Edited by Nathan Lomax, Sunday, 26 Oct 2014, 11:00
Action 1.4: Learning in the workplace
What new dimensions are brought to the debate on the nature of educational research that we have already seen within the writing of Bassey and Ball?
The TLRP paper also describes the need to ‘guide educational research out of the shadow of the intense criticism it had received in the 1990s’. (p.648). There is discussion of the tension between policy makers and researchers and the different values different users place on research. The battle for who has control of knowledge in knowledge economy fits with Bassey’s fear that government quangos will control research. Ball refers to the need to create ‘perfect diagrams of power’ by engaging the users of educational products in their design. Could a simple example of this be curriculum design?
What connections are there between the three pieces of writing?
A common theme is the need to engage different stakeholders (e.g. teachers, LA advisors, parents, carers and children) in the research process. This fits with Ball’s desire to ‘tie research back into broader political projects and social processes and to the functions of managing and neutralising social problems.’ (p.112). This could be what Bassey refers to as ‘qualitative work within an interpretive paradigm’ (p.143) i.e. grass roots level involvement to ‘implement ‘progressive and efficient technical solutions to designated problems’ (Ball, p.113).
How do Edwards and her colleagues develop our thoughts about what ‘educational enquiry’ might embrace?
There is a suggestion that the success of small scale, teacher led enquiry should be developed/respected through the establishment of partnerships between schools and universities. (p.649)
Action 1.4: Learning in the workplace
Action 1.4: Learning in the workplace
What new dimensions are brought to the debate on the nature of educational research that we have already seen within the writing of Bassey and Ball?
The TLRP paper also describes the need to ‘guide educational research out of the shadow of the intense criticism it had received in the 1990s’. (p.648). There is discussion of the tension between policy makers and researchers and the different values different users place on research. The battle for who has control of knowledge in knowledge economy fits with Bassey’s fear that government quangos will control research. Ball refers to the need to create ‘perfect diagrams of power’ by engaging the users of educational products in their design. Could a simple example of this be curriculum design?
What connections are there between the three pieces of writing?
A common theme is the need to engage different stakeholders (e.g. teachers, LA advisors, parents, carers and children) in the research process. This fits with Ball’s desire to ‘tie research back into broader political projects and social processes and to the functions of managing and neutralising social problems.’ (p.112). This could be what Bassey refers to as ‘qualitative work within an interpretive paradigm’ (p.143) i.e. grass roots level involvement to ‘implement ‘progressive and efficient technical solutions to designated problems’ (Ball, p.113).
How do Edwards and her colleagues develop our thoughts about what ‘educational enquiry’ might embrace?
There is a suggestion that the success of small scale, teacher led enquiry should be developed/respected through the establishment of partnerships between schools and universities. (p.649)
Edwards, A., Sebba, J. and Rickinson, M. (2007) ‘Working with users: some implications for educational research ’, British Educational Research Journal, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 647–61.