Unit 2 - Nature of Research and Research Philosophies (Printer Friendly Format)

In this unit, we're going to be looking at some of the philosophical concepts and ideas that underpin research today. In the last couple of decades in particular the practice of research has become both more confusing and more liberating. One of the bigger challenges in research today as a result of these changes is that the researcher must be quite clear about his/her own personal beliefs since these guide the choice of methods that best fit his/her purpose. Research is generally undertaken for the fairly simple purpose of answering a question--seeking to extend the knowledge base in a particular area.

Let's look at some amusing examples of research. One was an AP news story about a group of researchers who discovered a "dirty little secret": Millions of Americans routinely don't wash their hands after using the toilet. So, what was their research question? (How often do Americans wash their hands while in the bathroom?) How would you answer that question? How did the researchers come to that conclusion? The researchers really did hide in the stalls and observe people in action! Guess where the dirtiest hands are? (New York City) How about the cleanest hands? (Chicago) Which gender engages in hand washing more often? (Women, of course! ;-)

I hope you will look for examples of interesting research or research fallacies on TV, radio, and in the newspaper. Please post them on the Main discussion forum for all of us to enjoy. For those of you who listen to National Public Radio (U.S.), you may have heard Garrison Keillor sign off from his stories about Lake Wobegon by saying, "...where all the women are strong, all the men good-looking, and all the children above average." Is that humorous statement possible? (Yes, in one community that could be possible. However, if you are dealing with national statistics, this would be impossible since the "average" is the mean of scores in any distribution.)

One of my colleagues has a story from a friend's military days. This friend was serving as a personnel psychologist at an Armed Forces Examining Station, where he was responsible for administering and reporting the standardized qualification tests for inductees and enlistees. His new supervisor (who didn't know about psychometrics!) stated emphatically: "I've been reviewing these test results and I'm shocked to find out that about half the men who took these tests are below the 50th percentile in math and reading! I want that improved. What are you going to do about it?" (Well, sir...).

(Want to hear a silly, but accurate, portrayal of statistics? Listen to "The Statistics Song"!) <http://www.teachtsp.com/products/productextras/scisci/statisticslyrics.html>

Your Tasks:

1. As a way to begin thinking about how to evaluate educational research, please critique the article "A 'gender effect' in college learning?" a the following Web site: http://csmonitor.com/2001/1127/p14s1- lehl.html.
   
   A critique does NOT mean that you summarize what was done, nor does critique mean "criticize." When you critique, focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the research design of the study, as reported in the article. Please reflect on what was done and think about whether or not the conclusions are warranted. Please post your brief reactions to the Unit 2 - Gender Effect Article discussion forum and discuss with your classmates.

 

2. What are some questions from your own adult education practice that you are interested in and that you think could be answered through educational research? (If you’re not currently a practicing educator, think of a question about something that goes on in your workplace that could be answered with a research project.) Please post your questions to the Unit 2 - My Research Questions . Then read the research questions posted by your classmates to see who else in the class shares your interests. Feel free to respond with any questions or comments you may have. You'll probably want to check back several times during the first week of class to see new postings from your classmates!

    

3. Carefully review the "Adult Education Research Critique Teams" assignment from the "Course Requirements" section of our course syllabus. I will post your team assignments to the Main discussion forum at the beginning of this Unit's week of study. Your team should begin working on this assignment as soon as that posting is made. Each team has a private discussion forum to use for team communications. Your team's forum is called "Research Critique Team X," where "X" is the number of the team to which you are assigned. That discussion forum is a space that only you and your fellow team members can access. I may access it, too, from time to time to see how you are progressing, but you should send any questions you have for me directly to my course e-mail account to make sure I see those.
   

Before going further, it might be useful to define a word we'll be using--"paradigm." The Webster's Dictionary defines "paradigm" as "an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype." In the sense that we'll be using it, paradigm can be defined as a set of beliefs that guide action, in this case, beliefs about the nature of reality (ontology), the nature of knowledge (epistemology) and the role of values (axiology). You don't need to worry about learning the terms "ontology," "epistemology," or "axiology." We'll just study the difference between the two "paradigms."

The conventional (or positivist) and constructivist paradigms remain the two prominent paradigms in research today. (Note: The terms conventional and positivist paradigm are commonly used interchangeably; positivist research is often called “conventional” since for many years it was pretty much the only approach to conducting research.) Jacobson (see Task 1, below) provides a schema for differentiating the values of the conventional and constructivist research paradigms. Set out below is another way to view the differentiation.

	Positivist / Conventional	Constructivist
Ontology (nature of reality)	Reality is tangible, exists outside me, is objective, and can be broken into parts; "Truth" exists and can be apprehended and measured.	Reality is constructed, subjective, multiple, relative. Constructions are not more or less "true," only more or less informed.
Epistemology (nature of knowledge)	The knower and the known are independent of each other; the influence of the researcher on the researched can be controlled; replicable findings are "true".	Knower and the known are interactively linked; findings are "created" as research proceeds.
Axiology (role of values)	Inquiry is objective and thus value-free; values and biases can be eliminated through the use of rigorous procedures.	Inquiry is value-bound; values are inherent in the context of the study; the researcher's values affect the study.

Another way to think about the differences in the two approaches is to consider the aim of inquiry for each perspective. In positivism, the aim of research is explanation that will result in the ability to predict and control phenomena, either physical or human. The researcher is cast in the role of the "expert." The aim of inquiry in constructivism is understanding and reconstructing the constructions or meanings that both the researcher and those being researched hold. This process aims at consensus (shared understanding), while remaining open to new interpretation. The researcher plays the role of participant and facilitator.

As researchers, we tend to see the world--reality, knowledge, values--more in one of the above ways than the other. We are inclined to ask certain types of questions and ask them in a certain way, and this will lead to the choice of research methodologies that can be considered either positivist or constructivist. Although how to conduct research might not seem like a particularly contentious issue, these differences can actually lead to considerable debate and even hostility among researchers in different "camps." While some researchers seem to believe that there is only one "right" approach to conducting research, the complexity of the human activity we call "education" argues otherwise.

Your Tasks:

1. Read pages 125-129 (top of the page) from the article by Wayne Jacobson. The reading will help you understand about different approaches to research. In the excerpt, Jacobson presents some of the differences between the two paradigms which is critical for an understanding of the process and outcome of research, especially in the field of educational practice.
   
   
2. Read "What drives scientific research in education" for an introduction to the debate about the "right" way to conduct educational research. The article is available at: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1557.
   
   
3. Unit 2 Synthesis Question: Think about one of the potential research questions you posted to the My Research Question discussion forum. Which of the two paradigms--positivist or constructivist--do you think would be best for answering your question? What particular characteristics of the paradigm you chose would make it appropriate, given your way of seeing the world, your practice setting, the population of students your work with, an/or other factors?

Submit your response (in no more than 750 words) to the Unit 2 Synthesis Question drop box by the end of the next unit (Unit 3).

Note:When you send me an attachment in a drop box, or post on a discussion forum with an attachment, please put your name on the electronic file (e.g., MyName_SQ1, or Team1_Critique). (SQ stands for Synthesis Question.) Please also put your name on the assignment when the file is opened up. (Some students make a template for all assignments with their name as a header.)

4. At this point I want you to begin to acquaint yourself with the American Educational Research Association (AERA) home page.
   • Be sure to check out the "Annual Meetings" section (see link at the bottom of their main page), where you'll find information about upcoming and past AERA events, including presented papers.
   • While you are there, I'd like you to select a related electronic mailing list to join. (Click on their "Net Resources" section for information on AERA electronic mailing lists--"listservs"--which also gives directions for how to subscribe.) By joining a listserv you can begin to immerse yourself in discussions related to educational research. Begin by reading the archive for the list you select (the collection of past postings), so that you can see what hot topics and issues are being addressed by the participants!
   • If you are interested in distance education, you can choose to join DEOS-L, the Distance Education Online Symposium list (from Penn State), instead. You can subscribe to DEOS-L by visiting http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deos-l/deosl.asp and following the instructions to either view postings or join the list.
   • At a later point in this course I will ask you to report back to the group about your experience with your new listserv.