Session Information
15 SES 09, Enhancing Research Partnerships in Education: Methodologies for Participation and Dialogue
Research Workshop
Contribution
This workshop continues the focus within Network 15 and ECER on methodological reflexivity. We invite participants to consider the implications of research design both for the nature of the data that emerges from empirical work and for the nature of the research partnership itself. This workshop builds on that offered at ECER 2013 in Istanbul which introduced a framework of partnership working (McLaughlin and Black-Hawkins, 2004; Hall, 2009) and concentrated on a range of methods as catalytic tools to engage partners (Wall and Higgins, 2006; Knorr Cetina, 2001). For 2014, we provide a tighter focus on methodologies and tools that encourage open-ended participation and dialogue.
The underlying principle of research partnerships in education has often been expressed as the desire to change education through a deeper understanding (Stenhouse, 1981, see, for example, Masson et al 2011 and Merini, 2006 for an overview). However, in practice, the research design element of partnership working remains the exclusive province of the academic partners and we miss the potential for the research tools to be acknowledged elements of the partnership process (Baumfield et al 2009). Participation and dialogue, where they occur, have frequently been ‘happy accidents’ rather than planned outcomes: celebrated for the creativity and new insights that they bring; considered problematic because of their open-ended and complex presentation.
We have come to believe that, in order to tolerate and manage the disruptive and divergent nature of participation and dialogue, the research design and tools need to anticipate the complexity and to provide researchers and participants with sufficient structure and support. Within our theoretical framework of partnership and tools (Wall, et al 2010; Hall, 2011), we present a collection of specific tools that are employed here reflect the underlying intent (Amory, 2007): in this case dialogue. As Dewey reminds us: “A tool is also a mode of language… these objects are so intimately bound up with intentions, occupations and purposes that they have an eloquent voice” (Dewey 1938 p46). These tools provide a dimension beyond the invitation to participate, instead encouraging learners at all levels to become critical, active and engaged.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Amory, A. (2007) It’s not about the tool, it’s about the ideology. South African Journal of Higher Education 21, 6, 657-673 Baumfield, V., Hall, E., Higgins, S. , Wall, K. (2009) Catalytic tools: understanding the interaction of enquiry and feedback in teachers’ learning European Journal of Teacher Education 32, 4, 423-436 Clark J. Using diamond ranking as visual cues to engage young people in the research process. Qualitative Research Journal 2012, 12(2), 222-237. Connell, J.P. & Kubisch, A.C. (1998) ‘Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects and problems’, in: K. Fulbright-Anderson, A.C. Kubisch & J.P. Connell (Eds) New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Volume 2: Theory, measurement and analysis (Queenstown, The Aspen Institute). Dewey, J. (1938/1991) Logic, The Theory of Enquiry. Southern Illinois University Press. Hall, E. (2011) Enacting change in classrooms: teachers’ learning, enquiry tools and the role of the university in putting learning in to practice. PhD: Newcastle University Hall, E. (2009) Engaging in and engaging with research: teacher enquiry and development Teachers and teaching: theory and practice 15, 6, 669-682 Knorr Cetina, K. (2001) Objectual practice in Schatzki, T.R., Knorr Cetina, K , von Savigny, E. (Eds.) The practice turn in contemporary theory Abingdon: Routledge Lofthouse R, Leat D, Towler C. (2010) Coaching for teaching and learning: a practical guide for schools. Reading: CfBT Education Trust. Masson, P., Otrel-Cass, K., Baumfield, V., Pilo M. (2011) (Re)thinking Partnership in education. thebookedition.com. McLaughlin, C. , Black- Hawkins, K. (2004) A schools university research partnership: understandings, models and complexities. Journal In-service Education, 30 (2), 265-283 Mérini, C. (2006). Le partenariat en formation : de la modélisation à une application. Paris: l’Harmattan. 2èmeédition Miettinen, R. , Virkkunen, J. (2006) Learning in and for work and the joint construction of meditational artefacts: an activity theoretical view. In Antonacopoulou, E., et al. (Eds.) Learning Working and Living: Mapping the Terrain of Working Life London: Palgrave Macmillan Stenhouse, L. (1981) What counts as research? British Journal of Education Studies 29, 2 pp. 103-114. Wall, K. , Higgins, S. (2006) Facilitating and supporting talk with pupils about metacognition: a research and learning tool, IJRME, 29, 1, 39-53 Wall, K., Hall, E., Baumfield, V., Higgins, S., Rafferty, V., Remedios, R., Thomas, U., Tiplady, L., Towler, C. , Woolner, P. (2010) Learning to Learn Report. London: Campaign for Learning
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.