Cultural political factors that infl uence the choice of research methods

Cultural political factors that infl uence the choice of research methods

The infl uence of cultural-political factors is particularly clear at the present time, since educational research has a high public profi le as it emerges from an extended debate that has involved considerable negative criticism of researchers, their practices and their products (Freedman et al. 2000). The criticisms have related to the alleged irrelevance of much educational research to the practice of teaching, and in particular the esoteric language of academic publications, its small-scale nature, and the lack of generalisable outcomes which would ‘demonstrate conclusively that if teachers change their practice from x to y there will be a signifi cant and enduring improvement in teaching and learning’ (Hargreaves 1996). The process of scrutiny, and in particular the report commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment, Excellence in Research on Schools (Hillage et al. 1998) has led to a considerable increase in funding for educational research, in particular through the £12.5 million Teaching and Learning Research Programme, funded by the Higher Education Funding Council and administered by the Economic and Social Research Council. The latter has closely defi ned aims and through a highly competitive selection process (in Phase

II, 9 projects were funded from 94 proposals submitted) has defi ned what counts as knowledge and acceptable methodologies within a publicly funded programme of educational research. In particular, preference was given to projects which would lead to clear outcomes likely to have an impact upon practice, rather than those with a more exploratory, open-ended focus. There was an emphasis on ‘measurement’ and the use of control groups to establish a certain kind of evidence. The close links between the recent critique of educational research by powerful players in the political

Methodological issues 147 scene and the kind of projects funded within the programme is clear. In this sense,

the choice of TLRP projects can be said to exemplify the processes of the sociology of knowledge.

It is, I believe, the responsibility of an educational researcher to contribute to the improvement of education. The methodological issues relate to judgements about how best to make this contribution in the light of one’s own values. Given my own long experience of working closely with teachers using action research methodology, and my increasing interest in theories from cultural psychology that illuminate the process of change for individuals and groups, I adopt socio-cultural research methods which involve close participation with participants at all levels of societal or institutional hierarchies of power. A critically interesting methodological issue is how, then, to work in a positive synergy with policy-makers – who are important participants in the education system – while at the same time providing robust critiques, on the basis of research evidence, of those aspects of policy that are not working. Currently, we are all participants in an education system that is grounded in Wenger’s defi nition of ‘training’ rather than ‘education’. Since the Education Reform Act of 1988, through

a wide range of policies including the establishment of a National Curriculum, the reduction in the power of Local Education Authorities, league tables of pupils’ test and examination results, and a new regime of public inspection of schools, this has led, in the words of Barry MacDonald, to ‘recalcitrant and alienated pupils’ and ‘a crisis of teacher recruitment’ (MacDonald 2000, p. 23). Wenger’s defi nition of ‘education’ has ‘the opening of identities’ as its central aim and this resonates well with Elliott’s analysis of the underlying reasons for under-achievement in our current education system. Drawing on Fukuyama’s book, The End of History and the Last Man (Fukuyama 1992), Elliott explores the twin motivations for human endeavour: fi rst ‘the desire for recognition’ and second ‘desires that stem from rational self- interest’. He argues that under-achievement in our schools is the result of policies that assume young people are motivated by the latter, whereas the prime motivation in a liberal democracy, after ‘the end of history’, is in fact the former. A sense of personal recognition is an essential part of the development of identity. Elliott asks:

Could it be the case then, that the key to ‘improving’ schools in the liberal democratic societies of the West lies in the extent to which the curriculum, and the pedagogical processes by which children are engaged with it, provides students with opportunities to secure recognition of their worth as individuals, in a form which is congruent with the basic values from which people derive their sense of worth? The emergence of the liberal democratic state expresses the need of individuals, in the absence of traditional forms of social authority, to have not just their material desires satisfi ed but also their desire for recognition as autonomous and free agents capable of shaping the conditions of their existence in civil society.

(Elliott 2000, p. 179) By adopting a stance of interactive engagement with policy-makers, I can use

insights such as Elliott’s to build a positive critique of policy that remains incisive and

148 Research methods for ICT in education independent but goes beyond detached deconstruction. That at least is the aim. I can

try. The methodological issue is how so to do without compromising research so that it becomes a kind of collusion with power.