Complicating and Explicating: Taking up Reason in Learning Disabilities Research:

In these days of the achievement gap, evidence-based practices, and accountability issues, Julie Allan's "Complicating, not explicating: Taking up philosophy in learning disability research" challenges us to think seriously about how well we as a field are meeting our mission of providing for the academic and social needs of students with learning disabilities, including preparing them for life after school. In Allan's view, research and practice in the field of learning disabilities as currently construed are not working; students with learning disabilities are not empowered, but "constrained and controlled by the discourses and practices in special education" (p. 154). According to Allan, the 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 the knowledge base of the field of learning disabilities is seriously flawed; its "linear, hierarchical" nature, grounded as it is in the scientific method, makes it out of touch with the subjective reality experienced by students with learning disabilities. For Allan, the solution requires a political liberation of sorts, a deconstruction of the status quo, not more conventional science. Allan goes on to propose that we align our research and practices not with the scientific method, but with the "philosophers of difference" in order to think differently about the construction of learning disability and to envision new forms of learning. To do so, she suggests following the theoretical concepts of transgression and rhizome, as well as the 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 the 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, the current body of knowledge and practice in learning disabilities. While this stance is consistent with her philosophy of deconstruction, I had thought that the purpose of her paper was to foster "healthy dialogue," consider both "the value and limitations of scientific thinking," and "widen the circle" of discourse, not create a new, exclusive one. That said, the 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 the feelings and preferences of our students; indeed, if, in the 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 the time to be complacent, particularly in view of the less-than-robust life outcomes attained by students with learning disabilities compared to nondisabled peers, in the 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 the "derailments . …