Educational Research and Doctoral Dissertations

Introduction

Here we present the first result of an ongoing meta-analysis of the educational research that has been developed at Universidade Nova de Lisboa’s (UNL) Faculty of Science and Technology (FCT). Our intention is to make a comprehensive attempt to understand the status of the educational research produced, the main thematic trends studied, affiliated scientific domains, conceptual frames mobilized, and methodological approaches used. Although it has been claimed that most of the educational research “does not follow any well-defined patterns falling squarely into one approach or another” (Opie & Sikes, 2004, p. 9), we took up the challenge to see if this is the case within our research group. Typically, the main research dispute (and educational research is not apart from it) is between the so-called positivistic and anti-positivistic approaches, bringing to the fore the debate about methodology and procedures. We wish to open up this contentious area to further scrutiny and suggest that taking an inside view is an appropriate way to amass the arguments and rationales of that conversation.

Considering the diversity of approaches and research design, Scott and Usher (2011) also emphasize the need to conduct a close examination of research produced in the realm of education and its diverse issues, taking a “reflexive understanding of the way in which we are positioned as knowers” (p. 3), and even questioning a counterhegemonic method of inquiry. This article comprises our attempt as researchers to face this challenge. In fact, we intend to understand how research has been done to get a grasp of the various “language games” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) that are played within our research community. In doing so, we are aware that theoretical and methodological approaches must be interpreted within the institutional context and social practices where they are embedded and practiced (Levin & Greenwood, 2011, p. 27).

This line of inquiry will allow for raising questions about the models and ways of fostering the training of researchers within doctoral programs, considering curricular, pedagogical, and organizational issues.

Traditionally, research on education has drawn on different disciplines such as psychology, sociology, or philosophy, among others, from which theoretical frameworks and methodological designs have been borrowed. Biesta (2011b) argues that this has been a tradition particularly in the English-speaking world where the model of construction of the educational field that the author labels “Anglo-American” is prominent (differently from the “continental model” anchored in the German tradition) and presents many similarities to the Portuguese case.

Given that tradition, educational researchers have faced a challenge to give expression to ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions concerning the way in which educational phenomena should be studied to verify their scientific status. Questions about research credibility, transferability, dependability, or confirmability, and about the limits and social effects of the produced knowledge, are some of the issues with which researchers have to deal. Some have talked about a “crisis of confidence” between educational researchers and their scientific communities. As has been observed, “educational researchers are constantly confronted by the need to make sense of how educational theory, policy, and practice are to be investigated and understood (. . .)” (Bridges & Smith, 2007, p. 1). This happens to be the case with any research, whether it considers social research in general or the particular case of educational inquiry. Nevertheless, with Denzin and Lincoln (2011, p. 10), we believe in “multiple forms of science,” accepting that “each practice makes the world visible in a different way.”

The variety of arrangements which research on education has adopted justify questioning whether or not there is any educational research which can be distinguished from social science research. The dilemma could be differentiation versus undifferentiation (Bridges, 2007) or, as Eisner (1993, 1998) has suggested, a pluralistic versus monolithic approach to research, or, even, the so-called high-quality versus weaker research (St. Pierre & Roulston, 2006), conveying ideological and scientific value judgments to all classifications. It is noteworthy that educational research has been dubiously classified as undifferentiated (“undifferentiated mush,” in Bridges, 2007, p. 61, referring to R. S. Peters), because of the diversity of its foundational theories; or, on the other hand, as “weak” research when not searching for a straight cause–effect relationship as in the positivist tradition (St. Pierre & Roulston, 2006).

As stated by Scott and Usher (2011), research always enforces a kind of “closure of the world” in the sense that the researcher cannot disregard the relationship between knowledge and power. The authors argue that because “in education there is no single correct research procedure and no superordinate methodology,” researchers may not ignore power as it moves “in and between research traditions” (p. 2); however, the values of either research participants or the researcher may not be neglected as those are present throughout research texts; moreover, research always occurs in specific settings which are dependent on particular cultural and political processes. So, we accept that university organizational structures, power relations, discourses, and external interactions affect research methodologies and practices, in education as well as in social research in general (Levin & Greenwood, 2011, p. 27). Following Scott and Usher’s (2011) arguments, a claim for universal knowledge should not be pursued by educational research as research takes place in real life with real people (both as researchers and as research participants), imprinted by time and space.

