Bridging and Blending Disciplines of Inquiry: Doing Science and Changing Practice and Policy

  • Lina MarkauskaiteEmail author
  • Peter Freebody
  • Jude Irwin
Part of the Methodos Series book series (METH, volume 9)


Beginning and well-seasoned researchers alike face significant challenges in understanding the complexities of research designs arising from both within and across methodological paradigms, and in applying them in ways that maximise impact on knowledge, practice, and policy. This volume aims to contribute to scholarship, policy and practice, by engaging readers in scholarly debate on re-interpretations of established research methodologies in light of contemporary conditions, and by examining some research approaches yet to gain general recognition. This chapter outlines some key challenges for contemporary research and provides an overview of the contributions in this volume that chart and analyse the conceptual and practical complexities of a variety of research designs for social and educational change. This collection, taken overall, aims to provide readers with the knowledge and understanding needed not only to design technically sound and coherent research studies, but also to develop methodologically innovative research projects that cross the boundaries between different methodological traditions to the benefit of scholarship, policy, and practice.


Social Justice Research Approach Methodological Challenge Policy Field Social Discipline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle (1947). Introduction to Aristotle: Edited with a general introduction and introductions to the particular works by Richard McKeon. New York, NY: Modern Library, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Auriat, N. (1998). Social policy and social enquiry: Reopening debate. International Social Science Journal, 50(156), 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biesta, G. (2007). Why what works wont work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives methodologies examples, and issues. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  11. DETYA. (2000). The impact of educational research. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher Education Division.Google Scholar
  12. Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–10.Google Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.Google Scholar
  14. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, H. (2002, December 30). You cant test lessons the way you do meds. Newsday, p. A23.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, J. H. (2003). On the intimate kinship among the methods of science, art, and the humanities. Technology in Society, 25(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Green, J. L., Camilli, G., Elmore, P. B., Skukauskaite, A., & Grace, E. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of complementary methods in education research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Groundwater-Smith, S., & Mockler, N. (2009). Teacher professional learning in an age of compliance: Mind the gap. Rotterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Heap, J. (2002). Ethnomethodology and the possibility of a metaperspective on literacy research. In R. Beach, J. L. Green, M. L. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (pp. 35–56). Urbana, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
  23. Hess, F. H. (Ed.). (2008). When research matters: How scholarship influences educational policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (Eds.). (2009). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Remond: Microsoft Research.Google Scholar
  25. Hostetler, K. (2005). What is “Good” Education research? Educational Researcher, 34(6), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kenway, J. (2003). Editorial (special issue: The impact of educational research). Australian Educational Researcher, 30(2), 1–2.Google Scholar
  28. Lagemann, E. C. (2002). Usable knowledge in education: A memorandum for the Spencer foundation board of directors. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from
  29. Markauskaite, L. (accepted). Digital media, technologies and scholarship: Some shapes of eResearch in educational inquiry. Australian Educational Researcher. Google Scholar
  30. McDonald, S.-K., Keesler, V. A., Kauffman, N. J., & Schneider, B. (2006). Scaling-up exemplary interventions. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Munn, P. (2008). Building research capacity collaboratively: Can we take ownership of our future? British Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, H. (2003). Mode 2 revisited: The new production of know-ledge. Minerva, 41, 179–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD. (2001). Social sciences for knowledge and decision making. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  34. OECD. (2007). Evidence in education: Linking research and policy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.Google Scholar
  35. Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Shulman, L. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. Educational Researcher, 10(6), 5–23.Google Scholar
  37. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education – what works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smeyers, P., & Depaepe, M. (2007). Educational research: Networks and technologies. The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Snow, C. P. (1961). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Soydan, H. (2008). Applying randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4), 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Van Langenhove, L. (2001). Can the social sciences act as an agent of change in society? In Social sciences for knowledge and decision making. OECD proceedings (pp. 15–21). Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Whitty, G. (2006). Education(al) research and education policy making: Is conflict inevitable? British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yates, L. (2004). What does good education research look like? Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations