Compare Biesta’s vision of
democratic research to Ken Howe’s (in Paul). From what you’ve learned thus far,
what sort of place do you see for this kind of work in the world of educational
research?
Howe and Biesta are two ways of looking at the same issue: democracy in education research. They ask for whom and for what is education research? From what I have learned thus far, it seems the political class in this country wants ‘fixes” to “problems” in the K12 education system. Biesta (on De Vries) notes that the role education research plays depends on the context under which the researchers operate. The political context determines what we study by creating the “end” (No Child Left Behind) and thus, treating education practice as an intervention or treatment. If the end goes unchallenged, the only role left to researchers is the technical role. Biesta argues that the technical model provides no place for debate about the end, and this is not democratic.
Howe (or was it Paul?) talked about the evolution of the technical model we now have (though not in these same terms). Given that the political context is not fixed, I have hope that the political class can be swayed to take a more democratic stance on the social purposes and culturally embedded ends of education research—a more social model. Of course, the “swaying” is a job that falls to those of us who are the up-and-coming stewards of the discipline. As I have come to realize, this drive for change (for democracy, towards a more social model) is the source of my grit and resistance to ideas (means) and “outcomes” (ends) that seem concrete and closed-off to discussion.
Biesta's epistemological argument addresses the question of what it means to know: What is knowledge? He presents the “product” of the technical model as techne—abstract, decontextualized knowledge, and the product of a more social model as phronesis—experience and wisdom. Drawing on Dewey’s transactional theory of knowing (citation), it is not a binary but a relationship between these forms of knowledge, the need for both, the wisdom of how to put them to use both in practice and in policy; knowing the limits and purposes of each, separately and together; debating the interaction between means and end.
I truly appreciate the Dewian relational model as presented by Biesta (see also Ross Collin’s recent work). It resists the privileging one way over another, it resists the binary (or dualism) of an either-or-ness. It seems we are continuously confronted by dualisms in our studies and in society at large. Elevating a discourse on the relationship between means and end, between action and consequence, provides a space and a way forward. It presents a glimmer of hope.
Finally, I want to address the question that Kurt poses each time our class meets: What is the purpose of education research? Given what I’ve learned so far, I would like to offer the tentative answer that having a greater purpose that is “up for debate” is a good thing.
Biesta and Howe both advocate for democracy in research and discuss the need to engage in deliberation over technocracy. Action research could meet the conditions they both describe for research that involves the participants and stakeholders in dialogue and decision making and that acknowledges the value judgments made in educational practice.
While Howe focuses on qualitative research as the preferable, dialogical option, Biesta focuses on the consequences of the research. He references Dewey and concludes that “what works” is not acceptable if the means are not democratic. This refocuses the aim of educational research away from that which helps obtain the results desired by administrators and policy makers, and back inward, on the impact and outcomes for the students, the actual reasons for the enterprise.
It’s a little difficult to fairly compare Biesta’s vision of democratic research with Howe’s as Biesta’s writing is a well-developed critique of evidence based research in education and Howe’s writing in Paul is a brief critique of a research study. Here goes: Biesta examines three assumptions of evidence based education, presents arguments that expose flaws and biases in those assumptions, and builds towards his conclusion that “we need to expand our views about the interrelations among research, policy, and practice in order to keep in mind that education is a thoroughly moral and political practice, one that needs to be subject to continuous democratic contestation and deliberation.” (pg. 6). A couple of Biesta’s points: orienting educational research towards the question of “what works” doesn’t work because effectiveness is contextual-so the question really is “effective for what?” (pg. 8). Biesta draws on Dewey as he argues that education is not a mechanistic process, but an interpretive and symbolic process of making meaning, not making knowledge. That which might be learned from research may describe what worked, but it cannot prescribe what will work as every problem is contextual and thus unique. An underlying assumption that methods or strategies shown by research to be “effective” may in fact not be desirable in a new, unique circumstance. When researchers fail to question the assumptions that undergird a scientific research approach, and fail to acknowledge the values that are woven through that approach, and fail to include stakeholders in a critical review of the research methodology and implications for practice and outcome, then that research is not democratic and may not be ethical. Howe considers many of the same things as manifestations of democratic and moral research-the ability to question underlying assumptions of what constitutes effective education outcomes and methodology, questions of context, and engagement of all stakeholders in these conversations. One of the arguments Biesta makes (thanks to de Vries) that Howe does not is that the theoretical framework within which research is conducted (for example, looking at educational practice from Wenger and Lave’s legitimate peripheral participation lens) provides a cultural perspective of research that can inform teachers by opening their eyes to paradigms they had previously not seen. Howe, in contrast, emphasizes that quantitative research in and of itself is not a positivistic approach and can sometimes be the beginning of an anti-positivism argument. He does not emphasize the benefits alternative lenses bring to practice via research, and this may be a point of emphasis on which the two do not see eye to eye. I don’t know. There is absolutely a place for this kind of work in the research world. In fact, it seems to me that this type of work fits the educational research world much better than the mechanistic or technocratic research approaches that engulf science and medicine. In fact, I question whether the “gold standard” of research (RCT) in some aspects of medicine, particularly around questions of the whole ecosystem of health and wellbeing (of which humans are just one little part) are appropriate at all.
