Advertisement

Revisiting Achilles’ Sadness that No Method Can Be Found

Educational Research: To Whom Should We Talk, for What Purpose and in What Way?
  • Paul SmeyersEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Research book series (EDRE, volume 4)

Abstract

Though qualitative methods are now regarded with more respect than ever before, mainstream educational research is still dominated by the paradigm of ‘real research’. There is still the general suspicion that in one way or another, what is offered by social science research, including qualitative research, cannot adequately satisfy the need for proper knowledge. What looms behind this concern may be captured by the following false assumption: not understanding everything is equated with not understanding anything. What some writers long for is something similar to the law-like explanation and ‘prediction’ of the natural sciences.1 This desire parallels that of philosophers for whom philosophy has to amount to valid reasoning warranted by methods of conceptual analysis (necessary and sufficient conditions) and logical rules of induction and deduction. This desire is also captured in the quest for an overarching metaphysical system.2

Keywords

Educational Research Educational Researcher Instrumental Rationality Educational Science Practical Judgement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Burbules, N., & Abowitz, L. (2008, April). A situated philosophy of education. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Carroll, L. (1977). The complete works of Lewis Carroll. London: Nonesuch Press.Google Scholar
  3. Derrida, J., & Ewald, F. (1995). A certain “madness” must watch over thinking. Educational Theory, 45, 273–291.Google Scholar
  4. Elliott, J. (2006). Educational research as a form of democratic rationality. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kearney, R. (1993). Derrida’s ethical re-turn. In G.B. Madison (Ed.), Working through Derrida (pp. 28–59). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Pels, D. (2003). Unhastening science. Autonomy and reflexivity in the social theory of knowledge. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Smeyers, P. (2009, April). Chains of dependency: On the disenchantment and the illusion of being free at last. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.Google Scholar
  8. Smeyers, P., & Depaepe, M. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond empiricism. On criteria for educational research. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Smeyers, P., & Depaepe, M. (Eds.). (2006). Educational research: Why ‘what works’ doesn’t work. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Smeyers, P., & Depaepe, M. (Eds.). (2007). Educational research: Networks and technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smeyers, P., & Depaepe, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational research: The educationalisation of social problems. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  13. Williams, M. (2001). Problems of knowledge: A critical introduction to epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations