Where's the Science in Educational Research Praxis?

• In Event: Mixed-Methods Education Research: Is It Science?

Abstract

The practice model of evidence-based educational research assumes a methods-centric approach that privileges and “force-fits” a pre-determined “scientifically ” approved research design that assumes a positivistic approach to the social world that may in fact impede scientific research in a variety of ways. Buying into a RCT research design is buying into a methodological approach that limits the types of questions researchers can ask to those that favor hypothesis testing as well as binary thinking. RCT educational research designs often pursue the binary questions: Did the intervention work (yes/no). Rarely is the question asked: Under what conditions does it work or not work? Why does it work or not work?
The evidence based practice movement’s privileging of RCT as the “gold standard” of scientific inquiry has the unintended consequence of “putting the cart before the horse” by privileging design over consideration of the research question—leading to a form of scientism, i.e., method alone will make a project “more scientific.”
Rather, the scientific utility of any research project depends upon a consideration of how well the method answers the question. Such a methods centric approach can also create a research climate that limits educational inquiry to only those questions that fit easily into an RCT framework.
If we then begin to ask the question: “Is mixed methods more or less scientific?” we again buy into the same type of methods centric thinking about what makes research scientific.
Part of push towards mixing methods comes from governmental and private funding agencies, evaluators, and other stakeholders who increasingly want researchers to utilize mixed methods to more efficiently explore social policy issues. Researchers, however, may not have training in the application of particular methodologies or methods in order to take advantage that a mixed methods approach might bring to a given project.
What is the question we should be asking with regard to evidence based practice?
Foremost is the question of: Where is the theory in evidence based practice? What are the unasked questions that need asking? To what extent does relying on a single methodology (positivism) and method (RCT) miss important opportunities for researchers to ask new questions and to reflect on the contribution that other research methodologies (e.g., interpretative methodologies) can provide in enhancing the overall credibility of educational research. Exploring how researchers might bring a multi-methodological approach to educational research is another issue to consider. For example, RCT knowledge building models are often criticized for their lack of transferability of findings to real world practice or “action.” Subjective methodologies can enhance this goal of “transferability” without negating the value of a positivist RCT approach.
Answering “where is the science?” in a study starts by asking how well our theories and methods are linked. We might begin to ask: How was the research question framed? Who was included/excluded? Whose agenda is served by asking this particular question? Who decided on this particular intervention? Answers to these questions would be important to the overall credibility goals in any research project.

Author

• Sharlene J. Hesse-Biber, Boston College