Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mitch's Memorandum #10 on Gage
| Memorandum on | Mitch Bleier U ED 70300 |
| Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10. |
In this 1989 article, N. L. Gage takes the perspective of a writer looking back from 2009 on a possible history of twenty years of educational research resulting from what he refers to as the height of the “Paradigm Wars” of the 1980s. He reviews the conditions from which the paradigm wars emerged—a time of dissatisfaction of critics with what they perceived of as the failed attempts to lay a scientific foundation for understanding and improving teaching practices. Thus the climate of educational research in the 1960s and 1970s was rejected as positivistic and authoritarian.
Gage lays out the positions of three groups of critics: the Antinaturalist critique; the Interpretivist critique; and the Critical Theorists’ critique. He then proceeds to imagine three possible futures resulting from these critiques.
In one scenario, all three groups of critics prevailed in the 1990s and 2000s and “interpretive-qualitative studies and critical-theoretical analyses” almost completely supplanted the dominant objectivist-quantitative research of the decades before. Research was democratized, teachers were empowered, and disenfranchised groups found their voices. Education in particular and society in general became more equitable.
A second scenario sees the reconciliation of paradigms. “[R]esearchers realized that there was no necessary antagonism between objectivists, [antinaturalists,] interpretivists, and critical theorists” (p. 7). The various approaches all were used to enact educational research that complemented each other’s strengths and ameliorated each other’s shortcomings. Objectivistic-quantitative, interpretivistic-qualitative and critical-theoretical methods were employed side-by-side and sometimes in mixed-methodological combination as necessary to achieve educational, social-justice and democratic goals.
In a third version of the future, Gage envisions the continuation of the intransigence and counter-productivity of the paradigm wars throughout the next two decades.
Gage closes with a plea for the educational researchers of 1989 to abandon factionalism in favor of collaboration and the sincere, appropriate application of the full range of approaches to research in order to improve education and make possible better lives for the children whose education we are researching and shaping.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Mitch's Memorandum #9 on Pitt and Britzman
| Memorandum on… | Submitted by: Mitch Bleier |
| Pitt, A. and Britzman, D. (2006). Speculations on qualities of difficult knowledge in teaching and learning. In K. Tobin and J. Kincheloe, (eds.) Doing educational research – A handbook (379 – 401). | U ED 70300 |
Pitt and Britzman explore the questions, what makes knowledge difficult? and what is it to represent and narrate “difficult knowledge”? They use “difficult knowledge” to describe “a concept meant to signify both representations of social traumas (both large and small-scale) in curriculum and the individual’s encounters with them in pedagogy” (p. 379).
The inability or failure to address traumas as they occur (deferred action) mediates both how those traumas eventually are written/rewritten in memory and how they are used to deal with current traumas with which they resonate. Pitt and Britzman refer to Caruth’s term “unclaimed experience” to describe the unanalyzed, uninterpreted, unincorporated, unresolved trauma. (p. 381 – 382)
“The crisis of representation” refers to “the adequacy of language to capture experience is considered an effect of discourse rather than a reflection of that experience” (p. 380). What would Rorty say about this?
Crisis of representation around traumas leave traces in narratives about “difficult knowledge.” (p. 380)
“…psychoanalytic inquiry begins with the problem of resistance to discourse, and,…‘must take into account the fact that the human subject is a theorizing being and a being that theorizes itself.’… Psychoanalytic research posits education as an exemplary site where the crisis of representation that is outside meets the crisis of representation that is inside” – a phenomenon that Freud called “the playground of transference.” (p. 380)
Deferred action
Traumas are not dealt with in the moment. They form the basis for interpretation of current experience. Traumas are dealt with later and they are reconstructed and redefined.
Transference
“…one makes sense of present situations through the imperatives of older conflicts” (p. 383)
“Where does one situate the event that is experience, in the past that is narrated or in the presence of its interpretation? For Freud, both positions of time are embodied in the transference” (p. 383).
Symbolization
After a description of a psychoanalyst and a boy (having difficulty in school) reversing roles in the creation of a strict classroom situation: “If transference is an obstacle to representing learning in the present, symbolization allows one to return the obstacles to the archaic conflicts they represent” (p. 385).
“…in symbolization the idea and the affect influence one another” (p. 385).
PARTICIPANTS’ CONSTRUCTIONS OF DIFFICULTY MADE FROM THE PROTOCOL (p. 387 – 393)
- It is interesting that the first two respondents, the undergraduates, acknowledge the power, if not always the legitimacy, of knowledge, and the consequences they might suffer if access to knowledge is given to or withheld from them.
- But they don’t consider rationalization, justification, obfuscation as possibilities.
- Nor do they recognize knowledge as dynamic and situated. They don’t talk about constructing or creating knowledge, they talk about obtaining and distributing knowledge.
- The other interviewees have a more introspective approach to knowledge and how their inner selves interpret and use prior experience to mediate current experiences.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Mitch's Memorandum # 8 on Sandoval
I am posting my second critique as my Memorandum # 8. Stay tuned for more.
| Review of… | Submitted by: |
| Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on their learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656. | U ED 70300 Prof. K. Tobin |
William Sandoval (2005) reviews research to-date on how exposure to inquiry-based instructional strategies is related to students’ practical epistemologies (their ideas about their own science knowledge) and their ideas about formal epistemologies (ideas about the science done by professional scientists). He provides a rationale for and encourages research in reconciling students’ practical epistemologies and their conceptions of formal epistemologies and the relationship between both of these and the use of inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning in science classrooms.
Sandoval identifies two camps among researchers in the area of student’s scientific epistemologies: one arguing that students’ epistemological beliefs can be directly investigated and modified by direct instruction; the other arguing that practice by students is the only, or at least the primary means, by which they can develop epistemological beliefs for themselves. Sandoval chooses a middle ground, arguing that learners’ practical epistemologies can be studied as both practice and expressed beliefs in an effort to study and help students to bridge their own scientific knowledge production with formal epistemologies of professional scientists.
Sandoval defines four distinct, but interrelated epistemological themes which he then systematically uses to explore first students’ formal epistemological beliefs, then how inquiry practice mediates students’ practical and formal epistemologies. These themes are:
· Scientific Knowledge is Constructed
“Probably the most important epistemological notion for students to understand is that scientific knowledge is constructed by people, not simply discovered out in the world. Indeed, science may be best characterized as the effort to explain observations of the natural world” (p. 639).
· A Diversity of Scientific Methods is employed by scientists
There is not “any one method [that] necessarily can be considered scientific. Rather, scientific fields appear to rely on standards for evaluating methods and the knowledge they produce according to criteria related to systematicity, care, fit with existing knowledge, and so forth” (p. 640)
What is taught in school as the Scientific Method is, in fact, a set of practices frequently employed (in a non-linear fashion) during the course of scientific investigation and experimentation. “[C]ontrolled experimentation [what most students think of as science] is certainly a an important means of generating scientific knowledge, but entire disciplines rely on other methods because controlled experimentation is infeasible, including astronomy, ethology, [and] paleontology…Of course, these fields are considered science” (p. 640).
· There is a variety of Forms of Scientific Knowledge
Sandoval argues that “students should understand that there are different forms of scientific knowledge, varying in their explanatory or predictive power and in their relation to the observable world” (p. 640). He observes that, curiously, “[u]nderstanding forms of scientific knowledge seems to be a blind spot in standards documents and expert opinions that instead focus on scientific methods.” He cites research that indicates that students have unclear ideas of the nature of and distinctions between laws, theories, hypotheses, models, explanations, predictions, and arguments. (p. 640)
· Scientific Knowledge Varies in Certainty
“[A] sophisticated epistemological viewpoint acknowledges that scientific knowledge is tentative.” Sandoval advocates a refinement to the principal of tentativeness, in part in response to the perception it allows in students of an implication of “an inescapable relativism: since scientific knowledge is not known to be absolutely true, then there is no particular reason to believe it.” He points out (citing J. Osborne, et al., 2003) that “some claims are more tentative than others. For all practical purposes, the force of gravity is not a tentative idea; whereas string theory is quite tentative.” The importance of this refinement of the tentativeness assertion is that “the removal of absolute certainty decenters authority with respect to knowledge, from teachers toward students.” Scientific knowledge is recognized as depending on underlying philosophical axioms and subject to change as a result of new ideas and information—it reflects “the cultural, historical development of scientific theories.” (p. 641)
Sandoval asserts that the ample body of research on inquiry largely neglects epistemological issues. He asserts that inquiry-based instruction without explicit reflection and discussion about epistemological issues does not result in higher levels of epistemological awareness among students. However, he cites a small number of studies that provide some evidence that (a) consistent long-term inquiry-based instruction yielded more sophisticated practical and formal epistemological ideas among students, and (b) learning via inquiry-based instruction is more effective in students who hold more constructivist beliefs about the nature of science. Sandoval contends that the uniqueness of these studies, especially the promising work of Smith, et al. in 2000, where students consistently engaged in inquiry-based science learning with the same teacher for six years, demand support from additional research in order for us to better understand how inquiry learning mediates students’ epistemological development.
Sandoval has a point of view that he makes explicit. He believes that, contrary to the results of a number of studies, that an inquiry approach to the learning and teaching of science does impact both students’ practical epistemologies and their view of formal epistemologies. He identifies areas in the research done to date (including his own research) that do not fully address the issues and lead to what he believes to be erroneous, or at least incomplete conclusions. He offers some directions for future research that will support the employment of inquiry-guided approaches and modifications to those approaches.
In what appears to be a thorough review of research in this area, Sandoval presents what he feels has and has not been satisfactorily addressed. He does not accept or reject particular findings, but analyzes how well they illuminate the issues with which he is concerned. This includes highlighting weaknesses in his own previous work as he counsels caution in accepting even research that supports his agenda until more work has been done.
Sandoval offers that his framework is not complete and likely not the only or even the best way to explore these issues. Throughout this paper, he makes this explicit and he provides rationales for decisions about what to include and what not to include in this analysis.
I am certain that there are other fruitful methods…than I have outlined here, and also that efforts to make this connection between practical and formal epistemologies will enrich our understanding of epistemological development not just in science, but more broadly. (p. 652)
Sandoval ends his review with the proposal of a six-point research agenda for “documenting practical epistemologies and tracing their links to formal epistemologies” (p. 649). Here he is not mapping the course for his own research alone, but encouraging other researchers to add their voices to this exploration in order to produce a useful body understanding in this area. An annotated list of the six aspects of his proposed research program follows.
Study Authentic Science Practice
Science learning and teaching should be inquiry-based. Typical science instruction has been well-studied and additional studies are unlikely to lead to a better understanding of students’ practical epistemological beliefs and their relation to formal epistemologies. Therefore, for the purpose of the proposed epistemological studies, students should be engaged in the construction of scientific knowledge through the use of scientific methods.
Examine Students’ Practical Epistemological Ideas
Investigate students’ perceptions of their own authentic science practice using both artifacts of that practice and the discourse in which students engage during that practice. Sandoval also advises researchers to develop interview protocols that will cause students to reflect on and explicate their epistemological reasoning grounded in their actual work. He also suggests the use of prompted recall interviews with students as they watch videotapes of their own inquiry.
Explore Relationships Between Classroom Discourse and Individual Epistemologies
Monitoring and documenting explicit discussion of epistemological ideas and beliefs directly associated with students’ doing of science may help us understand how forms of discursive practice reveal and develop students’ epistemologies. Sandoval points out that this type of analysis may be difficult and time-consuming, but may, as in the few studies of this nature cited, provide valuable insights not available through other means and provide compelling evidence that might provide solid arguments for changes in classroom practice.
Compare Practical and Formal Epistemologies
Currently used instruments for the determination of students’ formal epistemologies generally are abstract and the student responses they elicit are usually not very informative. Sandoval argues that students’ responses to interrogation about their own practices must be more reflective and more epistemologically relevant. He expresses the hope that pursuit of this type of research will result in the development of better instruments for these purposes and help us to better understand the relationship between students’ science learning experiences and their epistemological beliefs.
Examine Practical and Formal Epistemologies Across Disciplines
Some of the cited research indicates that epistemological conceptions are domain dependent, both across broad fields such as science, mathematics and history, but also among the various scientific disciplines. Sandoval stresses the importance of pursuing research across disciplines even as he acknowledges the difficulties in doing this kind of work as it will require collaboration of researchers from different disciplines that is rarely realized in educational research.
