Transcript Ch 22: Historical Research

class 8: 11/04/13
history & 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 replicable
maximizing 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 = progress
4. 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 revision
1. 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 schools
2. 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 allencompassing
• 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 cheap
T: The Great Gatsby. 7pm. Virginia Theatre. C. $4
F: The Great Gatsby. 7pm. Virginia Theatre. C. $4
under construction