EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 6

Preparing Education Doctoral Students

for Epistemological Diversity
1
by Aaron M. Pallas
the welter of namespositivism, naturalism, postpositivism,
empiricism, relativism, feminist standpoint epistemology,
foundationalism, postmodernism, each with an array of sub-
specieslie important questions: Is there a single, absolute
truth about educational phenomena, or are there multiple
truths? (Or is the concept of truth itself so problematic as to be
of no value in understanding the world?) Can we count on our
senses, or on reason, to distinguish that which is true about the
world from that which is false? Are there methods that can lead
us close to understanding, or are there inherent indetermina-
cies in all methods? Is knowledge of the world discovered, or
constructed? Can knowledge of the world be evaluated inde-
pendent of the social and historical contexts in which it exists,
or is it always contingent upon, or relative to, particular cir-
cumstances?
For experienced educational researchers, this swell of episte-
mologies may threaten a taken-for-granted way of understanding
the world that they initially crafted in graduate school and elabo-
rated through subsequent professional experience. For novices as-
piring to research careers, the array of beliefs about the nature of
what counts as educational knowledge can be overwhelming,
particularly since many views are often at odds with novices epis-
temologies of educational practice or of everyday life (Neumann,
Pallas, & Peterson, 1999).
Epistemologies are central to the production and consump-
tion of educational research. Since epistemologies undergird all
phases of the research process, engaging with epistemology is in-
tegral to learning the craft of research. Moreover, epistemologies
shape scholars abilities to apprehend and appreciate the research
of others. Such an appreciation is a prerequisite for the scholarly
conversations that signify a elds collective learning.
At the heart of discussions about preparing educational re-
searchers is a question of values: Do we want to prepare novice re-
searchers for the world of educational research as it is, or do we
want to prepare them for the world as it might become? The his-
tory of educational research in the U.S. is marked by long expanses
of epistemological tranquility, punctuated by sharp disagreements.
These disagreements typically are initiated and sustained by mar-
ginalized communities; those holding a prevailing perspective
rarely feel compelled to engage with the marginalized groups
around epistemological concerns. As a consequence, there is lit-
tle mutual engagement among these groups, and it often seems
as if their members talk past one another. Within such groups,
however, interactions are denser, and most individuals can nd
themselves a comfortable niche. A researcher developing profes-
sionally within such a group is likely to dene educational re-
The diversity of epistemological perspectives in contemporary edu-
cational research poses challenges for the faculty of doctoral pro-
grams striving to prepare the next generation of educational re-
searchers. In this paper, I use Wengers (1998) concept of community
of practice to explore strategies for preparing doctoral students at
research universities for epistemological diversity in their develop-
ing practices of educational research. I argue that the preparation of
educational researchers in research-intensive universities largely takes
place within local communities of research practice that are smaller
than the faculty of a particular school of education, let alone a large,
heterogeneous organization such as AERA. However, because doc-
toral students engage with and are accountable to a relatively small
number of faculty and other students, they are unlikely to develop
rst-hand understanding of diverse epistemological perspectives.
Drawing on the community of practice concept, I suggest a number
of practical recommendations for preparing such novice researchers
for epistemological diversity.
One of the most confusing developments in educational re-
search over the past quarter-century has been the proliferation of
epistemologiesbeliefs about what counts as knowledge in the
eld of education, what is evidence of a claim, and what counts
as a warrant for that evidence. Although the discussion of vari-
ous epistemological perspectives in educational research often is
highly abstract, and viewed as the prerogative of philosophers at
some distance from the real world of educational research prac-
tice, the consequences of this diversity are quite real. Beliefs
about what counts as knowledge are a central determinant about
what a eld knows about its subject matter. The variability in
such beliefs can lead to small and large gaps in what various
members of the educational research community hold to be true
about educational phenomena. These discontinuities are partly
at the root of the widespread perception that the community of
educational researchers has failed to amass a cumulative body of
knowledge about how schools and schooling work (National Re-
search Council, 1999; Ravitch, 1998; Viadero, 1999). Few claims
about educational research are as damning, or as damaging to the
enterprise.
Experienced researchers and novices alike find it hard to
keep up with the cacophony of diverse epistemologies. Behind
Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 611
0114-03/Pallas (p6-11) 6/21/01 16:58 Page 6
JUNE/JULY 2001 7
tice consists of those things that individuals in a community do,
drawing on community resources, to further a set of shared goals.
For example, the practice of the community of math teachers at
Kennedy High School, an inner-city high school, consists not
only of how they teach mathematics to their students, but also
how they make it through the day, commiserating about the
state-mandated learning objectives and tests that drive their les-
son plans. Understood in this way, the common divide in edu-
cation between research and practice (or, for that matter, theory
and practice) melts away. Educational research is one of the prac-
tices in which a community of educational researchers engages.
I begin by setting out a few key ideas in Wengers conceptual
framework, including reication, participation, and constellation.
I then describe the ecology of epistemologies for educational re-
search in terms of relations among communities of practice. Next,
I turn to some of the problematics that ow from this congu-
ration. I conclude by discussing a number of program designs for
preparing doctoral students in research-intensive schools of edu-
cation to confront epistemological diversity.
Communities of Practice
Building on his earlier work with Jean Lave (Lave & Wenger,
1991), Etienne Wenger has constructed a provocative framework
for the analysis of learning in social contexts. At the center of this
framework is the concept of a community of practice, a social
group engaged in the sustained pursuit of a shared enterprise.
Practices are ways of negotiating meaning through social action.
In Wengers view, meaning arises from two complementary
processes, participation and reication. Participation consists of
the shared experiences and negotiations that result from social
interaction among members within a purposive community.
Participation is thus inherently local,
2
as shared experiences and
negotiation processes will differ from one setting to the next, re-
gardless of their interconnections. Consider, for example, the
case of the math teachers at Kennedy High in the inner city and
their peers at the Truman Academy in the suburbs. Even though
all of the members are high school math teachers, the shared ex-
periences of the math teachers at Kennedy High are likely to dif-
fer from the shared experiences of the math teachers at the Tru-
man Academy. For example, the Kennedy math teachers, unlike
the Truman math teachers, might have a history of treating prob-
ability and statistics as topics appropriate for an applied mathe-
matics course for the non-college bound. And over time, the sub-
jects of probability and statistics might come to hold a special
meaning to which the Truman teachers have no access and in
which they have no interest, as statistics is taught as an Advanced
Placement course at Truman. The meaning of probability and
statistics in the context of the applied math course, a local event,
partly denes the Kennedy math teachers experiences of being a
math teacher. We can assume that the Truman teachers have
their own shared histories that give meaning to being a math
teacher.
In contrast, reication is the process by which communities of
practice produce concrete representations of practice, such as
tools, symbols, rules, and documents (and even concepts and
theories). A lesson plan, for example, is a reication of the prac-
tice of teaching. It probably includes some representation of the
search within the epistemological boundaries that the commu-
nity represents.
I envision a different future. If educational researchers cannot
understand and engage with one another, both within and across
at least some educational research communities, the enterprise is
doomed to failure. Thus, to prevent a recurring pattern of episte-
mological single-mindedness, educational researchers will need to
engage with multiple epistemological perspectives to the point
that members of different communities of educational research
practice can understand one another, despite, or perhaps through,
their differences. Preparing novice educational researchers for
such epistemological diversity is one of the most important things
that the faculties of research universities can do.
Unfortunately, the literature provides little guidance on how
to prepare doctoral students for epistemological diversity. In fact,
there is scarcely a literature on the preparation of education re-
searchers, and hence there is little research support for the most
common features of research-intensive doctoral study. This is not
to say, of course, that there is a shortage of writings about research
methods and methodology, some of them quite prescriptive.
Most education doctoral programs in research universities are
based on a developmental model of professional socialization,
which sees doctoral students as coming to learn appropriate skills
and values as they move through a set of developmental stages
(Simpson, 1979). This model relies on a number of questionable
assumptions. First, it views students as relatively passive partici-
pants in the socialization process. Second, the model assumes
that students personal and social origins, and hence their per-
sonal epistemologies, are largely irrelevant to research prepara-
tiona particularly dangerous assumption in view of the chang-
ing composition of todays graduate students (Neumann &
Peterson, 1997; Neumann et al., 1999). Third, it does not make
problematic whose skills and values are internalized through the
socialization process.
Etienne Wengers (1998) concept of community of practice,
which sidesteps some of these difficulties, may be a more fruitful
foundation for exploring strategies for preparing educational re-
searchers for epistemological diversity in their developing prac-
tices of educational research. This concept ascribes agency to new-
comers, and sees generational encounters between newcomers
and oldtimers as opportunities for community learning and the
development of changed practices. Moreover, Wenger (1998) ex-
plicitly recognizes that individuals may be members of several
communities of practice simultaneously, and discusses the process
of brokering, in which individuals, even novices, can introduce
elements of the practices of one community into the practices of
another. This is a particularly important way to think about the
incorporation of the epistemologies and practices of traditionally
subordinated groups (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities, women, and
perhaps even education practitioners) into the educational re-
search community (Neumann et al., 1999).
Although the words community and practice evoke com-
mon images, Wenger has particular denitions of these terms,
giving the phrase community of practice a specialized mean-
ing. A practice, for example, need not be framed as the work and
skills of a particular individual (i.e., a practitioner), which is what
the common term teaching practice connotes. Rather, a prac-
0114-03/Pallas (p6-11) 6/21/01 16:58 Page 7
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 8
activities in which teachers engage, and some examples of con-
ditions or problems that a teacher might encounter in practice.
There is much to be learned from participation that eludes
reification, but the converse is also true. Wenger makes the case
that much of learning can be explained in the intertwining
of reification and participation. Participation and reification
are complementary processes in that each has the capacity to re-
pair the ambiguity of meaning the other can engender. Al-
though a novice teachers math education textbooks and prac-
titioner publications (the codified reifications of practice in her
field) might not provide a definitive interpretation of a stu-
dents ambiguous statement, the teacher may know that a more
experienced colleague down the hall has special expertise in
making sense of errors in students mathematical thinking. The
senior teachers expertise becomes available to the novice
through professional conversation, a form of participation. In
this way, participation can result in social learning that could
not be produced solely by
reification alone. Conversely,
part of being a math teacher,
whether at Kennedy High or
Truman Academy, is learning
the National Council of Teach-
ers of Mathematics (NCTM)
standards, which codify, and
thereby reify, what it means
to be a math teacher in a way
that a Kennedy planning meet-
ing, or other social interactions
among the Kennedy math
teachers, cannot.
Although there are no de-
finitive litmus tests for judging
whether a particular social col-
lectivity should be considered a community of practice,
Wenger does offer some guidelines. If a community of practice
involves mutual engagement, a negotiated enterprise, and a
repertoire of resources and practices, then we should expect
members of a community of practice to (a) interact more inten-
sively with, and know more about, others in the community than
those outside the community; (b) hold their actions accountable
(and be willing for others in the community to hold them ac-
countable) more to the communitys joint enterprise than to some
other enterprise; (c) be more able to evaluate the actions of other
members of the community than the actions of those outside the
community; and (d) draw on locally-produced resources and ar-
tifacts to negotiate meaning more so than resources and artifacts
that are imported from outside the group.
By these criteria, the Kennedy math teachers and their coun-
terparts at the Truman Academy are not members of the same
community of practice. In fact, each group may comprise a dis-
tinct community of practice (we cannot be sure without more
data). And yet high school math teachers across the country
clearly share some attributes. They share some commonalities of
purpose, reected in the fact that most belong to the NCTM.
They also share a common identity. These attributes, as well as
others I do not mention, imply that the two groups of teachers,
though distinct, are related. Wenger uses the term constellation to
describe a grouping of discrete communities of practice that are
related by some form of continuity in meaningwhether pur-
pose, membership, identity, artifacts, history, or environment
across these communities. The population of U.S. high school
math teachers thus represents a constellation of local communi-
ties of practice that share some, but by no means all, practices.
This paper is not, of course, about math teachers; the exam-
ples here are simply heuristics. But the discussion thus far does
provide some purchase for describing the ecology of educational
research as a practice. Although we often refer to the community
of educational researchers, such a large, amorphous community
cannot be construed as a community of practice. Nor can AERA
as a membership organization be dened comfortably as a com-
munity of practice, due to the many discontinuities (in mutual
engagement, joint purpose, and shared repertoire of resources
and practices) that exist within it. But there surely are some con-
tinuities across the communi-
ties that serve to constitute
AERA, so it may be protable
to view AERA instead as a con-
stellation of communities of
practice.
The same logic is true of
the research-intensive graduate
schools of education that pre-
pare educational researchers. It
may be surprising that it is dif-
cult to characterize the fac-
ulty of a particular school of
education as a community of
the practice of educational re-
search. The faculty of a particu-
lar graduate school of educa-
tion do share a common institutional environment, have a shared
history (a budget crisis, an innovative teacher education program,
an oppressive Provost), interact with one another around teaching
and program issues, and share a commitment to sustain and nour-
ish the school. But all of this points to the faculty of that school
sharing membership in a community of the practice of being a pro-
fessor at a particular school, rather than membership in a commu-
nity of the practice of educational research. For example, my col-
leagues in the Department of Health and Behavior Studies at
Teachers College and I share a common set of College statutes that
govern how the College operates, and I serve on various standing
and ad hoc committees with them. We have pleasant conversa-
tions at faculty meetings and College events, and if a student in
one of the Health and Behavior Studies programs is having some
difficulty in a class I teach, I might go talk to the students advisor.
But I dont read the research the Health and Behavior Studies fac-
ulty carry out, and they dont read mine. Moreover, I dont feel
comfortable evaluating their competence in understanding, say,
the determinants of saturated fat intake among poor urban chil-
dren. I suspect they would acknowledge similar discomfort in
evaluating my competency as a sociologist of education. This kind
of discomfort at least partially explains why promotion and tenure
decisions at many colleges and universities rest heavily on the judg-
It may be surprising that
it is difficult to characterize
the faculty of a particular
school of education as a
community of the practice
of educational research.
0114-03/Pallas (p6-11) 6/21/01 16:58 Page 8
JUNE/JULY 2001 9
ments of external reviewers of a candidates scholarly competen-
cies and accomplishments, rather than solely on the judgments of
his or her institutional colleagues. Its an implicit admission that
individual faculty are members of communities of the practice of
educational research that transcend institutional boundaries and
that the schools of education in which they work are constellations
of such communities.
I wish to argue that the preparation of educational researchers
largely takes place within local communities of research prac-
tice.
3
To make this point, let us consider a common model of
doctoral education in the research university. In this model,
doctoral students aspiring to research careers take a sequence of
research methods and statistics courses, supplemented by be-
ginning and advanced courses in their areas of specialization.
Along the way, they may engage in a research project, whether
alone or as part of a team, under the supervision of a faculty
member in their area of study (broadly conceived). All this is
prefatory to proposing and conducting doctoral dissertation re-
search, in some cases entirely on their own, and in others as part
of a larger enterprise.
A critical part of my argument is that this model implies that
doctoral students in research universities engage with and are ac-
countable to a relatively small number of faculty and other stu-
dents. At best, this social collectivity might be described as a com-
munity of research practice, based on a common purpose (e.g.,
understanding how junior high school students make sense of
mathematical functions), mutual engagement (e.g., weekly meet-
ings of a research group), and a shared repertoire of resources and
practices (e.g., developing a coding scheme for the analysis of
videotapes of classroom processes). At worst, it is an arbitrary mix
of individuals with little to tie them together. But since the model
of learning within a community of practice is idealized in much
discourse about research preparation (see, e.g., Schoenfeld, 1999),
I focus on it.
Novices who are learning educational research through par-
ticipation in a particular local community are destined to nego-
tiate the meaning of what counts as knowledge through inter-
actions with others in the same community, as well as through
exposure to reifications (e.g., books and articles), which are
often interpreted in local terms. If there is a connection between
community and epistemology, then a local community of re-
search practice is not likely to reect within itself a deep under-
standing of multiple epistemological perspectives. The more a
newcomer is drawn toward the center of such a community, the
less likely he/she is to develop a more variegated understanding
of the epistemologies of educational research. This is largely be-
cause being drawn to a communitys center is at odds with the
possibility of being drawn into other communities whose prac-
tices are defined in different epistemological terms. A novice
who, over time, deepens his or her understandings of educa-
tional research practice in the terms of a particular epistemology
in a particular communityas we usually expect doctoral stu-
dents to dois unlikely to develop a rst-hand feel for diverse
epistemological framings of educational research. The common
approach that has evolved over the past quarter-centurythe
broad survey course on research methods near the beginning of
doctoral studyis a weak treatment relative to intense par-
ticipation in a local community of practice (see, e.g., Pallas,
Neumann, & Peterson, 1996).
Some Practical Recommendations
In light of all this, how might research-intensive graduate schools
of education organize themselves to best prepare novice re-
searchers to deal with the epistemological diversity in educational
research? We are not yet at a point where research can be a reli-
able guide. Rather, the recommendations that follow are highly
speculative, but at least informed by the community of practice
concept. Preparing novices to encounter epistemological diversity
as consumers of research might involve assisting them in the ex-
ploration of their own personal epistemologies in some depth,
and developing tools that enable them to contrast and connect
their epistemologies with those of other individualswhether ed-
ucational researchers, policymakers or practitionersthey might
encounter. Preparing novices to encounter epistemological diver-
sity as producers of research is more challenging, and might involve
assisting novices in using contrasting epistemologies in the con-
duct of their own research. Many of the recommendations that
follow are equally appropriate to both approaches.
Education school faculty involved in the preparation of doctoral
students should strive to elevate the discussion and consideration of
epistemology by both faculty and students in their schools of educa-
tion. At present, there is far too little serious attention paid to ex-
ploring the complexities of engaging with multiple epistemolo-
gies of research, either as a consumer or as a practitioner of
research. And, when various epistemologies are discussed, it is
often in the context of research methods courses, and hence de-
coupled from the actual practices of researchers.
Make the discussion of epistemology the responsibility of the en-
tire faculty. Epistemology should not be the exclusive province of
the sparse communities of philosophers and research methods in-
structors. We should not nd discussions of epistemology only
in qualitative research methods classes. All faculty pursuing edu-
cational research should strive to expose their personal episte-
mologies of research to the doctoral students with whom they en-
gage. If a graduate school of education is a constellation of local
communities of practice with distinctive epistemologies, then it
is important for students to be aware of all of these communities
and epistemologies. This heightened awareness can facilitate the
learning that ensues from the brokering of practices across local
communities of practice within an education school.
It is as important for such discussions to occur in substantive
courses as in courses formally designated as research methods
courses. Of course, this requires that such faculty be self-reective
and willing to discuss some deeply held and often tacit beliefs.
This requires courage, openness, and a spirit of inquiry, all of
which are desirable traits for educational researchers, whether be-
ginners or otherwise.
Link discussions of epistemology to the practice of educational re-
search. This is particularly important for doctoral students des-
tined for careers as educational researchers. In introductory re-
search courses, the typical site for considering the epistemologies
of educational research, discussions of epistemology usually are
decoupled from the practice of educational research. It is through
legitimate peripheral participation in a community of research
practice that students have the opportunity to connect episte-
0114-03/Pallas (p6-11) 6/21/01 16:58 Page 9
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 10
mologies to what researchers actually do. But even those students
with research assistantships often dont engage with their super-
vising faculty around issues of epistemology, particularly if they
join a research project after it has commenced. The technical fea-
tures of the work (interviewing, observing, coding, etc.) take
precedence, especially when there are meaningful deadlines to
meet, as so often is the case. Faculty should purposefully create
time and space to discuss the relationship between epistemology
and the technical practices of the project. In other words, they
might explain what they do in terms of the logic or the syntax of
the research practices to which they subscribe, thereby facilitat-
ing discussions of what does and does not count as knowledge
and as evidence.
Place discussions of epistemology in historical context. A critical
element of membership in a community of research practice is
the development of a shared set of experiences and practices. An
historical perspective on epistemology can enable novice educa-
tional researchers to share the meanings of particular episte-
mologies that have been constructed by more senior members of
the research community. The danger in discussing epistemology
as ahistorical is that novices may not understand how episte-
mological perspectives in a eld (or in the study of a particular
subject) have evolved over time, sometimes in relation to, or even
in opposition to, one another. This is as important for aspiring
consumers of educational research as for students who will be ac-
tively engaged in research careers.
A shared understanding of a communitys epistemological
change or epistemological development is one of the dening
features of a community of research practice and can also dene
a constellation of such communities. It is important for novices
to come to understand the development of particular episte-
mologies. The prevailing epistemologies of the study of a partic-
ular subject (say, literacy) are the culmination of historical shifts
in epistemologies that have guided the study of that subject.
Thus to understand deeply the epistemologies of reading re-
search today, it is helpful to understand prior forms.
