Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Educology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. After discarding sockpuppets, it seems like the key arguments appear to be NFRINGE as the most in-depth source analyses here given by Triptothecottage and Crossroads1 seem to indicate that all of the coverage are either coincidental hits on articles that use the word "educology or non-independent sources, as well as page quality/POV-pushing issues. If salting is needed, it can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Educology

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Educology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, though lengthy and appearing to have many references, fails WP:GNG. It is based entirely on primary sources from a handful of proponents of "educology." It appears to be a nonnotable fringe theory - Flat Earth meets education.

Almost all of the references are by the same few authors - Brezinka, Christensen, Fisher, Maccia, Steiner/Steiner-Maccia - and/or published by "Educology Research Associates" and its "International Journal of Educology" or even in a few cases, from Smashwords.

A Google search reveals that results for the word, other than this article, (1) refer to an unrelated IT consulting company, (2) are by its proponents, or (3) do not appear to be referring to the same thing, as with the few Chinese and Lithuanian based sites.

A search on Google Scholar reveals the word is seldom mentioned in the academic literature. Compare [1] with [2] and [3]

Some corroborating evidence:

-Look at "what links here." [4] None of our other articles on subjects related to education or pedagogy felt a need to mention this supposed "study of education."

-The article is 98.8% written by one editor, User:CalaEdwards [5], whose edits have been almost exclusively on this article, and who has made their user page a redirect to this very article.

Bottom line: It remains to be established that educology has received direct, detailed coverage by multiple, independent, secondary, and reliable sources. Crossroads1 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • *Keep I don’t agree with the nominator. I have never heard of this term before and was highly sceptical about it but it is evident only from the refs provided that there is a sufficient body of scholarly work to substantiate the term. It may or may not be widely accepted, I don’t know, but it appears to me to meet our notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Having thought about the concerns raised by other editors below I'm striking my !vote as there is more to this than I have time or inclination to examine thoroughly. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How did you (Crossroads1) determine who is a proponent of the concept? If it was by who has written papers on the subject, then that is a self-fulfilling circular argument. Under that definition all the sources must be proponents. In any case, that is still a lengthy list of authors, whatever their POV. The claim that the term is seldom used in scholarly works is blatantly untrue; gscholar has thousands of results, and the first two pages of results all have the term in the title and more than half the authors listed are not the "same few" authors cited in our article. The long spread in time of these papers (1976 to present) tells me it is a well established term. There is an International Journal of Educology and the University of Prešov has an Institute of Educology and Social Work according to this paper. Finally, the absence of incoming Wikipedia links is not a failure of notability (WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source}, it is a failure of Wikipedia editors. SpinningSpark 00:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems to recognize the existence of this field except those promoting it, who claim it is the study of education. This is highly unusual - other theoretical approaches from string theory to critical pedagogy are mentioned by secondary sources in neutral or critical terms. Having a "lengthy" list of authors, having some results on gscholar, persistence over decades, and publishing its own journal does not establish notability outside the field - these do not consist of independent, secondary sources. Foreign references to the word educology are rare and do not seem to refer to the specific field that this article is about - it may be a translation issue, perhaps in some languages the study of education is called that. Crossroads1 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered my question; how are you determining who is, and who is not, a proponent of the field? Would you consider, for instance, Jane Mallum An Educology of Peace Education a proponent? She seems more interested in conflict resolution than promoting educology as a discipline. How about "Chinese and American college students' memories of childhood play: A comparatives educology". Again, a source that is using the term but seems concerned with something else (childrens' play) rather than educology as a subject. Demanding sources independent of the field is a misinterpretation of policy. We would expect most of the sources in the quantum mechanics article to be experts in quantum mechanics, not unqualified passers by who think they have some criticism of it. Your comparison with string theory is unreasonable. String theory is an actual theory, which is not yet fully accepted and criticism can be found and is rightly in the article. Educology is a discipline, not a theory. It's hard to imagine how one would find RS criticising the study of education without them criticising education itself. We would have to resort to citing the Taliban for something like that. I have no idea how you can claim that RS continuing to be published over decades does not establish notability. That is almost our very definition of notability. And by the way, publications go back much further than I stated above. There is More Essays in Educology, 1964, a follow up to Essays in Educology, 1956. SpinningSpark 14:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mallum does appear to be a proponent. You can similarly find people pushing Scientology as a means of conflict resolution. Quantum mechanics is notable because its existence as a field of study is acknowledged by those outside of it - other branches of physics, quantum chemistry, etc. The disciplines tasked with studying the educational process are called simply education or pedagogy. It is as though we had an article on "matterology" claiming to be "the study of matter and how it interacts with itself." Why is it a separate field from physics? It doesn't matter that a few crackpots over decades have written books on matterology, published their own journal, and very rarely, gotten cites from people outside the field. Crossroads1 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why are you calling Mallum a proponent? At the moment, you are just dismissing every source presented in those terms. I don't really accept that proponents can't be RS, but it is impossible to search for sources that meet your criteria unless you clearly state what they are. On Scientology, I remind you that despite being a fringe subject, it still has an article on Wikipedia. If enough reliable sources discuss it, however partisan, we can have an article on Wikipedia. That's how it works here, not by how worthwhile the concept is. Indiana University thinks Educology is a thing and runs courses, as does the European Union. I agree that the many foreign institutions using the term for courses may have a translation issue, but they can't all be misguided POV pushers: University of Prešov, Slovakia, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania, China. SpinningSpark 17:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scientology is notable because many, many people outside it acknowledge it exists and discuss it. If it was just a few dozen people big, it would probably not have RS discussing it and not be notable. I don't see hardly anyone outside the educology cult acknowledging it. RS would be something like textbooks on education or university departments of education discussing educology as a theoretical perspective, or as the overall study of education. The fact it claims territory covered by existing fields, like my hypothetical matterology, is a huge red flag. Except for the Indiana University result (which appears to be by a proponent), those foreign results do not appear to be talking about educology in the sense of this article (the Chinese one claims it started in the 19th century, for instance). Crossroads1 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, dismissing any source offered as being part of the "educology cult", but failing to set out what makes one a member of this cult. It's not really a cult one can actually join and pay subscrptions to. You ask for a university department, but when Indiana is offered, they are also part of this cult. How about David Tripp of Murdoch University in Perth, "Creating Waves : Towards an Educological Paradigm of Teacher Education" in the Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Tripp has never published in the IJE as far as I can tell and couldn't be further away from Indiana if he tried. He puts clear water between the terms "education" and "educology" both in the title of the paper and in a detailed discussion in the paper (from page 10 onwards). If he's in your cult too, that's getting to be a pretty widespread and notable cult. SpinningSpark 23:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research Someone with time would need to go through this. I was looking at the references and the ISSN 0818-0563 is used 39 times in the references. While the subject may be notable, referencing the same book 39 times seems like it might require a second look. You might also check to see of how many times the other referenced publications are duplicated in the references.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A journal published by "Educology Research Associates" and without a known impact factor. Probably of zero. Odd that a field that is supposedly "the study of education" has exactly one obscure journal devoted to it. Crossroads1 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposal for deletion appears to arise from perhaps a misreading of the Educology article. First, it is not true to say that the article is based on primary sources from a handful of proponents. A careful reading reveals that the article cites 105 secondary sources and 22 primary sources, and the number of scholars cited in the article who identify as educologists is 30. Many more could be cited, but there are already perhaps too many references. Second, a careful reading of the article also reveals that the Educology article is not a polemic for educology. Rather, it is a well documented description of what constitutes educology as described and exemplified by scholars who identify as educologists and produce educology. Third, the contention that educology “appears to be a nonnotable fringe theory” mischaracterizes the article. A careful reading reveals that the article does not argue that educology is a theory. Rather, the article clearly states that educology is not a theory and that it is the fund of knowledge about the educational process. The fund of knowledge includes empirical facts, explanatory theories and normative arguments. The article states that the fund is produced by careful, disciplined research (educological inquiry) about the educational process, including research about the essential elements of education and the mutual effects of its elements upon each other. And the article notes that the role of theory within educological discourse is to provide terms, explanations and justifications which can be used to guide, clarify and organize educological discourse and that theories within educological discourse compete with each other about how and why education works in the way that it does, how education should be conducted and what purposes education does and should serve. Critical pedagogy, for example, is one of those theories which competes in educological discourse with other educological theories about the proper purpose of the educational process and proper ways to teach, study and learn. Fourth, it is not true that “a search on Google Scholar reveals the word is seldom mentioned in the academic literature.” A search of the term “educology” on Google Scholar reveals over 4000 results. Given these four points, given the substantial 64 year old history of educological literature, beginning with the publications by Lowry Harding (1951), given the number of universities which have departments, schools, colleges and/or institutes of educology and given the number of scholars around the world who have contributed to educological literature over these past 64 years (and in spite of the many people who have not read and assimilated any of this literature or use the term “educology” in their discourse), it would seem reasonable to conclude that the Educology article satisfies the criteria for WP:GNG and that the article should remain on Wikipedia. To delete the article would certainly be a loss to Wikipedia readers who want to know about educology (1260 page views over the past 90 days). User:CalaEdwards 17:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind the reader that this editor is essentially the sole author of the article. Why don't scholars who do not identify as educologists acknowledge the existence of the field? Why is this field separate from educational psychology or pedagogy? Universities have departments of education, not educology - why? Why do textbooks like this one not even mention the word? Crossroads1 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note CalaEdwards has been confirmed to be using sockpuppets in this discussion, by creating the alternate account Ukambani to vote "keep" below. ST47 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I keep coming back to this. I don't feel comfortable !voting at this stage, so just a few thoughts that I may come back and update. There are a lot of sources, and enough that appear to be secondary that I might wind up on the keep side, but I'd want to take a closer look. Wikipedia has in the past been used to promote academic ideas based on walled gardens of sources. If it were the case, for example, that there were lots of sources but all of them were published in journals about Educology, there would be a good case for considering it a fringe theory. We would not, of course, have an article on some creation science topic if it were covered only in journals of creation science with no mainstream scientific coverage -- we need sources published by those who don't have an invested interest in the subject. It does appear there are some of those independent sources here, but again, it would take time to dig in given the size of the article. Another potential red flag is that the article itself isn't a Wikipedia article; it's some blend between textbook and essay. It seems to be making an argument for educology while presenting various principles in a systematic way (as with a textbook, rather than summarizing in prose as Wikipedia does). That, combined with it being largely a product of a single user, has at times in the past been connected to OR/promotion (but again, that's not to say that's happening here -- it could also be the good faith product of a user that has not yet learned how Wikipedia articles are typically written). This is a complicated case, I think, that would take some amount of effort for someone not otherwise familiar with this subject to evaluate these sources, so I would hope that this would be relisted rather than just closed as keep based on the first few !votes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to bring to attention this paper which discusses the work of Hardng, (by the way, citing the earliest publication yet, Anthology of Educology, 1951) and the use of educology as a term, which they think has merit. This paper is from Singapore, so no connection with University of Indiana or US proponents of the term, and is published in a jounal other than the IJE. SpinningSpark 16:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, the authors of that paper seem to not have actually read the books they are referencing. Copying from the discussion at FTN, Elizabeth Steiner admits that Harding's earlier references are joking and describes the coining of the term she uses starting here on p. 14. jps (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this trivial latinogreek bastardisation by an uneducated coterie; Andragogy, and Pedagogy, are well established alternatives to this WP:REFBOMB. Comparatively this has more sections, references, and content, than both Andragogy, and Pedagogy, combined; it's like it's trying to use verbosity to validate itself. It isn't even WP:NEUTRAL; Andragogy is not gender-biased (man, human, woman, huwoman, wohuman,..so much for "equality"). -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The meaning of the term 'educology', when used seriously, which Harding did not thusly use, refers to and makes significant, knowledge about something. And, the something is the social process involved in the educational process as it is practiced in public and private schools, as well as other social institutions in developing democracies in the world. The question being asked and attempted to be answered about educology, generally in philosophy of knowledge, i.e. in epistemology, is the one that has been asked in the modern era of science and philosophy. It is the question "Is knowledge about anything possible?" In respect to philosophy of educology, the question becomes "Is knowledge about the educational process possible?" i.e. "Is educology possible?" Consider the epistemological answer in philosophy of educology to be the answer: "Knowledge about the educational process is not possible", i.e. the answer "Educology is not possible" By implication, then, the consequence of such an answer is ignorance. Without knowledge, i.e. with ignorance, about the educational process, democracies in the world cannot succeed. They depend on such knowledge to understand how to educate their people to succeed in keeping themselves alive and well. The article in Wikipedia is one in which is presented a positive answer, i.e. that "knowledge about the educational process is possible," i.e. that "educology is possible." Implicit in the article is the perspective that, basically, there are three such modern era positive answers; (1) an analytical philosophy of educology positive answer; (2) a phenomenological philosophy of educology positive answer, and; (3) an experiential philosophy of educology positive answer. Implicit in the article, then, are positive answers to the modern era philosophy and science question, i.e. the answer that educology is possible, hence, developing democracies can succeed by keeping their people educated, alive, and well. The article in Wikipedia keeps before people in developing democracies of the world the question "Is educology possible?" and the positive answer of "Yes." Those people, in developing democracies in the world, who want to delete the article are ones, probably unknowingly, i.e. probably ignorant, of the significance of the question and of a positive answer to the question. To them, the invitation is made, here, to engage themselves in the epistemologically oriented philosophy of educology question "Is educology possible?" Hence, rather than try to get the article deleted, become involved in this very serious philosophical question. To the "deletionists" the invitation includes imagining a negative answer to the question "Is educology possible?" i.e. imagining the answer being "Educology is not possible?" If such a negative answer is true, then, the question becomes "Can democracies in the world be kept alive and well?" And, to the "deletionists" the question to them, then, becomes the political philosophical question: "In the first fifth of the 21 century, do you recognize and acknowledge that democracies in the world are in danger of dying?" With such recognition and acknowledgement, it can be realized that what the democracies in the world need now is knowledge about the educational process, i.e. what the democracies in the world need now is educology. Such knowledge can provide an understanding of how to keep democracies in the world alive and well. "Delitionists," join in being philosophical, hence, join in asking and positively answering the epistemological question about educology. Stop trying to "delete" such a question and answer: Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisherjames (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Fisherjames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per User:Fisherjames exposing that this article is apparently being used to promote a particular POV (albeit a difficult one to follow). User:CalaEdwards has also been duplicitous claiming, absurdly, that educology was first developed in a book that was intentionally humorous (perhaps we should include this as an example in WP:BJAODN). This is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. I see no way to fix the situation by edits alone. WP:TNT seems reasonable, but I wouldn't go as far as to WP:SALT. jps (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that WP:SALT may be warranted if deletion does occur. The promoters of educology are clearly very determined; one of them links to the Wikipedia page to help legitimize the field. It would not surprise me for them to wait a while and attempt to sneakily recreate the article. Crossroads1 (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-emptive salting is not the best thing to do, necessarily, especially when I can imagine that a quick redirect to pedagogy or something like that may be warranted. If the page does get recreated out of process then we can ask for salting. jps (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In 1978 I began studying Educology at university under the guidance of Elizabeth Steiner and James Christensen. I found the analytic aspects of the study helpful in formulating and what was then my undergraduate thesis on the Individual and Education. I have also applied the discipline of the study to other lines of inquiry as a way to focus and organize my thoughts in an appropriately scholarly manner. While I have observed that over time, from Socrates to Dewey, the discipline of educational philosophy has moved between metaphysical, epistemological, ethical and political points of view with no one theory claiming victory, the study of Educology over