Search

Although anthropological methods have been appropriated by qualitative and mixed-methods educational researchers, visual anthropology has had virtually no impact on educational research. Furthermore, video, in general, despite its widespread impact on 21st century culture, has played only a limited role in the conducting of education-related studies, and almost no role in reporting study results. This paper explores what would be gained and lost if researchers began using video in the doing and, especially, in the reporting of their research. The paper uses clips from four author-developed research videos to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages associated with educational researchers "going digital."

The recent debates about what constitutes scientific research in Education, on the one hand, and the so-called "paradigm wars" that got played out in the final quarter of the 20th century, on the other, are more similar than different. At the center of both controversies was the relative worth of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Both controversies also distracted researchers' from addressing the substantive problems that plague schools and other educational organizations. This paper attempts to move the field beyond the debates of the past and similar debates that seem likely to occur in the future. Inspired, in large part, by Joseph Schwab's largely unheeded critique of the curriculum field in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the paper attempts to reconceptualize what inquiry in a field like Education should look like, as well as the role that quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research could play in a re-conceptualized approach to inquiry.

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.

Policymakers tend to be suspicious of qualitative research. Distrust of qualitative work is especially acute when a researcher openly embraces critical perspectives and is oriented toward critiquing privilege and providing the sort of knowledge that helps set the stage for challenging the status quo and creating more just and equitable social contexts. The first part of this article uses an adaptation of autoethnographic methodology and the personal essay genre to suggest how all types of qualitative researchers, including those whose research is informed by critical perspectives, can influence state policy. In the second part of the article, the focus shifts to the local level. This part of the article describes a process designed to promote dialogue across differences and generate at least a modicum of consensus about policies that should be adopted and implemented within an organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article brackets assumptions embedded in the framing of this special issue on "problematizing methodological simplicity in qualitative research" in a effort to understand why policymakers put pressure on all types of researchers, including those who use qualitative methods, to provide relatively simple, even somewhat mechanistic portrayals of social life. The article employs an auto-ethnographic approach to demonstrate that simplified thinking is a virtual prerequisite for making policy. The article also demonstrates that qualitative researchers normally have a diametrically opposed view of simplification, but that this view is not necessarily shared by other academics. These other academics, consequently, are likely to have a greater impact on policymakers. The article concludes with an account of how the article's author, who was attracted to qualitative methods because they promised to accommodate the complexity of social life, has attempted to influence policymakers and the policymaking process without completing losing his methodological soul. (Contains 4 notes.)

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? (Contains 2 notes.)

Critics complain that the educational leadership researchers have not produced evidence that demonstrates that principal preparation programs affect student achievement. This study addressed this complaint by focusing on the impact of one exemplary program on graduates and the schools they led. The preponderance-of-evidence strategy used in this qualitatively driven mixed-methods study uncovered apparent linkages between student achievement, principal behavior, and the principals' preparation program. One finding suggested that the program's cohort design produced lagged-socialization effects after the actual program ended. The study also demonstrated that, because of inevitable selection effects, answering impact questions is much more difficult than critics assume. (Contains 3 notes, 5 tables, and 1 figure.)

"Culture Currents" presents the books, essays, poetry, performances, music, websites and other cultural media influencing educational leaders. "Culture Currents" is a snapshot, a peek behind the scenes. It reveals what people are reading or seeing that may not be normally mentioned or cited in their academic work. In this issue's contribution, two leaders in education were contacted and asked to answer three questions: (1) What books, essays or poetry have you read in the past year that have inspired you, influenced your thinking or impacted you emotionally for whatever reason?; (2) What performances, music, websites or other media have you encountered in the past year that have inspired you, influenced your thinking or stuck with you for whatever reason?; and (3) How (or why) have any or all of the above entries influenced you? Presented here is the response received from Robert Donmoyer, Professor of Leadership Studies at the University of San Diego.

In recent years, policy makers and researchers once again have embraced the traditional idea that quasi-experimental research designs (or reasonable facsimiles) can provide the sort of valid and generalizable knowledge about "what works" that educational researchers had promised--but never really produced--during the previous century. Although critics have challenged this thinking, to date most critiques have been more epistemological than methodological. The purpose of this article is to critique neo-scientific thinking about case study methods. In the process of doing this, the article also provides a more general, methodologically oriented critique of neo-scientific thought. The authors use a mixed-method, multiyear study of a reform initiative to keep their discussion tethered to relatively concrete methodological concerns. (Contains 10 notes.)

Comments on some features of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Describes the NAEP assessment of student achievement in theater. Evaluates the NAEP assessment in theater, focusing on (1) what can be learned from the assessment, (2) what the NAEP is assessing, and (3) the authenticity of the assessment. (CMK)

Early education reformers attempted to take the schools out of politics and turn over educational decision making to professionally trained school administrators. Postpositivist epistemology, however, suggests that all knowledge is political. This article reviews the knowledge/politics linkage, reformulates program evaluation according to a postpositive perspective, and describes resultant procedures in action. (52 references) (MLH)

Describes the articles in a special issue of Teacher Education prepared in collaboration with the National Center for Science Teaching and Learning. The issue articulates important visions of science curriculum teaching which incorporate both the sociological critique of scientific knowledge and the constructivist view of learning. (SM)

Describes a deliberation-oriented approach to curriculum evaluation, in which teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and students meet to determine issues and procedures related to curriculum evaluation. Summarizes findings from an initial attempt to implement such an approach. (MM)

Principals inevitably influence instruction and learning whether they intend to or not. How principals handle six managerial tasks (scheduling; articulating policies, rules, and norms; hiring personnel; supervising personnel; coordinating pupil services; and managing self-development) determines their effectiveness as managers and instructional leaders. Includes eight references. (MLH)

The purpose of this study was to examine how leaders of nonprofit social enterprises manage the tension between social mission and financial goals to avoid mission drift. The study employed a case study/cross‐case analysis design and used the qualitative research methods of interviewing, document review, and participant observation. We found tremendous variation in the strategies created for the organizations included in the study (n = 3). We labeled strategies as (a) structured ignorance, (b) problem reframing, and (c) defensible trade‐offs. Further research is needed to identify a comprehensive typology of strategies; however, there are immediate practical and social implications of this study. Specifically, the strategies identified here can be considered by nonprofit practitioners struggling with the mission/money tension. Additionally, these strategies challenge commonly held beliefs about the relationship among nonprofits, social service, and revenue generating activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, bias has been viewed as a problem with qualitative research, in large part because the researcher is often a qualitative study's primary (or, in some cases, only) research "instrument." Even most constructivists who reject traditional notions of scientific objectivity want to produce reasonably accurate reconstructions of their research participants' interpretations of the social world. In fact, presenting accurate reconstructions is one thing constructivists mean when they talk about a study's trustworthiness. Various procedures have been developed to minimize bias and ensure trustworthiness. The Formative Influences Timeline (FIT) is one such procedure. This article provides a brief history of bias in qualitative research, describes the FIT and how to use it, and reviews nonprofit research studies that either employed—or could have employed—the FIT to produce data relatively uncontaminated by researchers' a priori assumptions. The article concludes by acknowledging limitations of the FIT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]