ED 500—Philosophical Foundations of Educational Inquiry
1st Writing Assignment:
Where am I with the Issues We Have Been Discussing in Class & Reading About
As I look back at my notes, and think about readings and discussions, I find that the easiest way to organize my thoughts into some semblance of a paper is to pursue thoughts on one author at a time. Therefore, this paper is composed of many sections that entertain thoughts/ideas/concerns dependent upon the author that brought about such occurrences. In addition, I have a General Thoughts section, where various thoughts that do not quite fit into one of these sections by author can be found. Mostly, these are items brought up by students or the professor, and are new to my vocabulary.
General Thoughts:
A.In regards to Context of Justification, I am under the impression that this relies heavily on the scientific method. What of then the Context of Discovery? Does this too involve the scientific method, or is another methodology at work here? I can understand that to “justify,” one’s ideas, to be able to assert as so, as true, the scientific method is key. This to me is a “given,” but then what do we owe the amazing feat involved in “discovering” new knowledge? Is this just wonderful, glorious luck, serendipity?
B.I understand the link of “knowledge” to the scientific method. I see how making assumptions can possibly lead to the negation of something being termed “knowledge.” What I am having issues with is the idea of different ways of knowing. How many different ways are there to know something? Are we only looking at how we analyze our world via our five senses? For that matter, can a “sixth sense” be brought into play here? Also, what of instrumentation that generates, and/or analyzes, data? Humans make the “machines.” These machines primarily give us information on just what is so, as we have programmed them to do. Could this not leave open the idea of permutation of errors? The “human condition” frightens me with its innate ability to make errors. What can be even more unsettling is the perpetuation of these errors by the instrumentation designed by humans.
C.According to many class discussions there is a permeating idea that all is constructed variables, and that nothing is purely descriptive. I am a bit confused with this, for if everything is constructed, then what is “solid background,” that is, an information base that all other material that we come to call “knowledge” comes from.
D.Another item that keeps bothering me is the way in which we “look” at the data for meaning. Is it to be “interpreted” or “analyzed?” Are these words interchangeable? In my eyes, it appears that soft science versus hard science is being discussed here. With word choices there is a type of connotation that one science is more real, more worthwhile. The same can be said here of choosing between “interpreted” or “analyzed.” Hard science is physics and chemistry to me, and analysis belongs being done with data in the hard sciences. Truly, does qualitative and quantitative educational practices also take the stance of being either “soft/interpretation” or “hard/analysis” in nature, respectively.
E.I totally believe that the method can construe the knowledge, as brought up with the Marxian perspective. In the sciences, I always wonder if our measurements, if what is offered by the instrumentation is “reality,” or if by utilizing the instrumentation, it affects the “system” under measurement, and thus makes a new “reality.” Can you ever not affect the “system” in any type of experiment? And can the use of various statistical models truly make up for the errors caused by the effects?
Mayer:
I have to admit I instantly felt quite comfortable with Mayer’s point on basing the research in scientific ways. This “feels” right to me. Qualitative and quantitative research, if firmly footed in the comforting realm of science, and the ways of science, is “true research” to me, and generates “true knowledge.” What does “true” mean to me? It is what can hold up against time, and can be involved with serious debate. It appears that at this point in my education, I seem to be leaning towards the Positivist philosophy of educational research. (I cannot help but to ask myself if this would this have been the case if my earlier training had not been in the “heavy sciences.” Even here, I note that I think of chemistry and physics as true, “heavy” science, putting them on a pedestal versus biology or environmental science. Perhaps this is why in class discussions I am always looking for cold, sterile machines, data analysis versus interpretation, and a general feeling that any research in education has a strong base set down by scientifically sound inquiry.)
Wolcott:
I am troubled by the fact that I cannot truly deduce the goal of the ethnographer. To flesh out a construct, is an important goal in research. Perhaps what troubles me is the appearance that the research is accomplished first, and then the construct(s) are “fleshed out.” I am one that thinks of scientific inquiry as being “done” with a set notion in mind. I have a theory, and work with that theory, researching and altering variables, etcetera. Enculturation as a goal appears to be the desired result of the ethnographer via qualitative research in general, and via case studies in particular. The idea of themes emerging ,as the process of research goes on, is quite troubling to me.
Looking at the Wolcott piece, claim is made that the “goal is interpretation, not proof, and by the very choice of subject matter, leads ethnography to be necessarily ambiguous, just as it is necessarily incomplete. Also, it is “looked at as not science, lacking a statement of a problem, a review of relevant literature, a researchable hypothesis, a specific procedure, and real findings.”
Again, I find that I am showing myself to be quite biased here in terms of my thoughts concerning the “realness,’ the “trueness” of ethnography. I would like to be more open minded here, but just by the sake of the argument put forth here by Wolcott, ethnography appears to go against my educational foundation, my belief system. Here I feel I need more help. I do not want a case study, a small piece in the closed system. I want to solve a problem. I want the research to lead to a development. Is it the idea of the case study to be just a face for the Human Condition--- that unfixable “truth” of our existence? If so, this does not appear sufficiently “scientific enough” for me. (Perhaps though, as comment was made of the differentiation between fractals being observed narrowly or globally, so to one can look at the case study as chaotic only when it is removed from the insular environs of society as a whole--- that is taken narrowly and not globally? Just a thought…...)
Pederson:
I think of the attributional theory of motivation when I read the Pederson work. This theory I feel is “ground breaking,” and leads the way to seeing how causality is crucial to generalized beliefs held by an individual. Again, though, the Human Condition is at work here, and much of this is looked at via the constructs that are made by the researcher, and those involved with the study. And, once again, I show my insecurity with the idea of constructs, and how they come about. As mentioned, adult status is a man-made construct to describe a human situation. But what of mass, or energy, are these constructs? Perhaps the intangible nature of defining the Human Condition, such as that of adult status, seems undoable to me, whereas, mass or energy do not involve people, and I find this a bit more comforting. How can one truly measure (and I have to admit I look at this in a quantifiable way) an adult’s status. This is generating the idea that there is value in the status--- either, low, medium, or high. Assigning values seems inappropriate, and open to controversy here. Generating masses of various elements seems innocent enough, and leaves little judgment calls. (Perhaps this is another thing that bothers me. Knowledge is power, and too much can be perhaps “read into” a qualitative piece of work, such as a case study, too many generalizations made, all based on value judgments. Are we ready to have that knowledge? Is it the complete “picture’?” And, do we know what to do with it?)
Schulman:
What I really took note of here in this piece is the importance of all “educational research needing to draw upon multiple disciplinary perspectives so as to understand and improve educational practices.” In the opposite vein though, it appears that the altruism of “education for all” has a “dark side,” and is more in lines with societal enculturation--- a “blending in” with the times and/or “the others.”.
This enculturation, with an agenda, I find quite disturbing. The idea of generating a citizenry of unification from the heterogeneous populace sounds extremely controlling. In addition, an ethnocultural construction of education with religion or ethnicity as a force is equally controlling. Ongoing synthesis with an aim to generate a new middle class, and a Marxist construct involving the struggle of the citizenry leading the way to economic change are two avenues that show the rationale for education being quite distant from education for the sake of educating. What is more, the idea of looking at students as human capita where one needs to determine the cost/benefit ratio of sending the children to school, is a far cry from the altruisitic goal of free education for all.
This article frightens me. If this is the history of education, and how mandatory schooling came into place, what can we look to as a future? Did we put children into classrooms for the right reasons? How does one judge what is a right reason? Mandatory education for the sake of a societal enculturation can be construed to be borderline subliminal messaging and mind control. Truly, what is the purpose of education? I have always felt that education’s purpose is to broaden your horizons, but in its past it appears to have a very divergent goal--- one that is more deceptively narrowing.
Schrage:
“All propositions can only be tested through positivist research paradigms.” GO positivism! I know that critics cry that this philosophy “reduces people to mechanical systems,” looks at “human dynamics as simple systems,” looks at “treatment as not having inherent value,” and keeps “causation as a separate issue from value.” I have to admit though, that this philosophy has a lot of merit to me. I am not saying that it is “right,” for what do I know? I do know though, that I feel more comfortable with looking at life as systems with functions, not as being chaotic, without some order. I do not believe you can move forward in any scientific endeavor without order permeating through. Even in fractal theory, the chaos is local, but in a global view there is unification, a coherent whole.
Eisner:
I do like the idea that “science as the sole source of knowledge is incorrect.” But, I will come back with the thought that it may not be the only source, but it is a more comforting means of obtaining knowledge. I like that it has “checks and balances,” heavy peer review, and is highly structured. Again, I do not fare well with chaos, lack of patterns, etcetera.
Also, Eisner looks at “values and facts being inseparable.” I am not sure what this means, but if I take it at “face value,” I disagree. One can have facts, many facts, but they do not have to have value. It is the one involved with the facts that gives them meaning. A fact only has meaning for the one that is involved in its discovery or usage, in my eyes. Again, I could be quite wrong with this.
As for the world being construed, I believe he is right here, but this frightens me. I like to perceive my world as being a certain way, with certain physical constants that never change. What is more, I hope that when I look at the physical world, my senses depict the same reality as the person next to me. I know that this is not the case, but nevertheless the Human Condition brings in many anomalies. This is where I start liking my “cold machines” once again.
I loved the point about beware the judging of quality with the wrong criteria. This I would like to look into more. What is quality? Who defines it, and does that definition not count on who is the inventor of the definition? Criteria also can be construed, and has to fit the definition of quality that is rendered by whom is doing the judging. I am confused.
Erickson:
I find this work a bit vague, but this could be to my lack of a strong enough background in qualitative studies.
The issue is cause. Cause and effect is crucial in research, but here Erickson takes a stand that there should be not such an issue with cause, for any dealings with the Human Condition introduces such complexity that one cannot easily “tease out” a cause. He again brings up the idea of global stability juxtaposed with localized unpredicatable nature. I feel comforted by this, for again I think of Chaos Theory, and see how the pieces, the mini environments of chaos nevertheless culminate into a cohesive stabilized whole.
Interesting also here is his idea that generalities lie with the reader, not the author. Is this a way of expressing that when one reads a piece of research, it is the reader that is trying to “pull out” relevant information that can aid him or her in their work? But I say to that, is it not also crucial to the author that the piece is so clear and concise that there is little, or no, room for ambiguity in the text. Again, I am confused here with this.
Popkewitz:
In response to Erikson, Popkewitz goes into the confusion that is at work here. The confusion lies in the idea that the empirical purpose of science is the same as a philosophical discussion of science as seen from the perspective of causal nature and explanations in science. From what I understand, there is a desire to look for unity, when there is none. I am very confused with this idea of a unity, and the idea of unidimensional and differentiated sciences.
I am very excited by the notion that to understand a text involves one’s background, one’s prior knowledge. Using the term “linguistic communism” sounds so strong. To understand a text, do you not need so many skills, such as the ability to read in the first place--- let alone the ability to comprehend and assimilate that material in question. Plus, I am very interested in work done in Dr. Maria Varelas’ group in regards to semiotic representations in children’s textbooks. She is looking at the ability of students in the primary grades to show an understanding of very key scientific concepts in various ways/formats. One of my personal favorites is the water cycle (involving such occurrences as freezing, melting, condensation, evaporation, etcetera). Students in 2nd gradethat are limited in their ability to communicate verbally or in written format, can nevertheless show understanding of these key concepts as depicted in pictures. Whether drawn by them, or as textbook images, they can determine the closeness of water droplet molecules dependent on state, and are able to depict amounts and order of events for state changes. This shows that they have an idea of density, variables involved in state changes, the ordered nature of such changes, etcetera--- all very highly conceptual ideas/constructs.
I do agree that the altruistic idea of science is to function in such a capacity as to better society. I am confused how the link of linguitstic communism is made to this idea. Perhaps I need to read this paper again to derive more meaning. Is it truly such a “conspiracy theory” and that the textbooks are involved in a hidden agenda to limit the masses. Of course looking at the Schulman piece, there may be some merit to these thoughts. What is more, a good analogy is made of the idea that alchemy ( a “pseudoscience”) led the way to our present day chemistry. Perhaps there is more in this piece.
Phillips:
I am quite fascinated how when low inferences are made about a work, one just assumes that the work is higher in objectivity, than perhaps a piece that makes greater inferences. Yet, the work that consists of low inferences, may still not be the truth. This is quite compelling. We have more faith in low inferences, and what is more, make an inaccurate correlation that this is “truth.” What a mistake that can be made here.
\I do agree that if one is making high inferences/observations about too many things/ideas, the general idea of the work is that it is less objective, and thus more subjective in nature. The idea of “theory laden” is unique here in that when one brings up the general premises of the arguments in question, one needs to use various constructs—in my eyes, the theories--- to even have a point which to depart for the sake of communication. Is it that these constructs are so abstract that the meaning is lost, or no one can find it if the attempt was made? And if something is heavily “theory laden” how can we know that background theories are not at work in the piece?
It is quite bothersome to me to think that inquiries have certain procedures, and we can only hope if we “do it right” we will obtain the “truth.” We are assuming, inferring in my eyes, that if the correct, logical path/procedure is taken, the “truth” will be evident. My concern is this. What is the right path/procedure? Is there an absolute? When one talks of an acceptance of the “Critical Tradition,” and that it offers some assures in educational research, I cannot help but to ask myself if this is enough. I would like more.