Advertisement

Chapter 3.2: Dialogic and Positivist Research in the Social Sciences

  • Eugene MatusovEmail author
  • Ana Marjanovic-Shane
  • Mikhail Gradovski
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter we continue to compare and contrast dialogic and positivist research in the social sciences, and we attempt to carve legitimate territory for both the positivist and dialogic research approaches. We claim that dialogic research focuses on dialogic meaning making as an encounter of two or more consciousnesses about another dialogic encounter. Thus, in dialogic research, an encounter of two or more unique consciousnesses is both the focus of research and the way of doing research. In contrast, in conventional positivist research in social sciences where the research participants’ voices and subjectivities are finalized into statements of findings only to be verified and generalized, they become predictable and stable “things” among other things and, thus, ironically, they stop being truly voices and subjectivities—they become objective voices and objective subjectivities. We describe dialogic research stances: dialogic subjectifying, dialogic problematizing, and dialogic finalizing. In addition, we discuss the status of disagreement in positivist research method and in dialogic research art, claiming that, while agreement is necessary in the positivist approach as a proxy for truth, dialogic research art is about arriving at unique and authorial judgments where the researchers, research participants, and research audience explore their multiple, permanent, and necessary differences and disagreements, taking responsibility for these judgments. We also analyze the legitimacy, importance, and limitations of the positivist approach in social science, providing examples when its approach is necessary and legitimate, and drawing a boundary of its legitimacy whenever it is necessary to objectivize human subjectivity and reduce dialogic meaning making to pattern recognition and pattern production, that is, to describe apparent potentially universal forms and structures, and process dialogues without focusing on authorial meaning making. Similarly, we describe and analyze the legitimate “territory” of dialogic humanistic research and its boundaries.

References

  1. Adorno, T. W. (1997). Dialectic of enlightenment. London, UK: Blackwell Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act (1st ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1999). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barzun, J. (1964). Science: The glorious entertainment (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  6. Capra, F. (1989). Uncommon wisdom: Conversations with remarkable people. Toronto, ON: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  7. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. DePalma, R., Matusov, E., & Smith, M. P. (2009). Smuggling authentic learning into the school context: Transitioning from an innovative elementary to a conventional high school. Teacher College Record, 111(4), 934–972.Google Scholar
  9. Feyerabend, P. K. (1978). Science in a free society. London, UK: NLB.Google Scholar
  10. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Groys, B. (2017). Between Stalin and Dionysos: Bakhtin’s theory of the carnival. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, DB:1–DB:5.  https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2017.212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hartmann, D. P. (1992). Design, measurement and analysis: Technical issues in developmental research. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (3rd ed., pp. 59–151). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow (1st pbk. ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (1996a). Aramis, or, the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1996b). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(4), 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–network theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Lobok, A. M. (2014). Education/obrazovanie as an experience of an encounter. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 2, S1–S5.  https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2014.84. http://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/dpj1/article/view/84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lobok, A. M. (2017). The cartography of inner childhood: Fragments from the book. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, SIa1–SIa42.Google Scholar
  24. Lotman, Y. (1988). Text within text. Soviet Psychology, 24(3), 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Matusov, E. (2011). Irreconcilable differences in Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s approaches to the social and the individual: An educational perspective. Culture & Psychology, 17(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matusov, E. (2013). Anti-methodological considerations: Research mastery. In E. Matusov & J. Brobst (Eds.), Radical experiment in dialogic pedagogy in higher education and its centaur failure: Chronotopic analysis (pp. 119–134). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Matusov, E. (2015). Comprehension: A dialogic authorial approach. Culture & Psychology, 21(3), 392–416.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X15601197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matusov, E. (2017). Severe limitations of the poietic individual mind. [Review of Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.] Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, R1–R8.  https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2017.178.
  30. Matusov, E. (2019, in preparation). Education in the jobless age of leisure.Google Scholar
  31. Matusov, E., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2015). Typology of critical dialogue and power relations in Democratic Dialogic Education. In K. Jezierska & L. Koczanowicz (Eds.), Democracy in dialogue, dialogue in democracy (pp. 211–229). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  32. Matusov, E., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2017). Bakhtin’s mystical organic holism and its consequences for education. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, DB61–DB74.  https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2017.222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matusov, E., & Smith, M. P. (2007). Teaching imaginary children: University students’ narratives about their Latino practicum children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 705–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matusov, E., St. Julien, J., & Hayes, R. (2005). Building a creole educational community as the goal of multicultural education for preservice teachers. In L. V. Barnes (Ed.), Contemporary teaching and teacher issues (pp. 1–38). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Matusov, E., & Wegerif, R. (2014). Dialogue on “dialogic education”: Has Rupert gone over to “the dark side”? Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 2, E1–E20.  https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2014.78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London, UK/New York, NY: Verso.Google Scholar
  37. Ricœur, P. (1991). Life in quest of narrative. In D. Wood (Ed.), On Paul Ricœur: Narrative and interpretation (pp. 34–47). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Rollin, B. E. (2006). Science and ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sprague, J., & Kobrynowicz, D. (2006). A feminist epistemology. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 25–43). New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sullivan, P. (2011). Qualitative data analysis using a dialogical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene Matusov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ana Marjanovic-Shane
    • 2
  • Mikhail Gradovski
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Independent ScholarPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.University of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations