April 27…The Roles of Theory in Educational Research
What light have the authors in Anyon shed on the issue of how theory should operate in our empirical research projects? Are there any new confusions that have sprung up in the wake of reading this book?
The authors in Anyon demonstrate the need to incorporate theory as a “critical interpretive and explanatory tool” in our empirical research projects (p. 11). Without theory, our ability to explain our research findings is essentially nothing. This idea encouraged me to look back through my most recent research report, and evaluate my writing through a theoretical lens. It was quite obvious the theories to which I subscribed, and those theories were taken as fact in my analysis of the empirical data. As the authors in Anyon suggest, a more powerful way to discuss those empirical data would have been to acknowledge the theories behind my findings, explore other theories, and make connections between all the theories and the findings in the data.
ReplyDeleteThe authors in Anyon also demonstrate that “the process of coming to appropriate theory and theory questions is not complete when the dissertation proposal is done, but operates dialectically with field work, as the researcher reflects on interviews, archival and other data, or quantitative results in light of the theorists that have been read and contemplated” (p. 11). While the researchers typically have theory in mind in the planning stages of the dissertation, the authors here suggest that the theory behind a research project evolves as the project continues. As data is collected, new theories may be incorporated that help to better explain the phenomena seen in the data. Furthermore, the data being collected may require the adaptation or complete abandonment of previously used theories, depending on what the data show. The authors in Anyon demonstrate fully that a researcher can (and should) adapt and refine their theoretical standpoints throughout their work, and find ways to contribute to existing theory through analysis of new data.
One new confusion that has come up for me in reading this book is the idea of a discipline. Of course, I am reading this book as I am thinking about my discipline paper, and that is probably where this question is coming from…
In thinking about theory, how important is it to stay up-to-date on theories “outside” of your discipline? In conversations with others within your discipline, certain language will be commonplace, and the need to explain certain theories will be nonexistent. I wonder if this creates a divide between disciplines. When I get together with friends and family, other “teacher friends” and I are able to “talk shop” and have conversations that others feel excluded from because of the language we use to discuss things. Moving forward in classes, I wonder if it will be more evident which students are part of which disciplines because of their ability to discuss certain theories.
-Chelsea
Reflecting on my reading of Darla Linville's chapter in the Anyon edited volume, I think what I have most taken away is her statement that (queer) theory gave her "a language to articulate a more complicated vision" (177) of what her empirical research was showing. In her previous work with queer youth, she had felt unable to explain her participants' responses to interview and focus group questions.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I think that's the point and value of theory: it allows us a framework for ascribing meaning to actions. Especially for Linville and her work with queer students, Foucault and Butler gave her a way to understand and describe those students' agency and subjectivity (also ideas derived from her earlier exposure to Marxist theorists) with regards to their own gender and sexuality. Queer theory showed her how those students grappled with their identities, and how they did so within the institutions in which they were positioned.
As we've discussed in class before, theory is everywhere in our lives. We all rely on theories to make it through the day -- if we didn't have a theory of the relationship between our actions and their outcomes, we'd never make it out of the door! For the purposes of research, theory serves as the intellectual warrant between the phenomena we seek to describe and explain.
As an aspiring researcher of teacher education, one of the major realms of theory in which I have to operate is how people make sense out of the past. Disciplinary history is simultaneously pretty theory-averse and also incredibly rapacious in using theory from other disciplines: critical race studies, gender and queer studies, sociology, anthropology, and economics. The study of historical consciousness -- not what happened in the past, but how people make sense out of it -- is doubly so. It must understand not only the major theories of historical action, but also of human learning, understanding, and knowing.
Jonathan
Yes, making sense of the past is essential to theory! That's exactly what I gathered from my reading as well. I think researchers are ascribed responsibility to take the time to base research on theory and make sure that theory is one that aligns with the population and study. I think there is a lot of choice that goes into research, and like you said, it is our duty to gather understandings and interpretations of lived experiences.
Delete-Aliza
Chapter four in Anyon’s text is “the nexus of participatory action research and social theory” (112). The concept of theorizing back arose as a means of “reclaiming and recovering knowledge and narratives that have been used against us by becoming researchers” (112). Theory and empirical research became a way of social justice, a way to take control of the narrative written about women of color, not often by women of color. This specific chapter truly illuminated a process of research that was not about women of color as subjects, but rather as a way to address social injustices that are relevant and prevalent. Reading the process of truly inclusive practices made me think about research that I have been reading. It made me question the process of research in general and how helpful and beneficial it is, and to whom is it beneficial? For these women in New York City Public Schools, they were encouraged to pursue their GED’s instead of completing high school. The impact this had on their identity development and careers was profound. What stood apart in this research process was how much thought and effort went into aligning the researchers’ lenses and approaches to research. Coming up with the language and the research questions was a thoughtful task. Not one that happens haphazardly. But one that is intentional, and deeply rooted in culture and history.
ReplyDeleteThis was a chapter I read straight through, but then sat and reflected on for some time. This way of researching decided to take a route of researching back and basing research on a deeply rooted history. It gave voices to women who have not had their voices heard in research, and definitely have not been seen for their past, present, and future. It seemed as though this theory of being able to connect roots to practice was a way to reclaim narratives. Research was done in mass through quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method statistics. I walked away from this reading realizing that research can have voice, and should be constantly questioned for genuine purpose.
