Instructional Science

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 177–200 | Cite as

Phenomenography — Describing conceptions of the world around us

  • Ference Marton

Abstract

Arguments are put forward in this paper in favour of research which has as its aim the finding and systematizing of forms of thought in terms of which people interpret significant aspects of reality. The kind of research argued for is complementary to other kinds of research; it aims at description, analysis and understanding of experiences. The relatively distinct field of inquiry indicated by such an orientation is labelled phenomenography.

A fundamental distinction is made between two perspectives. From the first-order perspective we aim at describing various aspects of the world and from the second-order perspective (for which a case is made in this paper) we aim at describing people's experience of various aspects of the world.

Research in a variety of disciplines, sub-disciplines and “schools of thought” has provided us with experiential descriptions, that is, content-oriented and interpretative descriptions of the qualitatively different ways in which people perceive and understand their reality. It has, however, seldom been recognized that these various research efforts share a common perspective in their view of phenomena and a unifying scientific identity has in consequence not been attained. The focussing on the apprehended (experienced, conceptualized,) content as a point of departure for carrying out research and as a basis for integrating the findings is seen as the most distinctive feature of the domain indicated.

Conceptions and ways of understanding are not seen as individual qualities. Conceptions of reality are considered rather as categories of description to be used in facilitating the grasp of concrete cases of human functioning. Since the same categories of description appear in different situations, the set of categories is thus stable and generalizable between the situations even if individuals move from one category to another on different occasions. The totality of such categories of description denotes a kind of collective intellect, an evolutionary tool in continual development.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexandersson, C. “Amadeo Giorgi's empirical phenomenology”, Report from the Department of Education, University of Göteborg, 1981:01.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, E. “Bokstav i kunskapens hjärta”, Rapport från projektet Upplevelseinlärning och kognitiv utveckling, nr. 19, Pedagogiska institutionen, Göteborgs universitet. 1978 (Letter in the heart of knowledge).Google Scholar
  3. Blakemore, C. (1977). Mechanics of. Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bohm, D. (1980). “Insight, knowledge, science, and human values”, in D., Sloan (ed): Education and Values. London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  5. Buck-Morss, S. (1975). “Socio-economic bias in Piaget's theory and its implications for cross-culture studies”, in K. F., Riegel (ed): The Development of Dialectical Operations. Basel: Karger, pp. 35–49.Google Scholar
  6. Dahlgren, L. O. (1978). “Effects of university education on the conception of reality”. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Improving University Teaching, July 20–29, 1978, Aachen, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
  7. Dahlgren, L. O. (1979). “Children's conception of price as a function of questions asked”. Reports from the Institute of Education, University of Göteborg, no 81.Google Scholar
  8. Dahlgren, L. O. and Marton, F. (1978). “Students' conceptions of subjeet matter: An aspect of learning and teaching in higher education”, Studies in Higher Education, 3: 25–35.Google Scholar
  9. Dunham, B. (1948). Man Against Myth. London: Fredirick Muller.Google Scholar
  10. Easley, J. A. (1977). “Seven modeling perspectives on teaching and learning-some interrelations and cognitive effects“, Instructional Science, 6: 319–367.Google Scholar
  11. Gibbs, G., Morgan, A. and Taylor, L. (1980). “A review of the research of Ference Marton and the Göteborg group”. Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Study Methods Group, Report no 2.Google Scholar
  12. Giorgi, A. (1975). “An application of phenomenological method in psychology”, in A., Giorgi, C., Fischer and E., Murray (eds.): Duquesne Studies in Phenomenological Psychology, vol II. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, pp 82–103.Google Scholar
  13. Goldstein, K. and Scheerer, M. (1944). “Abstract and concrete behaviour: An experimental study with special tests”, Psychological Monographs 33 (2), (whole no. 239).Google Scholar
  14. Gruber, H. E. (1974). Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  15. Hughes, M. and Donaldson, M. (1979). “The use of hiding games for studying the coordination of viewpoints”, Educational Review 31: 133–140.Google Scholar
  16. Hundeide, K. (1977). Piaget i kritisk lys. Trondheim: Cappelens (Piaget in a critical light).Google Scholar
  17. Janik, A. and Toulmin, S. (1973). Wittgenstein's Vienna. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  18. Johansson, B. and Lybeck, L. (1978). “Proportions—och proportionalitetstänkande hos gymnasieelever, äk 1, N-och T-linjerna”. Rapporter från Pedagogiska institutionen, Göteborgs universitet, nr 164 (Reasoning in proportions and proportional reasoning).Google Scholar
  19. Lefrere, P. (1981). “Making use of the knowledge you have”, Instructional Science 10: 1–4.Google Scholar
  20. Levy-Bruhl, L. (1923). Primitive mentality. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  21. Liedman, S-E. (1977). “Den vetenskapliga specialiseringen”. Avdelningen för vetenskapsteori, Göteborgs universitet, nr. 95 (The scientific specialization).Google Scholar
  22. Lukács, G. (1971). History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lybeck, L. (1978). “En ämnesmetodisk forskningsansats för naturvetenskapliga ämnen och matematik”. Rapporter från Pedagogiska institutionen, Göteborgs universitet, nr. 163 (An approach to research in science and mathematics education).Google Scholar
  24. Magoon, A. J. (1977). “Constructivist approaches in educational research”, Review of Educational Research 47: 651–693.Google Scholar
  25. Marton, F. and Dahlgren, L. O. (1976). “On non-verbatim learning III: The outcome space of some basic concepts in Economics”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 17: 49–55.Google Scholar
  26. Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1976). “On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process”, British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11.Google Scholar
  27. Mbiti, J. (1969). African Religions and Philosophy. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  28. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Säljö, R. (1981a). “Explanatory patterns in everyday thinking: An empirical study”. (Manuscript), Department of Education, University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
  30. Säljö, R. (1981b). “Learning approach and outcome: Some empirical observations”, Instructional Science: 10: 47–66.Google Scholar
  31. Schatzman, L. and Strauss, A. (1966). “Social class and modes of communication”, in A. G., Smith (ed.), Communication and Culture. Readings in the Codes of Human Interaction. New York: Holt, pp. 442–455.Google Scholar
  32. Schutz, A. and Luckman, T. (1974). The Structures of the Life-World, London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  33. Smedslund, J. (1977). “Piaget's psychology in practice”, British Journal of Educational Psychology 47: 1–6.Google Scholar
  34. Spencer, H. (1888). Social Statistics. New York: Appleton. (Originally published 1850; cited by Dunham, 1948.)Google Scholar
  35. Strauss, S. and Kroy, M. (1977). “The child as logician or methodologist? A critique of formal operations”, Human Development 20: 102–117.Google Scholar
  36. Werner, H. (1948). Comparative Psychology of Mental Development. New York: International Universities Press. (Originally published in German, 1940.)Google Scholar
  37. Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive Thinking, New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ference Marton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EdueationUniversity of GöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations