Have you ever thought about any potential unintended consequences
in acquiring disciplinary expertise? Discuss
any possible risks and why, presumably, you see the rewards as worth the risks.
One could read Richardson as pushing back against narrow disciplinarity when
she advocates for “stewardship.” Feel free to discuss any of this or anything else
you found interesting in the readings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have never thought about any potential unintended consequences of acquiring disciplinary expertise. While I'm having a hard time imagining the consequences, I believe that the rewards are worth the risks. After the readings for this week, I do see how earning a doctoral degree places the holder in a position of responsibility to themselves, their field, and those outside of the field. And, I'm looking forward to a chance to think about possible reconceptualizations and futures within my field (art education). I think Richardson's advocating for stewardship instead of disciplinarity moves from focusing on the field at large to the people who make up (and will make up) the field.
ReplyDeleteThe reading by Richardson made me think more about the role that I play as a current doctoral student. I liked the quote from Lee Shulman that she included about the difference between knowledge and understanding (p. 255). Thinking about understanding as a "form of ownership," I think about the work that I am planning to do for my dissertation and how I will have to ownership of the understanding that I will gain from this experience of being a doctoral student. From my master's degree and my first semester as a doctoral student, I feel as though I have gained much formal knowledge and have been able to check my beliefs and misconceptions. But, I'm hoping to broaden my practical knowledge. As I read the Golde and Walker reading, I checked myself against the "trends" in education mentioned. While I do attribute to the trends of feminization, the minority percentage, and the percentage of those without a bachelor's degree in education, I do not follow the others. I am in my early career and have not had years of teaching experience; I am a full-time student and graduate assistant; and I am seeking to be a researcher after completing this degree. Going back to those "forms of knowing," I feel as thought the combination of my formal knowledge and beliefs are guiding me to seek out practical experiences that will help me with my future research.
Also, in terms of thinking about my field, I agree with Richardson that fields do not stand on their own or stand still. I had a hard time trying to decide if art education was a traditional discipline, special-interest field, or cross-disciplinary program. Further, I believe that I see that postmodernist questioning happening my field. And that's something that I've been excited to see in my education: the questioning of knowledge and how that can be explored through art. But, I wonder if these postmodernist notions align with the definitions or criteria provided by the "authorities" that Nixon mentions in his article. Is there a need for criteria of disciplinarity when disciplines seem to become increasingly interdisciplinary? I wonder if our as doctoral students causes disciplines to become more interdisciplinary in nature as we seek out new connections and gaps within our fields. Also, I do not think that I agree with Nixon's notion of obtaining recognition as a discipline through the respect by observers, "a public evaluation" (p. 48). I think there could be bias there. What if these observers do not value the work or the people engaged with the work? I think there could be bias in terms of what and who should be respected.
I also liked Shulman's notion of ownership as a side-effect of real understanding.
DeleteAmber - I too commented on Shulman's idea of understanding. I liked that he articulated the difference between knowledge and understanding in a way that I was unable to. I plan to use this "definition" from now on and have saved the quote and citation!
DeleteAfter the readings, three ideas came to mind- hopefully be the end of these paragraphs, I will have figured out if they are “unintended consequences,” “risks,” and/or “rewards!” I was immediately attracted to the idea of “stewardship” and I would say that it was a serious driving force in my decision to leave the classroom and pursue a Ph.D. Truthfully, it’s not the degree that I’m after- rather the professional clout and acknowledgement that comes along with it. After teaching as both a general education teacher and a special educator for eleven years, I found myself with a significant amount of “experience,” but a decreasing amount of opportunity to apply that experience! Throughout my years of teaching, I found less flexibility and less opportunity to make decisions for my students. I found that school districts and building-level specialists were directing the curriculum and every year I was given another “scripted” type of program to add to the arsenal. Each year, I found myself fighting for control over my schedule, access to resources, and opportunities to advocate for my students’ needs. I would’ve thought that as my experience and knowledge in the profession grew, so would the trust in my experience and knowledge. I desperately want to be a steward and hope that with some additional letters after my name, I’ll get the chance.
ReplyDeleteI love the question that Richardson (inadvertently) poses about knowing “what’s best” for students just because you were one. When we’ve got folks who haven’t worked with students or who haven’t experienced first-hand the transfer of knowledge, it’s hard to accept that they’ve got the right idea when it comes to education reform and policy.
