Firstly, Mertens piece is one of the general nature of paradigms, and they aspects of those paradigms which we might consider.   For each of the four paradigms presented, Mertens identifies and describes the epistemological, ontological, axiological and methodological roots.  These terms represent the nature of knowledge, reality, ethics, and procedural components of the paradigms.  While he explains in some detail each of these four characteristics, I appreciate particularly the table he has provided which concisely summarizes each.  In a very generalized way, one is lead to feel that as one shifts from positivism, to constructivism, to transformative and them pragmatic, there is a gradual shift away from the paradigms and methods of what would be known as the ‘hard sciences’.   This is to say that post-positivism takes a stance more similar to that of the hard science (and Mertens alludes to this with a discussion of aristotle and others) where all of reality can be known and defined precisely, whereas transformative positions itself such that reality is mostly relativistic.  

The second takeaway from the reading was way each aspect of the paradigms were intrinsically connected.  That is to say, one could not take the ontology of postpositivism and interchange it with that of the pragmatic paradigm, for in doing so each of the other aspects epistemology, methodology, etc. would also change.    Consequently, a research is pressed to understand the paradigm through with they are pursuing their study because it will have an affect on nearly all aspects of their research.

The third key point was, specifically, the importance placed on ethical considerations in each of the research paradigms.  Though the paradigms themselves may approach the ethical considerations in slightly different ways, it’s clear that the ethical considerations have a significant impact on the research design in each of the paradigms.  Mertens describes this specifically, but also alludes to the ethical nature or implications throughout the discussion on paradigms.

The challenge to teachers (and to researchers) is to take that which is at once obvious and undeniably true - that each student is unique and brings a singularly unique experience, disposition and set of their own systems belongs into interaction - and construct a new system which honors the uniqueness of the parts, but still remains a broadly applicable system itself.   This challenge is multiplied by the general tendency of political systems to group and categories constituents, and develop top-down approaches which can be legislated in expedient manner.    

Cilliers, Garcia and Lee would likely concur that any system developed need be flexible, and take into consideration the multitude and diverse factors influencing the process of learning for each individual.  This is, at it’s core, the idea of personalized learning which - with the increasing capabilities accessible through digital platforms - is gaining increased attention.  The personalized learning movement has as one of its underlying beliefs, that every student is capable of learning, that if children’s unique dispositions are valued and encouraged, they will all attain high levels of achievement.  This growth-mindset orientation is the opposite end of the spectrum of the deficit mindset orientation.  Some argue that with the increased access to technology - which allows for greater access to a more diverse set of resources, and adaptive technologies - the dawn of a truly personalized learning experience is upon us.  Of course, in this context, the access to and student’s literacy of the digital platform becomes one more facet to consider in the understanding of intersectionality.  

Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2),135–147.

Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.

Lee, C (2010). Soaring above the clouds, delving the ocean's depths: Understanding the ecologies of human learning and the challenge for education science, Educational Researcher, 39, 743- 755. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X10392139

​

A - very - brief summary of Paul Cillier's article, Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems (2001), and a connection to wicked problems....

In their article, Inescapable Wickedity (2014) education researchers Jordan, Kleinsasser, and Roe might present the problems of education as, among other things, those which are difficult define and have no clear right or wrong answers.  To large extent, the challenges of wickedity are artifacts of the complex system in which educational systems operate and interact with.  These are ideas are further articulated in Cillier’s Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems (2001).   Cilliers describes how the various boundaries a which operate between systems are both ambiguous and shifting.  He questions the notion that traditional methods of examining flat hierarchies, network interactions and non-linearity as particularly conducive to developing a theory of complex organizations.

Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2),135–147.

Adding to the complexity of educational systems created by the degrees of coupling within organizations and structure is the inherently human-centered and social nature of education.  Educators are dealing with human beings who are emotional and social creatures who often do not respond in logical or consistent fashion to stimuli. Consequently, where humans are involved, the solution to a problem in one scenario may very well prove to be inconsequential or even detrimental in another.

There really are no true boundaries to the educational system.  As with anything, the further one moves from the nucleus of activity, the less direct the influence on the activity itself.  In the case of educational systems, one might consider the nucleus of activity as the classroom.  Yet, the classroom activity is influenced by building level, district, state and federal level actors.  As well, the general trends of society and cultures, events of the world, and technology affect what happens in the classroom as well.