class 8: 11/04/13 history & philosophy

class 8: 11/04/13history & philosophy

research• “It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay

with problems longer.” (Albert Einstein)• “His butt is made of the stuff

mathematicians’ butts are made of.” (my father describing my brother, who became a mathematician)

• When curiosity turns to serious matters, it's called research. (Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach)

all researchers must attend to • theory

– from description to explanation• endogeneity

– values explanatory (independent) variables take on may be consequence, rather than cause of dependent variable

• unit of analysis– level and target of observation

• dominant metaphors of field

improving data quality• record & report how data generated• data on as many observable implications as

possible• maximize validity of descriptions (describe

what you intend to describe)• reliable data generation methods (same

procedure, same way, same results)• data and analyses should be replicablemaximizing leverage: explain as much as

possible with as little as possible

historical & philosophical

research

Kaestle: recent developments . . .• history both science and art• generalization remains an act of creative

interpretation involving the historian’s values, interests, and training

• no single, definable method of inquiry

assumptions underlying traditional framework (in U.S.?)

• history of education concerned almost exclusively with the history of public school systems

• state regulated, free, tax supported, universal schooling a good thing

traditional framework (corollaries)1. education = schooling

– enlightenment of earlier societies equated with how much formal schooling

– importance of family, workplace, churches etc. underestimated

2. those in favor of public schooling enlightened leaders; people opposed to school reform ignorant etc (value preference)

3. growth = progress4. focus on leadership and organization rather

than educational behavior and attitudes of ordinary people

• great majority of books and dissertations written before 1950 based on this paradigm—progressive and beneficial evolution of public schools

two strands of revision1. broadened focus of education history looking

at agencies of instruction other than schools (e.g., Bailyn, Cremin)– societies educate in many ways, but the

state educates through schools2. emphasis on the exploitative nature of

capitalism and how schools relate to it and on the culturally abusive nature of mainstream values asserted by schools

quantitative methods• reaction to naïve use of numerical data and a

focus on the leaders rather than the clients• made possible by computer programs and

availability of microfilmed sources• virtue: puts reader in touch with realities of

schools in the past

quantitative methods: challenges• statistics and computers alien to many

historians• historians slow to pick up appropriate

techniques• data crude and incomplete• small samples, often leading to questionable

aggregation• data biased, defined differently in different

periods

theory and history• explanations come not only from evidence,

but from theory• most historians use theory incidentally and

selectively• historians should be aware of major theories

in related disciplines and their possible relevance for historical methodology

methodological concerns• confusion of correlations and causes• defining key terms

– vagueness, e.g., industrialization, reform– presentism: assuming terms had

present-day meanings in the past, e.g., public

• distinguishing between how people should act and how in fact they did act

• distinguishing intent and consequences

• historians have always been scavengers, raiding other disciplines for new techniques and insights.

• no single methodology—complex and all-encompassing

• educational historians have moved out—history of family, childhood, reform institutions etc.

• the reader of educational history need be critically alert and independent

Michael Scriven: Philosophical Inquiry Methods in Education

• educators concerned with imparting knowledge; philosophers with the concept of knowledge itself

• the philosopher analyzes many of the complex concepts that educational researchers study

• educational researchers need to have in their repertoire well developed skills in conceptual analysis

• “the same factors that lead to the preparation of conceptually incompetent researchers explain the rash tendency of researchers to rush into building a lifetime of research on a foundation of conceptual sand” (p. 136).

• two false doctrines:– correct way to define terms is so-called

“operational definitions”– definitional irresponsibility

• see discussion of IQ tests on page 141– “For the only issue is whether fewer

children are penalized when the IQ test is used than when it is not used.” (p. 141)

• “most conceptual analysis in educational research has to be done by analyzing and not by replacing the complex concepts” (p. 144)– method of examples and contrasts– analogies and evocative language– making most plausible generalizations—

seeing loopholes and counter-examples in those generalizations

from the I-Book (things to do before graduating)

• visit Allerton State Park• nap in the South Lounge of the Union• play frisbee on the quad• eat lunch in the Union Ballroom• have a snowball fight on the quad• tour the Altgeld Bell Tower• tea ceremony at Japan House• rub Lincoln’s nose in Lincoln Hall (good luck for an

exam)• go rock climbing at the ARC• go to Ebertfest

terms from Vogt• systematic sample• theory• time series• trait• triangulation• validity• weighted average• X and Y axes

Sieber & Tolich: 9: Strategies for assuring confidentiality

• anonymity: researcher does not know who the subjects are—no identifying records

• privacy: subjects’ control of others’ access to them

• confidentiality: agreement about what can be done with data

confidentiality challenges• Nathan, Rebekah (2005). What a professor

learned by becoming a student. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

• An anthro professor at a state university poses as a freshman and lives in a student dormitory for two semesters hoping to learn about the behaviors and attitudes of today’s college students.

• Jacob Gershman, a journalist, got an advanced copy (a month before publication). Wrote article in New York Sun, “On the Trail of an Undercover Professor,” which “outed” Cathy A. Small as the undercover professor and “AnyU” as Northern Arizona University (NAU).

• Using Google, “Whole exercise took me about 5 minutes—so much for anonymity. Must mention that the dead giveaways—mountains, Las Vegas, hotel management school—were deleted in the final version of the book.”

• examples on 157-158• Ellis’ study of Fisher folk

– “the book had made them look stupid.”– “my strategy of inventing pseudonyms starting

with the same letters . . . having other similarities in sound . . . . making it convenient for Fishneckers to figure out the characters.

• temporarily identified responses• separately identified responses• aliases• exact matching and statistical matching• coin flip

• Certificate of Confidentiality

• researchers do not have testimonial privilege, as priests, doctors, lawyers

• Certificate of Confidentiality– http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coc/

• confidentiality and consent: see examples on pp. 165-166

• data sharing

Becker ch 4: editing by ear• heuristic rules, i.e., general “rules of thumb”

about writing• knowledgeable people in an area know what

“works” or “swings” etc– find good writers and listen to what they

say (Koko Taylor/Willie Dixon story)

• read outside you field, to avoid developing a stilted “academic” ear; read good writers—a few suggestions– Atlantic – New Yorker– John McPhee– Tony Hillerman– John Kass (Chicago Tribune)– Loren Tate, Marcus Jackson (News-Gazette)

read carefully pp. 72-79 to get sense of the process of careful, detailed editing.

. . . having rewritten a sentence, I then rewrite it again, and even a third or fourth time. Why don’t I get it right the first time? I say [to students], and try to show them, that each change opens the way to other changes, that when you clear away nonworking words and phrases, you can see more easily what the sentence is about and can phrase it more succinctly and accurately. ( p. 78).

some hints from Becker• “unnecessary word does no work [but] I

seldom take unnecessary words out of early drafts” (81)

• use the concrete—as opposed to the abstract—whenever possible

• use metaphors only if they are still alive; avoid old tired metaphors. “Reading [a living metaphor] shows you a new aspect of what you are reading about . . .” (p. 86).

Writers need to pay close attention to what they have written as they revise, looking at every word as if they meant it to be taken seriously. You can write first drafts quickly and carelessly exactly because you know you will be critical later. When you pay close attention the problems start taking care of themselves. (p. 89)

semicolon (;)• 2 independent clauses. no conjunction

– Group A did well; group B did not.• elements in a series that already contain

commas– The groups were Kevin, Yonghee, and

Marcella; Fred, Taro, and Chryso; . . .• to separate citations (Bruner, 1996; Cole,

1996; Shweder et al., 1998)• in American English, research not countable—

thus much research, or many research studies not many researches.

Lit Review • working draft in final form (that will continue past

december 13).– follow format exactly– use the manual (APA or Chicago)– compare against examples in APA, p. 41 ff

• sections, subsections, or parts thereof can be “under construction”

• notes to self in square brackets• construct framework and fill in the parts—get words on

paper

format (A)• introduction (2-3 pp) (no headings)

– questions: “This review explores the research on . . . .”

– why interested (background)– search parameters (how you searched)– organization of review section

• review section (18-25 pp) – 3-5 sections, level 1 heading– with subsections if useful (levels 2 & 3 headings)– end each section with a discussion (level-2

heading)

• discussion (2 pp) (level-1 heading)– synthesize the review (discussion of

discussions)• conclusion ( 1-2 p) (level-1 heading)

– return to original question(s)– limitations of review– implications for future research

• personal reflection (1 p) (level-1 heading)– what you learned in the process of doing the

lit review about becoming a researcher, etc.

• References (new page) (no bold, not a heading)– make sure all citations in references– make sure all references cited

• Additional references (no bold, not a heading)– references not cited that you may use in

later drafts

lit review & extended outline reqs by grade choice

• A: 20-30+ pages, 20-30 references• A-: 15-25+ pages, 15-25 references• B+: 7-10+ pages, 10-15 references• B: 7-10+ pages, 8-12 references

this week free and cheapT: The Great Gatsby. 7pm. Virginia Theatre. C. $4F: The Great Gatsby. 7pm. Virginia Theatre. C. $4under construction