Introduction.

This paper stems from a conversation with a number of students undertaking research projects on a number of different courses within higher education.

When we observe students undertaking methods projects in HE courses it becomes clear that they are doing what is expected of them and as such they are conforming in order to gain the acceptance and approval of those who set the tasks. This conformism results in adherence to traditional methods of sociological inquiry, quantitative (questionnaires) or qualitative methods (interviews) since many course structures and content channels them towards such activity.

If we stand back and observe the extent of the conformity, we can see the sense of pre-destiny and despair in students' responses. Since to them it has become increasingly obvious through a process of greater awareness cultivated by exposure to many new and stimulating ideas, that they are being pushed towards particular ways of perceiving the world - both theory and praxis. These are based on increasingly insecure epistemologies which now serve to convey repressive forms of knowledge (explicitly and implicitly) and therefore uphold existing power structures.

For example feminists have pointed out the androcentric nature of sociological knowledge which is often confused as the absolute objective truth, this they claim omits the questions and experiences of women (Stanley 1990). The university therefore, was a microcosm of a repressive society which fails to encourage or question those theories of knowledge which now serve to uphold the positions of some groups in society at the expense of others (Foucault 1980, Lyotard 1985).

Hence the university and the particular social scientific epistemologies it espouses, renews itself on its own with no constraints, claiming that through adherence to rationality and technical/scientific knowledge we continue down the path of progress and emancipation. Lyotard (1984:185) for example, maintains that the 'great function' of the universities is to expose the 'principles and the foundations of all knowledge.' To this end our search for truth and knowledge should be 'a language game governing ethical, social and political practice that necessarily involves decisions and obligations,' which are 'utterances expected to be just rather than true and which in the final analysis lie outside the realm of (social) scientific knowledge.' The university has now stopped being speculative and just, it is now highly functional in reproducing fodder for the technological culture with its reason and rationalism in the name of progress.

Hence this project is an attempt to investigate the possibility of an alternative methodology based in the postmodernist theories of recent decades. It is a return to speculation in the name of social justice and as such it does not meet any criteria outlined in the specifications and procedures necessary for evaluation, since like most idealistic ventures it is more theoretical than practical.

The extent of the requirement to conform to traditional methodologies can be illustrated by a conversation between a lecturer and a student project group that wanted to undertake some form of post-modern research. On explaining what they were attempting they were met with the response that they "...[we]re going to have to do something" in the way of research, since this is largely a theoretical exercise. The students responded by stating that they were in fact going to perform and record a number of interviews.

This illustrates the extent to which students are subjected to the 'hidden mechanisms' which operate to convey particular forms of knowledge and ensure its survival even though the production of knowledge is complicit with power and domination and as such, has been shown to be repressive (Foucault l972; 1977; 1980).

Thus the task for us is to outline the basic epistemological principles upon which we wish to draw, before then attempting to create a methodology around these fundamental principles to see if it is at all possible to reach a truer or less false version of social reality. In doing so we shall challenge the power structures of modernist based epistemologies and methodologies. This paper then is an investigation into the possibility of a post-modern methodology.


Relevant Postmodernist Principles.

Postmodernists recognise the human presence in reality. The mind and reality are intertwined truth therefore has no autonomy (Murphy 1988). Truth is a contract enacted between persons rather than a structure or fixed absolute entity. Reality is something which results from on-going motivated action. It has no authority to legitimise and validate itself, it has no code to refer to in order to reveal meaning. It has a multiplicity of interpretations which stop short of acquiring authoritative status and thus offers no solutions or conclusions.

Postmodernism emphasises multiplicity, plurality, fragmentation and indeterminacy. It takes up a relativist and perspectivist stance - theories at best provide partial perspectives on their objects. The various sciences and social theories are strategies by which reality is divided up as a consequence of the struggle over truth by social groups in the quest for power. Nietzsche's will-to-power is contemporary to this perspective.

Postmodernism may be seen as a challenge to traditional social theorist's notions of knowledge and reality in as much as it is

Post-modern theory then seems to provide us with a useful conceptual tool which manipulates but does not transform or transcend since 'reality' is negotiable, multiple, local, modest and provisional. This is an ideological form of revolution which gives back power to the disempowered by exposing the complicity of knowledge and power through the generation of a collage of minority discourses which reject the arrogance inherent in those universal and totalizing hegemonic and homogenous discourses or metalanguages.

A post-modern method then would emphasise relativism, reflexivity, the identification of the multiple interpretations of a 'reality', the most immediate power relations at work and their relation to the wider dynamics of power as well as the identification of the source of their universal claims to authority which are usually appeals to some 'grand narrative', 'meta-theory' or 'meta-discourse' (Derrida 1976; Foucault 1972; Lyotard 1985). The idealistic aims of such a strategy would be the hope of achieving social sensitivity as opposed to oppression as it exposes the complicity of knowledge with power.

