This is an online space to extend our EDUS 702 intellectual community...
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
March 20…Is a Science of Education (Research?) Possible?
·Is Paul’s framework helpful for understanding the St. Pierre-Feuer debate?If so, how?Is there anything about their debate that Paul doesn’t help us to understand?
What struck me most as I began to read St. Pierre's article was the fact that, had I picked it up a few months ago, I would have gotten significantly less out of it. Though there are elements of the article that I would have understood (NCLB references and allusions, for example), I would have missed a lot of important elements. Probably obviously, this class and Paul's text deserve credit for giving me a context. I took a great deal away from these two articles as a result of the foundation I now have, though I'm sure that as I learn more, I will understand still more about the background and sides of this debate.
Though Paul gives us real academic articles and leads us to understand them through different lenses, the debate between St. Pierre and Feuer feels like the first real-world application I've experienced of the educational research philosophies he presents. Paul's (or, really, Phillips') presentation and application of post-positivism pave the road for understanding St. Pierre's reaction to the high regard of Scientifically Based Research and for Feuer's firm rejection of St. Pierre's unsubstantiated (in his opinion) view of educational research.
Paul's nine categories of the different educational philosophies don't completely represent St. Pierre, however. She identifies herself as postmodernist and feminist, but seems to fit into multiple categories in the Paul text, such as race, ethnicity, and gender; poststructuralism; or ethics. As we've discussed, there's no way to neatly separate all these categories, so I think it isn't quite fair to criticize Paul's for not being discreet and all-inclusive.
I found the St. Pierre and Feuer debate both amusing and uncomfortable. Both researchers are passionate about educational research and make good points. I found myself nodding in agreement with both of them as I read and wondering, “Can’t we all get along?” Paul explains that the difference is in emphasis on objectivity and subjectivity. Surely both aspects of knowledge exist and are valuable components of educational research. It seems to me that there are cases in which an external reality trumps perception/construction and other cases where the opposite would be true. Couldn’t certainty be attainable for some inquiries, but not others? Wouldn’t some inquiries be better suited to quantitative methods and others by qualitative methods? I suspect many questions in educational research benefit from both methods. Paul asserts that “better research methods increase our confidence in findings” (p. 329), but St. Pierre and Feuer disagree on what constitutes better research methods. Is the debate about the personal preferences of researchers, the right way of doing things or both? It seems that “respecting intellectual diversity and loosening the grip of the traditional philosophy of science, i.e., positivism” (Paul, p. 320) is a good thing. I found Paul’s framework to be a helpful summary of the debate and appreciated the inclusion of the problematic politicization of research, but his summary does not help me determine how to proceed with my own research. Should I purposefully frame my research question to suit SBR requirements if a qualitative study is more interesting to me? Which is the most efficient way to finish a Ph.D. program? Which is the most efficient way to finish a Ph.D. program in the School of Education at VCU? How much should that impact my dissertation decisions? --Amber
I think the Paul text helped me to interpret the st. Pierre and the Feuer articles better. Paul helped to lay the framework of understanding about dueling viewpoints. Prior to reading Paul and discussing it in class, I would have seen the St. Pierre as strikingly more adversarial. While she passionately makes her points, I have a better understanding of where she is coming from. Paul's framework definitely helped me to understand that there are different perspectives and that while there is no "right" one, supporters of each fully stand behind their views.
I did find Feuer's response to St. Pierre's article interesting. First, he repeatedly referred to St. Peirre as "Bettie". That seemed oddly out of place in scholarly writing and, to me, seemed to be slightly patronizing. Secondly, he was very brief and seemed to lack the passion of St. Pierre. This might be a function of his own perspective. While he did validate some of her points, particularly giving some credence to qualitative research, he was pretty matter of fact that she was wrong.
I do think that without having read and discussed Paul, I would have truly wondered why they were so catty and argued like they did. St. Pierre did bring up a few perspectives that she admits following but they were not in Paul's framework. I wonder how they compare to the ones he did discuss.
The whole SBR issue was interesting in itself. It always amazes me how politics infiltrates so many areas and how people who have limited knowledge in a specific field can dictate policies and procedures in that field. My feeling with this whole argument is that like many other things, it will ebb and flow as the political climate changes. Ironically, it is most likely that through new research (and probably not hard core SBR) that changes to this area will come.
