Educational Research: Proofs, Arguments, and Other Reasonings Educational Research VOLUME4 Aims&Scope Freedom of inquiry in educational research can no longer be taken for granted. Narrow definitions of what constitutes ‘scientific’ research, funding criteria that enforceparticularresearchmethods,andpolicydecisionprocessesthatignoreany research that is not narrowly utilitarian, in many countries, create a context that discouragesscholarshipofamorespeculative,exploratory,orcriticalsort. In this series, internationally leading scholars in philosophy and history of edu- cation engage in discourse that is sophisticated and nuanced for understanding contemporarydebates.Thussocialresearch,andthereforeeducationalresearch,is again focused on the distinctive nature of what it studies: a social activity where questions of meaning and value must be addressed, and where interpretation and judgmentplayacrucialrole. Thiseducationalresearchtakesintoaccountthehistoricalandculturalcontextand brings clarity to what actually constitutes science in this area. The timely issues that are addressed in this series bear witness to the belief that educational theory cannot help but go beyond a limited conception of empirical educational research toprovidearealunderstandingofeducationasahumanpractice.Theysurpassthe rathersimplecause-andeffectrhetoricandthustransgressthepictureofperforma- tivity that currently keeps much of the talk about education captive. The authors areunitedinthebeliefthat‘thereisaplacewithinthesocialsciencesingeneral’, and within the discipline of education in particular, for ‘foundational’ approaches thatenablethesystematicstudyofeducationalpracticefromadiscipline-orientated approach. EducationalResearch:Why‘WhatWorks’Doesn’tWork Series:EducationalResearch,Vol.1 Smeyers,Paul;Depaepe,Marc(Eds.) 2006,VI,195p.,Hardcover ISBN:978-1-4020-5307-8 EducationalResearch:NetworksandTechnologies Series:EducationalResearch,Vol.2 Smeyers,Paul;Depaepe,Marc(Eds.) 2007,VI,230p.,Hardcover ISBN:978-1-4020-6612-2 EducationalResearch:theEducationalizationofSocialProblems Series:EducationalResearch,Vol.3 Smeyers,Paul;Depaepe,Marc(Eds.) 2008,VI,250p.,Hardcover ISBN:978-1-4020-9722-5 · Paul Smeyers Marc Depaepe Editors Educational Research: Proofs, Arguments, and Other Reasonings 123 Editors Prof.PaulSmeyers Dr.MarcDepaepe UniversiteitGent KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven FaculteitPsychologieenPedagogische CampusKortrijk Wetenschappen SubfaculteitPsychologieen Dunantlaan1 Pedagogische 9000Gent Sabbelaan53 Belgium 8500Kortrijk [email protected] Belgium [email protected] ISBN978-90-481-3248-5 e-ISBN978-90-481-3249-2 DOI10.1007/978-90-481-3249-2 SpringerDordrechtHeidelbergLondonNewYork LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2009936782 ©SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009 Nopartofthisworkmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorby anymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,microfilming,recordingorotherwise,withoutwritten permissionfromthePublisher,withtheexceptionofanymaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurpose ofbeingenteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com) Contents 1 RhetoricandArgumentintheLanguageofEducationand ofEducationalResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PaulSmeyersandMarcDepaepe 2 BeyondArgumentsandIdeas:LanguagesofEducation . . . . . . 9 DanielTröhler 3 SourcesintheMakingofHistoriesofEducation:Proofs, Arguments, and Other Forms of Reasoning from the Historian’sWorkplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 MarcDepaepeandFrankSimon 4 Educational Formalism and the Language of Goals in AmericanEducation,EducationalReform, andEducationalHistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 DavidF.Labaree 5 The Language of Education and the Language of Educational Research: The Knowledge Economy, CitizenshipandSubjectivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 NaomiHodgson 6 ParentinginaTechnologicalAge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 GeertruiSmedts 7 CapabilityandtheLanguageofEducationalResearch . . . . . . . 93 MichaelWatts 8 ARhetoricforEducationalResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 LyndaStone 9 ArgumentsandProofsAboutArgumentsandProofs . . . . . . . . 127 JeanPaulVanBendegemandKathleenCoessens 10 EvidenceandArgumentationinEducationalResearch . . . . . . . 143 NicholasC.Burbules v vi Contents 11 HalfaLanguage:ListeningintheCityofWords . . . . . . . . . . 149 RichardSmith 12 RevisitingAchilles’SadnessthatNoMethodCanBeFound . . . . 161 PaulSmeyers 13 ReasoningfromEducationalResearchtoPolicy . . . . . . . . . . . 177 DavidBridges NotesonContributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Chapter 1 Rhetoric and Argument in the Language of Education and of Educational Research PaulSmeyersandMarcDepaepe What does it mean to say that something has been ‘proven’ in research contexts? What is the nature of the arguments one relies on and what kind of reasoning is offered to convince readers? These questions are often posed when educational researchisbeingscrutinized.Ofcoursesuchquestionsdonotonlyapplytothearena ofeducationbutalsoapplymutatismutandistoresearchingeneral,scholarshipand manyotherareasofhumanlife.Therewasatimewhen,indealingwiththeseissues, one referred to one or other metaphysical or even religious stance, but nowadays this has become very unpopular. Since the so-called postmodern (Nietzschean?) critique, serious doubts have been raised about rationality itself, which for many, boundbythelegacyoftheEnlightenment,offeredthefavourableyardstickbywhich one could evaluate the veracity of arguments. Incredulity towards meta-narratives, however,cannotpossiblybetheendofthestory.Thescholarorresearcher,having cometotermswiththeproblemsofgeneralizability,cannotsimplyindulgeherself ineitherrelativismorparticularity.Sheshouldinonewayoranotherdealwiththe tension(thatisalwaysthere)betweentheparticularandtheuniversal,andbetween this case and what generally demands to be dealt with – the problems posed by humanlifeingeneraloreducationinparticularcanneitherbeignorednorleftalone. The scholar/researcher has to both act and base what she does on sound thinking whereverthatcanbefound. Thecontributorstothisbooktakeboththesocialpracticeofeducationandedu- cationalresearchseriously.Theyacceptthatrhetoric,inonewayoranother,plays apartinthecomplexprocessofargumentationthatisnecessarilycharacterizedby the historical context in which one operates. In doing so, the contributors clearly distancethemselvesfromthevariouskindsofpositivismthathavebeenembraced by many educational researchers, particularly since thisarea of scholarship turned towards the paradigm of experimentation, which, in its fashionable formulation, takestheformofrandomizedfieldtrials.Forthecontributorstothisvolumeitisnot onlymeans-endreasoninginitself(anditsnaturalevolutionintoatechnology)that isproblematicbutthewayinwhichsuchreasoningobfuscatesseriousdebateabout B P.Smeyers( ) GhentUniversity,Ghent,Belgium e-mail:[email protected] P.Smeyers,M.Depaepe(eds.),EducationalResearch:Proofs,Arguments,andOther 1 Reasonings,EducationalResearch4,DOI10.1007/978-90-481-3249-2_1, (cid:2)C SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2009 2 P.SmeyersandM.Depaepe theendsofeducation/educationalresearch.Theyshowthatendscannotbeavoided andthushowquestionsof‘value’shouldnecessarilybetakenintoaccountatevery stage of educational research. The contributors are also sensitive to the ‘linguistic turn’, how language (or should we say discourse) ‘creates’ a reality. They show how language constructs (though not in ex nihilo fashion) particular practices and demonstratehowthesepracticeschange.Thecontributorsconsiderhowthesepro- cessesgiveshapetothefieldofeducationscholarsofvariouskindsaddressintheir studies.Theyarguethatthepluralismthatemanatesfromthisdevelopment,themul- tifariousness that goes with it, should provide neither an alibi for inactivity nor an excuseforembracingrelativism.Rathertheyfeelthatsuchpluralismandmultifar- iousnesspresentaconditionthateverycontemporaryresearcherineducationought tobeawareof.Obviously,ourcontributorswanttobepartoftheongoingdiscussion but realize more than ever that their voice is just one of many. So if the rhetori- caldimensioncharacterizesboththediscourseofeducationandtheargumentation of educational research and scholarship, what follows for the characterization of theeducationaldebateinitsmanymanifestations?GiventheaimsofthisResearch Community(PhilosophyandHistoryoftheDisciplineofEducation:Evaluationand EvolutionoftheCriteriaforEducationResearch)howshouldphilosophyandhis- tory of education itself be characterized and how can academics from these areas operatewithinthecommunityofscholarsandpractitionersatlarge? The collection starts with two chapters both addressing meta-level issues in regard to the language(s) of education and the singling out or prioritizing of par- ticularsourcesinthehistoryofeducation.DanielTröhlerarguesthatthereareonly averylimitednumberoffundamentalmodesthatmouldtheperceptionoftheworld andthediscussionabouteducation.Hearguesthatthesemodesareessentiallylin- guistic.Tosupportthisclaim,helooksatthedistinctionmadebetweenparoleand langue and shows how this characterizes the political philosophy of the so-called Cambridge School of the history of ideas. Subsequently this linguistic-political concept is compared to Post-Modernism, in particular to Foucault’s philosophy. The paper identifies and describes three different educational languages that seem to dominate the Western discourses on education: the classical-republican and Reformed Protestant language with its core concept of public virtue, the neo- Augustinian andLutheranlanguage withtheconcept ofBildungandthelanguage of the (French) Enlightenment with its focus on scientific knowledge and public rationality. The author argues that it is disputable whether these three langues, in which educational paroles of the Western world are expressed, are the only ones and claims that itwould make sense totryand identify more of them. This would makeitpossibletotakeuptheimportanttaskofreconstructinghowinteractionwith variousparoleshaschangedlanguesoverthelast250yearsandtherebyidentifythe argumentsorparolesusedbyactors,agentsorexponents.Addressingtheworkplace ofthehistorianofeducation,MarcDepaepeandFrankSimonreflectontheirown productionof‘histories’ofeducationandshowhowsourcesfunctionasarguments andevenasproofswithinthe‘historiographicaloperation’–aconcepttheycredit toMicheldeCerteau.Traditionally,thehistoricalcraftischaracterizedbytenacious researchon‘sources’,butdealingwithsuchprimaryrecordscannotbedissociated 1 RhetoricandArgumentintheLanguageofEducationandofEducationalResearch 3 from acts of interpretation. Before the Second World War, the unfortunate Marc Blocharguedthat‘understanding’isthekeywordforanyhistoricalcraftsman.From thisperspective,thefrequentlydiscussedhistoriographic‘turns’sincethe1960sand 1970shavetobequalified.ItseemstoDepaepeandSimonthatthemethodological advantageofusingoralhistories,egodocuments,statistics,pictures,films,material objectsofschoolcultureandother‘forgotten’sourcesfromeverydaylifeineduca- tionwasoftenexaggeratedduetotheenthusiasmforthe‘newness’oftheapproach. On the basis of their own research experience they develop the thesis that there is no single privileged source for research in the history of education. Nuanced and contextualized‘histories’ofeducationhavetorestonacombinationofallsortsof sourcematerial.Historicalresearchismorethanasearchforthedefinitivesource:a historianwhoisinthegripofsourcesnecessarilyproducesdescriptiveworksthatdo notgobeyondexplanationsgenerated‘from’thesesources.Itisnotthesourcethat standsatthebeginningofthehistoriographicaloperationbuttheresearchquestion, and itisthisquestion thatisdecisive fortheuseof sources ofallkinds,including traditionalones(liketheoldjournalsofeducationmadebyteachersandeducators for teachers and educators – the so-called pedagogical press which is labelled by the authors as the ‘mother’ of all sources in history of education). The answer to this research question is not only and not primarily dependent on the sources that areusedbutinsteadontheinterpretationformulatedonthebasisoftheseartefacts fromthepast.Thustheauthorsarguethattheworkplaceofthehistorianisfillednot onlywithsourcesbutwithanentirearsenaloftools:concepts,theories,paradigms andthelike.Thereisnoultimate(orpreferred)sourceastherecanbenofinalinter- pretation, argument, proof and/or explanation. From this perspective, accusations, whethercorrectornot,ofbeing‘iconophobe’,donotsayverymuch:whatcounts forhistoriesofeducationisvalidresults. The next three chapters in the collection address the importance of particular kinds of language in the context of education and child rearing. David Labaree argues that schools are better at expressing social goals than at operationalizing thosegoalsinamannerthatmightactuallyrealizethem.Schoolreformeffortsare better at changing the rhetorical commitment of schools to particular educational goalsthanatbringingtheteachingandlearninginschoolsinlinewiththesegoals. Finally,historicalstudiesofeducationarebetteratidentifyingtheevolvinglanguage ofeducationalgoalsthanatdetailingtheimpactofthesegoalsonthecorepedagog- icalrelationbetweenteacherandstudent.Thus,Labareearguesthatthelanguageof goalsdominateseducation,educationalreformandhistoricalresearchoneducation. Hispaperexploresthecentralelementsofeducation’slanguagefetish,thehistori- calandsociologicalrootsofthisconditionanditsconsequencesforeducationand society. The focus is on American education, but much of the argument resonates with education in other settings, since it tries to tell a story about the social role thateducationisaskedtoplayinmodernliberaldemocracies.Theanalysisstartsby showinghoweducationalreformmovementsareprimarilyeffortstoreordereduca- tionalgoalsthroughareviewoftheevolvingrhetoricofreformintheUnitedStates. DrawingonthecaseofthemovementforprogressiveeducationLabareethenshows how reformers are better at reforming educational goals than educational practice.