Strategic Forum for Research in Education

Is there appropriate provision and incentivisation for the production of high quality and innovative disciplinary research?

A major focus of discussions at Forum II (held on 17th and 18th June 2009 in Reading) was on “disciplinary knowledge production with global networks on enduring issues (typically research council funding of research-intensive universities”. This description served to structure the discussions at SFRE II. Participants highlighted further conceptual complexities, some of which are captured in facilitators’ accounts of the group discussions  at SFRE II.

Overview from the disciplines

Ahead of Forum II short contributions were prepared from a number of disciplines which contribute to the education field. These contributions outlined the contribution a particular discipline made to education research and to interdisciplinarity (download input documents). Written contributions were received from:

• Philosophy, Professor David Bridges (University of Cambridge)
• Economics, Professor Anna Vignoles (Institute of Education, University of London)
• Sociology, Professor Becky Francis (Roehampton University)
• Social Anthropology, Dr David Mills (University of Oxford)
• History, Professor William Richardson (University of Exeter)
• Neuroscience, Professor Usha Goswami (University of Cambridge)
• Psychology, Professor Ingrid Lunt (University of Oxford).

This selection of disciplines was intended to give a flavour of the wide variety of foundation disciplines upon which education research is based.

Francis (2009) argued at SFRE II that over the past twenty years sociology has been the dominant foundation discipline in education research. There have been significant contributions in relation to gender, social inequality and race inequality and particularly the transmission/reproduction of inequalities down generations – i.e. the exposing of ‘meritocratic accounts of educational outcomes as largely mythic’ (Francis, 2009). Sociology of education also encompasses a large body of work critiquing education policy. Francis suggested that ‘sociological research needed to be better attuned to the offer of constructive, as well as deconstructive, ideas’. This appears vital for the progress of dialogue between sociological research and education policy, and maximising the impact of research findings.

Psychology is another historically strong discipline in education research. As Lunt describes in her contribution to the second Forum, the relationship between psychology and education has not been without its challenges. Whilst psychology has had a strong influence on the subject matter and methodologies used in education research, many within education considered psychology to be ‘individualistic, positivist in epistemology, reductionist in approach and overly concerned with measurement’ (Lunt, 2009). In general there is a divide between psychologists in education departments and those in psychology departments with the latter concerned with positioning psychology as a pure science.

Other disciplines important to the field of education also submitted contributions to the Forum. Richardson demonstrated the importance of historical knowledge, particularly in education policy, and the role that historians of educations could fill (Richardson, 2009). In relation to philosophy, Bridges argued that all education research is connected with philosophical thought either in that it raises philosophical issues or rests on philosophical assumptions (Bridges, 2009). In Mills’ contribution to the Forum on the contribution to education made by social anthropology, he puts forward some explanations for its past lack of engagement with education (Mills, 2009). Mills highlights the lack of funding for more anthropological work due to a focus on policy research and education reform in education research. He also suggests that traditionally the discipline of anthropology did not ‘fit’ with the education system and schooling structure either politically or epistemologically.  

In her contribution to the Forum on the role of neuroscience in education research, Goswami notes that there is a barrier to increasing quantitative skills in education research, as key disciplines which use these skills follow the scientific method – which still appears to be viewed ‘in a negative light within much of education research’ (2009). There appears to be a tension here between views of users and researchers in terms of hierarchies of research approaches. There is a growing demand from policymakers for quantitative evidence and along with improvements in methods and increased availability of data this has contributed to the growth in the economics of education, as highlighted in Vignoles’ SFRE contribution on the importance of economics in education research (Vignoles, 2009). The RAE 2008 education sub-panel noted that whilst a relatively small amount of quantitative work had been submitted, what existed ‘was of very high quality’ (RAE, 2009). However the quantitative work undertaken within the economics of education has developed ‘in parallel with quantitative education research rather than being integrated with it’ (Vignoles, 2009) – this may be related to the tension raised earlier regarding the traditional view of the scientific method. Education is a field which draws strength from the range of disciplines which it encompasses. In order to ensure this enables the production of the highest quality research possible, it is important that more recent developments in education such as neuroscience and economics are fully embraced and integrated (Goswami, 2009; Vignoles, 2009). More recently, the availability of government administrative data to produce large datasets has been a growth area in quantitative analysis in social sciences and has in part led to the increased demand for quantitative research skills. A new ESRC NCRM (National Centre for Research Methods) research node ADMIN (Administrative Data: Methods, Inference and Network) at the Institute of Education, University of London brings together economists, social statisticians and other quantitative researchers to develop innovative methodologies and build capacity for fully exploiting administrative data.

The current state of disciplines in education research

In a recent edition of the Oxford Review of Education (Furlong and Lawn, 2009) describe how in their view, since the 1980s the disciplines in education have become increasingly sidelined reflecting a broader movement towards the useful and instrumental (in terms of teacher education, research, policy and practice). This is also happening in a context where there is a growing polarisation between research intensive HEIs and those primarily focused on teacher education (see report from Forum I).

While some disciplines tend to be more closely attuned to the needs of policymakers than others,  a group of philosophers commissioned by the TRLP to explore the epistemological basis of findings from a range of approaches to education research made the case for a wide range of types of research being relevant for decision makers when formulating policy (Bridges et al, 2009. They argued that a narrow focus on empirical studies will limit this contribution and therefore understanding of an issue.

Multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity

Different disciplines have different languages, traditions and epistemological frameworks – it is more than people bringing different skills to bear on a common topic or question. It was clear from policymakers at SFRE II that they wanted the method/approach best suited to answering a specific question and were less concerned what that method was. It was also clear that researchers were best placed to answer this question. This implies some level of understanding across different disciplines and methodological approaches – but also that the researchers are clear what the policymakers want. There is a challenge in enabling and fostering understanding between researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds due to the issues described above. As one SFRE II group chaired by Margaret Brown noted, ‘meeting and exploring common ground with people from other disciplines takes time’. The competitive context and the geographical spread of education departments also add to the task. Incentives to work together are not obvious and work needs to be done to demonstrate the effectiveness in doing so in terms of enhanced quality. There is therefore a need for all involved in the knowledge development process to have an overview of different disciplinary approaches, frameworks and methodologies.

Implications for the disciplines

Whilst support and incentives toward interdisciplinarity are welcomed, participants SFRE II argued that it was also important to be aware of the implications for the disciplines and or the field as a whole. Moving away from a discipline-based approach could mean a theoretical deficit – ‘disciplinary must come before interdisciplinary’. As asked by the group chaired by John Furlong at the second Forum: ‘Do the remnants of the past now only live on in the routines of method, not in the analytical strength of disciplines?’. 

Understanding and training in a discipline provide a rigorous foundation for education research so it was felt that it is important to maintain research training rooted in a particular discipline and encourage the two-way flows of researchers  and of research knowledge and innovation between the disciplines and education. 

Further reading

Bridges, D., Smeyers, P. and Smith, R. (Eds) (2009) Evidence-Based Education Policy: What Evidence? What Basis? Whose Policy? London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Furlong, J. and Lawn, M. (Eds) (2009) ‘The Disciplines of Education in the UK: Confronting the Crisis’ Oxford Review of Education- Special Issue, 35(5).

Further questions/outstanding issues

• Is education moving away from a discipline-based approach? What are the implications?
• What more can researchers do to ensure that the contribution of the range of disciplines to policy and practice is recognised by users?
• Are funders and commissioners (and researchers themselves, including early-career researchers) clear about the strategic and epistemological contribution of the disciplines to education?