Educational Research - the Ethics and Aesthetics of Statistics

9 The Persuasive Power of Figures and the Aesthetics of the Dirty Backyards 139
a question of the ISCED classification, but also the categories used, the weights
added to the figures and the conversions made. The appendix shows that Education
at a Glance is made according to the standards of social science research, at least
regarding its methodological (not necessarily to its theoretical) frame. Although the
OECD as well as the European Commission try to make statistics more convincing
by using well-designed tables, charts and cover pages, which aestheticise the messages
based on figures, the methodological appendix constrains their coverage. This
shows that the explanatory range and the degree of comparability of the data are
very, very limited. It raises more questions, than answers.
A short story: Some years ago I gave a seminar on methodology in educational
research, and, what I did first was to read the methodological appendix of Education
at a Glance with my university students. Following this, the students came to regard
Education at a Glance as a worthless, meaningless collection of incomparable data.
I therefore had to defend Education at a Glance as a weak, but nevertheless the best
and most comprehensive collection of data that is currently available. In the second
part of the seminar I read an article with my students about research on the degree
of financial investment contributing to educational development in underdeveloped
countries (indicated by the relationship between financial investment and degree of
literacy). The article stated that roughly the cost of three American Pershing rockets
(or the annual budget of Berlin!) would be enough to double the degree of literacy in
one such country within 15 years. This article provoked a very intense and political
debate on the necessity of development aid and bringing more investment to the
educational systems of developing countries. All students agreed upon this goal. At
the end of the session I asked the students to look at the statistical basis of the article.
The statistics were mainly derived from Education at a Glance. It became clear that
the validity of the information given depends not only on the methodological frame
but also on the political intentions behind the use of information.
What did the students do? First, they subtracted, separated, unloaded and peeled
off the data (information) from the methodological knowledge frame that constituted
their scientific validity. They then decontextualised research knowledge, bringing it
down to the level of data. Second, they uploaded and added an alternative frame
to the data – e.g. social desirability, ethical principles, political usefulness or economical
viability – which constituted a new subject, new knowledge. The students
recontextualised the data, thereby elevating it to the level of knowledge. This shows
that the pattern of data and categories the data are embedded in serve as a kind of a
puzzle picture, which displays similar, but slightly different shapes depending on the
frame. The frame attributes the particular meaning to the data and categories converting
them to structured and meaningful knowledge. From this point of view, truth
and adequacy are not necessarily justified by scientific validity. This only counts as
one truth inter alia. Truth turns out to be a question of power. Those who hold power
are able to define the appropriate frame and merge it with statistical data so as to
sell the construct as the truth.
The variety of possible different contexts disappears and becomes superseded
by a system’s principles of functioning, the authority or power of a social group,
a speaker, an institution, political promises or the ‘Zeitgeist’. The aesthetics of