TLRP Conference 2004 Presentation Draft – Not for Quotation Without Permission
Teaching and Learning Research Programme
Annual Conference Papers
5th Annual Conference, 22-24 November 2004
Cardiff Marriott Hotel
Professional Learning In The Educational Research Community:
Initial Reflections on the Experience of the TLRPResearch-CapacityBuilding Network
Ruth Boyask, Gareth Rees and Chris Taylor
CardiffSchool of Social Sciences
CardiffUniversity
NB: This paper was presented at an internal TLRP conference; if you wishto quote from it please contact the authors directly for permission. Contact details for each project and thematic initiative can be found on our website (
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING IN THE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY: INITIAL REFLECTIONS ON THE EXPERIENCE OF THE TLRP RESEARCH-CAPACITY BUILDING NETWORK
Ruth Boyask
Gareth Rees
Chris Taylor
TLRPResearch-CapacityBuilding Network
CardiffSchool of Social Sciences
CardiffUniversity
Paper for presentation at the TLRP Conference 2004, Cardiff.
Professional Learning and the Political Economy of Educational Research
The ways in which professional learning amongst educational researchers is currently conceived reflect the wider context within which educational research is practised. Of crucial importance here have been the largely critical evaluations of the state of educational research in the UK which have been conducted by a few academics (most notably by Hargreaves, 1996), but more widely at the behest of government and its agencies (Hillage et al., 1998; Tooley and Darby, 1998). These critiques have emphasised (at least) two broad and related sets of concerns: the quality of educational research; and the extent to which it provides an adequate basis for the development of education policy and professional practice.
For example, Tooley and Darby (1998) suggested that much – although not all – educational research is marred by partisanship and methodological shortcomings. More seriously, however, a number of commentators have questioned whether the findings of educational research are relevant to the preoccupations of policy-makers and practitioners. At one level, these concerns have focused on the accessibility of educational research to policy-makers and practitioners, thus problematising the processes through which research is communicated. At another, the issue has been constructed in terms of the forms taken by educational research. In particular, the latter has been characterised as comprising for the most part small-scale studies, which do not cumulate to provide a robust body of systematic evidence and conclusions of a kind that would be required to provide an adequate basis for the improvement of education policy and professional practice (Hargreaves, 1996).
It is not our purpose here to provide further commentary on the validity or otherwise of these critiques of educational research (but see, inter alia, Goldstein, 1998; Hammersley, 2002). Rather, we simply wish to indicate some of the developments which have been influenced by them. Most obviously, these critiques (both reflected and) contributed to the adoption of a much more proactive role by central government in the organisation and funding of educational research. Key developments here included the establishment of a number of ‘centres of excellence’ (on the economics of education, the wider benefits of learning, etc.) to conduct educational research which would contribute directly to identifying those policy approaches which will achieve most in ‘raising standards’ (Clarke, 1998); and the development of systematic reviewing, institutionalised in the government-funded EPPI Centre at the Institute of Education in London. In addition, the creation of the National Educational Research Forum clearly indicated the intention to set priorities for educational research in ways which would be more closely attuned to the perceived needs of ‘users’. And, of course, the launching of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP), administered through the ESRC, but funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and a range of government departments, was designed to promote new forms of collaboration between researchers and policy-makers and practitioners in the development and execution of educational research.
These developments in the political economy of educational research are clearly related to wider patterns of change. Indeed, the terms in which the critiques were framed and the subsequent organisational and funding shifts are highly reminiscent of earlier interventions with respect to other areas of research, most notably the attack on sociology promoted by Sir Keith Joseph, the Conservative Secretary of State for Education in the early 1980s (Rothschild, 1982). Equally, the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, David Blunkett, made clear that he saw the development of particular kinds of research and the tightening of the linkages between researchers and policy-makers in the educational sphere as providing a model for the social sciences more widely (Blunkett, 2000). Accordingly, the analysis of the implications of these changes may well have a significance which extends beyond that of educational research itself.
For present purposes, we wish to focus on the ways in which this transformation in the political economy of educational research has served to shape the terms in which the future development of educational research practice is framed. Not surprisingly, the changes we have sketched have given rise to wide-ranging debates over the nature of educational research and the most appropriate forms of its organisation (for example, Hammersley, 2002). However, these debates have taken particular forms: the nature of the ‘problems’ to be addressed have been defined in characteristic ways; and the preferred ‘solutions’ to these ‘problems’ have similarly been constructed in specific forms. Certainly, for example, it is clear that the government protagonists in these debates viewed the shortcomings of educational research partly in terms of the nature of the issues which researchers choose to address. There was a need, they argued, to shift from a ‘supplier-driven’ regime of educational research, to one in which priorities were determined much more clearly by research ‘users’ (especially, Blunkett, 2000). Moreover, they also identified shortcomings in the ways in which educational research is carried out. Hence, there was an emphasis in ministerial pronouncements on these matters on the need to develop systematic reviews, large-scale and quantitative studies, interdisciplinary approaches and the use of randomised controlled trials (Blunkett, 2000; Clarke, 1998).
The changes in the organisation of educational research noted earlier constitute one, major element in officially-sponsored ‘solutions’ to the perceived shortcomings in educational research practice. What has not previously attracted much analytical attention is that there has also been a systematic effort to address these shortcomings by changing individual researchers and their practices. More specifically, there have been attempts to change the nature of educational research practice by offering new modes of professional learning to educational researchers. Hence, for example, at the more general level, the ESRC has undertaken a number of initiatives which have aimed to transform the kinds of professional learning available to both novice and more experienced researchers, through what has come to be termed ‘research-capacity building’. And a key element here has been the promotion of forms of training which are intended to improve the technical competences of researchers, especially with respect to research methodologies and the techniques of data collection and analysis associated with them. This is reflected, for example, in the requirements which are now in place with respect to the training in research methods of ESRC-sponsored PhD students; as well as in the envisaged research-capacity building activities of the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, which has recently been established at the University of Southampton.[1]
More specifically, in the context of educational research, it is instructive that the TLRP is the first major research programme managed by the ESRC which has enhancing research-capacity as one of its principal aims.[2] All the projects within the Programme are required to develop and implement strategies by which research-capacity will be developed. Moreover, the Programme has also funded a Research-Capacity Building Network (RCBN), managed from the School of Social Sciences at CardiffUniversity, whose remit is wholly devoted to the development of research-capacity. Here, it is instructive that whilst the RCBN was required to develop research-capacity across the board, it was equally given particular priorities with respect to the strengthening of capacity in the analysis of large-scale data-sets, the application of quantitative approaches, the use of experimental methods and interdisciplinary research, all of which mirror the wider emphases within the ‘official’ analysis of the shortcomings of educational research. It was also enjoined to promote collaboration across the projects within the TLRP and to draw upon the diversity of research expertise available within the Programme and elsewhere.
In what follows, we draw upon the experience of the RCBN to reflect upon these priorities with respect to professional learning within the educational research community. In doing so, we draw on a variety of data, including interviews with participants in the programme of professional learning organised through the RCBN and written evaluations of events within this programme; as well as less systematic observation of the operation of the programme. It should be emphasised that our analysis of these materials is currently at an initial stage.
A ‘Technical Model’ of Professional Learning
In the light of these arguments, then, it is not surprising that these various attempts to enhance research-capacity have embodied a particular model of how this professional learning amongst educational researchers should be conducted. We refer to this as a ‘technical model’ of research-capacity building.
This ‘technical model’ is characterised, firstly, by a preoccupation with the skills and competences associated with the conduct of empirical research. More concretely, research-capacity, on this view, is defined in terms of issues such as the design of studies, the collection and analysis of data, techniques for disseminating results (especially to ‘users’) and so forth. In addition, embedded in this conception of research-capacity, is the notion that educational researchers should be at least competent across the range of research methodologies and their associated approaches to data collection and analysis. Accordingly, to succeed with this model, individuals are required to enter into a programme of professional development, accepting the value of diversifying their skills. Increasing their competency and skills, rather than the more liberal notions of ‘education’ and ‘development’, becomes the primary focus. Hence, research-capacity building centres around increasing individuals’ proficiency in techniques or methods. In a very real sense, therefore, this approach is one which divorces method from the social context in which it is applied (a point to which we return later).
Secondly, this ‘technical model’ operates on the basis of a very simple conception of the nature of professional learning amongst educational (and other?) researchers. On this view, the developmental needs of individual researchers can be fairly readily identified and these can be met by means of the provision of relatively formal programmes of skills development. Crucially, it is assumed that researchers will internalise the objectives of skills development and diversification; they will wish to acquire new expertise of this kind and will thus enter willingly into programmes of professional development.
In (rather simplified) summary, therefore, the transformations in the political economy of educational research which we identified earlier have created a context in which changing the practices of individual researchers has been identified as a critical concern. The professional learning which is thereby deemed necessary has been conceived in ways which emphasise the enhancement and diversification of the technical skills and competences necessary to conduct empirical research. Moreover, the character of the required professional learning has generally been conceived in terms of meeting developmental needs by means of relatively formal approaches to teaching and learning.
