Log in
Graduate Research and Critical Pedagogy: Down Copperhead Road
Over time I have become curious about how some graduate students, who are exposed to various approaches to research, gravitate to critical educational research. At this stage in my teaching I believe that I can guess what students will be most comfortable with quantitative, qualitative, or critical research [It is important we hold on to our illusions]. Over the next couple of writings on this site I want to share my understandings of how some graduate students, building on their own ideologies and experiences, move toward realizing that a critical research is the best approach for dealing with the complexities of educational, social, and cultural life.
The context for this piece is a graduate course that consists of quantitative, qualitative, and critical approaches to educational research. This course examines ways of knowing, educational theories, and methodologies as they apply to the various approaches to research in education. The course was developed and is taught by a team of professors. I helped develop and have been part of that team for over fifteen years, taking responsibility for qualitative and critical research.
As I indicated above, my particular interest here is in how graduate students accept, respond to, and eventually gravitate to one of these approaches. This journey has taken on a particular fascination for me. It should be noted that it is sort of the “dentist course” for many students: some people dread doing it. The journey for many is somewhat analogous to Steve Earle’s Copperhead Road [“You better stay away from Copperhead Road”].
The raw material for this piece consists of hundreds of final papers from graduate students who have been exposed to three approaches to research. Furthermore, I draw on countless hours of thesis and dissertation supervision, where graduate students examine their ideologies, practices, and comfort levels as they agonize over their own research. Part of the exercise with graduate students is to indicate the array of approaches to educational research. In this way students can better appreciate that their own divergent thinking and research interests are not out of tune with the rest of the academic world. One other aspect of this process is to help graduate students appreciate the significance and complexity of what they do. This often means trying to set a context for the ever-changing site of educational research.
Given my own ideology and interest I stress that critical social research attempts to reveal the socio-historical specificity of knowledge and to shed light on how particular knowledge reproduce structural relations of inequality and oppression. Its intent is to expose enduring structures of power and domination, to deconstruct the discourses and narratives that support them and to work as advocates for social justice. This approach is also foundational to the work I do in theatre: more of that at another time.
Graduate students, as well as some colleagues, are not always comfortable with a critical education theory that looks at the role that education reciprocally plays in the shaping of public life. In particular critical education theory interrogates how public life is shaped through the exercise of power used instrumentally through the medium of education. As teachers and professors we need to realize that critical education theory sees education as being shaped by the structures and the powers that exist in the wider society, but it also sees education as a powerful force for shaping the minds, perceptions, beliefs and behaviors of the general public. This is where fundamental questions about who shapes the official curriculum, whose knowledge counts, and how classrooms and administrative offices are shaped by the contexts of social, political and economic forces? The impact of such an approach, with such loaded questions, is not lost on graduate students. They realize very quickly that these questions have to be applied to their own work in teaching and learning. We are not talking about “the other” here, we are talking about ourselves. It is easy to see why there would be much greater comfort with simply sending out a survey and have it computer coded. Having said that, it is my experience that many graduate students are not afraid to ask the hard questions. They often realize that if there is to be any possibility of transformation the vexing questions need to be asked and institutional structures and practices need to be interrogated.
Part of the concern for graduate students, who have been exposed to thoughts of objectivity, is in realizing that any attempt to dispense with values, historical circumstances, and political considerations in educational research is misguided. Another issue has to do with accepting that understanding a particular educational issue is very often locked into context plus acknowledging the conceptual frames they bring to the inquiry. They had been told, or assumed, that for research to be valuable it should not be tainted by researcher belief systems. Some students prefer to be just told “how to do it”. I have found that, especially in recent years, such students are in the minority.
Graduate students write that their desire to change the status quo stemming from the issue of emancipation is one particular area; for example dealing with schoolyard bullying. They see the purpose of critical research is to change a problematic situation or phenomena, and merely understanding it is not enough. They further claim that critical approaches to educational inquiry need to enable powerless people to understand and change their world [Paulo lives]. Some graduate students assert if they stand by and refuse to question the issues/concerns in their own surroundings, they will become dormant. It has been forcefully stated. Once again by graduate students I work with, that a main philosophical thought behind critical research is that it should result in emancipation of the disempowered, bringing about social change. It is a struggle against hegemony, risking disturbance of the status quo, and desiring the improvement of education by changing it. This realization is a powerful one, especially when it is internalized in a fashion that impacts on, and transforms, work in teaching and learning. Graduate students tell me that we are in a better position to do this when we realize that our educational problems and solutions are both linked to social, political, cultural, and economic realities. That is why teaching about educational research is still exciting to me. [It is possible to come “back from Copperhead Road”].
- clardoyle's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- 1490 reads
Comments
Clar,
What a wonderful blog! And thanks for the Tennessee metaphor. I really did live and work on the road Steve is referencing in the song. I even got to meet Steve and talk to him about our mutual childhoods (and unlikely ideological perspectives) in Tennessee when he was playing an anti-Iraqi War gig in New York City. To me it was a great brush with celebrity. So Copperhead Road sucked me in immediately.
It really is a shame that some students see research courses in masters and doctoral programs in such a negative light. But, of course, we understand why. The most excruciating class I took in my graduate work was the general, required educational research course. In this trip-to-the-dentist course there was only one proper way to conduct research, the idea of research having a practical value was viewed as absurd, the notion that different paradigms and epistemologies existed was never mentioned, and that different researchers might legitimately devise differing interpretations of an event was heretical. Every intuition I had about research was "incorrect" in this context. I didn't particularly enjoy the experience.
What a difference between this experience and the educational research course you teach. I would have loved to have taken your class as a young student--hell, I'd love to take it now, Clar. And you're correct, while some students will have already have bought into positivistic orientations, most students who take critical research courses will understand the complexity, multidimensionality, and even the fun of knowledge production. This is not to mention that probably the most powerful educational learning experience humans have devised involves research on things that matter. I think Freire had a few things to say about that.
So thanks so much for the great insights into research. You know how much we appreciate you, your teaching, and your work here in the Freire Project. Just a few words in closing from Steve Earle:
Well the sheriff came around in the middle of the night
Heard mama cryin', knew something wasn't right
He was headed down to Knoxville with the weekly load
You could smell the whiskey burnin' down Copperhead Road
Sincerely,
Joe L. Kincheloe (a.k.a. John Lee Pettimore)
Canada Research Chair in Critical Pedagogy
Faculty of Education
McGill University
hi clar! as a current grad student i find your research incredibly interesting and Needed. i can share with you some of the experiences i have had with critical theory and critical pedagogy - im sure it will sound familiar to what many of your students tell you!
i was not in the field of education per se until grad school and i was really shocked that it was such a big 'deal' to have a critical perspective - namely critical pedagogy. i came from a background in development studies from a radical university with an equally radical department and being critical was kind of unremarkable and indeed expected if you wanted to be rigorous in your analyses.
as a grad student in education the experience with critical pedagogy is much different. you must constantly state from the outset: "i am a critical researcher, i am a critical pedagogue" - because most aren't! if you take a course with a faculty member who does not engage with critical discourses - well it can be difficult sometimes because you're talking two different worlds. of course there are always exceptions and some open faculty members. but generally if you're in a class that's not critical and you are, you are faced with some comments like this: 'your writing sounds too personal, too subjective', 'academic writing should be objective, make yourself invisible as the writer', 'this is not a critical theory course, this is a __________course'. these are tough spots to navigate as a grad student where you feel powerless and as though whoever is giving you the grade that term lays down the law and you just have to follow it.
one of my fellow grad students is putting together an edited collection to be published this year you might find useful, it's about the affective journey into critical discourses and is authored by grad students and scholars in critical pedagogy. it's called 'rocking your world' and the editor is Andrew Churchill
eloise
Clar,
Thank you for your blog and covering this subject. It appears I have been short-changed in my education because I have not learned about the third option for research in my master's work or in my doctorate work. I am currently in the final leg of my journey and I have become disenchanted with the watered down curriculum (this is a trend I've noticed over the past two years). In fact, in my research course (which is online, and the second, "advanced" course) several of us were in a heated debate over the content. Of course, I cited what Freire said about content. Two of us expressed our views that the course was not preparing us for what we need to know when we conduct our own research, that it appears knowledge is being highly filtered, and only the basic information is being presented. We were somewhat ostracized for our views because other students want the course to be easy and only care to receive reassurances as to what a great job they are doing on their assignments, not any sort of critical analysis of their work. I am disappointed in my education and I am now expecting the third research course will only be slightly better than the first two.
Here I am, at this point in my studies, and as far as critical research, all I am able to find in our textbook is a brief discussion of critical ethnography, less than two pages that define it. The first characteristic of critical ethnography is stated as follows: “Critical researchers are usually politically minded people” (Creswell, 2008, Figure 15.2, p. 178). Now, that clearly sets it apart from other research methodologies, right?....(what's wrong with this picture?)
It appears to me that some universities here in the United States are very good at filtering knowledge (are they universities for the poor?).
What defines critical research is not currently clear to me, and I am looking forward to reading more in your blog (and doing some additional research on the topic). In fact, throughout my studies, even critical pedagogy was not covered in any of my coursework; I just happened to "stumble" across it when an instructor mentioned I might like Peter McLaren's work. Once I read some of his work, I was "off and running" so to speak. But still, nothing was ever mentioned in my courses.
References
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research.
Hello Dr. Doyle,
I’m a graduate student at McGill University taking Dr. Kincheloe’s and Dr. Steinberg’s classes. Learning about Critical Pedagogy is new to me as I am a second language teacher and graduated with a bachelor of Education in Teaching English as a Second Language. Paolo Freire was never mentioned in any of my undergraduate courses. After my first classes (today) and doing some of my first readings on Freire, the idea of Critical Pedagogy is still unclear and abstract to me. I am very interested in learning more about critical pedagogy and after having read your blog (which is directly connected to me being a graduate student), I have a few questions for you:
In your blog you state, “As teachers and professors we need to realize that critical education theory sees education as being shaped by the structures and the powers that exist in the wider society, but it also sees education as a powerful force for shaping the minds, perceptions, beliefs and behaviors of the general public. This is where fundamental questions about who shapes the official curriculum, whose knowledge counts, and how classrooms and administrative offices are shaped by the contexts of social, political and economic forces?” In his book, Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now?, Dr. Kincheloe also claims, “what we do in the classroom is linked to wider social, political and economic forces” (p. 3). Maybe because I’m not educated enough in critical pedagogy and I know I don’t have much experience in teaching but I wonder, don’t we want to be a country that is economically well? Aren’t we proud of our economic status?
I understand the underlying principles of why the government, ministry of education, people with political power wouldn’t want critical pedagogy in the school system, but has it ever been proposed? Has it ever been researched and presented to them with all its positive effects? What reasons do these proponents give as to not accepting/rejecting critical pedagogy? I just don’t understand how people in the ministry that are not even in education, not in the classrooms, not in the schools...how could they come up with what should/shouldn’t be taught in the classroom? How could they decide what items are on/aren’t on a standardized test? I believe the wrong people are making these decisions. They aren’t educated in/don’t have the experience to be making such judgements. Teachers and education researchers, ect., should be assessing, evaluating and discussing and deciding what should be part of the curriculum.
On another note, I can definitely relate to your following quote, “They had been told, or assumed, that for research to be valuable it should not be tainted by researcher belief systems. Some students prefer to be just told ‘how to do it.’” I remember the first time a professor told me to use “I” for an assignment, I almost fell off my chair. Prior to that, all my other teachers had told me to NEVER use “I.” It was supposed to be an easy assignment and I had to incorporate my own experiences. It was one of the most difficult assignment I ever had to do because I was just not used to it!!
Thank you and looking forward to reading your answers,
Patricia Parchas
Patricia,
You are so fortunate to be able to take classes with Dr. Kincheloe and Dr. Steinberg! Most U.S. universities do not cover critical pedagogy at all, so we are on our own to learn. I have learned by doing a LOT of reading, writing, and through diaglogue here on this site as well.
As far as economics, I wonder, how can we say we are economically healthy as long as there are class divisions? Can we be proud of our economic system when there are people living on the streets or who do not know where their next meal will come from? Peter McLaren has written extensively on global capitalism. Also, you might find the article by Pepi Leistyna (p. 97 of the Where Are We Now? text) helpful to better understand the economic component and the interrelationship with education. I think it may answer at least some of your questions.
You have asked some great questions! It will all fit together as you read more and search for answers.
Vanessa
Hello Mrs. Paradis
Wow! This is great--I'm a first time user of this--I didn't know I would get an answer so quick.
I have two more classes Thursday, July 3. hopefully we could continue this discussion and I could add on what I learned in my classes.
Hope to hear from you soon,
Patricia Parchas
Patricia,
That's great! I will look for your responses on Thursday, then. I would enjoy further discussions. You might want to put my name in the subject line so that I don't miss seeing your post. It seems that there are many students posting now. Also, I have a blog, "Critical Pedagogy, Technology and Online Education." Feel free to begin a discussion there. You can get to it by scrolling down on the home page to where the blogs are and clicking on the link.
Vanessa
Hello Mrs. Paradis,
Patricia,
I have been there, feeling as you do and I am still to a large degree - feeling cheated in my (very expensive) education. I went through my Master's program in education and not once did I hear "critical pedagogy." I am nearly finished with my doctorate in education and only one time was I provided even a reference to an author of critical pedagogy and it was only because the instructor happens to be a critical pedagogue and through my writing, she evidently thought I would like Peter McLaren's work. Now the weird thing was - I was my own worst enemy. I would research books on Amazon and I remember Freire's books came up from time to time, but I would always overlook them because they were not the books I needed at the time. And McLaren: I read a couple of his articles when the instructor mentioned him and I was hooked on his writing, but then his work was put on the back burner because it never fit in with what I needed to be studying for my coursework as dictated by the university. It wasn't until toward the end of my coursework that I had the opportunity to research areas of my choice and that was when McLaren's work came back to my attention (I always knew I would return to his work). And then, of course, to all of the other authors of critical pedagogy.
So, yes, now that I look back at my education, while I was my own enemy too, I feel very cheated. But look what you learned today, Patricia; it adds up! The educational system is very carefully devised to leave out authors and theories that would threaten what Giroux (2007) refers to as a "military-industrial-academic complex." This is a global problem. The system is clever to devise things like "critical thinking" which turns out to be a superficial form of making people think they are thinking. Everything is controlled - the textbooks, the curriculum, the teachers, the students...here, in the U.S. with the No Child Left Behind Act, the focus is on passing standardized tests, which totally counters any sort of true learning.
Times are changing, though. And like I said yesterday, your are so fortunate to have this opportunity with Drs. Kincheloe and Steinberg. While you will not learn everything in a few short weeks, you can take it from here and I can tell that you are motivated to do so, and that's wonderful.
You mentioned that we can learn together and you are correct about that! Liberation theology was something I heard only a few weeks ago from Dr. Kincheloe. Critical pedagogy, according to Dr. Kincheloe, can be traced back to liberation theology. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
I believe that critical pedagogy traces back to the form of liberation theology that emphasized people achieving their full potential at work they chose or that they had special gifts for. Let me know what you learn. You may want to do some internet research for a better reference than Wikipedia - or follow some of the outside links from Wikipedia.
Critical pedagogy also draws on some elements of Marxist theory and is variously criticized for doing so. Peter McLaren addresses these quite extensively. I will do a little research and get back with you with at least a summary of the major points, criticisms, and defenses, and some references if you would like to look into liberation theology.
What books are you reading? (Where Are We Now? is there another book?) Maybe I can help point you to more information in them. I have read the Where Are We Now book as well as many other books.
I am enjoying this discussion very much! Let me know if you have any other questions, too.
Vanessa
Giroux, H. (2007). The University In Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial Complex.Boulder: Paradigm.
Patricia,
Great analysis of the Quebec Education Program! There are the troubling aspects, but we cannot ignore the windows and doors of opportunity that allow for the practice of critical pedagogy. I am a teacher as well, and really, I do not find the standards here in theUS
Peter McLaren, Paula Allman, and Glenn Rikowski, offer a detailed description of Marxism as applied in critical pedagogy on McLaren's web site:
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/pages/mclaren/
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and it lists his articles in red. The article on Marxism is about in the middle of the list and is entitled, After the Box People: The labour-capital relation as class constitution and its consequences for Marxist educational theory and human resistance.
Peace & Love,
Vanessa
References
McLaren,P. Paula Allman, and Glenn Rikowski, offer a detailed description of Marxism as applied in critical pedagogy on his web site: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/pages/mclaren/
Giroux, H. (2007). The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex.Boulder: Paradigm.
Stiggins, R. (1994). Assessment for learning. Also: Student-Centered Classroom Assessment.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
First and foremost, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for all the time you have taken to answer my questions, as well as giving me great resources to read and research.
Patricia,
I will write more later, but I am curious, what is your teaching philosophy? It sounds like the other teachers have a different philosophy. What is their teaching philosophy, from what you are able to observe?
I will be back to try and address your other questions.
Vanessa
In my view, you are doing everything right. You negotiate consequences with your students and follow through with them. You love your students and you love teaching. It sounds like the other teachers may not know how to show love to their students or their teaching (thus, they are probably not teaching well). I’m not sure what to advise about the other teachers viewing this as a problem. I work online, so I do not have those sorts of politics going on. It sounds like the other teachers are envious of your relationship with your students, but perhaps do not know how to achieve the same with theirs. Maybe your instructor would have some ideas, or some other people in the class. I’ll post a question on this discussion strand as well to see if someone else might have some ideas.
Power and authority
First, I think what is meant by a power struggle is that because teachers are teachers they are in a position of power over the students. That does not mean, however, that our goal is to exercise that power. Exercising our power is what will create the power struggle. Freire speaks to authoritarianism in several of his books. In Teachers As Cultural Workers, he states the following:
What Freire says about love: “it is not possible to be a teacher without loving one’s students, even realizing that love alone is not enough. It is not possible to be a teacher without loving teaching” (p. 28).
“Finally, the thesis that teachers should be teachers and not coddling parents points to the fact that we all have the privilege and the duty to fight for the right to be ourselves, to opt, to decide, and to unveil truths....But the reader of this book retains the right, in being a teacher or in pretending to be, to want to view his or her teaching role as a form of parental coddling” (p. 28).
Vanessa
Reference: Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as Cultural Workers.Cambridge , MA
Hi, Patricia,
You are very welcome for the quotations and such. I have this strange ability that seems to allow me to find relevant quotations “on the fly.” It makes it look like I must have worked hard, but I don’t, really. I hadn’t even read that particular book yet, other than the introductory section. Of course, I went to the first book that I thought might have what you were asking, and it was just like Freire was talking right to you because his words answered the exact questions you were asking. Anyway, I hope they reassured you that, yes, you can love you students – in fact, you must love them, and it’s ok to be like a second parent.
Peace & Love,
Vanessa
Thanks, Patricia, for the additional information!
Brown, H.Douglas (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). NY: Pearson.
There is probably a new edition out now. Maybe you can research for some more up-to-date articles.
Here are some tips provided for what Brown refers to as “culturally appropriate techniques”
Does the technique…
…recognize the value and belief systems that are presumed to be a part of the culture(s) of the students?
…refrain from any demeaning stereotypes of any culture…?
…refrain from any possible devaluing of the students’ native language?
…recognize varying degrees of willingness of students to participate openly due to factors of collectivism/individualism and power distance?
…sufficiently connect specific language features (e.g. grammatical categories, lexicon, discourse) to cultural ways of thinking, feeling, and acting?
…in some way draw on the potentially rich background experiences of the students, including their own experiences in other cultures?
If the technique requires students to beyond the comfort zone of uncertainty avoidance in their culture(s), does it do so empathetically and tactfully?
