By showcasing some of the most effective pieces of research in recent years this document showed the positive impact on policy and practice. Research has been vital in recent years in helping us understand how children learn and how we can continue to close the attainment gap. The revolution in Early Years policy and practice could not have occurred or been as effective without a deep understanding of cause and impact generated by the research base.
These examples also provide examples of the role of educational research in supporting the development of a knowledge economy and in providing a knowledge base for facing future economic, social and global challenges. Reports 20 Sep A qualitative approach, through the use of in-depth interviews, was adopted Denzin and Lincoln The interview guideline was validated by pilot testing, evaluation and consultation with senior professional colleagues. The use of interviews meant that data could be collected directly from the key figures within the university and policy making field.
The interviews were conducted over a period of 6 months with the questions being determined by the nature of the research objectives and the theoretical framework identified in the introduction. Internal validity was ensured by the selection of informants using the following criteria: length of experience in their position, type of institutional body individual or collective , training and academic standing.
This ensured that our interviewees conformed to a wide variety of profiles. The selection of the respondent sample was based on their representativeness, established using non-probability criteria and using the theoretical sampling of Flick In order to act as a control on the consistency of the responses, 6 of the participants were interviewed a second time.
Data from researchers were collected through structured interviews that included open-ended questions. The questions examined the functioning of the research system in Romania, the characteristics of research production, research dissemination, obstacles and opportunities regarding research in education, and its transfer into the policy making sphere.
The questions also focused on the involvement of key social groups and the structures and processes which serve to enhance the use of the research results in education. These are ones of the most important universities across Romania, according to the classification of the universities in the Romanian higher education system.
Academics performing research and engaged in decision-making in universities, departments or faculties. This category comprised in-depth interviews with university vice-rectors in charge of quality assurance, faculty deans and heads of departments.
Leading analysts of higher education governance and management. This comprised interviews with senior academics and experts in higher education management, as well as academics currently engaged in senior managerial roles, such as chancellor or vice-chancellor.
Data from the interviews were analyzed and systematized using Maxqda 11 software. A preliminary report was drafted, identifying the key themes that emerged from the interviews, as well as any issues or themes that could be considered contentious. This report then formed the basis for the second phase of data collection, involving a group of nine academics.
These participants were selected on the basis of their expertise in management in the context of higher education in Europe. The data analysis was conducted on three levels. At the preliminary level the key units of meaning were identified. The second level of analysis involved the identification of single units of meaning through an axial coding system linking the dimensions of analysis with a set of complex significance topics.
The third level of analysis extended the process of synthesis in order to extract the textual units. The strategy used to ensure internal validity was the selection of informants using a criteria system incorporating such aspects as: experience in management positions, type of institution individual or collective , training, academic standing, and so on. Over the past few years, the Romanian Higher Education System has developed an interest in scientific research, covering all fields of study, except educational practices and policies.
Both researchers and policy-makers welcome the recent governmental focus on financing research activity, as well as on upgrading it to a high standard so as to gain a high position in the academic rankings of world universities. The impetus for this derives from the most recent assessment of Romanian universities, an important criterion being the quality of the scientific outcomes. In an attempt to define the context of research in Romania, participants showed an interest in the issue and identified the factors preventing the efficient production and transfer of research.
Insufficient financing and low quality research evaluation criteria are offered as possible causes. A key observation is the growing interest in research shown by those willing to take part in this kind of activity: There is a favourable context for research in Romania and, like any crisis situation, it fosters innovation. On the contrary, as far as financing is concerned, research activity must be reconsidered to be the backbone of any developing university.
For the past year and a half, I have noticed a real interest in research on the part of academics and teaching staff preparing for their teaching grade I. In spite of this favourable period, research activity faces structural and organizational difficulties. For instance, one of the researchers, a vice-rector, declared: At the moment, in Romania, research is struggling. There are numerous legal and administrative barriers within the institution.
People are extraordinary, but they are not given enough freedom to exercise their initiative. The questions to be posed are what are the causes leading to such a situation, and what can be done to improve the links between scientific research and decision-making processes in education?
To answer these questions, we identify aspects of academic research and the transfer strategies used. One aspect of the research transfer process is research production and its producers. It should be stressed that the results of research must be transferred to policies based on high quality research. Most of the participants in the survey define the current context of the research production within the universities as being segmented and ambiguous, incoherent and fragmented.
This is mainly due to the wide range of objectives and to the gap between research and politics. With regard to the first point, the target group believes that: I would stress the idea that in Romania, researchers adopt European, rather than national policy determinants. Likewise, research production is not based on the real needs of the system or local context, but rather on international priorities, or they are imposed by the national or European financing organizations.
It seems to me that, nowadays, researchers proceed according to financial and research opportunities. Furthermore, researchers believe that research activity is less institutionalized and lacks sustainability and quality as a result of a lack of financial resources. Thus, the interviewees consider that: There is little to complain about it.
There should be loud voices, more focused, less divergent. Apart from this, there are also structural and organizational drawbacks hampering the management of research and highlighting the financial difficulties: First, it is the research budget and reductions, and this is always tough for the university budget. In the case of LLL projects, based on a fixed budget, Romanian legislation prevented some activities from being carried out.
Even if money is not a problem, the parameters of Romanian legislation and some exaggerated interpretations make it difficult for research activities to be performed. Moreover, there has been a reduction in finance at the European level for some time now. Besides, university managers believe that, even if it has become a priority, scientific research is still an unequal structured and disorganized domain.
Research is part of any academic field of activity. In the field of research, however, there is little research, besides the scarcity of financial resources. From a structural point of view, I believe that organizational culture plays a vital role. Any organization is represented by the culture it promotes. Various answers helped to sketch the profile of the researcher, as the centre of any research activity.
On the one hand, universities and public organizations expect researchers to produce high quality knowledge likely to have social application and, on the other hand, their activity is deterred by cumbersome institutional mechanisms and the lack of resources, and the balance between research and teaching in the case of academics in universities.
Actually, researchers tend to focus more on the importance of research than on teaching. Illustrative of this is the comment: Research is moving towards an international standard. Most universities exert a lot of pressure on the teaching staff to carry out research. Eight years ago, the focus was on teaching. Academic management considers research to be a prospective source of finance.
This trend can now be found in the Romanian education system. The pressure is even greater due to academic ranking. In this sense: First, research only meant public dissemination at a conference and publication of one article, no more. Now, things have changed. We must publish only ISI articles. The teaching-research relationship is frequently raised by the interviewees, who mainly emphasized the value of research for institutional accreditation and personal assessment.
Another key observation is the teaching workload that will influence the scientific profile of the research in education: Most people in education are overloaded with tasks other than research.
The regular teaching workload does not include time for research activities. Obviously, the amount you can produce is insignificant. There is not enough time for research. Cross - disciplinary teams are required. I hope there will be sufficient time and resources to motivate people. The evaluation system of the teaching personnel prioritizes research activity. Nevertheless, it brings about a conflict of roles at a personal level and causes frustration since your job is purely didactic, whereas your evaluation is based on research.
The teaching workload is too high, and the effort expended on daily tasks leaves little time for research I3. All in all, the research system needs to be improved from the very beginning, starting with its production stages.
All the participants in the research agreed on this. Other possible solutions are the balancing of teaching and research activities, and generating high motivation for the latter, as well as taking into account the impact that scientific research must have on the local educational practices. Frameworks and policies developed by education systems have a great influence on schools. Despite the general move towards greater school-level responsibility over the past 15 years, it is still the case in government school systems that central policy makers have a significant influence on school staffing and resourcing, curriculum development, assessment, and shaping the environment within which schools operate.
Central government educational policies also influence the conduct of schools and the work of teachers in other ways. The most obvious is through resource allocation in terms of staffing, and the provision of discretionary funding.
Research therefore can have an impact on schools not only through the direct take-up of new ideas and findings by principals and teachers, but also through developments initiated by government educational policy makers that are derived from research, and through information that is disseminated to schools by the central government. Both researchers and decision-makers agree on the relationship between research and education, claiming there is no systematic transfer of research results to education.
Researchers do not consider the transfer of research a priority, as within the field of education there is a general conservativism and a reluctance to change I8. Lack of interest in research transfer is also due to lack of financing for the dissemination of project outcomes. Bureaucracy is one of the main obstacles faced by researchers with regard to research transfer, as well as the lack of specialized academic structures likely to ensure the effectiveness of the process I3.
People tend to feel more comfortable with what they already know. Obviously, there is some reluctance to undertake a research program, so much so financing is uncertain. Another problem is the frequent and rapid changes taking place within the Ministry.
Thus, there is change for the sake of change. There is no consistency and continuity in decision-making. For example, the Baccalaureate exam and admission to the pre first grade program. Nevertheless, most of the limits of research transfer deal with the language barriers between the two sectors or limits of discourse reception, which, sometimes, can be too technical or scientific. The causes of such difficulties in the discourse between the two educational sectors, as well as the possible impact on educational practices are discussed below: There is also a language and motivation problem.
Some research results do not need to be interpreted by the decision - maker before reaching the practitioner. For instance, methodologically speaking, some results may not need validation by a decision - maker so as to be implemented by a practitioner.
Without larger sample sizes and generalizable results, education research cannot advance development goals or reliably help teachers. Understandably, teachers regularly report that they are far more likely to receive information about new practices from their peers or teachers who present them at conferences than from researchers.
While the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine are considered required reading for physicians, few teachers or school leaders read education trade publications such as the Educational Researcher or the American Educational Research Journal.
The missing links between education research and education practice also mean that researchers often pursue lower-priority research issues. Because of the reward structures in higher education, articles published in prestigious journals are more likely to yield researchers tenure. These articles may advance the knowledge base of the academic community, but the topics do not always represent the most pressing concerns of teachers and school leaders who interact with children every day and need answers on how to better serve students in the immediate future.
Additionally, researchers typically receive little financial reward for direct work with schools and teachers, no matter how valuable their insights might be to the practitioners. There are exceptions to the shortfalls of research, and the successes of targeted education development programs may provide a way forward. The federal government has historically provided substantial investments for education research that leads directly to development in the classroom.
These efforts have produced important outcomes for students and teachers alike. In , for example, the Education Sciences Reform Act created the Institution of Education Sciences, which has established rigorous standards for evaluating programs; provides educators with a wealth of information on what works in the classroom; and helps bridge the gap between research and development. This approach has a been a tremendous success, allowing educators to learn what does and does not work in practice.
While such federal investments have not always produced results, they have had a clear impact on educational practice long after the funds were provided. Far more needs to be done to grow focused development efforts that target areas in which practical tools can be developed to improve outcomes for all students. With stronger investment in research, development, and application, the United States can do more to provide students—and their teachers—with the proven tools that they so clearly need.
0コメント