The Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0022-0671 (Print) 1940-0675 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the

enhancement of educational practice

Mary F. Roe

To cite this article: Mary F. Roe (2017): The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and
the enhancement of educational practice, The Journal of Educational Research, DOI:
10.1080/00220671.2017.1362220

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1362220

Published online: 29 Sep 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20

Download by: [University of Prince Edward Island] Date: 04 October 2017, At: 11:48
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
2017, VOL. 0, NO. 0, 1
BOOK REVIEW
The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice, by Elliot W. Eisner, New York,
NY, Teachers College Press, 2017, 262 pp., $64.00 (paperback), ISBN-13: 978-0-13-531419-7
Eisner originally published The Enlightened Eye in 1991. At that
time it received very positive reviews from such eminent
teacher education scholars as Jean Clandinin. This reissue fol-
lows Eisner’s death in 2014 and maintains the original text ver-
batim. The only exceptions include a new foreword by Nel
Noddings and a new prologue by P. B. Uhrmacher (whom Eis-
ner noted as contributing to the original text) and Christy
Downloaded by [University of Prince Edward Island] at 11:48 04 October 2017
McConnell Moroye. This review, therefore, holds in mind that
some readers will have the original text as part of their profes-
sional library whereas others will receive an introduction to it
with this edition. Although I read this text when it first
appeared, I base this review on a fresh reading, interweaving a
characterization of its content with a consideration of its cur-
rent relevance. Eisner frequently referred to contextual varia-
tions in his text. Considering his words in light of this 2017
context for this review seems in keeping with Eisner’s stance.
Eisner stated two hopes for his text. The first involved assert-
ing the importance of qualitative inquiry and promoting its
acceptance by the wider educational community. When first
published, the qualitative–quantitative debate raged. These ongo-
ing conversations generally placed qualitative options on the
defensive. Without question, Eisner’s supportive stance mattered
and greatly contributed to a softening of concerns and more
receptivity to qualitative work. In 2017, although strong positions
still remain that pitch quantitative and qualitative designs in
oppositional ways, more often they coexist in relative harmony.
Mixed methods often trump one option over another and con-
tribute to the robust findings for complex questions that Eisner
would applaud. This forward movement lessens a need to per-
suade an audience to welcome qualitative methods and makes
the many pages of this text devoted to it less timely. The sections
that remain “enlightening” and relevant include characterizations
of the attributes of qualitative design, examples of the rich infor-
mation that qualitative work affords, and Eisner’s references to
classic examples of ethnographic work. Eisner’s promotion of
heuristics over algorithms, rich explanation of generalization,
proposal of six features of qualitative work, and ongoing atten-
tion to what makes qualitative work meritorious offer a sampling
of important contributions to the conduct of qualitative work.
His many caveats, especially around a propensity to standardize
rather than respond and specify rather than select, deserve ongo-
ing attention. As one example, following a listing of four dimen-
sions of educational criticism, he cautioned against considering
them as a prescribed sequence. He simply and straightforwardly
stated, “This is not the case” (p. 88). His caveats join other
important points that assume increased importance for 2017.
His insistent request to consider contextual variables when aggre-
gating data, analyzing them, and proffering recommendations
could not be more timely. He also acknowledged the complexity
that accompanies educational concerns and the benefits accrued
when numerous explanatory structures receive attention. Nuggets
of wisdom simply abound throughout this text and remain
invaluable today.
Eisner’s intention, however, did not stop with the promotion
and interrogation of qualitative work. His second and wider
hope involved the improvement of educational practice. The
breadth of empirical work that qualitative designs provided
afforded a means to this goal. He viewed these two goals
(expanding research options and impacting teaching and learn-
ing) as linked. As previously mentioned, Eisner promoted the
benefits that accrue from applying a range of views and
approaches to a complex range of educational questions that
arise.
In summary, Eisner would be pleased with the ongoing
upticks of a receptivity for a range of qualitative designs and
the appearance of qualitative research in texts and journal
articles in highly regarded outlets. These shifts in regard for
qualitative work allow researchers to minimize advocacy and
pay more attention to the rigor that well-done qualitative work
demands. The sections of Eisner’s text that provide guidelines,
explanations, and caveats regarding qualitative techniques and
attributes, therefore, contribute to these features and warrant
ongoing consideration. They remain timeless.
First-time readers of this text will have much to ponder and
apply. Others rereading this text or well versed in qualitative
research will find many ideas to affirm and historical support
for them. A 2017 publication date neither adds nor detracts
from this text’s importance. The Enlightened Eye as published
in 1991 withstood the test of time. Too few texts can make this
claim. Its reissue does not increase this text’s well-deserved
regard. Its value perhaps stems from the possibility of reviving
an interest in Eisner’s ideas and extending his influence to a
wider (and younger) set of scholars. If that occurs, then Uhr-
macher and Moroye deserve our gratitude.
Mary F. Roe
mfroe@wsu.edu
Washington State University
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1362220