Ways of Knowing

Journal Entry #7

Spring 2005

Erin Peters

Shortly after the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, the Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research was commissioned to write a report which would assemble the principles of quality scientific educational research. The report, Scientific research in education, published by the National Research Council (NRC), explicitly details six scientific principles and six design principles which are expected to be present in all quality educational research. The report explains that current educational research is perceived as substandard, and the purpose of the report is to develop necessary principles of research to raise the acceptance of educational research. The principles and examples promoted in the report embody Bruner’s paradigmatic way of knowing.

Scientific Principle 1 asks educational researchers to pose significant questions that can be investigated empirically. Questions posed are used to seek new knowledge and are to be designed to emphasize testability and refutability. Bruner, in his book Actual minds, possible worlds, defines the paradigmatic mode of thinking as dealing with “general causes, and in their establishment, and makes use of procedures to assure verifiable reference and to test empirical truth” (Bruner, p. 13). The report uses a paradigmatic way of knowing to provide a method to pose questions.

Scientific Principal 2 shows that scientific research links to relevant theory. Investigations should be guided by an overarching conceptual framework which results in the accumulation of knowledge regarding educational theory. Bruner explains that a virtue of a scientific way of knowing is “that they enable us to keep an enormous amount in mind” (Bruner, p. 48). Bruner argues that by organizing facts under different frameworks, knowledge is more accessible. The report utilizes the paradigmatic way of knowing to show the significance of linking research with theory.

Scientific Principal 3 advises educational researchers to use appropriate and effective methods in addressing a particular research question. Scientific claims are stronger when subjected to multiple methods of testing. Some methods are appropriate for individual studies, but lack the elements necessary to be expanded to a larger community. The report calls for such studies to be a part of a series of related studies so that the outcome of the series of studies can be generalized. The ultimate outcome of the study should not be based in context. Bruner describes a parallel concept, the invariance of paradigmatic truths, when he discusses the universality of scientific work “through context independence” (Bruner, p. 50).

Scientific Principal 4 requires that educational researchers prove their study valid by utilizing logical reasoning to support their conclusion. Educational researchers should consider all possibilities for their findings and make inferences using the most logical chain of reasoning. The paradigmatic mode leads to “good theory, tight analysis, logical proof, sound argument, and empirical discovery guided by reasoned hypothesis” (Bruner, p. 13). The report calls for all of the qualities Bruner describes so that other researchers can verify the methods leading to the results.

Scientific Principal 5 calls for inquiry that can be replicated and generalized for larger populations. If studies can be replicated and generalized for a larger population, then they can be comparable. The goal of the report is to have the educational research community generate studies that can be universally useful for American education. The ideal situation being that a school experiences problem “X”. The leaders in the school can look up situations to help with problem “X” in the body of educational research and solve the problem. Bruner also believes science progresses “by constructing worlds in comparable ways” (Bruner, p. 14). It is a requirement in paradigmatic thinking to have comparable ideas because an idea is not scientific if it is not testable.

Scientific Principle 6 requires that educational research studies be rigorously reviewed by a wide range of peers in order to be accepted as scientific research. Since Scientific Principle 6 is based in procedure, it is not directly linked to a paradigmatic way of thinking. It can, however, be linked to the paradigmatic ideal of tight analysis and good theory, so that other researchers can verify the findings of the study.

Using a paradigmatic way of thinking could strengthen the public’s perception of the validity of educational research. The American public tends to believe a result if the claims are made in a scientific way. The media has trained Americans to take findings of scientific studies for face value and to inherently believe that the study has validity if done in a scientifically. People who are not trained in the methodologies of educational research tend to believe a more paradigmatic way of knowing is more reliable than a narrative form. If more studies were done in a paradigmatic way, then more of the American public would have confidence in the validity of the studies.

Using a paradigmatic way of thinking also builds in a measure of confidence that the results of an educational study are logical. Since a paradigmatic way of thinking requires a question that can be answered with logic and procedures that follow a logical path, peers can have access to the ways of thinking explicitly. Unlike narrative thinking, paradigmatic thinking is oriented to the outside world and tries to avoid context. Reviewers who have different context than the researchers can still understand the logical progression of the study.

Unfortunately, using a paradigmatic way of thinking in educational research also limits the humanity involved in social sciences. By regarding scientific studies as having value only if they are able to be generalized and void of context, paradigmatic thinking devalues the meaning of being human. Thinking about situations in context can reveal a rich source of data regarding educational problems in the same way a story can reveal important properties of being human. A case study can reveal a great deal of meaning behind a particular circumstance, but it would not be regarded as valuable because it would not be useful across the population.

Education as an activity is prescribed in context. That is, math teachers provide an education to students who are willing to learn as well as to students who are not willing to learn. Boiling down education into scientific principles fails to consider that human interactions are necessary in education. Administrators, teachers and students all enter the educational theater with their own preconceived notions about effective human interactions, and their preconceived notions often conflict. Being human makes any interaction complex. When a teacher asks students to get out their interactive notebooks, students can perceive the request as positive, negative or indifferent. There are multiple interpretations of any single request in education, which complicates the simplest educational task. Scientific research focused on generalizing results cannot possibly address all of the complexities of being human.

Although I am a science teacher and believe paradigmatic ways of knowing are significant, I see value in recognizing multiple ways of knowing. I understand the need for universal fits in education, but I see that need subverting the importance of telling stories in educational research. I see the trend toward “science” in education akin to the trend of accountability at the classroom level. Having teachers accountable for curriculum is important, but it sabotaged the depth of the curriculum. Accountability made the curriculum an inch deep and a mile wide. Having randomized studies at the top of the hierarchy in research could result in collecting knowledge only on general repairs for shallow problems. Placing sole importance in randomized studies could fail to produce the depth of description that is required in complex human interactions.

I am concerned now after reading the NRC report that what I think is important and valuable is not seen by the population of researchers as significant. I feel that having a mixed method study will not be perceived as scholarly work by researchers. Perhaps by having my only doctoral experience at George Mason University, I have a stilted view of the types of research. I have been exposed to mostly qualitative and design-based research, so my paradigm of quality research has those methods as the central concepts. I see important arguments about how a researcher’s prior contextual frameworks influence studies and how it is important to delve deep into the ideas rather than try to glean over them. I think about when I fill out a survey and I have no ownership of it. It is really not very significant to me, and I may not produce results that are indicative of my beliefs and perceptions. If many teachers feel as I do about filling out surveys, the results of these types of studies may not be as valid as they seem. But if I have someone come and observe me and talk to me about my perceptions, I have ownership of the problem and am motivated to give a great deal of information to the researcher. Due to the complexity of human interaction, I think that educational research should place its efforts into a variety of types of studies.

References

Bruner, Jerome (1996). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.

National Research Council (2002). Scientific research in education. National Academy Press.