By way of example, one might argue that postmodernism, a
broad umbrella for many epistemologies, emerged in response to
modernist epistemologies. This evolution required a deep un-
derstanding of modernism, as one must have such knowledge to
develop a coherent way of knowing dened in opposition to it.
Yet today, quite a few beginning scholars embrace postmodern
perspectives without fully understanding what they claim to be
rejecting.
4
Design social spaces in which epistemological experimentation is
safe and encouraged. Members of a community of educational re-
search practice have a shared history that contributes to shared
understanding of what counts as knowledge of a particular edu-
cational phenomenon. Newcomers to such communities often
have not worked out epistemological beliefs in the context of the
actual practice of educational research. Thus, novices are likely
to appear confused, inconsistent, or simply unknowledgeable to
full members of a particular community of educational research
practice.
Members of communities of educational research practice
can respond to these appearances of confusion in a number of
ways. For example, the members of such a community might
use the appearance of confusion as a rationale for excluding or
dismissing a novice from the community, or ignoring him or
her in daily interaction (Wenger, 1998). Were this to happen,
novices would not feel safe in voicing their developing under-
standings of epistemology, and would be likely to withdraw
from participation, that is, if they werent dismissed first. And
this withdrawal ultimately would bar membership in a partic-
ular community.
In contrast, the members of a community of educational re-
search practice might agree to grant newcomers a modicum of le-
gitimacy, in spite of their undeveloped or incomplete grasp of epis-
temological issues. In such a context, newcomers are placed on a
trajectory leading towards full membership in the community (re-
gardless of whether or not they eventually become full members.)
The legitimacy afforded to such newcomers gives them license to
explore epistemological concerns without fear of rejection.
Acknowledge the inevitability of a group of doctoral students who
will not be deeply engaged in thinking about epistemological perspec-
tives. In an era when all children can learn is a mantra chanted
by educators across the country to ward off unseen evil spirits, it
may seem like heresy to accept the premise that not all doctoral
students will be willing to learn deeply about epistemological is-
sues. But graduate schools of education have nite time and re-
sources to devote to preparing doctoral students, and it may
make sense to invest more heavily in the cultivation of deep epis-
temological understanding in those students destined for re-
search careers than those who are not.
This is not to say that all students who care deeply about ed-
ucational policy and practice are unwilling to be reective about
epistemological concerns. But there may be a group of students
whose professional goals in education are so instrumental and
heartfelt that they do not wish to extend their efforts beyond
them. I would support pushing all students to think about epis-
temological issues in the early phases of doctoral study, but there
may come a time when the different future trajectories of stu-
dents might warrant differential investment. Epistemological di-
versity poses greater challenges to doctoral students embarking
upon careers of educational research than to those who are more
likely to consume than produce educational research.
Caveats
My aim in this paper has been to generate renewed attention to
the problem of preparing beginning education researchers to
achieve competence in a world of shifting and expanding episte-
mologies of education research. My specic suggestions could
yield unanticipated consequences, several of which I note below.
The slippery slope. Once the door is opened to the goal of hav-
ing students engage deeply with multiple epistemological per-
spectives, the questions of how many epistemologies, which ones,
and whose take on increased importance. Given ever-expanding
variations on epistemological stances, how many perspectives
should students encounter? Two? Five? Thirteen? Here, the slip-
pery slope consists of the acceleration toward treating more and
more perspectives seriously, with no consensual criteria for end-
ing the slide. Beyond the issue of quantity, the issue of which
epistemologies and whose get privileged in doctoral programs is
a matter of politics and power. Ellen Lagemanns (1989, 1997,
2000) historical studies of educational research in the U.S. demon-
0114-03/Pallas (p6-11) 6/21/01 16:58 Page 10
JUNE/JULY 2001 11
strate the complexity of such considerations in ways that go be-
yond the scope of this essay.
The big bang theory. It would be easy to look at the current
system of preparing educational researchers in graduate school
and conclude, Oh, what fools these educational researchers be!
