An Alternative Model of Researching Educational Practice: A Pedagogic-Stereoscopic Point of View
Saved in:
| Title: | An Alternative Model of Researching Educational Practice: A Pedagogic-Stereoscopic Point of View |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Saeverot, Herner, Kvam, Vegard |
| Source: | British Educational Research Journal. Feb 2019 45(1):201-218. |
| Availability: | Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 18 |
| Publication Date: | 2019 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Educational Practices, Holistic Approach, Interdisciplinary Approach, Educational Research, Action Research, Teaching Methods, Educational Theories, Trend Analysis, Cross Cultural Studies, Foreign Countries, Anglo Americans |
| Geographic Terms: | Europe, Denmark, Norway, Sweden |
| DOI: | 10.1002/berj.3493 |
| ISSN: | 0141-1926 |
| Abstract: | While teachers and practitioners are increasingly expected to conduct research on their own practice, there is a lot of educational research that is not directly involved in practice. This often leads to unilateral research perspectives on educational practice. Therefore, this article calls for an alternative model of researching educational practice, summarised through the term 'pedagogical science'. We argue that practical and normative theories that seek to improve educational practice should be combined with theories that aim to describe and explain. It is further argued that the combination of such perspectives and theories, a so-called stereoscopic point of view, can allow for a thorough and holistic investigation of educational practice. As part of this argumentation, the article addresses critical questions of various theoretical models of educational research, models that are being used in Scandinavian, European and Anglo-American research on educational practice. With reference to interdisciplinary models of educational research, such as educational sciences, learning sciences and "Bildungswissenschaften," there are trends in which pedagogy is marginalised. Thus, the second argument of the article calls for placing pedagogy at the centre of knowledge production in a broad sense, after which pedagogy is made into a source of knowledge for pedagogical science, which sets forth to test and provide empirical support for pedagogy-based knowledge. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2019 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1204706 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG5GW_m9hZDn-ggX1IIv60qAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKQdsqX4o06jWB_F9wIBEICBm4aFUeWS0x0rHUzNYftPOSJuFsh2Kyr4HQ7AaEv1S2K3DgF_LS44fosQ45KjAyGIdEmRBzIo1SDaOWp9pQtWVHLLlV0yw449edSTY83qQ1qNCMeRgOo-rqty_QvEs6vUIzI0JCewaH6-KuKAt80kRdSj4jj3LYUdcnTlOdRfTq1wgGqP0WDqG3UN7W5-V_V6LzuP2VVrytyn267b Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0134466628;bed01feb.19;2019Feb06.04:44;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0134466628-1">An alternative model of researching educational practice: A pedagogic–stereoscopic point of view </title> <p>While teachers and practitioners are increasingly expected to conduct research on their own practice, there is a lot of educational research that is not directly involved in practice. This often leads to unilateral research perspectives on educational practice. Therefore, this article calls for an alternative model of researching educational practice, summarised through the term 'pedagogical science'. We argue that practical and normative theories that seek to improve educational practice should be combined with theories that aim to describe and explain. It is further argued that the combination of such perspectives and theories, a so‐called stereoscopic point of view, can allow for a thorough and holistic investigation of educational practice. As part of this argumentation, the article addresses critical questions of various theoretical models of educational research, models that are being used in Scandinavian, European and Anglo‐American research on educational practice. With reference to interdisciplinary models of educational research, such as educational sciences, learning sciences and Bildungswissenschaften, there are trends in which pedagogy is marginalised. Thus, the second argument of the article calls for placing pedagogy at the centre of knowledge production in a broad sense, after which pedagogy is made into a source of knowledge for pedagogical science, which sets forth to test and provide empirical support for pedagogy‐based knowledge.</p> <p>Keywords: pedagogical science; stereoscopic point of view; educational sciences; pedagogy; knowledge production</p> <p>Scandinavian and Continental European traditions of Pädagogik (henceforth pedagogy), as well as Anglo‐American traditions, have various models for research on educational practice (Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]). For example, within a relatively short period of time, and in close connection with the growth of interdisciplinary social sciences, the term 'utdanningsvitenskap', usually translated as 'educational sciences', has emerged as an overarching and unifying term in Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Dale, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>]; Sandin &amp; Säljö, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref3">44</reflink>]; Rasmussen et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref4">35</reflink>]). In these countries, 'utdanningsvitenskap' (henceforth educational sciences) has become the dominant theoretical model for research on and for educational practice (Sæther &amp; Wivestad, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref5">38</reflink>]; Saeverot, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref6">39</reflink>]). Educational sciences are interdisciplinary in nature, where different research fields are gathered in a 'discipline'. Thus, pedagogy is not understood as an academic discipline in its own right, but has rather been subsumed under educational sciences, as one research field amongst several others (see e.g. Dale, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>], p. 17). In Germany, where pedagogy originated,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>] Wolfgang Brezinka's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref9">11</reflink>]) book <emph>Von der Pädagogik zur Erziehungswissenschaft. Eine Einführung in die Metatheorie der Erziehung</emph> was quite influential. As the title suggests, it describes a scientific turn in the discipline of pedagogy, with a greater focus on <emph>Erziehungswissenschaft</emph> and with pedagogy being divided into three forms: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>) empirical pedagogy; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>) philosophical pedagogy; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>) practical pedagogy (Brezinka, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]; pp. 26–27). This is a model which highlights empirical research on and about educational practice. Before this turn, pedagogy's main focus was to examine educational practice from the point of view of a normative kind of pedagogy (philosophical pedagogy). In recent times, the term <emph>Bildungswissenschaften</emph> has also become a popular model for research on and about educational practice in Germany (Bellmann, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]). It is not a coincidence that this concept is written in plural, in contrast to <emph>Erziehungswissenschaft</emph>. The plural form indicates that <emph>Bildungswissenschaften</emph> is interdisciplinary, just like the Scandinavian form of educational sciences (Bellmann, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]; p. 108). While <emph>Erziehungswissenschaft</emph> is a more specialised discipline for pedagogy, <emph>Bildungswissenschaften</emph> is to a larger degree characterised by interdisciplinary research. The German academic Johannes Bellmann points to several similarities between first, <emph>Bildungswissenschaften</emph>, second, the Scandinavian form of educational sciences and third, learning sciences, the latter having become a common model for educational research in the Anglo‐American world. According to Bellmann ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>], p. 112), all three are interdisciplinary, evidence‐based (rather than value‐based) and instrumental, focusing on a material and objective research object (e.g. learning).</p> <p>That said, educational practice is the main area of focus for these models of educational research. Based on studies of Anglo‐American, German and Scandinavian sources, we will take a closer look at several of the existing ways to study educational practice. Two questions emerge from this, and the discussion in this article will be grounded on these. First, how may different research perspectives best be utilised for the study of educational practice? Second, how may pedagogy be utilised to a greater extent in educational research? The discussion of the first question will of course depend on how educational practice and its purposes are understood, just as the discussion of the second question depends on how pedagogy is understood. Every form of research contains some starting assumptions that define the nature of its enquiries, that orient its research procedures and that govern its scope. In our context, this means as follows: if we are properly to assess how educational practice as research object can be scientifically investigated, we need theoretical constructions so as to understand concepts such as educational practice and research, and with that address questions about what counts as education. Through our discussion of concepts and perspectives, we will try to make a case for an alternative research model for educational research—one that can be summarised by the term 'pedagogical science' (Saeverot, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>]). We do this by introducing two perspectives, or metaphors, to understand how educational practice can be studied and examined: the <emph>biographical perspective</emph> and the <emph>autobiographical perspective</emph>.