April 6… Biesta’s Democratic Research
Consider Biesta’s vision of democratic research. What, if anything, about it seems novel or unusual? From what you’ve learned thus far, what sort of place do you see for this kind of work in the world of educational research?
I wrote this way back, when it was due on March 16th... feels good to be ahead of the curve for once! I know it won't last long...
ReplyDeleteKori Mosley
3/12/2020
I had never heard the term “democratic research” - and so Biesta’s explanation of research that is less about “what works” (what is “effective”) and more about “what it should work for” (what is “desirable”) was novel to me. As we’ve been learning, evidence-based research (scientific, causal, RCT, etc.) has become the “gold standard” - and education has oft been accused of failing to meet that bar. Biesta’s stance against such insult (inspired by Dewey and De Vries - and the nuanced nature of education/ working with children in varied contexts in constantly changing landscapes) helps me to continue to think about research methodologies with a wider lens.
Although quite unaware of some of what he was talking about, I nonetheless said “duh” to myself quite a few times while reading - not in response to him but more as personal recognition that I have been quick to jump on others’ bandwagons. On p. 6, Biesta questions “to what extent the practice of education can be compared to the practice of medicine, the field in which the idea of evidence-based practice was first developed.” Why do we (education) need to be like medicine? That was a rhetorical question - we know why - and I’ve written before about the precarious place of art education, specifically, and the push for quantitative research in an effort to prove “what works” ... Postmodernist reckonings and privileged and imperialist/colonial narratives aside, the art classroom is (supposed to be) a most democratic space, so Biesta’s views were enlightening and emboldening. Art class (and art education research) can/should be one that provides a counterpoint to the “technical role” that evidence-based research seeks to justify.
We have been going in circles, it seems, reading Pring and others, trying to find our place - this article made sense to me in light of that search. Chelsea’s “Grab Bag” post included this quote from Pring, which I applied to my reading of Biesta: “Any theory is always open to revision in the light of further experience and criticism. We can never be certain that our beliefs and theories are correct. But we can feel confident in them if they have been subjected to the most rigorous testing” (p. 137). In addition to reading this as a reminder to be reflective, critical, and diligent - I see it also as a reminder that knowing what research methodology is NOT helpful/needed/appropriate/desirable (recognizing the “democratic deficit”) for your specific situation is just as important as knowing what kind IS. Testing can be “rigorous” (and practical) without being “scientific.” Perhaps in “imagining a possible future” - as Biesta tries to do on page 21, we (they) can work toward acceptance of a more practical and respected relationship between both the technical and cultural roles that research, policy, and practice can provide.
On page 18, Biesta says “A democratic society is precisely one in which the purpose of education is not given but is a constant topic or discussion or deliberation.” I really appreciate this viewpoint, and hope that education is moving in this direction, especially in light of all of the “learning at home” that is currently happening.
ReplyDeleteI think it seems unusual in our society to ask everyone to weigh in on what they believe is important enough to include in education. I would love for this to be a topic of general conversation, but it seems that only the folks who work at DOE (or the committees that are selected to work with them) have a say in what matters should be taught in schools. Evidence-based research does not focus on the “desirability of educational ends” (p. 18).
Biesta seems to be saying that research can help inform educational practice, but can also help us evaluate the type of things we are teaching, and help us to “see and imagine [our] practice differently” (p. 19). To me, this is the type of educational research that would be the most useful for practitioners. As Biesta states, “The role of the educational professional in this process is….to use research findings to make one’s problem solving more intelligent” (p. 20-21). In this way, research can be used with practitioners in a professional-development type of way, to help inform their decision making. I would assume this type of use of the research would involve discussion around hypothetical scenarios, and the general mentality that “this doesn’t apply to my kids” because everyone’s students & classrooms are always so unique. However, if delivered correctly, and the correct culture is established within the professional development sessions, perhaps teachers can be convinced to identify the similarities with their own classrooms and try to “identify in” rather than out.
-Chelsea
Chelsea, I always find your comments to be very relevant as a current teacher. You mentioned professional development for teachers with this framework. Do you think using Biesta's piecet could help develop professional development, or do you see yourself using this piece during professional development and as a group analyzing the content?
DeleteChelsea, great point to highlight in the Biesta reading! Like you, I agree that conversations should be had around what is being taught in schools. I was a 7th grade math teacher for 3 years and I LOVE teaching and learning math - I made a point to explain the real-world applications of all the math my students were learning because it makes it seem more relevant... however, I also told them when the math we were learning wasn't important for the rest of their lives. For example, knowing the angle-side relationships which will produce unique triangles. I have a hard time imagining when they'll ever need to know that outside of a geometry course and would tell them "it's on your test, so I've got to teach it... but we won't spend much time on it". I don't think teachers who are preparing students to lead successful lives, both inside and OUTSIDE of school, should be put in that position. Let's teach the kids how to file taxes and qualify for exemptions, how to create a budget and track expenses, how to garden and some geography!
DeleteThis whole semester we have read about the fight for quadrant three. How research in education is not “scientific” enough. Arguments for the lack of evidence based practice seem to burry education research, discounting it as rigorous research in any capacity. What Biesta brought up that seemed so common sense to me, but is also something I had never thought of, was that we can’t compare science and education research 100%. Sure, there is a need for improvement between research and practice. But the big point was that students are not patients, and being a student is not an illness, just as teachers are not a cure. I thought this point was quite novel and unusual.
ReplyDeleteBiesta was not saying ed research is any less than, but shared that it is just different. The more we try to be something we aren’t the more research is done inauthentically. This work seems to be more philosophical than practice oriented. I do think that this piece is applicable to research in the sense that it can be used when writing the rationale and discussion sections of a manuscript. It also might be something that is supportive when creating research questions. It serves as a piece to kind of say “let educators research education as educators, not as scientists”.
-Aliza
Yes! Just like we were saying in our breakout room conversation last week - just call it the "type" of research that it is - vs. "research" (one word, one type, "one size fits all") being assumed - and revered - as one, gold, scientific standard.
Delete- Kori
I've been reading about educational ethics for my discipline paper, so I think I was particularly attuned to how Biesta articulated the roles of values in both educational practice and research. The novel concept that stood out was how he characterized the disconnect between "evidence-based" practice and his yet unnamed ideal: "...education is a moral practice rather than a technical or technological one," (p.10). This statement encapsulated a lot of the concerns I had reading through his earlier critique of evidence-based research, and the potential ramifications of omitting morality from the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAn epistemological assumption came through to me, but was never quite addressed by Biesta. Yes, there are a lot of other concerns in making the assumptions he specifically discussed in translating medical practice to education, and assuming that technical knowledge should be our goal, or that education is as transactional as medicine. Biesta does not discuss the underlying assumption that evidence-based research is always objective. I think we can all identify an example of an educational study that found what it intended to find, regardless of the circumstances. Overlooking the quality of the research that guides practice is also a moral dilemma; it forgives those who influence the system to meet their own needs (regardless of the consequences for others). Maybe he danced around it a bit with his epistemological discussion of "what works," but I feel like the human factor of research and "findings" was never questioned, and that his argument was only predicated on the best possible scenario (research with integrity) rather than the very evident reality.
There's much in Biesta's article that resonated with me.
ReplyDeleteFirst, on page 9, he writes, "We should not think of these interventions as causes but as opportunities for students to respond, and through their response, to learn something from them."
We've talked a lot in this class about the discipline's inability to agree on the nature and aims of education, and I think that's going to be the fundamental conflict running throughout most of my reading of education research for the foreseeable future. But, like Biesta (and Stemhagen), I'm motivated by democratic educational goals, however we might define that. So, Biesta's overall argument that evidence-based education models restrict the scope of what sorts of questions we can ask, and who gets to ask them, was powerful for me.
I think we would all agree that the drive for evidence/data/accountability has had a concomitant trend of de-professionalizing classroom teaching. Biesta alludes to this in his third part, where he discusses relevance for practice. Practitioners have to have more latitude for the creative application of education research to particular contexts.
One question that we should keep asking is: "Who benefits?"
As we read (and if we agree with) Biesta's analysis of the democratic deficit in education research, I want to ask, Who benefits from this arrangement? Which institutions and ideologies are served by an approach to education research and practice that is as technical and hierarchical as Biesta describes?
Jonathan
I appreciate the way Biesta broke out a three-part argument, though I'm not sure I saw much in the way of novelty when we compare across the semester. I think I read this somewhat critically as containing more of the same undercurrents around an incompatibility between research and practice in education. I think, too, that Biesta is a pragmatist (not a criticism at all, just a note that we seemed to have approached most issues through a pragmatic lens).
ReplyDeleteBiesta makes a salient argument against the idea of so-called evidence-based practice, but I was weirdly resistant to the concept of education as moral or value-based. The point makes sense in context, and Biesta noted that research is often analyzing what has been done, rather than what will be done. Still, it seems falsely dichotomized against technical, one of those dualisms that doesn't serve us well at the end of the day as much as it serves his argument.
If we determine what education is of value, can't we then determine what evidence is of value? It seems like much more of the issue with evidence-based practice is it's origin (medicine), which, as noted in this paper, is a mix of the practical and the contextual.In his conclusion, Biesta writes, "This is why there is a real need to widen the scope of our thinking about the relation between research, policy, and practice, so as to make sure that the discussion is no longer restricted to finding the most effective ways to achieve certain ends but also addresses questions about the desirability of the ends themselves."
I read this as an issue with the outcomes we often look to in education to act as evidence as what has been learned, and further, to the knowledge we deem to be of value, and why. From the democratic perspective, it seems to that there is an issue with who determines value and the lack of empowerment of the educators, who are often argued to have the best understanding of context, of having the answer to "what works." I struggle with this argument because I haven't yet seen any discussion of at what point the educator becomes this expert--is it right away? The faulty comparison with medicine is that doctors are taught clinical judgement long before they're entrusted with it, and in both cases, professional identity formation seems important in this idea of when a practitioner trusts their professional judgement over their training, if in fact, the two are at odds, or if the context is so specific it cannot be adequately addressed by training.
-Meagan
PS Sorry for typos and general nonsense. I've been working on this all day, at different times, and re-reading sections of the reading, and maybe I've given in to the quarantine spirit and just completely lost it.
Biesta describes the democratic society as the existence of an open and informed discussion about problem definitions and the aims and ends of our educational endeavors. It is a space where “what works” is negotiated based upon its effectiveness for whom and for what? I appreciated Biesta’s association of the symbolic interaction between teaching and learning and the individuals within these two spaces, but when Biesta said, “being a student is not an illness, just as teaching is not a cure” (p. 8). I pondered this statement for a moment, and to some degree, I was love-struck. The instructor is not the doctor who has the pill for the attainment of knowledge - if the student takes the prescribed two pills every 4 hours, then they will have absorbed the necessary information. With this said, Biesta argues that some who are trying to better understand and better define educational research, do see education as such. The prescribed content is the pill, and if the student takes the recommended dosage, then the student can regurgitate that knowledge and show they are ‘cured’ from the lack of understanding the X subject matter. But is this truly the transactional process of learning, I agree with Biesta that it is not. Learning is the symbolic interaction and exists in the middle, where it is a murky place that is entangled by multiple facets that are between the object being taught. How it is being taught… When it i s being taught… Why it is being taught… But also by whom and why it is to be received. As described by Biesta, and what I agree with, “education is a moral practice, rather than a technical or technological one” (p. 10). Evidence-based practice assumes that the ends of professional action are given and that the only relevant (professional research) questions to be asked are about the most effective and efficient ways of achieving those ends. In this respect, evidence-based practice entails a technological model of professional action but in the space of symbolic interaction. Education research is a symbolic interaction process between an institution of learning and the individuals who make us that system.
ReplyDeleteBiesta describes the democratic society as the existence of an open and informed discussion about problem definitions and the aims and ends of our educational endeavors. It is a space where “what works” is negotiated based upon its effectiveness for whom and for what? I appreciated Biesta’s association of the symbolic interaction between teaching and learning and the individuals within these two spaces, but when Biesta said, “being a student is not an illness, just as teaching is not a cure” (p. 8). I pondered this statement for a moment, and to some degree, I was love-struck. The instructor is not the doctor who has the pill for the attainment of knowledge - if the student takes the prescribed two pills every 4 hours, then they will have absorbed the necessary information. With this said, Biesta argues that some who are trying to better understand and better define educational research, do see education as such. The prescribed content is the pill, and if the student takes the recommended dosage, then the student can regurgitate that knowledge and show they are ‘cured’ from the lack of understanding the X subject matter. But is this truly the transactional process of learning, I agree with Biesta that it is not. Learning is the symbolic interaction and exists in the middle, where it is a murky place that is entangled by multiple facets that are between the object being taught. How it is being taught… When it i s being taught… Why it is being taught… But also by whom and why it is to be received. As described by Biesta, and what I agree with, “education is a moral practice, rather than a technical or technological one” (p. 10). Evidence-based practice assumes that the ends of professional action are given and that the only relevant (professional research) questions to be asked are about the most effective and efficient ways of achieving those ends. In this respect, evidence-based practice entails a technological model of professional action but in the space of symbolic interaction. Education research is a symbolic interaction process between an institution of learning and the individuals who make up that system.
