The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education: Engaging Ideas and Enriching Inquiry


Edited by: Clifton F. Conrad & Ronald C. Serlin

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part I: Engaging Ideas: The Context of Inquiry and Meaningful Problems

    Part II: Enriching Inquiry Through Identifying and Addressing Key Challenges

  • Copyright


    Julia Conrad and Susan Anderson Erin, Abigail, Willow, Jerad, Zane, and Sofia


    Both of us, the editors of the Handbook, teach courses that describe and delineate research methods—one of us introducing methods to be used in what is typically defined as a qualitative research tradition, the other teaching procedures considered more appropriately applied under a quantitative research rubric. Notwithstanding differences in our syllabi, we both present research methods as tools to be used in the process of sifting and winnowing ideas in educational inquiry. In turn, we emphasize that it is the researcher's overall question that should drive the research enterprise— a compelling question that has personal as well as professional significance.

    We often stress to students and colleagues that the methods we teach in our courses, as important as they are to scientific research, are techniques that are akin to instrumentation in astronomy. They allow us to see beyond the haze of the atmosphere to discern phenomena that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. But even an enlarged and clearer image often does not explain what is observed. The thrust of the research and the interpretation of findings must always go back to the animating questions of interest.

    Conducting educational research that is both consequential and rigorous is intellectually demanding work. Most significant, the subject matter in education—with schooling and its effects on student learning at the epicenter of the field—is inherently difficult and challenging to study. Moreover, scholars, policymakers, practicing educators, and the public at large often have strong and competing views on the worth and rigor of the research that has been conducted. Despite these obstacles, researchers continue to make impressive contributions to our knowledge and understanding of education. Still, meaningful and first-rate research—across all subfields—is very much needed if we are to significantly advance and deepen our understanding of education.

    Our students—and our faculty and practitioner colleagues—often ask us how questions of interest are obtained and how they, as scientists themselves, can come up with one or more. Clearly, this is a major mentoring challenge to us as faculty. We variously suggest that they immerse themselves in the prominent research journals in their field, see what problems are being addressed, and reflect on how the frameworks and theories guiding the research help to explain the corroborating results, are invented to explain anomalies, and help to develop and improve educational programs. We then opine that they should read the publications referenced in the most current articles, and read the previous generation of references in turn so that they can get a sense of the history of the field and see that the urgent problems and major theories can change over time, and also consider the limitations of the literature.

    This endeavor to use the literature to reflect on how research questions arise is made even more difficult by the challenge that all those who mentor researchers face—knowing how best to integrate knowledge, theory, and methodology in our curriculum. If we first ask the students to read the literature to acquire the underpinnings of theory under which research results could be subsumed, then students' lack of knowledge of methods at this stage leaves them ill prepared to understand and evaluate the logic employed and the quality of the research reported. If, however, students enroll in methods courses first, then they have no body of research to provide context and motivation. Furthermore, in dealing with the current conundrum concerning how to help students formulate engaging questions without having acquired both theoretical and methodological knowledge and experiences, all of which they are now in the process of attaining, students are likely to be unable to distinguish problems that are prevalent because of extra-scientific influences from problems that go to the heart of an ongoing scientific controversy.

    Unfortunately, regardless of our exhortations and our best intentions, we seem to have assigned the students a self-referentially iterative task. They ask us how questions of interest are formulated, and in response we tell them to go off, read the literature, and formulate a theory of how questions of interest are formulated. Our thinking seems to have been that once the students have developed their theory of question generation, an application of that theory in their own areas of interest will yield, with geometrical logic, the questions of interest to be fruitfully pursued.

    Despite our attempts at pedagogical excellence regarding the teaching of research methods, it is by no means certain that the students will be better able to formulate their own questions of interest after this literature-searching exercise than they were before. If this is the case, then what alternative recommendations should we have given the students? One would think that by now, having been challenged by the students' plight for so long, we should be able to provide students with accumulated exemplary instances of good research, with illustrations of how fruitful and interesting questions are posed and how the pursuit of answers to these questions has led to the generation or extension of theories and to curricular improvements. This Handbook represents our attempt to address these challenges by providing students, faculty, and educational practitioners with a collection of essays written by scholars who have consistently demonstrated intellectual strength and curiosity in wrestling with the formidable challenges of framing and conducting meaningful inquiry.

    State of the Field

    Much has been written on the topic of educational inquiry, but the literature on educational inquiry and research methods per se continues to suffer from four major limitations. First, because research is viewed largely as a “prescribed” journey in which applying appropriate methods and techniques is the sine qua non of first-rate scholarship, developing meaningful knowledge and understanding—ironically, the goal of inquiry—is not placed at the forefront of inquiry. In turn, most texts on research methods not only fail to address adequately the context of inquiry—including animating purposes and key stakeholders—but also give woefully little consideration to identifying and exploring potentially fruitful research problems. Second, much of the literature fails to help prepare researchers to recognize and address the most fundamental challenges—before, during, and following research—in conducting inquiry. Third, qualitative and quantitative approaches are bifurcated rather than integrated into discussions of inquiry. Fourth, much of the literature advances a “one best way” approach to research that falls short of exploring a wide range of alternative and emerging perspectives on ways in which to enrich inquiry.

    It is not clear whether assigning our students to discern from the research literature methods for attaining questions of interest avoids these four deficiencies. The articles and textbooks they choose to read in the pursuit of their goal will not likely reveal the motivations underlying the course of study, the failed attempts and dead ends that are more prevalent than successes in research, or especially the thought processes that lead to successes despite the failures. And even if some of these aspects are dealt with in chapters and articles, it is likely that the presentation will make it seem as if the journey from inception to conclusion was, at least in hindsight, the only logical way in which one could have proceeded.

    Inquiry Through a Keyhole: Retroduction

    It might seem, from our description of our assignment to our students, that we have asked them to apply the well-known method of induction in the course of coming up with questions of interest from a reading of the literature. For instance, they could amass a set of questions that seem to have motivated various experiments, look for possible patterns in these questions that might have made them interesting to pursue, and assert by induction that the pattern that seems to have held regarding these particular questions holds in general. Or, because there is an extremely large number of ways of characterizing the question of interest in even a single experiment, the students could try to infer which of the many aspects was the key factor and generalize that this would be so in other experiments as well. Or they could find common elements among various explanations of the potential practical or theoretical value of studies and assert by induction a single theoretical explanation of the many claims to importance.

    The process of formulating theories by induction from observations has been commonly held to be the generative mechanism of science since Aristotle's Organon. In the preface to Novum Organum, Bacon described a method of induction in which the scientist would question nature without biases or hypotheses and move to generalities in an algorithmic fashion, as if (in Bacon's words) by machinery. Broad (1952) described Baconian induction as “the glory of science” (p. 143). According to Thomas Reid, who popularized the works and methods of Isaac Newton during the 18th century, the success of Newton's theories led to the wide acceptance of Bacon's philosophy, for Reid (1785) claimed that Newton's methods were inductive. Indeed, Newton's famous assertion that he did not formulate hypotheses, implying that his theories were derived inductively from observation, seemed to substantiate Newton's methods as inductive.