</p> <p>In social sciences and humanities, expressions such as 'theoretical models' and 'research models' traditionally refer to different types of patterns, ideals or approaches regarding scientific activity. One known challenge is that such models can be regarded as ambiguous and vague. Such research models should properly be understood as a representation of certain approaches in research, while recognising their limitations. For example, certain details may be omitted or there may be a lack of clear premises. Moreover, our proposed model does not cover every aspect of the processes of educational research. The aspects of educational theory and research are simply too complex to fit in one and the same model. Nonetheless, we argue that the two main perspectives we advance in this article, biographical and autobiographical, may contribute to a more comprehensive model for educational research compared to some of the existing models today. The article starts with a clarification of concepts, including the concept of educational practice, followed by a discussion of the characteristics of each perspective, what they share and where they differ. This provides a backdrop to, and an argument for, pedagogical science as an alternative model for educational research.</p> <hd id="AN0134466628-2">Educational practice as research object</hd> <p>Educational practice is a multifaceted and complicated field. Consequently, educational practice is also a complex research object, where a wide range of phenomena can be the subject of research, such as pedagogical relationships and roles, learning conditions, types of action, context, settings and so on. However, in an overall view, and for the purposes of our argument, educational practice can be described as a relationship between a teacher and his or her students, in which the teacher performs actions that have, either in a strong or a weak sense, an intention to educate the students. In this educational relationship, and with reference to the continental tradition of pedagogy, we find that the actions are guided by specific purposes, primarily purposes related to <emph>person</emph> and <emph>world</emph> (Klafki, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding purposes related to person, qualities such as freedom, autonomy, independence, reason and critical reflection are prominent. For example, the term 'self‐activity' (in German: <emph>Selbsttätigkeit</emph>) is a key term in this context. The German educationist Dietrich Benner ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]) has made the term self‐activity relevant to modern pedagogy, by way of returning to the German philosopher Fichte, who placed the concept of self‐activity into an educational context through the statement 'invitation to self‐activity' (in German: <emph>Aufforderung zur Selbsttätigkeit</emph>) (Benner, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]; see also Klafki, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>], p. 31). The purpose for Fichte was that the student should be able to act on an independent and free basis.</p> <p>With regard to purposes connected to the world, and in a more limited sense to society, qualities such as solidarity, morality and humanity are prominent (Klafki, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref22">26</reflink>], pp. 36–37). The purpose in this case is that students would live in a society, whether big or small, in interaction with other people and in accordance with current democratic principles. As part of this purpose, the person should be inaugurated into certain values and norms, languages, traditions, cultures and societies (Säfström, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref23">42</reflink>]). As soon as educational practice makes room for students' critical engagement with different norms, values, languages, cultures and traditions, the question of <emph>what</emph>—what the students ought to be inaugurated in and engaged with—becomes central. However, the purpose connected to the world includes more than this, as students should be able to take responsibility towards others, beyond presupposed norms and rules (Säfström, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref24">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Not the least, the purpose of educational practice is to acquire knowledge and skills. Here, too, the question of <emph>what</emph> is central (i.e. what students should be knowledgeable about, so as to be able to master their own life in general, or, more specifically, to perform various duties, tasks, professions, etc.). An overall concept for this is epistemology or theory of knowledge, where knowledge has a central place. Since epistemology has gained a large and central place in modern education, it may be appropriate to add 'negative epistemology' as a purpose to educational practice. Thus, there is room for giving value to not knowing (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref25">46</reflink>]). Although this 'not knowing' is not a form of scientific knowledge, it is still a form of knowledge, being non‐certain, self‐critical and provisional by nature (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref26">46</reflink>]). Furthermore, the value of not knowing is found amongst some well‐known ironists in the Western history of philosophy, such as Socrates and Kierkegaard (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref27">46</reflink>]). A typical feature of Socrates' interlocutors is that they are often very cocksure. Characteristically, Socrates used irony to put this slanting certainty to the test. Through ironic interrogation, Socrates is able to create an element of self‐doubt and uncertainty among his conversation partners, so that they may be able to see themselves in a new light. Socrates has thus functioned as a teacher who has educated his interlocutors. As such, negative epistemology can be valuable in educational contexts.</p> <p>It is important to bear in mind that educational practice may have more purposes than the four above‐mentioned, which are not universally valid. All purposes in education need to be discussed continually, and subjected to ongoing critique, to identify and address their biases and other limitations.</p> <p>So far, we have tried to clarify what we mean by educational practice, which is the object of the educational research. But how may educational research be understood, or how can one examine educational practice? To shed light on this, we will introduce two perspectives to the discussion. Educational research can be pursued from the inside—what we call the autobiographical perspective, or from the outside—what we call the biographical perspective.</p> <hd id="AN0134466628-3">Biographical and autobiographical perspectives</hd> <p>A biography is a genre in which one person's life is described by another, or in other words from an external perspective. If we transfer the metaphor to our context, the biographical perspective can be interpreted as research <emph>about</emph> or <emph>on</emph> educational practice, a so‐called spectator perspective (Kemmis, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>]). This means that the research object that is observed or made subject to examination—educational practice—is seen from a more distant perspective (Tenorth, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref29">49</reflink>], p. 23; Balzer &amp; Bellmann, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]). As a concrete example of this, we can look at John Hattie's analysis and summary of more than 800 meta‐analyses of school performance. As he specifies in the preface to his book <emph>Visible learning</emph>, he has not entered classrooms directly with the goal of capturing the nuances and details of what takes place (Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref31">21</reflink>]; p. viii). Instead, he has chosen a quantitative research approach in which statistics are central (Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref32">21</reflink>]; p. ix). Hattie has thus studied educational practice from a distance. By using an external perspective, he has been able to compile hundreds of meta‐analyses of what he thinks is working to improve learning in schools (see Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]; Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>] for a critical analysis of evidence‐based research). In other words, the biographical perspective has neither direct insight into nor direct experience of what takes place in educational practice. The research or observation is thus equivalent to a third‐person perspective on educational practice.</p> <p>A downside to research done from a deliberate distance—the biographical perspective—is that the research may not be relevant for those who are involved in educational practice; that is, the practitioners. There are many examples of practitioners feeling like their voices and views about educational practice have been overshadowed by empirical and evidence‐based data. Stephen Kemmis ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref35">25</reflink>], p. 893) explains:It has not been a century of unbridled success, in which practitioners have thrived in the light of the new knowledge research has made available to them. In fact, practitioners in many fields, especially in largely public sector professions like teaching and nursing, have frequently felt themselves silenced by conventional research knowledge, and they continue to turn their back on it and on the conferences and journals in which it is reported.</p> <p>This quote implies that the biographical perspective may have a tendency to speak on behalf of practitioners, by both naming and judging what happens in educational practice. Kemmis ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>]) also implies that it is difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to capture the 'essence' of what takes place in practice. According to Kemmis ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref37">25</reflink>]), what we describe as the biographical perspective cannot engage with experiences from practice in a subjective manner. Because of this distance, educational practice is often described in abstract and general terms. But such description, in its aspiration to the universality of theory, almost invariably fails to disclose the inherently particular, unpredictable and context‐dependent nature of educational practice itself. Nevertheless, many researchers working from the biographical perspective (e.g. Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]) wish to influence educational practice directly by way of evidence‐based data (Kvernbekk, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref39">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>While biographies describe another person's life, an autobiography is a genre in which the authors describe their own life, from an internal perspective. If we transfer this metaphor to our context, the autobiographical perspective can be described as research <emph>in</emph> educational practice, a so‐called participant perspective (Kemmis, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref40">25</reflink>]). By engaging in research <emph>in</emph> educational practice, the researcher is presented as a subject, in whom educational practice becomes an object of reflection and/or research. The practitioner as researcher either has a first‐person perspective in relation to his/her own practice (singular) or a first‐person perspective in relation to a shared practice (plural) in which practitioners as researchers appear as interlocutors (Kemmis, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref41">25</reflink>]). This means that the subjects who research their own—individual or collective—practice have the opportunity to develop knowledge directly anchored in their own practice. A concrete example of the autobiographical perspective is teachers who research their own practice (Stenhouse, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref42">47</reflink>]). Over the last decades, 'Teacher research' (Cochran‐Smith &amp; Lytle, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>]; Cochran‐Smith &amp; Donnell, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref44">14</reflink>]), also more commonly referred to as 'Practitioner research' (Borko et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>]), has been highlighted as advancing relevant ways of developing knowledge. In particular, action research has emerged in recent years as a significant methodology for such development of knowledge. According to the research literature, action research does connect practice and theory (Carr &amp; Kemmis, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref46">13</reflink>]; Kemmis, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref47">23</reflink>]; Kemmis, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref48">24</reflink>]; Ulvik et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref49">55</reflink>]), making teachers think and act like researchers, with a positive impact on educational practice (Davis et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]), whilst being a tool for professional development (Ulvik &amp; Riese, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref51">54</reflink>]). In <emph>The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice</emph>, action research is described as a form of systematic development of knowledge (i.e. practically based knowledge) (Reason &amp; Bradbury, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref52">36</reflink>], pp. 1–10).</p> <p>Now, if we consider the autobiographical perspective in a broad and general sense, we can claim that this perspective on educational research provides good opportunities to produce direct or valuable insights into educational practice. However, this research also has some clear limitations, especially in that research aiming to improve educational practice may become too normative and too subjective. For example, Bellmann ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>], p. 106) notes that pedagogy interpreted as practical theory generated by those involved in educational practice amounts to 'normative projects for the practice and discourse of education, implying premises that ought to be investigated carefully before we buy into them'. All research in the social sciences and humanities—both quantitative and qualitative research—is of course normative to some degree, but the normative implications of the research may range from minor to major. Some normative research studies may simply be too prescriptive, with the result that both the research object and the data material become too influenced by preconceived ideas.</p> <p>Though the biographical perspective clearly differs from the autobiographical perspective, especially in terms of the researcher's distance to the research object, as we have pointed out above, the two perspectives have the following two interrelated similarities: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>) they have a direct interest in practice and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref55">2</reflink>) they are governed by one and the same objective, which is mainly to improve practice. In the preface to the Norwegian edition of Hattie's <emph>Visible learning</emph>, the author shows that the two above‐mentioned similarities apply to the biographical perspective: 'The question that is highlighted throughout is: what impacts learning?' (Nordahl, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>], p. 17; our translation). This also implies that the objective of the research is to 'improve the teaching' (Nordahl, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref57">34</reflink>], p. 20; our translation). The direct interest in practice and the objective of improving practice is also key to the autobiographical perspective, which is emphasised in the final chapter of the anthology <emph>The teacher as researcher</emph>. Here, the authors specifically discuss practice‐oriented research and action learning, in which learning is 'future‐oriented in form. It seeks changes in the meaning of "the best option at any given time"' (Tiller &amp; Brekke, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref58">51</reflink>], p. 282). Another recent book on action research takes the same point of view, claiming that action research 'can contribute to professional development and improved practice' (Ulvik, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref59">53</reflink>], p. 17; see also Ulvik &amp; Riese, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref60">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0134466628-4">Combining perspectives for developing pedagogical science</hd> <p>What has been said thus far leads us directly to our first research question and the argument that calls for pedagogical science as a model for educational research. Our argument is that the biographical and autobiographical perspectives should complement each other and thus create a basis for a pedagogical science that avoids the disconnection between biographical perspectives and the here‐and‐now happenings of educational practice, while avoiding ending up with research that is too subjective, random and normative (cf. Kemmis, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref61">25</reflink>]). In other words, pedagogical science provides a third research perspective on educational practice.</p> <p>The advantage of combining biographical and autobiographical perspectives is that the representation of the research object subject to investigation becomes more holistic and comprehensive. Here is a concrete example that supports such a claim. In the autobiography <emph>On overgrown paths</emph> by Knut Hamsun (1859–1952), one of Norway's foremost novelists, the reader is given a close and internal view of Hamsun himself, with a special focus on what happened before, during and after the legal proceedings against him arising from his support for the German occupation of Norway (Hamsun, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref62">20</reflink>]). Through Hamsun's internal perspective, the reader is given a relatively uncritical image of the writer, who in several contexts defends his actions during the Second World War. Therefore, the reader would benefit from supplementing <emph>On overgrown paths</emph> with <emph>Knut Hamsun: Dreamer and dissenter</emph>, written by Ingar Sletten Kolloen.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>] In this book, which is a biography of Knut Hamsun, several of the descriptions from Hamsun's autobiography are confirmed, while at the same time descriptions and characteristics are also given of Hamsun that differ from those he provided himself.</p> <p>Combined, the autobiography and the biography provide a more nuanced image of the author than what either genre can provide alone. In this way, the reader is given an appropriate distance to Hamsun: not too close and not too distant. Through the autobiography, the reader finds examples of how Hamsun perceives and understands himself (i.e. from within). Through the biography, the reader finds examples of how Hamsun is perceived and described by another person (i.e. from the outside). An image of Hamsun is formed through these two perspectives: one written by Hamsun ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref64">20</reflink>]), based on self‐perception and one written by Kolloen ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref65">27</reflink>]), through a biographical lens. In many cases, an external viewpoint of a person may be misleading, but such viewpoints may also lead us to greater self‐understanding and perhaps help us correct our views of ourselves. Nevertheless, this is no guarantee of a 'true' depiction. Both internal and external prejudices may colour the image by way of predetermined ideas.