Search

In the present scientific era which prefers evidence-based educational research and methodological gold standards, 'rigour', 'discipline' and the 'systematic' serve as standardising and homogenising concepts and as powerful identifiers of 'normal science' in the context of historical and cultural contingencies. These concepts serve to construct disciplinary identities and, furthermore, have the power to define what counts as rigour, discipline and the systematic -- and what not. The article starts with the problems of terminology and shows that rigour, discipline and the systematic are rather vague and ambivalent concepts, especially when considering their meaning in different languages and cultures. The second part uses different foci of several theoretical approaches in order to show the meaning and functions of rigour, discipline and the systematic for constructing educational research identities and to explain different notions of these concepts in different research cultures. The final part considers the future and argues for the strengthening of a transversal, (meta-)reflexive and communicative dimension which both opens and limits the forms and formats of educational research employing diversity and intercultural communication as a valuable and powerful resource of sound scholarly research, mutual understanding and intellectual delight.

»Professionality« in the Educational Research Communicative Space The article uses the perspective of research on educational research to trace profiles of discussing »professionality« in educational research. In view of the great heterogeneity of pedagogical activities, fields and organisations, an overarching concept of pedagogical professionality may have become obsolete. The article is based on analyses of citation patterns, keywords and abstracts of publications on the topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bildung und Erziehung is the property of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

For many years the EERJ Roundtable has been a standing event within the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER). In a discursive style it addresses issues related to contemporary relationships between educational research and educational policy in Europe. The changing educational landscape, together with shifting practices and discourses of educational research, prompted researchers to discuss the need for increased self-governance. It was taken up as the topic for the 2013 EERJ Roundtable and couched as a question: What is the possibility of a "moot" for educational research in Europe? This article reports on the 2013 Roundtable. Its three short presentations and subsequent audience discussion have been summarised and reflected upon to make a case for a moot: a self-governing space for educational research. It reveals ECER, and particularly the EERJ Roundtable, as a scholarly and a political arena where the interplay between research, policy and larger patterns of social change can be reviewed, interrogated and appropriated critically into the disciplinary logics of educational research.

The process of Europeanisation is closely linked to the process of an emerging European Educational Research Area and an education research identity. The European Conferences on Educational Research (ECER), European Educational Research Association (EERA) and its networks are involved in new directions and strands of educational research in particular European nations as well as in processes to construct a common European Educational Research Area. ECER to a large extent contributes to such developments both as observer and actor. Against the background of diverse functions and contexts of ECER for communication on and development of educational research in Europe, the authors describe some small-scale research studies about ECER that have been carried out during the past ten years dealing with attendance motives and assessments of ECER, and provide content analyses of proposal abstracts of ECER. In doing so, they would like to present a mirror to EERA at its 20th anniversary that could contribute to further systematic self-observation and self-governance of EERA and ECERs as vivid, inspiring, powerful, discursive, democratic and scholarly high-standing conferences in the future.

At the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland, the EERJ Roundtable focused upon the relationships between information, research and intervention. These relationships could be understood as a circular flow of decontextualising and recontextualising terms, concepts or "knowledge" according to the respective needs and prevalent textures. The Roundtable focused on research governance and its effects on knowledge, with attention to the ways in which research results are shaped as information which then become translated into "evidence", which is, finally, taken as an appropriate foundation for policy interventions. The questions are how knowledge is shaped by these processes of de- and recontextualization, and how researchers and policy makers shift their social roles in mediating these processes. In this context, the Roundtable drew on research and experience to examine specific instances of shifts in the kinds of knowledge that is "taken up" and exploited by policy makers. The participants considered relevant mechanisms in the metamorphosis of types of knowledge, in the shifts of social roles and in the consequences for research policy. (Contains 2 tables and 5 notes.)

There exist two types of reviews the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is conducting, country reviews and thematic reviews. Although all country reviews are also thematic by nature, the focus lies more on one country and the analysis serves the specific needs of the country under review and the other member states as a reliable, standardised source of information. So-called thematic reviews treat one theme over many countries--at least five or six--and end in a comparative study that shows differences between countries, best practice in particular countries, tendencies, etpara. and should give an insight into the general mechanics of the chosen topic and be a guideline for all member states. The review of the educational research policy in England is somewhere in between the two types of reviews. The purpose of the Roundtable is to use the OECD "Report on Educational Research and Development in England" to ask questions about the direction of educational research within the European Educational Research Space. This stems from a strong interest within European Educational Research Association (EERA) about the changing nature of educational research and the collection of comparative data about performance in research as well as from the discussions that have been going on for some time within EERA about the purpose and features of a European educational research observatory. The key focus of the report being on the relation between educational improvement and "effective" research, and how knowledge about educational improvement could be applied to practice. If the report's approach will be followed, it is probable that educational research will be focused more on research capacity building and evidence-based practice, for the purpose of delivering educational improvements. Therefore, the focus of the debate will be not so much on the OECD report on England as such, but on the methodological-political-scientific criteria on which it is based, and the consequent possible advisability of applying in a more extensive way the approach that has been adopted, in the "reasonable assumption" that it could be a model for future research audits. In this framework the authors offer their comments on the present and future of educational research. (Contains 1 note.)

Focuses on the educational policy debates that in 1848 determined the character of the consultations concerning the reorganization of the Prussian educational system. Demonstrates how in 1848 the hierarchization of the teacher categories was prepared parallel to the educational system. (CMK)

Examines the significance of pedagogical studies for the professional self-image as exemplified by studies leading to a degree in education. Surveys students' prospective conceptions about future professional activities, and teachers' retrospections on the significance of their studies for their professional practice. (DSK)

Examines patterns of institutional organization and communication in education in France and Germany. The science of education is autonomous and philosophically oriented in Germany but is intertwined with sociology, psychology, and other social sciences and is positivistic in nature in France. Overlap between the cognitive textures of the French and German traditions is very small. (SV)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Pädagogik is the property of Julius Beltz GmbH & Co. KG Beltz Juventa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Educação, Sociedade & Culturas is the property of Centro de Investigacao e Intervencao Educativa (CIIE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)