Abstract
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) is a transformative yet under-theorised area in higher education. Despite its potential to advance equity and epistemic justice, RPL scholarship remains fragmented across policy, pedagogy, and practice, often lacking methodological coherence. This study theorises RPL research design through qualitative, quantitative, and multidisciplinary lenses, offering a comprehensive framework for rigorous and inclusive inquiry. Using a conceptual and integrative literature review, it synthesises theoretical and methodological debates drawn from adult learning, recognition theory, and decolonial perspectives. The author’s reflexive experience transitioning from the natural to the social sciences highlights interdisciplinary challenges in RPL scholarship. Structured around six pillars, the paper explores theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, and future directions aligned to social justice and digital transformation. By bridging epistemological diversity with rigour, the study advances a framework for designing context-sensitive and transformative RPL research.
Introduction: Positioning RPL Research in Higher Education
RPL policy and practices have become a powerful tool for transforming access, equity, and participation in higher education globally. Importantly it is aligned to several of the United Nations Sustainable Development goals and the national imperatives of a myriad of regions worldwide (Aljuaid, 2021). RPL challenges traditional definitions of knowledge, who holds it, and how it is acquired and validated (Harris, 2000; Osman, 2004). In contexts marked by historical inequality and epistemic injustice such as in South Africa—RPL offers a route through which experiential, community, and workplace knowledge can be formally recognised within higher education institutions (Mabokela & Mlambo, 2017). Despite its transformative promise, RPL remains marginal in many research discourses, and its study often fragmented across policy, pedagogy, and practice (Andersson & Harris, 2006; Harris & Wihak, 2017).
This fragmentation has resulted in an uneven body of scholarship that lacks coherence in both theoretical grounding and methodological approach. Much of the existing literature focuses on practical implementation, institutional policy frameworks, or learner experiences, often without a sustained interrogation of the paradigmatic, methodological, and epistemological assumptions underpinning the research (Breier, 2005; Cooper et al., 2017). Recent work in South Africa (Akindolani, 2023; Bolton et al., 2017) and internationally (Astuti et al., 2022; Bohlinger, 2017; Stojanovska-Georgievska et al., 2023) illustrates both the growth and fragmentation of RPL methodological research. Consequently, there is a critical need to reflect on how RPL research is conceptualised, what counts as knowledge in RPL studies, and how research methods can be deployed to advance justice-oriented and context-responsive outcomes.
As a scholar who transitioned from the natural sciences—having previously conducted research in biochemistry and nanotechnology—into the social sciences and higher education, my own journey into RPL scholarship has been shaped by the challenges of navigating unfamiliar conceptual terrains, methodological expectations, and disciplinary norms. This personal migration across fields highlighted the absence of consolidated frameworks that speak to the complexity of RPL research. For emerging researchers entering the field, particularly those coming from other domains, the fragmented nature of the literature can be disorienting. It becomes imperative, therefore, to offer robust, theoretically grounded, and methodologically diverse frameworks that illuminate how RPL research can be thoughtfully and rigorously designed. This study emerges from that need—not only to theorise RPL research but also to demystify its complexity in ways that are accessible to both new and seasoned scholars.
RPL continues to play a critical role in widening participation, fostering lifelong learning, and advancing equity in higher education. Yet, despite its policy visibility and practical application, the research underpinning RPL remains methodologically fragmented and conceptually under-theorised. To address this gap, this article undertakes a conceptual scoping review that systematically maps and synthesises RPL scholarship published between 2000 and 2025. Drawing from global and South African contexts, the review integrates insights from qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods traditions to theorise a multidisciplinary framework for RPL research. This approach bridges conceptual and methodological divides, advancing both rigour and inclusivity in future RPL scholarship.
This study addresses a key gap in the literature by theorising RPL research through a multidimensional lens that embraces qualitative, quantitative, and multidisciplinary methodologies. While this paper advocates for multidisciplinary awareness, it does not prescribe this as the only legitimate approach; rather, the framework serves as a flexible guide for context-specific research design. Recognising RPL as a deeply contextual, experiential, and socially embedded practice, it argues for both epistemological inclusivity and methodological flexibility. Rather than endorsing a single “correct” method, the study explores how diverse paradigms—constructivist, critical, feminist, decolonial—can shape research design, and how approaches such as narrative inquiry, digital storytelling, surveys, and participatory action research can deepen understanding.
Crucially, RPL is framed not merely as a mechanism for access or credit, but as a transformative and political process that challenges dominant knowledge hierarchies and affirms diverse ways of knowing. As such, researching RPL becomes an act of epistemic negotiation—demanding ethical reflexivity, criticality, and responsiveness to questions of power, identity, and recognition (Michelson & Mandell, 2023). While RPL implementation is increasingly documented, much of the scholarship remains fragmented, with limited theoretical or methodological coherence (Breier, 2001, 2005). There is a lack of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, and methodologically rigorous framework to guide research on RPL (Baumeler et al., 2023; Hazin et al., 2023; Stephens, 2022). This study responds with a comprehensive framework structured around six pillars, offering guidance for rigorous, justice-oriented RPL research that reimagines whose knowledge counts in higher education.
Research Questions for this study: 1. How can RPL research in higher education be theorised across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods paradigms? 2. What interdisciplinary perspectives can enrich the design and interpretation of RPL research? 3. How can a methodologically pluralist approach support more equitable, inclusive, and context-sensitive understandings of RPL in higher education?
Methodology
This study employed a conceptual and integrative literature review methodology, informed by principles of scoping reviews and critical interpretivism (Braun & Clarke, 2021; Ryan, 2018). The aim was not to generate primary empirical data, but to synthesise and theorise methodological approaches to RPL research across higher education.
Data Generation
Between January and June 2025, a systematic scoping of literature was undertaken using three major databases: Scopus, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar. The following search terms were applied in various combinations: Recognition of Prior Learning, RPL, prior learning assessment, higher education, research design, qualitative methods, quantitative methods, mixed methods, interdisciplinary. Studies were included if they: focused on RPL within higher education contexts, explicitly addressed research methodologies, or offered theoretical or conceptual insights relevant to RPL, were published between 2000–2025 (with earlier seminal works retained where foundational). Exclusion criteria included studies that addressed RPL solely at vocational or workplace training levels without connection to higher education, and articles without a methodological or conceptual component. Approximately 115 sources were initially identified, of which 62 met the inclusion criteria after screening of abstracts and full texts.
Data Analysis
An iterative thematic synthesis approach was adopted. Literature was critically read and organised into conceptual clusters, including: (a) theoretical foundations of RPL, (b) qualitative approaches, (c) quantitative approaches, (d) mixed-methods studies, (e) multidisciplinary perspectives, (f) ethical and epistemological considerations, and (g) future research directions. Reflexive memoing was used throughout to capture emerging insights. The analysis was further informed by critical interpretivism, acknowledging the interpretive nature of knowledge synthesis and the author’s positionality as a researcher transitioning from the natural sciences into social sciences. This reflexive stance allowed for the identification of gaps and tensions in how RPL has been studied.
Theme Development
Theme generation occurred through repeated reading, coding, and synthesis until conceptual saturation was achieved. The six “pillars” presented in the results section emerged inductively from this analytic process. Each pillar represents a synthesis of recurring patterns, theoretical traditions, and methodological strategies across the reviewed literature. For example, “Pillar 2: Qualitative Approaches” synthesises narrative inquiry, autoethnography, phenomenology, and case study methodologies as they appear in RPL studies.
Study Rationale
This approach was informed by three key drivers: (1) the fragmented nature of RPL scholarship across policy, pedagogy, and practice; (2) the need for methodological coherence to advance rigour and inclusivity; and (3) the author’s reflexive engagement with navigating disciplinary boundaries in RPL research.
Results and Discussion
Pillar 1: Theoretical Foundations of RPL in Higher Education
Theorising RPL in higher education requires a firm grounding in the multiple knowledge traditions and philosophical underpinnings that inform the practice. RPL is not only an educational intervention but also a socio-political act that challenges conventional notions of learning, knowledge production, and academic legitimacy. To fully grasp its transformative potential, researchers must engage with theoretical frameworks that illuminate the interplay between adult learning, recognition theory, critical pedagogy, and the politics of knowledge.
RPL is deeply rooted in adult learning theory, particularly in the works of (Freire, 2020; Knowles, 1978; Malcolm, 1978; Mezirow, 1991). Knowles’ concept of andragogy emphasizes that adult learners bring a wealth of experience that should be respected and leveraged in the learning process. This foundational principle aligns directly with the philosophy of RPL, which seeks to validate experiential learning acquired outside formal education settings.
Mezirow’s transformative learning theory further contributes to the theoretical scaffolding for RPL by emphasizing critical reflection as a means through which adults reinterpret their life experiences and integrate them into formal learning. Similarly, Freire’s critical pedagogy challenges the hierarchical model of knowledge transmission and encourages dialogical processes, making RPL a potentially radical act of epistemic empowerment (Freire, 2020).
In the context of higher education, these theories highlight the need to move beyond content-focused pedagogy towards recognising the identity, agency, and voice of adult learners. When RPL is seen through this lens, research must investigate not only learning outcomes but also learner transformation, identity negotiation, and systemic barriers to recognition.
Recognition theory, particularly as developed (Fraser, 1995; Honneth, 1996), offers a philosophical foundation for understanding RPL as a socially situated process. Honneth’s theory emphasizes the role of recognition in the formation of personal identity and self-worth, highlighting how misrecognition or non-recognition can produce marginalisation and alienation. Fraser complements this view by arguing for a dual approach to justice: redistribution (material equity) and recognition (cultural-symbolic equity).
Applied to RPL, these theories frame recognition as both a personal and political act. RPL validates an individual’s knowledge while also challenging institutional structures that have historically excluded certain knowledges—particularly those of indigenous peoples, working-class communities, and marginalised racial or gender identities (Osman, 2004; Walker, 2009).
Research that draws on recognition theory must grapple with how RPL policies and practices are shaped by—and potentially resist—hegemonic structures of knowledge. For example, (Osman, 2004) documents how RPL in South African universities often involves a process of “assimilation” into academic norms, rather than genuine recognition of alternative epistemologies. Such insights demand a more critical and theoretically informed research design.
RPL also draws from critical pedagogy’s concern with power, curriculum, and the reproduction of social inequalities in education. As Giroux (2024) argued, education is not neutral—it either reinforces or disrupts existing power dynamics (Giroux, 2024). RPL has the potential to do both, depending on how it is conceptualised and implemented. Transformative RPL practice requires a pedagogy that engages learners as knowers and meaning-makers, not just as recipients of institutional validation. From a research perspective, this demands methodologies that are participatory, reflective, and open to co-construction of meaning. Action research, participatory research, and narrative inquiry thus become more than methods; they are ethical and political choices aligned with RPL’s transformative agenda.
In postcolonial contexts, the knowledge recognition imperative intersects with the need to decolonise the university. RPL can act as a decolonising practice by valuing local, indigenous, and experiential knowledges that are often excluded from formal academic recognition (Harris et al., 2011). However, as scholars such as (Shelembe, 2021) have argued, this decolonisation is not automatic—it requires a fundamental rethinking of whose knowledge is valued, and on what terms. Postcolonial theory therefore adds a critical edge to RPL research, pushing it to question the epistemological assumptions embedded in assessment criteria, curriculum design, and institutional policy. For instance, research might interrogate how African ways of knowing are engaged or side-lined within RPL processes, or how language and cultural capital influence recognition outcomes.
Pillar 2: Qualitative Approaches to RPL Research
Qualitative research is indispensable to the study of RPL because it enables scholars to engage with the lived experiences, emotions, identities, and narratives of learners, practitioners, and policy actors. RPL is deeply personal and context-dependent; therefore, capturing its nuances requires methods that are interpretive, dialogic, and reflexive. This Pillar explores various qualitative research designs suitable for RPL, highlighting their contributions, limitations, and practical applications in higher education.
Learning Theories and the Relevance in RPL Research
By distilling complex paradigmatic orientations into a comparative table, this resource serves as a navigational aid for new scholars. It provides a clear reference point to understand how research worldviews shape the questions we ask, the methods we choose, and the voices we amplify in RPL research. For researchers coming from fields such as the natural sciences—who may be unfamiliar with these paradigmatic distinctions—this table becomes particularly useful in making RPL research design accessible, coherent, and socially grounded (Breier, 2005; Cooper et al., 2017; Michelson & Mandell, 2023).
Research Paradigms and the Application in RPL Research
Narrative inquiry is one of the most powerful methods for RPL research because it centres storytelling as a way of knowing. It allows researchers to examine how adult learners make sense of their learning journeys, identity transformations, and encounters with recognition systems. Clandinin and Connelly (2004) argue that narratives are not just representations of experience—they are experience. In the RPL context, this resonates with the process of learners articulating and legitimising their own knowledge through portfolios, interviews, and reflective accounts (Clandinin & Connelly, 2004).
Autoethnography, as a related approach, enables researchers who are also RPL practitioners or candidates to use personal experience as a lens to understand broader cultural and institutional dynamics (Bochner & Ellis, 2016). This method supports the integration of self-reflection and critical analysis, bridging the gap between personal narrative and scholarly theorisation. For example, an RPL advisor might use autoethnography to interrogate how institutional policies constrain or enable recognition, while also reflecting on their own role in navigating power asymmetries.
These approaches align with Freire’s (1970) call for education as a practice of freedom, giving voice to learners who have traditionally been silenced or excluded in formal academia (Freire, 1970). They are particularly suited for RPL research that foregrounds social justice, marginalisation, and epistemic recognition.
Phenomenological research focuses on understanding the essence of lived experiences. Applied to RPL, this might involve investigating how learners experience the process of recognition, including the emotional, cognitive, and affective dimensions of being assessed for knowledge acquired outside formal learning. Researchers such as van Manen (2016) suggest that phenomenology helps us grasp not just what people experience, but how they experience it, and what it means to them (Van Manen, 2016). Phenomenology is ideal for small-scale, in-depth studies with adult learners navigating RPL processes. For example, a study might explore the anxiety and pride experienced by adult learners when compiling an RPL portfolio or the relief and validation felt upon receiving formal academic credit. These studies often generate thick, textured data that can challenge deficit-based narratives about non-traditional learners. Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) also allows researchers to examine how learners make sense of their learning histories in relation to institutional norms and expectations. This kind of research can surface critical tensions—for instance, between learner agency and institutional gatekeeping, or between personal knowledge and disciplinary standards.
Case study methodology is another foundational qualitative approach that lends itself well to RPL research. (Rule, 2024) describes case studies as ideal for exploring complex, context-bound phenomena in depth. In RPL, case studies can illuminate institutional practices, policy enactments, or specific programmatic innovations in detail. For instance, a single university’s approach to RPL in a teacher education programme might serve as a case study to analyse how pedagogical, administrative, and assessment practices intersect to either support or hinder recognition. Case study research can be intrinsic (focused on a unique context), instrumental (used to understand a broader issue), or collective (drawing on multiple cases) (Lichtman, 2023; Rule, 2024). In RPL research, collective case studies are particularly useful for comparative analysis across institutions, sectors, or countries. Such work contributes to global dialogue about best practices and policy harmonisation, while still attending to local realities.
Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a particularly ethical and democratic approach to RPL research. It positions participants as co-researchers and agents of change, rather than subjects of investigation (Kemmis et al., 2013). In the context of RPL, this method allows adult learners, community members, or practitioners to contribute to every stage of the research—from design to data collection, analysis, and dissemination. PAR has been used effectively in community-based RPL initiatives, particularly in the global South, where local knowledges are often side-lined by formal academic systems (Cooper et al., 2017). For example, a participatory project might involve artisan workers mapping their competencies and co-developing assessment tools with university staff. This not only empowers learners but also challenges hegemonic standards of what counts as academic knowledge. Moreover, PAR can lead to institutional learning by creating spaces for mutual reflection among stakeholders. In RPL research, this is crucial for surfacing systemic blind spots, such as cultural bias in assessment or structural barriers in admission policies.
Discourse analysis is a method for examining how language constructs reality. In RPL research, this can be a powerful way to study policy documents, institutional communications, assessment rubrics, and even learner narratives to reveal underlying ideologies and power relations. Fairclough’s (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), for example, is useful for examining how institutional texts frame RPL—as a ‘second chance’, an ‘alternative’, or a ‘burden’—and how such framings reinforce or resist dominant discourses of academic meritocracy (Fairclough, 2013). Researchers like Osman (2004) have applied discourse analysis to critique how RPL is implemented in ways that often demand assimilation to dominant academic norms, rather than genuinely recognising alternative ways of knowing (Osman, 2004). Discourse analysis thus enables RPL scholars to interrogate how language shapes recognition processes, whose knowledge is validated, and who is left out of the recognition agenda.
Qualitative research is not without challenges. It can be time-consuming, difficult to generalise, and vulnerable to researcher bias. In the context of RPL, ethical issues also arise—particularly around confidentiality, informed consent, and the potential re-traumatisation of learners who reflect on exclusionary educational experiences. Researchers must adopt ethical reflexivity and ensure their work does not replicate the very forms of misrecognition it seeks to redress (Tronto, 2020). Moreover, power dynamics between researchers and participants—especially in autoethnographic or participatory designs—must be navigated with care, humility, and transparency (Tronto, 2020). Data must be co-owned, and findings must benefit those who contributed to them.
Pillar 3: Quantitative Approaches to RPL Research
While RPL is often rooted in personal histories and contextual experiences, quantitative research plays a critical role in validating its outcomes, informing policy decisions, and contributing to comparative studies across institutions and countries. Quantitative approaches enable researchers to track patterns, evaluate impact, and draw generalisable conclusions from large datasets—crucial for strengthening the credibility and institutional buy-in of RPL systems in higher education. This Pillar explores key quantitative methods applicable to RPL research, discusses the kinds of questions they can address, and highlights the challenges of working with numerical data in a field traditionally focused on narrative and experiential forms of knowledge.
Descriptive statistical analysis is the foundation of any quantitative RPL research. It allows researchers to examine basic patterns in how RPL is used and experienced—for instance: I. How many students access RPL pathways annually? II. What percentage of candidates succeed in gaining credits? III. What is the gender, age, or socio-economic distribution of RPL applicants?
By working with institutional datasets, researchers can produce baseline metrics that reveal participation trends and identify underrepresented groups. For example, a study by Harris et al. (2011) found that, across several South African institutions, the uptake of RPL was significantly lower among female learners from rural areas, despite policy intentions to increase access (Harris et al., 2011).
Furthermore, descriptive data can inform the development of indicators for institutional performance in RPL—such as credit conversion rates, assessment turnaround times, or learner satisfaction ratings. These metrics support internal quality assurance and help justify the allocation of resources.
Whilst, inferential statistics enable researchers to go beyond description and test hypotheses or assess relationships between variables. This is particularly useful for exploring questions such as: I. Does prior work experience predict success in higher education for RPL candidates? II. Are there statistically significant differences in academic performance between RPL and traditional students? III. What is the impact of RPL support interventions (e.g., mentorship programmes) on learner outcomes?
Using techniques such as t-tests, ANOVA, and regression analysis, researchers can evaluate whether differences observed in the data are meaningful or due to chance. For example, Wihak (2007) found that, in some Canadian institutions, RPL students performed equally or better than their non-RPL peers, challenging the myth that experiential learners lack academic readiness (Wihak, 2007). Regression models can also be used to identify predictors of RPL success—such as years of experience, level of education, or type of assessment method. Such findings can be critical for designing evidence-based interventions to support applicants more effectively.
Structured surveys are a powerful way to gather data at scale from students, staff, or employers involved in RPL processes. They allow for the collection of both quantitative and categorical data (e.g., Likert-scale responses, yes/no questions, or multiple-choice items). Surveys can explore themes such as learner perceptions of fairness and transparency in the RPL process, staff attitudes towards the credibility of RPL and employer recognition of qualifications obtained through RPL.
Validated instruments can be adapted or developed to fit the RPL context. For example, one could design a “Perceived Value of RPL Scale” to assess how learners interpret the legitimacy and usefulness of their RPL achievements in relation to formal education. Survey data, when triangulated with institutional records or qualitative interviews, can offer a fuller picture of the RPL landscape—helping researchers to move from anecdotal evidence to systemic insights. Quantitative research becomes especially valuable when extended over time. Longitudinal studies allow researchers to track cohorts of RPL learners to assess changes in academic performance, retention, graduation rates, and post-graduation outcomes. This type of research answers pressing questions about the long-term effectiveness of RPL, such as: I. Do RPL students complete their qualifications at the same rate as traditional-entry students? II. What are the employment trajectories of RPL graduates? III. Does RPL contribute to social mobility over time?
For instance, a longitudinal study in Australia, tracked adult learners who entered vocational programmes via RPL and found that, five years later, many had advanced into supervisory or managerial roles—demonstrating the capacity of RPL to promote career progression (Smith et al., 2009). These studies require sustained data collection and collaboration with institutions, but their findings are powerful for advocating policy and funding support. Quantitative RPL research is also essential for benchmarking and comparative analysis. Institutions or countries can use shared indicators to compare RPL models and practices. Comparative data can inform national policy dialogues and promote the alignment of RPL frameworks with broader qualifications systems (e.g., SAQA in South Africa or EQF in Europe). For example, the European Inventory on Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning, Garrouste, 2011 aggregates national statistics to map RPL practices across EU member states, offering a rich database for policy benchmarking (Garrouste, 2011). Cross-country comparisons also help contextualise challenges—such as assessment costs, institutional resistance, or learner barriers—and show how different systems innovate in response. Quantitative research in RPL is not without limitations. Firstly, RPL processes are complex, non-linear, and influenced by social and emotional factors that are difficult to capture through numbers alone. Quantitative data can obscure the richness of learner experiences and may risk reducing learning to standardised metrics.
Additionally, data availability and quality can pose significant barriers. Many institutions do not collect RPL-specific data systematically, or they may merge it with other forms of access data, making disaggregation difficult. Ethical concerns also emerge when learners’ personal histories are converted into decontextualised data points without adequate safeguards or contextualisation. Researchers must therefore approach quantitative RPL research with caution, ensuring that indicators are meaningful, data is disaggregated to reveal inequalities, and statistical findings are contextually interpreted.
Pillar 4: Multidisciplinary Frameworks in RPL Research
In grappling with the layered complexities of RPL, higher education research cannot afford to be unidimensional. RPL operates at the intersection of education, labour, identity, equity, and policy—demanding a research lens that embraces this interconnectedness. A multidisciplinary approach offers precisely this: a means to draw from multiple fields to theorise, problematize, and advance RPL research.
This Pillar demonstrates how integrating disciplines—such as education, psychology, sociology, economics, labour studies, and even philosophy—can yield deeper, more complex understandings of RPL. It also shows how multidisciplinary perspectives allow us to foreground questions of power, justice, and transformation while still engaging with practical, institutional concerns. Educational theory is the bedrock of RPL research. Adult learning theories—especially those that centre experience, such as Knowles’ (1978) Andragogy, Mezirow’s (1991) Transformative Learning, and Freire’s (1970) Critical Pedagogy—provide a robust foundation for understanding how informal, experiential, and non-formal learning can be recognized within formal systems. From this perspective, RPL becomes more than just credit allocation; it becomes a pedagogical act that redefines who is considered a “knower” in higher education. Curriculum studies scholars like (Yosso, 2005) argues for “community cultural wealth” as a framework for valuing the knowledge that marginalized learners bring, thereby resisting deficit-based models. Integrating such views in RPL research helps challenge hidden curricula and elitist academic gatekeeping (Yosso, 2005). For instance, a curriculum researcher might examine how RPL portfolios assess “learning outcomes” in ways that may disadvantage learners from Indigenous or working-class communities unless those outcomes are critically redefined.
Sociological theory enriches RPL research by situating individual learner experiences within broader structures of power and inequality. Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural capital, habitus, and field are particularly useful in analyzing how RPL can both disrupt and reproduce inequalities. For instance, learners who possess dominant forms of capital (e.g., fluent in institutional language, confident with academic writing) may be more successful in RPL processes, while those with equally valid but differently expressed knowledge may struggle. A sociological lens questions the neutrality of RPL assessments and advocates for more inclusive and reflexive approaches. Case in point: (Breier, 2005) found that in South African universities, RPL often privileged middle-class professionals over blue-collar workers due to their ability to present prior learning in institutionally recognized formats. Furthermore, the sociology of work and professions can inform RPL’s relevance for labour market mobility, skill valuation, and class stratification, especially when qualifications serve as social sorting mechanisms.
Psychological approaches offer valuable insights into RPL candidates’ inner experiences—highlighting motivation, identity transformation, and emotional resilience. Theories like Erikson’s psychosocial development and McClusky’s Theory of Margin illuminate the challenges faced by adult learners juggling work, family, and study, often while overcoming past educational traumas. Autoethnographic studies (e.g., Andersson et al., 2017) reveal how RPL can catalyse powerful identity shifts—from exclusion to validation. A psychologically informed lens thus expands RPL research to include healing, empowerment, and personal agency alongside structural critique. Using an economic perspective, RPL can be analyzed in terms of cost-benefit, return on investment, and workforce efficiency. Human capital theory—though critiqued for its instrumentalism—has driven much of the policy interest in RPL, especially in contexts of skills shortages, demographic shifts, and lifelong learning agendas.
Quantitative economic models can be used to: I. Calculate the monetary value of prior learning credits. II. Compare the costs of traditional vs. RPL-based learning pathways. III. Predict the wage and employment gains for RPL-certified individuals.
For example, studies in Canada and Australia have demonstrated that RPL can shorten qualification times and reduce educational costs for both institutions and learners—particularly beneficial in vocational and technical sectors (Bohlinger, 2017; Conrad, 2008). However, a critical economic lens (informed by Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach or feminist economics) (Rajapakse, 2016) may instead ask: What should be valued in knowledge? Who decides the value of lived experience? How can RPL resist commodification while still proving useful in economic planning?
Philosophical inquiry brings ethical depth to RPL research by questioning the nature of recognition, the meaning of knowledge, and the moral obligations of institutions. Nancy Fraser’s (1995, 2009) theory of Social Justice—distinguishing between redistribution, recognition, and representation—is especially relevant here (Fraser, 1995, 2009).
RPL research informed by Fraser’s work might ask: Are RPL candidates fairly represented in policy and governance structures? Or if RPL assessment truly “recognizes” knowledge, or merely measure conformity?
Similarly, Charles Taylor’s (2021) work on the “politics of recognition” emphasizes the importance of institutions affirming rather than assimilating diverse knowledges (Taylor, 2021). This aligns with decolonial thinkers like de Sousa Santos (2018), who call for “ecologies of knowledge” and plural epistemologies. Such philosophical grounding elevates RPL from a technical procedure to a matter of educational justice and dignity. Bringing together these disciplinary lenses, RPL researchers can design studies and policies that are holistic, reflexive, and transformative. For example, a multidisciplinary study might: I. Use statistical methods (economics) to evaluate RPL access rates. II. Pair this with interviews (psychology, education) to explore learner motivations. III. Analyze assessment tools (curriculum studies) to surface bias. IV. Interpret findings using theories of justice (philosophy) and social reproduction (sociology).
This integration enables not only richer research but also more robust and human-centred policy recommendations. It echoes the call by Harris et al. (2011) for RPL to be situated “within the intersection of adult education, social policy, and epistemic democracy (Harris et al., 2011).”
Pillar 5: Designing Robust RPL Research Studies
Building on the theoretical, methodological, and multidisciplinary insights discussed, this Pillar outlines how to design robust RPL research studies in higher education. A hallmark RPL research design is one that is methodologically sound, ethically grounded, contextually relevant, and socially responsive. This Pillar provides practical guidance on how researchers—especially emerging scholars—can craft such designs by aligning their research questions, theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and methods with the complexities of RPL. A strong research design begins with a clear purpose. In RPL research, this could range from understanding learner experiences, evaluating policy effectiveness, assessing institutional implementation, or theorising RPL as a social justice tool.
Example research questions might include: I. How do adult learners in rural contexts experience RPL in relation to identity and transformation? II. To what extent does institutional RPL policy align with national social justice goals? III. What are the demographic patterns of access and success in RPL programs across universities?
Each of these questions would demand different methodological approaches—qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods—as discussed in earlier Pillars.
A theoretical framework gives structure and critical depth to the study. For example: (a) A transformative learning lens would be appropriate for studying learner identity shifts during the RPL process (Mezirow, 1991). (b) A social justice framework rooted in Fraser’s (1995) theory can help interrogate equity and representation within RPL policies (Fraser, 1995). (c) Bourdieu’s theory of capital would support studies examining how institutional RPL practices reproduce or resist social hierarchies (Bourdieu, 2011).
Researchers must ensure that their chosen theoretical frameworks are not only conceptually aligned but also sensitive to the lived realities of adult learners and the contexts in which RPL occurs. The methodology should reflect the nature of the research problem. For example: I. Narrative and autoethnographic methodologies (Chang, 2008; Ellis, 2004) are powerful for capturing lived experience and personal transformation in RPL. II. Case study methodology is well-suited for institutional-level analyses of RPL policy and implementation. III. Critical ethnography allows researchers to examine power dynamics in assessment panels or curriculum design teams. IV. Quantitative survey research can measure trends, patterns, and statistical relationships, such as RPL success rates by demographic group.
Importantly, in the context of RPL, methodologies should often be human-centred, participatory, and reflexive. Data collection methods must be chosen carefully to align with the research purpose. Examples include: I. Interviews and focus groups: To explore perceptions of recognition, fairness, or transformation among RPL candidates. II. Document and policy analysis: To evaluate the alignment of institutional practices with national RPL mandates. III. Portfolio and artifact analysis: To study how knowledge is presented, interpreted, and assessed in RPL submissions. IV. Surveys and institutional datasets: To explore access, throughput, or demographic trends.
For analysis: I. Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) can uncover patterns in learner narratives or institutional discourse. II. Discourse analysis may reveal how RPL policies construct particular learner identities or notions of “valid knowledge.” III. Statistical analysis—such as regression or ANOVA—can compare RPL outcomes across different contexts or groups.
Example: In a mixed-methods study, a researcher might use a survey to map RPL access trends across institutions (quantitative) and follow this up with in-depth interviews (qualitative) to explore the barriers behind these trends.
Ethical Considerations in RPL Research
Ethical sensitivity is vital when researching RPL, particularly because it often involves vulnerable or historically excluded populations. Key ethical principles include: I. Informed consent and confidentiality—especially in institutional or policy critiques. II. Empowerment—research should aim to validate and amplify the voices of RPL learners. III. Reflexivity—the researcher must remain aware of their own biases, power, and positioning, particularly when involved in the RPL system (Kimberley, 2021; Pillow, 2003) (e.g., as an assessor or academic).
The ethics of recognition itself is also relevant: how can researchers avoid replicating the very epistemic injustices RPL seeks to undo? To be impactful and credible, RPL research must demonstrate methodological rigour. Strategies include: I. Triangulation—using multiple methods or sources to verify findings. II. Member checking—inviting participants to comment on or verify interpretations. III. Thick description—providing detailed contextualization to allow for transferability. IV. Audit trails—keeping clear documentation of analytical decisions.
In quantitative research, this includes ensuring validity, reliability, and appropriate statistical modelling.
Given the applied nature of RPL, researchers must consider how findings are shared. Academic publications should be complemented by policy briefs, presentations to practitioners, and community dissemination. Use accessible language to ensure that RPL candidates and practitioners—not just scholars—can engage with the research. Design outputs that feed back into the system (Van Ginkel et al., 2015) for instance, a framework for inclusive assessment design, or a checklist for RPL policy alignment with social justice goals. A well-designed study should be usable—not only in theory but also in practice (Evergreen, 2017).
Pillar 6: Challenges and Future Directions in RPL Research
RPL research has emerged as a vital contributor to lifelong learning, widening access, and equity in higher education. However, the field is still maturing and grapples with persistent methodological, epistemological, structural, and socio-political challenges that must be addressed to sustain its transformative power. This pillar identifies those key challenges and outlines future directions for scholars theorising and conducting RPL research. RPL scholarship often struggles with methodological coherence. Because RPL intersects multiple disciplines, research designs vary widely, and it is difficult to establish consistent standards. Some studies rely heavily on anecdotal or practitioner insights without adequate rigour, while others privilege quantitative indicators that overlook the deeply personal and transformative nature of recognition (Cooper et al., 2017; Michelson & Mandell, 2023). Mixed-methods research remains promising but is frequently unbalanced, with quantitative components dominating (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Mertens, 2007). Future RPL research must aim for genuine methodological integration—where qualitative and quantitative approaches are interwoven to enrich interpretation (Maxwell, 2013; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). It should also make its analytic processes explicit through strategies such as reflexive memoing and transparent coding.
Critical questions include: I. How can methodological diversity strengthen rather than fragment the field? II. What counts as rigour in RPL research conducted across different paradigms?
Despite the rhetoric of inclusion, RPL in higher education continues to privilege Western, formal, and academic knowledge systems, reproducing exclusions it seeks to redress (Harris, 2014). This constitutes forms of epistemic injustice (Collett et al., 2024) where indigenous, experiential, or working-class knowledges are undervalued. Engaging with decolonial and feminist epistemologies—and African philosophies such as ubuntu—offers ways to re-centre local and embodied knowledges (Letseka, 2012; Ngubane & Makua, 2021).
Future research must actively interrogate: I. What counts as knowledge in RPL research? II. Who decides which knowledge is recognised? III. How can recognition be made more just, inclusive, and dialogical?
Progressive national policies often falter in implementation because of bureaucratic, financial, and human-capacity constraints (Mantashe, 2023). Practitioners may lack assessment expertise; universities may resist alternative credentialing; departments may guard disciplinary boundaries. Research imperatives must seek to identify contradictions between policy and practice, document successful institutional RPL models and test their transferability and develop practical tools and frameworks that enable institutions to move from compliance-driven to justice-driven implementation (Harris et al., 2011). As RPL becomes institutionalised, it risks reduction to a technical or administrative mechanism for meeting enrolment targets rather than a human-centred, justice-oriented process (Bohlinger, 2017). Future research should: I. Embed critical reflexivity in study design. II. Hold institutions accountable to transformative mandates. III. Ensure learners’ voices and agency remain central
RPL research remains clustered in certain regions—South Africa, Australia, Canada, the UK—with limited cross-regional collaboration (Andersson et al., 2017; Penuel et al., 2020). Disciplinary silos also persist, with limited dialogue among education, sociology, psychology, labour studies, and economics. Comparative and transnational studies—especially across the Global South—are essential for developing contextually grounded yet globally relevant understandings (Akindolani, 2023). Emerging research demonstrates the need to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies into RPL research methodologies. AI-enhanced approaches can improve assessment transparency, automate portfolio analysis, and generate personalised learner pathways, offering new modes of inquiry that transcend traditional qualitative–quantitative divides. For instance, Rambharose (2025) demonstrates how constructivist, AI-enabled frameworks can deepen our understanding of prior learning by aligning digital andragogy with human-centred recognition practices. Such innovations expand the methodological repertoire of RPL research—enabling mixed-methods, data-driven, and participatory designs that foreground learner agency while ensuring ethical and equitable use of technology. Integrating these technological perspectives positions RPL scholarship at the forefront of the digital transformation of higher education (Rambharose, 2025).
To strengthen the field, RPL research can: I. Foster interdisciplinary collaboration among education, labour, policy, and philosophy. II. Engage decolonial epistemologies and Global South perspectives to resist assimilationist recognition models. III. Leverage digital innovation (AI, e-portfolios, digital storytelling) to enhance transparency and learner agency IV. Empower learners as co-researchers through participatory and emancipatory designs V. Undertake longitudinal studies to trace sustained impact on learners’ academic and career trajectories
By addressing these challenges and pursuing these directions, RPL research can evolve into a mature, methodologically coherent field that informs policy and practice while advancing epistemic justice and human dignity in higher education.
Conclusion and Recommendations for RPL Research Design
To enhance the relevance, credibility, and impact of RPL research, future directions should include fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, embracing decolonial and Global South epistemologies, and leveraging digital innovations like AI and e-portfolios for ethical recognition practices. Participatory models should empower RPL learners as co-researchers, while global comparative studies can offer valuable insights across contexts. Longitudinal research is essential to trace the sustained impact of RPL on learners’ lives, and critical engagement with policy can help shape more equitable, context-sensitive frameworks that truly centre the learner.
This study set out to theorise RPL research through qualitative, quantitative, and multidisciplinary lenses, focusing on its positioning within higher education. Drawing from critical, constructivist, feminist, and decolonial paradigms, the discussion illustrated the importance of methodological plurality and epistemological reflexivity in designing robust and inclusive RPL research. What emerges is a compelling call for RPL scholars to embrace complexity, critique power, and foreground the humanity of adult learners.
This study responded to the following research question:
How can RPL research in higher education be theorised and designed using qualitative, quantitative, and multidisciplinary methodologies to ensure rigour, inclusivity, and social justice outcomes? The study addressed a critical gap in the literature: the absence of a consolidated, theoretical, and practical framework for designing RPL research that acknowledges the ontological and epistemological diversity of learners, the interdisciplinary nature of RPL, and the challenges of institutional implementation. Most existing RPL literature either prioritizes policy, practice, or specific methodologies in isolation. By integrating methodological and theoretical insights, this study provides a foundational reference for researchers, educators, and policymakers seeking to contribute to a transformative RPL research agenda.
Several key themes have emerged across the six pillars from this study, in summary RPL research demands a recognition of the multiplicity of knowledge forms—embodied, experiential, indigenous, and practical—challenging traditional academic hierarchies. It requires methodological integration that is contextually relevant, theoretically sound, and ethically grounded. As a deeply social justice-oriented practice, RPL affirms the right of individuals to have their lived experiences recognised and valued. Researchers must remain reflexive about their positionality, acknowledging how their disciplinary lenses and power dynamics shape the research process. Ultimately, RPL research must engage with systemic realities and institutional structures to drive meaningful, transformative change in higher education.
Drawing from this study’s insights, future RPL research should adopt a human-centred philosophy that privileges the lived experiences, identities, and voices of RPL candidates in shaping inquiry. Researchers are encouraged to select methods intentionally—guided by research aims—and to innovate where appropriate, such as through arts-based inquiry, ethnography, or longitudinal design. Interdisciplinary thinking should inform not just references but conceptual frameworks, ethical practices, and analysis, drawing from fields like education, sociology, and indigenous studies. Reflexivity and positionality must be embedded throughout, acknowledging the researcher’s own influence (Kimberley, 2021; Pillow, 2003). A decolonial stance is crucial—centering indigenous knowledge systems, reciprocity, and community collaboration. Participatory and transformative methodologies, including feminist and action research, can democratize the research process. Importantly, RPL research should aim for contextual sensitivity with translatability across settings, while engaging policy actors to create usable tools and sustainable models. As digital tools become integral to RPL, ethical innovation is required to ensure inclusivity, data protection, and learner agency. Lastly, to maximize impact, research should be disseminated across diverse platforms—academic and public—to broaden its reach and relevance.
When designing RPL research, it is essential to ensure conceptual clarity and methodological integrity. Researchers should begin with a clear purpose aligned with social justice, lifelong learning, or transformative educational practice. The study must be grounded in relevant theoretical frameworks—such as adult learning theories or critical paradigms—that align with the research question. Attention should be paid to institutional and policy contexts, ethical considerations, inclusivity in participant engagement, and methods that value experiential and prior learning. Reflective, human-centred approaches and a clear contribution to practice, policy, or theory are also critical. This framework supports meaningful, credible, and contextually responsive RPL research. At its core, RPL research is not just about recognition—it is about reclaiming dignity. It asks us to honour the knowledge that lives in hands, hearts, histories, and communities. It requires a research ethic that is relational, humble, and committed to justice. This study has aimed to offer a roadmap for scholars who wish to walk this path—not just to publish, but to contribute meaningfully to transformation in higher education. The future of RPL research lies in bold collaborations, ethical courage, and sustained advocacy. In theorising and reimagining what counts as knowledge, we affirm the humanity of those who were once told their knowledge didn’t count.
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.