Postmodernism and Educational Research

Postmodernism is an elusive concept when we attempt to connect it to educational research methodologies. This paper is a review of the literature regarding postmodernist research methodologies in education.


Introduction
Postmodernism in educational research typically reveals itself through the methods of Discourse Analysis (DA), (Lee & Petersen, 2000) [1] and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), (Wodak & Meyer, 2009) [2]. The generally accepted definition of postmodernism is well described by Zeeman, Poggenpoel, Myburgh & Van der Linde (2002) [3] who write, "Postmodern theory sets about dismantling most of our normal ways of thinking about how meaning interpretation and reality works. This dismantling process is also visible in education and educational research" (p. 96). They further explain that discourse analysis has its roots in other social sciences, namely literary studies, anthropology, and linguistics (p.
They write, "Poststructuralism is a particular style of analysis within postmodern thought more generally" (para 4).
The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon and examine postmodernist research methodology in educational contexts looking specifically at DA and CDA.

Theories about Postmodernism and Education
Describing postmodernism in educational contexts is difficult, mainly because the purpose of postmodernism is to question and deconstruct the scientific em- where the focus of education turned to an emphasis on physics, math and science in order to compete with other nations for domination of space exploration (Clowse, 1981) [15]. So, it is obvious that schools served a purpose, and postmodernism in essence serves to analyze the systems under which they arose.
Edwards & Usher (1994) [5] explain that the influence of the postmodern movement on education, is not to prescribe new rules for educators or students, but instead is a method for looking at education more critically. They write, "It may suggest a way of looking differently at education as a social practice, at educational processes such as learning and teaching, and at bodies of knowledge and the ways they are organized and transmitted (p. 28). His ideas were postmodernist in that he saw people as leading non-linear lives, and this idea opposed the linearity of the grand narratives that dominated modernism. In addition, Derrida (1976) [10], was incremental to postmodern thought through his deconstruction of text, where he argued that the meaning of words and their assertions of power require critique. Ten years after Derrida's work, Fairclough (1989) [7] wrote Language as Power where he created the method of CDA due to the necessity for analyzing language and its impact on social meaning for the purpose of research. He has gone on to create "Political Discourse Analysis", which deals with political language specifically, and has been a previously understudied area (Finlayson, 2013) [16]. These theorists provided essential frameworks for deconstructing language, power differentials, and institutionally formed value systems. Their theoretical frameworks, therefore, influence postmodernist educational research. Critical discourse analysis and discourse analysis are two methods that resulted out of postmodernism as a means of critically questioning power dynamics, structures, and their consequent discourses, which is necessary for educators to embrace as we continue to examine the function of education. although they suggest that more studies should focus on discourses of "liberation" rather than only on "oppression", as this area was limited in scope (p. 384).

Educational Research in the Postmodern
Similarly, the authors noted that primary schools were sorely underrepresented in the studies. They conclude with some important recommendations as to how CDA in educational research can be improved in the future. First, they noted that although the researchers included multiple analytic methods, they failed to utilize multiple framework models, with the majority adhering to one. They write, "Many of the studies draw on Fairclough's approach-rather than on the approaches of van Dijk, Wodak, Kress and Van Leeuwen, and so forth" (p.386).
Also, they found there was a missing link between linguistic resources and social practices. In addition, they noted a general lack of reflexivity in the studies, which is an important thread weaving through postmodern methodology. "Part of our 'project' has been to problematize the very notion of emancipation in the project of modernity and to show its oppressive assumptions and consequences, particularly in and through education" (p. 4). So, rather than assuming that CDA ought to be emancipatory, perhaps a better recommendation for CDA researchers would be that they provide a more detailed analysis of how the data collected can be of benefit or detriment to an educational environment. Overall, the most important piece, and what defines research as being postmodern, is the capability of the researcher to be overtly reflexive around their own biases as researchers. Scheurich (2001) [20] suggests that we can frame our postmodern research methods according to an in-depth analysis of bias, through his own methods called "Policy Archaeology" (pp. 97-98) and "Coloring Epistemologies" (p. 133). He writes, "we are unknowingly enacting or being enacted by 'deep' civilizational or cultural biases, biases that are damaging to other cultures and to other people who are unable to hear them because they do not 'speak' in our cultural 'languages'" (p. 1). Therefore, through policy archaeology, he asserts the necessity to examine social problems before they are named or constructed as such  [23].

Conclusion
Using postmodernist research methods in educational research, we can take into consideration the recommendations of Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes & Mosley (2016) [4] as to how critical discourse analysis can be improved within educational settings, while also incorporating some of Schleurich's (2001) [20] ideas around how to be reflexive of bias. Similarly, as Edwards and Usher (2002) [5] argue, becoming less attached to the idea of research as being emancipatory, and more interested in performing research in order to elucidate information rather than to transform people, is a postmodernist construct. In conclusion, postmodernist research is interdisciplinary, reflexive, and conscious of bias. Postmodernism is related most commonly to DA and CDA, but can be incorporated into other educational methods including action research (Brown & Jones, 2001) [17].