</p> <p>If we transfer this metaphorical image to the context of educational practice, the combination of the biographical and autobiographical perspectives, in which the researcher conducts research from two different perspectives, can be described as research <emph>into</emph> educational practice (Kemmis, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref66">25</reflink>]). What does that mean? Research into educational practice is an intersubjective perspective because it takes place between participatory research and distanced observation. This does not necessarily mean that research <emph>in</emph> and research <emph>on</emph> educational practice are not considered as pedagogical research. The point is that the second‐person perspective, research <emph>into</emph> educational practice, creates space for a more holistic view of educational practice. Having said that, we cannot discount the possibility that the biographical and autobiographical perspectives on their own may provide new insights that are relevant contributions to both research and improvements of educational practice. Nevertheless, pedagogical science can benefit from combining the two above‐mentioned perspectives, as it is only in such a combination that the diversity of educational practice is made visible to us, either to a large or a small degree. For example, if research consists somewhat one‐sidedly of a biographical perspective, the 'evident' data will be solely based on observations from a distance. Thus, researchers risk speaking about the research object in deficient language, hence overlooking the rich details and inner life of educational practice. In contrast, the second‐person perspective generates 'evidence' based on a combination of participation and observation from a distance. Thus, researchers can more easily build a language that corresponds to practice, as they have indirect access to the research object through, for instance, sound conversations with practitioners. This is one of the main reasons why pedagogical science combines the biographical and autobiographical perspectives on educational practice.</p> <hd id="AN0134466628-5">The pedagogical foundation of pedagogical science</hd> <p>In the history of pedagogy, there have been frequent discussions about whether pedagogy is an academic discipline in its own right, or whether it can better be considered as a sort of field or domain for the application of knowledge from other disciplines, a so‐called 'assistant science' (Kvam, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref67">29</reflink>]). For example, up to the early 1900s, pedagogy in Norway was mainly associated with theology, philosophy and history. Psychological perspectives were also included, but these were classified under philosophy. During the first half of the 1900s, psychology dominated pedagogy in Norway and during the latter half of the 1900s, sociology gained an increasingly prominent role in pedagogical discussions (Sæther, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref68">37</reflink>]). As noted in the Introduction, current academic models of educational research, such as educational sciences, learning sciences and <emph>Bildungswissenschaften</emph>, also tend to marginalise pedagogy (Saeverot &amp; Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref69">41</reflink>]; Bellmann, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>]; Ljungdalh et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref71">33</reflink>]). This leads us to our second research question: How may pedagogy be utilised to a greater extent in educational research? To address this question, we must first clarify what we mean by the concept of pedagogy.</p> <p>We are fully aware that the concept of pedagogy is very broad and ambiguous. Ever since the European Enlightenment, there was a strong tradition in Western and Central Europe to consider education and pedagogy as a practical field and a field for scholarly research. Scientists strove to develop logical relationships between skills in educational practice and the need for theoretical and scientific training in these particular skills. In his <emph>Versuch einer Pädagogik</emph> (1780), Ernst Christian Trapp argued that the development of children and adolescents was related to qualities of upbringing and education. For Trapp, the task of pedagogy was to ensure systematic training with clearly formulated purposes. Furthermore, good educational practice—for Trapp—was an art form, which required that the educators or those who conducted the educational practice were in need of professional training in certain skills (Trapp, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref72">52</reflink>]). In his study on the history of the concept of pedagogy, Wivestad ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref73">57</reflink>]) shows that Immanuel Kant had similar ideas to Trapp, as he too emphasised educational practice grounded on purposes and rational intentions. Kant also understood educational practice as a form of art; however, an art so complex that its components (purposes, methods and principles) should be scientifically justified (Wivestad, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref74">57</reflink>]; see also Kant, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref75">22</reflink>]). Thus, from the Enlightenment period, pedagogy has been understood as both art and skill, as reflection and science, without clearly defining the relationship between these different components. In recent years, pedagogy, in both Germany and Scandinavia, has become more related to <emph>reflection</emph> and involvement <emph>for</emph> practice. This understanding of pedagogy goes back to Wilhelm Flitner, a key scholar from the historical heydays of <emph>geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik</emph> (hermeneutic pedagogy). Flitner defined pedagogy as 'réflexion engagée' (Flitner, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref76">19</reflink>], p. 18), and this definition of pedagogy is the starting point for our definition, which reads thus: 'pedagogy is equivalent to reflective and participatory research, conducted by those directly involved in educational practice. In other words, pedagogy is anchored in the autobiographical perspective and may be considered as a science of action' (Saeverot, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref77">40</reflink>], pp. 157ff).</p> <p>However, the scientific turn of the discipline of pedagogy that took place at the beginning of the millennium in Germany, Norway, Denmark and Sweden marginalised pedagogy, understood as a normative and pragmatic discipline. This claim is actually supported by Brezinka, who in many ways started the scientific turn of pedagogy in Germany. In 2015, he had a look in the rear‐view mirror and summarised his examination of the status of pedagogy in Germany. One of his conclusions was that the empirically oriented pedagogy (<emph>empirischen Erziehungswissenschaft</emph>) had taken over and simultaneously sidelined normatively based pedagogy (Brezinka, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref78">12</reflink>], p. 294). At the same time, he concluded that a gap had emerged between researchers and practitioners in schools, as indeed Kemmis ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref79">25</reflink>], p. 893) points out too. According to Brezinka ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref80">12</reflink>]), this gap has to do with researchers using a language that does not resonate with the language used by practitioners. Thus, educational research remains too abstract, unable to capture the concrete challenges and issues that practitioners must handle daily.</p> <p>Part of the problem may lie in the characteristics that are inherent to research‐based theories, hence resulting in limitations when it comes to relevance for practice. Based on philosophies of science, Kvernbekk ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref81">30</reflink>]), Kvernbekk ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref82">31</reflink>]) points out the following problem: while research‐based theories are characterised by being context‐free, abstract and providing simplified models of complex pedagogical phenomena, pedagogical practice involves far more aspects than such research‐based theories can grasp. It may therefore be a challenging task to use research‐based theories directly in educational practice. Theories have no practical relevance in and of themselves; the relevance must be established on the foundation of a critical and tactful assessment, based on first‐hand knowledge of each pedagogical situation (Kvernbekk, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref83">30</reflink>]; p. 33f; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref84">31</reflink>], p. 181). Therefore, we argue for the need for pedagogy being based on the autobiographical perspective, in order to gain first‐hand experience or direct insight into educational practice, which is important for being able to see the relevance of research‐based theory in educational practice.</p> <p>Main features of pedagogical science, pedagogy and educational sciences. The table, which is inspired by Bellmann (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref85">3</reflink>, p. 114), does not take all the different viewpoints that exist of pedagogy and educational sciences into account, as that would be impossible. The content of the table is therefore open for discussion</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Pedagogical science&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Pedagogy&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Educational sciences&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;An academic discipline of pedagogy in its own right&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;A practical discipline or a science of action&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Interdisciplinary domain&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Stereoscopic perspective: combining the biographical and autobiographical perspectives&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Autobiographical perspective&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Biographical perspective&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Pedagogy as fact (descriptive pedagogy); development of pedagogical theory in a strong sense (by way of combining pedagogy as a task and fact)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Pedagogy as a task (pragmatic pedagogy); development of pedagogical theory in a weak sense&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Education as a task (pragmatic education); development of educational theory in a weak sense&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Research &lt;italic&gt;into&lt;/italic&gt; educational practice; indirect interest of educational practice; second&amp;#8208;person perspective on educational practice&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Research &lt;italic&gt;in&lt;/italic&gt; educational practice; direct interest of educational practice; first&amp;#8208;person perspective on educational practice&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Research &lt;italic&gt;about&lt;/italic&gt; or &lt;italic&gt;on&lt;/italic&gt; educational practice; direct interest of educational practice; third&amp;#8208;person perspective on educational practice&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Direct interest in theory; pedagogy as research object; scientific examination of reflective and participatory research; making use of theories that aim to describe and explain&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Indirect interest in theory; pedagogical actions as research object; making use of theories that aim to understand and improve; normative and practical theories&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Indirect interest in theory; educational practice as research object; making use of theories from a variety of disciplines; generating non&amp;#8208;pedagogical knowledge&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Pedagogy and educational sciences as theoretical basis and sources of knowledge; knowledge generated in disciplines other than pedagogy is translated into pedagogically relevant knowledge&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Making use of theory both in the initial phase of research and in the analysis of the empirical data&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Making use of theory in the phase of analysis of the empirical data&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>As mentioned previously, educational research can be conducted from the inside of educational practice, which provides the opportunity to grasp what happens here and now in educational practice. The researcher is engaged in experiences from practice in a subjective and intersubjective manner, but what does it mean to research educational practice from the inside of practice traditions (e.g. the traditions of Dewey or Freire)? Kemmis ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref86">25</reflink>], p. 890) asks some questions that form a basis for addressing this particular question:For example, if I see myself [...] as a part of a practice tradition of critical pedagogy that acknowledges among its antecedents the educationists John Dewey and Paulo Freire, what do I think my pedagogical practice is and should be? How might I see myself as developing the excellence of my own practice and, at the same time, as contributing to the collective development of this tradition with others who see themselves as part of this tradition? If I am within this practice tradition, what form of research will allow me to form and transform both myself as a practitioner and the collectivity of people whose work constitutes the contemporary manifestation of this tradition?</p> <p>One response to these questions may be pedagogical action research, which not only provides opportunities to improve educational practice, but also allows practitioners to understand their own practice when it comes to terms, conditions, assumptions and so on. Furthermore, pedagogical action research will reflect on, and perhaps also expand, the practice tradition followed by the researcher.</p> <p>Not least, we should note that Kemmis implies that educational research of the autobiographical kind should be located in some genus of pedagogical theory, or some tradition of pedagogical thought (see Figure 1).</p> <p>GRAPH: Model for research in educational practice (autobiographical perspective), where pedagogical theory is involved in the research process.</p> <p>As for theoretical models developed from an interdisciplinary position, where pedagogy is understood as one research field amongst several others, both pedagogical theory and the history of pedagogy are quite marginalised (Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref87">8</reflink>]; Wivestad, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref88">57</reflink>]; Bellmann, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref89">3</reflink>]; Säfström &amp; Saeverot, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref90">43</reflink>]). For example, in educational sciences, research is just as likely to be conducted from a sociological or psychological perspective as from a pedagogical perspective (Ljungdalh <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref91">33</reflink>]). Another tendency in evidence‐based research, for example, is that the theoretical perspective is more or less absent in the initial phase of the research, as the researcher strives to be as open‐minded and objective as possible (see Thomas &amp; Pring, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref92">50</reflink>]; Allan, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>]; Biesta <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref94">9</reflink>] for an elaboration of the topic). Such an absence of theory in educational research may result in an unfortunate dichotomy between empirical data and practice, in which the empirical data are to guide practice (see Figure 2).</p> <p>GRAPH: Model for research about or on educational practice (biographical perspective), where pedagogical theory is absent in the initial phase of the educational research.</p> <p>Obviously, every researcher should be as open‐minded and objective as possible in their research, but to discount theory in the initial phase of the research, and only use it in the analysis of the empirical data, is problematic. A particularly obvious problem is that the researcher may have a tendency to take some concepts and theoretical traditions for granted (Biesta <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref95">9</reflink>]). Biesta <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref96">9</reflink>]) provide two important reasons for including theory <emph>before</emph> the phase of analysis. First, theory is necessary for 'the conceptualisation of the phenomenon one wishes to investigate' (Biesta <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref97">9</reflink>], p. 6). If learning is the research phenomenon, it would be valuable, according to Biesta <emph>et al</emph>. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref98">9</reflink>]), to engage in questions such as: Which learning tradition do we belong to? How is learning defined in our context? Second, theory is necessary at the outset of the research to construe the research object (Biesta <emph>et al</emph>., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref99">9</reflink>]). If the research object is educational practice, it would be valuable to engage with questions such as: What counts as education? Are all acts in practice educational? Is it about teachers communicating and pupils receiving knowledge? Such questions are complex and should not be taken for granted. Rather, before starting the research, the researcher should engage theoretically with the clarification and construction of the research object(s).</p> <p>We therefore argue that pedagogical theory and the history of pedagogy ought to play important roles in participatory research. However, educational research does not end here. When pedagogy is placed within the framework of pedagogical science, further research, which is more theory‐focused than practice‐focused, remains. The reason is that pedagogy, which generates knowledge based in practice, is considered a source of knowledge for pedagogical science, which sets forth to test and provide empirical support for practice‐based knowledge. However, there is no hierarchy between pedagogy and pedagogical science. They simply have different tasks.</p> <hd id="AN0134466628-6">Generating pedagogical theory based on pedagogy and educational sciences</hd> <p>Why is more research needed beyond the autobiographical form of research? Kvernbekk ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref100">31</reflink>]) supports our preliminary assertion that pedagogy should be made subject to further research and verification. For example, Kvernbekk ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref101">31</reflink>]) distinguishes between theory in a weak and a strong sense. Theory in a weak sense may be perceptions or knowledge structures 'that are too loosely or poorly articulated to be called theory' Kvernbekk ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref102">31</reflink>], p. 13; our translation). On the one hand, Kvernbekk ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref103">31</reflink>], pp. 20–21) highlights several advantages to what we term the autobiographical perspective, but on the other hand she sees a multitude of problems related to the insider's presumed privileged access and insight when it comes to educational practice (Kvernbekk, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref104">31</reflink>], p. 50). What Kvernbekk calls the insider perspective, which in many ways corresponds to our autobiographical perspective, involves so many scientific problems that they may prevent the development of theory in a strong sense, understood as research‐based theory that has been tested and published in academic periodicals and books. Thus, there are relatively good reasons for claiming that reflective and participatory research—pedagogy—ought to be considered as a theoretical basis and a source of knowledge for pedagogical science. If the pedagogical theory is to be fully articulated, and to ensure a stronger and more durable theory, more and different forms of work and research are needed. Pedagogy in light of the autobiographical perspective requires scientific and theoretical processing.