    Baconian inductive methods were actually more sophisticated than it might seem at first glance. Briefly, Bacon advocated listing all instances in which a characteristic under examination is present as well as listing the concomitant characteristics in these circumstances. He then proposed listing similar circumstances in which the characteristic under examination is not present to see, in contrast, the effects of removing the characteristic (in this manner, conducting a controlled experiment). Finally, he suggested studying the characteristic to be examined in conditions where it is present in varying degrees. This method was called “eliminative induction” by von Wright (1951).

    That induction forms a crucial step in the scientific process is a view held long into the 20th century. Indeed, the scientific method as formulated by Braithwaite (1953) was depicted as cyclical, alternating between inductive and deductive phases. The view that science has an inductive phase continues to be surprisingly influential given that it has been strongly contraindicated, even from Bacon's own time. For instance, William Harvey, a contemporary of Bacon's and the person who discovered the body's circulatory system, said that Bacon wrote philosophy like a chancellor. This was interpreted by Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman to indicate that while Bacon spoke of gathering observations, he omitted the factor of judgment regarding what to observe and what to attend to in gathering observations. And as Broad noted in virtually the same breath as he extolled induction as the glory of science, it is also “the scandal of philosophy” (Broad, 1952, p. 143).

    David Hume, a contemporary of Reid, argued devastatingly that no inductive generalizations whatsoever can be logically justified, whether in pursuit of certain or probable knowledge, unless a principle of induction is presumed to hold. This principle itself, which can be variously stated as “the future will resemble the past” or as “nature is uniform,” can be derived only inductively and so begs the question. Of Hume's conclusion, Russell (1945) exclaimed,

    It is therefore important to discover whether there is any answer to Hume within the framework of a philosophy that is wholly or mainly empirical. If not, there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity. The lunatic who believes that he is a poached egg is to be condemned solely on the ground that he is in a minority. (p. 673)

    William Whewell attempted to explain the growth and stability of scientific knowledge without requiring Baconian induction. In his Novum Organon Renovatum, Whewell (1858) defined induction as the representation of facts with principles rather than as a generalization from facts. He argued that to explain the growth of scientific knowledge, both experience and intuition were required. Most important, he claimed that to account for how scientists discover true principles, science needs guesses. According to Wettersten (1993), Whewell's theory makes clear that “even if we start with poor guesses and treat them critically, we can come to the truth; there are many paths to the truth, but only one goal” (p. 506). Admittedly, the word “guess” is an infelicitous choice. As Medawar (1974) explained,

    It is the word that is at fault, not the conception. To say that Einstein formulated a theory of relativity by guesswork is on all fours with saying that Wordsworth wrote rhymes and Mozart tuneful music. It is cheeky where something grave is called for. (p. 281)

    This view of what could be called a scientific method was also elucidated by Charles Sanders Peirce during the late 19th century. According to Peirce, all inference is either deductive or synthetic, with the latter typology subdivided into induction and what Peirce variously called hypothesis, retroduction, or abduction (Peirce, 1878). As Peirce (1958) described it, when a scientific explanation is sought,

    the explanation must be such a proposition as would lead to the prediction of the observed facts. … A hypothesis, then, has to be adopted, which is likely in itself, and renders the facts likely. This step of adopting a hypothesis as being suggested by the facts, is what I call abduction. … The first thing that will be done, as soon as a hypothesis has been adopted, will be to trace out its necessary and probable experiential consequences. This step is deduction. (p. 122)

    The final step in this process is when the deduced consequences are compared with experimental results.

    Feynman (1965) reiterated the notion that scientists employ guesswork, saying that a new law is first guessed, its consequences are then computed assuming that it is a correct guess, and finally the results of the computation are compared with nature. If it disagrees with experiment, then it is wrong, Feynman concluded. Feynman wrote,

    In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. That is all there is to it. (p. 150)

    For Whewell, Peirce, and Feynman, then, theories and hypotheses are not obtained from observations by induction. Rather, by some imaginative retroductive leap, a hypothesis is guessed that yields the observations as deductive consequences of the hypothesis.

    Shank (1990) argued that, based on Peirce's insights into retroduction and his semi-otic theory, the conceptual confusions created in maintaining the apparent qualitative-quantitative dichotomy can be resolved. Shank contended that the same logical processes are involved in a case study examined in a qualitative framework as in the quantitative perspective within which Peirce worked, so that the two perspectives differ in the ways in which they constitute units of analysis, but not in terms of the logic of the analysis. Common to the two perspectives are implementations of deduction and retroduction for the purposes of producing and testing explanatory hypotheses.

    As Shank (1990) pointed out, it is not possible to observe and take note of all aspects of the phenomenon under study, and the number of possible explanatory hypotheses that could be imagined is virtually limitless. According to Hoffmann (2000), however, there is a relationship between the context of retroduction and the process of attaining a promising hypothesis, so that the range of explanations is limited by a complex interaction among factors at play in the given circumstance.

    So it is retroduction, and not induction, that we are asking our students to perform in the course of generating questions of interest. Furthermore, they must formulate these questions within the limits imposed by aspects of the field of study, including the state of the art of theory, political realities, and funding possibilities, as well as by the circumstances in which the students find themselves, possibly involving the purposes of the studies in terms of the students' academic careers, for whom the studies may be conducted, and the ability of the students.

    At a minimum, these actualities raise the question of how best to teach students how to perform retroduction, with the hope that the result of teaching them will be a good question of interest and an able scientist. From at least the time of Piaget and Ausubel during the 1960s to today's constructivism and situated learning, theory suggests that to teach abstract abilities such as retroduction, instruction must actively engage students in the process itself, but in such a manner that they are able to carry out a successful retroductive episode. So we send our students out to the literature to learn about context and limitations, extant theories, and previously tried but failed explanations. This experience can provide students with a powerful schema that will help them to incorporate the desired skills into their own inquiry that we are seeking to model in our respective classrooms.

    Medawar (1974) cautioned, however, that scientific papers “actively misrepresent the reasoning that goes into the work” (p. 287) because it seems that publishable papers must be written as if inductions had occurred. It is also not sufficient to listen to what scientists say they do because their opinions will vary so widely. Medawar concluded that “only unstudied evidence will do—and that means listening at a keyhole” (p. 287).

    It is our hope that this Handbook, by presenting detailed accounts of successful episodes of scientific activity in a variety of fields, from a variety of perspectives, in a manner that highlights the difficult exploration of ideas and actively involves the readers, will provide Medawar's necessary keyhole through which the readers can peer in the course of experiencing successful retroductive efforts regarding the engagement of ideas.

    Braithwaite, R. B.(1953).Scientific explanation. New York: Harper & Brothers.
    Broad, C. D.(1952).Ethics and the history of philosophy. New York: Humanities Press.
    Feynman, R.(1965).The character of physical law. New York: Random House.
    Hoffmann, M.(2000).Is there a “logic” of abduction? In A. Gimate-Welsh (Ed.), Selected papers: 6th Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Guadalajara 1997 (pp. 617–628). Mexico City: Grupo Editorial Miguel Ángel Porrúa.
    Medawar, P.(1974).Hypothesis and imagination. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (pp. 274–291). La Salle, IL: Open Court.
    Peirce, C. S.(1878).Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. In C. J. W. Kloesel (Ed.), Writings of Charles S. Peirce (Vol. 3, pp. 323–338). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    Peirce, C. S.(1958).Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (A. W. Burks, Ed.), Vol. 7: Science and philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Reid, T.(1785).Essays on the intellectual powers of man. Edinburgh, UK: J. Bell.
    Russell, B.(1945).A history of Western philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster.
    Shank, G.(1990).Qualitative vs. quantitative research: A semiotic non-problem. In T. Prewitt, J. Deely, & K. Haworth (Eds.), Semiotics: 1989 (pp. 264–270). Washington, DC: University Press of America.
    von Wright, G. H.(1951).A treatise on induction and probability. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    Wettersten, J. R.Rethinking Whewell. Philosophy of the Social Sciences23(1993).481–515.
    Whewell, W.(1858).Novum organon renovatum (3rd ed.). London: John W. Parker.


    In a break from convention, we begin by acknowledging the support of several individuals at Sage Publications with whom we have worked closely. We have especially appreciated the fiercely intelligent and breathtakingly gentle guidance and support of Diane McDaniel, our acquisitions editor, who has deeply invested in this project from the outset and at once challenged and amused us throughout. Marta Peimer (editorial assistant) and Margo Beth Crouppen (associate editor) also were remarkably helpful from their astute judgment, to their myriad suggestions for improving the manuscript, to their own iconoclastic wit and good humor.

    A highlight of this journey has been the pleasure of collaborating in this joint adventure of nearly 2 years with our section editors: from the formidably intellectual D. C. Phillips (Section One), to the multitalented Laura W. Perna and John C. Weidman (Section Two), to the sagacious Daniel Lapsley (Section Three), to the scrupulous empiricist Scott Thomas (Section Four), to the synergistic duo of King Beach and Betsy Becker (Section Five), to the imaginative Beth Graue (Section Six). This book is in substantial measure a credit to these individuals and their exemplary contributions along with those of our remarkable band of chapter authors. We also appreciate those individuals who reviewed our prospectus for this book and provided helpful feedback: Gregory R. Hancock, University of Maryland; John W Creswell, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; and Gabriella Belli, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

    We owe a special debt of gratitude to Divya Malik Gupta, our graduate assistant at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has invested heavily and contributed significantly to the preparation of this volume—from helping to edit chapters to reflecting on the direction and flow of the text. We are grateful for her generosity of spirit and catholicity of taste.

    The following people have significantly and meaningfully influenced our thinking about inquiry: Virginia Margaret Angell Conrad, Bob Blackburn, Jennifer Grant Haworth, Stuart Rankin, Robbie Case, and Leonard Marascuilo. With a full measure of gratitude, we respectfully and gratefully acknowledge our appreciation to each of these individuals.

    Finally, and most certainly, we are fortunate that we are enriched by two of the most perceptive, curious, witty, intellectually adventuresome, and lovely companions one could ever imagine—Julia Conrad and Susan Anderson—as well as a handful of highly inquisitive children and, most recently, a granddaughter (Sofia).


    Spirited engagement with ideas—the hallmark of exemplary inquiry—is muted in most contemporary texts on educational research methods. Ironically, methods texts fail to grapple with ideas both with respect to exploring meaningful problems and lines of inquiry and with respect to recognizing and addressing the fundamental but oft-ignored challenges in conducting first-rate inquiry. The purpose of this Handbook is to stimulate and encourage educational researchers to place the pursuit of ideas at the epicenter of their research—from framing meaningful problems to identifying and addressing the key challenges in inquiry.

    The intended audience for the Handbook consists of three primary constituencies: (1) faculty who can use the Handbook in courses as their main or supplementary text as well as to inform their own inquiry; (2) students, primarily at the graduate level but including undergraduate students as well; and (3) educational practitioners, including individuals in PK-16 education, government, and the private sector who conduct applied and policy-oriented educational research. We hope that the volume addresses the needs of these three constituencies not only in the United States but also throughout the world—from the United Kingdom, to South Africa, to Latin America.

    Consonant with its overarching focus on engaging ideas throughout inquiry, the Handbook draws on the perspectives of scholars representing not only diverse fields within the field of education—from prekindergarten, to elementary and secondary school, to higher education—but also qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches to inquiry. The chapters in this volume are animated by scholars who have consistently demonstrated intellectual strength and curiosity, who unsettle lines of inquiry with irony and intellectual exuberance, and who have an exemplary blend of creativity and imagination in problem definition and research design as well as in the conduct of inquiry. Because they are punctuated throughout by the voices of authors who wrestle with the formidable challenges of framing and conducting meaningful inquiry, the chapters in the Handbook will challenge and engage the readers in their own research regardless of their particular fields of interest.

    The Handbook is divided into two major parts. Part I consists of two sections, and Part II consists of four sections. For each of the six sections in the Handbook, an essay by the section editor(s) introduces the section and describes all of the chapters included in the section. In what follows, we provide a broad overview of the contents of the Handbook, beginning with a sketch of the two parts and then turning to a closer look at the six sections.

    Overview of the Handbook

    Part I of the Handbook is focused on identifying meaningful research problems and approaches to inquiry. In the first section, several chapters explore the context of inquiry, with a dual focus on identifying and clarifying the overarching purposes of inquiry and on identifying key stakeholders. In the second section, the remaining chapters in Part I shed light on promising research questions across the field of education and on how these problems might be addressed. To invite readers to reflect deeply on their own research problems, these chapters identify and explore exemplars of fruitful research problems within and across many fields and lines of inquiry in PK-16 education. Through exploration of exemplars of promising questions and approaches to guide inquiry, these chapters advance ideas that will challenge and enlighten readers as they reflect on their own research—whatever their specific domains of inquiry.

    Part II of the Handbook is focused on identifying and exploring the most fundamental research challenges—many often overlooked or shortchanged in the literature on research methods—in conducting rigorous inquiry as well as on advancing strategies for addressing these challenges. These challenges—key decision-making points, critical incidents, and the like—are organized into four separate sections: formulating and framing meaningful problems; preparing for inquiry; conducting inquiry; and writing, voice, and dissemination of research. Selectively drawing on their own and others' experiences for purposes of illustration, the authors of the chapters within each of these domains advance, in the spirit and language of A. N. Whitehead, “ideas of every sort”— through narratives, vignettes, and examples of key episodes in inquiry—not only to illuminate fundamental challenges and considerations in doing first-rate research but also to propose strategies for addressing these challenges.

    Section One: Multiple Purposes of Inquiry and Key Stakeholders

    The opening section of the Handbook invites readers to enlarge their options— especially those concerning the aims of inquiry, the audiences for and with whom the inquiry is pursued, and methodological options—in conducting inquiry. In the opening chapter of Section One, D. C. Phillips argues that the “natural sciences” model of inquiry—properly understood as encompassing diverse types of inquiry for diverse purposes and with diverse methods—can serve as a liberatory model for educational inquiry. The other chapters in this section, one by Robert Floden and the other by David Plank and Debbi Harris, invite readers to reflect on the diverse audiences that educational researchers can serve—including the policy community—in concert with the challenges of serving different constituencies in their research.

    Section Two: Meaningful Problems and Approaches to Inquiry

    As the section editors, Laura W. Perna and John C. Weidman, suggest in their introductory essay to Section Two, fruitful research begins by examining questions that have enduring significance across the entire field of education. The chapters in this section explore exemplars of research problems and approaches to inquiry, both across and within traditional lines of educational inquiry that build on, extend, and deepen our understanding of research problems—including how to develop meaningful research questions. As the chapter authors discuss various research problems and approaches to inquiry, they directly and indirectly illuminate both similarities and differences across fields of inquiry in terms of problems pursued and solutions to those problems. In so doing, they provide readers with the opportunity to learn from scholars across fields of study and thereby to inform the ends and means of their own inquiry. Indeed, the chapter authors' descriptions of and reflections on exemplars of inquiry hold the promise of encouraging even seasoned researchers to reexamine the aims and conduct of their own inquiry.

    At the heart of all chapters is the shared aim of shedding light on the fundamental question facing all educational researchers: What are the most fruitful lines of inquiry? To address that question, the authors use myriad approaches—from conceptual frameworks to narratives—to illustrate and give expression to a wide range of exemplars of research. As Patricia McDonough and R. Evely Gildersleeve define the term in the opening chapter of the section, an exemplar is “a prototype of research that is a model of clarity and specificity as well as an example that demonstrates the highest level of research integrity, both theoretically and methodologically.”

    Across the 13 chapters in this section, the authors advance a breathtaking diversity of promising lines of and approaches to inquiry—especially through providing exemplars within the lines of inquiry they are limning. To illustrate, in reflecting on research on college access, McDonough and Gildersleeve offer a trio of examplars to guide future inquiry. One explores connections between K-12 and higher education and between research and policy, a second stresses the ways in which public and private K-12 schools shape equal opportunity, and a third advances a “system framework” for informing such inquiry by showing the contribution of capital to understanding ongoing differences in educational equality across social class and racial/ethnic groups. The authors argue that educational inequality writ large is not only an enduring research question but also a problem that reflects the accumulation of inequities and disadvantages as a student moves through PK-12 and into higher education.

    A handful of the chapters in this section identify research problems and advance exemplars within and across traditional and emerging lines of inquiry from prekinder-garten through elementary and secondary education. For example, Kenneth Zeichner advances a template for enlarging inquiry on teacher education programs; Carl Grant and Vonzell Agosto revisit the enduring research problem of preparing teachers to be multicultural educators; and Joyce Epstein and Steven Sheldon describe a research agenda in which “overlapping spheres of influence”—schools, families, and communities—are examined to explore the dynamic between these spheres in “partnership” and the learning and development of students and, in turn, emphasize that interdisciplinary approaches are needed to address this agenda. And two other chapters—one by Michael Ford and Ellice Forman, the other by Juliet Baxter and Shirley Magnusson—describe major research agendas and associated methodological approaches for conducting future research on learning in science and mathematics, respectively.

    The remaining chapters in the section address a wide variety of promising research problems and approaches, illuminated throughout by discussions of exemplars of inquiry. Cheryl Hanley-Maxwell and Brian Bottge advance an ambitious program for recon-ceptualizing research in the field of special education; Steven Schlossman, drawing on his own research, argues for the importance of tapping the “unheard voices” of children and parents in examining movements for educational reform; and Mary Lee Nelson and Cindy Juntunen identify fruitful areas for future research in counseling psychology. Identifying fruitful areas for future research in other areas are Jane Clark Lindle on educational leadership; John C. Weidman on the socialization of students in higher education; Jason Johnson, Clifton F Conrad, and Laura W. Perna on minority-serving institutions of higher education; and David Phillips on comparative education.

    Section Three: Formulating and Framing Meaningful Problems

    As Daniel Lapsley, the section editor, notes in his introductory essay to Section Three, “Induction into scientific practice hardly ever takes up the matter of how to formulate and frame meaningful problems,” and there is “barely a word on how to ask questions, frame a problem, or generate a theory.” Lapsley, in an introductory essay that could stand alone as a separate chapter, and three scholars—James Youniss, Kathryn Wentzel, and Susan Harter—identify and explore what they consider to be the most fundamental challenges in conducting high-quality research, propose strategies for addressing these challenges, and provide rationales for their proposals. Through the use of narratives, vignettes, and accounts of critical incidents and key decision-making points, the authors describe how they have wrestled with framing and formulating meaningful problems.

    James Youniss addresses the challenges of “situating inquiry” and situating self through an autobiographical narrative. In effect, he argues, the starting point of “critical discovery” is biography. Kathryn Wentzel, in addressing the challenge of developing and nurturing researchable ideas, advances three strategies for generating interesting ideas: identifying and challenging theoretical assumptions, documenting the published literature, and generating new variables by using the person-process-context features of a developmental systems model. Finally, in an engaging first-person narrative, Susan Harter emphasizes that too often we turn our first look in problem defining in the direction of methodology rather than theory. She suggests that the challenge of framing a problem should be tightly bound to one's “burning question.” All together, the chapters in this section—through nothing less than personal narratives that display highly disciplined exuberance in the quest of framing research problems—will surely invite most readers to revisit how they go about crystallizing research problems, with attention given to the ways in which both build on and disturb the conventional wisdom in the field of education.

    Section Four: Preparing for Inquiry

    The chapters in Section Four, under the stewardship of section editor Scott Thomas, challenge much of the orthodoxy concerning the conduct of inquiry. Perhaps most noteworthy, several authors critique and respond to the federal redefinition of what constitutes “scientific research” that has been celebrated most especially by the newly formed Institute of Education Sciences (IES). To wit, John Bean refers to the “seductive” nature of pure research, and Douglas Toma advances the innovative argument that researchers working within the tradition of applied qualitative research can frame their inquiry as “scientific” even in the restrictive language of IES—provided that they take greater initiative in explaining how their work has rigor on a par with that understood as scientific work.

    All of the chapter authors in the section suggest that what John Bean calls “methodological correctness” should be superseded by the proposition that although some problems are better served or less well served by specific methodological approaches, there is no inherent association between “rigor” and “method.” Bean, in concert with attacking the corrosiveness of methodological correctness, suggests that there are multiple and wide-ranging forces at play in the research process—from ego and fear to risk aversion, from groupthink to disciplinary parochialism—that pull the researcher away from the ideals of first-rate inquiry.

    Building on and extending Bean's analysis, Ronald Heck provides a thoughtful consideration of challenges in the processes through which researchers identify and frame research problems. Heck cleverly explores how seemingly innocent decisions about method can have a profound impact on evidence, analysis, and conclusions. In an evocative chapter on sampling, Scott Thomas focuses on the challenges associated with the way we choose what to observe and how to observe it. And in a concluding chapter on applied qualitative inquiry, Douglas Toma conjoins many of the points made throughout this section to challenge extant norms suggesting that all rigorous inquiry is conducted in a quantitative and experimental framework.

    Section Five: Conducting Inquiry

    The chapters in Section Five, under the direction of section editors King Beach and Betsy Becker, address four oft-ignored challenges that are critical to conducting first-rate research: the development of the researcher as inquirer, moving from data sources to data and inference making, bringing “analytical thoughtfulness” to data analysis, and moving from findings to conclusions. The authors address these four challenges in ways that move beyond the conventional discourse about the relative merits of quantitative and qualitative research by addressing both methodological traditions without losing the meaningful distinctions between the two. It is worth noting that all four of the chapters in this section are co-authored—with each chapter including representatives of both qualitative and quantitative methods of inquiry.

    Anna Neumann and Aaron Pallas explore the social and psychological challenges in becoming an educational researcher—with an emphasis on how one becomes a “practitioner” of educational inquiry. In their chapter on constructing data, Kadriye Ercikan and Wolff-Michael Roth examine and provide examples of how a researcher moves from data sources to data and data anlysis in two different types of research—high-and low-inference research—that involve both quantitative and qualitative elements. Michael Seltzer and Mike Rose, drawing on their own experiences, suggest how researchers can embrace “analytical thoughtfulness” that helps to bridge the divide between quantitative and qualitative traditions. King Beach, Betsy Becker, and Mary Kennedy, in a concluding chapter, focus on the construction of conclusions and the related challenges on which researchers should reflect—such as using their prior beliefs and knowledge to challenge their research findings.

    Section Six: Writing, Voice, and Dissemination of Research

    Under the leadership of section editor Beth Graue, the authors in the final section of the Handbook explore the public function of research and, in turn, challenges in making connections among research and representation, the politics of reporting one's research, the concept of “voice,” and the place of practice in educational research. In the first chapter of Section Six, Beth Graue argues that writing is genre specific and that alternative genres both facilitate and constrain knowing by the ways in which they use authorial voice, the ways in which they explicate the place of the researcher in inquiry, and the degree to which their reflexivity is made public. She then advances and provides examples of four writing metaphors, exploring each with a clarity, force, and grace not often found in academic writing.

    Elizabeth Creamer, drawing on her own interest and involvement in collaborative research, addresses “voice” in representation by providing diverse examples of polyvo-cality in single-authored texts, alternating first-person narratives, and scripts in varied formats to illustrate how different perspectives and interpretations can be shared in research writing. She vividly illustrates the ways in which traditional monovocal writing hides the voice of the author and leads readers to assign authorial meanings to research participants. Her chapter pushes readers to reflect on how their writing is nested within traditions and perspectives that may or may not fit into their own theoretical and conceptual landscapes. Finally, in a splendid final chapter—with the author demonstrating a fidelity to his voice that brings great exuberance to his topic—Gerald Bracey provides a stinging critique of the reporting of educational research through focusing on politics, ideology, and personality. He maps social networks among scholars and argues convincingly that there are many reasons beyond “good science” why research comes to light in the media and that researchers need to pay much more atttention to “getting the word out” regarding their inquiry. Fittingly, the book concludes with an animated exploration of “ideas”—ideas regarding the writing, representation, and dissemination of educational research.

  • Author Index

    About the Editors

    Clifton F. Conrad has been Professor of Higher Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison since 1987. He previously taught at the University of Denver (1975–1977), the College of William and Mary (1977–1981), and the University of Arizona (1981–1987), where he also served as a department chair and as associate dean for academic affairs. His research program is centered on college and university curriculum at the undergraduate and graduate levels, in the liberal arts and sciences, and in professional fields. Books that he has authored or co-authored include The Undergraduate Curriculum, A Silent Success: Master's Education in the United States, and Emblems of Quality in Higher Education: Developing and Sustaining High-Quality Programs. Although he has published quantitative studies in journals such as the American Educational Research Journal and the Journal of Education Finance, the majority of his research has been fueled by qualitative approaches to inquiry—work that appears in journals ranging from Sociology of Education to the Journal of Higher Education. A former president of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, since 1980 he has been a key expert witness and consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights (U.S. Department of Education) in major civil rights cases and inquiries involving race and gender in higher education in nine states. Two of these cases led to landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, including one in which his scholarship was cited approvingly and verbatim.

    Ronald C. Serlin is Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He teaches an introductory sequence in statistics as well as courses in nonparametric statistics, multivariate statistics, and the philosophy of science and statistics. His mastery in teaching earned him a Chancellor's Distinguished Teaching Award early in his career. His expertise as a statistical consultant has led to long and fruitful collaborative efforts with colleagues in the School of Nursing and the departments of Neurology, Art Education, and Journalism and Mass Communication, among others. Currently, he is engaged in two major lines of research. One investigates the philosophical underpinnings of statistical hypothesis testing, an effort linking modern philosophy of science and statistical practice to delineate the role of statistics in the scientific endeavor. The other examines the effects of violations of assumptions on known and proposed parametric and nonparametric tests, a knowledge of which helps to increase the validity of statistical conclusions. He has published regularly in Psychological Bulletin and Psychological Methods and in wide-ranging journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Journal of Research in Music Education, and Pain. An article that he co-authored won the annual research report awards competition for Division D of the American Educational Research Association. He won an award for Outstanding Contributions to Nursing Education, and he recently won a School of Education Distinguished Achievement Award. He is now serving his third nonconcurrent term as department chair.

    About the Section Editors

    King D Beach, III, is Associate Professor of International and Sociocultural Studies at Florida State University. A cultural psychologist and educator, he studies the generalization of knowledge and identity between schools and other social organizations such as families, communities, and workplaces. His research includes the United States, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. He has served on a number of advisory and editorial boards, including Mind, Culture, and Activity and the American Educational Research Journal, and as educational consultant to the United Nations Development Program and the U.S. Agency for International Development. His current projects include American children's emergent understandings of money between home and school and action research on transitions between Indian alternative and governmental schools serving children who are at risk. He also participates in a Spencer Foundation effort that brings sociocultural theories to issues of opportunity to learn and assessment in schools.

    Betsy Jane Becker recently joined the faculty of the College of Education at Florida State University, where she is Professor in the Program in Measurement and Statistics. For the previous 21 years, she was in the Measurement and Quantitative Methods program at Michigan State University. She has published widely on statistical methods for meta-analysis and has substantive interests in the relation of teacher qualifications to measures of the quality of teaching as well as interests in gender differences in math and science achievement. She serves as co-convener of the Methods Training Group for the Campbell Collaboration and is a member of the Technical Advisory Group for the “What Works Clearinghouse.” She also is a member of the Design and Analysis Committee for the National Assessment of Educational Progress and serves as associate editor of the journal Psychological Methods.

    Beth Graue is Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she teaches courses in early childhood education and research methodology. She is a former kindergarten teacher, and her research focuses on practices in primary education, including readiness for school, home-school relations, and class size reduction. She has served as associate editor of the Review of Educational Research and as chair of the Qualitative Research Special Interest Group, and she is currently chair of the Early Childhood/Child Development Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. She is the author of Ready for What? Constructing Meanings of Readiness for Kindergarten and Studying Children in Context: Theories, Methods, and Ethics (with Daniel Walsh). She is currently engaged in a large-scale field study of a state class size reduction program.

    Daniel K. Lapsley is Professor and Chair of the Department of Educational Psychology at Ball State University. He is the author or editor of six books and numerous articles and chapters on various topics in child and adolescent development and educational psychology, particularly in the areas of social cognition, personality development, moral psychology, and moral education. He currently serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Educational Psychology, Child Development, the Journal of Adolescent Research, and the Journal of Early Adolescence.

    Laura W. Perna is Associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Her scholarship examines the ways in which individual characteristics, social structures, and public policies enable and restrict the ability of women, racial/ethnic minorities, and individuals of lower socioeconomic status to obtain the economic, social, and political opportunities that are associated with two aspects of higher education: access as a student and employment as a faculty member. Her research has been published in the Journal of Higher Education, the Review of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, the Journal of College Student Development, and the Journal of Student Financial Aid as well as in technical reports, monographs, and edited books. She received the 2003 Promising Scholar/Early Career Achievement Award from the Association for the Study of Higher Education.

    D. C. Phillips is Professor of Education, and by courtesy Professor of Philosophy, at Stanford University, where he has also served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Interim Dean of the School of Education. A philosopher of education and philosopher of social science, he is the author of more than 100 essays in books and refereed journals and is the author, co-author, or editor of 11 books, most recently Postpositivism and Educational Research (with Nicholas C. Burbules) and The Expanded Social Scientist's Bestiary. He was a member of the National Research Council panel that wrote the Scientific Research in Education report. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Education and a fellow of the International Academy of Education.

    Scott L. Thomas is Associate Professor of Higher Education at the Institute of Higher Education at the University of Georgia. His current research is on issues of access and stratification in higher education, with a focus on economic outcomes and indebtedness related to college quality and choice of major. His writings have examined topics in the areas of the sociology of education, labor economics, and student persistence. His work has appeared in journals such as Sociology of Education, Economics of Education Review, the American Journal of Education, the Journal of Higher Education, and Research in Higher Education. His methodological work includes a recent book (co-authored with Ronald H. Heck), An Introduction to Multilevel Modeling Techniques. He currently chairs the Council for Public Policy in Higher Education for the Association for the Study of Higher Education.

    John C. Weidman is Professor of Education and of Sociology at the University of Pittsburgh and Director of the Institute for International Studies in Education. He has published both conceptual and empirical research on the socialization of students in higher education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Since the early 1990s, he has also been working on comparative education management, reform, and policy analysis at the national level in Mongolia, Laos, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan through consulting assignments with the Asian Development Bank. He has also worked on institutional reform and strategic planning in higher education in Kenya and South Africa on projects funded by USAID. His visiting professorships include the UNESCO Chair of Higher Education Research at Maseno University College in Kenya and Fulbright Professor of the Sociology of Education at Augsburg University in Germany.

    About the Contributors

    Vonzell Agosto, a former high school teacher, is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Her areas of interest are multicultural education, teacher education, and curriculum theory. She serves as a program adviser for the Multicultural Learning Community and as a program assistant for the multicultural seminar at UW-Madison. She has made presentations at the National Association for Multicultural Education and the American Educational Research Association.

    Juliet A. Baxter is Associate Professor in the College of Education at the University of Oregon. Her research focuses on issues of teaching and learning mathematics, teacher education, and teacher professional development. She has conducted more than a decade of research into reform-based mathematics programs for students with learning disabilities and those at risk for special education. She has also directed a professional development project to support teachers' efforts to teach science as inquiry at the elementary and middle school levels. She is currently studying professional development that supports the strategic integration of mathematics and science at the elementary school level. Her work has been published in the American Educational Research Journal, the Elementary School Journal, and Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, among other journals.

    John P. Bean is Associate Professor in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department at Indiana University-Bloomington, where for the past 20 years he has taught a seminar in research design for doctoral students. He has chaired the research papers program for the annual meetings of the Association for the Study of Higher Education and Division J of the American Educational Research Association. He is best known for his development and estimation of theoretical models of college student retention and has published articles in the American Education Research Journal, Review of Educational Research, Research in Higher Education, and the Journal of Higher Education. He co-authored The Strategic Management of College Enrollments (1990) and co-edited the ASHE Reader on College Students (1996). John Mellencamp purchased one of his oil paintings. He makes Cremonese-style violins and once repaired Joshua Bell's Stradivarius violin.

    Brian A. Bottge is Associate Professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has combined his extensive classroom experience with learning theory to develop and test curricula and teaching methods to improve mathematics learning of students with disabilities. Since joining the faculty at UW-Madison, his research has been funded by the James S. McDonnell Foundation Cognitive Studies in Educational Practice program, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and the Institute of Education Sciences Cognition and Student Learning Research Grant program. He has published numerous articles on this topic in leading journals in special education and is frequently invited to speak at national and international conferences on math education such as the International Conference on Learning Disabilities in Chennai, India.

    Gerald W. Bracey is an independent researcher and writer in Alexandria, Virginia. After obtaining a Ph.D. in psychology in 1967, he worked at many levels of education—state department, school district, university, and private company—before becoming an independent researcher in 1991. Since 1984, he has written a monthly “Research” column for Phi Delta Kappan to make research accessible to practitioners. Each October since 1991, he has written an annual essay that the editors of Phi Delta Kappan named “The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education.” His most recent book is a compendium of statistical information bearing on the performance of American public schools: Setting the Record Straight: Responses to Misconceptions About Public Education in the U.S.

    Elizabeth G. Creamer is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Policy and Leadership at Virginia Tech. Her research interests center on issues related to faculty work and lives, including personal and environmental factors associated with faculty research productivity and how these vary by gender. She is an active scholar who has published more than 45 journal articles and book chapters as well as three authored, co-authored, or co-edited books. She is a principal investigator on four projects funded by the National Science Foundation and is director of research and assessment for the Virginia Tech ADVANCE Grant.

    Joyce L. Epstein is Director of the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships and the National Network of Partnership Schools, Principal Research Scientist, and Research Professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University. She has more than 100 publications on school organization and effects, with many on school, family, and community connections. She serves on many advisory and editorial boards. Her current research focuses on the roles of district and state leaders in guiding schools to develop partnership programs that reach all families and that help students to succeed at high levels. In all of her work, she is interested in the connections of research, policy, and practice.

    Kadriye Ercikan is Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia in the area of Measurement, Evaluation, and Research Methods. Her research focuses on construction of data through assessments and the validity of interpretations from large-scale assessment results. In particular, her publications focus on validity and fairness issues in international and multilingual assessments. She combines statistical approaches with think-aloud approaches for examining examinee cognitive processes and validity of interpretations of assessment results. She has published widely in Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, the Journal of Educational Measurement, Applied Measurement in Education, and the International Journal of Testing. She has served on the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Committee on Foundations of Educational and Psychological Assessment and contributed to the NAS book Knowing What People Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessments.

    Michael Ford is Assistant Professor in the Department of Instruction and Learning at the University of Pittsburgh. He develops classroom activities that engage students in key scientific practices and examines the learning outcomes from these activities that support scientific literacy. His work also involves preparing future science teachers and exploring the epistemological underpinnings of scientific knowledge in history and philosophy. His recent publications have appeared in Science & Education and the Journal of the Learning Sciences.

    Ellice Ann Forman is Professor in the Department of Instruction and Learning at the University of Pittsburgh. She studies the processes of teacher-student and student-student interactions and problem solving in mathematics and science classrooms. Her research has been published in Linguistics and Education, Cognition and Instruction, Learning and Instruction, the Journal of the Learning Sciences, and Educational Studies in Mathematics. She has co-edited two books: Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children's Development and Learning Discourse: Discursive Approaches to Research in Mathematics Education. From 2000 to 2003, she served as associate editor of the American Educational Research Journal.