-Aliza
Increased measures of security and their effects on speech and learning will always provide a need for ongoing research because of the inherent sneakiness of those effects. This feels like an area where the research will always be playing a game of cat and mouse. But what I love about the idea of using poetry as research data is that I find poetry capable of tackling data that is really hard to document. Poetry is capable of representing such a spectrum of emotions and experiences. In that sense, the research method in Chapter 2 represents such a great idea to me.
ReplyDeleteI think the complexity really emerges through the interview process, interestingly enough because of the complex nature of poetry. Poetry as a form is good at creating a bond between reader and writer, and in many cases, the bond from the reader's perspective is that they see themselves in the work in some way. If we consider that, then the concern is that the interviews (questions inspired by the researcher's reading of the poetry) are serving the needs of the researchers, to a varying degree anyway, that is intrinsic to poetry, its experience, what it does as an art form, etc.
I think the researcher is aware of this though, concluding that, "to learn more about the culture, subjectivity, politics and potential activist role of a subordinated groups like urban teenagers of color, researchers need theory that responds to their own questions, methods, and perspectives" (72).
It doesn't really inspire new questions for me, but it acts as a reminder to not let myself unfairly influence what happens during the research, to let it evolve on its own terms.
- Peyton B.
My first degree was in journalism, and it's something dear to my heart. So when I read about how "theory distinguishes good scholarship from even the best journalism," it really made sense. The idea that reporters select and provide facts, and doesn't go beyond those. There are ethical guidelines in journalism that may very well discourage theorizing, but the difference is there. So what is good scholarship, and how does theory punch it up?
ReplyDeleteI liked this comparison so much more because of the phrase "selected facts" in relations to what reporters use. And scholars are really similar. It's the kind of behind-the-curtain moment when you realize that very often, researchers will present only that which they want the reader to see, or that they've manipulated their data so much that it shows them what they want to see. I think good scholarship is honest scholarship. But not only that, even if your data do show you something meaningful, something "significant", it's made that much more meaningful by framing it.
Theory gives us an explanation for what we see that goes beyond individual interpretations. We let theory inform our research, or we let our research inform theory, but either way, it's just data without a reason why.
I think theory is important in education research because it provides an explanation--where a lot of research seems to want to look solely at outcomes, at what works, it's crucial to know why.
-Meagan
It is imperative to know the WHY behind the results... because sometimes it can be something that you weren't looking for or considering - that's why good experimental studies are replicable. We want to see the same thing happen over and over again. Where education research gets tricky, is that we want to see the same thing work in different contexts - we aren't controlling the environment for the multitude of factors at work. I think one of the failings of education research is that there isn't a bigger network or coalition of researchers with similar interests doing the same research in similar (and different) contexts and compiling the data into a meta-study of sorts. I think the insights gleaned from a compilation like that would be much more effective than all these studies done in isolation. I wonder what Anyon would think of that (and really everyone for that matter).
DeleteBeing grounded in theory can only help to add additional substance to your research. It allows you to examine assumptions from several perspectives. Adding theory to your empirical research helps to paint the picture that you are working hard to design. Scholars often spend a tremendous amount of time and effort trying to uncover new logic, new information for the betterment of their disciplines. Incorporating theory helps to expand the scope of understanding. You want people to read and understand this work that you put so much time in. Adding a healthy mix of theory to the empirical data will widened the scope, widened the audience and could help the audience to better understand your work of art. It helps in making people believe you. Theory is the tool that you must keep in your toolbox at all times.
ReplyDeleteIn the personal reflection at the end of chapter one, the sense that I got about the authors relationship with social theory is that in the beginning they were completely overwhelmed, as there were so many lenses to look through at just one situation. They admitted that they found themselves utilizing the same theories, and ignoring others. I can see the relationship that can be built with a theory, and due to the comfort, the repeating utilization. Chapter 2 delved a bit deeper, making the argument that while some theories appear to fit the research, that there are others that fit the project better. In their personal reflection, they mentioned that while conducting research in high school, they really had to take into account how teenagers conceptualize their lived experiences.
ReplyDeleteTo sum that up for myself, when conducting research and choosing which theoretical framework you will utilize, you need to be honest with yourself about what it is and who it is you are researching, in order to find the best fit.
Maggie Brocklebank
As is the case in most of this class, the Anyon introduction encourages scholars to use theory without making it the basis of the inquiry. Theory is the "So What?" that helps connect and extrapolate data from empirical studies, but it also has the power to draw false conclusions when not done appropriately. My biggest question about theory though is when do you know enough? I'm sure the answer, like everything else in 702, is "it depends!".
ReplyDeleteKurt brought up something that has been bugging me for a bit, and that's the challenge of disciplinarity that comes with theory. As you sharper your theory tools you have to get deeper and deeper into the nuance of the literature to be able to have a full understanding of what this theory means and doesn't mean. However, that level of exposure has to kind of mold your brain a little, right? It's like the summer in high school I spent playing Tony Hawk Pro Skater and envisioned everything in my life in the terms of "how would I incorporate this in a skateboarding trick"? We are trying to make claims about specific things without trying to fit square pegs in round holes, which is tough when oftentimes we are trained in the art of square pegs and the use of square pegs.
I think this, as is similar to my myriad of other minor neurosis with this, is that oftentimes I won't catch myself until after a draft is done or after a paper is rejected. The Anyon text is helpful in that it is encouraging to see how I can do good work and do work in good faith, so when I make a mistake or over/under value theory my peers can hopefully say: "...but I see what you were thinking though!"