“You’re hot then you’re cold, you’re yes then you’re no...” It’s unlikely that the introduction of Ofsted’s new common inspection framework was at the forefront of Katy Perry’s mind when she penned her hit Hot n Cold. But the FE sector could be forgiven for feeling similarly confused as to the inspectorate’s true feelings towards it.

Under Sir Michael Wilshaw’s tenure, the approach could be summarised as “treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen”, resulting in all manner of bitchy put-downs and blazing rows. But under Amanda Spielman, a more emotionally literate approach to relationship-building has led to quite the love-in.

Showing the love

Spielman has repeatedly championed the sector’s campaigning for better funding, warning that leaving colleges and providers shortchanged has had a detrimental effect on quality. And Ofsted has regularly highlighted the issues students and colleges face as a result of the ballooning number of resit entries in GCSE English and maths – an issue the Department for Education has long had a tin ear for.

But there’s one aspect of the new framework which has caused many in FE to doubt their feelings for the inspectorate.  And it’s about research. While Ofsted claims that its framework will be the most “most researched, evidence-based and tested framework in Ofsted’s history”, a perusal of the documents put out alongside it reveals that the evidence base is somewhat limited.

'Paucity' of research

The “research reviewed here”, one of the documents admits, “is in large part drawn from that done in schools and early years settings”, owing to the “relative paucity” of research in FE.

Now there’s no denying that research in FE has some catching up to do when it comes to research. But that’s not to say there isn’t plenty of research out there – plenty of extremely high quality too. Don’t forget that it has already had a major impact on Ofsted’s practice – not least Matt O’Leary’s work into graded lesson observations, which played no small part in the pressure that led to them being removed from inspections.

Yes, research in FE has some catching up to do, as this feature by George Ryan in last week’s magazine (free for subscribers) made clear. But that’s not to say there’s none happening. On a small scale, FE research meets are helping practitioners building personal relationships and provide mutual support. At the other end of the spectrum, the bodies working in this area have joined forces to help spread resources and expertise.

Legitimacy and currency?

As Professor O’Leary puts it: “Difficult to see how this inspection framework can have legitimacy and currency for FE providers when it can't even be bothered to engage with evidence from FE research.” Focusing on research from other settings will do little to persuade those in FE that Ofsted's new framework has been designed with them in mind – not that with a judgement for students’ “behaviour and attitudes”, which sounds at best an awkward fit for adult education provision, as Ian Pryce has pointed out.

The relationship between Ofsted and FE has been through a lot, and appears to be improving by the day. But, turning from Ms Perry to 1960s pioneer Aretha Franklin, there are two words the inspectorate would do well to remember if it wants things to work out for the long term: R-E-S-P-E-C-T and R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H.

Stephen Exley is FE editor at Tes