Feldt, J. & Petersen, E. (2020) Inquiry-based learning in the Humanities: Moving from topics to problems using the “Humanities Imagination”.

Short summary of the scope and focus in the article

This article presents Inquiry-based learning (IBL) to socialize university students inside research landscape of Humanities. Here the authors have used C. Wright Mills framework “sociological imagination” within context of Humanities “Humanities Imagination” to systematically include students (both undergraduate and graduate) into systematic inquiry which leads them to do systematic research into interdisciplinary fields of Humanities. Here authors interpret Humanities Imagination as a capacity to reflect on how people situation with their specific emotional states with feelings of powerless could relate to larger historical narratives/social formations and vice versa.

The authors have identified three challenges associated with students taking part into the initial research processes within faculty of Humanities and how these students with support of teachers as interlocutors could support them to avoid these identified challenges and make progress through refined interesting research questions. This socialization of students into the process of early research activities could be accomplished through Humanities Imagination.

Quote a statement that summarizes what the author claims they contribute to the field.

“In many strands within the Humanities… key questions—the relation between culture and individual, between the past and the present, between signs and meanings, between humans and materials, etc. Introducing the idea of the “Humanities imagination” is therefore also about introducing students to the in one way simple and in other ways not so simple idea that their personal troubles or concerns are related to broader cultural issues and issues of sense-making in different times and places. It is about introducing the students to the basic ways in which Humanities scholars open their materials for inquiry, questioning, and problematization. Our ambition here is not uncover “the real” Humanities questions covered under historical layers but instead to suggest a way forward for IBL in the Humanities which at the same time reduces fragmentation and raises the ontological stakes of the Humanities: what is it that gives the Humanities its field-ness, its institutional legitimacy and relevance for the present and future?” (pp. 4-5)

In your own words, compare the results/arguments presented in the article with the authors’ claim(s) you identified in question 1.

This is a theoretical article where authors argues how Humanities imagination can open up Inquiry Based Learning for the students and how these students can systematically be socialized to ask interesting research questions which are interesting from Humanities perspective as well as support students to see what is a good and relevant research questions.

Is the argument that the authors provide solid enough based on the evidence and/or theoretical considerations to convince you of their claim(s)?

The article has drawn from wide variety of theoretical resources around ideas such as Inquiry Based Learning approach vs. problem based learning, Imagination (from social perspective to Humanities perspective), Michael Foucault’s idea of Discourse/Power etc to make case for involving students at Humanities into initial research processes. I read this article with great interest. I am myself researcher in the field of mathematics education which is an interdisciplinary field. Reading this article gave me a taste how to use imaginative capacity to create possibilities for students to become systematic in engaging and producing relevant and worthwhile research both from students and interdisciplinary field such as Humanities. Both authors are located in Denmark and work with Roskilde University. Roskilde University and Aalborg University in Denmark are known for pursuing Inquiry based learning for many years. I am myself product of Aalborg University so for me it was refreshing to read these theoretical reflections around idea of IBL in relation to Humanities Imagination. My only critique is: the authors raise the three issues related to students engagement with Inquiry based learning (at initial research phases), but no adequate specific solution has been provided to these three issues. This does not mean that the authors did not address some aspects of these three issues but in my opinion the systematic discussion on the solutions of these three identified issues is not adequately addressed.

What is missing in the article?

I feel that authors should have presented some empirical data to illustrate better the theoretical considerations that they articulated around socialization of students into research process via Humanities Imagination.

What was most interesting for you?

I like the interpretation of the idea of Sociological Imagination into Humanities Imagination and its relation with development students as potential researchers in humanities where they can sharpen their research investigations while refining their skills of designing worthwhile and relevant research questions which not only raise their motivation to do research but also contribute to the Humanities as a research arena.

How does this article relate to your own teaching?

As being researcher in the field of mathematics education, I am always curious to find out ways to socialize my students into the practice and field of research. In this regard, I consider the idea of Sociological Imagination and Humanities Imagination as exciting to create alternate ways to engage my students into mathematics education research.

What can you learn from it?

I learn to see how idea Inquiry based learning with Humanities Imagination at Roskilde University can be operationalized as a tool to socialize students into initial research processes. Here I see role of the teacher as interlocutors. This role of interlocutors comes very close to our role as researcher at the research institute that we belong.