/ 
Language
Keywords
methodology
constructivism
agency
pragmatist methodology .
How to Cite
Abstract
This text outlines the author’s personal epistemological and methodological foundations in adult education research, emphasizing a journey of continuous learning and openness. It is written on the basis of 25 years of research experience and many empirical projects. One main thesis is that a curious and open approach to research paradigms is crucial, alongside lifelong learning research. Further, maintaining clear epistemological and philosophical positions is essential to avoid arbitrariness.
Here a constructivist view is adopted, acknowledging that the social world is interpreted and meaning-laden, interpretations are shaped by shared patterns (culture, language) and individual experiences. However, social structures and inequalities, while socially constructed, impact individual actions. Social phenomena in this sense are both objectively structured and subjectively interpreted. Thus, research must address the interplay of individual agency and social structures.
A pragmatistic methodology, advocating for flexible method selection based on the research question, is put at the forefront. Pragmatism acknowledges the context-dependent nature of research and the influence of researchers’ beliefs. Aiming for use-inspired basic research, generalizable knowledge derived from real-life problems should be addressed. Research can inform pedagogical practice by offering new perspectives and challenging traditional interpretations. At the same time, one has to be aware that research findings are subject to diverse interpretations, requiring clear and honest communication.
Regarding the concrete realization of research projects, the article argues for selecting methods carefully and considering a range of factors. Ethical considerations are paramount, and the pros and cons of mixed-method designs are discussed. Certain preconditions that are relevant for all research projects are examined here, namely openness, teamwork and collaborative exchange, continuous dialogue, networking, and time.
References
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (2016) Social theory re-wired. New York: Routledge.
Blaikie, N. (1991) A critique to the use of triangulation in social research. Quality & Quantity,
, 115-136.
Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall.
Brühl, R. (2017) Wie Wissenschaft Wissen schafft: Theorie und Ethik. Konstanz & München: UVK.
Burbiel, J. (2009) Creativity in research and development environments: A practical review.
International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, 4(2), 35-51.
Chambliss, D.F. & Schutt, R.K. (2024) Making sense of the social world: Methods of investigation. London: Sage Publications.
Cornwall, A. & Jewkes, R. (1995) What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine,
, 1667-1676.
Cramer, C., Harant, M., Merk, S., Drahmann, M. & Emmerich, M. (2019) Meta-Reflexivität und
Professionalität im Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerberuf. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 65(3), 401-423.
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Glaser, B.G. (2001) The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Grotlüschen, A., Thériault, V., Nienkemper, B. & Capstick, T. (2019) Critical viewpoints on
adult literacy practices at the time of PIAAC. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
(4), 361-365.
Hamilton, M. (2018) Contributing to the common good? Media coverage of the international
largescale assessment of adult skills (PIAAC) in four national contexts. Studies in the Education
of Adults, 50(2), 167-184.
Hedgecoe, A. (2008) Research Ethics Review and the Sociological Research Relationship.
Sociology, 42(5), 873-886.
Hubbard, G., Backett-Milburn, K. & Kemmer, D. (2001) Working with emotion: Issues for the
researcher in fieldwork and teamwork. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
(2), 119-137.
Kieser, A. & Leiner, L. (2009) Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516-533.
Kinzelbach, K., Lindberg, S., Lott, L. & Spannagel, J. (2023) Academic Freedom Index – 2023
Update [online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.25593/opus4-fau-21630.
Lewin, K. (1942) Field theory and learning. In: N.B. Henry (ed.) The forty-first yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education: Part 2, The psychology of learning. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 215-242.
Loehle, C. (1990) A Guide to Increased Creativity in Research – Inspiration or Perspiration?
Bioscience, 40(2), 123-129.
Marotzki, W. (2003) Bildung, Subjectivity and New Information Technologies. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 35(2), 227-239.
Milana, M., Brandi, U., Hodge, S. & Hoggan-Kloubert, T. (2024) Artificial intelligence (AI),
conversational agents, and generative AI: implications for adult education practice and
research. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 43(1), 1-7.
Morgan, D.L. (2014) Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8),
-1053.
Olmos-Peñuela, J., Benneworth, P. & Castro-Martínez, E. (2015) What Stimulates Researchers
to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva, 53(4), 381-410.
Schmidt-Hertha, B. (2020) Mixed Methods in der Übergangsforschung. In: A. Walther, B. Stauber, M. Rieger-Ladich & A. Wanka (eds.) Reflexive Übergangsforschung. Theoretische Grundlagen und methodische Herausforderungen. Opladen: Barbara Budrich, 165-181.
Schütz, A., Staubmann, H. & Lidz, V. (2018) The Problem of Rationality in the Social World. In:
H. Staubmann & V. Lidz (eds.) Rationality in the Social Sciences. Cham: Springer, 85-102.
St. Clair, R. (2016) Plus ça change – The failure of PIAAC to drive evidence-based policy in
Canada. Zeitschrift für Weiterbildungsforschung-Report, 39, 225-239.
Stokes, D. (1997) Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington:
Brookings Institution.
Strübing, J., Hirschauer, S., Ayaß, R., Krähnke, U. & Scheffer, T. (2018) Gütekriterien qualitativer
Sozialforschung. Ein Diskussionsanstoß. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 47(2), 83-100.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Adult Education Discourses