March 2….Pring on Competing Philosophies
Ask a question in light of your reading of Chapter 7. Here’s your chance to ask about positivism, postmodernity, etc.
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.
Kori Mosley
ReplyDelete2/29/2020
After reading this chapter, I am really just amazed that there is any level of function in this world. It’s obvious that we don’t all get along but after reading the sections on interpretive theory - intentions, phenomenology, social reality, and ethnography - I wonder how the actions (observable behaviors, p. 117) of anyone, anywhere, at any time are ever taken for what they are intended to be. Do we ever really know what someone is actually saying or doing? Do we even know what we are actually saying or doing? It just feels so defeating, that we may all be a “visitor to a strange society” (p. 119). How many times a day are we misunderstood? How many of these misunderstandings are damaging? How many social rules are we not following because we don’t actually know them? Are the people who I might call “rude” (or solipsistic, to quote Pring) for breaking the social rules that I abide by not actually rude - is it that they don’t know the rules of “my strange society” and are just following their own? Of course, more often than not, I may be the stranger who does not understand the rules…
I know that I may be exaggerating a bit here, getting caught up in the Pring-ponging and perhaps having a bit of an existential crisis, but thinking about this has been helpful in reminding myself to be a better person (see postmodernism). I am also reminded to question “objectivity” and to consider carefully the structures that support any such claim (again, see postmodernism). Also, I am even more convinced that qualitative research, like ethnography and action-research by teachers, as Pring seems to suggest on p. 141, is critical to postmodernist educational research and beyond.
Kori, I think you need to coin the term "Pring-ponging"! To your point about getting along, it makes me think of social constructs and how this shapes what people think of ed research. If the folks that abide by positivism are the ones publishing more research and publishing in higher audience journals, then that's what people read about. This then informs their interpretation of ed research. The "faults" become the socially constructed view. I think that is actually not very positivism if you ask me!
DeleteKori, I LOVE the phrase "Pring-ponging" as well! I feel that there is always so much back and forth in these readings. I am having an incredibly hard time with it - as soon as I feel like I am understanding an idea, I am flung into an opposing idea and left wondering what exactly is being said here!
Delete-Chelsea
I'm just here to say I love the term "Pring-ponging." Thank you.
Delete- Peyton B.
Excellent...pring-ponging!
DeletePositivism from the name is deceiving. I thought originally, I would be reading about optimism, more a dispositional view on things. From the reading, it seems like positivism can be boiled down to observations and facts. It makes me think of the “how do you know if it’s raining” question. The response in positivism would be to go outside. We have talked in class and given many examples of “what is this” or “what color is this”. Though our class debates this, and in the book that happens too, Ayer posited a different perspective: “logical positivism”. Instead of debating semantics he gave a more black and white way of thinking. It can be either or, not somewhere in the middle. If it is somewhere in the middle, then it is not actually a genuine statement.
ReplyDeleteA lot of criticism ed research gets is from that middle area Ayer talked about. Ed research is criticized for not having clear results. I think if you look at the purpose of ed research though, it is not always to have clear results, because if that was the case we would have to take out human experience. And in my opinion, human experience is what ed research is about, and what it informs.
In Chapter 7, what I fixated on was the section on "The political arithmetic tradition" (p. 116-117). I find myself a little jaded about this idea that "hard data, especially in relation to gender, ethnicity and social class, and of discovering the correlation of such data with subsequent performance and achievement" is what will drive political decision making with educational research. My question: can we really not find a better way to provide information for political decision makers?
ReplyDeleteI understand the need for "hard data," especially as it provides a much easier way to talk about policy than, "well let me explain to you these classroom dynamics" followed by a qualitative discussion. HOWEVER, I truly believe that what occurs within the four walls of classroom simply cannot be captured effectively by quantitative research. Some aspects, sure. But the entirety of education simply cannot be measured that way. So I ask again: can we really not find a better way to provide information for political decision makers? Why is it not ok to acknowledge the need for qualitative data? And why, if education is of utmost importance to the future of the world, are we not willing to expend the extra effort?!
Now I feel the need to clarify the "we" mentioned above - "we" as students of educational research seem to acknowledge the need for a combination of qualitative & quantitative methods in the study of education. Is that a sentiment shared by "we" the community of educational researchers? Are "we" in this class in a minority within the community? I don't understand why the tradition of politics in education calls for primarily quantitative research if we as a research community acknowledge the need for both. Unless, perhaps, the educational research community as a whole does not agree with that sentiment.
-Chelsea
The most striking and useful part of this chapter came at the end, when Pring argued on p. 140 that "theoretical perspectives concerned with social reality need to be tentative, more ready to cope with the exception, more adaptable to the changing consciousness of those who are part of that reality."
ReplyDeleteI feel like a lot of the stress many of us may be feeling personally -- and the disciplinary stress that our readings have pointed towards -- stems from a desire to do work that is definitive. Obviously that comes from our position in a hierarchy that privileges disciplines with more pretense to definitive answers.
My great lament is that we have not really made consistent time to consider the "social reality" in which our own knowledge is being produced. I want to criticize Pring as an idealist, but obviously that would be unfair, as he frequently invokes a reality beyond human construction. But I wish his discussions about knowledge-creation/-production were more materially grounded. I think we may get some of that in Chapter 8, with his discussion of teachers in research.
Personally, I just find it hard to talk about research without discussing the physical reality of how it is undertaken.
Hello,
DeleteI agree that it is difficult to discuss research outside of the physical, which for me impacts the individual and social outcomes of that physical reality. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the stress many of us may be under, due to this strain between an appreciation for a hard science approach that leaves out many of the humanistic aspects that make up our personal, professional, and research realities. Can there ever be a definitive when you examine the collective and apply to an individual perspective? What research tool could measure this? (This is more so mean going down a rabbit hole of thought. I guess it comes down to what we are measuring and why? I seriously don't know if my streamline of consciousness makes any sense.)
Hello,
DeleteI agree that it is difficult to discuss research outside of the physical, which, for me, impacts the individual and social outcomes of that physical reality. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the stress many of us may be under due to this strain between an appreciation for a hard science approach that leaves out many of the humanistic aspects that make up our personal, professional, and research realities. Can there ever be a definitive when you examine the collective and apply it to an individual perspective? What research tool could measure this? (This is more so mean going down a rabbit hole of thought. I guess it comes down to what we are measuring and why? I seriously don't know if my streamline of consciousness makes any sense.)
Veronica
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore concluding the article, I kept asking myself, is it either/or, or all/nothing? Theoretical perspectives provide a foundation or lens of thought but should never be conclusive. Which was highlighted by Pring in the conclusion as he wrote: Any theory is always open to revision in the light of further experience and criticism. We can never be certain that our beliefs and theories are correct. But we can feel confident in them if they have been subjected to the most rigorous testing (p. 137). Living in dualisms creates a divided society, and if we realized that we are haunted by the “uniqueness fallacy” then perhaps we would come together more instead of being divided by our differences. I guess my question is, even if possible, do we want a fortiori of knowledge? Is a fortiori of knowledge possible in education, due to the complexity of education because of the individuals who make up the system? I also question, if this was possible, who would decide this agreed-upon knowledge, and for me, who would be left out of contributing, defining, and ultimately deciding this knowledge base?
ReplyDeleteMy question is, "Am I the only one who struggles with Pring?" I might need more hand-holding, and this textbook has reinforced my desire for audio textbooks, because I feel like if I listened to what Pring writes, it might make more sense to me--I'd also be able to multi-task better, but that's neither here nor there.
ReplyDeleteI think my struggle lies in the need for Pring to write a little more plainly. I feel like I have a strong grasp of frameworks and theories, and he definitely addresses education and research, but I'm not getting the big picture. I don't mean that in the modernist sense, I just mean that I don't get a linear enough string of sense that looks at how each framework would approach education and educational research. I was thinking of a textbook we used in another course, where it looked at each paradigm in terms of the assumptions about reality, knowledge, and all of that good stuff. I think if there was something that made me feel like it was all a little more connected, it would click.
For me, the section on positivism seems to be deconstructing it more than anything else. I'm not sure I'm reading that right, but I felt like more attention goes to how it doesn't make sense for the social world. I was more surprised than anyone when I chose a project in a previous class that used a positivist approach (to evaluation). I think it has its role in research, and I think for the people whose worldviews align with that outlook, and whose research/evaluation endeavors align with it, it's a perfectly valid approach. That would not justify any belief that it is the only valid approach, but it has a time and a place (pragmatic!).
I can't say why I feel defensive about positivism in particular. It's not a paradigm I align with, nor do I subscribe to many of the underlying assumptions about truth or knowledge that are fundamental to positivism. Maybe it's my defensiveness that makes me read the section on positivism as one that draws clear attention to the weakness of the framework in education, where in contract, there seems to be much praise for the postmodern approach. It might be more informative to read "objective" strengths and weaknesses of all approaches. I'm not sure I read these that way.
"But more important for the conclusion of this chapter is the reminder of the tentativeness of knowledge and research...." Oh, Pring.
Am I the only one who struggles?
- Meagan
(re-posted to handle some of the typos)
I can't tell if I jive with postmoderism as a framework or I just very much want to be SEEN as someone who understands/gets postmodernism. I definitely jive with the idea of uncertainty, nothing is ever "proven", everything can be argued, and that better ideas may evolve as time goes on. My main question is: If I believe in this framework to better understand the world and have more sophisticated ideas about the world, how can I effectively communicate these ideas without having folks take 1-2 semesters of survey courses in different disciplines? In working with different stakeholders, community partners, and other educators it'd be easier to say: "We know we should do (x) because of it's relationship to A, B, and C." If postmodernism is used to question authority and de-center the idea of "One Truth", what is the best way to use that data to inform change?
ReplyDeleteI think another hang-up is that it just FEELS too precious. On paper these are all things that I agree upon, but I think somewhere in my life I've internalized a real Quadrant I inferiority complex. I'm working on being comfortable with being perceived as precious!
I think it's been well established (by our class discussion posts) that Pring is a bit scatterbrained, at least in his presentation of arguments/information. With that being said, I really appreciated his presentation of Interpretive theory. Essentially, to understand other people, we must analyze their actions and we must know their intention for doing said action. As Pring puts it "the raising of my hand could be a signal for a revolution to take place, a gesture of welcome or the seeking of attention. It all depends on what was intended" (p.117). He goes on to argue that the social world as we know it is constituted by the intentions and meanings of the "social actors", ourselves included. What I take from this is that our experience and perspective shapes EVERYTHING around us - even if not an actual object itself, how we perceive, respond to and interact with an object.
ReplyDeleteThen Pring gets real Pring-ey and says we need to be careful because the social actor can misinterpret their own and other people's actions. So I guess my question is that if our social world is shaped by OUR experiences, perspectives, and interpretations, how can we then misinterpret something? Isn't the way that we interpret an action firmly grounded in our own belief of the intentions behind the action? Therefore, wouldn't our interpretation of it be true in OUR social world?
I get that things can be misinterpreted.. I do it all the time. But at that moment when I did the misinterpreting - wasn't it true for me? Until I learned more about the situation, that was my truth. It only became a misinterpretation after the fact?
Again, this is why I don't jump down the philosophical rabbit hole...
This statement in chapter seven prompted some reflection for me:
ReplyDelete"...the positivist spirit requires a clear distinction between the aims and values of education, on one hand, and the means of reaching those ends on the other.{...} Furthermore, the values are embedded within the social structures, beyond the control or responsibility of the individual."
This line of thinking felt like an unnecessary dichotomy to me. I think a lot of what Pring has been vacillating about has been in regards to the role of social construction in establishing facts, so why would that be any different from the role of social construction in establishing the "values" of education? Further, what "values" of education have meaning other than the ones employed by the people involved in the process of educating? Separating the goal from the means feels like an intentional wedge between the academic/philosophical underpinnings of educational theory and the work or practitioners.
Chapter 7 of Pring struck me as an analysis of the evidence for why we need to constantly critique and challenge each other, a sort of endless workshopping of our research, so that it remains applicable to an ever-changing practice. In his conclusion he suggests a need for 'institutionalizing the possibility for criticism' (141).
ReplyDeleteBut as we touched on in our class discussions last week, giving and receiving criticism or feedback are skills, and doing those things incorrectly can be damaging. But doing them correctly can be monumentally rewarding for all parties involved.
So what are institutions doing to equip researchers with the skills necessary to give and receive criticism in a productive manner?
- Peyton B.
Question: Can practical experience add to the validity of knowledge? We often use the phrase “trial and error” to describe the attempt to provide a solution to an issue or the development of a new initiative. In practice, we also use the term “prior knowledge” to describe having adequate enough experience(s) to support the validity of a statement or opinion about a given topic. In reading this chapter, I’m wondering if it is suggesting that your prior knowledge is not valid unless it has been tested empirically (as with science). How do your personal and practical experiences fit in construction of new knowledge on a subject? I understand the positivism movement, but I would love to figure out where your practical experiences land when trying to determine facts and knowledge. I feel that experiences teach you a great deal of knowledge about a subject, especially if the experiences have been repeated and the same outcomes arise. But I’m open to the thought that statements based on your personal experiences should not be considered fact without adequate evidence.
ReplyDelete