The Seven Deadly Sins: Vices and Virtues of CPR

  • Tricia M. Kress
Part of the Explorations of Educational Purpose book series (EXEP, volume 19)


Using the motif of Christianity’s Seven Deadly Sins, this chapter addresses likely critiques of Critical Praxis Research. As such, the chapter troubles the arrogance of the CPResearcher, the envy of the research endeavor, the indulgence of involving ourselves in the lived experiences of others, the assumption that CPR is a slothful practice, and the wrath of the CPResearcher. This troubling disturbs the binary of sin versus virtue. The chapter concludes with the message that Critical Praxis Researchers can be, for example, both angry about injustice, and radically loving. The chapter provides a new, holistic way to understand Critical Praxis Research.


Educational Research Western Science Critical Praxis Authenticity Criterion Western Religion 
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.


  1. Aesop. (2010). The grasshopper and the ant. London: Bibliolis Books.Google Scholar
  2. Ayvazian, A. (1995). Interrupting the cycle of oppression: The role of allies as agents of change. Fellowship, 61, 138–141.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, H. H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  4. Deloria, V. (1997). Red earth, white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact. Goldon, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Deloria, V. (2003). God is red: A native view of religion. Goldon, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. DeYoung, R. K. (2009). Glittering vices: A new look at the seven deadly sins and their remedies. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dostoevsky, F. M. (2008). Crime and punishment. Charleston, SC: Forgotten Books.Google Scholar
  8. Duncan-Andrade, J., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. Fincher, D. (1995). Se7en. New Line Cinema.Google Scholar
  10. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, science, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Autobiography and critical ontology: Being a teacher, developing a reflective persona. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Auto/biography and Auto/ethnography: Praxis of research method (pp. 181–203). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Kincheloe, J. L., & Berry, K. S. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing the bricolage. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kotcheff, T. (1977). Fun with Dick and Jane. RCA/Columbia.Google Scholar
  15. Malott, C. (2010). Policy and research in education: A critical pedagogy for educational leadership. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. McLaren, P. (2000). Che Guevara, Paolo Freire, and the pedagogy of revolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  17. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. In R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.), Committee on scientific principles for education research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  18. Parisot, D. (2005). Fun with Dick and Jane. Columbia Pictures.Google Scholar
  19. Schimmel, S. (1997). The seven deadly sins: Jewish, Christian, and classical reflections on human psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Shakespeare, W. (1994a). Hamlet. The tragedies of William Shakespeare. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
  21. Shakespeare, W. (1994b). MacBeth. The tragedies of William Shakespeare. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
  22. Shakespeare, W. (1994c). Othello. The tragedies of William Shakespeare. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
  23. Siry, C., & Lang, D. (2010). Creating participatory discourse for teaching and research in early childhood science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  25. Thomas, P. L., & Kincheloe, J. L. (Eds.). (2006). Reading, writing, and thinking: The postformal basics. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Tobin, K. (2009). Tuning into others’ voices: Radical listening, learning from difference, and escaping oppression. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(3), 505–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., & Seiler, G. (2005). Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  28. Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Education Review, 79(3), 409–427.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V.  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DorchesterUSA

Personalised recommendations