June 6…Biesta and Burbules (On Inquiry)
Discuss whether the authors’
depiction of inquiry jibes with your understandings of how social science
research works.
May 23…On Labaree’s Scholar-Practitioner Tension
Note something from this article with which you disagree (note: I assume that reading this paper was a different experience for those with P-12 experience and those without. That said, he made a sufficient number of bold claims so I’m sure everyone can disagree with something he said). Why do you disagree with it? Did Labaree give words to any tensions that you feel as you head down the road of the educational researcher?
I have a few lines of thoughts and questions from reading chapter 3, sorry this is a bit long, I had to break it into a couple of postings.
ReplyDelete1) Biesta and Burbules summarized Dewey’s reconstruction of inquiry as a process with five stages:” (i) a felt difficulty, (ii) its location and definition, (iii) suggestion of possible solution, (iv) development by reasoning of the bearing of the suggestion, (v) further observation and experiment leading to its acceptance or rejection” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p.57). The authors also elaborated on each of the 5 stages in details on page 63.
It seems to me the standard structure or components of research papers in social sciences, as listed below, are basically aligned with Dewey’s process of inquiry.
- abstract
- introduction
- method
- results
- discussion
- conclusion
- reference list
The introduction component of a social science research paper typically first defines a research problem and describes its background information (a felt difficulty, and its location and definition), and forms a hypothesis (suggestion of possible solutions). Then it develops or utilizes certain method(s) to analyze the problem and present the results of the analysis (development by reasoning of the bearing of the suggestion). In the end, it includes discussions and makes conclusions (further observation and experiment leading to its acceptance or rejection).
Did Dewey’s process of inquiry influence the structure of social science research papers, or was the structure of social science research papers that we follow today was established before Dewey?
2) Biesta and Burbules stated that “When our actions indeed bring about a unified situation, this does not mean that the relationships on a conceptual level are identical with the relationships on an existential level. The only thing that can be concluded is that the conclusions reached on a conceptual level are doing what they ought to do in bringing about a unified situation” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p.57). The authors explained it through an example of how a teacher enacted on her hypotheses in her classroom. I would appreciate if someone can give another example in educational research.
In addition, Biesta and Burbules pointed out that to “verify”, in Dewey’s view, “does not mean to establish that a statement about how reality “is” is indeed as realty “is” – to verify an idea means that the relations between actions and consequences specified in the idea has actually happened” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p.69).
One thing I got out of the reading on the connection between conceptual level and existential level and the implication of verification is that in terms of social sciences research, caution is needed in making claims of causal relationships. I’m not sure my understanding is correct. Anyone have other thoughts on this?
I liked the comparison of research papers with Dewey's process of inquiry. I too would be curious to know if Dewey's work is partly responsible for this structure?
DeleteQiao, I echo your last paragraph here as I derived the same understanding regarding practicing thoughtful caution when asserting claims on even the most seemingly causal relationships. It brings me to wonder -
Delete3) The authors mentioned “When applied to new cases, used as resources for coping with new difficulties, the oldest of truths are to some extend remade” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p.70). This makes me think about literature reviews in research papers. When citing previous works in a new research, it is important NOT to take previous research findings out of their contexts and manipulate them into supporting a new research question.
ReplyDelete4) The following quote is my personal favorite, for being so pragmatic and so frank:“The results of educational inquires provide educators with a wider range of alternatives from which to select, in dealing with individual situations. That is all they can do (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p.70). I wonder how many of us entered the field of educational research, more or less had the confidence or enthusiasm of becoming a “change agent” to make education better. Dewey just gave us a punch in the stomach, and knocked us out of that ideology. Perhaps to Dewey, there is no pragmatic value in educational research other than to facilitate critical thinking skills of educational researchers. Nevertheless, I find educational research still valuable even if its impact is more personal than societal. Because collectively, we can still be “change agents” by improving and enforcing the culture of thinking critically.
Qiao – I really appreciate your reference to the literature reviews. I agree with your point about how as researchers we need to keep the findings of previous research into context. I have to think about Dewey’s point about highlighting that “old knowledge” does not guarantee that the same solution to the current issue is applicable. We need to consider different options and be willing to let go of some “old knowledge.”
DeleteDewey’s assertion that inquiry need not rely upon objectivistic perceptions of problems underscores some of the questions with which I grapple regarding investigator bias and subjectivity in social science research. In delineating indeterminate situations as organic occurrences that only shift into problematic circumstances given specific contexts, such a prospect seemingly opens the door to create paradoxical or contradicting statements even in the realm of my own research interests and inquiries regarding the temporal worth of research. The provisional status held by facts and ideas urges me to question with a weighted degree of frustration to justify the narrow and broad values as well as ethics of a prospective longitudinal study I have in mind that involves close observation of at-risk youths. The mention of the “outcome of the process of inquiry” intimately intertwines the ontology of human research subjects and the knowledge gained from studying the complexities and questions that arise from considering the interactions between people in various contexts and circumstances. This chapter heightened a sense of urgency to continue to consider the changing role and results of inquiry within social science research.
ReplyDeleteThe chapter neatly outlines the ways in which the Pragmatic theoretical orientation informs and sustains the actual process of inquiry in educational research, and in an implicit sense, how that process aligns with other disciplinary approaches within the social sciences, broadly defined. In fact, the final paragraph on page 63 is probably the most succinct description of the inquiry process that I have yet come across, and Dewey’s conceptual framework is interwoven seamlessly therein. B&B’s discussion of Dewey’s delineation between existential and conceptual operations of inquiry nicely dovetails with our discussion on the necessity of theory in research, i.e. that without a conceptual framework in place at the outset of our inquiry, we are ill-positioned to fully identify the problem. Slightly less agreeable to me is Dewey’s insistence that “we only know what the problem is at the very moment we are able to solve it”. Perhaps this is simply a bit of Deweyian flair, but the statement strikes as me as needing a bit of unpacking. Or maybe I am just conflating “the problem” with Dewey’s conception of the indeterminate situation which B&B define as immediately resolved when the chosen line of action results in the inquirer’s expected result (i.e. a unified situation).
ReplyDeleteThere are two points in chapter 3 that I found particularly impactful. The first is situated within the authors’ discussion of the proper task of social science and essentially suggests that the impulse toward generalizable outcomes presents a potentially dangerous dilemma for social science researchers. Essential to the social science research project (in toto) is to investigate “questions about the ends and purposes of human (inter)action themselves” not simply the means of achieving certain educational outcomes. B&B are wary of policymakers and politicians who expect “a fix” rather than systematic investigation, pressure that could ultimately marginalize the social researcher’s role to that of a “technician”. Maybe this is the essence of Dewey’s quote which I struggled with above, that identifying the problem before a thorough investigation can result in a misrepresentation of the problem itself.
The second point arises in B&B’s discussion of educational practice, and advances the idea that educators should themselves be “investigators”. That educational research should not be exclusively concerned with research about education, but should also engage and empower teachers in the action of inquiry. I feel like I bring this idea up enough for it to be an annoyance, but I can’t help but think that it presents a fruitful way forward for educational research as a social science, despite the institutional barriers to its realization as common practice.
On the whole, I found this chapter to be the most helpful to date. It gave words to some of my own thoughts regarding inquiry. I have felt pressure to determine a focus for my inquiry. Without realizing it, part of the pressure has manifested itself into a fear of landing on the wrong topic, or to use more recent verbiage, aligning myself with the wrong “discipline”. This chapter was a good reminder that there is no singular end point. To put it in Biesta and Burbules’ (2003) terms, there is “no absolute end to inquiry” (p. 57). It may sound silly, but this statement helped reorient my thinking. Just as I seek to improve education through inquiry, I will also need to seek out ways to refine the inquiry itself.
ReplyDeleteAnother moment in the text that brought clarity was this idea for the need to determine the root problem as apart of inquiry. Too often, I’ve seen reactions and initiatives that ultimately fail because they do not target the source of the “indeterminate situation” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 60). It’s clear that observation and analysis should be important aspects of every process of inquiry. Figuring out who can best identify the problem, whether that be the teacher, the student, the department chair, etc. seems a worthwhile pursuit that I believe often gets ignored in the interest of time and money.
Finally, I appreciated learning about Dewey’s idea of “warranted assertion” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 67). I think as a responsible researcher, I must always qualify my findings. As much as I may long for a p-value to validate my hunch, it’s likely that the same experiment may not generate the same findings in a different context. This thought circles back to idea that inquiry has no end. At best, I hope my research will keep the conversation going or perhaps take it in a new direction, but it should never seek to end the discussion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYikes...too many typos when I posted the first time!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that this chapter was very clear and helpful...although I found the "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" statements playfully juggling my understanding (my experience) with the content.
For me, the statement on page 81: "The idea of improving educational practice in any direct way through educational research should be abandoned - at least, that is, so long as we think of improvement as a process in which education becomes increasingly more perfect" to be truly profound. By removing the idea of excellence as an “end” then we focus on the “means” that help advance our intelligent action. (I am assuming that) we can think of plenty of educational policies that have focused on the end and not the means, and have potentially only explored the indeterminate to determinate transaction in the conceptual realm alone, and not in the existential. In returning to the close of the chapter, the statements articulating the importance of the educator as contributor to educational research, and that educational research is not meant to provide "rules, very much aligned with my ideas of social research. Moreover, the exploration of "old" knowledge is not to dismiss or overturn it, but to build upon or remake it to "refresh" their validity - they (the old knowledge) had to exist in order to continue the cycle of application in new contexts.
I also appreciated the emphasis placed on recognizing that using outcomes from previous research in new context is problematic, not only for the temporal reasons, but because it can become detached from the "warranted assertions" that framed the original research. Like the marshmallow article, we cannot fall prey to assuming that "old" knowledge is infallible or that we need not return to it.
Finally, and in conjunction with the above statement, the authors shared that "No belief is so settled as not to be exposed to further inquiry" (p. 66). This struck me the deepest. In reading article after article about/within my field, I have forgotten that it is not the "acquisition" of knowledge alone. Why did these researchers ask these questions and how were the outcomes woven or released from the canon of art education? Do we (art education) have dogma? Why? How did we get there/here, and what assertions could have new meaning because of our return to these questions in this time and context?
Posted by Jacqueline
ReplyDeleteAccording to Dewey and Biesta and Burbules, the process of inquiry is “the process of the acquisition of knowledge.” More specifically, the process of inquiry seeks to utilize reflection and action to restore coordination. I think of a lack of coordination as some sort of disequilibrium that needs correction. As I attempt to synthesize the process of inquiry, its seems that the Dewey “researcher” would begin with an indeterminate situation, gain some knowledge about “things” leading up to the situation to determine appropriate action. Collectively the previous action seems to lead the researcher to act, observe, symbolize facts, create conceptual solutions which generates data and ideas. Finally, the researcher formulates an action plan. If this action works, the disequilibrium is resolved.
This is the basic understanding that I have of social research. There is a problem, research is completed and added to the knowledge base and sometimes solutions are proposed. The difference between Dewey’s concept of inquiry and social science research seems to be in the temporal. Current social science research may focus too much on trying to generalize results. According to Dewey generalization is not possible because the research conducted is specific to the situation being investigated. The results of the process of inquiry can add to the general body of knowledge but should only be used as a reference point to help the next researcher begin their temporal process of inquiry.
I have always wondered why the research that is found in journals does so little to improve problems. As I now understand (a little better at least), these bodies of work should really serve to inform specific, temporal inquiries conducted in the context of a localized situation. For example, a teacher may draw on the existing research to inform his or her conduction of inquiry specific to his or her classroom. The results of which can only lead to actions for that classroom.
I share your concern, Jacqueline, when you say that you wonder about “why the research that is found in journals does so little to improve problems.” After reading this chapter and writing my blog entry, I’m left wondering if it is enough to contribute to the body of knowledge. How can we do more to help solve and tackle some critical issues in education? One thing that came to mind as I navigate in my doctoral program, is perhaps exploring more the connections between educational research and public policy in the United States.
DeleteThe authors outline Dewey’s structure and ways of navigating through the inquiry process. I appreciated how they clarified the distinction between inquiry and research. “Inquiry refers to all processes of intelligent experimental problem solving, while research denotes the deliberate instigation of intelligent experimental problem solving in order to generate knowledge and understanding.” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, Kindle version, p. 1068).
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about social science research, I agree with the authors about how we need to consider the different processes around a problem, but as we become more knowledgeable about that issue or problem, and consider or explore solutions, some action needs to be connected. As a researcher and educator, I wonder if it is enough to contribute and generate knowledge and understanding of a problem in our society. As I navigate through the courses in my doctoral degree, I would like to explore more the relationship between educational research and public policy in the United States.
Another point that I would like to highlight is how the authors acknowledged that, there is “no absolute end to inquiry.” I agree that it would be impossible for us to know absolute “everything that there is to know.” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, Kindle version, p. 1073).
One of my favorite passages in this chapter, is the idea that’s “there is no guarantee that “old” knowledge will be successful for the solution of the problem at hand, it can at least suggest a variety of different approaches for understanding the situation, interpreting observations, and possible action.” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, Kindle version, p. 1054). I can relate to this point because as researchers and educators, we need to connect to what is going on in our society and think and explore more in-depth the relevant problems affecting our society.
We can use as framework for our research, different perspectives and theories from previous researchers, but as Dewey suggests through his work, it can never remain static. There is a “cycle of action-reflection-action.” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, Kindle version, p. 1054).
- Vivian