Use of Experts in Scholarly Research - Dissertation Example

?Harris Kamran Systems Science Analytical Paper 20 July Use of experts in scholarly research The role of experts in imparting knowledge and instructing research has undergone much debate, and a substantial degree of evolution. Newer concepts have been introduced in the field of epistemology (Galt, 2008) in order to better fit the changing requirements of the society through the use of more adequate models. However, there is a constant friction present between the traditional set up of teaching involving the role of experts as authorities (Tynjala, 1999), and the postmodern (Galt, 2008) concept of constructivism (Murphy, 1997). There is a need to integrate the two models to incorporate the advantages of each on order to reach harmony among the scholars regarding expert involvement in epistemology. This paper aims to propose such a model. It starts by presenting a literature review and analysis, followed by a detailed discussion of the most important approaches to the field of study and research, and ends by presenting a framework that aims to corroborate the established schools of thought about instruction and the role of experts as guides for research. Literature Review: The study and analysis of the currently available literature on the subject is important in order to ascertain the extent of progress in the pertinent field and the frequency of research conducted. Such research is important to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the issue under discussion, that is, the use of experts in the field of scholarly research. This literature review would be divided into two parts: the synthesis of the available information on the subject, followed by a scholarly analysis of the literature, discussing the shortcomings of the available material regarding the subject. Synthesis: the literature discusses the role of experts in research under two distinct models; the traditional method of expert instruction, and the more recent method of constructivism (Murphy, 1997). A most comprehensive study made on the subject is by far the article ‘Towards Expert Knowledge?’ by Paivi Tynjala, published in the International Journal of Educational Research in 1999. In this article, Tynjala makes a comparison between the traditional instructional set up and the more recent advent of constructivist education. The article starts by describing the established model of learning across the majority of institutes, analyzing its characteristics and presenting the issues that arise from the practice of that traditional system in the present day evolved framework of academia. it deconstructs the issue into its constituents, discussing each component separately, such as the ontology of expertise, the epistemology of gaining expertise, the methodology involved, and the shortcomings of that methodology. It presents as a solution the pure form of constructivist model, demanding a sheer shift from one system to the other and submitting that such a drastic changeover is the only method of catering to the changing needs of the field. It does not present any model for integration of the two systems, rather simply advocates constructivism. Another extensive research on the topic comes from Kimberly A. Galt, in his work ‘Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches to research and inquiry’ (2008). The discussion starts by defining the different approaches to learning, such as epistemology, ontology, and methodology, and then progresses to the detailed discussion of each, focusing the most on methodology. It includes detailed analysis of the different types of methodology, like quantitative, qualitative, and mixed, listing the characteristics of each and set ups in which each could be adequately used. This study does not aim at upholding a certain system, but leaves the conclusion to be drawn by the researcher as to which methodology of epistemology suits his mind frame. There are very few other such open-ended studies available on the subject. Helen Gosse, Holly Gunn, and Leon Swinkels, in their article ‘Constructivist learning environments (CLE)’ (2002) tackle the issue of the rampant utilization of the Web and other Information Technology options in the pursuit of knowledge and the process of research, highlighting the statistics about the usage and its advantages. They maintain that the growing trend among researchers of the use of such tools of investigation suggests that they should be incorporated into the models of instruction more widely, and should become the basis of the evolved technique of research. They submit that this method would even be potent enough to actually replace or maximally sideline the role of experts as instructors for scholarly research. This is one of the very few such articles advocating such radical views. Elizabeth Murphy, in her article ‘Characteristics of constructivist learning and teaching’ (1997), focuses her attention on the concept of constructivist learning, by outlining the framework of this model, discussing its characteristics, and presenting its advantages. This and many other such articles on the subject matter fail to explore the drawbacks of this system, leaving a gap in the literature on this issue. John F. Sowa, in his book Knowledge Representation (1999) and his website on Ontology (2010) adapted from this book, explores the origin of the science of ontology; its progress through history; its relevance in the recent years, especially as it relates to the integrative approach of research; and the possible value of this field in the future. It does not directly address the issue of ontological implications of expert advice and knowledge in research, rather makes a generic albeit detailed study of the topic. Peter Schwartz, in his book Problem-based learning (2001), traces the relevance of this approach to problem-solving and research by making an analysis of case studies in which this method has been successfully used. He also cites experiences with this system, and pinpoints practices in which this method has been employed to the benefit of the researchers. He is of the opinion that this is the need of the day; problem-based learning is the form of epistemology and methodology that needs to be adopted in order to produce experts who would be able to rise to the complex challenges of the rapidly changing and demanding society. He denounces the traditional set up as obsolete and in need of replacement with the more dynamic form of learning through problem-based study. Analysis: After analyzing the current and available data set on the topic of expert involvement in scholarly research, it is evident that the trend is to completely sideline the traditional model of education involving instruction and learning in favor of the radical shift to the more recent model of constructivism (Murphy, 1997). This knowledge base on the topic can, therefore, be termed as polar; on one pole there are dwindling advocates of the traditional scholarship framework, which are criticized and shunned by the postmodern (Galt, 2008) scholars submitting the radical model of constructivism (Murphy, 1997) in which the role of experts in teaching in the classical sense has been almost completely erased, and replaced with a team-based learning model in which there is no one correct answer (Tynjala, 1999) and no traditional scholarly expert to teach. Rather, researchers would collaborate with each other, transfer knowledge (Tynjala, 1999), and share ideas in order to reach a set of probable solutions. Such a polar database of knowledge fails to justly address the issue of the possibility of the continued use of experts in their traditional form for scholarly research. In fact, no substantial effort has been made to investigate this aspect of instruction, which would be integrated rather than definite and biased. The literature tends to gravitate towards one of the two possibilities; there is a need to include in that database studies and research conducted with this aim in mind. It is only fair that there should be the availability of a middle-ground to this debate in terms of knowledge-base and research. There is a dearth of information available regarding an in-depth study of the current model of instruction and its limitations. The present literature does not cover many of the aspects required to fully grasp the understanding of the present model in order to devise a modified model. Some areas, like the methodology (Galt, 2008), have been covered with in some detail; however, others, such as the ontological and epistemological (Galt, 2008) issues regarding this framework have been barely addressed. Still others, such as the axiological and rhetorical (Galt, 2008) limitations of the framework have been completely ignored. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to propose such a framework of integrated approach to help experts pass the scholarly scrutiny in the field of instruction and research, and to fill the identified gap in the available literature on the matter, discussing issues related to, epistemology, ontology, and methodology (Galt, 2008) of the pertinent case in detail. Epistemology: in essence, epistemology refers to the gaining of knowledge or the process of learning (Darlaston-Jones, 2007). It is often overlaps with the idea of ontology, and has common grounds with the discussion of methodology Galt, 2008). However, in its pure form, it can be used to describe, analyze, or propose a model of learning or a method of gaining education only, along with the advantages and disadvantages of a certain model (Darlaston-Jones, 2007). It also refers to the method and the practice of researching and attaining information by both formal and informal means (Darlaston-Jones, 2007). It is of special importance to the experts and learners as it dictates the kind and extent of knowledge that can be shared among them, and its relevance to the field. In the established traditional framework of instruction and learning, there is a teacher or an expert who is considered an authority over the subject matter and the knowledge-base. It follows, then, that on the other end would be learners or students who do not possess such knowledge or such an extent of knowledge as the expert, and who depend solely on the expert to provide them with the required information and the skills. Hence, it is essentially a master-apprentice form of learning (Tynjala, 1999), in which established information is passed along the line to the next generation of experts who would likewise follow in these lines. The characteristics of such a knowledge database as is taught in set ups as described is not held in a high esteem by the postmodern (Galt, 2008) critics, who doubt the relevance and use of such a method of learning in the present day evolved society (Tynjala, 1999). Such information as is imparted by the experts is considered to be inert (Tynjala, 1999); that is, it lacks the capability to be progressive and accommodating to new ideas and concepts, and can not be fully applied in a real-world problem (Galt, 2008). This concept of solving real-world problems with the acquired knowledge (Galt, 2008) has been gaining a lot of significance in the recent years, and is one of the reasons for the disdain that critics feel towards the traditional expert approach to research and knowledge (Tynjala, 1999). Epistemology is no longer considered just the art of gaining theoretical knowledge; it now also involves the practice of that knowledge and the application of the acquired information (Darlaston-Jones, 2007). Indeed, the lack of such a link between theory and application in the traditional epistemological set ups is forcing the current shift from instruction to constructivism (Murphy, 1997). There is also concern regarding the excessively individualized (Galt, 2008) method of training that is practiced in the traditional epistemological models. The stress is on a personal effort towards learning, individual grooming, solitary problem-solving, and the gaining of information that is mostly self-centered in approach. There is a lack of the training for group efforts and team work (Galt, 2008), a sharing of information rather than personal struggle of and competition in gaining knowledge, and of collaborative techniques used to solve the increasingly complex and abstract problems and issues in the present environment (Tynjala, 1999). Such rudimentary epistemological training results in a chain of instruction and learning from expert to learner with no involvement of outside resources. It is often viewed as inefficient and inappropriate (Tynjala, 1999). Ontology: it is a philosophical concept of explaining the definitions of entities that exist (Sowa, 2010). Through this concept, one can learn the different between fact and fiction, and reality and fantasy (Sowa, 2010). It is the approach of determining the constituents of a real world, attributing characteristics to those constituents, categorizing those characteristics, grouping the pertinent entities according to their common or similar characteristics in classes and families (Sowa, 2010). When studied in depth, it becomes clear that ontology is at the root of the division of the different fields of academia, divided according to the differences in their approach to tackle the real world (Galt, 2008). The fundamental application of ontology is for naming entities and defining them (Sowa, 2010). This field perhaps did not enjoy much significance in the past years (Sowa, 2010), especially in the field of science. It was more important than in philosophy and metaphysics(Sowa, 2010) . However, with the rapid advancement in knowledge and a substantial bloom in the scientific knowledge base over the recent years, it has become imperative that things be classified, categorized (Sowa, 2010), and integrated to ease the process of research and understanding, and to make a coherent scientific sense out of all the available data. This has led to the redefining and changed connotations of many terms. The process of evolution is rampant in this sector, and new meanings are constantly being associated with predefined entities and concepts (Sowa, 2010). This holds special significance as regards the topic of this paper. In a traditional set up of instruction, the expert is the teacher and the researcher, a learner and a student (Tynjala, 1999). The expert imparts the knowledge that he has gathered over his career in the same context that was applicable when he was researching. This means that such a model of expert involvement in research would simply transfer the old and often obsolete ontological information to the learner, without the benefit of modification and discussion. The expert is armed with preconceived ideas and concepts about entities; the ontology can said to be fixed. This would stem from a particular worldview (Galt, 2008) of the instructor that would inadvertently be imposed on the researcher, undermining and often neglecting his own worldview (Galt, 2008). This means that the expert’s paradigm (Galt, 2008) forms the basis of all information gathered, and it will be this paradigm that would be used to try to solve real world issues (Galt, 2008). Without a challenge to this paradigm (Galt, 2008), it can not be ascertained if it is inherently correct or incorrect, and without such a check, the danger of inculcating uniformly inadequate ideas into the minds of the researchers and into the subsequent results of their researchers persists. This has implications far wider than just this transfer of knowledge (Tynjala, 1999), though. The ontology of expert and leaner itself has changed over the years. Same holds true for instruction and application. The implications of these terms have become far more complex and dynamic than ever before. The expert might