I typically think of research within the domain of the constructivist views. I don't think there's any way to know reality independent of my observation, because inevitably I'm observing this reality, and thus the way I view reality is affected by prior knowledge, point of view, emotion, etc. Multiple realities can exist, and they can all be correct in their own right. For this reason, the researcher can never be separated from the research, because the research is the product of the researcher's questions and observations. Without the researcher, there would be no research, not because of a lack of questions, but a lack of people quiding and directing the process of answering those questions. Thus, research is never static, because a single reality can never be determined. This view of research makes the most sense. Most research now is interdisciplinary; without reanalysis and multiple viewpoints, we would still be conducting reductionist research which is useful but highly limited.
My idea of research is more towards the constructivist views. Conventional beliefs puts an emphasis that the knower and the known are independently separate from each other but constructivist is that they linked together. I think that the researcher and its subjects or whatever is being analyzed/questioned is connected from the beginning in one shape or form. Maybe through values, expectations of even interest. This linkage, I believe can go one way.However, the main aspect that made me intrigued by constructivist view is that this view is more for comprehending the meaning behind what is being research while conventional is more trying to control and predicting human and physical and natural laws. I feel like researching is to understand something better but if something is found that may be the "truth" of the nature, research furthers that understanding. So, technically maybe these beliefs can come hand in hand during research, so that one can approach research in both beliefs instead of being limited or stuck in one category.
Like Lincoln and Guba, I identify more with the constructivist approach to research. I understand that the conventional approach could useful for inquiries that aim to study things that are naturally occurring, free from outside influences (perhaps free from human influences). Even in this case, I believe that part of the process is for the inquirer to construct his/ her own knowledge from the data collected and determine one or more realities that may exist. This seems to be counter to my understanding of the conventional approach which seeks to reveal only a single reality. Lincoln and Guba note that whenever human inquiry is involved, the constructivist paradigm is the most suitable. This research approach aligns well with the type of research that we are about to conduct too, or should I say the type of research we have already begun. In class, we have been setting up a framework based on Labaree’s three alternative goals for American education, democratic equality, social efficiency and social mobility. The purpose of our research efforts is to gain a better understanding of teachers’ perspectives on the purpose of public schools. The teachers we interact with will have their own socially constructed realities that they will share and we, as a group, will attempt to make sense of their experiences in the larger educational framework.
To me I agree with a little bit of both constructivist and conventional beliefs. One conventional belief that I think seems accurate is distancing yourself from the subject (to a degree). I I agree with that statement because in a way if you become intertwined with a subject that may lead to being biased. But on the other hand of epistemology becoming intertwined may mean you know the subject better. Conventional beliefs tries to strip influences from the reasearch. Which I feel may be beneficial and not at the same time. I feel like it is important to construct your own thesis, but after that if someone has information on the "truth" (which constructivist define as the best informed and most sophisticated information) then I feel like some influence would be beneficial.
Before reading this, I assumed that there was only way of going about research. In school (K-12) we are consistently taught the conventional methods of research. As far as methods, that is all I have ever been exposed to, therefore what I see as the “right” way. However, I would think that my overall views on interpretation of results and the world in general are more constructivist. I think it is important to realize that everyone has a different background and different views. I think this should always be taken into consideration when analyzing results from a study.
My idea of research is also more towards to the constructivist views. One constructivist belief is that in order to construct a case, it needs to be analyzed, critiqued, reiteration, reanalyzed and so one. I agree with this statement because you might believe something but after hearing from others point of view, it might make you to reconsider to think about the concepts and will help you to think what others are thinking compare to yours which might be beneficial to find out the truths. In order to research about any subjects, you are trying to find out the truths. To do that, you need to take opinions from different people and different people have different views about the case which need to be take in consideration when analyzing the study as Aiden said. I believe that research is something that needs to be investigated, explored in order to get better understanding of that particular study.
Like Alana, I feel like it is best to subscribe to the ideas of both methods of research. Since Western culture values objectivity, it is best not to stray too far from it, lest one risk losing one's credibility with the public. However, I also think that it lends to credibility in one's research if one is aware of the biases and openly address them.
In accordance to the Constructivist view, I do believe that a research question can evolve and change over the course of the project. As the researcher uncovers more evidence, the nuances of the research questions can be refined to improve the project and ultimately be closer to the "truth." For example a research question can become more and more specific as a researcher realizes that he/she would like to explore a single particular aspect.
I'm going to make myself the bad guy and disagree outright-I am a positivist all the way. I wish that I could identify with the constructivist approach to research; but i can't rationalize it. I do math. I do physics. Both tell me, quite logically so, that the universe is comprised of inexorable truisms. As it follows, I find constructivist methodology irrational and disparate to the fundaments of research, and therefore lacking credibility. Once again, however, I am used to numbers, axioms proven irrefutable to all modern knowledge. I hope that by the end of this class I will be able to recognize some of the merits of constructivist research, but right now, it all seems like conjecture; Apples and Oranges (and of course Apples are better!). Someone convince me; Lincoln and Guba would be ashamed.
I feel that I agree much more to the constructivist view. I feel that this type of view would bring forth the honest or truthful results in research. In contrast, the conventional viewpoint who inflict an influence in which the researcher could gear the experiment in the direction they wish. This could be beneficial in some cases, but it could also form much more biased results than the constructivist method. I feel that decreased levels of biased data is better for the results in researched because of the fact that it consist of a wide diverse variety rather than targeted data in one direction.
When it comes to research methodology I too am a positivist. I may not be a positivist thinker but when studying the impact of an action or process on a subject I truly believe that the more control created by the structure of the study the better. With more control the effects of the test or study can be more closely observed and better understood. The most important aspect of a study or experiment in my opinion should always be objectivity. As human beings we all have personal interests or goals, but as researchers I feel that we must work as hard as possible to separate ourselves from these interests.
My positivist view most likely stems from my fear of bias. In class I had stated that I do not believe in truth. This statement now that I am reflecting seems a bit blunt or harsh, and most definitely contradictory to my overall feelings on the question. I do believe in truth or that truth exists, I just do not know whether or not we will ever be capable of knowing these absolute truths. I have no way of knowing with all certainty that something is true, which is why the positivist view appeals to me. If we remove all, or as many influences as possible the results of our study or experiment should in theory be as close to the truth as possible. I have never enjoyed working with numbers and equations, but I have always seen the appeal of having ten individuals with the same problem reaching the same conclusion. Whereas within the disciplines I study it is far more normal for ten individuals to reach twenty different conclusions.
I feel as though it is important utilize the aspects of both types of research methods. While conventional research methods that are objective in nature are great tools for studies dealing with hard facts in the fields of physics and mathematics, they may not be the best when it comes to social science or any other dynamic subject nature. A constructivist approach to research allows the researcher to use their own intuition and background knowledge to flexibly amend the questions or protocols of their study to further enhance data collection and bring in quality results. The findings in these types of studies can usually be interpreted in different ways and still be valuable.
I am very much stuck in between both views of thinking: both positivist and constructivist view. While I do agree with positivists that more control over an expierment produces more accurate and more precise results because there is less chances of different variables affecting the actual experiment. Moreover, this reduces bias and provides more structure to the experiment. On the other hand, I agree with constructivists that there should be some freedom and leg-room for an experiment to evolve and transform because sometimes when data is collected, new and unfound information is revealed which can change the direction of your experiment. In all, I like aspects of both views.
Due to fellow classmates, I have shifted more towards the constructivist paradigm rather than the positivist counterpart. With our research project underway, I (along with Lincoln and Guba) believe that we should take a more fluid and everchanging approach rather than a fixed one that a positivist reinforces. Because we are dealing with human inquiry and are tackling this issue with interviews and phone calls, we must acknowledge that our previous predetermined questions may be tweaked in order to better understand the topic at hand. A positivist on the other hand would wholeheartedly reject to this proposition because they believe that those particular predetermined questions should be the only questions questioned with data being pulled and analyzed from the answers of the masses. Researching such a broad area of research by interviewing different people of different races, histories, backgrounds, incomes, etc., it would make sense to attack this study with a constructivist viewpoint.
When reviewing the the two, I feel that I lean more towards the constructivist paradigm. Like Courtney, I feel that the constructivist viewpoint will bring the most truth. The other point made by many of my peers is that the constructivist view avoids bias. The less bias there is for the research, the better; as courtney stated, there will be a wider range rather than a "targeted" data in one direction.
I typically think of research within the domain of the constructivist views. I don't think there's any way to know reality independent of my observation, because inevitably I'm observing this reality, and thus the way I view reality is affected by prior knowledge, point of view, emotion, etc. Multiple realities can exist, and they can all be correct in their own right. For this reason, the researcher can never be separated from the research, because the research is the product of the researcher's questions and observations. Without the researcher, there would be no research, not because of a lack of questions, but a lack of people quiding and directing the process of answering those questions. Thus, research is never static, because a single reality can never be determined. This view of research makes the most sense. Most research now is interdisciplinary; without reanalysis and multiple viewpoints, we would still be conducting reductionist research which is useful but highly limited.
ReplyDeleteMy idea of research is more towards the constructivist views. Conventional beliefs puts an emphasis that the knower and the known are independently separate from each other but constructivist is that they linked together. I think that the researcher and its subjects or whatever is being analyzed/questioned is connected from the beginning in one shape or form. Maybe through values, expectations of even interest. This linkage, I believe can go one way.However, the main aspect that made me intrigued by constructivist view is that this view is more for comprehending the meaning behind what is being research while conventional is more trying to control and predicting human and physical and natural laws. I feel like researching is to understand something better but if something is found that may be the "truth" of the nature, research furthers that understanding. So, technically maybe these beliefs can come hand in hand during research, so that one can approach research in both beliefs instead of being limited or stuck in one category.
ReplyDeleteLike Lincoln and Guba, I identify more with the constructivist approach to research. I understand that the conventional approach could useful for inquiries that aim to study things that are naturally occurring, free from outside influences (perhaps free from human influences). Even in this case, I believe that part of the process is for the inquirer to construct his/ her own knowledge from the data collected and determine one or more realities that may exist. This seems to be counter to my understanding of the conventional approach which seeks to reveal only a single reality. Lincoln and Guba note that whenever human inquiry is involved, the constructivist paradigm is the most suitable. This research approach aligns well with the type of research that we are about to conduct too, or should I say the type of research we have already begun. In class, we have been setting up a framework based on Labaree’s three alternative goals for American education, democratic equality, social efficiency and social mobility. The purpose of our research efforts is to gain a better understanding of teachers’ perspectives on the purpose of public schools. The teachers we interact with will have their own socially constructed realities that they will share and we, as a group, will attempt to make sense of their experiences in the larger educational framework.
ReplyDeleteTo me I agree with a little bit of both constructivist and conventional beliefs. One conventional belief that I think seems accurate is distancing yourself from the subject (to a degree). I I agree with that statement because in a way if you become intertwined with a subject that may lead to being biased. But on the other hand of epistemology becoming intertwined may mean you know the subject better. Conventional beliefs tries to strip influences from the reasearch. Which I feel may be beneficial and not at the same time. I feel like it is important to construct your own thesis, but after that if someone has information on the "truth" (which constructivist define as the best informed and most sophisticated information) then I feel like some influence would be beneficial.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this, I assumed that there was only way of going about research. In school (K-12) we are consistently taught the conventional methods of research. As far as methods, that is all I have ever been exposed to, therefore what I see as the “right” way. However, I would think that my overall views on interpretation of results and the world in general are more constructivist. I think it is important to realize that everyone has a different background and different views. I think this should always be taken into consideration when analyzing results from a study.
ReplyDeleteMy idea of research is also more towards to the constructivist views. One constructivist belief is that in order to construct a case, it needs to be analyzed, critiqued, reiteration, reanalyzed and so one. I agree with this statement because you might believe something but after hearing from others point of view, it might make you to reconsider to think about the concepts and will help you to think what others are thinking compare to yours which might be beneficial to find out the truths. In order to research about any subjects, you are trying to find out the truths. To do that, you need to take opinions from different people and different people have different views about the case which need to be take in consideration when analyzing the study as Aiden said. I believe that research is something that needs to be investigated, explored in order to get better understanding of that particular study.
ReplyDeleteLike Alana, I feel like it is best to subscribe to the ideas of both methods of research. Since Western culture values objectivity, it is best not to stray too far from it, lest one risk losing one's credibility with the public. However, I also think that it lends to credibility in one's research if one is aware of the biases and openly address them.
ReplyDeleteIn accordance to the Constructivist view, I do believe that a research question can evolve and change over the course of the project. As the researcher uncovers more evidence, the nuances of the research questions can be refined to improve the project and ultimately be closer to the "truth." For example a research question can become more and more specific as a researcher realizes that he/she would like to explore a single particular aspect.
I'm going to make myself the bad guy and disagree outright-I am a positivist all the way. I wish that I could identify with the constructivist approach to research; but i can't rationalize it. I do math. I do physics. Both tell me, quite logically so, that the universe is comprised of inexorable truisms. As it follows, I find constructivist methodology irrational and disparate to the fundaments of research, and therefore lacking credibility. Once again, however, I am used to numbers, axioms proven irrefutable to all modern knowledge. I hope that by the end of this class I will be able to recognize some of the merits of constructivist research, but right now, it all seems like conjecture; Apples and Oranges (and of course Apples are better!). Someone convince me; Lincoln and Guba would be ashamed.
ReplyDeleteI feel that I agree much more to the constructivist view. I feel that this type of view would bring forth the honest or truthful results in research. In contrast, the conventional viewpoint who inflict an influence in which the researcher could gear the experiment in the direction they wish. This could be beneficial in some cases, but it could also form much more biased results than the constructivist method. I feel that decreased levels of biased data is better for the results in researched because of the fact that it consist of a wide diverse variety rather than targeted data in one direction.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to research methodology I too am a positivist. I may not be a positivist thinker but when studying the impact of an action or process on a subject I truly believe that the more control created by the structure of the study the better. With more control the effects of the test or study can be more closely observed and better understood. The most important aspect of a study or experiment in my opinion should always be objectivity. As human beings we all have personal interests or goals, but as researchers I feel that we must work as hard as possible to separate ourselves from these interests.
ReplyDeleteMy positivist view most likely stems from my fear of bias. In class I had stated that I do not believe in truth. This statement now that I am reflecting seems a bit blunt or harsh, and most definitely contradictory to my overall feelings on the question. I do believe in truth or that truth exists, I just do not know whether or not we will ever be capable of knowing these absolute truths. I have no way of knowing with all certainty that something is true, which is why the positivist view appeals to me. If we remove all, or as many influences as possible the results of our study or experiment should in theory be as close to the truth as possible. I have never enjoyed working with numbers and equations, but I have always seen the appeal of having ten individuals with the same problem reaching the same conclusion. Whereas within the disciplines I study it is far more normal for ten individuals to reach twenty different conclusions.
I feel as though it is important utilize the aspects of both types of research methods. While conventional research methods that are objective in nature are great tools for studies dealing with hard facts in the fields of physics and mathematics, they may not be the best when it comes to social science or any other dynamic subject nature. A constructivist approach to research allows the researcher to use their own intuition and background knowledge to flexibly amend the questions or protocols of their study to further enhance data collection and bring in quality results. The findings in these types of studies can usually be interpreted in different ways and still be valuable.
ReplyDeleteI am very much stuck in between both views of thinking: both positivist and constructivist view. While I do agree with positivists that more control over an expierment produces more accurate and more precise results because there is less chances of different variables affecting the actual experiment. Moreover, this reduces bias and provides more structure to the experiment. On the other hand, I agree with constructivists that there should be some freedom and leg-room for an experiment to evolve and transform because sometimes when data is collected, new and unfound information is revealed which can change the direction of your experiment. In all, I like aspects of both views.
ReplyDeleteDue to fellow classmates, I have shifted more towards the constructivist paradigm rather than the positivist counterpart. With our research project underway, I (along with Lincoln and Guba) believe that we should take a more fluid and everchanging approach rather than a fixed one that a positivist reinforces. Because we are dealing with human inquiry and are tackling this issue with interviews and phone calls, we must acknowledge that our previous predetermined questions may be tweaked in order to better understand the topic at hand. A positivist on the other hand would wholeheartedly reject to this proposition because they believe that those particular predetermined questions should be the only questions questioned with data being pulled and analyzed from the answers of the masses. Researching such a broad area of research by interviewing different people of different races, histories, backgrounds, incomes, etc., it would make sense to attack this study with a constructivist viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteWhen reviewing the the two, I feel that I lean more towards the constructivist paradigm. Like Courtney, I feel that the constructivist viewpoint will bring the most truth. The other point made by many of my peers is that the constructivist view avoids bias. The less bias there is for the research, the better; as courtney stated, there will be a wider range rather than a "targeted" data in one direction.
ReplyDelete