Search

Furlong and Oancea's influential framework for assessing the products of applied and practice-based educational inquiry raises some important issues about the criteria by which research should be judged. They begin by outlining the current significance of the issue, and some of the uncertainties surrounding the definition of applied and practice-based inquiry. They then present four sets of criteria by which such research can be assessed, covering, in shorthand terms, epistemic, technical, practical and economic dimensions. The issue of assessment criteria has recently been highlighted by public criticism of the quality of educational research, by attempts to incorporate qualitative work into systematic reviews, as well as by the continuing disputes generated by major methodological divisions among qualitative researchers. In this article, several aspects of the framework offered by Furlong and Oancea are examined. To start with, there is a discussion of the mode of argument they employ, and of how they define "applied and practice-based educational research". It is argued that explicit justification is not presented for some key, and controversial, elements of the argument. One of these is the idea that a new social contract is required between educational researchers and the funders and non-academic users of their work. The nature of the proposed contract is examined, through a discussion of to whom educational researchers should be accountable, how, and for what. It is argued that the typology of research offered by Furlong and Oancea is inadequate, and an alternative is proposed. The ways that the authors formulate the four sets of criteria by which research should be judged are also examined in some detail. It is suggested that there are potentially serious conflicts amongst these criteria, and that by no means all of them are appropriate standards in terms of which educational researchers, of any kind, should be held accountable. (Contains 10 notes.)

In a previous article, Phil Hodkinson argued that there are currently attempts to impose a methodological orthodoxy on educational research, one that is empiricist in character and privileges quantitative method. While agreeing with much of what he says, I take issue with key elements of his argument. I suggest that he presents too rosy a picture of the existing state of educational research, question his apparent advocacy of a laissezfaire approach to its governance, and argue that he underplays the significant role that methodological rules can play in shaping the practice of research in desirable ways. I suggest that his approach is likely to reinforce paradigmatic fragmentation in the research community, and that this weakens any attempt to resist the internal and external pressures that currently threaten to damage or destroy educational research in the UK, and elsewhere.

States that production of systematic research findings has recently come to be treated as a priority in education. Examines assumptions about research and about reviewing that are built into the concept of systematic review. Gives attention to likely consequences of the priority given to this type of review. (BT)

Addresses some of the recent criticism aimed at educational research, its failure to provide a sound base for teaching or to generate a cumulative body of knowledge. Answers that there is always a dichotomy between research and application and argues that restrictions would only worsen the situation. (MJP)

Critically assesses the methodology and conclusions of two British studies concerning gender imbalances in classroom participation. Finds the studies' generalizations too broad, and suggests that type of teacher attention would be more influential than quantity of attention, which these studies observed. Recommends a more cumulative development of ethnographic work in educational research. (CH)

Examines Peter Woods' argument for "phase two" ethnographic research which involves"leaps of (theoretical) imagination" and "hypothesis formation and testing." Concludes that current theories are not improved upon and that instead of further research, major reassessment and reconstruction of ethnographic practice must take place to facilitate the cumulative development of theory. (GEA)

Replying to Woods' analysis of his original critique, Hammersley lists four points of disagreement: (1) what counts as theory development; (2) phases of theory development; (3) the nature of theory testing; and (4) whether theory development and testing is an achievable goal. (GEA)

Notes that problems of measurement in educational research are often addressed by using the terms validity and reliability. Discusses the meaning given to these terms and how they relate to the aims of the measurement process in educational research. (RKM)

Examines the impact that public examinations of students has upon teaching. The four-year study raises questions about the current assumption that public examinations cause fact-transmission teaching. Uses timings of teacher and pupil talk to examine teaching on a range of different types of courses. (GEA)

The article discusses conceptual issues and dilemmas associated with use of the terminology of reliability and validity in reference to measurement in the area of educational research. Various different definitions of reliability and validity employed in academic literature are presented. An example is the definition of reliability as the agreement between two efforts to measure the same trait through maximally similar methods. Validity would then be defined as represented in the agreement between two attempts to measure the same trait through maximally different methods. The author proposes definitions of validity, precision and reliability as goals of the measurement process, to be distinguished from the strategies used to achieve them.

The article examines Peter Woods' argument for phase two ethnographic research. He argues the importance of phase two work which cultivates "leaps of imagination." It is important to shift from merely descriptive to sensitizing concepts, to develop and fill in existing theory and to formulate new theories. Moreover, Wood also sees phase two studies as involving hypothesis formation and testing and the process of analytic induction. Ethnography can contribute to certain theoretical areas as a corrective. Woods also stresses the importance of creative generation of theoretical ideas.