Presentation at HEA-funded workshop 'A dialogue between phenomenology and realism in pedagogical and educational research '. The workshop aimed to stimulate debate around the philosophical underpinnings of different research methodologies, whose shared terminology is often interpreted in radically contrasting ways, and in particular, to encourage dialogue between realist and phenomenological research traditions. The workshop was aimed at pedagogical and educational researchers who are looking to expand their methodological repertoire and to explore new ways of teaching research methods. This presentation is part of a related blog post that provides an overview of the event: http://bit.ly/1oww6m1 For further details of the HEA's work on teaching research methods in the Social Sciences see: http://bit.ly/RIZtTz

1. THE
MORPHOGENETIC
APPROACH
Margaret S. Archer
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

2. The Structure of Social Theories
SO → → → EP → → → PST
Social Ontology Explanatory Practical
Programme Social Theory
Necessary Morphogenetic Research
(Bhaskar’s CR) Framework Question
2

3. The role of Social Ontology in
Explanation
• All theories have a social ontology – implicit or explicit –
defining the constituents of the social world.
• The S.O. performs a role of conceptual regulation
because it governs those concepts that are deemed
admissible in description as in explanation (an atheist
cannot attribute his well-being to divine providence)
• In itself, a social ontology explains nothing, although it
may exclude certain explanations, cast in ‘improper’
terms.
• In itself, an SO tells no-one how to go about explaining
anything. For this, need an E.P. It also explains nothing
• Explanations are the job of P.S.Ts.
3

4. 44
People on fixed incomes
The effects of inflation
on those with fixed
incomes.
Objective constraints
are undeniable,
despite their
(mis)understanding
But their subjectivity
explains what they
actually do

5. Analytical Dualism & the
Morphogenetic Approach
• Through analytical dualism we can separate ‘structure’ and
‘agency’ and examine their interplay to account for the
structuring and re-structuring of the social order.
• Possible because ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ are different kinds of
emergent entities, with different properties and powers, despite
the fact that they are crucial for each other’s formation,
continuation and development
• Secondly, ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ operate diachronically over
different time periods because:-
- (i) structure necessarily pre-dates the action(s) that transform it
and,
- (ii) structural elaboration necessarily post-dates those actions
5

6. The basic Morphogenetic sequence
Structural Conditioning
______________________________
T 1
Social Interaction
________________________
T 2
T 3
Structural Elaboration
_____________________
­ T 4
[Analytical dualism because project all lines forward and
backwards and they join up: we have broken the flow]
6

7. How we work with a Research Question
Generally at T4 with something problematic
Usually move backwards to T2 –T3, asking ‘who did what’,
‘why’, ‘against what opposition’? Often not possible to find
les responsables (MI) because compromise & concession
involved (T4 change not exactly what anyone wanted)
Then have to backtrack further to T1 to the structural
context of action - there is no contextless action – i.e. the
source of motives, of positions prises, of ideological
commitments, of strategies adopted and what was wanted
(and not wanted), which moved agents to interaction. That
cannot be understood without the prior structural context
conditioning interaction between T1
and T2
.
7

8. 8
Structural and cultural factors shape the social context for
agents (T1)
‘These results of past actions are deposited in the form
of current situations. They account for what there is
(structurally and culturally) to be distributed and also for
the shape of such distributions; for the nature of the
extant role array, the proportion of positions available at
any time and the advantages/disadvantages associated
with them; for the institutional configuration present and
for those second order emergent properties of
compatibility and incompatibility …
In these ways, situations are objectively defined for their
subsequent occupants or incumbents’.
Archer, 1995. Realist Social Theory, p. 201.’

9. Interaction T2 – T3
9

10. At T4
• Morphogenesis/stasis at T4 is not just the
eradication/modification of previous structural/cultural
properties and powers
• But, the ELABORATION of:-
- a new ‘relational organization’ with powers of
downward causation
- of new constraints and enablements for different
groups/ new opportunity costs
- new ‘generative mechanisms governing how
things work
• Also, the double morphogenesis of agency, through re-
grouping, even if these are the same people.
10

11. Educational Interaction in Decentralized Systems
Central
Government
Teaching
Profession
External
Interest
Groups
Educational
change
Polity
directed
Political
Manipulation
Political
Manipulation
External
Transactions
Internal
Initiation
11

12. Educational interaction in the Centralized System
Central
Government
Teaching
Profession
External
Interest
Groups
Educational
change
Aggregation of demands
Polity
directed
Political
Manipulation
Political
Manipulation
12

13. Working with Morphogenetic
Cycles
13
•

14. The Riddle of Society
• What is it that depends on human intentionality but never
conforms to anyone’s intentions?
• What is it that relies upon people’s concepts but which
they never fully know?
• What is it that depends upon human activity but never
corresponds to the actions of even the most powerful?
• What is it that has no form without us, yet which forms us
as we seek its transformation?
• What is it that never satisfies the precise designs of
anyone yet because of this always motivates its
reconstitution?
THUS, MORPHOGENESIS CONTINUES ……
14