Complicating and Explicating: Taking up Reason in Learning Disabilities Research

Abstract

In these days of achievement gap, evidence-based practices, and accountability issues, Julie Allan's Complicating, not explicating: Taking up philosophy in learning disability challenges us to think seriously about how well we as a field are meeting our mission of providing for academic and social needs of students with learning disabilities, including preparing them for life after school. In Allan's view, research and practice in field of learning disabilities as currently construed are not working; students with learning disabilities are not empowered, but constrained and controlled by discourses and practices in special education (p. 154). According to Allan, inequalities of a normative power of ideology that attributes success to children's characteristics results in students with learning disabilities viewing themselves in terms of what they lack (p. 159). Allan further asserts that knowledge base of field of learning disabilities is seriously flawed; its linear, hierarchical nature, grounded as it is in scientific method, makes it out of touch with subjective reality experienced by students with learning disabilities. For Allan, solution requires a political liberation of sorts, a deconstruction of status quo, not more conventional science. Allan goes on to propose that we align our research and practices not with scientific method, but with philosophers of difference in order to think differently about construction of learning disability and to envision new forms of learning. To do so, she suggests following theoretical concepts of transgression and rhizome, as well as theoretical practices of deconstruction and rhizomic analysis. All of this leads to what Allan sees as a theory and ethics of research that shifts our attention within learning disabilities away from fault, blame, and lack and towards ... more positive understandings of human differences that lead to more productive teaching practices and arrangements, more inclusion, and, in end, a more lucid sense of what we are about as educators and researchers (pp. 159-160). There is merit to what Allan is saying, but I find it disconcerting that she dismisses, largely through omission, current body of knowledge and practice in learning disabilities. While this stance is consistent with her philosophy of deconstruction, I had thought that purpose of her paper was to foster healthy dialogue, consider both the value and limitations of scientific thinking, and widen circle of discourse, not create a new, exclusive one. That said, points Allan makes are worthy of consideration. Certainly, we need to be sure that we don't become so obsessed with measurable outcomes that we fail to take into account feelings and preferences of our students; indeed, if, in process of serving students, we unwittingly cause them to feel at fault for their problems and/or disassociated from their classmates, we need to know about it and adjust what we do accordingly. We need to keep student failure in perspective and be ever mindful that a failure in one area we deem important does not mean that a student is failing in everything. Student perceptions must be a critical part of our research and teaching agendas so that we can monitor any unintended ill effects. Too, we need to continually and aggressively question our research assumptions, hypotheses, and findings. Now is not time to be complacent, particularly in view of less-than-robust life outcomes attained by students with learning disabilities compared to nondisabled peers, in form of lower graduation rates (U.S. Department of Education, 2001), higher rates of underemployment (Wehman, 2001), lower earnings (Shapiro & Rich, 1999), and a greater dependency on others (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). As Allan states, being too linear can leave us unprepared to adjust to derailments . …