SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND EDUCATIONISTS:

BRIDGING CULTURAL DIVIDES

Allan B. I. Bernardo

The thesis of th is paper emerged from reflections on how Philippine social

scientists are theoretically well-equipped to understand the paradoxes of
Philippine education, but that Philippine social scientists have passed up this
challenge, or maybe actually evaded this responsibility. Thus, laddress two
large communities of readers in this paper: the community of educational
practitioners, policy makers, and education researchers in the Philippines, on
the one hand, and the community of Philippine social scientists on the other.

My goal in this paper is to engage these two groups, but more importantly,
the latter, in a reflection on how Philippine social scientists have engaged (or
lrave not engaged) the Philippine educational experience, and reflexively how
cducation practitioners, education researchers, and education policy makers
have engaged (or not engaged) Philippine social scientists. This reflection will
lropefully create new ways of thinking about the Philippine educational
cxperience, and more productive ways of participating in community practices
.rrrd institutional processes that aim to improve Philippine education.

PREFACE: MY MULTIPLE SELVES

This reflection process was anchored on my own personal ruminations

rcgarding my various experiences as I took on different roles in the strange
space in which the lives of education professionals and social scientists
converge. ln over 20 years as a professional, I have assumed different roles in
llre intersecting realms of education and social science.

My actual job is a classroom teacher, and this is what I am actually paid

lirr by my university. But because of sporadic moments of insanity, I have
rrany times in the past agreed to accept appointments as a school administrator:
rl<'p.rrtrnerrt <'h,rir, <'oIlege dean, and vice president for academics and research.
Being an administrator does not actually get me higher pay in my university,
but allows me to have my own office, which classroom teachers do not have.
Because of some accidents of nature that coincided with those moments
of insanity, I am actually affiliated with a college of education. 5o r am also a
preservice teacher educator who helps develop future teachers. As part of our
community extension work in the college, I also design and facilitate in-service
teacher development programs for teachers and other education professionals
in grade schools, high schools, and colleges who wish to update their
professional knowledge and skills. And since my university has this notion of
being research-oriented, I have had to do research and publish scholarly works
in the field of education, which makes me an education researcher.
But I am actually a psychologist by training. To be more precise: lwas
trained to do cognitive science using methods of experimental psychorogy.
However, because it was almost impossible to maintain a research program
in that area in this country, I have had to reinvent myself and move into
various research programs in educational psychology, sociocultural
psychology, and developmental psychology. Being a psychologist is perhaps
the most forceful element of my professional identity, even if no one in this
country has actually hired and paid me money to be a psychologist (my
university hired and pays me to teach psychology and education subjects).
lnspired by a mission of trying to help philippine schools, I became more
actively involved in development work. some of my most furfiiling
preoccupations involved developing and coordinating a multisectoral school
development program for various public schools in Metro Manira, which
targeted students, teachers, school heads, and the school programs. r also had
the privilege of working with the Department of Education (DepEd) under six
secretaries of Education, working directly with three of these Secretaries of
Education. I have also served as chair, consultant, and member of various
technical panels, technical working groups, task forces, and committees in
the Commission of Higher Education (cHED) under six successive
chairpersons. I also had a chance to work on some projects under the short-
lived National coordinating Council for Education, which involved the DepEd,
cHED, and the Technical Education and skills Development Authority
(TESDA).
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS WITH THE PARADOXICAT KIND
As I played my different roles, I had a chance to encounter first hand the
paradoxes of Philippine education. There are the obvious paracloxes. Almost
all rnedia coverage on Philippine education is described in terms of a long-
',l,rrrrling crisis. Yet the same media extols how the products of Philippine
r,rlu<'ution and even the drop-outs of Philippine education are so highly in-
rL,rn.rnd as good workers in other countries. Many evaluation studies of
l'lrilippine education point to poor teaching and teacher qualifications as one
oI llrr: critical areas of weakness. Yet in recent years, droves of Filipino teachers
lr,rvt: been recruited and given preferential option in different developed
r ourrtries.
Some of the paradoxes of Philippine education are just plain silly. Such
,r., when a former Acting Secretary of Education presented actual statistics
rrrrlicating a shortage of classrooms in public elementary and high schools,
.rrrrl the President of the Republic angrily declared that there is no shortage
lror'.ruse we should just assume that all existing classrooms regard less of actual
.,izt: and location will be used in at least two shifts.
The other paradoxes of Philippine education are more complicated. Some
ol tlrese are worth mentioning briefly during this talk.
Some of our social studies textbooks extol the virtues of the Spanish
t ol<lnizers who educated the Filipinos about Spanish culture, literature, and
llrt'arts. But historical records indicate that the colonizers had no intentions of
,rrtually educating the Filipinos, and when the colonizers left they were
at keeping most Filipino uneducated, with only less than four percent
'trtr:essful
ol the Philippine population having been educated enough to speak, read,
,rrrcl write basic Spanish (Alzona, 1932).
'[here
are similar romantic reminiscences about the glorious public
crlrrcation systems put in place by the American colonizers, yet the educational
',irrveys (Counts, 1 925; Monroe,1925) conducted by the Americans themselves
rcv<-'aled that most Filipinos were having much difficulty learning and using
llrt' instructional materials, teaching pedagogy, and medium of instruction
orrrployed of the teachers of that time.
Regarding those teachers, many people say that teachers enjoyed higher
social status in Philippine society in the olden days. But during those days,
It'.rc:lrdrs were actually less academically qualified, if we simply base on the
rorluired academic credentials in order to teach in the public school system.
A different paradox is related to teacher development in current times. ln
rcccrrt years, the government has invested millions to develop the capacities
ol lrrar:lrers in new teaching approaches, but has maintained a highly oppressive
k,,r<:her sr.rpervision system that has prevented most of the teachers from trying
orrl irnd irnplementing their new teaching approaches in the classroom
(lk,r'rt.rrcftl, 1 999; llernardo, Clemefra, & Prudente, 2000). Some of the teachers
who participated in some of our in-service programs would often declare:
" Magandatalaga yan, pero hindi naman namin magagawa sa amin kasi hindi
papayag ang principal at ang supervisor namin." [That's really good, but we
won't be able to implement itanyway because our principal and supervisor
won't let us.]
A different twist to this paradox relates to the Department of Education's
Restructured Basic Education Curriculum of 2002, which was accompanied
with strong declarations that teachers should be empowered to flexibly
implement the curriculum in ways that best respond to the learning needs,
motivations, and styles of their students. The implementation materials of the
restructured curriculum included template lesson plans which ended up
regimenting what teachers can actually do in the classroom.
A curriculum related paradox takes a different kink as the President of the
Republic has publicly declared thatwe need to shiftto an English-only medium
of instruction, yet almost all local and international research on the issue
indicate that students learn better when the learner's first language is used,
and that even learning a second language is better when it is scaffolded on the
learner's first language (see Nolasco, this volume).
Paradoxes also abound in the higher education sector. We rejoice in the
fact that there are over a thousand h igher education institutions in the country,
proclaiming that our country has one of the h ighest participation rates in tertiary
education in the world. Yet some developed countries only recognize college
diplomas of graduates from three or four Philippine universities.
ln the past, the Commission on Higher Education has pushed for upgrading
the minimum standards and requirements for operating and maintaining degree
programs in higher education and for clamping down on low performing
colleges and universities. But when the CHED implements its programs, they
get sued by school owners with the backing of powerful politicians or grilled
in the budget hearing by the same politicians.
But the CHED has its own share of internal paradoxes. lt promulgated a
policy to remove high performing colleges and universities from the strict
regulatory auspices. Paftly, the idea was that granting autonomy or deregulation
to such high performing institutions would allow the CHED to pay more
attention to the poor performing institutions. lronically, the implementation
of the policy has resulted in more intensive monitoring of the autonomous
and deregulated schools, as low performing schools continue to operate below
the monitoring radar of CHED.
I am sure that as I briefly described these apparent paradoxes in Philippine
r,tltrcation, some of the social scientists reading this paper are applying the
tlrcories of their respective disciplines to explain why the paradoxes exist.
( )rrc can imagine how historians, political scientists, public administrators,
,,or:iologists, anth ropologists, l i nguists, and psychologists, among other social
,,t'icr.rtists, can bring to bear their varied forms of expertise to make sense of
llrcse paradoxes.
But the most important paradox for purposes of this paper is the fact that
.,or:ial scientists have sidestepped, tiptoed around, or simply failed to deal
willr these apparent contradictions that characterize the Philippine educational
,,yslem. And this was the take off point for my own reflection as a psychologist,
,rs a social scientist who was engaged in the work and practices of Philippine
crlr-rcation.
PHILIPPINE EDUCATION AND PHILIPPINE SOCIAL SCIENCE:
IHE TWO CULTURES
As I reflect on my varied encounters with the Philippine educational system
tlrrough my diverse but interrelated roles, I realize I have had to assume different
scts of values, emphasize different cognitive styles and work habits, and
r'onfront different types of moral dilemmas as I do my work in the different
< rimmunities I engaged. lt's as if I was working within and alternating between
lwo different cultures: the culture of the educationists and the culture of the
social scientists. The educationists comprise of the overwhelming majority of
classroom teachers in basic education, administrators or school managers of
varying levels, teacher educators in the colleges of education, and bureaucrats
irnd officials in educational policy making bodies. The social scientists comprise
of a small community of social science researchers who are strongly
preoccupied with the development of knowledge and theory in the various
social science disciplines. This group does not include the teachers of social
science subjects who do not actually do any form of research and are actually
r,clucation ists.
ln.this paper, I use the term "culture" using a meaning-based approach.
ln this approach, culture is viewed as "shared meaning systems that are
t'rnbodied in artifacts and practices"..., and is "understood to have
rcpresentational functions, including collectively held understandings about
llrc rrature of experience, as well as prescriptive functions, including normative
st;rndards for behavior" (Miller, 1999, p. B6).
To preface my discussion of these two cultures, I must confess that I have
lr,r<l lo lone cklwn nty being a psychologist when I work with educationists.
My being a psychologist had been used against me at least once when I started
working with educationists. lt was as if my being a psychologist made me not
one of them. Similarly, I have had to downplay many of my involvements in
the field of ed ucation among my colleagues in scientific psychology. lt seemed
as if my being an educationist was peripheral to what being a psychologist
was about. Even in the preparation of this paper, I had to labor under two
types of apprehensions: first, that educationists might criticize this paper for
being too theoretical and not having enough practical suggestions; and second,
that social scientists might criticize this same paper for not being very explicit
about my theory and not having enough empirical evidence to support my
arguments.
SIMILARITIES AND COMPLEMENTARITIES BETWEEN
THE TWO CULTURES
Although I can and have made conscious distinctions between these two
identities, I acknowledge that my involvement in these two cultures has been
mutually constructive. My being a psychologist has equipped me with
concepts, methods, and analytic tools that have allowed me to be a better
educationist. Similarly, my being an educationist has provided me with
situations and experiences that have allowed me to improve my scholarship
as a social scientist. This mutuality draws from the fact that at some important
level the knowledge of educationists are similar to the knowledge of social
sci enti sts.
Many scholars think of knowledge as ranging from hard to soft, and from
pure to applied (Becher, 1989). Both educationists and social scientists have
to construct soft knowledge. Educationists have to construct knowledge about
the consequences of decisions and actions (e.g., instruction, curriculum,
admission policies, teacher development, financing, assessment, etc.) of
multitudes of intentional individuals (i.e., students, teachers, parents,
administrators, policymakers, etc.), pursuing multiple and conflicting goals,
and interacting within overlapping social systems (Labaree, 1998). Similarly,
social scientists by the very nature of their subject matter also have to construct
knowledge dynamic interactions in overlapping social, institution, and personal
structures (Labaree, 2003). Using Labaree's (2003, p. 14) analysis, both
educationists and social scientists:
"...are unlikely to establish valid and reliable causal claims that can
be extended beyond the particulars of times, place, and person. As a
rcsrrlt, research claims...tend to be mushy, highly contingent, and
lrr.,rvily rlrralified, and the focus is frequently more on description
.rrrrl rntr,rprct,t(ion than on causation."
l}trlh groups have a certain comfoft level with soft knowledge, and have
to .,lrrrggle with the methods of scholarship and analysis for dealing with this
',,rll l<rrowledge.
Moreover, both educationists and Philippine social scientists develop
,rplrlied knowledge. Educationists obviously have to construct knowledge as
rt rs demanded by practical concerns at different levels of the educational
,,tnr( ture, and notbytheoretical concerns. Although social scientists in general
,rrc less applied than educationists, social scientists in the Philippines are
prolrably just as applied as most educationists as much of the work in Ph ilippine
',or i.rl science is also on applied social concerns. Like educationists, Philippine
,,or i.rl scientists are pushed and pulled
to describe and understand the most
rrrlicrrt and most timely social problems, even if the available theories and
rr''c.rrch methods do not always allow them to do so.
ln dealing with very soft and applied knowledge, both educationists and
,,or ial scientists engage a very hard (i.e., not easy) enterprise (Berliner, 2002).
With their common plight, educationists and social scientists should be able
to cstablish a strong camaraderie, and find ways of perhaps supporting each
ollrer in the construction of knowledge in the specific domains. One area of
r orrrplementation relates to the slight differences in purevs.-applied dimension,
wlrere ed ucation ists are probably a I ittle bit more appl ied, and social scientists
.,rrr be more pure. Social scientists often draw from the respective disciplinal
tlrcories to drive their construction of soft knowledge. ln other countries, we
(,ul see how "pure" social scientists have applied theirtheories to problems
rcl.rted to education, thus demonstrating how the work of educationists can
lrc rnore "pure" in the theoretical sense. Just to give some examples, Dika and
\irrgh (2002) recently reviewed how the sociologists' construct of "social
r ,rpital" has been effectively used to study various problems in education.
()rr (2004) also reviewed how political scientists have used theirtheories on
llrc distribution of power to study decision-making processes in school systems,
llrcir theories of governance to study the organization and administration of
,,r'lrool systems at different levels, among other theories. Kantor and Lowe
(.f 004)-also demonstrated how historical analysis can be used to clarify basic
orlLr<:ational concepts such as "quality education." Perhaps the most extensive
,rpplications come from the field of psychology, where theories on the
t ogrritive, affective, developmental, and socio-cultural dimensions of behavior
lr,rve been applied to the study of how students learn (see e.g., Bransford,
llrrrwn, & Cocking, 1999; Lambert & McCombs, 'l 998; Marshall, 1996; Marx,
,)000). The application of pure social science theories and methods to
ctlrrr:utional problerns is one way by which social scientists can improve on
llrc rnore applicd krr<lwlodge of the educationists. Labaree (2003) sLlggests

that such applications may enhance "the intellectual clarity and public
.l
respectabilitt" 1p. 4) of work in "soft" areas of study'
on the other hand, the more applied work of educationists can provide a
stronger practical context for much of the theori zing of the social scientists'
Burkhardt and Schoenfeld (2003) make a very good case in point in showing
how putting psychologists' behaviorist theories of learning into actual applied
contexts revealed how psychologists have overestimated the strength of
behaviorist theories by ignoring the specific contexts of applicability of
particular theoretical propositions under behaviorism. The move to study
iearning in actual school environments, in varied social contexts, in specific
subject matter domains has not only put the behaviorist theories of
learning in
a more appropriate narrower perspective, but more important, these moves
have given rise to more powerful, more contextualized, and more useful
psychllogical theories of learning (see e.g', Alexander & Murphy, 1998;
Anderman&Anderman,20oo;Frisby,1998;cood&Levin,2001).lndeed,
the various levels of social structures and the diverse range of social
interactions
provide a powerful
and processes in even the smallest school organization can
can validate, revise,
context within which the varied types of social scientists
refine, and maybe reject their theories, hypotheses, and conceptualizations.
considering allthese similarities and complementarities, there should
be
But
a strong motivation for social scientists and educationists to collaborate'
collaborations in the Philippine setting'
we have seen very few cases of such
And perhaps, it is the differences between the two groups that define the
quality of their actual relationships.
CONTRASTS AND TENSIONS BETWEEN THE TWO CULTURES
Reflecting upon my crisscrossing encounters with the educationists'culture
operative
and the social scientists' culture, I recognize impoftant contrasts in the
partly
worldviews within each culture. To describe these contrasts, I draw
from a relevant exposition of Labaree (2003), and define the contrasts in terms
of four dimensions: (a) normative vs. analytical, (b) labeling vs. defining,
(c) personal vs. intellectual, and (d) experiential vs. theoretical.
Normative vs. analytical. Most educationists, including teachers,
administrators, teacher educators, education policy makers, and even education
researchers, have a strong normative perspective. That is, there
is a strong
field in terms of what is the best
orientation to construct knowledge in the
practice. Some scholars (Fenstermacher, 1990; Tom, 1984) have argued that
there is a strong moral factor in this normative perspective. The argument
is
tlrat education professionals, especially teachers, apply their expertise
towards
lirr,rls tlr.rt are not actually defined by their clients. Labaree (2003, p' 17)
r lr,,t rrsses this moral dimension in the work of teachers as follows:
"...teachers are in the business of instilling behaviors and Skills and
l<rrowledge in students who do not ask for this intervention rn their
lives and who are considered too young to make that kind of choice
,uryway. By setting out to change people rather than to serve their
wishesn teachers take on an enormous moral responsibility to make
srrre that the changes they introduce are truly in the best interest of
llre student and not merely a matter of individual whim or personal
< onvenience... Not only are teachers imposing a particular curriculum
orr students, ...but they are also denying them the liberty to do
sornething else."
lrr contrast, social scientists have a more analytical perspective on
r,rlrrr:.rtional practices. Social scientists are concerned with understanding and
rrr,rl<irrg sense of how a school system and its component elements work, and
wlry lhey do not. Although social scientists are also likely to have the ultimate
1i, r,rl of fixing the problems they see, and of also proposing what might be best
lrr.rt lices, these are not the immediate and preoccupying goals of typical social
them to conjecture and val idate
work of soci al scientists
',r it,r rl ists. The req ui res
,rrl,itrnrents about processes and mechanisms, causal factors and consequences
{lkrotlr, Colomb, & Williams, 1995). This preoccupation, however, is not
wrtlrout a moral responsibility. Social scientists often believe that any attempt
or r.llortto intervene in a social system should be premised and guided by a
,,r,lrrl understanding of how that system works. Applied to the educational
,,y,,t(!nr, social scientists would argue that "there is nothing moral
,rlrout .pursuing education reform based on sentiment rather than any evidence
tlr,rt tlre reform might make things better. Too often the effort to do something
,rlrotrl ;r problem that is not understood makes this worse" (Labaree,2003,
1r l()).
llre constrast between a normative culture and an analytic culture was
vrvirlly shown in Labaree's (2003, p. 1B) example:
"l'osed with a situation in which Wvo children are fighting in the back
ol'tlre classroom, the scholar wants to ponder the social, psychological,
cconom ic and pedagogical reasons for th is conf l ict, wh i le the teacher
w,rnts to separate the combatants."
As rny identity as a social scientist seems to be stronger as that of an
r.rlrrr ,rlionist, I have often found attempts to be more analytic being thwarted
lry 111,' crlucationists lwork with. When lfacilitate teacher development
pr()l1.uns, I often get direct inquiries from teachers to confirm whether what
tlrr.y.rro rloirrg is <:orrt.<'t. ltypi<:;rlly reply irr terrns of conditionalities: well it
depends on what your goals are, it depends on what your students bring to
the classroom, it depends on how the specific lesson relates to the whole
curriculum, and so on and so forth. My position was that as an outsider, I
could not simply assess whether what the teacher is doing will be "correct"
within the multiple interacting interactions of forces within her classroom and
within the immediate school community. Such academic hemming and hawing
is often met with dissatisfaction by the classroom teachers and other educational
professional I work with. This dissatisfaction may be perfectly warranted
my reply was not actually very helpful to the teachers.
ln a larger scale, I encountered a sim ilar clash of cultures when I consulted
for the DepEd in developing their National Competency Based Teacher
Standards. The approach adopted by the DepEd was truly laudable in its
attempts to be consultative. The DepEd held a long series of nationwide
consultations involving classroom teachers, school heads, alternative learning
system coordinators, supervisors, superintendents, high level educational
administrators, preservice teacher educators, inservice teacher educators,
graduate teacher educators, teacher licensure examiners, and other
stakeholders. The consultations involved asking these representatives to define
a common set of competency standards that would define good teaching for
all intents and purposes. The normative culture was thick during the
discussions. There were a lot of "dapatganito," "dapatganyan," "hindi pwede
yun basta ganyan lang," and so on. The product was a truly rich and
comprehensive checklist of competency standards categorized into seven
domains. As the consultant who happened to have a strong analytic streak, I
had to observe that the checklist of competency standards tended to be
disjointed and in a few cases seems to express contradictory ideals. I also
noted that the competencies were at different levels of conceptual abstraction,
and that the simple assembly of the competencies did not specify how the
competencies were conceptually linked, and that they should at least be
prioritized in order to develop a more coherent model of quality teaching.
The lead consultant, who is also a social scientist but who is much older and
thus perhaps much more practical justtold me,"Hayaan mo na. Custo nila
yan at naiintindihan nila yan. Ok na yon." [Let it be. They like it and they
understand it. That should be fine.l The consultant was correct after all, as
reports from the ground indicate an overwhelmingly positive reception to the
NCBTS and its related programs.
However, I must say that the tension between the normative and the
analytic cultures is probably not that strong as the likely result of this clash of
cultures is simply selective attention and perception about what each other is
saying" Educationists just pick on whatever the social scientists say that closely
r,.',r,rrrbles normative prescriptions, and social scientists just pretend thattheir
.ur,rlysis had something to do with the acceptance of what may pass of as
r r, ,r rrr,ltive prescriptions. The tension between the normative and the analytic
, ultrrres has probably notcreated a huge gap between educationists and social
'.t rcrrlists"
labeling vs. defining. The tension between a culture of labeling and a
, rrltur.e of defining, however, may actually contribute to high levels of
as
',\,r.,1)(iration with the other. The cultures
of labeling and defining represent
ways of dealing with tech n ical language, or in particu lar, concepts
, , rrrlr.rsting
tlr,rl rcfer to educational ideals, practices, and outcomes.
llre culture of labeling tends to appropriate words and endow them with
tlrr,power of imbuing experience with a reality that is not there. By calling
',,rrrrcllring"X,"thatsomethingis"X"orbecomes"X." lnthecultureof labeling
tlr,rt is quite strong in the word of educationists, buzzwords are a thrill' The
I tr.1 rl tl is most staunch promoter of buzzwords: HOTS or higher order thinking
',l rll.;, critical thinking, multiple intelligences, learning styles, child-friendly
,, lrools, life-long learning, and so on. The tendency is to appropriate such
rr,,rrrls without fully understanding its exact meaning. I once conducted a
rv,rrlislrop on developing critical thinking for Superintendents and
',ulrr,rirrtendenfEligibles. Afterwards one superintendent said that after many
\,,'.rr of using the term critical thinking in the DepEd community, it was only
llrr,rr tlrat he truly understood what it meant.
