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?
Jorli- Biesta starts out his article with Hargreaves' criticism that states that educational research should be controlled by a centralized agenda setting group so that content and methodology be regulated, he then follows this up on page 4 with the Manifesto on Educational Research published by EBE which states educational research ‘‘is too important to allow it to be determined by unfounded opinion, whether of politicians, teachers, researchers or anyone else," the manifesto continues on to state "‘‘the ease with which politicians, policy makers — and even teachers — have been able to get away with implementing their prejudices without even token consideration of the evidence, let alone engaging in a serious and informed debate about its quality and importance, is a disgrace.’’ After reading these two critiques at the very beginning of this article I was ready to truly dislike Biesta, however I found myself respecting his opinions and criticism.
One of the things that stood out to me was his discussion of how linear evidence based research can be. It is a very top down approach for the exact reasons set out in the prior quotes. The feeling that research needs to be controlled by a centralized group of people that in order to control content and methodology. His criticism of this is that it limits the value judgement of practitioners and might limit researchers’ ability to be sensitive and relevant to the practitioner.
Biesta spends a good deal of time discussing practitioners values and if that should be effecting research. The EBE seems to feel that practitioners should not allow their values to affect their research or even their use of the research. Biesta goes in the opposite direction. He feels that practitioner’s values which are formed off of experience and objective analysis has a place in both research and the application of research. He points out that in medicine the doctor does not just go well this is what evidence based research says and apply that without question. Rather the doctor uses the research as one piece of the greater puzzle to figure out what is wrong and how to treat it. He points out that physical punishment is one of the greatest behavior modifications that we have, however the effects that come out of physical punishment are not desired and practitioner’s values are what tells us that physical punishment is not appropriate and should not be used.
His final point that stood out to me is “effective intervention” and how that does not tell us what the effect is or even if it is desirable. Effective intervention simply means that there was a relationship between the intervention and the outcome, it does not state what type of relationship. I feel like I tend to just assume that if it is evidence based research, it has a desired positive effect.
Carolyn~ Howe and Biesta’s visions of democratic research have a lot in common. Both agree, first of all, that educational research is not neutral or value-free. Biesta says researchers should be concerned not only with inquiry about “what works” (the means to ends), but also about what is desirable, what we value (the ends that we hope to achieve). He says investigation should not be limited to researchers and educators but should extend to society at large, and (borrowing from Sanderson, p. 18) says its should promote a full, free and open normative debate among all those with a stake in the policies concerned, including service-users and citizens, because a in a democratic society, the purpose of education is not a given but is a constant topic for discussion and deliberation. He goes on to say that in the current political climate it is difficult to have such a discussion.
Howe also seems to be talking about the importance of both “ends” and “means” research when he says a cultural role for research is no less practical than a technical role. Educational research should follow three principles: inclusion, dialog, and deliberation (like Biesta’s call for normative debate among all stakeholders). Whether research can play a technical or cultural role depends on the environment in which the researchers operate. The extent to which research can perform both roles reflects the democratic quality of that society. Like Biesta, Howe indicts the current political current climate, saying governments’ and policy makers’ demands that educational research should only play a technical role can be seen as a threat to democracy.
This talk of democracy and inclusion (and also of research being informative but not predictive) seems to point to the idea of Community Engaged Research (CEnR), in which many stakeholders have voice, and answers to local questions are sought.
I agree with the idea of Community Engaged Research being the solution to creating a more democratic research. Having all stakeholders at the table of decision-making to develop the "aims and ends of our educational endeavors". Biesta explored all the limitations that evidence based research entails but does not dismiss it altogether. Instead he notes it can be used for information for what worked at that time. The educational professionals need more freedom to exert their own judgement about what they feel is best at this time and place. The goal is to have a techno and a cultural role in decision-making.
