In this response to Scientific Research in Education (National Research Council, 2002), I argue that the report has provided us with a carefully considered but partial vision of social science that limits the capacity of our field to engage in critical self-reflection. As one counterexample to the vision of social science portrayed in the report, I draw on the work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu's work not only offers an alternative vision of social science, but it also treats academic fields, including social sciences, as objects of study, illuminating the social forces that shape categories of thought and action. As such, it invites a rigorous form of self-reflection that is not promoted within SRE's vision of social science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernsteinR. J. (1985). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.
2.
BernsteinR. J. (1992). The new constellation: The ethical-political horizons of modernity/postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
3.
BourdieuP. (1990). Logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
BourdieuP. (1988). Homo Academicus. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
5.
BourdieuP. (1991). The peculiar history of scientific reason. Sociological Forum, 6(1), 3—26.
6.
BourdieuP. (1994). Academic discourse: Linguistic misunderstanding and professorial power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. (Original work published 1965).
7.
BourdieuP. (1996). The state of nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
BourdieuP. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
9.
BourdieuP. (1999). The Specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. In and and BiagioliM. (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 31—51). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1975).
10.
BourdieuP., and WacquantL. C. (1992). An invitation toward reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
EisenhartM., and TowneL. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on “scientifically based” research. Educational Researcher, 32(7), 31—38.
12.
EricksonF., and GutierrezK. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21—24.
13.
FeuerM. J., and TowneL. (2003). Scientific research in education. Paper presented at the Professional Development Conference for Junior Faculty, Chicago.
14.
GadamerG. H. (1994). Truth and method. New York: Seabury. (Original work published 1975).
15.
GergenK. J., and GraumannC. F. (1996). Psychological discourse in historical context: An introduction. In GraumannC.F., and GergenK.J. (Eds.), Historical dimensions of psychological discourse (pp. 1—16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HabermasJ. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
17.
HoyD. C., and McCarthyT. (1994). Critical theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
18.
MartinM., and McIntyreL. C. (1994). Introduction. In MartinM., and McIntyreL.C. (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp. xv–xxii). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
MessickS. (1989). Validity: Educational measurement (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and the National Council on Measurement in Education.
20.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education (ShavelsonR.J., and TowneLisa, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
NatrielloG. (2003). Review of Scientific Research in Education. Teachers College Record, 106(1). Available at www.tcrecord.org, ID No. 111165.
22.
PhillipsD. C., and BurbulesN. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
23.
RabinowP., and SullivanW. M. (1987). The interpretive turn: A second look. In RabinowP., and SullivanW.M. (Eds.), Interpretive social science (pp. 1—32). Berkeley: University of California Press.
