At the end of Chapter 6, Pring warns us to “beware of the
-isms…”. That said, try to make sense of where you see Pring fitting in,
“-ism-wise.” Feel free to draw on Paul and 702 here (or not).
I see Pring as an interpretivist. He places great emphasis on language and context. Having said that, I think he wants his readers to be open to what the other 'isms' have to offer. He seems to be calling his colleagues out on their territorialism. I have the image of splintered factions that won't acknowledge the good each other can offer. It sounds like ed researchers are their own worst enemies.
I think Tom makes a good point about interpretivism. I was thinking Pring is more of what I might call a conservative constructivist (I think the term he uses when describing his philosophical stance is robust realism). That is, he seems willing to acknowledge that reality is socially constructed up to a point, but eventually people will run into the reality where other people and cars and gravity and geese actually exist. To bring back Tom's point about interpretivism, it's almost like Pring considers the world of language to be socially constructed, but the real-world things we attach language to (people, cars, geese, etc.) nevertheless exist.
Also, I'd like to point out that Pring missed a really good chance to quote Ferris Bueller in the concluding paragraph of this chapter. "Beware of 'isms' - and of the distinctions which arise from their rigid application" (p. 108) is just a way less eloquent way of telling us what FB did back in the 80's: "a person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself."
Evandra - To Pring’s point I feel researchers and those reading and interpreting research should be aware of philosophical underpinnings of research. Understanding the authors perspective or the paradigm which he/she draws from allows for more honest interpretation of the data presented. Given the nature of research, these -isms are less explicit in quantitative research than qualitative. Often, in qualitative research the authors explicitly state which paradigm they are operating within. I have found the traditional -isms (positivism/interpretivism) to correspond with the methods used for inquiry. The challenge in placing inquiry into these different philosophical underpinnings creates tension between the evaluation, observation, and method of inquiry. In order to answer research questions and interpret the data, one must began with a philosophical approach. I would say Pring fits more as an interpretivist than a positivist, understanding research in relation to context, and epistemological and ontological assumptions based on the research project being undertaken.
It seems as though we are coming to an agreement that we see Pring as fitting into interpretivism. As I read Chapter 6 I kept seeing Pring as a Constructivist and Post Structuralist as well. His constructivist bend comes out in how he speaks about of reality, facts, and common sense assertions changing. It appears that he sees the goal of research as challenging assertions and building an understanding of the world and the realities. I would go as far as to say that his interpretivism informs and is a part of his constructivism. In that, as he and others realities they are not stagnant and as they are conscious of and interpret those realities they change, so they are continuously constructing their world as a way to understand it. Then throwing research in almost forces revaluation, (re)constructing of reality.
Pring seems to be Post Structuralist, in that he does not see objectivity or realities as deterministic. That there is a great deal at play at any time but none of it can be said to be the end all be all in what will/not happen to individuals. Another piece is that theory is and reality can be separated, as Pring argues. Furthermore, discourse or language is an important part of reality and the socially constructed world. In the end, I doubt Pring would like our ‘boxing’ him into isms, even though they can help to understand the reality he sees and works from.
Positivism fell out of favor in social science research in part because it did not allow for error or uncertainty in knowing truths and understanding reality. Postpositivism, emerging in response to this concern, encouraged the rigorous scientific inquiry of positivism while tempering the positivist claim that one can know reality. Instead of believing in our ability to uncover absolute truths, postpositivism puts forth that science is fallible and our current understanding of reality is always subject to revision with time and new information (Paul, 2005). In his discussion of realism in Chapter 6, Pring talks about how a reality exists outside of our perceptions and interpretations, therefore, while our descriptions of reality may change, ‘reality’ remains the same. This assumption is woven through many of his other claims about ed. research. Pring describes objectivity, for example, as something that can be achieved because there is a “state of affairs which really exists independently of my wishing it to be so” and there is an objective way to proceed in research that will get at this independent state of affairs. He also puts boundaries around what one can claim as truth or fact given that there is this reality (in his opinion) that will not allow for some interpretations or perceptions. Because of these specifics that make up his argument for a “robust realism,” I would classify Pring as a postpositivist.
