Search results

In many countries concerns have been expressed about the merits of educational research. This paper reports on the outcomes of a review of reviews of such research in Australia and the UK. Taken at face value, the latest round of reviews are largely critical in the UK (where they have generated much debate) and mainly favourable in Australia (where they have not). In accounting for this difference the paper suggests that it might be explained in part as a function of how the reviews were conducted. In the UK reviews have tended to begin with the research and work forward to practice whereas in Australia they have been inclined to begin with practice and work back to the research. It is suggested that policy makers, practitioners and researchers in Australia and the UK have much to learn from each other's experience, as have those in other countries planning similar reviews.

Purpose – This chapter builds on our personal experiences of researching primary schools. The chapter begins by discussing some important subjective accounts of conducting qualitative research, and the unavoidable (often unexpected) dilemmas that confront researchers whilst ‘in the field’. This provides the backdrop against which our own experiences of conducting research will be considered.

Methodology/approach – Whilst it is vital and necessary for researchers to abide by the relevant code(s) of ethical conduct, the authors argue that the contingent nature of qualitative research necessitates a degree of personal ethical discretion. The ethical frameworks of bodies such as the British Educational Research Association and the British Sociological Association are prima facie generalised, and cannot cover all ethical potentialities. Ethically sensitive researchers not only will be vigilant in adhering to the guiding framework, but will also be acutely aware of the situated nature of many ethical issues.

Findings – Researchers can never be fully prepared for the ethical issues they will confront in the field. However, the authors believe that if researchers share the eccentricities of their empirical experiences with others in their field, then researchers can be better prepared for the ethical challenges awaiting them. As such, this chapter draws upon our own fieldwork experiences in a rural village school in Norfolk and in a series of suburban/rural primary schools in North East England. The chapter does not offer a series of recommendations, but rather an exploration of the practical lessons that the authors have taken from the field.

This introduction sets the scene for the study by explaining the rationale for presenting a comparative analysis of five nation states’ governance systems; England, Northern Ireland, Arabs in Israel, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States, with Nigerian interests represented in the research design. The context is that of a global phenomenon of a Black–White achievement gap (Wagner, 2010). The quality is world leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour. We present a theory of colonisation between groups with different interests, which includes nation states colonising other nation states, and dominant groups within nation states colonising marginalised groups. We also explored how dominant groups within educational governance systems may colonise marginalised groups within education governance systems. We theorised colonisation using Karpman’s Triangle (1968) identifying that different groups can be oppressor, and/or victim, and/or rescuer, and these roles may shift as changes occur in power and economic influence. We present the Empowering Young Societal Innovators for Equity and Renewal Model (Taysum et al., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) with five principals for equity and renewal. We explain the turbulence that senior-level leaders experience and how education governance systems need to empower their autonomy as credentialed educational professionals’ with track records of school improvement. Impact strategies to optimise students’ learning and students’ outcomes, and build the community’s values of social justice, courage and prudence need to underpin social mobility. These innovations are only possible if they are informed by grass roots participatory philosophical inquiry, that is informed by and informs policy, and is carefully monitored for quality assurance against the highest of educational professional standards.