Brighouse would agree with Biesta but also add the need for ethical examination of education policy making. Comparing educational research to medical research, the latter having ethicist and the former not. I found this to be an interesting concept. To deny educational research is value laden seems absurd. Ethical questions arise constantly in education and are answered by public opinion. Wouldn't it be great if more thought and reflection was given?
It’s Jodi.. I believe that Howe and Biesta have common ideas of democratic research. They see evidence based research as limiting the educational professionals from using their judgement in particular educational situations where it may be important to do so. Moral/value-laden judgements should be used when studying what is best for children/students in the classrooms. School teachers hold valuable information that some researchers may not see when they are looking at technical areas in schools. Teaching staff tend to have the “inside scoop” so to speak and can give critical feedback that can be helpful in changing policy. When technocracy is being used for political decisions in education, it can be a detriment to the education system when the more applicable research of “what works” is a better choice. It needs to be kept in mind that research should be done to better the system and not degrade the system. It is also agreed up on by both Howe and Biesta that research that includes cultural aspects as well as technical aspects can” be real and have practical consequences.” Ultimately I find that they are both concerned about what is best for the student.
Hi Jodi! I agree with everything you said here. My favorite part of this reading was hearing Biesta's views on how "... research can only indicate what worked, not what works or will work, which means that the outcomes of research cannot simply be translated into rules for action. Knowledge about the relation between actions and consequences can only be used to make professional problem solving more intelligent — nothing more and nothing less. Research should not only investigate the effectiveness of educational means but should at the same time inquire into the desirability of educational ends, evidence-based practice only focuses on the first task and, in doing so, assumes that the only way in which research can be relevant for educational practice is through the provision of instrumental or technical knowledge." His arguments away from the technological aspect does show his views on what is best for the student and how important cultural norms are in determining the best research. He talks about how hard generalization is due to all the different possibly causalities, which I found interesting and agree with on many points. This may be an area Pring would agree with, too...possibly!
Hi Jodi and Robyn. This "research can only indicate what worked..." was my favorite part too. The logic is perfect and elegant. Of course what worked is just that, and not necessarily a predictor of what will work in general, in the future, or in a different context. Also, I for one would like to be included in a democratic deliberative process about the desirability of educational ends, but nobody's asking. ~Carolyn
Although he is not against evidenced-based research Biesta believes that it is an effective way of bridging educational research with educational practice. His disagreement hinges on two points. First, he argues that the nature of the research questions being asked are limited in scope and only as good as the judgements made by the researcher asking the question about what is in fact relevant. Second, he posits that practitioners are also limited in their choices to choose and determine “what works” in the individual contexts of their classrooms. He raises interesting points about the moral and political power of research and a decision making process that can ultimately determine what is important in education.
Similarly, Howe also proposes that researchers are “deliberative” in realizing the link between their choices in research and the values associated with the policies or practices they recommend. Both Howe and Biesta champion for democratic decision making in research as a way to prevent power imbalance and engage in critical and inclusive debate about both the cultural and technical roles of educational research in society.
I agree that this is important and must be considered by researchers as they seek to link theory to practice. The nature of education is dynamic and values must be considered when seeking to develop policies or make recommendations for practice. I agree with Carolyn that Community Engaged Research seems a promising way to meet this challenge. I have seen it in my own school as our local university becomes more engaged within our classrooms and seeks to collaborate on research that will be mutually beneficial. It is definitely a start and I feel that both practitioners and researchers will find the process fulfilling.
Howe’s vision for democratic research includes a preference for deliberative, rather than technocratic, research, in part due to the impossibility of a taking a “neutral moral-political stance” when talking about education. He expands on this using three key terms: inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation, all of which allow for more voices and points of view to be thoughtfully considered. Biesta expands that to worry whether limiting educational research to RCTs and the like diminishes its possibilities, both in terms of what it can accomplish and who can be involved. In an article I read for my discipline paper, Biesta writes, “Dewey was concerned … about the way in which the worldview of modern science had become hegemonic, not only in terms of what we hold to be true but also in terms of what we hold to be rational.” * Perhaps what quantitative researchers need is for qualitative researchers to create a “bustle in their (hegemonic) hedgerow” – to actively problematize the non-specific, and therefore less helpful, nature of their generalizations (Page and Plant, 1971).
