Skip to main content

The Design(s) of Educational Research: Description and Interpretation

Abstract

The chapter questions the use of (quasi-) experimental designs as the exclusive (or the best) way to conduct educational research. It focuses not only on the problems of a quantitative approach, often ignoring the ‘ends’ and invoking ‘factors’ which operate independently, but also identifies the weaknesses of qualitative research, i.e. often stating the obvious and betraying the holistic nature of its own presuppositions. Starting from the insights of Peter Winch it is argued that one should start from ‘what makes sense for us’. Educational research is ‘philosophical’, i.e. it is about ‘concepts’ and ‘social practice’. Such an interpretative stance highlights further that educational research should be seen as a performative intervention that is interested in various modes of explanation and thus uses various methods. It contributes to the task of improving upon our practical knowledge of ongoing social life which presupposes dialogue between all those involved.

Keywords

  • Interpretative research
  • Winch
  • Holistic approach
  • What makes sense for us
  • Performative intervention

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • AERA (2006) Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educ Res 35(6):33–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Affeldt S (1998) The ground of mutuality: criteria, judgment, and intelligibility in Stephen Mulhall and Stanley Cavell. Eur J Philos 6(1):1–31

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baz A (2003) On when words are called for: Cavell, McDowell, and the wording of the world. Inquiry 46(4):473–500

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bohman J (1997) Pluralism, indeterminacy and the social sciences: reply to Ingram and Meehan. Hum Stud 20(4):441–458

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhart M (2005) Hammers and saws for the improvement of educational research. Educ Theory 55(3):245–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Fendler L (2006) Why generalizability is not generalizable. In: Smeyers P, Depaepe M (eds) Educational research: why ‘what works’ doesn’t work. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 51–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein H, Blatchford P (1998) Class size and educational achievement: a review of methodology with particular reference to study design. Brit Educ Res J 24(3):255–268

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Howe KR (2005) The question of education science: experimentism versus experimentalism. Educ Theory 55(3):307–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahieu S, Vanderlinde R (2002) De professionele ontwikkeling van beginnende leerkrachten vanuit het micropolitiek perspectief [The professional development of recently graduated teachers from the perspective of micro politics]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss PA (2005) Understanding the other/understanding ourselves: toward a constructive dialogue about ‘principles’ in educational research. Educ Theory 55(3):263–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller F, Light RJ, Sachs JA (1996) Sustained inquiry in education: lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harv Educ Rev 66(4):797–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulhall S (2000) Misplacing freedom, displacing the imagination: Cavell and Murdoch on the fact/value distinction. Philosophy 47(Supp vol):255–277

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2002) Scientific research in education. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne D (1995) Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. Int J Qual Stud Educ 8(1):5–23

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt TA (2005) Diagnostic reading of scientifically based research for education. Educ Theory 55(3):285–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (2006) Technical difficulties: the workings of practical judgement. In: Smeyers P, Depaepe M (eds) Educational research: why ‘what works’ doesn’t work. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 159–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Winch P (1958) The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophische Untersuchungen [Philosophical investigations] (trans: Anscombe GEM). Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Smeyers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smeyers, P. (2014). The Design(s) of Educational Research: Description and Interpretation. In: Reid, A., Hart, E., Peters, M. (eds) A Companion to Research in Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6809-3_9

Download citation