Search results

The impact of Covid-19 on students and teachers, on courses and programs, and on schools and universities is unparalleled in the history of education. Indeed, many authors have gone as far as to contend that the pandemic resulted in a paradigm shift in education. This chapter explores this contention by first looking at the history of paradigm shifts in education writ large, and then the implication of those shifts on teacher education, in general, and on practicum mentoring, specifically.

In this chapter, the author explores and discusses the transformation of management from the perspective of complex systems, systems change and the Taoist yin-yang theory. Modern complex organizations require innovative management practices that move beyond traditional approaches. Consequently, many organizations are experiencing a management shift towards more holistic and sustainable methods. This shift encompasses changes in organizational structures and modes of inquiry. Organizations are transitioning from rigid hierarchies to more collaborative and agile configurations while adopting a systemic approach to management that acknowledges the interconnectedness and interdependence of all organizational aspects. Simultaneously, there is a paradigm shift in management thinking, replacing the conventional focus on ego-action with eco-action, which emphasizes the integration of diverse perspectives and the cultivation of self-awareness and introspection. This shift in mindset is embodied in the yin-yang paradigm, highlighting the importance of balance and harmony between contrasting forces.

This chapter suggests that enhancing sustainable development in the age of technologies requires reflection about the relationship between business practice and sustainable development, as well as clarification of the relationship between sustainability and sustainable development. At the core of business activity is the definition of sustainable development defined by Brundtland (1987) as ‘meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Although that captures only one aspect of the sustainability story and its relationship to sustainable development, it nonetheless shapes business approach in research and in sustainability practices. To illustrate the contradictions and tensions in practice so far, this chapter uses three lenses: measurement in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment, the problem of scalability and the challenge of bias in artificial intelligence (AI). It is not clear that we need a paradigm shift, but a shift in mindsets around sustainability business practice will be needed if sustainable development is to be enhanced in the age of technologies.

The varying traditions, goals, paradigms, and discourses associated with English language arts (ELA) underscore the degree to which there is not one school subject English, but many “Englishes.” In a neoliberal context, where movements like standardization and accountability stake claims about what ELA should be and do in the world, teachers, especially beginning teachers, can struggle to navigate the tensions engendered by these many and contradictory “Englishes.” This chapter attends to this struggle and delineates a process by which English Educators might illustrate the field’s vast and ever-changing terrain and support beginning teachers as they locate themselves in ELA. In delineating this process, we argue that in order to see and navigate the field in a neoliberal era, ELA teachers should treat the field as a discursive construction, constantly re-constructed by the dynamic play of social, political, and economic discourses. We argue that in treating the field as a discursive construction and exploring and locating themselves within the terrain, ELA teachers, rather than feeling powerless in the face of neoliberal forces, can leverage these different discursive forces, and gain footing in their classrooms, schools, and extracurricular communities to navigate the coexistence of many “Englishes” and argue for their pedagogical choices.

This chapter explores the idea of paradigm shifts and the changes that have taken place in the field of teaching and teacher education over the past four decades. The work unpacks how teachers, their practices, their professional development, and their education are conceived in the positivist and interpretive paradigms. The study of teaching and teacher education is likewise shaped by the ontological and epistemological underpinnings associated with different research methods and the paradigms with which they are associated. To demonstrate the influence of paradigms, this chapter concludes with a rich example of how the interpretive tradition has shaped a teacher education program in northern Finland.

Mixed methods research is an approach for blending quantitative and qualitative data analyses in a single study. It emerged as an alternative to the dichotomy of qualitative and quantitative traditions in the past 20 years. Some strengths of mixed methods research include the ability to generate and test theory, the capability to answer complex research questions, and the possibility of corroborating findings.

We argue the mixed methods approach fits well with comparative education studies because they seek to acquire data to make sound and meaningful comparisons about the experience and performance of education systems in different countries. By nature, comparative education attempts to explain why educational systems vary and to explore how education relates to wider social factors and forces. It consists of both confirmatory and exploratory inquiries that are based on the fundamental belief that education can be improved in all nations. Essentially, the mixed methods approach can adequately support the goals of comparative education studies, with its quantitative components serving the confirmatory objectives and the qualitative components attending to the exploratory end.

In this study, we conducted a survey of articles published between 2000 and 2014 in Comparative Education Review, Comparative Education, and Compare to discern the changes in patterns and preferences of dominant research methods. By surveying the three major journals in the field, we hope to reveal the means by which comparative education is conducted in its constituency. At the very least, we believe our study can provide important reference points for speculation about where comparative education might be headed in terms of methodology and methods.

Epidemiology is often described as “the basic science of public health” (Savitz, Poole & Miller, 1999; Syme & Yen, 2000). This description suggests both a close association with public health practice, and the separation of “pure” scientific knowledge from its application in the messy social world. Although the attainability of absolute objectivity is rarely claimed, epidemiologists are routinely encouraged to “persist in their efforts to substitute evidence for faith in scientific reasoning” (Stolley, 1985, p. 38) and reminded that “public health decision makers gain little from impassioned scholars who go beyond advancing and explaining the science to promoting a specific public health agenda” (Savitz et al., 1999, p. 1160). Epidemiology produces authoritative data that are transformed into evidence which informs public health. Those data are authoritative because epidemiology is regarded as a neutral scientific enterprise. Because its claims are grounded in science, epidemiological knowledge is deemed to have “a special technical status and hence is not contestable in the same way as are say, religion or ethics” (Lock, 1988, p. 6). Despite the veneer of universality afforded by its scientific pedigree, epidemiology is not a static or monolithic discipline. Epidemiological truth claims are embodied in several shifting paradigms that span the life of the discipline. Public health knowledges and practices, competing claims internal and external to epidemiology, and structural conditions (such as current political economies, material technologies, and institutions) provide important contexts in which certain kinds of epidemiological knowledge are more likely to emerge.

How is medical knowledge produced and what are the implications of that knowledge production for medical practice? Using theoretical ideas on evidence-based medicine, standardization in medical research and practice, and biopower, I examine the relationship between medical knowledge and medical practice through the case of pelvic pain care in the US.

Data from ethnographic observations at two medical conferences as well as interviews with healthcare providers inform a critical analysis of the medical discourse.

The analysis reveals how evidence-based medicine is practiced in the context of medical conditions that lack objective evidence, as well as the unintended consequences of such practices. I provide an alternative approach to medical practice for conditions lacking traditional evidence through presenting outlier cases in the data.

In doing so, I make the broad theoretical argument that biomedical paradigms must emerge through the critical process of negative dialectics in order to reach past the limits of standardized medical care.

In sociologically analyzing the case of pelvic pain care, I reveal dire limits in the evidence-based approach to medical care for conditions and symptoms that may be deemed medical anomalies, demanding an alternative approach to care for such conditions.

This chapter introduces a metaphor—the house—and applies Habermas’ philosophy to examine the environment where knowledge production takes place. The analysis shows the dominance of “the systemic paradigm,” which is characterized by increased bureaucratization and commercialization. This paradigm has severe consequences for two core features of universities: the open-ended search for deeper understanding and the principle of autonomy. The chapter advances the idea of reclaiming the political dimension of the epistemic endeavor and presents a series of initiatives which help to advance tourism scholarship by non-conforming to the steering conditions of this paradigm and instead reclaiming the personal and subjective; promoting multiple knowledges; and building alternative platforms of knowledge production, cooperation, and dissemination.