I thought Chapter 3 provided an accurate depiction of what scientific inquiry is; however, when I read Dewey’s definitions and how Biesta and Burbules interpret his work I was left wondering if they are being too literal. In other words, are they overanalyzing what inquiry really is and how it works? The authors seem to be totally caught up in the semantics of various definitions such as inquiry, knowledge, etc. Perhaps that was the point.
I tend to agree with the notion from page 57 that there is “no absolute end to inquiry.” This is certainly the case in the hard sciences (eg. atomic theory) but it is also related to educational research. Students change. Teachers change. Times change. A hypothesis or approach made in the 80s may not work as well in today’s twenty-first century classroom. As such, educational research must continue to be ongoing and look for new and relevant approaches that impact the classroom in positive ways.
Where I think Biesta and Burbules really got too caught up in the semantics was their discussion surrounding “knowledge terminating inquiry.” They write that gaining knowledge implies truth. I disagree. If knowledge is taken as truth, then perhaps I would agree with their assessment; however, knowledge to me relates to theories and hypotheses which are always subject to change just as much as it relates to truth and certainty. In other words, perhaps there are two branches of knowledge: definitive truth and beliefs or ideas. The first is hard and concrete while the latter can be subject to change. At any rate, I do not think the acquisition of knowledge regardless of how one defines it terminates inquiry. In fact, I think in many cases new knowledge can be the catalyst for further inquiry. I suppose that gets at the idea of “verification” as presented on page 68. When I consider the need for verification, I am more inclined to go along with the idea that knowledge is permanent truth. However, as I mentioned before, I still believe knowledge can be dynamic and in a constant state of flux in some cases and I definitely believe that to be true in our field, perhaps more so than in others.
In Chapter 3, Biesta and Burbules outline the ways in which Dewey’s theory of the process of inquiry relates to educational inquiry and research. Early on, Biesta and Burbules point out the value in viewing inquiry “as a serial or sequential process,” but that does not necessarily make it linear. My best understanding of this section came from the statement: “It is not that there will be a point at which we can know everything that there is to know, even if that were possible, because every settlement of a situation institutes new conditions that, in turn, occasion new problems (Dewey 1938a, 42), and the cycle begins again” (57). The concept of the cyclical nature of inquiry jibes well with my understanding of how social science research works, and also with my understanding of how Dewey’s wider theories interact with the world. Specifically, I imagine research to often follow the pattern of two steps forward and one step back as new results arise, but also, prior concepts/ideas are recycled and remade with the intention of combining the best of the old and the new. Dewey’s statement helped me to picture social science research as a series of overlapping occurrences in which inquiry arises from different problematic situations, but there may be longer term connections between a variety of hypotheses and results.
Another section that I found thought provoking and would hope to discuss further, was in the final section of the chapter called “The Educator as Investigator.” Biesta and Burbules put forth the idea that “Dewey is arguing, therefore, that educational research should not simply be research on education and educators but should involve educators themselves in a meaningful way” (81). I would like to consider the implications of this statement and perhaps even juxtapose Dewey’s vision with our earlier reading of Labaree.
I was surprised by the similarities of social science research and the authors’ depiction of inquiry. Whereas some of the reading or ideas that are presented are quite “airy” and leaves me thinking about how it ties to real, every day life, in a practical and uncomplicated way, the explanation and alignment of the steps/stages of the process of inquiry to social science research was simple to follow. The stages of the process of inquiry and the process that researchers go through when deciding what to study or research are similar. Inquiry starts with an indeterminate situation that becomes a problematic situation once a level of awareness is obtained by the person. The example from the book about the teacher sensing a problem that is creating a disruption in the flow of teaching highlights this. Starting with an indeterminant situation and moving through ideas/concepts, such as meaning and implication, facts and data, and the hypothesis outlines the similarities in pragmatic inquiry and social science research. Research involves an awareness of a problem (or some curiosity about a situation), trying to find a way to deal with the problem, and trying out various possible solutions to the problem. The “answer” that we get to as a warranted assertion is like the idea that in research nothing is 100% accurate and true, for many reasons such as random error.
My final thought, that does not directly tie into the question, was the authors’ concluding statements about educators as investigators as an important message about the notion neither research nor direct practice alone is enough in improving education. It is important to remember that the improvement of education is a process and not an end and nothing else should be expected of educational inquiry.
I agree that inquiry is a serial or sequential and has no absolute end. I feel as though this is especially true in education. Education consistently changes as time passes. If you were to look at education today, it would look a lot different than it did years ago. If inquiry were to be definitive, it would not lead to much innovation or enhancement; much like education in general.
I picture inquiry to be like interlocking circles. Just as you think one circle closes and answers are found, it creates new questions and problems to be studied. I believe that educators are curious and solution drive to begin with so this definition of inquiry is very fitting. If we were to just take an answer as the one and only answer, we would not have discovered alternate methods.
