Sixth entry on Researching Learning Difficulties: Trends in Research

Note: This is a Reading Diary entry on Porter and Lacey's Researching Learning Difficulties. Writing something, anything, about what I'm reading helps me read more actively and remember better, and that is the main purpose of these posts. A Reading Diary entry is not a summary or review. The thoughts expressed should not be construed as complete, comprehensive or even representative renderings of cited authors' intentions. Read with appropriate caution, if at all.

Trends in research are changes in ... what exactly? Porter and Laney point out that this could involve changes in topics studied, in what groups of indivduals are the subjects of research, or in methodologies. It could also involve trends in wider questions about the nature of research and the ways research and researchers are viewed. Such views could, in turn, have implications for topic selections and choice of methods. Trends in all of these areas of activity are discussed to a greater or lesser extent in this chapter.


Shifting research paradigms?

The traditional distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is problematic, for reasons that will not be elaborated on here. Another distinction involves epistemological beliefs of the researcher - does the researcher conceive of knowledge as a collection of facts, or as an understanding of the meanings that studied subjects ascribe to elements of their world? While research paradigms such as positivist, post-positivist, constructivist, participatory and emancipatory can be enumerated, the boundaries between them are less than clear, and different authors have classified the same research in different ways. These distinctions can not therefore be ignored, as

Different paradigms have different ways of identifying sources of bias" (p. 30),

and further

This has important implications for those researchers who advocate the use of mixed methodologies, and the taking of a purely pragmatic approach to research design as it requires them to recognize and use distinctively [different?] ways of ensuring the worthiness of their research. (p. 30)

Traditional approaches to research The influences of the disciplines of psychology and psychiatry have been evident in the predominance of "positivist designs," and

The debates have centered on technical methodological issues rather than philosophical ones and have been firmly linked to questions of how we might best understand 'the condition.' (p. 30.)

As for topics of interest and research activity, three stand out:

1. description of groups and the nature of their difficulties,
2. aetiologies, and
3. amelioration or intervention.

The first two are dominant in early writings, from the 40s to the 60s, but are also dealt with in works from the 70s through the 90s.

One debate that had particular implications for developments in research methodology is the one between deficit theory and developmental theory: Is the appropriate object of research "to discover the differences that are the result of the learning disability" (p. 31), or rather to study the successive stages of development of skills and behaviors in any one individual? Some aspects of this question are discussed in a separate entry on Dorothy Howie's Models and Morals, in which she "draws links between research approaches and the way in which needs are conceptualized" (p. 32) and also outlines ecological theory and the discursive model.

Less traditional approaches to research: The last two research approaches discussed by Howie mark a shift from the former two's focus on the disabled child as the primary, perhaps the sole, object of study. The Ecological Model explicitly and specifically seeks to study the child's home, school and societal environments, to address the fact that

remarkably little research has been published on the interactions of severely and profoundly mentally handicapped individuals in natural settings. (Hogg and Mittler (1980) p. 15, quoted on p. 33)

In a similar vein, Clarke and Evans⁵

... call for future investigations on the impact of 'powerful and prolonged ecological change' thus shifting from a study simply of individual variables to include systemic ones. (p. 33)

Finally, aspects of the Discursive Model described by Howie are mirrored in other calls for "a more participatory and emancipatory form of research" (p.33), in which the understandings and priorities of the persons studied are more specifically solicited, and where there is "a focus on understanding the social lives and experiences of people... " (p. 33)


Topic Changes

Have the topics selected for study changed? Changes in research paradigms and methodologies have great influence on what questions are thought to be feasible, ethical and interesting to pursue, and shifts in educational and health policy may steer decisions about research. If research has been

too retrospective, tied to investigating the impact of such changes rather than helping to determine future policy, (p. 35)

what topics should be selected for study to yield the kinds of insights sought? If inclusion and self-determination for people with learning difficulties is legislated, what needs to be investigated in order to determine whether legal obligations are in fact met?

Meanwhile, changes in medical knowledge about genetics and brain functions also drives selections of topics, and "aetiological aspects of learning difficulties continue to be an area for publication" (p. 35). Conversely, the finding such as the one that

persons with mental retardation are at increased risk for psychiatric illness and severe behavioral dysfunction (Dykens and Hoddapp (2001) p. 50, quoted on p. 36)

may motivate research on characteristics of persons with learning disabilities.


A Review of Trends from 1990/91 to 2000/01

Porter and Lacey provide a lot of detail on how they selected publications from these two years for the purpose of identifying trends, and this methodological discussion together with most of the remainder of the chapter will be omitted. Some scattered findings:

• There are fewer studies, but a larger proportion of the studies include empirical data.
  
  
• The terminology changed over this decade, with the incidence of "retardation" and "handicap" dropping to virtually zero and the occurrence of "disability" more or less doubling.
  
  
• More research was published on autism, and the later research includes more work on services and interventions, while the earlier work concentrates on brain function and genetics. There were fewer publications on Down's syndrome.
  
  
• There was a decrease in the number of studies concerned with developmental issues issues; however, while 2/3 of these studies were "carried out with broad, non-aetiological groups of learners ... all of the later studies were aetiology specific"¹ (p. 40).
  
  
• Research related to instructional methods increased from 17% to 22% of the studies. The proportion of these that dealt with challenging behavior decreased.
  
  
• Very little research is done in either year on curriculum-related topics, and this lack of interest may reflect the fact that curriculum has become centrally prescribed.
  
  
• There was less research with implications for health services, and more on provision of social services. Education got about the same amount of attention in both years, with some 10-15% of research.²
  
  
• Studies on inclusion in education dropped from 10% to 3%.
  
  
• "[F]ew authors adopt anything other than positivist or post-positivist approaches to research ... despite the development of new paradigms there has been little discernible change in the way research is seen in the field of learning difficulties." (p. 42)
  
  
• Survey designs dominate³, together with experimental and quasi-experimental strategies.⁴

Porter and Lacey note that their data on topics and methodologies in the actual publications of the beginning and end of this decade do not reflect the shifts that have occurred in the debates about paradigms and priorities. They discuss possible reasons for this in rounding off the chapter.


Notes:

1. Commenting on this finding, Porter and Lacey ask:

   Does this imply that we are no longer asking questions about how children with learning difficulties develop particular skills? ... developmental issues continue to be important for psychologists, not least because of what they may tell us about development per se... p. 40

2. "Educational research ... remains a neglected area for empirical research -- at least with respect to pupils with learning difficulties." (p. 41)
   
3. Porter and Lacey discuss many limitations of surveys as research tools.
   
4. Most of these studies were small-scale, often single case studies. While some researchers have strongly argued for studies with group sizes larger than 20,

   The difficulty of constituting a sufficiently homogeneous group of people with profound and multiple learning difficulties, of pre-specifying the detail of the methodology of intervention and the importance of micro levels of analysis of outcomes especially with respect to progress, militate against the use of larger-scale studies. (p. 44)

5. Combatting Mental Handicap — A Multidisciplinary Approach (1990) edited by Peter L. C. Evans & Alan D. B. Clarke

Fifth entry on Researching Learning Disabilities: Research Paradigms

Note: This is a Reading Diary entry on Porter and Lacey's Researching Learning Difficulties. Writing something, anything, about what I'm reading helps me read more actively and remember better, and that is the main purpose of these posts. A Reading Diary entry is not a summary or review. The thoughts expressed should not be construed as complete, comprehensive or even representative renderings of cited authors' intentions. Read with appropriate caution, if at all.


Chapter 3, Trends in Research includes several references to Dorothy Howie’s article Models and Morals: meanings underpinning the scientific study of special educational needs, published in the International Journal of Disability Development and Education in 1999. These references were interesting enough to send me looking for the original article. This entry is mainly about that text, and unless otherwise specified quotations are from the Models and Morals article. Chapter 3 in Porter and Lacey’s book will be the subject of a separate reading diary entry.

Deficit Theory versus Development Theory: In the post-war era, one major debate worth noting is between deficit theory (sometimes defect theory, or difference theory) and development theory. Proponents of the former seek to elucidate learning differences by matching learning disabled and non-disabled individuals by age (or sometimes mental age) and then probing systematic differences in processing, memory, attention, or other specific domains. Developmental theory, in contrast, views the development of learning disabled children as essentially similar to that of non-disabled children, casting differences as ones of rate of progression and height of the ceiling; there may be an emphasis on similar successions of cognitive stages with similar reasoning at each stage. (Porter and Lacey p. 31)

Development theorists question the validity of deficit theorists' comparison studies and advocate for a focus “on the unique laws of the behavior instead" (Porter and Lacey p. 31). Part of the problem with deficit theory, they argue, is methodological: the process of matching LD and NLD students involves leaving out cases that can not be matched, and furthermore it is unclear what matching criteria are appropriate; for example, how can "mental age" be defined so that it really is an independent variable and does not involve pre-selecting for aspects compared in the matched groups? Also, averaging group data, as is done in such studies, raises particular questions of validity given the larger variability within special populations (Porter and Lacey p. 32).


Howie on four models of learning difficulties: These "Defect" and "Developmental" approaches are two of four paradigms delineated in Models and Morals. The two remaining paradigms discussed by Howie are the Ecological Model and the Discursive Model. Howie compares the models with respect to "the underlying philosophy, the method ... and the moral implications" (p. 10).

The Difference Model: Basic methodological features of the first model were discussed above. In her discussion of assumptions and implications of these, Howie links the Difference Model with fixed intelligence approaches, referring to Gould's Mismeasure of Man for a critique of such ideas. She also notes that

some of the major controversies in the special educational needs field, ranging from issues such as the validity of the specific learning disability/dyslexia construct when there can be a focus on "discrepancy" between standardised intelligence and attainment measures to the value of teaching thinking skills … are intimately influenced by this paradigm (p. 12).

Furthermore, in focusing narrowly on "experimentally manipulated learning tasks and carefully controlled laboratory environments,"

The vital role of motivational and emotional factors was clearly inadequately attended to by this model's consideration of the differences in learning. (p. 12)

The last limitation she attributes to the Difference Model is its failure to deal with the continuum of special needs observed in children, since it focuses on discrete differences at aggregate group level between LD and NLD children. This huge variability in performance is better captured by single subject research methodologies (p. 13).


The Development Model concentrates on the development of the individual child over time, and has its roots in "the child centered philosophies of Piaget and Vygotsky" (p. 13). Piaget believed that children's cognitive development occurs in predictable stages, where the emergence of each is a consequence of the previous; Vygotsky, in contrast, concentrates on development in a child's performance in response to the guidance of an adult or more advanced peer. Howie mentions Piaget's developmental approach in passing and discusses Vygotsky's social approach at some length, noting that

Vygotsky ... saw the understanding of development and change over time as crucial to the study of the child’s mental processes. This also involved the study of the effect of an intervention or modifcation, whereby some change was brought about in the process of learning. (p. 13)

Howie appears to prefer Vygotsky's concept of the zone of proximal development - an inherently social, interactive concept – to the (more Piagetian ?) a notion of internal stages unfolding by some innate logic as the relevant entity in speaking about a child's capacity for learning. Commending the developmental approach, Howie writes that

It should be noted that this methodology focuses on the individual's development in response to a learning opportunity, rather than categorising or labeling the individual. The quantification is for the extent and type of mediation required for success by that invididual. (pp. 15 - 16)

The developmental approach to studying learning difficulties also avoids a moral conundrum of the Difference Model: The kinds of observations sought by the Deficit Model may be invalidated if an instructional intervention is altered mid-experiment. Developmental Models more readily accommodate

the moral responsibility upon the mediator to change his/her own mediation in order to achieve successful learning" (p. 16).

As for the Ecological Model, Howie notes that

To some extent Vygotsky’s emphasis on the social and cultural context in which the child develops places him also within this paradigm (p. )

Otherwise, Bronfenbrenner is the theorist who coined the term, and Howie makes multiple references to J. C. Sontag’s 1996 article Toward a comprehensive theoretical framework for disability research: Bronfenbrenner revisited.. A few quotes from this section, without much by way of tying them together:

It is extremely important that the child with special educational needs conceives himself/herself as an active agent in a responsive world … with this active agency directed towards peers, teachers, and parents. (p. 17)

… Such environmental aspects [affecting the development of individuals with particular characteristics] are not to be studied only by observation, but by exploring the ways in which the individual uniquely perceives the properties of the environment. As pointed out by Sontag, this could include the ways in which members of that environment attribute causes for success and failure (locus of control within attributional theory) and this includes the child with special educational needs as perceiver. (p. 17)

The section on the Discursive Model quotes heavily from Harré and Gillett’s book The Discursive Mind. A couple of quotes:

In our view, our delineation of the subject matter of psychology has to take account of discourses, significations, subjectivities, and positionings, for it is in these that psychological phenomena actually existo (Harré and Gillett p. 22)

…[Harré and Gillett] outline as the main principles of this discursive approach, first that many psychological phenomena are to be interpreted as properties or features of discourse, either public (as in behaviour) or private (as in thought); second, that private discourses are derived from interpersonal discursive processes that are the main feature of the human environment; and finally, that the production of psychological phenomena, such as emotions, decisions, attitudes, personality displays, and so on, in discourse depends upon the skill of the actors, their relative moral standing in the community, and the story lines that unfold (Harré and Gillett, p. 27), quoted on p. 18 - 19.

Well, no, I didn’t really understand that. But this section has taken so much time, I’m moving on. Now, why do I feel as if I have to defend not reading about Ecological and Discursive approaches until I get a hang of them?

On a different note: part of this entry was written in a university library, and other parts were written far away from one, and away from the library, I run into access restrictions on academic articles all the time and that is so annoying. Here’s just a cheer for Danah Boyd’s call to academics to boycott lock-down academic journals. C’mon, now, aren’t researchers paid by tax monies to find out things and then share those with the rest of us? Grrr.

Fourth entry on Researching Learning Disabilities: Research Agendas

Note: This is a Reading Diary entry on Porter and Lacey's Researching Learning Difficulties. Writing something, anything, about what I'm reading helps me read more actively and remember better, and that is the main purpose of these posts. A Reading Diary entry is not a summary or review. The thoughts expressed should not be construed as complete, comprehensive or even representative renderings of cited authors' intentions. Read with appropriate caution, if at all.

In their chapter on Research Agendas, Porter and Lacey

explore the influence of funding bodies on the type and nature of research to be produced and who undertakes it (p. 17)

and address questions such as

Who sets research priorities? Do they reflect local, global or national issues? Are they commissioned to appease certain groups? Who should be involved in the research process? Who should carry out the research? (p. 17)

Who does research? By reviewing two extant literature surveys, the authors find that state universities in the US contribute a large proportion of research done, that a relatively small number of researchers perform most of the research, that the researchers are predominantly men, and that their academic background was typically in the areas of behavior analysis and therapy. The authors ask whether the role of US state universities, whose funding may not be federal or national in origin, affects the degree to which research reflects the interests of the researcher as opposed to national agendas.

Much research in the UK can be classified as policy-driven research; funded by government agencies such as the Department of Health or the Department for Educational Services with the understanding that it will provide

"reliable evidence of needs and of what works best to meet those needs" (DoH 2002, quoted on p. 19).

Nevertheless, the availability of research suitable for making policy decisions appears to be very limited; in a comprehensive survey on classroom strategies for pupils with emotional and behavioral difficulties, only 11 studies selected from 256 "articles, books and chapters and conference papers ... were regarded as methodologically sound" (p. 20). In response to this dearth of data on which to base decisions, UK government agencies have encouraged more "clearly targeted" research by specifying "not only ... the research area but also ... the research question and methodology" (p. 20).

Porter and Lacey remark that since methodological discussions are typically absent from final research reports, conclusions are disseminated without the information necessary to evaluate "the robustness of the findings" p. 21), noting that this raises ethical issues for the researchers involved.


What is the role of theory in research? Some research is designed to "elucidate" and to "inform" theory; for example much psychological research of the 1960s was designed to

provide insights into the modularity of development or the information processes that support learning" (p. 21).

Alternatively, theory can be construed as

emerging from the findings ... [by an] iterative process of of data analysis and theory refinement (p. 21).

Porter and Lacey do suggest that the approaches contrasted here may not be as contradictory as they may seem, and that some differences lie in differing notions of what theory is.

I find myself checking out when reading some of the passionate quotes from the debate on the role of theory in research on learning difficulties. Even in well-established branches of Physics the relation between theory and data is controversial, and though I am hardly one to dismiss theory or to understate its importance or ubiquity, I somehow doubt that settling these issues is necessary in order to generate valuable and applicable knowledge on how to help learning disabled students learn. Maybe much research on learning difficulties would benefit from a more Popperian theory-first starting point, were a hypothesis is stated clearly at the onset, together with conditions under which it would be falsified. Maybe, in contrast, more adhocery and creativity would be in order, as Gary Thomas is quoted as saying (p. 22). On the other hand - these questions are real and hard. Maybe there is a necessary tension between getting certain, reproducible knowledge on the one hand and finding something actually helpful on the other, a tension parallel to the one in that old scenario of a choice between searching for ones lost keys under the street lamp, where it would be possible to see and find anything if it were there, versus searching in the dark behind the factory where the keys actually were lost.

But wait - Porter and Lacey make a similar point in discussing the relative merits of 'blue sky' reseach and practitioner research (p. 22), where the former is

not clearly defined but typically application is seen as secondary to its contribution to knowledge

and practioner research, in contrast,

is most likely carried out for its inherent worth either to that professional or the organisation for which they work (p. 22).

Practitioner research, or action research, is

an educational tool based on reflective enquiry with iterative cycles of planning, action, observation and reflection. It is well suited to professionals working in a variety of different settings. More recently new models of developmental research have been outlined as a way of incorporating action with research. While there may be concerns about the robustness of this kind of research which is vulnerable to bias, this may be offset by increased validity and, through its collaborative nature, it is open to scrutiny. ... If we consider who carries out research we can see that professionals working directly within the field are relatively unsupported in contributing to the research agenda. (p. 23. Emphasis added.)

The authors point to medical research, which apparently has developed novel and multi-faceted methodologies "in recognition of the difficulties in evaluating complex health interventions in which there are many different component" (p. 23). Different models of research are employed at different stages and for different purposes in the research process. Porter and Lacey suggest that the social sciences look to these approaches in the medical field for ideas of how to structure research on complex processes like learning.


The rest of this chapter is mostly about funding, and most of that is at a policy level in Britain. I've skimmed it and am leaving it at that.

Third RD entry on Researching Learning Difficulties: Historical Perspectives Part II

Note: This is a Reading Diary entry on Porter and Lacey's Researching Learning Difficulties. Writing something, anything, about what I'm reading helps me read more actively and remember better, and that is the main purpose of these posts. A Reading Diary entry is not a summary or review. The thoughts expressed should not be construed as complete, comprehensive or even representative renderings of cited authors' intentions. Read with appropriate caution, if at all.


(Historical overview -- continued from the previous post)

Since about 1970, terminology has changed, "...from 'mental subnormality' to 'mental handicap' to 'learning disabilities' or 'learning difficulties'" (p. 12). A similarly significant shift in language use can be seen by comparing the names of the White Papers of 1971 and of 2001. The former was titled "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped" while the latter was labeled "Valuing People."

In the 1960s, hospitals for mentally disabled individuals were still being built, despite ample evidence that these were not meeting clients' needs, and "reports on cruelty and neglect of patients" (p. 12) were released to the public at the end of that decade. In 1970 the Education (Handicapped Children) Act transferred responsibility for thousands of children -- who were generally not ill and not in need of medical care -- from the health sector to the education sector. Over 12 years, some 29,000 people were discharged from British hospitals, a process further accelerated by the transfer of responsibility for these clients from health to social services (p. 13).

In parallel with these legislative developments, psychological research "expanded rapidly" during this period, and much was done on developing more appropriate assessments (p. 14):

Briefly, the work on assessment concerned the inapplicability of global testing that gave a single score such as IQ and mental age testing at the extreme end of mental handicap; and that led to the development of tests of sensorimotor development ... The results of this work enable interveners to understand functioning in different areas of development.

More detailed knowledge of particular areas of development encouraged greater faith in targeted interventions, supported by other trends in research:

The twin approaches of behaviourism and child development were at their height in the 1970s and 1980s. Behaviourism provided the means through which progress through developmental stages could be measured and child development provided the steps through which people with mental handicap could be led towards competence. Thus a 'scientific' approach to mental handicap was developed. It enabled researchers and interveners to demonstrate that learning based on 'normal' developmental scales was possible, however slow. (p. 14).

An initial focus on practicing skills gave way to a broader notion of competence.

