The Need for A Critical Science of Complexity: Response to Troy A. Richardson’s Article, “Indigenous knowledge and the machinist metaphors of the bricoleur researcher” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 2012, 1-22.

This is an informal and incomplete response to an article by Troy Richardson (2012) (Link to Preview.), but I primarily wanted to bring the article to the attention of new and practicing research bricoleurs for the insight he offers. Incorporating the ideas he has presented in his article “Indigenous knowledge and the machinist metaphors of the bricoleur researcher” can help bricolage research move forward by exploring additional avenues for those of us who have been constrained by western, mechanistic metaphors and tend to not expand our research far and wide enough. We too often discredit the very experiences which can contribute most.

His article is important for many reasons. I think we are all struggling in different ways to recover from the many years of FIDURODian indoctrination. For me, it has seemed literally like having lived in a mind prison all of my life and periodically being forced back into it. In brief, FIDUROD is the manifestation of western epistemology that controls knowledge production and influences the construction of our consciousness. The acronym stands for its attributes: Formal, Intractable, Decontextualized, Universal, Reductionistic, and One-Dimensional as described and contextualized in Kincheloe’s (2008) book, Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. (See pages 21-24). Most people can relate to how this happens in education but it permeates the entire western worldview.

Back in 2008, when I was reading this book and was also in the early planning stages for a book Joe had asked me to write about online education, I had emailed him for a some guidance for the book, and I had commented to him, “I am still reading/studying Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction... FIDUROD is distressing all the way around. And I feel like it's in me and I can't get it out (and it is, of course)” (Email, September 21, 2008 11:48 PM).

Joe was no different than the rest of us. While it is true that he was far ahead of most of us in his understanding of consciousness and complexity, he was also working overtime to ease toward what “needs to be” or “what should be” yet attempting to formulate the concepts in ways in which most of us would be able to relate. He often wrote of his struggle to convey his complex concepts in ways people could understand and yet not oversimplify them, and of course, he didn’t want to “dumb them down” as he knew we are all perfectly capable of understanding given a little effort to defeat some of the negative ways our consciousnesses have been formed by FIDUROD.  

He wrote back to me in response to my distress over being programmed and indoctrinated by FIDUROD:  

FIDUROD is in everyone in the West. It is part of our habitus, so we just always have to be mindful of it. don't worry it's in me too.” (email, September 22, 2008, 6:36 am)

He always knew how to choose the exact right words to make his point, and at the same time, alleviate anxieties for other people and help us realize he is just like us.  His choice to use the word “habitus” is worth exploring more deeply using critical hermeneutical and epistemological analyses. Wikipedia’s entry on “habitus,” a concept that can be traced back at least to Aristotle, states the following: 

Habitus refers to lifestyle, the values, the dispositions and expectation of particular social groups that are acquired through the activities and experiences of everyday life. Perhaps in more basic terms, the habitus could be understood as a structure of the mind characterized by a set of acquired schemata, sensibilities, dispositions and taste. The particular contents of the habitus are the result of the objectification of social structure at the level of individual subjectivity. The habitus can be seen as counterpoint to the notions of rationality that are prevalent within other disciplines of social science research. It is perhaps best understood in relation to the notion of the 'habitus' and 'field', which describes the relationship between individual agents and the contextual environment. (Wikipedia, “Habitus”)

I’ve discovered from my own phenomenological experiences that our subjectivities seem to be constructed in layers with the surface (but often still unconscious) layers predominating. I’ve also discovered that once I’ve become conscious of and then released a layer, more layers are revealed and there’s always more work to do. It can be disappointing after working so hard to be free and believing I was making my own decisions, only to end up discovering that, in reality, I had been pushed along like a puppet, and usually at the hands of what I refer to as the “money masters” who are so good at pushing masses of people around for their insatiable need for profit and control. I read between the lines of media hype over such things as an upcoming “teacher shortage,” now that I have the education and am not able to find work, or the work I do find (but won’t accept) is not for teachers at all, but for people who are willing to take money to read scripts. As I got deeper into my research, I also found my consciousness had been constructed by a variety of other “indoctrinations,” and as my dissertation describes, these range from religious, popular culture, mythological, media, education, family, etc…and it becomes a question of “what is real?” and realization of the importance of the answer being “how can we know?” Bricolage always leads to more questions and it’s what keeps the research catapulting forward (and as I describe in the literature review of my dissertation, the word catapult is etymologically related to the word, bricolage). 

As Kincheloe made clear in his work, bricolage, which is as much or more a process of the researching of ourselves and a discovering of our own subjectivities as we engage in dynamic, multidimensional, inter-relational research and teaching, is a lifetime process. Even if we were able to undo all past indoctrination and ideologies, our consciousnesses are continuously being molded by everything around us in ways we are not aware of. And what I have come to realize is that these layers are not restricted to this current lifetime. While I have not covered this topic in great detail in my dissertation, bricolage seems to make us keenly aware of “past” and “future” lifetimes and their influences in this lifetime (and if they are not past and future lifetimes, what do these memories with their intact emotions and relational dynamics represent?). This means bricolage can quickly become extremely multidimensional and intricately complex. And yet we must engage in these processes if we expect to be able to support new bricoleurs (our students, for example) as they develop their own unique processes for learning, research, consciousness construction, reality creation, and knowledge production. This is the very project that, if the world and its peoples are going to survive, needs to be done on a wide scale. 

In this article by Richardson, he has addressed the concern of bricolage continuing to be framed with machine and reductionistic metaphors, a sign that it has not transcended Western FIDURODian influences and also an indication that we, as researchers, are failing to move forward. It’s a crucial concern because as long as we base our research on mechanistic concepts, we are not going to be able to explore the depths and complexities of interrelationships which is so critical to not only creating change and knowledge production, but also to being fully human. As Richardson states, “I continue to be struck by the persistent use of the metaphors of ‘tool,’ ‘handyman,’ ‘tinkerer,’ and ‘toolbox’ in the bricoleur discourse” (p. 1). I had observed that trend throughout the entire duration of my research as I conducted a continuous environmental scan of bricolage research in general. This trend spans across disciplines.  

When I noted Richardson’s concern as I was nearing the end of my project (which had extended from 2008-2013), I consciously attempted to further lift bricolage out of the constraints of the machinist metaphor. I have also incorporated Indigenous knowledges in perhaps different ways than is typically being done by white westerners, and yet it was very genuine, natural and improvisational. This process helped me better understand and also convey the phenomenological experiences that were coming my way “fast and furiously” during the time I engaged in this process (and which still continue today). 

By incorporating Kincheloe’s declared, important “eros” dimension, which also brings Hermes into the picture, and adding music to the mix, the concept “handyman” for example, becomes something quite different than the stereotypical picture that is so often presented. All of these elements of my research evolved naturally during the process and nothing was “contrived.” I was communicating with “someone” whom I actually believed for the longest time was Hermes Trismegistus himself because he was so funny. As it turned out, he insists he is Eros; Hermes is his Father and teacher. As strange as this all seems to the Western mind, this is what actually evolved during the unfolding process of my research and could be considered the “fourth dimension” component. How do we interpret these interactions and relationships with “unseens” in hidden dimensions? These experiences happen to us all to various degrees, but most of the time we are unaware of them or we only notice them on rare occasions. 

As I acknowledged these communications during my research, I was constantly amazed how I was so often serendipitously guided to just the right information, and I lost track of the numbers of times I simply opened up a book to the perfect supporting information at the perfect moment. Even Gadamer (1975/2004) came through for me with a perfect quote and all I had done was open up his book at a particular point while writing the paper and the words I needed about “collective consciousness,” a concept I’ve never felt comfortable with, seemed to have almost jumped off the page. As I have written in my dissertation: 

Gadamer (1975/2004) viewed holding to this view of collective consciousness as “dogmatic” (p. 276). Thus, there are multiple interpretations for the interconnectedness that I have experienced, as will be shown. Each interpretation provides a facet of understanding and there are commonalities among them. Scientists are coming together, concurring that interdisciplinary research will be required in ways that have never happened previously if we are to bring together disparate ideas to gain greater understanding of the complexity of human experience (Mitchell, 2009). (Paradis, 2013, pp. 165-166)

Again, this points to Kincheloe’s conceptualization “critical complexity of science” that provides a means of bringing all of these ideas together in an empirical-phenomenological manner. Thus, as was Kincheloe’s motive behind his multidimensional critical complex bricolage, I also have attempted to situate bricolage further away from the reductionistic metaphors by providing different readings, interpretations, and some new metaphors. As I point out in the study, however, it will be for future bricoleurs to continue to bring to the table additional metaphors and interpretations that can increase our understanding of the complexity of this form of research and how it can be applied in different contexts.

Richardson also emphasizes the importance of narratives, another critically important component and process for the multidimensional critical complex bricolage. Chapter 4, which is the heart of my dissertation, is presented as different forms of narratives. Prior to launching into various narratives is a discussion introducing and justifying their use, the important contribution they make for interpreting qualitative data. They all work together, much as Kincheloe described for his book, The Sign of the Burger, to perform a dance that tells a story. But to “get” the story, the entire bricolage must be read. As the Hermetic axiom informs us, “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” 

Richardson also discusses Kincheloe’s incorporation of the Greek god, Hermes, as a way for “enlivening the imaginative in social interactions” (p. 19). For me, while I realize many people will not relate, those social interactions extend western conceptualizations of place and time. And indeed, as I have discussed and analyzed in my dissertation, Hermes is a critical component of Kincheloe’s very definition of bricoleur that sets his conceptualization apart from the rest. His definition stood out for me the first time I had read it and made me very curious as to what kinds of “tricks” a Master learning from Master Hermes might teach us in his work (I have barely even scratched the surface of Kincheloe’s work). Again, citing my dissertation: 

However, it will be noted here, that with his [Kincheloe’s] version of research bricolage, upon which his own work has undoubtedly been based, he has always included a statement in his definition of bricoleur not seen in other definitions: “Some connotations of the term involve trickery and cunning and remind me of the chicanery of Hermes, in particular his ambiguity concerning the messages of the gods” (2004b, p. 1). Perhaps, there are people who do not heed that clue and are not reading Kincheloe’s work carefully. There may be some surprising messages from the gods before this analysis is over. (Paradis, 2013, p. 19) 

In my dissertation, of course, I analyzed Kincheloe's definition of bricolage. What was so amazing to me throughout my research was how “Hermes” showed up so early in my research and was so hilarious, instructive, informative and fun (I could write an entire book about his “Eager Beaver” antics and “tricks up his sleeves”). This was all new to me, nothing like I had ever experienced in my life previously. And of course, other “gods,” “Masters,” “elementals,” and more from various cosmologies had made their appearances during my research. “The trickster” seems to be pretty much cross-cultural with different names and appearances. (That would be an interesting bricolage study.) None of the experiences that emerged during my research had been planned on my part (consciously, that is); everything naturally evolved during the unfolding process of the research, which is exactly what Kincheloe’s theory predicts. In other words, my experiences during this research process confirm Kincheloe’s theoretical formulation for it. This is actually quite profound. Of course, I read and was influenced by his work; is this why it turned out the way it did? What does this tell us about the power or lack of power that we have as individuals to choose how we wish to construct ourselves? In his Getting Beyond the Facts social studies books, Kincheloe remarks about how easily our consciousnesses can be formed, as I had noted in my dissertation: 

As Kincheloe (2001b) observed, “Although we appear to one another as single, bounded identities, we humans are socially superabsorbent—like humanoid Husky paper towels. This simply means that our consciousness is shaped by that with which we come into contact” (p. 205). This illuminates the importance of the element of criticality. Knowledge is socially constructed and political and that fact is continuously being used to shape our thinking by various entities. (Paradis, 2013, p. 311-312)

Kincheloe put all the information out there, the philosophical, theoretical, as well as a highly developed framework along with some well thought-out guidelines, and while he had applied these in his own work, he had not specified his own personal process for his critical bricolage. He had also put all of these different aspects of his philosophy and theory in multiple works using different epistemologies, so the process I developed for enacting the bricolage, in itself, was formed of bricolage. It seems that Kincheloe was leaving it for scholars (or maybe one particular scholar) to come along and figure it out and apply it—even be a sort of guinea pig--and perhaps his reasoning was that he did not want to provide more direction than what is needed for what is somewhat of an idiosyncratic, evolving process. Perhaps he did not want his experience of still being influenced by FIDUROD to impact what people might create for themselves. I also tried to keep the guidance in my dissertation open and flexible so that bricoleurs have enough information to get started, but not so much that they would be hindered from developing their own unique process. 

What I had discovered during my research about Kincheloe’s work is that it required doing a multidimensional critical complex bricolage to bring it all together. Thus, it seems, after pulling all of the pieces together, that Joe Kincheloe and Gerald Vizenor (a researcher I have not read yet, but plan to soon), have both similarities and differences in their conceptualizations. It would be interesting and informative to compare and analyze these. In the research I’ve done so far, I found it quite amazing how similar various cosmologies can be. At the same time, the differences between them provide for a greater view of reality and the depth and thickness of description that qualitative researchers seek. As Richardson notes, “both [Kincheloe and Vizenor] outline a form of trickster hermeneutics as the employment of a narrative intellectual tradition to imaginatively re-evaluate the conventional constraints of community” (p. 19).  

While Kincheloe’s goal is to refine social sciences as Richardson expresses, in application it goes further by also employing bricolage in a similar vein as Vizenor, by my interpretation—by applying it “antagonistically to the social sciences, through trickster hermeneutic engagement with Indigenous narrative and intellectual traditions to end dead voices” (p. 10). And this is the way my own, idiosyncratic and novice application of Kincheloe’s bricolage process had evolved during my research. It was how I had interpreted Kincheloe’s work for application. For example, his use of complex forms of sophistic argument which force the reader to think, have an element of this as does his peppered-in very funny comments in places not expected. His critical symbiotic hermeneutics, which I analyzed in my dissertation, provides an interesting theoretical framework for bricolage, I discovered, and while I had used it as a point of entry text (POET) and saved it to analyze after researching and formulating an understanding of Kincheloe’s conceptualization of bricolage, I found that, in reality, it had served as a POET all along, somewhat unconsciously (Berry, 2004; Paradis, 2013). Thus, the excerpt [pages 63-67 of Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (2004)] had influenced my research and my interpretation of the excerpt also became influenced by my research and what emerged during the process. Another way of viewing this is that my consciousness had been influenced by that special excerpt about symbiotic hermeneutics Kincheloe had given me just before he passed away, thus, my findings in the study seemed to have been framed by it and then “proved” it to be true after examining many different perspectives in my dissertation. What does this tell us about reality and our construction of it? Whatever it tells us, it does not explain the unexplainable phenomena which were very real, such as the "magic red roses" and the multitude of other experiences that occurred during my research. We need more.  

The more perspectives we can incorporate to view the world, the richer our experiences, and the greater power we have to be fully human. We can be freer to express our multidimensional selves, a concept Kincheloe emphasized in his last book and for which more research is needed vis-á-vis his conceptualization of a critical science of complexity. These are concepts that are not yet socially accepted by western-dominated mindsets, not even in so-called “spiritual” communities. We have a lot of work to do. What can we create? We don’t know until we do it. What do we want to create? For myself, I prefer choosing a path that is built on a strong foundation of love and justice, as Kincheloe has done with his theoretical formulation of bricolage and upon which his notion of a critical science of complexity is also based. His conceptualization of an empirical phenomenological approach to bricolage, in my experience, can help us gain greater understandings of ourselves in relationship to both the seen and unseen dimensions of reality. Using this approach helps us develop our own individualized maps, our own unique processes based on rigorous scholarship, which in the final analysis, can give us the knowledge to create change in the world that addresses social injustices and the imbalance of power. 

Richardson’s article opens up many additional avenues for exploration and highlights the need for westerners to expand their view of research and knowledge. Westerners should not be speaking of simplistically “bringing in” indigenous and subjugated voices into the realm of education and research—because speaking in those terms sounds elitist, racist, exclusionary, and FIDURODian—we need to fully know, experience, and feel that we are all involved in this critical project of remaking the world together. 

References

Berry, K. L. (2004a). Structures of bricolage and complexity. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry (2004) Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. 103–127). New York: Open University Press.

Gadamer, H. G. (1975/2006). Truth and method. Second revised edition by J. Weinsheimer and D. Marshall. New York: Continuum

Kincheloe, J. L. (2001b). Getting beyond the facts: Teaching social studies/social sciences in the twenty-first century. NY: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004a). Preface. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. ix–xii). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004b). Introduction: the power of the bricolage: Expanding research methods. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. 1–22). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J.L. (2004c). Redefining rigor and complexity in research. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. 23–49). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J.L. (2004d). Questions of disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity in a changing world. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. 50–81). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004e). Redefining and interpreting the object of study. In J. Kincheloe & K. Berry, Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research: Conceptualizing the Bricolage (pp. 82–102). New York: Open University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005a). On to the next level: Continuing the conceptualization of the bricolage. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(3), 323–350..

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005b). Critical constructivism. New York: Peter Lang. 

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: And Introduction. Amsterdam: Springer.

Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.

Paradis, V. J. (2013). Did Joe Lyons Kincheloe Discover the Golden Chalice for Knowledge Production? The Application of Critical Complex Epistemology and the Multidimensional Critical Complex Bricolage. (Doctoral Dissertation)

Richardson, Troy A. (2012). Indigenous knowledge and the machinist metaphors of the bricoleur researcher. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1-22. Link to Preview.