Education not only looks at the teaching and learning process, but it also explores human actions. Humans cannot be generalized. Rather, humans are forever changing and unique in their own experiences. This is very similar to inquiry. The reading states, “It is only when such a situation is identified as a problematic situation that inquiry begins and experience turns into the cognitive mode” (p. 58). As teachers, we never know what problems will arise, therefore, must troubleshoot and engage in inquiry with each new experience. If we do not partake in the experience ourselves, I do not believe that we acting as investigators. This is another point that was brought up in the chapter, which I would like to think further about.
Overall, I think the description of the process of inquiry follows along with the steps of research: a problem occurs, a hypothesis is formed to test, the researcher suggests solutions or reasons why the problem may be occurring and then an experiment is conducted. The authors state that problems, “emerge as a result of the identification of an indeterminate situation as being problematic, as being in need of inquiry.” In my opinion, this also falls in line with how I perceive research. Someone identifies a problem or situation in life that they want to understand or explain so they research the problem, hypothesize why it happens and study the problem. Where inquiry and scientific research may differ in some instances is “the actual transformation of a situation.” Research is not always conducted with the aim to change a situation, sometimes it is purely completed to attain knowledge about a situation. For instance, some qualitative studies involve interviewing participants to determine their beliefs or attitudes about a particular “x”. These studies do not seek to change “x” but rather to understand more about it.
The text opens with the review of the reconstructive theory in attempt to explain the logic of inquiry. Throughout the text, Biesta and Burbules, tries to make clear the understanding of inquiry and its impact on knowledge. I was particularly drawn to the section on facts and ideas. Dewey’s idea of the “facts of the case” aligns to the notion of the how social science research works. As a social science researcher, the research agenda is comprised of a complex series of ideas and facts that inform the work.
The process of developing indeterminate situations into facts is the process of research. This creates a pathway to a particular truth that the researcher has the responsibility to use inquiry to get to the outcomes. This goes back to a previous class that we were thinking about the process of gaining knowledge and how it needs to include an action phase. If the goal is to get to a particular truth then Dewey’s logic pushes researchers to grapple with the inquiry, the action and to determine the direction of the meaning.
I would be interested in furthering this discussion with a group of classmates in our program. I think the final section would spark a discussion around the educator as an investigator. It reminds me of the earlier articles in the course that discussed teachers and researchers. I agree with his idea that educational research should include educators in a meaningful way.
While reading Chapter 3, one phrase really stood out to me when thinking about Dewey and his thoughts on inquiry, "Inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole"(p. 59). It made me think of the School of Ed Orientations for Doctoral Students. One of the professors said that our research in education needs to be driven by the need for policy change. I see that policy change is a critical part of inquiry. The breakdown of the inquiry process into the two types of operations, existential (the actual transformation of the situation) and conceptual (reflection or thinking) are both key elements of seeking policy change, which I believe is the a fundamental component of education research and its purpose. We can think of research as understanding best practices for individual school systems or we can widen our net and think of the transformation of a certain situation as in some much bigger than local systems change.
A couple of ideas stood out to me as I read B&B Ch. 3. I like Dewey’s notion that all inquiry starts with a question and that any insights gleaned from the process of inquiry only exist relative to the experiences from which they were derived or to which they were applied. In other words, knowledge and understanding exist temporally and hence are not fixed truths, ineradicable to changes in time or context. I also appreciate the pragmatic notion of usefulness described on page 56 as it applies to the principles and methods of inquiry. Having discussed research validity at length in another class, I think this notion of purpose and usefulness is not only at the heart of the pragmatic cycles of knowledge acquisition, but also lies at the heart of what good research does well. B&B describe the cyclical nature of Deweyan inquiry in a way that sounds a lot like the hermeneutic circle, without end, inquiry begetting further inquiry, the process always changing future outcomes. This seems a fitting description of how research in the social sciences evolves; there is never an end to the process because time and circumstance are always changing. As B&B argue on page 66 regarding the conceptual outcome of inquiry, “Knowledge in this account is always provisional.” I appreciate the connection between Deweyan inquiry (and the transactional process) and the social, public nature of research that B&B describe. I found especially noteworthy the description of Dewey’s defense of researchers of the social sciences as more than mere “technicians”, unable to make assertions or generalizations about human behavior that might have some applied purpose. Again, coming back to the idea of usefulness, I see the purpose of new meanings gained from research in the social sciences as yes, temporal and provisionally held, but also generalizable and hopefully helpful to whichever field they apply. Without these assumptions, it would be very hard to consider how what we as educational researchers do might benefit the field.
