Chapters 3 and 4 contain the root of this text. In Chapter 3 we learn about Paul's focus on the multiplicity of reserach orientations and, in Chapter 4 descriptions of nine of them are provided. Please use this week's blog to comment on and/or raise questions about any of the nine perspectives (paradigms) or about Pauls' explanation/justification for worrying about so many paradigms.
Amber...
ReplyDeleteReading Chapters 3 and 4 was time well invested. Not having had a philosophy of education class, I needed an explanation of each philosophical perspective and benefitted from the more plain spoken descriptions read with my online dictionary open. (Am I alone in this?) In comparing the nine perspectives, I appreciated the chart. It’s dog-eared already. With the exception of poststructuralism (which I did not understand—please help me if you get it), I found something to appreciate in each perspective. Without the discussion prompt, but wanting to finish this up before the long weekend, here are a few of my thoughts about the reading. (Hope that’s okay.)
• Postpositivism seems to be a wiser, humbler approach to the search for knowledge and truth than positivism. While we won’t get truth right every time, the idea that we can give it a try (and that the effort is worthwhile) accepting the “fallible nature of our knowledge claims” (p. 54) appeals to me.
• I’ve thought of myself as a pragmatist for years. I am practical to my very core and like to do what works. I was fascinated by and agree with the statement on p. 57, “Complications arise, however, when we recognize that both false and true ideas have ‘effects’.” How should we respond to false ideas that have desired effects or true ideas resulting in undesirable effects? Surely there are some of both in my head.
• An effort to make meaning of our physical reality seems only logical. Don’t we all do this? Does this make us all constructivists?
• I like the messiness of the interpretive and narrative perspective, perhaps because I appreciate and find useful storytelling, narratives, and a wide variety of writing genres.
• As for ABER, I’d love to write a novel as my dissertation, but do not have the skill or gumption.
• I first read the narrative on p. 75 in the race, ethnicity and gender section assuming the writer was male. Ironic.
• Now I’m curious. I want to go back to my family studies background and investigate how/if family systems theory has been used in education research. As a teacher prep person, the ideas of systems theory may be helpful to me. I’ll have to review it.
Oops. I just refreshed the page and saw the prompt after pasting in my response. I think it works though. Have a great weekend everyone.
DeleteAmber
I was initially intimidated by the heft of Chapter 4, especially after feeling somewhat burned by Chapter 2. (Just a note to Lynda Stone, in response to both her Chapter 2 and her contribution to Chapter 4: Since the point of this book is ostensibly to clarify and explain philosophical perspectives, it would be really excellent if you might attempt to simplify rather than complicate the concepts.) However, I found Chapter 4 and the chart--mine, like Amber's, is dog-eared--to be incredibly useful and interesting. I've heard many of these terms bandied about, by my sister, who is a self-identified Feminist Christian therapist (a moniker that likely looks less strange on a business card if you're on the West Coast rather than in Virginia), and in literature classes. I'd never thought of the possibility of applying them to educational research, and I am quite drawn to the idea. What has struck me repeatedly as I've read the Paul text is how much positivism and post-positivism seem to shape and guide the research that we study and are expected, ultimately, to do.
ReplyDeleteThe questions that I would like to explore are about where the VCU SOE falls on the research spectrum. Is it unusually (or typically) postpositivist? Am I wrong in seeing it as very postpositivist (or even positivist)? Are most schools of education similar? Are some more radical in orientation? And, finally, is it even correct for me to identify postpositivism as a "conservative" approach to research?
Not unrelated to these questions is an observation/ personal reaction to the chart and the delineation of the research approaches into nine perspectives. From my own (limited, unfortunately) experience, it feels like postpositivism dominates, and those other eight paradigms are all significantly smaller. Yet Paul allows them to carry equal weight, which intrigues me.
--Micol
I need to start by agreeing with Amber about the need of a dictionary for almost every paragraph in this book. While reading it I have ben feeling my "English as a Second Language status attacking me" as never before. After reading Amber and Micol I decided maybe I need to be more humble and start accepting that I did not understand half of what I was reading and stop blaming my ESL....
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to read about the nine perspectives, while understanding that there are many more out there, and at the same time feel, like Micol, that Postpositivism is the one that we are supposed to be using using in our educational research. Maybe not, again, humbly I accept I may be very lost here, but I feel that the way we are educated is almost as if Postpositivism is the main truth for research and all the other ones are branches that wander from it.
