Analysis of Changing Practice
In summary; this article presents the theoretical frame work of research in an effort to “educate the educator”. The author suggests that as part of changing our activity in changing circumstances we need to consider the most politically critical sites of political change.
From this article I outlined three main points:
Main point I. We need to make familiar and recognizable our own everyday possibilities for revolutionary praxis and take them up in our research practices.
Main Point II. That we take seriously the understanding of research as craft, and both learning and changing identity as aspects of craftsmanship.
Main Point III. How can craft practice be constructed as learning, and learning as craft?
According to the author and several other scholars in research communities, we need to make familiar and recognizable our own everyday possibilities for revolutionary praxis and take them up in our research practices. The focal point is theory and practice of scholars and learning communities. The article seeks to examine some issues and questions for researchers and those concerned with lifelong learning. More specifically, The International Society for Cultural and Activity Research (ISCAR). ISCAR is a scientific association that aims at; developing multidisciplinary theoretical and empirical research on societal, cultural and historical dimensions of human practices. Also promoting mutual scientific communication and research cooperation among its members. The author urges ISCAR participants to reevaluate their research practices. ISCAR members and participants are blessed with the obligation of creating long-term theoretical and empirical research. Early on in the article the author made note of a noticeable shift in the direction that ISCAR research has taken over the last decade.
In evaluation of the article, I found that it was clear that the mission and vision behind the article is to encourage the researcher to form collaborative groups, and take part in political discussions. The author suggested taking part in demonstrations, and recognize struggles for change in our universities and communities more broadly, and to engage in critical analysis in order to change our own research (p.158). I recognized several key points and recurring themes such as research as our craft and craftsmanship. Several scholars referenced in the article discuss their approach to research and how to look, and what to look for. They offered a summary of the historical and political dimensions of our practices as researchers.
The article’s contribution to knowledge and its implications made me reflect on another article by author Mark Smith (2009). Smith referenced earlier work by Jean Lave and Etiene Wenger in communities of practice. In this article the authors discuss the idea that learning involves a deepening process of participation in a community of practice. Lave and Wenger (2009) suggest that organizational growth and development is hinged upon developing communities of practice which places a high value on working with groups.
In my opinion, I highly regard the theory of molding and shaping our research and research efforts by treating these research efforts as our craft and using innovation as our craftsmanship tool, much like the ISCAR participants did. I believe the understanding of research as craft, and both learning and changing identity as aspects of craftsmanshipwill make forrevolutionary praxis in our research practices.
References
Lave, J. (2012). Changing Practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity. Routledge 19 (2), 156-171.
Smith, M. (2003, 2009). The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved June 16th, 2014. www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm