Against Any Paradigm In Educational Research

Abstract

The history of science shows that mostly of the paradigms assumed as philosophical conception to guide research in education doesn’t work for entire field of education. All paradigms assumed have some controversial outcomes for educational field. There are tricks of paradigms and we should avoid them by become aware of it. Also there are some signs that a new paradigm is coming. This is a philosophical issue regarding the needs of sciences of education for a new paradigm, in order to improve our researches and make our teaching work better. It could be also an invitation to make research free minded, accepting new cultures and philosophical background. Just adjust the meaning of some concepts regarding learning and human condition and it will be satisfactory. We try here to redefine some concept (sciences of education as integrative science, learning as total complex knowledge, mind as infinite creative process) forced by contemporary “object of inquiry”.

Keywords: Paradigmsciences of educationsresearch

1.Introduction

Reviewing the history of educational sciences and focusing in research that had been doing over

the time, we found three types of difficulties: terminological - the meaning of the concepts borrowed from

other sciences, methodological - mimetic transfer of methods and also paradigmatic as philosophical

assumptions;

Assuming the last kind of difficulty as a topic of this issue, we claim that it is time to give up and

make research freely in education with any preconception or paradigm in our mind. Discussions in

literature about paradigm are mostly methodological, less about objects of research. We figure out that

there are in literature two groups of paradigms and they have consequences in the fields of education.

This approach might be an invitation for educationist to learn from history of science, successes

and failures that had occurred over the times and think more about the field of education as “object of

inquiry”.

2.Some Discussions Regarding Paradigms in Educational Researches

Thomas Kuhn produces several meanings for concept of paradigm and different area of research

adopted different point of view. (Kuhn, 1976) We will employ in this paper the definition of a paradigm

in education proposed by Bogdan & Biklen as “a loose collection of logically related assumptions,

concepts or prepositions that orient thinking and research” (Bogdan & Biklen 1998, p.22, as cited by

Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, para. 5) or how researcher’s intentions, goals and philosophical assumptions

are inextricably linked with the research they make.

A definition of paradigm includes three elements: a belief about the nature of knowledge, a

methodology and criteria for validity (Naughton, Rolfe & Siraj-Blatchford, 2001, p.32, as cited by

Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, para 5) Also, it has been proposed the replacement of the concept of theory by

the paradigm. (Heshusius, 1989)However, in the literature of sciences of education and social sciences as

well, there are noticed as paradigms: positivist and post-positivist, constructivist, structuralist,

interpretative, transformative, emancipatory, critical, pragmatist and de-constructivist. One reason we

should be attached to a specific paradigm is that we must somehow follow a specific methodology.

(Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006, Niglas 2001)

3.Groups of Paradigms and their Consequences

In our opinion there are two groups of paradigms, classified by methodology used in research and

without taking in consideration the practice and real life in education. The first group is strictly logic and

another one is contextual , sometimes called “holistic”. First group is the group of Clock paradigms

following the matrix of Newtonian classical physic and quantitative methodology (positivist and post-

positivist, constructivist, post-constructivist). The second is the group of Cloud paradigms (interpretative,

transformative, de-constructivist, post-structuralist and pragmatic) creating mirage of the matrix of

qualitative and mixed methodology. Temporally both groups of paradigms can co-exist in 19 and 20

century and after.

Let make an overview of the two groups firstly taking in consideration not only how and what kind

of methods are they requesting, but in extended view, considering more elements like: ideal of

knowledge, object of scientific inquires, consequences and relevance of results for educational field. The

using of specific methods can have consequences on objects of inquiry, how it could be seen after

conducted research or experiments, labelling and stereotyping people.

4.The Tricks of the Paradigms

Clock paradigm always tricks us and puts us in a circular way giving the model and the tools and

asks us to make a „chair” or a „box” and after that push events to set on or enter in it. The second group

of paradigm as Cloud is walking around in a dizzy way for a while and after that at the end try to fit the

inevitable matrix. Assuming that, we explain everything by accepting standards for conforming events on

patterns and simplify the world.

Paradigms are not predictable, they simply exist as background.

All paradigms are some kind of horizon of expectation and a closed world any theory is just a model,

program of research or methodology is a limitation for any new possible events. All purist rational

paradigms settle what things must be observed, accepted and evaluate with some etalon. They work like a

clock, even statistical like cloud remains rational and mechanistic. The mystery and the unknown seem to

be avoiding, not possible at all. The conclusion is that definition, concept, prejudge, stereotypes use in

methodology and paradigms create limitation and we cannot see the novelty because they are not in the

preview list of expectation. The world is always changing and it is time to avoid the tricks of paradigms.

Nowadays, we know that previous paradigms of knowledge ideal as a pattern imposed to reality are not

proper anymore for complexity. To avoid paradigm mean not to avoid any philosophical ontological or

ideas about what is good and what is wrong, true or false. It means to be open minded, just observe at

first.

So, the educational sciences must be considered dynamic, complex and integrative. We can call

educational sciences integrative sciences as natural-social-cultural-special and very complex.

Cultural background and methods we are using shouldn’t be dominant. Webecome aware of this and

had encounter difficulties doing some researches in China in 2008 – 2012. (Personal communication,

March 2014) Any researches become irrelevant if you carry the European assumptions about subjects,

methods and evaluation. Even Chinese, who pretend to make education in universal modern western way,

we think they trick themselves.

We can put here some more considerations in order to make effective educational researches. First of

all we must change our concepts and their qualities:

a) The object of inquiry (field of education) and subjects are more important then methodology and

philosophical assumption. The methods and requirements are stereotyping people.

b) Learning is a total process not only logic, or environmental experiential, it is also as life

expression. Direction of learning not only from out-site to in-site, but from in-site to out-side. As example

could be experiment conducted by McGreevey that show that sessions of meditation for students can

change their brain, experiment realised with any mystical prejudge. (McGreevey, 2011, para. 1)

c) Mind is a continuum infinite creative process. There are theories that demonstrated cultural-mind

is soft-ware, like computer program, cultural embedded (Hofstede 1991, Hofstede, & Ger, 2001). There

are also theories that emphasize that mind is quantic computation and have a holographic relation with

environment (Pribram, 2011). Every new thought is a creation with a weak or strong influence in our life.

Psychologists, neuroscientists, anthropologists showed that creativity can rise if the task is somehow

interesting and difficult; even it means to take risks.

d) The educational group should be seen as a cognitive system (as cognitive units involved in

learning process and educational activities in neuro-anthropological perspective). New perspective, that

already take over place here and there, we can call the Way paradigm or Dao of research (facts can show

the methods of inquiry; students, teachers can find the way). Some characteristics should be noticed and

pointed out: The use of mixed knowledge, composed, complex and sometimes wired; the new role for

teacher as one possible companion on the way of knowledge-ness; object of inquiry as ethical-oriented

inquiry Researchers should interfere as less as possible on the way of knowledge with schools, students

( wuwei , traditional Chinese concept), be free from prejudge, standardization, methods borrowed,

transferred from one culture to another.

5. Conclusions

Paradigm make researcher lazy, they observe just they had presumed, noting more. The researchers

are seeing what is pre-programed by paradigm. Let the research create the method, or facilitate the rise of

a new philosophy about new things just discovered, enrich the field with new facts.

Briefly, objects of research in Clock paradigms regarding student or teachers, they are enrolled like

solders fighting and should be seen like an army. Researches are just mechanism using some mechanical

tools (methods) to stereotype people. Cloud paradigms seem to be more democratic. The tasks, targets

must be differentiated in the army. The student can travel like a cloud choosing schools, universities,

countries, jobs, or become good for nothing.

In the new paradigm awareness is strongly recommended for any educationist in order to decipher

any possible impact that could produce limitation in schools. To be free from any paradigms means that

teachers and researcher should be innovative and very imaginative.

References

1. doi: 10.14704/nq.2011.9.3.447 Retrieved from http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/447/415
2. Heshusius, L. (1989 / 2016 August-18th). The Newtonian mechanistic paradigm, special education, and contours of alternatives. Journal of Learning DisabilitiesVol.22, Issue 7, pp. 403 - 415. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002221948902200702 Hofstede, G. & Ger, J. (1991 / 2001). Cultures and organizations. Soft-ware of the mind, (revised and
3. expanded 2nd Edition). McGraw-Hill. USA.
4. Husén,T. (1988). Research paradigms in education. Interchange, Volume 19, Issue 1, p.p. 2-13.
5. doi:10.1007/BF01815504 =Retrieved =from
6. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01815504
7. Knipping, C. (2003). Learning from comparing - A review and reflection on qualitative oriented comparisons of teaching and learning mathematics in different countries. Analyses ZDM. Vol. 35 (6). Hamburg, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik (2003) 35: 282. doi:10.1007/BF02656692 Kuhn, Th. (1976). Structura revoluţiilor ştiinţifice. Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică. Bucureşti. Romania.
8. Lindsay, M. (2010). The Philosophical underpinnings of educational research. Polyglossia,Vol.19, October 2010, pp. 5-11. Retrieved from http://www.apu.ac.jp/rcaps/uploads/fckeditor/publications/polyglossia/Polyglossia_V19_Lindsay.
9. pdf Mackenzie, N. & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues In
10. Educational =Research, =16 =(2), =193-205. =Retrieved =from
11. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html
12. McGreevey,S. (2011). Eight weeks to a better brain - Meditation study shows changes associated with awareness, stress in Harvard Gazette, January 21st, 2011. Retrieved from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/01/eight-weeks-to-a-better-brain/ Niglas, K. (2001). Paradigms and methodology in educational research. Education-line database. Sept
13. 25th 2001.
14. Pribram,K. H. (2011) Recollections in NeuroQuantology, Vol. l9, Issue3, Pp. 370�374.
15. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001840.htm