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).
Allison on "beware the -isms...". In trying to make sense of this complex chapter in Pring (2015), I think Pring refers to the "isms"rigid application. Pring's (2015) argument is, the law like statements and generalizations of science under highly standardized conditions do not always prevail in the real world (p. 82). Further, there are too many causal factors in education for this type of research to be effective. Pring (2015) instead suggests "robust realism" (p. 108). Robust realism describes theory implicit in practice by using common sense language descriptors relevant to the practitioner and policy maker-research which makes sense of educational practice.
Grab Bag: Per our class discussion on "Grit", the Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu) offers a critique of Duckworth's book, "Grit the power of passion and perseverance"(2016). The article critique is entitled "More on soft skills: Time to Flit the grit" (Whitehurst, 2016).
When I first thought about this question, my immediate answer was that Pring is a post-structuralist. He seems to be critiquing all philosophical views and even the idea of having philosophical views. However, I also think Pring is an interpretivist. He talks a lot about context dependent realities and believes that each individual has his or her own version of reality. Language seems to be one of Pring’s favorite topics, and the language an individual uses (and how word meanings are understood) is very important to interpretivists.
After reading the previous chapters in the book, I was surprised to see early on in the chapter Pring (and I may be completely misunderstanding his meaning) stating that one's description of reality must "come up against the hard facts of reality". To then discuss objectivity in this chapter, he must hold this view a reality and facts, because objectivity exists only if there is reality which is separate from "descriptions of reality". But after our discussions in class and the readings I am hesitant to say anything with absolute certainty, as Pring later states there are always exceptions. To "beware of the -isms" includes recognizing that there are exceptions and much of what we "know" is context dependent, he talks about the facts not holding up in the real world. Pring discusses how even facts are dependent on the context, something may be a fact in one instance but maybe not in another, much of this chapter always comes back to context in a way that is highly relevant to the individualized nature of education research.
I totally agree with Sam, I think Pring is an Interpretivist. While he is questioning the "isms", he continually brings up the idea that knowledge is socially constructed and language plays a huge role in that construction.
This is seen at least a couple times in the chapter with these quotes: - "'Reality remains the same. It is the description of that reality which has changed..."(p. 79) - "The position espoused here might be roughly described as one of robust realism, firmly rooted in the common-sense language through which we have come to describe the natural and social worlds we inhabit, and respecting therefore the logically different kinds of explanation which are embedded in that language." (p. 108)
While we can argue which "ism" Pring falls under, one thing is for sure, based on his discussion, he is definitely NOT a behaviorist!
Veronica Shuford - In EDUS 702 with Dr. Philipsen, we discussed how the work of educational researchers could encompass multiple philosophical perspectives. I somewhat agree with Samantha and Brittany’s statement in that Pring is an interpretivist. However, I think that Pring seems to have taken a post-structuralist and an interpretivist perspective in Chapter 6 of Philosophy of Educational Research. On page 77, Pring states that reality is socially constructed, and there are multiple realities. Research is often focused on people’s perceptions of reality where everyone’s perception of reality is equally good the other. On Page 79, Pring states that reality is conceptualized in many ways by different cultures. Pring addresses the use of language in the construction of reality beginning on page 100. Pring‘s caution of the “isms” reminds us that reality, objectivity, causal explanation, explanations of human behavior, truth, fact, theory, and knowledge are contextual.
To be on the bandwagon I would also agree with interpretivist, given the discussion regarding socially constructed reality. He could encompass constructivist, and post-structuralism. Both work with the small "t" truth. Pring does not seem to touch upon critical theory or positivism at all, as he does not aim for the big T. However I hesitate to label his work any one particular lens...I think we may need to read more to see if the lens holds true for the duration of the book, and not just one chapter.
Within the first few pages of the chapter, I thought pretty clearly that Pring's views on reality, truth, and knowledge matches that of a constructivist. Pring is very concerned with defining those key concepts based on social contexts. He continuously references how complex social worlds are and that many times, we make assumptions about what we know to be true based on the social world we belong to. Based on the other responses to this question, it appears that Pring could hold many perspectives.
Fatemah- I agree with Tiesha. That Pring's is constructivist. In page 77, he claims that reality is socially constructed and has multiple visions, he said “ reality ‘socially constructed’ and there are as many realities or ‘multiple realities’ as there are social constructions.” And that goes through all the chapter when he explains knowledge, truth, etc. For example, he thinks that truth has different conditions where these conditions can make a statement true or false. Therefore, I believe that Pring is constructivist
Sorry for the late post! I agree with most of my classmates. With his statements in Ch. 6 regarding reality being socially constructed and the statements around language, I would also say Pring fell under interpretivism. I could also see where Tiesha and Fatema see the constructivism coming through as well. I am interested to see how his views emerge throughout the book to possibly be able to clearly identify it more. I can say one thing... he definitely does NOT have the belief that knowledge holds a "big T truth".
Pring might be a constructivist or a post-modernist. His arguments break down each concept to parts, and once they are broken down, they seem to hold no water. But, that does not mean his arguments are not pragmatic. They seem to be geared towards a goal of improving educational research.
