Dewey’s assertion that inquiry need not rely upon objectivistic perceptions of problems underscores some of the questions with which I grapple regarding investigator bias and subjectivity in social science research. In delineating indeterminate situations as organic occurrences that only shift into problematic circumstances given specific contexts, such a prospect seemingly opens the door to create paradoxical or contradicting statements even in the realm of my own research interests and inquiries regarding the temporal worth of research. The provisional status held by facts and ideas urges me to question with a weighted degree of frustration to justify the narrow and broad values as well as ethics of a prospective longitudinal study I have in mind that involves close observation of at-risk youths. The mention of the “outcome of the process of inquiry” intimately intertwines the ontology of human research subjects and the knowledge gained from studying the complexities and questions that arise from considering the interactions between people in various contexts and circumstances. This chapter heightened a sense of urgency to continue to consider the changing role and results of inquiry within social science research.
If we consider the view that knowledge is socially constructed, rather than a static entity, this belief aligns with much of social science research. Knowledge is a process, much as research is an evolving process.
We read and discussed in class about the dichotomy present in research: those that generate research and contribute to theory and academia and those who approach research from a practioner’s perspective. I believe Dewey would want to bridge the gap between the two, and indeed rather than focus on the difference between “relevant and rigorous” knowledge, as he seemed more intent on usefulness.
In the end, research that focuses strictly on the academic world has little usefulness in the day to day of most in education. Such academic research is only relevant if needed or useful. For researchers, an important question is to ask is “what good will this research do? Whom does it serve? What difference will it make?”
Dewey argued “knowing as an aesthetic enjoyment of properties of nature as a world of divine art, to knowing as a means of secular control – this is a method of purposefully introducing changes which will alter the direction of the course of events.” Research and inquiry overall make a difference because ultimately the more we “share the experiences of others, the more resources we will have for dealing with our problems, and hence the more intelligent our collective problem solving will be…” (p. 70).
Ultimately, we are all charged to be investigators, and that inquiry is a never-ending process that should be transparent and contributing in a beneficial and practical way.
There are assertions made by Dewey that I agree with. These are: inquiry is a sequential or serial process, or that the natural starting point of inquiry is in the situation in which we do not know how to respond (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 57-58). However, as I continued reading the chapter, I came across a statement that made me reflect on the papers I've written in the past year and the one major paper I will write as a conclusion to my doctoral education. The author suggests that the process of inquiry consists of the cooperation of two kinds of operations: existential (the actual transformation of the situation) and conceptual (reflection or thinking). He further posits that even though these operations might take place in phases one after another, it is always cooperation of the two and never only one of them (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 59).
The ideas I possess and have written about up until now have been mere explorations and explanations. As a novice researcher and an individual with little to no practical experience, the best ways to dip my toes into my areas of interest were reviews of literature and/or dialogues with experts. When using these resources to understand and explain phenomena, there is clear evidence of conceptual operations being utilized in the form of thinking and reflection, but no manifestations of actual transformations. Similarly, when conducting ethnographic research using observations or conducting interviews to understand the status-quo of our social world, we are not necessarily engaging in existential operations to bring about actual transformations; we are merely employing conceptual ones to explore and explain. My intention is not too completely invalidate the author's claim but I do believe that his ABSOLUTE assertion about these operations always co-occur in all instances of inquiry is inaccurate and an overgeneralization.
I see your point about inquiry not necessarily bringing about transformation. It is often difficult for me to tell how far points such as this are taken. Is it possible that Dewey believes that inquiry changes the inquirer in some fashion and he terms this as a transformation? The very nature of conducting such research through methods such as interviews may have an unperceived effect on the participant.
In class discussions we acknowledged that Dewey was more interested in ‘how we know what we know’ (epistemology) than ‘what we know’ (ontology). Biesta and Burbules (2003) in this chapter further highlight Dewey’s argument that knowledge/knowing is the finding of value or meaning from experience as a result of acting (action) on/in the experience (p.55). The authors’ depiction of the process of inquiry into knowledge/knowing (p.57, 63) and their observation that “as soon as we know the “history” of the indeterminate situation, that is, its antecedents and constituents, we hold the key to solving the problem” (p.60) rings true for me especially when I think about the discussion in class on Tuesday about the Marshmallow experiment and different reasons why children may have decided to wait or not wait.
With what I understand about social science research, I agree to an extent that “we only know what the problem is at the moment that we are able to solve it” (p.60). I say this because social science research is based on the testing of theories and the formulation of hypothesis, meaning that in many instances the researcher already has an idea of the fabrics of the solution before starting the process of inquiry, particularly when one considers the role previous knowledge plays in the research process and the fact that the process itself is methodical. This chapter emphasizes that while the purpose of inquiry is “transforming the situation from an indeterminate one into a determinate one” (p.64), and thereby providing a solution, the solution is not the end of the inquiry but the beginning of a new inquiry. The solution can be exposed to further inquiry (in a different context for example). This for me is the way in which social science research should work. It is a never-ending cycle of inquiry which is shaped by experience and action, in turn influenced by the environment (context).
When I consider that all these elements are continuously interacting with each other, it is easy to understand why Dewey refers to the outcome as “warranted assertions”. This process of inquiry into knowing would lead to questions on how research is carried out (methodology) and for what purpose research is carried out.
Dewey’s theory on inquiry, from the way in which it is perceived through this book, seems highly contradictory and in certain regards, disagreeable. For instance, the authors state that “we only know what the problem is at the very moment that we are to solve it” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 60). However, a paragraph later, the authors claim that determining the problem is crucial in the inquiry process—how then, can we determine the problem without knowing the problem? Given this interpretation, I disagree with the authors’ initial statement on inquiry within social science research. I believe that we conduct research because we have already identified problems in the field and we plan to solve, promote awareness, gain further understanding on, etc., depending upon our research’s purpose.
Another disagreement I have with the authors is their claim that inquiry is not a “mental process” and that it is “not something that happens in the human mind” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 59). My question for the authors is then, how can inquiry not be a mental process, and not happen in the human mind, when a vital component of inquiry, as the authors expressed, is the reflection of thought? While my understanding of inquiry within social science research involves shared knowledge and meaning making, I largely disagree that our inquiries do not formulate within the mental process.
