Search results

All good social science researchers recognise that each investigative paradigm and their respective research tools (e.g. experiments, surveys, interviews, observations, questionnaires) is limited in its exploratory power but especially by its dependence on the interests, perspectives and skills of the researchers employing it. They determine the research questions pursued and the questions asked of the respondents. Constructivist researchers however, though they too focus on an area they deem deserving of research and carry their own biases, seek to explore the respondents' perspectives of those domains, what they consider important and construe from their knowledge and life experiences and why they act as they do. Participants in research also bring to the task their own orientations, including their suspicions about researchers' motives, their willingness to take part in the investigation and their personal gains from doing so. When the aim of the research is agentic change, these are critical considerations for research design, data analysis and interpretation. This chapter, after summarising the main tenets of personal and social constructivist theory, explores and evaluates constructivist methodology, illustrating benefits and limitations through examples from research practice of its tools and analytical procedures from research conducted by the authors and their doctoral researchers across and between disciplines and levels in higher education. Techniques used include repertory grids, narrative and pictorial methods used to study, inter alia, staff development issues and transformative doctoral learning. Caveats emerging from practice will be included that limit and focus appropriately the collection, analysis and interpretation of results. Finally, arguments are presented for why, when and how to adopt, or indeed to avoid, these approaches and methods within such research.

This brief history of the International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching (ISATT) documents developments and trends during the decade 2013–2023. To situate recent ISATT history, we begin with an overview of the association's first 30 years (1983–2012). The dominant theme of those early years was developing ISATT as a recognized and influential professional organization connecting researchers on teaching and teacher education from a growing list of nations and regions of the world. During the most recent decade, there has been a concerted effort toward broad internationalization through biennial conferences and regional meetings, and a growing network of national representatives from across the world. Also, the ISATT journal, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, the journal, which began in 1995, has published hundreds of peer-reviewed articles written by more than 1000 authors and coauthors, contributing to a growing body of knowledge about teaching and teacher education in many cultures. In the last 20 years and especially in the past 10, the locations of ISATT meetings have become significantly more diverse, following a trend of greater internationalization compared with ISATT's European and North American beginnings. At the same time, the number of ISATT members remains stable and small thereby preserving a collegial and collaborative tone in our exchanges. In sum, ISATT's recent decade finds the association intellectually healthy, successful in managing the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic, and enriched by the proliferation of multinational points of view and styles of research.

Research and informed debate reveals that institutional practices in relation to research degree examining vary considerably across the sector. Within a context of accountability and quality assurance/total quality management, the range and specificity of criteria that are used to judge doctoral work is of particular relevance. First, a review of the literature indicates that, although interest in and concern about the process is burgeoning, there is little empirical research published from which practitioners can draw guidance. The second part of the paper reviews that available research, drawing conclusions about issues that seem to pertain at a general level across disciplines and institutions. Lest the variation is an artefact of discipline difference, the third part of the paper focuses on a within discipline study. Criteria expected/predicted by supervisors are compared and contrasted with those anticipated and experienced by candidates and with those implemented and considered important by examiners. The results are disturbing.