Manja Klemencic providing a critical perspective on the
'buzz' around student engagement surveys. What are we really learning? What can
we really learn?
The first
question we should probably ask ourselves is whether it is possible to account
for "the student experience" or can we just account for "a
student experience among many others"? Is in the age of
individualism "the student" still a valid category?
On the one
hand, Manja notes that "the state of being a student – studentship – as a
life stage is unique in that it is transient, developmental and liminal (as an
expected rite of passage to a different social status);
on the
other hand, "the student body is profoundly heterogeneous... [
and ] ... researchers are becoming sensitive to the constraints and
opportunities that socio-economic background, gender, religion, race and
ethnicity pose – by way of ‘cultural capital’ – to student choices of, engagement
with and experiences of higher education".
And even taking this into consideration... how 'nuanced' can our analysis really be when we are still constrained by 19th and 20th century sociological constructs such as "socio-economic background, gender, religion, race and ethnicity"?
How have
things moved in the last fifty years ... like my daughter's individualised
Montessori classroom experience (developed in the early 20th C) as against her
grandmother's standardised 'realschule' soup (which was so conceived about 50
years earlier); (BTW my grandma is last row, right, with braids); and then...
actually .... Dineo learns German, Japanese and Italien with
Busuu, Chinese and German also with Duolingo, and Maths on Eurotalk and
numbersaddict; and whatever else by navigating four different operating systems
and however many apps almost simultaneously....
If we have
data from individuals - even if it is highly standardised survey data - why can
we not resist the temptation to reduce such data to a
highly unpalatable pap. Why can't we try and build complex
holistic, multiperspectival pictures of individuals using such data (like
Picasso), rather than blurry impressionistic scatterplots? Sampling, my survey
colleague from the neighbouring university always likes to say, sampling is
like putting a spoon into a big calderon of soup. If you have stirred it
properly, a good spoonful should tell you what the whole pot tastes like. But
are we satisfied to reduce the heterogeneity of students' experiences to a
"well-stirred soup"? Even if we can still discern the taste of the
carrots from the celery and the potatoes... I'm just not sure I want to cook up
a student body as soup.
And
finally, what about "the historical and temporal dimensions in
student life relating to their choices of engagement and experience, placing
studentship within the perspective of entire life trajectories"?
Manja's
conclusions after such a critical intervention are valid and imaginative:
"cross-disciplinarity", "methodological pluralism",
"innovation in methods of data collection" and "engaging
students as researchers – as active co-producers of knowledge – in research on
student engagement" - yet, they are also vague - like that research
on student engagement could serve as "discursive platforms". I
wish Manja was making some more concrete suggestions... I know she will, eventually...
I guess I must be patient.
From a
different perspective, there is of course another point to Manja's story. I
believe there is great opportunity in institutional research on 'student
engagement' as current work in African universities is showing - this is to
experiment with new methodologies - in involving respondents; in the collection
of data; in the analysis of data; in engaging the powerful opportunities
offered by ICT and overcoming traditional constraints of quantitative and
qualitative designs respectively.
Love & Peace, Thierry
