‘What Works?’ also demands categoric solutions, but the reality is that all knowledge
is provisional in any field of science. Indeed, scientific processes are predicated on
that assumption. Those who might, even rhetorically, imply that educational research
can ‘solve’ educational problems thus have to be guided to a more realistic position.
Education is hugely complex, and the reality is that there are difficulties in identifying,
understanding, relating, measuring, analysing, theorising and reporting the
multiplicity of variables that affect teaching and learning. This is one of the reasons
why diverse perspectives have evolved. What researchers can and should do
though, is to work systematically towards reducing that complexity and towards
specifying degrees of likelihood in the relationships between variables. This is the
attraction of conceptual analyses and of notions such as ‘fuzzy generalisation’. In my
view, such contributions are as valuable as those of the economist predicting future
economic growth, the political scientist anticipating electoral outcomes or even the
weather forecaster. In each case, there is no certainty, but they offer expert opinion
based on careful examination of available evidence.
On this point, educational researchers do have to be alert. Challenges to
demonstrate the ‘warrant’ of findings are not inappropriate. Colleagues in our
Research Capacity Building Network (RCBN) have some important things to say, and
we all have a responsibility to understand the strengths of the work of others. A
danger of too much insularity within any particular academic tribe or territory is that
the sub-field becomes self-referential, complacent, closed and defensive. If TLRP is
to succeed, then we must support each other in exploring across boundaries and in
working towards increasingly sophisticated, and demonstrably accurate, evidence-
based, understandings of educational processes.
Whatever educational researchers achieve, my view remains that this knowledge will
always be provisional and contextually circumscribed. This is where the relationship
with user practitioners and policy-makers comes in. Judgements about the relevance
and application of research are matters for these professionals as they confront an
inevitable range of contextually-specific dilemmas. A respectful division of labour is
necessary - though, of course, there can be very helpful movement between the two
roles. In respect of teachers, this posture in relation to research is what I have tried
to support in my work on Reflective Teaching (www.RTweb.info). A key argument is
that researchers provide an array of findings and analyses but, however carefully
honed such resources are, they require professional judgement about application by
those who understand the specifics of context, learner characteristics, educational
objectives, etc.
To fulfil our role in this, as educational researchers within TLRP, we have to commit
to struggling, openly, to improve the quality of the knowledge we produce, to
progressively seek more secure analyses and to work towards evidence-informed
policy and practice - even if we know that we will never achieve certainty or ‘truth’.
What are we trying to discover? Substantive and thematic issues
The first Programme Newsletter of September 2000 announced ‘Research to Raise
Achievement’. It declared:
‘Our objective is to support the teaching and learning community in improving
the achievement of learners, across a wide range of contexts, by providing
evidence from high quality research and ensuring it has impact on practice.’