Absurdity of ‘the UK experience’ as a reflective resource in Kyoto

Abstract

Tensions between academic research and teacher practice are nothing new, and they have been debated extensively in many countries, where teacher practice has been well established as an important focus of academic research. Much effort has been made by university-based researchers to break down the walls between universities and schools so that the former's research work can be more relevant to educators, and schools in return can gain new insights provided by research. University-based teacher education programmes have been criticised for being 'too theoretical', and partnership with schools has been touted as a way to address this shortcoming. The reciprocal relationship through school-university partnership is much celebrated by many in teacher education, and yet to make it happen and sustain it requires considerable institutional commitment and, more often, personal sacrifice. One of the difficulties faced by university-based academics is that the appraisal system at universities does not always recognise the enormous time and effort involved in working with schools, nor does it recognise the merits of knowledge co-produced with school teachers that does not conform to the conventional criteria of 'research quality'. This gets to the heart of the issues and concerns raised by the BERA statement on close to practice (CtP) educational research, as well as Wyse et al.'s (2020) review of action research scholarship in the UK.What is different, or perhaps rather unique, about the current UK situation is how the Research Excellence Framework (REF) has intensified the existing tensions within the field of educational research. As stated by Wyse et al. (2020), these tensions 'are perhaps a distinct shift engendered by stronger national and supranational control of research quality, through mechanisms like the REF, in line with other socio-political moves to control the work of professionals' (p. 22). Indeed, the UK's research monitoring system seems alarmingly invasive when seen from where we are situated (Kyoto, Japan) and perhaps from other places as well. REF imposes a particular epistemologically loaded set of criteria on what counts as 'quality research' across the broad range of academic disciplines, and government funding is attached to this assessment exercise. No doubt this can unfairly assess those research outputs generated by and for educational professionals. If REF is part of the 'supranational control of research quality' as claimed by Wyse et al. (2020, p. 22), then it might suggest what the research environment on our side of the globe might look like in the not so distant future. Indeed, 'quality assurance' both in teaching and research at higher education

A Living Educational Theory Research Approach to Continuing Educational, Professional Development

“…The theoretical framework in this paper provides an evidence-based argument to justify the claim that the contributions to the special section of British Educational Research Journal 14(6), (Biesta et al, 2021;Dominic et al, 2021;Hordern, 2021;Kelchtermans, 2021;Parsons, 2021;Takayama et al, 2021;Wyse et al, 2021) are not close enough to researching educational practice, that is, their own, to generate the valid explanations of educational influences in learning that are needed to constitute Educational Theory. The paper explains how the mistake in the Disciplines Approach to Education, recognised by Hirst (1983) in replacing the practical principles used by educators to explain their educational practices, by principles from the disciplines approach, can be rectified.…”

People and practice: defining education as an academic discipline

“…A point made by Takayama and Nishioka is one we also agree with in relation to a further problem with the argument made by Hordern:

His [Hordern’s] philosophical argument might benefit from a dose of political astuteness, or being ‘strategic’ (Wyse et al, 2020, p. 22), in light of the declining public trust in state‐funded educational systems and in those who work within them as witnessed in many parts of the world. (Takayama & Nishioka, 2021, p. 3)

…”

“…Further challenges to Hordern’s argument by Takayama and Nishioka include Hordern’s lack of recognition that education has multiple roles and functions (not just the formation of individuals within society), and even the risk that Hordern’s argument could ‘further isolate and delegitimize the teaching profession itself’ (Takayama & Nishioka, 2021, p. 3). It is certainly salutary to reflect on how teachers might view Hordern’s arguments, particularly in relation to their views about the most important features of ‘good’ education.…”

“…This is a Response from the BERA Close‐to‐Practice Research Project Team to Hordern (2021), Takayama and Nishioka (2021), Kelchtermans (2021) and Parsons (2021), published as a ‘special section’ in the British Education Research Journal . Education research that ‘focuses on issues defined by practitioners as relevant to their practice, and involves collaboration between people whose main expertise is in research, in educational practice, or both’ (Wyse et al ., 2020, p. 5) has been the source of a range of debates relevant to understanding the development of education as an academic discipline.…”

“…Although the REF is unique to the UK, some other regions have nation state assessment of research quality, for example Australia, whereas other regions do not, including the USA and Japan, as Takayama and Nishioka (2021) note in their response to this special section.…”