Throughout chapter 3, I felt like the authors were reading my mind and continuously aligned with my thinking regarding inquiry (for both teachers and students). A burning question regarding the “research to practice gap” that kept spinning around in my mind was finally tackled in the very last section. Phew. I am very aligned with the role of Dewey’s thinking in regards to inquiry leading to change in teacher practice (I would bet that we all are). We know that it is within an active, reflection-based response that we are able to respond to the challenges of teaching within the public schools, especially in regards to challenging student behaviors. In my current work as a behavior coach, I utilize the Practice-based Coaching (PBC) framework which relied heavily on identification of the problematic behaviors and the settings in which they occur, the teacher’s self- reflection of the use of specific practices within their classroom, and implementation of practices at a higher level of competency. The cycle begins over and over as the teacher continues to reflect and redefine their understanding of the students’ response to the change in teacher behavior. This is directly aligned with Dewey’s process! I especially appreciate the highlight on the evolving, ongoing nature as the teacher become more informed about the knowledge base, the needs and habits of learners, and also the needs and habits of teachers. Now to the burning question regarding social science research. As I was reading I kept wondering, “If the engagement in the process of inquiry is essential to change in understanding (in practice, for teachers) how can we ever expect to shorten the 14-year research to practice gap?” The authors (and Dewey) respond to this question in the last section as they write, “The results of educational inquiries provide educators with a wider range of alternatives from which to select, in dealing with individual situations. That is all they can do. They enrich the educator’s ability to judge (see Dewey 1929b, 10). According to Dewey, this is the one and only way in which the results of educational inquiry can have an impact on educational practice.” There is still a missing link in my opinion- we’ve got the set of “answers” from the research, and we’ve got the practice of inquiry that, through evidence related to coaching and self-reflection has also been proven. How do we connect these two concepts? Short answer- we’ve got to promote teachers as problem-solvers and give them the tools (and time) to engage in inquiry and take ownership of the trajectory of their development. Easy!?
I found that Biesta and Burbule’s depiction of inquiry matched many of my beliefs of education research. I specially liked the quote “Educational practice is pivotal to educational research because it is the source of the problems to be researched and also the final test of the effectiveness of our warranted assertions (p. 79). It is important for educators and researchers to have a close relationship so that we can identify the issues and research them. I think the final test of effectiveness is often not used as much as it could be. I think many researchers fail to support the social validity and generalization of their interventions. When does it work, for what type of situation? Further, where has the intervention been shown to be ineffective. Further, how do teachers feel about implementing the intervention?
All of the lines get blurred when we discuss operational definitions. But how can we conduct quantitative research without operational definitions?
Dewey's process of inquiry as described in Biesta and Burbules, was closely aligned with the scientific process of research. Transitioning from the indeterminate to the determinant almost seemed too simplified from Dewey. However, at times inquiry isn't such a complicated process that doesn't involve research but is for very simple purposes. This is always challenging in Dewey's concepts because he always seems to think of things as much more complex.
The research that is conducted in the social sciences follows a similar path as the process of inquiry, first determining a problem. As much as I have thought about what I want my future research to be, everyone has always driven me to reflect on what my question or problem would be. We can all determine what interesting aspects of education we want to study more but we also have to to determine the problem that we are identifying and attempting to understand. Dewey seems to appreciate processes and that is the same in regards to inquiry, I think the challenge we have as social scientists is that our approach my not be as transnational as he describes.
The authors’ depiction of inquiry is consistent with my understandings of how social science research works. As in the previous chapters, Biesta and Burbules continuously mentioned the need for action in order to make tangible advancements. However, they did differentiate between research and inquiry. I would have used these terms interchangeably prior to the reading. Biesta and Burbules stated that “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, 57). In other words, inquiry is an informal action, which involves the seeking of information. Whereas research is more formalized. It is still inquiry, but it uses inquiry to specifically document and effect change. Research in social science is formalized inquiry into human interactions. Biesta and Burbules explained the process of inquiry and research very similar to my original perceptions. Social science research is a continuous process that takes time, effort, and much attention. There is never really an ultimate conclusion, only “warranted assertions.”
Biesta and Burbules third chapter seems to argue that inquiry occurs when researchers need to determine if a fact of knowledge is, in fact, a fact. What I think they mean, is that inquiry, and consequently research, occurs once an individual decides to test if the knowledge they see as fact, created when they went through Dewey's process of acquiring knowledge temporally and transactionally, occurs across individuals. That test, which to the individual is already fact of knowledge and helps them deal with their individual context, allows them to inquire into whether their knowledge is universal knowledge. I think that is the key to B&B's thesis of inquiry in the mold of Dewey. I believe this to be relevant to social science, and educational, research and an accurate depiction of inquiry. However, I also agree with their conclusions that inquiry is polluted by politicians and self-serving individuals who want to prove something they have pre-determined as fact in order to push an agenda. Inquiry is meant to evaluate the social aspects of humans and find the connections between human kind, and using it as a tool for self-satisfaction takes knowledge that may be universal fact and re-contextualizes it as an individual desire for fact that is only true within specific lenses.
The explanation of inquiry vs. research does “jibes” with my understanding of how social science research works. I think it is our experiences and things we are curious about that lead us to our research questions. According to Dewey, taking action on our curiosity, or hypotheses, allows them to become "warranted assertions" (p.68). Inquiry involves solving problems, while research seems to involve creating new knowledge (p. 57). We need these two processes to close the research to practice gap. However, I agree with Shenita and the text as the answers or results are never 100% accurate or true, because of human error and extraneous variables. Therefore, we will always have issues within our inquires that allows more research to be conducted for practice. The process seems almost never ending.
The topic of inquiry always makes me think of Cyril Houle’s The Inquiring Mind (1961) and his qualitative study of how and why some adults continue to have inquiring minds and continue in their learning. His definition is formal and seems to imply that having an inquiring mind will cause you to seek out formal opportunities to learn. I appreciate this perspective on inquiry being a state of being and that it implies that our teaching must be learner-centered. Dewey says that we learn from an indeterminate situation through the process of inquiry, which is much less formal than Houle’s definition of inquiry. However, I think both of these are a direct lead-in to how we pursue educational research: We find a problem (indiscriminate situation) that we want to understand and seek a solution for by creating a hypothesis and then testing it through action (as Dewey speaks of verification). However, I’m not sure that Dewey would recognize the formal ways we write behavioral science manuscripts in 2019 and would call that inquiry in the same way he was thinking of inquiry. I think if our attempts at generalizability and sometimes lack of practical meaning in research goes against his understanding of inquiry – these make us “technicians who only approach problems as they are given to them and keep within the framework in which the problems are presented to them” (p. 76).
From Dewey, inquiry is the process of the acquisition of knowledge. This process is serial as it tries to solve current problems. The process is only complete when there is some form of confirmation that the investigation was warranted. As a part of research, inquiry must be combined with action to create knowledge. My understanding of social science research is that this research depends on the social or shared nature of its implications. It deals with the complex nature of social interactions. Social interactions are different from natural inquiry as they deal with the complexity of people. The authors also note that social inquiry is experimental as we continually respond based on our knowledge. So, it's a gradual process. But, the authors note that there is no need for special epistemology for social inquiry (p. 73). I disagree with the authors as I think that social inquiry should require special epistemologies depending on the context of the inquiry. For instance, if your social inquiry involves Black women, it should require looking into Black women's epistemology for contextual information of the inquiry.
While reading chapter 3, I found the way that Biesta and Burbules described Dewey’s process of inquiry parallels with the scientific process of research. He states that there is no “absolute end” to inquiry and that it creates new situations from current situations (pg 57). This reminds me that as researchers, we look at previous experiences and ideas to create new ideas and experiences. Research in the education field is a never-ending cycle because new practices and ideas are found. I agree with Dewey that there needs to be action behind the meaning so ideas can become knowledge. Researchers (as Dewey states) should have meaning behind their work and educators should be involved in their research and practices (pg. 81). As far as social inquiry, I feel that teachers in the education field are doing exactly what Dewey said social inquiry is not. He stated that it should not be a “top-down” coercion (pg. 73) where people tell people what to do or not do. However, I feel that I meet a lot of people (teachers and others in this profession) that wait for someone above them to tell them what to do instead of doing the research on their own. Dewey wanted social inquiry to be more about building social intelligence and, from what I gathered, to share those experiences in order to act and respond.
Although Dewey’s stages of inquiry, as summarized by the authors of our textbook (p. 57), were not difficult to understand, I did find myself thinking about them in terms of questions/sentence starters I found in another text I often refer to. In that book the author suggests Dewey’s five stages are best understood when: (i) Realizing that something is wrong; (ii) defining the problem - the problem seems to be ___; (iii) suggesting a possible solution - maybe what I should do is ___; (iv) reasoning about the solution - doing that would mean ___; and (v) following up with more experimentation and observation - let me try this and see what happens ___. This was helpful for me in thinking the topic of my research. I, like Allison, have received advice that recommends I consider the problem I want to pursue and what my research questions might be. These recommendations seem to jibe with Dewey’s ideas about social science research. Like Kristina, I was intrigued by the section of the chapter about The Educator as Investigator. I agree with Dewey that educational research should not only be research ON education and educators but WITH them. These thoughts are reminiscent of an earlier blog comment which mentioned that Dewey would have mostly like wanted to include more voices in the educational research conversation.
