[NLA] DC Logic and Nonsense in the Neo-Conservative Era
Catherine B. King
cb.king at verizon.net
Tue Oct 22 13:52:45 EDT 2002
Colleagues:
Hats off to George for posting "The List."
We won't solve the "research problem" here. However,
we are all aware of the marked difference between
the unity of collaboration in:
(1) the natural and statistical sciences,
(2) the human sciences, including the theoretical "sides"
of philosophy, the arts, history, and
(3) the field that integrates all of them: Education and
for us, Adult Education.
All of "The List" that George published are from 2 and
3 above.
There are many reasons for this difference in the unity
of collaboration; however, if we don't want to think about
those differences, and take them into consideration when
developing our expectations of theory, research, and
"outcomes" in human studies, then:
. . . we can follow the present thrust and just forget the
differences, and keep trying to make the unity happen by
avoiding the human sciences, the theoretical "sides" of
philosophy, the arts and history, and try to fit the field that
integrates them ALL into the one field that does give us a
unity of collaboration--the natural sciences, and perhaps
statistical science, even though statistical science
doesn't really do the job of complete predictability
either--because that's the goal:
Complete Predictability with no room for qualified change
and vision. This way, we can forget that we will have what
my Aunt Nell calls a "blivit," (two pounds of stuff in a one-
pound bag).
I would say that not paying attention to the differences
in the data is naive and uncritical on scientific grounds;
but, hey, I am just an adjunct teacher, and my theoretical
background is in education theory, so, on the premise
of the new drift, it doesn't "count." Stop now if you don't
want to think about the differences. Or skip to the *****
at the end.
However, if we want to talk about the differences in the
unity of collaboration, we have to begin first with the data
under review: That is, we don't discount critical
science as a method of inquiry. Rather, we consider
that the data under review are conscious human beings
and not non-conscious, relatively predictable data.
That is, human beings are not much like the data of the
natural world. And since educators are charged with
developing minds with a vision for the future we do not
know yet, the aim of complete predictability is not a valid
aim.
Secondly, we must consider that the data under review
--the data that is conscious--asks lots of questions about
the world, themselves, and others and changes in
qualified ways. Namely, we ask "What" questions, as
well as questions for value. These kinds of questions for
intelligence and value, in turn, create the field of human
endeavors we know as science, history, philosophy, the
arts, spiritual-religious orders, education, etc., all of which
are the legitimate fields that inform education--legitimately.
("What is education?" is a question for philosophy, as
well as for the philosophy of education [Dewey, et al], and
contains within it the questions about the political, the ethical,
and human spirituality--unless of course human beings are
not political, or have no spirituality, or do not ask
questions about the good, value or ethics.)
Thirdly, if the data itself asks questions for intelligence
and value, then so do all researchers and policy
makers, who are also human. (All policy is grounded
on questions of the type, "What is the best way to order
our lives?" BEST is the operative value word. Or,
what is the BEST way to do research?)
Fourthly, the researcher involved with scientific method
in any field has come to VALUE that questions for
intelligence are distinguished from questions of value
when doing critical science.
Fifthly, distinguishing questions for intelligence and
questions for value is a good (valuable) distinction and
has been a hallmark of scientific method for hundreds of
years.
Sixthly, human beings develop and live around the
questions of intelligence and value, all of which inform
our political, ethical, philosophical, etc..views. It follows
that to avoid or to eliminate these kinds of questions and
their outcomes in research as manifest of these questions
is to seriously encroach on the factual form of the data so
much so as to distort the data--an egregious breech
of scientific method.
Seventhly, the difference in the data is directly related
to the researcher's own development and humanity in
a way that does not relate to the non-conscious data of
the natural sciences. This development and humanity quite
normally come into play at the beginning point where the
researchers' questions are formed.
Eighthly, the unity of collaboration in the natural sciences
is informed by the similar questions that we bring to non-
conscious data, which are unified around a marked
similarity in interest in understanding it, a similarity
in interpreting the data, and a similarity in expectations
and outcomes, including predictability.
However, the questions the human scientist bring to
human beings are formed around DIFFERENT interests,
differences in interpreting the data, and different
expectations and outcomes--including our notions of
predictability. This is so precisely because those
interests, notions of import, and interpretations are
already informed by the prior DIFFERENT developments
of the scientist--philosophical, political, ethical, spiritual,
not to mention social and psychological.
Ninthly, this difference does not mean that "all human
scientists are biased" and therefore cannot possibly
produce critical, scientific-theoretical reporting. It does
explain, however, why human sciences, philosophy, the
arts, history, and education do not share the unity of
collaboration that the natural sciences do.
Tenthly, if we all held the same views, and if we had a
unity of collaboration like the natural sciences, it would
infer that we were all developmentally on the same plane--
we would all share the same philosophical, political
ethical, spiritual development and assumptions, and
of course we do not. Stepford communities comes to
mind, if you remember that movie. My humble opinion
is that if we want that, we have already lost our minds.
Eleventh, when human researchers inquire (ask questions)
about human beings, their philosophical, political, ethical,
spiritual background and development inform the
questions, expectations and interpretations of the data.
These views also inform the natural sciences; however,
non-conscious data does not have philosophical,
political, ethical spiritual components and, therefore,
the views informing the scientists' "What" questions
for intelligence are relatively similar. Hence, the general
unity of collaboration in the field.
Twelfth, if we are to follow the mandate of critical
scientific method and take account of the differences in:
(1) the data and
(2) the conscious and developmental relationship of the
researcher to the data,
then we must consider that all human--and some natural--
scientific research must be informed by an open
dialogue and critical exploration of the scientists'
philosophical, political, and ethical positions--and
even spiritual where the spiritual is a part of the
researcher's questioning. Also, we must consider
all of these areas of the data exploration as
essential to research in education.
****However, it seems easier for conscious and value
seeking human beings to research value-seeking
conscious data under the paradigm of valueLESS
nonconscious data. That way, we can:
(1) "streamline" and simplify research,
(2) eliminate all those pesky texts that confuse the
issue around "bias,"
(3) reduce teaching to more predictably factory work,
(4) force unpredictable creative people into predictable
molds; and most importantly:
(5) We can usher in our own political et al views under the
cover of "research with scientific rigor" AS IF there were no
ethical-political order informing our research, and AS IF
there were no philosophical or political presuppositions
at work that find it expeditious to eliminate "certain texts."
These texts happen to directly address those philosophical
positions that inform what education is, and that, in fact,
underpin the political system that would create the conditions
for our questions in the first place, and our vision for a yet
unknown future.
President Bush, it seems, in signing into law "scientific
rigor" so defined, is also in danger of signing away the
philosophical positions that inform the documents he
stands for--namely, the Declaration of Independence, the
United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the
mandate that weds education to democracy.
Maybe those are things we can live without, as long as
we have a new political order informing "scientific rigor."
Regards to all my fellow teachers who have nothing
important to say in principle--we are all now outsiders--
and thank you George for "The List" and for the
allusion to the movies "Brazil" and "Fahrenheit 451."
Catherine King
Adjunct Instructor
Department of Education
National University
San Diego, CA
---- Original Message -----
From: George E. Demetrion <sophocles5 at juno.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 7:45 PM
Subject: [NLA] DC Logic in the Neo-Conservative Era
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500 M C Smith <mcsmith at niu.edu> writes:
> ><html>
>
> ;THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S Office of Educational Research
> and Improvement will be replaced by an autonomous Academy of Education
> Sciences, with the goal of infusing the beleaguered area of federal
> education research with scientific rigor, &t; under legislation passed by
> Congress last week. President Bush is expected to sign the bill.
>
> Books on Education and Literacy Lacking Scientific Rigor:
>
> 1. Apple, Michael (2000). Democratic Education in a Conservative Age
> 2. Applebee, Arthur M. (1996). Curriculum as Conversation:
> Transforming Traditions of Teaching and Learning
> 3. Auerbach, Elsa (1993). Making Meaning Making Change
> 4. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis (1976) Schooling in Capitalist
> America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life
> 5. Bruner, Jerome (1987). Actual Minds Possible Worlds
> 6. Bruner, Jerome (1996). The Culture of Education
> 7. Cherryholmes, Cleo (1988). Power and Criticism: Poststructural
> Investigations in Education.
> 8. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, & Lytle, Susan (1993). Inside/Outside:
> Teacher Research and Knowledge
> 9. Dewey, John (1900). The School and Society
> 10. Dewey, John. (1916). democracy and Education
> 11 Dewey, John (1933). How we Think, 2nd edition).
> 12. Dewey J. (1938). Experience and Education
> 13. Engel, Michael (2000). The Struggle for Control of Public
> Education: Market Ideology Vs Democratic Values
> 14. Fingeret, Hanna A. and Drennon, Cassandra (1997). Literacy for
> Life: Adult Learners New Practices
> 15. Fosnot, Catherine T. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism: Theory,
> Perspectives, and Practice
> 16. Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed
> 17. Freire, Paulo (1985). The Politics of education: Culture Power and
> Liberation
> 18. Gardner, Howard (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
> Intelligence
> 19. Gardner, Howard (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in
> Practice
> 20. Giroux, Henry A. (1988). Schooling and the Struggle for democratic
> Life: Critical Pedagogy in the Modern Age
> 21. Giroux, henry A. (1995). Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope:
> Theory, Culture, and Schooling
> 22. Hunter, Carman St John & Harman, David (1985). Adult Literacy in
> the United States
> 23. Kegan, robert & Colleagues (2001). Toward a new Pluralism in
> ABE/ESOL Classrooms: Teaching to Multiple "Cultures of Mind"
> 23. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1995). The Struggle for the American
> Curriculum, 2nd edition
> 24. Kliebard, Herbert M. (1992). Forging the American Curriculum:
> Essays in Curriculum History and Theory
> 25. Kliebard, Herbert M.(1999). Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the
> American Curriculum 1876-1946.
> 26. Merrifield, Juliet, Bigman, Mary Beth. Hemphill, David, and Bennett
> deMarrais, Kathleen (1997). Literacy, language and technology in
> Everyday Life
> 27. Quigley, P. Allan (1997). Rethinking Literacy Education: The
> Critical Need for Practice-Based Change
> 28. Shapiro, Svi (1990). Between capitalism and Democracy: Educational
> Policy and the Crisis of the Welfare State.
> 29. Shor, Ira (1987). Critical Teaching & Everyday Life
> 30. Shor, Ira (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for
> Social Change
> 31. Smith, Frank (1997). Reading Without Nonsense, 3rd Edition
> 32. Smith, Frank, (1988). Joining the Literacy Club: Further Essays
> into Education
> 33. Vygotsky, Lev (1994). Thought and Language
> 34. Vygotsky, Lev (1978) Mind and Society: The development of Higher
> Psychological Processes
> 35. Venesky, Richard L., Wagner, Daniel A. and Cliberti. Barrie S.
> (1990). Toward defining Literacy
>
> Question: Is defining legitimacy in education exclusively from the
> perspective of "scientific rigor" congruent with the best scholarship in
> the field of adult literacy studies over the past 100 years or is it more
> of a reflection of a conservative political and intellectual reaction to
> route out the very basis upon which a century of progressive scholarship
> is based?
>
> To put it more polemically for those who want to install a litmus test of
> "scientific rigor" as the sole means of determining legitimacy for
> educational studies, I recommend a public book burning in Washington D.C.
> of the list aforementioned and a closing down of the nation's graduate
> schools in education.
>
> George Demetrion
> of the dissenting tradition
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the Nla-nifl-archive
mailing list