Contextual and Analytic Qualities of Research Methods Exemplified in Research on Teaching

Introduction

Within the field of research on teaching, there has been an interesting development of research methods, which is also in line with the general development of research methods within the human and social sciences. In the first Handbook of Research on Teaching (Gage, 1963) the two first parts, “Theoretical orientations” (Chapter 1 to 3) and “Methodologies in research on teaching” (Chapters 4 to 9), outline the dominant methodology of the time. The placing of the two parts (of four) in the beginning signifies the importance given to methodology as the foundation of research. Chapter 1 is about “Historical exemplars of teaching method.” Chapter 2 presents what is taken to be the general approach to development of scientific knowledge. The approach is focusing on scientific language, which should be developed through definition in a deductive way from definition of general concepts to operational definitions of observable data. Chapter 3 is on “Paradigms for research on teaching,” Chapter 4 on “Statistics as an aspect of scientific method,” and Chapter 5 is on “Experimental and quasi-experimental designs” for research on teaching. There is an idea of developing scientific knowledge deductively, much in line with Poppers view (Popper, 1959, 1963), and through measurement and testing of hypotheses. The way of testing hypotheses is ideally by use of experiments. The concepts defined and observations made are in terms of variables, and statistical calculations have to be used to test the hypotheses. A similar focus on definitions, use of variables, and statistical calculations was also combined with an inductive approach in much human, social, and educational research. Cronbach (1957) wrote about these two parts of the dominant methodology within scientific psychology as the experimental and correlation traditions.

Since the time of the first handbook on teaching much has happened concerning research methods. The view of definition of concepts and variables, on measurement and on experiment as the ideal has changed a lot. The idea of a general scientific method as the basis for research was questioned. The most radical general critique of starting with the method was given by Feyerabend (1975) in his book Against Method. The methodological development within the field of research on teaching is mirrored in the three editions of Handbook of Research on Teaching following the first edition (Richardson, 2001; Travers, 1973; Wittrock, 1986). The handbooks have the same general disposition, starting with chapters on historical, philosophical, and foundational issues followed by chapters on methodology. The later parts of the books are about different subfields of research on teaching.

In the second handbook observation, assessment, category systems, and instruments are main methodological themes, related to focus on variables and measurement. One extensive chapter (Light, 1973) is about “Issues in the analysis of qualitative data.” It deals only with quantitative aspects and treatments of qualitative data. In the third handbook (Wittrock, 1986) there are chapters about “Measurement of teaching” (Chapter 3), “Quantitative methods in research on teaching” (Chapter 4), “Qualitative methods in research on teaching” (Chapter 5), and “Observation as inquiry and method” (Chapter 6). The chapter on qualitative methods (Erickson, 1986) is very different compared to the chapter on qualitative methods in the previous handbook. It includes a presentation of interpretive research, field studies, and different forms of qualitative reports in relation to a broad social and cultural context.

The greatest change can be seen between the previous editions, including the third edition, and the fourth edition of the handbook (Richardson, 2001). The change concerns the whole of the handbook, the way of presenting foundations, and not the least methodology. This, of course, reflects the change that has taken place in the research reported on. In Chapter 10 on “Critical issues, current trends, and possible futures in quantitative methods” (Crawford & Impara, 1973/2001) an AERA survey is presented of AERA conference presentations 1997. The survey showed that methods used were to 57.4% qualitative, to 33.5% combined qualitative and quantitative, and to 9.4% quantitative. The chapter deals with general questions about quantitative methods and is the only one on quantitative methods. Chapters 12 to 18 form a main section named “Special topics in qualitative methodology,” which deals with a range of different issues in relation to qualitative methods. Thus, there is a very great change from use of mainly quantitative to mainly qualitative methods related to a corresponding change in methodological, epistemological, and ontological underpinnings.

