Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Integral methodological pluralism in science education research: valuing multiple perspectives

  • Published:
Cultural Studies of Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the multiple methodologies used in educational research and proposes a model that includes all of them as contributing to understanding educational contexts and research from multiple perspectives. The model, based on integral theory (Wilber in a theory of everything. Shambhala, Boston, 2000) values all forms of research as true, but partial. Consideration of objective (exterior) forms of research and data and subjective (interior) forms of research and data are further divided into individual and collective domains. Taking this categorization system one step further reveals eight indigenous perspectives that form a framework for considering research methodologies. Each perspective has unique questions, data sources, methods and quality criteria designed to reveal what is “true” from that view. As science educators who guide our students’ research, this framework offers a useful guide to explain differences in types of research, the purpose and validity of each. It allows professional science educators to appreciate multiple forms of research while maintaining rigorous quality criteria. Use of this framework can also help avoid problems of imposing quality criteria of one methodology on research data and questions gathered using another methodology. This model is explored using the second author’s dissertation research. Finally a decision chart is provided to use with those who are starting inquiries to guide their thinking and choice of appropriate methodologies to use when conducting research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, F. (1984). The nature of science. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39, 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braud, W., & Anderson, R. (Eds.). (1998). Transpersonal research methods for the social sciences: Honoring human experience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callihan, L. P. (2011). A qualitative inquiry into the development and facilitation of a science education learning community through participation in an online graduate program. Dissertation. FSU. Retrieved from http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04102011-123008/.

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2002). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. W. (1981). On the differences between scientific and artistic approaches to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 10(4), 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esbjorn-Hargens, S., & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Integral ecology: Uniting multiple perspectives on the natural world. Boston: Integral Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, M. D. (2010). A guide to integral psychotherapy: Complexity, integration, and spirituality in practice. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhs, C. (2010). Essential integral. Boulder: Core Integral.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, R., & Pines, D. (2000). The theory of everything. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(1), 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. C., Taylor, E., & Luitel, B. C. (2012). Multi-paradigmatic transformative research as/for teacher education: An integral perspective. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 373–387). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Torbert, B. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transformational leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston: Shambhala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilber, K. (1998). Marriage of sense and soul: Integrating science and religion. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilber, K. (2000). A theory of everything. Boston: Shambhala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy T. Davis.

Additional information

Lead Editor: Peter C. Taylor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, N.T., Callihan, L.P. Integral methodological pluralism in science education research: valuing multiple perspectives. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 8, 505–516 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9480-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9480-5

Keywords

Navigation