It is common to open the discussions in research methods booksâlike many other academic textsâwith a definition. Definitions sound assuring and helpful as a point of departure in dealing with challenging issues like research. Seasoned readers of books on research methodology may well remember emphasis on systematicity, methodical procedures, answering questions, and adding to the current bodies of knowledge, as prominent elements in definitions of academic research that appear in early paragraphs of such books. However, definitions of all types, including those of researchâand more specifically, language education researchâare essentially rooted in, and based on foundational philosophical assumptions and understandings. Therefore, prior to providing definitions, or at least along with them, it would be curious to think about such assumptions that seem to be even more fundamental than definitions themselves.
As noted in the Preface, language education scholars have not seen many guidebooks on conducting qualitative research in the specific area of language education. However, the field does shelf a handful of research methods textbooks for applied linguists and language educators, hardly any one of which sets out from philosophical understandings underlying the main ingredients of their definitions of research such as âsystematicityâ. Regardless of the question of how these different authors have come to an agreement on bypassing the philosophical foundations of their discussions, conceptions of research are based on deep-rooted worldviews and assumptions. The array of experimental research methods, which are widely applied and taught in the field of language education, are all more or less based on one typeâout of different possible typesâof philosophical understandings of research. This one type, therefore, appears to be taken for granted as the only viable foundation for definitions, theories, and practices of academic research, but it is not.
What are the basic assumptionsâcentrally including the conception of knowledgeâthat shape the fundamental understandings of research in mainstream language education studies as reflected in our research methods textbooks that have appeared within the past several decades? What other conceptions of issues like knowledge and knowledge-seeking are possible? What kind of understandings and definitions of research can we come up with if we adopt other views of knowledge in our conceptualization of research? These are the main foci of this first chapter that shape the stepping stones in our journey of learning to perceive and practice qualitative language education research in this book.
Types of Knowledge
One point that may be relatively easy to grasp as part of the essence of research and may appear to be a relatively straightforward point to agree upon by almost all those who are concerned with academic research, is that research is about some kind of knowledge . Even a basic commonsense of academic research tells us that it is about gaining information, understanding, awareness, etc. Perhaps a common aspect of all such notions can be captured by some conception of the word knowledge. Therefore, if the broad notion of knowledge is a basic consideration without which research does not exist, it may perhaps be a fundamental concern in understanding the philosophical basis of academic research. We may, therefore, think about what knowledge means, and how it may be sought and gained through deliberate endeavor.
I find it formidable and little-helpful in a book of this nature to pose this question in a bluntly philosophical manner; what is knowledge? Nonetheless, slightly closer to real-life, a question that I propose as part of the main argument in this chapter is about the types and features of the knowledge which is sought in academic research. In the difficult language of philosophers, such a question belongs to the realm of epistemology (Pascale, 2011). As a major concern, philosophers deal with even more fundamental questions about the very meaning of being and the very existence of phenomena, which they call questions of ontology (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994; Pascale, 2011). But in direct relation to the notion of research, they ask questions about the nature and features of knowledge. They do not take the meaning of knowledge for granted. Therefore, at a foundational epistemological level, as language education researchers, we do have the right to ask a question: what kind of knowledge do we seek in language education research?
But are there different types of knowledge? Is it not the case that science is one thing, that is, science , and scientific knowledge is what we seek in academic research? The reality is that despite the widespread popular conception, the answer to the former question is clearly yes, and to the latter, is no. The idea that there is only one viable type of knowledge as scientific knowledge that can and should be sought through academic research is a myth (Kress, 2011). This myth is forged, on the one hand, by putting emphasis on the view that most of what people know are not science but philosophy, religion, intuition, art, superstition, or some other label. On the other hand, the myth dictates that what is not science and scientific, is not valuable and worth seeking or, at least, is less valuable.
Here is a brief list of different types of knowledge (in a broad sense, comprising know-how, skill , awareness, wisdom , etc.). Do you usually remember these kinds of knowledge when you hear the word âknowledgeâ? Do you believe that these types of knowledge are less or more valuable than, or perhaps as valuable as, âscienceâ ? Can you imagine replacing these various knowledge types with a single type as the only valuable one and ignore the rest?
- Farmers know the harvest time by checking the color and quality of their crops. (Born and raised in a green rural area, I have an idea of this kind of knowledge about some fruits.)
- Mothers know what babies need from the way they cry. (I have no such knowledge, for obvious reasons!)
- People know how to cook and professional chefs know a lot about food, cooking, and eating.
- People know how to drive, how to ride a bike, and how to repair cars and bikes when they break down.
- Artists can create works of art and they know a huge lot about aesthetics and arts (painting, photography, carpet weaving, film making, architecture, etc.).
- Religious scholars know a lot about faith and the dos and donâts of life for practicing believers, and ordinary people have various amounts of their own religious knowledge.
Which one of these knowledge types do you possess? What are the sources ofâthat is, the ways of gainingâthese types of knowledge? Can we gain one of these types of knowledge through the source and procedure that yields another type? What would you say about decreeing that valuable knowledge about all of these aspects of life should be gained only through the way you learn how to cook or the way you learn driving?
Consider returning to this section when you read the discussions in the following sections and see what the position of science , academic knowledge , and academic research can be with regard to the diversity of knowledge and knowledging, that is, various ways of gaining knowledge.
Various types of knowledge do seem to exist indeed. They do count as knowledge, although they obviously come from different sources and can be of different levels of ideological and/or pra...