My question is, when we read research articles, can we clearly identify where in the spectrum they are? Should it be part of researching and publishing to clearly explain which perspective are you taking? Do we have to choose just one perspective?
I found very interesting the statement "Inquiry is inherently biased and not value neutral" (p.47), from the dog-eared chart, as part of the values approach in the race, ethnicity, and gender perspective. I voiced that opinion last week in class, before reading this chapter, about research questions starting with some kind of bias. I feel certain that this approach comes from my personal experience growing with realities, knowledge, religion and questions in one culture and after 28 years having to completely discover and adjust to a whole new set of realities, knowledge and questions. I know my approach to research results is very skeptical because I do believe is based on all the characters involved, researcher, participants, analysts, etc. interests, values and backgrounds. In this way, I can find value and truth in specific sets of data and results; however, I find very risky and sometimes boastful to make generalizations. I welcome the idea that truth changes and that the change is part of our evolution.
Humbly......Patricia
I agree with Patricia that there must be a spectrum, a graphic organizer, a conceptual model to organize the different perspectives, but when I attempted to draw up a nice little graphic organizer I am seeing connections to Dewey everywhere. If educational philosophy were an iPhone, then Dewey would be the equivalent to an App. Instead of saying, “there is an App for that, “ I am beginning to think we could say, “there is a Dewey for that.”
ReplyDeleteAbsurd hyperbole? I doubt it. Even the groups that want to distance themselves from Dewey like the post positivists define themselves by clarifying their position around pragmatic terms like warranted assertion.
More to the point, most of the perspectives seem to be linked to a book written by Dewey at some point. (a) Text-Arts Based Educational research.... Dewey (1938) Art as Experience, (b) The ethical perspective which describes a strong link to democratic policy makers and the moral call to define and protect the “oppressed groups” found in critical theory, or the feminist, ethnic, or ethnic perspectives seem to be tied to …..... Dewey Education and Democracy, and (c) the construtivist, interperetive, and the Post structuaralist ties to language and/or history all seem to tie to Dewey's Education and Experience . Here is my question, is there a philosophy listed in the Paul text that is not ancestrally linked to the Dewey pragmatic perspective? Could we not play the educational philosophy equivelent of the Kevin Bacon Game with John Dewey?
Alternatively, I might see Dewey everywhere because my professional experiences as a teacher have been rooted firmly in Pragmatism. This perspective dominants my viewpoint, and when I read Mikol's post about VCU and Post Positivism I thought, "That is odd. I thought VCU was a Pragmatic school." How different are the community based programs like the Rehabilitation Research and training center from the lab schools established by Dewey? Perhaps I am seeing relationships with pragmatism that don't really exist.
My biggest question is where does behaviorism fit?
Andy
Chapter three was an interesting read for me. Not having much of a philosophy background, I found reading about these perspectives a tad rough. I am glad to hear I was not the only one who felt a bit challenged.
ReplyDeleteAs Paul set up the nine perspectives, I initially tried to figure out with which one I would most likely identify. Prior to reading, I would have definitely considered myself a pragmatist, as I am more practically minded than anything else. After reading this chapter though, I ended up more confused than when I started. Pragmatism, like I predicted, made sense to me but some of the other perspectives were slightly cloudier. Like others have mentioned, the overview table was very helpful in sorting out the nuances of the different perspectives. While some of the perspectives seemed to be concise, others seemed a bit out there. I was surprised that interpretivism and ABER were considered separate perspectives and not linked more towards some of the other perspectives.
As I was reading these 2 chapters, I felt myself wondering how these perspectives fit into research I have previously read. Even though I have read quite a few studies in the last few months, I don’t recall ever thinking about which perspective the study embraced. This curiosity prompted me to look forward in the Paul book. While I haven’t actually read the remaining chapters, I am intrigued to see how these different perspectives interpret the findings in the articles in subsequent chapters. I am wondering if the studies are conducted from these perspectives or if findings are just interpreted through these lenses. I am guessing probably a little of both.
Also, as I was reading these chapters, I wondered if people subscribe to more than one perspective. Some of the perspectives seemed to have overlap. Are people who follow these perspectives “purist” or are the perspectives not mutually exclusive? Do most researchers subscribe to one of these camps?
