ABSTRACT

Part II of the book tak es up the con versation about the w ork of educational research from another set of perspecti ves. Collecti vely, the chapters are less concerned with diagnosing the intellectual and moral-political landscape of the meaning of knowledge, and more focused on how the analytic tools employed in educational research must be redef ned and used differently in research practices. By analytic tools here I ha ve in mind both the ideas that f ashion our w ays of understanding what research and methodology mean as well as those concepts (such as innovation, teaching practices, writing, curriculum theory , and the like) that give shape to objects of study. Thus, Leonie Rowan discusses how the study of educational innovations ought to be retheorized to mean genuinely “transformative” responses to educational arrangements that lead to fundamentally ne w w ays of conceptualizing notions of gender , technology, culture, and dif ference. The notion of an e xternally imposed educational accountability on teaching practice is criticized in the chapter prepared by Jennifer C. Greene, Walter Feinberg, Sarah Stitzlein and Luis Miron – a familiar tale. The import of their chapter lies in their reconsideration of the lived reality of accountability in the daily lives of teachers as well as in their suggestion that it is v aluable to empirically e xplore a notion of democratic accountability wedded to the mutual, collecti ve responsibilities of those with a stak e in an educational practice. John Elliott’ s chapter in vites readers to reconsider human capital theory as the driver of educational curricula. Elliott explores an interpretation of Amartya Sen’s capability theory for human development and its potential for curriculum planning. Elliott argues that thinking of curriculum through the lens of capability theory requires a more deliberati ve, practical, and democratic approach to curriculum planning and design than that suggested by human capital theory. The penultimate two chapters in Part II take up the question of “being” a researcher , but in dif ferent ways. Barbara Kamler and P at Thomson are concerned with research as a practice of writing, and they explore what that means specif cally for students engaged in writing their

dissertations. John and Jill Schostak in vite readers to radically reconceptualize the traditional image (and identity) of the researcher as rational, methodological, cognizing agent f rmly in control of the discovery and production of knowledge.