Study Epistemologies Developmentally
Sandoval writes that longitudinal studies are necessary to examine the development of epistemological ideas across age/grade levels. This requires the development of appropriate instruments and is hampered by the difficulty of identifying and developing comparable inquiry experiences that span the age/grade levels to be studied. He advocates the initiation of this work in the hope that findings will guide the further development of research in this area.
Sandoval’s approach is polyphonic (he includes sometimes conflicting results of diverse research in his analysis), polysemic (he ponders various meanings or interpretations of data and findings) and multilogical (he explores the strengths and weaknesses of his own research and acknowledges the value of specific alternative approaches as well as other approaches in general). This is true more of his approach to education than to the doing of science. His goal is that students understand and reconcile their practical epistemologies with the formal epistemologies of professional scientists, not to challenge the work of the scientists or the scientific knowledge itself. This is not to say that Sandoval holds a strictly positivistic, authoritarian view of science. He explicity rejects this as he discusses the tentativeness, contingency and historicity of scientific knowledge and scientific epistemologies. But, his interest in this paper, is to advocate the building of educators’ capacities for designing instructional strategies/learning opportunities that employ inquiry-based approaches to support students’ epistemological development.
Sandoval’s paper seeks to combine and trans-inform what he identifies as two major thrusts in the study of epistemology in science education that have previously remained somewhat separate: using students’ science inquiry practice to understand their epistemological development; and developing methods to help students connect their practical epistemologies with the formal epistemologies of professional scientists. Sandoval provides the rationale for his recommendations in his conclusion by stating his assumption that “sophisticated epistemologies are critical to full democratic participation in the 21st century, as science increasingly pervades aspects of daily life and public policy” (p. 652).
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Judy's Memoranda # 1-10
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #1
Development and Evaluation of a Group Test of Integrated Processes
Kenneth G. Tobin and William Capie
The abstract of the article states, “Since the items measure performance on objectives that can be readily translated into classroom activity, the test has direct applicability to classroom based research, and evaluation of instruction." Such a statement takes for granted the range of differences inherent as one moves from school to school, classroom to classroom, and teacher to teacher. The suggested generalizability or applicability of its findings needs to be balanced by a sober understanding of the fact that true replication is not something that can be guaranteed when considered within the context of the variable nature of human interaction.
The Test of Integrated Science Processes (TISP) was developed based on twelve predetermined objectives that were considered the objectives one must employ when planning and conducting an investigation. The designers (Tobin and Capie) chose to specify objectives hierarchically so as to display the progression in intellectual skill sets. The 24 questions that they chose for the TISP were based on the twelve objectives.
What this design does not address is the possibility that some students employ the use of objectives other than the twelve that they predetermined. The constrictive nature of the instrument does not allow room for discovery. Further, it fails to take into account that the rationale of individuals might not proceed in the hierarchical fashion that Fig. 1 suggests.
The study involved two sample groups. While the middle school sample was heterogeneous, the college sample was not (109 female college students). This further limits the generalizability of the results.
Finally, the TISP results determined that “students with higher levels of formal reasoning ability tended to achieve at a higher level on the TISP” but does not go the important step further and offer insight into what contributed to their varying degrees of formal reasoning ability.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #2
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism
D.C. Phillips
In this piece, Phillips argues that there are too many schools of thought that all exist under the umbrella term of constructivist. He stresses that there are three main axes along which different scholars, theorists, and authors agree or disagree. The first axis has at one extreme a focus on the cognitive development of the individual learner. The other end focuses entirely on the development of “public” subject matter domains. While some scholars are clearly at one pole or the other, some occupy a point somewhere between these two extremes.
The second axis along which some constructivist thinkers are scattered is the most significant to Phillips because to be at one end, “nature the instructor”, would deem one a minimal constructivist, if a constructivist at all. In this view, nature is “imposing” knowledge on the learner. The other end of this axis is more closely associated with radical constructivists. At this end, “humans the creators”, knowledge is only what one comes to know through experience. Knowledge is constructed, not transferred.
The third axis considers that learning is the result of activity. One end addresses the activity of the individual. The other focuses on social/political factors and the effect that such factors may have on activity and thus knowledge production.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #3
Questions and Answers about Radical Constructivism
Ernst von Glasersfeld
Summary: Though there may be a reality with a capital “R” and a truth with a capital “T”, one cannot assume that he or she knows what that is. Constructivism questions what knowledge is and where it comes from, which makes it an exercise in epistemology. It does not deny the existence of an outside world. However, it purports that the only world anyone can know is the world of his own experience. This connects to the philosophical (Socratic) notion of dokei moi or “as it appears to me” (Arendt, 1990, p. 434). This suggests that everyone comes to know the world through his or her own experience or sense of it. Therefore there is truth in everyone’s opinion, because interpretations are based on personal interaction with the world. Even abstractions are derived from the initial sensory-motor experience.
Viability versus truth: We have developed ways of knowing that support our daily existence. However, this does not suggest we know anything more about the workings of the “real world” or realitat. We have merely developed ways of knowing that best fit with our reality, a reality that has been created by our actions. This is viability not truth. Constructivism is concerned with the viability of only those things which are within the experiential field. This connects to the point raised in the Tobin article on difference and rising up in educational research. The quest should not be for generalizability but for replication, understanding that the exact experience or factors can never be recreated and that different subjects will experience events differently. If S resulted in R, then S’ (something similar to S) should hopefully result in R’ (an outcome similar to R).
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #4
On Meditation
(Cultural Historical Activity Theory)
Wolff-Michael Roth and Mike Cole
In On Mediation, Roth and Cole explicate the ways in which tools can mediate between actions and goals. They offer a brief history of activity theory/cultural historical activity theory. They discuss the Hegelian view that practical activity is the mediator between the subject and the object. Activity is the “…middle term, an intermediary, that is, an instrument, agency, method, or tool employed to realize a motive or goal” (Roth & Lee, p.7). In this view the mediator overcomes or transcends the subject and the object, which exist in a dialectical relationship.
Vygotsky takes a developmental approach to sign use and sign production. Signs do not function as signs automatically. A sign gains significance as a representation for something else through some developmental/social process. Alexei N. Leont’ ev, a student of Vygotsky’s, expressed a difference between activity (conscious motives), action (conscious goals that realize motives), and operation (directly depend on the conditions for attaining concrete goals).
A key point of On Mediation is the distinction between immediate/unmediated relationships versus mediated relationships. Immediate/unmediated relationships do not imply the absence of a tool or sign. On the contrary the sign has disappeared out of the conscious use of the subject. This disappearance is considered optimal functionality, where the tool and the subject become one in completing an activity. In this instance, one moves from engaging in an activity to engaging in an operation. The individual is freed from having to think about the handling or application of the tool and focus entirely on the goal of the activity for which the tool or sign is being used.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #5
On Hermeneutics: Over and Above Our Wanting and Doing
David Jardine
On Hermeneutics: Over and Above Our Wanting and Doing is Jardine’s attempt to demonstrate the applicability of hermeneutics as a research method in the field of education. He suggests that one chooses research methodologies that are in concert with one’s views on how knowledge and understanding are constructed. In short, one’s ontological view presupposes his/her methodological stance.
Hermeneutics is a methodology (?) that allows things (actions, occurrences, thoughts) to present themselves to us. It is “the experience of being drawn out of our subjectivity and into a teeming world of relations that live ‘beyond our wanting and doing’” (Jardine, 2006, p.271). The questions present themselves to us. The challenge is for us to be in a position to perceive that which is presenting itself and to believe that it is a valid aspect of the human experience rather than an aberration or an error.
Hermeneutics has at its core an interest in bringing to light occurrences and ideas that were at one time concealed. By virtue of the fact that it is concerned with how experience can pave the path to receptiveness of new, varied, and even contradictory experiences, hermeneutic studies do not result in amassed bodies of knowledge. This would be contradictory to the essence of hermeneutics in that it would seem to establish a “Right” and a “Truth”. As Jardine states, “Amassed verified knowledge makes us less and less interested in what the new case might have to say. We become, not ‘experienced’ but ‘experts’ whose cynicism and condescension increases as that mass increases…As experts we become less and less susceptible to the difference that the new case might bring” (Jardine, 2006, p. 286).
Judy Touzin
Logic of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #6
Generalizing from Qualitative Inquiry
Margaret Eisenhart
Eisenhart is staunchly opposed to claims that generalizations based on qualitative inquiry are not appropriate. She argues that there are indeed effective ways to make generalizations from qualitative inquiry and that doing so is quite crucial to the advancement of educational research.
According to Eisenhart, there are several different types of generalizations that can be made. Probabilistic or statistical generalizations are “general claims made about a population from a sample, based on statistical probabilities” (p.3). Eisenhart argues that many opponents of generalizations from qualitative inquiry seem to limit generalizations to this very quantitative definition. She then discusses nomological generalization, a view of generalization held by Yvonne Lincoln and Ego Guba. These types of generalizations are atemporal and decontextualized. To Lincoln and Guba no such thing exists. Instead they advocate transferability of findings based on the degree or similarity between the ‘sending’ and ‘receiving’ contexts. This notion of transferability, according to Eisenhart, is a form of generalization.
Of key significance are theoretical generalizations. From this perspective findings are seen as generalizable not to a larger population but to the theoretical discourse that the particular study is grounded in. Theoretical generalizations help to distill, rebut, or confirm current theoretical arguments. Eisenhart provides several examples of studies where the actual findings or observed occurrences may not be generalizable. Nevertheless, the theoretical understandings that help to explain the occurrences may be generalizable.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #7
Building Enacted Science Curricula on the Capital of Learners
Kenneth Tobin
This article examines how culturally responsive teaching can mediate the learning that occurs in a classroom setting. Specifically, it analyzes the exchanges between tenth grade students and their science teacher during a five week chemistry unit of study. The teacher “…was raised in a working class home and experienced life in ways that were similar to most of her students” (Tobin, 200?, p. 8).
One of the key points of the article was the notion that culture is enacted and that the boundaries between one’s various cultures are weak. For example, though street or home enactments may be different from school enactments, the thinness of the boundaries may allow home enactments to manifest in the field of school and vice versa. However, capital can only be transferred in this way if the environment is conducive to such transference. In many instances, the home culture (capital) of learners is devalued or considered inappropriate for school. In schools where this is the case, students are often subject to frequent shutdowns.
In this study, the teacher Ms. Horton sought to create a space where the home culture of her students was valued and used as the platform on which to build more knowledge, in this case understandings of chemistry.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #8
The Impossible Dream?
How Can the Research Community Collaborate to Advance the Arts as General Education?
AERA Symposium,
One of the many sessions held at the AERA 2008 conference this past week was a panel discussion that addressed the ways that arts research(ers) can advance the cause of the arts as an integral part of any education program. The panel was composed of renowned researchers and education consultants such as Howard Gardner, Deborah Meier, Carmen Farina, and arts philosopher Maxine Greene.
As the discussion unfolded, two rather vocal participants, which I will refer to as speaker A and speaker B demonstrated an axiological point of tension. Speaker A argued that it was not enough to do research for research’s sake. She contended that it was the moral obligation of the researcher to advance the field and advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves. To conclude, she stated that she longed for the day when academics would stand up to those who threaten the sustainability of arts programs in schools and say “No, we will not stand by and watch you do this!” Speaker B immediately responded, warning that it was dangerous to be confused about “which hats we wear”. He clearly articulated that he wore the hat of the researcher and that he did not desire or intend to don the hat of the activist. In fact, though much of his research has been taken up in the educational field, he argues he did not have education in mind when he engaged in the studies.
Until more researchers view advocacy as a function of their role as researcher, it will be difficult for studies in any field to assist those within the field that stand to benefit from the findings but are unable to advocate for themselves.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #9
Ethics and Politics: The Twin Failures of Positivist Science
Guba & Lincoln
In this chapter of Fourth generation Evaluation, Guba and Lincoln argue that “…various ethical and political issues (that) arise from different paradigm allegiances” (p.118). They assert that positivism as an approach or paradigm has certain fundamental flaws that a constructivist approach to inquiry can work to alleviate. Further, they state that no paradigm is free from problems and address several of the flaws of constructivism.
