{"title":"认识的本然与应然:柬埔寨影子教育研究的本体论观察","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":"{\"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}","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}
The is and the ought of knowing: Ontological observations on shadow education research in Cambodia
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.
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.