When I first started this course, I had no idea what “ways of knowing” meant. I remember driving to class and thinking that the professor would probably ask us how we were sure that we really know what we know. That is not what happened. We were asked how we come to know. At the time, I did not recognize the difference. I thought that I came to know facts, impressions, connections and norms through what my father told me, what the priests and nuns told me, what I read, what my teachers drilled into my head and what I could deduce from what I already knew. I also knew a few things through experience, most notably because of crazy experiments which my brother and I used to conduct. 

        Now, several months later, I do not yet feel that I am enlightened, but I certainly now have both an understanding that there are different ways of knowing as well as a much broader appreciation for what ways of knowing are. I must admit, though, that the distinctions between some ways of knowing are not clear enough for me to really distinguish them. On the other hand, I now realize that I have been using the word empirical incorrectly for more years than I care to ponder. But, I do not think that it is terribly important at this stage for me to have expertise in all ways of knowing. Just being aware that there are so many, and the frightening thought that there are probably more, yet unnamed, ways, is an eye-opener itself.

          Being of scientific ilk, I immediately found considerable common sense and comfort in the logic of Descartes. I realized that much of his nit-picking precision was absolutely necessary for the integrity of his method. Although he was somewhat pompous (assuming that his attitude was properly conveyed in translation), long-winded and, yes, at times, even boring, I found most of his logic impeccable. After all, any knowledge which is based on fallacious facts is questionable. That folly can be avoided by employing Descartes’ method. I admire Descartes' methodical approach of building upon only proven facts, not interpretations, personal feelings, or assumptions. Emotionless, provable facts are the goal. 

         The complex phenomenon of culture seems to impose constraints on how mind works and even upon the kinds of problems we are able to solve. It is not that my thinking is being held back, it simply was not exposed to situations outside of my culture of learning at the time.  We cannot fully understand human action unless you both consider the meaning making of the people who are involved in it as well as knowing its situatedness. I recognize that my ways of knowing are a function of my situation and I have concluded that I have many ways of knowing, as I imagine most people do. And, writing this paper has been an emotional roller coaster ride. While I have such fond memories of a loving and supportive father, I have such ugly memories of mistreatment, perhaps educational abuse, at the hands of teachers who thought that girls were of lesser value than boys.

          However, my happy beginning of my doctoral studies, for this is certainly no ending, is that I have learned a great deal from studying varying ways of knowing and can see that I employ several of them. I also will be a more broadly minded researcher, not viewing subjects through the restrictive lenses of my own experiences and views. Much like those silly descriptions of people’s personalities by astrological signs in which they ALL conform to just about everyone’s self-description, I think I can find examples of just about every way of knowing in my arsenal. 

          My first way of knowing is faith. I do not need any proof for God's existence. I know He exists. No amount of scientific proof, if that was possible, would ever sway me from the knowledge of His existence. Descartes' proof of God's existence was interesting but not a touchstone. I know God exists; I just know it. And, that is all there is to that. Anything else requires some analysis.

          As much as I admire the structure and soundness of Descartes’ method, it is not practical for everyday life. Attorneys use a sort of Cartesian logic when trying to establish that their client could not have committed a crime or that there is no proof that the client is the only possible perpetrator. Step-by-step, they will try to show that something other than the client’s guilt is possible. Prosecutors, of course, try to show that step-by-step logic can lead the jury to only one reasonable conclusion. Descartes would not be a fan of either preponderance of the evidence or reasonable doubt. Neither one is irrefutable. A video tape of the incident would be more to his liking. Most daily situations, however, do not require such logical rigor. However, I do use the methods of scientific method when appropriate for the situation. I would like to think of myself as a consistently structured, logical thinker. But that is not true. Sometimes you just have to go with your best information, your best guess, your palette of experiences and your hopes.

          I also utilize narrative inquiry, even though I never heard the term before this class. I use it not only to learn myself but also in my teaching. I find it to be an effective technique for garnering student participation. Narratives get the students’ attention and they are able to formulate insightful questions. They also recall the lesson with much more ease. 

          If nothing else, I have learned to be reflective and no so reactive. Pondering the reasons, not just the outcomes, has been a revelation for me, simple though it may seem. It is not as though this idea has escaped me all my life. But, my awareness of it, employment of it and appreciation of it, have all been heightened. This is because I see the usefulness of reflection. Although I am usually seeking that one correct answer, I have come to grasp the ideas the competing ideas, differing ways of knowing and opposing perspectives can actually coexist. And, these ideas, ways of knowing and perspectives can all belong to one person, me.