[In the 1970s] tasks such as making a cup of tea or putting on a coat were analyzed and taught deliberately and often painstakingly. During the late 1980s and 90s much of this work was ... [discontinued] in favour of the wider conceptualisation of the 'Five Accomplishments' devised by O'Brien, which encouraged staff to work with service users to accomplish presence in the community, make meaningful choices in their lives, learn to communicate effectively, perform functional and meaningful activities and participate in a network of personal relationships. (p. 14)

Sociological and ethnographic research also contributed to changing perceptions of disability; in particular, a powerful alternative to the traditional medical conception of mental disability was afforded by life histories, which

provide powerful illustrations of the effects of policy on the lives of those children and young people placed in institutional care. Di Terlizzi (1994)¹ for example, provides a powerful description of the impact of changing environments on the abilities of a young woman with learning difficulties. ... Research of this kind provides a different account of history, one of oppression of one set of people by another, of social control of a group who threatens the comfort and sensibilities of another; of marginalisation to obviate the need to change the norms of society to accommdate difference; of the rationing of resources in favour of the powerful over the powerless. (p. 16)

The same period saw the rise of self-advocacy of disabled persons in political discussions about issues pertaining to them, and gradually mentally disabled individuals have to some extent been involved in decisions about research of relevance to their lives.

Notes:

1 Di Terlizzi, M. (1994): Life history: the impact of a changing service provision on an individual with learning disabilities, Disability and Society 9, 4, 501-517

Second entry on Researching Learning Difficulties: Historical Perspectives

Note: This is a Reading Diary entry on Porter and Lacey's Researching Learning Difficulties. Writing something, anything, about what I'm reading helps me read more actively and remember better, and that is the main purpose of these posts. A Reading Diary entry is not a summary or review. The thoughts expressed should not be construed as complete, comprehensive or even representative renderings of cited authors' intentions. Read with appropriate caution, if at all.


The past century is divided into four eras with a section of chapter 1 devoted to each. In the early part of the century people with learning difficulties were classified as 'feebleminded,' 'imbeciles' or 'idiots' according to the severity of their difficulties. A trend of thought continued from Victorian philanthropists involved "genuine concern" for the fate of mentally deficient individuals, and one

Mary Dendy, a pioneer in special education, opened her school for feebleminded in 1902 in an era where other special schools were being founded for the blind, deaf and physically defective" (p. 3).

Two major events are thought to have changed the climate toward greater pessimism, namely

1. the development of the science of genetics, and
2. the rise of intelligence testing.

The former went hand in hand with an increased preoccupation with limiting procreation among the feebleminded, as any children were expected to inherit inferior intellectual traits. The latter provided apparent support for the notion that intelligence was fixed and permanent and that educating the feebleminded was therefore a waste of time and money. Some citizens did apparently suggest the possibility that the incidence of mental deficiency could be reduced by "slum clearance, good nutrition and school health services" (p. 4); however, a more predominant approach of the time appears to have been worry about the perceived increase in feeblemindedness and concern that "those with low intelligence ... were in need of care," whether for their own good or for the protection of society (p. 5).

1904 saw a major British prevalence study wherein an investigator found that the lowest incidence of mental deficiency "was 1.10 per 1,000 in Cork and the highest 4.68 per 1,000 in Lincolnshire" (p. 5). Twenty years later, a prevalence study found nearly twice as many mentally deficient individuals, leaving contemporaneous researchers, who were unwilling to concede methodological shifts in sampling practices, to grapple with other explanations, in particular a hypothesized higher survival rate of defective infants thanks to medical advances (p. 6).


The inter-war years saw many more individuals institutionalized, and while some efforts were made in the 20s to discuss best approaches, eugenicist views remained strong, and "by 1926 sterilization laws had been enacted in 23 [American] states" (p. 7). Implementations of eugenicist views in Germany are better known. The inter-war period was one of preoccupation with large-scale emergencies; "during the 1930s much of the world was plunged first into depression and then war, both of which contributed to a state of inertia in the development of services" (p. 6). Some American researchers, meanwhile, called for renewed research efforts. In 1933, C. Raymond published "The need for research in the field of mental deficit," arguing that heredity had been overemphasized as a cause, and in 1944 Dr. Haskell of the Wayne County Training School published an entry in the American Journal of Psychiatry arguing that while there had been plenty of work done on severe mental defect, little of much value on feeblemindedness was available in the literature, and he "suggested future studies in personality and group relationships" (p. 7).


During the early phases of the post-war years, a combination of "austerity" (p. 8) and the continued influence of eugenic views made for little change in legislation or services. Nevertheless, "terminology began to change from 'mental deficiency' to 'mental subnormality' in the UK and to 'mental retardation' in the US (p. 8).

Research, advocacy and parental influence picked up over the 50s and 60s, with developments in each of these areas reinforcing the others. Studies of mental health institutions and their inmates revealed to the public that the quality of care was in need of improvement, and also that large numbers of inmates in mental hospitals (half, according to a British study of 1952) were misplaced and actually were capable of being self-supporting (p. 9). Psychologists published studies demonstrating gains in skills and abilities in children previously labeled 'ineducable,' documenting that "environment and motivation were powerful factors in performance," and books with advice on how to teach "slow" learners were published (p. 9).

Legislation slowly began to assign responsibility to the education sector for children previously classified as 'ineducable' - until this point such children had been served, inadequately, by the health sector. The 1960s saw research on pre-school education "to try to avert environmentally affected mental retardation" (p. 10). The same period saw research on, among many other topics, curriculum adaptations, teaching methods, behavior modifications, learning, placement, memory, language (p. 11) - overall, the knowledge base on possible and effective interventions increased markedly, contrasting with the earlier emphasis on prevalence and psychometrics. Finally, some sociological/ethnographic studies on life in hospitals for mentally handicapped children "let the way towards some of the work based on a social model of disability being carried out today, although they all found a very entrenched medical model in the places they observed" (p. 12).


The last part of the historical overview, on the latter part of the century will be a separate entry.

First entry on Researching Learning Difficulties

Note: This is a Reading Diary entry. Writing something, anything, about what I'm reading helps me read more actively and remember better, and that is the main purpose of these posts. A Reading Diary entry is not a summary or review. The thoughts expressed should not be construed as complete, comprehensive or even representative renderings of cited authors' intentions. Read with appropriate caution, if at all.

In Researching Learning Difficulties (2005), Jill Porter and Penny Lacey discuss trends and tensions in the academic literature on learning disabilities. I came across this book while looking for something else in the library, and the very first lines of Ann Lewis' foreword drew me in:

Engaging with children and young people with learning difficulties tends to push one into the role of researcher. We find ourselves continually adducing, testing and revising hypotheses about why the child or young person is behaving in a particular way. To be a researcher is to seek systematic evidence, to reflect upon that evidence and as a result to move inductively or deductively to a deeper understanding of the world. The process can be summarised in the mathematician George Polya's problem-solving approach: understand the problem, try to use experience from related problems to plan an attack, carry out the attack and finally ask yourself whether you really believe the answer you've got. (p. vii)

A special education professor citing a mathematician, in a paragraph suggesting that practitioners (such as math teachers, she surely must mean:) be researchers more or less by necessity? I borrowed the book.

The introduction promises that the book

celebrates the diversity of work that is currently undertaken in the field of learning difficulties with a concern to enable people working within different spheres of activity to share something of their work to contribute to the bigger picture.

Later, the authors state that

Evidence suggests ... that research in the field of learning difficulties is diminishing - at least as measured through publications. Nowhere is this so apparent as in the fields of education and health. There are many potential reasons for this including ... the difficulty of ... validating research on small, heterogeneous populations ... The aim is to provide a source book for teachers and other professionals ... that will enable them to: ...

• reflect on different types of research methodologies, their relative strengths, weaknesses, constraints and possibilities in relation to learning difficulties
• undertake their own research in the field of learning difficulties. (pp. ix-x)

In discussing "Values and assumptions underpinning research," the authors mention various classifications of research - there's quantitative and qualitative research, positivist, post-positivist, interpretivist and social constructivist research, research with an emancipatory agenda and participatory research... The authors promise to represent research spanning the range of approaches, aiming to

promote a dialogue between researchers that recognizes the relative contributions to be made and the place and importance of different kinds of knowledge. (p. xi)

Yay for methodological pluralism. I'm looking forward to the rest of this book.

Against introspective cultural studies

Is the most effective means toward understanding other people really to probe your own experiences and personal history? Do instructors and trainers trying to promote intercultural understanding generally assume this to be the case? This seems to have been the approach both of the instructor who taught a Multicultural Ed class I took toward the teaching credential, and of the facilitator who did an anti-bias training at my school earlier this year. Then, a few days ago, a group of my students hanging out to do some math before a test were complaining about an episode suggesting, I think, the same preconception.

These students had also attended a diversity training, and the facilitator had - if I understood the students correctly - wanted to help the learners understand that saying "that's so gay" would be hurtful and inappropriate. He had tried to relate it to their experience by asking them how they would feel if he'd expressed general disapproval by saying "that's so nigger."

All other objections aside - I am puzzled by the idea that invoking a hypothetically analogous reaction would be the teaching strategy chosen. As far as I can see, no such parallels are needed to make the point. You only need to know that gay persons are, as a matter of fact, troubled by such uses of the term. And to know that, you only need to ask them, and then to listen.

The mistake may be, I think, one of believing too much in introspection as a source of knowledge of others, of directing a search inwards where directing attention outward is what is necessary. There is also the possible mistake of assuming that invoking strong, painful emotions promotes sympathy toward others. Why would either assumption be true?

What, indeed, is the rationale for starting off education classes or staff developments with activities of the kind "Think of a time you were involved in a bullying incident, and talk to your partner about it for one minute"? Of course, it is an empirical question whether reliving difficult past experiences might place one in a better position to empathize with others. If there are data to suggest that such reminiscing does promote insight, openness and understanding I would like to know. I am wondering, though, whether this apparently widespread notion is not rather a piece of pop psychology that sounds more plausible than it is. As it is, I am inclined to believe that rummaging in learners' personal histories distracts more than it contributes to the project of intercultural understanding.

Apart from epistemological objections about remembered personal experience as a source of insight about others' experiences, there is the question whether dwelling on painful past experiences actually promotes the desired kinds of attitudes and behaviors toward others. My hunch is that the opposite might be the case. Seeking out internal states of distress may well place us in a position where we are less able to be empathetic and responsive to others. In order to become more capable of listening and hearing what others are saying, to be capable of getting into our students' heads, to even want to go there, to be touched by their concerns and to work to address their needs, we must - I think - be in a position of emotional strength ourselves. States of insecurity or resentment are highly self-centered, and not conducive to orientation outward. Feeling what victims are feeling may be antithetical to being more reasonable and kind toward them. While on the one hand having had difficult experiences can increase our ability to understand what others are going through, sympathetic understanding might, paradoxically, require some sort of privileged position of emotional distance from those experiences.

Arguably, training activities involving the telling about sad things in the past have as their purpose to remember those experiences, not to actually become, again, victim of bullying or ostracism. However, it is curiously difficult to access past mental states without re-entering them. Remembering what being depressed is like from a vantage point of emotional health is virtually impossible - and to the extent that the pain can be reconstructed, it is just that - re-constructed, accessed by actually reverting to that mental state. Recalling the experience of being bullied can hardly be done with any degree of vividness without actually experiencing, again, the anxiety and shame of that experience. And in such a position one probably is not capable of much good. So, even if the past experiences did provide some real insight into the plight of others, it might well be at the expense of empathy and goodwill.

While I am writing many of these statements in fairly definite forms, as if they were assertions of belief or truth, that is largely because inserting indicators of their hypothetical character everywhere makes for awkward prose. This whole issue of learning when the learning outcomes have to do with attitudinal and emotional shifts rather than with grasping a concept is opaque to me. I feel fairly comfortable with breaking down processes of purely cognitive change, as when arranging the components of a math concept into a sequence for instruction - but constructing learning experiences to shape affect is different. Is it even reasonable to use the same term, 'learning,' for both processes? Interestingly, the word "understanding" is used both to describe knowledge about another person, and to describe connectedness and commonality of purpose with another person, although the two are hardly the same thing.

Whether these think-of-a-time activities really do much good or not, I do know that I would much rather attend hours of direct instruction about who my students are, how they experience their schooling, what their parents are concerned about, what rhetorical styles and actions are valued in their communities - things that I could not have figured out by mere introspection. And the little group of students kibitzing about their training experience over the math papers agreed: to find out whether saying "that's so gay" was acceptable, one should just ask gay people how they felt about it, and then listen.