June 13…Pragmatism and Educational Research
Please share any questions raised by this book and any
other thoughts you have. While I hope you learned a lot about pragmatism, I am
particularly interested in how the book served to get you thinking about the nature
of knowledge, what there is to know and how all of this relates to educational
research.
I do believe that Pragmatism offers a viable and productive framework for thinking about how we create knowledge. The focus on integration rather than dualistic thinking is likely one of the most compelling points of departure from previous philosophical orientations. And Dewey’s emphasis on the transactionalism and intersubjectivity of knowledge creation breaks down the binary between the intellectual and the social in a way that aligns quite well with his broader “democratic” aims. My central concern with Dewey’s Pragmatism as a philosophy is the fact that it doesn’t overtly tackle concerns of power disparity in the production and dissemination of knowledge. If Dewey’s project was fundamentally democratic, why isn’t there a more intentional interrogation of structures of power? In brief, why isn’t Pragmatism more of a Critical philosophy? I know that early Critical theorists were suspicious of (even outright hostile to) Pragmatism as a kind of reinforcement of the status quo of power relations. But Pragmatism’s anti-dogmatic and open-ended approach to experience and inquiry indicates that it could be more viable as a method of resistance to structures of power than say, a Marxist orientation.
ReplyDeleteDewey’s philosophy appears to be fundamentally emancipatory in the sense that elitism finds no safe haven within his framework. Nothing is privileged. Theory and practice flow from and nurture each other. His critique and dismantling of dualisms imbue Pragmatism with the potential for social change. Critics of Dewey frequently characterize his philosophy as “Utopian”, but what can we can conclude from his suspicion of ultimate truths and final destinations? The Pragmatic notion of a kind of never-ending cycle of inquiry, in which no Truths are ever sacred, might be productively applied to a model of interrogation of structures of power. The implication is that there is no utopia, no promised land, only process and possibility. That institutions and structures are themselves important sites of continual and dynamic critical inquiry. Pragmatism suggests that the philosophical responsibility to critically engage with experience (as it is lived), is itself a political matter. That philosophy has a social purpose.
Why then am I haunted by the nagging sense that Pragmatism is lacking as critical framework? I think that B&B’s positioning of Dewey’s project as humanistic rather than relativistic, is a bit of an apologist rearrangement of terms to avoid critique. Dewey’s framework is grounded in a relativistic orientation, let’s just say it. Might we also say that, despite B&B’s assertions of intersubjectivity, Pragmatism veers dangerously close to privileging the individual? Even after writing it, I don’t believe this is necessarily true. But, it does seem to partially illuminate my struggle to resolve Pragmatism and Critical Theory. Maybe I shouldn’t attempt to resolve the two, but I feel that a type of Critical Pragmatism might be of better utility as a theoretical approach than one in which the two orientations are mutually exclusive.
You bring up some great questions, and I think you've talked yourself into a solid idea: critical pragmatism... are their theorists doing work from a similar framework? Dewey's emphasis on democracy seem to pair well with the ideals of a critical theorist.
DeleteI may hit a nerve here (and I'm okay with that), but I find myself sometimes let down by critical theory. I typically enjoy reading any work situated in this framework more than other approaches. As I read, I'm challenged and provoked in meaningful ways, but when I leave the text I find myself thinking, "now what?" Perhaps the only goal was to challenge and provoke, but I think this is where an intersection with a more pragmatic paradigm might offer readers more. The utility, the indication of a next step- anything that would point me towards progress is something that I feel is a bit lacking at times with the critical theorist. Maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe the only goal is to expose the imbalance of power or the underlying oppression, but I feel like the pragmatic theorist would not want to stop there.
B&B’s book highlighted some fundamental beliefs of Dewey’s pragmatism and put them into perspective with respect to other different “isms”. Dewey overthrew the traditional dualistic assumptions, and redefined reality as a process, with no origin nor end attached. He proposed that mind and nature are mutually influencing and are inextricably interwoven in the form of transactions which are temporally ever-evolving cycles of coordination and re-coordination between human actions and the consequences of these actions.
ReplyDeleteInquiry was once thought as a mind activity of passive observations to uncover external reality, but Dewey’s transactional realism offered a new way of looking at inquiry as our active constructions of knowledge. Reality is an exclusively human construct in pragmatism, and objectivity is therefore an unattainable idealistic notion. The best of our approximation to “objectivity” is “intersubjectivity”, which is intrinsically socially oriented. Pragmatism opened a door to relativism, and that placed educational researchers in a very modest position – no research shall claim final solutions or best practices, and all warranted assertions are embedded in culture and customs and are situational, which are subject to criticisms and fallibility in time.
Knowledge to Dewey is not of a mere fact, but an intelligent construction of “possibilities” that “in principle can be realized or become real.” (p. 88). Scientific discoveries are nothing more than possible ways to inform our actions, there is no point to worship them as ultimate representations of reality. Though Dewey doesn’t believe science can solve everything, his pragmatism still highly values scientific methodologies, for which we can still rely on to write new chapters or even create new paradigms of knowledge. Dewey’s pragmatism basically puts a humanistic spin on rationality: human are the creators of knowledge, and knowledge is part of human actions and a tool to serve human society. Construction of knowledge has a human-centered purpose, and research is not just for the sake of generating more research and to probe what knowledge can achieve. One shall allocate time and resources to research that is desired by our society.
