Bringing the field into the classroom: Methods and experiential learning in the ‘Politics of Development’
| Author | Kristi Heather Kenyon |
| Published date | 01 February 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395716633905 |
| Date | 01 February 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Learning and Teaching in Politics and International Studies |
Politics
2017, Vol. 37(1) 97 –112
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0263395716633905
pol.sagepub.com
Bringing the field into the
classroom: Methods and
experiential learning in the
‘Politics of Development’
Kristi Heather Kenyon
Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, South Africa
Abstract
Methods training is typically cordoned off into specific, designated courses and is often
consequently isolated from the content of the topics we study. As a result of this separation,
methods may appear abstract or technical, particularly to undergraduate students, who usually
have no experience or expectation of applying methods during their degrees. This article
discusses one experience of incorporating qualitative methods and experiential learning into a
mixed undergraduate/graduate seminar on the politics of development. This substantive course
was structured around an interview-based assignment which served to introduce students to
qualitative methods alongside exposure to the views of development practitioners and scholars.
I argue that integrating experiential methods training into substantive courses can prove a useful
introduction to interviewing and fieldwork, enhance student engagement with subject-based
literature and concepts, and serve as a gateway for further methods education.
Keywords
development, experiential learning, fieldwork, methods, pedagogy, teaching
Received: 6th July 2015; Revised version received: 20th October 2015; Accepted: 29 November 2015
Teaching research methods
Despite research indicating that student engagement and learning experiences improve
when methods are linked to practice and integrated into substantive curriculum (Centellas,
2011; Mvududu, 2005; Scheel, 2002), methods are usually taught separately from sub-
stantive aspects of political science (Centellas, 2011; Elman et al., 2015). Research on the
teaching of methods identifies a lack of enthusiasm on the part of both students, among
whom such courses are often ‘unpopular’ and ‘avoided’ (Gibbs, 2010: 45), and faculty,
who have described methods teaching as ‘a thankless and often unsatisfying task’ (De
Boef, 2001).1 Although there have been calls in the discipline for systematic integration
Corresponding author:
Kristi Heather Kenyon, Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Email: kristi.kenyon@up.ac.za
633905POL0010.1177/0263395716633905PoliticsKenyon
research-article2016
Learning and Teaching in Politics
and International Studies
98 Politics 37(1)
into the undergraduate curriculum (Wahlke, 1991), inconsistencies remain in whether
methods are required or even offered as part of an undergraduate political science degree
(Hill, 2002; Parker, 2010; Thies and Hogan, 2005). Where available, courses are more
often quantitative rather than qualitative in nature (Turner and Thies, 2009). Research by
Parker (2010: 121–122) indicates that methods instruction – broadly defined – is gener-
ally weaker in ‘countries that emphasize broad and flexible liberal arts degrees’, such as
the United States, Canada, and Australia, and stronger in more focused European pro-
grammes. However, despite the isolation, inconsistent offering, and dampened enthusi-
asm, there is widespread recognition of the value of methods training. Methods skills are
seen as integral in developing informed consumers and practitioners of academic research
(Elman et al., 2015; Wahlke, 1991).
Experiential methods
In contrast with methods teaching, among both students and faculty, there is growing
enthusiasm for experiential learning. Understood as ‘a direct encounter with the phe-
nomena being studied’ (Borzak, 1981, as cited in Brookfield, 1984: 16), experiential
learning is broadly seen as consisting of first-hand experience, active learning, experi-
mentation and adaptation in new environments, and reflection (Kolb, 1984; Moon,
2004). Although these components have been sequenced in various ways, Kolb’s (1984)
four-stage model of the learning process remains the gold standard. His framework con-
sists of (1) concrete experience, (2) reflective observation, (3) abstract conceptualiza-
tion, and (4) active experimentation (Kolb, 1984: 33). The activities that constitute this
learning cycle can take various forms including internships, international service learn-
ing, field courses, and involvement in faculty research (Herrick et al., 2015; Moon,
2004; Tiessen and Huish, 2014).
While not without ethical, educational, and logistical risks and challenges (Barrow
et al., 2005; Tiessen and Epprecht, 2012), experiential learning is viewed as holding
important benefits including ‘more highly developed thinking and problem solving skills’
(Brock and Cameron, 1999: 252), increased educational ownership and willingness to
learn from classmates, improved academic performance, a ‘deeper understanding of poli-
tics and political science’, and ‘heightened intellectual curiosity and emotional connec-
tion to course material’ (Barrow et al., 2005: 419). Unlike other social science disciplines
such as anthropology which have a tradition of methods-oriented field schools, in politi-
cal science it is not common to link experiential learning to methods training, although,
as Berry and Robinson (2012) argue, experiential approaches may be particularly well
suited to undergraduate methods teaching.
The course
In developing an advanced seminar course (fourth year/master’s) on the ‘Politics of
Development’ at Acadia University, a small primarily undergraduate university in rural
Nova Scotia, Canada, I sought to include elements of international fieldwork – a classic
method of experiential learning in the social sciences. The ‘Politics of Development’ was
classified as a subject-area seminar rather than a specific methodology course and was
offered in a department without a designated methods course. In teaching this course for
the first time, I reflected on my own experience of fieldwork-based research and antici-
pated that integrating methods and substantive material would lead to improved student
To continue reading
Request your trial