A MODEL FOR TEACHING RESEARCH METHODS
IN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION
Barry W. Hamilton, Ph.D.
Most North American seminaries
that offer the degree, Master of Arts in Theological Studies, require a ‘Research
Methods’ course to support the completion of a ‘summative element’—usually a
research paper or thesis.[1] This course normally requires a paper as
evidence for academic research competence, or prepares seminarians for the
thesis project if the seminary offers and students choose this option. Course content commonly surveys types of
theological literature such as journal articles, reference resources, book
reviews and essays.[2] The course also trains students in proper use
of the library—classification systems, subject headings, online searching and
shelf browsing—along with indoctrination into library rules and
regulations. Since most theological
papers tend to be qualitative rather than quantitative, the course places heavy
emphasis on theological bibliography.[3] In other words, the course trains seminarians
in finding sources and collecting information.[4] Some instructors will devote a session to
critical thinking/writing skills. However,
many seminarians still experience anxiety in the research methods course and
struggle with projects from topic selection to final draft. Bright students are
often bored by the banal discussion of theological dictionaries and analytical
lexicons. In most instances, the course
defines theological research in terms of subject area and library research
skills, leading faculty and administrators in some cases to view seminary
research methods pedagogy as an extension of undergraduate bibliographic instruction. In some cases, seminary leadership has
regarded the research methods course as a dispensable component of the
curriculum, unrelated to the essential elements of theological education.[5] Consequently, perhaps the most pertinent
question that nags theological research methods pedagogy today is—“What’s
‘theological’ about theological research?”
To answer this question, theological librarians must design a model of
research methods instruction that integrates intellectual and spiritual
formation and addresses the demands of seminary education in the 21st
century.
Library science as a profession
has experienced massive change over the past three decades, and faces an
identity crisis.[6] Librarianship is typically defined as
practice, and the profusion of new library and information science roles has
engendered confusion over the meaning of the term “librarian.” This confusion extends into the work arena of
librarians, as theorists raise questions about the definitions of “library” and
“research.” The confusion trails the
demise of the objectivist-positivist epistemology of the natural sciences
esteemed by another generation.
Positivist research has failed to articulate a theory of library science
that covers the full spectrum of professional practice in the library and
information science fields. Defining
librarianship in terms of practice was much easier when the profession’s
boundaries were clearly defined; however, shifting boundaries drove the
traditional definitions into obsolescence.
Indeed, shifting boundaries are bane of post-positivistic research,
hampering consensus concerning professional practice and identity. Post-positivist epistemology also raises
questions about what defines ‘library’ and ‘research’. In fact, librarians struggle to speak of a
‘collection’ in an age of diverse information media and ownership. Certainly, these issues do not signal the
demise of these entities; rather, shifting boundaries and inadequate
epistemology have forced librarianship to reflect on the philosophy of the
profession. As Ian Cornelius has keenly
observed, the field has focused on practice without developing an adequate
theory that gives meaning to that practice.[7] The teaching of research methods in
theological education has followed this positivist model that objectifies
knowledge and emphasizes resources while minimizing interpretation. As communication theorist Brenda Dervin
characterizes this model, information is treated as bricks to be collected in a
basket.[8] Curriculum has focused on teaching
traditional library skills—using the catalog, locating materials in the
classification system, taking notes and citing sources. As an object, knowledge is something ‘other’
than the researcher—something to be found in books and journals. According to this model, the chief end of
research is to finish assignments rather than experience transformation.
After the collapse of the
positivist conception of research, librarianship has struggled to find a
philosophical foundation for practice.[9] The most fruitful contemporary proposition
applies hermeneutical phenomenology to librarianship, because its emphasis on
interpretation seems to be most closely related to actual practice in the
profession.[10] This model constructs theoretical concepts
from experiences of interpreting phenomena in actual practice, and permits
greater diversity of perspective within the profession.[11] Rather than conceptualizing research
according to rigid presuppositions, hermeneutical phenomenology allows
practitioners to redefine the research enterprise according to contemporary
experience within distinctive fields.
Perhaps the most fruitful contribution this model makes to theological
research methods pedagogy is its insistence on the inviolability of the
subject/object relation.[12] According to this application, researcher
cannot be dismembered from resources.[13] Knowledge is not an object to find, but
rather describes what happens in the encounter between researcher and
resources.[14] This perspective promises new insight into
the construction of research papers, and indeed raises the question concerning
the role of the research paper in the educational process. Since researcher and resources are both
integral to this model, the research process must take the distinctive
contribution of perspective into account.
For this reason most theorists who apply hermeneutical phenomenology to
library science advocate a constructivist approach to learning theory as
applied to a research model. According
to the constructivist understanding of learning, individuals construct meaning
within a personal framework developed from experience. People approach the world through this
framework of meaning, and thereby assimilate their experiences.[15] When the existing framework cannot
accommodate experience, the person must construct a new framework of meaning in
which learning can be assimilated.
Knowledge is thus not an objective ‘thing’ apart from the learner, but
includes an inseparable personal dimension.[16]
This model has significant
implications for teaching theological research methods, and addresses the
question, “What’s ‘theological’ about theological research?” A positivist model answers this question in
terms of subject area, and regards religion/theology as an object that can be
mined and manipulated apart from the researcher. According to the interpretive model, the
researcher as the learning subject can never fully stand apart from the
learning object. Scholarly communication
is dialogical—an I/Thou relation, not merely I/other, and the exchange of
meaning is mutual. Resources shape the
researcher, but in turn the researcher shapes the resources. The positivist model assumes resources to be
fixed, immovable objects apart from the researcher. But resources are not passive receptacles
that hold given quantities of information, but rather are conversation partners
with whom the researcher engages in creative dialogue.[17] Through speech or through reading,
communication transforms researchers and resources. For example, books can easily be mistaken as
passive objects—paper, cloth, cardboard and ink—but it’s the act of reading
that engages books and a hermeneutic of love that enables a dialogic relation
with readers.[18] And resources like books are not merely
discrete objects that bear little relation to other texts. Rather, reading and reflection bring
resources together in a creative act that arises from their intertextuality.[19] Through the agency of the researcher,
resources engage in dialogue with not only the researcher, but with each other.[20] The connectivity of resources—their potential
for shared meaning through dialogical communication—takes place through the
reading of multiple texts by a researcher.
Through reflective deliberation, the mind of the researcher brings
fragments of meaning taken from these texts and forges a coherent narrative
that explains or clarifies a research problem.
The new text offers an advance in meaning through actualizing links
between resources, as well as opportunities for continuing scholarly
reflection. This text is also highly
personal—a creative work that emerges from the entire context as brought
together by the researcher. When one
asks concerning the nature of this task, s/he must consider the researcher as
the integrative element that defines the research process.
Scholarly communication engendered through research
is thus centered on the person of the researcher. Post-positivist research recognizes the
pervasive influence of human perspective, an inseparable dimension of all
research. In the post-positivist world,
there are communities of shared meaning for which a given field of research is
persuasive.[21] This is not to fall down the slippery slope
of subjectivism and into solipsism, but rather to acknowledge the ubiquity of
the human element.[22] Research questions—the heart of the research
process—cannot be isolated from theory.[23] For this reason, theological research cannot
be modeled after the positivist methods that once characterized the physical
sciences. Theological research by
definition speaks of the divine/human encounter, and takes place in a community
of people. To speak of community and
communication is to speak of the historical, of particularity—of people, times
and places. Researchers cannot interpret resources apart
from the shared meaning that develops in community.[24] Theological research calls the seminarian to
reflect on his/her tradition, experience and faith journey—in other words, to
examine his/her soul. Research is an
extension of selfhood—a thrust of intentionality toward meaning within one’s
‘lifeworld’ (to use Habermas’ term).
Theological research thus begins with the seminarian’s identity and
vocation as a person of faith. These
elements--faith-based identity and vocation--form a context of meaning through
which the seminarian learns to live theologically. Learning through one’s ‘lifeworld’ as a
person of faith on a journey with God is what makes research distinctly
‘theological.’ On the other hand, a topic unrelated to the seminarian’s
vocation risks alienating him/her from the foundations of theological
research. An exercise of this nature
drives the wedge deeper between intellectual formation and spiritual
formation. For this reason, a seminarian’s
research interests should emerge from a faith-based identity and journey with
God. Selection of a research
topic—especially for a major project—calls for a moment of spiritual
journaling. Theological writing is a
mirror of the soul by which the researcher discerns the work of God within.[25] The journaling process brings the person whom
the researcher has become into convergence with the person whom s/he should
become through faith-based living.
Without this element of reflection, theological research becomes
disjointed from its foundation and can no longer be properly termed
‘theological.’
In the terminology of library
science, theological reflection should serve as the foundation for the focus
formulation stage. Carol Kuhlthau
identifies the resource-oriented research model as a primary source of library
anxiety, and posits the interpretive model as more closely aligned with the way
people carry out research. She
identifies six stages of research behavior in her Information Search Process
model, including a focus formulation stage.
Drawing from several theorists that include John Dewey, George Kelly and
Jerome Bruner, Kuhlthau identifies research as a “constructive process” for
which “the interpretive task is central.”[26] In contrast with the positivist model of
research, Kuhlthau recognizes the essential role of feelings in the research
process.[27] Her research with high school students
revealed a rise in anxiety at the outset of a project, and the transformation
of that anxiety into confidence once students had properly focused on a topic.[28] She proposes a library service model of
intervention early in the information seeking process to alleviate anxiety by
enhancing focus. When students collected
resources and took notes too early in the process, they experienced inordinate
confusion and stress.[29] When they spent time on developing a focus
early in the process, their confidence and consequent success in timely
completion increased proportionately.
Kuhlthau’s ISP model could be readily applied to theological research as
a means for engaging the whole person and insuring the integration of spiritual
formation and knowledge formation components of the seminary curriculum, as
well as enhancing timely completion of projects. And instead of completing assignments that
constitute an alien ‘other’, seminarians could pursue cognitively relevant
research that would reflect their path to knowledge as a journey with God.
Cognitively relevant research in
the contemporary seminary environment should reject positivist, ‘scientific’
methods and affirm a model that recognizes the pervasive influence of the
researcher’s entire person—thoughts, emotions, and experience.[30] Research papers are self-revelatory,
mirroring the quality of the inner life.
People speak from the abundance of their hearts, and the life of the
mind determines the intentionality by which they approach the world.[31] Theological research thus doesn’t begin with
the teaching of a ‘method,’ but rather begins with listening to God. To be truly theological, research should
reject ‘secular’ approaches and embrace the paradox of ‘learned ignorance’—a
God-centered learning that renounces ‘worldly knowledge’ in order to transcend
it--in the spirit of Benedict of Nursia.[32] The life of the mind before God is the
contemplative dimension of the theological research process.[33] The researcher’s self-examination—the
discernment of the soul’s journey—begins with the silence that precedes hearing
God.[34] The researcher must not ‘use’ contemplation
as a technique, but as a means for opening the soul to grace. Contemplation empties the soul to hear God
through meditation on Holy Scripture.
The soul that embodies Scripture is thus prepared to anchor learning in
a journey of faith.[35] Spiritual exercise in the classical Christian
tradition forms the moral sense that can discern God’s movement in the soul as
a basis for action.[36] Interpreted phenomenologically, theological
research connects the life of the mind in community with the soul’s movement
toward God. Thus a research project as a theological enterprise does not stand
as an isolated object, but rather integrates the researcher’s vocation into
his/her spiritual and intellectual formation.
The researcher must ask, “What is God calling me to do in this
project? How does my work as a
researcher relate to my life’s journey with God? How has God led me thus far? How will this project influence the course of
this journey? How will this project shape my character? Will the outcome be congruent with the
vocation to which God has called me?” These questions can operate
diagnostically to help the researcher determine whether a project resonates
with vocational discernment, and thus should be recognized as cognitively
relevant in the focus formulation stage.[37]
These questions are particularly
crucial with respect to major research projects. The larger the project, the greater the
impact on the researcher. A dissertation
will cast a shadow all the way to the grave.
Time is life’s currency, and the researcher must consider its
stewardship. The researcher should be aware of extraneous factors that will
impact the focus formulation stage—for example, the pressure to please a
program advisor or thesis committee. At the end of this path is burnout, where
the researcher no longer invests a personal interest in the project. Research—especially theological research—is
more art than science, and art requires heart and soul for the quality to shine
through. When the researcher settles for
a topic with insufficient thought, the result is a ‘false focus.’[38] True focus is aligned with what Stephen P.
Harter calls ‘psychological relevance’ or what others describe as ‘cognitive
relevance.’[39] In the context of theological research, this
relevance will bear relation to the researcher’s vocational call.[40] During the focus formulation stage, the researcher
should take stock of his/her journey with God and listen for God’s voice. While God probably won’t reveal the topic in
a dream, the research process should not be separated from the researcher’s
identity as one of God’s ‘called-out’ people.
Theological research should be an extension of the researcher’s
life-mission, as fitting into the mission of the Church. This perspective makes research distinctively
theological, and transforms ‘cognitive relevance’ into ‘vocational
relevance.’ Research related to call is
driven by energeia that comes from the Spirit, and keeps the project
going even in the face of adversity [cf. II Cor. 4:7-12]. Without this connection of Spirit-empowered energeia
and mission-driven focus, a research project can quickly become burdensome
drudgery.
To qualify as distinctly
theological research, a project should be integrated into the spiritual
disciplines of the researcher’s journey with God. Prayer connects what the researcher does to
who the researcher is, linking academic pursuit to the mission of the
Church. Prayer supplies energeia
and perspective, and overcomes the subject/object split between researcher and
project. Prayer relates both researcher
and project to the person and work of God, and makes the research process a
distinctly theological endeavor.[41] This integration of spiritual discipline into
the research process is compatible with a constructivist theory of learning
that holds together cognition, emotion and action.[42] By opening the soul to the work of God,
prayer establishes the theological foundation that bridges intellectual
formation and spiritual formation.
Prayer transforms the way the researcher deals with his/her context, and
aligns the researcher with the energeia that emerges from a project’s vocational
relevance. Thus the practice of
spiritual discipline within a seminary bridges the chasm between faith and
intellect that has bedeviled theological
education. Through communal spiritual
practice, the seminary shapes researchers into people who read texts—whether
books, people or community—from the perspective of lifeworlds formed through
listening to God. This type of
theological reading is rooted in the monastic discipline of lectio divina,
listening to God through the text.[43] Through listening to God, the theological
reader learns to interpret texts through the episteme of a hermeneutics
of love.[44]
Closely related to theological
reading is the art of writing as spiritual practice, to use Stephanie
Paulsell’s phrase. Writing extends the
interior life—the life of the soul—into the world of consciousness, the opening
of the heart to community. The soul in
search of God unites learning and meditation in contemplation, and draws
humanity into its aesthetic vision.
Writing as spiritual practice exteriorizes the beauty of God in the human heart and creates
a theological text as a public witness to the integration of faith and intellect. As Paulsell states, “Writing is too
difficult, and too potentially transformative, for us to write out of motives
other than love and generosity.”[45]
Adapting an interpretive model
of teaching research methods includes the integration of spiritual discipline
into a balanced life. Theological study
is part of a cycle of disciplined Christian living that has emerged throughout
Christian history.
Prayer—reading—writing—worship—work—eating—sleeping are components of a
wholistic spirituality that reflects the restored image of God. Theological research is a means for loving
God with mind, body and spirit.[47] Theological research should express the
researcher’s best quality work as an act of worship. Seminarians shouldn’t skip church to work on
a research project, nor should they neglect their health to write a dazzling
thesis. Unfortunately, seminarians often
face divorce when their unbalanced lives alienate a spouse. And at times, seminary faculty produce
impressive scholarly books whose acknowledgements scarcely hint at the hidden
pain in the hearts of neglected children.
On the other hand, some movements in Christian history have emphasized
spiritual life while disdaining study.
Seminarians may express this devaluation of intellectual life through
substandard academic work. This
imbalance signals the split between of theology as an academic discipline and
theology as a spiritual discipline.[48] Rejecting a positivist model, theological
research embraces the unity of dispassionate reflection and reflective
passion. Applied to theological
research, phenomenology takes stock of the researcher’s journey with God as an
interpretive element while hermeneutics probes for shared meaning in the
researcher’s community.[49] Theological research calls for spiritual
discernment to determine the heart’s purity and the accountability of the
soul.
Training seminarians in
theological research methods thus calls for a critical integration of academic
formation and spiritual formation.[50] North American seminaries have struggled with
integrating spiritual formation into their academic programs, and several
institutions have revised their curricula to overcome the fragmentation.[51] Academic standards require seminarians to
develop critical judgment for assessing scholarly/professional resources, and
to evidence spiritual maturation as defined by a theological community. Certainly, theological research in the
source-oriented model required academic competence in evaluating resources and
writing papers. However, theological
research in the interpretive model calls for spiritual direction as a viable
component in teaching research methods.
Spiritual direction becomes an especially critical element in
determining the vocational relevance of a research project. Indeed, some seminarians discern the capstone
research paper as an opportunity to clarify their call. The struggle to formulate a focus for a major
research paper could signal a lack of vocational discernment. Faculty can provide spiritual direction for
seminarians through the research process by testing the learning context against
the measure of wholistic spirituality.
When seminarians experience disparity between the life of the mind and
the journey of the soul, their projects lack vocational relevance and in this
sense cease to be theological. Spiritual
direction as vocational clarification in theological research methods pedagogy
thus requires pastoral supervision to integrate the elements that make research
distinctively theological. In terms of
educational outcomes, the interpretive model shifts the focus from the production
of research papers to the oikodomeo [‘building-up’—cf. Eph. 4:12] of a
community that learns to live theologically.[52]
By definition, theological
research is a critical juncture that places the researcher in relation to God
and humanity, uniting the life of the mind with the life of the soul in the
context of community. In terms of study
as a spiritual work, nothing promises the researcher a higher concentration of
this interrelatedness than a library formed by a theological community.[53] Research involves interaction with multiple
texts that results in new knowledge or understanding, and requires dialogical
communication with people—both directly and through texts. A researcher participates in a socialization
process by which s/he learns the language of his/her respective field as well
as the language of information organization.
In a seminary, this socialization process includes spiritual formation
within a theological community. This
community shapes the interpretive lens through which seminarians do
theology—from the way faculty carry out instruction to the criteria librarians
follow in collection development. The
community life of a seminary includes every social dimension of the
institution—including worship, meals, residential arrangements, and informal
interaction. Research never takes place
in solitude, but builds on the efforts of community.[54] A library—an embodiment of community by
definition—concentrates texts through its collections and thus enhances the
conjunctivity of ideas.[55] In the context of a library, the researcher
interacts with multiple texts to discover unrealized conjunctivity in the
intertextuality of these resources. Of
course, the researcher cannot simply bring together texts and expect related
ideas to emerge from those resources.
The key task is the exploration of related texts and ideas through the
library’s system of organization.
Library research presumes a measure of focus, even though the researcher
may only discern a visceral need for information.[56] No researcher could expect new knowledge to
emerge from a random approach to resources.
To conduct research efficiently, the researcher must develop a clear
focus on a research problem—and conform to the language and organization of the
library. Research by definition is a
social act, and demands the interpersonal skills necessary for living in
community. Theological research
according to the interpretive model thus requires—not monological objectivity
(as with ‘scientific’ research)—but the dialogical subjectivity that emerges
from a hermeneutic of love.
Seminary research methods
courses are traditionally lecture-based, with the instructor covering types of
theological literature, library research methods and form/style issues.[57] This approach reinforces the stereotyped
notion of research as an isolated act by solitary individuals, and promotes the
attitude: “Qualified researchers don’t
need professional assistance (from instructors or librarians).”
Traditional seminary research methods courses teach research as a rigid
series of stages—choose a topic, find some sources, take notes and write up the
results. Maria Piantanida and Noreen B.
Garman offer a more realistic picture of qualitative research, pointing out the
cyclical nature of the research process.
They reject the traditional view of research as an “orderly sequence
with a clear beginning and ending between each step.” Their notion, ‘cycles of
deliberation,’ “is meant to convey the messiness inherent in learning by
doing.” Through their concepts of “iterative cycles,
deliberation, and discursive knowing,” they “set forth the view that becoming a
skillful qualitative researcher is less a matter of mastering techniques and
more developing a deliberative posture.”[58] Piantanida and Garman provide concrete examples
of doctoral students who practiced deliberation and experienced consequent
success in an academic program, as well as examples of doctoral students whose
rigidity prevented deeper insight into their work. They base their work on hermeneutical phenomenology,
as evidenced by their development of theory from their experience with doctoral
students and by their explicit endorsement of this approach.[59]
According to the interpretive
perspective, research involves far more than finding sources and answering
questions. In fact, research involves
disruptive questions that create discomfort with existing knowledge.[60] Research is a process of construction—the
creation of a text that embodies meaning as the distinctive product of the
researcher’s intentionality. A research
paper embodies a uniquely personal perspective that has emerged from a process
of engagement and deliberation. A thesis
or dissertation represents far more than the sum of its resources. The research project mirrors a process of
disciplined thinking that discovers conjunctivity and creates new order in the
universe of knowledge. This process
involves several components at once—purpose, conceptual context, research
questions, methods and validity (according to Maxwell’s ‘interactive model’)—in
which ideas converge and diverge, attract and repel, convince and dissuade.[61] The qualitative research process brings
meaningful order from purposeful chaos, and must proceed through stages to
completion as the researcher turns conjunctive ideas in iterative cycles.[62] In fact, many of these stages achieve clarity
when the researcher begins to draft an initial document.[63] Following an interpretive model of
qualitative research, the research methods course must coach seminarians
through creative process while encouraging them toward timely completion of
their projects.[64] In the seminar context, instructor and
students should bring the concepts of “iterative cycles, deliberation and
discursive knowing” (as proposed by Piantanida and Garman) to bear on the
stages of qualitative research conceived as an interactive model (as proposed
by Maxwell).[65]
The interpretive model thus
posits research as central to the task of learning to live theologically, and
defines epistemology as inclusive of will, emotion, and action—the entire
person. This model enables theological
education to focus on seminarians who pursue God-centered lifelong learning,
rather than students who simply produce outstanding papers. On these terms, knowledge no longer describes
shelved products but rather the enlargement of minds that takes place when
people interact in community—whether in person or through texts. The interpretive model also affirms the
seminary as a community of collaborative wisdom that creates new knowledge
through people who find their identity in faith and interpret life as a journey
with God. By stressing process rather
than product, the interpretive model prepares seminarians to take leadership in
a world defined by change. Moreover,
this model fosters a wholistic spirituality that heals the split between faith
and intellect and mentors people who desire God and love learning in a
fragmented world. From this perspective,
seminaries cannot dismiss the research methods course as an irrelevant,
arbitrary requirement; rather, theological research methods pedagogy shares an
essential role in ‘building up’ seminarians for 21st-century
ministry.
[1] See “Degree Program Standards,” Association of Theological Schools (1996), E.3.1.2. Available from http://www.ats.edu/download/acc/degrees.pdf ; accessed 30 October 2002.
[2] Courses typically include John B. Trotti’s “Introduction to the Study and Use of Theological Literature,” regarded by theological librarians as one of the best articles of this nature. See John B. Trotti, “Introduction to the Study and Use of Theological Literature,” in G. E. Gorman and Lyn Gorman, General Resources and Biblical Studies, vol. 1 of Theological and Religious Reference Materials, Bibliographies and Indexes in Religious Studies 1 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1984), 3-26.
[3] See Anderson School of Theology, “Guide to Graduate Theological Research and Writing,” edited and compiled by Douglas E. Welch and Merle D. Strege, 1991; revised and enlarged by Douglas E. Welch, 1993; revised and updated (2002) by John H. Aukerman. Available from http://www.anderson.edu/academics/sot/guide/index.html ; accessed 26 October 2002. “Chapter 1. Philosophy of Research” “argues for the appropriateness of qualitative research in most theological study.”
[4]
Source-oriented theological research methods courses often used the following
textbook: James R. Kennedy, Jr. Library Research Guide to Religion and
Theology. 2nd ed.
rev.
[5] In the words of Lucretia Yaghjian, the course could be considered as “an intervention rather than an integral component of the curriculum.” In this statement’s context, Yaghjian is discussing a writing program which many of her colleagues viewed as ‘remedial.’ See Lucretia Bailey Yaghjian, “Writing Practice and Pedagogy Across the Theological Curriculum: Teaching Writing in a Theological Context,” Theological Education 33:2 (1997), 41.
