ABSTRACT
I approached this paper with certain assumptions about the status of what is commonly referred to as an empirical-analytical methodology in research in environmental education and was keen to address various criticisms about its methodological assumptions, including its ‘positivist’ ideology. The ideology underlying any methodology determines the logic used to obtain and interpret information and the type of outcomes derived. It is appropriate to have an informed understanding of how different ideologies lead to a different logic in use in research methodology and different associated outcomes. Similarly, it is appropriate to view various methodological approaches as complementary and cooperative in use rather than as competitive, a view shared by a number of educators (for instance Soltis, 1984; Smith & Heshusius, 1986; Jacknicke & Rowell, 1987; Oberle, 1991) and environmental educators (Marcinkowski, 1993; Mrazek, 1993). However as I explored the literature, it became increasingly apparent that the debate over the ‘politics of method’ in research in environmental education had moved in an antagonistic direction. In Gill’s (1996) account of the ‘debate’ in education:
Further, Gill (1996) points out about research debates in education:
This paper is a response to this antagonistic attitude towards the empirical-analytical methodology, and seeks to analyse criticisms of it under three major themes outlined in Robottom and Hart (1995, p. 6) but note that their four criticisms have been condensed by combining the first and third criticisms:
(1) The behaviourist nature of the empirical-analytical approach, particularly the assumptions it makes about the deterministic role and purpose of education and environmental education are contradictory to the purposes of environmental education.