</p> <p>Thus, it is no longer only about improving educational practice. At this juncture, pedagogy is not only to produce knowledge through participatory research, but is to be placed under the analytical lens of pedagogical science. This part of the research will require other forms of theory than the so‐called practical and normative theories that aim to develop or improve practice, which the German scholar Wolfgang Sünkel also implies in the following quote: 'Science does not ask what should I do – science asks what is' (Sünkel, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref105">48</reflink>], p. 14; our translation).[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref106">3</reflink>] Implicitly, Sünkel ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref107">48</reflink>]) is suggesting that pedagogy is not a scientific discipline as long as it only aims to improve practice. To be considered an independent academic discipline, Sünkel ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref108">48</reflink>]) continues, pedagogy must also examine the 'what is' question. Thus, theories that say something about how the world appears to be (i.e. theories that first and foremost aim to describe and explain) are needed. It is no longer about a pragmatic pedagogy with a task (<emph>Aufgabe</emph>), but a descriptive form of pedagogical science dealing with facts (<emph>Tatsache</emph>) (Sünkel, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref109">48</reflink>], p. 15).[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref110">4</reflink>]</p> <p>Now, Sünkel's understanding that 'science asks what is' can be criticised for being somewhat oversimplified, at least in most research contexts, and perhaps also quite dated. Sünkel's concern is primarily to show that pedagogy as a science not only relates to educational practice, but even such an obvious position can be problematic. Is it really reasonable to uphold a clear distinction between 'pure' and 'applied' research? Even in the purely natural science research, we find numerous examples of research being used for specific purposes, or aiming at improving different forms of practice. For instance, leading‐edge 'pure' research in microbiology and biochemistry, although essentially concerned with the problem of finding out certain things, aims at advancing the practice of medicine. This is not to deny that there may be some forms of research that are still inspired by the disinterested pursuit of knowledge. But research funding policies, as well as changes within research cultures themselves, are making these forms increasingly rare. Now, if we move from natural science and medicine to research in human practices, such as education, it is difficult to understand how such research undertakings could be coherent if one takes away from them a concern for refining and improving the practice in question. At the same time as we recognise and maintain this complexity of how we can understand 'pure' and 'applied' research, we find it fruitful to say that the stereoscopic research lens connects both the task and the fact, which can develop strong pedagogical concepts and categories that are not shared with other disciplines. In our view, the best potential to do so lies in the stereoscopic perspective, which also includes <emph>descriptive</emph> pedagogy.</p> <p>In the history of social and humanistic sciences, there are assertions and viewpoints that are often used to reject the possibility of a descriptive pedagogical science. The justifications usually relate to a view that researchers cannot achieve objectivity as they always bring assumptions to their work. Furthermore, social scientists cannot relate to human action and behaviour as purely natural phenomena. It is necessary to take into account the intentions and interpretations of those implicated in the actions (see e.g. Skjervheim, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref111">45</reflink>]). However, our standpoint is that there is not necessarily a contradiction between being aware of these issues and creating a pedagogical science that also has descriptive and explanatory tasks, without thereby overlooking the need for tactful judgements when applying such science in practical situations. In order to extract new knowledge of interest to pedagogical science, and to develop strong and exclusive concepts and categories, we as researchers must do our utmost to eliminate subjective interferences in our scientific work, whilst actively ensuring that other researchers can examine the presentation's relation to the empirical data. This safeguards the principle of facilitating intersubjective agreement and criticism between researchers about reasonable interpretations and conclusions. This does not mean that we can prevent prejudices from impacting the choices and interpretations made. Weber's ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref112">56</reflink>]) views—as developed by Kvam ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref113">28</reflink>]) in a work on the relationship between interpretation, rationality and truth in educational research—may be useful when addressing these questions. Whilst we as researchers should strive to be aware of prejudices, we should also conduct and present the research with its results and findings in such a way that people with other pre‐understandings and experiences than our own can accept it. Thus, it is possible to defend the possibility of searching for knowledge that is as objective as possible while at the same time being aware of the researcher's prejudices. The one does not exclude the other.</p> <p>So, the practice‐oriented knowledge that pedagogy has developed must be confirmable and be substantiated empirically, which imposes strict scientific requirements in the form of verifiability, justification, argumentation, consistency, precision and so on. Such empirical substantiation may for instance consist of organising and systematising structures of knowledge that are not sufficiently articulated to develop theory, or investigating issues that the autobiographical perspective has either overlooked or has no access to. In general, this is very challenging and intersubjective work that 'includes many researchers who develop a field through interactions and discussions with each other' (Kvernbekk, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref114">31</reflink>], p. 53; our translation).</p> <p>Another problem for research on educational practice that cannot be solved by models such as educational sciences and learning sciences is the so‐called 'transfer problem' (Saeverot, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref115">39</reflink>]). This problem can be explained by educational sciences being interdisciplinary, investigating educational practice from the viewpoints of various disciplines without necessarily generating pedagogical knowledge. For example, a sociological perspective will generate sociological knowledge, a psychological perspective will generate psychological knowledge and so on (Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref116">7</reflink>]). In order to utilise such knowledge pedagogically, pedagogical science can adopt a mediating role in which knowledge generated in disciplines other than pedagogy is translated into pedagogically relevant knowledge (Saeverot, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref117">39</reflink>]). This means that educational sciences, like pedagogy, appear as a source of knowledge and theoretical basis for pedagogical science (see Table 1). However, this is merely a possibility, and must therefore be actively seized in order to be realised.</p> <hd id="AN0134466628-7">Conclusion: a pedagogic–stereoscopic research perspective on educational practice</hd> <p>In conclusion, we will try to tie the threads together, thus highlighting our argument. The first point we want to highlight is this: by combining biographical and autobiographical perspectives it is possible to avoid both distancing from the inner life of educational practice and the risk of being too subjective and too normative in the view of educational practice. One reason for this is that educational research is given two purposes rather than just one. First, via the autobiographical perspective, educational research aims to understand and improve educational practice, using practice‐oriented research justified by pedagogical theory. This part of the research is referred to as pedagogy and is of direct interest to educational practice. Second, via the biographical perspective, educational research aims to explain and describe and, not least, take a closer look at the facts, precision and truth in relation to the knowledge and theory that pedagogy has developed. Thus, the biographical perspective is of direct interest to theory and of indirect interest to educational practice. Figure 3 illustrates these relationships.</p> <p>GRAPH: Model for research into educational practice (biographical and autobiographical perspectives), where pedagogy is a source of knowledge to be tested and supported empirically by way of pedagogical science (Saeverot, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref118">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>The model illustrates a stereoscopic view of educational practice, thus providing a more holistic view in which the autobiographical and biographical views are combined. In contrast, the researcher as a subject (e.g. action research) and the researcher as an observer (e.g. meta‐analysis) are both one‐eyed. They only have one lens onto educational practice, in contrast to pedagogical science, which offers a stereoscopic view of educational practice. In this way, pedagogical science can allow for a thorough and holistic investigation of educational practice. Put more precisely, through action research and other autobiographical perspectives, pedagogy can provide pedagogical science with knowledge and theory developed directly from educational practice, after which pedagogical science examines this knowledge and theory based on questions about facts, truth and validity.