Expressions of excellence and the assessment of applied and practice‐based research

Abstract

Critics of education research in the recent years have pointed the finger at what they saw as its low quality, impact, and 'value for money'. In the context of the Research Assessment Exercise, particular concerns have been raised about applied and practicebased educational research and how best to assess its quality. This paper refines the ideas originally developed as part of a project commissioned by the ESRC in 2004 and completed in 2005. It argues that quality in applied and practice-based research cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of "scientificity", "impact", or economic efficiency. The paper proposes an account of quality in applied and practice-based educational research which encompasses methodological and theoretical solidity, use and impact, but also dialogue, deliberation, participation, ethics and personal growth. Drawing on Aristotelian distinctions between forms of rational activity and their expressions of excellence or virtue, our account emphasises the synergy between three domains of excellence in applied and practice-based research: theoretical (episteme); technical (techne); and practical (phronesis). The thrust of the paper is not to set any standards of good research practice, but simply to make progress towards recapturing a cultural and philosophical dimension of research assessment that had been lost in recent official discourses.

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

“…They argue that the evaluation of practice-based research has to cope with the entanglement of research and practice, which means that evaluation still has to reflect reasoning and knowledge but it has also to open up for more experimental modes of knowledge coming from within a context of concrete situations and first-person action. While they do not aim at setting standards of good research practice, they conclude that research assessment needs to re-integrate a cultural and philosophical dimension that had been lost in the current discourse of research assessment (Oancea and Furlong, 2007).…”

“…Also for educational research, Oancea and Furlong (2007) developed criteria for research performance. They define educational research as practice-based and state that such research is not confined to scientificity (that is, discoveries of universal findings or even laws), impact or economic efficiency but also encompasses, amongst others, methodological and theoretical rigour, dialogue, deliberation, participation, ethics and personal growth.…”

Closing the feedback loop: a productive interplay between practice-based research and school development through cross-professional collaboration in secondary education

“…One condition mentioned in literature is a rhythm in which the stages of R&D are aligned (Bauer andFisher 2007, Baumfield andButterworth 2007). A critical aspect of rhythm is timeliness; research is, for example, timely when results become available at a moment when they are needed to take practical decisions in schools (Oancea and Furlong 2007). Research knowledge can be integrated by practitioners into their practical knowledge and provide them with guidelines for further actions to improve practice (McLaughlin and Black-Hawkins 2004, Van de Ven 2007, Vanderlinde and Van Braak 2010.…”

“…The aim of practice-based research is to generate useful knowledge on and for educational practice (McLaughlin andBlack-Hawkins 2004, McKenney andReeves 2013). Practice-based research can provide insights into specific problems in school practice and support practitioners in their work (Earl and Katz 2006, Broekkamp and Van Hout-Wolters 2007, Oancea and Furlong 2007. The process of performing practice-based research is often iterative, consisting of multiple cycles of problem analysis, implementation and evaluation.…”

“…At the same time, researchers can learn from school practitioners while performing practice-based research; for example because they become aware of the complexity of schools and the sometimes limited relevance of general research findings for specific school practices (Snoek and Moens 2011, Cornelissen et al 2013, Walsh and Backe 2013, Leeman and Wardekker 2014. Important conditions for mutual learning are receptiveness of the professionals towards each other's viewpoint and constant negotiation on the issues of research and school practice (Oancea andFurlong 2007, Edwards 2012). However, this does not necessarily mean that cross-professional collaboration contributes to school development as a matter of course.…”