Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Reviewed by Jennifer Nabors, University of Georgia

Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Pp. vii + 302         ISBN 0-226-46773-2 Reviewed by Jennifer Nabors University of Georgia September 3, 2008 In An elusive science, Lagemann gives a historical view of American education research that is very relevant given the current scientifically-based research and standards-based reform movements. The book reads as a story taking the reader from the 1830s and the spread of common schooling to more recent developments including cognitive science and systemic research. Common themes such as power, and gender, money run throughout the history of education, driving the development of the field, creating challenges and encouraging different players to become involved in educational scholarship. As such, the book can be read as a narrative of power and the struggles for power and its rewards rather than an exposé on the “troubling” history of educational research. One of the most important developments in defining education research came from what the author calls the “feminization” of the teaching profession. The spread of the common school in the 1830s increased the demand for teachers, while the willingness of women to teach for low pay led to an overwhelming majority of teachers being female. Increasingly the teaching profession became viewed as “women’s work,” while popular views that women were more suited to teaching helped reinforce the stereotype. A clear hierarchy developed in which males held the top positions as researcher and school supervisor, while females largely held the lowest position of teacher. This early devaluing of teaching and teachers remained an influential force throughout the history of education research. As colleges of education later emerged in universities, this perception of education as “feminine” carried over and created a second-class image of education researchers even though they were most likely to be white, college-educated males. Further, these white, college-educated male researchers saw themselves as apart from the female teachers. Research became very much top-down rather than a bottom-up, with researchers telling teachers how they should teach rather than working with or listening to them. With few exceptions, this top-down approach and artificial division held in place. For example, Lagemann describes the efforts of researcher Max Beberman to create a math program that was “teacher-proof”: Privately, however, he [Beberman] presented the project as an effort to develop materials that could not be corrupted by “the average teacher,” who was less competent, he thought than a “teaching machine.” Even though Beberman was himself a mathematics educator, he seems to have shared the disdain for educators that was so pervasive among academics at the time and so publically paraded. As it did for so many others, this disdain seems to have energized his interest in reform (Lagemann, 2000, p. 168) Though Lagemann noted that in the 1980s there was some interest in researcher-teacher collaborative research, throughout the history of education research there was a clear division between those who researched and those who practiced. Even though the field was considered gendered, there were rewards, money and power, for those who chose to do educational research. Research universities wanted to gain a piece of a growing market, the rapidly expanding education market, and thus decided to take over teacher professional training. Though normal schools and some academies had been the centers of teacher training, the research universities desired to take control for obvious financial reasons but also to gain regulatory control over K-12 education. Lagemann noted, “it makes more sense to read it [university growth into education] as evidence of university aspirations to corner new markets and, even more, to assume a regulatory role that would ensure university leadership of the full panoply of educational institutions within a particular city, state, or region – or even nationwide” (p. 10). The research universities promptly touted education as a “profession” and that “experience as a teacher could no longer qualify one to teach” (p. 15). Within the new university, education colleges and departments struggled for power and control. While the question of whether education was a science or an art began, psychologists looking to gain prominence in academia began to work in education. Education was in demand among students and of particular public interest; thus, the universities had financial reasons and public pressure to further it. Likewise, psychologists found financial and other incentives reasons to work in a “feminized” field. Though education research was mostly made up of philosophers, the psychologists were interested in making education more “scientific,” and brought to education a keen interest in quantitative methods and later standardized testing, and created a divide between themselves and the philosophers. Perhaps the most interesting power struggle described is one that is more implicit than explicit. Lagemann consistently refers to education research as diverse, divided, lacking consensus and a strong community. Indeed, in her title of her book she calls education research’s history “troubling.” This call for consensus and coherence is itself a power struggle to bring together a diverse field of research in terms of influence, epistemologies, and methodologies. This very positivist ideal of consensus and a common core of knowledge is familiar to any reader who has also read the National Research Council Committee reports on scientifically-based research in education, Scientific Research in Education (2002) and Advancing Scientific Research in Education (2005). It is no coincidence that Lagemann, who champions coherence and consensus in education research, was a member of both committees. These reports call for a scientific community of educational researchers revolve around a set of principles, a core of beliefs, and a goal of accumulation of knowledge and making a “science” out of education (National Research Council, 2002; 2005). Though I think that this book is a key text for beginning to understand some of the current and long-standing issues in education research, I have to disagree with Lagemann’s call for consensus within the educational community. Such a call for common ground may on the surface appear to be innocent and enabling the field to move forward; on the contrary, it is a disciplinary move meant to bring a very diverse field into a narrow framework. The narrow framework, of course, cannot support some of the most influential work in educational research – work that has occurred after the interpretive turn on race, gender, sexuality, and others (St. Pierre, 2002; St. Pierre, 2006; Schwandt, 2005; Lather, 2004) . It would seem that, if educational research is forced into a framework that only includes one type of research that is considered “science,” then that is what is “troubling” rather than the current diversity of thought, ideas, and work. References Lather, P. (2004). This IS your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), pp. 15-34. National Research Council (2002). Scientific research in education. R.J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.). Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council (2005). Advancing scientific research in education. L. Towne, L.L. Wise & T.M. Winters (Eds.). Committee on Research in Education. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Schwandt, T. (2005). A diagnostic reading of scientifically based research for education. Educational Theory, 55(3), pp. 285-305. St. Pierre, E. A. (2006). Scientifically based research in education: Epistemology and ethics. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(4), pp. 239-266. St. Pierre, E. A. (2002). “Science” rejects postmodernism. Educational Researcher, 31(8), pp. 28-29. About the Reviewer Jennifer Nabors is a third-year Ph.D. student in the Institute of Higher Education at The University of Georgia. Her research interests are higher education finance, qualitative methodology, and critical theory.