DeleteThis reading felt novel compared to the rest of the articles/chapters we've read, but it feels like it'd be the easiest framework to create buy-in among current practitioners. If, unlike medicine, students are not problems/illnesses that need to cured, how do we better equip our teaching experts with the tools they need without pre-scripting their responses or creating a technocratic handbook to teaching?
ReplyDeleteJonathan asked in a prior post, who benefits from this arrangement? I'd argue that Chelsea's post indicated that classroom teachers benefit most from this setting. If as opposed to rolling out research as "Here's what the Academics say you should do!" we reframe as "Here's what's worked before!" it provides options and insight to improve practice without removing Teacher Agency. Biesta's highlighting of the cultural component is critical as well. How can we use research to highlight the conditions of the classrooms and systems we are studying? How can educators reflect on their own experiences in their classrooms, what systems are hindering/supporting success, and how they can utilize past knowledge for their classrooms.
If teaching is a moral activity that we constantly need to be wrestling with, this framework allows research to be a tool that doesn't try and solve any tensions but let's educators grapple with them in more sophisticated ways.
“I have also already shown, using Dewey’s work, that research can only indicate what worked, not what works or will work, which means that the outcomes of research cannot simply be translated into rules for action.” (pg. 18) This reminds me of the conversation that was had in my breakout group last week. Sarah was explaining that when a teacher at her previous school did something that really worked for their students, the school wanted all teachers to adopt that way of teaching, but personality of teachers (among other things I’m sure) can inhibit the success of adopting another teacher’s ways. This coincides with the idea of a “prescription,” and the fact that students are not patients.
ReplyDelete“A substantial amount of research evidence suggests that the most influential factors in school success are the home environment and, even more important, children’s experiences in their first years.” (pg. 9) Where as in medical research, if scientists find a vaccine that prevents a disease, they will recommend that children are given that vaccine/shot so that they do not fall ill. The equivalent of a vaccine would be removing the children from their parents and putting them in and ideal environment to stimulate their learning in their early years. These two “vaccines” can’t compare with each other.
Aliza mentioned "The more we try to be something we aren’t the more research is done inauthentically. " I fully agree with this statement, and believe that Educational Research needs more of a holistic understanding, so that policy makers, educators and those conducting research, can come to a mutual agreement on what we need from the research.
Maggie Brocklebank
I saw Biesta making an argument for why educators should be empowered and entrusted to make the decisions they deem necessary for their students to succeed, based on the educator’s abilities, the students’ abilities, and the conditions and circumstances surrounding the teaching and learning experience. In other words, we don’t always know what needs to be learned and how that learning might best take place, so we can’t be forced to rely on a predetermined method based on assumed and most likely inapplicable expectations and circumstances.
ReplyDeleteBiesta says, “The problem with evidence-based education, therefore, is not only that it is not sufficiently aware of the role of norms and values in educational decision making; the problem is that it also limits the opportunities for educational professionals to exert their judgment about what is educationally desirable in particular situations” (p. 20), and in saying this, Biesta provided me with a nice ‘a-ha’ moment, one that was really straightforward and practical.
If we teachers aren’t allowed to make decisions in the classroom, on the fly and based on students’ unique needs and circumstances, then we might as well not even know our students. The relationship becomes one big apology: ‘Hey, I know you need this but I’m required to treat you this way and give you this instead. Sorry.’ What a horrible affirmation that you are all alone in this world.
Biesta also says, “This first problem with this approach is the role of causality: apart from the obvious fact that the condition of being a student is quite different from that of being a patient — being a student is not an illness, just as teaching is not a cure — the most important argument against the idea that education is a causal process lies in the fact that education is not a process of physical interaction but a process of symbolic or symbolically mediated interaction” (p. 8). And this to me sounds more like an explanation of a relationship from which I think teachers and students thrive. Think about the nature of this kind of relationship, and then think about the nature of the relationship you have with your doctor.
- Peyton B.
Biesta’s vision for a democratic research sounds fair and necessary to me in this current climate. I believe research that is evidence based should involve both researchers and practitioners working together to create curriculum and resources that are relevant to practitioners. I consistently write/chat about the relevance of practical experience and its contribution to new knowledge and policy. Using veteran teachers as an example, there is an opportunity for researchers to tap into a wealth of observational data by utilizing a democratic process for research. Utilizing evidence as a basis for practice is certainly important and I believe the nature of the “evidence” should be expanded to include noteworthy experiences of people in the trenches of it all. It should be assumed that evidence attributed to one system, may not work for another system, but the more perspectives that are present when collecting the evidence, can lead to a democratic consensus worthy of adding to practice for the greater good.
ReplyDelete