This paper analyzes the decision to close the high school section of a rural district school in Kingston, a small Australian wheat belt town, using two competing ethical frameworks — utilitarianism and deontology — and two contrasting research methodologies. The paper first outlines the socioeconomic decline of Kingston and the rationale behind transferring secondary students to a regional center sixty kilometers away. It then traces the philosophical roots of utilitarian and deontological thought, from Aristotle and Aquinas through Kant and Mill, applying each framework to the closure decision. Finally, it compares a quantitative survey study of community attitudes with a qualitative grounded-theory investigation focused on mothers, evaluates the strengths and limitations of both approaches, and recommends ways to combine methodologies for more robust future research.
It is always difficult to make decisions that involve closing public services, most especially when those services concern public education. However, a fiscally responsible government must have guidelines and has promised to spend the public's dollars wisely. Our analysis revolves around Kingston, a small wheat belt town about 60 km from the nearest regional centre, Beeganup. Kingston is quite isolated but is able to communicate and receive regular transportation of freight, sundries, and other goods. The population is listed as just over 1,100, but almost half are residents on rural farms surrounding the township.
Unfortunately, the trend in Kingston reflects both a diaspora and a decline. The local weekly newspaper had to fold due to lack of funding, local residents travel to Beeganup for fresh produce, healthcare, and professional services, and farms are consolidating as young people move outside the community. Even with efforts at an entrepreneurial resurgence, it is clear the town is no longer self-sufficient and provides little more than a political centre for its residents.
The school is a district-based, all-encompassing organization serving children between the ages of 5 and 15. It has been operational since 1960, employs locals for assistance and maintenance, and has remained one of the central hubs of the community. The school currently serves 118 students, with only 22 in the upper levels. Most classes are grouped and handled by 12 primary and 7 secondary teachers. The administration has combined courses and teacher loads creatively to cater to the needs of the students. Based on statistics from 1995 to 1999, however, the decision was made to close the high school section of the school, allowing the pre-primary and primary sections to continue operating with current staff. Students in Years 8 to 10 will need to be bussed 60 km to Beeganup Senior High School, adding one to one-and-a-half hours to each leg of the day. This decision was vigorously protested but was upheld by the National and Regional Education Departments based on student-to-staff ratios and enrollment trends (see Appendix 1 for Kingston School enrollment data).
The community is naturally upset, believing they had not only been inadequately consulted, but that the school is so vital to community life that any decision potentially detrimental to the overall good would be tragic. Letters to the editor reflect a public ready to fight the closure by all possible means. Most community members see the decision as one made from a central government standpoint, purely for fiscal and political reasons (Sheedy, 1999).
Even prior to the formalization of the terms utilitarianism and deontology, the core ideas of each have been debated for centuries. The Ancient Greeks argued over the needs of the individual as opposed to the needs of the state, and throughout history generals and heads of state have had to balance ends against means. At the center of this debate is the notion that many remain dissatisfied with the definition of "good" or "appropriate" being at the whim of a particular social order or ruling elite. This debate may be found in Aristotle, Socrates, and Aquinas, leading to more contemporary political notions from Locke, Kant, and even Martin Luther King, Jr.1
Forming the core of the modern argument, Aquinas argued that there were certain universal behaviors ordained by the Divine as either right or wrong. Hobbes and Locke differed, putting forth the notion that there were natural rights — or "states of nature" — but disagreed on the controlling factors of those natural tendencies. Kant took this further and argued that a state or society must be organized according to laws and justice that are universally true, available, and, most importantly, justified by humanity. For Kant, these laws should respect the equality, freedom, and autonomy of citizens. In this way, Kant prescribed that basic rights were necessary for civil society, and his work becomes a rubric by which we may understand modern utilitarian principles and their interdependence with the concept of human rights (Haydn, 2001).
In general, utilitarianism is an ethical system most often attributed to John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, both nineteenth-century social philosophers commenting on conditions arising from the Industrial Revolution. Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical action is any action that will maximize happiness within an organization or society. Actions have quantitative outcomes, and the ethical choices that lead to the "greatest good for the greatest number" are the appropriate decisions, even if that means subsuming the rights of certain individuals (Troyer, 2003, pp. 256–62). It is considered a consequentialist outlook in the sense that, while outcomes cannot be predicted with certainty, the judgment of an action is based on its outcome — or, "the ends justify the means" (Groves, 2003).
Deontology is a compatible but alternative ethical system that has its roots in Ancient Greece yet is most often attributed to Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher writing approximately a century before Mill and Bentham. Where utilitarianism focuses on outcomes, deontology holds that the actions themselves must be ethical and moral, or the outcome is moot. Deontology argues that there are norms and truths universal to all humans; actions therefore have a predisposition toward right or wrong, moral or immoral. Kant believed that humans should act, at all times, as if their individual actions would have consequences for all of society. Morality, then, is based on rational thought and reflects the direction most humans innately desire. Roughly stated, deontology holds that "the means justify the ends" (Kamm, 2007).
The basic research question is whether the high school portion of the school should be closed and those students transferred to Beeganup High School. Viewed logically, several reasons support both a pro-closure and anti-closure stance. On the pro-closure side: tax revenues from the area do not support keeping the school open for all grades; it is more fiscally responsible to send students to Beeganup; students will have greater social and academic opportunities at the larger school; moving the high school to Beeganup will allow greater focus on early and middle grades at Kingston; quality of education in Kingston may actually improve as teachers can concentrate on preparing students for advanced work; and because of funding, Beeganup offers more extracurricular opportunities. On the anti-closure side: moving high schoolers out of the area will disrupt the community; community taxes should continue funding community systems; students are comfortable with their classmates; the commute is too long and will disrupt family and work life; community members were not part of this political decision; and some parents will send all their children to Beeganup, further diminishing the remaining school's viability.
Two researchers — Brian and Peggy — find this situation compelling from both a philosophical and pedagogical perspective. Among their early discussions with their advisor is the philosophical problem at the heart of the matter: who is served by the closure? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? And would the older students' educational needs in fact be far better served by the change? Brian takes a utilitarian approach, finding a way to view the decision optimistically and focusing on the best possible outcome for all concerned. Peggy takes a deontological approach, arguing that if the change harms even one student, it presents an unacceptable moral risk.
On the specific issue of funding, Brian reasons that because the community does not generate enough revenue to support the school, funding must come from elsewhere — a rational decision. Peggy counters that the community funds the school through legally established taxes and levies and cannot control a population drop. On transportation, Brian sees the commute as productive time for reading and homework; Peggy views one-and-a-half to two hours of daily travel as unacceptable for students and their families. On academic opportunity, Brian believes a larger school provides greater preparation for university; Peggy worries that students will become lost in large classrooms with a less favorable student-to-teacher ratio. Ultimately, neither side can definitively state whether students' futures will be better or worse; arguments exist for both positions, and the solution may prove quite positive for some students and less so for others. Clearly, further research is needed to balance the fiscal, ethical, moral, and social dimensions.
"Two researchers, two contrasting methodologies"
Brian recognizes that residents' attitudes will likely vary based on factors such as the ages of their children, their length of residence in the community, and their educational level. He incorporates these factors into his questionnaire design and implements a simple pre- and post-assessment. Since no official announcement has yet been made, he hurries to administer the pre-test to the 52 individuals who have agreed to participate. Unfortunately, significant media and political attention emerges during the study period. In August, the Minister of Education formally announces the closure of the high school. Brian returns in early October to collect his post-test data, then synthesizes both assessments in SPSS and begins his analysis.
Peggy was born into a farming family in a wheat belt town 150 km from Beeganup. She attended local primary school but went to the city for her secondary education. She completed a degree in history and education and has 15 years of practical teaching experience in both rural and urban schools. She has completed the coursework for her Master's in Education and is seeking an appropriate thesis topic. Her research interests focus on the influence of local communities on educational change. Peggy hears about Brian's project and the school closure and believes a qualitative approach is most appropriate for this situation. She follows the passionate arguments in the editorial pages and becomes convinced there is an important story to tell. Her advisor agrees and works with Peggy to develop a qualitative approach — either ethnographic or narrative research. Peggy visits the town in November, meets with a group of townspeople, and immediately notices that the mothers hold markedly different views from other residents. She uses this observation to develop a grounded theory of the school closure's social impact, focusing particularly on its effects on mothers and children.
Peggy visits Kingston in December and interviews three mothers as well as other community members. She returns in February to formally interview an additional ten mothers, and again in March to follow up. By April she has completed her final set of interviews, and in May she synthesizes her grounded theory findings.
Both Brian and Peggy are far enough along in their careers and intellectual development to understand the complex relationship between data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Their individual supervisors remind them that, while the two are taking different approaches, the scientific method still applies to both. They decide to meet and review their methodologies, discussing the differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches.
The term scientific method refers to a way of investigation or the acquisition of knowledge through the testing of a theory or hypothesis, working through measurements — observation and empirical notes — to arrive at a result that proves or disproves the original theory. The basic method consists of: (a) formulating a question or hypothesis, (b) designing an experiment or means of collecting data, (c) observation or experimentation, (d) analyzing the results and considering the proof or disproof of the hypothesis, and (e) suggesting directions for future research (Cary, 2003).
The basis for this methodology is a shared framework that all sciences can adopt in order to communicate accurately across disciplines. For instance, procedures and methods may differ between anthropology and chemistry, but the basic outline of research methods should be sufficiently consistent that practitioners in both fields can trust the robustness of each other's results. This also allows researchers across varying fields to remain objective when dealing with empirical and observable behavior, and to keep opinion and bias out of the research (Hatton, 1996). The scientific method did not emerge overnight; it evolved over centuries as a means not only of facilitating communication between disciplines but also of propelling the history of science forward. Within the scientific method, however, there are those who believe only numbers tell the complete story, and those who believe that numbers tell only part of a story.
In its most basic form, quantitative data is information that can be measured by numbers or numerical values. Quantitative inquiry is a method used in scientific research to gather and analyze data in a logical and provable manner. Qualitative research takes a less numerical and more open-ended approach; it investigates the why and how of decision-making, whereas quantitative research focuses more on the what, where, and when — all of which are numerically measurable. One method is not inherently superior to the other; the appropriate choice depends entirely on the hypothesis being tested (Cresswell, 2003).
Qualitative research is often used to form hypotheses and narrow questions prior to studying data quantitatively. For example, a focus group might examine a specific behavioral pattern related to a cultural event, generating judgments, remarks, and opinions — all qualitative. The researcher then uses this qualitative data to form additional hypotheses and to develop a more quantitative approach. Typically, quantitative research uses larger samples that can be statistically analyzed and verified, while qualitative research uses smaller samples that may be used to generate more generalized insights (Ibid.).
Once data is collected, quantitative analysis typically uses statistical tools to identify patterns most representative of the population under study. Results are analyzed, synthesized, and completed — often peer-reviewed and published — then debated and, more often than not, used as a springboard for additional hypothesis testing. As more research accumulates in a given area, changes in attitudes and lines of inquiry naturally occur, all as part of the evolution of science (Patton, 2002).
Peggy and Brian realize that while their approaches are fundamentally different, so are their assumptions about the community, the situation, and the intended focus of their research. Peggy is interested in a combination of anthropological and sociological perspectives; she wants to tell the story of an event that may seem small but, in her view, carries larger-than-life repercussions for individuals. Brian sees the picture in a broader, more political sense, recognizing that public policy may not always favor the few but that the greater good of society must prevail as fairness to all. They agree that they have returned, essentially, to their utilitarian versus deontological argument.
Brian's pre-test was designed to establish the basic values of the community — trust, agreement, malaise, and whether the community as a whole feels it has the power to influence the decision to close the high school. The values measured fell into two dimensions: cohesion versus fragmentation, and powerlessness versus sense of control. These were translated into tabulated survey results and verified through post-testing. Three interviews were also completed to help refine the questions.
"Survey and interview findings from Kingston"
"Strengths, gaps, and paths to better research"
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.