</p> <p>This does not necessarily mean that pedagogical science must be designed in such a way that both the autobiographical and biographical perspectives are included in one and the same research project. Even as separate research projects, the two perspectives can later be combined and supplement each other. Pedagogical science can thus function as a kind of workshop where research from the autobiographical perspective and research from the biographical perspective are interconnected, so as to further develop the different research on educational practice. As such, pedagogical science has the potential to generate rich insights and further explorations of educational practice, precisely by combining the two above‐mentioned perspectives, which entails challenging and intersubjective work between many researchers.</p> <hd id="AN0134466628-8">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We are greatly indebted to Professor Dr Johannes Bellmann, Professor Dr Gert Biesta, Professor Dr Carl Anders Säfström and Professor Dr Glenn‐Egil Torgersen for many inspiring and thought‐provoking conversations regarding questions of pedagogy and educational research in general. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on this article.</p> <ref id="AN0134466628-9"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> With the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe, there was an increasing interest in questions about the content and tools of childrearing. Specialised pedagogical institutions emerged and pedagogical programmes were created and gained acceptance. In the late 1700s, a professorship in pedagogy was created, and in 1780 the new professor of pedagogy, Ernst Christian Trapp (1745–1818), published the first known book to have used the concept of pedagogy: <emph>Versuch einer Pädagogik</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> We should not discount the possibility that more biographies about Hamsun will be written and that these may provide further nuances or disapprovals to Hamsun's ([20]) autobiography and Kolloen's ([27]) biography.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref12" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Here are Sünkel's own words: 'Wissenschaft fragt nicht, was sein soll–Wissenschaft fragt, was ist' (Sünkel, [48], p. 14).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref19" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Sünkel puts it this way: 'In der deskriptiven Pädagogik soll es also darum gehen, die Erziehung als "Tatsache", nicht als "Aufgabe", zu beschreiben' (Sünkel, [48], p. 15).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0134466628-10"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Allan, J. (2008) Rethinking inclusive education: The philosophers of difference in practice (Dordrecht, Kluwer).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Balzer, N. &amp; Bellmann, J. (2017) Die Erziehung der Theaterperspektive. Zur Kritik der Dichotomisierung von Pädagogik und Erziehungswissenschaft [The education of the theatre perspective. A critique of the dichotomy of pedagogy and educational science], paper presented at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft, Phillips‐Universität Marburg, 8–10 March.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bellmann, J. (2017) Forwards to the learning sciences or back to pedagogy? Prospects of education as an academic field, in: H. Saeverot &amp; T. C. Werler (Eds) Pedagogikkens språk. Kunnskapsformer i pedagogikkvitenskap [ The language of pedagogy. Forms of knowledge in pedagogical science ] (Oslo, Gyldendal Akademisk), 104 – 117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benner, D. (1991) Allgemeine Pädagogik [ General pedagogy ] (Weinheim, Juventa).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2007) Why 'what works' won't work: Evidence‐based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research, Educational Theory, 57 (1), 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref34" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2010) Why 'what works' still won't work: From evidence‐based education to value‐based education, Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29 (5), 491 – 503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9191-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2011) Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A comparative analysis of the Anglo‐American and continental construction of the field, Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 19 (2), 175 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.582255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref87" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2013) Å snakke "pedagogikk" til "education": Internasjonalisering og problemet med konseptuell hegemoni i studiet av pedagogikk [To speak 'pedagogy' to 'education': Internationalisation and the problem with conceptual hegemony in the study of pedagogy], Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 97 (3), 172 – 183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref94" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta, G., Allan, J. &amp; Edwards, R. (2014) Introduction. The theory question in education and the education question in theory, in: G. Biesta, J. Allan &amp; R. Edwards (Eds) Making a difference in theory (New York, Routledge), 1 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borko, H., Liston, D. &amp; Whitcomb, J. A. (2007) Genres of empirical research in teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education, 58 (1), 3 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106296220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brezinka, W. (1971) Von der Pädagogik zur Erziehungswissenschaft. Eine Einführung in die Metatheorie der Erziehung [ From pedagogy to educational science. An introduction in the metatheory of education ] (Weinheim, Beltz).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brezinka, W. (2015) Die 'Verwissenschaftlichung' der Pädagogik und ihre Folgen [The 'scientification' of pedagogy and its consequences], Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 61 (2), 282 – 294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carr, W. &amp; Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research (London, Falmer).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran‐Smith, M. &amp; Donnell, K. (2006) Practitioner inquiry: Blurring the boundaries of research and practice, in: J. L. Green, G. Camilli &amp; P. B. Elmore (Eds) Handbook of complementary methods in education research (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 503 – 518.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran‐Smith, M. &amp; Lytle, S. L. (1993) Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (New York, Teachers College Press).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dale, E. L. (2005) Kunnskapsregimer i pedagogikk og utdanningsvitenskap [ Regimes of knowledge in pedagogy and educational sciences ] (Oslo, Abstrakt forlag).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dale, E. L. (2011) Utdanningsvitenskap og pedagogikk [ Educational sciences and pedagogy ] (Oslo, Gyldendal akademisk).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, J., Courtney, C. &amp; Broome, J. (2018) Thinking like researchers: Action research and its impact on novice teachers' thinking, Educational Action Research, 26, 59 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1284012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flitner, W. (1966) Das Selbstverständnis der Erziehungswissenschaft in der Gegenwart [ The self understanding of educational science in the present time ] (Heidelberg, Quelle &amp; Meyer).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamsun, K. (2009) På gjengrodde stier [ On overgrown paths ] (Oslo, Gyldendal).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. (2009) Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement (New York, Routledge).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kant, I. (2007) Lectures on pedagogy, in: G. Zöller &amp; R. B. Lauden (Eds) Anthropology, history and education (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 437 – 485.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemmis, S. (1988) Action research, in: J. P. Keeves (Ed.) Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (Oxford, Pergamon).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemmis, S. (2009) Action research as a practice‐based practice, Educational Action Research, 17 (3), 463 – 474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790903093284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemmis, S. (2012) Researching educational praxis: Spectator and participant perspectives, British Educational Research Journal, 38 (6), 885 – 905. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.588316</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klafki, W. (2001) Dannelsesteori og didaktik – Nye Studier [ Theory of Bildung and didactics – new studies ] (Århus, Klim).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolloen, I. S. (2009) Knut Hamsun: Dreamer and dissenter (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kvam, V. (2008) Tolkning, rasjonalitet og sannhet i pedagogisk‐historisk forskning [ Interpretation, rationality and truth in educational‐historical research ], Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 92, 211 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kvam, V. (2014) Pedagogen, pedagogikken og vitenskapen – et historisk perspektiv [The educator, pedagogy and science – a historical perspective], in: J. H. Stray &amp; L. Wittek (Eds) Pedagogikk – en grunnbok [ Pedagogy – a handbook ] (Oslo, Cappelen Damm Akademisk), 35 – 51.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kvernbekk, T. (2001) Teorityper og bruk av teori [Types of theories and use of theory], in: F. V. Nielsen &amp; H. Jørgensen (Eds) Nordisk musikkpedagogisk forskning (Oslo, NHMs skriftserie), 24 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kvernbekk, T. (2005) Pedagogisk teoridannelse [ Construction of pedagogical theory ] (Bergen, Fagbokforlaget).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kvernbekk, T. (2016) Evidence‐based practice in education. Functions of evidence and causal presuppositions (New York, Routledge).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ljungdalh, A. K., Lysgaard, J. A. &amp; Tafdrup, O. A. (Eds) (2017) Uddannelsesvidenskab – en kritisk introduktion [ Educational sciences – a critical introduction ] (Frederiksberg, Samfundslitteratur).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordahl, T. (2013) Gjør læring synlig. Forord til den norske utgaven [Make learning visible. Preface to the Norwegian version], in J. Hattie (Ed.) Synlig læring [ Visible learning ] (Oslo, Cappelen Damm Akademisk), 17 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasmussen, J., Kruse, S. &amp; Holm, C. (2007) Viden om uddannelse. Udannelsesforskning, pædagogik og pædagogisk praksis [ Knowledge of education. Educational research, pedagogy and pedagogical practice ] (København, Hans Reitzels Forlag).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reason, P. &amp; Bradbury, H. (2008) Introduction, in: P. Reason &amp; H. Bradbury (Eds) The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (London, Sage), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sæther, J. (2011) Norsk pedagogisk faghistorie [ Norwegian history of the subject of pedagogy ] (Bergen, Fagbokforlaget).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sæther, J. &amp; Wivestad, S. (2010) Utdanningsvitskap som omgrep og trend [ Educational sciences as term and trend ], Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 94 (1), 5 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saeverot, H. (2014) Den pedagogiske vendingen [The pedagogical turn], Nordic Studies in Education, 34 (4), 235 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saeverot, H. (2017) Pedagogikkvitenskap [ Pedagogical science ] (Bergen, Fagbokforlaget).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saeverot, H. &amp; Biesta, G. (2013) On the need to ask educational questions about education: An inter‐view with Gert Biesta, Policy Futures in Education, 11 (2), 175 – 184. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.2.175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Säfström, C. A. (2015) Jämlikhetens pedagogic [ Pedagogy of equality ] (Malmö, Gleerups).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Säfström, C. A. &amp; Saeverot, H. (2017) Doing harm to educational knowledge: The struggle over teacher education in Sweden and Norway, in: M. Peters (Ed.) A companion to research in teacher education (Berlin, Springer), 179 – 191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4075-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandin, B. &amp; Säljö, R. (Eds) (2006) Utbildningsvenskap [ Educational sciences ] (Stockholm, Carlsson Bokförlag).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skjervheim, H. (1959) Objectivism and the study of man (Oslo, University of Oslo).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, R. D. (2016) The virtues of unknowing, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50 (2), 272 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development (London, Heinemann).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sünkel, W. (2013) Erziehungsbegriff und Erziehungsverhältnis [ Concept of education and educational relationship ] (Weinheim, Beltz).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tenorth, H.‐E. (1994) Profession und Disziplin. Zur Formierung der Erziehungswissenschaft [Profession and discipline. On the formation of educational science], in: H.‐H. Krüger &amp; T. Rauschenbach (Eds) Erziehungswissenschaft. Die Disziplin am Beginn einer neuen Epoche [ Educational science. The discipline at the beginning of a new era ] (Weinheim, Juventa‐Verlag), 17 – 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, G. &amp; Pring, R. (2004) Evidence‐based practice in education (Maidenhead, Open University Press).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tiller, T. &amp; Brekke, M. (2017) Læreren som forsker og den nye utdanningsveien [The teacher as researcher and the new way of education], in: M. Brekke &amp; T. Tiller (Eds) Læreren som forsker [ The teacher as researcher ] (Oslo, Universitetsforlaget), 277 – 284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trapp, C. (1780). Versuch einer Pädagogik (Berlin, Friedrich Nicolai).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ulvik, M. (2017) Aksjonsforskning – en oversikt [Action research – an overview], in: M. Ulvik, H. Riese &amp; D. Roness (Eds) Å forske på egen praksis [ To research on one's own practice ] (Bergen, Fagbokforlaget), 17 – 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ulvik, M. &amp; Riese, H. (2016) Action research in pre‐service teacher education – a never‐ending story promoting professional development, Professional Development in Education, 42, 441 – 457. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.1003089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ulvik, M., Riese, H. &amp; Roness, D. (2017) Action research – connecting practice and theory, Educational Action Research, 26, 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1323657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, M. (1990) Makt og byråkrati [ Power and bureaucracy ] (Oslo, Gyldendal).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wivestad, S. (2013) Pedagogikk‐begrepets historie: Hva bør være programmet for pedagogisk studieum og forskning? [The history of the concept of pedagogy: What should be the program for the study and research of pedagogy?], Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 97 (3), 210 – 222.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Herner Saeverot and Vegard Kvam</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref113"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1204706 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: An Alternative Model of Researching Educational Practice: A Pedagogic-Stereoscopic Point of View – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Saeverot%2C+Herner%22">Saeverot, Herner</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kvam%2C+Vegard%22">Kvam, Vegard</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Educational+Research+Journal%22"><i>British Educational Research Journal</i></searchLink>. Feb 2019 45(1):201-218. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 18 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2019 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Holistic+Approach%22">Holistic Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Action+Research%22">Action Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Theories%22">Educational Theories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trend+Analysis%22">Trend Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cross+Cultural+Studies%22">Cross Cultural Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anglo+Americans%22">Anglo Americans</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Europe%22">Europe</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Denmark%22">Denmark</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Norway%22">Norway</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sweden%22">Sweden</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/berj.3493 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0141-1926 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: While teachers and practitioners are increasingly expected to conduct research on their own practice, there is a lot of educational research that is not directly involved in practice. This often leads to unilateral research perspectives on educational practice. Therefore, this article calls for an alternative model of researching educational practice, summarised through the term 'pedagogical science'. We argue that practical and normative theories that seek to improve educational practice should be combined with theories that aim to describe and explain. It is further argued that the combination of such perspectives and theories, a so-called stereoscopic point of view, can allow for a thorough and holistic investigation of educational practice. As part of this argumentation, the article addresses critical questions of various theoretical models of educational research, models that are being used in Scandinavian, European and Anglo-American research on educational practice. With reference to interdisciplinary models of educational research, such as educational sciences, learning sciences and "Bildungswissenschaften," there are trends in which pedagogy is marginalised. Thus, the second argument of the article calls for placing pedagogy at the centre of knowledge production in a broad sense, after which pedagogy is made into a source of knowledge for pedagogical science, which sets forth to test and provide empirical support for pedagogy-based knowledge. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2019 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1204706 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1204706 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/berj.3493 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 18 StartPage: 201 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Educational Practices Type: general – SubjectFull: Holistic Approach Type: general – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Action Research Type: general – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Theories Type: general – SubjectFull: Trend Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Cross Cultural Studies Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Anglo Americans Type: general – SubjectFull: Europe Type: general – SubjectFull: Denmark Type: general – SubjectFull: Norway Type: general – SubjectFull: Sweden Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: An Alternative Model of Researching Educational Practice: A Pedagogic-Stereoscopic Point of View Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Saeverot, Herner – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Kvam, Vegard IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 02 Type: published Y: 2019 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0141-1926 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 45 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: British Educational Research Journal Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
