Self Transformation, Dialogue, and Responsibility: An Emerging Methodology for Educational Research

• In Event: Difference, Social Engagement, and Responsibility: Perspectives From the Dewey-Soka Heritage

Abstract

This presentation responds to the limitations of evidence-based research and practices prompted by No Child Left Behind (Biesta, 2007; Slavin, 2002, 2008) by pursuing alternative inquiry approaches based on a relational, participatory paradigm that aligns with Daisaku Ikeda’s Buddhist humanist perspective (Panelist 5, 2012; Gebert, 2012; Ikeda, 1997, 2010; Seager, 2006). The chapter examines paradigmatic questions sparked by Buddhist humanism and developed within the framework of emerging methodologies.
Ikeda’s Buddhist humanism de-centers humans by viewing the universe as a single living entity in which all phenomena are interrelated, in contrast to humanist traditions, mostly of European origin, that position humans as masters of the world (Ikeda, 1997). This “anthropocosmic” philosophical perspective (Tu & Ikeda, 2011) leads Ikeda to advocate a “life-sized paradigm” (Ikeda, 2003) of social change based on dialogue and human revolution. The first part of the chapter presents Ikeda’s Buddhist humanist philosophy by examining concepts such as dependent origination (engi) and oneness of self and environment (esho funi), and connects them to Thayer-Bacon’s (2003, 2017) work on relational ontology and (e)pistemologies as well as Ikeda’s value-creative axiology. We use as supporting evidence Biesta’s (2007) alternative practical epistemology, an action-theoretical framework informed by Dewey’s (in Dewey & Bentley, 1949, 1960) transactional theory of knowing.
In the second part of the paper, presenters draw parallels between Heron and Reason’s (1997) participatory inquiry paradigm (Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011) and a Buddhist humanist research paradigm, making connections to dialogic and narrative ways of knowing. Heron and Reason (1997) describe an ontology that acknowledges the “mutual, participative awareness” (p. 280) of what exists as a transactional, relational knowing between researchers and participants in the service of human flourishing. Part two of the chapter also features portions of narrative dialogue between the two authors in which they examine the methodologies under consideration for their potential to create value in research. The dialogue focuses on the following questions: (1) How do participatory methods allow us to find meaning and create value as researchers? (2) What findings are brought to light that might not be accessible when using other methodologies? (3) In what ways do narrative and dialogic methods overlap, and how do they diverge? (4) How do we address questions of ethics and trustworthiness? (5) How does our research address opportunities for practitioners to re-orient professional practice in a way that drives cultural change and offers alternative conceptualizations of learning, education, and human becoming?

Authors

• Melissa Riley Bradford, DePaul University

• Julie Nagashima, North Central College