January 27…On Labaree’s Scholar-Practitioner Tension
Note something from this article with which you disagree (note: I assume that reading this paper was a different experience for those with P-12 experience and those without. That said, he made a sufficient number of bold claims so I’m sure everyone can disagree with something he said). Why do you disagree with it? Did Labaree give words to any tensions that you feel as you head down the road of the educational researcher? If so, explain.
My biggest issue with the Labaree article is the choice in language and the overall impact it had on the credibility of teachers. Which is odd, because in education we are taught to use strengths-based language. So painting teachers in light where they don’t like data and analysis and keep their distance from theory and empirical literature is striking. The argument for teacher’s not relying on empirical data to base an argument is supported by Labaree saying they can just use own experience. It paints a picture of egocentric educators that come to do their Ph.D. and not being able to escape their own experiences. I argue that teachers can apply their experiences, because what practitioner does not apply experiences they have had? We can’t separate ourselves from our experiences and this does not make us any less scholarly. There isn’t “convincing” that needs to be done to see the importance in learning and adjusting perspectives. If there was a mandate for such an intense shift in thought, these individuals would not be getting their Ph.D. and there would be no forward movement in education as a discipline. I think with every discipline there are people that enter that think they know it all, I don't think it is specific to education. With that being said, I think that will be a challenge for me. Working with people that aren't easily open to change and additional perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying. In Education, it appears that often times a persons experiences are what lead them to pursuing their Ph.D., so almost asking them to suppress those experiences in order to go into researcher mode just doesn't add up.
Delete"As a result, we should not be surprised to find that doctoral programs in education often fail to produce all that we ask of them." Doctoral programs in education do have a lot that they need to consider with such a wide variety of student's enrolled, since we do all have different backgrounds and experiences that have led to our pursuit of a deeper understanding, which leads to different needs and levels of support. But, like the article discussed, mentorship can play such a huge role in the development of doctoral students, and I would like to hope that those mentor/student relationships help to identify any gaps that need to be filled by the department. Overall, as others have said, I feel like the article downplays doctoral students in education's ability to recognize their own skill set's, and further more, to utilize their skills properly when balancing their role as a student, and as a professional.
The original post was me, Aliza!
DeleteFirst of all, WOW Labree likes to CITE HIMSELF A LOT, right?
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, I disagreed more with the Krishnan article more than the Labree article, possibly because I don't have particularly strong feelings about P12 education. I did agree strongly with Labree when he explored the idea of most educational doc students as being adult learners (for obvious reasons). "Doctoral students in education have already lived a life. They have spent at least some time, generally a lot of time, doing something other than being a good student." I agree with that statement, and the one that follows, "...they are not willing to be treated as kids just because they are students."
I initially started a different program in the SOE but because the faculty in that program all came from a K12 background, I felt like I was being treated "like a kid" which I resented. I felt like learning was something that was being done to me---Freire's "banking model" of education where content is deposited into students' minds and later withdrawn via tests or papers. I changed my doctoral program because I wanted to direct the course of my own studies, not simply be a vessel for stored content.
My biggest disagreement with Labree, then, is the assumption that most doctoral students in higher ed come from a P12 background. While many certainly do, that is not representative of all doctoral students of education. Our class makeup is a great example: Many of us have worked in higher ed, and see a doctoral degree in education as a furthering of our professional career aspirations, either as faculty or as administrators in a college or university.
Additionally, Labree cites a natural "cultural clash" that exists between P12 teachers and university researchers, implying somehow that P12 teachers don't use evidence in their teaching, or are so biased towards immediate solutions that they don't see the value in educational research. I suspect none of that is true. P12 teachers are highly educated, and research methodology is part of that education---instilling an innate sense of evidence-based teaching in P12 environments, I suspect. Labree makes some sweeping generalizations about the nature of teaching and the nature of teachers themselves, and I can see why this article would be problematic for anyone from a P12 background.
Yeah, I had the same reflection on the self-citations...I generally find them tolerable in smaller amounts (and they're usually not being used to back up or ground such polarizing claims).
DeleteI guess my complaint would have been more valid if I had, y'know, gotten his name right a single time in my comment. :)
DeleteActually, I felt that he validated some (many) of my thoughts, experiences, and tensions. Similar to the other readings, there was mention of the possible disconnect (“conflicting worldview") between practitioner and researcher. But Larabee also reinforced some positives about the ways that experienced teachers might transition well to doctoral study (maturity, experience, dedication).
ReplyDeleteI also thought I learned a few new things…. That being said, this prompt reminds me that I have a bad habit of “drinking the Kool-Aid” and that I can easily jump on the passion-wagon when I read something that I am already thinking/feeling. In the specific case of this article, my personal feelings about the general disrespect that is paid to education (and art education, specifically) tends to blind me to the other side of the story, if there is one.
So I had to read it again…
While I tend to agree that, in general, education has a “lowly status” (especially in light of its critical importance), I suppose that I can disagree with the very generalized statement that suggests teachers are a low quality lot and that their education was likely “easy access and low standards” (p. 13). Those words hurt when in the context of my experience - and that of the many, highly qualified, well-educated, and hard working teachers that I know/know exist (unfortunately, the opposite does also exist). To further suggest that doctoral programs may be in the same boat (p. 15) is suspect.
Also, as much as I am struggling with my place in a PhD program - and as much as I can recognize the conflict between practice and theory, I am not sure that I have been “asked to abandon teacher culture in favor of a new academic culture” (p. 14). I feel the difference, yes, but I don’t feel that I am abandoning anything - and no one has asked that of me or suggested that they might. I am just struggling with my perceived inability to be an academic.
I am not sure why my name doesn't publish even though I am signed in through Google??
DeleteKori Mosley
I find your response to be very honest and reflective and it made me think about my own reality of the constant struggle of finding a place in the PhD world. From your response I can hear the internal conversation you've had while reading this article. I had to read it twice because I felt like I had to separate myself from the reading, which I really didn't do the first time around. Did you find yourself battling with the reading?
Delete-Aliza
ReplyDeleteI’d like to begin by saying that I found this article quite difficult to read. As a P-12 teacher (still on a teacher contract, though I am now considered a math ‘coach’), I had a very hard time reading about the lowly status of educators. I had to read the article in chunks, and each time felt a little differently about the overall ideas. My overall impression is that Labaree probably is not wrong about many of the bold claims he is making, and he certainly is not sugar coating the way the academic world views P-12 educators.
“Carrying out credible research in education is particularly difficult.” I think I primarily disagree with this statement because of the word “credible.” When I think of the word “credible”, I think “believable” or “convincing.” Having just completed my master’s here at VCU (Interdisciplinary Studies: Mathematics and Education) and receiving a K-8 Mathematics Specialist Endorsement, I have read MANY case studies of mathematics classrooms. While the “research” in those case studies was more anecdotal and qualitative, I found no reason to question the credibility of the case studies I was reading. While they were not quantitative and analytical, to me, they were 100% credible.
I also reported on the “research” done in my own classroom. Again, the reporting of this “research” was quite anecdotal and qualitative compared to hard sciences, but I know for sure that I reported exactly what happened in my classroom, and it was believable AND convincing.
I put “research” in quotes here as I am beginning to wrap my head around the idea that education research (and other social sciences) produce mostly qualitative data, and I’m not really sure if there is another word to use here. I agree with Labaree that the evidence produced by the case studies I have read may not be driven by quantitative data, but I think that speaks more to the generalizability than the credibility of the research.
This does give words to some of the tensions that I feel as I head down the road of an educational researcher - I am already slightly frustrated by the lack of respect that I feel for the type of work that we do. Just because data is qualitative in nature does not mean that it is any less real. It may be harder to generalize with qualitative data, but that does not make the data any less useful in my opinion.
-Chelsea Prue
Hello, Chelsea,
DeleteYour frustration resonated with me, particularly in regards to the disregard for qualitative data. For me, qualitative data is the story behind the numbers. It is harder to examine because of the humanistic components within the research space, but those individual components that make up the whole are equally important. I think it also comes back to "old schools of knowledge" and "new schools of knowledge" and the hard sciences have a particular "methodological approach" that many simply glean toward because of the school of thoughts historical roots. One of my favorite terms from the reading is "methodological hegemony" that challenges us to not consumed by one methodological approach. Thank you for your thoughts.
I tuned in to the comment on "methodological hegemony" as well. The more I have thought about the readings over the past week, the more I realized: is it even possible to produce hard, qualitative data in education? Labaree talks about moving from the Particular to the Universal - I have a hard time wrapping my head around this concept. As a P-12 educator, the focus for SO LONG has been differentiation and meeting the needs of each individual student. BUT, in order to collect qualitative data, wouldn't we have to characterize students in a much more general fashion? And in doing so, wouldn't we effectively be ruining the conclusions of said data?
DeleteI hope my thoughts on that make sense. I vaguely remember reading that idea stated, but could not find it on glancing back through the readings.
-Chelsea
Overall, I found it most concerning that this author has such a significant role in the development of educational programming for a large public research institution within the field of education. He has a lot of strong, bordering on negative, opinions about his own profession (which seems ironic in this context).
ReplyDeleteI'm conflicted about where to begin in terms of the claims that frustrated me the most. There were a handful that caught my attention for sure, but I think there is one underlying theme that connected to a couple others rising to the top of my list. He speaks of educators in public settings as morally conflicted, compared to transactional professions like law and medicine, and compounds that concept"with the policy-driven structures in place that support his theory. Is compulsory education a concept that solely belongs to educational researchers? I would argue that the laws and social norms guiding compulsory education as a socializing experience existing long before our discipline. Comparing law and medicine (or really any other profession) to education in this argument is also surprisingly short-sighted. Education as a discipline has to exist in order for institutions to create lawyers and doctors.
I do appreciate that while he identified the moral high ground required to be effective educators (because I agree that teaching requires a strong ethical understanding of that responsibility), he also criticizes the field in its capabilities to rise to that demand. Educators cannot be responsible for the allegedly problematic design of their profession and also damned for the implementation of the discipline that creates all other professions. Compulsory education, when designed well and implemented appropriately, should never be considered a "restriction of student liberty," when it has been created to contribute to the development of a just society with common values and skills available to all (regardless of background).
Your first paragraph is on point, Beth! You're right, I think Larabee assumes that his opinion is right (because he's cited evidence---that he researched and published himself!) and that everyone shares his (negative) opinion about the state of education.
DeleteI hate to be that person, but the article itself seems grounded much more in theory than in evidence, which may or may not have been intentional. I don't know that it's appropriate to explain that the author's school mirrors the national demographics unless the paper was about his program specifically; in this case, it reads more as "yeah, that's true from my experience."
ReplyDeleteI would give a massive benefit of the doubt of the "lowly status" of educational programs, but that seemed to be a judgment made in comparison with (quite often) doctors and lawyers. I think I disagreed with some of the claims around the differences in practice. There's one section discussing compulsory attendance and how, unlike with doctors and lawyers, education is not about the students' wishes. Medicine is also not about the patients' wishes. I found this to be a weak comparison. I also read it as suggesting in at least one section that teachers and educators don't use evidenced-based practices. While medicine is known to be "evidence-based", the open secret of medicine is that many doctors go with what their mentors taught them. No one is actually sure how reliable the evidence is. In the same vein, I think teachers are often expected to teach according to evidence or to policy or to both. I think I only took this path because my field is medical education, and medicine seemed to be on an undeserving pedestal. My personal, not scientific belief, is that the status we ascribe to practices have nothing to do with training and everything to do with monetary gain/social status. Medicine and law are desirable not because of the knowledge but because of the lifestyle. I think they were used a few too many times to make a point for my taste, when the points the author made could have been just as, if not more, salient without these comparisons.
Above is Meagan R!
DeleteLabaree comes right out of the gate perpetuating what so many people in education feel already that our field is not well-respected and that basically anyone can be an educator. My question is why are other fields viewed as being more competitive and having higher standards. Is it because they are compensated more after graduation? If an education student went straight through and received a PhD and then taught as others do with their finite degrees would they be more respected. Instead it seems we view those educators as not having enough experience to be experts in the classroom. Then on the flip side it was noted that if teachers decide to join the academic culture the consequence many times is abandoning the classroom teacher culture and creating a them versus us environment. I also disliked how education knowledge as a discipline was viewed as soft with the focus more on "descriptive and interpretation" rather than on causation. This final statement is a direct swipe at education compared to more scientific fields. This makes me wonder if the EdD was developed as a result of such thinking in hopes that more educators would get an EdD; therefore proving that the field of education is not at the same level as the PhD in other sciences.
ReplyDeleteNatalie F.
DeleteI was compelled by Labaree's positioning of teacher education and education research within the larger institutional and cultural context of American higher education and scholarship, and honestly would love to do more reading along those lines.
