LPRPArchivesProfessionalAcademic
From LiteracyTentWiki
- Back to LPRPArchivesResearchParadigms
4/5/06
Hello folks,
I'm working on a piece that I would like to get some feedback on, on the very viability of the project which I am proposing, a working through of Cochran-Smith & Lytle's (1993) Inside Outside/Teacher research and Knowledge through the prism of what John Dewey refers to as the intellectual organization of experience. In this, I am proposing at least one type of theoretical construct for practitioner-based inquiry, which may be contradictory on its face. Whether it is or not is a question that I am seeking to examine in the extended essay that I am in the midst of. For the time being, I am linking Cochran-Smith & Lytle's call for "systematic intentional inquiry as the undergirding methodology for teacher research with Dewey's quest for the intellectual organization of experience, which undergirds his key text, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. What follows is the introduction, subject to much revision as I continue to write the piece.
On the broader issue of why I write in this way, perhaps the short and long answer is I can't help myself.
Best,
George Demetrion
--
4/5/05
I think describing teacher research as in opposition to academic research is not a productive line of inquiry, in part because there is never going to be sufficient resources either in funding or teachers willing to spend the time to make teacher research a credible alternative. teacher research is useful as an approach to reflective practice. Why not support reflective practice that employs academic research as a source of direction and contributes to academic research as a source of hypothesis worthy of testing?. Where strong research findings exists, teacher research could document how to implement those findings in the many different contexts that exist, and in the process identify where the theory does not apply, suggesting a new avenue for research. Where little or no rigorous research exists, teacher research could develop hypotheses worth testing. The teacher research product could be improved teaching by the teacher researcher or could be the sharing of his/her experience with other teachers (that is, how to make the findings from academic research work at the classroom level), and/or the sharing of insights with researchers that causes them to reformulate their theories.
John Comings
--
4/5/05
John,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
The opposition between teacher and academic research is not mine, but what Cochran-Smith & Lytle observed. While noting the differences and pointing out the contrasts even in chart form, their broader aspiration, as I understand it, was to have teacher research be viewed as a legitimate subset of educational research, while maintaining the integrity of its own construction. Further, as I read them (perhaps a bit between the lines), unless teacher research attains such legitimacy there's not a snowball's chance in hell of it moving from "the fringe to the forefront" of educational research as they envisioned. Moreover, without precisely defining the terms, these academic-based theorists of teacher research (absolutely no aspersion intended here) identified "systematic, intentional inquiry" as the underlying methodological required if this subset were ever to achieve academic legitimacy. While that is a contestable claim, it is their premise, and it is that which I am taking as a pivot point to compare with Dewey's quest for the intellectual organization of experience, which underlays his logic of inquiry. Thus, I am interpreting Dewey's logic as a type of systematic, intentional inquiry in which both are grounded in the quest to apply a rigorously critical (and systematic)approach to problematically-defined experience--a baseline which grounds pragmatic experimentalism and practitioner-based inquiry.
No doubt the effort could be flawed from inception in that one could argue that experience, by definition, is not susceptible to the type of rigorous inquiry that both Cochran-Smith & Lytle, and Dewey are after. However, my objective in the extended essay (as it is still formulating--about 11,000 words written) is to examine this premise and then to draw more informed conclusions as the project reaches completion. Core questions guiding this effort are:
a) Is/or to what extent is teacher research susceptible to systematic, intentional inquiry? b) To what extent can teacher research benefit from (rather than depend upon) explicit theoretical construction; or perhaps, is the issue unavoidable in that even if not discussed or formulated, just by the nature of human discourse, perception formation (hence, theory) is inescapable? If so, the operative assumption is, we might as well articulate it. c) On the other hand, does making theory explicit help or hinder? In what contexts? d) To what extent is Dewey's theory of inquiry a viable methodological instrument to undergird teacher research (one approach among others? e) To what extent is Cochran-Smith & Lytle's, and Dewey's quest to achieve a systematic and rigorous approach to analyzing experience simply flawed on its face in that both theory and practice have their respective logics, in which, while there can be convergences, there is also a dimension of never the twain shall meet in the sense that experience, simply being what it is, can never be grasped by thought? In this I am expressing no aspersion on either experience or theory, but would be challenging any notion that would argue that the purpose of theory/research is to shed light on practice, and similarly that critical practice leads, necessarily, or even should lead to more refined theory.
Both Cochran-Smith & Lytle, and Dewey held out hope that there could be some strong convergences, but any pathway that would move in this direction would be exceedingly difficult.
In this final analysis, I am testing a hypothesis on the viability of systematic, intentional inquiry as an underlying methodology of well grounded teacher research, with Dewey's theory of experientially-derived mode of inquiry a valid type of methodology that can be drawn upon to undergird teacher research. I'm only too keenly aware of the inherent difficulties in such a project as this, yet, unless the hypothesis is given wide and full scope we don't really know what both the problems and the potentialities are in exploring such a topic. My intention is to get a better handle on both dimensions of this issue. I know that I am encounter certain risks in taking on such a project in that I ultimately may only be talking to myself. Nonetheless, probably for good and not so healthy reasons I feel compelled to move my thinking in this direction.
George Demetrion
--
4/6/05
Why not just say Cochran-Smith & Lytle are wrong? In pursuing teacher research as a form of inquiry that can be equal to academic research, I think an opportunity is missed. I've talked to the "experimental research only" crowd about professional wisdom, and they don't like it as an equally valid approach to developing useful approaches to instruction. However, when I talk about it as a rigorous approach to adapting research findings to the many different instructional contexts, they are willing to listen. So, I think that defining teacher research as a way to systematically develop professional wisdom (that expands and makes useful academic research) is an effort that could be successful. Once this is established, teacher research around questions that have no rigorous research (almost all questions in adult education), professional wisdom might be accepted as the best available advice and the way to develop the most reasonable hypothesis to test.
John Comings
--
David, John, & others,
Just a few comments for now. I would like to address John's important message a bit later.
On Cochran-Smith & Lytle's terms practitioner-based inquiry is research--specifically, teacher research. What makes it research, according to the authors is that it is "systematic, intentional, inquiry by teachers of their own practice which the authors would view as just as legitimate, even as it is different from academic research.
What is raising concern among some is any conflation of the term research with experimental design, or any notion of research that would identify experimental design with the gold standard. Such positivist philosophical premises are grounded in an impoverished epistemology (theory of knowing). By contrast, practitioner-based inquiry (teacher research) is premised on a "thicker" description of human experience associated with the qualitative traditions, which includes a probing into first person consciousness as well as various facets of social construction.
There is nothing wrong with the term, "practitioner wisdom," in itself. Where it becomes problematic is only in a framework that (a) identifies experimental design as the gold standard; and (b) in the hierarchy of values, that, when push comes shove, places the term research in a more legitimate category.
One of the strengths of Inside/Outside: Teacher Research & Knowledge is its insistence that teacher research is (in principle) a fully legitimate form of educational research, but in order for it to be viewed that way, at least by the academy, some type of canonical standard is essential, which for Cochran-Smith & Lytle is "systematic, intentional, inquiry," in which they leave the specifics of what this means or may mean, somewhat open.
Their construction, too, may be problematic, but I think it's important to get a sense of why they have identified (at least in theory) systematic, intentional inquiry as the methodological grounding point of teacher research. I see two reasons: (a) the authors concern about lack of standards in current practices of teacher research (however such standards might be defined); (b) that unless teacher research achieve full legitimacy as a form of educational research of which it is a type, there is virtually no possibility of this emergent sub-field moving from the fringe to the forefront of educational studies and educational research. The implication is that the consequence of the latter can only mean exacerbated marginality for an already marginalized field.
Not that these tendencies cannot be counteracted. However, this would require teachers in some organized and continuous ways to fully step up to the challenges they would face and to move beyond the immediacy of their highly particularist concerns and research focus and take up the task within themselves of reconstructing a field. On Cochran-Smith & Lytle's argument, the practitioner/university nexus is the most likely viable place for that to happen. Whether or to what extent that is so is a contestable matter, but if teacher research has to do with the construction of knowledge (by practitioners), then the university contribution to this process has much to offer even as concerns over power distribution would have to be worked through.
I offer my review of Inside/Outside which may provide those who are not familiar with this book with an overview of Cochran-Smith & Lytle's argument. In the review I concentrate on Cochran-Smith and Lytle's views rather than the many practitioner essays in Part II, because, even as a practitioner, I am more interested in theory, but that's me. Others would have different takes. That's okay, too. It's the critical and discriminating dialogue both among and within diverse discourse communities which is critical and establishing the space where this can become viable.
Here's the review: http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/George/InOut/cover.htm
George Demetrion
-- 4/6/05
John,
Thanks for your well thought out argument. I do not summarily reject what you have to say, but I have some concerns. On your first question:
"Why not just say Cochran-Smith & Lytle are wrong? "
For one thing it would be an assertion rather than a grounded judgment. For another thing, even if wrong, and I'm not willing to make any such claim short of a serious investigation, taking the very hypothesis seriously and seeing where it can go, has the potential of much fruitfulness both in the realms of teacher research and more traditional forms of academic research. The promise is that the interchange, given teacher and academic research as types of educational research, may open up much knowledge for those who are seriously willing to engage the process. Moreover, to rule out this type of interchange ipso facto is to border on the anti-intellectual, which I don't think is a good basis to establish a field referred to as teacher research.
" In pursuing teacher research as a form of inquiry that can be equal to academic research, I think an opportunity is missed."
I would agree if this became some type of rule or the only legitimate form of teacher research. That's clearly not my position. I am claiming, and strongly so, that academic research can be, and sometimes is a type of teacher research and vice versa. Humbly asserted, I argue that my essay, Motivation and the Adult New Reader: Student Profiles in a Deweyan Vein, (ABE, 11, # 2, 80-108) & accessed here (http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/George/motivatn/motivatn.pdf) is a type of research that blurs the genres between teacher research and academic research. By definition it is a practitioner-based essay in which I combine case study description and an explanatory theoretical construct. I would argue that there's plenty of room for such types of writing, by practitioners, those at the academy, and collaborative writing projects including both.
At the same time I would not argue that that academically-grounded projects are the only valid form of teacher research, far from it. What we're looking for, I think, is cogency both in the manner of well-constructed theoretical essays and more empirically-based evidentiary research projects. This requires a somewhat open universe in the nature of genre construction, especially for a type of educational research that is still emerging in many respects. Consequently, to dismiss the linkage between academic and teacher research summarily is also problematic, which I don't think gives ample grounds to the plurality and complexity of practice or theory/research, nor for the potentiality of its nexus if we are willing to pursue this arena with an amplitude of creativity and exploratory potential that this type of work merits.
"I've talked to the "experimental research only" crowd about professional wisdom, and they don't like it as an equally valid approach to developing useful approaches to instruction. However, when I talk about it as a rigorous approach to adapting research findings to the many different instructional contexts, they are willing to listen."
I would agree that's an important venue to pursue. However, it's not an either/or. And while I realize because of your positionality have to speak to the "experimental research only" crowd (I feel your pain), others don't. More fundamentally, there are many theorist/researchers (aka, scholars) who reject the very notion that research is defined through a methodology, particularly the one proposed by the alleged gold standard. Thus, for those in cultural anthropology, microhistory, and social linguistics, there is much more of an affinity (in principle) with the epistemological projects of teacher researchers and their own. I think a rigorous exploration of those creative spaces between certain branches of the humanities and the "softer" social sciences and teacher research is very much what is called for. Moreover, there are others among us because of our positionality who hold some interesting space in the borderlands of the academy and the field, who, if they're willing to push the gauntlet of their own enveloping creativity in the repudiation of any orthodoxy which attempts to assert the crown of legitimacy, there is much fruitful work that can come out of such eforts. We don't all sing to the same tune, neither do we need to.
" So, I think that defining teacher research as a way to systematically develop professional wisdom (that expands and makes useful academic research) is an effort that could be successful. "
Agreed, but it's a both/and rather than an either/or. Even still, I want to examine very closely how the term, "professional wisdom" is being used,who's using it, for what purposes, and wither does the legitimacy of its usages reside?
"Once this is established, teacher research around questions that have no rigorous research (almost all questions in adult education), professional wisdom might be accepted as the best available advice and the way to develop the most reasonable hypothesis to test."
Generally, agreed with previously stated caveats in place. One minor critique, namely, "the best available advice and the way to develop the most reasonable hypothesis to test." I would rather say, as one very cogent way of shaping a hypothesis to test; that is, I would rather be inclusive than exclusive. Also, I would take the term, "to test" with a grain of salt. Some hypotheses are relatively easily susceptible to testing, others are not. I don't want testing (another methodology) to be the basis for determining whether a study has legitimacy at the level it may warrant legitimacy, which depends on the nature of the problem under investigation. Some problems (perhaps the most important ones) remain qualitative through and through, some of which may be ultimately evaluative rather than suseptible to conclusive empirically-grounded resolution. This issue depends on the definition of science used as well as the definition of what consists legitimate scholarship (academic or practitioner-based), whether such scholarship is scientific, culturally-based or (most likely) some combination.
George Demetrion
-- 4/6/05
In light of the recent series of postings about professional wisdom and models of research, I think it is worth remembering that this list was started with practitioners in mind. Specifically, it was created to provide a space to continue the dialogues started at the Meeting of the Minds Symposium. At that event, researchers (myself included) were given the charge of presenting their research in a way that allowed practitioners in the audience to begin to think through the applications of the research, while at the same time thinking about the validity of the research itself. The Symposium was designed to be a place where practitioners could ask questions about methodology, or at least be in conversations about why methodology matters. Based upon the feedback we received, it appeared that at least some meeting of minds went on.
However, for the most part, in the short history of this list, postings have not come from practitioners. I get personal emails thanking me for publications that I have uploaded, and some comments about the language of some of the postings, but there has not been a dialogue in which a group of practitioners have stepped forward to present their take on the matter. I do not believe that I can interpret this silence in any one way since I don’t know anything about the people who are subscribed to this list. However, having been a practitioner in a town crowded with academics, I know that practitioners sometimes tune out when they start to hear about epistemology, positionality and subjectivity. When I started the list, I wanted it to be a place where practitioners (or others) who were interacting with research would post questions like “What does epistemology (or statistical significance, random sampling, etc.) mean and why should I care?” The language of authority in research (whether defined at the federal level or by groups of researchers of different schools) is very different from the language of authority in professional wisdom. I think this list could be helpful if we focus on the type of words people use to convey authority – what parts of the language of research do you practitioners out there want to know about?
I also agree with David that we have to think about what we mean by professional wisdom. In the dictionary (to use the rhetorical structure so favored by valedictorian speakers and first year English students), wisdom is defined as –
1) knowledge 2) insight 3) good sense/judgement 4) generally accepted belief
Now, it often seems in conversation with non-researchers that adult literacy researchers are seen as having #1 (knowledge) without necessarily having lots of #2 or #3. Fair enough – that is a time-tested stereotype of the academic. But at the same time, #4 (a generally accepted belief) can be wrong. I have worked in schools where the professional wisdom was that Spanish speaking students’ slow progress was due to learning disabilities, and that Russian students’ rapid progress was because they were so “smart.” I think we would all agree that that is the kind of “professional wisdom” that we could do without. So how do we tell “good” professional wisdom from “bad” professional wisdom? I would think that it would have to be something other than a generally accepted belief for it to bring something to the table.
From another perspective, what do we expect when we bring practitioners and researchers together? How would practitioners gain from becoming more conversant in the language of research? I think this is very complicated. I just uploaded this quote from Freire and Macedo to the ALE Wiki site for participatory education -
“The notion of emancipatory literacy suggests two dimensions of literacy. On the one hand, students have to become literate about their histories, experiences, and the culture of their immediate environments. On the other hand, they must also appropriate those codes and cultures of the dominant spheres so that they can transcend their own environments. There is often an enormous tension between these two dimensions of literacy. How can emancipatory literacy deal effectively with this tension so as not to suffocate either dimension?” (Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. New York: Bergin & Garvey pg. 47)
Does this same tension exist in professional development for adult literacy teachers? Does empowerment mean fighting for recognition of (the good kind of) professional wisdom that has accrued over years and years of hard work in the front lines? Does empowerment mean giving practitioners the language that policy makers will listen to? How do we do both?
And, of course, where is the voice of the student in all of this?
Erik Jacobson
--
4/7/05
To Erik, et al...
Regarding the following from Erik's latest posting...
From another perspective, what do we expect when we bring practitioners and researchers together? How would practitioners gain from becoming more conversant in the language of research?
What do we expect...we expect to be able to communicate clearly with each other, and then return to our immediate colleagues and speak the necessary language to "affirm and engender" support for our respective programs...
How would practitioners gain...who said we are not conversant in the language of research? Sorry to sound harsh, but just because we don't email in academic language, does not mean that we don't, or can't, understand it...there are lots of us [ I am speaking globally here] that are quite capable of understanding research jargon and translating it into simple English...we do it every day
Lynn M. Howard
-- 4/7/05
Group:
I am a practitioner. Everyday I enter my classroom and wonder what I can do that day to assist my students in learning English/Civics. What works and why, what doesn't work but could be adjusted; how do I know if/when a method or attitude or practice advances the acquisition of English skills by my students; where can I go for help in answering these questions; how can I possibly juggle all that is required of a conscientious teacher?
I am participating in an exciting project sponsored by Oregon University in which researchers and practitioners are collaborating to bring research into the classroom and to bring practitioner wisdom to the researcher, Northwest Practitioner Knowledge Institute. It is an honest exchange of research knowledge and practitioner wisdom. I spend as much time as possible with this practice based project because it is exciting--I create and report on my mini research while acknowledging it does not meet the rigorous requirements of research design and has not laid out a philosophical groundwork or justification for the "research". I will return to Eugene in May to hear more exciting news from pactitioners and researchers participating in the project. This is alive, active, immediate; my wish is that I could do more of it and that every teacher had access to such a rich and vital exchange between practitioners and researchers.
Recently, there has been extensive dialogue on this CALPRO discussion list about designs, Dewey philosophy, what research is appropriate, arguments pro and con etc. It is all academic to me and not particularly practitioner friendly in my opinion. I, quite frankly, tune it out and trash it. I must spend my limited professional preparation time productively -- completing lesson plans, being an active member of my teachers' union, attending professional development and in service training as well as staff meetings, collaborating with my collegues--all without ignoring the balance needed that my personal life affords me.
When I read research papers, I go to the results and summary sections to decide if I want to read the whole paper. It is my practitioner-based opionion that researchers should have a separate Discussion List to dialogue as they have been on this page. When the researchers have come to conclusions that impact English Language or any other subject acquisition, report to the practitioners. Then, we would have access to each on separate discussion pages. Researchers could provide practitioners with summaries and reference their work on the researchers' discussion page. I am not opposed to research or to academia. I have completed and published a Ph. D. research paper myself. But now I am in the practitioner world that needs some guidance, streamlined dialogue and practical reports.
This is my practitioner two cents worth.
Bonnita Solberg
-- 4/7/05
I want to make sure that the points I was trying to make are clear.
First, I did not want to suggest that practitioners are not conversant in academic language, only that there might be a benefit to being “more conversant.” To me this is an important distinction, but perhaps others do not see it that way. If so, I apologize for any offense. As an example of what I meant, I would say I am conversant in the language of public policy people, but I would love to be more conversant in it. There are times when I feel like I don’t have the policy-related terminology to ask the questions that I think I want to ask. The reason I suggested that practitioners might benefit from being “more conversant” in the (academic) language of research is that during the symposium many practitioners were asking very specific questions about research terminology, and it appeared that the conversations we had grew richer when we researchers were put on the spot using that same research terminology. I remember in my own session, after I gave a brief overview of issues in sampling methodologies, participants started asking very good questions about the sampling in the research I was presenting. I didn’t assume people didn’t know about sampling. I asked if people wanted an overview, and they said “yes.” Right after the symposium I had asked about specific terminology that people might want discussed. This question generated a list of research-related vocabulary that practitioners said they wanted more information about. (They are listed at at the ALE Wiki Symposium Continued section at http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/LiteracyResearchTerminology, although I have not had a chance to work on it, nor has anybody else). At a minimum, I feel like we need to address the terminology in the list since it was generated by practitioners.
Second, I was wondering about the language necessary to affect change. In light of the way the federal government has defined research and evidence-based practice, how do practitioners make their voice heard? This is the conversation about professional wisdom, or systematic inquiry, or a jury of experts. For the practitioners who were asking questions about research terminology, who may feel less conversant than they want to be - what kinds of things do they have to incorporate into their vocabulary to get a seat at the table? And what is the trade off?
Erik Jacobson
--
4/7/05
Hi Erik!
Thanks for the clarification...I appreciate your taking the time to further explain your point...I apologize for sounding curt...I just get frustrated by academicians assuming that some of us in the trenches don't speak the same language that they do...I agree with the point that you made.
Lynn M. Howard
--
