Disciplining thought: Between ideology and anything goes

Abstract

Educational research is subject to orthodoxies of old and novel kinds. The ‘foundations’ approach risks becoming stuck in footnotes to received ideas, while new-fangled disciplines seek to legitimate themselves in jargon and deference to new ‘authorities’. The critical deficit in both tendencies obstructs responsible enquiry. I begin by sketching the weaknesses and the potential of the foundations approach and go on to identify a range of threats to this potential. The first and major concern is the rise of empiricism, understood as the view that it is only through empirical enquiry that research into education can take place. A second concern is the dominance of English in educational research, in relation not only to the inevitable unfairness this brings in opportunities for publication but also to the substance of thought and enquiry. Exploration of the key terms in David Bridges’ ‘“Rigour”, “discipline” and the “systematic” in educational research’: and why they matter’ (this issue) frames the discussion, raising questions of inter- and multi-disciplinarity. There is an internal relation between discipline, rigour and coherence, and these, though not systematicity, are requirements of argument. The notion of disciplined thought is prised apart from distorted conceptions of rigour and over-reliance on procedure.

An outline of a theory of practice methodologies

“…From our perspective, these nonempirical engagements are equally important for understanding human practice. Philosophical accounts of practice can explore axiological issues that cannot be answered through empirical research alone (Standish 2019). Among authors in the collection who do engage with the empirical, some make explicit critiques of 'close up' methods and data as they are conventionally utilised, and call for more experimental approaches that try out alternative methods for apprehending and engaging with practice.…”

Curiosity and Acquaintance: Ways of Knowing

“…I say 'empiricist' not in order to criticise the vast range of empirical work that takes place, much of which is of quality and value. My objection is rather to a prevailing assumption that it is only by gathering empirical evidence that research into education can take place, a belief I have argued to be obviously false and ideological (Standish, 2016(Standish, , 2019b). 14 Research methods courses often impart that assumption, whether deliberately or inadvertently; and this tendency itself, in putting the emphasis on technical approaches and protocols, further hides from view the knowledge by acquaintance I have been describing, as well as so much else (see Stone, 2006;Hodgson and Standish, 2008).…”

Curiosity and Acquaintance: Ways of Knowing

“…I say 'empiricist' not in order to criticise the vast range of empirical work that takes place, much of which is of quality and value. My objection is rather to a prevailing assumption that it is only by gathering empirical evidence that research into education can be take place, a belief I have argued to be obviously false and ideological (Standish, 2016(Standish, , 2019b. Research methods courses often impart this assumption, whether deliberately or inadvertently; and this tendency itself, in putting the emphasis on technical approaches and and protocols, further hides from view the knowledge by acquaintance I have been describing, as well as so much else (see Stone, 2006;Hodgson and Standish, 2008).…”