Roger’s (2002) work is inclined towards an aim of understanding rather than changing the situation; thus, within the interpretive/critical continuum it can be precisely said it is “making sense of the way things are”. The research focuses on events being shaped up in the education life (that is, Vicky). The study documentation opens up with describing Vicky’s education quest with less focus on the challenges posed by the education system and policy regulation. The study seems to capitalize on the objects weaknesses in decision making, thus justifying the strengths of the education system and over sighting policies rather than suggesting improvement areas within the education system that will strengthen the chances of making better choices. This makes it difficult to understand how the research intends to advocate for changes as part of its aim. However, the study gives a clear exposure on the difficulties in understanding and categorizing cases that fit special education without causing emotional harm on the people affected. The argument on researchers’ aim at making sense of the way things are, is further reinforced by the emphasized desire to use the research opportunity to fill a lurking research lacuna on culture of social reproduction in the education process based on the immediate case of Vicky (Rogers, 2002). The fact that the study has less concern on the nexus with other reported cases of similar nature, indicates that the response to study questions is bred on the knowledge closely tied to the immediate case of Vicky. Crepeau (2000) works are designed based on the aim of delivering change, that is “unsettling and transforming the way things are”. The study progresses from assessing the professional ethics to the way of doing things to best practices, which is a departure from “making sense of the way things are” (Schram, 2006, p.47). The change is delivered through the depiction of a paradigm shift from preset mindsets by practitioners to a proactive and progressive approach. The researcher aims not to expose the wrongdoings but recommends professional best practice beyond personal limits. The researcher does not fault the professional practice of the practitioners but their failure to measure up the immediate case of Gloria.
Rogers (2002) gives a more feminist perspective by focusing on the weakness experienced by the female gender in their pursuit for academic achievement would give. In order to justify this, the effect of this would mean that part of the study recommendation would include special provisions to improve the education process in order to ease problems in decision making for the female student or pupil. The study by Rogers (2002) focuses on the experience of decision making by the objects rather than exposing the backdrops facing them. Such a shift in focus will deliver a feminine focus.
Filtering or refining research ideas, aims and methods through an ecological perspective has the danger of being more critical on the role of the object within the system. For instance, research focuses on Vicky’s weakness to make right decision rather than what best fits her in order to maximize the benefits from the education process. Filtering through the ecological perspectives gives the research impression that those in special education are disadvantaged lot, thus a burden to the education system.
References
Crepau, E. B. (2000). Reconstructing Gloria: A narrative analysis of team meetings. Qualitative Health Research 10(6), 766-787.
Rogers, R. (2000). Through the eyes of the institution: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in two special education meetings. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 33(2), 213-237.