The Patient Scholar
Reflections on Learning and Teaching
Wed, 29 Sep 2004
[An excerpt of a message I sent to my committee chair.]
Let me share with you some thoughts about the comp. question I’m writing for Peter. I’m supposed to compare and contrast positivism, hermeneuticism, and postmodernism. You’ll recall our conversation where I talked about the difficulty I was having with the quantitative-qualitative distinction, and whether qualitative research could be construed as empirical. I think I’ve got that now; empirical research relies on an epistemology of experience as the ground of knowledge. As you pointed out, qualitative research is certainly empirical in the sense that our ground is still that which is experienced (not necessarily measured, at least in the quantitative sense, but experienced nonetheless). I would hesitate to identify qualitative research as postivist research, though there are some who do, because there is no attempt, either explicit or implicit, to derive, or prove, some covering law, or so it seems to me. Rather, the attempt is more to explain an (isolated) event. Maybe in the case of grounded theory research we’re trying to build theory, but it would be theory in the sense of Merton’s middle-range theories (though of course, Merton holds out the hope for covering laws eventually).
As I look at hermeneuticism and postmodernism, it seems to me that we have two projects that are more friendly to qualitative research, but go beyond that. In hermeneuticism, where we treat society, or events in society, as a text-analogue to interpret, the coherence of the interpretation is contigent upon its context. In other words, an interpretation of an event can only be coherent when viewed and interpreted within the context of the society in which it occurs. In order to do that, it seems to me that the researcher must give weight to beliefs (among other things) that exist in a society which are “real” to that society’s members in (possibly) some metaphysical sense, but which would be rejected by a positivist researcher as being immaterial. A hermeneuticist would engage in empirical research, but not necessarily. The hermeutic project allows for empirical and non-empirical research. But it can’t be positivist.
Postmodernism also clearly exlcludes a positivist approach in two ways. First, it does so by denying that anything like complete truth can be obtained (it doesn’t deny its possible existence, just that we can’t get to it). Second it does so by stating that what we observe does not possess a reality independent of the observer. Every social interaction we observe is in fact a construct of society. In Foucaultian terms, the interaction is the result of the expression of power, which power is used to *create* “truth”. Lyotard calls it a productive power, and ties it to the use of language.
This is what I’m coming up with so far. Do you think I have characterized these things correctly? I should probably send the same type of message to Peter, but I would really like to get your feedback too.
[I found this while cleaning out my user directory.]
Peri has suggested an approach to the proposal in which I use three different theoretical approaches to assess the question of why the LDS Church act politically. Why use three different approaches to explanation for the same question?
Therein lies the answer to my question about the thesis of the proposal. My study is not a normative one in which I assess whether or not the Church should act politically. That is not my question. My question is why does the Church act politically. This is an empirical question; not a question then about what ought to be (normative theory), but a question of what is (description), why it is (explanation), and whether we can tell if it will be (prediction). The role of empirical theory is to construct, or find, a theoretical framework that will answer these questions.
I had originally thought that I might tease out a political philosophy for the church, but the more I think about it, the more I think that political philosophy
is the wrong term. I think a better term is world view
, something akin to Peter Berger’s sacred canopy
. Michael Leming calls Berger’s sacred canopy humanity’s use of religion [as] the audacious attempt to conceive of the entire universe as being humanly significant
. At a more fundamental and, importantly, testable level the canopy is a method of giving sense to the world and identifying the individual’s (or the group’s, in the case of the Church) place and role in it.
So, the proposal becomes a competition of sorts in which each theoretical framework is tested by asking each to describe Church political action, explain Church political action, and predict Church political action. And thus, when Peri is suggesting to me that I need to create ideal types from two perspectives, rational choice and Foucaultian, she is in fact asking me to create expected descriptions and explanations of Church activity based upon these perspectives, and then compare these creations to the historical record.
Instinctively I have felt for some time that provisions of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional. I, as well as many others, feel particularly gratified by the decision of Judge Victor Marrero in the case of Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft et al..
Judge Marrero held that the FBI’s authority to issue National Security Letters to obtain records from internet service providers was too broad, and violated the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. He also held that the expansive gag power of section 505 constituted and unreasonable exercise of prior restraint on speech in violation of the 1st Amendment. (For a fuller discussion of the case, see In ACLU Case, Federal Court Strikes Down Patriot Act Surveillance Power As Unconstitutional at the ACLU’s website.)
While deeply important from a constitutional perspective, my interest in the decision is pedagogical. In my work as an adjunct Salt Lake Community College, I teach a course in U.S. government and politics. Often, my students are constitutionally challenged. As we begin working our way through the document, particularly through the Bill of Rights, the rumors they can dimly recall about the Patriot Act—or any other government action—suddenly come to the fore. I hear cries of “How can they do that? That’s unconstitutional!”
This creates an excellent opportunity to discuss checks and balances, and the nature of the judiciary as a reactive branch of government. While one check of the judiciary on the Congress is the ability to declare Congressional Acts unconstitutional, the courts can do this only in the situation of a case or controversy. The judiciary can’t go looking for an opportunity to pass on the constitutionality legislative or executive action; it must wait for a case to come to it.
This suggestion of the judiciary being a reactive branch occasionally does not sit well with my students. I recall one in particular who thought that the Supreme Court should evaluate the constitutionality of every Congressional act, prior the acts’ becoming law.
Well, I still have this feeling of impending doom. Comprehensive exams can do that to you. But, there is a certain relief today, and I sigh and breathe a bit easier now.
I submitted my “petition to take my comprehensive exams” today. I had the great good fortune to find all of my committee members (from political science) on campus, and the great good fortune to have all of them sign the petition. That was the last administrative hurdle that I needed to clear before the exams.
Well, the sighing is done now. Back to work; I still need to become familiar with the entire corpus of political science research and commentary. That’s what comps are all about, right? 
Mon, 27 Sep 2004
This is a difficult proposition, but not impossible. I have been married now for 18 years, and am delighted to be a husband and a father. My children are great, and have tried to support me in my program. My wife is wonderful and patient, and has also supported me in my program. But there are risks associated with pursuing a doctorate and having a family at the same time.
The risks come from not being able, unless you are very careful, to devote adequate time to these very intensive life activities. Wives, and children, and doctorates all require an enormous amount of time and energy. Children must be shown attention and love, must be helped with their homework, must have a listening ear when they need to talk. Wives must be shown attention and love, must be the subject of romance and courting (yes, even after the marriage), must have a listening ear. Doctorates must be shown attention and, if not love per se, a passion for the subject matter, must have their homework done, and must be listened to as well.
Each of these, if you are married and have children and wish (who knows why) to pursue a graduate degree, must be given their own time and place, or else each will suffer. There will inevitably be conflicts between school programs and papers, dates with a wife and conferences. But these conflicts can be resolved by maintaining as much as possible the proper place and time for wife, children, and degree.
An opportunity that I have lost is that of fully involving my children and wife in the degree process, where the degree becomes more than my personal goal, but rather becomes a family goal. That is a loss for my children especially, because watching their father and being involved with their father as he works through a graduate program can be a very instructive experience (ah yes, perhaps instructive enough to encourage them not to pursue a graduate degree). It is a loss forme because I never (or rarely) asked for help.
While I believe in the “proper time and place” argument I have just made, I must add one caveat. If you err in allocating time and effort, err on the side of your family. The family must not be sacrificed on the altar of academia. No one has the right to sacrifice someone else’s happiness and dreams for the sake of his own.
Sat, 25 Sep 2004
This is a new beginning for the Patient Scholar, the erstwhile blog of one Mike Broschinsky. I have allowed myself to be influenced by what everyone else thought a blog should be, and have not really done what I want with this blog. Let me tell you what I want.
I want this blog to be about what it’s like to be a Ph.D. student. I’ll be taking comps soon, so I’m close to the end (or not). But there is still a lot to say. Some might even be useful for future graduate students, or those who wish to be graduate students.
I want this blog to be about what it’s like to teach. I’m an adjunct at one of the local community colleges, and enjoy teaching very much. But I have a lot to learn about how to handle a class, prepare material, deal with students, and all that comes with teaching. On the other hand, I know a lot, or at least think I do.
I want this blog to be about what it’s like to be a scholar. This is a concept that I am only dimly beginning to preceive, let alone understand. One question that I need to explore is what it means to be a scholar. I’m not sure I know, nor am I sure I know what a scholar is.
Well, there you have it. This blog will be what I want it to be. If it fits a mold, great. If it doesn’t, maybe that’s even better.
