All of Chapter 1 (and particularly from p. 13's "Your Journey into Systematics Inquiry" to the chapter's end) made me think about the recent controversy involving the "MAGA teen" at the Lincoln Memorial. In particular I have been thinking about how hard it is to see things "as they are" as opposed to seeing them as they look when viewed from our particular point of view. I guess my question for this week is what do you think about the possibility for "systematic inquiry" (i.e., social science) to help us to overcome or at least mitigate this problem of perception.
There have been a number of good commentaries on the issue of perception, worldview, etc in relation to to this controversy. A reasonably brief and thoughtful version appeared in The Atlantic
(https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/julie-irwin-zimmerman-i-failed-covington-catholic-test/580897/).
In the Atlantic article “I Failed the Covington Catholic Test,” the author stated, “Next time a story like this surfaces, I’ll try to sit it out until more facts have emerged.” I also came to this conclusion. I too was embarrassed that I allowed my emotions to stir when I initially learned about the incident – only to find out later in time (and with more information) that the situation was more complicated than originally thought. I reprimanded myself for not adhering to the basic tenet of the information lifecycle paradigm, i.e., our understanding changes as information evolves through the lifecycle. For example, a typical information lifecycle will have five phases, with the quality of the information improving for each subsequent phase: The Day Of (information derived from television, social media & the web; The Week Of (information derived from newspapers); The Week After (information derived from popular magazines); Months After (information derived from scholarly journals). In the final phase, i.e., A Year After & Later, information is found in books, government publications and reference collections. Source: https://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/howdoi/informationcycle/
ReplyDeleteThe second lesson I learned from my initial reaction to the “"MAGA teen" news story is to beware how my values influence the processing of information. In chapter one of the Rallis and Rossman book, they remind us how our values influence the way we frame our questions, collect data, and interpret findings. I need to improve upon my ability to have my initial feelings (emotions) function as an early warning sign that my values might be biasing my ability to accurately process and analyze information.
The growing awareness of implicit bias (and steps to address it) brings me hope that our perceptions can be named, studied, and changed. More and more social studies are investigating implicit bias. For example, an interesting study found that a counselor education multicultural class (including both traditional lecture and heated group discussions) can reduce implicit bias by 9% across a semester as measured by the implicit awareness test (Castillo, Reyes, Brossart, Conoley, & Phoummarath, 2007). Implicit bias manifests as microaggressions. Yet, the fact we “know” this now helps because it acknowledges that we all have implicit bias, have both experienced and committed microaggressions (thus potentially removing some shame), AND honors a response to correct the microaggression, moving us towards change. Of course, this doesn’t address intentional bias, but it’s a start.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought- I believe social science would do well to work in concert with physical science to investigate our propensity to have and stick with our perceptions. For instance, the “feel good” hormone, oxytocin, helps to bond with others and enhance social connection, yet it also increases the tendency to identify “others” as part of the “outgroup”, promoting ethnocentrism (De Dreu, Greer, Van Kleef, Shalvi, & Handgraaf, 2011). If we’re talking about how we know what we know, I guess for me I want to consider a wider perspective.
-Rachel Regal
If you're interested...
Castillo, L.G., Reyes, C.J., Brossart, D.F., Conoley, C.W., & Phoummarath, M.J. (2007). The influence of multicultural training on perceived multicultural counseling competencies and implicit racial prejudice. J. Multicultural Couns. Dev., 35, 243-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2007.tb00064.x
De Dreu, C. K., Greer, L. L., Van Kleef, G. A., Shalvi, S., & Handgraaf, M. J. (2011). Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(4), 1262-1266.
Hi, everyone. Cat here. Apologies if this shows up more than once. Not sure why I can't get this to work correctly. Anyway ...
ReplyDeleteI had the disadvantage of not knowing what this news item was about. Somehow I missed it. I say “disadvantage” because unlike the author of the Atlantic Monthly piece, I didn’t get to experience jumping to the wrong conclusion. No, I know I would have.
I’m thinking a little differently about the blog prompt. (And by the way thank you, Bob and Rachel, for insightful, personal, and downright helpful posts.) I struggled to equate “systematic inquiry” with “social science” and was distracted by Rallis & Rossman’s nod to Dewey on p. 16. This redirected me to the Biesta & Burbules section on inquiry …
Rallis & Rossman say that inquiry “is not about establishing certainty” and recall Dewey’s characterization of inquiry as temporary (or even “temporal”). The only thing we can really be certain of is the existence of the problem (the indeterminate situation? – I think I called it “disequilibrium” once, but there might have been a better word). I don’t think I quite understood these ideas when I first encountered them, but I’m beginning to see that it’s critical to stay close to the problem, if not within the problem. Jumping to a conclusion is foolhardy, but what may be less obvious is that jumping to a solution, even trial-and-error, without fully understanding the problem is no less foolhardy. I also appreciated that Rallis & Rossman invite us to “consider (the) underlying ideas and assumptions” we bring to problems/projects. My perception, my worldview, my beliefs all shape the very reality I choose to critique.
Speaking of “the real story,” here’s a link to the Wikipedia entry for Rosalind Franklin, the “cantankerous female” who was unfairly denied a Nobel prize for her scientific contributions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin
Cat here again. I don't know what's up with me today, technologically speaking. What I meant to convey in that silly first paragraph is that I _know_ I would have jumped to the wrong conclusion about the Covington students. (Honestly, I do compose these offline. But it only takes one unintended keystroke to muddle things. Sorry, everyone.)
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the response prompt this week, because just this morning my father and I had a nice, little debate about the wall. It is hard to take a step back and really listen to another person's perspective when you are so passionate about a topic. Reading this article, I was challenged to consider that yes, I am skeptical when reading articles and news stories... but mostly the ones that I go in knowing they are not from a liberal perspective. I'm willing to admit I am more accepting of/less likely to critically analyze an article that appears as if it is from a liberal perspective. The article Dr. Stemhagen shared didn't sit well with me, which made me take pause. I want to be the type of researcher these chapters call for: aware of my underlying ideas and assumptions I bring to my research and inquiries, and how the issues matter to me in my professional and everyday world. All this will inevitably affect my research. It was good to put names to where I lie on the continuums of methodological assumptions and assumptions about the social world (I'd say more interpretivist and radical, if anyone is interested). The concepts and questions posed in these chapters seem to be a good first step for doctoral students to be able to use systematic inquiry to overcome the "problem of perception". I'm hoping we can continue putting this to the test and dissecting it through, as the authors put it, our "life projects" (but with no pressure of course, per our in-class discussions last week).
ReplyDeleteCat- thank you so much for posting about Rosalind Franklin! Speaking of reading "against the grain", the second I read "cantankerous female", something did not sit right with me. Bob- thank you for posting about the typical information lifecycle. It was a great, succinct explanation.
-Dana Brookover
R&R spoke on how the majority of people are looking for validation of their thoughts. Research and inquiry are much more than the norm perceptions. I know it's cliche, but I wanted to look at the dictionary first for the word inquiry.
ReplyDelete1 : a request for information
2 : a systematic investigation often of a matter of public interest
3 : examination into facts or principles
I think this is pertinent to the Atlantic article. Watching a viral video or analyzing something in life from a predisposition might make one fall victim to confirmation bias. I can see the value in learning to inquire, especially from different viewpoints. If we don't challenge our viewpoints, we narrow our lens in which we see the world to an unfair stifle. Personally, in life, I have learned more from people who have challenged my thinking and learned to challenge my own thinking from them. Whether its to shift a viewpoint or to strengthen my own held beliefs, there is a value in digging into the unknown (or known even).
Just as we make up a classroom full of different backgrounds and held beliefs/values/norms/etc, we learn from each other's support and argument in academia. The world (society) could use more inquiry to help us all survive on this planet together rather than apart.
Three paragraphs into the article, I assumed this is another mad and impolite adolescents issue, so, I failed Covington Catholic Test too. The question is why didn’t I take a humble attitude as a “learner” to this incident? Obviously, I have never heard this before, I have no experience with them. When I am not familiar something in my class and in my assignment, I will take an humble attitude and learn, I ask questions, I discuss with classmates; yet, here I went with what I read and what I saw in the picture and jumped to an conclusion with poor judgment. What makes the “inquiry” experience so different? Am I reading it with not enough curiosity, or I assumed the evidences were provided?
ReplyDeleteThe learner’s identity, value, biography, passions shapes the inquiry and produces “personalized” knowledge. And I believe because people have personalized knowledge so that human then be able to make innovation and scientific progress. I really liked this sentence in Chapter 1, “learning seeks knowledge instead of truth…the more you know, the more you know exists out there to learn, the more you raise questions about what is known.” Just GREAT.
Yingying
“Our perspective is different; we believe knowledge is both individually and socially constructed from among many possible truths” (p. 7). I am wondering what the class thinks about this claim. Is knowledge only one interpretation of truth, or is there, in fact, an objective, knowable Truth? I work every day in a cultural group like the one described immediately before this quote, “where the prevailing epistemology does not admit for other than the Word”, in our case Biblical truth. My head of school regularly bemoans the fact that our students do not believe in absolute Truth, but I myself often wonder if absolute truth exists for everyone. So, class, what do you think, are there truths that are absolute? If so, what are they? Are they always the same for everyone, or do they, as the author suggests, depend on definitions and interpretations within that truth?
ReplyDeleteIn another fascinating article from The Atlantic that critiqued Oprah Winfrey’s Golden Globe acceptance speech last year, a distinction was made between speaking “your truth” and “the truth”. The article not only describes how Oprah’s mantras and application of “her truth” led to her rise to celebrity and fame, it also refers to some potential “truths” that are simply others’ perspectives, however much we might disagree with them: “What about the people whose earnestly held “truth” is that immigrants are ruining America; or that the white race is inherently superior to all others; or that the rules set forth in Leviticus or the Koran are the only way to live; or that the latest Alex Jones conspiracy theory is correct; or that climate change is a hoax cooked up by liberals to gain control over all aspects of life in the United States?” Unfortunately, these are all potential truths if we open our inquiry to any possible perspective.
Oprah’s search for “your truth” did not stop with herself, as she invited countless guest speakers (regardless of their research or credentials) to share their experiences on health, finances, relationships, etc. One of her most controversial interviews took place in 2007 when Jenny McCarthy shared her “truth” that vaccinations led to autism. Although this information has been repeatedly refuted by doctors and the entire scientific community, concerned parents continue to “protect” their children from these harmful vaccinations - to the point that a Measles outbreak in Washington has tonight been declared a Public Health Emergency with 31 of the 35 confirmed cases being unvaccinated, and the majority of those were children.
How can we, through inquiry, protect from this kind of interpretation of the truth that leads to harm for others or ourselves? How can we, through inquiry, ask questions that seek to find The Truth and not support a single interpretation of our own truth? Do you believe, friends, that absolute Truth exists? If so, how do we pursue it through our study? If not, how does any form of study contribute to the truths in any way that is meaningful?
Sources mentioned:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/the-power-and-perils-of-speaking-your-truth/549968/
https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/Health/number-measles-cases-continues-rise-washington-amid-outbreak/story?id=60674518
In reference to the “I Failed the Covington Catholic test” and the social media coverage of the “MAGA teen” incident at first sight I was appalled by the teens behavior. I did not bother to even question in my mind that there was more to the story, I began using words to describe the teen to my partner like entitled, privileged, and self-centered. As well as, espousing my judgement on his choice of hats. It was not until the next morning that I was told the whole story and felt guilty for my uninformed judgements about the situation. In Rallis and Rossman on page 16 there is an activity about using a video clip “Nanook of the North.” The purpose of this activity is to allow the reader to see that there are multiple views and ways of interpretation. The purpose of this activity states that there is really no way to know what is “actually” happening. This is similar to the social media clips of this “MAGA teen” incident and incomplete news story on the television. Without the complete picture or reports that include all of the needed facts misinterpretation is going to happen based on peoples prior experiences and own bias.
ReplyDeleteSystematic inquiry would help to mitigate this problem with perception by the nature of its process. Systematic inquiry is deliberate questioning that seeks to obtain evidence to help you make sense of what questioning. In addition Rallis and Rossman discuss the need to be a reflective inquirer and seeks to not find certainty but to find “possibilities and potential answers.” Side note: I am glad I am not the only one who would have failed the test.
Dana Kieran
I really enjoyed reading chapters one and two. An interest part of inquiry in society today is how much it is actually influenced by outside forces. I believe social media greatly impacts our systemic inquiry. We often receive the opinions of others before we even have the time to figure out our own. I have been off social media pretty much since beginning my program, and as a result, I actually hear about a lot of current events after the fact. I learned about this incident through the News app on my iPhone, and seeing the title of the story, and the picture of the boy smirking, I already had an idea of what had happened. The components of me that contribute to my systemic inquiry immediately felt a small reaction to what I suspected the news story would tell me. I can imagine my reaction if, like The Atlantic author, I let the reactions of others define my reaction, and influence what I felt to be true. I admittedly probably still do not know as much as I would like to about this story, though I do believe systematic inquiry today includes social media, for better or worse.
ReplyDelete-Erin Hanley