When Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy

Citation

Kyle Ingle, W. (2008), "When Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 653-655. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810895582

Frederick Hess, the Director of the American Enterprise Institute's Education Policy Studies and Executive Editor of Education Next, draws together an impressive cadre of scholars in When Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy. The work seeks to elucidate the relationship between education research and the conditions in which it has an impact on policy. This edited volume consists of 11 chapters. The first chapter, written by Andrew Rudalevige, provides a succinct history of the various federal structures and their evolving roles in the (p. 17) “education research function.” These range from the data collection role of the earliest Department of Education in 1867 to the current Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and it is statutorily defined “scientifically‐based research standards.”

In Chapter 2, Jeffrey Henig contends that while there have been improvements in the quality of educational research, criticism of educational research remains. In spite of these improvements, educational research is highly visible and politically polarizing. The focus on personalities and political agendas mitigates these gains while reinforcing extant criticisms of educational research. Henig concludes that there has been progress in the evolving relationship between researchers and public policy, but there remains the danger that the lines between research and advocacy become blurred to a point of no return and at the expense of the educational research field.

In Chapter 3, Paul Manna and Michael Petrilli ask if the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act and the “scientifically‐based research” that it statutorily defines is on a sound scientific foundation. Manna and Petrilli proceed to examine how research influenced the development of the legislation, specifically the “highly qualified teacher” provision. They find that research did have an influence of the development of NCLB and moved the legislative debate in the direction of research‐based practice. However, (and not surprisingly), Manna and Petrilli find that politicians gravitated toward researchers and organizations that supported their ideologies. In Chapter 4, James Kim provides a synopsis of educational research and its role in the reading wars, a series of conflicts between various approaches (e.g. phonics versus look‐say), not to mention skirmishes between researchers and practitioners in their efforts to win the heated debate between which approach is optimal in reading instruction. Kim argues that the best approach to avoiding the “pendulum swings” and reading instruction fads may lie in the creation of a heretofore elusive “sovereign profession” in which practitioners evaluate, validate, and decide upon which approaches to reading instruction are optimal in the cognitive development of their students. While laudable, this is likely not going to happen any time soon.

In Chapter 5, Richard Ingersoll discusses his experiences as a teacher in two countries (Canada and the USA) and how his periodic out‐of‐field placements in the USA led to his interest in the topic. Ingersoll discusses the litany of problems attributed to out‐of‐field teaching – inadequate teacher education programs, teacher unions, and teacher shortages. Ingersoll argues that these explanations can only partially explain the phenomenon, contending that the blame also falls on school principals making poor management decisions in order to save the schools time and money. Further, he argues that the USA views teachers as semi‐skilled laborers as opposed to European and Asian nations. In so doing, teaching is viewed as a job that anyone can do it. In the case of school leaders, Ingersoll places the blame, but also tries to soften the charge by admitting that the job is “often difficult” and one with limited resources.

In Chapter 6, William Howell asks whether US citizens' limited exposure to education research influences their attitudes toward education policies. He argues that the extent to which education research influences attitudes is dependent on the findings and the ideological beliefs of the consumer of the research. So would the courts respond differently than the average US citizen in the aforementioned chapter? In Chapter 7, Joshua Dunn and Martin West find that due to a lack of clear standards among the educational research community as to what constitutes clear and convincing evidence, judges have been hindered from limiting the admissibility of research. This in turn has led to a similar response among judges as was noted by Howell among US citizens – the selection of evidence that supports one's own conclusions.

Lance Fusarelli's contribution in Chapter 8 may be the most germane to school leaders in the field. Fusarelli ponders the extent to which research is used by school leaders, and if not, why? Fusarelli asserts that school leaders indicate limited use of educational research. The reasons are numerous, including ambiguous and irrelevant findings, a reliance of school leaders on “gut instinct,” the quantity over quality nature of educational research, lack of time, poor communication between researchers and practitioners, and a lack of expertise in digesting research. At least, school leaders have one trait in common with a skilled researcher – skepticism. Fusarelli argues that school leaders are skeptical of research findings due to their use in advocacy and partisan politics; not to mention the barrage of companies selling a product proven by research to produce X results.

In Chapter 9, Dan Goldhaber and Dominic Brewer ask what topics and questions get addressed in educational research and the role that incentives play in this. They contend that, in general, educational consumers and producers lack the requisite knowledge to identify and carry out sound research. Goldhaber and Brewer examine the supply and demand aspects of education research and find that think tanks and universities are the players on the supply side. Across both suppliers, Goldhaber and Brewer acknowledge that there is a spectrum of quality. While nuanced, the incentives are the same – produce research or lose your job. However, they argue that there are few incentives to produce research using long‐term, rigorous causal research designs. Issues of access, ethics, funding, and tenure timelines are at play in explaining this, but Goldhaber and Brewer also point out that more sophisticated research designs are becoming increasingly feasible (and at low cost) due to the development of longitudinal data in states across the nation. As to funding, these authors point out that it is low, spread across multiple agencies, and that the demand is driven by politics. Like other contributors to this edited work, they argue that poor studies and ideologically driven findings are issues in educational research. Goldhaber and Brewer suggest that investments should be made in long‐term data collection on a range of important educational issues. They acknowledge that the educational enterprise is complex and traditionally entrenched. Change, though necessary in their minds, will take time if it is to come to fruition.

In Chapter 10, Kenneth Wong discusses the role of politics in educational research and its role in policymaking. Like Goldhaber and Brewer, Wong considers the role of incentives in educational research, finding that there are weak incentives to use research in policymaking. Again, research quality, timeliness, advocacy, and partisanship are mentioned as factors that cannot be discounted in the nexus between research and policymaking. Wong finds that researchers tend to overlook electoral interest and its impact on elected officials. Electoral interest in turn has an impact on resource allocation.

Frederick Hess contributes Chapter 11 as the concluding chapter. Among educational researchers, Hess is both highly visible, prolific, and according to which educational researcher you talk to – loved or hated. So regardless of politics, what is the core of this edited work that any educational researcher could agree with? First, educational researchers should be introspective and ever vigilant of how to improve the quality of research. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the IES' emphasis on specific research designs, its efforts have shone a spotlight on research rigor – and that is a good thing. Even Hess contends that there were some unintended consequences of these actions. Notably, Hess (2008, p. 241) hearkens to contributors Ingersoll, Dunn, and West in pointing out that “advocates and policymakers are frequently incautious when discussing how even rigorous, high‐quality research might inform policy.”

Second, one could also agree that technology has both fomented the proliferation of research to policymakers, but has also made the research “waters” a wider stream to wade through. There would be less agreement with Hess who argues that it is a wider stream, but not necessarily a deeper stream. Third, Hess shows how scholarship influences policy, but as many of the contributors point out, producers and consumers of research alike are apt to produce findings and/or cite studies that reinforce their ideologies. Educational researchers should remain aware of the academic and political milieu in which we operate if we are to remain relevant, survive, thrive, and be proud of the contributions that we make to the policy realm. In summary, Hess rightfully points out that the interplay between educational research and policymaking is complex and inherently political. The tension between research and policy will likely remain, but that is the nature of interaction – and that in and of itself is not a bad thing. This book is highly recommended for policymakers, researchers and college professors who have a vested interest in understanding how scholarship influences education policies.