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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 laissez-faire 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concern with the dissemination of research findings has increased in recent years, in the wake of critiques of research for failing to have an impact on policy-making and practice. The most direct way in which research findings can be disseminated to a wide audience is via the mass media. However, coverage of social and educational research in the media is very limited. Furthermore, when it is covered researchers often complain that their work has been distorted. This article examines some of the media coverage of an Office for Standards in Education commissioned review of research on the education of ethnic minority children, published in 1996. Analysis of this media coverage is used as a basis for addressing questions about what is involved in media representation of research, how it should be evaluated, and what meaning can be given to the concept of distortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The production of 'systematic' reviews of research findings has recently come to be treated as a priority in the field of education, and other areas too. Such reviews are believed to play an important role in making evidence from research available in a usable form to policy-makers and practitioners. This article examines the assumptions about research, and about the task of reviewing, which are built into the concept of systematic review. In addition, attention is given to the likely consequences of the priority now being given to this type of review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responds to the criticisms by David Hargreaves of educational research. Failings of educational research in relation to teaching; Recommendations for the role of teachers in educational research; Discussion of educational research as non-cumulative; Comparison of educational research with medicine.

Presents a report by education professionals and officials in Great Britain as a case showing the misuse of the findings of educational research. Analysis of the report titled, `Curriculum Organisation and Practice in Primary Schools: A Discussion Document'; Selective and over-interpretation of evidence; Relationship between the findings of research and educational practice.

Provides a methodological assessment of work on imbalances in classroom participation between girls and boys. Rationale for the research focus; Empirical contributions on information about differential male-female participation rates; Percentage of turns at talk and words spoken by girls and boys.

This article examines claims made about the influence of public examinations on teaching, and reviews the empirical research in this area. The prevailing view among educationalists, teachers and researchers seems to be that public examinations encourage teaching that involves a high level of fact-transmission. Though there has been much debate about this issue, what little research there has been is inconclusive. We report the findings of a four year study of examinations and teaching. Using timings of teacher and pupil talk, we examine teaching on a range of different types of assessed and non-assessed courses. Strong claims cannot be made on the basis of our data, but our research does raise questions about the current orthodoxy that public examinations cause fact-transmission teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The article responds to comments made by author Peter Woods on the author's article about ethnography research. The four elements of theoretical development in the ethnography of schooling are the addition of new concepts and relations, the clarification of concepts and relations, the development and testing of measures and hypothesis testing. The phases of theoretical development are abduction, deduction and induction. The author disagrees with Woods about the prescription of long-term phases of description, formulation and testing. There are two elements of Woods' argument about the practicality of theory-setting. The first element is whether theory testing is possible in principle. The other element refers to the state of funding of the sociology of education.

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 comments on the paper "The Outsider's Arrogance: The Failure of Participant Observers to Understand Classroom Events," by David McNamara, which offers a critique of some recent ethnographic research on schools as of 1980. He argues that, as a result of a combination of arrogance and naivety, many researchers draw unjustified conclusions from their data, generate convoluted accounts of classroom process, and as a result produce research which is invalid, and is of little use to teachers. While the critique touches on important issues, it failed to establish its claims. McNamara did not manage to show that alternative explanations are to be preferred for the data he quotes. Despite complaints about educational research, many teachers do welcome an outsider's view.

Replies to the comment made by Barry Troyna on the alleged adoption of `methodological purism' in educational research by Roger Gomm, Peter Foster and the author. Absolute proof demanded by the methodological purist; Judgement of claims based on plausibility in relation to knowledge and credibility in relation to judgments; Initial assumption of researchers that critics are behaving reasonably.