be an authority in the field, but his views are not considered absolute anymore (Tynjala, 1999). The researcher might be just a learner, but he is expected to use his cognition (Galt, 2008) and analysis in collaboration with other researchers and the expert to reach a solution to the problem at hand. Instruction is no more localized; it has internationalized (Galt, 2008) and spread beyond the walls of the classroom through the use of the Internet and the Information Technology (Gosse, Gunn, & Swinkels, 2002). Such changes in ontology demand a more dynamic and flexible system of instruction, one that would have the capability of accommodating the evolving roles of each entity that constitutes the field of academia and research. A proposal of such a model is presented at the end of the paper. Methodology: it refers to the technique and the precise manner in which some process is conducted, and the nature and characteristics of that technique (Taylor, 1998), which will, inadvertently, the nature and characteristics of the process being carried out. In the pertinent case, that process is the acquiring of knowledge through the conduction of scholarly research. In essence, this section will discuss the current trends in the methodology of epistemology, the latter having already been discussed in the preceding section. The methodology currently practiced in the institutes across the globe is by far quantitative in nature (Galt, 2008). This positivist or post-positivist (Galt, 2008) kind of epistemological methodology is in line with the current form of teaching framework, and is, therefore, preferred over the more qualitative approach (Taylor, 1998). It involves characteristics such as an unbiased objective approach to a problem, the gathering of data set through formal, pre-constructed, and systematic measures such as surveys and interviews, and a statistical analysis of that dataset to arrive at predicted and expected result and hypothesis (Galt, 2008). Such a method of instruction is heavily dependent on facts and figures (Galt, 2008), and being complementary to the traditional epistemological model of instruction and learning, is centralized in nature, stressing upon individual efforts, training and assessment (Tynjala, 1999). It requires the memorization of facts and statistics (Tynjala, 1999), in accordance with the requirement of such a dataset, and recalling or those facts in examinations and assessments (Tynjala, 1999). Such examinations become the basis of individual merit, and determine the course and position of the learner in that particular field of academia. Such positivist (Galt, 2008) approach leaves little room for the involvement of group training, and, hence, often proves to be inadequate and insufficient when the researchers try to put their knowledge to practice in the real world (Tynjala, 1999). Such a method is devoid of problem-based learning techniques, which have proved to be increasingly beneficial in the current social and academic environment (Schwartz, 2001). To be able to solve real world problems (Galt, 2008), their is a need for researchers to be able to think on their own feet with acquired as well as synthesized knowledge without the assistance of expert instructors (Tynjala, 1999). This requires flexibility of methodology and decision making, which is incompatible with the quantitative methodology of learning. Not all issues can be solved with a quantitative approach. There is, oftentimes, a need for a less empirical (Galt, 2008) and a more qualitative methodology if learning and research have to bear positive practical results. Such aims require teamwork, knowledge sharing rather than a simple knowledge transfer, an opportunity to explore with the researcher’s own worldview (Galt, 2008) and without the limitations of one fixed solution, and an accommodation of discussion and analysis of even the established facts (Taylor, 1998). However, the current traditionally accepted framework of expert and researcher does not permit such evolution of the system. There is a need for a modified model, a proposal of which is discussed below. Conclusion and recommendations: The ontological implications of the term ‘expert’ have changed over the years. It no more signifies an intellectual who is proficient in his field of knowledge to the limit of academic excellence only. In the academia, a definition of this term was considered to be all-encompassing as regards the characteristics and ontology of this term. This definition was proposed by Sternberg (1997), and had seven components (Tynjala, 1999). Suffice it to say that it involved much around the gathering and refining of knowledge by the expert, without much stress on his ability to share it or apply it in the real world (Tynjala, 1999). This definition cannot be considered to be complete anymore. Given the current nature of the field of experts and scholars in research, it is imperative that this ontological explanation of the term be changed to incorporate the relatively new demands of the field. The most significant aspect of the current model of academic scholarship is its rapidly and constantly changing and evolving nature (Tynjala, 1999). The expert in any field can no longer afford to be a closed-circuit entity who has achieved the maximum or the required level of academic excellence. In fact, the stress has shifted from just the academic expertise to more generic skills and conditions (Tynjala, 1999). Before, an expert was expected to be skilled only academically in an area of knowledge; that has changed to a more fluid model of expertise. Now, with the advent of globalization and the emergence of interdisciplinary fields, it is imperative that the expert be ready to constantly deconstruct and reconstruct (Galt, 2008) his knowledge and skill base, interact with other experts, devise new methodologies to incorporate the complexities of real world problems (Tynjala, 1999), and be ready to expand his academic horizons. He should not just be well-versed in his chosen field of study, but should also be acquainted with areas such as information technology, the Web (Gosse, Gunn, & Swinkels, 2002) communication skills, sociology, interpersonal and international relations, and other disciplines which will be fundamental in his successful functioning as a global scholar. To this end, there is a need to devise a two-pronged model for the continued acceptance of the use of experts for the attainment of scholarly knowledge through research. The first prong of the model should deal with the actual grooming and production of such experts. There is a need to inculcate a flexibility in the future experts regarding the academic and practical implications of their fields. This is important as the expert can no longer be a stagnant body, but has to be a dynamic, constantly evolving entity with a goal of life-long learning (Tynjala, 1999). Such training is fundamental to produce scholars that can withstand the scholarly scrutiny and be acceptable as instructors for research. The second element to the model should be the adequate development of the setting in which that expert will function. A lot of stress has been placed on the radical shift to constructivist education (Murphy, 1997) by completely sidelining the traditional set up, as has already been discussed. The most poignant cause of this change is the reluctance of critics concerning the role of individual training and assessment that is propagated in the traditional model (Tynjala, 1999). Whereas it is crucial that the students be taught to function in teams and cooperate with each other in finding solutions to real world problems by using their cognitive and complex thinking skills (Galt, 2008), the fact that they should be analyzed on their individual merit can also not be completely negated. A team is made of members, and each member should contribute to the overall progress of the team. Hence, there is a need for a system that integrates individual training and assessment by using the traditional methods of instruction, learning, and examinations (Tynjala, 1999), with the team work, case studies, and problem-based learning techniques of constructivism (Murphy, 1997) to produce able researchers who can later progress to the level of experts themselves. Completely delineating the traditional set up is not the solution. Such an integrated model can be hoped to continue the relevance of experts as successful instructors in their fields. There is a need for an open-ended system that allows for improvement and discussion while maintaining the framework of traditional instruction. As Alfred North Whitehead observed in Modes of Thought, ‘We must be systematic, but we should keep our systems open’ (Sowa, 2010). References Ardelt, Monika. (2004). Wisdom as expert knowledge system: a critical review of a contemporary operationalization of an ancient concept. Human development, 47, 257-285. Darlaston-Jones, Dawn. (2007). Making connections: the relationship between epistemology and research methods. The Australian community psychologist, 19 (1), 19-27 De Vries, Erik J. (n.d.). Epistemology and methodology in case research: a comparison between European and American journals. Retrieved from http://csrc.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20050113.pdf Galt, Kimberly, A. (2008). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches to research and inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/10095351/Creswell Gosse, Helen, Holly Gunn, and Leon Swinkels. (2002). Constructivist learning environments (CLE). Retrieved from http://www.accesswave.ca/~hgunn/special/papers/hypertxt/cle.html Murphy, Elizabeth. (1997). Characteristics of constructivist learning and teaching. Retrieved from http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emurphy/stemnet/cle3.html Robinson, Viviane M. (1993). Problem-based methodology: research for the improvement of practice. US: Pergamon Press. Schwartz, Peter. (2001). Problem-based learning: case studies, experience, and practice. Australia: Routledge. Sowa, John F. (1999). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical, and computational foundations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole Publishing Co. Sowa, John F. (2010). Ontology. Retrieved from http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/ Taylor, Steven J. Bogdan, Robert. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Tynjala, Paivi. (1999)Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International journal of educational research, 31, 357-442. Read More