I thought Chapter 3 provided an accurate depiction of what scientific inquiry is; however, when I read Dewey’s definitions and how Biesta and Burbules interpret his work I was left wondering if they are being too literal. In other words, are they overanalyzing what inquiry really is and how it works? The authors seem to be totally caught up in the semantics of various definitions such as inquiry, knowledge, etc. Perhaps that was the point.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with the notion from page 57 that there is “no absolute end to inquiry.” This is certainly the case in the hard sciences (eg. atomic theory) but it is also related to educational research. Students change. Teachers change. Times change. A hypothesis or approach made in the 80s may not work as well in today’s twenty-first century classroom. As such, educational research must continue to be ongoing and look for new and relevant approaches that impact the classroom in positive ways.
Where I think Biesta and Burbules really got too caught up in the semantics was their discussion surrounding “knowledge terminating inquiry.” They write that gaining knowledge implies truth. I disagree. If knowledge is taken as truth, then perhaps I would agree with their assessment; however, knowledge to me relates to theories and hypotheses which are always subject to change just as much as it relates to truth and certainty. In other words, perhaps there are two branches of knowledge: definitive truth and beliefs or ideas. The first is hard and concrete while the latter can be subject to change. At any rate, I do not think the acquisition of knowledge regardless of how one defines it terminates inquiry. In fact, I think in many cases new knowledge can be the catalyst for further inquiry. I suppose that gets at the idea of “verification” as presented on page 68. When I consider the need for verification, I am more inclined to go along with the idea that knowledge is permanent truth. However, as I mentioned before, I still believe knowledge can be dynamic and in a constant state of flux in some cases and I definitely believe that to be true in our field, perhaps more so than in others.
In Chapter 3, Biesta and Burbules outline the ways in which Dewey’s theory of the process of inquiry relates to educational inquiry and research. Early on, Biesta and Burbules point out the value in viewing inquiry “as a serial or sequential process,” but that does not necessarily make it linear. My best understanding of this section came from the statement: “It is not that there will be a point at which we can know everything that there is to know, even if that were possible, because every settlement of a situation institutes new conditions that, in turn, occasion new problems (Dewey 1938a, 42), and the cycle begins again” (57). The concept of the cyclical nature of inquiry jibes well with my understanding of how social science research works, and also with my understanding of how Dewey’s wider theories interact with the world. Specifically, I imagine research to often follow the pattern of two steps forward and one step back as new results arise, but also, prior concepts/ideas are recycled and remade with the intention of combining the best of the old and the new. Dewey’s statement helped me to picture social science research as a series of overlapping occurrences in which inquiry arises from different problematic situations, but there may be longer term connections between a variety of hypotheses and results.
ReplyDeleteAnother section that I found thought provoking and would hope to discuss further, was in the final section of the chapter called “The Educator as Investigator.” Biesta and Burbules put forth the idea that “Dewey is arguing, therefore, that educational research should not simply be research on education and educators but should involve educators themselves in a meaningful way” (81). I would like to consider the implications of this statement and perhaps even juxtapose Dewey’s vision with our earlier reading of Labaree.
I was surprised by the similarities of social science research and the authors’ depiction of inquiry. Whereas some of the reading or ideas that are presented are quite “airy” and leaves me thinking about how it ties to real, every day life, in a practical and uncomplicated way, the explanation and alignment of the steps/stages of the process of inquiry to social science research was simple to follow. The stages of the process of inquiry and the process that researchers go through when deciding what to study or research are similar. Inquiry starts with an indeterminate situation that becomes a problematic situation once a level of awareness is obtained by the person. The example from the book about the teacher sensing a problem that is creating a disruption in the flow of teaching highlights this. Starting with an indeterminant situation and moving through ideas/concepts, such as meaning and implication, facts and data, and the hypothesis outlines the similarities in pragmatic inquiry and social science research. Research involves an awareness of a problem (or some curiosity about a situation), trying to find a way to deal with the problem, and trying out various possible solutions to the problem. The “answer” that we get to as a warranted assertion is like the idea that in research nothing is 100% accurate and true, for many reasons such as random error.
ReplyDeleteMy final thought, that does not directly tie into the question, was the authors’ concluding statements about educators as investigators as an important message about the notion neither research nor direct practice alone is enough in improving education. It is important to remember that the improvement of education is a process and not an end and nothing else should be expected of educational inquiry.
I agree that inquiry is a serial or sequential and has no absolute end. I feel as though this is especially true in education. Education consistently changes as time passes. If you were to look at education today, it would look a lot different than it did years ago. If inquiry were to be definitive, it would not lead to much innovation or enhancement; much like education in general.
ReplyDeleteI picture inquiry to be like interlocking circles. Just as you think one circle closes and answers are found, it creates new questions and problems to be studied. I believe that educators are curious and solution drive to begin with so this definition of inquiry is very fitting. If we were to just take an answer as the one and only answer, we would not have discovered alternate methods.
Education not only looks at the teaching and learning process, but it also explores human actions. Humans cannot be generalized. Rather, humans are forever changing and unique in their own experiences. This is very similar to inquiry. The reading states, “It is only when such a situation is identified as a problematic situation that inquiry begins and experience turns into the cognitive mode” (p. 58). As teachers, we never know what problems will arise, therefore, must troubleshoot and engage in inquiry with each new experience. If we do not partake in the experience ourselves, I do not believe that we acting as investigators. This is another point that was brought up in the chapter, which I would like to think further about.
Overall, I think the description of the process of inquiry follows along with the steps of research: a problem occurs, a hypothesis is formed to test, the researcher suggests solutions or reasons why the problem may be occurring and then an experiment is conducted. The authors state that problems, “emerge as a result of the identification of an indeterminate situation as being problematic, as being in need of inquiry.” In my opinion, this also falls in line with how I perceive research. Someone identifies a problem or situation in life that they want to understand or explain so they research the problem, hypothesize why it happens and study the problem. Where inquiry and scientific research may differ in some instances is “the actual transformation of a situation.” Research is not always conducted with the aim to change a situation, sometimes it is purely completed to attain knowledge about a situation. For instance, some qualitative studies involve interviewing participants to determine their beliefs or attitudes about a particular “x”. These studies do not seek to change “x” but rather to understand more about it.
ReplyDeleteThe text opens with the review of the reconstructive theory in attempt to explain the logic of inquiry. Throughout the text, Biesta and Burbules, tries to make clear the understanding of inquiry and its impact on knowledge. I was particularly drawn to the section on facts and ideas. Dewey’s idea of the “facts of the case” aligns to the notion of the how social science research works. As a social science researcher, the research agenda is comprised of a complex series of ideas and facts that inform the work.
ReplyDeleteThe process of developing indeterminate situations into facts is the process of research. This creates a pathway to a particular truth that the researcher has the responsibility to use inquiry to get to the outcomes. This goes back to a previous class that we were thinking about the process of gaining knowledge and how it needs to include an action phase. If the goal is to get to a particular truth then Dewey’s logic pushes researchers to grapple with the inquiry, the action and to determine the direction of the meaning.
I would be interested in furthering this discussion with a group of classmates in our program. I think the final section would spark a discussion around the educator as an investigator. It reminds me of the earlier articles in the course that discussed teachers and researchers. I agree with his idea that educational research should include educators in a meaningful way.
While reading Chapter 3, one phrase really stood out to me when thinking about Dewey and his thoughts on inquiry, "Inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole"(p. 59). It made me think of the School of Ed Orientations for Doctoral Students. One of the professors said that our research in education needs to be driven by the need for policy change. I see that policy change is a critical part of inquiry. The breakdown of the inquiry process into the two types of operations, existential (the actual transformation of the situation) and conceptual (reflection or thinking) are both key elements of seeking policy change, which I believe is the a fundamental component of education research and its purpose. We can think of research as understanding best practices for individual school systems or we can widen our net and think of the transformation of a certain situation as in some much bigger than local systems change.
ReplyDeleteA couple of ideas stood out to me as I read B&B Ch. 3. I like Dewey’s notion that all inquiry starts with a question and that any insights gleaned from the process of inquiry only exist relative to the experiences from which they were derived or to which they were applied. In other words, knowledge and understanding exist temporally and hence are not fixed truths, ineradicable to changes in time or context. I also appreciate the pragmatic notion of usefulness described on page 56 as it applies to the principles and methods of inquiry. Having discussed research validity at length in another class, I think this notion of purpose and usefulness is not only at the heart of the pragmatic cycles of knowledge acquisition, but also lies at the heart of what good research does well. B&B describe the cyclical nature of Deweyan inquiry in a way that sounds a lot like the hermeneutic circle, without end, inquiry begetting further inquiry, the process always changing future outcomes. This seems a fitting description of how research in the social sciences evolves; there is never an end to the process because time and circumstance are always changing. As B&B argue on page 66 regarding the conceptual outcome of inquiry, “Knowledge in this account is always provisional.”
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the connection between Deweyan inquiry (and the transactional process) and the social, public nature of research that B&B describe. I found especially noteworthy the description of Dewey’s defense of researchers of the social sciences as more than mere “technicians”, unable to make assertions or generalizations about human behavior that might have some applied purpose. Again, coming back to the idea of usefulness, I see the purpose of new meanings gained from research in the social sciences as yes, temporal and provisionally held, but also generalizable and hopefully helpful to whichever field they apply. Without these assumptions, it would be very hard to consider how what we as educational researchers do might benefit the field.
Throughout chapter 3, I felt like the authors were reading my mind and continuously aligned with my thinking regarding inquiry (for both teachers and students). A burning question regarding the “research to practice gap” that kept spinning around in my mind was finally tackled in the very last section. Phew.
ReplyDeleteI am very aligned with the role of Dewey’s thinking in regards to inquiry leading to change in teacher practice (I would bet that we all are). We know that it is within an active, reflection-based response that we are able to respond to the challenges of teaching within the public schools, especially in regards to challenging student behaviors. In my current work as a behavior coach, I utilize the Practice-based Coaching (PBC) framework which relied heavily on identification of the problematic behaviors and the settings in which they occur, the teacher’s self- reflection of the use of specific practices within their classroom, and implementation of practices at a higher level of competency. The cycle begins over and over as the teacher continues to reflect and redefine their understanding of the students’ response to the change in teacher behavior. This is directly aligned with Dewey’s process! I especially appreciate the highlight on the evolving, ongoing nature as the teacher become more informed about the knowledge base, the needs and habits of learners, and also the needs and habits of teachers.
Now to the burning question regarding social science research. As I was reading I kept wondering, “If the engagement in the process of inquiry is essential to change in understanding (in practice, for teachers) how can we ever expect to shorten the 14-year research to practice gap?” The authors (and Dewey) respond to this question in the last section as they write, “The results of educational inquiries provide educators with a wider range of alternatives from which to select, in dealing with individual situations. That is all they can do. They enrich the educator’s ability to judge (see Dewey 1929b, 10). According to Dewey, this is the one and only way in which the results of educational inquiry can have an impact on educational practice.” There is still a missing link in my opinion- we’ve got the set of “answers” from the research, and we’ve got the practice of inquiry that, through evidence related to coaching and self-reflection has also been proven. How do we connect these two concepts? Short answer- we’ve got to promote teachers as problem-solvers and give them the tools (and time) to engage in inquiry and take ownership of the trajectory of their development. Easy!?
I found that Biesta and Burbule’s depiction of inquiry matched many of my beliefs of education research. I specially liked the quote “Educational practice is pivotal to educational research because it is the source of the problems to be researched and also the final test of the effectiveness of our warranted assertions (p. 79). It is important for educators and researchers to have a close relationship so that we can identify the issues and research them. I think the final test of effectiveness is often not used as much as it could be. I think many researchers fail to support the social validity and generalization of their interventions. When does it work, for what type of situation? Further, where has the intervention been shown to be ineffective.
ReplyDeleteFurther, how do teachers feel about implementing the intervention?
All of the lines get blurred when we discuss operational definitions. But how can we conduct quantitative research without operational definitions?
Dewey's process of inquiry as described in Biesta and Burbules, was closely aligned with the scientific process of research. Transitioning from the indeterminate to the determinant almost seemed too simplified from Dewey. However, at times inquiry isn't such a complicated process that doesn't involve research but is for very simple purposes. This is always challenging in Dewey's concepts because he always seems to think of things as much more complex.
ReplyDeleteThe research that is conducted in the social sciences follows a similar path as the process of inquiry, first determining a problem. As much as I have thought about what I want my future research to be, everyone has always driven me to reflect on what my question or problem would be. We can all determine what interesting aspects of education we want to study more but we also have to to determine the problem that we are identifying and attempting to understand. Dewey seems to appreciate processes and that is the same in regards to inquiry, I think the challenge we have as social scientists is that our approach my not be as transnational as he describes.
Allison Toney
DeleteThe authors’ depiction of inquiry is consistent with my understandings of how social science research works. As in the previous chapters, Biesta and Burbules continuously mentioned the need for action in order to make tangible advancements. However, they did differentiate between research and inquiry. I would have used these terms interchangeably prior to the reading. Biesta and Burbules stated that “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, 57). In other words, inquiry is an informal action, which involves the seeking of information. Whereas research is more formalized. It is still inquiry, but it uses inquiry to specifically document and effect change. Research in social science is formalized inquiry into human interactions. Biesta and Burbules explained the process of inquiry and research very similar to my original perceptions. Social science research is a continuous process that takes time, effort, and much attention. There is never really an ultimate conclusion, only “warranted assertions.”
ReplyDeleteBiesta and Burbules third chapter seems to argue that inquiry occurs when researchers need to determine if a fact of knowledge is, in fact, a fact. What I think they mean, is that inquiry, and consequently research, occurs once an individual decides to test if the knowledge they see as fact, created when they went through Dewey's process of acquiring knowledge temporally and transactionally, occurs across individuals. That test, which to the individual is already fact of knowledge and helps them deal with their individual context, allows them to inquire into whether their knowledge is universal knowledge. I think that is the key to B&B's thesis of inquiry in the mold of Dewey.
