Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

918 The Praeger Handbook of Education and Psychology
Figure 105.2
Valued binarisms
Valued Binarisms
(Positive) (Negative)
Valid Invalid
Objective Subjective
True False
High Culture Low Culture
Logic Instinct
process. Science, reasoned Sir Francis Bacon, can be used to harness nature, and reason should
have dominance over imagination. Complex phenomena can be broken down into smaller parts
and reassembled to adhere to laws of causation.
In a CNB epistemology, the dualisms of mind and matter, knower and known are completely
separate. The traditional research methodologies of educational psychology, among other sciences,
are held as sacred, and there is no connection between research method and research
technique (Kincheloe, 2001). The identity of the researcher, the life experiences, preoccupations,
and biases are assumed to have no impact on what is selected for study and how the study is
undertaken. The researcher pursues an inquiry objectively, and the nature of the questions asked
is seen to have no impact on the research findings.
CNB epistemology posits a series of valued binarisms, including valid versus invalid, objective
versus subjective, true versus false, high culture versus low culture, and logic versus instinct, with
the former of each pair positive and the latter negative (Figure 105.2). The result is a group of
simple, two-dimensional images.
Of course, complexity may be inferred in the way these various dualisms and binarisms coexist
simultaneously, but it is a limited complexity.
Scientific study in ed psych values findings that represent validity according to a prescribed
set of norms. Invalid findings are discounted and discarded. For example, classroom studies
of students are regarded as problematic because of the number of variables inherent in a reallife
situation; the validity of such studies can be called into question, regardless of the fact
that the classroom setting more closely reflects the actual life experience of students than does
the laboratory. The child learning to divide is expected to complete the task using a particular
approach according to a particular algorithm favored by the teacher. When parents or a tutor
attempt to help the child but use a different algorithm, confusion arises, because in the context of