June 21… Biesta’s Democratic Research
Compare Biesta’s vision of
democratic research to Ken Howe’s (in Paul)? From what you’ve learned thus far,
what sort of place do you see for this kind of work in the world of educational
research?
May 31…Becker (Ch. 1)
Do you see any overlaps between Becker’s talk about writing and what we’ve discussed so far in this class?
Melissa L
ReplyDeleteBiesta’s vision of democratic research seems to place more emphasis on the consumer of research. Teachers who use research to inform their practice should be mindful of the fact that education research is not like medical research and therefore should not be prescriptive. Education professionals need to make judgements about what is educationally desirable. Howe, on the other hand, seems to focus on the creators of research – the researcher and the participant. Howe believes that research participants should be involved in the research process such that power imbalances are not reinforced. Howe also seems to believe that education research should be prescriptive – that in order to achieve X, you need to do Y.
While Howe believes in giving power to the participants, Biesta believes in giving power to the consumer. Having said that, I don’t think these two ideas are mutually exclusive. Both can exist in the same university for the same piece of published research. I do think that some research can be prescriptive, but most certainly not all educational research. The consumer of research needs to be mindful of both the limitations of the research and reality.
Josh here:
ReplyDeleteBiesta's vision of democratic education is a manifestation of Dewey's practical epistemology of 'knowing' rather than seeking to establish definitive 'knowledge.' He uses this philosophy as a counterpoint to evidence-based education, which focused only on what has 'worked' in the past, and not on the process of inquiry-based problem solving that engages in the more complex question of what 'works' now in the messy context of the present.
There is a desperate need for perspectives like this in special education, especially in the subfield of autism, which is dominated by behaviorism and evidence-based practice and shares a closer link with medicine than most other fields of education. On the one hand, the research investment in evidence-based practice has paid dividends in terms of building a much more robust toolkit of interventions than those of other disabilities, the counterpoint is that students with autism are much less included in typical school classes and activities than any other group. Only recently has research shifted to examine the broader implications of this clinical, segregatory approach to education for people with autism and found evidence that inclusive education is more beneficial than segregated/intensive education in many post-secondary areas.
So, yes...I definitely think there is a role for this kind of scholarship in educational autism research. It is a needed and mostly absent voice. The more difficult issue is that I'm not sure there is a place within the community to receive that message.
Ashlee:
ReplyDeleteI think that Howe and Biesta approach democracy in educational research in very similar manners, but with different sets of vocabulary. Biesta suggests that the "what works" approach to research simply does not cut it for the development and persistence of democratic educational research. He seems to emphasize the role that the research consumer plays in deciding not what is generally effective, but "what is appropriate for these children in these circumstances." (p. 11). In this way, he advocates that the singular view of research methodologies that identify effective interventions not only remove critical voices from the conversation, but also run the risk of implementing "effective" yet undesirable programs. The underlying idea of his work seems to suggest that educational decisions should not be made solely on the basis of what works, but rather with the inclusion of various critical perspectives.
Howe seems to similarly suggest that research methodology and democracy are intertwined. He defines two forms of research: Technocratic and Deliberative Conception. Based on his definition, technocratic research is similar to "what works" research in that it is value free, and it places the evidence in the hands of policy makers to decide what is best to implement. Opposing technocratic research, deliberative conception seems to reflect the type of research that Biesta advocates is necessary. Howe proposes that deliberative conception research allows for decision making conditions that are designed to "permit free and equal participation" of various stakeholders (p.81). Thus, both perspective emphasize the incorporation of various perspectives while criticizing the one size fits all approach to educational research and decision making.
I think this work has a place in educational research, but this place must be carefully navigated. Its not plausible to kick "what works" research to the curb entirely. However, I do think that there is room for researchers and policy makers alike to broaden their reach when considering alternative perspectives prior to making decisions that affect these people.
Shannon
DeleteI agree, particularly on your last point. While I definitely agree with Biesta's point that decisions made in education need to include a wide array of diverse perspectives, I think some of his statements overgeneralize evidence-based research. There are EBPs focused on multiple contexts and outcomes that make it difficult to just paint everything with such broad strokes, or suggest that all researchers developing EBPs view education as a "treatment".
Yet again, I see myself trying to find the middle way, but I think the most appropriate direction for education is, as Biesta notes, toward ‘‘evidence-informed,’’ ‘‘evidence-influenced,’’ or ‘‘evidence-aware’’ practices. Hopefully, this would encourage policymakers to use research in decisions without necessarily binding teachers, schools, and students to the evaluations and outcomes of current language.
Hannah
ReplyDeleteBiesta challenges the researcher to not only look to the past of what has previously worked, but to trust themselves and make "normative" judgements: judgements about what they believe are "educationally desirable". Howe emphasizes the alignment of methodology and democracy. While I feel that there is some overlap, Biesta leans more towards the outcome of the research whereas Howe is considering (and reconsidering) every step of the process and consider the roles of the participants.
I think that in education (research) there is definitely a place for Biesta's method of research. In art education, a big push is made for social justice centered pedagogy, but it's also a bit of uncharted territory. I think that educators (in academia and the classroom) both have to do a bit of venturing into unknown territory and create curriculum that is not based on guidelines created before, but incorporating ideas that feel more true to them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBiesta writes: "Although I do believe that there is scope for improvement of the ways in
ReplyDeletewhich educational research and educational practice communicate and interact —
an issue that has been central ever since education became an academic discipline
— I am not convinced that evidence-based practice as it is currently being
presented and promoted provides the most appropriate matrix for addressing this
issue. I am particularly concerned about the tension between scientific and democratic
control over educational practice and educational research" (5). Biesta claims that the concept of evidence based practice originated in medicine (6). Also "evidence-based practice relies upon a causal model of professional action" (7). According to Biesta "the most important argument against the idea that education is a causal process lies in the fact that education is not a process of physical interaction but a process of symbolic or symbolically mediated interaction." Why does this matter? According to Biesta "A democratic society is precisely one in which the purpose of education is not given but is a constant topic for discussion and deliberation" (18). Biesta does not use the term "scientism" but his argument seems similar to arguments that involve accusations of scientism because it denies the existence of causality in educational processes.
Howe (2009) describes "positivist dogma" as a "new scientific orthodoxy" (1). Consider the following discussion of Lamarkism:
ReplyDeleteTrofim Lysenko was a Ukrainian agronomist who, in the 1930s, joined and ultimately won a dispute between Soviet geneticists and Lamarckians vying for acceptance of their heredi tarian frameworks, particularly as they related to crop production. An important question in the dispute was which kind of theory best fit with Marxist materialist tenets and thus also with the political revolution. Both sides claimed theirs fit best and labeled the competitor bourgeois.
Although not himself a member of the Communist Party, Lysenko very effectively played to the political powers, including Stalin, to promote and win acceptance of his own version of the Lamarckian alternative. Lysenko emphasized the (alleged) evi dence of his successes in practice, while suppressing his failures and characterizing geneticists as ivory-tower intellectuals who spent their time manipulating the characteristics of fruit flies. He aggressively attacked geneticists to the point of labeling them class enemies and, with the help of the Soviet government, squashed their opposition, in some cases having them jailed. In the Soviet scientific community, Lysenko's theory ultimately was recognized to be utterly wrong and was abandoned, but not until it had disastrous effects on Soviet agricultural production.
Lysenko succeeded at a particular time in Soviet history when the competition between genetic and Lamarckian theory was considered by Soviet scientists to be a genuine scientific disagreement. The principle of materialism, a tenet of communist political theory, was also an epistemological-cum-metaphysical issue with respect to the ontological status of genes, complicating the meaning of "political" in the rhetorical context. Much more was at issue than just a strategic question on the part of scientists of how to secure support from the political powers for their favored theory. Lysenko was, indeed, championing bad science, and politics was heavily implicated in it. But was the science bad because it was infused with politics per se or because it was infused with bad politics antidemocratic politics whereby dissenters were crushed and the evidence as judged by the scientific community ran second to Lysenko's ability to sell his theory to the political powers
Howe, K. (2009). Positivist Dogmas, Rhetoric, and the Education Science Question. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 428-440. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.vcu.edu/stable/25592132
Interestingly our understanding of inhertance is still incomplete:
DeleteThis article criticizes inhered trauma in the descendants of holocaust survivors due to the small sample size of the population involved in the study. The sample size in the study was too small to make generalizations about this population. The effect may or may not be real but the study in question doesn't provide sufficient evidence.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/ct-holocaust-trauma-not-inherited-20170609-story.html
However, this study demonstrates an epigentic effect on inherited mouse behavioral traits.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170531133310.htm
I think that Howe provides another example of pragmatism in educational research.
Michael Here:
ReplyDeleteAs the sole student interested in instructional technology in the class, I will say democracy is overrated – hence why even in America we have prescribed the Republican form of government. Political stances aside, a quote from Biesta which stuck states, “They call for a culture ‘‘in which evidence is valued over opinion’’ and argue that any approach to decision making that is not evidence-based is simply ‘‘pre-scientific.’” Now, I am not sure what is meant by "pre-scientific", I am guessing it is not flattering, but this idea imbedded into the psyche of whatever politician/policymaker calling for “evidence-based” is what stuck out. Evidence-based research has a greater importance than any other research. This is problematic because it doesn’t allow for a multitude of perspectives and falls to a simplistic logic relying on a narrow view.
There is an ethical debate within this conversation as to what is more important our principles or moral virtues. Is it enough for a student to simply pass their SOLS and yet be a damnable human being? If education is simply about achieving a high score than I vote for the prescriptive, technocratic model. Bring in the computers. They are far more efficient at transferring data than humans. However, if school is more than a place to take a test, than I am more in Howe’s camp where there are democratic values imbued within the education system. This allows choice, and for a plethora of voices from the great sea of humanity to be heard.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find myself in conflict regarding the idea of scientific research versus a pragmatic approach to educational research. I no longer posses the Paul text, so I have read several previous posts to jog my memory regarding Howe's stance on educational research. I agree with Melissa; there seems to be a place for both the scientific approach, but also the practical application to what research infers. It seems illogical, to me, that educational research (about what works) would be generalized to all populations as a method of training when no two classrooms are alike.
ReplyDeleteOver the course of the class, there has been discussion regarding educational research. The discussion suggests that conclusions are made and put on a shelf; practitioners do not have the opportunity to read or offer feedback regarding practice and experience. Research that does not include practitioner/teacher perspective seems irrelevant in the aim to provide better teaching practice and outcome for students.
As a practicing therapist, I can affirm that techniques that are not effective in the forward progression of the client would not generally be considered for practice. Theories and evidence-based research is implemented based on individual symptomology. While professionals follow a general theoretical paradigm based on personal experience and beliefs, practice is directed by individual issues and goals.
Virginia here:
ReplyDeleteHowe says the central issue in the ethics of educational research is the split between the empirical nature of quantitative work and the interpretivist nature of qualitative work. He cites critiques of the technocratic conception and instead proposes the deliberative conception to educational research. Howe defines the deliberative conception as one that includes deliberation, inclusion, and dialogue, and states that all three are methodological and democratic requirements of research.
Whereas Biesta’s critiques of educational research and its assumptions lead him to show how technical and cultural processes each play a part. For example, he says that educational research cannot be a technical process because people may choose not to implement what has been shown to be effective strategies to the means and ends. He even says, “education is at heart a moral practice more than a technological enterprise” (p.10). However, later on Biesta draws upon Dewey’s theory of knowing and his process of inquiry known as “ends-in-view” to state that “Dewey would not object to a technological view of professional action” (p.16). One of Biesta’s main arguments is that there is a democratic deficit in evidence-based educational research.
Biesta's argument opposes Howe’s idea that through a deliberative conception one can still have democratic control in educational research. I think these ideas are important and have a place in educational research. As the push for more evidence-based research increases from stakeholders and policymakers, scholars are going to have to be aware of the choices they make and why.
Melissa Cuba
ReplyDeleteBiesta argues that evidence-based education produces a technocratic system, one that forgets “effective” as a qualifier is based purely on judgment. This approach also overlooks the purpose (or end result) of an education, especially if we are looking to facilitate the development of young people with morals. For example, the high school history curricula promote a certain ethical, moral stance that emphasizes Eurocentric ideals and bolsters a national narrative. Students do not passively accept the explicit or intended curriculum; there is a relationship between curriculum, learning, and people that is not linear. Both for the practitioner and researcher, Howe’s idea of a democratic system goes beyond absolutes by engaging in critical inquiry and dialogue. If not, what exactly is the end result?
An evidence-based education also stifles educational practitioners from making decisions that are appropriate for their students within a particular set of circumstances. Biesta uses Dewey’s theory of knowing to explain how research can inform educational practice by telling us “what worked” and how to approach a problem. This is part of the problem-solving lens needed from both the researcher and the practitioner. That way, there is nothing definitive in research or practice, but rather an opportunity to try something that worked before.
Jen G.
ReplyDeleteI did a little digging and referenced Howe and House (2000) Deliberative Democratic Evaluation from New Directions for Evaluation. Howe and House really seemed to try to highlight that evaluators of research are already embedded in a social structure and should be doing their best to understand this during the evaluation process. They suggest evaluators should adhere to principles that focus on enhancing inclusion of all stakeholders, dialogue, and deliberation.
Biesta in his essay discusses how educational research has moved to a “what works” and evidence based approaches. I think in comparison to Howe, Biesta agrees that there needs to be more of an all stakeholder’s approach in the democratic evaluation process of educational research.
I think both researchers would agree that educational research should be more than just finding the big T truth (which evidence based research sometimes aligns with)! More contextual conversations and dialogue with all parties and stakeholders throughout the whole social structure of the educational process should be involved in this democratic evaluation of research. Evidence based research has taken the social context of what education is and made it into a technical “means to an ends” type of operation. Both researchers would agree that more discussion and contextual evaluation needs to occur for knowledge to increase in the field!
I found some of what Biesta wrote hard to swallow. I really do see a place for EBP in public education with teachers using research to inform their practices in their classrooms. I find that there doesn't need to be a divide as these two authors do - much as we discussed in class earlier this week. I struggled while reading Biesta and found myself writing notes in the margins when I wanted to argue with him . I agree where he talks about the educational value of what they do, but why can this not be evaluated through effectiveness of their actions? I found his view to be quite narrow, an wanted to argue that their is more than one way to skin a cat...especially when discussing interventions.
ReplyDeleteMorgan L. DeBusk-Lane
ReplyDeleteMy initial reaction is that it is difficult to, at least how in Ken Howe explained, to see both democratic and methodological principles converge in educational research. I say that because of how disparate the two institutions, between practice and theory, are. To pronounce that democratic deliberation is required is fine, but to say it truly exists is another thing all together. I don’t, at least from my vantage, believe it exists to honestly ensure differentials are not imbalanced or impartial. Reasons for this separation entail any number of disconnects; that is economic disparities, funding, educational status, prestige, geography, and social stratification (which makes up many of the same), and politics.
Notwithstanding contextual differences throughout the nation or any given educational system, employing democratic deliberation macroscopically, for the whole, seems illogical. Due to the nature of the landscape of education, it seems more fitting to employ it locally, within more refined and attuned local governances, that can more accurately, as Biesta explains, portray situational parameters. In other words, to best make the use of evidence based practices, such suggestions and uses need to be locally derived and promulgated from within, as opposed to suggested or required from afar. This notion hints and likely connects best with Biesta’s connection between the “technical” and “normative/cultural” components of a education, whereby the pure definition of what “education” is, is defined therein by the intersection between research, policy, and practice.
Therefore, it seems implausible to make the connection between policy, research, and practice a one-lane road. Taking into account the cultural or normative component, that naturally derives the definition of education’s place in society, is vital to accurate and meaningful continuous deliberation thereafter.
Cassandra
ReplyDeleteI think Biesta's whole idea of evidence based research being linear has some truth to it. But is linear all bad? And maybe it can be limiting, but just as Pring says in Chapter 8, Action Research is NOT aimed to produce new knowledge but to improve practice. He goes on to say that the conclusion is not a set of propositions but a practice or set of transactions or activities which is not true or false but better or worse. The whole idea of values is one that can be controversial. Biesta feels that practitioner's values have a place in research and we have been advised to write on topics we feel passionate about...isn't that values based?
Howe states that the deliberative action holds that there is something deliberate about when it comes to values and that they are not impervious to rational investigations and dialogue.
I think they have some commonalities in that there is a place for values in educational research.
Jen U.
ReplyDeleteI saw some commonalities between Biesta and Howe related to the necessity of embedding research in the community - making sure that it is useful and beneficial to the participants and/or target community. Both talked about the importance of ethics within research, especially in decision making regarding participants. For example, both authors say it is important to make sure participants are not exploited. They also both point out that decision making is about weighing decisions and prioritizing options. However, Howe's chapter in the Paul book focuses more on treatment of participants within research. Biesta focused on the place of ed research in the larger education world. I particularly liked his discussion of ethical decision making within the release of research findings. This is an element I had never thought about before.