ABSTRACT
In Chapter 3 we introduced the distinction between educational and education research, suggesting that the distinction between practically oriented (educational) and non-practically oriented (education) research, although useful for some purposes, is also arbitrary. John Elliott argues that the education researcher adopts the view of an impartial spectator, whereas the educational researcher is engaged and explicit about the values adopted in the research. It is further implied that this distinction also marks a distinction in genre between an academic research article or paper on the one hand and a research report on the other. This difference in genre in methodological approach is reflected in differences in the way in which the research is reported. Thus education research tends to be reported in refereed academic journals and educational research in professional ones. Our belief is that this account is oversimplified. In particular, we question the
claim that a researcher approaching an issue from the point of view of systematic study (as opposed to subjective interpretation) is, or could be an impartial observer, even if he or she wanted to be. Both educational and education researchers have their own values and points of view on educational issues, and these are bound to affect their perceptions of the situation which they propose to study, even if they are doing so from the point of view of systematic, non-subjective investigation. The implied analogy with a natural scientist in a laboratory is misleading, as there are very good reasons for thinking that conceptually speaking, social research in general and educational research in particular are qualitatively different in important respects from research in the natural sciences. However, the fact that a researcher of educational issues cannot be an impartial observer in this sense imposes particular responsibilities. One must therefore access educational research with a view to asking whether these responsibilities are being fulfilled or, better, whether an honest attempt has been made to fulfil them. The contrary of ‘impartial’ is ‘partial’, which would imply that a researcher, whether an education or an educational one, will have their own point of view. On the other hand, no-one would want a researcher to be subjective, that is to look at matters only from their own point of view. Even a researcher looking at their own practice has to maintain standards of objectivity,
that is, to describe matters how they are, rather than how they seem. And, if this is impossible, they must clearly state when a subjective stance is being adopted so that the reader can form their own judgement about what is being claimed. The first thing to look for in either a research article or a research report is a
sustainable link between the claims that are being made by authors, for example that such and such processes are taking place in a seminar, or that so and so factors influence examination results, and these claims being underpinned by sufficiently robust evidence and argumentation. At its simplest level this may entail no more than a presentation of the evidence: such and such processes did actually take place in the lectures observed. There is then no need for further argument – the evidence may be sufficient, if, for example, one wished to draw conclusions only about the lectures observed. However, this is unlikely. In most cases, conclusions will be drawn that apply beyond particular observations or cases. In those cases, and they will be nearly all, argument will be required to take the researcher from the evidence presented to the conclusion offered. One might argue that the kind of research report that describes a single case is, nevertheless, useful in providing some insight into a question, even if it is not objective in the sense that it is subject to criteria of evaluation that all can agree with. We are happy to concede this, even to the extent that literary examples can
provide such illumination. Kingsley Amis’s Lucky Jim is not a factual account of a provincial English university in the early 1950s, but provides some insight into the cultural milieu of such institutions at that time (limited because arguably based on one or two particular institutions). Likewise, the Bildungsroman tradition of novels in the Germanic countries offers insights into the German educational concept of Bildung which might be difficult to obtain through other methods. Nevertheless, it is most unlikely that anyone would suggest acting as if the events described in Lucky Jim or Green Henry (by Gottfried Keller) were true. In cases like these, a subjective account is being openly offered, which the reader is free to take as they wish. Likewise the reports of individual teachers or lecturers of their own work may provide understanding. We are likely to take them as true accounts and thus objective (unlike the literary examples above), but will not necessarily believe that they are replicable in our own seminars, tutorials or lectures. For a claim that they are applicable we need an argument that what is reported in the research has wider applicability beyond the arena of the research itself. Note that we are not claiming that the warrant for that wider applicability should constitute proof that what is reported is indeed of wider applicability, but rather that it should give us good grounds for supposing that to be the case, or, at the very least, good grounds for supposing that the adoption of a certain approach will, in the right conditions, lead to similar results. These grounds should be available to all who read the report.
