Research in Context

So, we have some excellent research. We checked it twice, and we know something. Maybe we know that a certain teaching method, works better than another for a certain age group. Or maybe that a certain teacher-training method produces more teachers who produce more students with better retention of … something. Now what?

The fact that a researcher found some truth, doesn’t easily translate to a real world result. We need a bidirectional effect here. One direction is field-to-research: The effect of the lessons from the field on the research. Formal research should be made about what is interesting and necessary for the teachers in the trenches, and not about purely theoretical issues. The other direction is research-to-field: Beyond the need to perform research that is applicable in its nature, there is a need to create the framework that will encourage the application of that research - that will make the research actionable. Without these two bridges, we remain with an unbridged gap between research and teaching. For both bridge-directions to be open, the teachers should be aware of the research activity and potential, and the researchers should be aware of the teaching activity and considerations. Much of it is about communication, and we should create the mechanisms and culture to support this communication. Much of it is about discipline, and again there can be mechanisms and culture to support such a discipline.

Some successful commercial companies have in place a set of such mechanisms, policies and cultural dynamics to support such cooperation between research and the field. The field (Marketing, Sales, Engineering, …) informs the researchers (Economics, Psychology, Physics, …) what is necessary. The researchers produce results and inform the field what can be done. In the best organizations, the communication between researchers and field-people is so good, that when research turns out an unexpected opportunity for the field, the field people become aware of it and can act on it. This strong bridge is not easy to achieve and maintain, since the researchers and the field-people are two separate groups, with separate background, jargon and even values. It is quite a feat to bring them together to a common ground that will enable cooperation - both in terms of leadership and in terms of administration.

In the world of education, the first tier of field people includes teachers, principals, school administrators, pupils, parents, ... Not necessarily in that order. There is also a second tier, but I don’t want to start talking about religion, philosophy and politics at the moment. The first tier of researchers includes psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, organizational experts, economists, designers, engineers, … A very wide range of skills can be used here.

Enough theory. Now for some more practical thinking. And I will start with technical mechanisms and policies, since they are more straightforward than a discussion of culture and leadership.

Complete financing of research: This issue was visited in a previous blog entry. Research funding needs to take into account the need for additional investment to make the research useful. A few activities that need to be financed, and need to be budgeted in advance:

1a. Plan

• Both the research and its scheduled follow-up

• Initiation led by the field

• Details of research led by researchers

1b. Do the research - experiments and all

• Led by researchers

1c. Review results

• Led by the field: Look for opportunities in the field that may have been unearthed by the current research, and suggest action plans

• Led by the field: Look for potential spin-off research that may be suggested by the current research

• Led by the field: Decide whether to perform the scheduled follow-up

1d. Assimilate into the Education Research Knowledgebase

• Not a trivial task. Will be discussed in a future post

2a. Revisit the plan for scheduled follow-up research

• The decision to perform the follow-up has already been made. This stage may only make some modifications to the research plan

• Led by researchers

2b. Do the scheduled follow-up research

2c. Review results

2d. Assimilate into the Education Research Knowledgebase

Notes:

• All activities should be multidisciplinary: Have involvement of different types of researchers, as well as field people

• The “led by ...” notes are not to be interpreted as “forcefully controlled by ...”. In general, the field people are the customers, and they should lead the “what to do” part. The researchers are the experts in their specific fields, and should lead the “how to do” part

• Then there can be any number of iterations of: Re-plan --> Follow-Up Research --> Review --> Assimilate. Since these future iterations may not be scheduled in advance, budgeting doesn’t need to be done in advance. The first 4 steps - the initial research - must always be budgeted and planned for, even if the experiment was a complete failure. The next 4 steps - the scheduled follow-up - must be budgeted and planned for, though in case of a total failure of the initial research, the follow-up may be dropped

• The research itself may need to be very formal. All other activities are more open for unexpected activities and consequences – innovation

Wrapping up with the theoretical thinking above: The field-to-research bridge is taken care of by the fact that field people participate in all research-related activity, and are the leaders of the initiation and review (or evaluation) of the results. The research-to-field bridge direction is hiding behind the “action plan” part of the results review. This heavy challenge of causing change in behavior as a result of the research will be discussed in a future post, if I manage to wrap my mind around it.