event
Author
This conceptual paper argues that going beyond confirmatory findings in transformative learning (TL) research requires addressing some of the commonly misinterpreted aspects of qualitative research, and clarifying how curriculum-based studies can expand and build theory.
Keywords: Transformative Learning, Qualitative Research, Pedagogical Research, Identity
How to Cite: Baldwin, C. K. (2025) “Improving Theory Building in Transformative Learning Pedagogical Research: Identity as an Illustrative Example”, Adult Education Research Conference. 1(2025).
Improving Theory Building in Transformative Learning Pedagogical Research:
Identity as an Illustrative Example
Cheryl K. Baldwin1
Department of Administrative Leadership, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Abstract
This conceptual inquiry discusses building transformative learning theory through curriculum-based qualitative research. Theory informed instructional design is differentiated from the aim of a qualitative study designed to assess and build theory. The essential role of a theoretical framework and how it informs data analysis and analytic generalization are discussed. Illeris’ (2014) theory of transformative learning as change in identity is presented as an illustrative case example.
Keywords: transformative learning, pedagogical studies, theory building
Transformative learning (TL) refers to a type of adult learning that results in a deep and relatively stable shift in consciousness (Hoggan, 2016; Cranton & Kasl, 2012). There is a growing recognition that multiple theoretical approaches fall under a metatheoretical umbrella of TL and there is a need for research that advances specific TL approaches for understanding learning as a type of developmental change (Hoggan, 2016, 2023; Hoggan & Higgins, 2023). To achieve this aim, TL research needs to explore theories beyond Mezirow (Hoggan, 2023) and go beyond deterministic designs where results generally confirm that an experience was promotive of TL (Taylor & Cranton, 2013). Studies often fail to address how the findings contribute to theory building. In fact, theoretical analysis is often absent.
This paper addresses how small qualitative studies of TL can overcome these common limitations through a well-articulated theoretical framework and corresponding analytic strategy focused on analytic generalization and transferability (Patton, 2015; Yin, 2016). These ideas are illustrated using the TL theoretical approach of identity change (Illeris, 2014) and are discussed in reference to curriculum-based qualitative research studies, a common form of TL research. The focus on pedagogical research differentiates this conceptual inquiry from studies of life events as a catalyst for TL.
The paper begins with a brief overview of Illeris’ (2014) theory of TL as a qualitative change in identity. Elements of theory driven TL pedagogy are then discussed. Next, the role of a theoretical framework in qualitative research is reviewed and it foregrounds a discussion of data analysis, analytic generalization, and transferability. It is argued that going beyond confirmatory findings in TL research requires addressing some of the commonly misinterpreted aspects of qualitative research and clarifying how pedagogical studies can inform and build theory.
Overview of Illeris’ Theory of Transformative Learning
Illeris (2014) argued that Mezirow’s (1991) conceptualization of meaning perspective, which Mezirow later called habits of mind, was an insufficient conceptualization of a form of change. Illeris (2014) saw meaning perspectives as one possible type of change that fit within his proposed approach of TL as a qualitative change in identity (Illeris, 2014). Moreover, Illeris situated TL within his general model of learning (Illeris, 2017) identifying TL as an accommodative process of identity development. Illeris (2014) drew broadly from psychological, sociological, and biographical theories of adult learning and identity and conceptualized identity as a holistic entity comprised of multiple layers. The layers, core, personality, and preference, vary in degree of stability with the inner core the most stable and preferences highly malleable. The middle layer of personality is the target of TL and Illeris (2014) defined it broadly encompassing “…values, attitudes, convictions, meanings, understandings, forms of behavior, patterns of experience, objectives, and social elements like manners, conventions, habits of communication, patterns of collaboration, empathy, obligingness, social distance and caution” (pp. 72-73).
Illeris (2014) also conceptualized identity as a multi-pronged entity. He referred to contextualized components as part-identities and gave examples of them as cultural, work, family, political, and religious. Part-identities align with a conceptualization of multiple selves and Illeris (2014) argued that they are connected to a holistic sense of self suggesting an interplay between the two.
Given critiques of TL as uncritically oriented to positive change, Illeris (2014) conceptualized multiple types of TL. Progressive TL conveys positive growth while regressive and restoring are closely related and characterize a transformation being paused i.e., regressive, and then beginning again, restoring. While Illeris (2014) called these “types” of TL, his explanation of them suggests that they reflect ideas about the process of transformation.
This brief overview of TL as identity change (Illeris, 2014) highlights several key theoretical concepts pertinent to the design of an intentional learning experience and research. The layers of identity differentiate degree of change with the personality layer as the target of TL and not the preference or inner core layers. The phenomenon of interest is change in the form of a part-identity as the focal outcome. The progressive, regressive, and restoring types of TL suggest process elements and possible difficulties in trajectories of change, which Illeris (2014) further articulated in terms of motivation and identity defense. These features are central in tracing the critically reflective identity work of learners engaged in learning as a process of developmental change. Finally, by situating TL in a model of general learning, Illeris’ noted that other forms of learning may be happening concurrently that do not reach the threshold of TL, which suggests the need, for example, to differentiate assimilative learning from transformation.
Components of an Identity-based TL Pedagogical Design
Identity, as a TL approach, provides the explanatory basis for a pedagogical project being studied. At this stage, the question is how the theory informs instructional design. Hoggan and Kasl (2023) suggested that educators articulate four elements in a TL pedagogical design: learning outcome, learning process, strategy for critical reflection and critical discourse, and specific activities (p. 226). Moreover, Hoggan and Kasl (2023) applied this framework and constructed two short case studies, psychocritical (Mezirow, 1991) and psychodevelopmental (Kegan, 1982), illustrating that each of these pedagogical features vary between the respective theoretical approaches.
As previously discussed, when working with Illeris’ (2014) theory, identity or part-identity, as a multilayered and multicomponent self, is the outcome. There are also key theoretical ideas about the process of transformation as involving examination of identity, which implies a phenomenon with historical, social, and personal narrative elements and an assertion that change will be difficult work involving emotion-laden identity defense and possible stopping or pausing of the transformation (Illeris, 2014). Thus, the learning activities need to engage learners’ conscious and sensing perceptions of their identities—past understandings of the self, social influences or pressures experienced, and the biographical narrative of who one is. Any curricular project needs to assert how specify how activities foster critical reflection on the elements of identity.
Once the theorized features of the pedagogical project are defined, the corresponding qualitative research design is also informed by this same theoretical conceptualization. With qualitative curriculum-based TL research, it is at this step where it is common to consider the purpose of research as generating evidence that TL has occurred. Naturally, an educator wants to know that there is correspondence between the aim of the instructional design and evidence of the learners’ experience in line with the assertions underlying the design. However, this orientation often leads researchers to focus on these findings alone and end with confirming that the pedagogical approach fostered TL. This evaluative claim has merit but fails to advance the kind of theoretical analysis needed to build theory (Hoggan, 2023; Taylor & Cranton, 2013). Analyzing and building theory requires understanding the role of the theory in qualitative studies.
The Role of the Theoretical Framework
While there has been debate regarding the role of theory in qualitative research, there is a growing consensus that theories are the central way that the phenomenon of interest is defined. Merriam (2009) argued that some type of theory, whether implicit or explicit, is necessary in qualitative research as it serves as a guide that frames a study. Anfara and Mertz (2006) defined a theoretical framework as “any empirical or quasi-empirical theory of social and/or psychological processes, at a variety of levels … that can be applied to the understanding of the phenomena” (p. xxvii). By articulating concepts, definitions, and assertions about the phenomenon of interest the theoretical framework focuses a qualitative study and connects it to existing scholarship (Anfara & Mertz, 2006; Collins & Stockton, 2018).
Theory in the form of a theoretical framework in qualitative research is distinct from theory as often discussed in relation to qualitative methodology and epistemological paradigms (Anfara & Mertz, 2006; Collins & Stockton, 2018). Methodology addresses choices related to type of qualitative inquiry, for example, narrative, ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology, case study, etc. (Collins & Stockton, 2018). Epistemological paradigm refers to philosophical approaches to qualitative research, for example constructivism, pragmatism, and postpositivism (Tashakkori et al., 2021). While these features matter, they are generally reflected in the standpoint and choices of the researcher. Following Glesne (2011), Collins and Stockton (2018) suggested that methodology and epistemological paradigm connect to a theoretical framework via the researcher’s personal epistemology (p. 4). Tisdell et al. (2025, p. 111) also asserted that epistemology should be discussed in the methodology section as it is distinct from the theoretical framework. A researcher’s epistemology may influence the selection of the specific TL theory, but methodology, epistemology, and theoretical frameworks are distinct features of a qualitative research study (Collins & Stockton, 2018).
A theoretical framework is often comprised of two or more theories, but for illustrative purposes in this discussion, the focus has been restricted to a single theory. Again, framing TL as a qualitative change in identity (Illeris, 2014) means that the theoretical framework defines identity and part-identity and considers various identity statuses and concepts such as coherence and integration. It also defines the key concepts in the process explanation of identity change such as progressive, regressive, and restoring types, and identity defense. The degree and depth of change in identity that would qualify as a transformative outcome is also described.
In TL curriculum-based studies theory functions on two levels, the design of the intentional experience and in conceptualizing the phenomenon in the theoretical framework for the study. The theoretical framework, comprised of a detailed description of the phenomenon of interest, informs method and data collection, and importantly, it informs the analytic strategy.
Analytic Strategy in Curriculum-based Studies of TL
The analytic approach for a curriculum-based study is complex and like most qualitative studies involves the interplay of inductive and deductive strategies. The curriculum-focused questions discussed previously are twofold and largely deductive. First, is the question of whether the theorized instructional design fostered processes of critical reflection and change as expected. In the case of studying Illeris’ (2014) theory of identity change, one examines the extent to which critical premise reflection engaged the expected dimensions of identity (values, attitudes, social understandings, etc.). The second question is focused on the outcome and addresses whether learners’ identity work resulted in a qualitative and substantive reconfiguration of a part-identity. These two questions are particularly essential for curricular-based studies because formal intentional learning designs are often shorter in duration making substantive transformative outcomes less common. Shorter learning experiences can be promotive of TL without achieving the depth and breadth of transformative change (Hoggan, 2016; Hoggan & Cranton, 2015). In addition, it is now well established that instructional designs produce TL experiences with varying degrees of outcomes, and it is unlikely that these confirmatory kinds of results alone contribute to the literature and warrant publication.
However, the theoretical framework also guides the inductive-deductive analysis of critical reflection and identity change as a transformative learning phenomenon. Here, the focus is on what emerges empirically and focuses on how change happened and varying types of outcomes. This strategy provides insights about the dynamic and differential unfolding of transformation. It is shaped, in part, by the idea that there is always a gap between what educators intend and what leaners actually do; making what happens in this space worthy of examination (Engeström, 2015). Also, it is likely that the inductive inquiry will clarify and expose key assertions and concepts of the theory and the explanation of the phenomenon of interest. This strategy is often iterative moving between inductive and deductive reasoning. These findings refine assertions and concepts expanding or challenging the theory. Finally, it is possible that abductive reasoning reveals something completely unaddressed by the theory adding new dimensions and concepts (Patton, 2015, Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).
In the case of Illeris’ theory of TL as a qualitative change in identity, the theory building element is essential as there has been relatively little empirical study of this approach (Janairo, 2024). The study of identity as defined by Illeris (2014) and the conceptualization of progressive, regressive, and restoring types are among the many concepts that need elaboration through systematic research.
As previously described, the theoretical framework guides the analytic strategy of the empirical manifestation of the phenomenon of interest (Collins & Stockton, 2018). It also informs the interpretation of the findings via extrapolation, transferability, and analytic generalization, which build theory.
