Feb. 24…Ed. Research and the -isms
At the end of Chapter 6, Pring warns us to “beware of the -isms…”. That said, try to make sense of where you see Pring fitting in, “-ism-wise.” Alternative prompt: link something that you read in your Ed Researcher article to Pring or something else we have discussed in class.
I read the article “The Similarities Between Research in Education and Research in the Hard Sciences” by Carl Wiemen (2014). I was fascinated by this article because the author is a physicist. But not only is he a physicist, he has won the Nobel Prize in Physics and is a professor in both the Department of Physics and the Graduate School of Education at Stanford. The article really made the argument that when you are doing research in either education or in the “hard sciences” there are more similarities than we think. The article talked about the errors in both, the expectations of a good researcher in both, and the standards for good research in both. In Pring, we often hear about how ed research is not as reproducible and hear of the arguments against ed research.
ReplyDeleteThe reason this Wiemen article was really fascinating was that it held ed research and hard science to the same standards. One was not better than the other, as often I feel Pring makes a point for. Hard Science and ed research are put on the same plane, and I think it has to do with Wiemen’s dual interest in the hard science and in ed research. His background and interests led him to researching education. It almost seems that he is not making the argument for one or the other, but for both. Whereas in Pring I often feel he is making the argument for how to beef up ed research and where it falters, not holding hard science to the same criteria.
Pring tells us to beware of -isms, and taken with the whole chapter and everything else we've read, it struck me as more of an endorsement of a mixed approach, one that relies on both 'common sense beliefs' and the -isms, and more importantly, the connections between them and how we can apply them to teacher practice. He writes, “The force of my argument has lain not simply on the contrast between common sense and the more disciplined and theoretical modes of thinking but also upon their interconnection” (106). In that sense he was warning against depending too much on -isms as the sort of rule of law.
ReplyDeleteHe later says, “The way in which we understand and explain the social world, and thus educational practice, is more complex and subtle than that” 108). And while I’m sort of forcing the context here, he seems to be saying pretty clearly that while the -isms are indispensable, the singular reliance on them to shape our research would be flawed due to the ‘squishy’ nature of Ed. Research that we’ve discussed thus far throughout the semester.
I also see a lot of overlap here with our discussions of using plain language and just making our research more accessible and readable. If our research and explanation of it relies on common sense beliefs, that should bleed into the tone and language we use to put our research down on the page for our readers.
- Peyton B.
Hello, Peyton,
DeleteI really have an appreciation for the way you connected the mixed-methods approach to common sense beliefs and its importance towards moving knowledge forward. I completely agree that an either/or approach in research creates barriers that impact the development of new knowledge and leads to the creation of more ' squishy' knowledge that is not necessarily respected within and outside of the educational discipline.
Hello, Peyton,
DeleteI really have an appreciation for the way you connected the mixed-methods approach to common sense beliefs and its importance towards moving knowledge forward. I completely agree that an either/or approach in research creates barriers that impact the development of new knowledge and leads to the creation of more ' squishy' knowledge that is not necessarily respected within and outside of the educational discipline.
I read his both/and approach to describing the swamp of educational research as an overall critique of constructivism; feels kinda like a quant researcher telling a qual researcher they're worthless without math, when we know the reality is that they are inherently codependent.
DeleteThe world is not black and white, or, either, or, which Pring explores through the exploration of the impact and dualisms that derive from the following key concepts: realism, objectivity, causal explanation, explanations of human behavior, truth, theory, and knowledge. Research in any space is complicated, because reality is a complicated space. As human beings, we are driven by the world around us that defines how we see the world we live within. For me, Pring argues that no matter what perspective one takes, there is another perspective that may or may not perceive it in the same way, and that is okay. As highlighted when Pring: “Beware of ‘isms’ - and of the distinctions which arise from theri rigid application” (p. 108). As a collective, we can take or leave what does or does not line up with our research, but we have to learn that another’s research should not simply be disregarded as contributing more or less value to an area of thought due to falling in or outside our parameter of truth. Pring also discusses that we do not do a good job in the field of education of moving knowledge along, and one reason for this is due to educational researchers focusing on evaluating the research of others, particularly their faults, which impacts the development and creation of new knowledge and the expansion of the educational body of knowledge. I reflected on this point for a moment and connected it to last week’s class conversation when we were discussing the purpose of research in general and Dr. Stemhagen asked does the research answer all the questions? Probably not, but what can we take from the research to further our work? I know I am paraphrasing, but this took off some weight as an emerging researcher, and how we look and examine the work of others. As researchers, we are on the same team, whether directly or indirectly, and perhaps it is better to stop looking at it as a competition for the best research and to look for the gaps in the field to continue to add to the body of knowledge. Beware of ‘isms’ is highlighting the danger of the divisions they can create, and as new researchers, we need to start bringing the knowledge together.
ReplyDeleteI read the article titled "Research in the Hard Sciences, and in Very Hard 'Softer' Domains" written by D.C. Phillips. The article addresses the common theme in research circles that hard sciences like physics are more successful or more deserving of respect. Phillips makes a joke that "apart from higher status, higher salaries, fancier-looking lab equipment, and sparkling white lab coats, they are just like us!" (2014, p. 9). He goes on to argue that the two sciences - physics and education research - are not all that different; both follow the same general logical pattern that starts with identifying a problem and feeds into the experiment stage. Phillips goes on to then identify some differences between the so-called hard and soft sciences stating that hard sciences like physics benefit from the use of randomized controlled experiments which he admits cannot be performed in social sciences like research education. The best part, though, is Phillips's argument as to why this doesn't decrease the significance of education research. He admits that it is hard to make predictions or generalizations in education research because human variables cannot be as easily controlled as conditions such as temperature; removal of those factors, which "are of great human and educational significance" would subsequently remove "all semblance of ecological validity" (2014, p. 10). Phillips concludes his article by affirming that education is a very hard science itself.
ReplyDeleteIn class and through readings, we have extensively discussed the debate between hard and soft sciences and the resultant judgment of education research as "less than". We've also discussed the challenges that education researchers have in regard to generalizability of results from research, the significance of context of informing that research and making it applicable to other scenarios. I think Phillips's opinion that education research is an extremely hard science is refreshing, considering the message that is usually conveyed.
Kori Mosley
ReplyDelete2/23/2020
I don’t know enough yet of the “isms” to confidently comment on where Pring fits in, “ism-wise”… We’ve briefly been introduced to realism and positivism in class discussions - and we were prompted to look for “realist tendencies” in Pring’s writing… so I guess that's a hint (!!). I'll skip to the alternate prompt :)
I chose to read Carl E. Wieman’s “The Similarities Between Research in Education and Research in the Hard Sciences.” The title suggested a continuation of what we have been discussing in class - and to what Pring has also been suggesting in his writing. Wieman describes a practical similarity in the two types of research, recalling the fundamental property of predictive power. Admitting that there are differences between the two, he none the less sees the struggle in both science AND education to identify important variables, including the “messiness” of the processes.
What’s interesting is the way in which he came to consider this topic. As a physicist working with graduate students, he played the role of both the scientist and the educator. Along the way, he developed research questions and related projects aligned with both roles and inspired by understanding how success in physics class was a poor predictor of success as a physicist. He seemed to be equally inspired by “error,” “mess,” and “rigor” - things that he says come with cutting-edge research in any field.
He reminds us that the “rigor” reserved for experiments with predictive power can be found in both the hard sciences AND education. Further, that even unsuccessful experiments are valuable - and that qualitative research can achieve success in respect to established research criteria and standards. In his words: “Considering the predictive power, and corresponding new insights that a research study will provide is a more meaningful measure of its rigor and value than what particular research design it uses” (p.13). So, again, like Pring, he is reiterating the importance of the quality of the study and the choice of the method(s), not the methods themselves.
I appreciated his willingness to talk about “bad” research - in both science AND education - that it happens and it not reserved to one or the another. He also pointed out that some controlled projects (which have the reputation for having more “rigor” and, therefore, respect) may result in only incremental findings - and that the cutting edge research, while “messy and complex” may ultimately yield more significant results.
Kori, I decided to read the same article! I agree with you in the humility Wieman showed by talking about "bad" research in both education and science. I wonder what his experiences have been with students and if any of the predictive power he talked about could translate to his students. I'm curious if this mentality leads to stronger research for his students in both fields.
DeleteThroughout the chapter, Pring seems to take aim at the concept of "constructivism," making layers of arguments that socially constructed "truths" can also be considered objective reality if they exist independent of one person's creation, and can therefore be observed, etc. While I first read through the beginnings of this chapter and thought, "What does this guy have against constructivists?" I later started to think about one particular sentence in the context of Pring's lens and positionality:
ReplyDelete"Thus...there are aspects of the personal and social worlds which are not of my personal creation, even though they are the result of social interactions and even though they might be transformed through further personal and social deliberations." (94).
Maybe I'm in a different headspace, but this sentence started ringing alarm bells for me: educated, white, male researcher talking about social constructs that aren't his creation but "might be transformed" through further deliberations? Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like white guilt regarding racism (as an example of one such "aspect of the personal and social world"). What does it mean when all realities, including the ones you benefit from, are objectively true because of some unspoken consensus or dominance in society? If the observable nature of social interactions is problematic, AND you are close enough to observe it, at what point does the viewer take ownership for their role?
In this way, I feel like Pring is trying to build a wall where there isn't one to be built. Constructed realities are exactly that, dependent upon one's own experience and the "objective" viewpoint they have access to utilize. We can view "aspects of the personal and social world" that we did not create, but that doesn't mean that our point-of-view translates to objective reality (constructivism still says that we're interpreting that observation through our own experiences and beliefs, so it's never going to be objectively "real" even if it's replicable or consistent). Philosophically, Pring seems to be trying to eat his cake and have it too. Practically, that approach can turn into the transformation of a country's ethos in the span of one election night, and that practical consequence of such a both/and approach should probably not be left in the philosophical context alone.
In Chapter 6, it seems that Pring is encouraging the application of realism and skepticism when speaking of the concept of theory and research. In my interpretation, Pring’s message is to contest the validity of everything. While he agrees in the coexistence of common-sense and theoretical framework to compliment practice (teacher/classroom), he brings up interesting questions about the definition of “common-sense”. It is uncertain if he is totally sold on Atkinson’s theory on psychology “which explains more adequately than conventional wisdom”, but it seems that his thoughts are closely tied. Pring’s accounts of ‘truth’ and ‘body of knowledge” piqued my interest. He wrote that “any body of knowledge, though well corroborated, can only be provisional; it is open to further change through criticism”. This statement made me think back to our journal article critique assignment. The article that I critiqued was based on a study (survey research and interviews) and concluded with a practical list of attributes to consider when development a successful leadership program on a college campus. The article was intriguing to me because of its practicality and perceived ‘body of knowledge’ that I gained from the study. As Pring mentioned, a criticism of educational research is that it lacks ‘body of knowledge’, but I argue that the article that I critiqued was relevant to me as the learner, and it allows for the possibility of further research and scale. I believe that the beauty in educational research is that it does not fit in a box. Met with skepticism of the validity because the lack a scientific approach, I argue that out of the box approaches to research lends itself to monumental truths in the minds of practitioners. I welcome Pring’s skepticism as a new researcher/practitioner. I agree that one should be practice being objective as possible in writing/research while being hesitant to proclamations. It will take much practice.
ReplyDeletePring describes his position in Chapter 6 as “robust realism” (p. 108). In reflecting on his approach in defining eight key concepts (“-isms”) at the root of controversies in educational research, as well as how they fit into research and practice, I believe that Pring places himself squarely in the middle. By in the middle, I mean that he does not lean too heavily towards any one –ism; rather, he sees the need for balance among them as appropriate in connecting theory to practice. Both technical and common sense languages have their place within theoretical frameworks. Rigidity in allegiance to any –ism is to be avoided at all cost. In discussing each concept individually, Pring points out the interconnectedness among them, as one is not truly relevant and reliable without the other. For example, he states in his discussion about facts that “’Facts, theory and descriptions of reality are interconnected concepts” (p. 94). He points out that theory, even if unquestioned, is embedded in all observations of practice (p. 96)
ReplyDeleteI read the article by D.C. Phillips called “Research in the Hard Sciences, and in Very Hard “Softer” Domains” (2014). The title stuck out to me and made me want to read the article because the author clearly acknowledged the difficulty of doing research in “Softer” realms. Phillips argument that “research across many if not all fields can be thought of as attempting to make a compelling case for a hypothesis, by marshaling evidence of various types and crafting arguments, which taken as a whole warrant a conclusion about this hypothesis...research is an exercise in argumentation, or in rhetoric” (10). This quote makes me feel a lot better about the discussions we have been having in class about whether our job is to convince readers to believe what we believe. This relates to what we have been reading in Becker’s book - we write in a “classy” way because we think it will make others believe us. And with what Phillips is saying, that’s the idea behind all research, not just “softer” research.
ReplyDeleteAnother quote that stuck out to me in the Phillips article relates to the multivariate nature of education that we have discussed at length: “In research in education settings, these [confounding variables] are not nuisances but are of great human and educational significance - control here removes all semblance of ecological validity.” I am so glad to see this being stated more explicitly (and eloquently!). I think this statement truly speaks to the need for qualitative research in education, and emphasizes what we’ve been talking about with the two types of research working together. Like Pring stated in Chapter 5, some research cases call for the quantification of human characteristics, while others require qualitative explanations. And Phillips agrees! Teaching & learning, by nature, are contextualized activities. Research that does not attend to the context would be inherently flawed. I feel a lot better about my tendency to lean toward qualitative research, but also acknowledge the ability to support qualitative data through quantitative means.
-Chelsea Prue
In chapter 6, Pring writes “educational researchers have drawn too harsh a contrast between quantitative and qualitative traditions.” (page 108) This is something that has been touched on in class, and that has been written about on the blog. It’s hard to say that one is better than the other, or that one is more scientific than the other. This supports what the article that I chose to read this week, The Similarities Between Research in Education and Research in the Hard Sciences, and what Carl Wieman explained between Educational research and research in the hard sciences.
ReplyDeleteWielman brought up a good point “a good qualitative study that examines only a few students or teachers in depth will allow one to recognize, and hence more accurately predict, some factors that will be important in. educational outcomes and important in the design of larger quantitative experiments in similar populations.” What I gather from this, is that the implementation and generalizability of the study is what is important when claiming a study to be scientific or not.
Wielman also wrote about what makes research “bad” and that relates to both qualitative and quantitative research. It’s all about utilizing the correct variables, but leaving out unwanted bias that will skew results in the researchers favor. But still, I am confused as to what I believe is scientific research.
Meagan here.
ReplyDeleteI read “The Similarities Between Research in Education and Research in the Hard Sciences.” I feel a little bad, because I had the benefit of discussing this with classmates during class, but it reinforced what I felt, and it introduced new thoughts for me.
In this short piece, Wieman talked about a "tension" we've been exploring all semester: the tension between the hard and the soft sciences. I will say, the title itself tells us there is a dichotomy by contrasting education research with research in the hard sciences. Unlike some of the pieces we've read, though, or some of the viewpoints we've talked about (that those practicing research in the hard sciences may see the research being done in the soft sciences as inferior), Wieman actually talks about what ties the two together. It helps that he has the hard science cred to back up his viewpoint (which, I get in some ways proves the point that we give more respect to hard scientists), which is nice because it's not an educational researcher arguing for the recognition, but a physicist. He acknowledges just how difficult and rigorous educational research can be.
I thought this was refreshing against some of the tensions we've discussed. I think there are real tensions, though they're not everywhere, and perhaps in some disciplines more than others. My background and my way of thinking and my training is in sociology, and so I don't always feel like an education researcher, or at least maybe not yet, not really, so maybe I don't have a vested interest in the tension yet, and I haven't felt it. I do 100% think discipline, educational training, and occupation affects how you see the world--I mostly work around doctors, but I also work with a handful of PhDs who come from the softer sciences.
To close, I'll say I liked it when Wieman talks about how with education research, a lot of the criticism is the messiness of it, but that's partially because we're so far past a lot of the messy work, the trial and error, the wrong findings, done in science. It made it feel like there will be a time when education research is just a recognized, because that messiness comes with the territory of science.
It's interesting looking back this prompt a few months later, now that I'm more comfortable with the material and the ideas of the course. Kurt always mentioned how he thought that Pring would always suggest that there was a better/right answer out there for a way to do Ed research. (Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, Kurt!) With this, falling into the ism's isn't just directly ascribing to one form of truth or reality within your work, but also the subconscious/unintended ways it may come out in your work. Even if you ascribe yourself to try to live in the grey and recognize that there isn't one set paradigm, your writing may indicate otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThis also may be another credit to the idea of working within a community of scholars and peer review. Especially with people you know and trust it's easier to say: "Hey, I got a heavy dose (x) from your paper. You normally try and steer a little clear of going full tilt (x). Was that intentional?" Showing is harder than telling and it's easier to pay lip service to an idea then fully live it out. Thinking about Pring's idea of avoiding the false dualism provides even more credence to the idea of finding a community of folks that can help see tones or ideas in my work I may not be able to see myself.