Amy Jefferson: Dewey looks at inquiry as, “the process of the acquisition of knowledge.” p. 55 He also believes that part of the process of inquiry is that you cannot learn something new until you are questioning (disrupting) what you already know? I agree with his thinking in the regard that to conduct research you have to be open to new ideas and open to creating new pathways in your thinking. In the area of social science research, you are in a realm of interaction and constant movement which in turn brings continuous change. From reading chapter 3 it appears that Dewey and I would agree that if you conducted research 3 years ago your results would change if you repeated the research today.
Tosha Yingling: Reading about Dewey’s definition of inquiry coincided at a really perfect time when I was also instructing my GSEX intro bbs about knowledge and meaning-making for the week, so I was lulled into a probably false confidence that I could understand the concept enough to compare and contrast it with my training in feminist methodologies. I seem to be a much bigger PoMo than Dewey but I’m actually rather comfortable with his framing of knowledge and inquiry, and the kind of molecular temporality that seems to come with it (to an extent, he’s no PoMo). Knowledge as temporal, inquiry as sequential, serial, may one even say phasic? Hell yeah, I’m down. The idea that knowledge is something created in the doing rather than this nugget of truth we are digging away at to reveal an enlightened lump has a lot of appeal to feminists, growling over our epistemological studies, and suspicious of the ways that knowledge is said to be “discovered.” One might think of Sara Baartman and “discovering” keys to white supremacy in the study by Cuvier of her supposedly enlarged labial “apron,” signaling her sexual lascivity and deviance rather than the truth of using and naming knowledge around the racist eugenic study of her body.
But I also combat this notion being suspicious that the intentional vagueness around defining what then is “true” knowledge and why we still value theorizing around subjectivity to distance ourselves from it, may be more hegemonic, an actual opposition to articulating knowledge and inquiry the verb as temporal. I say this with special attention to the terms “controlled” and “directed” in the act of inquiry, terms that seem to connote bias. I also wonder, if the process of inquiry comes to an end when a unified situation is established, how do we quantify what is unified? Surely there is always dissent, exceptions? Seems a lot like how feminist educators have to teach biological sex as a scientific reality that destabilizes anything but literal notions of gender beyond two sexes despite measurable quantifiable measurement of biological sex (intersex organs for one).
I do appreciate Dewey’s reluctance to split mind::matter and the philosophical legacy it imprints on our ideas however (though a centrifugal force in education philosophy for over a century has more stead than a typical bitter feminist adjunct idealist). I’m not so comfortable with the idea that we can truly separate the social and material world; in fact, I would disagree with Dewey again saying that, I think the physical domain is actually more complex than the social domain. As a particular woo-woo branch of cyborg feminism, I’ve done a lot of work in thinking of things such as language, molecules, solipsism, instinct as more than abstractions but physical manifestations we are presently unable to measure. The gooey co-mingling of bodies may be more complex and material than we think, just like the way our creation of knowledge around race, gender, ability, etc. are social constructions with material impacts. A service dog’s heart will eventually sync with its handlers and other eerie material/social crossings abound.
Mitchell Waters - The author’s depiction of inquiry actually coincides well with my understanding of how social science research works. Dewey maintains that “actual activities in educating test the worth of scientific results” and that educational practice is “the beginning and close” of all educational inquiry (p. 79). This might differ from other scientific modes of inquiry and assumptions on how real knowledge is obtained. Educational practice finds questions to ask, social scientific inquiry is conducted to find possible solutions or answers to these questions and then the worth of findings are judged when they are introduced back into practice. Educational practice and educational research are meant to be symbiotic. One informs the other but the questions and test of value are always found in educational practice.
One aspect of Dewey’s position on educational inquiry is the assertion that education is an art and not a science (p. 79) and that education could be informed by science but it remains an art nonetheless. I would argue that it could be both. Dewey also seems to go back on this statement on p. 80 when he writes that the “outcomes of educational inquiry can only become ‘educational science’ when they are used, ‘through the medium of the minds of educators, to make educational functions more intelligent.” I may be misunderstanding this piece, but this statement seems inconsistent with his statements from the previous page. I believe that there is both an art and a science to educational practice and research. For instance, in counselor education research is meant to inform counseling and psychotherapy practice, there are different kinds of questions in the counseling field that need answers of a more artistic nature (art therapy or mindfulness) and others that need answers in a more scientific way (neurocognitive processes in a certain clinical diagnosis such as the way the Amygdala functions when PTSD symptoms are present.) Education is a broad enough field that it does not have to be a “this or that” but could be “both and.” I think this is an overly narrow way of thinking about educational research.
Elizabeth Severson-Irby: I’ve always viewed inquiry as a form of questioning, often more from an exploratory sense than a strictly purpose-driven, problem specific sense. This seems to be somewhat in opposition to the pragmatic view of inquiry which only arises after a problem has been identified. I completely understand inquiry from this perspective, but I feel like it leaves a gap in the exploratory sense. Is it that there is some nuance of a problem that is detected that causes one to inquire, even if the problem or conflict is not obvious? Or can one begin to inquire without having a firm direction? Dewey would argue that “we only know what the problem is at the very moment that we are able to solve it” (p.60). This just begs the question, can there ever be inquiry for inquiry’s sake?
To be honest, social science research is a very new field to me. My background is in more hard science research and then when you substitute out “hard” for “social” or “educational,” things inherently get “messier” due to the complicated synapses of the human brain, multitude of emotions helping to guide (or inhibit) decision making, and everything and everyone that a human must interact with in their life. Under this very flimsy understanding, Dewey’s thoughts in inquiry are very aligned. It is messy, because the process of inquiry is messy. It is inherently human, because it’s the process humans go through to construct knowledge. I enjoy the fact the Dewey emphasizes the teacher becoming an active participant in inquiry, because I think far too often they are removed from the process of ed. research or more unfortunately, researchers or even admin, don’t see the “micro-research” with formative data collection as valuable research to base decisions off of.
My interpretation of the purpose of social science research is to help us understand how society works by studying an intersection of human and environmental behaviors, finding reasons for human behavior, identifying societal problems and establishing ways to solve these societal problems. Therefore, social science research is viewed as a means to improve human interactions. Dewey’s theory of inquiry combats the idea that social science research is truly a way to solve societal problems, specifically educational problems. Instead, Dewey explains that we should not expect firm solutions from educational inquiry because there is a never ending process of dealing with educational problems. In addition, despite verification of an inquiry, the knowledge attain does not transfer to the next problem. Dewey believes that the warranted knowledge attained from a prior situation and can only be used as a means of transformation for the new process of inquiry.
I can get on board with B&B’s depiction of inquiry. The only part of it that I really question is the distinction between inquiry and research. When I first read the chapter a few days ago, I thought that they were saying that inquiry was not intentional while research was intentional. And, I feel like that’s just splitting hairs. I see the two as too similar to put that sort of distinction between them. But, when I went back to the chapter to prepare this blog post, now I’m reading it as research is a form of inquiry that is deliberate and aims to generate new knowledge. But, I still feel like they are describing something a little more haphazard about inquiry- like, it just pops up out of nowhere. And, sometimes I think it does, but then it can’t be research? It does seem to me like they are saying that you have to claim it as research on the front end for it to qualify as research….does it really matter?
Before I started this program, I would have disagreed with Dewey’s idea of inquiry, I would not agree that the value of research rests on how it is applied. I still do not agree that is the only way to measure the value of research but I can see how Dewey’s idea of inquiry fits well with educational research. On page 58, the stages of inquiry are described, and they reflect the scientific method we use to conduct research. The outcome is a warranted assertion and results in the verification that your inference worked at that time. At the end of the chapter we are reminded our research should be applicable in education. The instructors are the ones testing the value of your research. I think keeping this in mind would help researchers make sure application does not get lost in their research. Research is described at systematic inquire made public. I believe this is very important(even when no significant results are found), this helps researchers and practitioners both know what does and does not work within education(or any field). There are also problems with generalizability from Dewey’s perspective. I think it is good to be aware of what groups can be generalized to from your research. Dewey may think everything is changing and our current idea of generalizability does not work.