Is the technique sensitive to the perceived roles of males and females in the culture(s) of your students? (Brown, 2000, p. 202).
When is your paper due? (Is this a two-week course?)
Thank you for the clarification on the teaching of second languages. Your paper sounds interesting!
Vanessa
Patricia,
Thank you for entrusting me with a very important question. The answer is complex and will be different for each situation, so I am going to refer you to Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Kincheloe for advice. I hope you will have the opportunity to speak with them, because it is a relevant question in so many situations and for many people.
It is an issue Freire was careful to address - we have to remake theory - we cannot simply transplant what worked there and expect it to work in our environments without transforming it. This is all work that Joe Kincheloe, Peter McLaren, Henry Giroux, and others have been working on over the years. Dr. Steinberg and Dr. Kincheloe will be able to direct you to a source that is appropriate for your specific situation better than I am able to.
Thank you for the question. Please let me know what you find out.
Peace & Love,
Vanessa
Sabrina
Hey girls!
I've been teaching ESL for twelve years now and from experience I'd say that unless you are dealing with very advanced students it is almost impossible to never use their mother tongue. When I discipline a kid I find it very odd to do it in their L2 because they don't get all the message. All they know is that I am mad at them some something they did wrong. I could decide to stick to the language I am teaching but I am not sure it really pays off that much in the end. I,ve noticed that sometimes when I speak only English ,some kids believe they understand but when I ask them to tell me what I have just asked them, they tell me all kinds of weird things and then when I explain them in French what I meant in English they go AHHH!!!! because they finally understand! Same thing when I teach them grammar. Sometimes it can take 30 minutes in English what would normally take 2 minutes in French . To make them understand something in L2 I need to teach with gestures, drawings, multiple repetitions,... In their L1 they get it right away. In brief, it really depends on what I am doing with them. Of course during conversation games, reading activities, classroom functional language,.. all of it is in English or mostly in English since sometimes using their mothertongue is a must, it saves me a lot of time. DOn't forget that we are teaching a second language not a first one. THerefore, it is normal to refer to the L1 from time to time so students can make some links between both. THey also have a lot of prior knowledge in language acquisition. It would be totally stupid to do not refer to it. In my classes, I'd say that 80% is done in their L2 with my regular groups. With my advanced group, it's 100% in English but the context is quite different. They mostly all come from bilingual families or immersion classes.
There are now several studies available on the use of the students' mothertongues in the classroom. If you're a student at McGill, you probably had or will have Dr Sarkar and Dr Lyster. It's either one of them who talks about it in their classes. So, if I were you I would not feel too bad about using the kids mothertongue, if you principal complains about it just make him/her read a few studies about the beneficial effect of the use of L1 in L2. He should leave you alone afterwords :)
Hello everyone,
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ML0wlG2ja2M
And if you have time, you can check this one out: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FEY_-t4wXik
Please add your comments about this clip! I'd like to know what you think.
Patricia Parchas
Patricia,
I agree with Obama. As is typical, the press here (imperialist-controlled) hypes everything, blows it out of proportion, takes it out of context, and does biased surveys and presents the results like they mean something. Most of us in the US are pretty much immune to the propaganda, sound bytes, and misinformation.
I just hope that Obama really can be our hope for change; but I am really not very hopeful. The president does not have the power here. I should clarify: unless they are a part of gang, like Bush is....
Vanessa
I hope that like Vanessa stated that most Americans are immune to propaganda, sound bytes, and misinformation. It is from Fox news and it does tie in to another blog which did discuss the validity of their news report and their journalists. In the video it did not show the name of the second newscaster but he said, “What language would be these Europeans country speaking for if it wasn’t for “our” country and that we have nothing to be embarrassed about considering the blood, the sacrifice and the financial burden we have to pay for fighting their freedom.” Comments like these do not give any integrity to their newscast. It is also a great example of “white” supremacy like we have been discussing in class. They were all white and who conducted the phone survey and who did they call? It was quite awful to watch a newscast that is telling Americans that learning a second language is detrimental to their survival.