Solved by verified expert:In a minimum of 150 words or more is requested for one of the chosen questions, and a response of 75 words or more is requested for the other question. Be sure to label each question On a separate sheet write two generic responses to any one of the questions in a minimum of 75 What are some issues you have on your campus that you would like to research? What are some in your school district? What difficulties do you anticipate with conducting research on each issue? What benefits to you anticipate resulting from conducting such research? Read the attached article: Beech, G. (2014). Researching the teaching context: Faithful practice. Journal of the International Christian Community for Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/icctej/vol9/iss1/3/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. State a purpose of research as a Christian researcher in the Biblical framework.Listen to the video Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research by Chris Flipp shown in the Activities section for the week. What are three differences between quantitative and qualitative research? What else do you think? The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-QSU6-hPUChapters for the textbook have been attached as well as article. Please be sure to utilize APA format
beech__2014__1.pdf
ed_research_1_5.pdf
ed_research_1_5.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
International Christian Community of Teacher
Educators Journal
Volume 9 | Issue 1
Article 3
2014
Researching the Teaching Context: Faithful
Practice
Geoff Beech
National Institute for Christian Education, Australia
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/icctej
Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Education Commons
Recommended Citation
Beech, Geoff (2014) “Researching the Teaching Context: Faithful Practice,” International Christian Community of Teacher Educators
Journal: Vol. 9 : Iss. 1 , Article 3.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/icctej/vol9/iss1/3
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in
International Christian Community of Teacher Educators Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more
information, please contact arolfe@georgefox.edu.
Beech: Researching the Teaching Context: Faithful Practice
Volume 9, Number 1:
The ICCTE Journal
A Journal of the International Christian Community for Teacher Education
Researching the Teaching Context: Faithful Practice
Geoff Beech, National Institute for Christian Education, Australia
Abstract
Christian teachers are called to a teaching practice
that is biblically grounded or based on a biblical
world and life view, but can the same imperative be
applied to those wishing to conduct research in
Christian education contexts? This paper considers
one approach to qualitative methodologies that
considers the ultimate goal of truth-seeking in
research in the sciences to be a deeply religious
activity. The ultimate goal of biblically grounded
research is proposed as being greatestcommandment driven, and to accomplish this, an
epistemological base that is holistic and relational is
proposed. This epistemology moves from a
biblically oriented sense of both being and purpose
to bring a level of redemptive engagement with
social phenomena. Such research is seen in the
context of unhiding and/or reclaiming God’s truth
to bring transformation and reformation to research
subject individuals and communities. The paper
includes references to philosophical bases such as
reformed critical realism and methodological
constructions such as critical ethnography.
Introduction
In recent years, educational researchers have
emerged somewhat from the quantitative versus
qualitative research methodology wars. The current
era has presented itself with many methodologies
and nuanced sub-methodologies, as well as the
various computer software spinoffs to support these.
The stated motivations given by Christians for
research in education, however, usually lack any
intentionality regarding references to, or apparent
directions from, biblical thinking.
If we reject the notion of neutrality, what might be a
biblical approach to research and particularly to a
research methodology? As educators we should be
aware that everything in a classroom, including the
classroom structures, the teacher’s actions and
speech, has pedagogical as well as worldview or
spiritual implications (Smith & Smith, 2011). We
assume then that within an educational context the
Published by Digital Commons @ George Fox University, 2014
same may be applied to research practices and yet
there appears to be a scarcity of comment relating to
biblical or Christian approaches to research or
research methodologies in education.
The primary focus of this paper will relate to
biblical perspectives in qualitative research, though
a broader application may be appropriate also—
including the framing of classroom focused action
research. Qualitative research in education is
usually seen in terms of approaches such as the oftquoted phenomenology, ethnomethodology, or
symbolic interactionism. Each of these has much to
offer but each falls short of an understanding of
research that is biblically based because each
emanates from presuppositions that are claimed as
constructions of human cognition rather than divine
revelation. While the common grace argument may
be persuasive, it appears that for the undertaking of
research in education, from an authentically biblical
perspective, has not been well thought through.
There is no intention in this paper to formulate a
final research methodology product but, rather, to
stimulate further thinking in this important area. In
doing so, the paper considers a revelatory
participation approach, makes use of some of
reformed critical realism’s philosophical
assumptions regarding our perception of reality, a
relational epistemology, and seeks to locate
research-based truth seeking within a biblical
understanding of epistemology and ontology. By
way of a starting point, and as a response to the socalled paradigm wars in research, a biblical stance
may reject the naïve realist ontology, or
understanding of reality, of positivism. This
traditionally pointed to the use of quantitative
methods and often produced dualistic, purportedly
objectivist perspectives determined through a
reductionist verification of hypotheses by the use of
statistical analysis of numerical data. A biblical
stance may also find itself rejecting the subjective,
relativistic, fabricated realities of a postmodern
constructivism along with the dialectically focused
critical theory.
ICCTE Journal 1
1
International Christian Community of Teacher Educators Journal, Vol. 9 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 3
Obviously one does not have the convenience of a
passage in Scripture that specifically outlines a 21st
Century research methodology (Using Numbers
chapters 3 and 26 or 2 Chronicles 2 as examples of
quantitative research or Ecclesiastes and Song of
Solomon as thick description reports of Solomon’s
research might be a tad biblicist!). The Scriptures
do, however, provide some guidelines for what we
may and may not do as researchers. In this context
we would agree as to the moral integrity of our
research practice—from the collection of data to its
analysis and the drawing of conclusions. But this
does not deal with the very essence of research nor
the methodologies that we may be drawn to use.
If we use a broad brush to define what we mean by
research, we could speak of the story of a
phenomenon, told truthfully, contextualised and
given a suggested hermeneutical framework. We
could say also that it involves the use of one or
more research methodologies that assist in the
discovery and systematic analysis of reliable, valid
truth about someone or something that exists and to
draw conclusions from the discovery. This means
that there is a need to take into account
epistemological and ontological considerations and
if we are to act as biblically focused researchers
then our perspectives—our presuppositions and our
controlling beliefs—on both of these should be
aligned with the Scriptures in some way. More than
that, as Christians we should be concerned also with
the implications of our theological orientations on
our thought and practice; in other words, giving
some critical attention to
the weltanschauung (worldview) presuppositions
underlying our research endeavors.
Last century the German philosopher, Martin
Heidegger, lived for a time beside a forest in which
a section had been cleared. The clearing of the
forest meant that the earth and small plants that had
been hidden by the trees had been revealed.
Heidegger’s (1972) concept of truth became linked
for a time with the idea of things being cleared
away so that that which is true is revealed. His
thinking took into consideration the Greek word for
truth mentioned earlier, aletheia (ajlhvqeia), which
is used often in the New Testament. This word is
related to the verb to be hid—and hence has the
sense of un-hiding. For those in New Testament
times the implication was to make something
visible. Today, in English, we may use the term
http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/icctej/vol9/iss1/3
discover (to dis-cover) or to realize (to make real
for us).
Research can be, and indeed should be, a
necessarily theological activity. If research is
described as the seeking of truth then whether we
conceptualize it in terms of propositional truth or
the personal, revealed aletheia (the Greek word for
truth used of Jesus in John 14:6) we need firstly to
acknowledge that all truth belongs to God. As the
oft (mis)quoted Augustinian aphorism says, “All
truth is God’s truth.” Augustine also referred to the
sequestering of God’s knowledge by others who
themselves did not create these things, but
excavated them, as it were, from the mines
of divine Providence, which is everywhere
present, but they wickedly and unjustly
misuse this treasure for the service of
demons. When a Christian severs himself in
spirit from a wretched association with these
people, he ought to take these truths from
them for the lawful service of preaching the
Gospel. (Harmless, 2010, p. 183)
Seeking truth, therefore, becomes a seeking of
God’s knowledge—a knowledge of Him, of His
Creation and of His created human beings, and
reclaiming knowledge that has been given a
different, non-God directed origin, value and telos
(purpose) by others. Framing research in this way
changes many things including our attitude towards
it, our motivation for conducting it, and the use of
the results of the research. It naturally would lead to
an obedient response to the greatest commandments
as Jesus taught them (Matthew 22:37–40) and an
unselfish response to the prayer that His kingdom
may come and His will be done on earth as it is in
heaven (Matthew 6:9–10). The discovery of God,
His person, His works, and His purposes in some
degree may underwrite all of our research efforts as
we use a knowledge of God, honest science, and
reflective aesthetics as hermeneutics to interpret
God’s revelation of Himself though His Creation
(Romans 1:20).
It should be noted, however, that while we may
disregard much of the enlightenment pursuit of
knowledge for the sake of knowledge as we seek to
un-hide (aletheia) God’s truth, the severe limitations
by which we are bound as finite beings mean that
definitive truth, devoid of inaccuracies or the
possibility of misinterpretation is rather a quixotic
ICCTE Journal 2
2
Beech: Researching the Teaching Context: Faithful Practice
goal. As John Polkinghorne (2010) has written, the
search is never complete but we are able to draw
towards what he refers to as the verisimilitudinous.
Biblically Founded Research in Practice
Jesus’ perception of reality flowed from a Godly
perspective based on presuppositions that differed
fundamentally from those of His followers and
others. This gave rise to frequent misunderstandings
and the misconstrual of His statements and parables.
Needless to say, the situation has not changed
greatly over the past two millennia. So how may
research be conducted in a way that is God
honoring and biblically grounded—founded on
God’s perspective of reality?
Perhaps the first thing that should be noted is that
biblically founded research should not be research
that has been blessed by a liberal smattering of
Bible verses or references. As Stuart Fowler (1986)
has noted with regard to philosophy:
The development of Christian philosophy
with genuine reformational power, then,
does not depend on the incorporation within
it of concepts, principles or propositions that
have the status of divine certainties or even
divine givens. Even were this to be
attempted by incorporating texts of Scripture
this would not be incorporating the Word of
God in the philosophy; the Word of God
comes to us only in Scripture in its integrity
and not in passages which we extract to
incorporate in another context. Philosophy
can develop as Christian philosophy only as
the philosopher philosophizes with the
conscious purpose of faith to listen for and
respond with submission of faith to the
Word of God at every turn he takes in his
philosophizing. (p. 421)
Our research, therefore, should include a faith
response examination of relationality and direction
in response to the mandates and purposes of
Scripture.
Foundations
Research is often seen as a knowledge-seeking
activity and it is the defining of what constitutes
true knowledge and how such knowledge is to be
interpreted and used that underlies the differences
between the different research paradigms. For some,
the arguments relating to the use, or existence, of
epistemological foundations may have reached the
Published by Digital Commons @ George Fox University, 2014
post-modern stage advocated by Evers and
Lakomski (1995) who claimed that no foundation
existed for knowledge—although, despite this, their
conceptualization of knowledge also may be
considered a foundation. In addition, Triplett (2002)
commented that evangelical, Reformed (Kuyperian)
philosophers such as Cornelius Van Til, George
Mavrodes, Alvin Plantinga, and Nicholas
Wolterstorff have been critical of the traditional
foundationalism that can be traced back to Aristotle,
claiming that it was both false and self-referentially
incoherent and may, therefore, be summarily
rejected. A deeper concern, however, lies in the
ontological foundations of the paradigms and
whether these may reflect biblical understandings of
being.
As a part of his well known work on qualitative
research, Creswell (2013) has adapted a table from
Lincoln et al. (2011) that sets out the ontological,
epistemological, axiological, and methodological
perspectives on research that are taken by
positivists, social constructivists, postmoderns,
pragmatists, and critical theorists. The perception of
being and origins, knowledge, values, and research
practices that is suggested for each of these groups
differs markedly from biblical perceptions.
Relationality and Epistemology
Rejecting both classical (Enlightenment)
foundationalism and postmodern nonfoundationalism, and recognizing the primacy of
ontology, it may be possible to conceive of an
epistemology that calls for a holistic framework
with guiding reference to a perceived ontological
source—God. Such a framework for qualitative
research would link the researcher not only to the
subject of the research question as well as the
human subject, but, in a network of relationships,
would include also the ontological source, other
relevant human beings, and other relevant contexts
within creation.
The Hebrew word we translate as knowledge
implies the entry into a relationship with the world
we experience such that we not only understand it
but that we also act on that understanding. The
knowledge exchange between participant and
researcher is contextualised within their relationship
and this has implications for the communication
that takes place and the interpretation of that
information—the relationship facilitating as well as
coloring understanding. Where participants are
ICCTE Journal 3
3
International Christian Community of Teacher Educators Journal, Vol. 9 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 3
called on to comment on the communication or
actions of others, this draws on a second network of
relational knowledge. In addition, the gathered data
pertain to the relationship the participants have to
their particular culture and the analysis of that data
must also take into account the researcher’s own
relationship with his or her culture as well as to the
cultures or sub-cultures of the participants.
If there is warrant for a belief that is properly basic
(Plantinga, 2000) in a God of biblical definition and
character, then this faith foundation—as opposed to
the faith foundations of the non-existence of such a
God, or of a different god—provides a particular a
priori or presuppositional springboard for the
attempted development of an epistemology that is
of an all-encompassing nature. Such an
epistemological viewpoint embodies rational,
relational, and revelational knowledge.
With relationships being such an important, explicit
component of much qualitative research, the
epistemic encounter we might have with another
human being, therefore, involves the full
connectedness of that person—with the knower,
with other knowers, with the rest of the created
order and with an acknowledged Creator. Crossculturally, or across sub-cultures, the ontological
source, or perceived Creator, in this sense refers to
such a source of being as perceived by an individual
or a culture. The philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd
(1960) referred to the idea of an absolute origin
which would be held by individuals and cultures.
This may represent, for example, the Hindu
pantheon of gods, the God of the Abrahamic faiths,
or the natural laws of Darwinian evolutionism.
Researchers who do not take into account the fact
that participants being interviewed may have a
different perception of an absolute origin source
from their own will have great difficulty seeing the
gestalt of relationships and to a degree, the
interpretation of communication will remain
elusive.
Diagrammatically, the relatedness network may be
represented as follows in Figure 1, where the
dashed lines indicate the relationships pertinent to a
participant’s context regarding the object of the
research and the dotted lines indicate the structure
of relationships within which the researcher works.
This diagram indicates the same perceived source
for both researcher and participant but, of course,
these may be different. This diagram illustrates the
http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/icctej/vol9/iss1/3
links between the research focus, the relationship
structures of the participants, and their worldviews,
indeed, all features of the research questions being
explored.
In many cases, indigenous peoples, particularly
those with an animistic belief set who see reality in
terms of connected individuals (Bird-David, 1999)
rather than isolated individuals, are more able to see
the relational structures that pertain to knowledge.
With specific reference to the type of knowledge
that may be typical of the thinking of some
indigenous groups, Battiste and Henderson (2000)
draw attention to the importance for them of the
connections between the ontological sources and the
physical environment:
Perhaps the closest one can get to describing
unity in Indigenous knowledge is that
knowledge is the expression of the vibrant
relationships between people, their
ecosystems, and the other living beings and
spirits that share their lands . . . . All aspects
of this knowledge are interrelated and
cannot be separated from the traditional
territories of the people concerned.
Similarly, there is no need to separate reality
into categories of living and nonliving, or
renewable and nonrenewable. (p. 42)
Throughout the Scriptures, the link between
knowledge and relationship is particularly strong
and early in the Scriptures we see the intimate
knowledge relationship of Adam and Eve. It is
evident in His special revelation that to know God
is to be in relationship with Him and under the new
covenant we see that salvation is linked with
knowing God or Christ (John 17:3).
ICCTE Journal 4
4
Beech: Researching the Teaching Context: Faithful Practice
Telos
Given this relational epistemology background for
qualitative research, and given the significance
placed on relationships and knowing in the
Scriptures, it may be argued that the aim and end of
research is not to gain knowledge for the sake of
knowledge creation. Rather, it is to advance our
knowledge of God through developing a greater
understanding of Him, of His Creation, of His
created beings and the relationships that bind them
together. This becomes, then, the first telos, or
purpose, for research. A second foundational
purpose is outlined below. While it may be possible
to explore the interactions that are fundamental to
symbolic interactionism, the subjective meanings
that these are said to establish may be important but
they lie alongside, or may be contrasted with, a
God-defined, objective reality. This reality, …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
