Anne J. MacCleave

Abstract

What happens when a clinical nutritionist, an interpretive ethnographer, a grounded theorist, a statistician/measurement specialist, and poststructuralist feminist meet to collaborate for a research grant on body image? Excerpts of an imaginary play about this collaboration will be explored by thinking of different research traditions as different cultures and researchers who cross disciplinary boundaries as cultural negotiators. Also explored will be the languages and assumptions of alternative research traditions and issues of incommensurabilty. Recommendations are generated to help this fictional committee submit a coherent proposal and create a mutual space for all to contribute optimally.

The integrative and interdisciplinary nature of Family and Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences has been claimed as a distinguishing feature throughout the field’s history. However, Vincenti (1990) questioned whether the various specializations in the field were joined to serve a common purpose or merely for the sake of convenience. Brown (1993) also lamented the evolution of a “conglomeration of specializations” that were autonomous and separate (p. 221). Based on the work of Kockelmans (1979), she questioned the meaning of “interdisciplinary,” noting that the term was not being used in the genuine sense of creating new patterns of integrated knowledge.

Perhaps the specializations are autonomous and separate because they have developed “their own way of doing things, deeply embedded . . . assumptions and different specialized languages” (MacCleave, 2004, p. 2). One meaning system cannot readily map onto an alternative meaning system without considerable distortion, incoherence, and confusion (MacCleave, 2003, 2004). Specializations with widely diverse approaches are thus resistant to “genuine” interdisciplinarity.

Many changes have occurred in research since Kockelmans created his categories 25 years ago and Brown adapted these for the field. Among changes are increased promotion of crossdisciplinary research and increased support for mixed methods and methodologies (Lather, 1992; MacCleave, 2003, 2004; Shulha & Wilson, 2003). Other changes include the advent of chaos theory, postmoderism along with counterdisciplinary and arts-based modes of inquiry, and the evolution of ideas in all fields of study (McGregor, 2003; St Pierre, 2000; Eisner, 1997). Many of these changes have been reflected in the field of FCS/Human Sciences (See for example, Pendergast, 2001).

Given the nature and extent of specialization in the field and the evolution of approaches to research, how might research around a common area of interest be conducted across specialized boundaries, whether in or outside the field? To explore possibilities for researching across disciplines and subdisciplines, excerpts of a fictional play will be analyzed using broad principles of cultural psychology (MacCleave, James, & Stairs, 2002).

Over the past 18 years, I’ve been teaching an introductory research seminar course to graduate education students at Mount Saint Vincent University. This hypothetical play is based on this teaching experience plus reviewing research grant proposals and articles ¹, conducting research across disciplines, and using alternative methodologies in my own research. Ideas were also gleaned from the experiences of colleagues and the research literature. Despite scattered references to actual research, the fictional researchers and their projects are a product of my imagination.

A Research Story: Proposing a Research Project Across Disciplines

As Committee Chair, Dr. Amelia Rusch takes her place at the head of the table. Dr. Rusch is admired for her efficiency in conducting meetings and her bright and cheery manner. She is an exceedingly busy professional who is well regarded in her field and highly productive.

Amelia: I will begin our meeting by welcoming all of you who have decided to join us for an interdisciplinary research grant on body image from the Health and Wellness Foundation. Body image is one of the major themes for this year’s competition given all the recent focus on American overweight and obesity rates and related health issues. The Foundation is also pushing for more research across disciplinary boundaries and favors combining qualitative and quantitative methods. With these ideas in mind, I want to welcome Dr. Ron Cotton, a qualitative researcher, from the Departments of Sociology and Clothing and Textiles and Dr. Samuel Froth, a colleague, who is introducing qualitative methods to our Department of Nutrition Studies. I also want to welcome Dr. Sandy Post, a Family and Consumer Sciences Educator, and Dr. Jeremy Numbers who agreed to serve as our statistical consultant.

As you may be aware, my own research is based in clinical nutrition. My doctoral studies were lab-based experimental epidemiology studies. However, over the past twelve years, I’ve focused on issues of body image among adolescents and adults and switched to research that is largely descriptive and correlational. Recently, I’ve started to focus on body image with various ethnic populations. So, I’ve accumulated a lot of empirical data over the years and have become recognized for my contributions to this area. However, I’m not one to rest on my laurels and was willing to venture into interdisciplinary work when my Dean recommended joining this project.

To get the ball rolling, I want each of you, in turn, to talk briefly about your research background and interests. Also, please share your major findings in the area of body image to expand our collection of empirical data. Just add your research to the list I’m circulating and indicate whether your areas of research have received extensive, moderate, or low attention. If you cannot add to the list at today’s meeting, you can fax me your list before our next meeting. That should save a couple of weeks of delay and we’ll make faster progress on our grant proposal writing. We might even meet the first of four possible deadlines at the end of the month—although, that is optimistic! Once we have that knowledge base in place, we can identify gaps requiring more research and then generate treatments or interventions that match what the findings are telling us. Let’s go round the table, starting with you, Ron.

Ron: I would describe my research background as “eclectic” and that is reflected in my current position. I have a cross appointment in the Department of Sociology and the Department of Clothing and Textiles. My research in the area of self and body image is drawn from an integration of symbolic interactionism and interpretive ethnography. I’ve recently expanded this area to include the impact of clothing and adornment on self/body image—a most interesting perspective, I might add! All of my research to date has relied upon some version of interpretive or critical modes of inquiry. I’ll have to check it out, but at this point I’m uncertain if my research will fit tidily into your list!

Sam: As you know, Amelia, I’ve moved to the Nutrition Studies Department from the Psychology Department. I’ve already worked with nutritionists Sarah and Nancy but this will be my first collaboration with you. I’m a grounded theorist who is introducing this qualitative approach to your Department. Currently, Sarah, Nancy, and I are comparing the self-constructed perceptions of body image and health among young and older adolescents to standardized measures of height, weight, blood tests, and so on. In the qualitative portion of the study, we are interested in the complex interplay of subjective, intersubjective, economic, media, and other sociocultural influences on body image. The hard data part of the study could certainly be added to your list but, like Ron, I’m uncertain about the other findings—some adaptation may be in order.

Jeremy: I’m not directly involved in the study so I don’t have to worry about adding to your list. I’m here as a statistical consultant or research instrument consultant. In my department, Education, I’ve developed and statistically validated a number of research instruments. More recently, I’ve been working on interview protocols for qualitative researchers in my department and have worked with the science and math educators to develop qualitative rubrics for classroom assessments. I’m much more eclectic than most statisticians so may be able to assist your research team in a number of different ways.

Sandy: I’m a poststructuralist, feminist researcher and my inquiry into notions of body image follows from that positionality. I’m especially interested in the tensions and points of resistance that adult women bring to bear on hegemonic notions of ideal body image. I want to know how they counter the pervasive social and cultural messages to forge their own sense of body and self. Unlike Ron and Sam, I’m totally convinced that my inquiry will NOT fit on your list. Your research is decidedly structuralist, if not positivist, and I’m POSTstructuralist, meaning that my inquiries are conducted in a manner that goes against the grain of most structuralist or traditional approaches to research.

Amelia: OK, Sandy. I’ll accept that your approach is different but all the same, you MUST end up with “findings” of some sort or another or another term that means findings. Couldn’t these be added to our list?

Sandy: I don’t want my research appearing like “more of the same” because I’m working hard to build up a reputation for being counterdisciplinary. Don’t worry. I’ll understand if you don’t want me on your team. I’ve already warned my Dean that my approach to inquiry may be considered too “off beat” for this collaboration. It is not that I am against your research—I’m certain that you are addressing important concerns. It is just that I need to preserve my difference—after all, it’s my identity!

Amelia: You might be surprised, Sandy! After my own experiences of switching research methods, I’m actually sympathetic towards difference. You wouldn’t believe how appalled my lab colleagues were when I changed my research focus. They couldn’t imagine why anyone would want to change from high status, “hard” science to what they perceived as “fuzzy and soft” science about humans. The irony was that I found working with humans to be much more challenging than my lab research!

If you’ll bear with us for a while, I’m sure that we’ll figure out some way that you could contribute to our interdisciplinary project.

Incommensurability Issues

This research team is as eclectic as one can imagine! If diversity of perspective was their goal, they have certainly achieved it. Owing to this diversity, however, the team could easily become quagmired in issues of incommensurability before making any progress. Simply stated, incommensurability means that one mode of inquiry cannot be understood or represented properly using terms that belong to a different mode of inquiry (MacCleave, 2003, 2004). Amelia seems to be blissfully unaware of different assumptions underlying alternative research traditions. She did not anticipate differences in reporting results of qualitative studies compared to quantitative studies, let alone differences across different versions of qualitative approaches. To her, these are simply different means of arriving at the same end, the production of “empirical” data reported as “findings.”

Clearly, Amelia makes no distinctions among paradigm, methodology, or method. She seems to be operating on the level of method only while taking her methodological stance for granted.² In her own experience, she changed methods from lab-based experimental studies to working more directly with people using descriptive and correlational methods. Despite the substantial change in methods, her methodology has remained the same. These distinctions will be explored further in a later section of this paper. Included in her methodology are assumptions about what counts as knowledge and its production (epistemological assumptions) that are not shared by all members of the team. However, both Sandy and Ron are definitely aware of these differences. At this stage, it is difficult to fully assess Sam’s or Jeremy’s position, although both have had eclectic research experiences.

Yet other issues of incommensurability for this eclectic team are in the area of practice. Amelia normally starts a research project with a comprehensive literature review, identifies gaps in the research or areas that have been under-researched, and then makes plans to address these gaps. This practice is normative for a wide range of research approaches and disciplines. However, some qualitative researchers intentionally postpone an extensive literature review until they have drawn their own tentative conclusions so that sequence of activities cannot be assumed as universal. Also, when Amelia speaks of generating treatments or interventions, she is following a medical model. Not all professionals think of their practice in that way. For example, MacCleave (1999) recalled her shock at educational interventions being lumped in with other medical or therapeutic interventions.

There may be different understandings among team members concerning what is meant by researching across disciplines and how the team ought to proceed. Some may have particular procedures in mind. Others may come with few preconceived ideas and with the expectation that the process will be negotiated during the planning phase. Amelia’s use of the term “interdisciplinary” does not conform to Brown’s definition of creating new patterns of integrated knowledge. However, Brown (1993) did point out that the term was used loosely.

Finally, Amelia’s optimistic plan to have a sound research proposal together in less than a month is totally unrealistic. With a research team this diverse, much more time and energy would be required to identify methodological assumptions, sort through methodological issues, and develop a plan of action that is valuable and coherent. Otherwise, this research effort might fall prey to “crude eclecticism,” the indiscriminant mixing of modes of inquiry that have incommensurable or conflicting assumptions (Brown & Baldwin, 1995). “Full speed ahead” simply will not work in this situation.

Is There Hope for this Team?

Despite complex interdisciplinary issues to sort through, this eclectic group of researchers has a number of strengths working for it. All have prior experience with change or transformation in a research setting. Although her change was on the level of method, Amelia’s switch from lab-based to human-centered work was major. Ron transformed his sociological-based notions of body image to include the role of clothing in its formation. Sam is expanding the repertoire of research approaches in the Nutrition Department while adjusting to a biological dimension that is new to him. Jeremy is adapting methods, if not methodology, to address qualitative problems. By self-definition, Sandy is all about deconstructing culturally normative views and finding alternative ways of viewing and portraying reality.