I actually really enjoyed this chapter on inquiry, as it helps to validate my messy depiction of social science research. Naturally, as we looking to study the human condition, which is ever-evolving and chaotic (at best), it makes sense in my head that research that follows is also ever-evolving and chaotic. I found his thoughts on research and inquiry leading to action and new ways of thinking to be very much in line with the social justice stance I take towards the research that I hope to do with LGBTQ+ and other minority issues in higher education. The Deweyan way seems to ask the face and process of research to continue to evolve with the times/people/place that it is researching. I very much vibed with the ideas surrounding the generalizability (or lack there of) of research findings outside of the context that they were studied in. This makes sense to me in the realm of the folks doing research, but it really makes me question how we write about and disseminate research to other students or practitioners, as we (as a society) are socialized to believe that research is generalizable.
Jia Inquiry and social science research are always closely connected. According to Dewey, “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 covert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole” (1983a, 108; emphasis in original). The social science research is designing, conducting, analyzing and reporting results of this inquiry into a field of interest using quantitative or qualitative approaches.
Dewey’s interpretation of inquiry does align with the way in which social scientists research or find inquiries within their environment. His notion that inquiry occurs external to the individual is interesting because most would interpret inquiry to be the thought process within the individual, but the thought process within the individual does begin with an issue with a phenomenon in the individual’s environment. Especially since both the individual and their environment are interrelated. Educational research is based in this same inquiry, but it is important to recognize that humanity could never discover concrete truths about the environment. Although humanity cannot discover any true facts, it is essential for us to discover trends, commonalities, similarities, and patterns in our environment in order to continue to improve the environment and our relationship with it.
Dewey’s description of inquiry does align with my understanding social science research. He maintains that inquiry begins with two conflicting habits that cause a problematic situation that must be studied. This is done through a process. Dewey says that while there is a process, it must change within the context of the inquiry. I thought the process really looked like what I have learned from research methods and his disclaimer of using different processes spoke to the different methods one might use in social science research.
Jonathan Staylor: My interpretation of social science concerns the study of interpersonal interactions within society and how they influence human behaviors. In this chapter, Dewey argued that "the subject-matter of social problems is existential." (pg. 72) I agree with this in that whatever problems exist are a direct result of the meaning of the problem to the individual that is experiencing the problem. The construction of the meaning of social interactions can be determined by the transaction with the environment. Therefore, the process of inquiry is determined by the meanings of the outcome of the inquiry.
Dewey acknowledges that inquiry is "the process of the acquisition of knowledge" (p. 55). I have always thought of inquiry as questioning and while social science research is still a newer concept to me from coming from the classroom, Dewey's interpretation did not exactly align with my concept of social science research but I agree with it. He discusses continuity between the natural and social world. But when talking about social sciences, we are talking about dealing with people and that inherently is complicated. I had thought the concept of our research was to be able to find answers and to generalize our research. He discusses however, that social facts are not just out there but exist dependent on human purpose, which means they can change. This means that generalizing is hard to do within social sciences and that answers to problems are ever changing.
Catina- The article jibes with my understanding of social science research. It is subjective and based on the interaction of the researcher and the researched. The idea of even our theoretical frameworks and research questions are tainted with "should"s (I know that's Kant). We form our questions based on what teachers should do, what students should know, how administrators should behave based on our own perspectives and predilections or habits. The question guiding the inquiry actually suggests what the answer should be. In some places, exploratory or ethnographic research (qual) is not valued as highly because of the challenge of mathemetizing the findings(I didn't make that word up)
Additionally, if research findings based on scientific method alone created effective educators anyone could go into a learning situation and teach effectively. We know that is not the case. As a result, it seems that there are places in education research that the scientific method can't touch. The unique aspects of practitioners who are able to implement research or even enact concepts ten years ahead of research's contemplation suggest that aspects of effective instruction should not be dismissed because they can't be quantified.
Amy Jefferson:
ReplyDeleteDewey looks at inquiry as, “the process of the acquisition of knowledge.” p. 55 He also believes that part of the process of inquiry is that you cannot learn something new until you are questioning (disrupting) what you already know? I agree with his thinking in the regard that to conduct research you have to be open to new ideas and open to creating new pathways in your thinking. In the area of social science research, you are in a realm of interaction and constant movement which in turn brings continuous change. From reading chapter 3 it appears that Dewey and I would agree that if you conducted research 3 years ago your results would change if you repeated the research today.
Tosha Yingling:
ReplyDeleteReading about Dewey’s definition of inquiry coincided at a really perfect time when I was also instructing my GSEX intro bbs about knowledge and meaning-making for the week, so I was lulled into a probably false confidence that I could understand the concept enough to compare and contrast it with my training in feminist methodologies. I seem to be a much bigger PoMo than Dewey but I’m actually rather comfortable with his framing of knowledge and inquiry, and the kind of molecular temporality that seems to come with it (to an extent, he’s no PoMo). Knowledge as temporal, inquiry as sequential, serial, may one even say phasic? Hell yeah, I’m down. The idea that knowledge is something created in the doing rather than this nugget of truth we are digging away at to reveal an enlightened lump has a lot of appeal to feminists, growling over our epistemological studies, and suspicious of the ways that knowledge is said to be “discovered.” One might think of Sara Baartman and “discovering” keys to white supremacy in the study by Cuvier of her supposedly enlarged labial “apron,” signaling her sexual lascivity and deviance rather than the truth of using and naming knowledge around the racist eugenic study of her body.
But I also combat this notion being suspicious that the intentional vagueness around defining what then is “true” knowledge and why we still value theorizing around subjectivity to distance ourselves from it, may be more hegemonic, an actual opposition to articulating knowledge and inquiry the verb as temporal. I say this with special attention to the terms “controlled” and “directed” in the act of inquiry, terms that seem to connote bias. I also wonder, if the process of inquiry comes to an end when a unified situation is established, how do we quantify what is unified? Surely there is always dissent, exceptions? Seems a lot like how feminist educators have to teach biological sex as a scientific reality that destabilizes anything but literal notions of gender beyond two sexes despite measurable quantifiable measurement of biological sex (intersex organs for one).
I do appreciate Dewey’s reluctance to split mind::matter and the philosophical legacy it imprints on our ideas however (though a centrifugal force in education philosophy for over a century has more stead than a typical bitter feminist adjunct idealist). I’m not so comfortable with the idea that we can truly separate the social and material world; in fact, I would disagree with Dewey again saying that, I think the physical domain is actually more complex than the social domain. As a particular woo-woo branch of cyborg feminism, I’ve done a lot of work in thinking of things such as language, molecules, solipsism, instinct as more than abstractions but physical manifestations we are presently unable to measure. The gooey co-mingling of bodies may be more complex and material than we think, just like the way our creation of knowledge around race, gender, ability, etc. are social constructions with material impacts. A service dog’s heart will eventually sync with its handlers and other eerie material/social crossings abound.
Mitchell Waters - The author’s depiction of inquiry actually coincides well with my understanding of how social science research works. Dewey maintains that “actual activities in educating test the worth of scientific results” and that educational practice is “the beginning and close” of all educational inquiry (p. 79). This might differ from other scientific modes of inquiry and assumptions on how real knowledge is obtained. Educational practice finds questions to ask, social scientific inquiry is conducted to find possible solutions or answers to these questions and then the worth of findings are judged when they are introduced back into practice. Educational practice and educational research are meant to be symbiotic. One informs the other but the questions and test of value are always found in educational practice.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of Dewey’s position on educational inquiry is the assertion that education is an art and not a science (p. 79) and that education could be informed by science but it remains an art nonetheless. I would argue that it could be both. Dewey also seems to go back on this statement on p. 80 when he writes that the “outcomes of educational inquiry can only become ‘educational science’ when they are used, ‘through the medium of the minds of educators, to make educational functions more intelligent.” I may be misunderstanding this piece, but this statement seems inconsistent with his statements from the previous page. I believe that there is both an art and a science to educational practice and research. For instance, in counselor education research is meant to inform counseling and psychotherapy practice, there are different kinds of questions in the counseling field that need answers of a more artistic nature (art therapy or mindfulness) and others that need answers in a more scientific way (neurocognitive processes in a certain clinical diagnosis such as the way the Amygdala functions when PTSD symptoms are present.) Education is a broad enough field that it does not have to be a “this or that” but could be “both and.” I think this is an overly narrow way of thinking about educational research.
Elizabeth Severson-Irby:
ReplyDeleteI’ve always viewed inquiry as a form of questioning, often more from an exploratory sense than a strictly purpose-driven, problem specific sense. This seems to be somewhat in opposition to the pragmatic view of inquiry which only arises after a problem has been identified. I completely understand inquiry from this perspective, but I feel like it leaves a gap in the exploratory sense. Is it that there is some nuance of a problem that is detected that causes one to inquire, even if the problem or conflict is not obvious? Or can one begin to inquire without having a firm direction? Dewey would argue that “we only know what the problem is at the very moment that we are able to solve it” (p.60). This just begs the question, can there ever be inquiry for inquiry’s sake?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, social science research is a very new field to me. My background is in more hard science research and then when you substitute out “hard” for “social” or “educational,” things inherently get “messier” due to the complicated synapses of the human brain, multitude of emotions helping to guide (or inhibit) decision making, and everything and everyone that a human must interact with in their life. Under this very flimsy understanding, Dewey’s thoughts in inquiry are very aligned. It is messy, because the process of inquiry is messy. It is inherently human, because it’s the process humans go through to construct knowledge. I enjoy the fact the Dewey emphasizes the teacher becoming an active participant in inquiry, because I think far too often they are removed from the process of ed. research or more unfortunately, researchers or even admin, don’t see the “micro-research” with formative data collection as valuable research to base decisions off of.
My interpretation of the purpose of social science research is to help us understand how society works by studying an intersection of human and environmental behaviors, finding reasons for human behavior, identifying societal problems and establishing ways to solve these societal problems. Therefore, social science research is viewed as a means to improve human interactions. Dewey’s theory of inquiry combats the idea that social science research is truly a way to solve societal problems, specifically educational problems. Instead, Dewey explains that we should not expect firm solutions from educational inquiry because there is a never ending process of dealing with educational problems. In addition, despite verification of an inquiry, the knowledge attain does not transfer to the next problem. Dewey believes that the warranted knowledge attained from a prior situation and can only be used as a means of transformation for the new process of inquiry.
ReplyDeleteI can get on board with B&B’s depiction of inquiry. The only part of it that I really question is the distinction between inquiry and research. When I first read the chapter a few days ago, I thought that they were saying that inquiry was not intentional while research was intentional. And, I feel like that’s just splitting hairs. I see the two as too similar to put that sort of distinction between them. But, when I went back to the chapter to prepare this blog post, now I’m reading it as research is a form of inquiry that is deliberate and aims to generate new knowledge. But, I still feel like they are describing something a little more haphazard about inquiry- like, it just pops up out of nowhere. And, sometimes I think it does, but then it can’t be research? It does seem to me like they are saying that you have to claim it as research on the front end for it to qualify as research….does it really matter?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore I started this program, I would have disagreed with Dewey’s idea of inquiry, I would not agree that the value of research rests on how it is applied. I still do not agree that is the only way to measure the value of research but I can see how Dewey’s idea of inquiry fits well with educational research. On page 58, the stages of inquiry are described, and they reflect the scientific method we use to conduct research. The outcome is a warranted assertion and results in the verification that your inference worked at that time. At the end of the chapter we are reminded our research should be applicable in education. The instructors are the ones testing the value of your research. I think keeping this in mind would help researchers make sure application does not get lost in their research. Research is described at systematic inquire made public. I believe this is very important(even when no significant results are found), this helps researchers and practitioners both know what does and does not work within education(or any field). There are also problems with generalizability from Dewey’s perspective. I think it is good to be aware of what groups can be generalized to from your research. Dewey may think everything is changing and our current idea of generalizability does not work.
ReplyDeleteKristian Robinson -
ReplyDeleteI actually really enjoyed this chapter on inquiry, as it helps to validate my messy depiction of social science research. Naturally, as we looking to study the human condition, which is ever-evolving and chaotic (at best), it makes sense in my head that research that follows is also ever-evolving and chaotic. I found his thoughts on research and inquiry leading to action and new ways of thinking to be very much in line with the social justice stance I take towards the research that I hope to do with LGBTQ+ and other minority issues in higher education. The Deweyan way seems to ask the face and process of research to continue to evolve with the times/people/place that it is researching. I very much vibed with the ideas surrounding the generalizability (or lack there of) of research findings outside of the context that they were studied in. This makes sense to me in the realm of the folks doing research, but it really makes me question how we write about and disseminate research to other students or practitioners, as we (as a society) are socialized to believe that research is generalizable.
Jia
ReplyDeleteInquiry and social science research are always closely connected. According to Dewey, “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 covert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole” (1983a, 108; emphasis in original). The social science research is designing, conducting, analyzing and reporting results of this inquiry into a field of interest using quantitative or qualitative approaches.
Dewey’s interpretation of inquiry does align with the way in which social scientists research or find inquiries within their environment. His notion that inquiry occurs external to the individual is interesting because most would interpret inquiry to be the thought process within the individual, but the thought process within the individual does begin with an issue with a phenomenon in the individual’s environment. Especially since both the individual and their environment are interrelated. Educational research is based in this same inquiry, but it is important to recognize that humanity could never discover concrete truths about the environment. Although humanity cannot discover any true facts, it is essential for us to discover trends, commonalities, similarities, and patterns in our environment in order to continue to improve the environment and our relationship with it.
ReplyDeleteDewey’s description of inquiry does align with my understanding social science research. He maintains that inquiry begins with two conflicting habits that cause a problematic situation that must be studied. This is done through a process. Dewey says that while there is a process, it must change within the context of the inquiry. I thought the process really looked like what I have learned from research methods and his disclaimer of using different processes spoke to the different methods one might use in social science research.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Staylor: My interpretation of social science concerns the study of interpersonal interactions within society and how they influence human behaviors. In this chapter, Dewey argued that "the subject-matter of social problems is existential." (pg. 72) I agree with this in that whatever problems exist are a direct result of the meaning of the problem to the individual that is experiencing the problem. The construction of the meaning of social interactions can be determined by the transaction with the environment. Therefore, the process of inquiry is determined by the meanings of the outcome of the inquiry.
ReplyDeleteDewey acknowledges that inquiry is "the process of the acquisition of knowledge" (p. 55). I have always thought of inquiry as questioning and while social science research is still a newer concept to me from coming from the classroom, Dewey's interpretation did not exactly align with my concept of social science research but I agree with it. He discusses continuity between the natural and social world. But when talking about social sciences, we are talking about dealing with people and that inherently is complicated. I had thought the concept of our research was to be able to find answers and to generalize our research. He discusses however, that social facts are not just out there but exist dependent on human purpose, which means they can change. This means that generalizing is hard to do within social sciences and that answers to problems are ever changing.
ReplyDeleteCatina- The article jibes with my understanding of social science research. It is subjective and based on the interaction of the researcher and the researched. The idea of even our theoretical frameworks and research questions are tainted with "should"s (I know that's Kant). We form our questions based on what teachers should do, what students should know, how administrators should behave based on our own perspectives and predilections or habits. The question guiding the inquiry actually suggests what the answer should be. In some places, exploratory or ethnographic research (qual) is not valued as highly because of the challenge of mathemetizing the findings(I didn't make that word up)
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, if research findings based on scientific method alone created effective educators anyone could go into a learning situation and teach effectively. We know that is not the case. As a result, it seems that there are places in education research that the scientific method can't touch. The unique aspects of practitioners who are able to implement research or even enact concepts ten years ahead of research's contemplation suggest that aspects of effective instruction should not be dismissed because they can't be quantified.