Abstract
Research in education draws upon a wide range of epistemological traditions due in part to the wide range of problems that are investigated. While this diversity might be considered a strength of the field, it also makes researchers who work within it vulnerable to being divided into those worth listening to and those who should be ignored by ‘end-users’. These people and groups who are interested in the outcomes of educational research, such as policy makers and system providers, increasingly expect research findings to be accessible, and to inform questions of the ‘what works’ variety. Under this imperative, research processes that elaborate the complexity of educational problems, and the provisional, partial and contingent nature of solutions, tend to be dismissed as unnecessarily complex and inaccessible. Epistemological diversity in educational research also presents challenges for inducting teacher education students into the profession. We outline some of these challenges in a discussion of epistemological diversity in research in education. We also describe differences in how research traditions construct educational problems. We argue that crossing epistemic boundaries is a necessary condition of the educational practices of teachers and of those preparing to join their ranks. We compare and contrast knowledge-producing processes in education and identify the repertoires of capabilities and habits of mind associated with different epistemologies or ‘angles’. We suggest that the impact of educational research, including its contribution to teacher education programs, policy and public debate about issues in education, might be enhanced through a heuristic suite of four angles that are each understood to be necessary but not sufficient on their own. We provide a brief worked example of how such a heuristic might be applied to make sense of the diverse bodies of research regarding student engagement in school.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnes, C. (2012). It’s no laughing matter…Boys’ humour and the performance of defensive masculinities in the classroom. Journal of Gender Studies, 21(3), 239–251.
Blackmore, J., & Wright, J. (2006). The quality agenda and some issues for educational research and researchers: an introductory essay. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, 1–18.
Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K. L., Minnis-Kim, M. J., Anderson-Harriss, S., Moroz, K. B., et al. (2006). Schoolwide application of positive behavior support in an urban high school: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(3), 131–145.
Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Hicks, K., Weber, S., Thier, K., Aikins, B., et al. (2012). A case example of the implementation of schoolwide positive behavior support in a high school setting using change point test analysis. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56(2), 91–103.
Buras, K. (1996). Questioning core assumptions: A critical reading of and response to E. D. Hirsch’s the schools we need and why we don’t have them. Harvard Educational Review, 69(1), 67–93.
Coburn, C., & Talbert, J. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 469–495.
Connell, R. (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 213–229.
Crosnoe, R., Kirkpatrick Johnson, M., & Elder, G. H. J. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioural and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77(1), 60–81.
Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes and students’ opposition: School misconduct as a reaction to teachers’ diminished effort and affect. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 860–869.
Doherty, C. (2015). Making trouble: ethnographic designs on ruling relations for students and teachers in non-academic pathways. The Australian Educational Researcher, 42(3), 353–370.
Doherty, C., Dooley, K., & Woods, A. (2013). Teaching sociology within teacher education: Revisiting, realigning and re-embedding. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 515–530.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
Finn, J. D., Fish, R. M., & Scott, L. A. (2008). Educational sequelae of high school misbehaviour. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(5), 259–274.
Flannery, K. B., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2009). School-wide positive behavior support in high school: early lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 177–185.
Goodyear, P., & Zenios, M. (2007). Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 351–368.
Greenberg, J., Putnam, H., & Walsh, K. (2014). Training our future teachers: Classroom management. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59–68.
Habermas, J. (1971). Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harrison, N., & Seddon, T. (2013). Living in a 2.2 world: from mapping to strategic capacity building for Australian educational research. Australian Educational Researcher, 40(4), 403–413.
Harwood, V. (2006). Diagnosing ‘disorderly’ children: A critique of behaviour disorder discourses. London: Routledge.
Johnston, K., & Hayes, D. (2008). “This is as good as it gets”: classroom lessons and learning in challenging circumstances. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 109–127.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. Melbourne: Scribe Publications.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.
Lather, P. (2013). Methodology-21: What do we do in the afterward? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 634–645.
Lather, P., & St. Pierre, E. (2013). Introduction: Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 629–633.
Laura, C. (2014). Being bad: My baby brother and the school-to-prison pipeline. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.
Levine, D. (2015). Dialogical Social Theory. The Newsletter of the Research Committee on Sociological Theory (Summer), 9-11.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Margutti, P. (2011). Teachers’ reproaches and managing discipline in the classroom: When teachers tell students what they do ‘wrong’. Linguistics and Education, 22, 310–329.
McFadden, M., & Munns, G. (2002). Student engagement and the social relations of pedagogy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(3), 357–366.
Munns, G., Hatton, C., & Gilbert, S. (2013). Teaching in low socio-economic status communities. In G. Munns, W. Sawyer, & B. Cole (Eds.), Exemplary teachers of students in poverty (pp. 33–46). London: Routledge.
Nolan, K. (2011). Police in the hallways: Discipline in an urban high school. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
O’Neil, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Classroom behaviour management content in Australian undergraduate primary teaching programs. Teaching Education, 23(3), 287–308.
Ritzer, G. (2004). The McDonaldization of society (revised new century. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forest Press.
Schussler, D. L., & Johnson, L. (2014). A house built on sand? Commentary on NCTQ’s classroom management report by Greenberg, Putman, Walsh (Commentary: ID Number 17475). Teachers College Record, 1–3.
Smyth, J., & Hattam, R. (2001). ‘Voiced’ research as a sociology for understanding ‘dropping out’ of school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(3), 410–415.
Sriprakash, A., & Mukhopadhyay, R. (2015). Reflexivity and the politics of knowledge: researchers as ‘brokers’ and ‘translators’ of educational development. Comparative Education, 51(2), 231–246.
St. Pierre, E., & Jackson, A. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 715–719.
Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity (English ed.). Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Weis, L., Jenkins, H., & Stich, A. (2009). Diminishing the divisions among us: reading and writing across difference in theory and method in the sociology of education. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 912–945.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. Aldershot, England: Gower.
Yates, L. (2004). What does good education research look like?. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Acknowledgements
Cathie would like to acknowledge the Australian Research Council, which funded her DECRA project (Project DE1210569). The literature review in this paper draws upon the work in this project. Deb would like to acknowledge the conversations made during 2014 with Professors Ruth Lupton and Carlo Raffo (University of Manchester) that contributed to the early conceptualisations of the worked example.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hayes, D., Doherty, C. Valuing epistemic diversity in educational research: an agenda for improving research impact and initial teacher education. Aust. Educ. Res. 44, 123–139 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-016-0224-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-016-0224-5