At the end of Chapter 6, Pring warns us to “beware of the
-isms…”. That said, try to make sense of where you see Pring fitting in,
“-ism-wise.” Feel free to draw on Paul and 702 here (or not).
Surprise! It’s Jodi… I am going out on a limb and saying that Pring associates mostly to Pragmatism. As we learned in 702, pragmatists tend to believe in justified beliefs and warranted assertions of reality. They also believe knowledge is constructed, questioned, refined, and encoded as it is contested in power groups. Pring believes (I think) that the scientific method can be effective but has areas of uncertainty. He appears to consider care theory and the idea of social consequences in research. This approach assesses the truth of meaning of theories in terms of practical application and its’ success. This is how I make sense of what Pring is portraying in his book.
My group was talking in class last night on how we see Pring as arguing from all sides. No matter what the topic, whether qual vs. quant, or the different ways of doing research, he shows that not one is perfect. I feel like he would do the same with the research perspectives. Because of this I haven’t really perceived him as fitting into one particular area. I see a lot of practicality in the points he makes, so if I have to pick, I would agree with Jodi and call him a pragmatist. He pays attention to research with a purpose while also realms of the care theory. I also think he aligns with quantitative work, since it is considered "hard," which would be more in line with a pragmatist.
Carolyn here... At the end of Chapter 6, Pring says the position he espouses “might be roughly described as one of robust realism, firmly rooted in the common-sense language through which we have come to describe the natural and social worlds we inhabit, and respecting therefore the logically different kinds of explanations which are embedded in that language” (p.108). Earlier in the chapter, he is careful to distinguish this kind of realism from “naïve realism,” or “the view that there is a one-to-one relation between our description of reality and reality itself—that our language, as it were, mirrors reality” (p.79). Pring would probably say that despite their shortcomings, all the -isms are grounded in reality to greater or lesser degrees, and this reality exists independent of our attempts to make sense of it. The different perspectives in Paul (and Pring’s different –isms) would not be possible without something real to base those perspectives on. Maybe by “robust” realism, he means realism that’s open to the different representations or explanations made possible by the -isms, without rigid or dogmatic claims of reality or truth, but according to common sense. His statement that “the language of common sense embodies a complex way of understanding the world, which at one level is not to be dispensed with and at another level is the best we have” (p.108) has huge implications for research-based policy and practice, and gets to the root of what is most problematic about research IMHO. Perhaps collaborative research paradigms like those in Relevance to Practice as a Criterion for Rigor (Gutiérrez & Penuel, 2014) can bridge the gap between common sense and the –isms.
Holly here … this was interesting. I went back and reread portions of the Paul chapter (OK, I skipped Arts Based Education, since I was pretty sure that wasn’t Pring’s –ism), because I too didn’t have a very good sense of where Pring fell. I discovered that rereading Paul after having read Pring helped me to understand Paul better - there was a lot more nuance to it all than I caught onto the first time around. I’m surprised by what I’m leaning towards, in that I wonder if Pring might not be a bit of a postpositivist. When I went back and read about postpositivism, there was a lot there that sounded like Pring. The importance of good work in research, the disavowal of “capital T” truth while recognizing that warranted beliefs are possible, a more inclusive definition of scientific inquiry while simultaneously doubting if educational research can be strictly scientific, the idea of a basic reality that can be mediated by distinct social and cultural structures but that nevertheless exists, and the icing on the cake … postpositivism as the “third path” out of the positivist/postmodernist dilemma. A whole lot of that sounded quite “Pring-y” to me. I think, however, that Pring would have some reservations about the postpositivist belief in casuality, at least in its applications to educational research. Or maybe he would agree with this belief in a broader sense, with less emphasis on controlled experiments, and more emphasis on the idea that “… our intentional acts are caused by our reasoning processes (which include, of course, our knowledge and beliefs, our motives, and the like)” (Paul, p. 55).
Since one of the articles for this week is by D. C. Phillips, who wrote the postpositivist section of the Paul book, I’m going to say I think Pring is a postpositivist.
Phillips’ “platinum standard” of “a compelling case” fits with Pring’s acceptance of either qualitative or quantitative research, whichever is appropriate for the research in question. Both are merely searching for the most warranted beliefs possible in the most trustworthy way imaginable. They also have similar views of reality. Like Pring, Phillips claims “beliefs … must be constrained by the realities that exist” (Paul). Both voice skepticism about the possibility of either maintaining objectivity or establishing causal relationships in light of human thoughts, feelings, goals, and whatnot. Instead of seeking out Big T Truths, both appear to follow what Phillips said in the Paul book, “The knowledge we acquire may be fallible, but we are justified in believing and acting upon the most rigorously produced knowledge that is available, until something better (more justified or warranted) comes along to replace it.”
On the other hand, he quotes Dewey, so maybe he’s a pragmatist. And he talks about the relationship between language and culture, so maybe he’s an interpretivist or a poststructuralist.
Pring attempts to avoid identifying himself with any philosophical belief. He argues both sides of concepts to illustrate the complexity of the stances and how interrelated the concepts are. Pring does tend to lean towards common sense beliefs which leads me to believe he is a pragmatist. However, he does see the causal relationship of research which sways me more to the post-positivist. I think he is a realist – believing that there is a reality maybe constructed differently depending on the researcher’s philosophy. I think Pring does not want us to get to narrow thinking in our “ism” that we are not open to the other possibilities – the moon walking bear.
Pring seems to enjoy setting himself up to play devils advocate and arguing from all sides of an issue. I was in Robyn's group this past Tuesday and we agreed that he enjoys challenging people to change how they see the world. I feel that he would not like us identifying one specific "ism" for him. However since that is the assignment...
I feel that he has two "isms." The first ism is that of a pragmatist. Throughout his writing he refers to common sense and quotes Dewey many times. He spends a good chunk of time asking the reader to question their knowledge and how they know things.
He refers to himself as a realist and I do think that he is also a realist. He pays attention to what works and does not work in the real world. Again he discusses common sense and how important common sense is in guiding both research and application.
Vivian here… I agree with Robyn in that Pring argues from all sides, giving a description of each perspective presented and a counterargument, with examples. Pring’s discussion points to a pragmatic perspective, with the right approach to research being determined by multiple factors, including current circumstances, beliefs and individual understandings. However, his arguments regarding truth, facts and knowledge reflect postpositivist thinking in that it is evident that Pring does not consider that an ’absolute truth’ exists, but rather truth is based on what we know, but also embracing the contradictions and tensions that result from competing discourse. In reading Pring, I was initially turned off by what appeared to be circular thinking, but as I considered the postpositivist approach, the purpose of the contradictions became clearer to me and, in my opinion, highlights the importance of understanding the various perspectives and the impact on research decisions.
I agree with Gabby that although Pring argues both sides, he is still a realist. Being a realist, though, according to Pring, is not about blindly believing something, which is a trap of the -isms. Instead, it's being aware that there are many possible angles to view something, finding those angles, and taking them into account. The trap of the-isms is simply being blind to those other angles.
This is Weade...I think Pring’s views are very balanced in a sense that he does not fully align with one of the philosophical perspectives. If I had choose where Pring would fit, I would echo the others and say that he is most closely aligned with Pragmatism, however he does exhibits views of Post-positivism. I believe that Pring’s views are most aligned with Pragmatism because he asserts that reality is warranted and we hold on to what we believe to be reality until we can empirically refute what is reality based on the evidence. According to Pring, “Realism is the view that there is a reality, a world, which exists independently of the researcher and which is to be discovered; the conclusions of the research are true or false, depending on whether they match up to that reality.” (p. 76) I think in this phrase, Pring is suggesting that research provides the evidence we need to uphold reality as trustworthy or untrustworthy. Pring’s epistemological beliefs also suggests a pragmatist perspective because of his beliefs that what we believe is knowledge and reality is socially constructed. He states that there are “as many realities or multiple realities as there are social constructions.” (p. 77) As it relates to post-positivism, Pring’s ontological views acknowledges that there are multiple realities and that we can observe and experience them through our social connections. Methodologically, he seeks evidence to prove or discredit knowledge.
This is Mo…. At the end of Chapter 6, Pring indicates that the position he espouses “might be roughly described as one of robust realism”. He does not completely believe that reality exists out there and it is a matter of finding out about it. A perspective described by Paul where Pring can fit it in is constructivism. Pring thinks that reality is “socially constructed” in some ways as there seem to be social forces and structures that we might not be conscious of, but which none the less shape a person’s world, aspirations and achievements. One cannot by choice simply create another way of conceiving social world because that world is constituted and shaped by perceptions. Pring’s epistemological beliefs also suggest a critical perspective, as he links knowledge, power and control to research. He says that there is as much danger of the reconstructed realities reflecting the dominance of those in power as there is of the researchers in paradigms.
