Search

Purpose: This paper has a twofold purpose: (1) to demonstrate, largely with historical evidence, that, contrary to what some have argued, thinking about educational research articulated at the start of the twenty-first century was not really "new wine in new bottles" but, rather, a continuation of the so-called paradigm wars about, ultimately, unresolvable methodological and epistemological issues that occurred during the twentieth century; and (2) to suggest a way members of the educational administration field might transcend, or at least circumvent, time-consuming and distracting battles about unresolvable methodological and epistemological issues in the future while keeping their focus on issues of practice. Design/methodology/approach: This is a quasi-historical essay that uses influential literature during the historical periods focused on as evidence to support the essay's arguments. Findings: The paper demonstrates that twentieth century philosophical disagreements about research methods and the role that educational research can play in policy and practice decision making were not resolved but, rather, were largely reenacted during the first decade of the twenty-first century, again without a resolution. The paper proposes a way that administrators, policymakers and researchers can manage this situation and still use research to make policy and practice decisions. Practical implications: The paper suggests a new role for both school administrators and policymakers to play. If administrators/policymakers play this role successfully, all types of research can inform decision making about policy and practice, and researchers can concentrate on doing their research rather than engaging in unresolvable philosophical disputes. Originality/value: Although a great deal has been written about the twentieth century's theory movement and paradigm wars and the twenty-first century's so-called science wars, the link between these phenomena has not been discussed in the literature. In addition, there have been few attempts to articulate an operational strategy for managing unresolvable philosophical disputes about research methods and the role that research can play in decision making. This paper tackles both matters.

Critiques attempts to resurrect aspects of positivism and argues that the work of certain post-positivist philosophers (in particular, Toulmin's discussions of the role that purpose plays in rational decisionmaking) provides a more adequate response to the problems associated with relativism. (Author/GC)

The incorporation of play experiences into the school curriculum is discussed in relation to the political nature of curriculum decision making and the use of play as a curriculum strategy. (JN)

The article asks whether constructivist qualitative researchers have anything to offer policymakers who expect researchers to tell them what works. The first part of the article addresses philosophical objections to characterizing the social world in cause/effect terms. Specifically, it considers whether it is legitimate for qualitative researchers who claim to be employing a constructivist research paradigm to even attempt to provide the sort of simplified causal explanations that policy makers normally expect. The second part of the article takes a more empirical tack by focusing on three recent evaluation studies in which funders wanted to learn what types of programs they should support to produce desired results. The underlying question in this part of the article is pragmatic: Even if there is no paradigmatic prohibition against attempting to answer policymakers’ what-works question, are constructivist qualitative researchers able to answer policymakers’ bottom-line question in a defensible way? [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Critiques the 15-year research program of Colin W. Evers and Gabriele Lakomski. Significant contributions are highlighted and the significance of each of the highlighted contributions is discussed, since apparent problems with Evers and Lakomski's substantive contributions to the field are also considered. In addition, critiques Evers and Lakomski's discipline-like way of working, which is oriented toward constructing the most inclusive and parsimonious theory that can be developed to make sense of educational administration practice. This disciplinary orientation is judged to be problematic, because, it is argued, educational administration is best conceptualized as a public policy field rather than as an academic discipline. The implications of the public policy field conceptualization are explored and this discussion is used further to highlight positive and problematic features of Evers and Lakomski's research program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]