Stephanie - When reading the chapter, I thought that Pring was probably a constructivist. However, after reading the previous posts, I agree that he is more than likely an interpretivist. He seems to believe that most people assume that quantitative research is of higher quality than qualitative research and is trying to convince the readers that qualitative research is as valuable as quantitative research. I think that Tom made a good point that language seems very important to him. Additionally, he consistently discusses that context must be considered in research. I think that when he warns the reader to “beware of the isms,” he is encouraging the reader to carefully consider all perspectives.
Michelle- Pring guides us to "beware of -isms and of the disctinctions which arise from their rigid application." The words "rigid application" jump out for me as I believe he is trying to tell us that educational research does not fit neatly into any of the philosophical -isms (Post/Positivism, Post/Modernism, Constructivism, Interpretivism...). Although he does support Positivism/Realism as a necessary component of educational research, he also reminds us that education involves people, their collective subjective experiences, their social worlds, and the impact of embedded language; more of an Interpretivist leaning.
As I read Pring’s take on key concepts within educational research, I could not decide whether I thought he was arguing from an interpretivist perspective or a more pragmatic one. As many of my peers have stated, Pring’s attention to the important role that language plays seems to peg him as an interpretivist. However, I kept thinking about Noddings’ discussion of pragmatism in the Paul chapter and how much of the language she uses is similar to Pring’s. She states that “[t]hinking and acting work together as one process. Both theory (to guide thinking and acting) and practice (to test the suggestions of theory) are important; they are equally important” (p. 57). In the same vein, Pring, on page 96, discusses another one of his false dualisms-theory vs. practice- arguing “the logical inseparability” of the two due to the nature of practice being informed by a theoretical framework. Noddings also discusses the prominence that language has played in a reenergized interest in pragmatism, stating that a renewed focus on the influence of vocabularies, specifically who uses them in various contexts, should encourage us to think about “how knowledge is constructed, questioned, refined, and encoded” (p. 58). Similarly, Pring discusses potential problems with replacing a shared discourse with a technical one, concluding that theory should only replace ordinary language in particular instances. Although I wouldn't go so far as to call him a pragmatist, these are two examples of how I saw Pring aligned with pragmatist thought.
Kendra- I agree with the majority of folks here. I think Pring falls somewhere between a combination of interpretivism and constructivism. He recognizes the inherent relationship between reality and worldview and the flexibility of human understanding. This is important because it humanizes the research experience. Pring recognizes that researchers bring themselves into their work, just as a practitioner working to enact theory or policy brings all of themself. That is to say, both reality and research are constructed through individual interpretation. Although individuals may experience “reality” differently, there are some truths that remain constant regardless of individual experiences or identities. He continues to wrestle with the notion of dualism, which gives way to more nuanced understanding of the intersection of theory and practice. He states that researchers create a false dualism when asking how “…this or that theory relates to practice, as though practice were standing outside of a theoretical framework” (p. 96). I appreciated this particular example because it informs much of the conversation we’ve been having in class, as well as what appears to be the underlying conundrum of educational research. How can we move forward in either theory or practice without considering one in context of the other?
Marsha - I found this chapter difficult to read. I almost feel that educational research is being portrayed as so complex that just about any argument can be made against or for it making its value very person specific. What I mean is that, depending on your perspective, theory, or philosophy, you can almost argue against or for any research study and provide valid points either way. I don’t think the argument then is about the quality of the research, but more of your take on it.
I agree with those that see Pring as an Interpretivist. He seems to buy into multiple realities and that truth with a big T is almost irrelevant. I agree that reality is socially constructed based on many factors that may be personal to the individual. Researchers are tasked with understanding these realities and being able to put them into context based on the participants and as a result, the two come together on an agreed perception of that reality. Again, I think he proves the need for both qualitative AND quantitative research working together to provide new knowledge in terms that is understood by many. I appreciate his attempt to include practice when thinking about theoretical frameworks. He states that "theory is thought of the framework of beliefs and understandings which are embedded in the practice we engage in." He confirms, in my opinion, that there is a place for subjectivity and interpretation in the research process. He also mentions the use of theoretical language which is similar to Becker's argument. That we write to and for other scholars distancing those who need the information the most, practitioners.
I agree with Stephanie that Pring's closing exhortation to "Beware of 'isms'" indicates his belief that there's a place for multiple perspectives in educational research as each can illuminate different facets of reality/truth/etc.; the danger comes from adhering to one at the exclusion of others if that exclusion means an inability to have an open mind about what those other perspectives bring to the table. In other words, we've returned to those dualisms--practitioner vs. scholar, quantitative vs. qualitative--that Pring's been circling around throughout the book.
I can see the justification for so Pring being an interpretivist, though I did find the relative opacity of this chapter's language interesting and ironic, reading it as I did immediately after Becker's chapter on the importance of using simple words whenever possible and Pring's own concerns over a main reason for theory's (i.e., ed research) lack of acceptance with public policy makers, practitioners, and the public being the jargon-laced, unnecessarily (IMO) complex language often used by scholars. Scholars in other fields are also, of course, guilty of these same faults, but their research isn't the object of public scrutiny in the same way.
Amy--I agree that Pring’s warning to “Beware of –isms” means that we should be able to consider different perspectives within research, whether it your own study or someone else’s. At points he seems rather non-committal to any particular –ism. But then, in typical Pring style, he makes a statement like “disagreement is not simply about whether a given claim is true or false, but also about whether a particular way of describing reality is an appropriate one or not”. After reading the previous statement and considering Pring’s focus on language (as several others have noted) it was evident that he is coming from an interpretivist stance.
In the statement where Pring warns us to beware of the “isms,” there are two key words that come to mind, “rigid application.” As researchers, we sometimes view the world through the perspective with we most align. In doing so, we conduct research with blinders on and may find it difficult to think outside of our own reality. When we realize that there is more than one perspective and more than one way to view the natural and social worlds, we can get to the truth in research.
Pring's warning about the "isms" is that we need to be able to provide things into simple perspectives. In the midst of trying to sound academic, we often lose some of the power of general discussions about important matters. There are multiple ways to interpret educational research and the best way I believe Pring is trying to say is to appeal to common sense. That is the anchor to be able to connect scholars and others together to be able to make bigger impacts than if people are trying to figure out exactly what others are talking about. By making things simple, more progress can be made throughout multiple environments such as policy making, funding, and other important topics.
I see Pring as an interpretivist. He places great emphasis on language and context. Having said that, I think he wants his readers to be open to what the other 'isms' have to offer. He seems to be calling his colleagues out on their territorialism. I have the image of splintered factions that won't acknowledge the good each other can offer. It sounds like ed researchers are their own worst enemies.
ReplyDeleteI think Tom makes a good point about interpretivism. I was thinking Pring is more of what I might call a conservative constructivist (I think the term he uses when describing his philosophical stance is robust realism). That is, he seems willing to acknowledge that reality is socially constructed up to a point, but eventually people will run into the reality where other people and cars and gravity and geese actually exist. To bring back Tom's point about interpretivism, it's almost like Pring considers the world of language to be socially constructed, but the real-world things we attach language to (people, cars, geese, etc.) nevertheless exist.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'd like to point out that Pring missed a really good chance to quote Ferris Bueller in the concluding paragraph of this chapter. "Beware of 'isms' - and of the distinctions which arise from their rigid application" (p. 108) is just a way less eloquent way of telling us what FB did back in the 80's: "a person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself."
#SaveFerris
Evandra - To Pring’s point I feel researchers and those reading and interpreting research should be aware of philosophical underpinnings of research. Understanding the authors perspective or the paradigm which he/she draws from allows for more honest interpretation of the data presented. Given the nature of research, these -isms are less explicit in quantitative research than qualitative. Often, in qualitative research the authors explicitly state which paradigm they are operating within. I have found the traditional -isms (positivism/interpretivism) to correspond with the methods used for inquiry. The challenge in placing inquiry into these different philosophical underpinnings creates tension between the evaluation, observation, and method of inquiry. In order to answer research questions and interpret the data, one must began with a philosophical approach. I would say Pring fits more as an interpretivist than a positivist, understanding research in relation to context, and epistemological and ontological assumptions based on the research project being undertaken.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though we are coming to an agreement that we see Pring as fitting into interpretivism. As I read Chapter 6 I kept seeing Pring as a Constructivist and Post Structuralist as well. His constructivist bend comes out in how he speaks about of reality, facts, and common sense assertions changing. It appears that he sees the goal of research as challenging assertions and building an understanding of the world and the realities. I would go as far as to say that his interpretivism informs and is a part of his constructivism. In that, as he and others realities they are not stagnant and as they are conscious of and interpret those realities they change, so they are continuously constructing their world as a way to understand it. Then throwing research in almost forces revaluation, (re)constructing of reality.
ReplyDeletePring seems to be Post Structuralist, in that he does not see objectivity or realities as deterministic. That there is a great deal at play at any time but none of it can be said to be the end all be all in what will/not happen to individuals. Another piece is that theory is and reality can be separated, as Pring argues. Furthermore, discourse or language is an important part of reality and the socially constructed world. In the end, I doubt Pring would like our ‘boxing’ him into isms, even though they can help to understand the reality he sees and works from.
Positivism fell out of favor in social science research in part because it did not allow for error or uncertainty in knowing truths and understanding reality. Postpositivism, emerging in response to this concern, encouraged the rigorous scientific inquiry of positivism while tempering the positivist claim that one can know reality. Instead of believing in our ability to uncover absolute truths, postpositivism puts forth that science is fallible and our current understanding of reality is always subject to revision with time and new information (Paul, 2005). In his discussion of realism in Chapter 6, Pring talks about how a reality exists outside of our perceptions and interpretations, therefore, while our descriptions of reality may change, ‘reality’ remains the same. This assumption is woven through many of his other claims about ed. research. Pring describes objectivity, for example, as something that can be achieved because there is a “state of affairs which really exists independently of my wishing it to be so” and there is an objective way to proceed in research that will get at this independent state of affairs. He also puts boundaries around what one can claim as truth or fact given that there is this reality (in his opinion) that will not allow for some interpretations or perceptions. Because of these specifics that make up his argument for a “robust realism,” I would classify Pring as a postpositivist.
ReplyDeleteStephanie - When reading the chapter, I thought that Pring was probably a constructivist. However, after reading the previous posts, I agree that he is more than likely an interpretivist. He seems to believe that most people assume that quantitative research is of higher quality than qualitative research and is trying to convince the readers that qualitative research is as valuable as quantitative research. I think that Tom made a good point that language seems very important to him. Additionally, he consistently discusses that context must be considered in research. I think that when he warns the reader to “beware of the isms,” he is encouraging the reader to carefully consider all perspectives.
ReplyDeleteMichelle-
ReplyDeletePring guides us to "beware of -isms and of the disctinctions which arise from their rigid application." The words "rigid application" jump out for me as I believe he is trying to tell us that educational research does not fit neatly into any of the philosophical -isms (Post/Positivism, Post/Modernism, Constructivism, Interpretivism...). Although he does support Positivism/Realism as a necessary component of educational research, he also reminds us that education involves people, their collective subjective experiences, their social worlds, and the impact of embedded language; more of an Interpretivist leaning.
As I read Pring’s take on key concepts within educational research, I could not decide whether I thought he was arguing from an interpretivist perspective or a more pragmatic one. As many of my peers have stated, Pring’s attention to the important role that language plays seems to peg him as an interpretivist. However, I kept thinking about Noddings’ discussion of pragmatism in the Paul chapter and how much of the language she uses is similar to Pring’s. She states that “[t]hinking and acting work together as one process. Both theory (to guide thinking and acting) and practice (to test the suggestions of theory) are important; they are equally important” (p. 57). In the same vein, Pring, on page 96, discusses another one of his false dualisms-theory vs. practice- arguing “the logical inseparability” of the two due to the nature of practice being informed by a theoretical framework. Noddings also discusses the prominence that language has played in a reenergized interest in pragmatism, stating that a renewed focus on the influence of vocabularies, specifically who uses them in various contexts, should encourage us to think about “how knowledge is constructed, questioned, refined, and encoded” (p. 58). Similarly, Pring discusses potential problems with replacing a shared discourse with a technical one, concluding that theory should only replace ordinary language in particular instances. Although I wouldn't go so far as to call him a pragmatist, these are two examples of how I saw Pring aligned with pragmatist thought.
ReplyDeleteKendra- I agree with the majority of folks here. I think Pring falls somewhere between a combination of interpretivism and constructivism. He recognizes the inherent relationship between reality and worldview and the flexibility of human understanding. This is important because it humanizes the research experience. Pring recognizes that researchers bring themselves into their work, just as a practitioner working to enact theory or policy brings all of themself. That is to say, both reality and research are constructed through individual interpretation. Although individuals may experience “reality” differently, there are some truths that remain constant regardless of individual experiences or identities. He continues to wrestle with the notion of dualism, which gives way to more nuanced understanding of the intersection of theory and practice. He states that researchers create a false dualism when asking how “…this or that theory relates to practice, as though practice were standing outside of a theoretical framework” (p. 96). I appreciated this particular example because it informs much of the conversation we’ve been having in class, as well as what appears to be the underlying conundrum of educational research. How can we move forward in either theory or practice without considering one in context of the other?
ReplyDeleteMarsha - I found this chapter difficult to read. I almost feel that educational research is being portrayed as so complex that just about any argument can be made against or for it making its value very person specific. What I mean is that, depending on your perspective, theory, or philosophy, you can almost argue against or for any research study and provide valid points either way. I don’t think the argument then is about the quality of the research, but more of your take on it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those that see Pring as an Interpretivist. He seems to buy into multiple realities and that truth with a big T is almost irrelevant. I agree that reality is socially constructed based on many factors that may be personal to the individual. Researchers are tasked with understanding these realities and being able to put them into context based on the participants and as a result, the two come together on an agreed perception of that reality. Again, I think he proves the need for both qualitative AND quantitative research working together to provide new knowledge in terms that is understood by many. I appreciate his attempt to include practice when thinking about theoretical frameworks. He states that "theory is thought of the framework of beliefs and understandings which are embedded in the practice we engage in." He confirms, in my opinion, that there is a place for subjectivity and interpretation in the research process. He also mentions the use of theoretical language which is similar to Becker's argument. That we write to and for other scholars distancing those who need the information the most, practitioners.
I agree with Stephanie that Pring's closing exhortation to "Beware of 'isms'" indicates his belief that there's a place for multiple perspectives in educational research as each can illuminate different facets of reality/truth/etc.; the danger comes from adhering to one at the exclusion of others if that exclusion means an inability to have an open mind about what those other perspectives bring to the table. In other words, we've returned to those dualisms--practitioner vs. scholar, quantitative vs. qualitative--that Pring's been circling around throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteI can see the justification for so Pring being an interpretivist, though I did find the relative opacity of this chapter's language interesting and ironic, reading it as I did immediately after Becker's chapter on the importance of using simple words whenever possible and Pring's own concerns over a main reason for theory's (i.e., ed research) lack of acceptance with public policy makers, practitioners, and the public being the jargon-laced, unnecessarily (IMO) complex language often used by scholars. Scholars in other fields are also, of course, guilty of these same faults, but their research isn't the object of public scrutiny in the same way.
Amy--I agree that Pring’s warning to “Beware of –isms” means that we should be able to consider different perspectives within research, whether it your own study or someone else’s. At points he seems rather non-committal to any particular –ism. But then, in typical Pring style, he makes a statement like “disagreement is not simply about whether a given claim is true or false, but also about whether a particular way of describing reality is an appropriate one or not”. After reading the previous statement and considering Pring’s focus on language (as several others have noted) it was evident that he is coming from an interpretivist stance.
ReplyDeleteIn the statement where Pring warns us to beware of the “isms,” there are two key words that come to mind, “rigid application.” As researchers, we sometimes view the world through the perspective with we most align. In doing so, we conduct research with blinders on and may find it difficult to think outside of our own reality. When we realize that there is more than one perspective and more than one way to view the natural and social worlds, we can get to the truth in research.
ReplyDeletePring's warning about the "isms" is that we need to be able to provide things into simple perspectives. In the midst of trying to sound academic, we often lose some of the power of general discussions about important matters. There are multiple ways to interpret educational research and the best way I believe Pring is trying to say is to appeal to common sense. That is the anchor to be able to connect scholars and others together to be able to make bigger impacts than if people are trying to figure out exactly what others are talking about. By making things simple, more progress can be made throughout multiple environments such as policy making, funding, and other important topics.
ReplyDelete