The Paul text has brought context to Feuer and St. Pierre debate. If we semantically separate the Science from the phrase Scientifically Based Research, we might come to a different conclusion about the nine paradigms that Paul presents. With SBR separation academic research can be educational research. With SBR separation, scholarly research can be educational research, and with SBR separation, artistic research can be educational research. If SBR separation is achieved, St. Pierre maintains her status as a scholarly researcher. St. Pierre sounds... miffed... and I think her position is understandable. The National Academy of Science’s (NAS) definition of educational research will redirect and reprioritize funding--- St. Pierre’s career could be over. Feuer’s insensitivity to St. Pierre’s concerns distracts from the real issue. Narrowing the definition of educational research to just scientific research limits the potential for innovation to the problem placed before the researcher. Failing to recognize the importance of non-scientific academic and scholarly research stifles creativity and grounds discovery. I wish the Paul text offered us an update on paradigm wars. Feuer and St. Pierre wrote their papers in 2006, and the SBR and evidence based research language was adopted in 2001 with No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Has research shifted to a more scientific paradigm? More importantly, the What Works Clearinghouse has had time to define, process and evaluate the Scientifically Based Research. Are there successes? Where are the innovations? Go ahead. Tell me what works. --Andy
Reading Paul was imperative to understanding the St. Pierre-Feuer debate. Addressing articles with nine different perspectives repeatedly drilled home common points in foundations but also added glaring diversity. As a first year (but second semester) PhD student, I remember listening to professors talk about qualitative vs. quantitative research, and THAT seemed to be the “blistering” (to borrow from St. Pierre) topic for awhile… but now, it appears so much more complicated with these additional nine perspectives.
It always seems interesting to me that quantitative research can be touted as superior. This is what was lectured in my first semester. But I have to ask, so what if there is a significant difference between the Kaplan Review and Princeton Review courses for the SATs if that significant difference is only 3 points? That’s why effect size comes into play, or often is not reported, because the effect is so slight that the researcher is probably embarrassed. And when it comes down to what SATs actually predict, it’s also embarrassing. Because it does not predict a whole lot of anything. So even with these results that would probably clear the What Works Clearinghouse, can they actually make a difference in a real classroom? I realize I am preaching to the choir so will not belabor that point.
I do agree that the pendulum of research will continue to swing in accordance to whatever political fad happens to bestow itself upon us educators. Moderation is never looked upon too kindly in politics, so it seems doubtful that a “can’t everyone get along” approach will happen, though it not only sounds wonderful, but also reasonable. As we plod along with the dismal remnants of NCLB nipping at our heels, it seems palpable now more than ever, that diversifying our approach in how research is classified as “what works” is the judicious fork in the road. -Jenelle
I agree with my classmates that the Paul text was certainly helpful in understanding the St. Pierre/Feuer debate. I did find myself wondering how I would have understood these articles if I had read them before the Paul book. I found myself pulling some points out of the Feuer article that I could connect back to points made in the Paul text. For example: 1) Feuer points out that when searching for better strategies, “our assumption has never been that only one methodology is relevant or credible…” (Feuer, p.270). This seemed to be the tone that was provided throughout the Paul text. Paul noted, and we spoke about in class at length, the philosophical perspectives that were included in his text were not mutually exclusive, and they did not encompass all of the philosophical perspectives that are available. 2) Feuer points out a significant portion of statistics is about measuring and explaining error (Feuer, p. 271). This again brought me back to the description of postpositivism by Phillips in the Paul text. Here, Phillips explains about the elimination and detection of error (Paul, p. 52). There was one area that I continued to have questions, especially in relation to the Paul text, and that had to do with the “ethics” discussion that came up throughout the St. Pierre article. I found myself continuously going back to the line, “Thus, I will always be unprepared to be ethical, and I will never know what science is” (St. Pierre, p. 260). I couldn’t help but to think there was some reference to the article in the Psychological Bulletin that had been described in the Paul text, but I still could not help to question the line of “I will always be unprepared to be ethical”. I agree with Christina that I found the casual language that was used by Feuer in describing St. Pierre (referring to her as Bettie) out of place in this context. However, I also noted that St. Pierre used similarly casual language in the closing paragraph of her essay, noting that she “has good friends who are involved in that work, and I doubt they are fools” (St. Pierre, 2006). This seemed in stark contrast to the critiques in the Paul book, as in the Paul book the authors writing the critiques may not have agreed with whether or not the articles were pieces of critical research. However, the critique authors did not appear to take as much of a casual, negative approach towards the authors and research studies they were critiquing.
I agree that reading the Paul text was necessary and helpful for understanding the St. Pierre-Feuer debate. These articles provided a real-world example of dueling perspectives, and I doubt that I would have fully appreciated or understood where either author was coming from prior to reading Paul. As we began to read the articles and perspective critiques in the Paul book, and now these articles by St. Pierre and Feuer, I was able to identify the language and beliefs of each perspective more easily. Perhaps more importantly, the Paul text allowed me to interpret and appreciate those perspectives with which I am not aligned. I think this is an important skill for scholars, one that is often forgotten when politics or “power,” as Feuer puts it, enters the educational arena. However, these articles provided an example of a debate which reflected the tone of Paul’s text. That is, there is no “one way” to approach educational research. All of the perspectives and methodologies offer strengths and weaknesses and should be chosen based on the type or aim of the study. For example, Feuer explains that randomized controlled experiments are preferable when the identification of a causal relationship is the goal. Clearly an autoethnography such as the Ellis study would not reveal the type of causal relationships illuminated by experimental research, and should not be chosen for such a goal. The critiques offered by the scholars in Paul’s text emphasize this notion of multiple perspectives and demonstrate the usefulness of the perspectives for various educational research goals.