Dimitriadis (2011) in a recent article about Torrance’s (2010) four-volume edited collection Qualitative Research Methods in Education lifts forward, that the general field of qualitative inquiry has a parallel development within education, and is coconstituted through this development. Qualitative inquiry has during the latest decades developed as a special field within human and social sciences. The development has been manifested in an increasing number of handbooks and journals. In this journal, Qualitative Inquiry, there has been an ongoing discussion about qualitative methods since 1995. Most of the articles have focused on specific aspects of qualitative methods in relation to specific research areas and investigations. Quite a number of articles have been concerned with more general issues, especially criteria of quality in qualitative research, mixed methods, and case studies. We will briefly refer to some general arguments we agree on, and which are also important in this article.

Lincoln (1995) argues that criteria of quality cannot be generally relevant but have to be relational and contextual. Seale (1999) argues that there is no clear logical relation between paradigms and general criteria on one hand, and specific methods and techniques on the other hand. Denzin (2010), in discussing mixed methods, argues that we have reached a moment where we should leave paradigm wars and focus on fruitful procedures. Flyvbjerg (2006) argues that for certain important research tasks in the social sciences the case study is a necessary and sufficient method, and that good research is not method driven but problem driven. Ruddin (2006) argues that the case study is possibly the basic method of science.

Hesse-Biber (2010) argues that the orientation has been too focused on methods, that methods only are tools, and that the important thing with case studies is that the case is what is investigated. Thomas (2010) argues with Stake (2005) that case study is not a methodology but a choice of what is to be studied, and that cases have to be seen in context. The possibility of generalization is seen as limited in social sciences, and not specifically in case studies, and abduction is suggested as the way to develop knowledge. Halkier (2011) argues for the importance of exemplification, and specific and context-bound descriptions. Koro-Ljungberg (2010) stresses the importance of not using mechanical validation and not excluding differences. We agree on all these arguments. We think that the way of dealing with similarities and differences is at the heart of the matter, and is what gives the basis for generalization.

Our general conclusion from our understanding of the field and the ongoing discussion is that methods should be understood and discussed in close relation to the fields of research and phenomena investigated. General distinctions and criteria are important, but their meaning and relevance have to be discussed in close relation to the understanding of what is investigated. In line with the arguments referred to above we will argue for contextual analysis as a relevant methodology, exemplified in relation to research on teaching and a specific investigation of teaching.

The position taken in the present article is that methods are secondary. What should come first is the understanding of the investigated phenomena, and the character of the knowledge aimed at, and then comes the question of methods that make the aim realizable. This position is in line with the development of the use of research methods in human and social sciences and in research on teaching. There has been an increasing variation in methods used, with a closer connection to the investigated phenomena and the aim of the research. We have seen a development of qualitative analyses and a great variation in methods inspired by ethnographic, phenomenological, and hermeneutic traditions. Those methods have been explorative, descriptive, and interpretive. To a large extent the specific meaning of descriptive categories and concepts, central to the research, have been research results rather than predefined. This mirrors the insight that the meaning and significance of central concepts and categories have to be delimited in the individual cases of investigated phenomena.

The Understanding of Teaching

The term teaching focuses on the activity of teachers. At the same time it presupposes a relation to a person taught (or often a group of persons), and in this sense refers to a social phenomenon. Teaching is seen as aiming at and resulting in changes in the activity of the other person (the student/learner), which gives teaching its meaning. Our understanding of teaching is that the fundamental character of teaching concerns the relation between what the teacher does, and the learning environment, on one hand, and the result as expressed by the learner(s) on the other hand. This relational character of teaching is common to educational phenomena. There is a corresponding double meaning of the concept of education as referring to the system of education (the teaching) on one hand, and the values, knowledge, and skills of an educated person (the student result) on the other hand. The main educational issue concerns the relation between the conditions created by systems of education and the resulting education of educated people.

The understanding of teaching that seems to have underpinned much early research is teaching as a method. Using the expression teaching method we most often think of ways of teaching directly used by teachers. A broader concept is educational program, most often seen as a part of an educational system. Using the term method here we refer both to methods directly used by teachers and educational programs and systems. The issue raised concerns the idea of predefined ways of doing teaching (education) as leading to educational results. Both in educational practice and educational research there has been an interest in finding a better and the best teaching method (including program and system) and to compare methods. Very close to the thinking in terms of method is the so-called process-product research on effective teaching that dominated during the 1960s and 1970s (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974).

The thinking of teaching as a matter of method or process is seductive. A method is assumed to be used to achieve a result and a process to lead to the result. This makes the method and process all important for the result. However, this does not apply to what is described as teaching methods (or programs and systems) and processes in relation to what is seen as aimed at and achieved results. Teaching is done in a certain way. The way of doing something of course leads to the result. This is the seductive element in talking about teaching methods and processes. What the way of doing teaching is leading to is not what is considered the aimed at and/or achieved educational result, but only a condition for this result. The educational result is expected to come through the student, who comes in between the teaching method and/or process and the result. The student is an agent that achieves the educational result. The educational result is only indirectly related to the teaching method and/or process.

In theorizing about teaching, in practice and research, there has been a tendency to separate between content and form. The focus on content has been a concern with what subject matter should be dealt with in the teaching, when and why. This is the focus of much curriculum thinking and research. The focus on form has concerned general aspects of the way of dealing with subject matter, when and why. There is much of an educational planning perspective in those focuses on content and form. At the same time there has been an awareness that content and form are intimately related in teaching.

In developing an empirically based understanding of teaching we have to start from teaching as manifested. Teaching as manifested is both content and form without a divide. The most interest in teaching, in both practice and research, is in characteristics representing or related to valued outcomes. Also, the outcomes have the character of wholes of content and form. Thus it seems relevant to find crucial qualities within the whole of content and form rather than making a divide between content and form. In Doumas’ investigation (Doumas, 2011), used as an example in the following, the focus is on what stands out in students’ experiences of teaching as a whole, without focusing on content and form separately.

In much talk about teaching, and also in research on teaching, the content is taken to be equal to content in a discipline or some existing body of knowledge. The content is considered as predefined in relation to the activity taking place in teaching. This predefined content may also be the content given in curricula, textbooks, and educational materials. However, this is not the actual content of teaching, which is what has to be understood to understand teaching, and understand it to its consequences. The actual content is what the teachers and students think, feel, say, and do in relation to subject matter. That is what is related to the outcome. The same goes for the form or method of teaching. The forms are not predefined and/or generally described forms and methods but the forms and methods manifested in what teachers and students say and do. If we want to understand teaching, especially if we want to understand teaching to its effect and outcome, we have to focus on the actual teaching.

The student mediates between what the educational system and the teacher afford and the outcome of this affordance in the activity and achievement, the learning, of the student. To investigate this relation is a demanding task. It will take observation of both educational conditions and teachers’ activity as well as observation of students’ activity, and still this is not enough to clarify the relation, since the relation is internal and dependent on the experience, intention, and approach of the student. A fruitful way to deal with the complexity of teaching seems to be to focus on students’ experiences, intentions, and approaches. This is what is done in Doumas’ investigation. Although a description of students’ experiences of teaching only captures a part of the phenomenon of teaching, this is the most central part to understand teaching in terms of the relation between teaching affordances and teaching outcomes. Thus, such a focus may illuminate the whole character of cases of teaching.

In all teaching there is a normative stance. There is something that is aimed at and expected to be achieved, considered to be good. There is an interest in forming the good teaching. In line with this aim, and considering the role of the intention and approach of students, it is relevant to investigate what is good teaching as experienced by students. This has been done in Doumas’ investigation. We will use this investigation to exemplify points made about methodology, at the same time as we are giving a critical reflection on that investigation.

Case-Based Research

The methodology argued for here has in previous research been called contextual analysis (Marton & Svensson, 1979; Svensson, 1976, 1986). It is fundamental to this methodological approach to start with cases equal to the investigated phenomena. Miles and Huberman (1994) group ways of collecting and ordering empirical data in two main categories, variable-based and case-based ways. We do not find this difference to be mainly conventional but a fundamental one. Contextual analysis is case based in a special way. We argue that research basically should be case based, and the cases equal to the investigated phenomena. The main reason for this stance is the importance of clarity about what is investigated, and what the results are confined to. In our example the investigated phenomena are cases of teaching. One methodological challenge then is to delimit these phenomena in collecting and treating empirical data. Case-based studies are not equal to classical case studies, although those are case based. In case studies there is usually an extensive exploration and description of one or very few cases. There is usually no clear delimitation of investigated phenomena from a theoretical perspective or based on the formulation of a research problem, which is the starting point in studies we are arguing about here. The difference may be explicated in relation to research on teaching.

A case of teaching may be delimited as an activity carried out by specified persons at certain places during certain times within a system of organized activities. In Doumas’ investigation teachers and students of literature and physics in some Greek high school classes during a year of education formed the cases. The activity in each school class was seen as a case of teaching. A classical case study would have meant a concentration on one class (or very few classes) and as an exhaustive observation and description of the life of this class as possible. In our investigation the aim is not to describe the life of a school class but crucial educational qualities of the activity of the class. This means that the social, emotional cognitive, interactive, communicative life of the class (including the teacher) is not comprehensively investigated. Those qualities are only considered in relation to teachers and students relation to subject matter as experienced by the students. The data collection and descriptions are much more focused, selective, and limited compared to a classical case study, but they and the analysis are case based as the data of each class are dealt with as the main unit of analysis. Since the study of each case is limited there is room for more cases, and comparison of cases is an important part of the investigation.

Cases of teaching may be delimited in many different ways and have a very different extension and character, from a short encounter between two persons, an episode, where one may be seen as teacher and the other as student, to a whole educational system with thousands of persons involved. A case of teaching within an educational system may be delimited as an episode between a teacher and a student within a lesson, a whole lesson, or an educational program. The cases could concern teaching one class one subject, several subjects, or all subjects during one term, a year, or a whole educational program. Other delimitations are also possible. What delimitations and choices of cases of teaching that are made is dependent on what qualities and problems of teaching are focused on, and how these are considered to be best investigated.

In Doumas’ investigation the qualities and problems of teaching focused on was what students experience as good teaching. The question of what constitutes good teaching is a classical question. The most common way to deal with this question has been to do it in a philosophical theoretical normative way, starting from some postulated fundamental values and formulating qualities that would correspond to those values. Based on this normative approach cases of teaching could be described and discussed as having the wanted qualities or not. Doumas’ investigation, however, starts with empirical cases of teaching and focuses on the experience of students within those cases. There is still a normative question about good teaching but in the empirical form of good teaching as experienced by students. This means openness to variation on what good teaching is.

A case of teaching in Doumas’ investigation is a unit of teaching with one teacher, one class, one subject, during 1 year. The investigation is an interview study of students’ experiences of classroom teaching in one subject during 1 year. This is of course different from observing the teaching and from using different documents about teaching like course plans, course assignments, knowledge test, and other data from the teaching. Also, interviewing the teachers about their experience of teaching would give a complementary and possibly somewhat different picture of the teaching. Teaching is a very complex activity and process and there are many different qualities that may be focused. The focus on certain qualities means a certain delimitation of the unit actually researched. The first delimitation made in Doumas’ investigation is to an educational perspective. What is going on in a classroom may be described from many perspectives, for instance a general social perspective focusing on social relations in the class, or a psychological perspective focusing on the emotional climate, or a communicative perspective focusing on the communication patterns. As described above our perspective is educational and focuses on the relation between conditions of learning and learning. It then is of special relevance to focus on students’ experiences since they constitute this relation.

Thus, the investigation is limited to the experience of students, of 1 year’s teaching in one subject. The focusing on the unit of 1 year teaching also has consequences for what qualities will be attended to and discerned. If the unit had been one lesson some qualities specific to the content and events of that lesson had been discerned. The unit could also have been an event within a lesson. With the unit of 1 year what is common to and what holds together different lessons and what seems outstanding over a longer period of time may be expected to come to the fore. The students describe both general qualities over the year and events specific to individual lessons. In the latter case these events then stand out in the experience of a longer period. Thus in interpreting the result it is important to understand it in relation to what is the main unit of teaching focused.

A main characteristic of teaching as a unit of research approached from an educational perspective is that it has closely related collective and individual parts. The individual parts are what the teacher and each student is feeling, thinking, saying, and doing. The collective part is what is said and done in the classroom interaction between the participants. This interaction develops over time and a common history is developed. What individuals feel, think, say, and do is dependent on the interaction and the history of interaction in the class as well as on the individuals own history. The teacher has the main responsibility in forming the interaction and its cultural content and especially the dealing with subject matter content. It is this cultural and subject matter content of the classroom interaction that is focused and expected to be related to the intended and achieved educational outcome within an educational perspective. However, this relation is through each student’s activity and learning. This makes a first person perspective, exploring the agents’ experiences, crucial to understand the main relation between the classroom activity and the educational outcome.

In Doumas’ investigation the cases of teaching are described based on students’ reported experiences of the cultural subject matter oriented interaction in the class in relation to their own dealing with subject matter. All investigations have and must have their limitations. What is most important is that the limitation is well-grounded in the understanding of the phenomena, and that the results are interpreted in consideration of the limitations and an understanding of the phenomena as wholes. The results have to be interpreted considering the existence of a wider not investigated context. This concerns for instance a variation among students not described, students’ actual knowledge of subject matter, teachers intentions and so on. Despite this limitation, it is claimed that the results say something very central and crucial about the cases of teaching investigated.

The Issue of Analysis

Contextual analysis is based on a specific understanding of analysis. To use a case-based design to collect and order data gives a ground for a case-based analysis of data. A case-based analysis means that the data of each case are considered together, in relation to each other and within the case as a whole. This does not exclude comparisons between cases during analysis, to identify specific characteristics of each case. The important thing is that the specifics of each case are interpreted and understood as parts of the case. This is in line with what we think should be the meaning of analysis, but which is not what is commonly referred to as analysis. Quantitative analyses and also variable based qualitative analyses, as for instance described by Miles and Huberman (1994), are not analysis in the sense argued for here. They build on definitions of “parts of phenomena” out of their contexts, as isolated units, given generalized meanings. To analyze then means to ascribe generalized units of meaning to cases, and not to discern meanings of parts of the case/phenomenon as a whole. The result becomes a composition of data units rather than an analysis of the case. Often the result is a variable-based compilation across cases. In Doumas’ investigation this alternative variable-based approach would have meant a definition and use of specific codes or categories. The same defined meanings would have been used in describing the different school classes. Instead, in the analysis made, abstract categories with varying discerned specific meanings are delimited as a result.

What is here argued for and meant by analysis involves a clear starting point in a phenomenon/case as a whole, and a discerning of parts of the whole as parts, and not as separated, isolated units with generalized meanings. This means that the relation of parts to each other and to the whole is considered important to the meaning and understanding of each part. These relations may be understood in two different ways, as internal or external relations (Bradley, 1908; Moore, 1922). If the relation is internal the meaning of the unit, the part, is dependent on its relation. It cannot be given a meaning in itself, in isolation, but it can be given a meaning if the relation is external. If the relation between a part of a case and the whole case is external, it is justified to deal with it as a separate unit. However, to use generalized meanings (categories, variable values) one also has to show that different cases have identical parts. The later condition may be fulfilled even when the relations are internal, which means that the cases/phenomena are identical in aspects described. The assumption about identical parts has proven useful in fields of natural science like for instance mechanics, where parts with the same meaning are found to have the same relation to each other from one case to another.

However, within the field of human and social sciences, it has not been possible to show a corresponding relation between cases and parts and is not reasonable to expect. This means that the use of generalized meanings (categories), that are related using external relations (qualitatively or quantitatively—all quantitative methods use external relations), have a limited value in understanding cases/phenomena. Instead, we have to work with internal relations to reach a deeper understanding of the cases investigated. To do contextual analysis means to work with internal relations. This is done in Doumas’ investigation, where different aspects are discerned in relation to, and as dependent on, each other, for finding their meaning. To work with internal relations means to consider how the meaning of parts are dependent on the meaning of other parts and the whole, in an mutually interdependent way that is unique for each case. This has to be done since we cannot assume similarity between cases but rather has to assume variation. To deal with this variation means to deal with both similarities and differences, and to understand similarities against the background of differences. This gives generalization a different character compared to generalization based on external relations and an assumption about similarity between cases. Generalization here has the character of work with internal relations and interpretation in comparisons of cases.

Analysis of internal relations is a matter of interpretation, and is what here is meant by contextual analysis. In methodological discussions, it has been common to see analysis and its interpretation as opposite methodological characteristics. This is due to the meaning given to analysis of partitioning and dealing with separate units in a generalized way. Due mainly to this meaning given to analysis ethnographic, phenomenological, and hermeneutic traditions in focusing on description, reduction, and interpretation have been critical to analysis. However, the meaning of contextual analysis, of clarification of internal relations, argued for here, is clearly a meaning of analysis compatible with the meaning of description, reduction, and interpretation used in those traditions of research. The compatibility concerns the understanding of relations between parts, and parts and wholes, of phenomena. However, these mentioned traditions emphasize, for different reasons, description, reduction, and interpretation, and not analysis. Wolcott (1994) argues that description, analysis, and interpretation are all aspects involved in transforming qualitative data, with different emphasis on and character of the one and the other in different cases of research.

A contextual analytic approach is relevant and called for when there is an interest to understand investigated phenomena as wholes in terms of parts and relations between parts making up the whole. This is relevant in the development of knowledge of most human and social phenomena. It is especially relevant when phenomena are delimited from a more precise perspective and/or approached based on the formulation of a problem. Such an approach means that the object of research is delimited within a broader context, and that it is seen as consisting of some main parts constituting the phenomenon. This is the case with teaching as an educational phenomenon. It clearly is a part of a broad sociocultural, material, and spiritual context, and it has some main constituent parts. Above the two main parts were delimited as the relation between the teaching/learning environment conditions and the individual learning activity and outcome.

A Both Contextual and Analytic Approach

In this section we will further outline what characterizes contextual analysis in line with the description already given. We will also discuss how the investigation of teaching referred to can be seen within the framework of contextual analysis, in what way it exemplifies contextual analysis, and in what way it is limited as an example of contextual analysis. We will also defend the limitations from a contextual analytic perspective. Contextual analysis is not primarily a method but a methodology based on epistemological and ontological assumptions about how we are able to and should best develop scientific knowledge. Even if contextual analysis is not a specific method it puts limitations on and frames the way to carry out research and develop knowledge. A characteristic of the approach is that it is both contextual and analytic in an integrated way.

The seemingly obvious simple starting point in research is from what is going to be investigated, the phenomena. The phenomena are not so clearly the starting point in dominating research traditions. Rather the starting point has been taken in theoretical definitions of concepts and in general methods. This has meant that both phenomena and parts of phenomena have been defined beforehand. This is necessary in the use of quantitative methods but also the case in some qualitative methods. One fundamental characteristic of contextual analysis is to approach a phenomenon in an open way and search for its delimitation in context. The same approach is taken in finding out what characterizes the phenomenon. It is a searching out of parts of the phenomenon and their characteristics in their context. This approach involves two sides, the analytic of delimitation of the whole of a phenomenon and of its parts, and the contextual of discerning and delimiting this whole and the parts in and as dependent of their contexts. Thus, the delimitation is analytic and contextual at the same time and based on approaching phenomena rather than defining them beforehand.

To do a contextual analysis means to start from an understanding of the investigated phenomenon. The phenomenon may be of any kind, physical, psychic, social, or cultural. In this article we focus on cases of teaching as phenomena. In Doumas’ investigation the phenomena are cases of teaching, as experienced by students. To start with the phenomenon, in contextual analysis involves considering the context of the phenomenon. In Doumas’ investigation this meant to see the experiences of students in school classes, of what constitutes good teaching in the class, as a delimitation related to the existence of surrounding individual, sociocultural, physical, and spiritual contexts, and depending for their meanings on those contexts.

Most forms of qualitative analysis starts with individual data as meaning units, codifies and/or categorize those and group them into bigger meaning units in an inductive way. In contextual analysis we start with the whole of the data, preliminary delimited as being about the whole of the phenomena investigated, and search for main parts of the phenomena, main aspects, and/or components. In Doumas’ investigation, the main parts discerned of the cases as wholes, delimited as described above, were three main aspects of the experience of good teaching in literature and physics, found in all the classes, although with varying specific meanings:

In brief, the following approaches to In-Depth teaching and understanding of the subject matter were identified:

The logical-analytical approach was characterized by an analytic and structural way of elaborating and understanding subject matter. The holistic/reflective approach involved an exploration of the focused content in relation to its context—physical, historical, sociocultural—and in relation to the personal experience of the students. The existential approach involved a tracing and perception of the content in direct relation to the entirety of the student as a person, her existence, and personal transformation.

The investigation of the pedagogical quality named Dialogical interrelatedness and reflection brought out the qualities:

The quality Freedom of authentic expression and exploration involved a personal and authentic exploration of the texts or the physical phenomena without obligation to be in agreement with preconceived and expected answers. The quality Support of the personal partaking and otherness involved the encouragement the teacher gave students to participate in the discussion and to express their own thoughts on the subject as well as to listen to and to respect everyone’s contribution. The quality Argumentative mutual thinking and awareness involved the joy of the common search for meaning and creation of thought when students came into contact with each other’s differing ways to understand and develop arguments or solve a problem.

Teacher’s involvement in students’ learning and in teaching subject matter was characterized by the qualities:

Teachers’ ethos referred to the ethical quality of teachers’ pedagogical approach toward students developed in teaching. Students stressed that the ethics of the relationship established between their teacher and them affected significantly their disposition to and understanding of the subject matter. Teachers’ passion referred to their involvement in a knowledge relation to the subject matter as well as to their desire and devotion to share this relation with the students and stimulate them to partake in a further common exploration of the subject matter.

Teachers’ rhetoric referred to the embodiment of teachers’ ethos and passion (through e.g., movements, gestures, facial expressions) that expressed their emotional and intellectual engrossment and to the varying verbal or other incidents (such as amusing stories, personal examples, spontaneous, and humorous events etc.) that interrupted the formal teaching procedure and gave space to a more personal, relaxed, and emotional engagement of the students.

In Doumas’ investigation, the contextual analytic character of the investigation includes the identification of the experience of good teaching in each class as a unit, the identification of three main aspects of good teaching, and the identification of qualities of good teaching within all three aspects. The results and the way of reporting are based on similarities and differences between cases. The similarities and difference can be described and summarized in different ways. In Doumas’ description, the same abstract categories and labels are used for different classes to bring forward characteristics which are understood to be of principle importance. At the same time, this means that there is a great specific variation in the meaning of those labels/categories and within the categories, representing differences between cases.

The same category has different specific meanings in different cases and it is the specific meanings that are empirically related to other parts of the phenomena and the meaning of other categories. If we for instance consider the first main aspect and its first subcategory, a logical/analytical approach, it is clear that this approach is similar in certain respects, but also different for instance between teaching in literature and physics. To deal with meanings and structures of literary texts is specifically different from solving physics problems, although both tasks can be made in a logic analytic way. It is the activities in their specific character that are related internally to other aspects of the teaching, for instance the dialogue aspect, and then to the specific empirical meanings of the categories used to describe the dialogue. The analysis could have focused more on differences and could have given a description in terms of more and different categories and labels. It is important to consider such choices made in comparing different investigations and in generalizing the results.

Doumas’ investigation is clearly case based since all data are treated and results reported for each case. The analysis could have been more fully case based and contextual both in collection and analysis of data. In the understanding of teaching argued for above, the relation between what the educational system and the teacher afford and the outcome of this affordance in the activity and achievement, the learning, of the student, is emphasized. This main educational relation is only partly described in Doumas investigation. The outcome is described in a very limited way, and the affordances are partly described, and then as experienced by the students. The main focus is on central aspects of the internal relation between affordances and outcome in cases that are very complex, as are most cases of education. The relations between main aspects found were dealt with as internal relations and interpreted together in a case-based contextual way. The variation in meaning between subjects, grades, classes, and students of the different categories of description used may be further explored and described as well as the internal relations between categories in each case. Only some students from each class were interviewed and what is common in their experience has been emphasized more than the differences.