My third reaction came from the Nixon article regarding the definition of a “discipline” and unfortunately it’s carries the same negativity of my previous ideas, but I think it really gets at the main question of this post. I recently became aware of the amount of time that departments in the school of ed. spend considering which courses fall under which departments and the financial/budget concepts that accompany those decisions. I was struck by what seems to be a lack of ability to look at learners as just that- learners. Why “special” education courses and why not just about teaching learners who represent a spectrum? Why not explore teaching/learning theory and then apply it to both math and science concepts? I wonder if an unintended consequence of establishing disciplines is that we are limiting our own thinking and ability to problem-solve in a greater area.
A potential unintended consequence in acquiring disciplinary expertise is the responsibility to do something with it. As stated by Richardson, Ph.D.’s are stewards of education. As Richardson states, “They have a sense of obligation to their field in helping preserve the best while promoting change and improvement (p. 254).” This is something that really hit home with me. I often explain myself as a role person as opposed to a title person. Meaning, it doesn’t matter to me whether I am a teacher, assistant principal, principal, superintendent, etc. What matters to me is that I am fulfilling a role in which I can help both students and teachers enhance the teaching and learning experience. When it comes to getting a Ph.D. I see the act of obtaining one as simply receiving a new title. Ph.D. turns into a role when you become a steward for education. It is when you enhance the educational experience and system as a whole. In order to be a steward of education, one must obtain the degree with fidelity. In other words, although disciplines or tracks must be chosen, it is important to understand the system as a whole as well as the pieces of other disciplines.
ReplyDeleteAs Richardson expresses, fields do not stand on their own, nor are they stagnant. I believe it is important to understand as many different perspectives and disciplines as possible. In order to be stewards of education and preserve the good while enhancing the areas of need, Ph.D. students must understand how their specific field fits into the bigger picture. I believe that one of the best ways to learn how to be a steward of education is to do it. This is where practical knowledge comes into play. I feel that current experts in the field and stewards of education must help current Ph.D. students gain this practical knowledge. I believe this should be part of the responsibilities that Richardson expresses. It is important to network and surround yourself with people who you can learn and grow from and alongside of.
I love your first statement! I would not have thought about the fact that the responsibility of utilizing your strength could be viewed as an unintended consequence. It indeed is a consequence that can be viewed as both positive and negative. I do believe that the positives outweigh any negatives. However, I do understand. With expertise comes the duty to continuously nurture and uphold that expertise so that others may also benefit.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePrior to this set of readings, I have, unfortunately, spent a fair amount of time ruminating on the potential consequences of acquiring disciplinary expertise. Usually these concerning thoughts come when I am feeling especially stressed or feel that I may be underachieving in the moment. These internal dialogues usually take cyclical and unproductive shapes, where I repeatedly ask myself questions such as, “Is this stress worth it?” “Will you be able to achieve what you want to from here?” “How will I ultimately be helping students and teachers?” and in a very weak moment, “Perhaps, ignorance really is bliss? Well, it’s a little late for that now…”
ReplyDeleteAfter years in the classroom, and increasing awareness of systemic issues, I often ended up feeling depleted and defeated, despite the fact that I loved teaching, and enjoyed (most!) of my students tremendously. In many ways I felt, and still feel, that pursuing a Ph.D. in education was the next logical step, a way to feel more empowered to tackle even small changes I believe need to be made in our current educational system. One of the possible risks I see is that earning a more advanced degree may not be enough; I fear that I may always feel inadequately prepared to accomplish all that I want to contribute. However, I do believe further study, inquiry, and discussion as I work toward a Ph.D. is truly the best use of my time and energy in terms of continuing to work toward positive change. In this sense, I see the long-term reward as very much worth the risks.
I found Richardson’s view of stewardship a bit intimidating in its loftiness, but also extremely heartening as an over-arching reminder of what a steward in education should endeavor to accomplish. Richardson described stewards as those who “have a sense of obligation to their field in helping preserve the best while promoting change and improvement” (254). I returned to this statement frequently throughout the reading as a reminder of a critical part of Richardson’s message. I did find that instead of focusing on “narrow disciplinarity” she seemed more interested in the long-term impacts of drawing meaningful connections across all members of the field of education.
I appreciated Richardson’s outline of the value of providing Ph.D students with opportunities to combine examination of their own beliefs with formal knowledge in order to “place stewards in a position to work with educators, policymakers, legislators, and the public to raise the level of analysis and understanding about education. This is a critical element of their role in the stewardship of the enterprise” (258). I read Richardson’s three key components of formal knowledge, practical knowledge, and examining beliefs and misconceptions, as a sort of thematic lesson plan. Her ideas are both salient and inclusive, which I felt connected well to Golde’s observation that unlike students in a chemistry Ph.D. program, for example, there is an extremely wide range of prior educational and work experience for those in a Ph.D program in education. In Table 13.1, Richardson repeatedly mentions the value of thinking of “one’s work as a contribution to an ongoing conversation,” which seems an excellent frame of mind from which to begin becoming a steward in the ever-changing field of education.
When I think about disciplinary expertise in education, I am reminded that in many cases it is very different from expertise in other fields of study. A cardiologist, chemical engineer, and lawyer are all experts and practitioners in their respective fields. I’m not convinced it is the same in education. Over the course of a ten year career in teaching and having earned two graduate degrees in education and now working on a third, I’ve encountered the consequences of disciplinary expertise in education. I think one of the biggest is the disconnect that exists between academics and practitioners. It is a disconnect that I believe is not as present in other fields quite like it is in education. This is one of the reasons why I chose to pursue my doctorate. As I progress through this program, it is important for me to remain directly connected to schools. I like Richardson’s use of the term “steward of education.” I think it is a novel term that we need to use more to help bridge the gap that exists between educational theory and practice. I’m hopeful that this will be a topic covered throughout this course.
ReplyDeleteI’d also like to comment on the debate Richardson introduced surrounding the designation of education as its own true discipline. I believe that it is; however, I think many would disagree with such a claim. Like most disciplines, Richardson points out that education has “its own set of problems, questions, knowledge bases, and approaches to inquiry” (p. 254). Critics, Richardson noted, argue that the interdisciplinarity of education weakens arguments for it to be considered its own field. I would contend that the converse is true. Nixon, however, concluded his article stating that “In the final analysis, the collective behavior, the quality of the endeavors, of the scholars of a field must command a sufficient respect by observers for the label "discipline" to be truly deserved and thus bestowed on the field in academic circles” (p. 48). It is that “respect” that I believe is oftentimes lacking and is necessary to get education recognized as a discipline. I’d also argue that when the gap between academics and practitioners starts to close, the field will be better recognized and respected as its own, unique discipline.
Prior to the readings, I never thought about unintended consequences in acquiring disciplinary expertise. As I reflect on the articles, I think unintended consequences from disciplinary expertise doesn’t have to be thought of in a negative context. Perhaps this is due in part to my reason for pursuing a doctorate in the first place. I am the first college graduate in my family and the first person in my family to pursue a doctorate degree. The family pride, sense of accomplishment, and responsibility that accompanies this feat is far greater than any repercussions that I can think of from acquiring disciplinary expertise.
ReplyDeleteI found the statistics in Golde and Walker’s article about the students of doctoral education, such as race, age, and prior education very interesting. A professor once told me that only about two percent of all doctoral degrees are held by persons of African Descent. According to Golde and Walker, nearly half of the PhDs obtained by African Americans are in education. This fact has piqued my curiosity about why this is. Golde and Walker also reported that only about 1/3 of those pursuing a doctorate in education have an undergraduate degree in education. My own experience is indicative of this as I am one of very few people of color in the program and my undergraduate and master’s degrees are in social work. Having degrees in a discipline other than education has been one of the most highlighted differences for me in the program thus far. Because of my background I have mostly experienced education through the lens of a social worker. This creates differences of beliefs and misconceptions which Richardson discusses. Yet, I think this brings about tremendous advantages, such as not being limited to the formal knowledge or practical knowledge of only one discipline. With respect to age, going “back to school” at a later age can be a daunting task. So, as an older student I found it encouraging that the median age of a doctoral student is 44.
Golde and Walker’s median age ties into Richardson’s presentation of practical knowledge. In my opinion, formal knowledge without practical knowledge or experience is useless. Fortunately, my practical knowledge/experience in social work and education has been a major asset and has significantly supported my learning (formal knowledge). I agree with Richardson that a program must have, and students must be exposed to practical experience opportunities to create a well-rounded student and ultimately develop a “good” steward of field and enterprise. In social work, policy and practice are equally important and drive one another. It wasn’t until later in my career that I truly appreciated this necessity. Richardson’s “stewards of a field, stewards of an enterprise” reminds me of this. We have a responsibility to think beyond just our specialization or concentration, but to be a steward of the system.
I have never thought about any potential unintended consequences in acquiring disciplinary expertise. The thought never came to mind as it was assumed that disciplinary expertise could provide only positive and rewarding results. I do, however, understand why the question was posed and see where possible risks could come into play now that it has been brought to my attention. It is possible that scholars can be overly focused on one explicit focal point while disregarding the possible connections from other areas of study. They could also gain so much knowledge in a specific area that they refuse to veer off from tradition and accept change. I do believe that the rewards are worth the risks and hope that scholars take caution in their disciplinary development to avoid these risks at all costs for the betterment of their field. As Richardson declares, it is important to be “stewards of both a field of study and an enterprise.” A true steward would not allow the risks to outweigh the benefits. As stated, “In order to be stewards of the discipline (in the sense of the word meaning ‘the enterprise’), they will require more understanding of the system than their own specialized field of study will provide” (Richardson, 257).
ReplyDeleteIt is my duty, as a mathematics educator, to uphold a high level of expertise in mathematics. In doing so, I must retain my formal foundational and conceptual knowledge, stay up to date with new trends and findings to upkeep my practical knowledge, and maintain an awareness of common predispositions and misconceptions various people may have (including myself) with regard to the teaching and learning of mathematics. While these are important feats in the area of mathematics, it is also my duty to make real-world connections so that students see and understand the reason they must learn mathematics. These connections bring together several other disciplines and fields of study to make the learning of mathematics more worthwhile in each individual student’s mind.
I never thought about the possible difference in interpretations of the labels “discipline” and “field of study.” Prior to the assigned readings, I thought of mathematics as both my discipline and my field of study. The two were “one and the same” in my mind. Now, I realize that the various subject areas within mathematics are disciplines while mathematics is the field of study. From undergraduate experience, I always separated statistics from mathematics. However, once I started teaching full-time at the collegiate level, I realized that certain colleges and universities have their own interpretation of whether statistics is held within the sciences (regarded as mathematics) or within the arts (regarded as business). I should have thought about the difference at that moment. Instead, I assumed it was arbitrary and thought nothing more of it.
To my mind, there are potentially problematic unintended consequences related to two manifestations of “disciplinary expertise” - firstly in believing I have somehow attained it, and secondly in being perceived to have attained it. I’ll limit this response to the former.
ReplyDeleteIf there comes a time when I believe I have reached an expert level of knowledge and understanding in my field I will have certainly have lost an important degree of relative imagination and worldliness, for a belief in my own expertise rests on the assumption that I fully understand art education in a multitude of contexts and from within a vast and varied range of perspectives. The truth is I don’t and never will. The field of Art Education [capital A, capital E] is wonderfully broad, rich and diverse. Naturally, my own experiences and education limit an understanding of the field that could even come close to being called expert. Do I have many years of reflective teaching experience? Yes. Have I studied art education with great fervor, passion, and focus? Yes. Will I continue to deepen and develop knowledge and understanding in the field as I work toward a PhD? Again, yes. However, despite a sense of competence and confidence that my doctoral studies will surely engender, I believe to contribute fruitfully to this field with intellectual fidelity requires that I vigilantly assume I know, relatively speaking, very little. This is a philosophy of learning that I valued for myself as a teacher in schools and museums and it has been a hallmark of my doctoral experience.
I believe this framing of knowledge or expertise can contribute meaningfully to my role as a steward of art education, something that Richardson illuminated clearly and convincingly in her article - despite an omission of any kind of arts education from her list of possible education disciplines. (No biggie, Virginia; you can hit us up next time.) This resistance to “expertise” falls in line with some of the elements listed in Cohen and Ball’s table, “Crucial Elements of Scholarly Inquiry and Student Learning” (p. 261-263) such as those related to seeking other perspectives, questioning one’s wisdom, changing one’s mind, comparing across traditions and cultures, connecting one’s work to that of other’s, embracing criticism, and seeing research as a part of an ongoing conversation, to name a few. Assuming disciplinary expertise undermines the notion that the field is constantly shifting and evolving, as Richardson mentions, and the idea that there are always new understandings to be gained, new questions to be asked, and alternate perspectives that I haven’t considered.
As an addendum, I fully believe in the validity of education and art education as disciplines worthy of such a distinction, and perceive debates around the subject as tired remnants of a modernist preoccupation with classification and intellectual hierarchy. Despite what I think about these debates, I acknowledge that not all disciplines are afforded the same degree of legitimacy. (I am, after all, an art teacher.) I found it interesting that Nixon’s article devoted so much attention to laying out various criteria of what it means to be a discipline (those by Shermis and Hanna resonated the most with me) and then introduced in his conclusion the most interesting morsel of the paper which dealt with academic recognition as it relates to public perception, reputation, and evaluation. I’d love to read a paper that sampled perspectives from people who/organizations that view education (and art ed) as lesser academic pursuits. Maybe then we can better understand why it is that our culture criminally undervalues what teachers do and all that it takes to make an educational system work meaningfully, responsibly, and effectively for its students.
Last note: from a feminist perspective I’m hesitant to state a resistance to being considered an expert. Though I will never call myself an expert at large in art education, this does not mean I will subjugate my own experiences and knowledge when it would be more prudent to capitalize on them in the service of advocacy and positive growth for art education.
DeleteAs a child, I often heard my parents use the phrase, "it is better to be a jack of all trades than a master of none," so it did not surprise me that almost immediately after being accepted into VCU's doctoral program I experienced a wave of applicant remorse. While I consider myself extremely blessed to have been accepted into the program, I couldn't help but wonder what I was getting myself into. While I was (and remain) confident in my abilities to successfully grapple with demanding coursework, I spent a great deal of time after my acceptance questioning if I was making the right decision by narrowing my professional lens. In a broader sense, I ask the same question of people outside of myself who elect to acquire disciplinary expertise.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of education, I think there are some risks and drawbacks to having a narrowed disciplinary focus (i.e. special-interest fields). As Richardson wrote, "education borrows from and combines with other, more traditional, disciplines." If a researcher or practitioner focuses solely on their area of interest, I think they lessen their validity and authority within their respective fields. In my opinion, a person cannot argue for point "A" without having at least considered how points "B", "C", and "D" relate, contradict or factor into point "A". Knowing this, I think the most effective educational stewards are those who borrow from and marry ideas from other schools of thought to develop a holistic view of the educational landscape. Richardson went on the write that in order for someone to be a steward of a discipline, "they will require more understanding of the system than their own specialized field of study will provide." Because students apply for selection within specific academic tracks, it is inevitable that we will acquire a disciplinary expertise that is more closely focused on specific areas than others but, I think schools and teacher-students who recognize the need to fully develop as stewards will work to ensure exposure to other disciplines.
My post is in no way intended to promote the idea of total inter-disciplinary schools of education. As Golde and Walker wrote, "the study of education ranges from administration and supervision... to the theory of individual learning." With that in mind, and the understanding that education is extremely vast, there is a fairly obvious need to specialize and develop expertise. To Richardson's point of most people having been students at some point or another, without some degree of specialization, education would be inundated with misguided or unfounded opinions and very few advancements are likely to be made.
One of the most powerful things Richardson mentioned in her essay was the idea that stewards have a moral responsibility to contribute to and advance their respective fields. I think one of the most effective ways to continue pushing education forward and cultivating responsive learning spaces is to be a jack of multiple trades, or at least have a working knowledge of some of the pillars and tenants that overlap with education.
*This post is by Kendra Johnson, I'm not sure how to get my name to appear beside the post.
DeleteI do not think that I have ever purposely thought about the potential unintended consequences of acquiring disciplinary expertise. Learning deeply about a discipline is important and seems worth the risks. To speak from a position of authority in one’s content area requires a substantive knowledge package. An unplanned outcome of pursuing such knowledge is that one becomes so specialized or focused on matters in their discipline that they lose sight of how that wisdom is part of something greater.
ReplyDeleteRichardson seems to be pushing back against narrow disciplinarity and encourages the nurture of educational stewards. She includes in her work a table that provides elements of scholarly inquiry all students should master in a Ph.D. program. While there is, in this “Crucial Elements” table, many outcomes involving knowledge of a field, there is much that goes beyond that and suggests a stewardship bent including, “read broadly in other fields, seeking connections that are not at first obvious” and “read literature in related fields.”
I found one point made by Richardson in her writing illuminating. She felt it important to distinguish knowledge from understanding, terms often used interchangeably. I agree. She quoted Lee Shulman’s definition to highlight the difference. His idea of understanding involves ownership of knowledge. In the past, I have tried to articulate the difference by describing understanding as a personal internalization of ideas. The notion of ownership articulates the distinction more effectively for me.
This post was created by Jamey Lovin
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePrior to these readings, I know that I have thought about any potential unintended consequences in acquiring disciplinary expertise from time-to-time. After reading the articles, I found myself questioning the “risks vs. rewards” of having a disciplinary expertise again. All in all, it is my personal belief that the rewards out-weigh the risks. I do have thoughts about whether or not I will be able to fulfill my goals and help students and teachers in a way that I want to help or if I can apply my expertise in a meaningful way. With the classes that I have had so far, I have been with the same people in a smaller setting that is focused on my disciplinary track. Therefore, when I have a class with other doctoral students in the same field of study, but with different disciplinary expertise, I find myself feeling a little out of place (if that makes sense). Therefore, I can see how scholars can become focused on one an explicit area and forget that there are areas of discipline that can provide connections. Additionally, I am reminded through friends and family that disciplinary expertise in education is much different than an expertise in another field of study. When speaking with them, I feel that they have concrete formal and practical knowledge where as in education it is not the same. I find that through their field of study, there has been more of a direct application of what was learned. There continues to be a large gap between educational theories that are taught and then applying those theories. I found it alarming when Richardson stated that in this field of study, new Ph.D. ‘s have little practical knowledge (257).
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Richardson’s article, it does appear that she pushes more for doctoral students to become more of an educational steward instead of narrowing disciplinaries. Richardson expresses that the responsibilities of a steward should include three concepts: formal knowledge, practical knowledge, and beliefs and misconceptions. I believe that by having stewards of education that follow these responsibilities, doctoral students will be able to be more effective in the future of education as well as having knowledge of the connections between areas in education. By having stewards, more Ph.D. graduates will be able to have develop both useful equational practices while providing guidance that will improve the field of education… which Richardson states as being a major purpose of education as a field of study.
For as long as I could remember, college was my primary goal. It was there, that I was introduced to the broader study of education. I then decided that after years of teaching and leadership development work that this degree would be a logical and necessary step. Not simply for professional advancement but as a right to focus and dive deeper into what Richardson calls the “formal knowledge.” (p. 255) I would agree that my practical knowledge in conjunction my personal beliefs and misconceptions have contributed greatly to my understanding of education and also fuels my desire to build my knowledge.
ReplyDeleteRichardson highlights two important notes about education as a field of study; it is combination of theory and practice set to “improve the enterprise” and considers education as “interdisciplinary.” (p. 252) I am aligned to these notions and I would say many of my peers entered programs with similar mindsets. However, I am not sure if its a characteristic of academia or specific to the SOE leadership, I find some people are really focused on one thing over the other. In some ways I see a heavy focus on theory to inform research and having practice be a second thought. This is especially critical when people enter these programs have limited if any educational/instructional experience. As someone who values student and family engagement, I am missing a commitment to those stakeholders beyond using them as research participants. I noticed a gap in deeply understanding the state of education and how different groups of students are truly being impacted by historical and institutional policies and practices.The idea of inter-disciplinary work in education is growing. For instance, the increasing interest in connecting mental health with education. Critically thinking about other factors that directly impact learning is necessary if we want to solve some of the greatest challenges. I made a note to myself to think more about how to measure good stewards of the study. How can we determine who would be a great addition to the discipline without creating more barriers or becoming too prescriptive about who is an effective steward of the knowledge, practitioner and one who challenges beliefs and misconceptions.
Nixon’s piece offers some concrete criteria to defining disciplines. As someone who had a broad introduction to education as a field of study, I am sometimes overwhelmed by the number of ways we categorize the way in which we “make knowledge” (p. 44) or define the myriad of disciplines. Specific to the many education disciplines at VCU I can see how it would be both risky and rewarding to make a single choice. Personally, I was excited about the education leadership and justice elements of my program. I find the risk in seeing how SOE leadership has shaped my program to be really policy heavy which sometimes is easier to talk about rather than fundamental issues of inequity. Seemingly, the design of the discipline is both the risk and the reward. Now, having read the thoughts from all of the contributors in Nixon’s piece, he closes with the idea that the value of a discipline is influenced by public perception and “respect by observers.” (p.48) So what really determines the validity of a discipline? Public perception and respect or the series of course offering, program elements or the products of the stewards?
Since my full-time enrollment into the Ed Psych program last fall, I have experienced first-hand Golde’s tension “between the practice of education and research in education” (p. 247). I left teaching full time after 13 years, where I attempted to keep up with research in my field by reading journals, attending conferences, and putting into practice new strategies suggested by research. However, I have been shocked at how much about research I did not know, and how separate this world of research in education feels from my experience as a teacher. I have often questioned my decision to leave the classroom where I was actually doing the teaching to earn a PhD about the teaching. To what end? The unintended consequences I have thought about were most echoed in Richardson’s “Crucial Elements of Scholarly Inquiry and Student Learning.” Much of this table referred to our need to be able to participate in a conversation with others through writing, speaking, receiving criticism, revising, persuading, and researching. I have often thought that my most valuable outcome from this program will be my improved skillset in communicating ideas with others. That is how problems can be solved and we can move forward in education.
ReplyDeleteThese three reading assignments helped me understand a bit more of the problem with a tension I have already been feeling, but admittedly, I think they just caused me to have more questions than answers. I found myself pondering what Golde meant by stating that education is “both an enterprise and a field of study” (p. 248). I like the idea of questioning what education is, but I'm not sure what she means by this. What is the difference between education being an enterprise and a field of study? To me it doesn't seem to be an either/or situation, but one leads to more of the other. Another set of questions is related to Richardson’s table about scholarly inquiry. How do we go about learning dispositions that are related to research? I feel like so much of the righthand side of the table (“Habits of Mind Students Need to Develop”) cannot be readily practiced or taught but is a disposition students enter with. How will I know if I “Have humility to respect prior work, courage to question accumulated wisdom” (p. 261)? Those seem like cornerstone requirements to using knowledge well in the future and being a good steward of the field of study we are in. I love Richardson’s phrase "respectful sense of the broader intellectual landscape..." (p. 251) because I have often heard getting a PhD referred to as narrowing one's studies to one very specific thing. However, this sentence acknowledges that we must still be aware of other problems and questions. I also appreciate the word "respectful" in this sentence. It seems to imply that when you see your research in light of the broader intellectual landscape, you do it humbly, acknowledging that you are not a master of those other subjects, but still connected to them. You may have something contribute, but you also have something to learn.
I attended college in Georgia where middle school education is a major, but it really meant that I had interdisciplinary studies split in three equal parts: two “disciplines” (Language Arts and Social Studies) and 1/3 education courses. I had my foot in three worlds that saw knowledge differently (even by how we report knowledge through MLA, APA, and Chicago standards). Because of this experience, I was struck by Nixon’s statement that “any attempt at structuring knowledge is at best an approximation and must be recognized for what it is—the product of a human brain creating some system for organizing the vast quantities of sense data that flow constantly through the receptors of the nervous system” (p. 45). As I have taught, I have seen that students benefit from seeing connections between subjects and that our sometimes, but I also see the need for studying and learning some things as separate disciplines.
I have never considered what consequences there may be if I continued to pursue my education. I suppose that is because so many people encourage you to study your field of interest in great detail. Also, I probably assumed that my degree and the faculty who cultivated it would keep in mind the things I needed to learn and become aware of based on their knowledge and expertise. I do think there should be a balance between becoming an “expert” in your field while also learning about current methods and theories in other fields. I think Richardson’s outline of how to be a steward of a field is well thought and applicable for today’s world. Something I questioned while reading her article stems around who can or should be a steward? Are doctoral students and degree holders the only candidates for stewards? What about master’s level students? I also wondered according to her outline what rules apply when a student is pursuing a doctorate in education, but their background is in another field. The students would gain new knowledge and a degree and with-it responsibilities to represent their new field but what about their allegiance or affinity to their previous field? Do they become stewards of both fields or do they have to combine the theories and practices of both fields and become stewards of that? Do they advocate for both fields individually?
ReplyDeleteI think Richardson described the necessity of becoming a well rounded and engaged student best with her metaphor about education being a puzzle and the responsibility of students to piece together their education. This statement made me reflect on my previous education and the path I have taken to get to the stage that I am at today. There were definitely times in my past that I questioned, “why am I taking this course?” but then I stepped back and reflected on how that particular class, while annoying or boring or whatever the complaint I had, contributed to my overall education in that field. Currently, because of how much narrower my focus is I find this step to be significantly easier. Richardson also discusses the need for students to understand how their field fits into a broader context and the world. I wholeheartedly agree with this notion. Without assessing how you, your knowledge and experiences and your field can contribute to a broader community you are doing yourself and all your hard work a disservice.
After acquiring disciplinary expertise, a consequence I've always thought about is, "Are others in my field going to assume that I have an answer to all their grievances related to their job?" Our country has made "teachers" be synonymous with terms such as "underpaid", "overworked", "teacher shortage", "not supported", etc. These issues that surround the field of education are so common among educators and teachers want ways to solve these issues. I hope that through the Ph.D program, that I will gain the disciplinary expertise to help educators tackle these issues. My fear is that with this expertise, people will assume I have the answers to cut through all the "red tape" that teachers are faced with everyday. I may not have all the answers right now or be able to just snap my fingers to fix everything, but acquiring this disciplinary expertise will allow me to look at these issues through a different lense and support school systems as they fight.
ReplyDeleteRichardson explains that through doctoral programs, doctoral students develop their analytical thinking and combining it with experience as teachers. This will allow them to better communicate with policymakers, educators and the public regarding issues in education. Richardson's piece doesn't say that doctoral students will come out of their program having all the answers to all the problems within education, but rather they will be able to use their practical field experience and combine it with various beliefs within the field of education to be help others understand the issues that schools face every day.
Sorry I posted on the wrong page, I didn't realize it was a different link.
ReplyDeleteBy acquiring a disciplinary expertise, I don't necessarily see that as having negative consequences on my future work. Becoming an "expert" in a discipline will only allow me to grow as a professional within my field. It allows us a Ph.D students to pursue additional knowledge that will hopefully help inform our work and allow us to continue to search for more knowledge in the future. Some of the unintended risks may be the narrow scope that we all gain, instead of a broad focus it may pigeon hole us in to a certain area.
I like the idea of being stewards of a field. We commit to the act of gaining as much knowledge on a certain field in order to be able to speak about the field, advocate for its future, and respect the landscape of the profession. As Ph.D students we have committed to this journey that could be shorter or longer for some us and we should feel as though we are not only helping ourselves but the field grow. I like thinking about education as interdisciplinary because there are so many pieces that really contribute to the field of education.
The articles also helped me reflect on the outcomes that I want to achieve throughout this program. Ultimately, we all have a huge dissertation to get through but there are other components that we should ensure we accomplish, "virtues as humility, intellectual honesty and integrity, curiosity, and the ability to chose methods without partisan loyalties" (Richardson, 2006, p. 264).
I thought about how disciplinary expertise happens over the course of my education, and I realized that while I may gain the specific knowledge of my concentration/major, I can still branch out in terms of interdisciplinary knowledge or skills to remain maintain flexible perspectives. I believe the risk of losing versatility in expertise is not as great as many think, and is thus worth the risk. Taking extra time to explore the disciplines from other fields of study is important to becoming an effective practitioner/researcher/educator, I believe. After all, without the multidisciplinary nature of my background (Psychology, English, Education, Development, History) I would not be in my current position as a student and researcher.
ReplyDeleteI have thought about unintended consequences after speaking with many professors about the backlash of some of their work. I think stating the facts and taking a position is risky when other people are invested in the results. As a researcher to be a steward of the field, before papers or articles are published there should be critical thought about how the research could impact the population it is about or the stakeholders.
ReplyDeleteRichardson alludes to the idea of critical thought by being interdisciplinary to research ideas by understanding formal knowledge and misconceptions of the topic. In my opinion addressing both is important to have a conversation about how the topic can be improved. If some words are left unsaid some assumptions can be made and leads to misunderstandings.
I never considered the consequences in the way Richardson depicts continuing education. I believe there is a really specific type of person that goes back to school for a Ph.d. I feel like majority of people who go back to school for a doctorate are not narrow minded in their focus. For example, I am interested in social skills but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to chase a million other rabbits down a research hole. I think most people either come into the field wanting to learn more generally, or at the very least, are pushed by colleagues to broaden their horizons.
ReplyDeleteThe only restraint I feel towards exploring research is the need to narrow down my focus for a dissertation, perhaps that is the narrow minded approach? But I don’t think anybody can ever truly become an expert, it’s relative. If I choose to do my dissertation on social skills, will I attain more knowledge then the average person on that subject? Yes. But, I still wouldn’t consider myself an expert.