    Robert E. Floden is Professor of Teacher Education, Measurement and Quantitative Methods, Educational Psychology, and Educational Policy at the Michigan State University College of Education. He has an A.B. in philosophy from Princeton University as well as an M.S. in mathematical statistics and a Ph.D. in philosophy of education, both from Stanford University. His work has been published in the Handbook of Research on Teaching, the Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, and many journals. He has been editor of Review of Research in Education, features editor of Educational Researcher, and president of the Philosophy of Education Society. He has been studying teacher education and other influences on teaching and learning for nearly three decades. He is currently co-principal investigator of Michigan State University's Teachers for a New Era initiative and co-principal investigator on a project developing measures of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching algebra.

    R. Evely Gildersleeve is a Ph.D. student in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, where he holds a doctoral fellowship funded by the Spencer Foundation. His research interests focus on educational opportunity in P-16 pathways, especially as related to college choice for historically marginalized students. Before coming to UCLA, he worked in student affairs at Iowa State University. He is a graduate of Occidental College.

    Carl A. Grant is Hoefs-Bascom Professor of Teacher Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has written or edited 25 books or monographs in multicultural education and/or teacher education. He has also written more than 125 articles, book chapters, and reviews. Several of his writings and programs he directed have received awards. He is a former classroom teacher and administrator. He served as president of the National Association for Multicultural Education from 1993 to 1999, served as editor of the Review of Educational Research from 1996 to 1999, was a member of the National Research Council's Committee on Assessment and Teacher Quality from 1999 to 2001, and is currently the chair of the American Educational Research Association's Publication Committee.

    Cheryl Hanley-Maxwell is Chair and Professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests focus on career development, enhancing family and student participation and power in educational processes and postschool life planning, and preparing adolescents for their adult roles. Recently, she co-directed the Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform for Youth With Disabilities (RISER). The purpose of RISER was to identify and describe educational policies and practices that enhance inclusive and challenging secondary education for all students. She has published numerous articles and chapters related to supported employment and transition. She also has extensive experience in preparing professionals and paraprofessionals to work with students as they move from school to their adult lives and to provide employees with disabilities employment-related services.

    Debbi Harris recently received her Ph.D. in educational policy from Michigan State University. Her work has been published in Educational and Psychological Measurement, and she has presented at the annual meetings of the American Education Finance Association and the American Educational Research Association. She has also served as a research assistant for the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University and as an intern for the Michigan Department of Education. Her research interests include teacher quality, teacher compensation, and the interplay between educational politics and policy persistence. Prior to beginning her doctoral studies, she was a middle school science teacher.

    Susan Harter is Professor of Psychology and Head of the Developmental Psychology Program at the University of Denver. She received her Ph.D. from Yale University in 1966, obtaining a joint degree in developmental and child clinical psychology. She remained at Yale as the first female faculty member in the Department of Psychology until coming to the University of Denver in 1974. While her research has focused on self-esteem, the construction of multiple selves, false self-behavior, classroom motivation, and emotional development, her research interests also include the study of gender issues across the life span and, most recently, school violence and the role of the self-system in provoking both depressive and violent ideation. Her research has resulted in the development of a battery of assessment instruments that are in widespread use in the United States and abroad. In addition to her numerous scholarly articles and chapters, she is the author of The Construction of the Self: Developmental Perspectives. At the University of Denver, she has received two major faculty research awards—the University Lecturer of the Year in 1990 and the John Evans Professorship Award in 1993—and has received awards conveying national and international recognition as well.

    Ronald H. Heck is Professor of Educational Administration and Policy at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. His research interests include school effects on student learning, school leadership, and student transition to postsecondary education. Recent publications include Studying Educational and Social Policy: Theoretical Concepts and Research Methods (2004), Introduction to Multilevel Modeling Techniques (2000, with Scott L. Thomas), and “Tracks as Emergent Structures: A Network Analysis of Student Differentiation in a High School” (in American Journal of Education, with Carol L. Price and Scott L. Thomas).

    Jason N. Johnson is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research interests include postsecondary education institutional identity, college and university curriculum, leadership within the disciplines, and the rhetoric of education. He earlier studied and worked at the University of Washington, where he earned a bachelor's degree in comparative history of ideas and a master's degree in educational leadership and policy studies and served in a series of professional staff positions in the Office of Undergraduate Education, most recently as the associate director of first-year programs.

    Cindy L. Juntunen is Professor in the Department of Counseling at the University of North Dakota. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her primary research interests revolve around vocational psychology, with an emphasis on the work and social needs of marginalized groups. Her work has focused on the school-to-work transition, the welfare-to-work transition, and vocational needs of and issues for American Indian populations. Her current research is addressing the integration of vocational and emotional needs among high-risk youth. Other research and teaching interests include counselor supervision, feminist therapy, and ethical decision making.

    Mary M. Kennedy is Professor at Michigan State University. From 1986 to 1994, she directed the National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Her scholarship focuses on the relationship between knowledge and teaching practice, the nature of knowledge used in teaching practice, and how research knowledge and policy initiatives can improve practice. She has published three books addressing the relationship between knowledge and teaching and has won five awards for her work, the most recent being the Margaret B. Lindsey Award for Distinguished Research in Teacher Education. She has consulted with four ministries of education, the World Bank, and a host of national organizations. Prior to joining Michigan State University in 1986, her work focused mainly on policy issues and the role of research in improving policy. She has authored numerous journal articles and book chapters in these areas and has authored reports specifically for policy audiences, including the U.S. Congress.

    Jane Clark Lindle is Eugene T Moore Endowed Professor of Educational Leadership at Clemson University. She has worked as a special education teacher, principal, and professor. She has served in various editorial roles, including editor of Educational Administration Quarterly from 1998 to 2004. Her research includes studies of shared governance, micropolitics, and state and national accountability policies. She recently published a study of middle school teaming in the Journal of Thought and another on coping with trauma in the principalship in the Journal of School Leadership. Her most recent books are 20 Strategies for Collaborative School Leaders and Building Spiritually Dispelling Myths About Early Adolescence.

    Shirley J. Magnusson is Cotchett Professor of Science and Mathematics Teacher Education at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. She began her career in education in 1980 as a middle school science teacher and has taught science to students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels as well as at the college level. Her research has focused on both the teaching and learning of science in the context of inquiry-based instruction, drawing on sociocultural perspectives and the philosophy of science to conceptualize teacher and student roles. Along with several books, her work has appeared in the Journal of the Learning Sciences, Teaching and Teacher Education, and the Journal of Science Education and Technology.

    Patricia M. McDonough is Professor of Higher Education in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research is on college access, organizational culture, and educational equity. She has conducted research on students' college choice decision making, high school counseling, college rankings, access for African American and Latino students, rural college access, access in historically black colleges, private college counselors, affirmative action, and college admissions officers. She is the author of Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity.

    Mary Lee Nelson is Professor of Counseling Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has conducted research on counselor training and supervision processes; power, gender, and social class issues in counseling and supervision; and the relation of appearance talk to body dissatisfaction in adolescents. She has published articles on these and other topics in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, the Journal of Counseling and Development, Counselor Education and Supervision, the Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, the Journal of Clinical Psychology, and Clinical Supervisor and is currently on the editorial boards of The Counseling Psychologist and Psychotherapy Research. She has recently co-authored the book Critical Events in Psychotherapy Supervision: An Interpersonal Approach.