A point about inquiry I found interesting from the authors’ perspective is the belief that there is no distinction in “reality” between facts and ideas because what can be a fact now, could be fiction in another moment. This reminds me of the question: what is true? Within social science research, a “truth” or “fact” could be appropriate in a given context with a particular population, but it could also be “false” or “fiction" in another. Thus, as researchers we must conduct our research with validity and reliability, as I mentioned in a previous post, in order to appropriatey generalize our findings. We must also use what we know to continuously strive to better our field and our students’ outcomes. Furthemore, while what may work for one student, may work for another, it is vital to refrain from claiming broad generalizations about certain populations, as every individual is completely different.
Something I agree with in the chapter is that inquiry has no end, at least for my sake. Some individuals may be satisfied with their research when they are finished and wish to stop there. However, I do not foresee myself ever stopping asking questions, being curious, and desiring to make change. Although one problem may be solved, there are so many others, and as education researchers, we have an obligation to maintain persistence along with our passions in order to make the greatest differences.
As a librarian, this chapter hit close to my field, and the discussion of inquiry closely mirrors how we view inquiry in the library world of research, even at the K-12 level. Our school library standards framework encompasses many of the same ideas exhibited in this chapter. From the AASL web site they read “Learners participate in an ongoing inquiry-based process by: 1. Continually seeking knowledge. 2. Engaging in sustained inquiry. 3. Enacting new understanding through real-world connections. 4. Using reflection to guide informed decisions” (AASL, 2017). To me, this aligns closely to how Dewey sees inquiry, but on a less philosophical plane. With regards to social science research, the idea of a perceived problem which then inspires inquiry is not only compatible with social science research, but I would suggest may be the driving force behind most social science research. Also, I see social science research as highly interaction and relationship based, as related on page 65 of the chapter: “there is not only a change in the habits of the organism, but also a change in the relationship between symbols, or in other words, a new meaning.” I tend to agree with the sentiment on page 77 that “we should think of the proper task of scientific inquiry into the social domain as something that covers the whole spectrum of facts and values. In his thinking on the nature of inquiry I think my beliefs on social science research closely align with Dewey’s, as I understand them.
Dewey feels that inquiry is a sequential process. He states that there is no absolute end to new knowledge. This is because we cannot possibly know everything and that situations beget new conditions which beget new problems. I do feel this is true, especially in light of social science research. Whenever we discover something new, we cannot help but uncover evidence or experiences which will lead us into a new discovery or question. He questions whether inquiry is initiated after the disruption of coordinated transaction or if the disruption itself is the origin of inquiry. He clarifies that difference between indeterminate and problematic situations. He feels the indeterminate situation is merely a natural event. It is only when the event is acknowledged as an issue that it turns into a problematic situation worthy of inquiry. He acknowledges that what is deemed problematic is relative. In light of research we would have to have some consensus in regard to this in order to initiate inquiry. Conceptual operations and existential operations work together in search of knowledge.
Biesta & Burbules (2003) provide several factors for consideration when deconstructing the concept of inquiry. Dewey identified theory as a process encapsulated in the theory of the process of inquiry. This theory is defined as “a reconstructive theory, an attempt to articulate the logic of the cognitive mode of experience, the way in which the cognitive mode actually operates” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 56). Similar to the understanding of knowledge, inquiry can only be validated through the process of reconstructing inquiry. Yet, there is no absolute end to inquiry. In terms of social science research, the practice of inquiry extends to the intelligent problem solving that occurs through experimentation. There will always be new problems that occur and therefore new inquiries that take place in the domain of social sciences. The distinction between indeterminate and problematic situations must take place for the process of inquiry to begin.
In examining my understanding and application of the term inquiry, have always used the term inquiry interchangeably with the term questioning. In reading the chapter of the process of inquiry, I have a deeper level of understanding of how a pragmatist paradigm breaks down the term inquiry into a process contains more than asking questions. The term inquiry is viewed as an investigation. With further consideration, we socially interact with others on many levels multiple times a day. These interactions include activities such as non-verbal communication while driving and planning discussions that take place in meetings. Therefore, social science inquiry transpires on many levels with daily human interaction. As a classroom educator, I have experienced the various stages of the process of inquiry proposed in the chapter. In fact, these occur on a daily basis in the classroom. I can see how the process of inquiry takes place in the learning environment from the identification of a problem to suggestions for possible lines of actions to transform the situations so that it is no longer problematic.
However, I do view inquiry as a process of asking for information. I utilize questioning in the classroom as a method of inquiry into examining what students know about a particular topic or concept. I also engage in inquiry for students to explore and consider connections between previous knowledge and factors that may be of importance to the idea that is about to be examined. Learning is not a problem to be solved. The process of acquiring knowledge does not necessarily mean that there must be an identification of an indeterminate situation as problematic for there to be the exploration of a concept. To this end, I do not consider this form of inquiry from the same perspective presented in the chapter.
A few thoughts emerged as I read this chapter as it relates to a comparison of Dewey’s inquiry and what I’ve learned about social science research in our program. They are a bit unrelated to each other, so I will list them separately below:
• Dewey says that Inquiry (the process of the acquisition of knowledge) must involve action. The very basic idea behind social science research is to reject ideas that have not been deemed valid through evidence. Merely positing a theory, solution, or idea, is not sufficient. This seems to be a core idea in Deweys view of inquiry and in all social science research.
• I spent some time thinking about how Dewey would have viewed the emergence of the various types of qualitative research, particularly in education. I think he lived in a time where the social sciences were trying to gain legitimacy by resembling the natural sciences as much as possible. Quantitative research and many of the hard sciences would say that the experimenter is separate and objective from the experiment or setting that would he/she is researching. Dewey seems to think that the researcher has an effect on the thing that he/she is studying and that he should acknowledge that. This jives with what I learned last semester in my qualitative research methods class. The tacking back and forth a researcher must go through in qualitative research sounds like Dewey’s believe they the actor affects the environment being studied.
• Inquiry is a blend of doing (action) and thinking (reason). Without the latter, it would be haphazard trial and error. This reminds me of the blend of theory and experimentation (or observation) in social science research. The best research has appropriate theory informing the research design and then the research itself. Dewey adds reflection after the action of the research itself, and the cycle of inquiry , just like social science research, continues, never ending. This blending of the world of ideas and the physical world seems to be informed by Dewey’s work.
Dewey denotes that inquiry is the process by which problems are solved through intelligent experimentation. In addition, he considers research to be “deliberate instigation of intelligent problem-solving in order to generate knowledge and understanding.” He also conveys that inquiry alone is not the sole means of solving problems by returning to a state of stability, but the change and transformation that exists from inquiry brings us closer to resolution. This idea indeed jibes with my understanding of inquiry and research. I believe knowledge, information or truth are not static and dynamic; meaning information builds upon new information as inquiry progresses. Dewey also suggests that inquiry constitutes a process where reflection meets action which “restores coordination” which I read as a space for understanding in a succinct nature. Regarding the process of inquiry, he relies on two operations which are existential and conceptual. I identify with the existential operation which gives way to the idea that we initially are only scratching the surface with new discoveries. Therefore, we will always live in a space or a gap between what we know as knowledge, and he states “a problem well put is half-solved (Dewey 1938a, 112), in fact, we only know what the problem is at the very moment that we are able to solve it”. This reminds me of a song I recently heard by rapper Pusha T, titled “If you know, you know”.
I agree with the importance the authors state that Dewey placed on educators being involved in a meaningful way. Being a practitioner myself I always view educational research as something that needs to not only be directly beneficial for teachers, students, and learning, but that these parties also need to have a voice in the research being conducted. I also agree how the chapter states that the findings from educational research do not imply rules of education. The findings in specific contexts give us an idea about what is happening, but these findings cannot be applied to every situation, every time.
One thing that confused me was when the authors stated that the inquiry process comes to an end when a unified situation is established, when the rest of the chapter contradicts this statement. There was so much talk of never finding rules or Truth, and how inquiry is a process that can change in various environments. The authors even write that, “Dewey emphasized that there is no belief so settled as not to be exposed to further inquiry” (p. 66). This statement seems to go directly against the inquiry process coming to an end.
After reading through Dewey's ideas on the process of inquiry and combing through my own beliefs of how the process occurs in social science I found myself shaking my head agreeing with the majority of his sentiments. Firstly, Dewey describes the process of inquiry as a sequential process, and goes onto state that the process does not need to happen in the same order or pattern for each suggestion, idea, or problem. This is how I believe social science occurs; it is relevant to time and a pattern is established. For example, we have an idea or suggestion for a problem at hand, state the hypothesis, observe and obtain data, and reveal the results. However, the process does not need to occur in this specific pattern.
Secondly, Dewey mentions that an essential step in the process of inquiry lies in the " facts of the case", which provides the investigator with the terms of the problem and the conditions that need to be addressed, considered, or resolved. In social science, I believe that this step is of utmost importance. The researcher must spend time observing, collecting, and analyzing the facts in order to understand the parameters of the issue as well as to help in establishing the best suggestions and/ or hypotheses.
Dewey puts forth two ideas thats resonate with me as a practitioner and new researcher; moving social scientists away from technicality and that the process of inquiry in educational research is continuous as all educational challenges are unique. I value his idea that the we as educators, investigators, and/or researchers need to move away from the idea of striving for a perfect solution or answer. We are never going to make education perfect as it is filled with such diversity, and this is ok. However, we as a group need to realize this and move away from the idea of perfection. We need to look at our students and the challenges that arise as novel and unique for that is exactly what they are; the students and challenges are not like any other.
Looking forward to our class discussion! Kindly, Erin
My understanding of how social science research works allows me to reflect on countless science projects over the years that relied on the scientific method approach to research, but I only have a little experience in looking at human behavior. In a previous writing course, the professor encouraged us to conduct our own social research weekly by observing students in their environment. This usually meant visiting a coffee shop, bookstore, or just on grounds. We were to “listen in” on passing conversations, and draw conclusions based on what we saw or heard. Then we would use these notes in our writing. It wasn’t to change or impact others in some way directly, but rather to change or impact our writing styles within narrative writing over time. So, the author’s ideas of inquiry are very similar to this understanding of social science research. The process used is sequential and closely follows the description given by Dewey of the process of inquiry. One quote that stood out to me was “…social inquiry can help us find out not only whether what we desire is achievable, but also whether achieving it is desirable” (p.78.) It is important to think about it both ways so that we can determine if the outcome is possible, and whether or not conducting the inquiry is necessary in the first place.
Dewey’s assertion that inquiry requires both conceptual and existential operations resonated with me. I agree with him in that the purpose of inquiry is not only to gain knowledge about a situation or problem, but also to act on that knowledge in order to change the original situation. Additionally, I appreciated the description the author gave of facts and ideas. I think too many times problems are “identified” as a problem, but I don’t think a problem can truly be identified until more facts are considered. The example of the student who was not paying attention in class was very clear. I agree that simply saying that the student is not paying attention is not identifying the problem, but rather acknowledging a situation. More information and reflection is needed before the true problem is established, and even then it may not be the true reason behind the initial problem. The last section of the chapter on educational research also jived with what I have seen too many times in my experiences as a teacher. So many times schools systems or teachers want that universal “quick fix”, and so often that is how professional development is sold. Do this or that and it will work for everyone. I appreciate Dewey’s acknowledgement that educational research should be a means to provide a possible aid in solving specific problems in education, but should not be seen as a means to achieve perfection. The last two sentences of this chapter say this pretty perfectly: “Educational problems are always unique and for that reason always require unique responses, tailored as best as possible to the idiosyncrasies of the action, unique situation. This, and nothing else, is what we should expect from educational inquiry” (p. 81)
The authors take a deep dive into the inquiry process in chapter 3, and, as a reader, I found their exploration to be more accessible in its organization and explanation than the previous chapter. The serial or sequential process of inquiry reminds me of Hegel’s approach to analyzing history and reality – with a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis – in a constantly moving, interlinked eternal process. Dewey apparently takes Hegel’s approach further, describing the inquiry process in a more detailed series of steps from an indeterminate situation, to which a significance is attached through exploration of the indeterminate situations antecedents; to meanings and implications, which flesh out the indeterminate situation; and, finally, to a proposal for action (hypothesis), which “articulates a relationship between actions and consequences on the basis of a hypothetical interpretation of what is problematic about the indeterminate situation” (p. 63). These steps ultimately and hopefully reach a “determinate transaction,” which is the conclusion (but not the end) of the preceding steps in the process. It should be noted that the process does not establish the truth or falsity of the conceptual operations, but their adequacy for their intended or hoped for purposes (p. 65). It is this “warranted assertion,” which describes the “conceptual outcome of inquiry” and might have further application when it is established “again and again in every new inquiry,” that appears to be the purpose of achieving closure of the inquiry (p. 67).
I found Dewey’s definition of truth to be intriguing: “For Dewey…truth is not about the correspondence between descriptions of reality and reality itself. The correspondence…is not static or descriptive. For Dewey the correspondence is active and temporal; it is included in the cycle of action-reflection-action” (p. 69). And it is this point that brings me back to Hegel from a process standpoint and back to a point that I made in my June 5 blog post – the dynamic interrelation (or transactional relations) between and among all things. It is this constant remaking of old truths (p. 70) that lies at the heart of inquiry.
While Dewey viewed social sciences as an extension of natural sciences, he saw human nature and the natural world in which human beings reside as complexities that make social sciences even more of a challenge for inquiry than natural science (p. 75). Dewey was not incorrect in this observation, and any inquisitive classroom teacher interested in action research would second his view.
Ultimately, the process of inquiry is, in itself, not an end, but only an additional tool to place in an intellectual toolbox to stand ready for use in indeterminate situations that warrant further inquiry. The authors stress this point when they write: “Educational inquiries provide ‘intellectual instrumentalities’…that can be used as ‘input’ in new inquiries, that is, as resources for dealing with the always unique problems with which educators are faced” (p. 80). Yet pure inquiry in which the process has more significance than the product is ephemeral. Social institutions such as schools, the legal system, and culture all strive to engineer their organization and functions with targeted outcomes as their ultimate goals – increase student performance, enact more effective and economically efficient criminal laws, or predict the latest trend launched by the most obnoxious YouTube star imaginable. Social sciences researchers have come to focus on the concept of universal truths (or at least what could be called general or functional truths) in order to achieve the goals constructed for them by decision makers who want to know (emphasis added) with as much certainty as possible that the course of action that they promote will result in quantitative outcomes.
Somewhere, amid it all, Dewey weeps in disappointment.
According to Biesta, Dewey's theory of process of inquiry is "an attempt to articulate the logic of the cognitive mode of experience, the way in which the cognitive model actually operates" ((p.56). Such approach resonates with me because I think Dewey is taking a more comprehensive and integrative approach than the process of inquiry that Biesta contrasted with in this chapter. Dewey's approach bridges what we learned from previous chapters about knowledge and reality: knowledge is just a tool that gets us closer to reality, but according to Dewey, knowledge is temporal which means there is always a room for improvement or change. It is not stable. How closer we can get to reality, it also depends on the theory of inquiry we take. I think this ties to what I learned in Dr. McMillan's class last semester about validity and reliability and what I learned in our class last time. Pragmatists would assert that the value or the utility of a theory should be based on its usefulness or effectiveness on a research, which I completely agree.
Another point mentioned in this chapter that I agree with is how important context and time are to our study. "Dewey maintains that knowledge can be rightly understood "only in connection with considerations of time and temporal position" (p. 57). I think many times as economists attempt to bring solutions to educational problems, many times they made the situations worse. This is not because they lack of intelligence or kindness, but many times they are too computerized and efficient that overlook the complexity of some of the educational issues are connected to the broader scope of our society. Therefore, for example, some charter schools have failed to perform what they were originally promised to do which not only take all the resources and money from the public education, but also have divided American based on race, class, and income further.
I appreciate the opinion of the author that inquiry does not solve problems by returning to a previous, stable situation, but by means of a transformation of the current situation into a new situation (Biesta and Burbules, 2003, page57) because I hold the idea that inquiry of social science should be generated from a practical situation or application. Then, the inquiry process itself should be applied to a better situation to solve the practical problems and improve conditions. This is the way that the inquiry works and makes sense to the social science research rather than that researchers think of a problem, follow the inquiry process, and give a conclusion. This also aligns with Dewey’s reconstructive view that an understanding of the “logic” of inquiry should come from an examination of actual processes of inquiry.
However, I have a different understanding about the part that “it is only when such a situation is identified as a problematic situation that inquiry begins and experience turns into the cognitive mode (Biesta and Burbules, 2003, page58). I feel that inquiry also begins and happens during the process of the transition from indeterminate to problematic situations. Like the example given in the chapter, the teacher felt something need to be done during the indeterminate situation. She/he had already begun the inquiry that where is the problem and what should be done. To me, inquiry happens in each situation.
I appreciate the opinion of the author that inquiry does not solve problems by returning to a previous, stable situation, but by means of a transformation of the current situation into a new situation (Biesta and Burbules, 2003, page57) because I hold the idea that inquiry of social science should be generated from a practical situation or application. Then, the inquiry process itself should be applied to a better situation to solve the practical problems and improve conditions. This is the way that the inquiry works and makes sense to the social science research rather than that researchers think of a problem, follow the inquiry process, and give a conclusion. This also aligns with Dewey’s reconstructive view that an understanding of the “logic” of inquiry should come from an examination of actual processes of inquiry.
However, I have a different understanding about the part that “it is only when such a situation is identified as a problematic situation that inquiry begins and experience turns into the cognitive mode (Biesta and Burbules, 2003, page58). I feel that inquiry also begins and happens during the process of the transition from indeterminate to problematic situations. Like the example given in the chapter, the teacher felt something need to be done during the indeterminate situation. She/he had already begun the inquiry that where is the problem and what should be done. To me, inquiry happens in each situation.
Becker points out that pretentious writing should be simplified. He states that authors may unnecessarily write in lofter terms and lose meaning for their readers. This aligns with our class discussions in regard to the split between academia and practitioners. Those in higher education are often seen as more prestigious than those in secondary and primary education. Language is one way to further distance the two groups. Another part of the reading felt familiar. Becker explains how the words we choose affect further discourse around the same question. This bolsters Dewey’s notion of the transactions between organism and environment. The words or actions we enact cause changes in each further succession or chain of ideas. Chapter 2 really hit home for me. I have often “attempted” to read an article written in lofty convoluted terms. I begin with a feeling of excitement that I will gain a new understanding of a concept or situation. Soon into the reading however I realize that getting through the article will be “work” and possibly unenjoyable. I understand the temptation to use “classy” language. We want to emulate those we feel are successful. It does seem that the more complicated language is the more we attach intelligence to it.
