[NLA] More on research traditions

[George E. Demetrion]

Colleagues:

This has been an enlightened discussion. I especially appreciated Ralf
St. Claire's reflections on the Department of Education working group
conference held on 
February 6th, 2002.   We have yet to hear from those who do support the
direction of the current USDoE and I hope we do.  I did a web scan on the
researchers identified in Ralf's message and the quality of their
scholarship seems quite impressive.  So I hope that some of them or
others who share their outlook will participate in this discussion.

I maintain a more critical outlook which I will not elaborate on in this
post except by proxy.  That is, I place several key quotations in
juxtaposition for further reflection.

There may be room for a balanced discussion, though that becomes
difficult when certain methodologies are viewed as science and policy
legitimized while other research traditions are marginalized as anecdotal
or merely subjective.  I continue to argue that the issue, ultimately, is
not a matter of methodology, but of values in terms of defining the
theater of legitimate knowledge.  I also  continue to argue also that
adult literacy is more than reading (though it certainly involves that!)
and that its intellectual home belongs more in the realm of cultural
studies than it does the hard sciences.

George Demetrion
Sophocles5 at juno.com

>From E.D. Hirsch's talk to the California State Board of Education
(`1994)

"That kind of consensus is determined by disinterested, high-quality peer
review in high quality journal. In the end, of course, only evidence and
argument count in science.  But there is evidence and there is evidence,
argument and argument.  It is an uncomfortable thing to say, but the
average quality and reliability of science in the best educational
journals is below the quality and reliability of science in the best
mainstream journals.  We laypersons can't judge the quality of the
research.  Figures don't lie, but how do we know which figures are
accurate, complete, and rightly interpreted?  Our only recourse is to
depend on the reputations of the most highly regarded journals and
scientists. Such highly regarded sources are not always right, but they
are far more likely to be right.  The consensus of the learned in first
rate scientific work is one of the closest connections we have with the
reality principle (p. 4).

>From the German social philosopher Jurgen Habermas

 The real difficulty in the relation of theory to practice arises not
from science's new function as a technical force but rather from the fact
that we are no longer able to distinguish between technical and practical
power.  Even a scientific civilization is not excused from practical
questions; a peculiar danger arises, consequently, when the process of
making civilization scientific goes beyond technical questions without
freeing itself from the level of reflection of a rationality restricted
to technology.  For then no attempt at all is made to attain a rational
consensus of citizens regarding the practical control of their destiny. 
Instead, an attempt is made to maintain control over history technically,
in the form of a perfected administration of society, an attempt that is
as impractical as it is unhistorical (Theory and Practice, p. 255).

>From the American philosopher of inquiry, education, and political
culture, John Dewey:

[I]nquiry is a continuing process in every field with which it is
engaged. The settlement of a particular situation by a particular inquiry
is no guarantee that that settled conclusion will always remain settled. 
The attainment of settled beliefs is a progressive matter; there is no
belief that is so settled as not to be exposed to further inquiry.  It is
the convergent and cumulative effect of continued inquiry that defines
knowledge in its general meaning.  In scientific inquiry, the criterion
of what is taken to be settled, or to be knowledge, is being so (original
emphases) settled that it is available as a resource in further inquiry;
not being settled in such a way as not to be subject to revision in
further inquiry (Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, p. 16)

>From the contemporary scholar of qualitative research, Sheran B. 
Merriam

"[Q]ualitative research assumes that there are multiple realities that
the world is not an objective thing out there but a function of personal
interaction and perception.  It is a highly subjective phenomenon in need
of interpreting rather than measuring.  Beliefs rather than facts form
the basis of perception.  Research is exploratory, inductive, and
emphasizes processes rather than ends.  In this paradigm, there are no
predetermined hypotheses, no treatments, and no restrictions on the end
product.  One does not manipulate variables or administer a treatment.
What one does do is observe, intuit, sense what is occurring in a natural
setting, hence the term *naturalistic* (original emphases) inquiry" 
(Case Study Research in Education:  A Qualitative Approach, p. 17).

 In short, the qualitative researcher seeks plausibility rather than
certainty, coherence rather than strict correlation, reasonable
interpretation rather than incontrovertible proof, avenues for further
exploration and inquiry rather than closure (GD). 
 


________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org