Conversely, within the traditional positivist framework, educational research may promote nomothetic statements, a-theoretical and value-free enquiry, suspending researcher values, preconceptions, and epistemological frameworks. Positivist research is built on determinacy (the truth that can be known), rationality (no contradictory explanations), impersonality (the more objective the better), and prediction (control and generalization; Scott & Usher, 2011, p. 3). If we stand with those who assume that scientific work (and educational research) travels through time and space, making use of historical and linguistic processes (Clifford & Marcus, 1984), and also a kind of discourse (as argued by Lyotard, 1984), then it will be difficult to justify determinacy, impersonality, rationality, or prediction. This could mean that there is a possible line of argument in accepting a fundamental difference between scientific theory and educational theory, not a difference of “scale” and “degree” but a “logical” difference between judgments about “what is the case” and “what ought to be the case” or “what ought to be done in educational activities” (Biesta, 2011b).

This discussion about scientific stands and their research consequences and methodological choices may account for a move toward the use of qualitative approaches in educational research (Gorard, 2002; Preissle, 2006; Scott & Usher, 2011), away from other research approaches that make use of made-up situations, like laboratory or artificial settings. Some argue that recently this trend has been particularly evident within Europe, whereas in the United States, a trend toward repositivism has been identified (Gonçalves, 2010).

However, decisions about research design are related to the research purpose. Patti Lather’s (1994) work is useful in depicting the different perspectives from which the researcher may proceed. Lather connected “prediction” with the positivist paradigm, whereas “understanding” is shown to be the purpose of interpretative, naturalistic, and constructivist research, as well as of phenomenological, hermeneutic, symbolic interactionist, or microethnographic research; on the other hand, critical, neo-Marxist, feminist, race-specific, praxis-oriented, as well as participatory research, are related to “emancipation”; and also “deconstructing” is sought by poststructural, postmodern, or postparadigmatic research. The point we want to make is that differentiating research is more than separating it according to the specific set of methods used, but takes into account the researcher’s purpose, orientation, and position, and conceptual and theoretical frameworks. Because, as stated by St. Pierre and Roulston (2006, p. 677), if a concept shifts, then the “entire structure or grid of intelligibility in which it operates and on which it depends” shifts as well. Therefore, in taking this path, we follow St. Pierre and Roulston (2006) in that “identifying oneself as a ‘qualitative researcher’ is no longer adequate,” requesting “an initial adjective such as interpretive, critical, feminist, phenomenological or postmodern” (p. 678). Likewise, as Denzin and Lincoln (2011, p. 6) argue “multiple theoretical paradigms claim use of qualitative research methods and strategies”. If, as suggested above, educational research is making a kind of qualitative turn, than one should carefully consider research purpose and assumptions, theoretical frameworks as well as methodological approaches. Indeed, it is difficult to “impose a single umbrella-like paradigm over the entire project” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. xiii), that is the qualitative research project.

Acknowledging these debates and issues, we analyzed the PhD theses that have been submitted for the doctoral degree in Educational Sciences. There was no attempt whatsoever to remark on the quality of the work, as our primary purpose was to familiarize ourselves with and highlight the research themes addressed, the theoretical and disciplinary perspectives chosen, and the methodological strategies developed.

Background

The analysis focuses on a set of 18 PhD theses in educational sciences that were completed between 1996 and 2008 in FCT/UNL (Faculty of Sciences and Technology—FCT—of Universidade Nova de Lisboa—UNL). The dissertations produced for the doctoral degree in educational sciences were developed within a doctoral program that ran from 1992 until 2006. This time frame is significant as it covers the period before the implementation of the Bologna process in Portugal, which introduced intense reform of the legal system for higher education, starting a generic frame of qualification divided into three cycles of study and a corresponding credit system (ECTS).

Before the Bologna process implementation, the doctoral studies did not include any curricular program and the doctoral dissertation was the only concluding requirement of the PhD qualification. Candidates were supposed to conceive, design, and implement an original research work, demonstrating a systematic understanding of their field and helping to enhance knowledge.

Hence, doctoral students on the educational sciences program at FCT/UNL were expected to pursue an independent research project under the supervision of a leading university professor. In Portugal, as elsewhere (Leonard, 2000), students took their PhD either out of intrinsic interest or as a means of access to a university career. Students who enrolled on the educational sciences doctoral program at our university came both from different professional careers and from different scientific and disciplinary backgrounds. We believe that this allowed the accommodation of different research interests, problems, and objectives as well as diverse methodological and procedural ways to accomplish study. Within that diversity, research work was (then and now) expected to analyze educational processes, systems, and approaches, as well as the cultural, societal, political, and historical contexts that embedded them.

All the theses analyzed are electronically available via an online database. ¹ For each thesis, we searched for (a) the research questions and/or research objectives pursued, (b) the methodology of research developed, (c) the entities examined (e.g., individuals, institutions, or organizations), (d) the main theoretical perspectives assumed, and (e) the disciplinary, multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary approach embraced. Using these five categories, we systematized the information in a comparative approach that allowed us a global view of the main characteristics of the research work developed within our research group. As colleagues within a research unit (UIED), ² we frequently discuss the ongoing work to ensure consistent decisions, bearing in mind the complex nature of the educational domain (Boote & Beile, 2005).

Understanding the theoretical and methodological framework that has been used by researchers is one way to become acquainted with the epistemic environment (Karmon, 2007) in our research community. Karmon’s notion of epistemic environment, referring to the knowledge organized at the institutional level, suits our intention to grasp the theoretical and methodological framework that sustains general educational studies and research, namely at doctoral graduation. Researchers working at UIED come from a variety of academic and disciplinary backgrounds and from a diverse career path. Before their doctoral studies, some of them have worked at the university departments either as teachers or research assistents; others come from a teaching career at elementary or secondary school; and still others have different professional roles in schools as coordinators or administrators. It might be the case that research interests, concerning both research problems and ways of pursuing them, are dependent on professional and institutional issues and agendas. Being so, it should be important the creation of “new points of encounter, arising as everyone involved moves away from their former positions and individual bunkers” developing “new theoretical, methodological and institutional positions” (Levin & Greenwood, 2011, p. 31) within educational research field.

However, as a research community, we have stressed the value of outlining our understanding about educational studies and research to build a shared (research) identity. The intention is to encourage debate, defying epistemological and metholodogical hegemony, proclaiming the inherent complexity of educational phenomena. Conversely, we wish to make sense of the “transphenomenal character of educational phenomena” which “demands a transdisciplinary attitude” (Davis & Phelps, 2005, pp. 1-2). Transphenomenal because, as Davis and Phelps show, the educational phenomenon encompass different types of entities (personal, social, cultural, biological, physical), and so there is a need for “diverse categories of expertise and diverse methodologies when studying any aspect of the educational endeavor” (p. 2). The authors talk about a sort of “level jumping” because of the assumption that a unique level of analysis is insufficient, requiring a move from level to level. As regards transdisciplinary attitude, Davis and Phelps suggest a kind of “border crossing,” meaning the “need to step outside the limiting frames and methods of phenomenon-specific disciplines.” Accepting this feature, educational researchers need to make use of interdiscursivity, because of the specific discourse—“structurally coherent domain of language use” (Davis and Phelps, 2005, p. 3)—of each level of analysis and/or disciplinary field.

This stand on education and educational research justifies our assertion that searching for the specificities of educational studies is worthwhile. Consequently, we have to bear in mind the claim that education is not applied psychology or sociology or other disciplinary field (Alves & Azevedo, 2010b; Davis & Phelps, 2005). Therefore, understanding and holding a set of shared notions and concepts is worth pursuing and the research presented here is such an attempt.

In the analysis of the PhD theses in educational sciences, we will focus on the research themes, methodological choices, and theoretical perspectives. In discussing our findings, we want to reflect on the paradigms of educational research represented and question their implications for theorizing and researching education. As Foucault observes, if this work is to attempt to find out “what people do,” it is because we are convinced that this will be a pathway to understanding “why they do what they do,” as well as trying to see “what what they do does” (Foucault, quoted in Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982, p. 187).

The findings presented below are intended to illustrate the research range in educational sciences, at least as far as the PhD theses produced at our college (FCT, Universidade Nova de Lisboa) are concerned. It will also enable reflecting on the models and practices of training researchers, considering the recent implementation of doctoral programs in education responding to the Bologna process. Again, knowing what is done is a gateway to decide how to do it better.

Research Themes

In previous work (Alves & Azevedo, 2010a), we argue that the object of research in educational sciences is education in a broad sense, that is, processes and phenomena occurring within and outside the educational systems as well as at every stage of the lifecycle. Consistently with that, we assume education to be a process that takes place lifelong and lifewide. We stress, however, that our focus is on education (and not learning) as a dynamic and complex result of an interaction between individuals, contexts of learning, and knowledge. This assumption pinpoints issues such as the following: “If learning is lifelong and lifewide, what specifically then is a learning context? Are living and learning collapsed into each other?” (Edwards, 2009, p. 1), and is premised on the understanding of learning as a sociocultural phenomenon that is neither (simply) a mental process nor does it reside (only) in individual minds (Usher & Edwards, 2007). In addition, our assumption echoes the words of Young (2010):

Education involves a pedagogic relationship between teachers and learners; it is therefore an institutional process (. . .) the purpose is (. . .) to acquire knowledge that takes them beyond their experience and which they would be unlikely to have access to at home, at work or in the community. (p. 4)

Within this broad understanding of education, the analysis of the set of PhD theses allows us to acknowledge a diversity of research themes that can be arranged under four different main topics (Table 1):

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Themes of Research of Reviewed PhD Theses

Theme of research	Number identified
Educational processes taking place inside and/or outside the educational system	7
Teaching and learning of a certain subject	6
Organization of an educational institution	3
Organization of the educational systems and national educational policies	2

These results indicate a trend toward approaching themes focusing on schooling as well as centered on education outside formal contexts, which we argue has been a tradition in our research unit in the last 15 years. It should be stressed, however, that the criteria for sampling individuals, in most of the research, is their link to the formal educational system (e.g., students, teachers, heads of school, parents). Besides this, there is a trend to research higher education and elementary schools, whereas secondary education remains less popular as a context for empirical research.

Methodological Choices

Since the classic work of Guba and Lincoln (1994), researchers have been aware that their worldviews underlie their choices of research approaches. Assumptions about reality and the nature of knowledge (philosophical assumptions) have a close relationship with methodological choices, whether implicitly or explicitly acknowledged.

As a research community, we seek to identify our assumptions and to understand their implications for research methodology considering all of the steps needed in the research process. This purpose is close to the statement of Koro-Ljungberg, Yendol-Hoppey, Smith, and Hayes (2009, p. 688) that the theoretical perspectives and epistemological assumptions will guide the research project and its “argumentation structure.” As the authors indicate, methodological choices are associated with particular theoretical perspectives, assumptions or, in the terms of Guba and Lincoln (1994), research paradigms.

Considering educational research, its policies and practices, and taking into account “the messiness that enters” (Mertens, 1998), when we study people and the processes that involve them, it seems that gaining a more complete understanding of the phenomenon should be the main purpose of research. In what concerns methodological choices, that means making decisions about sampling strategies and methods to collect, analyze, interpret, and use data. As stated earlier, the researcher’s orientation—theoretical paradigm and underlying philosophical assumptions (Mertens, 1998)—will guide the research design and its processes.

Looking at the research developed within our research community, we will be addressing the main research design used, the selected sources of data, the methods and the instruments for collecting data.

From the 18 PhD theses analyzed, and considering their research type and design, we have concluded that the majority of them can be classified as qualitative studies (11 theses), meaning that, in generic terms, the research was designed to provide an in-depth description of process, program or practice, involving an interpretative approach to the stated problem (Mertens, 1998) or, as Eisner (1998, p. 35) suggests, penetrating the “surface.” Despite some conceptual and terminological dissonance and ambiguity about what is considered to be “qualitative” research, we find Mertens’s criteria useful. Of course, the researcher should take care throughout the research process to provide sufficient information to guarantee that the purpose of “deep understanding” is achieved (Koro-Ljungber et al., 2009). For our purpose here and now, we chose to look at the statement of intentions of the research—its main questions and its interpretative approach.

However, the research in seven of the theses was identified as nonqualitative, because they manifest a historical purpose and questions (two theses), a conceptual intent (one thesis), or evaluative purposes (program evaluation; two theses), or because they use mixed methods (two theses; Table 2). This classification follows the criteria used by Koro-Ljungberg et al. (2009) for distinguishing between qualitative and nonqualitative research.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Types of Research of Reviewed PhD Theses

Type of research	Number identified
Qualitative	11
Nonqualitative	7
Historical	2
Theoretical	1
Evaluation	2
Mixed methods	2

Within the qualitative studies (11 theses) and considering the research design conceived, we were able to identify some use of case study (six theses), with either single or comparative multiple cases, and one thesis using an ethnographic research. Once again, our main references were the authors’ own words as they explained the work done. In each of the case studies, it was possible to identify clearly an instance, a group, an incident, or a community as the object of study (Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994). The ethnographic study was described by the author, reclaiming its affiliation, focusing on the understanding of a group/culture from an emic and etic perspective (Mertens, 1998), and being guided by theory. Four studies labeled as qualitative by their authors did not specifically characterize the design used; however, we were not able to identify it for lack of clear evidence.

Of the nonqualitative studies (seven theses), three used a quasi-experimental design, taking into account that the researcher’s purpose was to study the effect of some kind of educational treatment on a group, without randomly assigning the participants. One research study, which we classified as an evaluative study, described itself as a case study, whereas in the others (historical and conceptual purpose) the design was not mentioned.

As regards sampling strategies, the large majority of the theses (14) used a purposive approach (Morse, 1994) in view of the people selected, meaning that the researchers made an identification of groups, settings or individuals “where (and from whom) the processes being studied are most likely to occur” (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 202). This kind of sampling strategy is in accordance with the qualitative approach used by the majority of the studies analyzed, as qualitative research does not seek to produce generalizable results. For the other four theses, the sampling criteria were not relevant because they were based on the review and analysis of documents.

For data collection also, the most used strategies and procedures chosen by the researchers fall within the types ascribed to qualitative research. Interviews were used in nine studies, with one of them using an e-interview procedure and another one using a focus-group interview. Twelve researchers performed assessment and review of documents as a means of data gathering. Seven of them used researcher observation, presenting different types of participation and levels of involvement (from nonparticipation to active participation).

Although a combination of interviews, observation and documentary analysis was the most common data-gathering strategy, we found that questionnaires were also used in five research studies, and one of them used an e-questionnaire. Two research studies referred to the use of archival materials, in accordance with the historical nature of the research.

The ways and strategies used by researchers for completing data analysis have not yet been considered in the scope of this study. Our supposition, because the majority are qualitative studies, is that the data analysis decisions will be recursive, or in Mertens’s (1998, p. 348) words, “systematically built as successive pieces.” Yet the accommodation and congruence between the research purposes, their design and the strategies used require a deeper analysis.

Theoretical Perspectives

In the influential work mentioned above, Guba and Lincoln (1994) defined three paradigms in educational research: positivism/postpositivism, interpretative/ constructivist, and emancipatory. They also outlined the basic beliefs concerning ontology, epistemology, and methodology characterizing each of the defined paradigms. According to their definition, qualitative research is integrated mainly with the interpretative/constructivist or the emancipatory approach, although it can also use quantitative strategies.

Within the qualitative research paradigm, Koro-Ljungberg et al. (2009) have proposed a model for the analysis of the theoretical perspectives within the different existing approaches in qualitative research projects. This model divides the theoretical perspectives which characterize qualitative research into three main approaches—interpretivist, critical, and pluralist—and subdivides each one into corresponding subapproaches. Within the interpretivist approach, we find ethnography, constructivism, social constructionism, phenomenology and hermeneutics; within the critical approach, we find feminism, critical theories, postmodern/poststructuralism and postcolonialism; within the pluralist approach, we find hybrid perspectives. This model also offers a description of each subapproach, considering their epistemologies, purpose statements, research questions, sampling strategies, main data collection methods, methods of analysis, trustworthiness/validity, main knowledge producer, role of researcher, and research’s relation to practice. In our analysis of the PhD theses, we considered the methodological choices, as described above, the theoretical references used by the researchers, the research questions addressed, and the disciplinary fields mobilized.

Most of the doctoral research developed in our research unit during the last 15 years is embedded in an interpretivist paradigm (Table 3). Within this paradigm, we could find research that can be clearly ascribed to one predominant theoretical perspective (eight theses), as well as research that combines different perspectives (eight theses), either within the interpretivist paradigm (four theses) or across paradigms (four theses), especially interpretivist and critical. Among the first group, the predominant approaches are constructivism (four theses) and hermeneutics (four theses). In the second, we find combinations within the interpretivist paradigm of constructivism and hermeneutics (two theses); hermeneutics and social constructionism (one thesis); constructivism and social constructionism (one thesis); combinations across paradigms comprising hermeneutics and poststructuralism (one thesis); constructivism and poststructuralism (one thesis); constructivism, social constructionism, and critical theories (one thesis); and critical theories, social constructionism, ethnography, and phenomenology (one thesis).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Theoretical Perspectives of the Reviewed PhD Theses

Theoretical perspectives	Number identified
Interpretivist paradigm
Constructivism	4
Hermeneutics	4
Constructivism + hermeneutics	2
Hermeneutics + social constructionism	1
Constructivism + social constructionism	1
Mixed paradigms (interpretivist and critical)
Hermeneutics + poststructuralism	1
Constructivism + poststructuralism	1
Constructivism + social constructionism + critical theories	1
Critical theories + social constructionism + ethnography + phenomenology	1
Unidentified	2

In the two theses we classified as evaluative studies, it was not possible to define a specific theoretical approach. In these two cases, there was no correspondence between the stated methodology and the methodology used, and it was difficult to connect the research to a theoretical perspective.

These findings are consistent with the theoretical references used by the researchers: we have a predominance of social theories related to the knowledge society, lifelong learning, employment and professional development, and educational policy; as well as psychological perspectives on learning, development, and cognition; philosophy, especially in the domain of ethics and ethical development; and educational perspectives on pedagogy, didactics, and curriculum in the field of mathematics and science education.

We think that it is also possible to establish some relation between these theoretical perspectives and the epistemological question related to the use and integration of different disciplines in a research project, that is, the practice of multi-, inter-, or transdisciplinarity.

We understand multidisciplinarity as an exchange between disciplines which does not affect the methodologies and assumptions of any one of the disciplines involved; it is not, therefore, a truly integrative relationship. Interdisciplinarity is the transfer of the methods adopted by a certain discipline to another one, crossing the traditional boundaries between academic disciplines or schools of thought within the context of emerging needs and professional demands. An interdisciplinary relationship influences and integrates the practices and assumptions of each discipline involved. Transdisciplinarity complements both multi- and interdisciplinarity to grasp the different levels of a complex reality in a systemic way. More than crossing borders between disciplines, transdisciplinarity transgresses them. As defined by Nicolescu (2002), a transdisciplinary research must be anchored in the recognition of different levels of reality, with different types of logic, and an open attitude of each discipline to what crosses and surpasses them. Transdisciplinarity implies an open rationality; it is multireferential and multidimensional and promotes dialog between the different fields of science, culture, and human experience (Gonçalves, 2009).

Although situated in the field of education, most of the theses analyzed are inter- or multidisciplinary, as they mobilize knowledge from different disciplines to approach their research object. This mobilization of the knowledge and theories produced in different disciplines remains linked to the framework of disciplinary research, however, so that it does not correspond strictly to a transdisciplinary approach. The analysis of the theoretical references used in the doctoral research evidenced that some of them move around established disciplinary fields (sociology, psychology, philosophy, physics, mathematics, natural sciences, and so on), mobilizing them to achieve a deeper understanding of the educational phenomenon. It will be important in the near future to see if there are proposals for new connections or interdependencies, exploring new or emergent convergences and possibilities between disciplinary fields and research paradigms. At this stage, we were able to identify only one PhD thesis that combined critical theories, social constructionism, ethnography, and phenomenology, resulting in a pluralist hybrid perspective, as defined by Koro-Ljungberg et al. (2009).

Discussion

The first stage of the meta-analysis developed in this article shows, in general, that ontological and epistemological assumptions are not clearly stated in the 18 theses. Also, we noticed a considerable variety of labels and terminology used to characterize both the theoretical and methodological options. It is fair to say that this variety of language does not facilitate the dialog between scholars and researchers and it may render difficult a common understanding of what educational research is about and what it looks like.

Educational research has been cited as a young domain and, because of that, scholars and researchers tend to import either theoretical frames or methodological approaches from their own domains of specialization (Alves & Azevedo, 2010b). This issue nurtures the discussion about the scientific status of education and the major endeavor of developing educational theory. Furthermore, the inter-, multi-, or transdisciplinarity of educational research is analyzed and discussed. In our own work, we have argued about education as a complex and cross-referenced field, in which research issues and problems should be addressed within a comprehensive approach, taking care of the nonlinearity characteristics and potential emergence of educational phenomena (Alves & Azevedo, 2010b). Being part of a research team that asks questions about education stresses the need to pay particular attention to that issue and others if we are trying to develop an educational science (encompassing a specific theory of education) or educational sciences (involving different disciplinary perspectives on education). The latter seems to be more prominent within the analyzed PhD theses. These questions hide epistemological issues that should be addressed. In fact, “questions about disciplines and disciplinarity play an important role in the different ways in which the academic studies of education have been conceived and constructed” (Biesta, 2011b) in various institutional and national contexts.

In addition, the variety of labels and terminology identified in the PhD theses analyzed may also suggest a misalignment between epistemological assumptions, theoretical perspectives, and methodological choices. Nevertheless, according to the major paradigms sketched by Mertens (1998), we note that the interpretative paradigm of research is the prevailing one, although researchers do not show explicit justification for the choices they made throughout the research design and process. Research work and scientific activity in general are usually analyzed in accordance with Kuhn’s concept of “paradigm” (1962/1996) referring to the prevailing theoretical choices and their philosophical assumptions that guide research. The “paradigmatic” position may be illustrated by questions about the nature of reality (ontological question), the nature of knowledge and the subject–object relationship (epistemological question), and the best way to achieve the looked-for knowledge and understandings (methodological question; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Mertens, 1998). Although, as Mertens states, the lines between scientific paradigms may not be completely clear, it is claimed there is a need for researchers to be able to “identify the worldview that most closely approximates their own” (Mertens, 1998, p. 7). Echoing this claim, we note that ontological, epistemological, or methodological justifications were not clearly stated in the analyzed PhD theses. Accordingly, it is worth querying the lack of justifications and reasons. As previously suggested, the educational research field tends to congregate researchers from different scientific and professional backgrounds, with different traditions of inquiry and historical legacies (Yates, 2009) and different research agendas (Davis & Sumara, 2008). This has also been a tendency of the doctorate population at our own faculty (Alves & Azevedo, 2010a) and, therefore, this feature should be taken into account in developing an educational research area, particularly with regard to the training and supervision of researchers in education. Taking into account Koro-Ljungberg et al.’s (2009) concept of “epistemological awareness,” we follow their call for the need to prepare researchers for epistemological diversity and instantiation of methods. This is especially important when we consider education as a complex and cross-referenced field.