I should clarify that the culture of labeling does not simply involve
rrrr',r orrceptions or incorrect usage of technical terms. More importantly, it
rrrv,,lvcs using the terms to shape how people perceive the realities of their
{.. l},,r i('nces. I had an edifying experience d uring one capacity building program
l,,r tr'.rt'l)er educator. The activity involved building capacities of teacher
,.rlrrr .rlor-s for defining learning objectives that involved higher cognitive
pr)({,,,scs. For her output, one teacher educator included the objective "To
,1,'rlrrr t' tlre teaching strategies used by the demonstrating teacher." As I was
,,,nlrrsr'<l about what type of inference was supposed to be involved in this
,,lr;r.t livr', I asked the teacher educator to clarify what she meant by "deduce."
llrr. lr.,rt lrcr did not venture a clarification, so I asked her to paraphrase what
.lrr' ,uv,1111,'.1 her students to do in relation to the objective. lt turned out that
r'lr,rl .,lrt'w.rnted was for the students to describe the strategies used by the
,l,.rrron,,lr,rlirrg tencher. So we agreed that we would now state the objective
,r'. lollows, "fo describe the teaching strategies used by the demonstrating
tr'.rr l rr.r." l lrc rrcxt qr-rcstion l asked her was whether such an objective involved
lrr1,.l rr,r t o1',nilivr' pro<'r.ssirtg. She cluit:kly replied th;rt it did not, and that is
ii lr1, ',111, w.rrrlt'<l lo rrsc llto lctttt "tlt'tlttt:tr." Wlr.rt sht'wlts tttlling tllt-'wlts thilt

if she used the term "deduce," the low level cognitive processing involved in
the learning objective would become higher level'
There is a strong functional element in how words and even technical
terms are appropriated in this culture of labeling. A fellow educational
consultant told me that different offices in the DepEd bureaucracy can
appropriate varied definitions of terms depending on their purpose. Thus, a
school or a school district or division will use one definition of participation
rate, cohort survival rate, or dropout rate depending on whetherthe data on
these statistics will be used to justify programs to improve school participation
in one community or to justify the request for additional classrooms and school
building, teacher deployment, and what not.
I suspect that various goals are also behind the unregulated use of terms
such as "quality education," "innovative," "word-class," "globally competitive,"
among others. These words are being used not because they are actually
intended to mean anything specific, but because the use of the terms has
important functions in marketing educational programs. similarly, using the
term ,,university" to call many higher education institutions serves more of a
credentialing or baptizing function to assert relative prestige in the community
of higher education institutions in the Philippines, and does not actually mean
that these institutions actually do what universities are supposed to do in any
profound techn ical sense.
Some social scientists listening now are probably already scandalized by
the looseness that characterizes the usage of technical terms, as the social
scientists culture requires precision in the definition and usage of technical
terms. Social scientists who tend to be strongly empirical would often define
a concrete operational definition of any technical term, and some
great debates
have surrounded how certain concepts are best defined operationally.
The tension between the labeling culture and the defining culture derives
from the parallel tension between the normative and the analytic perspectives'
Educationists can afford to be more relaxed about definitions as long as their
appropriation of concepts is perceived to work or to be functional given
particular objective. Being imprecise and even changing meanings should be
fine if it ultimately succeeds in helping the educational professional achieve
defined educational goals. This works at even the highest levels of the
educational bureaucracy, where one test battery can be labeled achievement
test in one year and then an aptitude test in another year, as the test is used for
different policy instruments and objectives by different Secretaries of Education.
The labeling practices are consistent with the normative perspective that guides
the work of educationists. On the other hand, the requirement of precise
h'lirr itions is clearly al igned with the analytic perspective. The tension between
,
l,rlrcling and defining can be a stronger source of exasperation between the
Iwo cultures, as social scientists can be intolerant of contradictory usage of
t,'rrns, and educationists need to be very practical in their work and cannot
rrrrrlerstand why social scientists are making such a fuss.
Relational vs. intellectual. Fortunately, the possibility of mutual
,.rrr.rgement between the two cultures is mitigated by certain affinities in the
r,'l.rtional vs. intellectual dimension. Much of the work of educationists is
rr,l.rtional and even personal, especially at the most microlevels of the
,.rlrrt:ational process which involve interactions between students and teachers.
Nlut h of what is involved in being an effective education professional is
,rrrtlrored on relationship skills and person-centered skills. And this is true
,.vr ,rr with ed ucational managers at the h ighest levels, where their effectiveness
,1,'lrcnds largely on whether they are able to persuade and motivate numerous
lrr,,rrlstrong professionals with their personal educational agenda and strategies.
',,,r irrl scientists in general are more likely to be intellectual than relational.
llr.rt is, work of social scientists is premised on the currency of ideas, not
r,'l,rtionships. However, lwould ventureto saythat Philippine social scientists
,l(,rnore relational and personal than their counterparts in other countries,
.rrrtl llrus there might be a stronger tendency to balance the intellectual and
tlrc relationship dimensions in their work. Perhaps, in countries like the
I'lrrlilrltines, social capital is a much pervasive asset even in domains that are
rr.rrlrtionallymoreintellectual. lsuggestthatthetendencytovaluetherelational
rlrrrrcnsions of intellectual work allows social scientists to have some affinity
n,rtlr <,tlucationists, thus moderating the tensions that arise because of other
, rrllrrre clashes.
I lrcre is a danger however with putting too much value on the relational
,rrrrl pcrsonal aspects of work in education, aS it may lead to compromising
, i.rt,rirr irnportantvaluesof intellectualism. Whenwestartgivingmoreweight
to tll, irlt-'as of one person because she knows my father's best friend, then we
lr,rvr, lrrrrblems. lf we accommodate intellectual dishonesty in a student or a
t,..rr lrcr "kasi mabait naman yan talaga, at kawawa naman" [because she is
a
,r, lrr,rlly.r good person and we need to be mercifull, then we have bigger
1,r,,lrL,nrs. lhe bigger danger related to valuing the relational is the tendency
I. r'nrl)r,r('c anti-intellectualism. Labaree (2003, p. 19) asserts that it is
Irnnror.rl lo act pedagogically based on only the fact that 'l care about my
lul', "' llrrl llris tendency to embrace anti-intellectualism is not only true for
,.rlrrr .rtrorri.,ls, but also for applied social scientists, defining yet another area
, ,1 r .,lrugglt' lrelwtltrtt edr-tcationists and social scientists.
'rrrrron
 Experiential vs. theoretical. Another source of both tension and solidarity
is the contrast between the experiential and theoretical orientations. An
important characteristic of the educationist culture is the privileging of
experience over theory. For educationists ranging from classroom teachers to
national ed ucation pol icymakers, there seems to be a strong tendency to draw
primarily on personal experience as the main source of valid knowledge.
There is a great deal of face validity in this tendency. For example, personal
experiences about what works has the advantage of having actual efficacy in
an actual context of actual practices and constraints. The disadvantage is when
one's perspective about what worked is framed and constrained by one,s
mindsets that are also strongly shaped by the context of practice. ln such
cases, it becomes almost impossible to consider alternative interpretations
and/or prescriptions. Thus, no matter how much data the researcher presents
and no matter how elegantly and logically the arguments the researcher,s
arguments are made, the educationist's personal experience will still be upheld.
Another disadvantage of privileging experience is when personal
experience is tied up with positions of actual socio-econom ic privi lege. Th us,
when we hear politicians and policymakers from the country's oligarchs make
prescriptions about education based on their own educational experiences,
we need to be cautious about whether their educational and other social
experiences also reflect the experiences of many other Filipino learners. (See
Apilado, this volume, about how such has actually been typical in the history
of Philippine education.) lndeed, every form of personal experience suffers
from a narrow scope as it is necessarily confined to particular contexts, learner
characteristics, educational goals, social and moral constraints.
And this is where the social scientists'theoretical orientation can be of
advantage. Although social scientists may be outsiders and may be less
knowledgeable about the particulars of the educationists' experiences and
contexts, they have the tools to put the varying elements of context and
experience in perspective. The tools of the social sciences allow comparisons
and contrasts with other personal experiences of other agents and actors in
dissimilar contexts and also alternative constructions of meaning through varied
interpretative frameworks of theories.
Unfoftunately, theories and their emphasis on frameworks and discourses
aregreatlydistrusted bythecommunityof educationists. ln herthesis, Estigoy-
Arzadon (2006) prefaced her study by observing how the moral imperative of
responding to urgent and overwhelming needs has prompted education
professionals to sideline theorizing, and focus on discussions of best practices
that work. lmplicitly, Estigoy-Arzadon reveals the marginalization of theory
and discourse frames in the work of educationists.
I xemplars of the marginalization of theory can befound in differentaspects
,rl llrc work of educationists. ln 2000, the Social and Human Sciences
t orrrrrrittee of the UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines and the
l'lrrlippine Social Science Council (Hornedo, Miralao, & Sta. Maria, 2000)
r lt'dook a review of social studies textbooks, and indirectly, the social studies
rrrr
, rrrrir:ulum in basic education. The synthesis of the review (Bernardo, 2000)
r,,vr'.rled that the textbooks and the curriculum lacked any semblance of a
,,rlrcrent discursive framework to connect and unify the various curricular
r,lcrrrents. To address this gaping hole, the same group developed a curricular
lr,rrrrcwork that draws from theories and concepts of the various social sciences
(',1,r. Mari&, Hornedo, & Miralao, 2002); unfortunately, this contribution is
',trll l.rrgely ignored by educationists in the field of social studies.
Perhaps the worse example of the marginalization of theory can be found
rrr tlre work of most education researchers. One would expect that education
r,,.,t'.rrchers, more than any other sector in the educationist community would
,.,,r, llre value of theory. I published a review of research on higher education
,rrrrl found that education researchers very rarely attemptto develop, validate,
,,r ,rlrply theory relative to education concerns (Bernardo, 1997).lnstead, much
ol llre research done involves amplified descriptions and extensions of the
work of educationists (i.e., teaching strategies, teaching materials development,
,r,,,,r'ssment, program development, etc.). Consistent with the privileging of
r.rpcrience, much of education research in the Philippines actually involves
llrr' ;rppropriation of aspects of the educationists' personal experiences,
r orrfigured using the superficial trappings of researchi that is, the report format,
tlro use of some statistics and research design jargon, and the obligatory
tlrcoretical framework with its quintessential boxes and arrows.
It seems that even the primary endeavor of the social scientists, research,
lr,r., been co-opted within the normative and labeling cultural practices of
r,r lrrr'.rtionists. The term research has been appropriated to tag various types of
rr,,rr scholarly activities that have the trimmings of research, in order to fulfill
r,,rrio(rs goals of educationists. Some education professionals may use research
,r', .r nteans towards attaining a graduate degree and thus gain better credentials
,rrrtl status within the community. Others might use research to create
rr.,,pcctability (or isguise the lack thereo0 for ed ucational plans and proposals.
d
Wl nr;ry recall how the DepEd resorted to referring to the extensive research
,l,rrrr,by a leading Chinese university related to the CyberEd Project proposal,
wrtlrotrt actually discussing the details of said research, and whether such
r l,'t.rils are even relevant to the Philippine experience.
BRIDGING THE CULTURAL GAPS
ln the preceding section, I described the two cultures of the educationists
and the social scientists. Both cultures share the quandary of having to work
with soft and applied knowledge, and of dealing with the attendant issues of
proper methodology. But the cultures have impoftant contrasts. Educationists
adopt a normative perspective, which involves practices such as labeling,
and emphasizes relational skills and experiential knowledge. Social scientists
adopt a more analytic perspective, which requires precise definitions, and
emphasizes intellectual skills and theoretical knowledge. I realize that my
characterization might give rise to unnecessary stereotyping of agents in the
two cultures, but such is not my intention. lndeed, in the recent National
Social Science Congress that focused on education, a number of social scientists
adopted an educationists' perspective and discussed normative issues and
presenting experiential pieces regarding the teaching of their respective social
science discipline. With social scientists playing the role of educationists, we
might actually be more similar than we think.
Which leads me to the concluding section of this paper: The matter of
bridging the gaps between the two cultures. I do not think that social scientists
will be better off by becoming educationists, and vice versa. There are very
valuable or at least functional reasons why educationists and social scientists
are the way they are. Their differences are rooted in contrasting positional
constraints, moral imperatives, affordances, effectivities, incentives, and
practices embedded in the two classes of work. And these differences ought
to be respected. Our goal should not be to erase the gap, but to find ways to
bridge the gaps in order to improve on the two classes of work.
There are two important steps that need to be taken, one more concrete,
the other more abstract. First, I think there should be more explicit attempts to
engage each other in our various forms of work. Research in social psychology
has shown how various forms of meaningful contact between differing social
groups can lead to intergroup relations. For example, task-oriented cooperation
has been shown to improve intergroup perceptions and relations Uohnson &
Johnson, 2003). Thus, educationists and social scientists working together to
attain common goals may be a good strategy towards helping the two groups
of professionals develop better understanding and appreciation of the work of
the other.
But this concrete step is just the start. The more difficult task at hand
involves being able to accept and even adopt values, orientations, and practices
of the other. I am not sure how, but I think that both groups would benefit if
we see the normative and analytic perspectives as being complementary of
lr olher. ln particular, as educationists and social scientists recognize the
r,,rr
rrror,rl ir-nperatives inherent in the normative approach, perhaps what needs
t,,lrc developed is an appreciation of how the analytic approach (including
tlr,,rlt'fining practices) is integral to this goal. As Labaree (2003, p. 19) asserted,
" kr clevelop a firm understanding of how education works is a mandatory
ln',1 stL.p in any truly moral effort at educational improvement." Similarly,
v,rltring the relational dimensions of the work in education need not entail
rr,lrrrcliating the intellectual dimensions of the work. Thinking of education as
.rrr rnlcllectual problem should be seen as supplementing the awareness that
,,r,,rl< in education is highly relational and personal. Finally, knowledge from
r,\l)crirrnce and from theory can be seen as varied perspectives that may be
,,'rrsrclered in developing a fuller grasp of educational experiences and
1rrolrlents.
Arguing for the complementation of values, orientations, and practices is
r.,r',icr than making sure that it is done. To a large extent, I think appreciating
tlrr' possible complementation of cultures would depend on credibility and
rrtrlrly. And this point needs to be emphasized for the social scientists. lf we,
,,.r r.rl scientists, wish to be engaged by educationists, I think it is very important
tlr,rl wc be credible in the work of social science. We need to demonstrate
Ir,,w oLrr analytic, intellectual, and theoretical work can actually enhance the
r,rlrrt,rtionists' normative, relational, and experiential work. This depends on
rkrrrrg good social science, on whether we can actually rise to the occasion,
,,, lo speak. I will not go into a lengthy discussion on what constitutes good
',,,r i,rl science,aswesocial scientistsarethemostself-consciousof allsciences,
r orr,l,rntly worrying about being scientific or debating whether we should
lrollrt'r. to be scientific. We will continue our disputations about method and
llrlory,.rs we are inclined to always do. But lthink that Philippine social
',r rr.nlis[s have a very strong moral sense and desire to ensure that social science
r', u,,r'tl ir-r the service of improving the lives of Filipinos. This moral sense
'.lr,,rrlrl push us to ensure that out methods and theories produce useful
l.n,,wlr,rlge, and not just knowledge for its own sake.
lrr orrr-'specific sense, rising to the occasion will mean that social scientists
rryrll rrccd to engage the problems of education more directly and
,,'rrrprt'lrcnsibly, and not just focus on the problems of education in our
rr,.,pr'< livc cJisciplines. My own experience suggests that locating our work as
',, rr r,rl ,.r icr)lists within the actual contexts of educational practices will reveal
llrr, lr,rrrl<rrrlll<;y of our paradigm wars where we assert the superiority of one
llrrorr.lit ,rl lrcrspective or one methodology over others. Doing social science
rvr,1l. 111 llrr. r'tirrlcxt of a<:tual educatiorr practices, whether this context is one
,rl ,rr tu,rl lt,.rclrirrli.rrrcl lt'.rrnirtll or one of policy-making for refortr, wor-rld
reveal the inherent inadequacy of any single theoretical perspective and
method.
I realized this in mywork in the area of language and learning. My earliest
work addressing the language of instruction or language of learning issue
involved carefully designed'experiments on the consequences of using the
learner's first or second language on various components of learning and
problem solving in mathematics (see Bernardo, in press b for summary). But,
the wealth of empirical evidence that was coherently accounted for by the
theoretical model was clearly insufficient to effect the kinds of changes in
policy and practices that the research suggested. Clearly, I had to draw from
tools beyond the specific analytic tools that I had been employing. ln more
recent scholarly attempts to engage this issue, I have drawn from theorizing
in functional linguistics and critical linguistics (Bernardo,2007)and attempted
historical (Bernardo, 2004) and even political analysis (Bernardo & Caerlan,
in press) in order to generate more powerful ways of understanding the current
practices and policies, and the problems therein (Bernardo, in press a) and
possible alternatives to current modes of thinking about the problem (Bernardo,
2OO5;2007).
Doing social science in the contexts of educational practices and processes
would make us realize that the interacting historical, cultural, political,
economic, ideological, and psychological influences on educational problems
and education reform policies are undeniable, inevitable, and unavoidable.
This realization should prompt us to seek better complementation across our
work as discipline-based social scientists; thus, pointing to another challenge
related to our credibility and utility as social scientists.
REFERENCES
Alexander, P.A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). The research base for ApA,s learner-
centered psychological principles. ln N. M. Lambert, & B. L. McCombs,
(Eds.), How students I ear n : Ref o r m i n g s ch oo I s th r o u gh I e ar n e r-ce nte red
education (pp. 25-60). Washington, DC: American psychological
Association.
Alzona,E.(1932) AhistoryofeducationinthePhilippines,t565-1930.
University of the Philippines Press.
Andermam, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (Eds.)(2000). The role of social context
in educational psychology: Substantive and methodological issues.
Educational Psychologist, 35(2), whole issue.
llr.r'r lrcr', l. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: lntellectual enquiry and
tlte culture of disciplines. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
11r,111111'r, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all'
drrcational Researcher, 31(8), 1 B-20.
I
llr,r rr,rrrlo, A. B. l. (1997). Toward the rationalization of research on higher
cducation: A survey of higher education research in the Philippines
(1975-1996). Edukasyon, 3(1) [whole issue].
li.r rr.r rr kr, A. B. l. (1 999). The striving and the struggle for teacher development:
llre contexts, issues. trends, and opportunities in in-service teacher
lraining in the Philippines. ln Y. Tabata & L. Criek (Eds.), Ensuring
oltportunities for the professional development of teachers (pp. 141-
158). Higashi-Hiroshima City, Japan: Hiroshima Universrty UNESCO-
APEID Associated Centre.
ll'rrr,rlrlri, A. B. l. (2000). Frameworks and contents of Philippine basic
r:ducation textbooks: A synthesis and exposition. ln F. H. Hornedo, V.
A. Miralao, & F. P. Sta. Maria (Eds.), fhe social and human sciences in
Philippine basic education: A review of elementary and high school
tcxtbooks (pp.1-2a). Quezon City: Philippine Social Science Council.
llr,rrr,rrtkr, A. B. l. (2004). McKinley's questionable bequest: Over 100 years
rrf English in Philippine Education. World Englishes, 23, 17-31.
11,.r11,lr.;,,, A. B. l. (2005). Bilingual code-switching as a resource for learning
on the language and education
.rrrcl teaching: Alternative reflections
issr-re in the Philippines. ln D. T. Dayag & J.S.Quakenbush (Eds.),
/ inguistics and language education in the Philippines and beyond: A
/ r'.st-schrift in honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista (pp. 1 51-1 69). Manila:
I irrguistic Society of the Philippines.
llr,rrr,rrrlo, A. B. l. (2007). Language in Philippine education: Rethinking old
l,rll.rcies, exploring new alternatives amidst globalization. ln T. R' F.
Irrlras (Re)making society: The politics of language, discourse and
i<k'trtity in the Philippines (pp l-26). Quezon City: University of the
I'lrilippine Press.
l|.rrr,rrrlo, A. B. l. (in press a). English in Philippine education: Solution or
lrroLrlenr? ln K. Bolton & M. L. S. Bautista (Eds.), Philippine English:
/,rrrgtrage and literature. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
llr.rr1,111;,,, n" B. l. (irr press b). Language, learning, and medium of instruction
rrr rrrrrl ti I i ngual contexts: An information-processi ng components
Manila: (Eds.), Asia's educational miracle:
1x'r slrcctive. ln U. Kim & Y.-S. Park
I',,yt ltrtlogic:al, social, and cultural perspectives. New York: Springer
| 'r rlr I islr irrg.
Bernardo, A. B. 1., Clemefra, R. M. S., Prudente, M. S. (2000). The contexts l,rlrrr,,rrrr, l). W., & Johnson, E. P. (2003). Joiningtogether: Croup theory and
and practices of science and mathematics education in the Philippines: ryottp skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Foundations of responsive science and mathematics teacher education l .rrrtor, ll., & Lowe, R. (2004). Reflections on history and quality education"
programs. Manila: JICA & Lasallian lnstitute for Development and I dLrcational Researcher, 33(5), 6-1 0.
Educational Research.
l.rlr,rrr.r,, t). F. (1998). Educational researchers: Living with a lesser form of
Bernardo, A. B. 1., & Caerlan, M.J. M. (in press). English medium of instruction l<nowledge. Educational Researcher, 27(B), 4-1 2.
in Philippine higher education institutions: MOI policy development
l.rl,.rrlr', D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational
in an oligarchy. ln C. Davison & N. Bruce (Eds.), language issues in
rcsearchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13-22.
English-medium universities across Asia. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press. l,rrrrlrr.rl, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (Eds.) (1 998). How students learn:
tit, I ct r m i n g schoo /s th r o u gh I e ar n e r-ce nte r ed ed u cati on. Wash in gto n,
Booth, W. C., & Colomb, C. C., & Williams, J. M. (1995). fhe craft of
I )C: American Psychological Association.
educational research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
l:1.u ,lr,rll,ll. H. (Ed.)(1996). Recentand emergingtheoreticalframeworksfor
Burkhardt, H, & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). lmproving educational research:
rcscarch on classroom learning: Contributions and limitations.
Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise.
I tlucational Psychologist, 31(314), whole issue.
Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-1 4.
r.l.rr ". l(. W. (Ed.) (2000). School reform and research in educational
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. 1., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How people
learn: Brain, mind experiences, and school. Washington, DC: National lrsyr:lrology. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), whole issue'
Academy Press" r:lrllr,r, | (;. (1999). Cultural psychology: lmplications for basic psychological
tlrcory. Psychological Sciencg 10, 85-91 .
Counts, C. S. (1925). Education in the Philippines. The Elementary School
Journal, 26,94-106. /.\,,nr(){,, l'. (1925) Surveyof theeducationalsystemof thePhilipplnes.Manila:
llrrrr.,ru of Printing.
Dika, S. 1., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational
literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 73, lrr N1 (.)(X)4). Political science and education research: An exploratory look
3'l -60. ,rl lwo political science journals. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 11-
l{r.
Estigoy-Arzadon, M. M. (2006). The greening of a local community: Dynamics
of environmental care discourses in community learning. Unpublished
',r.r lrl,rn,r, l. l'., Hornedo,
F. H., & Miralao, V. A. (2002) . Usingimportant
thesis, College of Education, University of the Philippines, Diliman, , rrrrr in the social and human sciences to improve learning and
ty)ts
, ,r)tcrll in social studies. Quezon City: UNESCO Philippine National
Quezon City.
( orrrrrrission & Philippine Social Science Council.
Fenstermacher, C. D. (1990). Some moral considerations on teaching as a
profession. ln J. l. Coodlad, R. Soder, & K. A. Sirotnik (Eds.),The moral l'rrr .'\ lt ( l()84). Teaching, as a moral craft. New York: Longman.
dimensions of teaching (pp. 1 30-1 51). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Frisby, C. L. (1998). Contextual factors influencing the classroom application
of learner-centered principles. ln N. M. Lambert, & B. L. McCombs
(Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered
education (pp. 61-79). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Cood, T. 1., & Levin, J. R. (Eds.) (2001). Educational psychology: Yesterday,
today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), whole issue.
Hornedo, F. H. , Miralao, V. A., & Sta. Maria, F. P. (Eds.) (2002). The social
and human sciences in Philippine basic education: A review of
elementary and high schooltextbooks. Quezon City: Philippine Social
Science Council.