Chapters 8 and 9 together raise a lot of interesting questions
about just how objective we can hope to be with social science/educational research
and, consequently, about the potential worth or these sorts of inquiry. He also
discusses action research as a potential way to do work that matters…discuss.
I need to backtrack to chapter 7 before I can launch into my discussion on chapters 8 and 9. My apologies for not reading chapter 7 before last week’s class. I mistakenly read further ahead in Becker and not far enough in Pring. Hang in there, please!
ReplyDeleteOn page 117, at the beginning of the discussion about phenomenology, Pring conflates the philosophical notion of “intentionality” with “intention” when he writes “to understand other people, therefore, requires understanding the interpretations which they give of what they are doing. We need to know their intentions….We need to know their intentions and their motives.” In phenomenology, the (often debated) notion of intentionality is concerned with the ways humans are connected to things in the world. This is not “intention” in the sense of purpose or motive. Phenomenology is not concerned with intention. I want to be clearer in my understanding of what Pring writes and why I think his (mis)characterization of intention in phenomenology and interpretive research methods skews his argument in chapter 8.
Phenomenology is a philosophy concerned with the existential way of being human. It is an “interpretive research method” to the degree that it aims to describe or interpret the lived experience of some (compelling) phenomenon. In the philosophical sense, intentionality is the human connection to the world, a kind of pre-conscious mode of being with the concrete things that surround us. Right now I have intentionality with my desk, chair, and computer. I don’t’ need to analyze my motive for using my chair, I simply sit in it. I don’t pay it much attention; my intentionality with my chair is largely outside of my conscious awareness, it’s not what I’m focusing on.
In phenomenological research, it is not intentionality per se that I aim to study; rather, it might be whatever I’m doing that involves sitting in a chair: some phenomenon. Maybe my phenomenon of interest is the experience of writing for Kurt’s class. I might ask the research question of what it is like to be a doc-student writer. Being a writer implies a relationship with things such as a chair, desk, or computer. The lived experience of writing is through an intentionality with those things. My research aim is to describe or interpret the existential experience of being a writer. I do not seek to explain motive or purpose for being a writer, nor do I claim to reduce the experience to an essential meaning (we have moved beyond Husserl). The phenomenological reduction is a fleeting glimpse into a lived experience, always and necessarily contestable and incomplete. It is neither fixed nor generalizable truth. It is done not to answer questions but to bring about new understanding.
DeleteThe philosophy argues against the idea that we can be “objective” or that we can be outside of our world in a disconnected, objective place. We can’t be “nowhere.” We can’t suspend who we are in the name of doing research. Inquiry into our existence is our first-order way of being in a world in which we always already find ourselves. We always already have language, culture, norms, and frames of reference. We are always “somewhere.” Along this line, the philosophy argues against truth as fixed or “verifiable.” The philosophy doesn’t jive with a scientific methodology or line of reasoning.
Pring continues his discussion of intention as the will or motivation always embedded in action. He discusses the intention of the teacher to teach this or that. He says the “significance of an action or of a situation refers to the wider significance of the action or situation for the agent” (p. 120). I must argue that this is not phenomenology; rather, it resembles psychology. Pring seeks to understand the intention of an action as a “state of mind” of the agent. This is mingling science with interpretive research and I disagree / don’t follow his reasoning here. I have so much more to say, but I must press on.
DeleteIn chapter 8, Pring begins by defining educational practice as “a range of transactions between teachers and learners…education research…must be centrally…focused on those transactions.” I believe his reduction of education sets up the entire discussion as behavior that can be observed, measured, and “adopted into a set of practices.” He has moved into the scientific realm. I interpret his move a scientific ontology in that reality, or the way of being in education, is viewed as a system of actions and behaviors. This is not an ontology that considers the broader human experience, the wholism of teaching and learning. It is not concerned with how those “transactions” can work to marginalize students, or how language embedded in them is gendered and power-laden. It looks at teaching as a behavior system where human experience is reduced to variables. That’s fine and that’s science; it’s not phenomenology.
Pring continues on p. 151 with the transaction/behavior line of inquiry by proposing that there are theories at work underlying this behavior, and that to “pick out a particular event as an action logically implies reference to the intentions of the agent, and, through a clarification of those, to the theoretical framework of ideas to which the teacher is committed.” Here I see him refining his notion of “intention” and its connection to behavior as a kind of predicate-response logic: If we could identify those theories then we could better predict the response behavior and analyze the transaction process. He suggests we “elevate the teacher to the role of researcher” because who is closer to the theories than the teacher herself? Again, I see the pursuit of theories and the reduction of education to variables which can be isolated and used to explain behavior in order to inform practice. Science doesn’t address questions about why some students thrive while others fail other than to talk about variables such as SES or race. Science cannot help us understand the human-ness in education. For these reasons, I say it can’t be all we do in ed research. Of course, that is my opinion from my worldview.