Also, we acknowledge a trend toward the development of qualitative methodologies, notwithstanding the significant heterogeneity of research designs and methodological choices. It is assumed that the purpose statements, research questions, and empirical contexts adopted lead to this variety. If this plurality included “epistemological awareness” (Koro-Ljungberg et al., 2009), it could result in a deeper understanding of the complexity of the educational phenomenon.

Apart from the above-mentioned evidences, we noticed that the positivist paradigm has not been present so far within the educational research developed in this research community. We argue that this may be because of the recognition of both the complexity of education and the need to ensure comprehensiveness in educational research. However, we lack research conducted within the emancipatory paradigm but we think that this kind of study could enrich our understanding and theorizing of education.

Conclusion

Having reviewed education doctoral dissertations concluded in the period 1996-2008 in Faculty of Sciences and Technology (Universidade Nova de Lisboa), we have been able to paint an overall picture of inquiry main trends in our university research group. To the extent that dissertations reflect the prominence of qualitative methodology, the trends we have observed do raise some questions about the nature of the educational scientific field, its research, and the teaching of doctoral students.

Therefore, like Koro-Ljungberg et al. (2009, p. 697), we agree that “qualitative inquiry embraces such a breadth of (e)pistemologies and methodologies” and, like Jorg (2009, p. 1), we see education as a “complex nonlinear reality.” Hence, we acknowledge the need to develop complexity of thinking and a way of researching education that allows us to account for all its diverse possibilities and potentialities. We embrace the idea of education as a complex and transdisciplinary field, in which research issues and problems should be addressed within a comprehensive approach, taking care of the nonlinearity characteristics and potential emergence of educational phenomena (Alves & Azevedo, 2010b). This standpoint requires that educational studies and following research should echo the main features of complexity thinking, namely transphenomenality, transdisciplinarity, interdiscursivity, and emerging pragmatics (Davis & Sumara, 2008).

Doctoral education gives a strategic opportunity for improving educational research knowledge. In the recent years, the third cycle has been put high on the agenda of European higher education and major changes have appeared in Portuguese universities, with doctoral programs emerging associated with the Bologna process. This process is the clear expression of a supranational policy implemented in almost 50 countries, whose purposes are to enhance competitiveness, improve adaptation to the labor market, and develop mobility. In the national context policy, efforts have been made to converge with this homogenization ideal, and at the institutional level universities have been reconstructing higher education studies and readjusting curricular, organizational, and pedagogical structures.

Within this changing context in universities and considering our approach to education and educational research, it is very important to reflect on how doctoral programs are planned taking into account the university organizational structures. In our understanding, universities ought to take care of the student as a “whole person” developing throughout the process of graduation. At the doctoral level in education, this involves “connected knowledge generation” (Levin & Greenwood, 2011) understood as a result of transdisciplinary research and teaching, as well as teaching based in research practice. The challenges are multiple and the only guarantee to deal with those is, as the authors point out, “self-imposed demand to maintain integrity in searching for the best possible theoretical, methodological, and practical outcomes” (Levin & Greenwood, 2011, p. 31). Searching for the best possible outcomes in doctoral education calls for attention to program design, pedagogy, and teaching practices, and university organization.

Concerning program design, one possibility is to structure courses according to different thematic in education, embracing a transversal and transdisciplinary model, not being limited to a specific disciplinary field approach. We have been proposing a shift from the student receiving disciplinary-based knowledge from the teacher, to the student constructing meaning out of being involved in transdisciplinary teaching and research (Kreber, 2009). This focus will support students in becoming enculturated within our educational research community. In addition, it should be important to avoid the disconnection of university teachers and researchers from the complexities of the real-world context. This is reinforced by the fact that in Portugal doctoral students in education are mainly teachers and educators in nonhigher education institutions. Being so, universities could become “mediating structures” (Wells & Claxton, 2002) for the development of new educational practices and for the development of educational research, overcoming the “clash between school and university cultures” (Boote & Beile, 2005, p.5).

