Educational Research: Proofs, Arguments, and Other Reasonings

202 Pages·2010·1.54 MB·English

by  Paul Smeyers

Educational Research: Proofs, Arguments,
and Other Reasonings
Educational Research
VOLUME4
Aims&Scope
Freedom of inquiry in educational research can no longer be taken for granted.
Narrow definitions of what constitutes ‘scientific’ research, funding criteria that
enforceparticularresearchmethods,andpolicydecisionprocessesthatignoreany
research that is not narrowly utilitarian, in many countries, create a context that
discouragesscholarshipofamorespeculative,exploratory,orcriticalsort.
In this series, internationally leading scholars in philosophy and history of edu-
cation engage in discourse that is sophisticated and nuanced for understanding
contemporarydebates.Thussocialresearch,andthereforeeducationalresearch,is
again focused on the distinctive nature of what it studies: a social activity where
questions of meaning and value must be addressed, and where interpretation and
judgmentplayacrucialrole.
Thiseducationalresearchtakesintoaccountthehistoricalandculturalcontextand
brings clarity to what actually constitutes science in this area. The timely issues
that are addressed in this series bear witness to the belief that educational theory
cannot help but go beyond a limited conception of empirical educational research
toprovidearealunderstandingofeducationasahumanpractice.Theysurpassthe
rathersimplecause-andeffectrhetoricandthustransgressthepictureofperforma-
tivity that currently keeps much of the talk about education captive. The authors
areunitedinthebeliefthat‘thereisaplacewithinthesocialsciencesingeneral’,
and within the discipline of education in particular, for ‘foundational’ approaches
thatenablethesystematicstudyofeducationalpracticefromadiscipline-orientated
approach.
EducationalResearch:Why‘WhatWorks’Doesn’tWork
Series:EducationalResearch,Vol.1
Smeyers,Paul;Depaepe,Marc(Eds.)
2006,VI,195p.,Hardcover
ISBN:978-1-4020-5307-8
EducationalResearch:NetworksandTechnologies
Series:EducationalResearch,Vol.2
Smeyers,Paul;Depaepe,Marc(Eds.)
2007,VI,230p.,Hardcover
ISBN:978-1-4020-6612-2
EducationalResearch:theEducationalizationofSocialProblems
Series:EducationalResearch,Vol.3
Smeyers,Paul;Depaepe,Marc(Eds.)
2008,VI,250p.,Hardcover
ISBN:978-1-4020-9722-5
·
Paul Smeyers Marc Depaepe
Editors
Educational Research:
Proofs, Arguments,
and Other Reasonings
123
Editors
Prof.PaulSmeyers Dr.MarcDepaepe
UniversiteitGent KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven
FaculteitPsychologieenPedagogische CampusKortrijk
Wetenschappen SubfaculteitPsychologieen
Dunantlaan1 Pedagogische
9000Gent Sabbelaan53
Belgium 8500Kortrijk
[email protected] Belgium
[email protected]
ISBN978-90-481-3248-5 e-ISBN978-90-481-3249-2
DOI10.1007/978-90-481-3249-2
SpringerDordrechtHeidelbergLondonNewYork
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2009936782
©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009
Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorby
anymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recordingorotherwise,withoutwritten
permissionfromthePublisher,withtheexceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurpose
ofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Contents
1 RhetoricandArgumentintheLanguageofEducationand
ofEducationalResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PaulSmeyersandMarcDepaepe
2 BeyondArgumentsandIdeas:LanguagesofEducation . . . . . . 9
DanielTröhler
3 SourcesintheMakingofHistoriesofEducation:Proofs,
Arguments, and Other Forms of Reasoning from the
Historian’sWorkplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
MarcDepaepeandFrankSimon
4 Educational Formalism and the Language of Goals in
AmericanEducation,EducationalReform,
andEducationalHistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
DavidF.Labaree
5 The Language of Education and the Language
of Educational Research: The Knowledge Economy,
CitizenshipandSubjectivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
NaomiHodgson
6 ParentinginaTechnologicalAge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
GeertruiSmedts
7 CapabilityandtheLanguageofEducationalResearch . . . . . . . 93
MichaelWatts
8 ARhetoricforEducationalResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
LyndaStone
9 ArgumentsandProofsAboutArgumentsandProofs . . . . . . . . 127
JeanPaulVanBendegemandKathleenCoessens
10 EvidenceandArgumentationinEducationalResearch . . . . . . . 143
NicholasC.Burbules
v
vi Contents
11 HalfaLanguage:ListeningintheCityofWords . . . . . . . . . . 149
RichardSmith
12 RevisitingAchilles’SadnessthatNoMethodCanBeFound . . . . 161
PaulSmeyers
13 ReasoningfromEducationalResearchtoPolicy . . . . . . . . . . . 177
DavidBridges
NotesonContributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Chapter 1
Rhetoric and Argument in the Language
of Education and of Educational Research
PaulSmeyersandMarcDepaepe
What does it mean to say that something has been ‘proven’ in research contexts?
What is the nature of the arguments one relies on and what kind of reasoning is
offered to convince readers? These questions are often posed when educational
researchisbeingscrutinized.Ofcoursesuchquestionsdonotonlyapplytothearena
ofeducationbutalsoapplymutatismutandistoresearchingeneral,scholarshipand
manyotherareasofhumanlife.Therewasatimewhen,indealingwiththeseissues,
one referred to one or other metaphysical or even religious stance, but nowadays
this has become very unpopular. Since the so-called postmodern (Nietzschean?)
critique, serious doubts have been raised about rationality itself, which for many,
boundbythelegacyoftheEnlightenment,offeredthefavourableyardstickbywhich
one could evaluate the veracity of arguments. Incredulity towards meta-narratives,
however,cannotpossiblybetheendofthestory.Thescholarorresearcher,having
cometotermswiththeproblemsofgeneralizability,cannotsimplyindulgeherself
ineitherrelativismorparticularity.Sheshouldinonewayoranotherdealwiththe
tension(thatisalwaysthere)betweentheparticularandtheuniversal,andbetween
this case and what generally demands to be dealt with – the problems posed by
humanlifeingeneraloreducationinparticularcanneitherbeignorednorleftalone.
The scholar/researcher has to both act and base what she does on sound thinking
whereverthatcanbefound.
Thecontributorstothisbooktakeboththesocialpracticeofeducationandedu-
cationalresearchseriously.Theyacceptthatrhetoric,inonewayoranother,plays
apartinthecomplexprocessofargumentationthatisnecessarilycharacterizedby
the historical context in which one operates. In doing so, the contributors clearly
distancethemselvesfromthevariouskindsofpositivismthathavebeenembraced
by many educational researchers, particularly since thisarea of scholarship turned
towards the paradigm of experimentation, which, in its fashionable formulation,
takestheformofrandomizedfieldtrials.Forthecontributorstothisvolumeitisnot
onlymeans-endreasoninginitself(anditsnaturalevolutionintoatechnology)that
isproblematicbutthewayinwhichsuchreasoningobfuscatesseriousdebateabout
B
P.Smeyers( )
GhentUniversity,Ghent,Belgium
e-mail:[email protected]
P.Smeyers,M.Depaepe(eds.),EducationalResearch:Proofs,Arguments,andOther 1
Reasonings,EducationalResearch4,DOI10.1007/978-90-481-3249-2_1,
(cid:2)C SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009
2 P.SmeyersandM.Depaepe
theendsofeducation/educationalresearch.Theyshowthatendscannotbeavoided
andthushowquestionsof‘value’shouldnecessarilybetakenintoaccountatevery
stage of educational research. The contributors are also sensitive to the ‘linguistic
turn’, how language (or should we say discourse) ‘creates’ a reality. They show
how language constructs (though not in ex nihilo fashion) particular practices and
demonstratehowthesepracticeschange.Thecontributorsconsiderhowthesepro-
cessesgiveshapetothefieldofeducationscholarsofvariouskindsaddressintheir
studies.Theyarguethatthepluralismthatemanatesfromthisdevelopment,themul-
tifariousness that goes with it, should provide neither an alibi for inactivity nor an
excuseforembracingrelativism.Rathertheyfeelthatsuchpluralismandmultifar-
iousnesspresentaconditionthateverycontemporaryresearcherineducationought
tobeawareof.Obviously,ourcontributorswanttobepartoftheongoingdiscussion
but realize more than ever that their voice is just one of many. So if the rhetori-
caldimensioncharacterizesboththediscourseofeducationandtheargumentation
of educational research and scholarship, what follows for the characterization of
theeducationaldebateinitsmanymanifestations?GiventheaimsofthisResearch
Community(PhilosophyandHistoryoftheDisciplineofEducation:Evaluationand
EvolutionoftheCriteriaforEducationResearch)howshouldphilosophyandhis-
tory of education itself be characterized and how can academics from these areas
operatewithinthecommunityofscholarsandpractitionersatlarge?
The collection starts with two chapters both addressing meta-level issues in
regard to the language(s) of education and the singling out or prioritizing of par-
ticularsourcesinthehistoryofeducation.DanielTröhlerarguesthatthereareonly
averylimitednumberoffundamentalmodesthatmouldtheperceptionoftheworld
andthediscussionabouteducation.Hearguesthatthesemodesareessentiallylin-
guistic.Tosupportthisclaim,helooksatthedistinctionmadebetweenparoleand
langue and shows how this characterizes the political philosophy of the so-called
Cambridge School of the history of ideas. Subsequently this linguistic-political
concept is compared to Post-Modernism, in particular to Foucault’s philosophy.
The paper identifies and describes three different educational languages that seem
to dominate the Western discourses on education: the classical-republican and
Reformed Protestant language with its core concept of public virtue, the neo-
Augustinian andLutheranlanguage withtheconcept ofBildungandthelanguage
of the (French) Enlightenment with its focus on scientific knowledge and public
rationality. The author argues that it is disputable whether these three langues, in
which educational paroles of the Western world are expressed, are the only ones
and claims that itwould make sense totryand identify more of them. This would
makeitpossibletotakeuptheimportanttaskofreconstructinghowinteractionwith
variousparoleshaschangedlanguesoverthelast250yearsandtherebyidentifythe
argumentsorparolesusedbyactors,agentsorexponents.Addressingtheworkplace
ofthehistorianofeducation,MarcDepaepeandFrankSimonreflectontheirown
productionof‘histories’ofeducationandshowhowsourcesfunctionasarguments
andevenasproofswithinthe‘historiographicaloperation’–aconcepttheycredit
toMicheldeCerteau.Traditionally,thehistoricalcraftischaracterizedbytenacious
researchon‘sources’,butdealingwithsuchprimaryrecordscannotbedissociated
1 RhetoricandArgumentintheLanguageofEducationandofEducationalResearch 3
from acts of interpretation. Before the Second World War, the unfortunate Marc
Blocharguedthat‘understanding’isthekeywordforanyhistoricalcraftsman.From
thisperspective,thefrequentlydiscussedhistoriographic‘turns’sincethe1960sand
1970shavetobequalified.ItseemstoDepaepeandSimonthatthemethodological
advantageofusingoralhistories,egodocuments,statistics,pictures,films,material
objectsofschoolcultureandother‘forgotten’sourcesfromeverydaylifeineduca-
tionwasoftenexaggeratedduetotheenthusiasmforthe‘newness’oftheapproach.
On the basis of their own research experience they develop the thesis that there is
no single privileged source for research in the history of education. Nuanced and
contextualized‘histories’ofeducationhavetorestonacombinationofallsortsof
sourcematerial.Historicalresearchismorethanasearchforthedefinitivesource:a
historianwhoisinthegripofsourcesnecessarilyproducesdescriptiveworksthatdo
notgobeyondexplanationsgenerated‘from’thesesources.Itisnotthesourcethat
standsatthebeginningofthehistoriographicaloperationbuttheresearchquestion,
and itisthisquestion thatisdecisive fortheuseof sources ofallkinds,including
traditionalones(liketheoldjournalsofeducationmadebyteachersandeducators
for teachers and educators – the so-called pedagogical press which is labelled by
the authors as the ‘mother’ of all sources in history of education). The answer to
this research question is not only and not primarily dependent on the sources that
areusedbutinsteadontheinterpretationformulatedonthebasisoftheseartefacts
fromthepast.Thustheauthorsarguethattheworkplaceofthehistorianisfillednot
onlywithsourcesbutwithanentirearsenaloftools:concepts,theories,paradigms
andthelike.Thereisnoultimate(orpreferred)sourceastherecanbenofinalinter-
pretation, argument, proof and/or explanation. From this perspective, accusations,
whethercorrectornot,ofbeing‘iconophobe’,donotsayverymuch:whatcounts
forhistoriesofeducationisvalidresults.
The next three chapters in the collection address the importance of particular
kinds of language in the context of education and child rearing. David Labaree
argues that schools are better at expressing social goals than at operationalizing
thosegoalsinamannerthatmightactuallyrealizethem.Schoolreformeffortsare
better at changing the rhetorical commitment of schools to particular educational
goalsthanatbringingtheteachingandlearninginschoolsinlinewiththesegoals.
Finally,historicalstudiesofeducationarebetteratidentifyingtheevolvinglanguage
ofeducationalgoalsthanatdetailingtheimpactofthesegoalsonthecorepedagog-
icalrelationbetweenteacherandstudent.Thus,Labareearguesthatthelanguageof
goalsdominateseducation,educationalreformandhistoricalresearchoneducation.
Hispaperexploresthecentralelementsofeducation’slanguagefetish,thehistori-
calandsociologicalrootsofthisconditionanditsconsequencesforeducationand
society. The focus is on American education, but much of the argument resonates
with education in other settings, since it tries to tell a story about the social role
thateducationisaskedtoplayinmodernliberaldemocracies.Theanalysisstartsby
showinghoweducationalreformmovementsareprimarilyeffortstoreordereduca-
tionalgoalsthroughareviewoftheevolvingrhetoricofreformintheUnitedStates.
DrawingonthecaseofthemovementforprogressiveeducationLabareethenshows
how reformers are better at reforming educational goals than educational practice.