In Praise Of Educational Research

British Educational Research Journal Vol. 29, No. 5, October 2003

Editorial—‘In Praise Of Educational Research’

We sought, for this 2003 special issue of the British Educational Research Journal, to celebrate some of the best recent education research. And, in our opinion, the eight papers in this issue suggest that we have been successful. All of the papers submitted in response to the call were sent via standard BERJ procedures to two expert referees and one of the editors. Referees were asked to comment on the quality and readability of the piece as usual, but were, in addition, asked to comment on their fit to the theme for this special issue. The responses about the fit to the theme for the eight pieces published here were unanimous. The papers represent some of the best of education research. Of course, these eight can only provide a snapshot of the work going on in education research, and they represent simply a subset of what was ready for publication at the time of this special issue. Some authors may, understandably, have been too modest to put their work forward for ‘praise’ (and it may be of interest in this context to note that two thirds of the authors are men). Several potential authors felt that their work was not yet quite ready, and others felt that theirs had already received sufficient attention. So the issue represents either new work previously unreported, or else summaries of programmes of work, spanning decades in some cases. Even so, probably the first conclusion to be drawn from this exercise is that we had no difficulty at all in filling this issue with responses to the call for reports of high quality studies. This is particularly significant in light of recent high-profile criticisms of the quality and relevance of (UK) education research. In his 1990 book ‘In praise of sociology’ Gordon Marshall argued that the best sociological research in the UK was rigorous, methodologically sophisticated, politically unbiased, of considerable value to society, and highly respected in the world at large. However, sociological research was, at that time, ridiculed by the media and politicians, and ‘regularly caricatured as left-wing rhetoric masquerading as scholarship’. He therefore set out to demonstrate the importance of UK sociology for understanding society. The similarities with UK educational research in the 21st century are noteworthy (and the word ‘educational’ could simply replace the word ‘sociological’ in the first paragraph). Similar issues and debates have arisen in many countries (see Shavelson & Towne 2001). As a field we have suffered blanket criticism from some informed, and some relatively uninformed, sources and have, as a consequence, acquired something of a public image problem. The OFSTED report by Tooley and Darby (1998) was critical of much educational research, but it also rightly praised many of the pieces it encountered in a brief sweep of the literature. However, the press, other reports and comments by OFSTED mentioned only the criticisms. Perhaps, therefore, educational ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/03/050619–03 2003 British Educational Research Association DOI: 10.1080/0141192032000133640

620

Editorial

researchers need occasionally to ‘trumpet’ their successes in the way advocated and implemented by Marshall for sociology. This is what we hope these eight papers help to achieve. In future, when policy-makers ask why they should fund education research, perhaps at least part of the answer would be to say ‘Have you seen the 2003 special issue of BERJ’? Of course, each paper can only be a starting point for further reading. They are not, and were not intended to be, full reviews of their field. We insisted, as befits a research-based journal, that each paper provide method and findings as well as context and implications. It is interesting to observe that six of the eight papers use and advocate combining the approaches traditionally referred to as ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’. What these large and powerful studies seem to do, almost as a matter of course, is to use a variety of datasets in a relatively unproblematic way. Nevertheless, the papers as a group raise a number of relevant research capacity-building issues for further discussion. Laurence Moore, Ann Graham and Ian Diamond in their study of the effectiveness of a teacher-led sex education intervention, demonstrate that it is perfectly feasible to conduct experimental type work in schools. They argue that such experiments need to be complex, theoretically-informed and multi-method, but that in the end we need to know whether the intervention works or not. Peter Tymms and Robert Coe, in outlining the work of the Curriculum Evaluation and Management Centre, also argue that appropriate experimental designs are necessary to discover what works. However, in our current state of relative ignorance they advocate concentrating on simple and relatively easily tested interventions. Peter Blatchford, Paul Bassett, Harvey Goldstein and Clare Martin, in their consideration of the importance of class sizes, argue that experiments are impractical in many cases, and suggest instead a combination of complex statistical analysis and in-depth observation as a way forward. Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam, in their piece about formative assessment, raise the issue of ‘warrant’, and whether we can ever assume that the reasonableness of a finding derived from evidence can be beyond doubt. The kind of academic ‘rationality’ that determines the impact of our research does involve issues of quality and relevance, but also rhetorical power and luck. Keith Lewin and Janet Stuart, in their report of the Multi-Site Teacher Education Research project, agree. It is clearly better, they argue, for policy and practice to be more evidence-based rather than less so (based on ignorance, for example). But this can never be perfect, and so a satisficing approach to research evidence must be acceptable to both producers and consumers. Margaret Brown, Mike Askew, Alison Millett and Valerie Rhodes report on probably the most recent work in the issue, a consideration of the national numeracy strategy, and this partly explains why they discuss its relative lack of impact at time of writing. We often forget quite how long it takes for research evidence to filter through, often via a conduit, to a point at which it can be said to have had impact. There are also many barriers to be faced before impact occurs, and one of the most difficult is the perceived attractiveness of the findings. The UK adversarial political system does not seem to breed an ethos among research users that it is better to ‘know’ even where that knowledge is politically inconvenient. In other words, we must realise that we work in a system in which political survival can be deemed more important than public sector improvement. Paul Croll and Diana Moses, in their analysis of special educational needs across the last two decades, remind us of the potential importance of retaining respondent contact

Editorial

621

and access details when conducting research, so that what may start as a one-off design for data collection can become longitudinal. Ian Schagen and Dougal Hutchison, discussing value-added and school effectiveness research, demonstrate that such longitudinal research is not always necessary, since retrospective large-scale complex datasets already exist that are of relevance to almost all fields of investigation. What we lack, perhaps, are the skills and techniques to exploit them. It is interesting that all of the papers presented in this special issue are school-based. Perhaps this is the dominant theme in education research. It might suggest that other areas of education research, such as pre-school years, post-compulsory education and work-place learning are not yet as well established as school-based research. Or it may merely reflect the current membership of BERA (i.e. the majority of subscribers to this journal). Of these school-based studies, most are concerned with the general issue of school standards, performance and attainment. However, there are other topics represented here, including special educational needs, teacher education and sexual health. Much of the research reported in this issue is UK-based, but one paper demonstrates the international importance of research being undertaken overseas by British researchers. Although it is not possible to outline in detail the disciplinary backgrounds of all the authors represented in this special issue, it is worth noting that not all of the research featured in this special issue took place in education departments, or within Higher Education. Affiliations include, for example, departments of social science and of primary health care, and the National Foundation for Educational Research, while the authors include the current Chief Executive of the ESRC. Similarly, this collection of ‘praiseworthy’ research, while small in number, represents a variety of Higher Education institutions. It illustrates, if illustration were needed, that good education research is not just located in a few centres. STEPHEN GORARD AND CHRIS TAYLOR1 REFERENCES MARSHALL, G. (1990) In Praise of Sociology (London, Routledge). SHAVELSON, R. & TOWNE, L. (2001) Scientific Inquiry in Education. Report of the NRC (Washington, National Academy Press). TOOLEY, J. & DARBY, D. (1998) Educational Research: a critique (London, OFSTED).

1

We would like to thank our ex-colleague Karen Roberts for her invaluable contribution in the initial stages of putting this Special Issue together.