Using Educational Criticism and Connoisseurship for Qualitative Research

P Bruce Uhrmacher, Christy McConnell Moroye, David J. Flinders

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317195153
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Forschung im Bildungswesen

Using Educational Criticism and Connoisseurship for Qualitative Research develops the practical elements of educational criticism, a form of qualitative inquiry that takes its lead from the work that critics have done in fields such as the visual arts, music, literature, drama and dance. Written by leading scholars in the field of curriculum studies, and research methods, this book explores the interpretive and evaluative aspects of educational criticism, through which the educational critic offers means for understanding and attributing significance to educational events. Featuring chapter-by-chapter activities, guiding questions, and key terms, this volume addresses matters of study design, pedagogy, and trends in doing educational criticism and connoisseurship. By offering a uniquely in-depth account of this research method, Using Educational Criticism and Connoisseurship for Qualitative Research is accessible to researchers and students in curriculum and instruction, educational leadership, and higher education.

1

Introduction

Guiding questions

• What is educational criticism and connoisseurship?

• What are the components of educational criticism?

• What are the functions of educational criticism and connoisseurship?

Introduction

The purpose of this book is to develop the practical elements of educational criticism, a form of qualitative inquiry that takes its lead from the work that critics have done in fields such as the visual arts, music, literature, drama, and dance. Largely conceptualized by Stanford professor Elliot Eisner (1933–2014),¹ the method is utilized worldwide. This approach is sometimes called educational criticism and connoisseurship. In the chapters that follow, we will make distinctions between criticism and connoisseurship; however, for the sake of convenience, we will usually use the shorthand terms educational criticism or simply criticism in referring to this particular species of qualitative research. We also note that at times we refer to the researcher as the critic and at other times as the researcher. We use the terms interchangeably.

Connoisseurship, criticism, and education

What is educational criticism and connoisseurship? Let’s begin by taking a look at the word “connoisseurship.” Connoisseurship is a private act in which to some degree we all engage. It entails the skills of using one’s senses to apprehend a present experience and of making fine-grained distinctions. A novice watching baseball, for example, may not be able to tell what kind of pitch the pitcher throws across the plate. An experienced watcher of the game may note that the pitch is a fastball, a curveball, a slider, or something else. A veteran of the game may not only know what kind of ball was thrown but also how often this pitcher throws that type of pitch and how good the pitcher is at doing so. Whether we focus on sports, schools, classrooms, teaching styles, literary essays, or refrigerators, by paying attention we all become connoisseurs in those areas we care about. What also should be clear is that we are always on a continuum of experiential understanding. Someone may know more than we do, but as we develop our sensibilities, we soon find that we know more than many.

Connoisseurship, as we noted, is a private act, but generally, as human beings, we have a desire to share what we have learned. Here is where its counterpart criticism comes into play. Criticism is the disclosure of what we learned through our connoisseurship. The word “criticism” is derived from the Greek krino “to judge” and krites, “a judge or juryman” (Welleck 1981: 298). The idea of judging literature seems to have been utilized as early as the 4th century BC. Over time, criticism would take on new material to judge such as dance, theatre, and film. Today we realize that one can judge almost any aspect of life. The intentional pairing of criticism and education would take place under the direction of Elliot Eisner in the mid 1960s. At that time, a full exploration of what it means to do criticism is brought to the fore. But we would note that in the United States one can find a most significant coupling – and perhaps the first – of criticism with education in 1934 in the then newly formed journal Social Frontier: A Journal of Educational Criticism and Reconstruction. Edited by George Counts and including on its board such distinguished scholars as John Dewey, Charles Beard, and Sidney Hook, the journal kept its title until 1939 when it then changed its name to Frontiers of Democracy. While the usage of criticism in the earlier title is not clearly delineated, there are several clues to its inclusion. The purpose of the journal as outlined by William Heard Kilpatrick is to “become the expressive medium of those members of the teaching profession who believe that education has an important, even strategic, role to play in the reconstruction of American society” (1934: 2). Reconstruction, the interest in “considering the broad role of education in advancing the welfare and interests of the great masses of the people who do the work of society” (p. 5), was the aim of the journal. To do that, it seems the authors believe criticism to be their chosen method of writing, a kind of discourse that “makes no pretense to absolute objectivity and detachment” (p. 4).

Elliot Eisner was not a reconstructionist, but he, too, sought a research method more interested in its ability to improve schools and classrooms rather than having a strong fidelity to traditional methodological concerns. Similarly, he would eschew objectivity. From Eisner’s perspective, criticism is the art of disclosing what one has learned through his or her connoisseurship. The means through which educational critics relate their educational experiences have generally consisted of four interrelated elements: description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematics. In description, the educational critic uses narrative, often figurative or literary in character, to display the essential and often subtle qualities of the situation experienced. Critics render a situation or event to help readers participate in exercising judgment of its educational value. Descriptions of events experienced “freezes” aspects of life so that we may contemplate their meaning. While much of this book focuses on literary descriptions, in particular, we must point out that the descriptive section of an educational criticism could take many forms. The description of a school or classroom could be rendered in visual (photographs, film), auditory (tape recording), or other forms of representation. Some of the work being conducted under the banner of arts-based research would fit under the descriptive aspect of an educational criticism.²

The interpretive aspect in educational criticism explores the meanings and consequences of educational events. Unlike the poet, the novelist, or some educational researchers who argue that the interpretation is in the rendering, the educational critic does not let description alone tell the story. The critic uses ideas, models, and theories from the arts, humanities, or social sciences to provide the reader with means for understanding what has been described. Moreover, there is no one “true” interpretation. Rather, each interpretation uses different kinds of evidence to secure a valid reason why conditions may be significant.

The evaluative aspect of an educational criticism assesses the educational significance of events described and interpreted. Finally, thematics in educational criticism is related to generalizing in social science research. Rather than making formal generalizations, however, educational critics provide the reader with an understanding of the major themes that run through the educational matters being studied. In turn, these themes provide the reader with ideas or guides for anticipating what may be found in other places. These theories provide guidance, not prediction.

Educational criticism and other qualitative methods

Like many other forms of research, and qualitative approaches in particular, educational criticism is a subset of empirical, interpretive inquiry. It overlaps with approaches such as ethnographic and case study research because educational criticism often involves fieldwork and seeks to contextualize data by attending to the particulars of what educational critics observe. Another point of similarity is that educational criticism depends on “thick description.” Critics describe their settings so that one gets a feel for what it is like to be there. As Eisner pointed out, description serves an epistemological function; it helps one know the setting in intimate detail. Finally, criticism requires that researchers interpret their data. While all qualitative researchers usually interpret their findings, many focus on attaining an emic point of view or what we call “seeing with” – that of the insider. What do classroom events mean in the eyes of the particular teachers and students involved? What does a textbook chapter, a lesson on linear equations, or a poem by Robert Frost mean for those asked to teach or learn them firsthand?

Educational critics also try to attain and render an insider’s point of view. But critics are not fearful of providing an “etic” viewpoint (“seeing about”) – that of the outsider. As the old saying goes, the fish may be the last to discover water since it is so embedded in it. Thus, an outsider’s perspective often helps those within a system see that to which they have become blinded. The words “emic” and “etic” are derived from usage in linguistics (see Pike, 1954) and the social sciences (Morris et al., 1999). While we do not take issue with critics using social science terms generally and the words “emic” and “etic” specifically, we prefer to focus on terms from the arts and humanities. Thus, beckoning to the perceptive qualities of educational criticism, we use the terms “seeing-with” and “seeing-about.”

Another distinction between educational critics and other qualitative researchers is the former’s interest in evaluation and action. One purpose of evaluation is to recommend improvements to the educational environment that you are studying. In this sense, educational criticism has an action component. To borrow and modify a famous phrase, the point of criticism is not simply to interpret an educational setting in various ways, but to change it. Thus, educational criticism has a structure that often includes a combination of description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematics.

Functions of educational criticism

Thus far, we have provided a brief overview of educational criticism. In short, it is a qualitative research method that takes its inspiration and ideas from the arts and humanities. It entails description, interpretation, evaluation, and thematics. Its overall aim is to seek improvement in the real world. But now we turn to the purposes of educational criticism. What are its strengths and utilities?

