On the danger of blurring methods, methodologies and ideologies in environmental education research

• Published in: Environmental education research 2006-07, Vol.12 (3-4), p.549-558
• Main Authors: Dillon, Justin, Wals, Arjen E. J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Educational Research; Environmental Education; Epistemology; Ideology; Research Methodology
• ISSN: 1350-4622; 1469-5871
• DOI: 10.1080/13504620600799315

In this article, the authors caution against blurring methods, methodologies and ideologies in research. They do this by drawing on two earlier articles in "Environmental Education Research" that focused on this issue as well but from quite different vantage points: Hart's (2000) paper in which he problematizes the generating of generic guidelines for designing and judging different strands of research, and Connell's (1997) paper in which she suggests that a plurality of methodologies and multi-paradigm research appear more fruitful, provided that the mixing is done with a thorough understanding of the social, political and philosophical contexts of the research. From their own experience of reviewing published work and articles submitted to environmental education research journals, they note that many authors do not pay much attention to some aspects of research that some--including the authors of their two focus articles, Hart and Connell--value as essential. The authors also discuss a series of confusions that seem particularly persistent, and conclude by calling for both a more cautious use of language, and a better examination and articulation of methodology in research. Such examination would need to include a discussion of the ontological, epistemological and axiological underpinnings of a methodology. (Contains 2 tables.)