Ortner updating practice theory
Interestingly, while their focus is on the literature review as something needing to be re-valued and re-positioned, they relate this to the current emphasis on, and arguably undue emphasis on, methodology.As they write: “Methodological training cannot occur in a vacuum, and increasing training in research methods alone will not lead to better research” (Boote & Belle, 2004: 4).While this line of scholarly work has been around for some time now, its influence on educational research is uneven, though quite marked.Although it may rely on “familiar techniques of demonstration and argument”, Jonathan Culler suggested, the ‘force’ of such writing “comes …
Robert Bullough (2006) similarly questions the constrained nature of educational research as he sees it, when it is framed more or less exclusively within the social sciences.
not from the accepted procedures of a discipline but from ” (Culler, 1983: 9; my emphasis).
Once more we encounter interdisciplinarity, as a project. This is consistent with the view that what needs to be drawn explicitly into doctoral education is a curriculum focus on , and hence on ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ research, or consuming and producing research. Research invariably involves reading and writing, literally, increasingly now in digital-electronic forms.
What is it that contextualises and informs methodology, or “methodological training”?
This is a question worth considering in the new emphasis on research training in contemporary research policy, and on what might be described as the increasingly prescriptive, front-end loading of methodology in doctoral curriculum.
Search for ortner updating practice theory:
The line of work I am interested in has been described as “the interdisciplinary study of educational experience”, more particularly as influenced by the humanities and the arts (Pinar, 2004: 2).