ABSTRACT
The social sciences have sought to transcend history in three ways. They have hidden their Eurocentric origins behind universalistic knowledge claims; they have perpetuated and justifi ed the original division of disciplines by naturalizing and eternalizing their distinctive objects (the capitalist triumvirate of economy, state, and society); and they have secured their scientifi c truth by defi ning their methodology (positivism) as context-free. (Burawoy 2005: 508)
’The politics of education can no longer rely solely on conventional perspectives, topics or analyses’ (Rorrer and Lugg 2006: 6). Like any other fi eld, the study of the politics of education has traditionally overlooked a constellation of interests, issues, and theoretical frameworks, and, as a result, is subject to what Heck and Hallinger called ‘blank spots’ and ‘blind spots.’ Blank spots refers to research areas in need of further investigation, including areas in a fi eld’s knowledge base that have been neglected but would enhance understanding if pursued; blind spots, on the other hand, are described as knowledge that is unknown or curtailed because of our limited theoretical lenses. Similar to the arguments made in Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions (1970), Heck and Hallinger argued that researchers tend to over-rely on a single ontological and epistemological framework that ‘impede[s] us from seeing other facets of phenomena under investigation’ (1999: 141). It is not until we switch our framework (or our paradigm) that we can shift our vantage point and shed light on our blind spots. Accordingly, our theories function as lenses as well as blinders, providing discursive spaces to explore and come to understand a particular ‘truth’ as well as blinders to hide competing ‘truth regimes’ (Foucault 1972).
