Mapping the Muddy Terrain of Engaged Educational Research

• In Event: 61.056 - Toward a Taxonomy of Collaborative Research in Education and the Social Sciences

Abstract

The field of educational research includes a diversity of approaches that may be described as collaborative and/or community-engaged research. Terms utilized to describe this array of approaches include: teacher-research, practitioner-research, action research, participatory action research, youth participatory action research, and community engaged research. However, it is unclear how these approaches may be similar or different methodologically, not only within educational research, but also in their broader theorization and practice in other fields and disciplines. In this paper, I aim to map this variation and grapple with the challenge of drawing meaningful distinctions across overlapping terms. My intention is to contribute to a clearer understanding of how collaborative, community-engaged educational research is theorized and to identify any gaps that need to be filled in order to provide adequate guidance for scholars practicing these methodologies.

In addition to a broad review of published journal articles, my analysis draws on several key texts (e.g. Adelman, 1993; Greenwood & Levin, 1998; Gustavsen, 2001; Reason & Bradbury, 2001). I also examine several existing typologies of collaborative methodologies that seek to make sense of the diversity of forms and approaches within the field of education (Noffke, 1997; Orland-Barak, 2009; Feldman, 2002). I situate my findings in a broad history of collaborative approaches and then sort these into two general categories distinguished by the research setting: school- and classroom-based approaches (practitioner inquiry, teacher-research) and community-based collaborative research projects (action research, participatory action research, community engaged research).

Overall, I find that school- and classroom-based approaches reflect an attempt to acknowledge practitioners’ expertise and incorporate teachers’ practical knowledge in policymaking and school reform, but the diversity of approaches and barriers in the school settings have contributed to minimal influence of such research on actual policy changes and school reform. Moreover, practitioner inquiry is largely focused on technical and professional development leading to calls by some scholars for more emancipatory forms of research. In contrast, community-based approaches reflect a more emancipatory focus, but still lack methodological consistency and real influence. Furthermore, community-based collaborative projects are rarely published in top-tier educational journals and instead figure prominently in specific collaborative research journals within education (e.g., Educational Action Research, Action Research, Children, Youth, and Environments), while school-based practitioner inquiry projects are more likely to receive publication in top-tier educational journals such as American Educational Research Journal and Educational Researcher.

In conclusion, I argue that collaborative educational researchers need to take more seriously the political and ethical considerations of these approaches and their concomitant practical implications. Doing so opens up critiques of some current theorizations and practices in the field. Engaged approaches to research emphasize multiple ways of knowing, power structure critiques, and a commitment to politics and action, which raise unique questions that challenge traditional notions of the methods and aims of research and research ethics, but that also have the potential to enable more transformative approaches to educational research aiming to create just schools and communities.

Author

• Ethan Chang, University of California - Santa Cruz