When mapping the domain of FIRE, it is useful to consider and define what FIRE is going to do. It is also useful to spell out what activities and interests are explicitly out of FIRE's scope.
1. FIRE does not perform research.
This emphasizes the mission of FIRE to facilitate research rather than to perform research. Performing a research project costs much more. So for any finite amount of money available to FIRE, the number of research projects that can be performed and fully financed is much less than the number of research projects that can be merely supported. For example, consider the case of FIRE funding a full research project, contrasted with the case where FIRE only funds an extra follow-up phase on an already funded research: If FIRE obtains $1,000,000 in funding, and if an average smallish research costs $100,000 and the cost of a small follow-up phase is $10,000 - performing full research projects would mean contributing to humanity 10 projects. Supporting specific aspects - follow-up in this case - would mean contributing 100 projects. 100 is greater than 10.
Another set of reasons for not performing research, even if funding is practically unlimited has to do with academic capability and integrity: A single research organization doesn't have access to all the knowledge and ideas. If we had just one university, we wouldn't have as much research - and presumably knowledge - as we do now. More research and thinking capability stem directly from diversity. Also, any single organization concentrating on research is in danger of developing conceptions about the world and an agenda that may dominate the types of research it does. Integrity can be found in diversity.
2. FIRE does not dictate research topics or domains.
Even without full financing of research, as ruled out in 1. above, an organization may have too much power in determining agendas. Avoiding having excessive influence in this way, would take ongoing attention. This is because FIRE does intend to be active in the vicinity of this non-goal, without being active in the non-goal itself. One such adjacent activity is maintaining a pool of possible research questions that lend themselves to actionable research. It is important for FIRE to succeed in maintaining a list of optional research questions while not letting it degenerate into a list of recommended research questions or even further into an exclusive list of admissible research questions.
3. FIRE does not promote any specific theory.
If FIRE is not careful, and becomes partial towards one theory or another, it would lose the trust of those not supporting that theory. And since it doesn't seem that a single theory of education is going to emerge any time soon, there are going to be different people who support different education theories - or should I say education faiths? Anyway, I never met a serious educational researcher who claims to have the one TRUTH.
4. FIRE does not promote any specific terminology.
"Language Creates Thought." The terminology used by researchers at the very least affects their thinking, and definitely defines the meaning of any research. For example, consider the issue of scholastic aptitude: If a researcher looks at scholastic aptitude level, this may lead to making tests and measurements of an individual regarding a predetermined set of knowledge and ability domains, and coming up with a number - a level. If another researcher of the supposedly same issue by looking at scholastic aptitude domain, it may lead to looking at different knowledge and ability domains, and checking where an individual has high aptitude. The researcher interested in "level" may come to a conclusion that the individual's level is low, while the researcher interested in "domain" may come to a conclusion that the same individual is a genius painter.
The above example may be oversimplified, but there are many sets of differences in terminology, which affect the researcher's actions and interpretations. Just one example from the academic world, and we will go back to human language: Trying to model the relations between interest and knowledge, K. A. Renninger looks at a matrix of different levels of Prior Knowledge and Value of Activity, while S. Tobias looks at Prior Knowledge and Personal Interest. The subtle difference between "Value of Activity" and "Personal Interest" can have an effect on what the researchers look for, and how they interpret what they find.
It would be very tempting for anyone trying to build a body of knowledge to base it on a single set of concepts. But what is the "right" set of concepts? What even is a "good" set of concepts? This is an issue for academic discussion, and not for an organization like FIRE, which is not concerned with generating new theoretical ideas.
5. FIRE does not provide scholarships.
To succeed, FIRE needs to be able to focus its attention on a cohesive set of activities. Other organizations provide scholarships and have the relevant know-how. It seems that FIRE wouldn't have anything significant and new to add in this realm.
=============
As is the case with many facets of FIRE - and of any other initiative - there is no end for the possible details regarding what FIRE could but would not because it should not do. The above sampling shows the direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment