A grounded theory study of the values, beliefs, and assumptions in recognition of prior learning

This research study is to examine the values, beliefs, and assumptions operating in Recognition  of Prior Learning (RPL) in Higher Education (HE) in Ireland, to elucidate the conditions  necessary for its effective delivery. RPL provides the assessment of non-formal and informal  learning for advanced entry, non-standard admissions, and/or credits/grades (CEDEFOP, 2018;  NQAI, 2005). Much of the research on RPL is policy-driven with little focus on the  organisational cultural context and the philosophical positions within this, aspects of which  inform the RPL assessment itself (Friesen, 2011; Hamer, 2016, Harris, 2011; Travers, 2017). This Irish study addresses an identified knowledge gap in RPL research about values, beliefs, and assumptions in RPL, and is guided by two inter-related research themes. Firstly, an  examination of the values, beliefs, and assumptions operating in RPL in Irish HE, specifically  those of the Assessor, Mentor and Candidate. Secondly, an examination of the conditions  necessary for the RPL process to function.  

This study takes a critical constructivist grounded theory and interpretive approach to examine  the values, beliefs, and assumptions present in RPL in HE in Ireland. The conceptual framework  employed for this incorporates Schein’s (2004) organisational culture model, and Van-Kleef’s  (2007) model of RPL to position values, beliefs, and assumptions at its core. This qualitative  research study gathered primary data through 82 semi-structured interviews conducted  sequentially over three years, from 2014 to 2016. The data incorporates the views of 21 Mentors from 14 Irish HEI’s, 31 Assessors, and 30 past Candidates of RPL from one HEI. This research  used purposive sampling initially, and theoretical sampling as the interviews proceeded, and the data was analysed, and coded according to Charmaz (2006). 

The empirical findings drawn from the second stage of coding (conceptual categories) show that similar value systems operate between the three actors with honesty, fairness, openness and  equity to the fore. Furthermore, their beliefs are all in support of RPL and lifelong learning. The  findings indicate that RPL can only be provided if the standards are upheld. The remaining empirical findings provide insight into the challenges posed by RPL and reveal that it is a demanding field of practice. The supports identified call for adequate resources and clear  guidelines. The third stage of coding, the theoretical codes, provide the overarching themes for  the discussion chapter; wherein the enablers of RPL are discussed in the context of the values, beliefs, and assumptions identified, followed by the challenges posed by RPL and the supports for RPL in the extant literature.

This Irish study is important, as it makes the unique contribution of foregrounding the values,  beliefs, and assumptions in RPL and the findings have implications for policy, practice and  future research of RPL. It is the first study to identify that very similar value systems operate in  RPL with honesty as the primary value, which is all but implicit in the extant RPL literature. In addition, the explicated values are harmonious and belong to the benevolent and universal  aspects of Schwartz’s (2012) Theory of Values rather than the conservative values that are  sometimes posited in the RPL literature (Dismore et al., 2011; Peters, 2006). Finally, the conclusion chapter provides recommendations, including the requirement to foreground the values, beliefs, and assumptions present in RPL and to re-frame the policy discourse to reflect  the challenging nature of RPL provision.