Theory into Practice


Problems of the Method : Some Reflections

After outlining the broad principles of a post-modern method the obvious next step is to put it into practice but this is where the problems begin.

Firstly there are the more obvious limitations of trying to follow the guidelines of a post-modern method which has been outlined above. That is to say the most salient power relations at work here are not available to immediate observation and this is where subjectivity creeps in, in the attempt to establish such factors since it cannot be achieved with absolute certainty (Craib 1992). Postmodernists would welcome this subjectivity as valid, since they are part of the multi-textured cloth of reality but this does not consider that mistakes may lead us astray. But astray from what? Do we mean the 'truth' by this? Even here rationalist based thought is in evidence.

Secondly, most most researchers who attempt this path reach a sticking point since they are all drawn back towards some form of structured method or attempt to impose order - the antithesis of what postmodernism is about. This point is illustrated by the fact that the students mentioned above did interviews but arranged the results in a collage. In doing so they asked each other whether they should group things together since they seemed related in some way. This would have produced some kind of order and they eventually decided that to emphasise the chaos they would just stick them on as they came to hand. However, even at this stage they could not help feeling that the chaos ought to make some kind of sense.

Thirdly, the students observed their collage contained far more negative aspects of relations between the public and police than positive ones, particularly from a 'black' perspective. This was not due to their subjectivity alone but also due to the availability of particular definitions or resources with which to work.

This latter point illustrates how subjectivity creeps in, perhaps at an unconscious level and therefore presents a particular picture of social reality. It also highlights a further problem of the post-modern method, that not everyone has access to media which will give them a voice and that a process of selection occurs with those who do. For example the students had to make decisions about what to include and exclude from the collage. Thus they were led back to questions of 'what is it they were going to demonstrate and how to go about that. This ineluctably drew them back towards some form of organised structured activity.

The guidelines defined for a post-modern method seemed to suggest that nothing can be done by these students other than present a collage of previously determined interpretations of social 'reality' without judging the worth of any of those versions. This seems to suggest that if they accept all viewpoints as valid then they must dissolve into some kind of anarchy since there would be no ultimate grounds to be found for resolving any conflicts that arise.

Although this has its positive aspects i.e. that it does not foreclose any potential avenue for the advancement of knowledge, and that it resists the universalisation of one aspect of a multi-textured reality, its drawbacks outweigh these supposed advantages. For example, they must abandon hope for distinguishing mistakes, errors and false or misleading interpretations. If literally anything goes then horoscopes in daily newspapers might well be considered as reliable and valid as any other means of understanding human behaviour.

It seems somehow inadequate to simply describe the multiple versions of a socially produced definition of reality and then say here it is. The students felt it was almost inevitable that they make judgements of some kind whether they were intellectual, ethical, prejudicial - whatever. They felt they had preferences for some definitions offered over others. This feeling or drive towards making value judgements seems inescapable, they felt driven to it even when they knew that there was no way they could prove in an absolute way the truth of the basis of their value judgements.

There is gathering evidence, both in sciences such as physics and in the social sciences that the dichotomy between subjective and objective knowledge can no longer be rigidly maintained (Fielding and Fielding 1986; McLaughlin 1991). Powers states:

Alfred Schutz also claimed:

Thus a thing that has no value does not exist. The thing has not created the value; the value has created the thing. The students found themselves not asking the question 'what is true about this?' when confronted with the collage of 'reality', but rather 'what can we make of this?' They had to interpret the 'data' for whatever reason - to make sense out of non-sense, to impose some kind of structure or order and to make judgements of worth between the various competing claims with regards to its importance or goodness. They also found themselves judging its usefulness as a whole or as relevant to a specific situation or person/gender/race category etc. the students felt they had to make a judgement of whatever kind in order to provide themselves with a basis upon which to proceed or act. It is at this point that the decision to choose a particular method, epistemology or ontology arose and it is at this point that a post-modern methodology dissolves because to make a statement about the nature of 'reality' you inevitably create the very thing postmodernism opposes - a grand theory.

The value judgements they found themselves making had the consequence of determining how they saw the social world because the definition of problems seemed to point towards application of a particular method and thus a particular way of perceiving the social world. They made assumptions about the nature of 'reality' and what they were prepared to accept as valid knowledge. They were back at square one - making choices between quantitative and qualitative methods and thus choices between the particular view of the social world each offered - it seemed ineluctable.

CONCLUSION.

The post-modern method then appears to tell us no more about 'reality' other than the seemingly inevitable spiral towards imposing meaning through value-judgements. One way or another we attempt to impose order on the chaos. It seems somehow inevitable; inescapable even when we know that there is no way that we can ultimately prove in an absolute way the truth of the meaning we impose. It seems ironic that we have this incredible capacity to make meaning of what may ultimately be meaningless.

Thus in conclusion a methodology which adheres to the general principles of postmodernism appears impossible because although the social world is a world of multiple realities in the sense that members may focus on social situations in different ways, this tells us more about the values of those who define such realities in terms of their adherence to particular ontologies, epistemologies and methodology than about any actual intrinsic meaning possessed by the object world (Schwandt 1989). This becomes apparent as soon as one attempts to present the picture of a social situation without reference to values. The account becomes a meaningless assemblage of items having relationship to one another only through co-existence in locality and moment.

Perhaps the real task for the progression of sociology is the consideration of the values we promote in the conduct of inquiry. Such questions may raise concerns regarding the intrinsic value of the principles embodied in each paradigm (quantitative-qualitative) the value of their consequences and their contribution to an overall view of what is good or worthwhile to us in society. As Richard Rorty comments "true is just a name for what is good in the way of belief" ('The Real Thing', Channel 4, 1992). Perhaps we then may become concerned again with what is just rather than 'the truth' which has become functional and oppressive in the name of power (Lyotard 1984).


The Research Process Experienced by one Group.

We did not enjoy the research process. The actual content of the project was very interesting and thought provoking though it was at times difficult to know what to do since the nature of this project appealed to no set format and was largely theoretical and as such we experienced no research 'process'. This produced insecurities within us about whether it would be acceptable as a project given that it was supposed to be an illustration of how one could perform actual research.

As for the actual practice we feel that group projects are not a good idea since everyone has different ideas regarding commitment and how to work in groups. Some had more input than others while some treated it as a trivial part of the course which would produce itself (this has been a common observation and does not necessarily apply to this group alone). This led to some carrying a greater burden than others with the consequence that relationships become strained and overall the quality of the project (and our education) suffers.

Having highlighted these difficulties to research tutors we were met with the response that in the future maybe we would like to allocate marks among ourselves in accordance with each individuals input. We feel this is inadequate because it would only lead to further interpersonal conflicts which would detract further from the overall objective of doing the project together which was problematic in the first place from an interpersonal dynamics perspective. Those who had contributed little often think they have done more than they actually have and anyway how do you measure someone's actual input?


Evaluating the Research Process.

In the first term the standard was set. Students repeated what they had done in the first year and it was boring for them, creating little enthusiasm or commitment. This was amply illustrated by the numbers who failed to attend lectures in the first term.

This paper is in itself a comment on the research workshop option, i.e. there is no scope for speculation or experimentation. Challenging existing forms of methodology or exploring new ones has not been encouraged - this option is therefore hardly progressive despite the fact that tutors are only too aware of the limitations of each method. It is extremely conformist asking students to do little more than to demonstrate how well they have learned to jump through particular hoops.

Some comments from students were:

"Support from staff was minimal, something which should be noted given that we had never undertaken such a project before and that the project accounts for 70% of the option marks."

"Although we appreciate that we should be self-reliant we feel this is a responsibility we have to learn further even at this stage having done the project."

These comments are possibly a reflection of just how successful (or not) the group work research exercise can be in terms of what students are supposed to have learned.

References.

Videos

'The Real Thing', London Weekend Television. Televised August, 1992.

An investigation into post-modern philosophy and a radical reappraisal of the status of science in western culture. Is there no universal truth?

Writer: Michael luntely.

Produced by nick Metcalfe.

Bibliography.

Bauman. Z, 1988 'Sociology and Postmodernism', The Sociological Review, 36(4):790-813.

Best. S., Kellner, D. 1991 Post-modern Theory: Critical Interrogations. London : Macmillan.

Craib, I. (1992) Modern Social Theory: From Parsons to Habermas. Hemel Hempstead : Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Culler, J. (1983) On Deconstruction. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Derrida, J. (1976) Of Grammatology. Baltimore : Hopkins Univ. Press.

Fielding, N. G., Fielding, J. L. (1986) Linking Data. London : Sage.

Foster, H. (1985) Post-modern Culture. London : Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

Hall. S., Held. D., Mcgrew. T. (1992) Modernity and its Futures. Polity : Blackwell.

Home Office : Criminal Statistics in England and Wales. 1991.

Luntley, M, 1992. "The Real Thing". Channel 4 Television Broadcasting Support Services. Haynes Cannon.

Lyotard. J-F. (1984) The Post-modern Condition. University of Minnesota Press.

McLaughlin, E. (1991) 'Oppositional Poverty: The Quantitative/Qualitative Divide and Other Dichotomies', Sociological Review, 39(2):292-308

Murphy. J. (1985) 'Making Sense of Post-modern Sociology', British Journal of Sociology. 39(4)

Schutz, A. (1962) The Problem of Social Reality The Hauge : Nijhoff.

Schwandt. T, (1989) Contemporary Journal of Ethnography. 17(4):379-403

Stanley, L. (ed) (1990) Feminist Praxis. London : Routledge.

The Economist. July 6th, 1991 Pg. 23-5. "Britain". Author Unknown.

The Guardian Weekend Magazine. 1st May, 1993. Pg:20. "Unforgiven".