|
Assignment #3
Critique of Critical Research Paper
Shell-Shock or Sisterhood:
English School History and Feminist Practice
Bridget A. Ricketts
Education 6100
Dr. R. Tite
November 30, 1998
Introduction
The purpose of this paper
is to critique Gaby Weiner’s article entitled "Shell-Shock or Sisterhood:
English School History and Feminist Practice". This critique will look at
the following elements of critical research and feminist perspective:
·
What parts of this paper are critical and why are they
critical?
·
What parts are feminist, and why are they feminist?
·
How does Weiner use the seven elements of deconstruction in
her paper?
·
How is reconstruction used?
·
What is the validity of Weiner’s work?
·
Conclusions
Overview
In this paper Weiner
focuses on the impact of ideology on the English National History
Curriculum. She places specific emphasis on the implications for feminist
practice when curriculums change. Weiner uses critical research methods
to deconstruct the history curriculum and reconstructs and analyzes it
from a feminist perspective.
Firstly, Weiner focuses
on history as a school subject. She reviews how history in danger of
moving in oblivion was revitalized by the National Curriculum. The
changes brought about helped in reestablishing history as a key curriculum
area. As part of her historical analysis she also discusses the power
structures at play in the construction of the National Curriculum. Weiner
then looks at weaknesses of the curriculum starting with curriculum
content. She also looks at regressive modernism, equity issues, and the
continuity and fragmentation of subject areas.
Weiner concludes her article by urging feminist practitioners towards
three areas of action: challenging curriculum content, reviewing pedagogy
and the hidden curriculum, and in the role of feminists as professional
teachers.
Weiner’s Paper as Critical Research
Robin Usher (1996)
defines critical methodology as the detecting and unmasking of beliefs and
practices that limit human freedom, justice and democracy. Weiner’s
paper is indeed critical in that it attempts to get beneath the surface of
the National History curriculum and unmask the underlying power
structures. In her article she asks questions such as: Who were the
people who designed this curriculum? What is the essence, history and
grassroots of the history curriculum? What are the underlying power
structures at play? What groups are being oppressed?
The knowledge interest
involved in critical work is emancipatory; the unmasking of ideologies
that maintain the status quo by restricting the access of groups to the
means of obtaining knowledge and the raising of consciousness or awareness
about the material conditions that oppress or restrict them. Weiner
points out that the National Curriculum is still the history of “great”
white men. The final report does mention equality issues for gender and
race but they are by no means a priority.
Critical works also are
concerned with taking action to change situations. Weiner’s paper is
critical in this respect and it recommends three courses of action for
feminist
practitioners. These actions include, challenging curriculum content,
reviewing pedagogy and the hidden curriculum, and in the feminists role as
professionals.
Weiner’s Paper from a Feminist Perspective
Feminist research
involves an ongoing criticism of non-feminist scholarship. Weiner writes
her paper from a feminist perspective in that she views the National
Curriculum for history as an attempt to devalue women. She notes that in
the curriculum there is no topic devoted entirely to women and that
history is still in the domain of men. Her main goal of the paper is to
highlight how feminist practitioners can deal with the new National
Curriculum and suggest new directions.
Another aspect of
feminist research that is included in this article is one of
intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity occurs when the researcher becomes
involved or has a personal stake in their work. Weiner talks about
herself in this article and why she was interested in strengthening the
position of women in school history. She includes her perspective as a
person who has actively campaigned on feminist issues and carried out
research into feminist history.
Deconstruction as a Critical Element
Weiner uses
deconstruction in her article to take apart and uncoil the history
curriculum. In Education 6100 class we discussed seven elements of
deconstruction and although there is quite a bit of overlap I feel that
Weiner utilizes all of these elements, including abstraction, totality,
essence, praxis, ideology, history and structure.
Abstraction
Critical research often
starts with an abstract concept and then tries to understand both the
contexts of its use and its underlying assumptions. By using the history
curriculum as her abstraction Weiner seeks to revitalize history as a
school subject and concludes that in reality not much has changed from old
curriculum materials. She attempts to deconstruct the notion that the new
curriculum is a good thing by pointing out that some students,
specifically female, multicultural students, and the disabled, are
disadvantaged. Weiner also discusses other abstract concepts in her paper
such as ‘organic intellectuals’ and ‘regressive modernism’.
Totality
The idea of totality in
deconstruction is that we need to go beyond the written word and what is
on the surface to understand the total context of the situation. This
aspect takes a holistic view in that it discovers how the phenomenon is
historically significant. Weiner approaches totality by looking at the
grassroots of the history curriculum to better enable us to get an
overall picture.
Essence
What is the essential
nature of the existing history curriculum? In her paper Weiner points out
that she believes the essential nature of the curriculum is that it
resembles a manual with a prescriptive nature and technocratic approach.
She notes that jargon abounds and the emphasis on historical
interpretation is reduced.
Praxis
Praxis is concerned with
the notion of changing and improving the world, or in this case the
National Curriculum for history. Weiner employs praxis towards the end of
her article when she suggests changes that should be made to improve the
history curriculum.
Ideology
The concept of ideology
is used as a critical tool in that it presents the worldviews of a
dominant class. Weiner challenges the notions of the history curriculum
as ideologies by asking what they are. She suggests the prevailing
ideologies revolve around the notion that history should be concerned with
the political, constitutional and economical affairs of Great Britain. By
revealing these ideologies she is able to start using them as a tool for
deconstruction.
History
The dominant class
socially constructs history and by employing it as a tool of
deconstruction the underlying foundations can be exposed. Weiner looks at
the tradition of history teaching in Great Britain in that it was often
idiosyncratically taught and mainly consisted of political and
constitutional history.
Structure
Using structure as a
critical tool obligates one to give credence to the inter-relatedness of
one link to the next. In her paper Weiner discusses the various political
powers at play and how they are interrelated.
How is Reconstruction Used?
At the end of her paper
Weiner reconstructs the history curriculum using the three areas of action
that she has outlined. She suggests building on the work of feminist
historians and creating more girl- or woman-friendly histories. She
specifically suggests including sections on ‘government and social reform’
and ‘Victorian mothers and fathers’ and adding additional units in other
areas. She also suggests emphasizing historical interpretation rather
than factual claims and including the work of feminists as well as
mainstream historians. She feels that by employing some of these methods
students will understand the relevance and importance of history in the
context of their lives.
Face Validity
Using the concept of face
validity we can assess the validity of Weiner's paper. Face validity is
the process of closely examining a measurement strategy (looking at items
and how they will be executed.) and determining if it appears to make
sense. With this in mind Weiner’s work indeed makes sense on the
surface. She also uses quotations from people such as Michael Armstrong,
a noted primary headteacher, to validate her work.
Conclusions
Weiner’s paper is quite
effective in its purpose. Her points are well thought out and argued from
a feminist perspective. One criticism of her work may be that she does
not apply her conclusions across other domains. Can the reader use this
approach in areas of math or science? Although she recommends three areas
of action she doesn’t specifically tell the reader where to go next.
Weiner was not concerned with lending pedagogical advice but instead
allows us to draw our own conclusions. This self-direction of action may
indeed strengthen her work.
References
Scott, D and Usher R
(ed). 1996. Understanding Education Research. Published by
Routledge and International Thomson Publishing Company, London.
Weiner, G. (1992).
"Shell-Shock or Sisterhood: English School History and Feminist
Practice". Assigned Reading for Education 6100.
|