The current US administration _is_ trying to interfere in social science
research, especially in education, mainly because they do not want to see
funding going to any sort of research that is likely to come up with
findings that contradict their politically expedient (or ideologically
motivated) policies.
I have heard credibly from various people who have talked informally with
administration policy people that they are quite candid about this. They
just don't see why their agencies should fund research that goes against
adminstration policy. The same attitude was behind the edict to remove all
elements of official Dept of Ed websites that went against administration
policy, and the efforts to remove the ERIC database system in all respects
in which it represented an independent mode of access to research along the
same lines. There have been numerous protests from education organizations,
library organizations, etc.
There is, I think, a very close parallel with some unfortunate Soviet
precedents. One way of seeing all research as political is to consider
research primarily in terms of its potential political effects, and to act
as politicians generally do, to support their friends and screw their
enemies. The present US administration is very much a product of the
"culture wars", the right-wing reaction against the modest gains of the
left in academic circles since the 1960s. The doctrine of the culture wars,
from the right, was that the left was using its academic power (slight as
it was) to push a political agenda, and that therefore it was perfectly
fair to use political influence to counter them/us. The US administration
takes the same position.
The attempt to define legitimate methodology in social science research has
nothing to do with an interest in research methods. It has to do with
concerns about the outcomes of the research. By and large it is
ethnographic and discourse-based research about what actually happens in
schools and classrooms, what teachers and students and parents really think
and value, etc. that best shows the emptiness and dysfunctional effects of
administration policies and rhetoric about educational reform. I suppose it
is possible that large-scale quantitative studies could and someday will
come to the same conclusions, but meanwhile the administration can direct
massive research funding to its friends, who will produce the kind of
research that once "proved" that smoking tobacco was not harmful, that
marijuana damaged your chromosomes, that global warming was not a problem,
and that more money would not improve overcrowded urban schools with leaky
roofs.
Merry Christmas!
THE CARLYLE GROUP
At 02:05 PM 12/23/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear everybody-
>
>I'm worry that Federal government is a business of defining what science is
>in general and what science is in educational research in specific. ERIC has
>become the first (??) victim of such interference. Michael Castle, the
>Republican congressman from Delaware (there is only one congress person from
>this tiny state), defined "scientific research" in education as following
>the rigid medical model (i.e., pre- and post-test with control groups). He
>plays the clue role now in defining Bush's policies in area of education and
>research. I wonder if this Republican revolution is the second wave of
>Lysenko-type of management of Science by the State. In my view, the State
>has to be separated from discussions of what is scientific - the question
>that has to be left to the fields of science practices themselves - as part
>of separation of power.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Eugene
>PS Lysenko was an academician (not a congressman although) appointed by
>Stalin to define "the scientific" biology and agriculture resulted in
>physical persecutions of Soviet scholars who studied genetics that was
>defamed as "bourgeois pseudo-science". The US style of Lyseknoanism is to
>cut federal funding to so-called "unscientific research" and suppress public
>access to publications of research the current government does not like.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: N*** [mailto:vygotsky who-is-at nateweb.info]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:31 PM
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: Re: Democracy, Federal Government, and Education
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > I think that one has to read it very liberally is the
> > key. It is not straight forward like the federal role
> > in commerce and capital. In fact, I believe many New
> > Deal programs and the 1960's increasing role in
> > education was argued on such premises. It was not the
> > federal goverments "authentic" role in these domains,
> > but rather their analogy to the federal goverments
> > role in regulating commerce and capital.
> >
> > I think Jesse Jackson Jr.'s approach to "rewriting"
> > the consitution is right on. Note your quote on
> > "general welfare" in contrast to "specific" welfare.
> > Specific welfare's such as the right to healthcare,
> > housing, jobs, education etc.
> >
> > There of course is the age old liberatarian argument
> > of the relationship between the federal goverments
> > role in education and Dewey's thoughts on democracy. I
> > think this tension is felt all over the country with
> > implementing the LACBA (Leave All Children Behind Act)
> > and local values about education.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Bill Barowy <wbarowy@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > [This posting apparently did not go through
> > > yesterday, hence my earlier test.
> > > Could not be sure until the archives proved so this
> > > morning. Here's a second
> > > try.]
> > >
> > >
> > > Concerning the role of the Federal Government in
> > > Education, and whether it
> > > should be considered "interfering" or "doing it's
> > > job", I think a little
> > > historical analysis might help. (CHAT to the
> > > beckoning?) In its preamble,
> > > the US Constitution establishes the object to
> > > "promote the general Welfare,
> > > and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
> > > and our Posterity". If we
> > > interpret this statement inclusively and liberally ,
> > > the US gov role in
> > > education appears secured, "our Posterity" arguably
> > > encompassing our
> > > children.
> > >
> > > Dewey in "Democracy and Education" does argue so:
> > >
> > > "Upon the educational side, we note first that the
> > > realization of a form of
> > > social life in which interests are mutually
> > > interpenetrating, and where
> > > progress, or readjustment, is an important
> > > consideration, makes a democratic
> > > community more interested than other communities
> > > have cause to be in
> > > deliberate and systematic education. The devotion
> > > of democracy to education
> > > is a familiar fact. ... A democracy is more than a
> > > form of government; it is
> > > primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint
> > > communicated experience.
> > > The extension in space of the number of individuals
> > > who participate in an
> > > interest so that each has to refer his own action to
> > > that of others, and to
> > > consider the action of others to give point and
> > > direction to his own, is
> > > equivalent to the breaking down of those barriers of
> > > class, race, and
> > > national territory which kept men from perceiving
> > > the full import of their
> > > activity. ... A society which is mobile, which is
> > > full of channels for the
> > > distribution of a change occurring anywhere, must
> > > see to it that its members
> > > are educated to personal initiative and
> > > adaptability" (p. 87-88)
> > >
> > > There is more to read before, after, and in between
> > > what's quoted , which I
> > > find fascinating in its considerations of education
> > > and democracy.
> > > Personally, within any given duration I might not
> > > agree with the means and
> > > ways with which the Federal Government invests
> > > itself in education, but in
> > > understanding democracy at a fundamental level I
> > > *cannot* hold this
> > > investment itself to be invalid.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, on a similar note -- we will have some
> > > opportunity soon to review a
> > > second draft constitution for CHSIG, which has gone
> > > through a first draft and
> > > commentary by some SIG officers past and present.
> > > It'll appear some time in
> > > the next week or so on a web site and perhaps also
> > > in email for discussion by
> > > the membership. Stay tuned. I'm open to
> > > suggestions for this process.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------------
> > > bb
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
Jay Lemke
Professor
University of Michigan
School of Education
610 East University
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Tel. 734-763-9276
Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
Website. www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST