| Read a Post for Educational Research | | | | Reply to this Post | | | Ed doctor, heal thyself. Seppuku will kill you. | | Posted By: Dick Schutz on April 3, 2007 | | | McClintock's scorching portrayal of Ed Research tells it pretty much as it is. But he joins the longstanding conventional wisdom of educational researchers that their research can and will be “used” directly. As McClintock says, it's not even used by other researchers, proved by the fact that the "literature" is miles wide and inches deep.
People use “things,” not journal articles or compilations of journal articles. That's the function of Development: the D in R&D, which is near-null in education. Technical “development” has been expurgated from the lexicon of federal education, where we have the Institute of Educational Sciences, which recognizes only Research and Evaluation. Half-baked notions masked as “programs” are foisted on schools, with whines that the wishful “research” is not implemented with “fidelity.” Not fair. Not smart.
Throwing educational research down the well won't ameliorate the situation. Feeding researchers some of their own medicine of “accountability” would be fair, but it wouldn't ameliorate the situation either. The tried and true way is to recognize that both R&D are costs, not benefits and that the costs are ordinarily recovered through Development, not Research.
Dick Schutz
3RsPlus@usinter.net |
| |
