Edev_501 Response wk4_3

There are a number of serious issues at play, though. One of which is that at the very core of research, we need to create meaning, and some believe that if the way of generating that meaning is philosophically flawed, any resultant meaning is also flawed. This is an area that fundamentally interests me. But the detais are still beyond my current comprehension. (Flippant aside alert: What I’m tempted to take away from a lot of the discussion is the self-serving interests of academics who need to publish to survive (publish or perish) and who choose to ‘investigate’ practically meaningless distinctions in order to write papers. Of the 100 or so papers I’ve browsed through for this week, at least half added nothing to the discussion.)

I wonder if the ‘Ph’ part of the PhD and the focus on meaning might indeed be a difference between our EdD and that? Many have questioned the real difference and some have said that the EdD shouldn’t exist as the overlap is so complete. But if the EdD doesn’t need to worry so much about the ‘Ph’, then perhaps this is an avenue for thought.

It would worry me, though. If that argument is viable (I think it’s not), surely that’s a reason for not having a ‘Ph’D? In my reading of Bourdieu currently, he argues that all knowledge is practice. So did Aristotle (or at least it having a practical element). Wellington et al. in 2005 stated that “A full and helpful discussion of this distinction [i.e. what professional knowledge might be, as compared to academic knowledge] has yet to be written”. If this is true and still true, any distinction between a professional doctorate and a ‘ph’doctorate is blurred. I’ve moved a bit from the paradigm wars to EdD and PhD but the core issue is very similar: what constitutes a valid understanding of knowledge.

At the end of the day, I’m left with the idea of levels of description. In other words, if an explanation makes sense, it probably contains some sense. The particulars may be taken or left.

I’m interested in this chap Bartolome (apologies for no acute). Searched for 30 mintues to no avail for info on him. Could you at some point let me know what he adds to this? Maybe you could translate his book? It’d be a worthy project.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: CUP.

Wellington, J., Bathmaker, A. M., Hunt, C., McCulloch, G., & Sikes, P. (2005). Succeeding with your doctorate. London: Sage.

About theCaledonian

Scot living in north Japan teaching at a national university.
This entry was posted in EDEV_501, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s