On the other hand, to quote Becker, “I wouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.” I think quantitative studies can be helpful. (Was that too Pringly an about-face?) I just think they are most helpful when analyzed with a solid understanding of their limitations and considered in combination with broader, more qualitative studies. The concern is that, with diminished funding for anything other than large-scale RCTs, efforts to improve education dwindle to a positivist “cookbook” of faddish, context-free programs analyzed and marketed to school systems in terms of their impact on standardized test scores rather than on individual students. I like Kohn’s “Alice’s Restaurant”-style advice to stop using standardized test results as dependent variables and never miss an opportunity to explain why they can be misleading. (“You can get anything you want from” … mixed methods research with large effect sizes and thick descriptions?) (Guthrie, 1967)
* Biesta, G. (2014) Pragmatising the curriculum: bringing knowledge back into the curriculum conversation, but via pragmatism. The Curriculum Journal, 29-49.
Ken Howe's goal was to break down the great divide between different types of research, which is ultimately what Biesta's goal is. Biesta do not dislike evidence-based research. What he dislikes is the government's, policy makers', and practioners' view that if research is not based on firm, quantitative evidence, then it should not be taken into consideration. The downside to throwing out all other research, he says, is that values and openness to other possibilities are also thrown out. Further, by strictly accepting only evidence-based research, conversation about the truthfulness and biases, among other important discussion topics, diminishes greatly. This democratic vision of research is important to be able to grow as a field and to connect researchers with practitioners in a multi-layered, more influential way. Biesta and Howe both believe that the solution is to allow space for many types of research.
Holly here … As others before me have mentioned, Biesta and Howe have a lot in common. They share similar perspectives on the importance of incorporating democratic ideals in educational research. Biesta envisions democratic research as that which involves practitioners in meaningful ways and examines the aims of education as well as the means. In other words, “normative questions” (p. 21) matter and should be part of an ongoing, public debate between all educational stakeholders. To support this conceptualization, Biesta argues for strengthening the ties between research, policy, and practice. To which I think Howe would reply, “Yes.” Howe draws attention to the inherently normative nature of research, and asks us to think about the implicit values in the research questions asked and the designs used. He also advocates for full and free stakeholder participation in research decision-making in order to make educational research more democratic and inclusive.
Vivian here… There are similarities between Howe’s view of democratic research and Biesta’s discussion of effective research. Both Biesta and Howe recognize the important role of research in a democratic society and support the view that the practitioner plays an important role in determining the value and usefulness of the information. Biesta argues that a society’s ability to go beyond “what works” (telling people what to do) and consider the question of value is an indication of the degree to which the society is democratic. Howe emphasizes the importance of free and equal participation in order to eliminate power imbalances. Biesta states that technical research (evidence-based practices) “…focuses on the production of means for given ends…” and assumes that there is “…strong consensus about the aims of education…” He advocates for an understanding of research as a tool that helps educational practitioners understand different possibilities. In Biesta’s opinion, limiting educational research to questions about “what works” denies educational practitioners the option of using their professional judgment and ignores the value of the results (are the outcomes desirable?). This view recognizes the importance of expertise in education. It is not enough for a teacher to be given a strategy, the teacher must know when and how to apply the strategy (and when to use a different strategy). Evidence-based research provides practitioners with knowledge that can be used to guide their practice, but they must have the ability to use professional judgment to determine the effectiveness of the strategy.
