Research = Work?

So I was listening to Car Talk, the NPR show with the two old mechanics from the Boston area who take phone calls about car trouble.  They were talking to a woman from Palo Alto who was having problems with a noise in her tire.  Eventually, they asked her what she did for a living.  She answered, "I'm a graduate student."  Of course, they asked what she studied, and she responded, "Italian literature." They tried to make that into pleasant "small talk," and something came up about "at least you get to go to Italy."  She said, "Yes, for research," and one of the hosts said, "sounds like a lot of work."

My first thought was, "what the heck are you talking about?"

My second thought was, "you must not be someone who enjoys research."

I was putting myself in her place.  I was thinking about what it feels like, to finally dig into the topic to try to create your own original work, your own take on the issues that stir your field.  To step forward and assume the mantle of the professional scholar, diving into the topic to discover and explain something new.  An intellectual astronaut, as it were.  If you are the kind of person who is lucky enough to have found a field that you can be passionate about, this is a dream come true.  This is akin to meeting your childhood hero and getting his/her autograph and then sitting down for dinner with that person.  It's a chance to drive your dream car, go on a date with your dream girl/boy, sleep in your dream house, and so on.  It's a GOOD thing, not work.  It's a chance to play in the "big show," the audition for the lead on Broadway, and so on.  It's not a bad thing.  It's not work.

There's lots of ways to think about this.  I know that not everyone likes research, and not everyone gets a chance or a reason to conduct research on a topic that they love.  But it's the kind of skill that everyone needs and that everyone wants.  It might be work to do research for something you hate, but hopefully a graduate student is not someone who hates to do research.  Hopefully, it's the opposite.

My point is this: research doesn't have to be work.  It doesn't have to be painful and soul-crushing.

That's not to say that it isn't difficult or sometimes time-consuming or even expensive (like flying to Italy).  But my own research experience was not really work, or not always work.  True, there were a lot of difficult nights with piles of dense, seemingly irrelevant text to wade through.  But there were great moments and the pleasure of discovery.  There were times when I could make sense of things, and I could explain something new.  That's a great feeling.  I feel like I learned something and made something, and that has helped me in ways that are hard to explain sometimes.  Perhaps it's like the kid who can be successful in sports, so he/she feels more confident off the playing field because of success on it.  I don't know if that's adequate.  But research is a chance to make something new, building things from the knowledge and experience of others.  It's important now because of the vast opportunity to conduct research via the Internet and other electronic tools.

This is an ongoing concern, and I don't think I've adequately expressed it here.  I'm going to think about the research process and post again when I'm ready to try to explain it again.

Drive by Daniel Pink

Someone suggested this book to me a few weeks ago, and then someone else - I don't remember who in either case - suggested it as well, so I thought it was officially my job to read it.  So I did.

It's not written for teachers, and there are a number of places where it's obvious that the author (Pink) is not sympathetic to or informed about the interests of educators.  But that doesn't mean that it can't be useful.

It's mostly interested in explaining what motivates people, and the essential insight is that carrot-stick motivation strategies don't work.  Paying people to do good things can sometimes make them not want to do good things anymore.  It can also hurt creativity.  According to the majority of studies, extrinsic rewards can limit and even damage creativity.

I think most teachers already know that extrinsic rewards can be bad for intellectual work.  Any kind of payment sends the message that the work isn't rewarding enough in itself, that it requires some kind of outside motivator to be worth doing.

The most useful part of the book, in my opinion, is the way that it breaks down intrinsic motivation into three essential components - so-called Motivation 3.0 -

1. Autonomy - acting with choice of method and means to achieve desired results.  For this to be effective, people need autonomy over task (what they do), time (when they do it), technique (how they do it), and team (who they work with).  
2. Mastery - seeking skill or fluency, as a result of appropriate challenges (not too difficult, not too easy).  There are three "laws" of mastery - it is a mindset (a way of thinking about being good at something), it is a "pain" (it takes effort and hard work), and it is an asymptote (it is something that people can work toward but never achieve).  
3. Purpose - some sense of an end that is important or worth working toward other than money or extrinsic reward.  

I think that most teachers already knew a lot of this.  I think that some of the thinking and the language around this helped clarify the "why" for me, but I don't think that this stuff is as groundbreaking as it wants to pretend.  The challenge, of course, is implementing these things in a consistent, responsible way in the classroom.  Giving middle school students the chance to choose who they work with can easily go wrong.  But what an incentive, and a powerful tool, if it is done right!  

Now, the goal is to get through some of the material I have on inquiry.