Another strength is that group members do not appear to be hung up on issues of power and status or the hierarchical thinking that often characterizes academe (Trubowitz, 2004). Having been on the receiving end of such appraisals, it is unlikely that Amelia would intentionally perpetuate such thinking.

Finally, all group members are relatively open-minded. Although individuals may be unaware of the differing assumptions underlying their research traditions, they came to the meeting fully expecting to be introduced to different ways of doing things. Their capacity to grasp the full meaning of this diversity, however, varies considerably.

Considering the broad-ranging incommensurability issues facing this research team in combination with their strengths, what are the possibilities for forging a successful collaboration? The following questions will guide this inquiry:

What does it mean to think of research communities as cultures and researchers as cultural negotiators?

How might one research community explain itself to the other(s)?

What are the possibilities for valuing the contributions of often exclusive disciplines and professions?

How might processes of cultural negotiation contribute to crossdisciplinary work?

(MacCleave, 2004, p. 7)

Research Communities as Cultures: Researchers as Cultural Negotiators

MacCleave, James, and Stairs (2002) introduced basic principles of cultural psychology and discussed implications for FCS. Also based on principles of cultural psychology, MacCleave (1999, 2004) depicted different research traditions as different cultural communities and researchers who crossed disciplinary boundaries as cultural negotiators.³

As cultures, research communities share

Reflection or deliberation about methodological issues and assumptions may or may not be a normative part of practice within different research communities.

Not only might the notion of culture be applied to research communities but it could also apply to researchers. Similar to educating, crossing research boundaries might be thought of as a dynamic process of culturing (Stairs, 1996). Researchers might be viewed as cultural negotiators when they introduce new ways of thinking or acting into research cultures. Their innovation must be fully understood in relation to the prior practices of the research community. To what extent are assumptions underlying the innovation similar or different to existing assumptions within the research community? MacCleave (2004) related several benefits of conceptualizing research communities as cultures and researchers who cross disciplines as cultural negotiators: better understanding of the challenges facing researchers who cross disciplines; greater appreciation for the value and accomplishments of these encounters; and enhanced anticipation of possible outcomes.

Among possible outcomes of working across disciplines are the following:

Assimilation: The more dominant or powerful research community assimilates the less dominant one (s). One danger is that the less dominant research community might lose its uniqueness, integrity, and purpose. Sandy expressed a fear of this undesirable outcome in her initial response to Amelia. It was a question of being able to preserve one’s identity.

Appropriation: At times, one research culture adopts selected practices from a different research culture. The adopted practice is simply added to the existing repertoire without fundamental changes to existing assumptions or practices.

Creation of mutual space: Mutual space could be created in any number of ways. Researchers could decide to keep the contributions of different research cultures separate or parallel but share and learn about each other’s inquiries. They might attempt to integrate certain portions of the research or even create a whole new cultural entity. Regardless of how the collaboration is accomplished, the uniqueness and integrity of the different research cultures would be recognized and valued. All researchers would be supported in their learning about differences, and all would find ways to make worthwhile contributions toward a common area of interest.

Reconceptualizing research across disciplines and subdisciplines in cultural terms led MacCleave (2003) to rethink the meaning of incommensurabilty: “I used to think that incommensurability meant ‘contradictory;’ something like claiming at the same time that the world was round AND flat” (p. 17). However, true contradictions occur only within particular meaning systems rather than across different systems.⁴ Incommensurability means that one mode of inquiry cannot be fully understood through the languages and processes of another mode of inquiry. To understand incommensurability in this sense, it is important to examine differences in languages and assumptions across research cultures.

Languages and Assumptions of Research Cultures

Learning the languages of different research cultures might be compared to learning foreign languages. It is not uncommon for those who attempt to learn a new language to initially concentrate on words or short phrases. They try to substitute a familiar word from their own language with the equivalent foreign word. When speaking of research findings, Amelia assumed that if Ron and Sandy didn’t use the term “findings,” then they must have another term that meant the same thing.

The process of working across disciplines is complicated by the wide variation in research languages. Sometimes the same word or terms mean something different across research cultural boundaries. One example is the word “knowledge.” When Amelia who is schooled in empirical-analytic/clinical traditions speaks of knowledge, she means something entirely different from Ron, our interpretive ethnographer, or Sandy, our poststructural feminist. These differences in meaning are difficult to explain, let alone understand.

Why do so many different research languages exist? In cultural terms, alternative research languages might be thought of as psychological tools (MacCleave, et al., 2002). These specialized languages serve as a guide for the content and conduct of inquiry and allow the ready sharing of information and knowledge within a particular research culture. Use of specialized language among “insiders” of particular research cultures eliminates the need for elaborate and prolonged explanation. Alternative research languages might also be thought of as artifacts (MacCleave, et al., 2002). Among artifacts produced by research cultures are language-based reports, texts, articles, procedures, and technologies. Although artifacts evolve over time, current artifacts influence subsequent activity and provide a historical snapshot of a research culture at a particular point of time.

To return to the “learning a foreign language” analogy, how does one progress to fluency or more than a superficial understanding of a new language? To acquire fluency, one must progress beyond the word or short phrase to grasp the broader, interconnected patterns or overall system of meaning within which individual words are embedded (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). When speaking of research cultures, these broad systems of meaning might be thought of as alternative methodologies. According to Harding (1987), methodology is “the theory of knowledge or interpretive framework that guides a particular project” (cited in Lather, 1992, p. 86). In contrast, method refers to ways of acquiring data or generating knowledge such as structured interviews, conversational interviews, questionnaires, case study, participant observation, artifact and document analysis, and autobiographical reflection among others. Method also encompasses plans for analyzing or interpreting data, reporting findings, or representing knowledge.⁵

Some research cultures are familiar with dialoguing about methodological issues whereas others take their methodology for granted. Understanding these complex theoretical and philosophical differences is an enormous challenge and usually requires immersion in the literature of the research culture, mentorship with experts in the culture, or extended self-study.

……………………………………………………………………………….

To further illustrate different research languages and assumptions, let’s return to the discussions of our “interdisciplinary” research committee. When Amelia suggested that team members add their research findings to the list that she was circulating, Ron and Sandy expressed reservations and Sam spoke of the need for adaptations.

Amelia: I’m not going to ignore your reservations but I confess that I’m struggling to fully understand them!

Ron: My experiences may help illustrate some of the challenges facing our team. When I started working with the Clothing and Textiles Department, several members of that department were already conducting research on body image from a systems theory perspective. To test their particular systems theory, they were generating series of propositional claims or factual claims about “what was the case” across several research projects. They invited me to add my research to theirs. However, I generate meaning-based or perspective-based insights from my inquiry rather than empirically validated propositions or facts. I found that it was impossible to simply map my meaning-based reality onto their analytical, objectified reality. My alternative view of knowledge needs to be considered in its own right, otherwise the quality and depth of insights generated become distorted or viewed as a sort of wishy-washy, watered down or incorrectly stated empiricism. The whole issue was further complicated by the fact that these colleagues knew other ethnographers who did generate propositional claims from their inquiries. You see, there is enormous variation within my own field!

Amelia: (looking puzzled) This is all new to me, Ron. Personally, however, I found that working with humans directly rather than blood tests, urinalysis, and other biomedical indicators introduced so many more variables that were difficult to identify. Also, these variables can’t be controlled to the extent that our lab variables could be! I anticipated that introducing a number of disciplinary views would help us discover even more variables that influence body image. I’m assuming of course that your qualitative research is just as rigorous and scientific as more quantitative versions. At least that is what Sam has been claiming with his grounded theory approach in our Department.

Sam: That is what I have been claiming Amelia and I stand by that claim. There is one difference between my themes and your findings that Ron’s discussion helped me realize and express. I’m interested in the complex interplay between context and perception and changes in perception that occur over participants’ lifetimes. Both themes and theory emerge from participant stories, grounded in context. Themes in my research do not stand alone free from context, nor can they be generalized across contexts in the same way that your findings can be. That’s why I mentioned earlier that some adaptations may need to be made when reporting those qualitative themes. Nancy, Sarah, and I could make decontextualized or context-free findings from the biomedical portion of our research, however. The qualitative portion of the research is just as rigorous and scientific in its own right as our quantitative work.

Ron: I also think of my own qualitative and interpretive inquiry as rigorous and systematic but I’m looking for the meanings that persons ascribe to their experiences and events in their lives or the meanings that they ascribe to artifacts, whether material or ideal. The way I’m defining “scientific” is probably different from the way you define scientific, Amelia.

Amelia: Wow folks! This is all fascinating but I’m soooo . . . overwhelmed right now. I’m no longer clear about how we might proceed!

Ron: I have a few ideas to share about procedure. We needn’t throw out your list altogether, Amelia. It’s way too much work to waste! I’ll even add to it with findings from the research projects of my colleagues who are testing systems theory. Their findings are empirical. Sam can add his biomedical findings and possibly an adapted version of his qualitative theme. We already know that Sandy won’t be adding to your list and neither will I add the insights from my own inquiry for reasons already shared. Part of the solution to our dilemma might be to generate separate lists or summaries. Sandy can summarize her poststructuralist feminist inquiries in relation to body image, and I’ll summarize my insights separately. I’m not sure but Sam may want to have a summary of his situated themes in addition to what he is adding to your list. At least that way, we won’t be mixing things that don’t mix.

Amelia: That sounds like a feasible way to get things started, Ron. Let’s do it! For the time being, I think that we should stop for lunch.

Although Ron made a valiant attempt to relate ideas from his inquiry to Amelia’s research and to avoid using too much specialized language exclusive to his own field, it is doubtful that she could fully understand his explanation. Trubowitz (2004) noted that “Years of separate thinking will not yield to an exchange of words” (p. 17). However, this attempt positions him as a cultural negotiator for this research committee. Cultural negotiators must first understand pertinent differences themselves and be able to “code switch” across alternative research languages and methodologies. To become expert cultural negotiators, researchers must move beyond recognition of superficial differences to grasp the broad, interrelated, and coordinated systems of meaning that characterize particular research cultures (MacCleave, 1999).

All of our committee members have assumed the role of cultural negotiator within their respective research communities. When she explained her current research to former lab colleagues, Amelia served as a cultural negotiator. Because she has conducted research in two different settings, she understands both cultures deeply. However, methodology was never an issue when sharing across these cultures. The theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of her research cultures were simply assumed or “taken-for-granted.”

Among her assumed methodological assumptions is Amelia’s definition of science. When she refers to science, she is probably thinking of some version of empirical-analytic science (Coomer & Hultgren, 1989). In contrast, Brown (1993) referred to a broader meaning of science as any general understanding produced or constructed in a systematic and reliable manner that can respond to challenges and questions. Influenced by the writings of Jurgen Habermas, Brown’s broad definition encompassed cultural sciences (history and the humanities) and critical science as well as empirical-analytic science.

Amelia’s talk of identifying and controlling variables is also characteristic of empirical-analytic sciences. When identifying and manipulating reality as variables, these variables are abstracted, considered in isolation from each other, and removed from context. Many qualitative researchers disagree with this view and want to consider any given phenomenon in its full complexity (Slavin, 1992). These qualitative researchers would speak another language based on differing methodological assumptions.

Because he has already experienced difference at the level of methodology, Ron does not take offense to Amelia’s question about being scientific. He’s probably heard similar concerns from his empirically-based colleagues in the C&T Department. He understands that she has been listening to an alien discourse and needs to relate it to something familiar or search for some common ground. He is a good cultural negotiator because he can empathize with the enormous cognitive demands entailed in learning about an alternative research culture. Not only does this situation make intellectual demands but it also makes emotional demands. The resulting dissonance can be stressful for students and seasoned researchers alike (Hein, 2004; MacCleave, 2004).

His suggestion that this highly diverse research team consider generating separate summaries or lists was a good way to get started without immediately becoming quagmired in incommensurability issues. As the old saying goes, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.”

……………………………………………………………………….

Not all differences in research languages and assumptions are at the level of methodology. Some differences also occur at the level of method. To illustrate such differences, let’s tune into a lunchtime conversation between Amelia and Jeremy, our statistical consultant:

Lunch Conversation

Amelia asked Jeremy to meet with her over the lunch break to discuss the research instruments that she planned to use for her portion of the research project.

Amelia: I plan to use the same protocols that Contento uses for her research on body image—oral interviews, ratings of line drawings. That way, I’ll be able to compare my findings to hers. I am also adding a 25- item questionnaire designed and validated by Saunders.⁶ All the statements tap subjects’ attitudes about body image using a 5-point Likert scale. For subjects whose first language is other than English, I plan to train graduate students to administer the questionnaire orally. I took care to choose instruments that were already scientifically valid and reliable.

Jeremy: What sample did Saunders use for her research?

Amelia: Several groups of undergraduates from different majors attended a Midwestern University. Data were collected over a four-year period.

Jeremy: I may be misunderstanding you, Amelia, but I’m hearing you speak of a “validated” instrument as if it were a “done deal”! Your research sample will be a different group entirely from Saunders and you are also using the questionnaire with different ethnic groups, possibly in an adapted way. It is certainly OK to use the questionnaire but you’ll have to recheck for validity and reliability.

Amelia: You’re kidding! That all seems a bit much.

Jeremy: The notions of validity and reliability are not absolute but relative. A questionnaire or test may be relatively valid for one group but relatively less valid—or entirely invalid—for another group. For my graduate classes, I use the example of standardized tests. Imagine that you gave a 10^th grade class a standardized math test that was designed for a 12^th grade class. Would the test give you results that were valid and reliable?

Amelia: Well no, of course not! Are you saying that Saunders’ questionnaire will be invalid for my research subjects? This sounds way more complicated than I anticipated It’s the first time I’ve ever heard of these ideas!

Jeremy: The test example that I used is the most extreme—just to make the point about validity and reliability being relative! It is doubtful that Saunder’s questionnaire would be totally invalid for your group. It’s just standard practice to recheck validity and reliability whenever a researcher uses a questionnaire with a different research sample or when a researcher adapts an existing instrument. Once any changes are made, you’ve essentially created a new instrument. It’s not as complicated as it sounds—I could run a coefficient alpha, a common test for reliability, with just one click of a computer key!

The language of validity and reliability basically mean the same thing to Amelia and Jeremy. However, Jeremy was aware of slight differences in the way language was used by Amelia within the context of practice. It is safe to say that Jeremy’s understanding of these terms is relatively richer and more nuanced than Amelia’s since tests and measurement is his specialty. He is assuming the role of cultural negotiator in this scenario.

If Amelia decides to follow Jeremy’s suggestion to recheck validity and reliability of the questionnaire, this situation would be an example of cultural appropriation. She would be borrowing an idea from the research culture of educational tests and measurement and applying it to her own research culture. An extra step would be added to her research procedure but this addition would not overly disrupt existing practice. Amelia and Jeremy are “on the same page” in terms of methodology or, at least, their respective methodologies are compatible enough to negate any worry of distorting meaning. The repertoire of existing practice in Amelia’s research culture would be enriched but not transformed in any major way.

This conversation would not be appropriate for some members of the committee, especially Ron and Sandy. In Sandy’s case, traditional notions of validity and reliability simply do not apply. Lather’s discussion of counterdisciplinary notions of ironic, neopragmatic, rhizomatic, and voluptuous validity certainly underscores this point (Lather, 1994). She speaks of validity of transgression versus validity of correspondence.

Recommendations for Creating Mutual Space and Moving Forward with the Grant Proposal

Writing the grant proposal for such a diverse group of researchers turned out to be more than Amelia had bargained for. She came to the meeting anticipating differences but not of the type and magnitude encountered.

The following recommendations have been generated to help this committee to submit a coherent proposal and create a mutual space for all to contribute optimally. Some of the recommendations will be illustrated with bits of conversation extracted from committee members’ ongoing discussions.

Avoid overgeneralizing, stereotyping, or essentializing alternative research cultures as much as possible. Amelia came to the meeting with little prior knowledge of qualitative modes of inquiry. Some initial overgeneralization could be expected on her part. However, she is also on the receiving end of stereotyping. Researchers from different qualitative cultures routinely stereotype those who run statistical analyses.

Amelia: Sam, you’re calling my research “hard” because it is quantitative and empirical but my lab colleagues call my research “soft science.” It is their research that is “hard and rigorous” because they have so much better control over relevant variables. So what is it? Am I “hard” or am I “soft”? How confusing is that?

When different research cultures are essentialized (a form of stereotyping), their characteristics are viewed as rigid and static (Stairs, 1996). Similar to other cultures, they are constantly evolving and changing. However, research cultures evolve from different starting points so it is useful to know their respective histories.

Become comfortable with ambiguity and balance dissonance. Those researchers who belong to cultures where methodological differences are routinely deliberated become comfortable with the ambiguity of being only partially understood by others and vice versa. In fact, a degree of dissonance is both necessary and desirable if learning is to occur. Imagine if team members simply lumped all of the different approaches together as if one could be readily substituted for another! Imagine the jumble of Amelia’s empirical claims mixed with Sam’s situated themes, Ron’s interpretive insights, and Sandy’s poststructuralist portrayals!

On the other hand, too much dissonance might precipitate an anxiety-induced paralysis. The key is balance.

Use conceptual and mediational tools. A range of conceptual and mediational tools might help this team identify and sort through major methodological differences. They need tools to help them contrast/compare their approaches to each other.

A good place to start with this committee would be broad frameworks such as the classification of research as empirical-analytic, interpretive, or critical (Coomer & Hultgren, 1989). To avoid overgeneralizing or essentializing, the framework could be further subdivided as necessary. For example, empirical-analytic could be subdivided into verificationist or falsificationist, positivist or postpositivist, experimental or non-experimental, or in some other way.⁷ Hultgren (1989) made a useful distinction between interpretive approaches to research that would be applicable for our research team members. Some interpretive approaches are rooted in the social sciences and differ somewhat from those interpretive approaches rooted in philosophy and the humanities. Sam’s grounded theory would best fit as a social science version of interpretative research whereas Ron’s inquiry has dimensions of both social science and humanities-based versions of interpretive research. Ron’s inquiry also has some critical dimensions because his portrayal of media impact on body image has an emancipatory intent.

Sandy convinced the group that a poststructuralist section should be added to the framework. She brought Lather’s framework of “predict, understand, emancipate, and deconstruct” as four distinct research orientations and shared some of the reasons that the fourth section was necessary (Lather, 1992). Sandy’s research also has emancipatory intent but, in methodological terms, is different from critical approaches.

In addition to frameworks, other conceptual tools exist to help researches sort through methodological differences and name and locate their research approach in relation to others. Sam brought copies of a cube developed by Langenbach, Aagaard, and Vaughn (1994) to the next meeting. This cube was designed to distinguish different approaches to research along three continnums: truth-seeking or perspective seeking ontology, quantitative and qualitative method, and reform-seeking or status quo-preserving axiology.

Sandy: Oh my! Big boxes and little boxes. That looks soooo . . . structuralist. No way I could fit my inquiry on that cube!

At the next meeting, however, Sandy arrived with a similar looking cube designed by Constas (1998) to distinguish postmodern research from other versions.

Sandy: I can’t believe that I’m resorting to a “cube” to explain myself. This cube caused an uproar among poststructuralist feminists, let me tell you! ⁸ It brought to mind a structuralist trying to reign us in, tame us down, and contain us in little boxes. After joining this group, it occurred to me that the cube, with all its imperfections, might actually serve as a starting point to explain my research to a group of structuralists. It’s more your language, at least. Using this tool, I would locate my inquiry as unbounded versus bounded, idiosyncratic versus normative. Aaarrrggghhh! I think that I’m allergic to how “dualistic” these sound—and I’m supposed to be all about deconstructing dualisms!

Sandy is starting to think like a cultural negotiator. Constas’ cube helps her start with structuralist language and processes as a bridge or link to understanding the rudiments of her poststructuralist stance. Unfortunately, she has to suffer through the structuralist tendency to want to classify everything and to divide everything into binary opposites such as male/female or nature/culture (Pendergast, 2001).

Expect different degrees of understanding among team members exposed to alternative methodologies. All team members are experts in their own areas of this research project. They may however be what Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to as legitimate peripheral participants in other areas. For example, Amelia would be a peripheral participant with Ron and Sandy’s sections of the research and they, in turn, would be peripheral participants when it comes to her concerns with establishing validity and reliability for her questionnaire. All members may learn enough about what each other is doing in order to serve as core members for subsequent crossdisciplinary projects. A core member needn’t be an expert in all areas but has enough familiarity with the overall work of the group to mentor newcomers into its fold.

Generate criteria for assessing the quality of different research methodologies. A common error that occurs when mixing alternative methodologies is judging the quality of one research approach with criteria more suited to a different approach (MacCleave, 2003). To avoid this possibility, our team members discussed how their respective evaluation criteria would differ:

Amelia: I’m concerned with developing research instruments that are valid and reliable. I want to be able to compare my findings to those of others in my field in order to enhance their generalizability. I want to ensure the non-biased collection of data by training my interviewers to use standardized protocols.

Sam: I want to follow the principles of trustworthiness, dependability, confirmability, and transferability, and I want to share both depth and detail of my participant’s experiences through generating thick descriptions. I want to use the constant comparative method rigorously so that the themes generated from participants’ stories are defensible.

Ron: I want my stories to be plausible. I want my inquiry to throw light on the meanings that persons construct about their experiences and ideal and material artifacts they encounter in their lives. I want readers to gain deeper insight into the situations that I’m narrating. I want to write an evocative narrative that is coherent and both intellectually and emotionally powerful. I want readers to realize new possibilities in the otherwise, mundane and ordinary.

Sandy: I want my inquiry to help readers understand how persons construct identities and to understand power in relationships and the impact of power on perspectives. I want my research to help readers understand perspectives that are situated, partial, and positioned. I want to portray the complexity of a situation with all its contradictions and ambiguities. I want my inquiry to deconstruct binaries and to unsettle sedimented meanings!

Nurture cultural negotiators. Researchers should be encouraged to assume the role of cultural negotiators when introducing their research methodology to others. Cultural negotiators should be highly valued members of crossdisciplinary teams and supported in this role. In a similar vein, Brown (1993) promoted the role of generalists as integrationists for the field of FCS/Human Sciences. The role of cultural negotiator, integrationist, or crossdisciplinarian needs to be valued as much as that of the specialist. Such a role requires more years of study and is intellectually demanding.

Celebrate transformations in a community of learners. Productive transformations can and do occur when different research cultures collaborate around an area of interest, provided that all members are open-minded and willing to learn. It helps if all parties think of themselves collectively as a community of learners (Rogoff, 1994). In such a community, assimilation of other cultures or converting everyone to one way of thinking would be avoided. Rather, the richness and diversity of plural traditions would be embraced. Members would be encouraged to learn as much as possible about each other’s approaches but expertise in all areas would not be expected.

To illustrate productive transformations, Ron shared the following example from his prior research experiences:

Ron: When I was working exclusively in the Sociology Department, I explored the impact of the media and other social and cultural conditions on adolescent and adult women’s self-constructed notions of body image. I saw media as a predominantly negative influence and one that led to negative body image for my participants. My view changed when I started to collaborate with the C & T folks. Even though my research approach differs from that of my systems colleagues ⁹, they helped me consider the positive dimensions of clothing and adornment—the basic physical, social, and psychological needs that these serve. I had never thought of body image in that way before!

The C & T folks also learned from my research. In one of my inquiries, I generated stories of two adolescents from the same clique who marked group membership with the choice of specific apparel items worn in a certain way. One young woman, who was slightly insecure, was rigid about following “the code.” A second adolescent, who was creative and sensitive, routinely befriended persons outside the group. She was conflicted about the exclusiveness of the group. Sometimes she conformed to the clique’s code but other times she resisted it. Owing to all the twists and turns in the story, my C & T colleagues reexamined one of their questionnaires designed to distinguish conformity from individuality in clothing choice. Before reading my study, they often eliminated ambiguous respondents from their data set, wanting to compare those who were clearly conforming or individuating in clothing choice. They decided to interview ambiguous respondents in order to revise their questionnaire. Reality turned out to be more complex that they had anticipated.

Sandy: If I were conducting your inquiry, Ron, I’d intentionally seek out the non-conformists. I’d want to hear the voices of those on the margins. Further, I’d try to deconstruct the dualism of conforming/non-conforming!

The team decided to meet weekly to read and discuss selected examples of each other’s research. They used the empirical-analytic, interpretive, critical, and poststructuralist framework and the cubes to locate and name their own and each other’s research. They documented “shared understandings, misunderstandings, points of confusion, dissonance, and surprise” (MacCleave, 2004, p. 23). This work helped them develop as cultural negotiators.

For the grant proposal, they generated a series of research questions from different methodological perspectives, allowing each researcher to conduct their respective segments relatively independently. To avoid assessing different segments with inappropriate criteria, each team member generated a list of criteria for evaluating their research segment. This project would be classified as crossdisciplinary research. Attempting to develop genuine interdisciplinary research would be premature for this group. If they continued to work together, the researchers might attempt to integrate portions of the research but some of the methodologies are so different they simply wouldn’t mix well.

After hearing about Ron’s experiences with the C & T Department, team members decided to translate each other’s inquiries into questions suitable to their own methodological stance. Their intent, however, was not to gloss over substantive methodological differences. This step would encourage the generation of new ideas for future research. Ron and Jeremy planned to attempt a dialogue across the different research segments raising questions and noting broad connections or disconnections as a finale for this crossdisciplinary effort with input from the other team members.

Eight Months Later: A Happy Ending

Amelia: (beaming) I want to thank all of you for your wonderful contributions to our research grant proposal. I can’t tell you how gratified I am that our bid was successful. In all honesty, I questioned my sanity for starting with this wildly diverse group, let alone persisting. Many times, I felt that I’d landed on Mars! Perhaps, that is why this victory is so sweet.

Let me share some of the reviewers’ comments. One reviewer said: “In all my years reviewing proposals, I’ve yet to encounter a team that went to such lengths to sort out methodological differences and to address issues of incommensurability. Your documentation of this work from your numerous proposal meetings and thoughtful, insightful rationale for procedures selected were outstanding! That documentation served as an inquiry about the inquiry. I hope to see more of that sort of thing in your actual research.”

Another reviewer stated: “I loved the idea of translating each other’s methodological perspective into questions that suited one’s own perspective. What a terrific way to share ideas and become engaged in alternative inquiries without necessarily annihilating each other in the process. Your description of your diverse methodologies as complementary but incommensurable was most appropriate for your crossdisciplinary project.”

Amelia continues reading reviewers’ comments.

Amelia: Now the real fun begins of actually conducting our respective research segments. Let’s first book our weekly “share and learn” meetings, then our bi-monthly research progress meetings.

Notes

1. The topic of body image was inspired by my review of an award winning undergraduate research paper for the CHEA Foundation. I also knew that this topic was researched from a number of different disciplinary perspectives. I taught about body image within the broader topic of physical development in an introductory course to educational psychology. Based on workshops and puppet shows with elementary students, I explored the idea of addressing body image using puppets and costumes as a medium (MacCleave, 2002; MacCleave & MacCleave, 2001).

2. Working at the level of method is not uncommon across several disciplines. For example, Slife and Williams (1997) noted that psychology was primarily committed to method with relatively less attention to theorizing.

3. Principles of cultural psychology were drawn from the work of several theorists including Bruner (1990, 1996); Cole (1996); Geertz (1973); Lave & Wenger (1991); Rogoff (1994, 2003); Shweder (1990); Smith (1995, 2001); Stairs (1996); Wenger (1999).

4. With this view of incommensurability, I take a slight departure from Lincoln and Guba (1998). They claimed that “commensurability is an issue only when researchers want to ‘pick and choose’ among the axioms of positivist and interpretivist models, because the axioms are contradictory and mutually exclusive” (p. 174). The axioms may be conflicting and may not mix well but since taking a cultural turn, I now take greater care with claims of “contradiction.”

5. This definition of method is an expanded version of Harding’s original definition as “techniques for gathering empirical evidence” (cited in Lather, 1992, p. 86). I found Harding’s definition of method too narrow but found her use of “methodology” as an intermediate link between paradigm and method to be helpful (MacCleave, 2000).

6. The reference to Contento is based on an article by Contento, Basch, and Zybert (2003). The reference to Saunders and her questionnaire is entirely fictional.

7. Researchers in the social sciences and humanities often think of natural science as monolithic. Yet, Hacking (1983) addressed the ongoing methodological disputes among verificationists and falsificationists plus constructivists and realists in the natural sciences.

8. As one example, see the response of St. Pierre (2000) to Constas’ article.

9. For an example of clothing research from a systems perspective, see Sontag, Peteu, and Lee (1997).

References

Brown, M. (1993). Philosophical studies in home economics in the United States: Basic ideas by which home economists understand themselves. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Brown, M., & Baldwin, E. (1995). The concept of theory in home economics: A philosophical dialogue. East Lansing, MI: Kappa Omicron Nu Honor Society.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

Constas, M. A. (1998). Deciphering postmodern educational research. Educational Researcher, 27(9), 36-42.

Contento, I. R., Basch, C., & Zybert, P. (2003). Body image, weight, and food choices of Latino women and their young children. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35, 236-248.

Coomer, D. L., & Hultgren, H. H. (1989). Considering alternatives: An invitation to dialogue and question. In F. H. Hultgren, & D. L. Coomer (Eds.). Alternative modes of inquiry in home economics research (pp. 37-59). Yearbook of the Teacher Education Section. Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association.

Eisner, E. W. (1997). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice (2^nd ed.). New York: Merrill.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hein, S. F. (2004). “I don’t like ambiguity” An exploration of students’ experiences during a qualitative methods course. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 22-38.

Hultgren, H. H. (1989). Introduction to interpretive inquiry. In F. H. Hultgren, & D. L. Coomer (Eds.). Alternative modes of inquiry in home economics research (pp. 37-59). Yearbook of the Teacher Education Section. Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association.

Kockelmans, J. J. (1979). (Ed.). Interdisciplinarity and higher education. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press.

Langenbach, M., Vaughn, C., & Aagaard, L. (1994). An introduction to educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Lather, P. (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and poststructural perspectives. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 87-99.

Lather, P. (1994). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. In A. Gitlin (Ed.). Power and method: Political activism and educational research. New York: Routledge.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1998). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (2^nd ed.), (pp. 163-189). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

MacCleave, A. (1999, April). Integrative research: Dreaming through the lens of cultural negotiation. Paper presented as part of a symposium (Cultural Negotiation, Education, Institutions, Communities) at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, P.Q.

MacCleave, A. (2000, November). Methodology versus method: More than a “nit-picking” distinction. Abstracts of the Tenth Annual Conference of Atlantic Educators. Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, N.S.

MacCleave, A. (2002, July). Exploring human development themes with puppets and costumes. Performance/paper presented at the Pi Lambda Theta Region 1 Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.

MacCleave, A. (2003, May). The issue of incommensurability when mixing methods and methodologies: A reflection on two studies. Paper presented at the XXXI Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

MacCleave, A. (2004, May). Incommensurabilty in cross-disciplinary research: A case for cultural negotiation. Paper presented at the XXXII Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

MacCleave, A., James, O., & Stairs, A. (2002). Sociocultural diversity: Insights from cultural psychology for family and consumer sciences. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum, 3(2) (non-paginated document).

MacCleave, A., & MacCleave, J. (2001, November). Learning, making and becoming: Puppets and costumes as a medium. Performance/paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Conference of Atlantic Educators, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

McGregor, S. L. T. (2003). Postmoderism, consumerism and a culture of peace. Kappa Omicron Nu Forum, 13(2). Accessed March 30, 2005 at /archives/forum/13 2/mcgregor.html.

Pendergast, D. (2001). Virginal mothers, groovy chicks & blokey blokes: Rethinking home economics and teaching bodies. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.

Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of community of learners. Mind, Culture and Activity, 1(4), 209-229.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Slavin, R. E. (1992). Research methods in education (2^nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1997). Toward a theoretical psychology: Should a subdiscipline be formally recognized? American Psychologist, 52(2), 117-129.

Shulha, L. M., & Wilson, R. J. (2003, May). Collaboration and mixed method inquiry: Theory and practice. Paper presented at the XXXI Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology – what is it? In J. W. Stigler, R.A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.). Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, H. A. (1995). Cultural psychology and semiotics: Confronting meaning in educational practice. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 407-414.

Smith, H. A. (2001). Psychosemiotics. New York: Peter Lang.

Sontag, M. S., Peteu, M., & Lee, J. (1997). Relationships among values, proximity of clothing to self, clothing interest, anticipated outcomes and perceived quality of life. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(4), 41-46.

St Pierre, E. A. (2000). The call for intelligibility in postmodern educational research. Educational Researcher, 29(5), 25-28.

Stairs, A. (1996). Human development as cultural negotiation: Indigenous lessons on becoming a teacher. Journal of Educational Thought, 30(3), 219-237.

Trubowitz, S. (2004). The marriage of liberal arts departments and schools of education. Educational Horizons, 82(2), 114-117.

Vincenti, V. (1990). Home economics in higher education: Communities of convenience or purpose? Home Economics Research Journal, 19(2), 184-193.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press.

 

Dr. Anne MacCleave is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS, Canada.