I recently prepared a memorandum for my colleagues in the field of educational leadership that offered thoughts about the nature of the interface between research and practice. It occurs to me now that many of these reflections also apply more broadly to the larger field of education. I use this column as an opportunity to reach a broader audience. These issues are important for us here in the College of Education at Penn State, and I welcome any thoughts or critiques you might care to share.
Many parts of the field of education have grown out of the world of practice. In the early days, training would largely consist of experienced and sometimes retired practitioners sharing insights and experiences with those aspiring to become teachers, counselors, administrators or whatever the role might be. Research in the early days tended to focus on descriptions of practice with investigators shadowing and reporting on those in various roles in various organizational contexts. More recently, there have been efforts to draw more explicitly upon social science methods and disciplines to guide research and training. This has set the stage for a tension to exist in the field between those who are more oriented around practice and those who have more of a disciplinary orientation.
Those who approach the study of education from a disciplinary perspective have learned that a good way to gain analytical traction is to narrow the question being asked. This narrowing has analytical advantages but also can raise questions about whether the inquiry is really focused on educational phenomena rather than some narrow aspect of a piece of an education phenomenon. In contrast, those who study educational phenomena in practice/writ large sometimes struggle to find analytical traction and risk not being able to gain answers to questions because of the seemingly unbounded nature of the inquiry. Sometimes it seems that the study of education writ large has not progressed very far beyond providing descriptions (however rich) of what practicing educators do in various organizational contexts.
The College of Education at Penn State over the years has endeavored to achieve a good and reasonable balance between a more disciplinary-based approach and a more practice-oriented approach wherein guidance about the nature of the work is conveyed to those aspiring to become teachers, counselors or administrators. We have built up quite a large range of disciplinary perspectives over the years, including psychology, sociology, economics and anthropology, to name just a few. We also welcome colleagues who focus more broadly on educational phenomena and who see themselves as education specialists.
As we look to the future, I see two issues that warrant attention: a) balance and b) niche.
Balance
We need to be strong in the rigorous study of educational phenomena. There are several parts to what I think needs to happen: First, our discipline specialists need to be careful they do not define their questions so narrowly that the relevance to education is essentially lost. Second, our faculty members who focus more broadly on education in practice/writ large need to be attentive to the theoretical underpinnings of their research so that their inquiries are well conceptualized.
We also need to pay attention to the boundaries across the disciplines and to be open to the pursuit of interdisciplinary projects. It is becoming increasingly clear that funding agencies look for projects that address large and important problems from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. No one discipline has a corner on the market and we will enjoy more success with our efforts to attract projects if we find ways to work collaboratively with each other and with our colleagues in other units and take advantage of opportunities offered by the various institutes and consortia at Penn State, including the Children, Youth, and Families Consortium, the Social Science Research Institute, and the Institute for CyberScience.
The boundary between the education specialists and the disciplinary specialists also warrants attention. Arguably the most promising projects harness the power of an interdisciplinary approach with the insights offered by those who are knowledgeable about educational phenomena writ large and educational institutions.
Niche
There is a perennial need for conversation about what we as a college wish to be known for in the field of education. We need to recognize that “everything” is not the best answer. We made good progress toward having this conversation and answering this question in the strategic planning process that was in high gear during the 2013-14 academic year. But the conversation is not over and never will be over. Our plan identifies no fewer than eight “cross-cutting themes;” eight areas of “programmatic emphasis;” seven “strategies” to pursue; and 22 “next steps.” I suppose this is better than 16 cross-cutting themes; 16 areas of programmatic emphasis; 14 strategies; and 44 next steps, but the eight, eight, seven and 22 numbers are still daunting and perhaps disturbing.
Looking ahead
We are in the process of implementing our strategic plan. Witness the investments we are making in areas such as the learning sciences and the renovation projects we are pursuing to modernize our teaching and learning spaces. We need to keep these conversations going, and it is especially important to do so given the University’s parallel effort to frame its priorities for the future.
One reason I am particularly hopeful about our future is the longstanding commitment faculty members in the College of Education have made to dual interests in research and the design and delivery of our professional preparation programs. We are not like other colleges of education in research universities where a sharp divide sometimes exists between the so-called “research” faculty and the so-called “teaching” faculty. Our faculty members, regardless of whether they are on the tenure track or on a fixed-term appointment, are deeply engaged with our preparation programs and by extension the world of practice. This is a precious tradition for us that we need to celebrate and preserve.
I also am optimistic about the potential for the college to make even more progress toward achieving a desirable balance between theory and practice along with a well-defined and coherent niche that makes sense for Penn State. I look forward to our collective efforts to take the next steps in these directions.
— David H. Monk, dean,
College of Education