] 5, 1, 58-64. Available from: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol5say1/v5s1m6.PDF
[16]	Emden, C. & Sandelowski, M. (1998) The good, the bad and the relative, part one: Conceptions of goodness in qualitative research International Journal of Nursing Practice [Online] 4, 206-212. Available from: Academic Search Complete.
[17]	Guba, E. (1990) The Alternative Paradigm Dialogue. In Guba, E. (Ed.) The Paradigm Dialogue. London, Sage.
[18]	Gunter, H (2013) Thinking about research, Keynote lecture, BERA Annual Conference, 3-5th Sept, University of Sussex.
[19]	Harnad, S. (1987) Category induction and representation. In Harnad, S. (Ed.) Categorical perception: the groundwork of cognition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
[20]	Hognestad, K & Boe, M (2012) ‘Place’ as conceptual centre: a methodological focus on the bodily relations, movements and expressions of children up to three years of age in kindergarten, Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 3 (2) 43-55.
[21]	Howarth, D. (2000) Discourse, Buckingham, Open University Press.
[22]	Jones, L., Holmes, R & Powell, J (2005) Early childhood studies – a multiprofessional perspective, Maidenhead, Open University Press.
[23]	Junge, M. (1994) The perception of doors: A sociodynamic investigation of doors in 20th century painting, The Arts in Psychotherapy, 21, 343-357.
[24]	Koro-Ljungberg, M. & Hayes, S. (2010) Proposing an argument for research questions that could create permeable boundaries within qualitative research Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research [Online] 4, 3, p. 114-124.
[25]	Kuhn, T. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revoltions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
[26]	Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories teach us about the human mind, Chicago, Chicago University Press.
[27]	Lamarque, P. (2000) Objects of interpretation. In Margolis, J. & Rockmore, T. (Eds.) The Philosophy of Interpretation, Oxford, Blackwell. pp. 96-125.
[28]	Layder, D. (1998) Sociological Practice: linking theory and social research, London, Sage.
[29]	Lenz Taguchi, H (2010) Doing collaborative deconstruction as an ‘exorbitant’ strategy in qualitative research, Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 1 (1), 41-53.
[30]	Maclaury, R. (1991) Prototypes Revisited Annual review of anthropology [Online] 20, 1, 55-74. Available from: Academic Search Complete.
[31]	Masterman, M. (1970) The Nature of a Paradigm. In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (Eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London, Cambridge University Press.
[32]	McNiff, J., Whitehead, J & Lomax, P (2003) You and Your Action Research Project, London, Routledge Falmer.
[33]	Medin, D. L. & Barsalou, L. W. (1987) Categorisation processes and categorical perception. In Harnad, S. (Ed.) Categorial perception: the groundwork of cognition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
[34]	Miller, L. & Pound, L. (Eds.) (2011) Theories and Approaches to Learning in the Early Years, London, Sage.
[35]	Moriarty, V. (1999) Early years proessionals and parents: challenging the dominant discourse? [Online] Available from: http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514268539/html/t2659.html
[36]	Mullen, C. & Diamond, P. (2002) Showcasing Arts-Based Inquiries. In Bagley, C. & Cancienne, B. (Eds.) Dancing the Data, New York, Peter Lang.
[37]	Mac Naughton, G. M. (Ed.) (2005) Doing Foucault in Early Childhood Studies: applying postructural ideas, London, Routledge.
[38]	Novitz, D. (2000) Interpretation and Justification. In Margolis, J. & Rockmore, T. (Eds.) The Philosophy of Interpretation, Oxford, Blackwell. pp. 4-24.
[39]	Poitrenaud, S., Richard, J.-F. & Tijus, C. (2005) Properties, categories, and categorisation Thinking & Reasoning [Online] 151-208. Available from: Academic Search Complete.
[40]	Rasberry, G. W. (2002) Imagine, Inventing a Data-Dancer. In Bagley, C. & Cancienne, B. (Eds.) Dancing the Data, New York, Peter Lang.
[41]	Schwandt, T. (1996) Farewell to Criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 58-74.
[42]	Shon’s (1991) Schon, D. (1991) The Reflective Practitioner - how professionals think in action, Aldershot, Ashgate.
[43]	Smith, M. K. (2009) Martin Buber on education [Online] Available from: http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-buber.htm
[44]	Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. & Dillon, L. (2003) Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence [Online] Available from: http://www.uea.ac.uk/edu/phdhkedu/acadpapers/qualityframework.pdf
[45]	Tracy, S. J. (2010) Qualitative Quality: Eight "Big-Tent" Criteria for Excellent "Qualitative Research Qualitative Inquiry [Online] 16, 10, 837-842. Available from: http://qix.sagepub.com/content/16/10/837
[46]	Turkle, S. (2007) Evocative Objects, London, The MIT Press.
[47]	Scheurich, J. & Mckenzie, K. (2005) Foucault's Methodologies: Archealogy and Genealogy. In Denzin, N. L., Y (Ed.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 3rd ed. London, Sage. pp. 841-869.
[48]	Vervaeke, J. & Green, C. (1997) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Theories: A Critique of Lakoff's Theory of Categorization Metaphor and Symbol [Online] 12, 1, 59-80. Available from: Academic Search Complete.
[49]	Waterman, H. (1998) Embracing ambiguities and valuing ourselves: issues of validity in action research Journal of Advanced Nursing [Online] 28, 1, 101-105. Available from: Academic Search Complete.
[50]	Wittgenstein, L. (1967) Philosophical Investigations, Oxford, Blackwell.
[51]	Harman, G. (2008) Zeroing in on Evocative Objects. Human Studies, 31, 443-457.
[52]	Stebbins, R. (2001) Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences, London, Sage.