Allison on "beware the -isms...". In trying to make sense of this complex chapter in Pring (2015), I think Pring refers to the "isms"rigid application. Pring's (2015) argument is, the law like statements and generalizations of science under highly standardized conditions do not always prevail in the real world (p. 82). Further, there are too many causal factors in education for this type of research to be effective. Pring (2015) instead suggests "robust realism" (p. 108). Robust realism describes theory implicit in practice by using common sense language descriptors relevant to the practitioner and policy maker-research which makes sense of educational practice.
ReplyDeleteGrab Bag: Per our class discussion on "Grit", the Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu) offers a critique of Duckworth's book, "Grit the power of passion and perseverance"(2016). The article critique is entitled "More on soft skills: Time to Flit the grit" (Whitehurst, 2016).
When I first thought about this question, my immediate answer was that Pring is a post-structuralist. He seems to be critiquing all philosophical views and even the idea of having philosophical views. However, I also think Pring is an interpretivist. He talks a lot about context dependent realities and believes that each individual has his or her own version of reality. Language seems to be one of Pring’s favorite topics, and the language an individual uses (and how word meanings are understood) is very important to interpretivists.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the previous chapters in the book, I was surprised to see early on in the chapter Pring (and I may be completely misunderstanding his meaning) stating that one's description of reality must "come up against the hard facts of reality". To then discuss objectivity in this chapter, he must hold this view a reality and facts, because objectivity exists only if there is reality which is separate from "descriptions of reality". But after our discussions in class and the readings I am hesitant to say anything with absolute certainty, as Pring later states there are always exceptions. To "beware of the -isms" includes recognizing that there are exceptions and much of what we "know" is context dependent, he talks about the facts not holding up in the real world. Pring discusses how even facts are dependent on the context, something may be a fact in one instance but maybe not in another, much of this chapter always comes back to context in a way that is highly relevant to the individualized nature of education research.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Sam, I think Pring is an Interpretivist. While he is questioning the "isms", he continually brings up the idea that knowledge is socially constructed and language plays a huge role in that construction.
ReplyDeleteThis is seen at least a couple times in the chapter with these quotes:
- "'Reality remains the same. It is the description of that reality which has changed..."(p. 79)
- "The position espoused here might be roughly described as one of robust realism, firmly rooted in the common-sense language through which we have come to describe the natural and social worlds we inhabit, and respecting therefore the logically different kinds of explanation which are embedded in that language." (p. 108)
While we can argue which "ism" Pring falls under, one thing is for sure, based on his discussion, he is definitely NOT a behaviorist!
Veronica Shuford - In EDUS 702 with Dr. Philipsen, we discussed how the work of educational researchers could encompass multiple philosophical perspectives. I somewhat agree with Samantha and Brittany’s statement in that Pring is an interpretivist. However, I think that Pring seems to have taken a post-structuralist and an interpretivist perspective in Chapter 6 of Philosophy of Educational Research. On page 77, Pring states that reality is socially constructed, and there are multiple realities. Research is often focused on people’s perceptions of reality where everyone’s perception of reality is equally good the other. On Page 79, Pring states that reality is conceptualized in many ways by different cultures. Pring addresses the use of language in the construction of reality beginning on page 100. Pring‘s caution of the “isms” reminds us that reality, objectivity, causal explanation, explanations of human behavior, truth, fact, theory, and knowledge are contextual.
ReplyDeleteTo be on the bandwagon I would also agree with interpretivist, given the discussion regarding socially constructed reality. He could encompass constructivist, and post-structuralism. Both work with the small "t" truth. Pring does not seem to touch upon critical theory or positivism at all, as he does not aim for the big T. However I hesitate to label his work any one particular lens...I think we may need to read more to see if the lens holds true for the duration of the book, and not just one chapter.
ReplyDeleteWithin the first few pages of the chapter, I thought pretty clearly that Pring's views on reality, truth, and knowledge matches that of a constructivist. Pring is very concerned with defining those key concepts based on social contexts. He continuously references how complex social worlds are and that many times, we make assumptions about what we know to be true based on the social world we belong to. Based on the other responses to this question, it appears that Pring could hold many perspectives.
ReplyDeleteFatemah- I agree with Tiesha. That Pring's is constructivist. In page 77, he claims that reality is socially constructed and has multiple visions, he said “ reality ‘socially constructed’ and there are as many realities or ‘multiple realities’ as there are social constructions.”
ReplyDeleteAnd that goes through all the chapter when he explains knowledge, truth, etc. For example, he thinks that truth has different conditions where these conditions can make a statement true or false. Therefore, I believe that Pring is constructivist
Sorry for the late post!
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of my classmates. With his statements in Ch. 6 regarding reality being socially constructed and the statements around language, I would also say Pring fell under interpretivism. I could also see where Tiesha and Fatema see the constructivism coming through as well. I am interested to see how his views emerge throughout the book to possibly be able to clearly identify it more. I can say one thing... he definitely does NOT have the belief that knowledge holds a "big T truth".
Pring might be a constructivist or a post-modernist. His arguments break down each concept to parts, and once they are broken down, they seem to hold no water. But, that does not mean his arguments are not pragmatic. They seem to be geared towards a goal of improving educational research.
ReplyDelete