the past four decades has produced useful insights into both practice and theory. I would hate to see this entry deleted, as it provides a useful window into this study along with pathways to further investigation. User:Ukambani 18:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Ukambani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. Nominator here. I would like to draw attention to WP:NFRINGE. My emphasis: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals—even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.... is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." All the references to educology both in the article and this discussion so far seem to be (1) by its promulgators, (2) obscure papers that are not 'extensive' discussions in 'major publications', (3) a few foreign usages of the word, which may simply be what 'education studies' is called in that language, not referring to the ideas of Steiner et al.; and/or at least some of which appear to be independent inventions of this neologism (such as this one). If anyone doubts that educology is a fringe field, I point out that it claims to be "the study of education," but that is already covered by educational sciences which "seek to describe, understand, and prescribe educational policy and practice" and pedagogy, the "theory and practice of education." As a thought experiment, if we were to WP:TNT but keep the article and rewrite it, what would we say about it? Reliable sources do not recognize the existence of the field. The fact we now have 3 SPAs showing up on this discussion makes this seem to be a clear case of WP:ADVOCACY. Crossroads1 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nominator here again. I just found WP:JUNK. Although it is just an essay, I think it fits this article perfectly. Crossroads1 (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crossroads1: Are you sure it's a junk? Could you explain? Masum Reza📞 23:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As others have mentioned, it is extremely long and in the wrong style, arguing from a pro-educology POV. If the subject was somehow notable, a brand new, shorter article would need to be written instead. As I mentioned before though, if you imagine that very scenario, there is essentially nothing to write about using RS. Crossroads1 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD discussions are not cleanup requests. Masum Reza📞 00:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD requires more evaluation and discussion. Aside from the nominator, there is only one non-SPA !vote on each side, and several of the keep !votes in particular appear to be either sockpuppets or canvassing. I'd ask other experienced editors to review the discussion and weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on WP:NOTWEBHOST grounds. Perhaps this is a notable subject, perhaps not, but the article is so badly malformed it's impossible to cut through to what's reliable and what's not. Considering the article has been significantly created by one user who does not appear to otherwise contribute to the project, I'm in favour of deleting completely and without prejudice if someone wants to take a crack at an actual article. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SportingFlyer's !vote just above and the WP:FRINGE concerns raised by the nominator. Moreover, the article reads like a copyvio, thanks to short phrases being lifted from primary sources ("phenomena within the educational process", "the fund of knowledge", "intentionally studies under guidance some content in some physical, social and cultural setting", etc. [6][7]), and the fact that what was not lifted lacks all distinguishing features. The text around the plagiarized phrases is like an interminable and opaque PowerPoint presentation with too many words on each slide. XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I've gone back and forth on this one. I have strong reservations about the article, as I explained above, but haven't felt comfortable deleting, so I was debating whether or not to remain neutral or suggest userfying, stopping short of WP:TNT since there's so much there. That's about where I was yesterday. But I see now that the user has been blocked after sockpuppeting in this thread. As that removes the possibility of userfication, and rather solidifies a bad faith approach to Wikipedia process, I'm now over on the weak delete side. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've struck my keep. Anyone resorting to sockpuppetry to defend an idea has lost all scholarly credence in my book. The entire article is consequently tainted. SpinningSpark 20:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it would be good to see how much wikireader interest in this topic/term there is before deleting it (ie. do/will ed students/academics come across this term in their readings?), anyway whether it is deleted (highly likely) or redirected somewhere agree that at present, the article reads like WP:PROMOTION and should, at the very least, be blown up and left as a couple of sentences only ie. "Educology is ... Educologists include (insert names of notables, if there are any). It is taught at (insert names of notable institutions)." the end. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NFRINGE. Nearly all the hits in databases I searched were to the above-mentioned International Journal of Educology; those that were not were to open-access journals that I would characterise as suspicious if not predatory. Nothing that could qualify as "substantial" coverage in sources independent of the field. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Educology&oldid=904353629"