Cultivating Critical Pragmatists: The Need for Critically Conscious Improvement Scientists

• In Event: Marriott Roundtable Session Seven
  In Roundtable Session: Toward a Critical, Social Justice–Focused Improvement Science (Table 3)

Abstract

The critiques of improvement science (IS) are widespread and justified. Improvement scientists have been characterized as more concerned with method (and quantification) than transformation (Capper, 2018; Safir & Dugan, 2021). IS, as an emerging method in education, lacks criticality. We must ask, what does it mean to improve education in a racist, sexist, classist, ableist, heterosexist society? Improvement must mean making schools less oppressive. This paper defines critical pragmatism as an epistemological paradigm for equitable IS.
Two of the six principles of IS (Bryk et al, 2015) can tie IS to equity, 1-being user centered and 2-seeing the system which produces the results. The user-centered principle suggests a wide array of stakeholders be involved in any improvement project—making space for marginalized stakeholder participation. Unfortunately, too often being user centered means an exploitive one-way communication (ie: empathy interviews), where user knowledge is capitalized upon when defining problems, but user expertise is neglected designing interventions and power is not shared with users when making decisions. Additionally, when seeing the system, we fail to acknowledge “oppressive systems . . . including but not limited to white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, colonialism, and heteronormativity, are truly ‘common causes’ of disparate outcomes” (Author, 2022).
Conscientization (Freire, 2000), critical consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1995), and criticality (Muhammad, 2019) are three ways of describing both an awareness of oppression and a determination to do something about it. Much work on criticality discusses it as an outcome for students, but it is required for educators engaged in continuous improvement as well. In fact, Jabbar and Childs (2022) explain “deeper engagement with critical perspectives, methodologies, epistemologies, and frameworks is necessary” to improve with equity (p. 242).
Critical pragmatism can trace its roots to DuBois, who was described as “combining the ‘method oriented’ pragmatism of [Charles] Peirce and the ethical ‘justice oriented’ pragmatism of [William] James” to develop ‘DuBoisian’ pragmatism” in which knowledge of the truth resulted in illumination of injustice and social change (Milligan, 1985, p.31). A critical pragmatist seeks practical knowledge to disrupt unjust systems. They extend the pragmatist question of what works by also asking what is just. They evaluate the merit of practical knowledge by its ability to ameliorate the plight of the marginalized. Their critical lens constantly reminds them they possess knowledge only in community and create improvement only through authentic, reciprocal collaboration.
As we advance IS as a methodology that has the potential to transform education and its outcomes, we must be honest that it takes more than technical skills and tools to bring about such achievement. IS must be guided by critical perspectives (CRT, Feminist epistemologies, Queer Theory, QuantCrit, ImprovCrit), and the technique and the perspective cannot be taught in isolation. As research paradigms speak to methodology, epistemology, axiology, and ontology, critical pragmatism distinguishes IS for equity from pragmatic approaches that fail to challenge the status quo and signals the requisite values and ways of being for leading improvement for equity. This paper has implications for the teaching and coaching of improvement science processes.

Author

• Brandi N. Hinnant-Crawford, Clemson University
  Presenting Author