Introduction
Metaphors stand tall in all fields of human enterprise, ranging from the leitmotifs of music (GĆ³rska 2010) and the imagery of poetry (Lakoff and Turner 1989) to the epochs of historical analysis (Tucker 2009) and the political and spatial representations of cultural studies (Swiss and Herman 2000) to the accounts of families in biological species (Mindell 2013) and the depictions of networks in explaining technologies (Grint and Woolgar 1997). Metaphors have always been, and continue to be, insightful and powerful renderings of often complex internal processes and also of connections between the subject of the metaphor and other phenomena in the systems under review. Consequently, metaphors help to generate new understandings of such processes and phenomena and can underpin fresh research into those areas of human activity.
More specifically, contemporary scholarship abounds with vivid metaphors for characterising the intentions, outcomes and vicissitudes of education research projects (with āeducationā being used here and throughout the book in a broadly inclusive sense, encompassing formal educational provision as well as informal learning by individuals and communities). Accordingly, this chapter, and the book that it introduces, are particularly concerned with the diversity of metaphors that accompany and enrich such education research endeavours. Importantly, this diversity encompasses recognition of the limitations and even the risks attending some metaphors. For example, Regehr (2010) was critical of āā¦ a common metaphor of ālegitimateā science, and goals for science, which is shaping the conceptualisation of what constitutes āgoodā research in education: namely, the metaphor of the physical sciencesā (p. 31). Likewise, Pitcher (2014) reported research findings whereby metaphors used in teaching electronics theory varied in their effectiveness, with students exhibiting a range of reactions to the metaphors and others forgetting the metaphors over time. More broadly, research in domains such as public policy has been depicted as having āā¦ moved beyond both metaphors and popular units of analysisā (Pump 2011, p. 1), suggesting metaphorical analysis as being useful in the early stages in the development of a scholarly field but becoming less fruitful as the field progresses.
By contrast, education research has also highlighted the development of metaphors as a discernible link between intelligence and creativity (Silvia and Beaty 2012). Furthermore, as one example of the creative power of mobilising metaphors, Bazeley and Kemp (2012) examined the potential insights to be gleaned from analysing and applying mixed methods research in terms of mosaics, triangles and DNA. Moreover, BruckmĆ¼ller et al. (2013) distilled a similarly tripartite set of metaphorsāin their case, ceilings, cliffs and labyrinthsāto encapsulate current research into workplace gender discrimination. Another benefit claimed for metaphors is their capacity to simplify complex research understandingsāfor instance, ābrain architectureā, ātoxic stressā and āserve and returnā being advocated as metaphors to communicate sophisticated scientific concepts to non-scientists (Shonkoff and Bales 2011). Other metaphors of research collected from the contemporary literature include diffusion, cascading and life cycles being used to account for the emergence and dissemination of sociocultural norms (Bucher 2014); āā¦ gardener, buddy, saint, cyborg, commander and bullyā (Alvesson and Spicer 2011, p. 1) synthesising selected understandings of the work of business leaders and managers; and machine, organism, brain, culture, politics, psychic prison, flux and transformation, and instruments of domination representing some of the different metaphorical understandings of organisations (Bell et al. 2012).
From this perspective, education research mazes emerge as integral components of the education research enterpriseāsimultaneously signifiers of the complexity and messiness of research and enablers of effective, efficient and ethical techniques for apprehending that complexity and messiness. Certainly, metaphors need to be taken seriously as significant signifiers of deeper and wider complexities of understandings of research aspirations and outcomes across a diverse range of scholarly disciplines. The chapters in this bookāincluding this oneāexplore one specific metaphor, that of research as a maze, to elaborate the multiple ways in which education researchers can and should devise and enact research to address some of the real-life concerns and issues confronting the world today. Presenting several variations on the image of mazes, the authors of the subsequent chapters illustrate different but equally legitimate means of engaging (with) research that help to explain, pursue, contest and where appropriate and possible transform the multiple mazes occupying contemporary education research.
In order to foretell and situate the chapters to follow, the remainder of this chapter is divided into five sections:
A necessarily selective review of literature pertaining to education research as mazes
A theoretical framework and a conceptual model that distil three distinctive approaches to engaging with such mazes
These three approaches illustrated by reference to two of the authorsā respective research projects
Some suggested broader implications for mobilising education research mazes
An overview of the bookās rationale and structure.
Literature Review
The notion of the maze is understood in this chapter and in the book as a whole as a differentiated, multifaceted phenomenon whose form, impact and importance take shape differently in diverse contexts. At the same time, the term āmazeā evokes a varied but nevertheless consistent set of meanings, including āā¦ confusion and complexity ā¦ā (MacQueen 2005, p. 14); dilemmas, mysteries and pathways (Missiuna et al. 2006); a complex task whose successful completion demonstrates learning achievement (Grieshaber 2008) and requires the application of āā¦ the necessary practice knowledge to negotiateā¦ā (Walshaw 2015, p. xi); enduring the likelihood of āā¦ the path aheadā¦[being indirect] and [that as researchers] you will take many twists and turns and go down a few blind alleys before you reach your goalā (Bell with Waters, 2014, p. 5); and bearing the marks and traces of the mazesā designers that convey meaning to those who experience them (Hayles 2000).
Those commonalities of defining characteristics duly noted, there is considerable variety in the ways in which education scholars have depicted and derived meaning from the proposition of research as a maze. Some researchers have highlighted the ethical maze attached to particular research dilemmas, such as gaining childrenās informed consent to participate in research (Cocks 2006). A variation on that theme has included characterising as a research maze the complexities of securing approval from research ethics committees to conduct sensitive research (Roberts et al. 2007). Others have portrayed the doctoral journey as a particular kind of research maze requiring the application of agency by the doctoral candidate to survive and indeed to thrive during and following that journey (Jones 2013; see also Miller and Brimicombe 2004). Still others, building on that assumption of researcher agency, have emphasised that āā¦ the maze of research has several entries and choices of paths and directionsā (Ringsted et al. 2011), drawing our attention to the possibilities for creativity and innovation in enacting such choices. Likewise, Munro (2010) communicated the timely reminder that even apparently unproductive pathways can yield important information for researchers and practitioners alike.
Similarly, the maze metaphor has been deployed productively across a range of scholarly disciplines and educational levels and sectors. For instance, Daniel (
2012) posited the maze as a useful encapsulating device for imagining the constraints as well as the possibilities attending the current efflorescence of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) traversing both formal and informal learning. An educative approach was advocated as āA way through the moral maze ā¦ of poor ethical practice by image-based researchersā (Prosser
2005, p. 147) with regard to the recording, selection, representation and distribution of images of children and other potentially vulnerable groups in education research. Moreover, Borbasi and Jackson (
2016) highlighted the educational dimension of navigating the maze of research in relation to nursing and midwifery practice by emphasising the attitudes, knowledge and skills required to design and conduct research in this challenging professional field. Finally, Hirschkorn et al. (
2015) elaborated specific elements of the maze to which they likened efforts to research the landscape of teacher education in Canada; these elements included:
ā¦ duplication of research ethics procedures across institutions; feelings of vulnerability as faculty [academic staff members] in various institutions worry about potentially damaging comparative information arising from a national study; and lack of funding and vision for research that transcends provincial and territorial boundaries. (p. 20)
Clearly, considerable diversity characterises the ways in which education researchers have defined the concept of a research maze and in which they have appropriated and applied this concept in their respective research projects. This diversity includes the degree to which such mazes are perceived as negative phenomena to be controlled and subdued and/or they are positioned as positive phenomena that afford and enable opportunities to reconsider otherwise taken for granted assumptions about the educational issue being researched. Despite this diversity, most education researchers regard research mazes as complex, contextualised and fluid entities that require the mobilisation of specific approaches to engage (with) these entities. Three of these possible approaches are elaborated in the next section of the chapter.
Navigating, Negotiating and Nullifying Research Mazes: A Theoretical Framework and a Conceptual Model
Theoretical frameworks consist of a system of concepts, assumptions, expectations and beliefs that support and inform the research process (Maxwell 2005). Three important...
