Assumptions and beliefs gf the educator-inquirer influence all inquiry activities
and interpretations. In this chapter, I will explore some of the assumptions commonly
made by educators who think they might want to use naturalistic inquiry in their
teaching and learning as a means to wonder about the experiences they and their associates
are having.
Several of these assumptions are illustrated in a teacher preparation project I have
been involved with at Orem High School through a special program called Unified Studies.
This program emphasizes a naturalistic inquiry approach tg learning, teaching, and teacher training. A report based on the inquiry I have been conducting
in conjunction with this project is presented in Appendix A: A Sample Study, using NI to examine a teacher education program. This report illustrates
one way of sharing what is learned through naturalistic inquiry with other educators.
Many assumptions associated with naturalistic inquiry are illustrated in this report
as well.
Before turning to the example though, some of the assumptions traditionaldy made by
naturalistic inquirers from several fields are presented briefly here:
Some Common Assumptions
Naturalistic inquiry is not
a new idea. This methodology has a long history in several disciplines and has
a variety of names. Anthropologists have developed their ethnographic
methods for many years, into a rigorous and well accepted science. Sociologists
have likewise combined surveying techniques with naturalistic approaches to develop
the participant observation
approach of
. Folklorists, psychologists, linguists, ethnomusicologists, and many others have
likewise used and improved this approach to understanding and knowing, using terms
such as case study, interpretive inquiry, and phenomenology
to label their approach. In literature, hermeneutics, constructivism, and narrative
are terms used to reflect this same paradigm.
However, interest in this approach has developed slowly in educational inquiry. Only
in the last 15 to 20 years have discussions over the relative strengths of qualitative
and quantitative
methods gained enough interest to actually effect the practice of researchers and
evaluators. Teachers and administrators have used some of the activities associated
with naturalistic inquiry without thinking they were doing research
. More recently, though, educators have begun to realize that the distinction should
not be between qualitative and quantitative methods, but between paradigms for inquiry.
Paradigms represent conceptualizations of the nature of reality, the relationship
between the person trying to know something and the thing they are trying to know,
the role of values in inquiry, and other such variables. They go far beyond the
mere distinction between the description and definition of qualities (qualitative
inquiry) and the quantification of those qualities (quantitative inquiry).
Therefore, another term that captures these larger distinctions will be used. Rather
than discuss qualitative methods, we will investigate the concept and associated
methods of naturalistic inquiry
. This is a broad term which captures the variety of approaches developed by other
disciplines (ethnography, participant observation, etc.) and includes both qualitative
and quantitative methods. It is a term that reflects a unique paradigm for inquiry
which departs substantially from paradigms most commonly used in educational research
and evaluation until recently.
Simply put, naturalistic inquiry is disciplined inquiry
conducted in natural settings (in the field of interest, not in laboratories), using
natural methods (observation, interviewing, thinking, reading, writing) in natural
ways by people who have natural interests in what they are studying (practitioners
such as teachers, counselors, and administrators as well as full time researchers and
evaluators).
The term, disciplined inquiry was coined by Cronbach and Suppes (1969) in Research for tomorrow's schools
(New York: Macmillan) to encompass several different types of paradigms which may
differ significantly in the methods they use and the conceptualizations of reality
they represent, but which meet certain critical standards. Some of these characteristics
are summarized by Smith and Glass (1987, page 25 in Research and evaluation in education and the social sciences
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall) as follows:
meaningful topics are addressed [not trivial];
the researchers employ systematic, clearly described procedures so that the reader
can closely follow the logic of the study and assess the validity [credibility]
of the conclusions;
the researchers are sensitive to the errors that are associated with their methods
and seek to control them or consider how the errors influence the results;
empirical verification and sound logic are valued; and
plausible alternative explanations for results are sought.
It is difficult to argue with any of these points. Most naturalistic inquirers want
to meet these standards to produce results that are disciplined. Criteria have been
developed for conducting a naturalistic study so that it meets these standards (discussed in Chapter Three). However, each inquirer must decide how closely they will follow
these criteria in light of their circumstances and other assumptions.
Please read the report in Appendix A: A Sample Study and then return to the remainder of this chapter
for a discussion of some of the assumptions participants made in that study and that
naturalistic inquirers regularly make.
An Analysis of Assumptions
What key points can be drawn from the story of this research project? The participants
in the storq demonstrated many of the assumptions someone wanting to use naturalistic
inquiry ought to consider. Some of these will be discussed but many more are viable. In fact, a thorough analysis of the Unified Studies program and the teacher preparation
program associated with it is one of the inquiry projects in which I am engaged and
which should yield a much more extensive list of assumptions as it continues. But here are some of the assumptions identified so far:
1. Good teaching involves many of the same skills as good inquiry. Some of these
skills include asking questions of our experience, being perplexed about events we
participate in, being interested in the views of others and working skillfully to
tap those views sensitively, attending to others with our ears, eyes, and other senses, thinking
about our experiences in new ways, relating our experiences to other events and thoughts
from other contexts to see what insights those relations bring to us, being fully awake to what is going on around us, and on and on. Other similarities were identified
in Chapter One.
2. Naturalistic inquiry by educators involves participation in the education activities
while observing, questioning, thinking. It is possible to participate in some teaching
activities without really thinking about what is going on; but when teachers are looking for better ways, putting their own ideas on trial, looking for feedback on
their projects, and putting students' interests at the top of their priority list,
they are doing the same thing participant observers do in sociology or what ethnographers do in anthropology. They are immersed in the culture of the school while trying
to understand it from several points of view.
3. The focus of these participants was on meaning-- what did the experiences students
and educators were having in Unified Studies mean to those participants? What values
did they associate with those experiences? What implications did their experiences
there have for their continuing lives? Interpretation of lived experience and the
clarification of meaning are central goals of naturalistic inquiry.
4. The records presented in this chapter of the participants' experiences were essentially
descriptive and exploratory. They represented attempts by the writers to discover
what was happening to them in this interesting setting and to entertain a variety
of interpretations of those happenings. Naturalistic inquiry is more focused on discovery
and exploration than on confirmation and testing of conclusions. The focus shifts
too, as the discovery proceeds; it is not centered concretely on issues decided in advance.
5. The focus of these participants inquiries was more on interactions, complex settings,
and processes than on isolation of "critical variables," testing of products, or
summaries of the bottom line. Naturalistic inquiry is most often used in this way
too.
6. The participants in this story appear to agree with five axioms set forth by Lincoln
and Guba (1985) as central to naturalistic inquiry:
a. Regarding the nature of reality, the naturalistic paradigm holds that "realities
are multiple, constructed, and holistic" rather than "single, tangible, and fragmentable."
b. Regarding the relationship of the inquirer and the thing being inquired into,
the naturalistic paradigm holds that the "knower and the known are interactive,
inseparable" rather than "independent, a dualism."
c. Regarding the possibility of generalization from a study, the naturalistic paradigm
holds that "only time- and context-bound working hypotheses are possible" rather
than "time- and context-free generalizations."
d. Regarding the possibility of establishing causal linkages through research studies,
the naturalistic paradigm holds that "all entities are in a state of mutual simultaneous shaping, so that it is impossible to distinguish causes from effects" rather than claiming that "there are real causes, temporally precedent to or simultaneous
with their effects."
e. Regarding the role of values in inquiry, the naturalistic paradigm holds that
"inquiry is value- bound" and not "value-free." (p. 37)
By way of illustration, the story told earlier in Appendix A described the Unified
Studies program from several different points of view-- mine, a teacher's, and several
student teachers'. Althoug` there was considerable overlap$ it was clear that each
of us was constructing a view of reality and that we accepted the fact that each person
could see some things in very unique ways and that the whole of our interpretations
was of more importance and value than to find one "true" definition of everyone's
experience.
The discussion of Parker Palmer's views regarding the relationship of the knower and
the known illustrated our acceptance of the second axiom. Teachers cannot really
understand their students until they are willing to share themselves with those students. I learned much more about Unified and about the teachers and other participants
there as I shared my views and concerns with them. A naturalistic educator-inquirer
can not remain aloof and antiseptic. One must get into the experience full-heartedly
to gain the most from it. And we must be willing to change based on what we learn during
our inquiry.
Although you who are teachers may resonate to the stories that have been told in this
book, you must be the judges as to whether the claims I am making apply to your situations
or not. You must take your contexts into account. The statements Cheryl made about her experiences with Unified were time and context bound statements. But shared
contexts assure applicability to other times and places if you want to make that
transfer. That is the invitation offered by naturalistic inquirers as they share
their experiences and thoughts with others.
Cheryl's journal entries illustrate vividly that her teaching efforts were as influenced
by the students and Sid and the environment she was working in as these people and
objects were influenced by her teaching. This is an example of mutual simultaneous
shaping. Naturalistic inquiry declines to isolate single causes and effects because
there is so much going on that everything is influencing everything else in some
way.
Finally, the basis for this chapter is that the assumptions we make as educators about
inquiry and our place in the world have tremendous impact on what we do here. This
is an open acknowledgement that our values are central to all we are and do and that
our inquiry is tied intricately with those values. Levinas' focus on the ethical
as undergirding the methodglogical or even the metaphysical is a reminder that the
use of naturalistic inquiry methods and
the naturalistic paradigm are subsidiary to our values and beliefs about the importance
of the other people in the world with whom we share our inquiries through teaching
and other forms of sharing.
7. The participants in this story illustrate the point that naturalistic teacher-inquirers
use natural settings (their classrooms and field trips) as the principal sources
of information; they collect the information directly through their own natural senses (seeing, hearing, and experiencing personally, etc.). This is a very appropriate
means of investigation for educators who are in ideal positions to conduct naturalistic
inquiry as part of their normal work.
Common Questions about Qualitative Inquiry
There are many questions commonly asked about qualitative inquiry. Answers clarify
some of the other characteristics of the approach. Bogdan and Biklen (1982) address
several of these on pages 39-44. As you read these, consider how you feel about
the questions and answers in light of your own inquiries in your school setting.
1. Can qualitative and quantitative approaches be used together?
Although qualitative and quantitative data can certainly be used together (refer to
the handout on definition of naturalistic inquiry) and some people do use data collection
designs and procedures together that are often considered to be qualitative (such
as naturalistic inquiry) and quantitative (such as surveys), Bogdan and Biklen recommend
that beginners not try to do both in the same study. Lifcoln and Guba would say
that the question of greater importance is whether or not naturalistic and positivistic paradigms can both be used in the same study. A review of the axioms would suggest
that they can not.
2. Is qualitative research really scientific?
If scientific inquiry is defined as "rigorous and systematic empirical inquiry" or
disciplined inquiry (refer again to the handout on definitions of naturalistic inquiry),
then naturalistic (qualitative) inquiry is certainly scientific. This is a much
broader and more realistic definition of science than many people use, however. It is
not scientific if a narrower definition (such as deductive and hypothesis-testing)
is used.
3. How does qualitative research differ from what other people like teachers, reporters,
or artists do?
Although a naturalistic inquirer may do many of the same things these people do (interview,
observe, create, write, etc.) they would do their work for different reasons and
they would follow the principles of disciplined inquirq (discussed in the handout
on definition of naturalistic inquiry).
4. Are qualitative findings generalizable?
As indicated above, if generalization means "time- and context-free generalizations"
which are commonly sought by people using the positivistic paradigm, then naturalistic
inquiries are not meant to be generalizable. However, if one means that the results of a study may be read by some one and used in their own setting (transferable),
then the answer is yes. Naturalistic inquiries should be conducted and written so
readers can intelligently use the information from them in other settings.
5. What about the researcher's opinions, prejudices, and other biases and their effect
on the data?
Naturalistic inquirers acknowledge that they are subjective by nature, as are all
people, including all researchers. They claim that our subjectivity is necessary
to understand the subjectivity of the people being studied in an inquiry. However,
they use a variety of disciplined inquiry controls (discussed in detail in another handout)
to attempt to account for their biases and control for their prejudices.
6. Doesn't the presence of the researcher change the behavior of the people he or she
is trying to study?
The problem of "observer effect" exists in all social research (and probably in the
supposed "hard sciences" as well). Naturalistic inquirers seek to overcome this
influence by interacting with the people they study as naturally as possible, over
long periods of time, without manipulating the situation any more than possible. They also
study themselves as the research anstrument to try to account for the influence they
may be having on the setting.
7. Will two researchers independently studying the same setting or subjects come up with
the same findings?
Although there would be some concern if two researchers found conflicting results
which could not be resolved through negotiations between them, naturalistic inquirers
expect that two independent researchers would probably look at different things,
talk to different people, ask different questions, use different theoretical constructs,
and therefore produce different studies altogether. Therefore, they are not likely
to come up with the same findings.