Now, the original question remains: “Is a science of education research possible?” This is where I could have used more help from Paul. If we follow the REA and NCLB definitions of SBR, then I say that a science of education is mostly unattainable. It is often irresponsible and unethical to conduct randomized controlled experiments with teachers and students. So, educational researchers often choose different methods, such as qualitative studies or other non-experimental designs. Such methods would be considered non-SBR by NCLB standards, but how would Paul and the scholars in his text classify them? Does it even matter, as funding for educational research is often provided by the government? Paul includes a variety of example studies and critiques in his text, a few of which sparked debate regarding the definition of research, let alone scientifically-based educational research. I realize that the point of the text was to strengthen our awareness of our own perspectives and our understanding of differing perspectives, but at times this goal and the studies presented in the text served to muddle my understanding of research and the science of education research more than to clarify my understanding.
Side note: I agree that Feuer’s continued reference to St. Pierre as “Bettie” was patronizing and frankly obnoxious, and did not belong in this context!
As most other classmates have noted, the Paul text was very useful in understanding the debate between Feuer and St. Pierre. If I had read this before the Paul text I would not have gotten anything from the debate, or probably been able to make it through the Feuer article. However, the Paul provided a good overview/history about the philosophies of research that made the articles more interesting and enjoyable.
I enjoy reading debates in the literature because I think it addresses differing opinions of researchers in a way that makes it easier for the reader to understand the similarities/differences in their view points. For example, if instead of writing a response St. Pierre just published a manuscript/review with his view point, readers may have missed the debate and only read his review completely missing Feuer’s manuscript. I understand you could still compare the two view points, however, I think readers benefit more when there is direct link to the article/researcher who has different views. I think these debates usually happen at conferences, so if you don’t attend the conference or session you may miss part of the debate. Therefore, I think it helps if they are also published in the literature.
There was one statement in St. Pierre’s article that really struck me, “In the United States we have opted for an approach that aspires to independence of science from politics, with the provision that scientists as citizens need to be conscious of and involved in decisions that rely on their research findings.” Although this might be a goal, I feel like we are far from separating science/research from politics and once the research has been published the researcher is not involved in how the findings are used. I think this is actually a big problem for education and education research, and if we really want to improve education for teachers and students there needs to be more communication about what findings actually mean and how they should or should not be used for policy decisions.
In reading both St. Pierre and the response by Feuer I found myself trying to determine where I see myself within the debate. Perhaps it is too early in my educational research career for it to be expected that I would have a firm sense of where I stand. I take some comfort in that notion because, agreeing with points brought forth by each scholar, I was left with feelings of helplessness and hopelessness in considering what it means to conduct research in the field of education within the current political climate. It would appear, based on the words of these two academics, that doing research that is anything but SBR might set me up for additional challenges of finding funding and fighting to be heard and respected. Both St. Pierre and Feuer make one feel silly and ill-informed for identifying with the other. It is truly a shame that politics make black and white an issue that is colored with infinite shades of gray. I liked St. Pierre’s words on p. 259: “The science I value acknowledges that there are different truths (but not that ‘anything goes’) and that our task as scientists should be ‘to produce different knowledge and produce knowledge differently.’”
Having read the Paul text made the St. Pierre and Feurer articles much more accessible and relevant to me. I felt I had the background knowledge to allow me to understand the meat of their debate. Paul’s text did not provide any guidance for how the various philosophical perspectives should be treated within the context of NCLB, however. Nor did Paul and the contributors to his text explain potential challenges subscribers to a particular philosophy might face. Although the Paul text has left me much more informed about approaches to doing research in education, the information I received was perhaps incomplete. Continuing to read more discourse and debate among proponents of various approaches will be beneficial.
And, agreed. Using “Bettie” seems quite condescending, appropriate more for a private email from Feurer to St. Pierre, not for a published journal article.
Reading the Paul textbook was helpful in understanding the different perspectives, and I agree with Micol that it would have been hard to understand the debate between St. Pierre and Feuer fully without this class and the Paul textbook. I also think that had it not been for the class, I probably would not have come across this debate. I would have graduated in a couple of years, trained to frame research questions and conduct quantitative and qualitative research, implicitly understanding the tension between the frameworks, but never truly reflecting on the history and foundations of these methods. I would also perhaps have readily accepted the hierarchy of methods in scientific inquiry (set out by say, What works Clearinghouse). In Chapter 11, Paul talks about preparing scholars and researchers, and he warns about the danger of producing low quality research by preparing students in quantitative or qualitative research methods without providing the philosophical foundations on which they are practiced. One purpose of the textbook, Paul says in the afterword, was to help readers become aware of their own perspectives as they understand and develop diverse perspectives. And I think textbook fulfilled this purpose, so even though I found myself agreeing with many of Feuer’s points, I was still able to appreciate St. Pierre’s concern about narrowing the definition of SBR in education. I think I get the take-away point which Paul summarizes well- “I value different kinds of research because there are different kinds of needs”.
However, it is the same purpose of the text book that was also unhelpful to me in trying to understand why the animosity in these intellectual exchanges. I have insufficient knowledge about what happened in the last quarter of the 20th century, which is when Paul says there was a move toward accepting different views of research. The first few years of 21st century have seen a turn toward positivist views of SBR, but I am having trouble understanding why St. Pierre did not highlight the great things that have come out of “non-SBR” research to make her point that this is heading in the wrong direction. Without that it seems to me like she is disappointed and angry. While Paul’s textbook gives us some excellent “SBR” and “non- SBR” articles, I did not sense St. Pierre's tone in the critics in the book. So, I think I would have liked a more heated discussion in the critiques of the articles (if that accurately reflects the current debate over what is SBR/ knowledge in education).
I seem to be in agreement with my classmates on the fact that the Paul text has provided a solid foundation for understanding the St.Pierre-Feuer debate, beyond the oversimplified qualitative/quantitative dichotomy. If nothing else, the perspectives presented in Paul show that educational research does not exist in isolation; it is influenced by the philosophies and belief systems (even those which claim objectivity) of its designers. I feel like the format of the Paul text was especially helpful: reading studies followed by critiques from various philosophical viewpoints. The readings and class discussions over the past few weeks made me feel well-equipped to unwrap the debate between St.Pierre and Feuer. Paul’s chapters have also provided a solid foundation in organizing the jargon of educational research. I certainly tend to lean towards St. Pierre’s perspective, and since most of the coursework I have completed has been more grounded in the quantitative, it was refreshing to read her defense of qualitative inquiry. What appeals to me about her article is the notion that education policy and research and practice cannot be separated from the greater context (“the intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality, and so forth”). Her approach seem to embody a number of the philosophies that Paul has divided, and I think in practice this more inclusive approach is probably more typical. I was a little turned off by the tone of the Feuer article. While I assume that he was attempting a playful retort, it read more like a condescending dismissal of what he believes is not “real” science. I think to close the doors to the subjective is to think too narrowly in a field where context is key. Pluralism, as St.Pierre points out, is not an absence of truth or rigor, but rather it is the idea that there can be more than one way to approach a problem. Maybe the wealth lies in these kinds of debates themselves, rather than reaching a consensus. Katie
"The Magic of Reality". WARNING: Richard Dawkins alert.
While I do not subscribe to Dawkins call to arms to 'ridicule and show contempt' for faith-based claims to reality, I am certainly sympathetic. I absolutely believe that 'Science of Education' is possible and, in fact, already exists, in the same way that a science of biology exists. I conflate the two as I draw no distinctions between 'education' and any other form of human behavior. My favorite definition of education (paraphrased): An organism encounters a stimuli which results in a change in future behavior. In that simple statement is the universe and all that resides in it. One 'belief' that is critical to agreeing that the above statement is factually correct is the fact that organisms learn. I 'believe' I am part of a lawful universe whose rules are knowable. This semester I've learned that what I had called the 'objective v. subjective' debate is termed 'positivist v. post positivist' in the schools of education. I don't see any distinctions beyond that. You either believe something can be known or you don't. Once you don't all bets are off and everyone is free to say whatever they want. I think that's why Fruer's response comes across as condescending, at least from a philosophical standpoint. From where he stands, attitudes like St. Pierre's represent a 'flat-earth' position and, to the the extent they warrant a response, they receive a terse one. I wish we had gone into these papers in more detail as this real-world debate underpins everything we've discussed so far and cuts to the heart of the role of research in public discourse and policy. In my informal survey the class broke along gender lines pretty strongly. I admit to having a small sample size for the 'Y' chromosome bearers but was looking forward to the discussion. I found St. Pierre's statements to range from outrageous "...What is evident in much of the work of the IES in the 2002 and 2005 NRC report is an increasingly unchecked deployment of a particular epistemology and its methodology by people in positions of power who do not understand or, if they do, will not acknowledge the violence of that deployment on real people - for example,"Do you take the rejection of post-modernism in the 2002 NRC report personally?" (p.258). I hardly know where to begin. I know you dismissed 'language' as a side issue but here it's a core issue. 'Deployment' is meant to convey a militaristic tone. 'People in positions of power'. Enough said. But most stunningly, how are we to take someone seriously who equates violence with someone asking them a question. I will concede that my feelings here are just that, feelings but she also takes issue with the notion that researchers should have,"...to make data available to other researchers." (p. 256).
I think Fox News and the neocons would love that line of thinking. Why should I have to show you how I came to my conclusions? Why the mere thought of that smacks of 'subjugation'.
But it all comes back to a fundamental view of the universe. Either it's lawful and therefore knowable or it's not. If it's not then everyone's opinion weighs the same and is equal in some sort of bizarro way. The claim that 'Angels follow me and protect me from Satan" is equal in 'truth' to "Force = Mass x acceleration".
In some ways I'm glad that this is one of the initial offerings I've taken as it prepares me for what are inevitable 'through the looking glass' conversations that I'm sure to have. These almost always end with, "I'm entitled to my opinion" of, "We agree to disagree" without conceding that, while both of those statements are true, you can also be wrong.
What struck me most as I began to read St. Pierre's article was the fact that, had I picked it up a few months ago, I would have gotten significantly less out of it. Though there are elements of the article that I would have understood (NCLB references and allusions, for example), I would have missed a lot of important elements. Probably obviously, this class and Paul's text deserve credit for giving me a context. I took a great deal away from these two articles as a result of the foundation I now have, though I'm sure that as I learn more, I will understand still more about the background and sides of this debate.
ReplyDeleteThough Paul gives us real academic articles and leads us to understand them through different lenses, the debate between St. Pierre and Feuer feels like the first real-world application I've experienced of the educational research philosophies he presents. Paul's (or, really, Phillips') presentation and application of post-positivism pave the road for understanding St. Pierre's reaction to the high regard of Scientifically Based Research and for Feuer's firm rejection of St. Pierre's unsubstantiated (in his opinion) view of educational research.
Paul's nine categories of the different educational philosophies don't completely represent St. Pierre, however. She identifies herself as postmodernist and feminist, but seems to fit into multiple categories in the Paul text, such as race, ethnicity, and gender; poststructuralism; or ethics. As we've discussed, there's no way to neatly separate all these categories, so I think it isn't quite fair to criticize Paul's for not being discreet and all-inclusive.
-Micol
I found the St. Pierre and Feuer debate both amusing and uncomfortable. Both researchers are passionate about educational research and make good points. I found myself nodding in agreement with both of them as I read and wondering, “Can’t we all get along?” Paul explains that the difference is in emphasis on objectivity and subjectivity. Surely both aspects of knowledge exist and are valuable components of educational research. It seems to me that there are cases in which an external reality trumps perception/construction and other cases where the opposite would be true. Couldn’t certainty be attainable for some inquiries, but not others? Wouldn’t some inquiries be better suited to quantitative methods and others by qualitative methods? I suspect many questions in educational research benefit from both methods. Paul asserts that “better research methods increase our confidence in findings” (p. 329), but St. Pierre and Feuer disagree on what constitutes better research methods. Is the debate about the personal preferences of researchers, the right way of doing things or both? It seems that “respecting intellectual diversity and loosening the grip of the traditional philosophy of science, i.e., positivism” (Paul, p. 320) is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI found Paul’s framework to be a helpful summary of the debate and appreciated the inclusion of the problematic politicization of research, but his summary does not help me determine how to proceed with my own research. Should I purposefully frame my research question to suit SBR requirements if a qualitative study is more interesting to me? Which is the most efficient way to finish a Ph.D. program? Which is the most efficient way to finish a Ph.D. program in the School of Education at VCU? How much should that impact my dissertation decisions?
--Amber
I think the Paul text helped me to interpret the st. Pierre and the Feuer articles better. Paul helped to lay the framework of understanding about dueling viewpoints. Prior to reading Paul and discussing it in class, I would have seen the St. Pierre as strikingly more adversarial. While she passionately makes her points, I have a better understanding of where she is coming from. Paul's framework definitely helped me to understand that there are different perspectives and that while there is no "right" one, supporters of each fully stand behind their views.
ReplyDeleteI did find Feuer's response to St. Pierre's article interesting. First, he repeatedly referred to St. Peirre as "Bettie". That seemed oddly out of place in scholarly writing and, to me, seemed to be slightly patronizing. Secondly, he was very brief and seemed to lack the passion of St. Pierre. This might be a function of his own perspective. While he did validate some of her points, particularly giving some credence to qualitative research, he was pretty matter of fact that she was wrong.
I do think that without having read and discussed Paul, I would have truly wondered why they were so catty and argued like they did. St. Pierre did bring up a few perspectives that she admits following but they were not in Paul's framework. I wonder how they compare to the ones he did discuss.
The whole SBR issue was interesting in itself. It always amazes me how politics infiltrates so many areas and how people who have limited knowledge in a specific field can dictate policies and procedures in that field. My feeling with this whole argument is that like many other things, it will ebb and flow as the political climate changes. Ironically, it is most likely that through new research (and probably not hard core SBR) that changes to this area will come.
--christina
The Paul text has brought context to Feuer and St. Pierre debate. If we semantically separate the Science from the phrase Scientifically Based Research, we might come to a different conclusion about the nine paradigms that Paul presents. With SBR separation academic research can be educational research. With SBR separation, scholarly research can be educational research, and with SBR separation, artistic research can be educational research. If SBR separation is achieved, St. Pierre maintains her status as a scholarly researcher. St. Pierre sounds... miffed... and I think her position is understandable. The National Academy of Science’s (NAS) definition of educational research will redirect and reprioritize funding--- St. Pierre’s career could be over.
ReplyDeleteFeuer’s insensitivity to St. Pierre’s concerns distracts from the real issue. Narrowing the definition of educational research to just scientific research limits the potential for innovation to the problem placed before the researcher. Failing to recognize the importance of non-scientific academic and scholarly research stifles creativity and grounds discovery.
I wish the Paul text offered us an update on paradigm wars. Feuer and St. Pierre wrote their papers in 2006, and the SBR and evidence based research language was adopted in 2001 with No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Has research shifted to a more scientific paradigm?
More importantly, the What Works Clearinghouse has had time to define, process and evaluate the Scientifically Based Research. Are there successes? Where are the innovations? Go ahead. Tell me what works.
--Andy
Reading Paul was imperative to understanding the St. Pierre-Feuer debate. Addressing articles with nine different perspectives repeatedly drilled home common points in foundations but also added glaring diversity. As a first year (but second semester) PhD student, I remember listening to professors talk about qualitative vs. quantitative research, and THAT seemed to be the “blistering” (to borrow from St. Pierre) topic for awhile… but now, it appears so much more complicated with these additional nine perspectives.
ReplyDeleteIt always seems interesting to me that quantitative research can be touted as superior. This is what was lectured in my first semester. But I have to ask, so what if there is a significant difference between the Kaplan Review and Princeton Review courses for the SATs if that significant difference is only 3 points? That’s why effect size comes into play, or often is not reported, because the effect is so slight that the researcher is probably embarrassed. And when it comes down to what SATs actually predict, it’s also embarrassing. Because it does not predict a whole lot of anything. So even with these results that would probably clear the What Works Clearinghouse, can they actually make a difference in a real classroom? I realize I am preaching to the choir so will not belabor that point.
I do agree that the pendulum of research will continue to swing in accordance to whatever political fad happens to bestow itself upon us educators. Moderation is never looked upon too kindly in politics, so it seems doubtful that a “can’t everyone get along” approach will happen, though it not only sounds wonderful, but also reasonable. As we plod along with the dismal remnants of NCLB nipping at our heels, it seems palpable now more than ever, that diversifying our approach in how research is classified as “what works” is the judicious fork in the road.
-Jenelle
I agree with my classmates that the Paul text was certainly helpful in understanding the St. Pierre/Feuer debate. I did find myself wondering how I would have understood these articles if I had read them before the Paul book. I found myself pulling some points out of the Feuer article that I could connect back to points made in the Paul text. For example:
ReplyDelete1) Feuer points out that when searching for better strategies, “our assumption has never been that only one methodology is relevant or credible…” (Feuer, p.270). This seemed to be the tone that was provided throughout the Paul text. Paul noted, and we spoke about in class at length, the philosophical perspectives that were included in his text were not mutually exclusive, and they did not encompass all of the philosophical perspectives that are available.
2) Feuer points out a significant portion of statistics is about measuring and explaining error (Feuer, p. 271). This again brought me back to the description of postpositivism by Phillips in the Paul text. Here, Phillips explains about the elimination and detection of error (Paul, p. 52).
There was one area that I continued to have questions, especially in relation to the Paul text, and that had to do with the “ethics” discussion that came up throughout the St. Pierre article. I found myself continuously going back to the line, “Thus, I will always be unprepared to be ethical, and I will never know what science is” (St. Pierre, p. 260). I couldn’t help but to think there was some reference to the article in the Psychological Bulletin that had been described in the Paul text, but I still could not help to question the line of “I will always be unprepared to be ethical”.
I agree with Christina that I found the casual language that was used by Feuer in describing St. Pierre (referring to her as Bettie) out of place in this context. However, I also noted that St. Pierre used similarly casual language in the closing paragraph of her essay, noting that she “has good friends who are involved in that work, and I doubt they are fools” (St. Pierre, 2006). This seemed in stark contrast to the critiques in the Paul book, as in the Paul book the authors writing the critiques may not have agreed with whether or not the articles were pieces of critical research. However, the critique authors did not appear to take as much of a casual, negative approach towards the authors and research studies they were critiquing.
~Erika
I agree that reading the Paul text was necessary and helpful for understanding the St. Pierre-Feuer debate. These articles provided a real-world example of dueling perspectives, and I doubt that I would have fully appreciated or understood where either author was coming from prior to reading Paul. As we began to read the articles and perspective critiques in the Paul book, and now these articles by St. Pierre and Feuer, I was able to identify the language and beliefs of each perspective more easily. Perhaps more importantly, the Paul text allowed me to interpret and appreciate those perspectives with which I am not aligned. I think this is an important skill for scholars, one that is often forgotten when politics or “power,” as Feuer puts it, enters the educational arena. However, these articles provided an example of a debate which reflected the tone of Paul’s text. That is, there is no “one way” to approach educational research. All of the perspectives and methodologies offer strengths and weaknesses and should be chosen based on the type or aim of the study. For example, Feuer explains that randomized controlled experiments are preferable when the identification of a causal relationship is the goal. Clearly an autoethnography such as the Ellis study would not reveal the type of causal relationships illuminated by experimental research, and should not be chosen for such a goal. The critiques offered by the scholars in Paul’s text emphasize this notion of multiple perspectives and demonstrate the usefulness of the perspectives for various educational research goals.
ReplyDeleteNow, the original question remains: “Is a science of education research possible?” This is where I could have used more help from Paul. If we follow the REA and NCLB definitions of SBR, then I say that a science of education is mostly unattainable. It is often irresponsible and unethical to conduct randomized controlled experiments with teachers and students. So, educational researchers often choose different methods, such as qualitative studies or other non-experimental designs. Such methods would be considered non-SBR by NCLB standards, but how would Paul and the scholars in his text classify them? Does it even matter, as funding for educational research is often provided by the government? Paul includes a variety of example studies and critiques in his text, a few of which sparked debate regarding the definition of research, let alone scientifically-based educational research. I realize that the point of the text was to strengthen our awareness of our own perspectives and our understanding of differing perspectives, but at times this goal and the studies presented in the text served to muddle my understanding of research and the science of education research more than to clarify my understanding.
Side note: I agree that Feuer’s continued reference to St. Pierre as “Bettie” was patronizing and frankly obnoxious, and did not belong in this context!
Mandy
Sarah
ReplyDeleteAs most other classmates have noted, the Paul text was very useful in understanding the debate between Feuer and St. Pierre. If I had read this before the Paul text I would not have gotten anything from the debate, or probably been able to make it through the Feuer article. However, the Paul provided a good overview/history about the philosophies of research that made the articles more interesting and enjoyable.
I enjoy reading debates in the literature because I think it addresses differing opinions of researchers in a way that makes it easier for the reader to understand the similarities/differences in their view points. For example, if instead of writing a response St. Pierre just published a manuscript/review with his view point, readers may have missed the debate and only read his review completely missing Feuer’s manuscript. I understand you could still compare the two view points, however, I think readers benefit more when there is direct link to the article/researcher who has different views. I think these debates usually happen at conferences, so if you don’t attend the conference or session you may miss part of the debate. Therefore, I think it helps if they are also published in the literature.
There was one statement in St. Pierre’s article that really struck me, “In the United States we have opted for an approach that aspires to independence of science from politics, with the provision that scientists as citizens need to be conscious of and involved in decisions that rely on their research findings.” Although this might be a goal, I feel like we are far from separating science/research from politics and once the research has been published the researcher is not involved in how the findings are used. I think this is actually a big problem for education and education research, and if we really want to improve education for teachers and students there needs to be more communication about what findings actually mean and how they should or should not be used for policy decisions.
In reading both St. Pierre and the response by Feuer I found myself trying to determine where I see myself within the debate. Perhaps it is too early in my educational research career for it to be expected that I would have a firm sense of where I stand. I take some comfort in that notion because, agreeing with points brought forth by each scholar, I was left with feelings of helplessness and hopelessness in considering what it means to conduct research in the field of education within the current political climate. It would appear, based on the words of these two academics, that doing research that is anything but SBR might set me up for additional challenges of finding funding and fighting to be heard and respected. Both St. Pierre and Feuer make one feel silly and ill-informed for identifying with the other. It is truly a shame that politics make black and white an issue that is colored with infinite shades of gray. I liked St. Pierre’s words on p. 259: “The science I value acknowledges that there are different truths (but not that ‘anything goes’) and that our task as scientists should be ‘to produce different knowledge and produce knowledge differently.’”
ReplyDeleteHaving read the Paul text made the St. Pierre and Feurer articles much more accessible and relevant to me. I felt I had the background knowledge to allow me to understand the meat of their debate. Paul’s text did not provide any guidance for how the various philosophical perspectives should be treated within the context of NCLB, however. Nor did Paul and the contributors to his text explain potential challenges subscribers to a particular philosophy might face. Although the Paul text has left me much more informed about approaches to doing research in education, the information I received was perhaps incomplete. Continuing to read more discourse and debate among proponents of various approaches will be beneficial.
And, agreed. Using “Bettie” seems quite condescending, appropriate more for a private email from Feurer to St. Pierre, not for a published journal article.
Serra
Reading the Paul textbook was helpful in understanding the different perspectives, and I agree with Micol that it would have been hard to understand the debate between St. Pierre and Feuer fully without this class and the Paul textbook. I also think that had it not been for the class, I probably would not have come across this debate. I would have graduated in a couple of years, trained to frame research questions and conduct quantitative and qualitative research, implicitly understanding the tension between the frameworks, but never truly reflecting on the history and foundations of these methods. I would also perhaps have readily accepted the hierarchy of methods in scientific inquiry (set out by say, What works Clearinghouse). In Chapter 11, Paul talks about preparing scholars and researchers, and he warns about the danger of producing low quality research by preparing students in quantitative or qualitative research methods without providing the philosophical foundations on which they are practiced. One purpose of the textbook, Paul says in the afterword, was to help readers become aware of their own perspectives as they understand and develop diverse perspectives. And I think textbook fulfilled this purpose, so even though I found myself agreeing with many of Feuer’s points, I was still able to appreciate St. Pierre’s concern about narrowing the definition of SBR in education. I think I get the take-away point which Paul summarizes well- “I value different kinds of research because there are different kinds of needs”.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is the same purpose of the text book that was also unhelpful to me in trying to understand why the animosity in these intellectual exchanges. I have insufficient knowledge about what happened in the last quarter of the 20th century, which is when Paul says there was a move toward accepting different views of research. The first few years of 21st century have seen a turn toward positivist views of SBR, but I am having trouble understanding why St. Pierre did not highlight the great things that have come out of “non-SBR” research to make her point that this is heading in the wrong direction. Without that it seems to me like she is disappointed and angry. While Paul’s textbook gives us some excellent “SBR” and “non- SBR” articles, I did not sense St. Pierre's tone in the critics in the book. So, I think I would have liked a more heated discussion in the critiques of the articles (if that accurately reflects the current debate over what is SBR/ knowledge in education).
I seem to be in agreement with my classmates on the fact that the Paul text has provided a solid foundation for understanding the St.Pierre-Feuer debate, beyond the oversimplified qualitative/quantitative dichotomy. If nothing else, the perspectives presented in Paul show that educational research does not exist in isolation; it is influenced by the philosophies and belief systems (even those which claim objectivity) of its designers.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the format of the Paul text was especially helpful: reading studies followed by critiques from various philosophical viewpoints. The readings and class discussions over the past few weeks made me feel well-equipped to unwrap the debate between St.Pierre and Feuer. Paul’s chapters have also provided a solid foundation in organizing the jargon of educational research.
I certainly tend to lean towards St. Pierre’s perspective, and since most of the coursework I have completed has been more grounded in the quantitative, it was refreshing to read her defense of qualitative inquiry. What appeals to me about her article is the notion that education policy and research and practice cannot be separated from the greater context (“the intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality, and so forth”). Her approach seem to embody a number of the philosophies that Paul has divided, and I think in practice this more inclusive approach is probably more typical.
I was a little turned off by the tone of the Feuer article. While I assume that he was attempting a playful retort, it read more like a condescending dismissal of what he believes is not “real” science. I think to close the doors to the subjective is to think too narrowly in a field where context is key. Pluralism, as St.Pierre points out, is not an absence of truth or rigor, but rather it is the idea that there can be more than one way to approach a problem. Maybe the wealth lies in these kinds of debates themselves, rather than reaching a consensus.
Katie
"The Magic of Reality". WARNING: Richard Dawkins alert.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not subscribe to Dawkins call to arms to 'ridicule and show contempt' for faith-based claims to reality, I am certainly sympathetic.
I absolutely believe that 'Science of Education' is possible and, in fact, already exists, in the same way that a science of biology exists. I conflate the two as I draw no distinctions between 'education' and any other form of human behavior. My favorite definition of education (paraphrased): An organism encounters a stimuli which results in a change in future behavior. In that simple statement is the universe and all that resides in it. One 'belief' that is critical to agreeing that the above statement is factually correct is the fact that organisms learn. I 'believe' I am part of a lawful universe whose rules are knowable. This semester I've learned that what I had called the 'objective v. subjective' debate is termed 'positivist v. post positivist' in the schools of education. I don't see any distinctions beyond that. You either believe something can be known or you don't. Once you don't all bets are off and everyone is free to say whatever they want.
I think that's why Fruer's response comes across as condescending, at least from a philosophical standpoint. From where he stands, attitudes like St. Pierre's represent a 'flat-earth' position and, to the the extent they warrant a response, they receive a terse one. I wish we had gone into these papers in more detail as this real-world debate underpins everything we've discussed so far and cuts to the heart of the role of research in public discourse and policy.
In my informal survey the class broke along gender lines pretty strongly. I admit to having a small sample size for the 'Y' chromosome bearers but was looking forward to the discussion.
I found St. Pierre's statements to range from outrageous "...What is evident in much of the work of the IES in the 2002 and 2005 NRC report is an increasingly unchecked deployment of a particular epistemology and its methodology by people in positions of power who do not understand or, if they do, will not acknowledge the violence of that deployment on real people - for example,"Do you take the rejection of post-modernism in the 2002 NRC report personally?" (p.258).
I hardly know where to begin. I know you dismissed 'language' as a side issue but here it's a core issue. 'Deployment' is meant to convey a militaristic tone. 'People in positions of power'. Enough said. But most stunningly, how are we to take someone seriously who equates violence with someone asking them a question.
I will concede that my feelings here are just that, feelings but she also takes issue with the notion that researchers should have,"...to make data available to other researchers." (p. 256).
I think Fox News and the neocons would love that line of thinking. Why should I have to show you how I came to my conclusions? Why the mere thought of that smacks of 'subjugation'.
But it all comes back to a fundamental view of the universe. Either it's lawful and therefore knowable or it's not. If it's not then everyone's opinion weighs the same and is equal in some sort of bizarro way. The claim that 'Angels follow me and protect me from Satan" is equal in 'truth' to "Force = Mass x acceleration".
In some ways I'm glad that this is one of the initial offerings I've taken as it prepares me for what are inevitable 'through the looking glass' conversations that I'm sure to have. These almost always end with, "I'm entitled to my opinion" of, "We agree to disagree" without conceding that, while both of those statements are true, you can also be wrong.
Adam