They have devised a process of graduate education that removes
opportunities for overt engagement with multiple epistemologi-
cal perspectives. They train their future members in insular com-
munities, and thus their members are forever caught in the webs
of meaning that a particular community spins. This hardly seems
like the desired outcome. But, borrowing a page from Howard
Beckers (1998) bag of analytic tricks, we can attempt to visual-
ize the social machinery that produced this outcome. Doing so
suggests that the outcome of limited engagement around episte-
mological concerns, whether serendipitous or planned, may ac-
tually serve a very important function in maintaining a research-
intensive graduate school of education and keeping it strong. It
is conceivable that, since epistemologies are often deeply personal
and meaningful, exposing the diverse and potentially conicting
epistemologies held by different faculty members in a research
university to public view could lead to outright conict. Faculty
might come to understand that they question one anothers
thinking and learning about educational phenomena. Such be-
liefs are usually submerged, but surfacing them could create a
big bang within a graduate school of education. Exposing such
controversy may, in the long run, be useful; but it requires the
cultivation of respectful openness to disagreement, which may
not come easily.
Dissociative scholarly identities. The psychological literature de-
scribes cases of individuals with two or more distinct identities
or personality states, each of which has a distinctive way of relat-
ing to and thinking about the environment and the self. A mild
version of dissociative identity could result from sustained en-
gagement with two or more divergent epistemologies. Episte-
mologies do, after all, involve particular ways of thinking about
the environment and the self. Attempting to reconcile conict-
ing views could thwart the development of a coherent identity,
and make it difficult for a novice researcher to participate as a
member of any community of research practice. Alternatively,
compartmentalizing and segregating disparate epistemologies
could create unresolved tensions that might lead to other psy-
chological or emotional problems.
Recommendations and caveats are no substitute for systematic
research on how doctoral students learn to become educational
researchers. In the long run, the eld will benet from adopting
a critical, reexive stance toward doctoral research preparation,
and interrogating the rationales for current practices.
NOTES
1
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA,
April 2000. This work has been supported by the Spencer Foundation.
My thanks to Nell Duke, Ken Frank, and Matt Prentice for sharing
their ideas with me, and to Devon Brenner, Anna Neumann, Nora
Sabelli, Lauren Young, and anonymous reviewers for commenting on
earlier drafts of this paper.
2
Although local is typically defined in terms of physical distance,
here I use the term to refer to social distance. New technologies of
communication (e.g., e-mail, the Internet) have made it easy for indi-
viduals at great physical distance from one another to engage in social
interaction.
3
I focus here on doctoral study as a context for the learning of ed-
ucational research, but I believe that the ongoing learning of more ex-
perienced researchers also takes place within local communities of
practice.
4
I am grateful to my colleagues David Labaree and Cleo Cherryholmes
for making this point.
REFERENCES
Becker, H. S. (1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research
while youre doing it. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lagemann, E. C. (1989). The plural worlds of educational research.
History of Education Quarterly, 29, 183214.
Lagemann, E. C. (1997). Contested terrain: A history of education re-
search in the United States, 18901990. Educational Researcher, 26,
517.
Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of ed-
ucation research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council. (1999). Improving student learning: A strate-
gic plan for education research and its utilization. Committee on a Fea-
sibility Study for a Strategic Education Research Program. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academy Press.
Neumann, A., Pallas, A. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1999). Preparing educa-
tion practitioners to practice education research. In E. C. Lagemann &
L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possi-
bilities (pp. 247288). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Neumann, A., & Peterson, P. L. (Eds.). (1997). Learning from our lives:
Women, research, and autobiography in education. New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Pallas, A. M., Neumann, A., & Peterson, P. L. (1996). Beyond smoosh:
Representing diverse methodological traditions in teaching an intro-
ductory educational research course. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
York, NY.
Ravitch, D. (1998). What if research really mattered? Education Week,
December 16.
Schoenfeld, A. (1999). The core, the canon, and the development of
research skills: Issues in the preparation of education researchers. In
E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education
research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 166202). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Simpson, I. H. (1979). From student to nurse: A longitudinal study of so-
cialization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Viadero, D. (1999). New priorities, focus sought for educational re-
search. Education Week, June 23.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and
identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
AUTHOR
AARON M. PALLAS is a professor of Sociology and Education at
Teachers College, Columbia University, Box 3, 525 W. 120th St., New
York, NY, 10027; amp155@columbia.edu. His research interests in-
clude educational stratication and the social organization of schools.
Manuscript received November 28, 2000
Revision received February 23, 2001
Accepted March 6, 2001
0114-03/Pallas (p6-11) 6/21/01 16:58 Page 11