Kuhnian science and education research: Analytics of practice and training

Abstract

In the US context, the notion of 'what works' has an especially strong cogency. This has evolved out of a pragmatist culture, one in which 'Yankee know-how,' admiration for research and development, and perhaps efficiency above all are elements. 'What works' is the norm; more so specific practices become normalized and taken for granted. Related to this general context, 'what works' has assumed a particular ideological place in a 'reform era' in education now of over twenty years duration. Ideological differences in the US point specifically to whether and what it means for 'it to work' in education. About this there continues much controversy. Related to this controversy is what educational research has to offer about what is working and what is not working in education, particularly in schools (Eisenhart & Towne, 2003). Given normalization, that is something 'working' that is taken for granted, change is difficult. The general purpose of the present volume is to consider what works and does not in the international arena of educational research through approaches from philosophy and history. Considered through philosophical explication, a specific context situates this chapter, that of graduate study of education researchers in the United States. It is tied to the author's long experience in teaching a core course for beginning PhDs in philosophy of science, social science, history, and language in which the aim is to question normalized beliefs and practices of research. The initiating premise of this chapter, informed by the late American philosopher and historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, is that new generations of researchers early on learn what is 'normal.' Learning standard practices can be both beneficial and limiting to research. Benefit comes from carefully working through present problems; limitation comes from not acquiring tools to envision different ones and all that envisioning and working through implies.