Analytic Generalization for Theory Building
Similar to the role of theory in qualitative research, there is also debate about how findings from qualitative studies extend or build knowledge in terms of generalization. A common misconception confuses the broad generalization aim of research with a specific type of generalization, namely statistical generalization (Patton, 2015; Yin, 2016). Drawing on previous scholars, Patton (2015) explored the idea of extrapolation as an alternative term to generalization. It refers to applying the findings of the specific study to the existing body of knowledge. Likewise, Yin (2016) uses the term transferability, and it means assessing the implications of the study to similar situations and contexts. It addresses where this new knowledge would be useful and relevant. Rich descriptive findings can affect readers’ appreciative knowledge (Stake, 2000), but both extrapolation and transferability reflect building knowledge beyond the particularistic study and using well-focused empirical findings to make inferences and conclusions about the broader phenomenon. These assertions are in essence new hypotheses that need to be tested (Patton, 2015; Yin, 2016).
Yin (2016) aligns transferability with the broader idea of analytic generalization as a two- step process that marries analysis and study conclusions. As previously described, the analytic strategy typically produces empirically informed findings that support making conceptual claims about the theoretical concepts and theoretical process explanations of the phenomenon. As Yin (2016) explains, a “study’s findings should demonstrate whether and how the empirical results supported or challenged the theory” (Yin, 2016, p. 106). The second step involves extrapolating or transferring these new insights and interpreting what they mean for similar situations. The meaning of the findings cuts to the heart of why a study was conducted. And building new theoretical knowledge will also inform refining instructional designs.
In the case of TL as identity, analytic generalization indicates that curriculum-based research ought to address not only the replication of the pedagogical features but advancement of theoretical concepts surrounding the phenomenon of identity change. The data serve analyzing the concepts, assertions, and components of Illeris’ (2014) theory. These all merit empirical exploration (e.g., Baldwin & Motter, 2021; Janairo, 2024). Studies could also consider findings describing critical identity reflection in relation to the growing body of TL metatheoretical or sensitizing concepts expanding understanding, for example, of embodied emotions, liminal spaces, and managing disorientation. The aim is to empirically refine the conceptual description and explanation of a theory to build knowledge.
Summary
To address the need to move TL research beyond confirmatory studies, it is important to clarify common issues in curriculum-based TL research. While theory informs instructional design, it is also central in qualitative research design. Though often misunderstood, the theoretical framework, analytic strategy, and analytic generalization are all components of qualitative research that fosters building TL theory. As illustrated with Illeris’ (2014) theory, there is a need for TL research that expands specific theoretical approaches.
References
Anfara, V. A., Jr., & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Introduction. In V. A. Anfara Jr. & N.T. Mertz (Eds). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. xiii–xxxii). Sage.
Baldwin, C. K., & Motter, A. E. (2021). Autoethnographic dance and transformative learning: Exploring self-reflexive identity work and change. Journal of Transformative Education, 19(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344620943681
Collins, C. S., & Stockton, C. M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475
Cranton, P. & Kasl, E. (2012). A response to Michael Newman’s “Calling Transformative Learning into Question: Some Mutinous Thoughts.” Adult Education Quarterly, 62(4), 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713612456418
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge University Press.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Hoggan, C. (2023). The 7 cardinal sins of transformative learning scholarship. Journal of Transformative Education, 21(4), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446231196265
Hoggan, C. D. (2016). Transformative learning as a metatheory: Definition, criteria, and typology. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615611216
Hoggan, C., & Higgins, K. (2023). Understanding transformative learning through metatheory. New Directions in Adult & Continuing Education, 2023(177), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20475
Hoggan, C., & Kasl, E. (2023). Transformative learning: Evolving theory for understanding change. In A. Belzer & B. Dashew (Eds.). Understanding the adult learner (pp. 213–233). Stylus.
Illeris, K. (2017). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative learning and identity. Routledge.
Janairo, E. R. (2024). Transformative learning and identity in a re-entry job skills program. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee]. MINDS at UW Repository. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/93536
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Harvard University Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. D. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Sage.
Tashakkori, A., Johnson, R. B., & Teddlie, C. (2021). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integration quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Sage.
Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2013). A theory in progress? Issues in transformative learning theory. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela5000
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Yin, R. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.