Search

Throughout the course of this text we have made reference at several points to the distinction between science and scientism. This distinction must be appreciated to understand the ideological component of scientism and its deleterious impact on generating positive, or progressive, educational change. Science has enjoyed tremendous progress on the one hand as illustrated by the range of technological advances at our disposal within contemporary society while it simultaneously has created a range of problems that present humankind with monumental challenges. Hence, the implications of natural science are a mixed blessing, but the tangible returns generated by its methods and the technology it produces cannot be reasonably denied. The history of human science, as we have pointed out, tells a somewhat more sordid tale, a story of profound epistemological and methodological problems. Within education, these issues are manifested in a range of claims and outcomes that are often both contradictory and confusing to academics and teachers alike (McClintock, 2007). Unlike science, the scientism pervading education is an ideology that seeks to apply the methods and practices of science to explain all elements of human experience, including teaching and learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As we have pointed out in Chapters 1-4, there are continued concerted contemporary efforts to promote empirically based research in education to the almost complete exclusion of other research paradigms. In the USA, these efforts are most notably illustrated "in the No Child Left Behind Act, and the reauthorization and reorganization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement as the Institute for Educational Science" (Maxwell, 2004, p. 3). The Bush administration's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation considers scientific research the best available means to improve education, supporting only those studies that, "employ systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation and experiment" (NCLB, 2000). As we have pointed out, this position is further instantiated by both the National Research Council in the USA and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The increased emphasis on social science research methods and on educational psychology within faculties and departments of education further indicates a growing confidence in the ability of empirical research to strengthen classroom practices. In this chapter, we wish to supply additional evidence that this confidence in empirical research to resolve education problems is woefully misplaced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the previous chapters we have reviewed the history of social science research and introduced some of the basic principles on which empirical research, or LPE, in education is based. In this chapter we turn our attention toward identifying how the principles of logical positivism, when applied to education research, are ineffective for strengthening the discipline. In the following sections, we address some of the most problematic assumptions involved in carrying out empirical research in education and grapple with several related problems. Some of the major assumptions in social science research that promote positivistic or scientific principles in educational research include the following claims that we deconstruct within the course of our discussion:Educational researchers, like physical scientists, are detached from their objects of study in that their personal preferences and biases are excluded from their subject matter, observations, and attending analyses.Investigations of educational phenomena can be conducted in a value-neutral fashion, with the researcher eliminating all personal bias and preconceptions and employing language that expresses objectivity. In other words, there is objectivity and conceptual clarity in describing the studied phenomena within genuine scientific inquiry.Educational research, like the physical sciences is nomothetic - that is, it is possible to extrapolate from educational research data laws that apply generally across numerous classroom and schooling contexts. In education, this assumption is particularly crucial since the search for the holy grail of some universal, but of course entirely illusive, instructional design drives much of the empirical investigation within the field. Two researchers working in different contexts who employ the same experimental method ought to arrive at the same conclusion. As we demonstrate in this chapter, within education this outcome is simply not the case. We will demonstrate that each of these scientific principles, or assumptions, is fundamentally flawed when applied to educational research. Hence, education research is once again unable to meet the minimal standards of meaningful scientific inquiry. Later in this chapter we will also discuss the conceptual confusions that impact negatively on education. Finally, we examine how an implicit commitment to the direct reference theory of language, and the related search for conceptual certainty, leads to ontological errors about certain education concepts and how these errors affect student academic experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As we have illustrated in the previous two chapters, there are a range of important challenges to empirical research in the social sciences. In this chapter, we provide additional elaboration on these critiques by exploring the epistemological problems with empirical research in the social sciences. Although the problem of pre-existing conceptual frameworks influencing research outcomes is not restricted to the social sciences, we argue in this chapter that the social sciences are more prone to widespread errors resulting from convergent thinking, i.e., thinking by researchers that remains consistent with prevailing theories and unquestioned assumptions. In the case of education these assumptions lead to errors in the dominant discourse about teaching and learning. We also explore in some depth the positions of two noted sociologists, Emile Durkehim and Luciene Levy-Bruhl, to highlight the implications of structuralism for social science and education research. In Chapter 3, we also utilize some examples from existing educational theory to demonstrate how the epistemological issues addressed by Thomas Kuhn's idea of scientific paradigms and Karl Popper's theory of falsification are common problems in education research. We begin this chapter, then, by exploring in greater detail some of the most important epistemological criticisms of social science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this chapter, we explore the development of scientism in education by examining the advancement of human science through the work of seminal figures such as David Hume, Sir Francis Bacon, Auguste Comte, and Herbert Spencer. We also introduce the foundational principles on which empirical research in education is based by reviewing the basic tenets of logical positivism, the epistemology on which human science is constructed. There is some belief that the shift toward more qualitative research practices undermines the stranglehold that logical positivism holds over education research. In response to this belief, we examine in Chapter 2 whether postpositivist research paradigms and practices constitute an actual departure from positivist assumptions. After briefly discussing the philosophical critiques of human science emerging from existentialism and pragmatism, we conclude the chapter by outlining the current neo-liberal context in which education research and policy development take place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The entire discipline of education as a legitimate field of academic study is at a virtual crossroads. One path leads to the same unfortunate errors that have sullied education and educational research for more than 150 years. This well-trodden path, laden with a range of ideological assumptions and epistemological mistakes, generates instrumental forms of thinking and learning that operate to undermine the critical dispositions required for meaningful education within democratic societies. The other path, which we believe to be the far more enlightened choice, understands the limits of empirical research and emphasizes instead the purposes, goals, and strategies of education within democratic societies. This second and far more progressive path seeks to develop innovative pedagogical ideas and theories that understand learning strategies as following logically from educational objectives. As Dewey (1916) so accurately pointed out, the means and ends of education are intrinsically connected. In other words, our approach to instruction is embodied in the type of education we seek to achieve. Empirical research, therefore, becomes virtually superfluous and an unnecessary drain on the severely limited resources available to schools, teachers, and administrators. Our more favoured path creates students who are politically informed and active participants in shaping their social, economic, occupational, and political experiences. Hence, the stakes that have compelled us to write this book are enormously high for both the future of teacher education and for education as an academic discipline, as well as for democratic societies more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]