Alas, Pring is growing on me. Being put to the task of writing about his book has given me opportunities to develop my own argument and a deeper understanding of my philosophical position. I couldn’t agree more with him about the crucial role of philosophy in education research. I’m disappointed that he does not invest in a deeper, well-rounded argument about phenomenology and its contributions, as well as controversies, in ed research. He raises great questions, takes us down many paths, only to return to his same position that “good research” is steeped in the scientific tradition because “there are limits to the postmodern embrace” (p.172).
I think his book reflects an attempt to be “objective,” to step outside of the discipline to look back at it and explain his view. He tries to assume an outside position but can’t do it. He tries to be from nowhere, but he can’t shed his lens, his framework, his world. Pring, and all the rest of us, will always be “somewhere.”
Thanks for taking the time to read my crazy, long-winded post!
As a former quality improvement professional, I dig action research or more specifically, a variant of it called continuous quality improvement and embodied in the PDSA (Plan do study act) cycle. This is the classic process improvement approach developed by William Deming and adopted by Japanese manufacturers in the 1950s.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of action research is (from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/100047/chapters/What-Is-Action-Research%C2%A2.aspx)
‘Educational action research can be engaged in by a single teacher, by a group of colleagues who share an interest in a common problem, or by the entire faculty of a school. Whatever the scenario, action research always involves the same seven-step process. These seven steps, which become an endless cycle for the inquiring teacher, are the following:
Selecting a focus
Clarifying theories
Identifying research questions
Collecting data
Analyzing data
Reporting results
Taking informed action’
As Pring points out on pg. 160, what makes it research is that knowledge is gained about why something is improved, in addition to the research producing improvement. The clarification makes sense to me. I recall times in my former life as a quality improvement professional in which I wondered why we continued to gather and analyze data when the effort to engage in the continuous process far outweighed the payoff. If we’d explored the “why” behind the improvements, the endeavor may have been more meaningful and perhaps ended sooner! As it was, we often fell prey to Campbell’s law (pg. 166) int that the indicator used for decision making became subject to corruption and ultimately distorted and corrupted the processes it was intended to monitor. Sheesh!
I’d like to put Pring’s central themes in my own words that might sound like a ditty if you listen hard:
Action research, it’s not me-search
Gotta be we-search!
Moves us forward, tells us why
Teachers ask the question and the data justify
Open to scrutiny-we avoid a mutiny
Teachers keep control, scholars take a stroll.
Is objectivity an ideal worth pursuing? I can go terribly awry. Here’s a link to a segment from This American Life that aired this past weekend. The narrator recounts the story of a psychologist who was hell bent on studying children in their natural environment using the same field study methods scientists of the day used with animals. It’s also a good example of how research without a theoretical anchor can be meaningless. LIsten if you have a chance.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/568/human-spectacle-2015?act=2#play
I haven't listened to that episode yet...I'll try to fit it in on my drive to class this week!
DeleteSeveral points are made in chapters 8 and 9 which resonated with me as a currently practicing middle school teacher who is also trying to begin narrowing down my focus and my plans for doctoral research.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of action research is a powerful one for me as it meshes well with my daily endeavors to identify problems or failings in my practice and find ways to continually improve that practice and its impact on student learning outcomes. For those of us in the classroom, no amount of scholarly research can replace the reality and truth of what we experience every day with our students. Pring’s challenge to quantitative, generalizable social science research appeals to me.
The attitudes of many teachers toward big data, big research, and yet another mandated initiative is addressed on page 147, “It was as though those who prescribed the curriculum (e.g. the government), distant from the transactions within each classroom, knew best and that the translation of those prescriptions into practice was relatively unproblematic. The gap between intention and reality was rarely explored.”
Action research carries with it several key criteria (p. 159) which may be objectionable to more traditional scientific researchers, but meeting these criteria actually brings authenticity and validity to the findings:
• Scrutinize the values of the practice, not just how “well” the practice works
• Knowledge gained is “tentative and context bound,” not “the context-free knowledge which permit law-like generalizations wanted by government and systematic reviewers.”
• Must be transparent, part of a larger community, and open to public criticism
And finally, the closing quote aptly sums up the perspective that would support action research and its value to educational practice and professional knowledge: (p.164) “research is the servant of professional judgment, not its master.”
As Pring attempts to highlight throughout this text, I think the distinction between educational theory and action research is yet another false dualism. Every teacher instructs with a theory grounding their approach, whether they are aware of it or not, as Pring discusses on p. 150. And this extends beyond the classroom as every action that we take is based upon some theory of what consequences will accrue. I think a problem that has led to this dualism is the negative connotation of the word “theory.” Personally, in the educational context, I do not think it brings many people much joy when pondering educational theory. In addition, I think an unfair divide exists between theory and practice. Therefore if one is in favor of doing action research, they absolutely must be against theoretical educational research.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when the term is broken down into what it really means (p. 151), it becomes much more aligned with practice. Essentially teachers shared their problems, questions, and proposed answers and critiqued and tested potential solutions. “Reading and discussing other people’s way of looking at things makes this enlargement and enrichment possible and likely. Reading ‘theory’ opens the eyes to other possibilities” (p. 152). In further comparing theoretical research with action research, Pring states that action research has the goal of improving practice while theoretical attempts to produce new knowledge. In addition, he says that action research can help illuminate best practices as it is critiqued and tested. The overall point that I take away from Pring regarding this issue is that action research can indeed be just as beneficial as theoretical research as long as the educator is constantly reflecting and critiquing oneself. Also, we must communicate with others regarding our successes and failures. As Pring has stated throughout the text, each situation is unique, but all people still share many characteristics, enabling methods which work in one situation to possibly be successfully applied to another. I think this is why research methods like case studies are not given enough respect, at least in my field. We are all biased in all types of research, and our contexts are all somewhat unique. If we are able to recognize these biases and account for the uniqueness of the context, numerous research methods including action research can improve education as well as other realms. I can honestly say the Pring has opened my eyes to these dualisms and displayed the various forms of research, which like people, are not as different as we may think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHeard this recently on NPR and thought of Becker and the messiness of writing and re-writing.
ReplyDelete"It illuminates the process and it demystifies it"
http://www.npr.org/2015/10/04/445086331/in-trove-of-kids-book-treasures-a-glimpse-of-the-work-behind-the-magic
I love this! The essence of writing IS rewriting. I had a good friend who was also friends with Diana Gabaldon who writes The Outlander series. My friend, also a writer, was aghast at Diana's drafts. She asked her how her crap writing got published. Diana's response? She had a great editor!
DeleteIn Pring’s discussion of the faults and promise of action research in chapter 8, he made many excellent points. However, I found his wording on page 145, where he states, “Third, however, this elevation of the teacher to the status of researcher…” His use of the word ‘elevation’ may show that he sees the teacher as beneath the researcher. In any event, how you see education research seems to depend upon where you sit. For instance, a “theoretical” researcher’s findings may or may not make sense in the reality of the classroom. “Action” research, however, is usually based on an immediate question that can be immediately implemented, tested, and analyzed. I would love teachers to do more action research. Pring makes a distinction between the knowledge gained from action research and the knowledge gained from theoretical research. I see the two types of research as having a symbiotic relationship. In fact, I believe that without action research, theoretical research would remain stuck in its ivory tower. I would like to see more theoretical research actually spring from the results of action research. If theory is developed from practice, I believe that many more teachers would be amenable to reading research journals.
ReplyDeleteSusan Dudley here...
ReplyDeleteLike Pring, I feel that “the teacher is managing a situation which is fluid, unpredictable, and dynamic” (p. 143). As Pring explains, educational research, as it is traditionally done, has many limitations, one of which is that it does not take into account the perspectives of the teacher or the students (p. 145). Pring further explains how educational research, as it tries to be scientific, makes generalizations implying that ‘one size fits all’--stating how all teachers should teach. I pondered about this point since studies have proven that the least effective way to create good instruction is by telling a teacher how to teach. I am not the only one to know this, so why does educational research make this assumption?
Pring explains how Dewey created a ‘laboratory school’ to examine his ideas about education. I would have enjoyed being part of this school. It sounds vibrant and motivating. If more individuals would be willing to honestly hear criticism, as explained was encouraged by Dewey, then everyone would be better off. (Wouldn’t this be true for life in general?) As discussed in my 730 class, in safe environments, people are more receptive to criticism, but the environment needs to be truly safe for this to occur.
Action research seems to be a beneficial approach to help determine what is effective and what is not with instruction. This type of inquiry should be carefully studied to verify that objectivity is attempted to be maintained. As Pring notes, it can be challenging for the instructor not to be prejudice and/or defensive about her/his research. One must be as objective as possible and even request criticism and critiques of what is being done. A professional development method discussed in 730, Lesson Study, could aid one to be more objective. I visualize this as a great means of action research where working with a team of instructors, you can delve into the research, possibly including even more educators than the team to enhance and strengthen objectivity. Furthermore, with ‘active reflection’, part of a Lesson Study PD, including others in the reflective process enhances objectivity.
As Pring points out, the teacher needs to be aware of the theories behind what she/he does. Teachers have reasons and rationales, they just may not be disseminating this information in the manner which most are accustomed to reading as theory. Instructors know what they do, why they want to do it and what allows them to believe that their actions will lead to affective instruction. Pring explains, ‘when teacher researchers are putting into practice a particular strategy or are implementing a curriculum proposal, they are testing out what they value as much as the efficaciousness of the strategy or proposal…critiquing these values which are intrinsic on the process” (p. 155).
Although it is becoming more common, and although Pring said that he did not want to create a ‘false dualism’ between action research and educational research, I pondered if at a dualism did exist between traditionally employed educational research and action research.
Action research is my jam. It appeals to my interest and enthusiasm in education overall. Schon's action research and reflective practice ideas are appealing in their pragmatism and where ed research fits on the Cartesean plane. Personally, I'm not searching for any Truth, so action research can help me understand more fully my practice, while (ideally) benefitting whatever my interest du jour is. Action research is super cool, in spite of the latent judgements of Pring (p. 145) about "elevation" of teacher to researcher (great point, Anita!) So, I like action research, but Kurt and Pring bring up some points about objectivity and worth that I will somewhat begrudgingly address.
ReplyDeleteObjectivity. Let's all sing Penny's song. How wonderful was that? There certainly are considerations about objectivity that should be brought up when discussing action research. Confirmation bias is a killer. The more eyes and input and unpacking and legitimate, diligent searching for (dare I say) the reality of a given situation- the better. Here "the reality" would be the most complete context of a phenomena that I am capable of observing, unpacking, and describing. Dedication to that, as opposed to confirming my genius as an intuitive practioner, would make me a good action researcher.
Worth. Ugh. I feel the need to address this if only to be like some of my favorite sassy actresses when Ryan Seacrest asks them who they are wearing on the red carpet. "Do you ask the men that?" Action research, however sound in methodology, bears the burden of extra-proving worth because the academic community is constructed to value post-positivist research. Yeah, they're open minded to other types of research having "worth," but the burden of proof is going to have to be higher. Okay, Seacrest, I'll admit that objectivity is a concern (and it's Dior), but I will point out that the asking of the question points to an underlying bias that you (and the viewers of E!) should keep in mind.
We’ve touched on the issue of objectivity in social science & education research earlier this semester and I would reiterate that any research focused on people- thoughts, activities, behaviors, how they learn, etc…- cannot (and I argue should not) be studied objectively thanks to all of the wonderful idiosyncrasies that make us who we are. In spite all of the traits & circumstances that make us so unique as Pring mentions several times, there are still common threads among us. Research that seeks to tease out those similarities and differences is worthwhile and useful.
ReplyDeleteIn our 730 class last night we had a presentation on lesson study. Lesson study is an excellent example of action research that “matters,” considers context, and can make a difference in the experiences of both teachers and learners. It also has the potential to generalize to similar situations if teacher-research teams are encouraged to collaborate and share their findings/experiences with others doing similar work in other places. This could allow findings to be tested out in other circumstances to see how they hold up. But as Susan D. mentioned, teachers need a safe environment if they are going to open up themselves and their work to the scrutiny of othrs. In the current climate of education, teachers do not have that safety. Many teachers feel under attack by their district & state leaders, the media and much of the general public. This climate has lead to action research being an endeavor that is often done in isolation and kept private (Pring p. 154). Sharing and expanding action research would not (and should not) lead to a prescribed practice of teaching, because there is no one-size-fits-all approach, but it might lead to a few warranted assertions about the type of learning experiences that engage students, make them not dread going to school, and prevent them from feeling like they are "not a math person" or "not a writer" or "not intelligent".
Susan Dudley here....Thank you for taking the time to read my post...and for your insight.
DeleteThinking about educational research and action research, I feel it is important to consider the contextual factors, aims, and values underlying student-teacher interactions and teaching/learning. Understandably, Pring questions the validity of findings from teacher researchers. Perhaps this is because of the biases teachers bring to the action research or maybe because most teachers are not trained in research methodology. With that said, I believe teachers are researchers in the sense that they need to research/learn about various facets of their students’ cognition, behaviors, and experiences, which are all factors influencing/affecting student learning. Furthermore, teachers need to be proactive and use research to better address student learning or behavioral issues.
ReplyDeleteAction research conducted in collaboration between teacher and researcher has the power to be informative and add to the existing body of knowledge in education. All research is flawed to some extent, as nothing is perfect; however, any type of research done well provides insight to the phenomenon occurring in schools and contributes to our understanding of teaching and learning. Furthermore, when considering the context from which the research occurred, individuals can make educated decisions to determine whether similar results may occur with their student/teacher population.
Pring discussed the importance of understanding theory when putting it into practice. While I understand the importance of theory as a driving force for research, I feel theory does not always work in practice. In qualitative research, grounded theory comes from the researcher’s interpretation of the narratives they evaluate. Taking this approach, is it possible to study educational practice and derive a theory? Perhaps this is where action research could be looked upon differently…..
Increased collaboration between teachers and researchers has benefits like testing theory in an authentic classroom or designing quality action research and publishing the findings.