JO NATURALISTIC INQUIRY

Mary Lee Smith (1981, p. 585) comments:

For an inquiry to qualify as disciplined, it must be conducted and reported so that
its logical argument can be carefully examined; it does not depend on surface
plausibility or the eloquence, status, or authority of its author; error is avoided;
evidential test and verification are .valued; the dispassionate search for truth is
valued over ideology. Every piece of research or evaluation, whether naturalistic,
experimental, survey, or historical must meet these standards to be considered
There is no reason to believe that naturalistic inquiry cannot meet the
requirements set down by either Cronbach and Suppes or Smith; in-deed, we
shall argue in Chapter 11, in which we deal with trust-worthiness issues, that
naturalistic inquiry may-meet the twin criteria of inspectable and verifiable
proce.yiand'product'better than do con-- ventional inquiries. It is also useful to
note that there are many precedents for doing the kind of research that we are
here labeling "naturalistic." Louis M. Smith, in a 1979 review of the status of
participant observation, educational ethnography, and other case studies, is able
to list a total of 146 references: 27 "general studies" (4 of non-Western cultures,
5 of modern communities, 10 of formal organizations, and 8 of in-formal groups);
65 "observational studies of educational systems" (7 of school and community, 5
of school systems and "interorganiza-tional" educational systems, 16 of schools,
12 of classrooms, 20 of curricula and program evaluation, and 5 of teaching
careers and stu-dent teaching); 34 "methodological statements on participant
field studies" (15 papers and chapters, 9 monographs and books, and 10
collections); and 20 "methodological statements on participant ob-servation" (12
papers and chapters, 3 monographs and books, and 5 collections). The total of
146 is remarkable indeed for such a recent addition to the methodological
armamentarium, particularly one whose legitimacy is held by sonic to be in such
grave doubtl The evidence that exists at those various levels is persuasive, but
far and away the most compelling approach to the question of the naturalistic
paradigm's legitimacy is conceptual. In fact, the paradigm is resonant with
vanguard thinking in almost every formal discipline that exists; if one is
interested in inquiry that is ongoing at the forefront of disciplines, the naturalistic
paradigm is the paradigm of choice, the paradigm that provides the best fit to
virtually all phenomena. To see that this is so, we shall first make a lengthy
digression to learn something about the "new paradigm of thought and belief"
that is
The Genuine ArltctrT .11
emerging in multiple disciplines, and then undertake the question of the extent
to which this new paradigm provides substantive support for the naturalistic
inquiry paradigm.
THE "NEW PARADIGM" OF SCHWARTZ AND OGILVY
Peter Schwartz and James Ogilvy, two scholars with SRI Inter-national, have
provided in their monograph The Emergent Paradigm: Changing Patterns of
Thought and Belief (1979) a most remarkable analysis of the concepts that are
currently emerging in a variety of disciplines and disciplinelike areas including
physics, chemistry, brain theory, ecology, evolution, mathematics, philosophy,
politics, psychology, linguistics, religion, consciousness, and the ails.' From this
analysis Schwartz_and__Ogilvy have abstracted seven major characteristics of
the"nesy paradigirrthat are virtually diametrically opposed to those of
theVdinInant paradigm," The reader should note that the paradigms being
addressed here are not inquiry paradigms, but paradigms characterizing
disciplinary world views. The seven characteristics are summarized in Table 2.1.
It is impossible in a short space to do justice to the richness of the Schwartz and
Ogilvy develop-ment. Nevertheless, at least a rudimentary understanding of the
terms of Table 2.1 is essential to the case to be made shortly: that this "new
paradigm" substantially supports the naturalistic paradigm as an in-quiry
approach. (I) Alovement from simple to complex realities, Schwartz and Ogilvy
(1979; henceforth S&O) point out that diversity and interactivity are
characteristics of reality that are becoming more and more apparent. It is no
longer sufficient to abstract out for intense study one or a few elements
(variables?) while holding everything else "constant." To coin a phrase, most
ceteris are not paribus; most other things are not equal. Variation is the order of
all contexts. Thus, S&O assert, it is "in prin-ciple impossible to separate a thing
from its interactive environment" (p. 10). Furthermore, it is no longer possible to
view systems as mere-ly the sums of their parts; as systems become more and
more com-plex, they "develop unique properties" that cannot be accounted for
or predicted from the properties of parts. (2) Movement from hierarchic to
heterarchic concepts of order. Older paradigms were based on the principle of
hierarchy; there was an inherent order in nature, whether it was the political
"divine right of kings," the primacy of male over female, or the chemical table of
elements. "God's in his heaven and all's right with the world," as_ Voltaire put it.
But recent discoveries have led emergent thinkers to