Soothing Stories
Over the last ten years, during the period that I completed my Master's degree in Education and began on my doctoral campaign, I have come to realise a few interesting things about the world of research in this field. Here are some brief notes, not designed for completeness but as a sort of quick overview.
Firstly, method. A lot of discourse in the social sciences is neither particularly social nor scientific. It's all about competing narratives, often constructed 'bass-ackward' — that is, you see all that you can see and work backwards to find a reason for why things turned out the way they did. In the realm of qualitative methodology, you can adopt social explanations by questioning participants, on the assumption that if all the witnesses saw the same thing or felt the same thing, it is likely to have been a real phenomenon. But this is only true if you assume that what may be illusory is also vulnerable to mortal discernment. The fact is that if everyone saw or felt the same thing, it might only prove that the illusion was impenetrable. Mere numbers cannot overcome that, even though some people say the probability of being deceived drops as you increase the sample size. Once you start thinking in terms of numbers, you may no longer be a qualitative researcher; besides, all this assumes that the normal distribution is of use to research aimed at detecting anomalies and useful outliers.
Secondly, material. A lot of the discussion in education is oriented heavily around the United States. They probably have more researchers per square mile than anywhere else in the world, and it shows. They do have many distinct threads of research, some diversity and a high rate of growth, but there is a clear narrative bias. While the Asia-Pacific region is probably growing more quickly, the research fraternity on the Asian end is a lot more constrained in terms of information flow, disclosure and accountability. This doesn't make for an excellent research environment in the social sciences either. I know that many will point to the increasing rate of research paper generation in East and Southeast Asia (ESEA), but as far as I can see, a lot of these papers explain little and break little ground in ideas or methodology — just as in other parts of the world, most of it is padding. I actually have documentation proving that some people submit the same paper for different conferences with minor amendments and updates; it's like the undead monster that refuses to die.
Thirdly, message. In ESEA, a lot of social research is government-funded and/or government-approved. A lot of governments have an agenda to push, and the longer that government has been in power, the more it knows what it wants to push. (Alternatively, its lengthy dominance might be a result of knowing the right things to push before the opposition figures it out, or of being able to control the information flow, or of manufacturing a superior narrative from available components.) I have observed that governmental agencies sometimes ignore local research (unless it's their own and favourable) while pointing to irrelevant foreign research on completely different milieux. This can be true for agencies worldwide, but there do tend to be more checks and balances elsewhere — or at least, more independent commentary on social issues. That said, ESEA is changing and has been changing in more information-friendly ways for a while. The fact is that the sociopolitical and sociocultural environment is always complex; simple messages aren't so simple.
All this is not to say that the research is producing bad outcomes. Unlike some areas of knowledge (e.g. engineering) where an hypothesis can be tested by construction of a working prototype that showcases the principle underlying the hypothesis, it is more difficult for the social sciences. Education theory varies over a wide range, from the personal to the political, and sometimes the conclusions at opposite ends of the spectrum come to a practical impasse. It is a bit like the difference between quantum mechanics and astrophysics; two ends of physics with not much rapport.
Rather, what I am saying is that the whole idea of educational research seems to be to replicate successes which by their nature are unique. In the end, it all devolves down into simple bullet points like 'Teach Better' or 'Spend More Money' or something. Not many (although there are some) will write a paper with the point, 'All is Chaos' or 'Learning is not Random but too Diverse to Pin Down'.
This is because we all want to know that the story will turn out right in the end. We all want our nursery narratives, our soothing stories, our 'once upon a time' that leads to 'happily ever after'. But life isn't always like that; it is a messy narrative with no end, and no clear beginning, with key characters which aren't always identifiable as such until their chapter is far in the past. And of course, fairy tales can be rather Grimm.
Firstly, method. A lot of discourse in the social sciences is neither particularly social nor scientific. It's all about competing narratives, often constructed 'bass-ackward' — that is, you see all that you can see and work backwards to find a reason for why things turned out the way they did. In the realm of qualitative methodology, you can adopt social explanations by questioning participants, on the assumption that if all the witnesses saw the same thing or felt the same thing, it is likely to have been a real phenomenon. But this is only true if you assume that what may be illusory is also vulnerable to mortal discernment. The fact is that if everyone saw or felt the same thing, it might only prove that the illusion was impenetrable. Mere numbers cannot overcome that, even though some people say the probability of being deceived drops as you increase the sample size. Once you start thinking in terms of numbers, you may no longer be a qualitative researcher; besides, all this assumes that the normal distribution is of use to research aimed at detecting anomalies and useful outliers.
Secondly, material. A lot of the discussion in education is oriented heavily around the United States. They probably have more researchers per square mile than anywhere else in the world, and it shows. They do have many distinct threads of research, some diversity and a high rate of growth, but there is a clear narrative bias. While the Asia-Pacific region is probably growing more quickly, the research fraternity on the Asian end is a lot more constrained in terms of information flow, disclosure and accountability. This doesn't make for an excellent research environment in the social sciences either. I know that many will point to the increasing rate of research paper generation in East and Southeast Asia (ESEA), but as far as I can see, a lot of these papers explain little and break little ground in ideas or methodology — just as in other parts of the world, most of it is padding. I actually have documentation proving that some people submit the same paper for different conferences with minor amendments and updates; it's like the undead monster that refuses to die.
Thirdly, message. In ESEA, a lot of social research is government-funded and/or government-approved. A lot of governments have an agenda to push, and the longer that government has been in power, the more it knows what it wants to push. (Alternatively, its lengthy dominance might be a result of knowing the right things to push before the opposition figures it out, or of being able to control the information flow, or of manufacturing a superior narrative from available components.) I have observed that governmental agencies sometimes ignore local research (unless it's their own and favourable) while pointing to irrelevant foreign research on completely different milieux. This can be true for agencies worldwide, but there do tend to be more checks and balances elsewhere — or at least, more independent commentary on social issues. That said, ESEA is changing and has been changing in more information-friendly ways for a while. The fact is that the sociopolitical and sociocultural environment is always complex; simple messages aren't so simple.
All this is not to say that the research is producing bad outcomes. Unlike some areas of knowledge (e.g. engineering) where an hypothesis can be tested by construction of a working prototype that showcases the principle underlying the hypothesis, it is more difficult for the social sciences. Education theory varies over a wide range, from the personal to the political, and sometimes the conclusions at opposite ends of the spectrum come to a practical impasse. It is a bit like the difference between quantum mechanics and astrophysics; two ends of physics with not much rapport.
Rather, what I am saying is that the whole idea of educational research seems to be to replicate successes which by their nature are unique. In the end, it all devolves down into simple bullet points like 'Teach Better' or 'Spend More Money' or something. Not many (although there are some) will write a paper with the point, 'All is Chaos' or 'Learning is not Random but too Diverse to Pin Down'.
This is because we all want to know that the story will turn out right in the end. We all want our nursery narratives, our soothing stories, our 'once upon a time' that leads to 'happily ever after'. But life isn't always like that; it is a messy narrative with no end, and no clear beginning, with key characters which aren't always identifiable as such until their chapter is far in the past. And of course, fairy tales can be rather Grimm.
Labels: Education, Qualitative Research, Reflections, Stories
etched with acid at 10:44:00 am
1 Comments:
I quite agree with what was said in the closing paragraphs. Perhaps it stems from the need to be able to attribute happenings to reasons. No matter how incongruent or irrelevant it may be. It gives a sense of comfort in "knowing" instead of just being ignorant.
Post a Comment
<< Home