This week I read articles by Berliner (2002), Labaree (2003), Gutierrez & Penuel (2014), Shulman (1981), and White et al (2025). Like last week, the articles seem to build on one another. I will review them in the order I read them.
First, in the Berliner (2002) article, the author describes social science as a “hard” science in that it lacks the defining characteristics that other science (like physics, chemistry, STEM, etc.) have. Berliner instead promotes an argument-discussion-discourse approach to how social sciences should be studied. I connected with the Medawar quote, “What passes for scientific methodology is a misrepresentation of what scientists do or ought to do.” Berliner writes of, “the power of context, the ubiquity of interactions, and the problem of ‘decade by decade findings’.” (2002). He goes on to define these, stating context must be replicable to be authentic. This is more difficult than it seems. Berliner goes on to write of interactions, calling them necessary for understanding influence; again, a difficult task. Berliner goes on to explain the decade-wide trends of social science. I believe these to be an important part of knowing but find them only possible to know after time for reflection has occurred. A strength of this article was the way Berliner writes concisely. He doesn’t hesitate to get to the point. Also, he’s quick to call out “hard” and “easy” science and to explain what each has that works versus what doesn’t. Some weaknesses of this article included Berliner’s short-sighted view of current science and his overt believe in the government’s over-influence. I believe he didn’t delve into current views deep enough to show their impact. And as far as the government, I felt that was a bit of convoluted thinking on Berliner’s part. Overall, I liked Berliner’s style and found what he wrote most related to the Labaree (2003) article.
In the Labaree (2003) article, the author writes of education as a “no respect” institution with low-status and teaching as a low respect profession. As a former teacher, I can attest to this: it’s sad but true school of thought. Labaree puts knowledge on a hard to soft continuum and applied science on a pure to convoluted continuum. Here, teaching is on the soft and convoluted end as is social science. The article here reminded me of Berliner. Says Labaree, training in education is normative, personal, particular, and experiential while research in education is analytical, intellectual, universal, and theoretical. So what can teacher-learners do to overcome this divide in their studies and research? Further, what can instructors of teacher-learners do to overcome this divide? Labaree’s best idea, in my opinion, for the former, is learning how to be great scholars and asserting their (innate) want to drive scholarship about means personal to them. When Labaree discussed the fact that instructors should be transparent about how they conduct their own research, I had to agree. Strengths of the Labaree article are the author’s idea which comes at the end, that of “research training programs” (page 21). His thinking of a structured program where researchers and teachers and instructors all have say ignites the idea of an equity-based future program. Weaknesses of this article were mostly in the conjecture and opinion-spouting that Labaree did. He often lacked support for his statements. Overall this article was food for thought and reminded me of the Berliner article and the Gutierrez & Penuel article as well.
In Gutierrez & Penuel’s (2014) article, the authors discuss relevance to practice being teacher-centered and rigor as program-specific. Further, they name intervention as a contested space when it comes to research and development and generalization in theory. I connected with the authors’ position that education researchers should work “side by side” (page 21) with field researchers. This idea made a lot of sense to me and again spoke to the equal playing field I mentioned last paragraph. A sentence near the end of the article: “This is a high standard, but it is not up to just researchers to accomplish” (page 22) speaks to everyone’s need to voice their opinion and become part of the conversation. Strengths of this article were the authors’ view of ed. and field researchers working together in an equal environment and the end statement that it’s up to everyone to become an outspoken voice. Weaknesses included the step away from Berliner’s arguments but overall it’s important to hear different viewpoints. This article related back to the Labaree article and further to the Shulman article.
In Shulman’s (1981) article, he writes that method (research not observation or speculation) IS disciplined inquiry. Method must also be normalized and uniform to make an impact, I would add. The questions asked inform the method of data collection (survey, observation, test, case study, etc.) theoretically and historically. Methods are generalized across people more to study and less across situations. Correlation (variation in characteristics like statistical methods) stands opposite experiment (assimilated variation like consequences). Overall, the problem informs the method used to study it. Strengths of this article were its relation to the other articles. I liked Shulman’s succinct narration of method: what it is and what it means for the researcher. Weaknesses of this article were low, but I would say that to his definition of method, it must be added that method be normalized and uniform to make an impact. Overall this article strongly connected to both the Gutierrez & Penuel article and the Berliner article. It also connected to the additional article I read for class, by White et al.
Finally, in the article by Stough & Lee (2021), the authors posit that there is not enough uniformity in social science, particularly those used in education. In their search for a “grounded theory approach” to education, they look to qualitative methodology and ultimately land on this definition: “a systematic methodological approach that differed from hypothesis-driven deductive approaches.” Examples include data gathering, data analysis, data conceptualization, and overall characteristics. The authors point to five methodologists (Glaser & Strauss, Glaser, Strauss & Corbin, Charmaz, and Clark) who have laid the groundwork for a grounded theory approach to education. Their methodologies vary in definition and have taken different prevalence over time (Glaser & Strauss came first, in 1967, but Clark is most commonly used since 2007). For example, Glaser & Strauss rely on social data while Clark’s research involves mapping. Stough and Lee themselves studied research articles centered on grounded theory approach in education. They coded the articles for methodology type and kind of grounded research, in 210 articles in all. The authors then cross-referenced the articles and hand coded for which school of methodologist they belonged. Their research showed that most ground theory approaches are Straussian or use mixed methods. They ultimately concluded that when using grounded theory, researchers tend to use it as a generalized theory, secondary to what they’ll use for a “real” methodology. I think this is a misuse of the approach. Strengths of the article included Stough & Lee’s analysis methods and explanation of those methods. Weaknesses include the discussion of the methodologies themselves. I personally would have liked more explanation in this realm. Yet the article by Stough & Lee connected to this week’s readings in full.
References
Berliner, D.C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.
Gutierrez, K. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor, Educational Researcher, 43(1), 19-23.
Larabee, D. F. (2003). The Peculiar Problems of Preparing Educational Researchers, Educational Researchers 32(4), 13–22.
Shulman, L. S. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. Educational Researcher 10(6): 5-12, 23.
Stough, L. M., & Lee, S. (2021). Grounded theory approaches used in educational research journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 20(1): 1-13.
annotation Azevedo-et-al Barron Berliner Bransford CIM Clark Cobb Collins Halverson constructivism Driscoll ecology ed research EDU800 EDU 800 education research Gutierrez-Penuel HAL Hoepfl hypertext instructionism interview Jacobson Kellie's Blog Kozma Kuiper-et-al Labaree literature review Plengkham qualitative Ross Salomon Perkins Sawyer SFT Shapiro-Neiderhauser Shulman Spiro DeSchryver SRL Stough-Lee technology week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 week5