Positioning Critical Educational Studies within the Field of Education - Rethinking Lagemann’s An Elusive Science

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by moss~

Analyzes how Ellen Condliffe Lagemann’s An Elusive Science (2000) presents the history of education as an academic field and why it contains internal tensions. The article identifies Lagemann’s critique of “narrow problematics” associated with Thorndike’s behaviorism, quantification, and genetic determinism, while arguing that her proposed widening of inquiry still limits foundations to serving policy and practice outcomes. It further scrutinizes her brief treatment of the late-1970s to early-1980s turn to “critical” work.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages18

Reading Time45 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Lagemann’s account of education as a field

Thorndike, scientism, and methodological critiques

The “critical” turn in education studies

Positioning Critical Educational Studies within the Field of Education: Rethinking Lagemann’s An Elusive Science By Isaac Gottesman Isaac Gottesman is a Ph. D. candidate in social and cultural foundations in the College of Education at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Ellen Condliffe Lagemann’s (2000) An Elusive Science provides the most comprehensive history of education as a field of academic study. As such it is important for those in the education community to read and reflectupon the text in order to take stock of the field. Foundations scholars who read Lagemann’s work maybe struck by a stark irony, however. While Lagemann is an eminent historian of education and scholar of educational foundations whose work explicitly champions foundations as an important arena of educational inquiry, her vision of the future of the field leaves little room for historical, philosophical, and other conceptual scholarship. This article aims to identify the intellectual assumptions that led Lagemann into this contradiction.It also aims to illuminate how a sustained examination of one historical moment in particular—the turn to “criti- 􀀳 cal”work in the field in the late 1970s and early 1980s—highlights the problematic nature of Lagemann’s position and opens up possibilities for a counter-vision of the role of foundations in the field of education. Lagemann In An Elusive Science Lagemann (2000) claims that the history of educational research is defined by a “narrow problematics” that is of a “technical and individualistic character”(p. 236-237) . The result, she argues, has been the failure of educational research to take into account the social processes and personal experiences that affect teaching and learning, and policy and governance of schools. Lagemann argues that this narrow problematics most specifically emerges in the work of psychologist Edward Thorndike in the early 20th century. In particular, she accuses Thorndike of three things: first,“grounding educational psychology in a narrowly behaviorist conception of learning that involved little more than stimuli, responses, and the connections between the two;” second, an “extreme emphasis on quantification in educational study;”and third,“a deep-seated genetic determinism,”that “was an important factor in establishing an emphasis on testing and tracking in education and on test development and psychometrics in education research”(p. 235) . By 1920, Lagemann contends, these problematics shaped the field, and they have dominated ever since. As a corrective, Lagemann (2000) advocates tempering our scientism by widening the scope of educational inquiry.1 First, this means increasing our use of (and respect for) qualitative research, especially in the ethnographic tradition because such work enables us to get at the complexities of context and experience (pp. 219-221) . Second, this means turning to the history of education, and foundations more generally, as “guides to change”(p. 246) . In both instances, Lagemann looks to John Dewey and George Counts who were both critics of Thorndike, as inspiration and example. Lagemann’s (2000) narrative is strong, often convincing, and provides a necessary history of how behaviorism came to dominate educational research, how high-stakes testing and the standards movement came to dominate federal and state education policy, and how the field of education has tried to make a science out of schooling since the turn of the 20th Century when it became institutionalized within universities.2 It is my position, however, that while Lagemann is correct in her identification of behaviorism and quantification as problematic focal points for the field, her own attempt to widen the scope of educational research is also rather problematic. The limits ofLagemann’s analysis are most apparent, ironically, in her inability to view foundations of education as more than an instrument for building good conceptual frameworks for the

FAQs

What central tension does the article identify in Lagemann’s vision for educational inquiry?

It argues that Lagemann champions educational foundations while allowing little space for historical, philosophical, and broader conceptual scholarship, creating a contradiction between her advocacy and her future vision.

How does Lagemann connect early 20th-century research to long-term problems in education?

She claims that “narrow problematics” shaped education research by emphasizing behaviorist learning, heavy quantification, and genetic determinism, which then supported testing, tracking, and related research methods.

What critique does the article make of Lagemann’s handling of the turn to “critical” work?

It contends that her discussion is overly brief and conceptually problematic, ultimately treating the social and economic oppression central to Marxist analysis as being set aside in favor of an incomplete frame for critical scholarship.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by moss~