As John Dewey (1934) noted in his book, Art as Experience, “the function of criticism is the reeducation of perception”; its aims encompass the active and difficult process “of learning to see and hear” (p. 328). One can listen to music inattentively, but to hear music is often an achievement. It requires discernment, analysis, and practice. In the arts, both perception and comprehension are achievements that usually require the types of skills and knowledge that lead to connoisseurship. Yet, as Dewey argued, such achievements in learning to see and hear are not limited to what we typically refer to as “the arts.” Rather, they can be found whenever people care deeply about – and respond deeply to – an experience. This includes, for example, those who are passionate about sports and make the effort to become knowledgeable in the sport that interests them. It includes cooks who invest time and enduring attention to the qualities of the food they prepare. One can be a critic and connoisseur of wine, of gardening, of automobiles, or of schools and of classrooms. In the last chapter of this book, we also point out that educational criticism may be thought of simply as criticism, and in that regard it can be utilized to examine any setting that has an intention behind it such as therapy sessions and businesses, among other venues.

Educational criticism may be used to help us break down stereotypes by demonstrating variations among like cases. In the social world it is not uncommon to find complex and even contradictory tendencies within an “N of 1.” We are referring not only to one school or one classroom, but also to a single individual. Here the aim is to make the familiar strange by undermining what we assume to be the shared characteristics. The aim is to make the familiar strange. One way of doing so is by demonstrating the complexity of situations and events. Again, the meanings of social and educational experiences are multilayered and there is often more than meets the eye. Critics can also make the familiar strange by naming or calling attention to what we take for granted. As the poet William Wordsworth ([1807] 1974: 188) wrote, “the world is too much with us,” and like poetry, criticism may prompt us to make explicit our everyday experiences and otherwise tacit forms of knowledge.

Criticism may also serve a pedagogical function by offering a glimpse into the lives of students, teachers, school administrators, and the like. The often vivid nature of criticism provides a behind-the-scenes perspective which others may not be able to experience firsthand. In this sense, criticism helps make the strange familiar.

Finally, still another use of educational criticism is that it allows us to interpret educational products and events from particular theoretical standpoints. What does a “constructivist” approach, for example, look like in actual math classrooms? What do lesson plans designed to promote meta-cognitive thinking in painting involve, and how are such plans implemented in an art classroom? The point in addressing such questions is to inform both our perceptions – the ability to see and hear – as well as our understandings of the a priori knowledge that we bring to our perceptions.

Identifying the uses of criticism is important because they imply the criteria by which criticism is evaluated. For example, above we refer to the pedagogical functions of criticism. These functions suggest that educational criticism is educational in at least two ways. First, the focus of educational criticism is usually on education – that is, valued learning in or outside of schools. But we would note that criticism generally, and the ideas in this book specifically, can be utilized by qualitative researchers outside the field of education. Thus, this approach is educational in that its aim is to “teach” whoever the intended audience of the criticism is. Does the criticism offer fresh ideas or ways of understanding? Does it bring into focus something significant but which goes unnoticed? Does it raise the levels of connoisseurship by which we observe, interpret, and evaluate the complexities of professional practices? Finally, does it inform what we do?

Overview of the chapters

In order to address these and other issues of doing educational criticism, we have divided our book into six chapters. Chapter 2 examines connoisseurship in great depth, offering several terms to aid the researcher in understanding its various aspects. We also discuss and refute the critique that connoisseurship is an elitist activity. Finally, we also help the critic understand that connoisseurship exists on a continuum and that even novice researchers know more than most and are therefore emerging connoisseurs.

In Chapter 3, we discuss matters of study design. Here researchers will learn about the ways in which critics depend on perceptivity and how such perceptivity influences many aspects of the study, such as number of participants and length of time in the sites. We also discuss conceptual frameworks, and in particular we focus on the ecology of schooling and the instructional arc. Finally, we also examine ways of thinking about ethics in conducting this kind of work.

Chapter 4 explores description and interpretation, two ways of disclosing what one has learned through connoisseurship. Description is often thought of as “an account of” while interpretation is “an account for” (see Eisner, 1991). We consider the ways in which such literary approaches and aesthetic features enhance a criticism rather than “mask” a “true” rendering of an event or situation. We also address the simple yet complex questions of how to find patterns and what those patterns mean.

Chapter 5 takes a look at evaluation and thematics, two major pedagogical elements of an educational criticism. Along the way, we explore how various curriculum terms are useful to the educational critic and we also consider curriculum ideologies as a way to aid in perceptivity. In addition, we suggest that critics annotate their field notes rather than code them. Also in this chapter we examine matters of subjectivity, validity, and generalization.

In Chapter 6, we examine trends and variations in doing educational criticism and connoisseurship. In this chapter we note that some educational critics combine survey d...