All investigations have their limitations. The main question concerns whether the limitations are well chosen, motivated, and given due attention. Doumas’ investigation is limited to students’ experiences of good teaching. This is motivated by the central and crucial role of students’ experiences and approaches in constituting the main educational internal relation between teaching as conditions of learning on one hand, and learning activity and outcome on the other hand. The limitation to some students in each class and to common experiences is motivated as a strategic use of resources. The limitations in explicating variation in category meanings and internal relations in the analysis, and the reporting of the result, are depending on general conditions of development and communication of knowledge. We have to take one-step at a time in going deeper into the complexity of teaching and in reporting results. In awareness of those main and other limitations, this investigation is an example of a contextual analysis, and is special in its holistic, contextual, and analytic approach to investigating teaching compared to most research on teaching.

Discussion

The general development toward using more qualitative methods, described in the introduction, we think has been driven by a wish for better understanding of the phenomena investigated. Ellis et al. (2008) present talking and thinking of researchers about their personal histories of starting to use qualitative methods that supports this interpretation. The interpretation is also supported by arguments given in the literature and referred to in the introduction of this article. Arguments which we think are also reasons for the development we have seen. There has lately been an emphasis on the importance of evidence in a way that asks for generalization of cause–effect relations to populations, partly as a reaction to the extensive development of qualitative research, not the least in the field of education. Polkinghorne (2007) discusses this reaction in relation to narrative research, and questions about validity. He points to differences in what is considered to count as evidence and argument, and to the importance of the analysis or interpretation of evidence.

What counts as evidence has to be grounded in an understanding of the investigated phenomena, the objects of research, and not in general preferences. Ruddin (2006) argues that case study is possibly the basic method of science and refers to examples from the history of natural science. We would say that cases, that are equal to the objects of research, of course are the fundamental units of research, and thereby case-based methods are most fundamental in all research. What is critical is the use of internal relations (Bradley, 1908; Moore, 1922). What has here been presented as contextual analysis equals conceptualizing objects of research in terms of internal relations. In mechanics, for instance, the new way of delimiting cause and effect in the Newtonian explanation of physical motion, compared to the Aristotelian way, is in principle a contextual analysis. It means working with a main internal relation in differentiating between cause and effect and in discerning this relation in a broader context. To give general definitions to the cause and the effect and the relation, and to quantify those, has been very powerful in natural science, and has meant work with external relations (mathematics and statistics). However, the work with external relations is a second step in this development of knowledge. It can be said to be based on, that the objects of research can be seen as identical in critical aspects, and as having the same relation to context in those aspects.

In human and social sciences, the objects of research are not identical, and cannot be treated as identical cases, when it comes to qualities of interest. This can be considered the most well-established result in human and social research. Discerned internal relations have not been shown to have the form of a mathematical function or to give a correlation of 1 across cases. An escape from this situation to mere statistical descriptions of degrees of relations between variables at a group level is not much of a solution. Often such variable-based descriptions means great obscurity, when it comes to what phenomena that are investigated. A more serious attempt to develop knowledge, grounded in a thorough understanding of what is investigated, would take a contextual analysis and description of the phenomena. The openness and uncertainty of descriptions, due to the context dependent nature and complexity of human and social phenomena, cannot be solved by denial of this character. The traditional escape from the problem to abstract predefined concepts, categories and variables, and to statistical generalizations, is no solution, and only gives weaker and more uncertain evidence than case-based descriptions have the potential to give. The context dependence of the phenomena has to be dealt with by thorough descriptions of similarities and differences between individual cases, and groups of cases, as a basis for understanding and generalization. Against the background of the above discussion, description, and exemplification of contextual and analytic qualities of research methods we will end with some conclusions formulated in five main points.