The National Research Council Committee’s report, in part a response to congressional legislation, pursues an outline for the foundations of an education science necessary for policy making. This article focuses on these foundations and argues that they have little to do with science and its relation to policy may not be as fruitful as the committee believes. The so-called bedrocks of science are based on, at best, weak premises and an unrigorous understanding of the sociology, history, and philosophy of science. There is a nostalgia for a simple and ordered universe of science that never was. The resulting models of science embody a technological sublime that weaves together the procedures of administration and engineering with utopian visions and discourses of progress ordered by the expansion of its expertise. Finally, although the resulting framework was to relieve educational research of its “awful” reputation, the report may reinstitute and reinstantiate those very practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bateson, G. (1958). The Naven: A survey of the problems suggested by a compositive picture of the culture of a New Guinea tribe drawn from three points of view. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2.
Bloch, M. (1963). The historian’s craft (P. Putnam, Trans.). New York: Knopf.
3.
Chaisson, E. (1994). The Hubble wars: Astrophysics meets astropolitics in the two billion dollar struggle over the Hubble Space Telescope. New York: HarperCollins.
4.
Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
5.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Desrosières, A. (1998). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning (C. Naish, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1993)
7.
Elzinga, A. (1985). Research, bureaucracy and the draft of epistemic criteria. In B. Wittrock & A. Elzinga (Eds.), The university research system: The public policies of the home of scientists (pp. 191-220). Stockholm: Almquist & Wiskell.
8.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interest (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon. (Original work published 1968)
9.
Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
Hamilton, D. (2001). Notes from nowhere (on the beginnings of modern schooling). In T. Popkewitz, B. Franklin, & M. Pereyra (Eds.), Cultural history and education: Critical essays on knowledge and schooling (pp. 187-206). New York: Routledge Falmer.
11.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.
12.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education (Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, R. Shavelson & L. Towne, Eds., Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15.
Novick, P. (1988). That noble dream: The “objectivity question” and the American historical profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Nye, D. E. (1999). American technological sublime. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Nye, D. E. (2003). America as second creation: Technology and narratives of new beginnings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Popkewitz, T. (1984). Paradigm and ideology in educational research, social functions of the intellectual. New York: Falmer.
19.
Popkewitz, T. (1998). A changing terrain of knowledge and power: A social epistemology of educational research. Educational Researcher, 26(9), 5-17.
20.
Popkewitz, T., & Lindblad, S. (2000). Educational governance and social inclusion and exclusion: Some conceptual difficulties and problematics in policy and research. Discourse, 21(1), 5-54.
21.
Popper, K. (1968). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.
22.
Rabinow, P. (1999). French DNA: Trouble in purgatory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Restivo, S. (1993). The Promethean task of bringing mathematics to earth. In S. Restivo, J. P. V. Bendegem, & R. Fischer (Eds.), Math worlds: Philosophical and social studies of mathematics and mathematics education (pp. 3-17). Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
Reusch, H., & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
25.
Ross, D. (1991). The origins of American social science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Rudolph, J. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis, the hidden agenda of modernity. New York: Free Press.
28.
Van Dijch, J. (1999). Imagenation: Popular images of genetics. New York: New York University Press.
29.
Wagner, P. (2001). A history and theory of the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Wallerstein, I. (1991). Unthinking social science: The limits of nineteenth-century paradigms. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
31.
Watson, J. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: Penguin.
32.
Weber, M. (1958). Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parrsons, Trans.). New York: Scribner.
