What do you think?
Rate this book
An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research
Since its beginnings at the start of the 20th century, educational scholarship has been a marginal field, criticized by public policy makers and relegated to the fringes of academe. An Elusive Science explains why, providing a critical history of the traditions, conflicts, and institutions that have shaped the study of education over the past century.
"[C]andid and incisive. . . . A stark yet enlightening look at American education."— Library Journal
"[A]n account of the search, over the past hundred or so years, to try and discover how educational research might provide reliable prescriptions for the improvement of education. Through extensive use of contemporary reference material, [Lagemann] shows that the search for ways of producing high-quality research has been, in effect, a search for secure disciplinary foundations."—Dylan William, Times Higher Education Supplement
"[C]andid and incisive. . . . A stark yet enlightening look at American education."— Library Journal
"[A]n account of the search, over the past hundred or so years, to try and discover how educational research might provide reliable prescriptions for the improvement of education. Through extensive use of contemporary reference material, [Lagemann] shows that the search for ways of producing high-quality research has been, in effect, a search for secure disciplinary foundations."—Dylan William, Times Higher Education Supplement
- GenresEducation
302 pages, Paperback
First published May 31, 2000
3 people are currently reading
77 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 11, 2019
This was surprisingly good for a history by an academic of and academic field (education) and its research. The issue is that “education” taken as a distinct academic field has seldom if ever enjoyed significant status relative to other academic areas, both more focused disciplines and other policy oriented areas, such as business administration or engineering. As a result, the most current perspectives on education backed up by quality research are less persuasive than other academic research areas. Education scholars do not have the same influence, they do not affect policy, and they do not get the same resources from founders and other sponsors.
If one hangs around academia long enough, this is fairly common stuff and well known material. Professor Lagemann does a good job of articulating the reasons and is quite illuminating in doing so. To start with, there is little theory about what this area is supposed to accomplish and how it is supposed to work to be effective. What does it mean to educate children at primary, secondary, or post-secondary levels? Most everybody presumes some position here, of course, but there is such variety in the field that it is incomprehensible how a unified field would develop as it did for example in medicine under Flexner’s influence. Observers today would note the role of class differences in organizing education. That has always been the case, according to Professor Lagemann who shows the deep historical roots of class in thinking or not thinking about education. What is also fascinating is the gender bias that has contributed to the structure of American schools from early on. Women were cheaper than men as teachers and men were needed elsewhere in the west. Initial education faculties developed to train teachers but once the research universities got involves, the emphasis became more of training educational administrators, which still persists as an emphasis. The assumption occasionally stated explicitly was that teaching woman was not the proper focus of university education schools. ...but while the education schools lacked the status of other areas, they were retained because they were money makers that helped to fund the universities. Rigor versus relevance?? Some things never change.
Another fascinating aspect of the history is the role of innovation and entrepreneurship. Once some researchers brought to the table the idea that students can develop and improve, innovators emerged with new curricula and course ideas. The US tradition of local control of funding made it necessary to market innovations to local school boards, who might not be informed consumers of research results. Sound familiar? Some good ideas emerge but change is very difficult. These tensions also come in cycles, as the social conditions of education affect what schools do. WW1 leads into the prosperous 1920s and high schools are emerging. Things change in the 1930s due to the depression, and further change during and after WW2 and the launch of Sputnik. Then after the baby boom passes through college, consolidation follows again. It is interesting how Lagemann chronicles the rise of technologies of educational accountability (testing, program evaluation) in the course of these cycles. The same forces are still working today in the push for program assessment as a regular component of accreditation requirements for a wide range of academic areas.
A limitation of the book in 2019 is that it was published in 2000 and as a result has little to say about the “reform” movements that have swept the education field since then, including achievement oriented school governance programs like NCLB as well as the movement towards privatization and corporatization, which mixes a variety of educational and political goals.
The reasons behind the “troubling” history of education that Professor Lagemann chronicles are deeply grounded in the history of the field and are unlikely to change soon. This is clear if current problem areas in education are looked at with her history as context. This makes it clear to me that her calls are generally good in this fine book. More depressing, however, is that subsequent history has only emphasized how hard these problems are to change and as a result how difficult it will be for education research to prosper going forward. As an observer from another area, I can only hope to learn from this rich story.
General readers should be wary about this book. It is a book about the history of education by an educator and seems appropriate for an intro course in a graduate program. There is more than a little academic “inside baseball” in the story that will not be of lasting interest to people not directly involved in the institutional setting. I did not mind it.
