201 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus D a v i d S c o t t & R o b i n U s h e r . ( 1 9 9 9 ) . Researching Methods and Theory in Educational Enquiry. Education: Data, N e w York, N Y : C a s s e l l & C o n t i n u u m . P a g e s : 192. Price: $ 7 4 . 5 0 U S ( h a r d c o v e r ) ; $ 2 8 . 0 0 U S (paperback). R e v i e w e d b y Z a n a M a r i e L u t f i y y a , F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n , T h e U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba. T h o s e of u s w h o teach educational research courses f a c e a n u m b e r of d i l e m m a s . G i v e n the constraints of a typical three credit h o u r course, d o w e f o c u s on the " d o i n g " of research (e.g., m e t h o d s and p r o c e d u r e s ) or d o w e p u s h for an understanding of research qua research, that is, the attend a n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l a s s u m p t i o n s a n d issues that exist w i t h i n e v e r y a n y research p a r a d i g m ? W e f a c e a similar d i l e m m a w h e n w e ourselves e n g a g e in research. W e w o r k hard to c o m p l e t e a project in order to b o t h p r o c e e d to the n e x t study as well as to m a k e a contribution to our field. I suspect that m a n y o f u s e n d u p e m p h a s i z i n g r e s e a r c h m e t h o d s a n d p r o c e d u r e s over a s s u m p t i o n s (epistemological and ontological) in b o t h our teaching of research as well as in our practice of it. W e h a v e any n u m b e r of utilitarian d e m a n d s to appease, w h e t h e r it be getting student r e a d y to do their thesis or c o m p l e t i n g a p u b l i s h a b l e p i e c e ourselves. In addition, e d u c a t i o n , unlike certain other fields, d o e s n ' t h a v e or is detached f r o m a c o n s c i o u s connection to an overarching theoretical f r a m e w o r k . Praxis d o m i n a t e s in a p r o f e s s i o n a l school, e v e n while w e p r o f e s s to believe (and teach) that it is possible and desirable " t o develop theory about education w h i c h is superior to practical k n o w l e d g e " (Scott & Usher, p. 2) and, in fact, drive it. It is this central notion that Scott and U s h e r contest in their b o o k . In a d d i t i o n to m a k i n g the belief a b o u t t h e o r y d r i v i n g e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e problematic, they question other c o m m o n l y held beliefs a b o u t educational research, including the idea that nomothetic statements about all facets of e d u c a t i o n are p o s s i b l e , that e d u c a t i o n a l d i s p u t e s c a n b e a n s w e r e d via empirical enquiry and that there is a correct w a y to collect and a n a l y z e e d u c a t i o n a l data in order to m a k e appropriate conclusions. Finally, t h e y question the belief that the values, f r a m e w o r k s and so on of the researcher are irrelevant to the d e s i g n of the study a n d are largely u n d i s c u s s e d in The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 202 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus research reports. B y e x a m i n i n g a n u m b e r of p a r a d i g m s u s e d in educational research (e.g., positivist/empiricist, interpretivism, critical theory, a n d post m o d e r n i s m ) as well as f o u r c o m m o n l y u s e d research strategies (i.e., induction, deduction, retroduction and abduction), they contend that the epistem o l o g i c a l a n d o n t o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s i n h e r e n t in all r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t y is h i d d e n a n d t h e r e f o r e never considered. W h a t e v e r the p a r a d i g m u s e d , virtually all educational research cannot b e evaluated properly b y the reader as the c o m p l e t e text is simply not present. S c o t t a n d U s h e r p r e s s o n w i t h their thesis, W h a t this i m p l i e s is that p o w e r is central to the r e s e a r c h act a n d w e s i m p l y c a n n o t d i s m i s s it f r o m o u r e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l e n d e a v o u r s , b u t m u s t try to u n d e r s t a n d its e f f e c t s . T h i s i n v o l v e s a r e f l e x i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the w a y in w h i c h w e are p o s i t i o n e d as k n o w e r s , a n d it s u g g e s t s that the scientific p a r a d i g m of a singular, c o n v e r g e n t a n d f r a g m e n t a b l e reality w h i c h c a n b e k n o w n b y r e s e a r c h e r s w h o act i n d e p e n d e n t l y f r o m t h e subjects of their research and w h o produce generalizations a n d n o m o t h e t i c s t a t e m e n t s is n o t sustainable, (p. 2) T h e a u t h o r s ' c o n t e n t i o n is that in e d u c a t i o n , the p r a c t i c e o f r e s e a r c h is (as t h e y r e f e r to it) b o t h u n t h e o r i z e d a n d w h a t t h e o r y is p r e s e n t is h i d d e n . R e a d e r s are u n a b l e to assess b o t h the r e l e v a n c e a n d w o r t h of the r e s e a r c h . T h e a u t h o r s s u g g e s t that t h e s e p h i l o s o p h i c a l p o s i t i o n s , w h i c h g i v e rise to p a r t i c u l a r m e t h o d o l o g i e s , m u s t b e f u l l y e x p l i c a t e d b y t h e r e s e a r c h e r s a n d u n d e r s t o o d b y the reader. M o r e on this p r o c e s s later. In the first part of the b o o k , Scott and U s h e r delineate the philosophical c o n t e x t s of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h by c h a l l e n g i n g the n o t i o n o f r e s e a r c h as a t e c h n o l o g y vs. a socially c o n s t r u c t e d and interpreted practice. T h e p r o v i d e the k e y p h i l o s o p h i c a l a s s u m p t i o n s of the research p a r a d i g m s a n d strategies listed a b o v e , along w i t h a critique of each. In the s e c o n d sect i o n of the b o o k , the authors describe r e s e a r c h m e t h o d s u s e d b y e d u c a tional researchers. T h e s e c o n n e c t clearly to the p h i l o s o p h i c a l orientation in p a r t o n e a n d include the e x p e r i m e n t a l m e t h o d , survey a n d correlational d e s i g n s , qualitative r e s e a r c h design a n d m e t h o d s , i n c l u d i n g c a s e study, i n t e r v i e w s as w e l l as theory b u i l d i n g and the ( a u t o ) b i o g r a p h i c a l m e t h o d . T h e a u t h o r s a t t e m p t to c l a r i f y t h e i n h e r e n t a s s u m p t i o n s w i t h i n e a c h The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 203 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus m e t h o d o l o g y ( p r o v i d i n g an insider's perspective, if y o u will), a l o n g w i t h an analysis that " s u r f a c e s " or m a k e s c o n s c i o u s the p r o b l e m s of the a p p r o a c h f r o m an " o u t s i d e r ' s " p o i n t of view. T h e y c o n t i n u e this c a r e f u l description a n d d e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f several issues in e d u c a t i o n a l research, i n c l u d i n g t h e c u r r e n t b u r e a u c r a t i c r e s p o n s e to ethical c o n s i d e r a t i o n s in r e s e a r c h , evaluation a n d arriving at criteria for j u d g i n g the quality o f a p i e c e o f research. In their final b r i e f chapter, Scott a n d U s h e r p r e s e n t their alternative to m i n i m i z e the p r o b l e m s inherent in e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h , an a p p r o a c h t h e y call " t r a n s g r e s s i v e r e s e a r c h . " T h i s is b u i l t u p o n L a t h e r ' s ( 1 9 9 4 ) c o n c e p t o f t r a n s g r e s s i v e validity. T h e y a r g u e that r e s e a r c h e r s n e e d to m a k e problematic our representation of the world that we provide t h r o u g h o u r r e s e a r c h efforts. T h i s a l l o w s us to " . . . b e r e f l e x i v e a b o u t the p r a c t i c e s o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n within w h i c h w e are l o c a t e d . . . " (p. 22). T h i s r e f l e x i v i t y c a n n o t b e p u r c h a s e d via a better r e s e a r c h m e t h o d o l o g y b u t through making ourselves conscious about " . . . w h a t f r a m e s our way of s e e i n g w h e n w e d o r e s e a r c h . . . " (italics in o r i g i n a l , p . 2 2 ) . S c o t t a n d U s h e r call this the position from w h i c h w e are "incited to see " (italics in original, p. 22). F o r the authors, establishing k n o w l e d g e or truth t h r o u g h r e s e a r c h a l w a y s i n v o l v e s a p o w e r s t r u g g l e , a n d o n e in w h i c h the r e s e a r c h e r is e n m e s h e d in a r e s e a r c h / k n o w l e d g e e c o n o m y , r a t h e r t h a n p l a y i n g t h e r o l e o f a f r e e - s t a n d i n g , rational, o b j e c t i v e i n d i v i d u a l — a c o m m o n rhetoric. B y h i g h l i g h t i n g o u r f r a m e s as m u c h as o u r f i n d i n g s , w e a l l o w ours e l v e s a n d o t h e r s t o r e a d t h e r e s e a r c h t e x t at s e v e r a l l e v e l s . L a t h e r ( 1 9 9 4 ) u s e s the p h r a s e that t r a n s g r e s s i v e validity is a of authority" "counter-practice (italics in original p. 157). A s Scott a n d U s h e r c o n c l u d e , " . . . a t r a n s g r e s s i v e p e r s p e c t i v e o n v a l i d i t y is n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h h o w r e s e a r c h m e t h o d o l o g i e s w o r k , b u t w i t h h o w o f t e n t h e y fail to w o r k . " T h e authors p r o v i d e a h e l p f u l e x a m p l e to m a k e their case. T h e y p o i n t to the w a y the context of research h a s c h a n g e d . R e s e a r c h is n o w a c o m m o d i t y that is b o u g h t a n d sold. In order to i m p r o v e o u r r e s e a r c h efforts, w e h a v e tied o u r s e l v e s to a v a r i e t y o f t e c h n o l o g i e s w h i c h s u p p o s e d l y e n h a n c e o u r a b i l i t y to " s e e " (i.e., c o l l e c t a n d a n a l y z e o u r d a t a ) a n d t h e r e b y e n h a n c e the validity of our observations. T h e reliance on technol- The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 204 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus o g y m e a n s a d e p e n d e n c e o n f u n d i n g a n d the existing e c o n o m i c order. T h e c r e a t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e n o w d e p e n d s on cultural attitudes f o r legitim a c y vs. e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l y d e f i n e d m e t h o d s a n d rules. If the r e s e a r c h satisfies t h e c u s t o m e r , t h e n it " w o r k s . " T h e y contrast this c u r r e n t state of a f f a i r s w i t h h o w r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e b e e n t r a d i t i o n a l l y t a u g h t to p r a c t i c e research. M a n y of us were trained through a lengthy apprenticeship. R e s e a r c h w a s t h e o r y a n d fieldwork oriented a n d w e w e r e socialized into a r e c o g n i z e d r e s e a r c h p a r a d i g m . T h e researcher m a i n t a i n e d a p r e e m i n e n t r o l e in t h e p r o d u c t i o n of k n o w l e d g e . S c o t t a n d U s h e r s u g g e s t that the c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n o f research h a s b e e n a c c o m p a n i e d b y increasing rationalization of the doing of research, characterized by shorter projects, a b r i d g e d m e t h o d s a n d strong political pressures. To m a n a g e this " s h o r t c u t " a p p r o a c h to research, w e use " . . . l e g i t i m i z i n g citations of the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l m a s t e r s b u t not the realization of the implied p r a c t i c e s " (p. 158). A s the traditional g r o u n d i n g in an apprenticeship m o d e l disapp e a r s , the c o n d u c t of research is s p e e d e d u p and f u r t h e r f r a g m e n t e d . T h e y s u g g e s t that one r e s p o n s e to this situation is to invite a greater n e g o t i a t i o n or discussion b e t w e e n the researchers and the r e s e a r c h e d . T h e " s u b j e c t s " u n d e r s t u d y attain greater p o w e r in d e v e l o p i n g a n d q u e s t i o n i n g t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , m e t h o d s a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e r e s e a r c h e r s . This involvement will m a k e visible the frames or perspectives of the r e s e a r c h e r s a n d o f the research text. Scott a n d U s h e r c o n c l u d e b y again r e f e r r i n g to L a t h e r ( 1 9 9 4 ) a n d s t a t i n g t h a t " . . . a r e s i s t a n t p r a c t i c e o f r e s e a r c h n e e d s to b e located in the local and the specific, w h e r e interventions are d e f i n e d situationally a n d participatorily" (p. 160). For me, the authors' conclusions remain unsatisfactory. Certainly h i g h l i g h t i n g t h e political and p o w e r f u l n a t u r e o f c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h a n d k n o w l e d g e c o n s t r u c t i o n is a u s e f u l p r o c e s s . I n s i s t i n g that r e s e a r c h e r s e m p l o y a g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y in o u r w o r k c o n t r i b u t e s to t h i s o p e n n e s s . I n v o l v i n g at least s o m e r e s e a r c h " s u b j e c t s " as m o r e e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s in o n e w a y t o e n c o u r a g e t h e p r a c t i c e o f r e f l e x i v i t y . B u t I a l s o f o u n d m y s e l f w o n d e r i n g if all o f t h i s s i m p l y m o v e s p o w e r a n d control f r o m o n e g r o u p to another, a n d a g r o u p w i t h an e v e n less o b v i o u s f r a m e or f o c u s to w h i c h to refer. T h e w a y s e e m s o p e n f o r a n e v e n greater c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s a n d The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000 205 Book Review s/Comptes Rendus the construction of knowledge. Every group will simply m a n u f a c t u r e their o w n . W h i l e s o m e p o s t m o d e r n i s t s will insist that this is exactly the point, the opportunity for a sustained and engaging discourse a m o n g m o r e individuals m a y b e lost. tf* ifc ^ S a n d r a J a c k s o n & Jose Solis J o r d a n (Eds). (1999). I've Tell: Identity and Place in the Academy. Got a Story to N e w York, NY: Peter L a n g P u b l i s h i n g , Inc. P a g e s : 167. Price: $ 3 2 . 9 5 U S ( s o f t c o v e r ) . R e v i e w e d b y A n n a b e l l e M a y s , E d u c a t i o n a n d of D e v e l o p m e n t a l Studies, University of Winnipeg. I've Got a Story to Tell: Identity and Place in the Academy had its origins in " e x c h a n g e s a n d d i a l o g u e s a b o u t the e x p e r i e n c e s o f f a c u l t y o f c o l o u r in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . . . " (p. v). E a c h o f t h e t h i r t e e n n a r r a t i v e s r e c o u n t s , f r o m the p e r s p e c t i v e of a f a c u l t y m e m b e r : ... w h a t it m e a n s to b e a p r o f e s s o r w i t h i n the c o n t e s t e d terrain of h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , to b r e a k silences, and to s p e a k the u n s p e a k a b l e : the subjectivities of w o m e n a n d m e n of c o l o u r as e d u c a t o r s c o n t e n d i n g w i t h issues o f race, gender, a n d class in their p e r s o n a l a n d p e d a g o g i c a l practices, (p. 1) A s the editors n o t e , it is the intent o f t h e s e stories to p r e s e n t v a r i e d e x p e r i e n c e s in A m e r i c a n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n institutions of f a c u l t y f r o m w i d e l y d i f f e r i n g ethnic a n d cultural b a c k g r o u n d s and to e n c o u r a g e the r e a d e r to r e f l e c t u p o n " w h a t it m e a n s to be, to struggle, to t r a n s f o r m self a n d others in the p r a c t i c e of f r e e d o m in t e a c h i n g a n d learning in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n " (p. 7). W i t h its f o c u s u p o n the e x p e r i e n c e s of f a c u l t y of c o l o u r w h o t e a c h in w h a t c o n t i n u e to b e p r e d o m i n a n t l y w h i t e institutions of h i g h e r learning, t h e v o l u m e contributes to f u r t h e r i n g the u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the lives o f f a c u l t y m e m b e r s w h o d o n o t reside at the centre, w h o constitute the other. E x t e n d i n g the d i s c o u r s e b e g u n several d e c a d e s a g o w i t h the r o l e o f w o m e n in the a c a d e m y . The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Volume XXX, No. 1, 2000