With concerns recently being expressed about practitioner researchers overclaiming the impact or reach of their work, I thought it may be useful to consider what claims we can reasonably make.
The first claim I think you can make is that practitioner research reaches the parts other research can tend to struggle with. In the FE sector, this includes “shining light into shadows” - researching areas that are less of a priority to others or looking at nuance or context. Much of the work that has been undertaken by large bodies considers policy issues on a big scale; for example, setting homework or the improvement of buildings.
Understanding how this may look in an individual institution’s context is where practitioner research can add value. The work of the Education Endowment Foundation tells us that, in general, aspirational interventions have low impact. However, practitioner work may begin to shine a light on the spaces where it may indeed have impact, with one study indicating that extracurricular activities for performing artists may improve skills, confidence and attendance at college. That begins to signpost areas that may be worth further exploration and highlights to senior leaders where investment may yield return.
GCSE English: Let’s recognise speaking and listening
Background: How to put teacher-led research at the heart of FE
Speaking and listening exams: Why change is needed
Models like action research arguably have a much better chance of reaching the level of practice. This is primarily because those undertaking these projects are practitioners themselves, which means they are better placed to understand practice and to change their own practice. Good pieces of action research focused on classroom practice shouldn’t make claims for anything outside their scope, but that is not to say that a project with smaller scope is intrinsically of less value than one with a larger scope.
Sharing practitioner research in FE colleges
Particularly when its focus is teaching practice, it is about making good judgements and decisions for that group of learners, being taught that subject in that environment with those resources available and under those conditions. One claim practitioner research can make is that, if nothing else, it has changed at least one person’s practice!
Moreover, the advent of “by practitioner for practitioner” mechanisms of sharing work and experiences, like #FEResearchMeet, the FEResearch Podcasts and blogs, mean we now have more ways for practitioners to share with practitioners and to change practice. We can share through a common language and similar contexts, and I would argue that bringing practitioners into contact with each other in this way helps others to transfer or move that knowledge into their own practice.
I am suggesting that the claims we can make for practitioner research are about nuance, local context and changing individuals’ practice. But could we be more ambitious? If we looked at these small claims as virtues, rather than being second best to large-scale RCTs and the like, could we build on them? I think so, yes, but we would need to shift the paradigm through which we viewed small-scale practitioner work.
If we take the model of case law, small scale and incremental, would that have something to offer us? If we think about a meta-analysis and look at each piece of work through a lens where we consider “what does this tell us about practice?”, then I think so. As an example, let’s take a piece of work looking at self-assessment and peer feedback in teaching counselling.
Reading it alone tells me that teaching is focused on producing counsellors who are fit to practise and that they consider being responsive to feedback to be a key mechanism in this process. Now imagine that we had four, five or even 10 more studies that explored the practice of counselling lecturers, this would enable us to begin to interpret and understand if this was important to one lecturer or a theme that ran through counselling teachers’ practice. We could better understand the grounds of their pedagogical decisions and judgements, and so better understand how to develop practice in this area.
This opens up so many opportunities. It could create a community of practice between these individuals to share and develop practice. It opens up chances to work with researchers from other settings to really explore these decisions, re-test the key hypothesis and consider how pedagogy in this area could be developed. This could feed into wider discussions about what makes “good” pedagogy, and could open dialogue with awarding bodies to develop the curriculum, syllabus or assessment regime.
It may have humble origins exploring local issues, context and practice, but with some thought and perhaps more understanding of the expertise and understanding of the practitioner, I would argue that practitioner research could be a resource that could be used as a tool to “build back better” across the FE sector.
Sam Jones is the chair of the steering committee at the Research College Group and founder of FEResearchmeet