If one hangs around academia long enough, this is fairly common stuff and well known material. Professor Lagemann does a good job of articulating the reasons and is quite illuminating in doing so. To start with, there is little theory about what this area is supposed to accomplish and how it is supposed to work to be effective. What does it mean to educate children at primary, secondary, or post-secondary levels? Most everybody presumes some position here, of course, but there is such variety in the field that it is incomprehensible how a unified field would develop as it did for example in medicine under Flexner’s influence. Observers today would note the role of class differences in organizing education. That has always been the case, according to Professor Lagemann who shows the deep historical roots of class in thinking or not thinking about education. What is also fascinating is the gender bias that has contributed to the structure of American schools from early on. Women were cheaper than men as teachers and men were needed elsewhere in the west. Initial education faculties developed to train teachers but once the research universities got involves, the emphasis became more of training educational administrators, which still persists as an emphasis. The assumption occasionally stated explicitly was that teaching woman was not the proper focus of university education schools. ...but while the education schools lacked the status of other areas, they were retained because they were money makers that helped to fund the universities. Rigor versus relevance?? Some things never change.
Another fascinating aspect of the history is the role of innovation and entrepreneurship. Once some researchers brought to the table the idea that students can develop and improve, innovators emerged with new curricula and course ideas. The US tradition of local control of funding made it necessary to market innovations to local school boards, who might not be informed consumers of research results. Sound familiar? Some good ideas emerge but change is very difficult. These tensions also come in cycles, as the social conditions of education affect what schools do. WW1 leads into the prosperous 1920s and high schools are emerging. Things change in the 1930s due to the depression, and further change during and after WW2 and the launch of Sputnik. Then after the baby boom passes through college, consolidation follows again. It is interesting how Lagemann chronicles the rise of technologies of educational accountability (testing, program evaluation) in the course of these cycles. The same forces are still working today in the push for program assessment as a regular component of accreditation requirements for a wide range of academic areas.
A limitation of the book in 2019 is that it was published in 2000 and as a result has little to say about the “reform” movements that have swept the education field since then, including achievement oriented school governance programs like NCLB as well as the movement towards privatization and corporatization, which mixes a variety of educational and political goals.
The reasons behind the “troubling” history of education that Professor Lagemann chronicles are deeply grounded in the history of the field and are unlikely to change soon. This is clear if current problem areas in education are looked at with her history as context. This makes it clear to me that her calls are generally good in this fine book. More depressing, however, is that subsequent history has only emphasized how hard these problems are to change and as a result how difficult it will be for education research to prosper going forward. As an observer from another area, I can only hope to learn from this rich story.
General readers should be wary about this book. It is a book about the history of education by an educator and seems appropriate for an intro course in a graduate program. There is more than a little academic “inside baseball” in the story that will not be of lasting interest to people not directly involved in the institutional setting. I did not mind it.
November 29, 2024
For years, colleagues and I have joked that the best way to improve education in America would be to start by blowing up collegiate departments of education. Such a view surely derives in large part from the seemingly endless string of administrators and university presidents one seems to encounter who have barely seen the inside of a classroom and yet are 'qualified' to render verdicts (and make budget decisions) about the shape of education on the basis of degrees from such places. Lagemann is here to offer context and to suggest such views are insufficiently nuanced, especially if they ignore the history of the development of education thinking in the 20th century in America. True to U of Chicago form (where much of the history—good and bad—was shaped) whose press published this text, Lagemann offers a deep and detailed history of how education theory developed. If one wanted to identify a single villain, it might be Edward L. Thorndike, who, from his long-held perch at Columbia, used his interest in behaviorist psychology to forever cant the discipline toward surveys and measurables. (He also had deleterious views on innate intelligence and eugenics, among other things.) Every administrator who thinks that measuring what happens in the classroom can be captured easily on paper ought to tip a forty to Ed. If there's a ignored hero in this tale, it would have to be John Dewey, whose work at the Chicago Lab School (still going strong after more than 100 years) opened thoughtful avenues of inquiry into the work. Alas, as Lagemann demonstrates, his was the road not taken, and American education has been paying for it ever since. Those who don't wish to read the whole sordid history of how this came about are referred to Lagemann's conclusion, in particular, the section titled "What's To Be Done?" While I still have significant skepticism about the contributions of educationists from departments of education, Lagemann at least makes a case that they have a role to play in thinking our way out of the current educational mess we are in. In her narrative, early educationists were primarily men who looked down on and ignored the experience of teachers in the classroom who were primarily female. The dynamic today involves experienced, often untenured adjunct workers in the classroom who are overseen by administrators who have little understanding and less empathy for what actually happens in the room. I'm not as convinced as Lagemann that education departments don't have a great deal more self-criticism and revision to undertake before they can produce thinkers and administrators who can meaningfully engage with the people most directly responsible for college education today. Still, Lagemann makes a case that education departments, despite their insalubrious history, may have a meaningful contribution left to make in how education gets done in America today.
March 20, 2021
Lagemann illuminates multiple “troubling” concerns, but a few major factors that stemmed from the historical development include the low reputation of the profession, isolation and funding of the field, a shift to a quantitative focus, and lack of regulation. After presenting a compelling argument for change, Lagemann implies that to improve education, we must improve educational research. Understanding the history and traditions is an importance piece of forward progress. prove what can happen in the future. I can now recognize the cultural and political context that affect the field I operate in currently. But the introduction and conclusion provide a good summary for non-educators.
Interesting Quotes:
"to improve education in enduring ways, we will need to strengthen education research, and to do that, we must change the circumstances that have historically constrained the development of educational study."
"the most powerful forces to have shaped educational scholarship over the last century have
tended to push the field in unfortunate directions-away from close interactions with policy and practice and toward excessive quantification and scientism."
"to overcome the problems that have plagued education research, there will have to be continuing and increased effort to foster a stronger professional community in education"
"An appreciation of history may in itself help strengthen the education research community and, through that, play a role in enhancing the capacity of scholarship to empower those who are involved in educating."
Interesting Quotes:
"to improve education in enduring ways, we will need to strengthen education research, and to do that, we must change the circumstances that have historically constrained the development of educational study."
"the most powerful forces to have shaped educational scholarship over the last century have
tended to push the field in unfortunate directions-away from close interactions with policy and practice and toward excessive quantification and scientism."
"to overcome the problems that have plagued education research, there will have to be continuing and increased effort to foster a stronger professional community in education"
"An appreciation of history may in itself help strengthen the education research community and, through that, play a role in enhancing the capacity of scholarship to empower those who are involved in educating."
December 8, 2021
非常完整的历史叙事，既accessible又充满洞见。这么多年以后重新回首这段历史——在博士班的时候我从身边老师那听过其中许多内容，但当时都自以为是地觉得「美国的历史有什么意思？」——才发现学科发展有那么多相似性。TC、斯坦福和哈佛在20世纪早期的历史和今天有非常多的相似之处。教育作为一个「有利可图」但低人一等的领域，与社会科学的其他学科保持着一种奇怪的动态。这一态势不单单在心理学，同样在教育管理，课程研究领域一再重复。当然，Lagemann的视角是教育领域内部，所以她忽视的是学科生态之间的关系，或者说，是过度决定导致生态没法出现；同样，二元论（杜威和桑代克、学校调查和心理测量、教育史和历史学者）也遮盖了学科知识发展的其他路径，一个最典型的例子当然是杜威的实用主义后代们。
March 27, 2018
4.5 stars
I am truly grateful for the author's use of easily understood writing style to explain the complexities of education research and the many theories and people who played a part in the discipline's evolution.
I am truly grateful for the author's use of easily understood writing style to explain the complexities of education research and the many theories and people who played a part in the discipline's evolution.
February 13, 2023
I’m sure this book has great information in it. The fact I had to take reading quizzes on this book automatically made me dislike this book.
February 8, 2025
So interesting and so frustrating. It answered a lot of my whys, but it also makes me hopeless about where education is headed.
October 12, 2016
3 stars because it's pretty subjective and some chapters tend to repeat themselves.
However, very enlightening as to why the field sucks so bad :) frustrating not for her writing but for the humans who have not helped education (through research).
However, very enlightening as to why the field sucks so bad :) frustrating not for her writing but for the humans who have not helped education (through research).
Want to read
November 28, 2008Popular passages:
I say moreover that you make a great, a very great mistake, if you think that psychology, being the science of the mind's laws, is something from which you can deduce definite programmes and schemes and methods of instruction for immediate schoolroom use. - Page 38
Appears in 132 books from 1894-2008
Washington, a department of education, for the purpose of collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the several states and territories, and of diffusing such information respecting the organization and management of schools and school systems and methods of teaching as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education... - Page 184
Appears in 538 books from 1856-2005
We begin with the hypothesis that any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development. - Page 173
Appears in 531 books from 1877-2008
The word curriculum is Latin for a race-course, or the race itself — a place of deeds, or a series of deeds. As applied to education, it is that series of things which children and youth must do and experience by way of developing abilities to do the things well that make up the affairs of adult life; and to be in all respects what adults should be. - Page 107
Appears in 35 books from 1916-2006
... the instruction of persons, both male and female, in the art of teaching and in all the various branches that pertain to a good common school education; also, to give instruction in the mechanic arts, and in the arts of husbandry and agricultural chemistry, in the fundamental laws of the United States, and in what regards the rights and duties of citizens. - Page 5
Appears in 80 books from 1847-2007
That a state normal school be established the exclusive purposes of which shall be the instruction of persons, both male and female, in the art of teaching and in all the various branches that pertain to a good common school education... - Page 5
Appears in 117 books from 1850-2007
A carefully recorded history of the student's school life and of his activities and interests, including results of various types of examinations and other evidence of the quality and quantity of the candidate's work, also scores on scholastic aptitude, achievement, and other diagnostic tests given by the schools during the secondary school course. - Page 140
Appears in 21 books from 1906-2002
Some General Principles of Management Applied to the Problems of City-School Systems... - Page 163
Appears in 42 books from 1912-2008
... important though not very extensive body of educational literature of philosophical and inspirational character; but there is little of scientific quality. The scientific spirit is just beginning to creep into elementary and secondary schools; and progress is slow, because the conditions are unfavorable. The modern school should be a laboratory from which would issue scientific studies of all kinds of educational problems — a laboratory, first of all, which would test and evaluate critically... - Page 113
Appears in 15 books from 1902-2002
By accepting the unfounded pretensions of so-called professors of education, we have permitted the content of public school instruction to be determined by a narrow group of specialists in pedagogy, well-intentioned men and women, no doubt, but utterly devoid of the qualifications necessary for the task they have undertaken. - Page 159
Appears in 10 books from 1953-2002
I say moreover that you make a great, a very great mistake, if you think that psychology, being the science of the mind's laws, is something from which you can deduce definite programmes and schemes and methods of instruction for immediate schoolroom use. - Page 38
Appears in 132 books from 1894-2008
Washington, a department of education, for the purpose of collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the several states and territories, and of diffusing such information respecting the organization and management of schools and school systems and methods of teaching as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education... - Page 184
Appears in 538 books from 1856-2005
We begin with the hypothesis that any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development. - Page 173
Appears in 531 books from 1877-2008
The word curriculum is Latin for a race-course, or the race itself — a place of deeds, or a series of deeds. As applied to education, it is that series of things which children and youth must do and experience by way of developing abilities to do the things well that make up the affairs of adult life; and to be in all respects what adults should be. - Page 107
Appears in 35 books from 1916-2006
... the instruction of persons, both male and female, in the art of teaching and in all the various branches that pertain to a good common school education; also, to give instruction in the mechanic arts, and in the arts of husbandry and agricultural chemistry, in the fundamental laws of the United States, and in what regards the rights and duties of citizens. - Page 5
Appears in 80 books from 1847-2007
That a state normal school be established the exclusive purposes of which shall be the instruction of persons, both male and female, in the art of teaching and in all the various branches that pertain to a good common school education... - Page 5
Appears in 117 books from 1850-2007
A carefully recorded history of the student's school life and of his activities and interests, including results of various types of examinations and other evidence of the quality and quantity of the candidate's work, also scores on scholastic aptitude, achievement, and other diagnostic tests given by the schools during the secondary school course. - Page 140
Appears in 21 books from 1906-2002
Some General Principles of Management Applied to the Problems of City-School Systems... - Page 163
Appears in 42 books from 1912-2008
... important though not very extensive body of educational literature of philosophical and inspirational character; but there is little of scientific quality. The scientific spirit is just beginning to creep into elementary and secondary schools; and progress is slow, because the conditions are unfavorable. The modern school should be a laboratory from which would issue scientific studies of all kinds of educational problems — a laboratory, first of all, which would test and evaluate critically... - Page 113
Appears in 15 books from 1902-2002
By accepting the unfounded pretensions of so-called professors of education, we have permitted the content of public school instruction to be determined by a narrow group of specialists in pedagogy, well-intentioned men and women, no doubt, but utterly devoid of the qualifications necessary for the task they have undertaken. - Page 159
Appears in 10 books from 1953-2002
September 16, 2015
3.5. dear goodreads, PLEASE GIVE US HALF STARS! thank you. this book is jam packed with relevant, useful information about the history of education research and all of the "fault lines," challenges, and internal conflicts that have plagued the field. some arguments feel a little dated, for example, there has been more research in the last 15 years about the social contexts of education; the technical and individualistic nature of research is becoming less entrenched. mostly, i take a star off because this book is tough to get through - lots of dates, names, etc., and it can be difficult to pull out the important arguments (books like this make me really, REALLY appreciate historians who find a way to present loads of data/dates/etc in an engaging fashion). still, incredibly valuable read for education researchers, university-based or otherwise.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews