To be or not to be

To be or not to be? That is a simple enough question unless you don’t yet know what to be. As I have read countless descriptive articles on epistemological stances to research, I have found myself wavering between viewpoints as I saw validity in many of the various paradigmatic approaches to research. At first I thought myself a Marxist Objectivist, but I found that viewpoint to be a little too stringent and restrictive to my viewpoint. I felt sure that the positivist approach to research was most definitely too restrictive, although I do see the value in quantitative research as a whole. As I read beyond some of the selections we were given I began to see myself aligned closer to the constructivism/critical theory standpoint to research, social sciences and education. I see myself as a critical constructivist.
A constructivist viewpoint of reality is that it is not discovered, but constructed by humans as they engage with their world. We don’t create meaning, but instead we construct meaning. In many ways it brings together both the objectivist as well as the subjectivist paradigms. Through the constructivist lens the human experience and prior experiences have a direct impact on the object or experience being observed. Since our prior experiences impact how we view an object, there may be varying interpretations of the same object. What we see as a home in our culture varies greatly from an nomadic tribe’s viewpoint, which also greatly differs from that of an aristocratic family. Each culture has given meaning to the term based on our interaction with the object, but they are not the same meaning.
One major reason that I originally aligned myself with the objectivism/critical theory, also referred to as radical structuralism, approach was its focus on using data to challenge the status quo. In education I have been a proponent of moving from subjective data to more quantifiable data to improve instruction. When No Child Left Behind became ratified it completely changed how and what we do to instruct our students. No longer was growth left to chance, but instead it is now measured and used to improve instructional strategies based upon research based best practices. Using this approach I have been a part of two dramatic reformations in the past 5 years where low performing schools and districts have used data to quantify what is successful with equipping students to be successful in the 21st Century and what is not. Dramatic improvement came about in both situations when this data was analyzed and improvement processes were developed based upon the gaps that truly existed.
Let me now step back down from the soapbox. The experiences that I previously described have had profound influence on what I see as challenging the status quo. I do however see that a strictly objectivist approach looks only at the data in isolation and doesn’t take in to account the outside factors that influence. Data must be looked at as part of the bigger picture including historical perspective of what has brought a school to this point. Using data in a vacuum to describe a successful school for example can be very deceiving. I’ll give you a prime example.
A school that has an 85% proficiency rate on the state End of Grade test in and of itself means nothing. If that school was previously operating at a 65% passing rate then it would seem that it had made tremendous gains and had made successful changes. If however that school obtained proficiency rates of 95% or higher the previous 3 years and now had a 85% passing rate, then there exists issues that would need to be analyzed. Each of these changes in and of themselves viewed in isolation tells little of the story. Maybe district lines were redrawn, or a local industry could have opened or closed that changed the demographics. The school leadership could have changed.
A critical theory approach looks to challenge the status quo and open people’s minds to the possibilities that exist by empowering them with knowledge to a better world. It can be idealistic in its extreme version. This viewpoint looks for potential and possibilities instead of the traditions of status quo. Critical theory looks to raise people’s awareness past illusions and traditions that may hinder growth. It also looks raise their level of consciousness so that they can be equipped with the tools to make positive changes. It builds on collective knowledge and focuses on radical transformation.
All of this said, as of today I choose to be a critical constructivist. This approach to research is aligned with what I see as my personal epistemological viewpoint. I reserve the right to change this stance as my own level of awareness is broadened by my readings, philosophical discussions with my classmates and the high level of instruction I shall receive in the coming weeks.