Deweyan pragmatism views that knowledge generated from theory and practice feed into each other, and are not to be discussed in isolation of one another. In fact, both theory and practice are essentially practices only differ in applicable functions. Theory cannot fully represent reality, and the value of theory in educational research is not to be exaggerated or placed above the value of practice. Educational research is not meant to direct educational practice, but to offer “possible connections between actions and consequences” for practitioners to think reflectively, and to construct their knowledge and make intelligent actions.
Posted by Jacqueline
ReplyDeleteI believe pragmatism offers the flexibility to conduct research that is usable in educational settings. Recognizing that knowledge is “a function of and for human action” (p.107), pragmatism offers the medium to support everyday problem solving. This is useful for the educational setting because no educational environment is identical to another. Even if the classrooms are arranged identically and the curriculum is the same, the people interacting with these items are different and each one’s transacts with the environment differently. Therefore, no matter how research tries to create generalizable studies, these studies will never exactly match every or any educational setting. For this reason, the freedom of pragmatism, which does not purport any specific method of research, is beneficial to solve problems in the classroom. Pragmatism allows for the use of tools of knowledge acquired in any setting to guide research and enlighten perspectives on various problems.
Pragmatism makes clear that the relationship between theory and practice is interchangeable. The problems encountered during practice inform research that generates theory. That theory can then inform practice. From practice, problems encountered allow for new research and theory. Research at the classroom level can inform the need for more research. This research again informs the classroom. This is a cycle that continues and will always continue as long as humans are interacting with their environment. Dewey highlighted the human factor in research. He rejected objectivism and embraced the idea of people interacting to create meaning and value. Pragmatism, again, empowers the local educational operator to make decision as to the value of research for their environment. Subsequently they are then able to adopt and adapt as needed.
Overall, pragmatism offers freedom. This freedom, in my view, allows pragmatism to be incorporated into other frameworks to truly adapt methodologies to the needs of the environment. I guess the exception would be positivism.
I love this idea about pragmatism offering freedom. I too see pragmatism as less limiting than some of the other frameworks we've studied. I wonder what Dewey would have to say about this concept...
DeleteIn reading this text, I was able to reorient some of my thinking regarding research. After some reflection, I realized that my ideas about how to carry out educational research were a bit too linear. I had this idea that one thing would lead to the next, but now I’m starting to see research as more cyclical.
ReplyDeleteThis text (and the pragmatist perspective) also caused me to reconsider the utility of research. In many ways, it helped to validate all research approaches, whereas I think a few of my previous classes have seemed to place more value on one research approach as opposed to consider when and why a particular approach might be best.
Dewey’s ideas regarding transactional realism, inquiry, reflection, warranted assertions, etc. all seem in line with my own thinking about knowledge, as they invite restructuring and criticism. Although I still have so much to learn, pragmatism has offered me the most succinct and accessible research approach to date. To be more specific, as I close out the year at my school, I’ve already printed out my syllabus and made 15-20 changes for next year. I’ve done this all 13 years of teaching. Before reading this text, I lacked the words to name why I was inclined to do this year after year. Dewey’s ideas that there should be no end to inquiry provided an understanding of my own habits. His emphasis on reflection leading to new inquiry fall in line with my own desires to seek out constant improvement with my craft.
I've become hyper-aware of how the temporal/situational construction of knowledge, and the individual perceptions that may alter the meaning or scope of that construction, is then moved into action, intelligent or not. I feel as though my language and navigation of situations has changed slightly after reading the text, wherein I think more about how the other person might perceive our transaction, or why they chose to act in a certain way because of how they perceived their experience. It's made me want to be clear and concise, to remove obstacles to understanding, which I am terrible at presently.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that pragmatism has caused me to reconsider my direction - less "big idea" and more grounded. Whereas I might have questioned if what I researched might I contribute helps promote conversations rather than procedures, I now would say that? How can I help inform intelligent action? What do we do with this information from research?
I think one of the last sections summed up my experience with the text so far, “This perspective may influence the way in which we regard questions of content in the research we undertake in relation to questions about the organization of the context being researched and, for that matter, the researcher’s own context” (p. 109).
Authors Biesta and Burbules presented several points that helped me better understand Dewey’s take on the nature of knowledge. In particular, I can relate to Dewey’s argument about presenting “human beings as living organisms, continuously adapting to an ever-changing environment in which their interactions with other living organisms results in the release of new potentialities.” (Biesta & Burbules, 2003, Kindle version, p. 2109). In Dewey’s argument, humans as living organisms need to cooperate and engage with other living organisms. The knowledge that is produced as a result from that interaction, serves a purpose to solve a question or certain problem. What I find useful from Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy is that he argues that knowledge cannot stay static. There is no end to inquiry or a final point to it. You can only “slice” a part of our “reality”. He also calls for society to reflect upon that knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI consider that Dewey puts the burden on educators and members of society to think critically about their role and living space in society. “Educators are not simply passive consumers of knowledge...”(Biesta & Burbules, 2003, Kindle version, p. 2057). I like the idea of filtering information and not just accepting the transfer of knowledge from one source to the next.
If we look at our environment from a pragmatic perspective, the future remains uncertain because we cannot really calculate concretely all possibilities. After reading the book, I get a sense that Dewey’s pragmatism is linked to a certain optimistic point of view of our society. I do not see it as a deficit. Putting Dewey’s philosophy put into context of his lifetime, it is key to recognize that he witnessed many changes and innovations in the United States that perhaps represented human potential. As I continue to study more educational research, I’m also left with the curiosity of wanting to explore what is critical pragmatism. It would be interesting to further understand the role of power in relation to pragmatism.
- Vivian