The is and the ought of knowing: Ontological observations on shadow education research in Cambodia

IF 0.4 Q3 AREA STUDIES
W. Brehm
{"title":"The is and the ought of knowing: Ontological observations on shadow education research in Cambodia","authors":"W. Brehm","doi":"10.20495/SEAS.6.3_485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the limitations of terms and definitions regarding shadow \neducation research in Cambodia. Although shadow education in Cambodia is typically defined as private tutoring taught by mainstream schoolteachers to their own \nstudents, other manifestations of it have been missed by most studies on the subject, \nincluding my own. By tracing the terms used and the definitions of shadow education in various research studies, I argue that the assumptions made over terms and \ndefinitions (i.e., what ought to be the case) limited researchers’ understanding of \nshadow education in its ontological evolution and complexity (i.e., what is the case). \nMethodologically, the unintentional recycling of the same definition across time \nresulted in the epistemic fallacy and concept reification. These outcomes have \nprofound consequences for how the phenomenon may be theorized not only in \nCambodia but across the Southeast Asian region. In conclusion, I propose an alternative approach to study shadow education based on critical realism.","PeriodicalId":42525,"journal":{"name":"Southeast Asian Studies","volume":"6 1","pages":"485-503"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southeast Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20495/SEAS.6.3_485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This article focuses on the limitations of terms and definitions regarding shadow education research in Cambodia. Although shadow education in Cambodia is typically defined as private tutoring taught by mainstream schoolteachers to their own students, other manifestations of it have been missed by most studies on the subject, including my own. By tracing the terms used and the definitions of shadow education in various research studies, I argue that the assumptions made over terms and definitions (i.e., what ought to be the case) limited researchers’ understanding of shadow education in its ontological evolution and complexity (i.e., what is the case). Methodologically, the unintentional recycling of the same definition across time resulted in the epistemic fallacy and concept reification. These outcomes have profound consequences for how the phenomenon may be theorized not only in Cambodia but across the Southeast Asian region. In conclusion, I propose an alternative approach to study shadow education based on critical realism.
认识的本然与应然:柬埔寨影子教育研究的本体论观察
本文的重点是柬埔寨影子教育研究的术语和定义的局限性。虽然柬埔寨的影子教育通常被定义为主流学校教师对自己学生的私人辅导,但包括我自己在内的大多数研究都忽略了影子教育的其他表现形式。通过追踪各种研究中影子教育的术语和定义,我认为对术语和定义所做的假设(即,应该是什么情况)限制了研究者对影子教育本体论演变和复杂性的理解(即,是什么情况)。在方法论上,同一定义在时间上的无意重复导致了认知谬误和概念具体化。这些结果对如何将这种现象理论化产生了深远的影响,不仅在柬埔寨,而且在整个东南亚地区。最后,笔者提出了一种基于批判现实主义的影子教育研究方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Southeast Asian Studies
Southeast Asian Studies AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The new journal aims to promote excellent, agenda-setting scholarship and provide a forum for dialogue and collaboration both within and beyond the region. Southeast Asian Studies engages in wide-ranging and in-depth discussions that are attuned to the issues, debates, and imperatives within the region, while affirming the importance of learning and sharing ideas on a cross-country, global, and historical scale. An integral part of the journal’s mandate is to foster scholarship that is capable of bridging the continuing divide in area studies between the social sciences and humanities, on the one hand, and the natural sciences, on the other hand. To this end, the journal welcomes accessibly written articles that build on insights and cutting-edge research from the natural sciences. The journal also publishes research reports, which are shorter but fully peer-reviewed articles that present original findings or new concepts that result from specific research projects or outcomes of research collaboration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信