A classmate of mine at the start of class raised the interesting question; at which point does being politically astute become deceptive?
Someone said they are the same thing.
My take was that it’s at the point where facts start being twisted or hidden. If someone is choosing certain words or certain rhetoric to suit a certain audience but is being transparent, then it’s fine. But I think that as soon as someone starts hiding information from the parties involved or who would be affected by the matter, then that’s crossing the line of being deceptive.
I liked the part in the reading about democratization as an ongoing process and said that knowledge producers are researchers that do and report the research while knowledge users, in this context, are three fold. There are: (1) policy analysts and what they will do with that knowledge, what policies will they use this information to create; (2) policy makers, and what policy will they impose with this information; and (3) the public, how they will react to this policy, will they agree and adopt it or will they resist and want to change it?
Then I reflected on how institutions don’t change or adapt. Shön argues that there is a gap between knowledge and institutions. I talked about the educational culture of constant and continuous change. In other more common terms, there should be a move towards a culture of lifelong learning at educational institutions. This however needs to be adopted by all stakeholders at these institutions, ranging from the students, to the faculty, staff and parents.
The part about hospital learning and police service learning resonated with the idea I was just referring to, which is lifelong learning and the necessary continuous learning and change/adaptation. I argued that education does not change or adapt with the world as fast as police and medical fields because maybe there is no life-threatening urgency in that sense. Yes it is urgent and also threatening but not in a direct and immediate way such as matters of national security.
Then we talked about Dryzk’s public policy article and I want to reflect about the part in the reading that talked about universal logic. The author argues that there is a universal logic of scientific inquiry. So everywhere in the world, this is how scientific inquiry is done and it’s mostly a globally agreed upon aspect. In our discussion we touched on how it is research that follows scientific inquiry that is seen as more prestigious nowadays. Lately I’ve been reading research with methodology learning more towards qualitative and I find it more explanatory about deeper angles to the problem. I distinctly like case study research for that reason; that it offers a deeper look at the problem and includes human experiences. This kind of concerns me about my future in educational research, but it calms me a bit to know that there are many scholars moving towards qualitative methodology and research nowadays. I was able to reach this realization from the readings we did in my other course (introduction to international and comparative education).
More later 🙂