Margaret Eisenhart

Standards for Qualitative (and Quantitative) Research: A Prolegomenon

The proliferation of qualitative methods in educational research has led to considerable controversy about standards for the design and conduct of research. This controversy has been playing itself out over the last several decades largely in terms of the quantitative-qualitative debate. In this paper we argue that framing the issue of standards in terms of quantitative-qualitative debate is misguided. We argue instead that the problem of standards—for qualitative and quantitative research—is best framed in terms of the “logics in use” associated with various research methodologies. In particular, rather than being judged in terms of qualitative versus quantitative paradigms, logics in use, which are often drawn from other academic disciplines and adapted for the purposes of educational research, are judged in terms of their success in investigating educational problems deemed important. Finally, we proffer five general standards that can apply to educational research of all kinds.

Creating the Conditions for Scientific Literacy: A Re-Examination

This article explores the way in which scientific literacy has been defined, justified, and operationalized in current proposals for science education reform. We argue that, although the vision of scientific literacy reflected in reform proposals is broad, progressive, and inclusive, it is being implemented in narrow and conventional ways. As a consequence, we are not optimistic that current proposals will lead to a significant increase in the scientific literacy of the U. S. population. In the article, we discuss limitations in the current direction of science education reform and examine some alternate ways of thinking about it.

Contestation and Change in National Policy on “Scientifically Based” Education Research

In this article, we examine the definitions of “scientifically based research” in education that have appeared in recent national legislation and policy. These definitions, now written into law in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, and the focus of the National Research Council’s 2002 publication, Scientific Research in Education, are being used to affect decisions about the future of education programs and the direction of education research. Perhaps because of the high stakes involved, there has been some tendency to lump together the definitions emanating from Washington sources. From our perspective as participants in some of this activity, we argue that there are important differences among these definitions and their purposes. Furthermore, we suggest that the various definitions, together with public input about them, can provide leverage for altering the meanings of scientifically based research and education research that are being operationalized in current public policy.

Educational Ethnography Past, Present, and Future: Ideas to Think With

This paper addresses an issue that constantly plagues all social science research: How should we adjust our conceptual orientations and methodological priorities to take into account apparently changing human experiences and priorities? I take up this issue in the form of three “muddles,” or confusing situations, that confront me as an ethnographer trying to work in today’s contentious educational research atmosphere. In my case, the three muddles concern the meaning of “culture;” the enthusiasm (or not) for ethnography; and the researcher’s responsibility to those she writes about and hopes to help. First, I describe each muddle. Then I try to “tidy them up,” at least enough to give some direction to my future work. I find that some familiar ideas about culture, ethnography, and researcher responsibility are still very useful, but they should be thought about in new ways in light of present circumstances. [There are images that evoke] connections in the world today that make [those images] useful to think with. –Marilyn Strathern, Partial Connections

Doctoral Preparation of Scientifically Based Education Researchers

Finding improved ways to train education researchers has taken on new urgency as federal legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 call for “scientifically based research in education.” The authors of this article suggest an approach to socializing doctoral students to a common “culture of science” (a set of norms for scientific inquiry) and preparing them for interdisciplinary studies that span the natural and social sciences. Drawing on developments in the fields of neuroscience, sociology of natural science, and the learning sciences, the authors argue for an approach to doctoral training that is consistent with a broad definition of scientifically based research.

The Paradox of Peer Review: Admitting Too Much or Allowing Too Little?.

Peer review – the means by which ones equals assess the quality of ones scholarly work – has been used to determine academic merit for more than three centuries. Although the results of academic peer reviews are frequently challenged, peer review continues to be a commonplace of academic life. In the present scholarship climate, challenges to peer review come primarily from two sides. On one side there are those who believe that high academic standards are not being upheld by peer review panels, thus admitting weak proposals, people, programs, and articles. On the other side there are those who believe that review panels uphold conventional standards, thus disqualifying innovative projects and worthy people with diverse perspectives. In this article, I take up these two challenges. Together, they reveal a paradox of the current system of peer review: Both sides are right. And, the paradox has led to increased fragmentation within the field of educational research. Yet, despite the limitations of peer review, no viable alternatives exist. Thus, I will argue that the best we can do is to re-consider what we mean by “merit” in educational research, and to train new educational researchers in ways that expand their ability to judge merit broadly.

Students' Conceptions of Reading and Their Reading Experiences in School

The Elementary School Journal Volume 86, Number 5 ? 1986 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 00oo 13-5984/86/8605-0002

Qualitative Science in Experimental Time.

01o.00 Teaching children to read is one of the major goals of our nations elementary schools. In fact, many parents, teachers, and students equate success in the primary grades with success in learning to read. At the same time, some children are more successful at learning to read in school than others. Understanding the reasons for this differential success might help teachers and other educational decision makers design reading programs that will help more students achieve higher levels of reading proficiency than is presently the case. In this paper, we discuss some of the data obtained in an intensive study of the teaching and learning of reading in the four second-grade classrooms of one elementary school. The study was designed to address the question: What makes a difference in childrens success at learning to read in school? We focus on the under-

In Search of an Interdisciplinary Collaborative Design for Studying Teacher Education.

This article addresses the ‘state of qualitative inquiry’ in the sense of how that inquiry is being positioned in the current construction of a US national policy agenda for ‘scientifically based’ education research. In the author’s view, qualitative inquiry is being drowned out in the national agenda despite its ability to provide the kinds of answers regarding education that policy‐makers and others want. The drowning out is accomplished in part by discursive conflating of ‘experimental research’ and ‘scientifically based research’ and by use of the phrase ‘gold standard’ to position experiments as the exemplar of good and rigorous research in education. The article critiques these political‐linguistic moves and suggests two predominantly qualitative forms of inquiry—interpretive and practical science—as alternatives to experimental science. It ends with some thoughts, based in cultural anthropology, for improving the position of qualitative inquiry in the current political environment surrounding education research.

The Role of Social Representations and National Identities in the Development of Territorial Knowledge: A Study of Political Socialization in Argentina and England

Abstract This paper describes the efforts of two researchers, an anthropologist, and a psychologist, to conduct collaborative research in teacher education. Drawing on 10 years of work together and literature on interdisciplinary collaboration, we discuss the issues we faced to remain true to our own disciplines and simultaneously contribute to research on teaching and teacher education. The article emphasizes: the importance of what each discipline insists upon; the role of compromise; and the value of interdisciplinary perspectives for research on teaching. Our latest work together, a study of novice mathematics teachers, is used to illustrate the potential of our approach.