[NLA] Research in Adult Education & Literacy, serious research, validatio...

[Catherine B. King]

Kathleen and Colleagues:

In Kathleen's note, she says:

"Educational research does not use scientific research 
methods, it just pretends to, so where is the 'scientific 
research' to which we are all supposed to kowtow?" and 
makes references to "hard" and "soft" sciences.

Educational research **does** use scientific research
methods, and should continue to do so.  

Kathleen:  One of natural science's most closely held tenets is:  
Pay Attention to the Data.

In education, the difference is not in the use of scientific
method or theory but rather in the DATA under consideration.   
In education, the data is human beings and their development.   
We still need science (theoretical hypothesis and evidence-
based methods).   But we need to understand and
transform hypotheses, theoretical thought, evidence, and 
expectations in terms of the differences in the data.

The difference shows up in many places along the line of 
scientific research from data collection to hypothesis, to
what we take as evidence; but no more importantly than 
in science's aim of complete predictability.  One difference
that we can predict in human beings is that we will continue 
to ask questions--some theoretical--and make choices 
based on the answers.  

But unlike the predictability aims of natural sciences, 
questions imply UNpredictability in our actions, 
development and "outcomes" of human beings, including 
scientists and educators and the march of knowledge, culture
and human history.  Therefore, we cannot and should not 
expect the same kind of predictability in most things human
that we expect from our studies in the natural sciences.   
In other words, "hard" should stay hard and "soft" should 
stay soft--in the above sense--but not throw out scientific
research.

Our problem has been in expecting "soft" to become "hard"
and being disappointed in the outcomes because of our
naive application of the tenets natural science data to the
tenets of human data.

Further, whereas natural science data is non-conscious and
relatively static, humans are conscious.  This difference in the 
data should affect our expectations of it in profound ways; i.e., 
many of our questions are theoretical.  The answers of our 
questions, in turn, affect the data under consideration through
our understanding of it.  And the data changes and now is 
different--in terms of new knowledge.   Unlike the natural
sciences, the data base changes in terms of its own movement 
of questions and answers.  Apply this movement to culture and 
you have a complex much more nuanced than any data of 
natural science.

The above doesn't rule theory or scientific method out of court.
Rather, it only implies a complexity that is not evident in the
data of natural sciences and a personal recognition that the
scientist is a member of the data under consideration.   

Kathleen is right that we cannot apply theory or scientific 
method in the same way we do in the "hard" sciences.  But 
she is wrong that we cannot ask theoretical questions and 
get answers to them, or apply scientific method to 
educational research.    We only  must consider the conscious,
and therefore dialogual, aspects of the data when we do.  
We must do the hard work of transforming theory and method 
to account for the vast differences in the data under consideration.    

We are just beginning to understand this difference, and so far,
it seems, our policy makers are working under the old paradigm
of trying to make "soft" act like "hard."   But we in education must
understand this ourselves and help the change move forward.   

Though applying theory and scientific method in a "hard" way to 
"soft" data is indeed wrong-headed, it would be equally wrong-
headed, even disastrous, to just throw out theory and scientific 
research in education.   

It is, after all, education that produced the theoretician.  The 
move towards theory and  method is an institutionalization of 
self-reflective, critical consciousness.   Science in any field of
data is defined by a refinement of the kinds of questions we ask, 
and not by the hegemonic parameters of a particular kind of data.
It has been extremely naive to think this way.  And for educators, 
it's an ironic instance of the proverbial snake eating its tail.

Most of the time I am in complete agreement with Kathleen's
intelligent, thoughtful and care-ful posts, but in this one I must 
respectfully disagree.

Regards,

Catherine King
Adjunct Instructor
Department of Education
National University
San Diego, CA


or scientific method yonm way nto


tlis copredictions.   Whereas
Education


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: KathleenBombach at aol.com 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Research in Adult Education & Literacy, serious research, validatio...


  In a message dated 5/8/2002 6:18:04 PM Mountain Daylight Time, AndresM.RGCAMPUS.EPCCRG at epcc.edu writes:



    Tom started the discussion, as I remember, by asking about scientific evidence that validated literacy work, making reference to the work of Freire, Dewey and others sometimes referred to by George. Kathleen responded that scientific research in our field was not taken seriously since literacy is not considered a hard science. She noted the distinction about hard vs soft sciences and the lack of respect that soft sciences received for lacking serious and rigorous research that would validate a study. The implication from both posts seemed to be that in order for something to be valid it had to be validated through hard science. 


  Andres:
  I think you missed my point, probably because I did not state it very clearly.  My point was that:
  1.  Educational research often attempts to use the methods of the hard sciences and fails miserably;
  2.  Educational researchers cover up these failures by bending and breaking  the rules of what is considered a valid scientific result, as well as by failures of analysis and testing;
  3.  I have seen examples of this in literacy research, although most of this goes on in general education research;
  4.  The Department of Education and others connected to the Bush administration keep talking about 'scientifically-based methods to teach reading' without showing us the 'science' that supports these methods;
  5.  Educational research does not use scientific research methods, it just pretends to, so where is the 'scientific research' to which we are all supposed to kowtow?
  The distinction between hard and soft science carries many meanings.  One is that the hard sciences dear with real physical phenomena, and the soft sciences deal with behaviors, attitudes, aptitudes, etc., all things that cannot be placed in a Petri dish or examined under a microscope.  More accurately, many scientists believe that it is impossible to set up true experimental conditions to test theories in the soft sciences.  A less flattering definition refers to the way researchers in the soft sciences ape the methods of the hard sciences so poorly, and hence should not even call their fields sciences.  At the university where I attended graduate school, the Government department refused to change its name to 'Political Science' when it was the fad to do so.
  I listed specific examples of practices used in education research to make it look like the scientific method is followed and that the results reflect reality or have meaning, predictive power, etc. 
  Most of what I have seen described as the 'scientific' approach to teaching reading is what most teachers would say--which is perfectly okay.  But to dress it up as scientifically derived knowledge is just the latest fad.
  My comments were not a reflection on what Tom had to say--good program administrators, just like good teachers, will put a lot of thought into what works in their programs/classes and when and with whom and for what purpose. And looking at numbers is very useful in that process. 
  Kathleen Bombach 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020509/023dffc2/attachment.htm