The Norwegian language displays subtle linguistic nuances when it comes to “educational research”. We find, for example, pedagogikk, pedagogisk forskning, utdanningsforskning and utdanningsvitenskap – all terms used by the Norwegian Research Council, intended to convey slightly different content. But like in other countries, the terrain that these terms are supposed to provide a map of is rapidly changing. In our paper we would like to discuss various features of the fluid terrain called “educational research” and see if other maps can be suggested that are more useful. We shall employ both historical and epistemological perspectives. In Norway the first academic chairs in pedagogikk were established in Oslo, 1918-1922, and in Trondheim in 1922. An educational research department was established at the University of Oslo 1938, on the explicit understanding that scientific know-why was necessary in order to improve professional know-how (Dale 2011). However, the relation between scientific and professional knowledge has been and still is both fuzzy and uneasy, making the terrain difficult to pin down and navigate. Nevertheless, at its inception “educational research” in Norway conformed well to what Gibbons et.al. (1994) call Mode 1 knowledge. This does not only refer to the (theoretical) knowledge produced, but also to its context of production: (university) departments, curricula, scholarly journals, researcher associations and library classifications (Post 2009). But the large picture is blurred because scientific and professional forms of educational knowledge and research co-existed. With mass education from the 1970s, institutional changes and growth of sectoral R&D funding in education and other welfare sectors, Mode 1 is no longer the dominant pattern. Several questions arise: What comes instead of Mode 1? What are the boundaries of the terrain? Is it possible to find a comprehensive map that draws a useful picture of the whole terrain, or are many small maps covering different parts of the terrain needed? Our paper will largely cover the changes of the terrain, given that “educational research” in itself provides too narrow a perspective. It is by no means clear what the terrain consists in, or what it should consist in. We suggest above that “educational research” terrains include organizational features, but should these be confined to universities? Or should for example teacher training colleges be included? If so, the scales may tip toward know-how, at the expense of know-why, with possible consequences for both rigour, discipline and the systematic.

Dale, E. L. (2011). Utdanningsvitenskap og pedagogikk [Educational science and pedagogy]. Oslo: Gyldendal Gibbons, M. et.al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Los Angeles: SAGE Post, R. (2009). Debating disciplinarity. Critical Inquiry, 35, 4, 749-774