This paper historicizes “rigour”, discipline” and “systematic” as inventions of a certain rational spirit of Enlightenment that was radicalized during the 19th century. The paper first engages “rigour”, “discipline” and “systematic” as historical terms or principles that acquired value only temporarily in a phase of transition during the 19th century when a nationally oriented and systematic culture of research was established as part of a modern episteme. Around 1900 this development was already perceived as problematic, triggering much criticism from philosophy and the arts, and even within the sciences. “Discipline”, “rigor” and “systematic” then were attacked as alienating principles, and it was scientific research in particular that was critiqued by philosophers as being divorced from lived experience and the meaning of human life (see, e.g., Feyerabend, 1975). The ongoing competitive spirit between the humanities and the sciences may testify to a mixed or even divided attitude towards “discipline”, “rigor” and “systematic” within educational research. For example, objectivity a component of rigour has been staunchly critiqued by feminist philosophers of science (Daston & Galison, 2007; Harding, 2015). After historicizing the terms, our paper highlights historical shifts in epistemology, examining new paradigms of research such as transdisciplinarity, constructivism, actor-network-theory, and new materialisms. These newer approaches stress the productivity of scientific collaboration across so-called disciplines, question the relationship of rigor to objectivity, and strive to overcome the divide between nature and intellect, or material and spiritual worlds. New technologies of data collection and analysis are now perceived as promising philosophical opportunities for educational research. In the process, concepts of “rigor” and “discipline” have been translated into new epistemological frameworks. For example, big data are now being used to reach out to new dimensions of research that stress horizontal and entangled relationships rather than older types of hierarchical knowledge creation. An example of such epistemological change can be seen in recent shifts in conceptualizations of validity from inferential models to big data (Cf., failures of recent political polling models to predict elections). Finally, the paper looks at some new digitally inspired paradigms in the humanities and in educational research while stressing historical changes in the constructions of rigour and discipline. We conclude by imagining how the digital humanities can be seen as creative endeavours that deal with big data in horizontal, additive and subversive ways to enrich and broaden the idea of disciplinary order, rigor and systematic hierarchies for educational philosophy.

Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Fendler, L. (2016). Ethical implications of validity-vs-reliability trade-offs in educational research. Ethics and Education, 11(2): 214-229. Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. Max Planck institute for the history of science: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and diversity: Another logic of scientific research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ketelaar, E. (2007). Archives in the digital age: New uses of an old science. Archives & Social Studies: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Research,1: 167-191. Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Priem, K. (2000). Bildung im Dialog. Cologne: Boehlau. Priem, K. and Fendler, L. (2016) 'Rationale Trennung' oder 'Marriage d´Amour'? Zum Verhältnis von Geschichte und Philosophie in der Erziehungswissenschaft in Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 5. Schwartz, J.M. and Cook, T. (2002). Archives, records and power: The making of modern memory. Archival Science 1-19. Terra Cognita: Graduate Students in the Archives. Council on Library and Information Resources. May 1916.