Advertisement

Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 205–216 | Cite as

The Community of Inquiry: Blending Philosophical and Empirical Research

  • Clinton GoldingEmail author
Article

Abstract

Philosophical research tends to be done separately from empirical research, but this makes it difficult to tackle questions which require both. To make it easier to address these hybrid research questions, I argue that we should sometimes combine philosophical and empirical investigations. I start by describing a continuum of research methods from data collecting and analysing to philosophical arguing and conceptualising. Then, I outline one possible middle-ground position where research is equally philosophical and empirical: the Community of Inquiry reconceived as a research method. In this method, a group of participants (the community) engage in philosophical discussion and dialogue to answer the research question (the inquiry). I argue that this collaborative philosophical inquiry, moderated by a philosopher, provides a new method for collecting and testing data. The results are philosophical positions and arguments blended with empirical findings. Next, I illustrate how I used this philosophical–empirical method in a recent study to evaluate the strength of educational metaphors. I conclude that the Community of Inquiry is a viable means of combining philosophical and empirical research, and a new and worthwhile method for research in education.

Keywords

Community of Inquiry Methodology Educational research Philosophical research Focus group 

References

  1. Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., & Standish, P. (2003). Introduction. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the Philosophy of Education (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bufacchi, V. (2004). Empirical philosophy. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burbules, N. C., & Warnick, B. R. (2006). Philosophical inquiry. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (3rd ed., pp. 489–502). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  4. Carr, W. (2004). Philosophy and education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter, S. & Bartlett-Trafford, J. (2008). Who are we? Aotearoa New Zealand Tertiary Advisors talk about themselves, In E. Manalo, J. Bartlett-Trafford & S. Crozier (Eds.), Walking a Tightrope (pp. 39–61). Refereed proceedings of the 2007 Association of the Tertiary Learning Advisors of Aotearoa New Zealand Conference.Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, 1925–53, John Dewey (Vol. 12). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dohn, N. (2011). Roles of epistemology in investigating knowledge: “Philosophizing With”. Metaphilosophy, 42(4), 431–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Golding, C. (2008). Philosophical questions. In C. Tan (Ed.), Philosophical reflections for educators (pp. 193–204). Singapore: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  9. Golding, C. (2009). That’s a better idea! philosophical progress and philosophy for children.Childhood and Philosophy, 5(10), 223–269.Google Scholar
  10. Golding, C. (2011). A conception of philosophical progress. Essays in Philosophy, 12(2), 200–223.Google Scholar
  11. Golding, C. (2012). Epistemic progress. Educational Theory, 62(6), 677–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golding, C. (2013a). Must we gather data? A place for the philosophical study of higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(1), 152–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Golding, C. (2013b). The teacher as guide. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(1), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Golding, C. (2013c). We made progress: Collective epistemic progress in dialogue without consensus. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(3), 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansson, S. O. (2008). Philosophy and other disciplines. Metaphilosophy, 39(4/5), 472–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hartley, P., Hilsdon, J., Keenan, C., Sinfield, S., & Verity, M. (Eds.). (2011). Learning development in Higher Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mejia, A. (2008). My self-as philosopher and my self-as scientist meet to do research in the classroom. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(2/3), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelson, L. (2004). (originally c.1922). The socratic method. In R. Saran & B. Neisser (Eds.), Enquiring minds (pp. 126–165). Sterling: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  21. Pardales, M., & Girod, M. (2006). Community of Inquiry. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prinz, J. J. (2008). Empirical philosophy and experimental philosophy. In J. Knobe & S. Nicols (Eds.), Experimental Philosophy (pp. 189–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Quine, W. V. O. (1953). Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view (pp. 20–46). Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wortel, E., & Verweij, D. (2008). Inquiry, criticism and reasonableness: Socratic dialogue as a research method? Practical Philosophy, 9(2), 54–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Higher Education Development CentreUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations