Debunling the Conspiracy Theory Unders[andin 9 Ideology

in

] xplana[ions i n His[orical Studies o[ Educational Technology By Alan I.nus~ewsl,~ ~nd I. B.nd~ll Koett~n. "...the recognition that w h a t happens in history need not happen through anyone's deliberately wishing it to happen is an indispensable precondition of understanding any historical process." (Collingwood, 1946)

uring ten years of attending national conventions of the AECT we both have heard a variety of historical and social analyses of the field of instructional technology labeled as "conspiracy theory." Conspiracy theory conjures up images of groups of m e n sitting in smoke-filled rooms plotting and scheming how they m a y gain some desired goal by whatever m e a n s proved necessary. A conspiracy connotes secrecy and subversion, trickery, and manipulation. Conspiracy theory implies malice and forethought. Thus our introductory quote represents a basic premise of this article: If we are to u n d e r s t a n d historical processes, we m u s t be aware that events may, or m a y not, happen deliberately. This does not m e a n that the telling of history is "neutral," b u t it does suggest that history cannot always be reduced to what appears on the surface as cause-and-effect relationships. History is about interpretation.

S|udyin 9 History The relationship of theory and methodology in historical study is substantially different t h a n is the relationship of theory and methodology in forms of research more frequently conducted in the field of educational technology. For example, in "quantitative" studies there are clear differences between the theory being investigated or used as the basis for a study, the question which is being investigated, and the research methodology being used to gather and analyze the data which will help to answer the research question. In historical studies, (much as in participant observation research), the theory, research methodology, and the question being investigated are intertwined - - i.e., they are not distinct entities.

Dr. J a n u s z e w s k i is an associate professor of Instructional Technology at the State University of N e w York at Potsdam. Dr Koetttng is a professor o f Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Nevada-Reno. JANUARY/FEBRUARY1998

TECHTRENDS 33

B e c a u s e of the very n a t u r e of, a n d methodological c o n s i d e r a t i o n s involved in, s t u d y i n g history, writers of historical pieces r u n the risk of having their critical a n a l y s e s labeled as "conspiracy theories" b y t h o s e n o t familiar with this type of scholarship. In this s e n s e the word critical is interpreted as being "negative." Negative is s e e n as bad. If a p e r s o n n o t familiar with critical s c h o l a r s h i p is u n comfortable with the r e s u l t s of s u c h a study, the s t u d y is s o m e t i m e s s e e n a s a c o n s p i r a c y theory. Identifying a p a r t i c u l a r a n a l y s i s of a situation, w h e t h e r in written or s p o k e n form, as a c o n s p i r a c y theory h a s the i m m e d i a t e i m p a c t of marginalizing, or d i s c o u n t i n g the analysis. It h a s the effect of labeling the analysis as p a r a n o i a a n d the writer or s p e a k e r as paranoid, defensive, or even emotionally u n b a l a n c e d . The only people w h o have gotten positive mileage o u t of having recently g e n e r a t e d conspiracy theories are Mel Gibson and Oliver Stone (in the films Conspiracy Theory and JFK, respectively). B u t t h e r e is a n o t h e r m e a n i n g of critical analysis. A critical analysis f e a t u r e s a questioning attitude. A q u e s t i o n i n g a t t i t u d e allows the r e s e a r c h e r to b r o a d e n the a c a d e m i c conversation, in order to b e m o r e inclusive of the differing viewpoints w h i c h reveal the complexities involved in t h e topic a n d i s s u e s u n d e r investigation.

|ntentional [xplanation, Not

~onspiracy Theory O u r goal here is to clarify. We w a n t to s h o w the difference b e t w e e n c o n s p i r a c y t h e o r y (described above) a n d w h a t historians a n d o t h e r social scientists call the intentional explanation. M a n y of the a n a l y s e s t h a t are c o n d u c t e d in the field of e d u c a tional technology, which are pejoratively called cons p i r a c y theories, are actually e x a m p l e s of intentional explanations. Maxine Greene (1984) s t a t e s t h a t the signific a n c e of historical analysis lies in the possibility it offers for the s h a p i n g of "large perspectives," enabling u s to m a k e s e n s e of the complex a n d perh a p s i n c o h e r e n t p r e s e n t t h r o u g h w h i c h we move. By "large perspectives" we believe Greene is referring to the sociocultural context which includes the social, political, a n d the economic a n a l y s e s t h a t affect h o w we interpret events. We believe t h e s e historical a n a l y s e s a n d larger perspectives, w h e n applied to a c a d e m i c disciplines, c a n help practit i o n e r s develop differing u n d e r s t a n d i n g s within their field of study. This, in turn, p r o m o t e s a m o r e reflective practice. Interpretation is the k e y to historical u n d e r standing. The t a s k of the historian " . . . i s n o t the simple r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the past, n o r merely the 34

TECHTRENDS

explication of singular things" (Greene, 1984 p 70), b u t also confronting oneself as a n interpreter of the past. Thus, engaging in historical inquiry requires t h a t we seek out organizing principles and ideas to pattern the particularities that compose experience as it widens to include the past. Asking questions about continuities, lines of development, relationships among ideas and events,facts and values, and economic and social changes, the teacher is in a position to pursue meanings if not answers (Greene, 1984, p.71). P u r s u i n g m e a n i n g is w h a t c a u s e s c o n t r o v e r s y for t h o s e writing history. "All d e p e n d s on h o w the singular things are ordered, h o w experience of p a s t a n d p r e s e n t is i n t e r p r e t e d b y a disciplined mind" (Greene, 1984, p.71). An example m a y help to clarify o u r position. If we do a n historical a n a l y s i s of A m e r i c a n society a n d c o n c l u d e t h a t there are s t r u c t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s on different g r o u p s within American society, within o u r institutions, we are n o t m a k i n g the claim t h a t t h e r e is a c o n s p i r a c y a g a i n s t t h o s e groups. To s a y there are s t r u c t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s on different g r o u p s (e.g., ethnic minorities, the poor) within o u r society, within o u r institutions, is to c o m m e n t on h o w t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s , or s o c i e t y w o r k s . In this case, "...explanation is b a s e d on t h e n a t u r e of institutions, n o t the m a c h i n a t i o n s of individuals." (Rai, 1996, p. 42). It is an institutional critique or analysis b a s e d on the n a t u r e of social s t r u c t u r e s a n d h u m a n action within t h e social s t r u c t u r e . An historical analysis t h a t c o n c e n t r a t e s on revealing or examining s y s t e m a t i c p a t t e r n s of behavior, a n d generally relating t h o s e p a t t e r n s of behavior to t h e larger social, c u l t u r a l , political, a n d institutional context t h a t governs behavior, is n o t a conspiracy theory. In other words, "rational analysis" of the m a n n e r in w h i c h i n s t i t u t i o n s work, a n d the effect this h a s on a variety of o t h e r s does not c o n s t i t u t e a c o n s p i r a c y theory. One w a y to look at the intentional explanation w o u l d be to examine the n o t i o n s of s t r u c t u r e a n d agency. S t r u c t u r e s refer to t h e "out-there," the seemingly objective reality a g a i n s t w h i c h we c o m e into contact. E x a m p l e s of s t r u c t u r e w o u l d be o u r w o r k places, o u r governing institutions, a n d ideological forces (e.g., the notion of a c h i e v e m e n t ideology, the notion of m e r i t o c r a c y a n d h o w t h a t affects o u r perception of h o w o u r world operates). Social s t r u c t u r e s can be affected b y individuals w h o take deliberate or intentional a c t i o n s (thus the notion of intentional explanation) to affect these struct u r e s w h i c h in t u r n affect o t h e r individual agents. Agency is the individual actor within the s t r u c t u r a l context. Intentional explanation in historical s t u d y s u g g e s t s a c a u s e - a n d - e f f e c t relationship b e t w e e n JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1998

individual a g e n c y a n d outcomes. B u t t a k e n the s a m e way t h a t the h a r d sciences u s e c a u s a l i t y can be misleading. Using the n o t i o n s of s t r u c t u r e a n d agency, we c a n pose the question: How m u c h a u t o n o m y does the individual (agency) have within the s t r u c t u r a l a r r a n g e m e n t s (cf. MacLeod, 1995)? If we view the individual "outside" of the s t r u c t u r e , divorced from the s t r u c t u r e , our a n a l y s e s of w h a t is h a p p e n i n g would be incomplete. The following m a y m a k e this clear. In the i n t r o d u c t i o n of o u r e s s a y we said in our society there are s t r u c t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s with w h i c h different g r o u p s have to struggle. Here one struct u r a l c o n s t r a i n t m a y be the availability of jobs. The economy, a n d the availability or lack of availability of living wage jobs, is not s o m e t h i n g controlled by individual agents looking for a job. One w a y to analyze this issue (which we believe is where the general climate of our politics is today), suggests a "rugged individualism" regarding responsibility for the conditions of one's life. C o n s e q u e n t l y poverty is viewed as a n individual pathology. A strong ideological belief we in the United States have a b o u t ourselves as a people, a n d as individuals, is t h a t we live within a meritocratic society. Hard work, will power, a n d initiative on the p a r t of a g e n t s will allow t h e m to rise a n d fall (on their own merit) within our open society. Social mobility is possible, a d v a n c e m e n t within society is possible / f y o u are willing to work hard. In other words, people rise a n d fall by their own choices a n d actions ('~rake responsibility for y o u r own life," "You c a n m a k e it if y o u really try," the NIKE slogan says: " J u s t do

it!"). We are n o t t a k i n g the position t h a t individuals are free from the responsibility of their own actions. We are t a k i n g the position t h a t individual actions take place within a n a r r a y of variables within the social context. Individual a g e n t s do have choices. There are limitations to the availability a n d n a t u r e of t h o s e choices. The limitations are there b e c a u s e of the existence of structure. But choices exist. This is n o t conspiracy theory. This is one w a y c a u s a l i t y in h i s t o r y can differ from c a u s a l i t y in the h a r d sciences. History a d m i t s t h a t individual a g e n t s do have choices. The objects of c a u s a l i t y in h a r d science s t u d i e s have no choices. A n o t h e r example to clarify our position: Within o u r own field of e d u c a t i o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d technology, Koetting (1979} e x a m i n e d the rise in the u s e s of technology within e d u c a t i o n toward the close of World War II a n d analyzed the application of w a r - t i m e r e s e a r c h to "civilian education." There were a set of c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d a set of historical e v e n t s w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e o u t b r e a k of w a r ; America's e n t r a n c e into the war: the n e e d to eduJANUARY/FEBRUARY 1998