Both Howe and Biesta share similar ideas regarding a more democratic approach to research. As we have discussed throughout this class, educational research has long been viewed as fragmented, noncumulative, methodologically flawed, and too often politically motivated. Evidence-based research with a strong focus on randomized controlled field trials has begun to service as a means for addressing the aforementioned issues in educational research. Both authors feel that a reliance solely on evidence generating from such research will lead to decision making which is too restrictive in process and participation. They each prefer a democratic approach to educational research in which a variety of school and community stakeholders deliberate to determine the agenda for educational research with respect to its content and methodology.
I don’t believe that either Howe or Biesta feel evidence based education should be completely ignored, but instead, that it should be one of the cogs on the wheel to educational revolution. While experimental research does have a place in the decision making process, its use in its current form will not effectively close the gaps between research, policy, and practice. Research will become too technocratic and will only be concerned with causation and the evaluation of techniques (what works). Policy makers will then make decision using information that was only relevant for the environment in which the research was conducted and fails to include the moral implications of such decisions. Practitioners would then be limited to only abiding by the “best practice” and lose the ability to make decisions based on the context of their classrooms.
I believe that a more democratic approach to education research would be helpful for both researchers and practitioners and would assist in narrowing the gap between researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. My only concern is the propensity for corruption in any process in which selected members of a society are making decisions for the whole. There would still be a strong concern for effectively and morally determining not only the purpose of Ed research, but also the purpose of education itself.
Hi John, I like that you brought up corruption at the end of your post. It's something that has been weighing heavily on my mind as we have been discussing the ins and outs of ed research in class. I think that whatever is considered good or bad, right or wrong research/research techniques is really a question of ethics and justice. When discussing justice in the Republic, Thrasymachus defines justice as "whatever is in favor of the stronger". What Thrasymachus means by this is that the idea of what is considered 'just' can be manipulated by those in power. To be honest, I don't know if this is true or not, but I can see how it could be possible. American political cycles tend to run in 4 year cycles, which isn’t necessarily a long time to create, implement, measure, and analyze a plan. However, politicians want to be able to show the citizenry the results of ‘their work’, this information tends to be more quantitative in nature (how many people attended, pre/post test scores, amount of money/capital spent per person, etc.). This is information that they can take back to the public to prove that they are worthy to be re-elected. The actual effectiveness of a program can’t be measured that quickly, it takes more time for researchers and policy analysts to fully understand the societal impact and reaches of a policy. This focus on efficiency measures and quick turnaround is a type of corruption in itself, forcing teachers and researchers to commit to plans that are more focused in reelection purposes rather than the overall good of the citizenry.
This is Mo... Howe and Biesta’s views of democratic research have significant similarities. For them, the idea of evidence-based education research raises questions about the nature of educational decision-making, the role of research, as well as who is and who should be allowed to participate in the decision making process.
Having democratic discussions about the purposes of education creates an environment in which researchers shape the goals of education. Howe and Biesta connect their definition of education research with the idea of democracy, values and the means to the end. This allows research to play a technical and a cultural role. They suggest that a democratic society is characterized by the existence of an open and informed discussion about the aims and ends of our educational inquiries. The extent to which research can perform a cultural/critical role is as an indication of the democratic quality of a society and its support of democratic values.
Weade here...Mo, I agree with your last statement about the need for consensus democratic values in order for research to perform a critical and cultural role. As a society we believe in democratic principles, however, there are institutional barriers that limits "who" can fully partake in democratic processes, which is where the problem lies. I view democratic research as a step in the right direction to achieve equity in education. Majority of the debates that occur in democratic forums like public hearings held by school boards or state education agencies are often one-sided. Although the purpose of having an open forum is well-intended (and sometimes required by federal regs), there’s little action by policymakers and state agencies to have these debates in schools, communities or settings that will attract practitioners, community leaders and families. If we’re not engaging the masses, including marginalized communities and educators in those communities, how can we make decisions to achieve equity in education?
Jorli-
ReplyDeleteBiesta starts out his article with Hargreaves' criticism that states that educational research should be controlled by a centralized agenda setting group so that content and methodology be regulated, he then follows this up on page 4 with the Manifesto on Educational Research published by EBE which states educational research ‘‘is too important to allow it to be determined by unfounded opinion, whether of politicians, teachers, researchers or anyone else," the manifesto continues on to state "‘‘the ease with which politicians, policy makers — and even teachers — have been able to get away with implementing their prejudices without even token consideration of the evidence, let alone engaging in a serious and informed debate about its quality and importance, is a disgrace.’’ After reading these two critiques at the very beginning of this article I was ready to truly dislike Biesta, however I found myself respecting his opinions and criticism.
One of the things that stood out to me was his discussion of how linear evidence based research can be. It is a very top down approach for the exact reasons set out in the prior quotes. The feeling that research needs to be controlled by a centralized group of people that in order to control content and methodology. His criticism of this is that it limits the value judgement of practitioners and might limit researchers’ ability to be sensitive and relevant to the practitioner.
Biesta spends a good deal of time discussing practitioners values and if that should be effecting research. The EBE seems to feel that practitioners should not allow their values to affect their research or even their use of the research. Biesta goes in the opposite direction. He feels that practitioner’s values which are formed off of experience and objective analysis has a place in both research and the application of research. He points out that in medicine the doctor does not just go well this is what evidence based research says and apply that without question. Rather the doctor uses the research as one piece of the greater puzzle to figure out what is wrong and how to treat it. He points out that physical punishment is one of the greatest behavior modifications that we have, however the effects that come out of physical punishment are not desired and practitioner’s values are what tells us that physical punishment is not appropriate and should not be used.
His final point that stood out to me is “effective intervention” and how that does not tell us what the effect is or even if it is desirable. Effective intervention simply means that there was a relationship between the intervention and the outcome, it does not state what type of relationship. I feel like I tend to just assume that if it is evidence based research, it has a desired positive effect.
Carolyn~
ReplyDeleteHowe and Biesta’s visions of democratic research have a lot in common. Both agree, first of all, that educational research is not neutral or value-free. Biesta says researchers should be concerned not only with inquiry about “what works” (the means to ends), but also about what is desirable, what we value (the ends that we hope to achieve). He says investigation should not be limited to researchers and educators but should extend to society at large, and (borrowing from Sanderson, p. 18) says its should promote a full, free and open normative debate among all those with a stake in the policies concerned, including service-users and citizens, because a in a democratic society, the purpose of education is not a given but is a constant topic for discussion and deliberation. He goes on to say that in the current political climate it is difficult to have such a discussion.
Howe also seems to be talking about the importance of both “ends” and “means” research when he says a cultural role for research is no less practical than a technical role. Educational research should follow three principles: inclusion, dialog, and deliberation (like Biesta’s call for normative debate among all stakeholders). Whether research can play a technical or cultural role depends on the environment in which the researchers operate. The extent to which research can perform both roles reflects the democratic quality of that society. Like Biesta, Howe indicts the current political current climate, saying governments’ and policy makers’ demands that educational research should only play a technical role can be seen as a threat to democracy.
This talk of democracy and inclusion (and also of research being informative but not predictive) seems to point to the idea of Community Engaged Research (CEnR), in which many stakeholders have voice, and answers to local questions are sought.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with the idea of Community Engaged Research being the solution to creating a more democratic research. Having all stakeholders at the table of decision-making to develop the "aims and ends of our educational endeavors". Biesta explored all the limitations that evidence based research entails but does not dismiss it altogether. Instead he notes it can be used for information for what worked at that time. The educational professionals need more freedom to exert their own judgement about what they feel is best at this time and place. The goal is to have a techno and a cultural role in decision-making.
DeleteBrighouse would agree with Biesta but also add the need for ethical examination of education policy making. Comparing educational research to medical research, the latter having ethicist and the former not. I found this to be an interesting concept. To deny educational research is value laden seems absurd. Ethical questions arise constantly in education and are answered by public opinion. Wouldn't it be great if more thought and reflection was given?
It’s Jodi.. I believe that Howe and Biesta have common ideas of democratic research. They see evidence based research as limiting the educational professionals from using their judgement in particular educational situations where it may be important to do so. Moral/value-laden judgements should be used when studying what is best for children/students in the classrooms. School teachers hold valuable information that some researchers may not see when they are looking at technical areas in schools. Teaching staff tend to have the “inside scoop” so to speak and can give critical feedback that can be helpful in changing policy. When technocracy is being used for political decisions in education, it can be a detriment to the education system when the more applicable research of “what works” is a better choice. It needs to be kept in mind that research should be done to better the system and not degrade the system. It is also agreed up on by both Howe and Biesta that research that includes cultural aspects as well as technical aspects can” be real and have practical consequences.” Ultimately I find that they are both concerned about what is best for the student.
ReplyDeleteHi Jodi! I agree with everything you said here. My favorite part of this reading was hearing Biesta's views on how "... research can only indicate what worked, not what works or will work, which means that the outcomes of research cannot simply be translated into rules for action. Knowledge about the relation between actions and consequences can only be used to make professional problem solving more intelligent — nothing more and nothing less. Research should not only investigate the effectiveness of educational means but should at the same time inquire into the desirability of educational ends, evidence-based practice only focuses on the first task and, in doing so, assumes that the only way in which research can be relevant for educational practice is through the provision of instrumental or technical knowledge." His arguments away from the technological aspect does show his views on what is best for the student and how important cultural norms are in determining the best research. He talks about how hard generalization is due to all the different possibly causalities, which I found interesting and agree with on many points. This may be an area Pring would agree with, too...possibly!
DeleteHi Jodi and Robyn. This "research can only indicate what worked..." was my favorite part too. The logic is perfect and elegant. Of course what worked is just that, and not necessarily a predictor of what will work in general, in the future, or in a different context. Also, I for one would like to be included in a democratic deliberative process about the desirability of educational ends, but nobody's asking. ~Carolyn
DeleteTonya here:
ReplyDeleteAlthough he is not against evidenced-based research Biesta believes that it is an effective way of bridging educational research with educational practice. His disagreement hinges on two points. First, he argues that the nature of the research questions being asked are limited in scope and only as good as the judgements made by the researcher asking the question about what is in fact relevant. Second, he posits that practitioners are also limited in their choices to choose and determine “what works” in the individual contexts of their classrooms. He raises interesting points about the moral and political power of research and a decision making process that can ultimately determine what is important in education.
Similarly, Howe also proposes that researchers are “deliberative” in realizing the link between their choices in research and the values associated with the policies or practices they recommend. Both Howe and Biesta champion for democratic decision making in research as a way to prevent power imbalance and engage in critical and inclusive debate about both the cultural and technical roles of educational research in society.
I agree that this is important and must be considered by researchers as they seek to link theory to practice. The nature of education is dynamic and values must be considered when seeking to develop policies or make recommendations for practice. I agree with Carolyn that Community Engaged Research seems a promising way to meet this challenge. I have seen it in my own school as our local university becomes more engaged within our classrooms and seeks to collaborate on research that will be mutually beneficial. It is definitely a start and I feel that both practitioners and researchers will find the process fulfilling.
Hey, it’s Laurie.
ReplyDeleteHowe’s vision for democratic research includes a preference for deliberative, rather than technocratic, research, in part due to the impossibility of a taking a “neutral moral-political stance” when talking about education. He expands on this using three key terms: inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation, all of which allow for more voices and points of view to be thoughtfully considered. Biesta expands that to worry whether limiting educational research to RCTs and the like diminishes its possibilities, both in terms of what it can accomplish and who can be involved. In an article I read for my discipline paper, Biesta writes, “Dewey was concerned … about the way in which the worldview of modern science had become hegemonic, not only in terms of what we hold to be true but also in terms of what we hold to be rational.” * Perhaps what quantitative researchers need is for qualitative researchers to create a “bustle in their (hegemonic) hedgerow” – to actively problematize the non-specific, and therefore less helpful, nature of their generalizations (Page and Plant, 1971).
On the other hand, to quote Becker, “I wouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.” I think quantitative studies can be helpful. (Was that too Pringly an about-face?) I just think they are most helpful when analyzed with a solid understanding of their limitations and considered in combination with broader, more qualitative studies. The concern is that, with diminished funding for anything other than large-scale RCTs, efforts to improve education dwindle to a positivist “cookbook” of faddish, context-free programs analyzed and marketed to school systems in terms of their impact on standardized test scores rather than on individual students. I like Kohn’s “Alice’s Restaurant”-style advice to stop using standardized test results as dependent variables and never miss an opportunity to explain why they can be misleading. (“You can get anything you want from” … mixed methods research with large effect sizes and thick descriptions?) (Guthrie, 1967)
* Biesta, G. (2014) Pragmatising the curriculum: bringing knowledge back into the curriculum conversation, but via pragmatism. The Curriculum Journal, 29-49.
Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteKen Howe's goal was to break down the great divide between different types of research, which is ultimately what Biesta's goal is. Biesta do not dislike evidence-based research. What he dislikes is the government's, policy makers', and practioners' view that if research is not based on firm, quantitative evidence, then it should not be taken into consideration. The downside to throwing out all other research, he says, is that values and openness to other possibilities are also thrown out. Further, by strictly accepting only evidence-based research, conversation about the truthfulness and biases, among other important discussion topics, diminishes greatly. This democratic vision of research is important to be able to grow as a field and to connect researchers with practitioners in a multi-layered, more influential way. Biesta and Howe both believe that the solution is to allow space for many types of research.
Holly here … As others before me have mentioned, Biesta and Howe have a lot in common. They share similar perspectives on the importance of incorporating democratic ideals in educational research. Biesta envisions democratic research as that which involves practitioners in meaningful ways and examines the aims of education as well as the means. In other words, “normative questions” (p. 21) matter and should be part of an ongoing, public debate between all educational stakeholders. To support this conceptualization, Biesta argues for strengthening the ties between research, policy, and practice.
ReplyDeleteTo which I think Howe would reply, “Yes.” Howe draws attention to the inherently normative nature of research, and asks us to think about the implicit values in the research questions asked and the designs used. He also advocates for full and free stakeholder participation in research decision-making in order to make educational research more democratic and inclusive.
Vivian here…
ReplyDeleteThere are similarities between Howe’s view of democratic research and Biesta’s discussion of effective research. Both Biesta and Howe recognize the important role of research in a democratic society and support the view that the practitioner plays an important role in determining the value and usefulness of the information. Biesta argues that a society’s ability to go beyond “what works” (telling people what to do) and consider the question of value is an indication of the degree to which the society is democratic. Howe emphasizes the importance of free and equal participation in order to eliminate power imbalances.
Biesta states that technical research (evidence-based practices) “…focuses on the production of means for given ends…” and assumes that there is “…strong consensus about the aims of education…” He advocates for an understanding of research as a tool that helps educational practitioners understand different possibilities. In Biesta’s opinion, limiting educational research to questions about “what works” denies educational practitioners the option of using their professional judgment and ignores the value of the results (are the outcomes desirable?). This view recognizes the importance of expertise in education. It is not enough for a teacher to be given a strategy, the teacher must know when and how to apply the strategy (and when to use a different strategy). Evidence-based research provides practitioners with knowledge that can be used to guide their practice, but they must have the ability to use professional judgment to determine the effectiveness of the strategy.
Both Howe and Biesta share similar ideas regarding a more democratic approach to research. As we have discussed throughout this class, educational research has long been viewed as fragmented, noncumulative, methodologically flawed, and too often politically motivated. Evidence-based research with a strong focus on randomized controlled field trials has begun to service as a means for addressing the aforementioned issues in educational research. Both authors feel that a reliance solely on evidence generating from such research will lead to decision making which is too restrictive in process and participation. They each prefer a democratic approach to educational research in which a variety of school and community stakeholders deliberate to determine the agenda for educational research with respect to its content and methodology.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that either Howe or Biesta feel evidence based education should be completely ignored, but instead, that it should be one of the cogs on the wheel to educational revolution. While experimental research does have a place in the decision making process, its use in its current form will not effectively close the gaps between research, policy, and practice. Research will become too technocratic and will only be concerned with causation and the evaluation of techniques (what works). Policy makers will then make decision using information that was only relevant for the environment in which the research was conducted and fails to include the moral implications of such decisions. Practitioners would then be limited to only abiding by the “best practice” and lose the ability to make decisions based on the context of their classrooms.
I believe that a more democratic approach to education research would be helpful for both researchers and practitioners and would assist in narrowing the gap between researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. My only concern is the propensity for corruption in any process in which selected members of a society are making decisions for the whole. There would still be a strong concern for effectively and morally determining not only the purpose of Ed research, but also the purpose of education itself.
Hi John, I like that you brought up corruption at the end of your post. It's something that has been weighing heavily on my mind as we have been discussing the ins and outs of ed research in class. I think that whatever is considered good or bad, right or wrong research/research techniques is really a question of ethics and justice. When discussing justice in the Republic, Thrasymachus defines justice as "whatever is in favor of the stronger". What Thrasymachus means by this is that the idea of what is considered 'just' can be manipulated by those in power. To be honest, I don't know if this is true or not, but I can see how it could be possible. American political cycles tend to run in 4 year cycles, which isn’t necessarily a long time to create, implement, measure, and analyze a plan. However, politicians want to be able to show the citizenry the results of ‘their work’, this information tends to be more quantitative in nature (how many people attended, pre/post test scores, amount of money/capital spent per person, etc.). This is information that they can take back to the public to prove that they are worthy to be re-elected. The actual effectiveness of a program can’t be measured that quickly, it takes more time for researchers and policy analysts to fully understand the societal impact and reaches of a policy. This focus on efficiency measures and quick turnaround is a type of corruption in itself, forcing teachers and researchers to commit to plans that are more focused in reelection purposes rather than the overall good of the citizenry.
DeleteThis is Mo... Howe and Biesta’s views of democratic research have significant similarities. For them, the idea of evidence-based education research raises questions about the nature of educational decision-making, the role of research, as well as who is and who should be allowed to participate in the decision making process.
ReplyDeleteHaving democratic discussions about the purposes of education creates an environment in which researchers shape the goals of education. Howe and Biesta connect their definition of education research with the idea of democracy, values and the means to the end. This allows research to play a technical and a cultural role. They suggest that a democratic society is characterized by the existence of an open and informed discussion about the aims and ends of our educational inquiries. The extent to which research can perform a cultural/critical role is as an indication of the democratic quality of a society and its support of democratic values.
Weade here...Mo, I agree with your last statement about the need for consensus democratic values in order for research to perform a critical and cultural role. As a society we believe in democratic principles, however, there are institutional barriers that limits "who" can fully partake in democratic processes, which is where the problem lies. I view democratic research as a step in the right direction to achieve equity in education. Majority of the debates that occur in democratic forums like public hearings held by school boards or state education agencies are often one-sided. Although the purpose of having an open forum is well-intended (and sometimes required by federal regs), there’s little action by policymakers and state agencies to have these debates in schools, communities or settings that will attract practitioners, community leaders and families. If we’re not engaging the masses, including marginalized communities and educators in those communities, how can we make decisions to achieve equity in education?
Delete