[Note: At the end of the last posting the reader was
advised that this posting would continue this blog’s report on the development
of a civics unit of study. Due to
certain requests, this will happen next posting. As for this posting, the following is an
overview of what a political construct is; what is the function of a political
construct; and how to evaluate a construct.]
Theories, models, and
often constructs are explanations of some set of phenomena. One such example in the field of political
science is cybernetics which is an off-shoot of systems theory. It deals with communication and control. It does not pretend to explain all political
phenomena, but through its lens it does shed light on most aspects of political
behavior. In turn, this explanation can
be the source of political research, analysis, and even attempts at predicting
a relevant future.
In terms of research, a theory,
through its explanatory quality, suggests or directly provides hypothetical
relationships between or among factors.
Usually, in terms of supporting an explanation, the aim is at
establishing cause and effect relationships; factor A causes factor B to
happen. While this is fine within the
context of a model – its hypothetical nature does not oversell its view of
reality as necessarily being reality – a study that gathers relevant
information usually attempts to establish a correlation or, more technically,
to disprove (falsify) a relationship.[1]
Of
course, protocol provisions in such studies are developed to strive to account
for all nuances; i.e., exceptions or the identification of other factors that
lead to both A and B are hopefully detected.
Of course, such study or research is prone to problems, as all human
endeavors are. One problem is the
function theories, as they were described, play is that political scientists
with such a view favor the positivist approach.
Political scientists who use positivist protocols adopt, to the extent
possible, the methods used by natural scientists such biologists and
physicists.
A
term used to describe this approach is reductionist studies. They reduce the effort to focusing on those
factors the scientist is testing. A historical
note: political science was not always
so “scientific.” Before the behaviorist
revolution in the mid-twentieth century, political science was more historical. And this fact is relevant to what is being
emphasized with this blog’s call for the utilization of federation theory.
For
example, not all political questions can be reduced. Why? A
way to view this shortcoming is offered by the political scientist, Daniel J.
Elazar. He claims that political science
is not only interested in answering the questions: how and why does political phenomena operate
as they do, but, also, how should governance and politics be conducted? Often, these “should” questions, while, at
times, assisted by asking reductionist questions, cannot be fully answered by
them.[2]
So,
scholars that utilize the non-reductionist, federalist model to guide their
research, such political scientists as Elazar, Donald Lutz, Martin Diamond, and
Stephen L. Schechter, tend to be more historical in their approaches as they
ask federalist questions of the past.
But as is the case, the federalist model is one of many models and,
given the purposes of a consumer of such models might have, such as the case of
a civics teacher, what questions should he/she ask of a political science
model?
Eugene
J. Meehan[3]
offers such a criteria:
·
Comprehension: Does the explanation explain as many
phenomena as possible which are related to the area of concern?
·
Power:
Does the explanation control the explanatory effort by being valid and
complete in its component parts and in the relations between those parts?
·
Precision: Does the explanation specifically and
precisely treat its concepts, making them clear in their use?
·
Consistency or Reliability: Does the explanation explain its components
and their relations the same way time after time?
·
Isomorphism: Does the explanation contain a one to one
correspondence with that portion of reality it is trying to explain?
·
Compatibility: Does the explanation align with other
responsible explanations of the same phenomena?
·
Predictability: Does the explanation predict conditions
associated with the phenomena in question?
·
Control: Does the construct imply ways of controlling
the phenomena in question?
These criteria are
geared to assist social scientists in terms of them evaluating the various
explanations their discipline hold or propose given the areas of concern the
discipline studies. But given the above
concern of Elazar, might there be one more criterion? Here is what it could be:
·
Normative determination: Does the construct indicate what normative/moral
political behavior is and how the subject of the model’s use – the polity and
its participants – measure up to that standard?
Different
consumers, given their reasons for utilizing these criteria will have different
needs. Not all the criteria above will
have the same salience for all consumers.
As a list, this seems to be fairly complete, but users of the list might
find some criterion to be unimportant or the entire list might be seen as
lacking some concern. The judgement here
is that each of the above concerns should be of some relevance to a teacher.
But
civics teachers don’t conduct political science research. Instead, they can rely on these models to
assist them in making sense of what they teach.
They do want to be responsible in the substantive information he/she is
imparting or otherwise implementing in their lesson plans. So, the above criteria can be helpful. As a matter of fact, his/her concerns do not
end with this list. One can add two more
criteria:
·
Abstraction Level: Does the construct’s abstraction level allow
students to comprehend it?
·
Motivation: Does the construct’s content sufficiently motivate
students to study it?
Each
of these standards might deserve a separate section to further explain it and
to go into the implications each might have on the social sciences or, more
importantly here, civics education. As
it is being used here, the idea is for a teacher to have a handle on how to
critically judge what a federation approach has to offer since it is offering a
construct. That is, this blog explains
what federation theory is and how it is useful in meeting the challenges civics
education is facing in today’s classrooms.
So,
a teacher or curriculum developer becomes aware of a political theory or model
– an explanation or construct – what then?
This now turns to be a curriculum and instruction concern. In the curriculum literature, there are a
variety of curriculum developmental models.
One that has received a bit criticism – as being too constrained – is
suitable for establishing the connection between the demands of offering
meaningful content material and the demands of teaching it. That is the developmental model offered by
Ralph Tyler.[4]
The
Tyler model identifies three sources of curriculum: the relevant attributes of the
society/community in which the curriculum is to be utilized, the distinguishing,
relevant attributes of the students to be served, and the subject matter’s
elements that are to be taught. Of most
relevancy here is the last of these three – the subject matter. It is in this way that Meehan/Elazar/ (and
this writer humbly adds) Gutierrez’s criteria can be helpful.
But
Tyler’s model goes on; it assumes that if one is reflecting on these three
sources of curriculum, a teacher or curriculum developer will be likely to
arrive at an overwhelming number of instructional objectives. Therefore, to be more focused and direct,
this number of objectives needs to be whittled down. To do this, Tyler inserted two “screens” by
which to evaluate each objective: social
philosophy (in terms of scope) and psychology (in terms of sequence). Of course, for the purposes here, social
philosophy is more important.
By
social philosophy, Tyler refers to a school’s sense of its mission. Each school – and this is generally required
by accreditation bodies – has a school philosophy. The school is to abide by the philosophy’s
espoused values in the various operations or activities it either performs or
sanctions. So, if a school (usually a
decision made by state or district authorities) is committed to abide by the C3
Framework,[5]
this or, at least, the framework’s substantive prescriptions, would be a set of
elements within a school’s philosophy.
What
about schools that have not made such a formal commitment? Chances are such schools can still implement
the prescriptions of the framework since what districts, states, and even
schools have in place are so vague. All
that needs to be done is interpret the wordage of district or state standards –
or school philosophies – to include federalist ideas and ideals. This is not being dishonest. The authorities have purposefully been this
vague in order not to squelch school initiatives.
Hopefully, this overview of the
functions of a political model, criteria by which to judge the usefulness of
political models, and the role political models play in civics curriculum, the
reader can apply these ideas in considering and, perhaps, implementing the
tenets of federation theory.
[1] Or as Karl
Popper states it: falsify a
hypothesis. See “Falsifiability,”
WhatIs.com, n. d., accessed July 14, 2018, https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/falsifiability
.
[2] Daniel J.
Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa,
AL: The University of Alabama Press,
1987).
[3] Eugene J.
Meehan, Explanations in Social Science: A
System Paradigm (Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1969).
[4] Ralph W.
Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction (Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press, 1969/1949).
[5] National
Council for the Social Studies, “Preparing Students for College, Career, and
Civic Life,” (Washington, D. C.: NCSS,
2013), accessed April 16, 2018, https://www.socialstudies.org/c3.
This framework is offered as part of the
Common Core project by the US Department of Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment