Reimagining Research and Practice in Education

  • Stanton Wortham


Over the past decades, “implementation science” has become a central concern of policymakers, researchers, and practitioners in medicine and more recently education. It is thought that education could be improved if researchers and practitioners collaborated more to incorporate relevant research findings. The typical assumption is that there is a qualitative gap between research and practice. It is argued this is a mistaken assumption that impedes well-intentioned advocates of implementation as they try to improve practice. This chapter develops an alternative to the dominant account of research and practice emphasizing that both researchers and practitioners engage in practical activities that involve theories, evidence, and action.


  1. Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Appadurai, A. (1986). Modernity at large. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. (1935/1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Csordas, T. (1994). The sacred self. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, H., & Nutley, S. (2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used: Guidance in the development of new empirical research. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Eccles, M., & Mittman, B. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haines, A., & Donald, A. (1998). Getting research findings into practice: Making better use of research findings. BMJ, 317, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  11. Honig, M., & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision-making in school district central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22, 578–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21, 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Nelson, S., Leffler, J., & Hansen, B. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  15. Penuel, W., Allen, A.-R., Farrell, C., & Coburn, C. (2015). Conceptualizing research-practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal for Education of Students at Risk, 20, 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rymes, B. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: A focus on communicative repertoires. In N. Hornberger & S. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 528–546). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  17. Urban, G. (2001). Metaculture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Vygotsky, L. (1934/1987). Thought and language (Trans. A. Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Walter, I., Nutley, S., Percy-Smith, J., McNeish, D., & Frost, S. (2004). Improving the use of research in social care practice. London: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531–545.Google Scholar
  22. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanton Wortham
    • 1
  1. 1.Boston CollegeChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations