What (a) to do about ‘impact’: a Bourdieusian critique

This paper presents a research‐based, theoretically‐informed contribution to the debate on ‘impact’ in educational research, and specifically a response to Gardner's 2011 presidential address to the British Educational Research Association. It begins by discussing the development of the research ‘impact’ agenda as a global phenomenon, and reviews the current state of debate about ‘impact’ in the UK's Research Excellence Framework. It goes on to argue that a radical alternative perspective on this agenda is needed, and outlines Bourdieu's sociology—including his much‐neglected concept of illusio—as offering potential for generating critical insights into demands for ‘impact’. The term illusio in particular calls us to examine the ‘stakes’ that matter in the field of educational research: the objects of value that elicit commitment from players and are ‘worth the candle’. This framework is then applied first to analyse an account of how an ESRC‐funded project that I led was received by different research ‘users’ as we sought to generate impact for our findings. Second, it is used to show that the field of educational research has changed; that it has bifurcated between the field of research production and that of research reception; and that the former is being subordinated to the latter. The paper concludes by arguing that, despite many educational researchers' commitments to ‘make a difference’ in wider society, the research ‘impact’ imperative is one that encroaches on academic freedom; and that academics need to find collective ways in which to resist it.     

Sense and Sensitivity: A Response to the Commentary by Keller et al. (2018)

This reply to the commentary by Keller et al. (2018) on the article “Universality Without Uniformity: A Culturally Inclusive Approach to Sensitive Responsiveness in Infant Caregiving” (Mesman et al., 2017 ) highlights key points of agreement emphasizing the sense of investing in synergies across research traditions. These include the importance of distinguishing between different parenting constructs, the need for more studies to test the presented theoretical assumptions, and the value of examining multiple caregiver sensitivity in relation to infants’ developing membership of a community. The only point of disagreement reflects the rigidity versus flexibility of the sensitivity construct. This reply argues that it is exactly the versatility of the sensitivity construct that makes it a valuable building block for bridges between fields.     

Defining Personal Epistemology: A Response to Hofer & Pintrich (1997) and Sandoval (2005)

Some researchers, including B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (1997) Hofer, B. K. and Pintrich, P. R. 1997. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning.. Review of Educational Research, 67(1): 88–140. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] and W. A. Sandoval (2005) Sandoval, W. A. 2005. Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry.. Science Education, 89: 634–656. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], argue for defining personal epistemology as views about the nature of knowledge and knowing but not views about the nature of learning. Others continue using a more expansive definition of personal epistemology that includes views about learning. I argue that the scope of personal epistemology should not be decided entirely a priori. If people's views about the nature of knowing and knowledge turn out to be separable from (despite being intertwined with) their views about the nature of learning, then it makes sense to define 2 separate areas of study corresponding to those 2 separable sets of psychological constructs. From some theoretical perspectives, however, empirical results may support the interpretation that views about knowledge are inseparably entangled with views about learning. In that case, excluding views about learning from personal epistemology obscures rather than elucidates the content and cognitive structure of students' views. To be clear, I do not think the community should decide, now, to etch “views about the nature of learning” into the definition of personal epistemology. I argue instead that it is more productive not to converge on a definition until further empirical and theoretical progress points us toward the best way to “cut up [nature] … along its natural joints” (Plato, 1995 Plato. 1995. Phaedrus, Edited by: Nehamas, A. and Woodruff, P. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.  [Google Scholar], p. 64).     

A re‐evaluation of the evidence for orthographic analogies: a reply to Goswami (1999)

Recently, Goswami (1999) reviewed available evidence for and against the role of phonological rime awareness and analogy theory, concluding that both rhyme awareness and orthographic rime analogy are causally related to reading acquisition. On inspection, however, much of this evidence best fits an alternative (non‐rime) interpretation. Furthermore, in a number of studies, key facts and analyses were not reported. A fuller re‐analysis of the literature reviewed by Goswami reveals that: 1) the nature of the relationship between phonological rhyme awareness and reading remains controversial; 2) significant doubt remains about the nature and relevance of demonstrations of analogy use in early reading; 3) such training studies as currently exist suggest that rime use is not important compared to the use of phonemes or other sub‐syllabic units. Implications from this evidence for teaching and the role rime analogy should play in the National Curriculum are explored.     

AS Level Art: Farewell to the ‘Wow’ Factor?

The new AS level modular examinations for year 12 students in England were introduced as part of the government's Curriculum 2000 reforms designed to bring greater breadth to year 12 and 13 experience. A uniform structure of two modules followed by a synoptic timed test has been imposed on all subjects by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority [QCA]. In AS Level Art the expressive study module requires evidence of a broad engagement with different generic art forms and visual language skills. The Thematic Study requires convergence towards specific outcomes in at least two media and the Timed Test of eight hours duration requires work towards a single theme with a preparatory period of six weeks. The paper arrives in January so the two coursework modules need to be completed in a little more than a term. The four assessment objectives are as follows: 1 To record observations, experiences, ideas, information and insights in visual and other forms, appropriate to intentions. 2 To analyse and evaluate critically sources such as images, objects, artifacts and texts, showing understanding of purposes, meanings and contexts. 3 To develop ideas through sustained investigations and exploration, selecting and using materials, processes and resources, identifying and interpreting relationships and analysing methods and outcomes. 4 To present a personal coherent and informed response, realising intentions and articulating and explaining connnections with the work of others. All four objectives need to be met in each module. Although some subjects have welcomed the change, it seems that fears raised by those concerned with the teaching of art during the consultation process have been born out by the experience of the last year. Previously art teachers were free to address skills and concepts in their own way and with regard to the different aptitudes, interests and learning styles of their students. The final submission, including the exam project, was marked as a whole relying on the professional experience of the teacher and moderators to balance the requirements of the syllabus with the transcendent, the ‘wow factor’. This paper questions the value of a tiered course that is at once superficial in its expectations, draconian in content, unrealistic in its timescale and discourages work of substance.     

Measurement Specialists: Testing the Faith–A Reply to Mehrens

The centrality of the validity issue in any discussion of test use is the focus of George's reply to Bill. While acknowledging that one can distinguish between a decision and the tools used to assist in making the decision, he argues that in most high-stakes tests the decision is inherently linked to the test. Hence, the validity of the decision is directly related to the validity of the test.     

To be or not to be ‘a disabled student’ in higher education: the case of a postgraduate ‘non‐declaring’ (disabled) student

This paper draws on data from a research project that was funded by the UK's Higher Education Academy. The project focused on the experiences of disabled students in one English higher education institution, and a key feature of the project was to attempt to access the perspectives of ‘non‐declaring’ disabled students. This paper draws on the experiences of one of the ‘non‐declaring’ respondents, Anna, a postgraduate student. In the UK, some students declare their disabled status on entry to a higher education institution, some do so once at the institution and some never let the institution know of their impairment. It is the perspectives of this latter group that are particularly difficult to access. Anna's experiences as a postgraduate student provide some insight into what may affect decisions about declaration of impairment. Drawing on a social‐relational understanding of disability, factors that influenced her decision not to ‘declare’ and the consequent effect on her experience of higher education are explored.