Some Additional Beliefs and Assumptions
to be Considered Regarding Human Inquiry
Selected applications to my own projects are in italics
1. The knower and the known must interact to generate knowledge for the knower about the known; therefore, the interaction should be part of the focus and should be enhanced to generate the most useful and valuable knowledge. Interactions may range from very direct, as in developing a friendship with someone who can help you understand their world, to very indirect, as in observing someone through a hidden camera or giving a test or questionnaire to someone (in social science) or measuring heat in a chemistry study. But none of these interactions allows the knower to have no impact whatsoever on the known.
In my qualitative study of Unified Studies: I have had to develop some kind of trusting relationship with every student, teacher, or other person I wanted to learn from and part of that trust building has involved sharing my interests in the program and what they could do to help me understand the program better.
In my historical study of my grandmother's life: I have had to build trust with her and other family members to give me access to documents; and some documents are probably still unavailable to me because of those relationships. What I can ask of her and of the documents is also both enhanced and restricted by who I am.
In my survey study of Unified Studies graduates: I built the questionnaire out of interactions I had had already with some graduates and with current participants in the program; so the instrument was shaped by those interactions. Those who met only the questionnaire were clearly influenced by that encounter in different ways (some responded, some ignored it, some partially responded; but all had a "relationship" with me through the instrument and relationships have some sort of influence on both parties).
In my experimental study on test-wiseness: I set up an artificial situation in which I was able to randoely distribute instruction booklets of two types (a treatment booklet teaching some principles of test-wiseness and a control booklet with stories and poems in it) to a group of students who were preparing to take an important test and then I assessed the test-wiseness skills of the two groups and compared them. This was clearly a case of the knower interacting with the known. I had to tell them something of what I was doing but not too much, at least not before administering the booklets. The booklets and the test of test-wiseness, as well as my invitations to participate and my instructions to them were all part of my influence on them and on how they responded to the experience I set up for them; thus influencing the way they responded to the materials and the results I obtained from the study.
2. Although some Truth is absolute and therefore some realities or knowledge about that Truth are not negotiable, our knowledge or views of reality are rarely absolute. We are struggling as human beings to clarify what we really know and what we must take on faith. We do this in "learning communities" and "socially construct" many of our realities through interactions with others, putting forth our conceptions and seeing how others respond to them.
3. I believe that God can be part of my learning community if I will accept and seek him and hearken to what he would teach me. He is actually part of that community anyway but I can learn much more by acknowledging that and acting upon it than I could ever do by ignoring or denying his existence and his knowledge. So studying God's revelations to humans, listening to His prophets, and praying to Him regularly seem a very natural part of my efforts to be an inquirer.
4. Yet, I also believe we have had a veil of forgetfulness drawn across our minds and it is not always clear what God would say about a given field of inquiry. We have to struggle and seek, many times it appears, "on our own" to know. So faith is a big part of inquiry and learning to live with ambiguity is as well.
5. Very few time-free or context-free generalizations are possible to make when drawing conclusions about people. Building "time- and context-bound working hypotheses" is a much more appropriate goal in educational research theory building. The closest we can come to generalizations is through the accumulation of findings across many studies in diverse contexts, across time, by multiple inquirers using multiple methods. But even the generalizations thus generated are open to contradiction through discovery of counter evidence. We need to be humble about what we are "discovering."
There are many different "stories "I can tell about Unified Studies based on my inquiry of the last seven years. But whatever I might say about what they are doing in this program, I have to be tentative because there are continual surprises and nearly always an exception. And even if I do reach a conclusion that seems to apply across all twenty years of the program, next year's student body may surprise me and the teachers and similar programs elsewhere may yield very different results.
I'm struggling to get my Grandmother's story straight but she changes parts from time to time during revisions. Also, her children point out alternative interpretations of experiences they had in common with her which modify my conclusions. Even if I do get it straight as far as she and her children go, other readers are likely to interpret her life and the context in which she lived differently than I have because they bring different questions and assumptions to the experience. Yet, over many life histories and other histories, some consistent patterns are likely to emerge across many interpreters (but not all, I'll bet).
My survey of graduates identified many similar evaluations of their experiences in Unified Studies. But not all graduates agreed completely on any one conclusion.
Most of the students who participated in the "treatment group" did better on the final test than did the control group. But not all of them did. This could have been because some were already test-wise or because my measures of test-wiseness were flawed or because my instruction was ineffectual for some students, or because of many other reasons. My one study does not yield conclusive evidence. But combined with many other studies of similar purpose it might lead to some findings that people would trust enough to act upon (would that make them true then?)
6. Similarly, I am skeptical about the facility of establishing credible causal linkages between variables through educational research studies. As Lincoln and Guba suggest: "all entities are in a state of mutual simultaneous shaping, so that it is impossible to distinguish causes from effects." This isn't to say that there are no causal connections but showing them as indisputable facts is very difficult if not impossible to do, at least in human affairs.
It appears from stories many students tell me that Unified Studies is having a major impact on their high school education and their views of themselves as life-long learners. But they all have so many other things going on in their lives at the same time that it is impossible to separate out the impact of Unified from all the other influences. It is even difficult to isolate just where Unified starts and where it stops in the life of any given student.
My Grandmother believes she became a teacher instead of a librarian because her father asked her to quickly finish her teacher certification process and help the family financially instead of continue her education. But what caused her to heed her father's request? What lead her father to make that request? What stopped her from turning to librarianship later (she actually was a librarian for many more years than she was a school teacher). And what causal linkages we might define in her case would be applicable across all girls and their fathers?
Nearly all the graduates interviewed claimed that Unified Studies had made a positive difference in their lives since graduation. But not all of them made this claim. And each positive claim was about a slightly different kind of influence they felt the program had had. But these are all opinions of people who have had millions of other experiences in their lives too. So how can we be sure what Unified actually caused?
I tried to conclude that my test-wiseness instruction helped some of the participants in my study become more test-wise. But what about the others? If it didn't work equally well for all of them, how can I say there is a causal link between my instruction and their performance?
7. I believe "inquiry is value-bound" and not "value-free" (Lincoln and Guba, p. 37). In other words, researchers or inquirers ask questions and design their studies based on particular assumptions, beliefs, and/or values. Therefore, their studies are guided by their values and the results, conclusions, and interpretations are also shaped by those values, just as their values are shaped by what they find. Values from different groups of people can (and usually should) be counterbalanced by values from others if the results of inquiry are going to be credible or at least worth considering by others. But no value-free studies are conceivable by people who have values (and we all do).
I began doing my study of Unified because the idea of integrating several disciplines into a common course for high school students and conducting much of the class out in the environment and not just in the school building appealed to me. It felt right. But I've met many people who feel exactly the opposite. If they were to do "my study"they would probably want to show that these people are harming their students while I've spent most of my time wanting to find out what was good or laudable about their work.
I love my Grandmother and want to tell her story to the rest of the family and anyone else who might be interested in the time and places she lived. I wanted to help her tell her story and so I give priority to her version of things over versions her children suggest might be more accurate. I could take a very different approach if it weren't for these powerful values I keep bumping into in myself!
The survey of graduates is shaped by the same values I used in designing the participant-observation study. I invited others to join me in developing the questionnaires and conducting related interviews. We argued about the questions we were asking and about the conclusions we should reach once the answers came back. So my values and theirs have been combined to some extent in doing this study. But I hired those people to help me and they haven't (or won't eventually) spend nearly as much time examining the results as I. And if there were others who were to join the project now, they too would have an influence. So a combination of values is at play here.
In the test-wiseness study, I was trying to meet a class requirement to do an experiment. I sort of believed in test-wiseness as a concept but I felt really uncomfortable manipulating people to participate in my study just so I could get credit and a good grade. I could have had very different values and probably would have modified my instruction, the tests I gave, and even the relationship I developed with participants accordingly. That certainly would have impacted the results.
8. Humans inquire. We are always asking questions, seeking answers, sharing what we learn with others, reshaping our answers based on their responses, acting on what we think we know, changing directions when we discover our errors, and so on. Some inquiry is very formalized while most is informal and essentially taken for granted. I believe that thinking about who we are as inquirers can enhance all our inquiry efforts.
Some issues to consider in future drafts of this chapter--
Knoblauch and Brannon (1988, P 25) make some excellent points that ought to be included in this chapter. They are talking about the value of story telling and saying that
the techniques associated with "naturalistic inquiry" trappings of anthropological
method such as fieldnotes multiple observers, and triangulation are more elaborate
forms of story telling which can be very useful though time consuming for already
busy teachers if the intent is to look more intensively, to withold easy closure,
to preserve multiple points of view. But if the reason for their preference is a desire to
approach more objectivity in the account, whic` entails yet another capitulation
to the positivist frame of mind, then they only serve the interests of those who
wish to exclude teachers from serious research. I like the points they are making and want
to balance this book out with more emphasis on narrative. I am afraid that I have
stayed in the positivist camp much more than I ever intended. Yet, I keep being
reminded that Marné knew about all this narrative stuff for a long time and was enlightened
by applying the trappings of anthropological method through her exposure to Spradley.
