Search

Sam Hillyard's (2010) recent article has the value of highlighting the issue of theory development in interactionism, ethnography, and the sociology of education. It also reminds of a fruitful, and unique, research programme in educational research that stretched from the early 1960s into the 1990s. However, in the author's view Hillyard's discussion is misleading in several respects. Some of these are specific points of historical, textual, or conceptual inaccuracy. Others relate to the issue of theory development, and her criticisms of the author's evaluation of this research programme 25 years ago (Hammersley, 1985). In this article, the author contends that while Hillyard's article serves the function of highlighting issues that continue to be important, its contribution is blighted by some important misinterpretations and failings. It seems to demonstrate that there has been little collective progress made in dealing with these issues since the path-breaking work of Lacey and Hargreaves that she rightly celebrates. (Contains 2 notes.)

There are some important ambiguities in discussions about the implications of "evidence-based practice", both for educational research and for the work of teachers. In this paper we explore several of these through examining the Evidence-based Practice in Science Education (EPSE) study--part of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP), a major UK research initiative that is explicitly committed to improving the contribution of educational research to policymaking and practice. The field of science education is in some ways a critical case, given that the notion of evidence-based practice treats scientific research as a privileged source of evidence. We examine the assumptions built into the EPSE study, and how these relate to the classical medical model of evidence-based practice, and to some other approaches to educational research that are concerned with closing the gap with practice. (Contains 14 notes.)

In their rejoinder to our article about their work on evidence-based science education, Millar "et al." (2008) claim that we misrepresented their position, and that our argument was false or unclear in key respects. In this brief reply we argue that their criticisms are misdirected, and that they fail to engage in the sort of dialogue that is necessary if the important problems surrounding the relationship between research and educational practice are to be resolved.

The core idea of action research is that there should be an intimate relationship between inquiry and practical or political activities. A challenge to this idea based on an influential ancient Greek hierarchy between theoria and praxis is examined. The contrary, pragmatist, notion that all inquiry arises out of human activity is accepted, but not the instrumentalism sometimes derived from it. Research must be treated as operating on the same plane as any other activity, but the relationship between the two will always be less than isomorphic, and this creates the prospect of severe tensions. These can be managed contextually in two ways: by subordinating inquiry, or by making it primary. Both are legitimate, but any attempt to treat the two components of action research as equal faces contradiction.

Criticizes the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Great Britain for its Marxist bias. The Centre's publications are critiqued and their underlying Marxist assumptions revealed. (AM)