cate h u n d r e d ' s of t h o u s a n d s m e n a n d w o m e n into the a r m e d services in a very s h o r t period of time; the u s e of film, l a n g u a g e instruction, i n s t r u c t i o n a l design for teaching recruits "the a r m e d forces way;" a n d the application of those technologies to civilian education. The a n a l y s i s c o n c l u d e d t h a t s u m marily applying the w a r t i m e r e s e a r c h findings to civilian e d u c a t i o n h a d s o m e a d v e r s e effects on A m e r i c a n education. S u c h a c o n c l u s i o n w a s n o t the identification of a conspiracy to d u p e the Americ a n public or teachers, or to h a r m y o u n g children. The conclusion w a s t h a t there were certain ideological u n d e r s t a n d i n g s a b o u t the u s e s of design a n d technology for w a r t i m e instruction. These h a d certain e n d s or o u t c o m e s , a n d we as a field of inquiry a n d practice are still dealing with the effect of t h o s e actions a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g s today. There are o t h e r examples we c a n call u p o n to clarify our position: Noble's (1991) a n a l y s i s of the relationship of i n d u s t r i a l a n d military t r a i n i n g to i n s t r u c t i o n a l technology; Apple's (1979) critique of s y s t e m s m a n a g e m e n t in c u r r i c u l u m ; a n d J a n u s zewski's (1994) investigation of the drive to "professionalize" the audiovisual field a n d its i m p a c t on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of concepts u s e d in the field, etc. These critical a n a l y s e s of e d u c a t i o n a l technology provide detailed e x p l a n a t i o n s of events a n d iss u e s related to the h i s t o r y of the field t h a t could be m i s c o n s t r u e d as c o n s p i r a c y theory. To r e t u r n to t h e n o t i o n s of s t r u c t u r e a n d agency, in the field of i n s t r u c t i o n a l technology the s u p p o r t i n g disciplines (e.g., psychology, m a n a g e ment) provide m u c h of the s t r u c t u r e within w h i c h we (agents, individually a n d collectively) work. An e x p l a n a t i o n of how the field "got to be this way" is the story (the history) of how individuals have influenced the s t r u c t u r e , a n d how the individuals (agents) have b e e n s h a p e d by t h a t s t r u c t u r e . For example, the n o t i o n s of "science" a n d "technology" as structures, h a s dictated forms of research, forms of organization, the a d v a n c e m e n t of scholarship, a n d even w h a t is identified as s c h o l a r s h i p within the field. Individuals have helped to s h a p e t h e field of s t u d y a n d research, b u t t h e y have also b e e n s h a p e d by the field a n d its history. Competing s t r u c t u r e s in the form of theoretical f r a m e w o r k s (e.g., t h e t e c h n o l o g y of s y s t e m s t h e o r y a n d s y s t e m s a p p r o a c h e s vs. technology as tools for teachers, cognitive a n d behavioral psychology, constructivist theory) have defined the intellectual work t h a t is p u r s u e d in o u r field. More recently, alternative p a r a d i g m s s u c h as critical theory, feminist perspectives, and p o s t m o d e r n a n a l y s e s have e x p a n d e d the intellectual work p u r s u e d within i n s t r u c t i o n a l technology (cf. J o n a s s e n [Ed], 1996, c h a p t e r s titled Qualitative R e s e a r c h I s s u e s a n d Methods; Toward a Sociology of E d u c a TECHTRENDS

35

tional Technology; Critical Theory and Educational Technology; Philosophy, Research, and Education; a n d P o s t m o d e r n a n d P o s t s t r u c t u r a l i s t Theory). However, the outcomes of these studies are limited, controlled, and influenced by the ideological positions that are our understandings of science and technology as they apply to our field. The introduction of new paradigms and new theoretical frameworks p r o d u c e s new ideologies a b o u t the scope and n a t u r e of our work. Those working within the new paradigms help to shape the field, and are shaped by the field as well. The dialectic here between structure and agency is dramatic and dynamic. Historical analysis helps u s to u n d e r s t a n d the b r o a d i s s u e s affecting instructional technology specifically, and education in general. These broad issues, and the histories of these issues, help to "dramatize the tragic element in our national life, the clash between the dream and the actuality" (Greene, 1984 p.72). These broad issues would include equality of opportunity; the role and u s e s of technology in education; the aims and p u r p o s e s of education; and the relationship of the aims of education to the larger "professed" goals of the culture. It is important for u s as educators to make sense of and to understand these broad issues, their histories, and how they have affected u s in knowing "our world." As scholars of instructional technology, our world is dominated by the field of inquiry and its related practice. It is important to

36 TECHTRENDS

relate these broader i s s u e s to ourselves, so they can inform the choices we m a k e in our work, and so we m a y take a personal stand. The outcome of research and scholarship of this sort, while challenging, is not conspiracy theory. 9

~eferences Apple, M. ( 1979}. Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. CoUingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University. Greene, M. (1984). The professional significance of history of education. In R. Sherman (Ed.) Understanding the history of education. (2nd ed.). MA: Schenkman Publishing Co., Inc. Koetting, J. R.. (1979). Towards a synthesis of a theory of knowledge and human interests, educational technology, and emancipatory education: a preliminary theoretical investigation and critique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: Microfilms International. Januszewski, A. (1994). The definition of educational technology: An intellectual and historical account. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: Microfilms International. Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.) (1996). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan. MacLeod, J. (1995). Ain't no makin ' it: Aspirations and attainment in a low income neighborhood. (2nd ed.). Boulder: Westview Press. Noble, D. D. (1991). The classroom arsenal: Military research, information technology, and public education. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Rai, M. (1995). Chomsky's politics. London: Verso.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY1998