Empirical–analytical methodological research in environmental education: response to a negative trend in methodological and ideological discussions

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to methodological discourse about research approaches to environmental education. More specifically, the paper explores the current status of the ‘empirical–analytical methodology’ and its ‘positivist’ (traditional‐ and post‐positivist) ideologies, in environmental education research through the critical analysis of three criticisms outlined in Robottom & Hart (1995). Their negative discussion of this methodology relates to its ideology and assumptions it makes about the purpose and role of the environmental education curriculum and goals, teachers, students, learning, teaching content and environmental action(s). It is suggested that their critiques misrepresent empirical–analytical methodology in their dismissal of it as behaviourist and/or traditional positivist in nature and, consequent undesirability in research in environmental education. Such discussions of the perversity of ‘positivist’ empirical–analytical methodology are not constructive. This paper seeks to reorient the debate by providing a critical analysis of the arguments proffered by Robottom & Hart as a way of opening opportunities for diverse pathways of research in environmental education.

Acknowledgements

A special thanks is extended to Associate Professor John Fien, Dr Eureta Janse van Rensburg and Ms Helen Spork for their informed and insightful advice in the development of this paper, as well to those participants at the Binna Burra Environmental Education Research Conference, Brisbane, Australia, who shared their time, understanding and patience with me in early discussions concerning particular issues within this paper.