In reviewing the article Power/Knowledge for Educational Theory: Stephen Ball and the Reception of Foucault by Chai-Ling Wang, I found there to be a few issues in my willingness to use this as a reputable source in any of my writings. My initial thoughts centered around the sole purpose of this article, which is to criticize a singular author’s work, with little or no mention of how the author undertook their research process to prove their point. The lack of clear methodology for this paper leads me to believe that the author disagreed with Stephen Ball’s point of view and then found research articles to support his point of view while omitting articles that would support Ball’s point of view. The limited number of authors reinforces my view on this cited in the paper, relying on singular authors’ publications to support the paper’s point of view.

            Another area I noticed was the author seems to invoke the Equivocation fallacy (Ferrer, 2019) when the author states, “I do not intend to act as the guardian of authentic Foucauldian thought and thereby to maintain an unchangeable orthodoxy.” (Wang, 2011, p. 142). With this quote, the author states they are not an authority or guardian of Foucauldian thinking but then spends the remainder of the article discrediting Ball’s work in the field, supporting their arguments with their strongly worded opinions on Ball’s and Foucault’s work. While they cite other sources to support these opinions, it is hard to believe that the author does not see themselves as an authority on the subject and how Foucault’s work should be interpreted.

            In reflecting on what could be done to improve this article to a standard I would be comfortable citing, I think there are a few options the author could undertake. First, I believe providing a more straightforward introduction about the misunderstanding of Foucault’s work would be necessary to show a need to analyze Ball’s work. Using the three sources, which only support the author’s view, does not make a compelling case for the review and critique of Ball’s work. However, pulling multiple sources showing confusion and misconceptions about Foucault’s work would make a case for needing to review the work surrounding this matter. The second piece, and probably most important, would be clearly outlining the methodology the author uses to gather sources on Foucault’s work in the area of education theory and how the author analyzes each work. This process would provide clear evidence of how Foucault’s work is viewed in educational theory and possibly support the author’s views on Ball’s work. Undertaking this process would also provide clarity on the research that is available in the field instead of just providing the readers with hand-picked articles that support the author’s point of view. It can be easy to lose focus when you are passionate about a certain topic and narrow focus to find research to support a certain way of thinking. Still, it is also important to remember that as researchers, we can and will be wrong and must explore that possibility thoroughly as well.

References

Ferrer, D. (2019). 15 Logical fallacies you should know before getting into a debate. https://www.aresearchguide.com/15-logical-fallacies-you-should-know-before-getting-into-a-debate.html

Wang, C. (2011). Power/Knowledge for educational theory: Stephen ball and the reception of foucault: Power/Knowledge for educational theory. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(1), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00789.x