ReplyDeleteI believe this to be relevant to social science, and educational, research and an accurate depiction of inquiry. However, I also agree with their conclusions that inquiry is polluted by politicians and self-serving individuals who want to prove something they have pre-determined as fact in order to push an agenda. Inquiry is meant to evaluate the social aspects of humans and find the connections between human kind, and using it as a tool for self-satisfaction takes knowledge that may be universal fact and re-contextualizes it as an individual desire for fact that is only true within specific lenses.
The explanation of inquiry vs. research does “jibes” with my understanding of how social science research works. I think it is our experiences and things we are curious about that lead us to our research questions. According to Dewey, taking action on our curiosity, or hypotheses, allows them to become "warranted assertions" (p.68). Inquiry involves solving problems, while research seems to involve creating new knowledge (p. 57). We need these two processes to close the research to practice gap. However, I agree with Shenita and the text as the answers or results are never 100% accurate or true, because of human error and extraneous variables. Therefore, we will always have issues within our inquires that allows more research to be conducted for practice. The process seems almost never ending.
ReplyDeleteAmber Brown (BTW)
DeleteThe topic of inquiry always makes me think of Cyril Houle’s The Inquiring Mind (1961) and his qualitative study of how and why some adults continue to have inquiring minds and continue in their learning. His definition is formal and seems to imply that having an inquiring mind will cause you to seek out formal opportunities to learn. I appreciate this perspective on inquiry being a state of being and that it implies that our teaching must be learner-centered. Dewey says that we learn from an indeterminate situation through the process of inquiry, which is much less formal than Houle’s definition of inquiry. However, I think both of these are a direct lead-in to how we pursue educational research: We find a problem (indiscriminate situation) that we want to understand and seek a solution for by creating a hypothesis and then testing it through action (as Dewey speaks of verification). However, I’m not sure that Dewey would recognize the formal ways we write behavioral science manuscripts in 2019 and would call that inquiry in the same way he was thinking of inquiry. I think if our attempts at generalizability and sometimes lack of practical meaning in research goes against his understanding of inquiry – these make us “technicians who only approach problems as they are given to them and keep within the framework in which the problems are presented to them” (p. 76).
ReplyDeleteFrom Dewey, inquiry is the process of the acquisition of knowledge. This process is serial as it tries to solve current problems. The process is only complete when there is some form of confirmation that the investigation was warranted. As a part of research, inquiry must be combined with action to create knowledge. My understanding of social science research is that this research depends on the social or shared nature of its implications. It deals with the complex nature of social interactions. Social interactions are different from natural inquiry as they deal with the complexity of people. The authors also note that social inquiry is experimental as we continually respond based on our knowledge. So, it's a gradual process. But, the authors note that there is no need for special epistemology for social inquiry (p. 73). I disagree with the authors as I think that social inquiry should require special epistemologies depending on the context of the inquiry. For instance, if your social inquiry involves Black women, it should require looking into Black women's epistemology for contextual information of the inquiry.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading chapter 3, I found the way that Biesta and Burbules described Dewey’s process of inquiry parallels with the scientific process of research. He states that there is no “absolute end” to inquiry and that it creates new situations from current situations (pg 57). This reminds me that as researchers, we look at previous experiences and ideas to create new ideas and experiences. Research in the education field is a never-ending cycle because new practices and ideas are found. I agree with Dewey that there needs to be action behind the meaning so ideas can become knowledge. Researchers (as Dewey states) should have meaning behind their work and educators should be involved in their research and practices (pg. 81). As far as social inquiry, I feel that teachers in the education field are doing exactly what Dewey said social inquiry is not. He stated that it should not be a “top-down” coercion (pg. 73) where people tell people what to do or not do. However, I feel that I meet a lot of people (teachers and others in this profession) that wait for someone above them to tell them what to do instead of doing the research on their own. Dewey wanted social inquiry to be more about building social intelligence and, from what I gathered, to share those experiences in order to act and respond.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Dewey’s stages of inquiry, as summarized by the authors of our textbook (p. 57), were not difficult to understand, I did find myself thinking about them in terms of questions/sentence starters I found in another text I often refer to. In that book the author suggests Dewey’s five stages are best understood when: (i) Realizing that something is wrong; (ii) defining the problem - the problem seems to be ___; (iii) suggesting a possible solution - maybe what I should do is ___; (iv) reasoning about the solution - doing that would mean ___; and (v) following up with more experimentation and observation - let me try this and see what happens ___. This was helpful for me in thinking the topic of my research. I, like Allison, have received advice that recommends I consider the problem I want to pursue and what my research questions might be. These recommendations seem to jibe with Dewey’s ideas about social science research.
ReplyDeleteLike Kristina, I was intrigued by the section of the chapter about The Educator as Investigator. I agree with Dewey that educational research should not only be research ON education and educators but WITH them. These thoughts are reminiscent of an earlier blog comment which mentioned that Dewey would have mostly like wanted to include more voices in the educational research conversation.