EDUS703, Summer 2019

Use this space to ask a question that came up while you read Chapters 3-4. It can be pretty much any kind of question, from the specific and technical (e.g., what does it mean when he says X) to the broad and philosophical (e.g., why is economics thought of as the most successful/effective of the social sciences, pp. 43-44). All questions are welcome! 

We have reached the final segment of our two course sequence together...the Flyvbjerg book group! For today's blog, consider why he includes the somewhat lengthy discussion of the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model of expertise (Ch. 2). What does it have to do with making social science matter and what connections do you see between it and what we have been doing in 702-703?

Was there any part of these readings that you found exciting, hopeful, etc. with regard to the future of the academy? Are there any takeaways for you about how you might think about your own work moving forward?

This prompt requires two post twice: 1. Write about something that the Lee discusses that you found interesting, helpful, troubling, upsetting, etc. (basically, something that you thing merits more discussion) 2. Reply to someone else's post or someone else's response to a post. Join the conversation about whatever topic you choose.

Scroll back through your posts to your May 28 blog posts…look for examples of values entering the arena of ed. research. Are these examples problematic? Are the expressions of values biased? Any other thoughts? 

On pp. 95-97 Rallis and Rossman make the case (they argue) that developing an argument is a key component of social science research. As one who works in Philosophy of Education, this language has always been reasonably comfortable for me, but I have noticed that some doc students seem to find it foreign or strange in the context of empirical research. Please reflect on how you think about "argument" and how this does or does not fit easily with your conceptions of educational research.