Praxis-related+Research

185-214.
This article describes praxis related research, research that seeks not only to make a contribution to social science, but primarily to bring about a social change. This is what the title refers to when it talks about ‘two masters’ - each ‘master’ will have different criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the research.

I think this relates to our discussion about the place of emerging forms of research in a world in which quantitative forms of research are seen to have more credibility, particularly in the eyes of policymakers. Praxis-related research claims that our first responsibility as researchers is to the community that we are researching, of which we are a part.

The article is careful to differentiate ‘praxis’ from ‘practice’. Practice might ordinarily be conceived of as the professional performance of one’s occupation - i.e a teacher. Praxis, on the other hand, is defined explicitly as ‘informed, committed action’ (p.186). In this way it seeks to overcome suffering and oppression, and express creativity. By this definition, Arts-based research fits this definition of praxis-related research.

Marx’ definition of praxis is offered, that being to ‘restructure the world in the interests of the good’ (p.187). However, I am not sure this definition is particularly helpful, as it must be remembered that some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century came about as a result of misguided attempts to ‘restructure the world’. Unintended consequences, perhaps, on Marx’ part, but there is a lesson to be learned in this in terms of directing our energy towards a perceived ‘unjust system’ without recognising that injustice is a human condition, not a result of competing ideologies.

The origin of scientific ways of looking at the world is examined by grounding it in the philosophy of Plato. I have to say, this way of systematically examining the world and developing criteria for evaluating it resonates with me a lot. It is something that has defined scientific progress for much of history, and history itself shows that when we depart from this standard, (e.g. by undue influence from religious authority) the result is almost always a disaster. So much progress in technological development, standard of living, elimination of disease has come about because of the scientific method, and the rigorous testing of truth claims by a shared commitment to evidence. Science also, of course, has its unintended consequences (such as nuclear weapons and deep sea oil spills), but it would be wrong to completely discard these Platonic ideals in favour of subjectivity.

Article claims that most science is primarily interested in cognitive/propositional knowledge - with changing praxis being a secondary consideration. However, I am not convinced that this is the case. Most research seeks in some manner to improve the world, even if not overtly political in motivation. Research into vaccines, cancer treatments, pedagogy, clean energy, space exploration etc all seeks more than just propositional knowledge. Research at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider to find elusive sub-atomic particles may seem entirely cognitive. Should it be abandoned because it is not primarily seeking the liberation of the oppressed?

The article also discusses the role of the researcher in praxis-related research. The participants are a key part of the research process, having an impact on the questions, methods, interpretations etc. Bradbury and Reason (2001) see role of researcher subsidiary to central role of participants. Is the role of the researcher then just as a facilitator? I wonder how this relates to the need for us as students to pass methodology papers before we can undertake a thesis. Clearly there is a perceived need for a certain amount of expertise in research methods. Can we assume that research participants have enough knowledge of methodology to make these decisions, just by virtue of membership in the research community? Or is the point to take this knowledge (such as in this course) and use it to empower community members?  Lots of questions here, but also positive directions for seeking to empower students in their use of social networking sites by developing self-efficacy. Perhaps research in this area should be judged also by the extent to which it empowers young people in this area.