Elliot W. Eisner

Qualitative inquiry in education : the continuing debate

Part 1 Subjectivity and objectivity: subjectivity and objectivity - an objective inquiry, D.C. Phillips is naturalism a move away from positivism? materialist and feminist approaches to subjectivity in ethnographic research, Leslie G. Roman, Michael W. Apple commentary on the papers by Phillips and by Roman and Apple - subjectivity and objectivity, Egon G. Guba response to the commentary by Guba, D.C. Phillips. Part 2 Validity: on daffodils that come before the swallow dares, Madeleine R. Grumet on seeking - and rejecting - validity in qualitative research, Harry F. Wolcott commentray on the papers by Grumet and by Wolcott - looking for trouble - on the place of the ordinary in educational studies, Philip Jackson response to the commentary by Jackson, Madeleine R. Grumet. Part 3 Generalizability: generalizability and the single-case study, Robert Donmoyer increasingly the generalizability of qualitative research, Janet Ward Schofield commentary on the papers by Donmoyer and by Schofield - generalizing from case studies, Howard S. Becker. Part 4 Ethics: the ethics of qualitative research, Jonas F. Soltis ethics in qualitative field research - an individual perspective, Louis M. Smith commentary on the papers by Soltis and by Smith - toward a categorical imperative for qualitative research, Yvonna S. Lincoln response to the commentary by Lincoln, Jonas F. Soltis. Part 5 Uses of qualitative inquiry: using the narrative text as an occasion for conspiracy, Thomas E. Barone what can you learn from applesauce - a case of qualitative inquiry in use, Christopher M. Clark commentary on the papers by Barone and by Clark - animadversions and reflections on the uses of qualitative inquiry, Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman response to the commentary by Miles and Huberman, Thomas E. Barone. Part 6 Closing comments on a continuing debate, Elliot W. Eisner, Alan Peshkin.

On the Differences Between Scientific and Artistic Approaches to Qualitative Research

My intention in this paper is to identify 10 dimensions in which artistic and scientific approaches to qualitative research differ. The term qualitative research does not have a long history in the field of education and in many ways it not only hides the important distinctions which need to be made, but it is, itself, misleading. The major distinction we seek is not between qualitative and nonqualitative forms of research since all empirical research must of necessity pay attention to qualities, but between what is studied in a scientific mode and what is studied artistically. There can be no empirical research, that form of research that addresses problems in a material universe, that does not aim to describe, interpret, predict or control qualities. The major distinction to be made in the conduct of research is not located in the phenomenon of study but in the mode in which that study occurs. The difference that counts is between what is studied artistically and what is studied scientifically. These differences are the ones to which this paper is addressed. At the outset it should be said

The Primacy of Experience and the Politics of Method

Knowledge is rooted in experience and requires a form for its representation. Since all forms of representation constrain what can be represented, they can only partially represent what we know. Forms of representation not only constrain representation, they limit what we seek. As a result, socialization in method is a process that shapes what we can know and influences what we value. At base it is a political undertaking. This article addresses the politics of method and its effects on the character of educational research.

From episteme to phronesis to artistry in the study and improvement of teaching

Abstract This paper describes the shift in view concerning the conditions of knowledge in education. It describes the practical ramifications of positivism and the ways in which it impacted relationships between professors and school practitioners. It then provides a description of the emergence of phronesis as an alternative to episteme as an orientation to knowledge and eventually explores the ramifications of Aristotles concept of the productive, a concept related to artistry, as a further development of the growing pluralism in our views of knowledge and the conditions for excellent practice.

The Kind of Schools We Need.

Our schools, as they are now designed, often tacitly encourage the re- creation of a yellow-school-bus model of education. Yet we know there is a better way, Mr. Eisner says. That better way ought to be a part of the agenda the community discusses with teachers and school administrators, as we strive together to create the kind of schools we need. AS EVERYONE knows, there is both great interest in and great concern about the quality of education in American schools. Solutions to our perceived educational ills are often not very deep. They include mandating uniforms for students to improve their behavior; using vouchers to create a competitive climate to motivate educators to try harder; testing students each year for purposes of accountability; retaining students whose test scores have not reached specified levels; paying teachers and school administrators bonuses in relation to the measured performance of their students; and defining standards for aims, for content, for evaluation practices, and, most important, for student and teacher performance. Ironically, what seldom gets addressed in our efforts to reform schools is the vision of education that serves as the ideal for both the practice of schooling and its outcomes. We are not clear about what we are after. Aside from literacy and numeracy, what do we want to achieve? What are our aims? What is important? What kind of educational culture do we want our children to experience? In short, what kind of schools do we need? What we do seem to care a great deal about are standards and monitoring procedures. We want a collection of so-called best methods that will guarantee success. We want a testing program that will display the results of our efforts, often in rank-ordered league standings. We want an assessment program that allows little space for personal judgment, at least when it comes to evaluation. Personal judgment is equated with subjectivity, and we want none of that. We want to boil down teaching and evaluation practices to a scientifically grounded technology. Whether we can ever have a scientific technology of teaching practice, given the diversity of the students we teach, is problematic. Artistry and professional judgment will, in my opinion, always be required to teach well, to make intelligent education policy, to establish personal relationships with our students, and to appraise their growth. Those of us who work in the field of education are neither bank tellers who have little discretion nor assembly line workers whose actions are largely repetitive. Each child we teach is wonderfully unique, and each requires us to use in our work that most exquisite of human capacities, the ability to make judgments in the absence of rules. Although good teaching uses routines, it is seldom routine. Good teaching depends on sensibility and imagination. It courts surprise. It profits from caring. In short, good teaching is an artistic affair. But even artistry can profit from a vision of the kind of education we want to provide. The reason I believe it is important to have a vision of education is because without one we have no compass, no way of knowing which way we are headed. As a result, we succumb to the pet ideas that capture the attention of policy makers and those with pseudo-solutions to supposed problems. Is it really the case that more testing will improve teaching and learning or that uniforms will improve student behavior and build character? I have my doubts. We need a conception of what good schools provide and what students and teachers do in them. So let me share with you one mans vision of the kind of schools we need. The kind of schools we need would provide time during the school day at least once a week for teachers to meet to discuss and share their work, their hopes, and their problems with their colleagues. It is the school, not the university, that is the real center of teacher education. …

Objectivity in Educational Research

Objectivity is one of the most cherished ideals of the educational research community. In fact, it is so important that if our work is accused of being subjective, its status as a source of knowledge sinks slowly into the horizon like a setting sun. Yet, though we use the term objective with ease in our conversations and in our literature, its meaning is not particularly clear, nor, I will argue, are the consequences of the tacit, almost unexamined assumptions upon which it rests. When we speak of being objective, just what do we mean? One thing, apparently, is that we have taken pains to try to diminish or eliminate bias. To be objective or to do an objective study is to be or do something that is not primarily about ourselves, but about the world itself. Objectivity means in some contexts being fair, open to all sides of the argument. In other contexts, objectivity refers to a method or procedure through which we acquire information; an objective test is an example of such a procedure. In common discourse, to be objective or to have an objective view is to see things the way they are. When we conceptualize objectivity, we ineluctably imply its opposite, subjectivity, and between the two there is no doubt about which one comes out on top. We want to be objective in our views, objective in our methods, and above all, to have objective knowledge. To use the vernacular, we want to see and to tell it like it is.

The New Frontier in Qualitative Research Methodology

The past 25 years have seen an unprecedented growth in the use of nontraditional research methods in the social sciences. Interest in new approaches to research are, in part, motivated by the desire to secure more authentic information about the people and situations studied and by the realization that conventional forms of research often constrain the data in ways that misrepresent the phenomena the researcher wishes to understand. As a result of these beliefs and interests, new forms of data representation that elude conventional forms are being employed. These new forms have their promise as well as their perils. This article discusses the context in which these new forms of research have emerged and the promise and the perils they present.

Help or Hindrance

If one were to rank the various beliefs or assumptions in the field of curriculum that are thought most secure, the belief in the need for clarity and specificity in stating educational objectives would surely rank among the highest. Educational objectives, it is argued, need to be clearly specified for at least three reasons: first, because they provide the goals toward which the curriculum is aimed; second, because once clearly stated they facilitate the selection and organization of content; third, because when specified in both behavioral and content terms they make it possible to evaluate the outcomes of the curriculum.

Art In Science

Abstract This article presents the results of a study of artistry in the practice of research in the social sciences. Traditionally, science and art have been regarded as complementary, one dealing with the expression of feeling, the other with the pursuit of truth. Art, it is widely believed, is largely ornamental in life—nice but not necessary; science is critical to the future. Yet science has a personal side as well as a public one. What is the personal side of science like for those engaged in research in the social sciences? Do artistic considerations function in doing science? If so, where and when? We interviewed social scientists who were fellows at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences to secure insight into the role that artistry might play in the course of their work. This article describes what we learned.This article presents the results of a study of artistry in the practice of research in the social sciences. Traditionally, science and art have been regarded as complementary, one dealing with the expression of feeling, the other with the pursuit of truth. Art, it is widely believed, is largely ornamental in life—nice but not necessary; science is critical to the future. Yet science has a personal side as well as a public one. What is the personal side of science like for those engaged in research in the social sciences? Do artistic considerations function in doing science? If so, where and when? We interviewed social scientists who were fellows at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences to secure insight into the role that artistry might play in the course of their work. This article describes what we learned.

The Use of Qualitative Forms of Evaluation for Improving Educational Practice.

During the past five years my students at Stanford and I have been attempting to develop and articulate, both theoretically and practically, a qualitative, artistically grounded approach to educational evaluation. My interest in such an approach has developed out of an uneasiness that I have long felt with the tacit assumptions and explicit procedures embedded in conventional methods of evaluation. These methods participate in a tradition that has occupied a commanding position, not only in the field of evaluation, but in educational research as well. That tradition, as is wellknown, is rooted in the aspiration to apply