Connecting Research and Practice: A scientific approach

1. Connecting Research and Practice:A scientific approach Neil Herrington University of East London CCEAM Conference 2006

2. A word from our President As BERA members well know, the relationship between research, policy and practice in education has been high on the agenda of the research and policy communities for a number of years now. In the UK it was highlighted in the mid 1990s, when a succession of commentators questioned the value and quality of much of the work of our community. It then became a particular issue for New Labour with its proclaimed commitment to evidence-informed policy and its emphasis on finding out and disseminating what works. (Whitty 2006 p159)

3. What counts as research? • Tierney (2000) lists three assumptions about research in the traditional university faculty: • The goal of research is to uncover truths • The manner in which such discovery occurs is by disengagement and objectivity • Those who are the best judges of the veracity of one’s findings are other disengaged intellectuals. (p186) • These assumptions are rewarded through funding which, as Mortimore (2000) states: ‘ illustrates the systematic nature of the problem. We are driven by the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) introduced by politicians – but are then criticised for presenting our work in a form which is not user friendly to those same politicians.’ (p15)

4. ‘Unscientific’ • The DfEE (1998) press release that accompanied the Hillage report asserted that ‘too much research neither helps teachers by showing them what works best in the classroom, nor provides policy makers with rigorous research on which to build their ideas’ (Mortimore 2000). This came at a time when much criticism was being levelled at educational research as ‘unscientific, non-cumulative, uncollaborative and inaccessible’ (Oakley 2002)

5. What does Science do? • The report Policy through Dialogue declares an interest in how engagement with the public on science and technology based issues could help government to develop and shape policies that carry broad public consent. In doing so it acknowledges that the term Engagement is widely used as an umbrella term to encompass a great diversity of activities and processes. • The CST report advocates ‘structured processes thatcreate a space in which these the public, policy makers, stakeholders and experts can engage in deliberative dialogue.’ • These processes of dialogue should: • provide a forum for reflective, considered and informed discussion between people with a range of views and values. Structured conversations between experts, non-experts and policy-makers can permit all to re-evaluate their perspectives and assumptions in the light of those of others, evolve their thinking, and explore areas of mutual and convergent understanding. • engage a diverse range of people. In particular, to engage with people who have no strong pre-existing interest in the area and so enter the discussion with a fresh perspective that helps to open up debate, and avoids capture by any special interest groups. • stimulate exploration of the interconnections between … issues, and identify the point at which an issue becomes essentially political. Policy through dialogue: informing policies based on science and technologyA report from the Council for Science and Technology, March 2005

6. ‘far reaching alterations in the nature and distribution of resources and the roles of science, industry and the state could hardly occur without wrenching political conflict.’ Jasanoff (2005)

7. Three phases of public engagement in science policy • Phase 1: Public understanding of science • The initial response of scientists to growing levels of public detachment and mistrust was to embark on a mission to inform • Phase 2: From deficit to dialogue • Implicit within Public Understanding of Science ‘movement’ was a set of questionable assumptions about science, the public and the nature of understanding. It relied on a ‘deficit model’ of the public as ignorant and science as unchanging and universally comprehensible. • Phase 3: Moving engagement upstream • The House of Lords report detected ‘a new humility on the part of science in the face of public attitudes, and a new assertiveness on the part of the public’. HM Treasury/DTI/DfES, Science and Innovation Investment Framework2004–2014 (London: HM Treasury, July 2Wilsd004), p 105 Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science

8. How to engage? Methods of public involvement • Deliberative polling • In a deliberative poll, a large, demographically representative group of perhaps several hundred people conducts a debate, usually including the opportunity to cross-examine key players. The group is polled on the issue before and after the debate. • Focus groups • Focus groups may also help to identify the factors (which large-scale surveys rarely do) that shape attitudes and responses, including trust or mistrust. They also help in the design and interpretation of quantitative public opinion surveys. • Citizens’ juries • A citizens’ jury (or panel) involves a small group of lay participants (usually 12–20) receiving, questioning and evaluating presentations by experts on a particular issue, often over three to four days. At the end, the group is invited to make recommendations. • Consensus conferences • By convention, a group of 16 lay volunteers is selected for a consensus conference according to socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. The main differences between a consensus conference and a citizens’ jury or focus group are the greater opportunity for the participants to become more familiar with the technicalities of the subject, the greater initiative allowed to the panel, the admission of the press and the public, and the higher cost. • Stakeholder dialogues • This is a generic term applied to processes that bring together affected and interested parties (stakeholders) to deliberate and negotiate on a particular issue. • Deliberative mapping • This is a process in which expert and citizen assessments are integrated. In a deliberative mapping exercise, citizens’ panels and specialist panels are convened and interact with each other, allowing participants to interrogate each others’ views and knowledge, and exposing framing assumptions made by both sides. Deliberative mapping seeks to bring together the views of ‘experts’ and ‘public’, through face-to-face deliberation between these two groups. • Internet dialogues • This term is applied to any form of interactive discussion that takes place through the internet. It may be restricted to selected participants, or open to anyone with internet access. The advantages of internet dialogue include the ability to collect many responses quickly and to analyse them using search engines. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science

9. A short paper entitled ‘Research Resources for Practitioners’ carrying contact details of staff at the DfES and the TDA states that: ‘[a]n increasing body of evidence shows that practitioner engagement with research plays an important role in improving teaching and learning, school improvement and retention of teachers in the teaching workforce. By ‘engagement’, we mean in this case practitioners being able to access relevant and robust evidence in user-friendly formats…’ Engagement in Education

10. Open Sources – their use in developing dialogue Mulgan et al (2005) suggest three broad categories of activity observed in projects inspired by open source ideas: • Open knowledge. These are projects where knowledge is provided freely, and shaped, vetted and in some cases used by a wide community of participants. In these cases the common value of the knowledge being created is the primary concern • Open team working. The loose communities of interest that work together through the internet to build projects • Open conversations. These extend traditional forms of public discussion by constructing online conversations capable of handing more participants in more effective ways than previously possible. In these cases the process is as important as any goal

11. For Example • Open public learning collaboratives • The public sector has been experimenting in recent years with new ways of organising learning. Networks of schools, subject associations and academic institutions all potentially have an interest in joining and supporting open collaboratives, as long as the focus of problem-solving is sufficiently relevant and the interfaces used for communication and exchange relatively easy to operate. • Open review in academia • Peer review is at the heart of both academic practice and successful open source projects. Both produce results that tend to be of higher quality than non-peer-reviewed work but the differences between the two types of peer review are striking. In academia, peer review is a one-off test; publication is the reward. In open source, peer review is a continual process • Open Space Conferences • Often supported by social software interaction, Open-Space Conferences are collaborative planning instruments.

12. Open Space Conferences • Whoever comes is the right person • It's the quality of interaction that counts, not how many people come nor who they are • Whenever it starts is the right time • creativity doesn’t pay attention to the clock. Instead participants are urged to work within the spirit of the event • When it's over, it's over • This format encourages participants to take the time that is needed and let go when there is no more to say. Some of the workshops might be finished before the scheduled time, others might take longer. In the latter case, a ‘new’ discussion can be announced at the next round

13. Policy Unplugged Policy Unplugged has been developed by a team of former policy makers, technologists, bloggers and anthropologists to explore new more collaborative, participative approaches to policy formulation. Using a blend of new social software and emergent large meeting formats they are creating a new community marketplace for policy entrepreneurs. http://www.policyunplugged.org