Biesta’s arguments for democratic research are more developed than Howe’s but are both critical of technological, positivist/post-positivist research because of the narrow focus and questionable means and ends. This line of research results in cookie cutter approaches to educational research and practice that fails to take into account the experiences and voice of “others.” Biesta addresses this problem in his discussion of the cultural role of research. Learners are not one-size-fits-all; therefore, educational research should not seek to find one-size-fits-all answers to the problems that are identified in education.
As far as it’s place in the discipline, democratic research should be the dominant approach in educational research. I’m sure there are some questions in education that may be able to be explored using RCT (in ethical conditions in real environments, not contrived laboratory situations) perhaps through action research, but many of the issues in education need a more comprehensive and inclusive approach if we the research to be available and useful to consider/consult when making decision about educational policy or practice. I don’t think we’ll ever (and shouldn’t) get to the point where research won’t be used in some way to drive educational policy, but there are better ways of using it than it is now. Right now it seems that it’s being used primarily to shore up power and privilege moving us away from a true democracy.
“What worked” is not the same as “what works” or “what will work”. Biesta’s vision on democratic research points out the deficiencies in evidence based education and the ‘gold standard’. He states similar ideas as we have discussed in class, questioning the rationale of equating of the type of research employed for medicine and the social sciences being the same, recognizing the hierarchical approach of evidence based research. Biesta points out that “effectiveness” is an instrumental value: it refers to the quality of processes but does not say anything about what an intervention is supposed to bring about” (p. 7). One must think about for what the intervention is effective.
Biesta illustrates the illogicalness of equating the need for evidence based research in the field of educational research as it is needed for medical research (at least how it is done in Westernized medicine). Students are not patients. They play an active role in the learning process by “interpreting and trying to make sense of what they are being taught” (p. 8). The teacher and student must work together for learning to occur. When a medicine is found effective, the only effort made by the patient is to take the pill, which does the work to find the cure. Interventions should be thought of as interactive processes for students to “respond and, through their response, to learn” (p. 9).
Biesta discusses how evidence-based research focuses on the means to reach the ends, seeing the two as separate entities. He explains how this should not be the case. Inquiries should focus both on the means and the ends together, as the ends can be constantly changing as the purpose for education changes.
Furthermore, one must not forget that education is a moral practice (p. 10). To illustrate, evidence that the most effective means of student success is due to their home environment. In certain instances, it may appear then that the best approach would be to at times pull the students out of their homes due to a less than ideal home environment, yet one knows that this is not something that is nor should be done. What is most effective may not be what is most desirable.
Dewey’s theory leads to the most important component that illustrates the deficiencies of evidence based research. “What worked” is not the same as “what works” or “what will work”. Just because an intervention demonstrated success in one situation does not mean that the same results will be yielded in a different setting, even if the level of students are the same. Why is this? Well, it may be because students are not patients. Students in one class are different from another; the situations they face are different. What is in their lives, what they bring to the day of learning, and what they have already learned can greatly vary.
Research can tell us what is possible, for it was possible in the past. However, it cannot tell us what will definitively happen even most of the time. What research can give us is an ‘understanding of the possibilities’, comprehension of ‘old knowledge’ can be used to guide us in our own unique problem solving.
With this moral practice in mind, educational research should include educational values. In educational settings, what is done and successful in one setting does not guarantee the same success in a different setting.
Howe’s discussion in Paul is much briefer. As Terri points out, is that he questions the hierarchical, technocratic approach and values both the means and ends. Inclusion, dialogue and deliberation are all needed.
These different approaches seem to imply the need to view evidence-based inquiries carefully. Remember that “what worked” does not lead us to ‘what works’ or even ‘what will work’. Instead, use the knowledge gained from ‘what worked’ in an inquiry to guide future research.
Both Biesta and Howe are both in favor of an “all hands on deck” approach to educational research. With the complex nature of education, everyone has a role to play in educational research. The students taught are not robots and therefore the teachers instructing them should not be either. Biesta’s discussion centers around several major themes including the subjective end result of education, the methodology of the randomized control, and the creation of knowledge.
Two quotes from Biesta’s (2007) article attracted my attention. First, he states that “What is needed … is an acknowledgement of the fact that education is a moral practice, rather than a technical or technological one” (p. 10). The author (using my academic writer speak here) continues in quoting Sanderson stating “Professionals need to make judgements about ‘the most appropriate course of action in the specific circumstances in the context of informal rules, heuristics, norms, and values’” (p. 10). The role the context plays in education is a theme that many authors we have read – including Biesta – have stated as playing a critical role. And if educators acknowledge the influence of the context, there cannot be a technical form of education.
Meanwhile Howe believes that education should engage with the broader world including other disciplines. He realizes that education is becoming much more private than public, placing a greater emphasis on preparing students for employment rather than creating better citizens. Howe cites legislation including No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top as examples of this trend in education. I am in favor with Howe as well as Biesta regarding using each person involved in the educational process to better educational research. Just as students should rely on peers in education, so should those attempting to improve education.
The overall point that I have taken away from this topic is the relationship between the creation of knowledge and the end result of education. As Biesta discusses concerning Dewey’s theory of knowing, knowledge is understanding the relationship between our actions and their consequences. If students know the end result of education – whether it be attaining a degree and/or gaining information as well as a myriad of other results, they will construct their actions to best achieve these results. These actions will certainly be influenced by the context of the situation as well. Therefore educational research should understand the complex nature of education and the many factors involved.
What is interesting to me about both Howe and Biesta is that they seem to view educational research the way a systems analyst or software developer views product research and development. Because that was my background before I became a teacher (career-switcher here!), I tend to see a lot of my doctoral coursework through that lens. For example, partnering with end users to help them not only clarify the problem, but also the requirements that would define the system to solve that problem, gets the developer buy-in and trust from the client, which leads to more reliable data. If you replace the word “developer” with “researcher” and the word “client” with “teacher/parent/student/etc.”, I believe this would be a fair description of how Biesta and Howe see democratic research.
I really liked Donia’s analysis that Biesta and Howe seem to have a slight difference in focus, at least in the readings we have been assigned. In my systems analysis analogy, Biesta may be concerned with the possible use (and misuse) of the system, while Howe would be concerned with the manner in which the requirements for the system were gathered.
Donia is a poet. I am picking up what she is putting down. Both Biesta and Howe highlight the importance of including diverse perspectives in ed research, but differ in their approach of how to do so. Biesta encourages dialogue about where ed researchers place their focus, or maybe more of how wide or narrow that focus should be.
Biesta summarizes his ideas so clearly at the conclusion of the reading. "The extent to which a government... actively supports and encourages researchers to go beyond simplistic questions about "what works," may well be an indication of the degree to which a society can be called democratic. From the point of view of democracy, an exclusive emphasis on 'what works' will simply not work (p. 22)." YES! LIKE!
Biesta's comparison of education to medicine means we will likely also go back to the comparison in class today. Because I tentatively stand by my previous statement in class about physicians being ever failing death delayers, I'd like to share snip-its from a modern version of the Hippocratic oath (written by Louis Lasagna in 1964 at Tufts):
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Even in medicine, what we consider the bastion of black/white science, practitioners embrace the messy, gray, and unknown in their field.
Howe and Biesta are two ways of looking at the same issue: democracy in education research. They ask for whom and for what is education research? From what I have learned thus far, it seems the political class in this country wants ‘fixes” to “problems” in the K12 education system. Biesta (on De Vries) notes that the role education research plays depends on the context under which the researchers operate. The political context determines what we study by creating the “end” (No Child Left Behind) and thus, treating education practice as an intervention or treatment. If the end goes unchallenged, the only role left to researchers is the technical role. Biesta argues that the technical model provides no place for debate about the end, and this is not democratic.
ReplyDeleteHowe (or was it Paul?) talked about the evolution of the technical model we now have (though not in these same terms). Given that the political context is not fixed, I have hope that the political class can be swayed to take a more democratic stance on the social purposes and culturally embedded ends of education research—a more social model. Of course, the “swaying” is a job that falls to those of us who are the up-and-coming stewards of the discipline. As I have come to realize, this drive for change (for democracy, towards a more social model) is the source of my grit and resistance to ideas (means) and “outcomes” (ends) that seem concrete and closed-off to discussion.
Biesta's epistemological argument addresses the question of what it means to know: What is knowledge? He presents the “product” of the technical model as techne—abstract, decontextualized knowledge, and the product of a more social model as phronesis—experience and wisdom. Drawing on Dewey’s transactional theory of knowing (citation), it is not a binary but a relationship between these forms of knowledge, the need for both, the wisdom of how to put them to use both in practice and in policy; knowing the limits and purposes of each, separately and together; debating the interaction between means and end.
I truly appreciate the Dewian relational model as presented by Biesta (see also Ross Collin’s recent work). It resists the privileging one way over another, it resists the binary (or dualism) of an either-or-ness. It seems we are continuously confronted by dualisms in our studies and in society at large. Elevating a discourse on the relationship between means and end, between action and consequence, provides a space and a way forward. It presents a glimmer of hope.
Finally, I want to address the question that Kurt poses each time our class meets: What is the purpose of education research? Given what I’ve learned so far, I would like to offer the tentative answer that having a greater purpose that is “up for debate” is a good thing.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post!
Biesta and Howe both advocate for democracy in research and discuss the need to engage in deliberation over technocracy. Action research could meet the conditions they both describe for research that involves the participants and stakeholders in dialogue and decision making and that acknowledges the value judgments made in educational practice.
ReplyDeleteWhile Howe focuses on qualitative research as the preferable, dialogical option, Biesta focuses on the consequences of the research. He references Dewey and concludes that “what works” is not acceptable if the means are not democratic. This refocuses the aim of educational research away from that which helps obtain the results desired by administrators and policy makers, and back inward, on the impact and outcomes for the students, the actual reasons for the enterprise.
It’s a little difficult to fairly compare Biesta’s vision of democratic research with Howe’s as Biesta’s writing is a well-developed critique of evidence based research in education and Howe’s writing in Paul is a brief critique of a research study. Here goes:
ReplyDeleteBiesta examines three assumptions of evidence based education, presents arguments that expose flaws and biases in those assumptions, and builds towards his conclusion that “we need to expand our views about the interrelations among research, policy, and practice in order to keep in mind that education is a thoroughly moral and political practice, one that needs to be subject to continuous democratic contestation and deliberation.” (pg. 6). A couple of Biesta’s points: orienting educational research towards the question of “what works” doesn’t work because effectiveness is contextual-so the question really is “effective for what?” (pg. 8). Biesta draws on Dewey as he argues that education is not a mechanistic process, but an interpretive and symbolic process of making meaning, not making knowledge. That which might be learned from research may describe what worked, but it cannot prescribe what will work as every problem is contextual and thus unique. An underlying assumption that methods or strategies shown by research to be “effective” may in fact not be desirable in a new, unique circumstance. When researchers fail to question the assumptions that undergird a scientific research approach, and fail to acknowledge the values that are woven through that approach, and fail to include stakeholders in a critical review of the research methodology and implications for practice and outcome, then that research is not democratic and may not be ethical. Howe considers many of the same things as manifestations of democratic and moral research-the ability to question underlying assumptions of what constitutes effective education outcomes and methodology, questions of context, and engagement of all stakeholders in these conversations. One of the arguments Biesta makes (thanks to de Vries) that Howe does not is that the theoretical framework within which research is conducted (for example, looking at educational practice from Wenger and Lave’s legitimate peripheral participation lens) provides a cultural perspective of research that can inform teachers by opening their eyes to paradigms they had previously not seen. Howe, in contrast, emphasizes that quantitative research in and of itself is not a positivistic approach and can sometimes be the beginning of an anti-positivism argument. He does not emphasize the benefits alternative lenses bring to practice via research, and this may be a point of emphasis on which the two do not see eye to eye. I don’t know.
There is absolutely a place for this kind of work in the research world. In fact, it seems to me that this type of work fits the educational research world much better than the mechanistic or technocratic research approaches that engulf science and medicine. In fact, I question whether the “gold standard” of research (RCT) in some aspects of medicine, particularly around questions of the whole ecosystem of health and wellbeing (of which humans are just one little part) are appropriate at all.
Biesta’s arguments for democratic research are more developed than Howe’s but are both critical of technological, positivist/post-positivist research because of the narrow focus and questionable means and ends. This line of research results in cookie cutter approaches to educational research and practice that fails to take into account the experiences and voice of “others.” Biesta addresses this problem in his discussion of the cultural role of research. Learners are not one-size-fits-all; therefore, educational research should not seek to find one-size-fits-all answers to the problems that are identified in education.
ReplyDeleteAs far as it’s place in the discipline, democratic research should be the dominant approach in educational research. I’m sure there are some questions in education that may be able to be explored using RCT (in ethical conditions in real environments, not contrived laboratory situations) perhaps through action research, but many of the issues in education need a more comprehensive and inclusive approach if we the research to be available and useful to consider/consult when making decision about educational policy or practice. I don’t think we’ll ever (and shouldn’t) get to the point where research won’t be used in some way to drive educational policy, but there are better ways of using it than it is now. Right now it seems that it’s being used primarily to shore up power and privilege moving us away from a true democracy.
Susan Dudley here...
ReplyDelete“What worked” is not the same as “what works” or “what will work”. Biesta’s vision on democratic research points out the deficiencies in evidence based education and the ‘gold standard’. He states similar ideas as we have discussed in class, questioning the rationale of equating of the type of research employed for medicine and the social sciences being the same, recognizing the hierarchical approach of evidence based research. Biesta points out that “effectiveness” is an instrumental value: it refers to the quality of processes but does not say anything about what an intervention is supposed to bring about” (p. 7). One must think about for what the intervention is effective.
Biesta illustrates the illogicalness of equating the need for evidence based research in the field of educational research as it is needed for medical research (at least how it is done in Westernized medicine). Students are not patients. They play an active role in the learning process by “interpreting and trying to make sense of what they are being taught” (p. 8). The teacher and student must work together for learning to occur. When a medicine is found effective, the only effort made by the patient is to take the pill, which does the work to find the cure. Interventions should be thought of as interactive processes for students to “respond and, through their response, to learn” (p. 9).
Biesta discusses how evidence-based research focuses on the means to reach the ends, seeing the two as separate entities. He explains how this should not be the case. Inquiries should focus both on the means and the ends together, as the ends can be constantly changing as the purpose for education changes.
Furthermore, one must not forget that education is a moral practice (p. 10).
To illustrate, evidence that the most effective means of student success is due to their home environment. In certain instances, it may appear then that the best approach would be to at times pull the students out of their homes due to a less than ideal home environment, yet one knows that this is not something that is nor should be done. What is most effective may not be what is most desirable.
Dewey’s theory leads to the most important component that illustrates the deficiencies of evidence based research. “What worked” is not the same as “what works” or “what will work”. Just because an intervention demonstrated success in one situation does not mean that the same results will be yielded in a different setting, even if the level of students are the same. Why is this? Well, it may be because students are not patients. Students in one class are different from another; the situations they face are different. What is in their lives, what they bring to the day of learning, and what they have already learned can greatly vary.
Research can tell us what is possible, for it was possible in the past. However, it cannot tell us what will definitively happen even most of the time. What research can give us is an ‘understanding of the possibilities’, comprehension of ‘old knowledge’ can be used to guide us in our own unique problem solving.
With this moral practice in mind, educational research should include educational values. In educational settings, what is done and successful in one setting does not guarantee the same success in a different setting.
Howe’s discussion in Paul is much briefer. As Terri points out, is that he questions the hierarchical, technocratic approach and values both the means and ends. Inclusion, dialogue and deliberation are all needed.
These different approaches seem to imply the need to view evidence-based inquiries carefully. Remember that “what worked” does not lead us to ‘what works’ or even ‘what will work’. Instead, use the knowledge gained from ‘what worked’ in an inquiry to guide future research.
Both Biesta and Howe are both in favor of an “all hands on deck” approach to educational research. With the complex nature of education, everyone has a role to play in educational research. The students taught are not robots and therefore the teachers instructing them should not be either. Biesta’s discussion centers around several major themes including the subjective end result of education, the methodology of the randomized control, and the creation of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteTwo quotes from Biesta’s (2007) article attracted my attention. First, he states that “What is needed … is an acknowledgement of the fact that education is a moral practice, rather than a technical or technological one” (p. 10). The author (using my academic writer speak here) continues in quoting Sanderson stating “Professionals need to make judgements about ‘the most appropriate course of action in the specific circumstances in the context of informal rules, heuristics, norms, and values’” (p. 10). The role the context plays in education is a theme that many authors we have read – including Biesta – have stated as playing a critical role. And if educators acknowledge the influence of the context, there cannot be a technical form of education.
Meanwhile Howe believes that education should engage with the broader world including other disciplines. He realizes that education is becoming much more private than public, placing a greater emphasis on preparing students for employment rather than creating better citizens. Howe cites legislation including No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top as examples of this trend in education. I am in favor with Howe as well as Biesta regarding using each person involved in the educational process to better educational research. Just as students should rely on peers in education, so should those attempting to improve education.
The overall point that I have taken away from this topic is the relationship between the creation of knowledge and the end result of education. As Biesta discusses concerning Dewey’s theory of knowing, knowledge is understanding the relationship between our actions and their consequences. If students know the end result of education – whether it be attaining a degree and/or gaining information as well as a myriad of other results, they will construct their actions to best achieve these results. These actions will certainly be influenced by the context of the situation as well. Therefore educational research should understand the complex nature of education and the many factors involved.
What is interesting to me about both Howe and Biesta is that they seem to view educational research the way a systems analyst or software developer views product research and development. Because that was my background before I became a teacher (career-switcher here!), I tend to see a lot of my doctoral coursework through that lens. For example, partnering with end users to help them not only clarify the problem, but also the requirements that would define the system to solve that problem, gets the developer buy-in and trust from the client, which leads to more reliable data. If you replace the word “developer” with “researcher” and the word “client” with “teacher/parent/student/etc.”, I believe this would be a fair description of how Biesta and Howe see democratic research.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Donia’s analysis that Biesta and Howe seem to have a slight difference in focus, at least in the readings we have been assigned. In my systems analysis analogy, Biesta may be concerned with the possible use (and misuse) of the system, while Howe would be concerned with the manner in which the requirements for the system were gathered.
Donia is a poet. I am picking up what she is putting down. Both Biesta and Howe highlight the importance of including diverse perspectives in ed research, but differ in their approach of how to do so. Biesta encourages dialogue about where ed researchers place their focus, or maybe more of how wide or narrow that focus should be.
ReplyDeleteBiesta summarizes his ideas so clearly at the conclusion of the reading. "The extent to which a government... actively supports and encourages researchers to go beyond simplistic questions about "what works," may well be an indication of the degree to which a society can be called democratic. From the point of view of democracy, an exclusive emphasis on 'what works' will simply not work (p. 22)." YES! LIKE!
Biesta's comparison of education to medicine means we will likely also go back to the comparison in class today. Because I tentatively stand by my previous statement in class about physicians being ever failing death delayers, I'd like to share snip-its from a modern version of the Hippocratic oath (written by Louis Lasagna in 1964 at Tufts):
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Even in medicine, what we consider the bastion of black/white science, practitioners embrace the messy, gray, and unknown in their field.