ReplyDeleteAs for this argument about the practitioner-researcher divide, I just think the article is outdated. This issue was published in 2003! Much of my sense of this is fed by Labaree's characterization of educational research. On p. 17, Labaree limits the nature of educational research to identifying and explaining the functions and dysfunctions of schooling, rather than attempting to address and "fix" some piece of educational practice. I would argue (perhaps from a vastly less informed POV) that this is less and less the case. Indeed, as a I sat in on a MERC session about their new research project, it was made explicit that those researchers want to go beyond simply identifying and explaining the issue they're researching -- they want to find solutions.
Further, as qualitative methods become more widely accepted and practiced, education research has become more accepting of ethnographies, phenomenologies, and case studies that aspire to be less analytical (or at least theoretical and generalizable) than quantitative methods. As Labaree makes clear, qualitative methods are probably more explanatory (p. 14). This means that the normative knowledge of classroom teachers is more valuable for education research.
Ultimately, Labaree was probably right. During the First George W. Bush Administration. I'm not sure he is now.
Jonathan Dusenbury here, btw.
DeleteIn my opinion, the unintended consequence of becoming a disciplinary expert in any field is that one’s expertise can lead to a narrowed and pigeon-holed perspective on the reality of one’s expertise and its impact on the system. It is difficult, practically impossible, to be an expert in the entire system of education, and I understand this. Still, one has to be aware of the whole system to truly understand how their part of the system deepens the knowledge of the entire system. I am a practitioner in K-12 education, and I believe in an indirect way, I am pursuing my P.h.D to disrupt some of the unintended consequences of a system that was created for a world that we no longer live in and by individuals who have hindered the system with their beliefs and misconceptions of not only of what education is but who education is for and why. I have a thirst for knowledge and a need to deepen my understanding of the system of education to meet better the needs of the people the system serves, particularly the young people and teachers I serve. I am eager to become a steward of education to generate new knowledge, understand the intellectual history of the field, the best practices in the current work, and to share this knowledge with others inside and outside of the field of education. I need this P.h.D program not just for the credential at the end of it, but for the journey towards unlocking the knowledge towards securing the degree.
ReplyDeleteI need to deepen my formal knowledge to broaden my understanding of the inter-workings of the educational system and the policies that created it, sustain, and to research where there is a need for new policies, practices, and procedures to produce a change in the parts of the system that need to be reexamined and redesigned.
As a practitioner, it is imperative for me to create the space to reflect and research the system to truly move the work. It is easy to become consumed by the day-to-day life of being a practitioner, and for me, I needed to carve out the space to become a better educator by furthering my education. I am fueled by my own beliefs and misconceptions, but also the beliefs and misconceptions of those who uphold this current system. I am passionate about developing an understanding of the policies and systems that make up inequities in our field. I want to contribute to the research by examining the educational practices that hinder some learners and fuel the learning outcomes of others. I am humbled by the career field I am in; as educators, we directly impact the future our students have before them - and I do not take this lightly.
This should have been with question 1.
Delete“Bold claims” indeed. Simply put, if you are an educator then you cannot be a researcher because you are torn between the two worlds. There is always this difficult space between theory and practice, but as a practitioner, you have the opportunity to apply your research in a physical space, but to some degree, Labaree sees this as the problem. When Labaree discusses the problem of the conflicting worldviews between teachers and researchers, he describes three tensions: agenda, perspective, and response, and it is these three tensions that do not allow teachers to be researchers, which then leads me to wonder if researchers can be teachers, especially when I am in a P.h.D program with researchers, who are teaching me to be a researcher. I say that facetiously but also alarmed that Labararee is an expert in creating educational programs that impact current and future educators.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the prompt, I expected to be appalled by Labaree’s article; however, that wasn’t the case. I was sensitive to his choice of words in describing teacher-students in the first part of the article, as he paints us as close-minded and lacking understanding of the need to draw on theory to understand and inform practices. However, his criticism is of how doctoral programs in education train teachers to become researchers in our profession more so than of the teachers who matriculate through the programs. I agree that the “potentially conflicting professional worldviews between teacher and researcher” (p. 15) can be a barrier in the transition from teacher as practitioner to teacher as educational researcher. Writing from his personal experience as one responsible for developing educational researchers, I appreciate Labaree’s comparison and contrast of both the teachers’ and the researchers’ lenses and the parallels between the two. I am most appreciative of his recognition of the importance that both faculty and students in doctoral programs understand that it isn’t an either…or…approach; rather, it’s a both…and…balanced approach that will ensure quality preparation of educational researchers.
ReplyDeleteI had the pleasure of taking Dr. Parkhouse's Professional Development for Changing Schools course last semester, which took on a lot of the questions in the Labaree article (in addition to reading a fair amount of Labaree). I never was a P-12 teacher, but I was fortunate enough to be in a classroom full of current and former educators last semester. The main tension that I take issue with, and it's not a strong issue because I recognize the context of it, is the idea of (paraphrasing) "Teachers want solutions to problems NOW and researchers want to understand the solution to the problem CAUSING the problem". (The example of the fight in the back of the classroom.)
ReplyDeleteI think this is a symptom of the material constraints of education more so than it is the desires of the educator. From listening in on the class discussion last semester, it might be a question of Maslow's Hierarchy. From my small sample size, P-12 educators would love to understand the sociological and pedagogical theories that flow through their work, but it's hard to think philosophically about a problem when you have 5-6 priorities and shifting time windows to finish them. When you aren't given the time, space, and resources to think critically, it might feel condescending to opine about the larger structural causes of something when you have no agency to address or unpack those issues.
Looking at trends like Japanese Lesson Studies, it seems obvious what we can do to make teachers more self-aware, theory-based, and scholarly. When public education is handled with the "lowest responsible bidder" mentality of allocating the least amount of capital without going to jail, you place your educators in a space where they can only be reactive as opposed to proactive.
So, yeah, I would agree that educators are often more solution oriented than process oriented scholar I would argue that is an intentional systemic choice. Similar to lecturing poor folks about financial literacy when they have no safety net or money, maybe P-12 educators don't lack the desire to discuss/investigate theory but lack the ability to prioritize it.
I have to say that I admired Labarre’s flair. He’s got a writing style I enjoyed; he has a strong voice and depth of knowledge that worked together to challenge some of what I was bringing to the table. I did find a few moments to be irksome, and at times it seemed clear that that was the intended effect. Overall though, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what’s said, even if a lot of it did feel like generalizations, loaded with exceptions.
ReplyDeleteMy wife (she teaches 4th grade) and I talked a lot about the following: “A second closely related status problem for the education school is its link to teaching, the largest and least esteemed of the professions. The work of public school teachers is highly visible and the subjects they teach appear elementary, in comparison to the obscured work settings and arcane expertise of the higher professions (Fenstermacher, 1990). Thus, the education school gets no credit for accomplishing the complex task of preparing teachers to work effectively in the challenging setting of the public school classroom because teaching is mistakenly seen as transparently easy.” I agree with this, but at the same time Labarre almost seems to indulge in it, to the point that it feels unproductive for educators.
One part that I found myself completely disagreeing with, at least on a personal level, was Labarre’s claim that the analytical mission of the scholar is at odds with the teacher’s “moral action.” He says, “Teachers entering doctoral study in education find themselves being asked to adopt a mode of professional practice that appears to be not only sharply different from their own but also morally suspect. From the teacher’s perspective, the scholarly approach to education may seem coldly distant and unconscionably unconcerned about student outcomes.” I haven’t found this to be true in my doctoral program, although it’s too early to say conclusively. But I think a lot of my experience thus far has to do with my cohort and the kind of venue the faculty provide for discussion and the adaptive perimeters for research goals. A lot of my research tends to be focused on program development, so student outcomes play a natural role.
- Peyton
" Regardless of whether researchers use quantitative or qualitative methods, carrying out credible research in education is particularly difficult. "
ReplyDeleteI think this is a deficit statement, from the perspective of someone who believes that hard sciences are more important/credible than soft sciences. I think arguments can be made for both sides but what is missing from this piece is an understanding that social science research is important for society as well. Can you imagine a world where people didn't care about education, psycology, social work, or sociology? If trends throughout history weren't studied, explored, and learned from?
I think that there is a way to conduct social science research to make it more credible - that does not necessarily mean all quantitative research either. But rather, figuring out a way to bring education researchers from across the country (and world) together and carrying out research in conjunction with one another so that a larger, systems level approach can be taken. I think that education research is highly contextual and until we make an effort to seek out other educators or researchers in similar situations and connect our research and analysis, the field of education research will continue to be seen as fragmented and ineffective.