Christina
I have to admit right away… I am a Skinner lover at heart. Behaviorism plays an integral part in my daily work as a speech pathologist in an autism school so it was difficult for me to particularly identify with these chapters, but I am evolving. (Insert smiley face here). Like others, it was easier to comprehend the text with a dictionary and some google searches to clarify certain points.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it seems I am jumping on the Pragmatic Bandwagon. What stood out for me in Perspective 2 was the “commitment to continued inquiry”, a quote attributed to Charles Peirce. This may seem cheesy, but coming from a family of movie quoters, it made me think of a scene from Men in Black where Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are sitting on a bench discussing the pros and cons of joining the ranks of the exclusive and elite MIB:
“Fifteen hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.”
You have to give Tommy a little bit of credit there, am I right? Maybe he is a pragmatist… Or maybe he was just reading his script.
Regardless, I found additional value in care theory, “we are directed to look at particular consequences – whether the recipients of our care are hurt or helped and how caring relations are affected.” It brought me back to one of my first classes in graduate school, lumped in with all the other wide-eyed therapist-ey types out there, when our professor walked in and flashed these words on the screen: Reduce Suffering. What followed was a brief but unforgettable lecture about how every therapist, physical, occupational, speech, whatever… wants to work miracles. We want to help that person walk again or talk again who has been told they will never regain that function. In most cases, that “miracle” will not be possible. However, he continued, if you become a clinician who can reduce suffering, you will be successful.
This seems to parallel with the foundation of care theory, perpetually concerned with how caring relations are affected. In my mind, I have to think that this is why many of us are in the educational field in the first place. We are perpetually concerned with caring relations and reducing suffering, by studying and cultivating consequences that evolve into better results for our recipients, or our students.
-Jenelle
What "i" find inescapable in all of these theories is the centrality of 'us' in knowledge and in the 'knowing' of things. This is a wonderful class for me as it forces me to address a wide range of theories and perspectives. I do agree that if we, educational researchers, want to be considered a serious science then the huge range of theoretical biases hurt us. Purely theoretical abstracts have a place but in the philosophy of the science, not the science itself. I think about the three arms of behaviorism. There is the philosophy of behaviorism (commonly referred to as 'behaviorism' which serves as the battleground for purely theoretical ideas about the 'science of behavior' but then there is the 'experimental analysis of behavior' which confines itself to building on the 'accepted' principles of behavior and expanding our knowledge of the science of behavior. Finally there is the 'applied behavior analysts' who are concerned with taking the experimental knowledge base and 'applying' it to real world settings. Frankly, it is not surprising that education research is so poorly regarded, with little internal consensus and a nation in academic freefall, their legitimacy questioned at every turn and their main defense being, "Well, if people just did what the research shows then we'd be fine" and by research they mean scholarship that, in their mind, unequivocally demonstrates the inherent gender bias in any word that starts with "m" or ends in "y" as it's been proven that the 'y' chromosome is responsible for everything from the 5-speed transmission to first person shooter games.
ReplyDeleteBut I digress. I have started my PhD novel that will harmonize all of the perspectives of educational research into a 'unified theory' that I'm going to call 'pragmatic gendicular ethicalism'.
Adam
Admittedly I have had very little experience with philosophies of research so I found Paul’s Chapter 4 informative and highly thought-provoking. As I read through the nine perspectives on educational research I kept thinking, “well, that sounds qualitative. So does that. And that.” Like Micol, I too am intrigued that Paul provides equal space for description and defense of each method. Reading through each perspective, I felt there was much de-emphasis of quantitative approaches. I found this surprising given the emphasis on the importance of quantitative “hard data” that seems to abound in education today. So what previously has seemed cut-and-dry to me in terms of categorizing research in education (is it quantitative or qualitative?) now has many (or at least 9 so far), not all mutually-exclusive, intellectual permutations.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how important it is for us an emerging researchers to find and hold tight to a particular approach, or is it okay to feel you are a medley of many? How important is it that I find a philosophical identity? Or by feeling that way am I necessarily making a stance in favor of a particular approach? If I think too hard about all of this my mind gets a little boggled, but at the same time I found parts of each approach rang true for my own beliefs about educational research at this early stage in my educational research career. What is the “truth” of my “knowledge” on this topic? Well, I plan to engage in meaning-making activities (constructivism), continually question my thinking (some fallibilism of my knowledge claims a la postpositivism), test out my knowledge to see what effects result (pragmatism), recognize that my knowledge is colored by my own personal perspective and any attempt I make to describe will be impacted by me as the describer (interpretive and narrative), and so my truth will necessarily evolve (and I’ve come full circle).
I need to check out some ABER in action to get a better grip on how this presents as an educational research approach and as such what my reaction would be. This seems quite “out there” but I’m very intrigued and would like to hear professors’ takes on this perspective (perhaps I can imagine some comments already…). Has anyone had any experience in this arena?
Serra
I am also still chewing on the idea of "ABER." I can understand the meaningful nature of "ABE" but cannot quite wrap my head around the "R" unless the "ABE" is an intervention and the "R" is analysis of the response - which would make the research, by definition *Postpositivist!* Still, I struggle...
DeleteFor the purpose of this entry I ended up looking at Perspective 1 & 2.
ReplyDeletePerspective 1: As I began this section, I couldn’t help but to go back to our previous readings and discussions about the rigor in educational research. This especially applied after reading the question of: “What is involved in being a scientist?” (p. 51). It seems as though this question is continually being asked in all of our readings, and I couldn’t help but to continue to wonder about the credibility of education researchers, especially after the author used the word “aspire” (p. 51) to describe the work of educational researchers reaching the level of that of researchers in the natural sciences. As I read on, I was reminded of last week’s readings and the idea of Popper to look at research as the “elimination of error” (p. 52). I couldn’t help but wonder if this could be one of the reasons for the extent of criticism of educational research. Is it more likely that one would be able to “eliminate error” in the natural sciences that in educational or other social science research? It seems as though in many cases in educational research it would be almost impossible to eliminate all error, especially considering the fact that much of educational research is done in contextual settings. In a field where context does matter, and it’s nearly impossible to eliminate error, how does one account for this? Does being a scientist involve the opportunity to eliminate all error?
Perspective 2: Although I first thought that my response for this week would solely focus on Perspective 1, I did want to take a moment to note the section on pragmatism, and the emphasis on effects and consequences on knowledge (p. 57). The author focuses some time on pragmatic questions that need to be asked, and mentions specifically that the questions that are focusing on ethical issues seem to only skim the surface of what should actually be asked in these investigations (p. 59). The author notes that these questions focus on the prediction of these ethical questions, not investigating whether the moral consequences are acceptable or not. So, my question really pertains to whether or not researchers would all be able to agree to the same definitions of what is ethically acceptable? It seems as though researchers may be able to subscribe to a theory of ethical relativism in order to justify what may be a questionable ethical question. I couldn’t help but to wonder if this were part of the reason that the ethical questions focused on the ability to predict these issues, rather than to address their ethical acceptability.
Erika
Mandy~
ReplyDeleteMy experience with philosophy of educational research is limited, but as I read Chapter 4 I began to recognize a few of the authors and their work. Noddings’ section explaining pragmatism was one of the best-written sections, as was Lincoln’s. I was surprised to learn that Lincoln has played such a role in advancing constructivism since my initial introduction to her work was by way of qualitative evaluation (further readings have clarified this for me). However, after finishing Chapter 4 I was still left with some questions.
How often do researchers actually identify and utilize a philosophical perspective to guide their research, and then include it in the write-up of their study? It is rare to read a journal article which, say, identifies an interpretive perspective explicitly and explains how this perspective was used to inform the research. Do you think these discussions are often missing in educational research? Do you think they are more prevalent in qualitative research than quantitative? Many of these perspectives seem to lend themselves to qualitative research (interpretive, arts-based, constructivism, etc.), and could possibly be discussed more directly in inquiry such as grounded-theory research.
I was also intrigued by Howe’s explanation of alignment between methodology and democracy in Chapter 4. He explains that the technocratic conception of the relationship between methodology and democracy has been severely criticized by a variety of camps. The idea that researchers can be both morally and politically neutral is the crux of this criticism. But isn’t that the overall point of traditional quantitative, “hard” research? Doesn’t the funding go to “hard” inquiry with randomization and neutral, objective researchers? Howe then goes on to explain that in the deliberative perspective, one solution to the technocratic conception, educational researchers cannot be morally and politically neutral, and I would agree. Whether the research is quantitative or qualitative, a well-structured study should include an investigation (through the literature or other means) into the factors that influence the participants’ context and reality. Since our research is so context-dependent, this perspective seems useful in exploring and describing issues and phenomena in education.
As I was reading the chapter, I was trying to find a favorite one to write about for this blog. I found one in Beth Harry’s commentary on ethnicity and gender for a couple of reasons. First, I thought her section was the most readable of the nine. Second, I could relate to her story on her dual identity, and I especially liked that she uses it to prove (bad word) her point that epistemology is not removed from individual or group perspectives. It is important to be mindful that standards or outcomes are set by individuals who in no way are value-neutral. The role of ethnicity, gender, the combination of SES, location, language etc. in determining knowledge cannot be removed. So, in acquiring knowledge, (example: I am looking at the effectiveness of an intervention on student achievement) I need to be aware of what educational outcomes I am pursuing- who set those outcomes, the applicability of those outcomes to different groups, and the repercussions from supporting the outcomes. And the purpose of understanding the context is not to eliminate or control it, but to dive into it and understand cause and effect from within.
ReplyDeleteThe postpositivist perspective, as the author mentions (page 57), did come across to me as common sense. In many ways, maybe formal education trained me to adopt this perspective. I agree with the notion of reality, the constraints of reality in knowledge acquisition, the importance of establishing causal relationships, etc. The perspective acknowledges that identity and social relationships are real and have characteristics. In acquiring knowledge, then, we must operate knowing these characteristics. If I were to operate on this perspective alone, I would be the researcher who uses regression models, and with sensitivity, “controls” for these characteristics to establish evidence, say for an educational intervention and with “humility”, rejects the null hypothesis (as opposed to proving the alternate hypothesis, of course). I think the reason education research is looked upon as substandard is because we subscribe to notions of rigor that cannot do justice to the social context. I think areas of research in social work, education, human development, and even psychology (some sub-areas) are rendered meaningless if they conform to the gold standard set by the hard sciences for the hard sciences. I think I liked Beth Harry’s commentary because it talks about knowledge as it should be understood in the field of education.
Sarah
ReplyDeleteLike a lot of other classmates have stated, I turned to google searching to get a deeper understanding of the nine philosophies. I find philosophy to be a harder concept to grasp, and I did not feel like the authors helped me understand the philosophies of research. I also found it hard to place my thinking into one philosophy. I identified most with constructivism but I also could see where components of pragmatism, gender, race, and ethnicity, and ethics, methodology, and democracy could be useful when conducting research. Honestly, I think a mix of all of the philosophies could create the most rich data/research. To me, these philosophies of research could almost be used like checklists to see if your research fits into one or multiple philosophies and if so, are covering all the necessary components.
It's interesting to me that while working with multiple professors I have never heard them mention their philosophy of research. Like others have said above, should this be something included in research articles? Should you have to prescribe to one philosophy or can you identify with multiple? The context of education requires researchers to plan research projects/interventions that meet the needs of a diverse population, so I find it hard to believe researchers could just identify with one philosophy. Also, as others have said the readings seem to suggest qualitative research may be a better fit with the philosophies, if so then why is there such a push for quantitative research? Do policy makers consider research philosophies at all?
I appreciated the layout of chapter 4; the breakdown by perspective with lists of key terms and summary questions made it so much easier to sort through the theories in order to differentiate between them. My background in literature proved helpful as I waded through the theory. As an undergraduate I had a major in English and a minor in women’s studies, and I loved the examination of literary text through the “race, ethnicity, and gender” lens. I am using this experience as a basis for understanding some of the perspectives described in Chapter 4.
ReplyDeleteThe New Critics of the early 20th century looked at literature in a formal approach that evaluated every aspect of a text (plot, point of view, symbolism, imagery, etc.) in order derive meaning. This approach generally ignored the author’s intent, reader’s bias or experience, and therefore it moved toward a “true” interpretation. This seems to parallel the postpositivist approach to research and knowledge. Similarly, New Historicism is a literary approach that seeks to examine literature in cultural and historical contexts, interested not only in what it means but what it does. This concern with effect has pragmatist tendencies.
The critical move toward interpretivism and poststructuralism takes away some of the comfortable footing, the idea that “truth” and “meaning” are ideas we can count on as fixed. We bring our own understandings and agendas, either as readers or researchers, and we must acknowledge that the information we meet is also constructed. I vividly remember reading through the “feminist literary theory” lens for the first time in college; indeed there was a world within the text that I had never considered. I learned to look for bias and recognize it as such, to read between the lines, and always to question my own role in interpretation. So often the “truth” is a moving target, and while it is challenging to let go of the notion that there is a specific answer we are seeking, it is also exciting to realize that there are an infinite number of ways to approach any problem.
Katie