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).
It's a hard to task to determine where Pring fits in "ism-wise". There are times that he seems positivist or post-positivist in some of his stronger assertions. Pring talks about common sense and theory so I think he could be exercising something close to critical realism.
I am by no means an expert but after reading about it, this snippet of critical realism seemed like some of Pring's writing to me " a reflexive philosophical stance concerned with providing a philosophically informed account of science and social science which can in turn inform our empirical investigations."
To me it read as a merging of philosophical with empirical, in some ways qualitative with quantitative as he is always calling for
I do like how Pring talks about common sense. He is the first writer or person that I have seen that mentions common sense as being important or being "enough" in some cases. Because writing in the ivory tower can sometimes be inaccessible to those not in the tower, I think this is an important point.
I think that trying to fit Pring into an "ism" is like trying to put someone in a box, much like the false dualism we talked about previously. Pring doesn't appear to be just in one box. At times he seems post-positivist, at others he seems interpretivist, or constructivist. In counseling, the old movement was to be in one box of theory, but there has been a push to move away from one way of thinking. I think that could be important in thinking about the "isms" as well. I am curious about what other "isms" he might belong to that we have yet to discover and how important it is to use "isms" as a theory to guide our writing. Will an "ism" not appear naturally from writing?
We are so on the same page Nika! They whole time reading, I don't know what to believe. Every time I think I understand his perspective, he pulls something like, "but actually, thats not truth...because we construct it...but we need to strive for answers"...I get so confused!
Maybe its like counseling theories, where you can gravitate toward one, and then make adjustments as the context allows. Maybe that's what he's doing...he's just so advanced in thinking! But for real, I really enjoy your post, gives a lot to think about when it comes to writing and research.
I like the acknowledgement in "realism" that there is a reality that "exists independently of the researcher and which is to be discovered." I think this concept is what fundamentally drives most educational research. Uncovering and understanding reality is what makes finding causal explanations so daunting and difficult in educational research. I also liked that Pring discussed common sense. Common sense often drives some of these aspects of reality that a researcher may be trying to understand.
I also appreciate Pring's warning to be aware of the isms because it is easier than people recognize to be dualistic and not see the underpinnings of what they are trying to understand.
I agree that it is hard to fit Pring in one particular "ism," as he seems to be able to advocate against any and all approaches... However, I think he leans mostly towards a pragmatism perspective. He seems to concern himself towards the practicality of theory in educational research, and what theory might add to the practice. In fact, on page 96 he argues that theory and practice should be intertwined. "Therefore, to think of practice apart from theory (of some sort) is to create another false dualism...Theory here, then, refers to the articulation of the framework of beliefs and understandings which are embedded into the practice we engage in."
Does pessimism count…? I joke (sort of). In agreeance with most of those who have responded, it would seem hypocritical for Pring to adhere to a single -ism, however I wonder if he would mostly subscribe to pragmatism. He adheres to grey answers, a changing truth—much like that of the basis of pragmatism. In Chapter 6, he dotes the importance of the several concepts he describes, yet notes the circumstances where they do not work.
I see him as a pragmatist, social constructivist and interpretivist. On p. 77 he said “ Reality would not exist independent individuals’ personal creation against which they might assess or evaluate their perceptions” Most of the terms he used to express his message identifies or used mostly in quantitative research. His message to me is that these terms as used in research may be manipulated to fit on individuals interest. He also expressed the concern of disconnect between the past and the present research.
I agree with a lot of what my classmates are saying. It sometimes feels Pring's writings leave you caught in some sort of "loop" if you will - it might be this, it might be that; consider this, that cancels out that. I have to wonder if that's the whole point in his reference to avoiding the -isms. Be aware of the different takes on things, the different philosophical contexts for theories and for people in general and use that very, very wide scope in considering how you're going to do your research or possibly how you're going to tackle a particular project. Considering that the next chapter is a breakdown of competing philosophical positions it would stand to reason that's the stage he's setting. Although maybe that's just my take in explaining his behavior (writing) based upon my correspondence of truth, my tenuous grasp of the facts and my slowly developing body of knowledge. In the spirit of full disclosure I'd have to say my knowledge is heavily impacted by lack of discourse with those outside of this course because to attempt to discuss these types of things with a "civilian" is almost a mute point, something most concerning bc I spend my days swimming the seas of educators, for which little of this makes sense. - P.
It's a hard to task to determine where Pring fits in "ism-wise". There are times that he seems positivist or post-positivist in some of his stronger assertions. Pring talks about common sense and theory so I think he could be exercising something close to critical realism.
