Then and now: Twenty years of education research methods use in the United Kingdom

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Emma Smith, Stephen Gorard, Rebecca Morris, Thomas Perry, Jess Pilgrim-Brown
{"title":"Then and now: Twenty years of education research methods use in the United Kingdom","authors":"Emma Smith,&nbsp;Stephen Gorard,&nbsp;Rebecca Morris,&nbsp;Thomas Perry,&nbsp;Jess Pilgrim-Brown","doi":"10.1002/berj.4179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There have been debates about the quality and usefulness of education research for a long time, with opinion often dividing along methodological lines. Those on different sides of an apparent methodological schism often bemoan the lack of recognition and resources afforded to their chosen approach. Whatever one's position on the existence, or persistence, of education research's own version of the ‘paradigm wars’, it is nevertheless the case that research design and methods are central to its identity, its usefulness and the impact it makes upon society. This paper contributes to wider debates around the status of education research as a field, or discipline, by exploring the extent to which the research methods used by education researchers working in UK higher education, and beyond, have varied over the last 20 years. It reports the findings from a comparative analysis of two large-scale surveys—the ESRC-funded Research Capacity Building Network survey of 2002 and the BERA-funded Higher Education Research Census 2022. Both surveys explored the methods used by education researchers, mainly based in higher education, and took place against a backdrop of concern, from within and outside the field, about the quality and reach of its research. The findings show that education researchers draw from a variety of different methods and approaches but that the range of tools that they use has narrowed a lot over the period considered. Furthermore, there appears to be an increase in methodological polarisation, particularly between a minority who only use numbers in their research and a majority who never do. This is despite the considerable resources devoted to building research capacity to undertake numeric and combined research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51410,"journal":{"name":"British Educational Research Journal","volume":"51 5","pages":"2426-2449"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/berj.4179","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Educational Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.4179","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There have been debates about the quality and usefulness of education research for a long time, with opinion often dividing along methodological lines. Those on different sides of an apparent methodological schism often bemoan the lack of recognition and resources afforded to their chosen approach. Whatever one's position on the existence, or persistence, of education research's own version of the ‘paradigm wars’, it is nevertheless the case that research design and methods are central to its identity, its usefulness and the impact it makes upon society. This paper contributes to wider debates around the status of education research as a field, or discipline, by exploring the extent to which the research methods used by education researchers working in UK higher education, and beyond, have varied over the last 20 years. It reports the findings from a comparative analysis of two large-scale surveys—the ESRC-funded Research Capacity Building Network survey of 2002 and the BERA-funded Higher Education Research Census 2022. Both surveys explored the methods used by education researchers, mainly based in higher education, and took place against a backdrop of concern, from within and outside the field, about the quality and reach of its research. The findings show that education researchers draw from a variety of different methods and approaches but that the range of tools that they use has narrowed a lot over the period considered. Furthermore, there appears to be an increase in methodological polarisation, particularly between a minority who only use numbers in their research and a majority who never do. This is despite the considerable resources devoted to building research capacity to undertake numeric and combined research.

Abstract Image

过去与现在:二十年来英国教育研究方法的应用
长期以来,关于教育研究的质量和有用性的争论一直存在,人们的意见往往根据方法的不同而不同。在一种明显的方法论分裂中,那些站在不同立场的人经常哀叹,他们所选择的方法缺乏认可和资源。无论一个人对教育研究自己版本的“范式战争”的存在或持续持何种立场,研究设计和方法对其身份、有用性和对社会的影响都是至关重要的。本文通过探索在过去20年中英国高等教育及其他领域工作的教育研究人员所使用的研究方法的变化程度,有助于围绕教育研究作为一个领域或学科的地位进行更广泛的辩论。它报告了两项大型调查的比较分析结果——2002年esrc资助的研究能力建设网络调查和贝拉资助的2022年高等教育研究普查。这两项调查都探讨了主要基于高等教育的教育研究人员使用的方法,并在该领域内外对其研究的质量和范围的关注的背景下进行。研究结果表明,教育研究人员采用了各种不同的方法和途径,但他们使用的工具范围在研究期间缩小了很多。此外,方法上的两极分化似乎有所增加,特别是在研究中只使用数字的少数人与从不使用数字的大多数人之间。尽管有相当多的资源专门用于建设进行数字和综合研究的研究能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Educational Research Journal
British Educational Research Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The British Educational Research Journal is an international peer reviewed medium for the publication of articles of interest to researchers in education and has rapidly become a major focal point for the publication of educational research from throughout the world. For further information on the association please visit the British Educational Research Association web site. The journal is interdisciplinary in approach, and includes reports of case studies, experiments and surveys, discussions of conceptual and methodological issues and of underlying assumptions in educational research, accounts of research in progress, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信