One of the main flaws of positivism is the notion that research can be objective and without values. From a constructivist viewpoint a researcher is her values; it is virtually impossible to separate the two. At best, a researcher can work to be conscious of her positionality in the world and how that has worked to shape and inform her perspective. Doing so will help her to be on guard concerning how she is framing research questions and analyzing data.
Another major concern is the vagueness of the regulations established to ensure the ethical nature of research studies. Words like “harm”, “deception”, and “privacy” fail to be adequately defined, leaving ample room for less than ethical practices to be carried out. Further, science is a political act. Positivistic approaches, with the focus on one truth, one answer, lead to findings that are monophonic and therefore monosemic. This results in the maintenance and reifying of the status quo. Perspectives that fall outside of the ‘norm’ are conceived as error.
Though constructivism inherently works to address the above issues, it presents its own set of difficulties. Maintaining confidentiality, trust issues, and the need to openly negotiate to derive shared meaning are some examples.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #10
Participatory Activist Research (TEAMS)/ Action Research
Gregory Martin, lisahunter, and Peter McLaren
Action research is an axiological method or methodology that works in concert with the notion of doing justice for the participants that often do not benefit from research that employs other methods. PAR(T)/AR is based on thoughtful action, or praxis as the foundation for constructed knowledge. Groups come together to address real problems or concerns. PAR(T)/AR is not neutral. On the contrary it has a very deliberate agenda: it hopes to increase human agency and promote social change. It is “…socially enabled by a commitment to shared participation in problem identification, problem solving processes, and social change” (Martin et al, 2006, p. 177).
Historically speaking, the term action research has had different interpretations, from the Jewish social psychologist Kurt Lewin who viewed action research as a means to diminish prejudices and strengthen interactions between individuals across groups to the outwardly political stance in regards to action research taken up by those of the
Methodologically speaking, action research is cyclical in nature. The keys stages of the cycle are plan, act, observe, and reflect. Imbedded within these stages are critical questions such as, “who’s plan?”, “who will observe what is happening?”, and “who will interpret the data?”
There are limitations to PAR(T)/AR. One must work to ensure that he or she is not imposing his view on the participants. This would be a pseudo-liberatory practice. Further, the researchers must work to stay grounded in the work of addressing the initial question even though new questions may arise.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Mitch's Memo #7 on Steinberg
Here is my latest memorandum. I've used chapter 5 from "Doing Educational Research" as we will be discussing it this coming Wednesday. I hope you find it useful. My questions are included at the end. I haven't read chapters 4 or 7 yet, but will be beginning them tonight...I mean this morning. See you in a few days.
Mitch
| Memorandum on | Submitted by: Mitch Bleier U ED 70300 Prof. K. Tobin Spring 2008 |
| Steinberg, S. R. (2006). Critical cultural studies research. In K. Tobin & J. Kincheloe (Eds.), Doing educational research--A handbook (117-137). |
Shirley Steinberg (2006) identifies information in the “cyber/mediated jungle” of twenty-first century electronic media, not as it is often seen—as a new democracy born of access for all, but as a source of “new forms of disinformation, and new modes of hegemony and ideology” that are forged to “benefit the purveyors of power” (p. 117). Her response, and the focus of this chapter, is the proposal of a form of critical cultural studies exploring cultural pedagogy. She uses for examples her research on film as she describes “bricolage in action” in educational research.
Steinberg indicates that the bricoleur, recognizing the limited utility of traditional monosemic scientific research, attempts to widen her perspectives through “methodological diversity” of the bricolage. Even this multiple-perspective approach, she cautions, leads not to certainty, universality and Truth, but to incomplete, tentative understandings that are situated both in place and in time.
Steinberg describes her use of a number of types of critical research including critical ethnography, content analysis, literary reception research, application of feminist theory and critical hermeneutics. She makes it clear that, contrary to criticism of qualitative research of popular culture as “vacuous and without rigor” (p. 123), her “poststructuralist, feminist pedagogical research not only meets the requirements of serious academic scholarship, but enables her to raise and address questions that more accepted methodologies miss completely.
Questions:
- How does the bricoleur become adequately adept at all of the research methods she seeks to employ in her research?
- Can/should a team of specialists successfully use bricolage?
- Are there methods/methodologies specifically associated with bricolage?
- Are there methods/methodologies specifically excluded from bricolage?