June 5…Scientifically-based Educational Research
How did Pring’s Ch. 1-3 and the Eisenhart
and Towne article leave you feeling about the possibility of educational
research to be scientific? What obstacles do you see to realizing the vision of
a scientifically-based ed. research and are they insurmountable?
Pring does not seem to explicitly against scientific research in education. He does, however, give ideas on how education research should be and what it ought not to be. Chapter 3 talks about different aspects of education research that the researcher needs to be mindful of, and all of that makes up what Pring considers quality research. Good quality research therefore needs to consider the various key concepts in education that Pring discusses in the same chapter.
ReplyDeleteEisenhart and Towne are more critical of the role of scientific research in education, suggesting that the expectations of focusing on quantitative research in education is unrealistic.
I think that there is a role for scientific research in education. However, I wonder if we need to be dogmatic about how closely we follow the principles of scientific inquiry. I am not saying that we need to relax the rules and sacrifice quality of research, but given the nature of education, perhaps the idea is to be flexible about the rules and perhaps adjust them to better fit our needs.
Virginia here:
ReplyDeleteOverall, Pring seems to be extremely critical of educational research. He cites multiple reasons why it has failed to make an impact on educational practice including that it is irrelevant, of poor quality, inaccessible, and lacks decision-making (p. 4). Eisenhart and Towne’s article shed light on the influence of the federal government and policymakers on educational research and how this has contributed to its poor reputation. This article in particular highlights the chronological development of nation-wide educational research efforts by providing examples of how even the definition of scientific-based research varies widely.
These articles leave me feeling overwhelmed and concerned for the state of educational research. I agree with the criticisms Pring offers about educational research, specifically its connection, or lack of connection, to educational practice. I also think that the federal government plays a large role in what studies are conducted and how findings are used to guide policy, which are not always a good thing. There are many obstacles mentioned by Pring and Eisenhart and Towne, but as a doctoral student in the field of education I feel as though I have to remain hopeful that educational research can be scientific. I turn to the NRC “Executive Summary” for possible suggestions to overcome these obstacles. The report discusses guiding principles of scientific inquiry and design principles of research created to better support educational research. Perhaps these shared ideas would help guide researchers, myself included, in achieving the common goal of scientific inquiry in education.
Virginia- I completely can relate to how you are feeling and concerns for the field. My situation and feelings are very similar in the field of sport management. In particular my research interests lie in intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA actually works with a specific research "group" which I feel can be a comparison to the What Works Clearinghouse in the sense policy and organizational decisions are derived from findings that are almost "wanted" rather than "needed" by sound scientific research that takes multiple approaches.
DeleteMichael Here:
ReplyDeleteMy feelings by the end of Chapter three in Pring’s book aligned with Pring’s own estimation of education research which states, “The interconnection between practicing and theorizing is such that to institutionalize their separation is to make the theory irrelevant to the practice and the practice impervious to theoretical considerations” (p. 42).
There is a feeling, which I believe Dr. Stemhagen adequately expressed with his allusion to Plato and the forms (ideas) versus concrete reality example, that education and educational research are so far removed from each other. But, there is the need to be scientific merely for the belief to be seen as a rigorous field where you can have a systematic way of analyzing data. Often times the data and the subject matter do not align nicely because educational studies does not occur within a vacuum. When I read the Eisenhart and Towne article I feel really defeated by the fact researchers and people in positions of power cannot agree on a definition of what research. Nor does the conversation allude to the possibility education is a field where both quantitative and qualitative research is valued, which makes me think of the benefits of mix methodologies, where there exists the best of both worlds.
Jen U.:
ReplyDeleteEisenhart and Towne seemed to be very critical of the role that the federal government has played in the trajectory of education research. They pointed out that federal definitions of scientific education research initially served different purposes, but through the course of implementation have become used in ways that were not intended. Certain definitions were intended to be used for practitioners evaluating research, whereas others were intended to be used for researchers. Despite the author’s discussion of qualitative research as being useful, it still seems as though quantitative research is considered the pinnacle of “scientific research.” And realistically, if the federal government is going to privilege quantitative research over qualitative research in the dissemination of research funding, then most educational researchers are going to migrate toward where the money is. Pring’s chapter pointed out the uniqueness of education research, and I found his definitions informative. He spoke to the tension of trying to make education research more “scientific” while still making it useful for the problems and contexts that need to be addressed. However, given the backdrop of the political landscape that Eisenhart and Towne discuss, it seems as if education research is fighting an uphill battle. We stand to lose authenticity and impact by moving too much toward randomized control group experiments, and yet we stand to lose funding and a place at the table if we do not. It seems to be almost a no-win situation.
Cassandra
DeleteIt was interesting how they laid out what qualities the department should have including who heads it up! I thought it was pretty targeted even though they tried to say they were not being specific.
Morgan L. DeBusk-Lane
ReplyDeleteAlthough Pring clearly articulated how definitions of learning, education, and teaching can, arguably, never have agreed upon definitions, he also hinted that this fact makes educational research difficult. The Eisenhart and Towne article also well supports this notion, yet through a more pointed and obviously way—funding.
This strikes a certain chord with me. I get funding and I get that someone needs to acknowledge (and fight) the over reliance upon a singular mode definition as footing to attain federal funding. To say one type of research is more in line with “scientifically based research” is nonsense. However, our idea of education exists within a democracy of sorts that suggests that our representatives speak for those they represent. Although this rarely, at least in my opinion, apparent to everyone therein, it does tend to, on average, work that way or change on election day. This, for many, is far to slow of a process. In terms of policy decisions, which seem to extend outside the foreseeable reach of common election changes, I can understand how things are obviously out of touch and off base. I believe equational “scientifically based research” will continue to exist, be regulated by peer review, and sought after—regardless how much federal funding is appropriated to what type of rigorous methods.
Realizing scientifically based research is but what we, as the future, make it. If we, as a collective, rapidly point to qualitative research, then that is what we will value and push to regard as scientifically based research. Although that is, to some, dreamy, I highly doubt in this technological crazed time that such a thing would point directly away from quantitative methods or experimental analyses. To this end, I think definitions like this that run amok and obviously incongruent with the academy at large, will be remedied through papers such as Eisenhart and Towne’s. However, if the predominant paradigm of the academy is post positivist, this statement may not be well received or incentivized.
There will never be an agree on perfect definition. Like most things policy related, it will join the ebbs and flows of administrations that are elected—for better or worse. There is no fix, no finality to this. There is, however, the constant fight for and against momentum, changes, and societal value fluxes. That will never cease.
Shannon
ReplyDeleteYour last statement sums up many of my feelings after reading Eisenhart and Towne's article. Honestly, the reading left me more frustrated by our country’s education policies than anything else, as battles over policy seem to be creating an unnecessary rift in the educational research community. Ideally, educational research focusing on theory, outcomes, and processes (with various methodologies) could and should all be considered scientific research, but I agree that fighting for the same piece of a small federal funding pie makes it more difficult. It's definitely a no-win situation that, based on the article by Eisenhart and Towne, seems to be turning groups of researchers against one another rather than turning them toward influencing policy as a group, which seems more fruitful.
This was supposed to reply to Jen U!
DeleteJosh
ReplyDeletePring, as well as Eisenhart and Towne, are distinctively skeptical of the pursuit of educational research along pure scientific parameters. Eisenhart and Towne chronicle the movement of American educational research (and perhaps more importantly, research funding and public policy) towards empirical, clinical, randomized trials. Pring eulogizes the closing of the U of Chicago education school as the symbolic rejection of Dewey’s philosophy of education. To my eye, neither writing tackled the question of the possibility of scientific educational research directly, but rather chronicled various aspects of the debate over, progress towards, and criticism of a more empirical and clinical model of educational research.
That said, I agree with certain points that the authors introduce, such as the complications over operationalizing a single definition of education or any of the necessary functions within it (purpose, learner-teacher relationship, causality, etc.). The challenge for educational researchers is in striking the balance between two very different brands of pragmatism. On the one hand, Dewey’s pragmatism is one of groundedness in the messy practice of learning—cultivating the spirit of curiosity and problem-solving. On the other is a pragmatism whereby clear priorities and directives must be fed to the Leviathan of policy and practice, else the void be filled by opportunistic, yet ineffective zeitgeists.
So, do I think that the vision of scientifically-based ed research is feasible? In some ways, yes, I do. I don’t think we have the requisite data yet, and I don’t think that we’re necessarily conceptualizing causal research in the right way. Apart from its ethical issues of randomized controlled trials surrounding the denial or delay of potentially beneficial practices, they also fail to adequately manage the infinitely complex differences between individuals and communities within the United States and internationally. While a bit wonky, the massive proliferation of data from social media and other sources of online engagement offer the potential to quantify and model the myriad community, cultural, and demographic variables that shape the purpose and outcomes of education.
Post-script: There is also always a need for philosophical, critical, interpretivist perspectives to guide, contextualize, and safeguard against misjudgment and abuse within educational research. I do, however, question whether tenured academics are the most appropriate candidates to fulfill this responsibility.
Ashlee Lester
ReplyDeletePring complicates the definition of education itself by not only putting forth six characteristics of education, but also emphasizing that "there are inevitably disagreements in society over what precisely a good education should consist of" and how research can have contradictory conclusions (p. 26). In my opinion, if we approach educational research in this way, it will be almost impossible to reach a point at which educational research is considered scientifically based or valid to all. At some point we must agree upon a definition (at least a vague one) that allows us to conduct research from some basis of what education is. From this point, we must train our audiences (students, researchers, policy makers, community members more broadly) to be cautious and critical consumers of research.
At a broader perspective, this seems a bit more difficult to accomplish. However, despite the history of debate on the definition of scientifically based research, Eisenhart & Towne (2003) gives me hope that educational research can in fact be scientific. Though we all differ in our opinion of what is considered as "scientific research," it seems as though steps are being made, albeit slow steps, to converge on a definition of scientifically based educational research. The largest obstacle I foresee in realizing the vision of scientifically based educational research is the differing perspectives of what should count. Even within the area of educational research, there are varying perspectives on what constitutes as research. From a Positivists paradigm to a Post-structuralist paradigm, the perspectives of educational researchers are vast. However, there are many other perspectives (such as policy makers) that greatly influence this work. While these differences in perspectives seem difficult to overcome, as I alluded to before, I think there is a middle ground that can be reached if we encourage our consumers of research to be critical and cautious of how they are adopting research.