To implement this type of program design, teaching practices need to change. As Levin and Greenwood (2001, p. 28) state “teaching must depart from the abstract presentations of lectures on theory and methods.” In educational research, as in social research in general, we agree with the authors stressing the importance of supervised research practice in multidisciplinary teams: “teaching must create learning opportunities build on real-life problems where theory and methods are challenged and also used to broaden understandings” (Levin & Greenwood, 2011, p. 28). The overall intention is to engage students, early and often, in multidisciplinary team research on (educational) complex problems. Accordingly, we undertake knowledge as a construction that results from the participation with others in searching for “communal meaning” (Wells & Claxton, 2002, p. 252). This holds to a state of intersubjectivity as a process of mutual meaning making between university teachers and students (Kreber, 2009).

However, at the university organizational level, there are often conflicting goals, perspectives, and practices among the academic staff. Furthermore, disciplinary boundaries prevail between university departments. These are not the ideal conditions to pursue multidisciplinary research and teaching. To develop collaborative learning process that supports transformative learning for all (Levin & Greenwood, 2011) demands collaboration across the departmental boundaries to foster a transdisciplinary organizational culture. Universities’ links to stakeholders and communities also need to be promoted, avoiding disconnection between research and the real world situations. Accordingly, a new relation between theory, research, and practice ought to be encouraged.

Besides, as pointed out by Eisenhart and Jurow (2011), there is a lack of attention to pedagogy within researchers’ training. The curriculum structure of the educational doctoral program at our university encompasses one discipline focusing research methodology. We can state that teaching this discipline has been following the conventional way (Eisenhart & Jurow, 2011) of promoting research competencies. On one hand, there is a predominance of positivistic approach to educational research and, on the other hand, the discipline focuses mainly on the teaching of research designs and techniques. Eisenhart and Jurow (2011) portrayal of the existing traditions of teaching qualitative research guided our own analysis of the pedagogic approach to research methodology within the case of educational researchers training (first year of doctoral program). The recognition of the continuum between a “right pole” and a “left pole” allowed us to argue that an orientation toward a more conventional view of methods (right pole) overshadows a more critical view (left pole) on educational research. This being the case of the existing discipline of research methodology, our endeavor has been to assure the space and time for the development of research dispositions, grasping shared notions and concepts, prompting ontological and epistemological awareness. We follow Davis’ (2004) concept of teaching as occasioning, generating opportunities for new possibilities to arise in seeking educational research. Teaching as occasioning holds for the notion of participatory epistemologies, shared meanings, and intersubjectivity, directing us toward the “left pole.” This occasion is created within space and time of a research seminar that gathers doctoral students under our supervision.

This research seminar follows the entire course of doctoral students’ research and gathers researchers at different stages of their study. Its purpose is grasping the distinctiveness of educational research that, from our point of view, is best achieved by qualitative approaches. We have been holding to the notion of a research community committed with learning from all participants’ perspectives. The intention goes beyond technical concerns (research designs, methods, and techniques) to focus on subjectification (Biesta, 2011a) processes of students as “they struggled to learn how to do qualitative research” (Eisenhart & Jurow, 2011, p. 699). Unlike conventional approaches to researchers training, focused primarily on qualification and socialization, our option integrates subjectification as another overlapping domain. We argue that this strategy is a guaranty for educating critical, consistent, and autonomous researchers (taking care of the student as a “whole person”).

Within this context, supervision is not only a matter of individual support and guidance; it is shared within the research community, comprising a distributed mentoring. Hence, “collaboration happened frequently and organically as students learn about each others work” (Eisenhart & Jurow, 2011, p. 707). This polyphony of multiple voices allows personal and unique pathways for the construction of knowledge and training processes. The group identity is founded on dialogical encounters framed by personal experiences and epistemologies.

Some collected evidences from students’ perspectives supports our claims: “more than content [the research seminars] potentiated inner and profound reactions about researching, questioning my own convictions and pre-conceptions [. . .] enhancing the pleasure of exercising scientific thinking” (Vieira, 2010, p. 153); “the occasion for coexistence and sharing [. . .] fostering the awareness of an existing continuousness between a certain conception of education and the way of researching education; [. . .] this isomorphism is unveiled throughout researchers training” (Gomes & Neves, 2010, p. 125).

Despite the achievements we have being accomplishing, we are aware of the need to promote a deeper reflection concerning the ethical and political dimension of educational research, reinforcing our commitment to search for an integrative approach of educational research domains: epistemological, ontological, axiological, and methodological.

Analyzing the doctoral dissertations enabled us to identify the underlying epistemological, methodological, and theoretical propositions in our research community, as the first goal of our inquiry. Throughout this analysis, we were gaining awareness about the “epistemic environment” (Karmon, 2007) of our research community. Discovering what was done is a gateway through which to follow that ongoing endeavor.