Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Textbooks
  4. Content Listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

38626 results in Cambridge Textbooks

Page 1266 of 1932

  • 11 - Qualitative Research as Critical Inquiry

  • from Part III - Inquiry With An Emancipatory Interest
  • Martin J. Packer, Universidad de San Buenaventura, Colombia
  • Book:
    The Science of Qualitative Research
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 355-370

  • Summary

    Critical theory is a metaphor for a certain kind of theoretical orientation which owes its origin to Kant, Hegel and Marx, its systematization to Horkheimer and his associates at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, and its development to successors, particularly to the group led by Jürgen Habermas, who have sustained it under various redefinitions to the present day.

    Rasmussen, 1996, p. 11

    The notion of critique takes us back once again to the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and to Georg Hegel's response. We saw in Chapter 7 that Kant considered the primary task of philosophy – perhaps its only task – as critiquing knowledge rather than justifying it. He proposed a “critical philosophy” that would explore the conditions for the possibility of true knowledge. We have seen that for Kant these conditions were transcendental, universal, a priori concepts. Kant maintained that a universal capacity for reason provides the basis for each individual's “Enlightenment” (German: Aufklärung) because it can “free our concepts from the fetters of experience and from the limits of the mere contemplation of nature” (Kant, 1784/2000, p. 402):

    Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own intellect without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use itwithout the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own understanding! (Kant, 1784/2000, p. 401)

    For Kant, enlightenment is something one achieves individually, and maturity amounts to independence and the ability to decide for oneself what is right and what is true.

    Hegel took a different position, arguing that the conditions for knowledge are historical, so that enlightenment is a social process that depends on relationships and participation in community. In this chapter, I will explore what Marx did to the concepts of critique and enlightenment, and how the group of scholars known as the Frankfurt School built on his work to expose the irrationality lurking at the heart of Enlightenment rationality. But first it is important to mention one portion of Hegel's reconstruction of the development of consciousness that has received considerable attention: his account of the “master–slave” dialectic, the struggle between what he called “lord” and “bondsman.”

  • 5 - Qualitative Analysis Reconsidered

  • from PART I - The Objective Study of Subjectivity
  • Martin J. Packer, Universidad de San Buenaventura, Colombia
  • Book:
    The Science of Qualitative Research
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 113-150

  • Summary

    [A]n interpreter can no longer claim to teach the reader the meaning of a text, for without a subjective contribution and a context there is no such thing. Far more instructive will be an analysis of what actuallyhappens when one is reading a text, for that is when the text begins to unfold itspotential;it is in the reader that the text comes to life…. In reading we are ableto experience things that no longer exist and to understand thingsthat are totally unfamiliar to us; and it is this astonishing process that now needs to beinvestigated.

    Iser, 1980, p. 19

    We have seen that standard practice in qualitative research – semistructured interviews followed by analysis through coding – embodies contradictory ontological commitments and notions of subject and object and of subjectivity and objectivity. On the one hand, each person is assumed to be a separate individual with personal and private experiences, beliefs, thoughts, and desires. On the other hand, scientific knowledge is assumed to be objective and general, impersonal and detached, with all personal elements eliminated. How, then, can scientific knowledge be derived from subjective experience?

    The qualitative research interview also draws confusingly from two models of language: discourse as a joint construction and language as a conduit. In the conduit model, what someone says is an “expression” of their experience or subjectivity. In the joint practice model, what is said is a product of two people, interviewer and interviewee. The semistructured interview uses the collaborative resources of language asymmetrically to render the interviewer invisible and encourage “disclosure” by the interviewee. The interviewee is encouraged to contemplate and reminisce about a topic outside the here and now, to confess to a patient but skeptical listener. In this respect, the interviewee's subjectivity is an effect of the semistructured interview, not a preexisting, independent personal experience that is the content expressed in what is said.

    Ironically, the ontological and epistemological assumptions embedded in the standard practices of qualitative research today turn out to be more or less the same as those of empirical-analytic inquiry. Individuals are assumed to be separate, with properties – opinions, experiences – that are internal and hidden. Rather than conduct surveys to measure these personal and private experiences, qualitative researchers try to gain access to them through the conduit of a language that they assume is composed of common concepts.

  • Part 2 - Practice

  • Edited by Geoff Woolcott, Southern Cross University, Australia, Robert Whannell, University of New England, Australia
  • Book:
    Teaching Secondary Science
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 215-216

  • Summary

    Each chapter in Part 2 contains examples of how the issues discussed in the ‘mirror’ theory chapters from Part 1 can be translated into classroom teaching practice at different year levels. Examples of perspectives illustrated in each chapter focus on, but are not restricted to, the following areas: upper primary (years 5 and 6), lower secondary (years 7 and 8), middle secondary (years 9 and 10) and upper secondary (years 11 and 12).

    The examples chosen from the upper primary area are intended to illustrate strategies that allow the teacher to cater to the diversity of student ability and thinking levels that will be present in many lower secondary classrooms. Due to the absence of a national curriculum for science subjects at the year 11 and 12 level, sample lesson plans for these levels will not include reference to a specific learning outcome. Rather, a general lesson objective will be used.

    A number of exemplars are presented that show how the principles in Part 1 may be applied to the teaching of pre-service teachers. This is an important inclusion for a number of reasons, including as a resource for out-of-field teachers as well as lecturers and tutors in pre-service teacher education. Some of these exemplars will draw on previously published Cambridge resource material (e.g. Dynamic Science), cutting-edge science education projects and other resources relevant to contemporary science practice.

  • 2 - The Qualitative Research Interview

  • from PART I - The Objective Study of Subjectivity
  • Martin J. Packer, Universidad de San Buenaventura, Colombia
  • Book:
    The Science of Qualitative Research
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 55-70

  • Summary

    Without any doubt, the most popular style of doing qualitative social research, is to interview a number of individuals in a way that is less restrictive and standardized than the one used for quantitative research.

    ten Have, 2004, p. 5, emphasis original

    A standard practice for qualitative research has become accepted in which interviews are conducted, the data are coded, and the results reported in the form of summaries written in formal language. In this chapter, I examine the practice of the qualitative research interview and explore the assumptions about language – and about people – that are embedded in its practices.

    Interviews are a ubiquitous way of collecting data throughout the social sciences. Although qualitative researchers today work with a wide variety of perspectives and study an enormous range of phenomena – from rituals to the unconscious – the technique used to obtain data is overwhelmingly the interview (Potter & Hepburn, 2005). Verbal data are sometimes elicited in the form of solitary words or phrases, or brief statements or explanations, but interviewing has become a familiar, taken for granted component of qualitative research, as well as research in cognitive studies, developmental psychology, the learning sciences, and elsewhere. Qualitative approaches that are otherwise very different – grounded theory, thematic analysis, empirical phenomenology, and interpretative phenomenological analysis – all agree that interviews are the method of choice to obtain qualitative data (Table 2.1). Many qualitative research projects use only interviews as their source of empirical data.

    We live today in what has been called “an interview society” (Atkinson & Silverman, 1997). On television, on the radio, and in newspapers and magazines, we watch, hear, and read interviews every day. Bogdan and Biklen suggest that “most of us have conducted interviews. The process is so familiar we do it without thinking” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 96). Everyone knows what an interview is – or at least we think we do. Perhaps the very ubiquity of interviews prevents us from looking at them carefully.

    Typically the qualitative research interview is “semistructured.” Other possibilities exist – focus group interviews, interviews that are completely unstructured, life histories, and so on – but the semistructured interview is the workhorse of qualitative research today.

  • Chapter 8 - Specialist legislation

  • Louise Floyd, James Cook University, North Queensland, William Steenson, University of Technology Sydney, Amanda Coulthard, Bond University, Queensland, Daniel Williams, Anne C. Pickering, University of Queensland
  • Book:
    Employment, Labour and Industrial Law in Australia
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 328-391

  • Summary

    Workplace health and safety

    Introduction

    In addition to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and common law, important allied legislation guides and shapes the employment relationship. Broadly speaking, workplace health and safety laws facilitate a safe working environment; anti-discrimination laws aim to ensure that unfair barriers (based on gender, age etc) do not impede the progress of talented people; and taxation law and policy provide obligations to pay money to government, so it has the revenue base to provide services. The links between those objectives and employment is obvious, (even though many of those provisions apply to circumstances beyond the employment relationship, as well). This chapter outlines those laws.

    While the workplace relations system for the private sector has become a national scheme regulated by the Federal government – particularly for corporations and private sector employers and employees – the opposite remains largely true in relation to workplace health and safety (WHS).

    While most Australian jurisdictions have adopted ‘model'WHS provisions by way of enacting complementary legislation from a single template Act and Regulations (referred to as the ‘model Act’ and discussed in further detail below), the system adopted is one of substantially similar legislation rather than national regulation. Contrast this with the approach adopted by the States (exceptWestern Australia) with the referral to the Commonwealth of power to legislate in respect of private sector industrial relations, which has facilitated a federally legislated scheme.

    This s considers the origins and evolution of workplace safety laws; legislative concepts essential to an understanding of the field; safety duties imposed upon parties in the workplace; the compliance and enforcement regime; and the interaction of workplace safety laws with industrial relations and workers’ compensation systems respectively.

    Origins of modern WHS legislation

    Workplace safety legislation in Australia has its origins in the factories legislation of 19thcentury Britain. The industrial revolution, the changes that it brought to the world of work, and particularly the conditions in which the work was performed, were the catalyst for early attempts to regulate safety.

    Amongst the features of these early British attempts were its industry-specific nature, its reliance upon magistrates and other appointed visitors to attend and make reports (and their diligence or otherwise in doing so) and the often-disparate aspects of ‘health’ and ‘welfare’ in the workplace that they sought to regulate.

  • Chapter 7 - Public work

  • Louise Floyd, James Cook University, North Queensland, William Steenson, University of Technology Sydney, Amanda Coulthard, Bond University, Queensland, Daniel Williams, Anne C. Pickering, University of Queensland
  • Book:
    Employment, Labour and Industrial Law in Australia
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 267-327

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The legal treatment of work in the public sector is as significant as it is complex. Smith's 1987 work, Public Sector Employment Law, Professor McCarry's 1988 book, Aspects of Public Sector Employment Law, and the more recent Public Sector Employment in the Twenty-First Century, by Professor Pittard and the late Professor Weeks, are all testament to the difficulties and uncertainties lawyers face when studying and practising in this field.

    Smith observes that a major determinant of public sector work is that key terms of work are drawn from statute rather than contract or industrial instrument of the types studied in the previous chapters of this book. To that may be added the fact that public work often entails meeting some public goal – to give frank and fearless advice, if one is a public service employee; to show fierce independence in the meting out of justice, if one is a judge; or to nurture academic freedom, if one is an academic.

    This chapter analyses three key areas of public work:

  • • Public sector employment – The chapter outlines key provisions of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) and the separation of powers doctrine; it discusses recent developments in whistleblower laws and public sector investigations and public sector employment theory.

  • • Judicial ‘work’ – The chapter discusses something seldom dealt with – the work of judicial officers. It is extremely important for lawyers, business people and students of law and business to fully appreciate the work of judges, especially given the recent tendency of some populist commentators to align judges with efficiency principles.

  • • Academic employment – The chapter discusses academic freedom in particular, and the fact that funding for universities stems from government.

    • This introduction deliberately uses the term ‘work’ in relation to its treatment of judges and their working conditions. Judges are not employees; they are statutory office-holders. They are appointed under statute and form an independent arm of government – they are not a servant of the elected government of the day.

  • Preface

  • Edited by Geoff Woolcott, Southern Cross University, Australia, Robert Whannell, University of New England, Australia
  • Book:
    Teaching Secondary Science
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp xiii-xiv

  • Summary

    This textbook is targeted primarily at pre-service teachers aiming to teach science in secondary school. It is also contextualised in terms of its relation to science education at upper primary school (years 5 and 6), and accommodates the needs of practicing teachers who are teaching out-of-field or retraining to be science teachers.

    The overall framework views scientific thinking, including problem solving and inquiry, as an essential part of the fabric of our lives. This framework draws on each pre-service teacher's or teacher's knowledge of a world that has been transformed by science, as well as on the thinking processes that we naturally use from a young age. The result is an approach that places the theory of science teaching in a context of changes in theory and practice over the last century, particularly since the internet revolution of the 1990s. The approach also shows that content knowledge can be accessed as needed, rather than through learning vast amounts of information by rote – something very few pre-service teachers may desire to do. The book therefore responds to the big issues of science, which relate to the preparedness of scientists to change their views in light of new information, and how we deal with real-world issues and events, rather than relying on a set of facts.

    The book is presented in two parts, with Part 1 looking at a variety of contemporary issues relevant to teaching and learning science in the Australian classroom. Each of the chapters that comprise Part 1 commences with an initial (brief) outline followed by an examination of the relevant issues and the influence of these issues on science teaching practice in the modern classroom. The focus of each chapter is to provide generic theory-based tools or understandings that can be used in the classroom to improve teaching practice in both upper primary and secondary science teaching.

    Part 1 is designed to be easy to read and approachable, but also to provide reasons for teaching science based in current research. It is intended to encourage collaborative classroom teaching that is based on students and teachers supplementing their own knowledge through access to evidenced studies on pedagogy, collaboration with academics and those who work with science in everyday life, and science teaching resources that encourage engagement.

  • 1.7 - Teaching using student-generated representations in science

  • from Part 1 - Theory
  • Edited by Geoff Woolcott, Southern Cross University, Australia, Robert Whannell, University of New England, Australia
  • Book:
    Teaching Secondary Science
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 141-167

  • Summary

    We dedicate this chapter to the memory of our colleague and fellow author Professor Bruce Waldrip, who was a pioneer in the use of representational reasoning.

    LEARNING OBJECTIVES

    After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

  • • recognise a range of potential ways to represent scientific ideas which you can use with students and recognise the strengths and limitations of each form

  • • develop a strategy to incorporate representational reasoning in your teaching using student-generated representations (SGRs) to explore students’ thinking about a concept

  • • consider how to interact with students, what questioning you might use to promote thinking and encourage reasoning and argument based on evidence

  • • plan to engage your students in generating their own representations of a scientific idea and the evidence you will collect at each phase for formative and summative purposes.

    • Introduction

    The Chief Scientist in Australia emphasised the importance of engaging students in productive science learning for the knowledge economy (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2013) and called for sustainable and equitable support systems to develop teachers’ professional knowledge and capabilities (Chubb, 2014). The number of students who are taking STEM subjects in secondary and tertiary education is declining both worldwide (Marginson et al., 2013) and in Australia (Kennedy et al., 2014). Furthermore, students are being ‘turned off’ science due to their experience in schools, so there is a need to explore how teachers can improve student engagement in science (Keys, 2005 ; Lyons, 2006).

    Acknowledging this situation recognises that teacher professional knowledge and capabilities are at the heart of improving science learning for students. However, we need to be clear about what knowledge and capabilities are pertinent for teaching science and to also be mindful that teaching and learning in a classroom occurs through a complex interaction between students, the resources used and their teacher.

    This chapter examines an approach to teaching science that has emerged from contemporary education research and which aims to address the problem of engaging students’ interest in science by providing more authentic learning experiences that emulate the way science knowledge is generated and how it actually works.

    OPENING VIGNETTE

    The two drawings in Figure 1.7.1 show a student's idea of what she thinks is the difference between the way the particles are arranged in metal and wool.

  • 10 - Studying Ontological Work

  • from Part II - Ethnographic Fieldwork – The Focus On Constitution
  • Martin J. Packer, Universidad de San Buenaventura, Colombia
  • Book:
    The Science of Qualitative Research
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 319-350

  • Summary

    [T]hese theories presuppose the prior existence of the question that they are seeking to resolve: that there is a yawning gulf separating the agent from structure, the individual from society. Now if there is no gulf, then sociological theory would find itself in the rather odd situation of having tried to provide ever more refined solutions to a nonexistent problem.

    Latour, 1996, p. 232

    If constitution goes on in the everyday practices of a form of life, then it makes sense that to answer questions about constitution we need to study these practices. One way would seem to be firsthand contact with the form of life through ethnographic fieldwork, but, as we have seen, ethnographic accounts that claim to describe what is “behind” everyday actions and events such as the cockfight, which are written for outsiders and are immediately removed from the form of life they represent, face insuperable problems of veracity. When fieldwork is understood as participating as a member and then writing a disinterested description of the order of a form of life, it is inherently dualistic.

    Are there other ways to study practices? It might be objected that in considering only ethnography I have been unduly narrow in my exploration of the ways in which we could study constitution. Certainly other methods and conceptual frameworks exist for the study of practical interaction. In this chapter, I want to consider several of them, focused on exploring the relationship of constitution between individual and society, between member and form of life. First I consider critical discourse analysis (CDA) and conversation analysis (CA). Then I turn to the way conversation analysis has been extended to study “institutional talk,” and finally to the study of institutional modes of existence.

    Proponents of critical discourse analysis have summarized its main assumptions as follows: it addresses social problems; treats power relations as discursive; sees discourse as constituting society and culture, as doing ideological work, as historical, and as a form of social action; sees the link between text and society as mediated; and offers a form of analysis that is interpretive and explanatory (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).

  • 1.5 - Improving science teaching practice through collaboration and reflection

  • from Part 1 - Theory
  • Edited by Geoff Woolcott, Southern Cross University, Australia, Robert Whannell, University of New England, Australia
  • Book:
    Teaching Secondary Science
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 93-115

  • Summary

    LEARNING OBJECTIVES

    After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

  • • organise collaborative enhancement with people in your region who utilise science or scientific thinking as part of their daily life in order to examine scientific thinking, pedagogy and content questions based around problem solving

  • • utilise a suite of reflection processes that will develop your science teaching effectiveness using collaborative reflection, including a new and innovative reflection based on how you feel while you are teaching

  • • recognise that iterations of collaborative enhancement, teaching and reflection are key processes in improving your science teaching

  • • develop and utilise science teaching skills that can be transferred from one topic and level to another.

    • Introduction

    Collaboration is about people working together on projects. In education, teachers work together in social networks to improve student learning in the classroom; for example, by exchanging teaching ideas. Classrooms are also becoming collaborative spaces where teachers can guide the learning to achieve their teaching and learning goals and those of their students. Students collaborate to deepen their understanding of scientific concepts.

    Collaboration is an important part of pre-service teacher education and teacher professional learning in science education domains. Collaboration may take a number of different forms; for example, groups of university researchers working with teachers to develop a teaching resource, a teacher mentoring a pre-service teacher, a university lecturer teaching a pre-service teacher or delivering teacher professional learning to a classroom educator, or simply two teachers or two pre-service teachers working together on a lesson or unit plan or reflecting on the impact of the lesson presented.

    This chapter outlines how you as pre-service teachers and classroom teachers can collaborate to enhance your science teaching and to utilise collaborative reflection, the natural partner to collaborative enhancement. The chapter also outlines how repeated cycles, or iterations, rather than single instances of enhancement and reflection can improve teaching. The final section of this chapter speaks to transferable teaching skills that require collaboration for their development and continued effectiveness.

    OPENING VIGNETTE

    As teachers we want our students to be able to ‘think and act in scientific ways’ (ACARA, 2012). Listening to scientists talk about scientific thinking and problem solving is one way to help us to understand it. Scientific thinking is both similar to and different from everyday thinking and problem solving.

  • 2.3 - Application of theory in science education classrooms

  • from Part 2 - Practice
  • Edited by Geoff Woolcott, Southern Cross University, Australia, Robert Whannell, University of New England, Australia
  • Book:
    Teaching Secondary Science
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 259-282

  • Summary

    LEARNING OBJECTIVES

    After studying this chapter, you should be able to:

  • • apply inquiry-based learning (IBL) frameworks when designing classroom activities

  • • apply a number of learning theories and their relevance to the teaching of science, including

  • –– behaviourism

  • –– constructivism

  • –– metacognition

  • –– Piaget's developmental theory

  • –– Bloom's revised taxonomy

  • • apply cognitive load theory in relation to inquiry learning, identifying strategies for applying this theory to IBL

  • • analyse and apply the phases of the 5E framework.

    • Introduction

    This chapter is the mirror to Chapter 1.3. The main goal of this chapter is to provide practical examples to elaborate on and illustrate the applications of the main focus areas of Chapter 1.3. A close relationship exists between instructional design and classroom management, based on the ability of effective instruction to engage students (Scott, Nelson & Liaupsin, 2001). We therefore begin this chapter by noting that a general principle of applied theory is that instruction which engages student attention will also contribute to classroom management, an important consideration for every classroom teacher. When we get to the area of applied theory, we are dealing with highly complex elements of instructional design. Important considerations in this area include thinking about how we can best teach concepts to our students, how to develop effective problem-solving skills, how meaning is constructed from the raw information of learning, how to scaffold student learning for transfer or generalisation, and how to get students to regulate their own learning.

    Understanding how we process information is also an important aspect of effective instruction, because this helps us design for learning that is accessible and relevant to student cognition (Anderson, Reder & Simon, 1996). It also suggests how we might go about scaffolding for improved learning in the areas of critical thinking, problem solving, decision making and creative thinking. Instructional design that applies theory effectively prepares individuals to become lifelong learners (Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler, 2008). It is, therefore, a pivotal area for teachers to know about and provides an important backdrop to the presentation of this chapter.

    Against that backdrop, this chapter introduces you to a number of specific strategies designed to apply theoretical ideas about science teaching to the learning situations that occur in classrooms, schools and other educational settings. As noted in Chapter 1.3, the overarching frame of reference for applying these strategies will be the inquiry-based 5E instructional model of science teaching.

  • 7 - Dualism and Constitution: The Social Construction of Reality

  • from Part II - Ethnographic Fieldwork – The Focus On Constitution
  • Martin J. Packer, Universidad de San Buenaventura, Colombia
  • Book:
    The Science of Qualitative Research
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 170-214

  • Summary

    Edit and interpret the conclusions of modern science as tenderly as we like, it is still quite impossible for us to regard man as the child of God for whom the earth was created as a temporary habitation…. Man is but a foundling in the cosmos, abandoned by the forces that created him. Unparented, unassisted and undirected by omniscient or benevolent authority, he must fend for himself, and with the aid of his own limited intelligence find his way about in the indifferent universe. Such is the world pattern that determines the character and direction of modern thinking.

    Becker, 1932/1961, pp. 14–15

    It seems common sense that each of us has a mind in which we construct conceptions of the world around us. Our “subjectivity” is not merely ideas in our heads; it is the way the whole world appears to us. The “mental” is taken to be something inner, personal, and subjective. In addition, an informationprocessing model is accepted throughout the social sciences. In this model, the brain is seen as a computer, actively processing data received through the sensory organs, forming complex internal models or theories about the external world, and deciding how to act on the basis of these models. This, too, has come to seem obvious and natural.

    The problems with such views are not so obvious, but humans have not always thought about themselves in this way. Of course, no single person could be responsible for such a model, but one person in particular was a highly influential spokesperson: the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Although he wrote over 200 years ago, many still consider Kant the most important philosopher of all time. The accusation of dualism is usually directed towards Descartes (e.g., Burwood, Gilbert, & Lennon, 1999), but the model of human being that the social sciences assume, and the dualisms in which they have become caught, are due much more to Kant. This chapter explores Kant and his influence in order to see how this model arose and why, and how it both requires a process of “constitution” and trivializes this as something individual, primarily cognitive and intellectual.

  • 15 - A Historical Ontology of Ourselves

  • from Part III - Inquiry With An Emancipatory Interest
  • Martin J. Packer, Universidad de San Buenaventura, Colombia
  • Book:
    The Science of Qualitative Research
    Published online:
    06 August 2018
    Print publication:
    16 November 2017, pp 461-480

  • Summary

    Foucault's great achievement in my view was to see, and show, how we can have a history of this [self-constituting freedom]: that by describing the different techniques of the self, one can tell the story of different ways in which people have purposefully made themselves into certain kinds of persons, and therefore of the historically specific and definite (and of course always limited) forms which ethical freedom has taken.

    Laidlaw, 2002, p. 324

    My principal aim in this book has been to consider how social scientists can frame and answer questions that are important and relevant. We have examined typical practices with the tools of qualitative research – interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, and analysis of discourse – with an eye towards their embedded ontological and epistemological assumptions. We have found a recurrent ontological dualism of subject and object, and an epistemology that contrasts subjective experience with objective knowledge. But we have also found important attempts to use these tools in new ways.

    Dissolving Kant's Problem

    In Part I, I argued that much qualitative research remains stuck in the dualism of subject and object. We began our examination of the practices of qualitative research with the semistructured interview, commonly viewed as central to the objective study of subjectivity, a view that Steinar Kvale summarized well: “If you want to know how people understand their world and their life, why not talk with them?” I questioned the combination of invisibility and confession in the qualitative research interview, and the practices of abstraction and generalization that are central to analysis through coding. The conduit metaphor for language, the view thatmeaning is contained in concepts and that experience is expressed in talk, contributes to a dualistic opposition between subjectivity and objectivity that ties this kind of research in knots. This approach maintains the same ontological dualism as empirical-analytic inquiry and ignores intersubjective phenomena: the material practices that form a background to our everyday actions and experiences. We began to consider different ontological assumptions and commitments, looking for the basis of a genuinely new program of inquiry in the social sciences. I suggested that when we interview a person we don't simply test our theories about them or find answers to our questions but encounter them and are challenged by them.

Page 1266 of 1932