[6] “Library and information services are in a critical period of redefinition and change. The traditional bibliographic paradigm, centering on the location of sources, is no longer adequate for accommodating the full range of users’ problems in the information age. The traditional approach is limited to the task of locating sources and information but does not take into account the tasks of interpreting, formulating, and learning in the process of information seeking. Increased access to vast amounts of information requires services that center on seeking meaning rather than merely on locating sources.” Carol Collier Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services. Information Management, Policy, and Services (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1993), 168.
[7] See Ian Cornelius, Meaning and Method in Information Studies. Information Management, Policy, and Services series (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1996), 5-9.
[8] “The research that has produced the dismal portrait of nonuse of information being characteristic of even educated, professional citizens might best be described as being guided by two central assumptions: one is that information can be treated like a brick; the other is that people can be treated like empty buckets into which bricks can be thrown. Despite many attempts to alter these assumptions, they still guide most communications and information processing research today.” Brenda Dervin, “Information as a User Construct: The Relevance of Perceived Information Needs to Synthesis and Interpretation,” in S. A. Ward and L. J. Reed (eds.), Knowledge Structure and Use: Implications for Synthesis and Interpretation (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1983), 160. Cited in Danielle Cunniff Plumer, “The Nature of Information: Form Versus Function.” Available from http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~dcplumer/coursesopn/Information.pdf ; accessed 25 October 2002. Dervin’s statement is also cited in John M. Budd, “Information Seeking in Theory and Practice: Rethinking Public Services in Libraries.” Reference & User Services Quarterly 40:3 (Spring 2001), 256-263. Available from WilsonSelectPlus [database]
[9] “Writers in our field have been unable to develop a sufficiently comprehensive theory that can offer adequate support for all in practice within it.” Cornelius, Meaning and Method, 9. John M. Budd recognizes this deficiency when he states: “Librarianship is still searching for fruitful conceptual foundations that can help inform both inquiry and practice.” See Budd, “Information Seeking in Theory and Practice,” 256.
[10] “I argue that the interpretive account and approach has a powerful validity because it is the way we intuitively view the field anyway: It is only that prevailing orthodoxies have not allowed this to surface, and that we would all benefit from formally recognizing what our natural practice is and making the most of its possibilities.” Cornelius, Meaning and Method, 1-2.
[11] “The
process that enables us to understand each of the elements of phenomenology is
necessarily interpretive. This does not
mean that there are no constraints, but it does mean that there is some
indeterminacy at work. By that I mean
that our experiences, our use of language, our access to cultural products. .
are all shaped by the time in which we live.”
John M. Budd, Knowledge and Knowing in Library and Information
Science: A Philosophical Framework (
[12] For example, discussing the concept of relevance, Budd states: “A document (or any potentially informing text) can only be evaluated at a point in time and in the context of being at that time. Traditional thinking maintains a clear subject-object separation. The phenomenological framework, as we’ve seen, negates a clear separation. This means that relevance does not inhere in the document, nor does it reside in the information seeker (solely). The fluidity of relevance includes not only the seeker’s knowledge, but also the seeker’s perception, which is intentional.” Budd, Knowledge and Knowing in Library and Information Science, 296.
[13] This epistemology supports Dervin’s Sense-Making theory of communication: “Perhaps most fundamental of Sense-Making’s metatheoretical assumptions is the idea of the human, a body-mind-heart-spirit living in a time-space, moving from a past, in a present, to a future, anchored in material conditions; yet at the same time with an assumed capacity to sense-make abstractions, dreams, memories, plans, ambitions, fantasies, stories, pretenses that can both transcend time-space and last beyond specific moments in time-space. This portrait of the human subject is central to Sense-Making. It mandates simultaneous attention to both the inner and outer worlds of human beings and the ultimate impossibility of separating them. It also mandates positing as possible fodder for sense-making not only thoughts and ideas, observations and understandings, but emotions and feelings, dreams and visions, pretenses and illusions, connections and disconnections.” Brenda Dervin, “On Studying Information Seeking Methodologically: The Implications of Connecting Metatheory to Method.” Information Processing and Management 35 (1999), 730.
[14] Much of what passes as “qualitative research” is methodologically dependent on participant observation, an approach bedeviled by interpretation-in-context. Nevertheless, as Rosengren states, “Qualitative methods by no means have to be less rigorous than quantitative methods.” For a defense of qualitative research methodology as epistemologically justified, see Karl Erik Rosengren, “Paradigms Lost and Regained,” in Paradigm Issues, vol. 1 of Rethinking Communication, ed. Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe, and Ellen Wartella (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989), 29.
[15] Budd affirms hermeneutical phenomenology as a ‘metamethod’ for library and information science as interpretive: “The process that enables us to understand each of the elements of phenomenology is necessarily interpretive. This does not mean that there are no constraints, but it does mean that there is some indeterminacy at work. By that I mean that our experiences, our use of language, our access to cultural products (books, films, Web sites, letters, etc.), are all shaped by the time in which we live. To an extent, our consciousness is also influenced by history. As we attempt to understand anything that is temporally and/or spatially removed, we face limitations.” Budd’s point is that people cannot directly experience the consciousness of another, but must rely on an interpretive mediation. Budd, Knowledge and Knowing in Library and Information Science, 269-270. Budd also brings to bear on this issue the concept of ‘lifeworld’ advocated by phenomenologists like Jurgen Habermas and J. N. Mohanty. “Meaning, rather than simply inhering in an object, is a product of experience. Experiencing a thing can vary from person to person, and for the same individual over time. It is the confluence of the thing and the experience of the thing that enables the discerning of meaning. Information seeking is an excellent example of the need for attention paid to experience, to lifeworld, especially insofar as information seeking is a quest for meaning.” Budd, “Information Seeking in Theory and Practice,” 256-263.
[16]
Knowledge includes a social dimension that accounts for shared meaning in
community. However, some philosophers
would contest a purely social constructivist conception of knowledge. For example, John R. Searle “treats ontology
as prior to conceptualization, and runs together the problem of whether the
existence of something depends on people believing in its existence with the
question of whether anyone has a concept of the thing.” See Stephen P. Turner, “Searle’s Social
Reality.” History and Theory 38:2
(May 1999), 211-31. Turner is examining
Searles’ The Construction of Social Reality.
[17] Discussing Martin Heidegger’s concept of being, Budd points out this dialogical relation between knowing subject and known objects: “What he is urging against is the thinking that objects have meaning inhering in them. What has meaning is the experience of things and events—understanding the meaning necessitates inquiring into the thing oneself, and the temporal process of the event of experiencing the thing. . As an example of what Heidegger is talking about we can look at, say, an undergraduate student who comes to the library to find background material for a paper. The student does not simply absorb information from the books, periodicals, or databases provided by the library. That student’s experience is shaped by the teacher’s assignments, the content of the course (including readings), other courses the student is taking/has taken, and the contents of the materials consulted.” Budd, Knowledge and Knowing in Library and Information Science, 254-255.
[18] See
Alan Jacobs’ discussion of Mikhail Bakhtin’s characterization of hermeneutics as
dialogical, particularly his emphasis on love as the critical element in
enabling this dialogical relationality.
Jacobs considers Bakhtin as “a philosophy of discourse that is not necessarily
Christian but fully compatibile with Christian theology” and adds that
“Bakhtin’s charitable hermeneutics is justified by an appeal to the key
convictions of the Christian faith, whereas, conversely, those convictions may
best be put into hermeneutical practice by Bakhtin’s prescriptions.” See Alan Jacobs, A Theology of
[19] This understanding of communication as potentially dialogic, analyzed from the perspective of phenomenology, can be found in the work of Mikhail Bakhtin. As Budd points out, “Dialogic discourse exists when the subject-object dichotomy is obliterated and mutual consciousnesses are recognized.” For an excellent discussion of Bakhtin’s thought as applied to library and information studies, see Budd, “Information Seeking in Theory and Practice,” Reference & User Services Quarterly 40:3 (Spring 2001), 256-263.
[20] These notions of intertextuality and conjunctivity are related to Gary Radford’s discussion of “discourse formations” in library research. See Gary P. Radford, “Tunnel Vision and Blind Spots,” available from http://alpha.fdu.edu/~gradford/wiegand.html ; accessed 30 October 2002.
[21] “The kinds of questions asked by researchers who subscribe to constructivist methodology are essentially hermeneutic in nature, that is, questions dealing with personal or subjective understanding or meaning.” A. L. Dick, “Three Paths to Inquiry in Library and Information Science: Positivist, Constructivist, and Critical Theory Approaches.” South African Journal of Library and Information Science 61 (June 1993), 57.
[22] “As an essential element of the positivist’s programme, objectivism is no longer accepted. This development, however, does not imply that all we are left with is relativism in the pejorative sense that no single view can ultimately be objective.” A. L. Dick, “Three Paths to Inquiry,” 54.
[23] For example, Evelyn Jacob looks at six ‘traditions’ that interpret qualitative research—human ethology, ecological psychology, holistic ethnography, cognitive anthropology, ethnography of communication, and symbolic interactionism, and states: “Although researchers in all of the traditions examined emphasize the importance of description and eschew preconceived ideas, they all hold some assumptions which guide the development of their descriptive questions. In each tradition these assumptions are related to what scholars in the tradition think should be the focus of the study.” Evelyn Jacob, “Clarifying Qualitative Research: A Focus on Traditions.” Educational Researcher 17:1 (Jan-Feb 1988), 22.
[24] “If
individuals are left to a simple atomized personal experience of
interpretation, of re-experiencing some event, there is still a difficulty in
resolving how social life with its shared sets of meaning can possibly
develop. The response of Habermas to
this ‘psychological’ danger was to suggest, following Gadamer, that we learn to
interpret through dialogue in all forms of social life, by participation in
communication that has been learned in interaction, and that only by melting
our individual horizons in with those of others can we get beyond the
subjectivity of the individual viewpoint.”
Cornelius, Meaning and Method in Information Studies, 23. Cornelius is citing
[25] Spiritual journaling for theological research may be related to the “researcher experience memo” used in qualitative research to relate the researcher’s experience to conceptual context. See Joseph A. Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 41 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), 29; see also Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning, 82-83.
[26] “Interpreting involves creating. The interpretive task of ‘going beyond the information given’ is a central concept in Bruner’s work. Information is interpreted to create what Bruner calls products of mind. This mysterious capacity to interpret and create is at the core of what it means to be human… The interpretive task is highly personal and is based on constructs built from past experience. This enables us to go beyond the information given to create something uniquely our own.” Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning, 25.
[27] “Bruner’s work confirms Dewey’s stages of reflective thinking and Kelly’s phases of construction which incorporate feelings with thoughts and action. When we add the dynamic affective component to the constructive process, the full range of experience becomes apparent. Interpreting, choosing, and creating the inconsistent, often incompatible information encountered is likely to cause profound feelings of uncertainty, anxiety, and even threat. The critical impact of feelings in information seeking is illustrated by the conflict in any constructive process caused by encounters with unique or redundant information.” Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning, 26.
[28] “I have come to understand that this point, when people encounter an information system early in their research, whether it be a library or other type of database, is the most difficult stage of the search process. Rather than experiencing a steady increase in confidence from the beginning of a search to the conclusion, as might be expected, a dip in confidence is commonly experienced once an individual has initiated a search and begins to encounter conflicting and inconsistent information. A person ‘in the dip’ is increasingly uncertain until a focus is formed to provide a path for seeking meaning and criteria for judging relevance.” Carol Collier Kuhlthau, “Accommodating the User’s Information Search Process: Challenges for Information Retrieval System Designers.” Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science 25:3 (February/March 1999), available from www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-99/kuhlthau.html ; accessed 21 October 2002.
[29] “Exploration is key for formulating a focus during the search process. However, users often move directly from selecting a general topic or area to the task of collecting information, skipping the important stage of exploration altogether. Exploratory acts uncover information for formulating new constructs, whereas collecting acts gather information for documenting established constructs. Formulation, which takes place through acting and reflecting, is more compatible with the task of exploring than that of collecting.” Kuhlthau, Seeking Meaning, 115.
[30] Joseph Maxwell names experiential knowledge as one of the “main sources” for constructing a “conceptual context” for research. He places experiential knowledge at the head of his discussion “both because it is one of the most important conceptual resources, and because it is the one that is most seriously neglected in works on research design.” He states, “Traditionally, what you bring to the research from your background and identity has been treated as bias, something whose influence needs to be eliminated from the design, rather than as a valuable component of it.” Maxwell follows with an assertion closely aligned with the perspective of this paper: “Separating your research from other aspects of your life cuts you off from a major source of insights, hypotheses, and validity checks.” Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design, 27-28. On page 49, Maxwell observes that research questions—the heart of the research process—are strongly influenced by the researcher’s background. “As discussed in the previous chapter, every researcher begins with a substantial base of experience and theoretical knowledge, and these inevitably generate certain questions about the phenomena studied. These initial questions frame the study in important ways, influence decisions about methods, and are one basis for further focusing and development of more specific questions.”
[31] According to Dick, “Constructivists eliminate the ontology/epistemology distinction.” See A. L. Dick, “Three Paths to Inquiry in Library and Information Science,” 56.
[32] See Jean Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture. 3rd ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982), 12. According to Leclercq, Benedict left school on account of the moral dangers that student life posed. “All the rest of St. Benedict’s life was to be subordinated to the search for God, and lived out under the best conditions for reaching that goal—that is to say, in separation from this dangerous world.”
[33] *See
Richard T. Hughes, How Christian Faith Can Sustain the Life of the Mind
(
[34] In the spirit of ‘learned ignorance,’ silence in the contemplative mode would signify rejection of ‘knowledge’ gleaned through a God-absent lifeworld, and resolution to come to knowledge through a God-centered lifeworld. This is in essence the mission of a genuinely ‘Christian’ education.
[35] See Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God, 213.
[36] As John Wesley states, “Let every action have reference to your whole life, and not to a part only. Let all your subordinate ends be suitable to the great end of your living. ‘Exercise yourself unto godliness.’ Be as diligent in religion, as thou wouldest have thy children that go to school be in learning. Let thy whole life be a preparation for heaven, like the preparation of wrestlers for the combat.” See John Wesley, “On Conscience,” Sermon 105 (text from the 1872 edition), ed. John Andrew with corrections by George Lyons for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology (Nampa, ID), document from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library server. Available from http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-105.stm; accessed 5 November 2002.
[37] The capstone project can present seminarians with an opportunity to clarify their vocations. Of course, theological education should help students with this discernment process at several points throughout a degree program. This requires faculty to exercise spiritual direction as students practice ‘holy listening.’ Never an individual matter, theological vocation is defined in religious community. As people of God committed to faithful living, theological educators must disown unethical practices commonly found in graduate schools that exploit students and engender bitterness. Furthermore, this perspective lays weight on theological educators to work in partnership with the Church to ensure satisfactory placement of graduates.