Easy-to-do science is what those in physics, chemistry, geology, and some other fields do. Hard-to-do science is what the social scientists do and, in particular, it is what we educational researchers do. In my estimation, we have the hardest to do science of them all....We face particular problems and must deal with local conditions that limit generalizations and theory -building—problems that are different from those faced by the easier-to-do sciences. (Berliner, 2002)
This whole concept of the messiness of the social sciences has been really hitting me this week (thanks to my coursework and my work work). The good work of figuring out how to best help people learn is such a challenging endeavor that we might just never figure "it" out because "it" is different in every situation, for every student, for every task and developmental stage. That is part of what makes teaching such a great thing to do-- it is challenging, rewarding, fun, and you never arrive. You just always try to get better. I am still trying to come to grips with what this means for me as an educational researcher. Because of the messiness of it all, it seems almost silly to hang my hat on any one question (for a dissertation). I thrive on dealing with dozens of questions a day-- how will I focus on one (or a couple) questions for over a year, or more?
Perhaps part of the answer to that quandary lies in the essence of "local conditions". What are some local conditions about which I could contribute to a group's collective understanding of how to make things better? Schools trying to serve a public purpose? Schools involved in a consortium of online learning? All of these are specific, local issues that defy generalizations, but still could be meaningful (and somewhat generalizable) environments to be able to say more about.