ReplyDeleteI am by no means an expert but after reading about it, this snippet of critical realism seemed like some of Pring's writing to me " a reflexive philosophical stance concerned with providing a philosophically informed account of science and social science which can in turn inform our empirical investigations."
To me it read as a merging of philosophical with empirical, in some ways qualitative with quantitative as he is always calling for
source- http://www.asatheory.org/current-newsletter-online/what-is-critical-realism
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI do like how Pring talks about common sense. He is the first writer or person that I have seen that mentions common sense as being important or being "enough" in some cases. Because writing in the ivory tower can sometimes be inaccessible to those not in the tower, I think this is an important point.
DeleteI think that trying to fit Pring into an "ism" is like trying to put someone in a box, much like the false dualism we talked about previously. Pring doesn't appear to be just in one box. At times he seems post-positivist, at others he seems interpretivist, or constructivist. In counseling, the old movement was to be in one box of theory, but there has been a push to move away from one way of thinking. I think that could be important in thinking about the "isms" as well. I am curious about what other "isms" he might belong to that we have yet to discover and how important it is to use "isms" as a theory to guide our writing. Will an "ism" not appear naturally from writing?
ReplyDeleteWe are so on the same page Nika! They whole time reading, I don't know what to believe. Every time I think I understand his perspective, he pulls something like, "but actually, thats not truth...because we construct it...but we need to strive for answers"...I get so confused!
DeleteMaybe its like counseling theories, where you can gravitate toward one, and then make adjustments as the context allows. Maybe that's what he's doing...he's just so advanced in thinking! But for real, I really enjoy your post, gives a lot to think about when it comes to writing and research.
I like the acknowledgement in "realism" that there is a reality that "exists independently of the researcher and which is to be discovered." I think this concept is what fundamentally drives most educational research. Uncovering and understanding reality is what makes finding causal explanations so daunting and difficult in educational research. I also liked that Pring discussed common sense. Common sense often drives some of these aspects of reality that a researcher may be trying to understand.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate Pring's warning to be aware of the isms because it is easier than people recognize to be dualistic and not see the underpinnings of what they are trying to understand.
I agree that it is hard to fit Pring in one particular "ism," as he seems to be able to advocate against any and all approaches... However, I think he leans mostly towards a pragmatism perspective. He seems to concern himself towards the practicality of theory in educational research, and what theory might add to the practice. In fact, on page 96 he argues that theory and practice should be intertwined. "Therefore, to think of practice apart from theory (of some sort) is to create another false dualism...Theory here, then, refers to the articulation of the framework of beliefs and understandings which are embedded into the practice we engage in."
ReplyDeleteDoes pessimism count…? I joke (sort of).
ReplyDeleteIn agreeance with most of those who have responded, it would seem hypocritical for Pring to adhere to a single -ism, however I wonder if he would mostly subscribe to pragmatism. He adheres to grey answers, a changing truth—much like that of the basis of pragmatism. In Chapter 6, he dotes the importance of the several concepts he describes, yet notes the circumstances where they do not work.
I see him as a pragmatist, social constructivist and interpretivist. On p. 77 he said “ Reality would not exist independent individuals’ personal creation against which they might assess or evaluate their perceptions” Most of the terms he used to express his message identifies or used mostly in quantitative research. His message to me is that these terms as used in research may be manipulated to fit on individuals interest.
ReplyDeleteHe also expressed the concern of disconnect between the past and the present research.
I agree with a lot of what my classmates are saying. It sometimes feels Pring's writings leave you caught in some sort of "loop" if you will - it might be this, it might be that; consider this, that cancels out that. I have to wonder if that's the whole point in his reference to avoiding the -isms. Be aware of the different takes on things, the different philosophical contexts for theories and for people in general and use that very, very wide scope in considering how you're going to do your research or possibly how you're going to tackle a particular project. Considering that the next chapter is a breakdown of competing philosophical positions it would stand to reason that's the stage he's setting. Although maybe that's just my take in explaining his behavior (writing) based upon my correspondence of truth, my tenuous grasp of the facts and my slowly developing body of knowledge. In the spirit of full disclosure I'd have to say my knowledge is heavily impacted by lack of discourse with those outside of this course because to attempt to discuss these types of things with a "civilian" is almost a mute point, something most concerning bc I spend my days swimming the seas of educators, for which little of this makes sense. - P.
ReplyDelete