Reflexively co-constructing quality evidence

• In Event: Roundtable Group 12
  In Refereed Roundtable Session: Protesting hegemonic definitions of quality education evidence: The case for a wider range of evidence

Proposal

In this roundtable presentation, I argue that criteria for quality evidence in education needs to be reflexively co-constructed among actors to dialogue about diverse needs, questions, methodologies and uses. From a perspective of reflexive co-construction, which is a basis for community-engaged, design-based, reflexive mixed methods, and participatory or Indigenous research, researchers and users are not discreet groups in the education evidence arena. A set of processes and questions, different from dominant criteria, can help consider the quality of educational evidence. Identifying problems of concern, acknowledging the credibility of knowers/different knowledge systems, and considering the consequences of research are all important to further epistemic justice, and relatedly the quality of evidence, in and through educational research. I advance these ideas from work on several transdisciplinary and mixed-methods research projects as well as in using evidence for policy and practice, reflecting on challenges and opportunities that have resulted from them (DeJaeghere, 2024).

To identify problems of concern means that researchers/users need to work together to ask what the meaningful problems are. Different worldviews of the problem may emerge, requiring that the inquiry process engages with multiple philosophical approaches (of reality, ways of knowing and values). In this process of understanding the problem of concern, researchers/users can co-construct how to produce or engage with evidence that will address it.

Quality evidence cannot be limited to criteria of one research paradigm. We need to consider different ways of knowing and knowers as credible, what Fricker (2007) refers to as epistemic justice. Acknowledging different knowledge systems and knowers requires a reflexive critical openness, meaning we need to deliberate why such knowledge and perspectives might not be regarded as legitimate within historical and social environments. Quality evidence also means seeking to understand contradictory findings between different ways of knowing and actors. This requires further contextualization of findings within specific place, space and time.

Finally, consequential research refers to evidence that not only advances theory or generalizable knowledge, but that has effects on specific problems in contexts. While evidence needs to contextualized to specific places and time, it can still advance knowledge more broadly. Research evidence that is consequential starts with the co-construction of the problem and the processes for producing credible evidence, as each of these processes has consequences for those who are most affected by the use of evidence. In addition, consideration needs to be given to how evidence can result in actions, and for whom.

These processes for co-constructing quality education evidence can be used at the beginning and throughout the inquiry process or when assessing already produced evidence. Engaging in this process requires reflexivity – an openness to question and examine one’s assumptions and values throughout the process of producing, interpreting and using evidence. Teams working to advance quality knowledge production in education might intentionally work to cultivate processes for reflexivity.

Author

• Joan Dejaeghere, University of Minnesota