Doing that gave her new insights she wasn't getting through story telling alone.
So I want in this book to use all
procedures and ideas that will help people combine the best literature and science
to enhance learner knowledge, as K and B say, "The knowledge that literature offers
is not cumulative in the way that physical knowledge is: one does not "know more"
as each story is added to the others. But one knows "better"; ones instincts and values,
expectations and judgments mature. One's ability to read the world grows." (p 26)
These people do a great job of showing the value of narrative, the continuing influence
of positivism on educational research inspite of its rejection by so many fields,
and relate all of this to teachers being researchers. There is a tone of defensiveness
though-- of the oppressed teachers attempting to throw off the shackles imposed by
others, of power struggle that puts me off and I want to move away from that in what
I say.
Additional Readings
Knoblauch, C. H. and Brannon, L. (1988). Knowing our knowledge. A phenomenological
basis for teacher research. Chaper 2 in Audits of meaning, a festschrift in honor of Ann E. Berthoff
by Smith, L. Z. (Ed.), Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Guba, Egon G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Palmer, Parker J. (1983). To know as we are known/ A spirituality of education.
New York: HarperSanFrancisco.
Levinas, E. (1987). Philosophy and the idea of infinity. In A. Lingis (Translator),
Collected philosophical papers4/EM>
(pp. 47-59). Dordrecht: Eartinus Nijhoff.
Boody dissertation,
Questions for Consideration
1. What is naturalistic inquiry?
2. How is naturalistic inquiry different from qualitative research-- why make a distinction
between the two?
3. What is disciplined inquiry?
4. Can naturalistic inquiry be disciplined? Why should it be?
5. How compatible are disciplined inquiry and naturalistic inquiry with your assumptions
about what you are doing in schools with students and others?
6. What does each of the following axioms mean to you?
a. Regarding the nature of reality, the naturalistic paradigm holds that "realities
are multiple, constructed, and holistic" rather than "single, tangible, and fragmentable."
b. Regarding the relationship of the inquirer and the thing being inquired into, the
naturalistic paradigm holds that the "knower and the known are interactive, inseparable"
rather than "independent, a dualism."
c. Regarding the possibility of generalization from a study, the naturalistic paradigm
holds that "only time- and context-bound working hypotheses (idiographic statements)
are possible" rather than "time- and context-free generalizations (nomothetic statements)."
d. Regarding the possibility of establishing causal linkages through research studies,
the naturalistic paradigm holds that "all entities are in a state of mutual simultaneous
shaping, so that it is impossible to distinguish causes from effects" rather than claiming that "there are real causes, temporally precedent to or simultaneous
with their effects."
e. Regarding the role of values in inquiry, the naturalistic paradigm holds that "inquiry
is value-bound" and not "value-free."
7. How would you use these axioms to help you decide if a potential research problem
you wanted to study could be approached using naturalistic inquiry?
8. What is your stand on these axioms or beliefs as they relate to the research problems
(the perplexities or anomolies) you are thinking about in your own work?
9. What are some of the distinguishing characteristics of naturalistic inquiry?
10. How would you describe the general process for conducting a naturalistic study?
11. How would you answer the following questions about naturalistic inquiry:
a. Is it scientific? Rigorous?
b. How can teachers use it to help them in their work?
c. Are findings from naturalistic inquiry generalizable?
d. Isn't it more subjective than other kinds of research?
e. When would you use it instead of other kinds of research?
f. Is it reliable?
g. How is it different from quantitative methods?
Suggested Activities
1. Look at the vignette you wrote for Chapter One, Activity #3 describing an event
in your classroom (or elsewhere). Ponder the assumptions underlying what you observed
and your observation of it. These questions might help: What did you expect to
see? Of all the things you could have seen why was your attention drawn to this way
of seeing it? What was your agenda? What were the other participants' agendas?
Why did you do what you did? Why do you t`ink the other participants did what they
did?
2. Work your way through these issues in writing. Designate this as being separate
from the observations. [I use OC for Observer Comment.]