Dewey’s assertion that inquiry need not rely upon objectivistic perceptions of problems underscores some of the questions with which I grapple regarding investigator bias and subjectivity in social science research. In delineating indeterminate situations as organic occurrences that only shift into problematic circumstances given specific contexts, such a prospect seemingly opens the door to create paradoxical or contradicting statements even in the realm of my own research interests and inquiries regarding the temporal worth of research. The provisional status held by facts and ideas urges me to question with a weighted degree of frustration to justify the narrow and broad values as well as ethics of a prospective longitudinal study I have in mind that involves close observation of at-risk youths. The mention of the “outcome of the process of inquiry” intimately intertwines the ontology of human research subjects and the knowledge gained from studying the complexities and questions that arise from considering the interactions between people in various contexts and circumstances. This chapter heightened a sense of urgency to continue to consider the changing role and results of inquiry within social science research.
ReplyDeleteIf we consider the view that knowledge is socially constructed, rather than a static entity, this belief aligns with much of social science research. Knowledge is a process, much as research is an evolving process.
ReplyDeleteWe read and discussed in class about the dichotomy present in research: those that generate research and contribute to theory and academia and those who approach research from a practioner’s perspective. I believe Dewey would want to bridge the gap between the two, and indeed rather than focus on the difference between “relevant and rigorous” knowledge, as he seemed more intent on usefulness.
In the end, research that focuses strictly on the academic world has little usefulness in the day to day of most in education. Such academic research is only relevant if needed or useful. For researchers, an important question is to ask is “what good will this research do? Whom does it serve? What difference will it make?”
Dewey argued “knowing as an aesthetic enjoyment of properties of nature as a world of divine art, to knowing as a means of secular control – this is a method of purposefully introducing changes which will alter the direction of the course of events.” Research and inquiry overall make a difference because ultimately the more we “share the experiences of others, the more resources we will have for dealing with our problems, and hence the more intelligent our collective problem solving will be…” (p. 70).
Ultimately, we are all charged to be investigators, and that inquiry is a never-ending process that should be transparent and contributing in a beneficial and practical way.
There are assertions made by Dewey that I agree with. These are: inquiry is a sequential or serial process, or that the natural starting point of inquiry is in the situation in which we do not know how to respond (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 57-58). However, as I continued reading the chapter, I came across a statement that made me reflect on the papers I've written in the past year and the one major paper I will write as a conclusion to my doctoral education. The author suggests that the process of inquiry consists of the cooperation of two kinds of operations: existential (the actual transformation of the situation) and conceptual (reflection or thinking). He further posits that even though these operations might take place in phases one after another, it is always cooperation of the two and never only one of them (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 59).
ReplyDeleteThe ideas I possess and have written about up until now have been mere explorations and explanations. As a novice researcher and an individual with little to no practical experience, the best ways to dip my toes into my areas of interest were reviews of literature and/or dialogues with experts. When using these resources to understand and explain phenomena, there is clear evidence of conceptual operations being utilized in the form of thinking and reflection, but no manifestations of actual transformations. Similarly, when conducting ethnographic research using observations or conducting interviews to understand the status-quo of our social world, we are not necessarily engaging in existential operations to bring about actual transformations; we are merely employing conceptual ones to explore and explain. My intention is not too completely invalidate the author's claim but I do believe that his ABSOLUTE assertion about these operations always co-occur in all instances of inquiry is inaccurate and an overgeneralization.
Toshna Pandey
I see your point about inquiry not necessarily bringing about transformation. It is often difficult for me to tell how far points such as this are taken. Is it possible that Dewey believes that inquiry changes the inquirer in some fashion and he terms this as a transformation? The very nature of conducting such research through methods such as interviews may have an unperceived effect on the participant.
DeleteIn class discussions we acknowledged that Dewey was more interested in ‘how we know what we know’ (epistemology) than ‘what we know’ (ontology). Biesta and Burbules (2003) in this chapter further highlight Dewey’s argument that knowledge/knowing is the finding of value or meaning from experience as a result of acting (action) on/in the experience (p.55). The authors’ depiction of the process of inquiry into knowledge/knowing (p.57, 63) and their observation that “as soon as we know the “history” of the indeterminate situation, that is, its antecedents and constituents, we hold the key to solving the problem” (p.60) rings true for me especially when I think about the discussion in class on Tuesday about the Marshmallow experiment and different reasons why children may have decided to wait or not wait.
ReplyDeleteWith what I understand about social science research, I agree to an extent that “we only know what the problem is at the moment that we are able to solve it” (p.60). I say this because social science research is based on the testing of theories and the formulation of hypothesis, meaning that in many instances the researcher already has an idea of the fabrics of the solution before starting the process of inquiry, particularly when one considers the role previous knowledge plays in the research process and the fact that the process itself is methodical. This chapter emphasizes that while the purpose of inquiry is “transforming the situation from an indeterminate one into a determinate one” (p.64), and thereby providing a solution, the solution is not the end of the inquiry but the beginning of a new inquiry. The solution can be exposed to further inquiry (in a different context for example). This for me is the way in which social science research should work. It is a never-ending cycle of inquiry which is shaped by experience and action, in turn influenced by the environment (context).
When I consider that all these elements are continuously interacting with each other, it is easy to understand why Dewey refers to the outcome as “warranted assertions”. This process of inquiry into knowing would lead to questions on how research is carried out (methodology) and for what purpose research is carried out.
ReplyDeleteDewey’s theory on inquiry, from the way in which it is perceived through this book, seems highly contradictory and in certain regards, disagreeable. For instance, the authors state that “we only know what the problem is at the very moment that we are to solve it” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 60). However, a paragraph later, the authors claim that determining the problem is crucial in the inquiry process—how then, can we determine the problem without knowing the problem? Given this interpretation, I disagree with the authors’ initial statement on inquiry within social science research. I believe that we conduct research because we have already identified problems in the field and we plan to solve, promote awareness, gain further understanding on, etc., depending upon our research’s purpose.
Another disagreement I have with the authors is their claim that inquiry is not a “mental process” and that it is “not something that happens in the human mind” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 59). My question for the authors is then, how can inquiry not be a mental process, and not happen in the human mind, when a vital component of inquiry, as the authors expressed, is the reflection of thought? While my understanding of inquiry within social science research involves shared knowledge and meaning making, I largely disagree that our inquiries do not formulate within the mental process.
A point about inquiry I found interesting from the authors’ perspective is the belief that there is no distinction in “reality” between facts and ideas because what can be a fact now, could be fiction in another moment. This reminds me of the question: what is true? Within social science research, a “truth” or “fact” could be appropriate in a given context with a particular population, but it could also be “false” or “fiction" in another. Thus, as researchers we must conduct our research with validity and reliability, as I mentioned in a previous post, in order to appropriatey generalize our findings. We must also use what we know to continuously strive to better our field and our students’ outcomes. Furthemore, while what may work for one student, may work for another, it is vital to refrain from claiming broad generalizations about certain populations, as every individual is completely different.
Something I agree with in the chapter is that inquiry has no end, at least for my sake. Some individuals may be satisfied with their research when they are finished and wish to stop there. However, I do not foresee myself ever stopping asking questions, being curious, and desiring to make change. Although one problem may be solved, there are so many others, and as education researchers, we have an obligation to maintain persistence along with our passions in order to make the greatest differences.
Katie
As a librarian, this chapter hit close to my field, and the discussion of inquiry closely mirrors how we view inquiry in the library world of research, even at the K-12 level. Our school library standards framework encompasses many of the same ideas exhibited in this chapter. From the AASL web site they read “Learners participate in an ongoing inquiry-based process by: 1. Continually seeking knowledge. 2. Engaging in sustained inquiry. 3. Enacting new understanding through real-world connections. 4. Using reflection to guide informed decisions” (AASL, 2017). To me, this aligns closely to how Dewey sees inquiry, but on a less philosophical plane.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to social science research, the idea of a perceived problem which then inspires inquiry is not only compatible with social science research, but I would suggest may be the driving force behind most social science research. Also, I see social science research as highly interaction and relationship based, as related on page 65 of the chapter: “there is not only a change in the habits of the organism, but also a change in the relationship between symbols, or in other words, a new meaning.” I tend to agree with the sentiment on page 77 that “we should think of the proper task of scientific inquiry into the social domain as something that covers the whole spectrum of facts and values. In his thinking on the nature of inquiry I think my beliefs on social science research closely align with Dewey’s, as I understand them.
Dewey feels that inquiry is a sequential process. He states that there is no absolute end to new knowledge. This is because we cannot possibly know everything and that situations beget new conditions which beget new problems. I do feel this is true, especially in light of social science research. Whenever we discover something new, we cannot help but uncover evidence or experiences which will lead us into a new discovery or question.
ReplyDeleteHe questions whether inquiry is initiated after the disruption of coordinated transaction or if the disruption itself is the origin of inquiry. He clarifies that difference between indeterminate and problematic situations. He feels the indeterminate situation is merely a natural event. It is only when the event is acknowledged as an issue that it turns into a problematic situation worthy of inquiry. He acknowledges that what is deemed problematic is relative. In light of research we would have to have some consensus in regard to this in order to initiate inquiry. Conceptual operations and existential operations work together in search of knowledge.
Angela Allen
ReplyDeleteBiesta & Burbules (2003) provide several factors for consideration when deconstructing the concept of inquiry. Dewey identified theory as a process encapsulated in the theory of the process of inquiry. This theory is defined as “a reconstructive theory, an attempt to articulate the logic of the cognitive mode of experience, the way in which the cognitive mode actually operates” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, p. 56). Similar to the understanding of knowledge, inquiry can only be validated through the process of reconstructing inquiry. Yet, there is no absolute end to inquiry. In terms of social science research, the practice of inquiry extends to the intelligent problem solving that occurs through experimentation. There will always be new problems that occur and therefore new inquiries that take place in the domain of social sciences. The distinction between indeterminate and problematic situations must take place for the process of inquiry to begin.
In examining my understanding and application of the term inquiry, have always used the term inquiry interchangeably with the term questioning. In reading the chapter of the process of inquiry, I have a deeper level of understanding of how a pragmatist paradigm breaks down the term inquiry into a process contains more than asking questions. The term inquiry is viewed as an investigation. With further consideration, we socially interact with others on many levels multiple times a day. These interactions include activities such as non-verbal communication while driving and planning discussions that take place in meetings. Therefore, social science inquiry transpires on many levels with daily human interaction. As a classroom educator, I have experienced the various stages of the process of inquiry proposed in the chapter. In fact, these occur on a daily basis in the classroom. I can see how the process of inquiry takes place in the learning environment from the identification of a problem to suggestions for possible lines of actions to transform the situations so that it is no longer problematic.
However, I do view inquiry as a process of asking for information. I utilize questioning in the classroom as a method of inquiry into examining what students know about a particular topic or concept. I also engage in inquiry for students to explore and consider connections between previous knowledge and factors that may be of importance to the idea that is about to be examined. Learning is not a problem to be solved. The process of acquiring knowledge does not necessarily mean that there must be an identification of an indeterminate situation as problematic for there to be the exploration of a concept. To this end, I do not consider this form of inquiry from the same perspective presented in the chapter.
John Marshall:
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts emerged as I read this chapter as it relates to a comparison of Dewey’s inquiry and what I’ve learned about social science research in our program. They are a bit unrelated to each other, so I will list them separately below:
• Dewey says that Inquiry (the process of the acquisition of knowledge) must involve action. The very basic idea behind social science research is to reject ideas that have not been deemed valid through evidence. Merely positing a theory, solution, or idea, is not sufficient. This seems to be a core idea in Deweys view of inquiry and in all social science research.
• I spent some time thinking about how Dewey would have viewed the emergence of the various types of qualitative research, particularly in education. I think he lived in a time where the social sciences were trying to gain legitimacy by resembling the natural sciences as much as possible. Quantitative research and many of the hard sciences would say that the experimenter is separate and objective from the experiment or setting that would he/she is researching. Dewey seems to think that the researcher has an effect on the thing that he/she is studying and that he should acknowledge that. This jives with what I learned last semester in my qualitative research methods class. The tacking back and forth a researcher must go through in qualitative research sounds like Dewey’s believe they the actor affects the environment being studied.
• Inquiry is a blend of doing (action) and thinking (reason). Without the latter, it would be haphazard trial and error. This reminds me of the blend of theory and experimentation (or observation) in social science research. The best research has appropriate theory informing the research design and then the research itself. Dewey adds reflection after the action of the research itself, and the cycle of inquiry , just like social science research, continues, never ending. This blending of the world of ideas and the physical world seems to be informed by Dewey’s work.
Dewey denotes that inquiry is the process by which problems are solved through intelligent experimentation. In addition, he considers research to be “deliberate instigation of intelligent problem-solving in order to generate knowledge and understanding.” He also conveys that inquiry alone is not the sole means of solving problems by returning to a state of stability, but the change and transformation that exists from inquiry brings us closer to resolution. This idea indeed jibes with my understanding of inquiry and research. I believe knowledge, information or truth are not static and dynamic; meaning information builds upon new information as inquiry progresses. Dewey also suggests that inquiry constitutes a process where reflection meets action which “restores coordination” which I read as a space for understanding in a succinct nature. Regarding the process of inquiry, he relies on two operations which are existential and conceptual. I identify with the existential operation which gives way to the idea that we initially are only scratching the surface with new discoveries. Therefore, we will always live in a space or a gap between what we know as knowledge, and he states “a problem well put is half-solved (Dewey 1938a, 112), in fact, we only know what the problem is at the very moment that we are able to solve it”. This reminds me of a song I recently heard by rapper Pusha T, titled “If you know, you know”.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the importance the authors state that Dewey placed on educators being involved in a meaningful way. Being a practitioner myself I always view educational research as something that needs to not only be directly beneficial for teachers, students, and learning, but that these parties also need to have a voice in the research being conducted. I also agree how the chapter states that the findings from educational research do not imply rules of education. The findings in specific contexts give us an idea about what is happening, but these findings cannot be applied to every situation, every time.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that confused me was when the authors stated that the inquiry process comes to an end when a unified situation is established, when the rest of the chapter contradicts this statement. There was so much talk of never finding rules or Truth, and how inquiry is a process that can change in various environments. The authors even write that, “Dewey emphasized that there is no belief so settled as not to be exposed to further inquiry” (p. 66). This statement seems to go directly against the inquiry process coming to an end.
After reading through Dewey's ideas on the process of inquiry and combing through my own beliefs of how the process occurs in social science I found myself shaking my head agreeing with the majority of his sentiments. Firstly, Dewey describes the process of inquiry as a sequential process, and goes onto state that the process does not need to happen in the same order or pattern for each suggestion, idea, or problem. This is how I believe social science occurs; it is relevant to time and a pattern is established. For example, we have an idea or suggestion for a problem at hand, state the hypothesis, observe and obtain data, and reveal the results. However, the process does not need to occur in this specific pattern.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Dewey mentions that an essential step in the process of inquiry lies in the " facts of the case", which provides the investigator with the terms of the problem and the conditions that need to be addressed, considered, or resolved. In social science, I believe that this step is of utmost importance. The researcher must spend time observing, collecting, and analyzing the facts in order to understand the parameters of the issue as well as to help in establishing the best suggestions and/ or hypotheses.
Dewey puts forth two ideas thats resonate with me as a practitioner and new researcher; moving social scientists away from technicality and that the process of inquiry in educational research is continuous as all educational challenges are unique. I value his idea that the we as educators, investigators, and/or researchers need to move away from the idea of striving for a perfect solution or answer. We are never going to make education perfect as it is filled with such diversity, and this is ok. However, we as a group need to realize this and move away from the idea of perfection. We need to look at our students and the challenges that arise as novel and unique for that is exactly what they are; the students and challenges are not like any other.
Looking forward to our class discussion!
Kindly,
Erin
My understanding of how social science research works allows me to reflect on countless science projects over the years that relied on the scientific method approach to research, but I only have a little experience in looking at human behavior. In a previous writing course, the professor encouraged us to conduct our own social research weekly by observing students in their environment. This usually meant visiting a coffee shop, bookstore, or just on grounds. We were to “listen in” on passing conversations, and draw conclusions based on what we saw or heard. Then we would use these notes in our writing. It wasn’t to change or impact others in some way directly, but rather to change or impact our writing styles within narrative writing over time.
ReplyDeleteSo, the author’s ideas of inquiry are very similar to this understanding of social science research. The process used is sequential and closely follows the description given by Dewey of the process of inquiry. One quote that stood out to me was “…social inquiry can help us find out not only whether what we desire is achievable, but also whether achieving it is desirable” (p.78.) It is important to think about it both ways so that we can determine if the outcome is possible, and whether or not conducting the inquiry is necessary in the first place.
Dewey’s assertion that inquiry requires both conceptual and existential operations resonated with me. I agree with him in that the purpose of inquiry is not only to gain knowledge about a situation or problem, but also to act on that knowledge in order to change the original situation. Additionally, I appreciated the description the author gave of facts and ideas. I think too many times problems are “identified” as a problem, but I don’t think a problem can truly be identified until more facts are considered. The example of the student who was not paying attention in class was very clear. I agree that simply saying that the student is not paying attention is not identifying the problem, but rather acknowledging a situation. More information and reflection is needed before the true problem is established, and even then it may not be the true reason behind the initial problem.
ReplyDeleteThe last section of the chapter on educational research also jived with what I have seen too many times in my experiences as a teacher. So many times schools systems or teachers want that universal “quick fix”, and so often that is how professional development is sold. Do this or that and it will work for everyone. I appreciate Dewey’s acknowledgement that educational research should be a means to provide a possible aid in solving specific problems in education, but should not be seen as a means to achieve perfection. The last two sentences of this chapter say this pretty perfectly: “Educational problems are always unique and for that reason always require unique responses, tailored as best as possible to the idiosyncrasies of the action, unique situation. This, and nothing else, is what we should expect from educational inquiry” (p. 81)
June 7, 2018
ReplyDeleteChapter 3 – “The Process of Inquiry”
The authors take a deep dive into the inquiry process in chapter 3, and, as a reader, I found their exploration to be more accessible in its organization and explanation than the previous chapter. The serial or sequential process of inquiry reminds me of Hegel’s approach to analyzing history and reality – with a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis – in a constantly moving, interlinked eternal process. Dewey apparently takes Hegel’s approach further, describing the inquiry process in a more detailed series of steps from an indeterminate situation, to which a significance is attached through exploration of the indeterminate situations antecedents; to meanings and implications, which flesh out the indeterminate situation; and, finally, to a proposal for action (hypothesis), which “articulates a relationship between actions and consequences on the basis of a hypothetical interpretation of what is problematic about the indeterminate situation” (p. 63). These steps ultimately and hopefully reach a “determinate transaction,” which is the conclusion (but not the end) of the preceding steps in the process. It should be noted that the process does not establish the truth or falsity of the conceptual operations, but their adequacy for their intended or hoped for purposes (p. 65). It is this “warranted assertion,” which describes the “conceptual outcome of inquiry” and might have further application when it is established “again and again in every new inquiry,” that appears to be the purpose of achieving closure of the inquiry (p. 67).
I found Dewey’s definition of truth to be intriguing: “For Dewey…truth is not about the correspondence between descriptions of reality and reality itself. The correspondence…is not static or descriptive. For Dewey the correspondence is active and temporal; it is included in the cycle of action-reflection-action” (p. 69). And it is this point that brings me back to Hegel from a process standpoint and back to a point that I made in my June 5 blog post – the dynamic interrelation (or transactional relations) between and among all things. It is this constant remaking of old truths (p. 70) that lies at the heart of inquiry.
While Dewey viewed social sciences as an extension of natural sciences, he saw human nature and the natural world in which human beings reside as complexities that make social sciences even more of a challenge for inquiry than natural science (p. 75). Dewey was not incorrect in this observation, and any inquisitive classroom teacher interested in action research would second his view.
Ultimately, the process of inquiry is, in itself, not an end, but only an additional tool to place in an intellectual toolbox to stand ready for use in indeterminate situations that warrant further inquiry. The authors stress this point when they write: “Educational inquiries provide ‘intellectual instrumentalities’…that can be used as ‘input’ in new inquiries, that is, as resources for dealing with the always unique problems with which educators are faced” (p. 80). Yet pure inquiry in which the process has more significance than the product is ephemeral. Social institutions such as schools, the legal system, and culture all strive to engineer their organization and functions with targeted outcomes as their ultimate goals – increase student performance, enact more effective and economically efficient criminal laws, or predict the latest trend launched by the most obnoxious YouTube star imaginable. Social sciences researchers have come to focus on the concept of universal truths (or at least what could be called general or functional truths) in order to achieve the goals constructed for them by decision makers who want to know (emphasis added) with as much certainty as possible that the course of action that they promote will result in quantitative outcomes.
Somewhere, amid it all, Dewey weeps in disappointment.
Pete Willis
According to Biesta, Dewey's theory of process of inquiry is "an attempt to articulate the logic of the cognitive mode of experience, the way in which the cognitive model actually operates" ((p.56). Such approach resonates with me because I think Dewey is taking a more comprehensive and integrative approach than the process of inquiry that Biesta contrasted with in this chapter. Dewey's approach bridges what we learned from previous chapters about knowledge and reality: knowledge is just a tool that gets us closer to reality, but according to Dewey, knowledge is temporal which means there is always a room for improvement or change. It is not stable. How closer we can get to reality, it also depends on the theory of inquiry we take. I think this ties to what I learned in Dr. McMillan's class last semester about validity and reliability and what I learned in our class last time. Pragmatists would assert that the value or the utility of a theory should be based on its usefulness or effectiveness on a research, which I completely agree.
ReplyDeleteAnother point mentioned in this chapter that I agree with is how important context and time are to our study. "Dewey maintains that knowledge can be rightly understood "only in connection with considerations of time and temporal position" (p. 57). I think many times as economists attempt to bring solutions to educational problems, many times they made the situations worse. This is not because they lack of intelligence or kindness, but many times they are too computerized and efficient that overlook the complexity of some of the educational issues are connected to the broader scope of our society. Therefore, for example, some charter schools have failed to perform what they were originally promised to do which not only take all the resources and money from the public education, but also have divided American based on race, class, and income further.
---- Zoey Lu
I appreciate the opinion of the author that inquiry does not solve problems by returning to a previous, stable situation, but by means of a transformation of the current situation into a new situation (Biesta and Burbules, 2003, page57) because I hold the idea that inquiry of social science should be generated from a practical situation or application. Then, the inquiry process itself should be applied to a better situation to solve the practical problems and improve conditions. This is the way that the inquiry works and makes sense to the social science research rather than that researchers think of a problem, follow the inquiry process, and give a conclusion. This also aligns with Dewey’s reconstructive view that an understanding of the “logic” of inquiry should come from an examination of actual processes of inquiry.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have a different understanding about the part that “it is only when such a situation is identified as a problematic situation that inquiry begins and experience turns into the cognitive mode (Biesta and Burbules, 2003, page58). I feel that inquiry also begins and happens during the process of the transition from indeterminate to problematic situations. Like the example given in the chapter, the teacher felt something need to be done during the indeterminate situation. She/he had already begun the inquiry that where is the problem and what should be done. To me, inquiry happens in each situation.
I appreciate the opinion of the author that inquiry does not solve problems by returning to a previous, stable situation, but by means of a transformation of the current situation into a new situation (Biesta and Burbules, 2003, page57) because I hold the idea that inquiry of social science should be generated from a practical situation or application. Then, the inquiry process itself should be applied to a better situation to solve the practical problems and improve conditions. This is the way that the inquiry works and makes sense to the social science research rather than that researchers think of a problem, follow the inquiry process, and give a conclusion. This also aligns with Dewey’s reconstructive view that an understanding of the “logic” of inquiry should come from an examination of actual processes of inquiry.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have a different understanding about the part that “it is only when such a situation is identified as a problematic situation that inquiry begins and experience turns into the cognitive mode (Biesta and Burbules, 2003, page58). I feel that inquiry also begins and happens during the process of the transition from indeterminate to problematic situations. Like the example given in the chapter, the teacher felt something need to be done during the indeterminate situation. She/he had already begun the inquiry that where is the problem and what should be done. To me, inquiry happens in each situation.
Becker points out that pretentious writing should be simplified. He states that authors may unnecessarily write in lofter terms and lose meaning for their readers. This aligns with our class discussions in regard to the split between academia and practitioners. Those in higher education are often seen as more prestigious than those in secondary and primary education. Language is one way to further distance the two groups.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of the reading felt familiar. Becker explains how the words we choose affect further discourse around the same question. This bolsters Dewey’s notion of the transactions between organism and environment. The words or actions we enact cause changes in each further succession or chain of ideas.
Chapter 2 really hit home for me. I have often “attempted” to read an article written in lofty convoluted terms. I begin with a feeling of excitement that I will gain a new understanding of a concept or situation. Soon into the reading however I realize that getting through the article will be “work” and possibly unenjoyable. I understand the temptation to use “classy” language. We want to emulate those we feel are successful. It does seem that the more complicated language is the more we attach intelligence to it.