Mike Cole asked yesterday,
>Eugene-- How do you propose to implement your ideas about group
>based activities in the state of California where a back to basic
>movement says scrap previous experiments in non-traditional
>reading techniques?
>
>In general, how does one confront this issue productively?
My socio-historico-cultural background, as an immigrant from the former
Soviet Union, firmly link with the country of "the great social experiment."
This background produce strong mistrust to "missionary vision" and ideas
that are supposed to be implemented. As a famous Soviet poet-dissident
Alexander Galich wrote in his lyrics:
Don't be afraid of prison, don't be afraid of poverty,
Don't be afraid of death or hunger,
But do be afraid of only one,
Who says, "I know how to do things!"
Who says, "People, follow me,
I teach you how to do things!"
/Galich, Poem about Stalin; translation from Russian is mine/
This mistrust in the "missionary approach" is based on two main assumptions:
1) solution of a problem is not transferable. Solutions are local,
contextual, and personal. If people are not part of decision making
process, if they do not have ownership of this process =96 any "solution"
given to the people is not genuine solution. It is a problem.
2) the two-step decision making process -- one people develop ideas, other
people implement the ideas =96 leads to usurpation of power, to
authoritarianism or totalitarism, when people who are supposed to implement
solutions developed by others deprived of power. In a relation with the
position of teachers in the US, Andy Hargreaves (1995) writes "teachers are
depicted as being treated like recovering alcoholics: needing to adopt
step-by-step methods of instruction, or comply imposed tests and curricula
in order to be effective" (pp. 14-15, "Changing teachers, changing times").
The research approach that I am comfortable so far is what I call
"researcher as a collector of folklore" or "researcher as a folklorist."
According to this approach, I go to describe existing innovative and
traditional school institutions. I go to gather "institutional folklore."
This description is not only pictographic but reflective, analytic, and
critic. Unlike the "missionary" approach to research, that treats theory as
guidelines for implementation, the "folklorist" approach treats theory as an
"initial point" for personal improvisation and experimentation. Thus,
theory is not a solution but provocation and anchor (like folk or classic
tunes for jazz musicians). The "folklorist" approach to research is no less
politically active than the "missionary" approach. For example, I support
charter school and voucher initiatives. However, I don't see them as
solutions for many of educational problems but organizational opportunities
for people's experimentation and improvisation. I expect "monsters" coming
out of these initiatives no less (or even more) than "beauties" but I don't
expect much "beauties" from the current stagnant public system in the
organizational form as it is. I can be wrong and I see risk of my political
stand and actions.
Actually, I know that I am wrong but I don't know yet in what exactly I'm
wrong and at what degree. This bring us to the third research position that
can be called "researcher as a failed utopian." Timothy Lensmire's book
(1995) "When children write: Critical re-visions of the writing workshop" is
a good example of such approach to research. The metaphor of "failed
utopia" refers not to the failed endeavor that the researcher-practitioner
had started =96 on the contrary the endeavor is successful (Timothy's=
writing
workshop organized by him for elementary school children was very
successful). It refers to transformation with the researcher him/herself
that occurred as a result of the success. The researcher got (built) what
s/he wanted but s/he recognizes that s/he was wrong in wanting that. Angel
Lin outlined the transformation that occurred with Timothy Lensmire in her
review of Timothy's book she posted yesterday. It is interesting to know if
Timothy started his project as a "missionary" wanting to develop guidelines
(i.e., the "magic bullet") so teachers could implement in their classrooms,
or as a "failed utopian" expecting to be transformed in the endeavor, or=
else.
There may be some other types of approaches to research beyond the three
approaches =96 "missionary," "folklorist," and "failed utopian" =96 I=
portrayed
here. There may be different preference people have. Andy Hargreaves (1995)
in his book, mentioned above, criticized my "folklorist" approach:
"A second response [to postmodern pressures -- EM] has been more apparent in
smaller primary or elementary schools which often have a little more
flexibility to innovate. This has been to retreat behind the ramparts of
romantic progressivism, and build close-knit, collaborative communities of a
premodern kind among their teachers (and sometimes their parents) in pursuit
of common visions of educational improvement. =85 Given these conditions of
conflict and complexity, this response seems more able to establish enclaves
of experimentation (especially in more protected middle class communities)
than to generate and sustain larger waves of system-wide change" (p. 33).=20
It is me! I belief in enclaves (i.e., that enclaves are open systems of
diversity) and don't mind if they are in middle class communities so far.
Eugene Matusov
------------------------------------------------
Eugene Matusov
Psychology Department
University of California at Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
EMATUSOV who-is-at cats.ucsc.edu