    Anna Neumann is Professor of Higher Education and Coordinator of the Program in Higher and Postsecondary Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research addresses scholarly learning and development within academic careers, intellectual development across the life span, teaching and learning in higher education, the learning of research and development of researchers, and interdisciplinarity in research. Her books include Learning From Our Lives: Women, Research, and Autobiography in Education (with Penelope L. Peterson) and Redesigning Collegiate Leadership: Teams and Teamwork in Higher Education (with Estela M. Bensimon). Funded by the Spencer Foundation's Major Grants Program, her current research explores professors' intellectual and professional learning through the early posttenure years. She is also co-investigator on a National Institutes of Health grant concerned with interdisciplinary research in public health and medicine. Other work includes studies of doctoral students' learning of research in education and the social sciences and professors as undergraduate teachers.

    Aaron M. Pallas is Professor of Sociology and Education in the Department of Human Development at Teachers College, Columbia University. He also holds a courtesy appointment in the Department of Sociology at Columbia University. Since receiving his Ph.D. in sociology from Johns Hopkins University in 1984, he has held positions at the National Center for Education Statistics, Michigan State University, and Teachers College. His intellectual interests converge on the study of stratification within and between schools, school organization, and the life course. He is a former editor of Sociology of Education and is a past chair of the American Sociological Association's Section on Sociology of Education.

    David Phillips is Professor of Comparative Education and a Fellow of St. Edmund Hall at the University of Oxford. He has written widely on issues in comparative education, with a focus on education in Germany and on educational policy borrowing. He served as chair of the British Association for International and Comparative Education from 1998 to 2000 and is an academician of the British Social Sciences Academy and a fellow of the Royal Historical Association. He was editor of the Oxford Review of Education for 20 years and serves on the editorial boards of various journals, including Comparative Education. He now edits the online journal Research in Comparative and International Education and is series editor of Oxford Studies in Comparative Education.

    David N. Plank is Co-Director of the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University and Professor in the College of Education. He is a specialist in the areas of educational policy and education finance with both domestic and international research interests. He has worked as a consultant in education policy development for the World Bank, USAID, the United Nations Development Program, the Ford Foundation, and ministries of education in several countries in Africa and Latin America. He has published five books and numerous articles and chapters in a variety of fields, including history of education and economics of education. His most recent book is Choosing Choice: School Choice in International Perspective (2003), which he co-edited with Gary Sykes. He is currently at work on a book on the shifting relationship between schooling and the state.

    Mike Rose is on the faculty of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, Division of Social Research Methodology. He has written a number of books and articles on language, literacy, schooling, and work and is the recipient of awards from the Spencer Foundation, the McDonnell Foundation, the National Counsel of Teachers of English, and the Guggenheim Foundation. His books include Lives on the Boundary: The Struggles and Achievements of America's Underprepared, Possible Lives: The Promise of Public Education in America, and The Mind at Work: Valuing the Intelligence of the American Worker.

    Wolff-Michael Roth is Lansdowne Professor of Applied Cognitive Science at the University of Victoria. After a 12-year career as a high school science teacher, he first held a position teaching statistics for social scientists at Simon Fraser University before securing his current position in 1997. His interests lie in understanding knowing, learning, and identity related to mathematics and science from kindergarten to professional practice. He actively publishes in the areas of science studies, linguistics, learning sciences, and mathematics and science education. His recent major publications include Toward an Anthropology of Graphing (2003), Rethinking Scientific Literacy (2004, with A. C. Barton), and Talking Science: Language and Learning in Science Classrooms (2005). He has received numerous awards for his journal and book publications, including awards from organizations such as the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, the American Educational Research Association, and the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction.

    Steven Schlossman is Professor of History and Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. His research centers on the history of education, childhood, and juvenile justice. He has taught previously at the University of Chicago, the University of California, Los Angeles, and Harvard University and has been a research fellow at the University of California, Berkeley; Radcliffe College; and Stanford University. He has also held full-time positions at the RAND Corporation, the California State Assembly, and the California State Department of Justice. His recent publications include Transforming Juvenile Justice: Reform Ideals and Institutional Realities (2005), “Villain or Savior? The American Discourse on Homework, 1850–2003” (Theory Into Practice, Summer 2004, with Brian P. Gill), and “Punishing Serious Juvenile Offenders: Crime, Racial Disparity, and the Incarceration of Adolescents in Adult Prison in Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Pennsylvania” (in Beyond Empiricism [Joan McCord, Ed.], 2004, with David Wolcott).

    Michael Seltzer is Associate Professor in the Social Research Methodology Division of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, where he teaches courses on quantitative methods and on the philosophical underpinnings of inquiry. He received his Ph.D. in education from the University of Chicago. His research activities center on the development of hierarchical modeling techniques and their use in multisite evaluation studies and studies of change. His methodological work has been published in various journals and edited volumes, including the Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Evaluation Review, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, and The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences. Various substantive pieces on which he collaborated have appeared in journals such as Cognition and Learning, Developmental Psychology, the Reading Research Quarterly, and the American Journal of Psychiatry.

    Steven B. Sheldon is Associate Research Scientist with the Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University. He received his Ph.D. in educational psychology from Michigan State University. He conducts research on the influences on parental involvement, including parental beliefs, parents' social relationships, and school outreach. In addition, he studies the development of family and community involvement programs in school and the impact of these programs on student outcomes.

    J. Douglas Toma is Associate Professor at the Institute of Higher Education at the University of Georgia, where he also has an appointment on the School of Law faculty and serves as dean of Franklin Residential College. Before his appointment at the University of Georgia in the fall of 2003, he served on the Graduate School of Education faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, where he organized and directed the Executive Doctorate in Higher Education Management. He writes about management and strategy, qualitative research, and law in higher education. He is the author of Football U.: Spectator Sports in the Life of the American University (2003). In 1995, he earned his Ph.D. in higher education from the University of Michigan. He also earned his MA. (1993) in history and his J.D. (1989) from the University of Michigan and earned his BA. (1986) in public policy and history from James Madison College at Michigan State University.

    Kathryn R. Wentzel is Professor of Human Development in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests focus on parents, peers, and teachers as motivators of adolescents' classroom behavior and academic accomplishments. She is currently examining dimensions of students' interpersonal relationships with teachers and peers that promote the adoption of group values and goals and that promote beliefs that the classroom is a safe, responsive, helpful, and emotionally supportive place to learn. Her work has been published in developmental and educational psychology journals such as Child Development and the Journal of Educational Psychology. She is a past vice president of Division E of the American Educational Research Association.

    James Youniss is Wylma R. and James R. Curtin Professor of Psychology at the Catholic University of America. For more than four decades, he has studied cognitive, social, and moral development in children and youth, with his most recent focus being on civic-political participation. His books include Parents and Peers in Social Development; Adolescent Relations With Mothers, Fathers, and Friends; Community Service and Social Responsibility in Youth; and Roots of Civic Identity: International Perspectives on Community Service and Activism in Youth.

    Kenneth M. Zeichner is Hoefs-Bascom Professor of Teacher Education and Associate Dean of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research focuses on issues of teacher education and teacher professional development. He was vice president of the American Educational Research Association (Division K), co-chair of the American Educational Research Association's Panel on Research in Teacher Education, a member of the National Academy of Education Committee on Teacher Education, and a member of the board of directors of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). In 2002, he received the Margaret B. Lindsey Award for Distinguished Research in Teacher Education from AACTE. He teaches graduate courses in the study of teacher education and directs the Madison Professional Development School Partnership.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website