Further reading
If you have access to a Higher Education library, you might find the following useful further reading.
Ball, S.J. (1995) ‘Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies’in Hammersley, M. (ed.) Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice, London, Sage/Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Although now a dated text, after reading this article you might like to conclude whether you think the argument is still urgent.
Biesta, G. (2010) Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research 2, pp.95-118.
If you were interested in the pragmatic alternative paradigm presented in the course, Gert Biesta’s explanations are recommended.
Ripley, A. (2005) ‘Who says a woman can’t be Einstein?’, TIME, vol. 165, no. 10, pp. 50–60.
If you were interested in theory and gender, the following article might stimulate further reflection on the importance of different ontological, epistemological and methodological positions for drawing conclusions. This article is open access.
Educational research
Learners interested in educational research might be interested in reading further about how randomised control trials have been used in education research by consulting this open access article by Connolly, P., Keenan, C. & Urbanska, K. (2018).
‘The Trials of Evidence-Based Practice in Education: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials in Education Research 1980-2016’, Educational Research, 60(3), 276. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 00131881.2018.1493353 [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)]
You can reflect on whether you think they collect useful evidence and should be considered the ‘gold standard’ methodological approach for education. What is your view of what evidence is needed to inform education?
Childhood and youth research
Learners interested in childhood and youth research might be interested in reading about the rise of childhood studies research and its critique of older paradigms used for researching children by consulting the following article by E. Kay, M. Tisdall and Samantha Punch (2012). In order to view you will need access to a Higher Education library.
‘Not so “new”? Looking critically at childhood studies’, Children's Geographies, 10(3), pp. 249-264. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2012.693376.
What conclusion do the authors come to about the ‘newness’ of this approach, and how do you think it relates to the discussion about positivism and interpretivism?