There are, of course, elements of this model which are unexceptional. It would be difficult to argue, for example, that enhancing and diversifying the technical skills and competences of educational researchers would be a bad thing. Likewise, most approaches to professional learning may well usefully incorporate elements of formal provision. However, both general consideration of the literature on professional learning, as well as consideration of the specific experience of research-capacity building within the TLRP suggest that professional learning amongst educational researchers cannot be adequately addressed through approaches rooted in the ‘technical model’. The experience of the TLRP suggests ways in which ideas about research-capacity building have developed in ways which have potential significance for the wider social science research community.
Professional Learning in its Social Context
The wider literature on the nature of professional learning emphasises that the acquisition of expert knowledge and the capacity for making judgements, characteristic of professionals, is actually achieved through a combination of different means. Formal modes of learning constitute only one of these and are generally less significant than non-formal modes, such as learning through the conduct of professional activity itself and – perhaps most importantly – interacting with professional colleagues both within and outside of the work-place (for example, Eraut, 1994). Different combinations of formal and non-formal learning correspond – albeit not in an exact way – to the acquisition of different types of knowledge, skills and understanding. In particular, where what is learned is context-specific and/or tacit, non-formal modes of learning are clearly essential. Hence, the significance of non-formal learning (and, hence, of course, of formal learning) varies from one professional grouping to another (Eraut et al., 2000; Colley, Hodkinson and Malcom, 2003).
What this suggests for present purposes, therefore, is the need for systematic, empirical studies of the forms which professional learning takes amongst educational researchers. As far as we are aware, such studies do not exist. However, it is instructive that studies in the sociology of science suggest that researchers in the natural sciences accomplish their professional learning most effectively through processes of what Collins (1985) terms ‘enculturation’, rather than the formal communication of purportedly authoritative information (the ‘algorithmic model’). As he puts it:
‘… the starting point for … the “enculturational model” … is the acquisition of skill as opposed to formal instruction. The locus of knowledge is not the written word or symbol but the community of expert practitioners …. Individuals’ knowledge must be acquired by contact with the relevant community rather than by transferring programmes of instruction. Scientists are to be seen as expert consultants rather than infallible authorities. Varying, even contradictory, expert opinions are to be expected occasionally under these circumstances; the cause of variation is not necessarily incompetence, bias or fraud.’ (Collins, 1985, 159).
In other words, even the acquisition of the knowledge and skills necessary to be an effective researcher in the natural sciences cannot be achieved through formal modes of learning (at least not alone). Rather, as with other professional groupings, scientific researchers need to access context-specific and tacit forms of knowledge, which require interaction with other, more experienced practitioners. And clearly, this analysis has important implications for how the fostering of professional learning – research-capacity building – is most effectively achieved, especially where dealing with researchers who have already completed the entry stages of professional learning.
This work from the mid-1980s in some ways prefigures the more general analysis of workplace learning presented in the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998), which has recently been adopted by some writers as a fruitful basis through which to analyse educational research (Hodkinson, 2004). Here too, a primary emphasis is on non-formal modes of learning and the importance of context-specific and tacit forms of knowledge and skills. Hence, novices acquire the latter largely through ‘legitimate peripheral participation’, which embodies engagement in actual - albeit selected - work-based activities, rather than formal instruction. By these means, they progress over time to becoming accomplished members of the relevant ‘community of practice’. Formal learning plays a rather insignificant part (Lave and Wenger, 1991). As Hodkinson (2004, 13) argues for educational researchers:
‘… new researchers learn how to do and judge research through engaging in the authentic practices of whichever research community they join. A small part of this may be through formal training, for example, in research methods, or from reading standard texts on the conduct of research.’
Similarly, established members of a ‘community of practice’ continue to learn primarily through interaction with other members (Wenger, 1998). Viewed from this perspective, therefore, the focal points of enquiry into professional learning within educational research are: the actual social processes through which initial entry to the ‘community of practice’ and subsequent development within it are achieved; and the nature of the ‘community of practice’ itself.
Processes of professional learning
In this context, it is instructive that researchers within the TLRP (who comprise, of course, only a sub-set of educational researchers generally) have reported concerns over their experiences of professional learning. Some view the initial entry process itself as problematic, given that a substantial proportion of educational researchers are recruited from career backgrounds in teaching and, therefore, may have undergone only the most rudimentary learning with respect to the conduct of research. Whilst this may suggest an even greater significance for ensuring that appropriate professional learning takes place within the working context of the research project, the reality appears to be very different. At one level, this reflects no more than the all too familiar tensions between providing opportunities for learning for workers and the exigencies of production, in this case the completion of the study. Whilst this applies to everyone, it is especially acute for ‘contract researchers’, whose access to learning opportunities is likely to reflect the managerial strategies of principal investigators, as well as their own preferences.