Surprise! It’s Jodi… I am going out on a limb and saying that Pring associates mostly to Pragmatism. As we learned in 702, pragmatists tend to believe in justified beliefs and warranted assertions of reality. They also believe knowledge is constructed, questioned, refined, and encoded as it is contested in power groups. Pring believes (I think) that the scientific method can be effective but has areas of uncertainty. He appears to consider care theory and the idea of social consequences in research. This approach assesses the truth of meaning of theories in terms of practical application and its’ success.
ReplyDeleteThis is how I make sense of what Pring is portraying in his book.
Ok, Robyn, you can post now...
DeleteHaha! I literally thought the same thing once I saw someone had posted:)
DeleteIf you talk about it, it confounds my betting on who posts first.
DeleteMy group was talking in class last night on how we see Pring as arguing from all sides. No matter what the topic, whether qual vs. quant, or the different ways of doing research, he shows that not one is perfect. I feel like he would do the same with the research perspectives. Because of this I haven’t really perceived him as fitting into one particular area. I see a lot of practicality in the points he makes, so if I have to pick, I would agree with Jodi and call him a pragmatist. He pays attention to research with a purpose while also realms of the care theory. I also think he aligns with quantitative work, since it is considered "hard," which would be more in line with a pragmatist.
ReplyDeleteCarolyn here... At the end of Chapter 6, Pring says the position he espouses “might be roughly described as one of robust realism, firmly rooted in the common-sense language through which we have come to describe the natural and social worlds we inhabit, and respecting therefore the logically different kinds of explanations which are embedded in that language” (p.108). Earlier in the chapter, he is careful to distinguish this kind of realism from “naïve realism,” or “the view that there is a one-to-one relation between our description of reality and reality itself—that our language, as it were, mirrors reality” (p.79). Pring would probably say that despite their shortcomings, all the -isms are grounded in reality to greater or lesser degrees, and this reality exists independent of our attempts to make sense of it. The different perspectives in Paul (and Pring’s different –isms) would not be possible without something real to base those perspectives on. Maybe by “robust” realism, he means realism that’s open to the different representations or explanations made possible by the -isms, without rigid or dogmatic claims of reality or truth, but according to common sense. His statement that “the language of common sense embodies a complex way of understanding the world, which at one level is not to be dispensed with and at another level is the best we have” (p.108) has huge implications for research-based policy and practice, and gets to the root of what is most problematic about research IMHO. Perhaps collaborative research paradigms like those in Relevance to Practice as a Criterion for Rigor (Gutiérrez & Penuel, 2014) can bridge the gap between common sense and the –isms.
ReplyDeleteHolly here … this was interesting. I went back and reread portions of the Paul chapter (OK, I skipped Arts Based Education, since I was pretty sure that wasn’t Pring’s –ism), because I too didn’t have a very good sense of where Pring fell. I discovered that rereading Paul after having read Pring helped me to understand Paul better - there was a lot more nuance to it all than I caught onto the first time around. I’m surprised by what I’m leaning towards, in that I wonder if Pring might not be a bit of a postpositivist.
ReplyDeleteWhen I went back and read about postpositivism, there was a lot there that sounded like Pring. The importance of good work in research, the disavowal of “capital T” truth while recognizing that warranted beliefs are possible, a more inclusive definition of scientific inquiry while simultaneously doubting if educational research can be strictly scientific, the idea of a basic reality that can be mediated by distinct social and cultural structures but that nevertheless exists, and the icing on the cake … postpositivism as the “third path” out of the positivist/postmodernist dilemma.
A whole lot of that sounded quite “Pring-y” to me. I think, however, that Pring would have some reservations about the postpositivist belief in casuality, at least in its applications to educational research. Or maybe he would agree with this belief in a broader sense, with less emphasis on controlled experiments, and more emphasis on the idea that “… our intentional acts are caused by our reasoning processes (which include, of course, our knowledge and beliefs, our motives, and the like)” (Paul, p. 55).
Hey, it’s Laurie.
ReplyDeleteSince one of the articles for this week is by D. C. Phillips, who wrote the postpositivist section of the Paul book, I’m going to say I think Pring is a postpositivist.
Phillips’ “platinum standard” of “a compelling case” fits with Pring’s acceptance of either qualitative or quantitative research, whichever is appropriate for the research in question. Both are merely searching for the most warranted beliefs possible in the most trustworthy way imaginable. They also have similar views of reality. Like Pring, Phillips claims “beliefs … must be constrained by the realities that exist” (Paul). Both voice skepticism about the possibility of either maintaining objectivity or establishing causal relationships in light of human thoughts, feelings, goals, and whatnot. Instead of seeking out Big T Truths, both appear to follow what Phillips said in the Paul book, “The knowledge we acquire may be fallible, but we are justified in believing and acting upon the most rigorously produced knowledge that is available, until something better (more justified or warranted) comes along to replace it.”
On the other hand, he quotes Dewey, so maybe he’s a pragmatist. And he talks about the relationship between language and culture, so maybe he’s an interpretivist or a poststructuralist.
Pring attempts to avoid identifying himself with any philosophical belief. He argues both sides of concepts to illustrate the complexity of the stances and how interrelated the concepts are. Pring does tend to lean towards common sense beliefs which leads me to believe he is a pragmatist. However, he does see the causal relationship of research which sways me more to the post-positivist. I think he is a realist – believing that there is a reality maybe constructed differently depending on the researcher’s philosophy. I think Pring does not want us to get to narrow thinking in our “ism” that we are not open to the other possibilities – the moon walking bear.
ReplyDeleteJorli-
ReplyDeletePring seems to enjoy setting himself up to play devils advocate and arguing from all sides of an issue. I was in Robyn's group this past Tuesday and we agreed that he enjoys challenging people to change how they see the world. I feel that he would not like us identifying one specific "ism" for him. However since that is the assignment...
I feel that he has two "isms." The first ism is that of a pragmatist. Throughout his writing he refers to common sense and quotes Dewey many times. He spends a good chunk of time asking the reader to question their knowledge and how they know things.
He refers to himself as a realist and I do think that he is also a realist. He pays attention to what works and does not work in the real world. Again he discusses common sense and how important common sense is in guiding both research and application.
Vivian here…
ReplyDeleteI agree with Robyn in that Pring argues from all sides, giving a description of each perspective presented and a counterargument, with examples. Pring’s discussion points to a pragmatic perspective, with the right approach to research being determined by multiple factors, including current circumstances, beliefs and individual understandings. However, his arguments regarding truth, facts and knowledge reflect postpositivist thinking in that it is evident that Pring does not consider that an ’absolute truth’ exists, but rather truth is based on what we know, but also embracing the contradictions and tensions that result from competing discourse.
In reading Pring, I was initially turned off by what appeared to be circular thinking, but as I considered the postpositivist approach, the purpose of the contradictions became clearer to me and, in my opinion, highlights the importance of understanding the various perspectives and the impact on research decisions.
Elizabeth...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gabby that although Pring argues both sides, he is still a realist. Being a realist, though, according to Pring, is not about blindly believing something, which is a trap of the -isms. Instead, it's being aware that there are many possible angles to view something, finding those angles, and taking them into account. The trap of the-isms is simply being blind to those other angles.
This is Weade...I think Pring’s views are very balanced in a sense that he does not fully align with one of the philosophical perspectives. If I had choose where Pring would fit, I would echo the others and say that he is most closely aligned with Pragmatism, however he does exhibits views of Post-positivism. I believe that Pring’s views are most aligned with Pragmatism because he asserts that reality is warranted and we hold on to what we believe to be reality until we can empirically refute what is reality based on the evidence. According to Pring, “Realism is the view that there is a reality, a world, which exists independently of the researcher and which is to be discovered; the conclusions of the research are true or false, depending on whether they match up to that reality.” (p. 76) I think in this phrase, Pring is suggesting that research provides the evidence we need to uphold reality as trustworthy or untrustworthy. Pring’s epistemological beliefs also suggests a pragmatist perspective because of his beliefs that what we believe is knowledge and reality is socially constructed. He states that there are “as many realities or multiple realities as there are social constructions.” (p. 77) As it relates to post-positivism, Pring’s ontological views acknowledges that there are multiple realities and that we can observe and experience them through our social connections. Methodologically, he seeks evidence to prove or discredit knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThis is Mo…. At the end of Chapter 6, Pring indicates that the position he espouses “might be roughly described as one of robust realism”. He does not completely believe that reality exists out there and it is a matter of finding out about it. A perspective described by Paul where Pring can fit it in is constructivism. Pring thinks that reality is “socially constructed” in some ways as there seem to be social forces and structures that we might not be conscious of, but which none the less shape a person’s world, aspirations and achievements. One cannot by choice simply create another way of conceiving social world because that world is constituted and shaped by perceptions. Pring’s epistemological beliefs also suggest a critical perspective, as he links knowledge, power and control to research. He says that there is as much danger of the reconstructed realities reflecting the dominance of those in power as there is of the researchers in paradigms.
ReplyDelete