Abstract
This paper advocates the use ofsocial constructionist perspectives in the development of collaborative educational research studies. The perspectives described were developed during our project work in Canada on “Curriculum and Context in the Use of Computers for Classroom Learning” (Ontario Ministry of Education Grant, 1989–1993). The paper explores the interrelated epistemological and ethical implications of such perspectives. These include the requirement that participants be treated as sense-making agents in the construction of the social reality, and the recognition of inequities in the production and distribution of knowledge.
Social scientists must recognize their own roles within the structures of power and prestige which condition educational research, and design research strategies which take them into account. An example of the difficulties encountered in applying an alternative model of research is related, and some lingering ethical dilemmas are raised.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, G. L. (1989, Fall). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions.Review of Educational Research,59(3), 249–270.
Banks, C.K. & Mangan, J.M. (in press). Researching Social Networks in Action.Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1967).The social construction of reality. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
Burawoy, M. (1978).Manufacturing consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986).Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.
Corey, S. (1953).Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cousins, B. & Earl, L. (in press).Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning. London: Falmer Press.
Eisner, E. W. (1992, June). Are all causal claims positivistic? A reply to Francis Schrag.Educational Researcher,21(5), 8.
Freire, P. (1970).Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Freire, P. (1973).Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Goodson, I. F. (1988). Teachers' life histories and studies of curriculum and schooling. In I. F. Goodson (Ed.),The making of curriculum: Collected essays (pp. 71–92). London: Falmer.
Goodson, I.F. (1990). Studying curriculum: Towards a social constructionist perspective.Journal of Curriculum Studies,22(4), 299–312.
Goodson, I.F. (1991). Sponsoring the teacher's voice: Teachers' lives and teacher development.Cambridge Journal of Education,21(1), 35–45.
Goodson, I.F. (1996)Representing teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.
Goodson, I.F. & Fliesser, C. (1995). Negotiating fair trade: Towards collaborative relationships between researchers and teachers in college settings.Peabody Journal of Education,70(3), 5–17.
Goodson, I.F. & Mangan, J.M. (Ed.). (1991a).Qualitative studies in educational research: Methodologies in transition. RUCCUS Occasional Papers Volume 1 (p. 334). London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
Goodson, I.F. and Mangan, J.M. (Ed.). (1991b).Computers, classrooms, and culture: Studies in the use of computers for classroom learning. RUCCUS Occasional Papers Volume 2 (p. 315). London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
Goodson, I.F. & Mangan, J.M. (Ed.). (1992a).History, context, and qualitative methods in the study of education. RUCCUS Occasional Papers Volume 3 (p. 279). London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
Goodson, I.F. & Mangan, J.M. (Ed.). (1992b). Computers in schools as symbolic and ideological action: The genealogy of the ICON.The Curriculum Journal, 3(3), 261–276.
Goodson, I. F., Mangan, J. M., & Rhea, V. A. (1990).Curriculum and context in the use of computers for classroom learning: Interim report #3. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
Goodson, I. F., Mangan, J. M., & Rhea, V. A. (1991).Curriculum and context in the use of computers for classroom learning: Summative report (3 Vols.). London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
Habermas, J. (1971).Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harvey, D. (1990).The condition of post-modernism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis: Or dogmas die hard.Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10–16.
Hutchinson, S. A. (1988). Education and grounded theory. In R.R. Sherman & R.B. Webb (Eds.),Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp. 123–138). London: Falmer.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1982).The action research reader. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Kemmis, S. (1988, June). Educational computing: How do we know what we are getting? Paper presented at the Conference “Educational Computing — Ritual or Revelation?” Melbourne, Australia.
Lather, P. (1987, Oct.). Educational research and practice in a postmodern era. Paper presented at the Ninth Conference on Curriculum Theory and Classroom Practice, Dayton, Ohio.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems.Journal of Social Issues,2, 34–36.
MacDonald, B. (1974). Evaluation and the control of education. In B. MacDonald & R. Walker (Ed.),Innovation, evaluation, research, and the problem of control: Some interim papers. Norwich, England: SAFARI Project, University of East Anglia.
MacDonald, B. (1977). The educational evaluation of N.D.P.C.A.L.The British Journal of Education Technology,8(3), 176–189.
Maddux, C. D. (1990). The qualitative/quantitative research debate: Extremism and the educational pendulum.Computers in the Schools, 7(3), 35–45.
McTaggart, R. (1991). Dilemmas in democratic evaluation: Politics and validation. In I. F. Goodson & J. M. Mangan (Eds.),Qualitative educational research studies: Methodologies in transition. RUCCUS Occasional Papers, Volume 1 (pp. 117–170). London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
Natanson, M. (Ed.). (1962).Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. [A collection of papers of A. Schutz]. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Noffke, S. E. (1990). Knower, knowing, and known in action research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Parlett, M. (1975).The Wellesley milieu. Oxford: Oxford University.
Parlett, M. & Hamilton, D. (1977). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programmes. In D. Hamilton, B. MacDonald, C. King, D. Jenkins, & M. Parlett (Eds.),Beyond the numbers game (pp. 6–22). Berkeley: McCutchan.
Pitman, A. (1991). The teacher-researcher relationship: Methodological, political and moral issues in research. In I. F. Goodson & J. M. Mangan (Eds.),Qualitative educational research studies: Methodologies in transition. RUCCUS Occasional Papers, Volume 1 (pp. 91–116). London, ON: University of Western Ontario.
Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research.Educational Researcher,20 (6), 10–18.
Schrag, F. (1992, June). In defense of positivist research paradigms.Educational Researcher,21(5), 5–7.
Simons, H. (1987).Getting to know schools in a democracy. London: Falmer Press.
Stake, R. E. (1974).Four evaluation examples: Anthropological, economic, narrative, and portrayal. Urbana, Illinois: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation (AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation No. 7).
Stake, R. E. (1975).Evaluating the arts in education. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goodson, I.F., Mangan, J.M. Exploring alternative perspectives in educational research. Interchange 27, 41–59 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807484
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807484