| |
|
|
Carolin
Theuring
Why
a guide for beginners?
The idea
for this beginners guide came to my mind during a meeting in Munich,
Germany, initiated and sponsored by Roger Russell, Ulla Schläfke
and Prof. Klaus Schneider in July 2003, where two university professors,
Beatrix Vereijken from Norway and Klaus Schneider from Germany, sat
down with something like 40 Feldenkrais practitioners to collect
ideas for research projects in connection with the Feldenkrais method.
So we were discussing and working and everybody was very motivated,
but at one point we got suddenly stuck. In this situation it occurred
to me that full-time researchers don’t know how the ordinary
(Feldenkrais) person thinks and the ordinary (Feldenkrais) person
has no idea of the thinking of a scientist. To create a little bit
more understanding for the Feldenkrais people in this project I pulled
out all my notes and books from my research method classes and tried
to give a little introduction to them, to facilitate the dialogue
with the scientific world we are facing.
Now with the IFF Academy Research Journal we again move a little bit forward
on this road with collecting and presenting a lot of thoughts and studys about
the Feldenkrais Method. It seems to be the right place for this beginners guide
to science again, to introduce to basic concepts lying behind the studys.
SCIENCE – RESEARCH
- EXPERIMENT- LABORATORIUM these terms usually evoke two
completely opposite responses in a gathering of Feldenkrais practitioners:
one part turns rather red from rage that someone dares to spoil
the Feldenkrais method with measurements, whereas the other part
turns rather busy and excited by the thought of studys and experiments
and finally a proof that the method really really works.
The folks in between, that stay quiet, are either the habitual
sleepers of the group, or really don’t care as long as the health insurances start
to pay for Feldenkrais sessions NOW, or they are scientists that already entered
the field and took a glimpse on the sort of questions lying ahead of us. I
will leave open if they are quiet from delight or from frustration, that’s
the question of half empty or half full and up to the individuals’ character.
This little
guide attempts to introduce basic lines of contemporary research
and is written for someone who has never had any contact with research
projects. To keep it short and simple reduces the matter and I leave
it to the readers responsibility to imagine that everything is far
more complex (as always).
Why
research in the first place?
Science
has its own rules and principles, and above all its own terminology
with which it is defining itself like every other professional field
elsewhere.
These standards may on first sight contradict many of our Feldenkraisian views
and thus cause our dislike. However the endeavour to make the Feldenkrais Method
measurable does not imply at all that we have to water it down or change our
standards, but it does mean that we try to start a dialogue with the leading
institutions in society, because like it or not:
Scientific
presentation in our society is the basis for being taken seriously
by all kinds of institutions, by media, by physicians and politicians,
health insurance companies, scientists etc.
Research
is done in a lot of fields, e.g. in social sciences like
psychology, sociology and pedagogy, in humanities like
philosophy or history and in natural sciences like
physics, biology or chemistry.There are different research methods
which, according to the field of research and the question at hand,
are being applied: quantitative methods count and
measure more, qualitative methods describe more.
Both of them strive for increasing knowledge and both of them are
relevant for research projects with the Feldenkrais method although
they are grounded on a very different base.
Research can be roughly divided into basic research and applied research according
to the field of investigation and the question at hand.
Basic
research, for instance, takes place in a laboratory that
examines how a muscle cell is structured, how memory is organized,
or how the biomechanics of a throwing movement can be described
in mathematical terms.
Applied research is concerned with questions
that rather have a concrete influence on everyday life, e.g.
how a medicine affects certain reactions in a cell; how an engine
can save energy; or how athletes can learn to optimize their
sprint style.
Basic research as well as applied research is important and necessary to gain
knowledge about the world we live in, they go hand in hand.
Research
is always also influenced by the zeitgeist and may
be slowed down by it, or the opposite, propelled forward. Just remember
how long it took to convince the scholars that earth is not flat...but
on the other hand look at the incredible fast progress in deciphering
the DNA.
Moshe Feldenkrais, with his fascinating ability to think complex and to connect
everything, was ahead of his time, and still today science is behind some of
his trains of thought (and many scientists behind his abilities). Some of his
assumptions though have been proven to be incorrect, or have been even taken
further. (look also Schleip, 2000).
In the
following I will introduce quantitative and qualitative research
concepts in more detail.
Quantitative research methods
Quantitative
research methods claim to measure the subject as exactly as possible – this
includes every possible means of measurement: time, weight, size,
distance, amount, standardized questionnaires, etc. depending
on the question – and the data are analyzed with statistical
procedures.
Researchers come up with hypotheses (“hypothesis” comes
from Greek “assumption”) and test their validity through
different sorts of investigation, e.g. they design experiments, use questionnaires,
stay in a lab, go to a natural environment, etc. depending on their hypothesis
and the research that has been done on it before.
Quantitative research is also called empirical research (“empirical” comes
from Greek “based on experience”). The way how hypotheses
for an empirical study are formulated follows rules and is crucially different
from how our everyday experience is expressed in daily life.
The following
table shows you the central differences:
| Everydays
experience |
Empirical
research |
1.
The way of turning observations in hypotheses
|
| Examples
for non-scientific hypotheses: |
Criteria
for scientific hypotheses: |
-“There
are”-sentences (e.g. “There are Feldenkrais lessons
that take away back pain.”)
-“ Can”-sentences (e.g. “With the Feldenkrais method
you can make an ordinary golf player a champion”)
- Assumptions about objects, characteristics, events, that can neither
be experienced directly, nor figured indirectly. (e.g. “The Feldenkrais
method makes people happy.”) – These statements aren’t
necessarily wrong, but they are unscientific because they can neither be
verified nor valsified! |
-General
applicability: the statement has to have validity beyond the
singular incident. It aims to the possibility of generalization
and to show regularities within.
- Expression of a conditional sentence: “If…”-sentences
(e.g. “If a mother breast feeds her baby at least 6 months, the child
will have less risk for allergies.”), or “The… the…”-sentences
(e.g. “The longer someone participates in Feldenkrais lessons, the
lower he costs for his health insurance.”)
- Potential possibility for valsification: there have to be events thinkable
that contradict the conditional sentence. (e.g. -there are obviously children
with allergies who were breastfed.) |
2.
How precise is the terminology used?
|
Colloquial
information, e.g. “Feldenkrais lessons help people relax.
Therefore their back pain dissappears.
-> lack of precision! |
Agreement
on the meaning of a selected terminology/vocabulary
- Finding operational definitions for crucial terms:With operational
definitions you describe exactly what you mean by using a specific
term. Moshe Feldenkrais
denied the term “relaxation” because it is used for all sorts
of different conditions and not used in a way that allows to specify one
condition. |
3.
How is experience collected and documented?
|
| Unsystematic
to no - or only fragmentary documentation |
-
Systematic documentation.Attempt to “objectify”-
The circumstances under which results emerge have to be described
in detail, so that they can be repeated by anybody else under
the same conditions.
- Research methods help to standardize the experimental procedures
- Complete documentation with comprehensibility down to the detail. Simply
said: everybody everywhere has to be able to understand what you did to
get to the results and everybody anywhere should be able to get to the
same results as you did, if he follows your conditions. |
4.
On what basis do you decide to accept or refuse your hypothesis?
|
| Subjective
probabilities which are based on your own experiences, or indirect
ones gained through other sources. |
-
Use of procedures of statistical reasoning. Intricate attempts
to come from random tests to whole populations.
- Protection against errors through risk calculation (conditional error
probability) |
5.
How do you judge the validity of assertions?
|
-
Proceeding from intuition
- Your view of life
- Your singular experience
- Anecdotical knowledge |
-
Great scepticism towards generalizing singular experiences
- Demand for results that can be unmistakably interpreted and generalized
- Comprehensive verification |
6.
How do you deal with theories?
|
| Formation
of “naïve theories”, often uncritical, little
willingness for falsification |
Quality
management:Permanent process of verification and criticism. The
future of a theory depends on consensus of the scientific community.
Results are published in scientific journals and underly strict
and anonymus review. Furthermore there is an active discourse
with colleagues on congresses.( with of course also the disadvantage
of slowing down “revolutions” because new ideas have
to be fought through and presented to a very critical community;
see “the earth is a disc…”) |
The validity
and soundness of results of experiments is pinned down on further
factors that include internal and external validity:
Internal
validity (= logical, correct and valid in itself)
An
examination is internally valid when its results can be interpreted
unambiguously. Changes in the dependant variables‘ (e.g. the
athlete that wants to run faster) have to be clearly attributed to
the influence of the ‘independent variables‘ (e.g. a special
training program for runners).
External
validity (=valid beyond time and people)
External
validity is assumed when the results drawn from a study can be generalized
to other times, persons and situations.
Qualitative
research methods
Qualitative
research methods are mostly used in social research (sociology, pedagogy,
or psychology). Its foremost claim is not to gain objective results
with repeatable measurements, but rather to examine complex social
situations or phenoma with techniques and methods which allow and report
expressively the participants‘ individuality. Often the researcher
goes directly into the field of research, and there is no artificial
laboratory situation, yet distinct research methods and techniques
do exist, which have been agreed upon to ascertain certain scientific
standards.
These
include e.g.:
- Single
case studies
- Qualitative interviews
- Group situations
- Content analysis
- Participating observation
- Qualitative experiments
- Biographical methods
The Feldenkrais
world has already seen the release of papers which make use of qualitative
research methods, “The Case Nora” of M. Feldenkrais himself
is the best example. Also many other case studies have been published
since, e.g. assistant trainer Robbie Ofir wrote two case studies
for his PhD in which he desrcribes in detail the rehabilitation with
the Feldenkrais Method of two young women both severly brain damaged
after car accidents. (Ofir, Feldenkrais Ressources)
Qualitative
research methods are seen often as less serious tools of the 'soft’ sciences
like social sciences or humanities. Nevertheless, they have great
legitimacy and provide an important contribution to research because
they look into the real conditions, not controllable laboratory conditions
which are usually not found in life, and because they can often give
impulses as to where detailed studies and measurements could be done.
Their aim is to develop hypotheses in a relatively unexplored field
and they serve the making of theoretical as well as conceptual prerequisites
to be able to put into words first hypotheses in an uncharted territory.
What does all that mean for a Feldenkrais practitioner
with interest in doing little research projects?
It
means that any question, however small, is important and interesting
at that point. In order to go into an actual research process it only
matters:
- that everything is documented exactly so that it can be understood by outsiders,
or after some time has gone by;
- that, if you want to work empirical, data are being taken with calibrated
instruments (e.g. standardized tape measure, stop watch), which does not necessarily
mean high tech (wrapping paper and ink will do for a foot print as much as
a computer controlled gait mat!);
- that the questions are reduced. You can explain the creation of the universe
with a single examination no more than the Feldenkrais Method (... not sure
which one is going to be more difficult anyways...);
- that the terms with which you work are defined exactly. What
do I mean if I talk about 'relaxation'? How do I define that
someone has less pain after
- as compared to before (e.g. with a standardized questionnaire)? What do I
mean when somebody after a lesson performs their golf swings more successfully – the
score? Better ability to aim? the amplitude of the swing? etc. (=operationalisation);
- don’t worry about statistics! There are computer programs for that,
like SPSS, and experts so that you don’t have to fight through the numbers
alone;
- that you stay in an exchange with colleagues to clarify the terminology,
to find a common language and to collect new ideas. Maybe some experiments
are not yet ready and talking about it will help overcome difficulties
..................................................................
This
Beginner’s guide to Science was originally put together by
Carolin Theuring in German for the participants of the first Feldenkrais & Science
meeting in Munich, July 2003. This meeting was initiated and sponsored
by the Feldenkrais Zentrum Heidelberg and hosted by Prof. Klaus
Schneider at the military University in Neubiberg.
Many
thanks to my friend and Feldenkrais practitioner Kai Schaper for
translation of the first original draft and to Dr. Barbara Pieper,
assistant Feldenkrais trainer and IFF board member for giving useful
input on the content.
Many thanks also to Roger Russell and Ulla Schläfke for
their restless work to bring scientists and Feldenkrais people
at one table together.
Please don’t hesitate to send any comments and suggestions
or corrections to: c.theuring@email.de
Literature
(Sorry, it’s mainly German books, but ask the next college
student nearby and you will find out about it in your language.)
Bortz,
J. u. Lienert, G.A. (1998). Kurzgefasste Statistik für die klinische
Forschung. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Feldenkrais,
M. (1977). The Case of Nora. New York: Harper&Row.
Lamnek,
S. (1995). Qualitative Sozialforschung, Bd. 1/2. Weinheim: Beltz,
PVU.
Ofir,
R. (xxxx).Motor learning using the Feldenkrais Method in physical
rehabilitation with traumatic brain injury. Feldenkrais Ressources
Teacher’s Catalogue, p. T12.
Schleip,
R. (2000). Lichtblicke im Dschungel der Gehirnforschung. Von Body
and Mature Behaviour’ (1949) bis zur Gegenwart. FeldenkraisZEIT
Journal für somatisches Lernen 1: 47-56.
<< back
|