Action 1.3 A Contrasting View of Educational Research
Wednesday, 22 Oct 2014, 12:04
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Nathan Lomax, Friday, 21 Nov 2014, 00:33
Ball’s ‘stream of consciousness’ style of writing is quite hard to penetrate, but here is my attempt to answer the prompts:
1. How does Ball’s account differ from that of Bassey, and how it is similar?
Bassey argues that educational research should be treated with more respect. He says that it should stop drawing on the methodologies of other social sciences and ‘stand on its own ground’ (p.145). Ball seems to be more pessimistic about the fragmentation of educational research and argues that it is self-destructive. He criticises the use of ‘policy science’ e.g. management theory, to measure school effectiveness. This fits with Bassey (1995, p.144)’s despair at the idea that government quangos should decide which issues should be researched.
Both authors mention criticism of past theory as healthy for research. Ball (p.162) cites Faucalt (1977)
‘If (historical consciousness) examines itself and if, more generally, it interrogates the various forms of scientific consciousness in its history it finds that all these forms and transformations are aspects of the will to knowledge: instinct, passion, the inquisitor’s devotion, cruel subtlety and malice.’
This ties in with Bassey (p. 143)’s argument that examination of ancient texts stimulates thought on philosophical issues.
2. Is the dichotomy seen by Ball the same as Bassey’s?
Having read the course notes, I want to try to understand what is meant by Ball’s dichotomy (as described by Fay, 1975) between ‘policy science’ and ‘policy scholarship’. If policy science refers to choosing the best procedure for the implementation of technical goals, could an example of this be rating teacher performance according to pupils’ exam grades? If so, does policy scholarship pay more attention to the study of ‘fleeting qualities of the lived experience’ (p. 110) such as social context, class and gender? I wasn’t sure about this.
Note carefully the characteristics of ‘policy science’ (p. 109). (You might want to record these in your learning journal.) When you are introduced to the positivist paradigm in Part 2 you might want to return to your notes on Ball’s description and his words such as ‘technicist’ and ‘efficient’ to see how they fit
Policy science vs policy scholarship:
‘Policy science is a set of procedures which enables one to determine the technically best course of action to adopt in order to implement a decision or achieve a goal.’ ‘Policy scientists do not merely clarify the possible outcomes of certain courses of action, they usually choose e most efficient course of action in terms of the available scientific information.’ The purview of the policy scientist is limited to, and by, the agenda of social and political problems defined elsewhere and by solutions already embedded in scientific practice.' Brian Fay (1975)
What are the implications of the dichotomy that Ball sees?
If policy science means reducing research to league tables, this would obviously mean inequality due to the lack of attention to social context.
‘The idea that human sciences like educational studies stand outside or above the political agenda of the management of the population, or somehow have a neutral status embodied in a free-floating progressive rationalism, are dangerous and debilitating conceits.’ (Ball, p.113)
It is difficult to disagree with Ball’s point about the dangers of blaming schools for student performance (p.111), but in the section that suggests ‘policy entrepreneurship’ as an alternative, it is difficult to discern exactly what this means. Does this ‘post structural, post epistemological’ alternative mean small scale research projects? What exactly does he mean by ‘thinking otherwise’ (p.116)? I am not sure about this.
Are they the same as the implications from Bassey’s dichotomy?
Both authors stress the importance of theory, but both seem to advocate the need to disrupt established theory. Ball suggests working ‘on and against prevailing practices of ideological subjection’ (p.117). This seems a more radical approach than Bassey’s suggestion that elements of constructivism, motivation and social dynamics theory should influence the personal theories of individual practitioners.
I found all this quite hard to decipher and I am not sure if I am any the wiser!
References
Ball, S. (1995) ‘Intellectuals or Technicians: the urgent role of theory in educational studies’, British Journal of Educational Studies, Blackwell Publishing.
Bassey, M (1995) Creating Education through Research: a global perspective of educational research for the 21st Century (Newark: Kirklington Moor Press)
Foucalt, M (1991) Questions of Method. The Foucalt Effect: Studies in Governmentality. (Brighton, Harvester, Wheatsheaf) Cited in Ball (1995)
Fay, B (1975) Social Theory in Political Practice (Hammondsworth, Penguin). Cited in Ball (1995)
Action 1.3 A Contrasting View of Educational Research
Ball’s ‘stream of consciousness’ style of writing is quite hard to penetrate, but here is my attempt to answer the prompts:
1. How does Ball’s account differ from that of Bassey, and how it is similar?
Bassey argues that educational research should be treated with more respect. He says that it should stop drawing on the methodologies of other social sciences and ‘stand on its own ground’ (p.145). Ball seems to be more pessimistic about the fragmentation of educational research and argues that it is self-destructive. He criticises the use of ‘policy science’ e.g. management theory, to measure school effectiveness. This fits with Bassey (1995, p.144)’s despair at the idea that government quangos should decide which issues should be researched.
Both authors mention criticism of past theory as healthy for research. Ball (p.162) cites Faucalt (1977)
‘If (historical consciousness) examines itself and if, more generally, it interrogates the various forms of scientific consciousness in its history it finds that all these forms and transformations are aspects of the will to knowledge: instinct, passion, the inquisitor’s devotion, cruel subtlety and malice.’
This ties in with Bassey (p. 143)’s argument that examination of ancient texts stimulates thought on philosophical issues.
2. Is the dichotomy seen by Ball the same as Bassey’s?
Having read the course notes, I want to try to understand what is meant by Ball’s dichotomy (as described by Fay, 1975) between ‘policy science’ and ‘policy scholarship’. If policy science refers to choosing the best procedure for the implementation of technical goals, could an example of this be rating teacher performance according to pupils’ exam grades? If so, does policy scholarship pay more attention to the study of ‘fleeting qualities of the lived experience’ (p. 110) such as social context, class and gender? I wasn’t sure about this.
Note carefully the characteristics of ‘policy science’ (p. 109). (You might want to record these in your learning journal.) When you are introduced to the positivist paradigm in Part 2 you might want to return to your notes on Ball’s description and his words such as ‘technicist’ and ‘efficient’ to see how they fit
Policy science vs policy scholarship:
‘Policy science is a set of procedures which enables one to determine the technically best course of action to adopt in order to implement a decision or achieve a goal.’ ‘Policy scientists do not merely clarify the possible outcomes of certain courses of action, they usually choose e most efficient course of action in terms of the available scientific information.’ The purview of the policy scientist is limited to, and by, the agenda of social and political problems defined elsewhere and by solutions already embedded in scientific practice.' Brian Fay (1975)
What are the implications of the dichotomy that Ball sees?
If policy science means reducing research to league tables, this would obviously mean inequality due to the lack of attention to social context.
‘The idea that human sciences like educational studies stand outside or above the political agenda of the management of the population, or somehow have a neutral status embodied in a free-floating progressive rationalism, are dangerous and debilitating conceits.’ (Ball, p.113)
It is difficult to disagree with Ball’s point about the dangers of blaming schools for student performance (p.111), but in the section that suggests ‘policy entrepreneurship’ as an alternative, it is difficult to discern exactly what this means. Does this ‘post structural, post epistemological’ alternative mean small scale research projects? What exactly does he mean by ‘thinking otherwise’ (p.116)? I am not sure about this.
Are they the same as the implications from Bassey’s dichotomy?
Both authors stress the importance of theory, but both seem to advocate the need to disrupt established theory. Ball suggests working ‘on and against prevailing practices of ideological subjection’ (p.117). This seems a more radical approach than Bassey’s suggestion that elements of constructivism, motivation and social dynamics theory should influence the personal theories of individual practitioners.
I found all this quite hard to decipher and I am not sure if I am any the wiser!
References
Ball, S. (1995) ‘Intellectuals or Technicians: the urgent role of theory in educational studies’, British Journal of Educational Studies, Blackwell Publishing.
Bassey, M (1995) Creating Education through Research: a global perspective of educational research for the 21st Century (Newark: Kirklington Moor Press)
Foucalt, M (1991) Questions of Method. The Foucalt Effect: Studies in Governmentality. (Brighton, Harvester, Wheatsheaf) Cited in Ball (1995)
Fay, B (1975) Social Theory in Political Practice (Hammondsworth, Penguin). Cited in Ball (1995)