英式教育和小写e和大写e的排斥:公平和它有什么关系?

IF 1.5 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Martin Mills, P. Thomson
{"title":"英式教育和小写e和大写e的排斥:公平和它有什么关系?","authors":"Martin Mills, P. Thomson","doi":"10.1080/13632752.2022.2092273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It seems uncontentious that policy development should be informed by evidence, and that researchers should be engaged to assess available evidence. In this paper, we tell the story of a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) about school exclusion, a task intended to inform a ‘root and branch’ policy review. Drawing on Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem?’ approach, we use the project brief and the changing texts that we wrote to show that, while we began reviewing literature with a generous definition of exclusion, our focus progressively narrowed to encompass only the literatures that fitted with the pre-existing policy definition. Our story shows that a need to focus on big E Exclusion policy eliminated insights about little e exclusion, in particular how wider social relations and the school itself were implicated. The case raises critical questions about how policy evidence about exclusion is produced – and limited.","PeriodicalId":46308,"journal":{"name":"EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIOURAL DIFFICULTIES","volume":"89 1","pages":"185 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"English schooling and little e and big E exclusion: what’s equity got to do with it?\",\"authors\":\"Martin Mills, P. Thomson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13632752.2022.2092273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT It seems uncontentious that policy development should be informed by evidence, and that researchers should be engaged to assess available evidence. In this paper, we tell the story of a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) about school exclusion, a task intended to inform a ‘root and branch’ policy review. Drawing on Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem?’ approach, we use the project brief and the changing texts that we wrote to show that, while we began reviewing literature with a generous definition of exclusion, our focus progressively narrowed to encompass only the literatures that fitted with the pre-existing policy definition. Our story shows that a need to focus on big E Exclusion policy eliminated insights about little e exclusion, in particular how wider social relations and the school itself were implicated. The case raises critical questions about how policy evidence about exclusion is produced – and limited.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIOURAL DIFFICULTIES\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"185 - 198\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIOURAL DIFFICULTIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2022.2092273\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIOURAL DIFFICULTIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2022.2092273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

政策制定应该以证据为依据,研究人员应该参与评估现有证据,这似乎是没有争议的。在本文中,我们讲述了关于学校排斥的快速证据评估(REA)的故事,该任务旨在为“彻底”的政策审查提供信息。借用卡罗尔·巴奇的“有什么问题?”的方法,我们使用项目简介和我们写的不断变化的文本来表明,当我们开始用一个慷慨的排除定义来回顾文献时,我们的重点逐渐缩小到只包括符合现有政策定义的文献。我们的故事表明,关注大E排斥政策的需要消除了对小E排斥的见解,特别是更广泛的社会关系和学校本身是如何受到影响的。该案件提出了一些关键问题,即有关排斥的政策证据是如何产生的——以及如何限制的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
English schooling and little e and big E exclusion: what’s equity got to do with it?
ABSTRACT It seems uncontentious that policy development should be informed by evidence, and that researchers should be engaged to assess available evidence. In this paper, we tell the story of a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) about school exclusion, a task intended to inform a ‘root and branch’ policy review. Drawing on Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem?’ approach, we use the project brief and the changing texts that we wrote to show that, while we began reviewing literature with a generous definition of exclusion, our focus progressively narrowed to encompass only the literatures that fitted with the pre-existing policy definition. Our story shows that a need to focus on big E Exclusion policy eliminated insights about little e exclusion, in particular how wider social relations and the school itself were implicated. The case raises critical questions about how policy evidence about exclusion is produced – and limited.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIOURAL DIFFICULTIES
EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIOURAL DIFFICULTIES PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The central intention of Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties (EBDs) is to contribute to readers" understanding of social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, and also their knowledge of appropriate ways of preventing and responding to EBDs, in terms of intervention and policy. The journal aims to cater for a wide audience, in response to the diverse nature of the professionals who work with and for children with EBDs.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信