The development of a research culture in secondary schools

Educational Action Research ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20 The development of a research culture in secondary schools David Ebbutt To cite this article: David Ebbutt (2002) The development of a research culture in secondary schools, Educational Action Research, 10:1, 123-142, DOI: 10.1080/09650790200200171 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790200200171 Published online: 20 Dec 2006. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 676 View related articles Citing articles: 13 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalinformation?journalcode=reac20 Download by: [46.3.201.133] Date: 22 November 2017, At: 21:09

Educational Action Research, Volume 10, Number 1, 2002 The Development of a Research Culture in Secondary Schools DAVID EBBUTT University of Cambridge, United Kingdom ABSTRACT This article is grounded in several types of empirical qualitative data deriving from a sample of four of the six secondary schools participating in a research partnership with the University of Cambridge School of Education. It is argued that each of the four schools has a research culture that fits within a category that can be described as either emergent, established or establishedembedded. The body of the article sets out distinguishing features of each of these forms of school research culture, and goes on to discuss the implications that this categorisation holds for current governmental policy with regards to the continuing professional development (CPD) of teachers. Introduction The context of this article is a research Partnership between the University of Cambridge School of Education (UCSE) and six Secondary Schools. The SUPER Project, based upon the research partnership, formally came into being in May 1999. Two-year funding was secured following a series of discussions, proposals and negotiations between the Head of School at UCSE and the Heads/Principals of the schools involved. Within each school the SUPER Project depends upon a Teacher Research Coordinator each of whom has been appointed and funded for 1 day per week release from timetable over 2 years. The TRC s function is to initiate, sustain and develop collaborative school-based research projects between teacher researchers in each of the schools of the Partnership and UCSE. Each participating school differs in terms of the extent of its engagement with, and the depth and range of its experience of school-based research. Two of the schools in the Partnership have a history of engagement in research that goes back 10 years. I think of these two schools as having an established research culture. There is variability, but by and large, the other four schools have come to research more recently. These schools I think of as having an emergent research culture. All of the schools will have 123

David Ebbutt had a different set of reasons for wishing to participate in the Partnership. However, all, to a greater or lesser extent, look upon the Partnership, and the SUPER Project, as an opportunity to foster school improvement through the professional development that is believed to accrue from staff (and student) engagement in research, and especially from classroom research which focuses upon teaching and enhancement of learning. From the university perspective, the SUPER project is rooted in a recognition of a need to explore critically three inter-related sets of ideas about educational research and its relevance to schooling: The first is the recent public debate (Hargreaves, 1996; Hillage et al, 1998; Rudduck & McIntyre, 1998) about the perceived limited usefulness of educational research as it has generally been conceived, conducted and controlled from within universities, and the consequential need for practitioners to be actively involved in all phases of research. The second is the need to explore the professional knowledge base upon which evidence-based approaches to teaching might most realistically and appropriately be based (Hargreaves, 1999). The third is to consider the limitations of conventional classroom teaching, bearing in mind that the classroom teaching emerged historically, little changed in its current form, as a method for coping with the mass education that was implemented after the industrial revolution (McIntyre, 2000). Each of these three ideas is concerned with the kinds of knowledge that is generated, used and valued by teachers, and by educational researchers, in schools and in universities. An appropriate context for exploring these ideas is, therefore, one of attempted collaboration between university-based educational researchers and school-based teachers united by a common concern to make educational research useful. Purpose of This Article This article seeks to relate most closely to the second of the ideas above. However, rather than being concerned here with the creation of professional knowledge per se, the assumption is that a viable research culture in schools, is fundamental to the production of useful professional knowledge. Professional knowledge is, in turn, fundamental to the idea of evidencebased practice. Therefore, I want to explore, the key elements, constituent components or conditions that seem to be in place in schools that are well down the road towards an established research culture. The question, for those wishing to build upon a bridgehead of an emergent research culture in their school, is to find ways to foster and promote these key conditions. As the article progresses I work towards building up a fuller understanding of the terms emergent, established and established embedded to describe the variations in the research culture in the small sample of SUPER Project schools. These descriptors should not be taken in 124

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE any way to imply an evaluative ranking of those schools as effective educational establishments. Culture as an Analytic Concept Hargreaves (1995), draws upon Nias (1989b) and others, when writing about the concept of culture in the context of the school effectiveness and school improvement debate. Here, he evaluatively sketches in an historical snapshot of how he sees the concept to have been applied: The concept of culture has been used in many educational contexts. The roots lie in Waller s monumental The Sociology of Teaching (1932) from which various branches have subsequently grown. Early studies of school climate from an organisational perspective (especially Halpin & Croft, 1963; Halpin, 1966) are one branch; another is the application to curriculum studies (House, 1979) and the main branch is the extensive literature of ethnographic studies of schools. After Waller s early treatment, writing on school culture, teacher cultures and student cultures has lacked any systematic treatment of the relations between the three. School culture is often used in a general sense as if it includes both staff and student cultures. Although much of the early work was on student cultures (Hollingshead, 1949; Coleman, 1961), in recent times the emphasis has undoubtedly been on teacher cultures. Finnan & Levin (2000) point out that it is useful to think about culture at different levels. For example, at the macro-level of society, where a term such as the culture of schooling is appropriate. In what follows, I intend to focus upon culture at a meso-level, at the level of the organisation, which is at aspects of the culture of specific schools. One could, of course, choose to focus at the micro-level, i.e. at culture at the level of individual classrooms. Recently (Ebbutt, 1998), and without at the time thinking too clearly about levels, I defined my essentially anthropological understanding of culture as referring to: a constellation of both written and unwritten expectations, values, norms, rules, laws, artefacts, rituals and behaviours that permeate a society and influence how people behave socially. In a more psychological vein, and writing some thirty years earlier, Stenhouse (1967) viewed culture as: consisting of a complex of shared understandings which serve as a medium through which individual minds interact. Culture, then is a matter of ideas, thoughts and feelings. Schein (1985), writing specifically about culture at the meso-level of the organisation, amplifies the tacit nature of cultural understanding when he argues that its essence lies in: 125

David Ebbutt the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organisation, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic taken-for-granted fashion, an organisation s view of itself and its environment. Nias (1989a), is very clear about how the concept of culture can best be utilised in educational thinking. She is probably correct in her view that: The term culture is often applied to schools with a wilful lack of precision. She goes on to urge that an essential step towards ensuring that cultural analyses of schools are productive, is the compilation of detailed, empirically based case studies. She asserts that:... before we can talk with any conviction of the culture of the school we need to examine the cultures of many schools, asking in respect of the participants in each, What beliefs do they hold, about what? and What is the logical and empirical connection between these beliefs and individuals practice in classrooms and schools? The data drawn upon in this study are not the close-up, personal, finegrained data that Nias implies are required. Nevertheless, and with a degree of post hoc rationalisation, what follows is pushing in the direction that Nias advocates, albeit applied to a subset of the culture of the school, that is, staff research culture. To reiterate, the primary purpose here is to try to learn, for the benefit of schools with an emergent research culture, about the constituents, components or conditions that appear to be in place and are seen to be important by schools identified as having an established or an embedded research culture. A secondary purpose is to provide a fuller picture of what these descriptors mean. Methodology and Data Collection Drawing upon expert advice from several colleagues I designed a questionnaire and issued it in the Spring Term 2000 ostensibly to all staff in each of the SUPER Project schools. This was done in anticipation that time would be allocated during a full staff meeting for its completion by teachers. Such is life that in some schools a full staff meeting is a termly event, and so a period of almost 2 months elapsed before questionnaires were returned from every school. At this point, it became clear that the questionnaire had been completed by a higher percentage of staff in some of the schools, rather than others. The initial processing of questionnaire data was done by a UCSE colleague. During the time I was awaiting completion of questionnaires by teachers, I taped a 45-minute informal interview with each of the seven Teacher Research Coordinators. This means that data used in this article 126

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE were gathered early on, i.e. only months into a 2-year Project. The recorded interviews were transcribed by a secretary. I also visited most of the schools during this period, on issues related to the research agenda of the SUPER Project. In addition, I met all Teacher Research coordinators as a group for half a day, once a month, in the School of Education, to discuss research and plan SUPER Project strategy and tactics. Analysis The only part of the questionnaire to explicitly ask about research culture was Section 4. (Section 1 asked respondents about their roles and status within school. Section 2 asked for some views about educational research. Section 3 asked about instances and sources of actual use of research knowledge). Questions 4.2 and 4.3 asked: Q4.2 Which of the following factors do you see as supportive to the ongoing development of a research culture amongst the staff in your school? Q4.3 Which of the following factors do you see as working against the ongoing development of a research culture amongst the staff in your school? The factors that I generated and listed for the teachers to respond to were: The professionalism of your colleagues. The trust staff members have for one another. The recent history of initiatives in this school. The management structures in place to support developments of this nature. Parental support for this and other initiatives. The commitment of senior management to support development of this nature. The partnership with the University of Cambridge School of Education. The leadership qualities of the Head/Principal/Warden. The school s commitment to enhance the learning of its students. The range of research experience held by staff. The school s commitment to knowledge creation. The physical facilities within the school. The ICT facilities available in this school. The investment in terms of time that the school has committed. The investment in terms of finance that the school has committed. The school s links and contacts with outside bodies. The nature of the students who attend this school. Community support for initiatives in this school. Other. 127

David Ebbutt For a contrasting sample of three schools, the responses to questions 4.2 and 4.3 are presented in the form of a profile. Entries above the axis on each school profile indicate staff responses to criteria that are seen to be supportive to the development of a research culture. Entries below the axis indicate staff responses to an identical set of criteria that are seen to be working against the development of a research culture. The resulting profile of staff responses from School 1 that I judge to have, as a consequence of a 10-year history of engagement in research, an established research culture, looks like Figure 1. Figure 1. School 1, question 4 (n = 81). Two schools, 2 and 3, each entered the world of school-based research more recently. Each had little or no history of research and within both I judge there to be an emergent research culture. The respective profiles of staff responses are shown in Figures 2 and 3. 128

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE Figure 2. School 2, question 4 (n = 31). Figure 3. School 3, question 4 (n = 64). Superficially, the differences, school profile by school profile, are not as eye catchingly distinct as my on the ground experience suggested they might have been. However, closer inspection shows that the profile presented by School 1, which I regard as having an established research culture, has higher response rates, to most (15/19) of the supportive of criteria when compared with either of Schools 2 or 3. So on 15 of the 19 criteria presented, a higher percentage of staff of School 1 with the established 129

David Ebbutt research culture, recognise and acknowledge support, than do staff in the schools 2 or 3, each with an emergent educational research culture. Perhaps more interesting, is the observation that, to a degree, the obverse is also true, i.e. that the staff of School 1 with the established research culture register lower percentage responses to more working against criteria (9/19, see below), in comparison with the staffs of the two schools with emergent research cultures, i.e.: 1. The professionalism of your colleagues. 4. The management structures in place to support developments of this nature. 6. The commitment of senior management to support development of this nature. 9. The school s commitment to enhance the learning of its students. 10. The range of research experience held by staff. 14. The investment in terms of time that the school has committed. 15. The investment in terms of finance that the school has committed. 16. The school s links and contacts with outside bodies. 17. The nature of the students who attend this school. What is noteworthy about the cultural factors listed above, is that only one, the nature of the students who attend this school, is entirely beyond the control of the school. Should a school decide, as part of its development planning, that it was worthwhile to do so, the remaining factors could, with time, be actively managed into the system. What School 1 is seen by its staff to be providing, is, in part, a swathe of conditions supportive to a culture of school-based research. However, it is also the case that at the same time, and importantly, what the school is seen by its staff to provide are few disincentives or few conditions demotivating to research. Put another way, School 1 is seen by the staff to be reducing or eliminating some of the key constraints upon its staff (no time, lack of funds, inappropriate structures, limited external contacts), in order to encourage engagement in research. School 1 is enabling and facilitating teachers engagement in research, in part by means of reducing those factors that teachers find prevent them from, initiating and subsequently sustaining a research agenda. At this point I want to ask in what ways is the culture of a second school, School 4, that I also judge to have an established research culture, seen to be similar or different to that of the School 1 with its established research culture? As has been mentioned previously, both schools have a 10-year history of engagement in research (see James & Worrall, 2000) Nevertheless, at the meso-level of the organisation, both in their internal organisation and external relationships, the schools appear very different. School 4 is: female, single sex, rather than co-educational; has an 11-19 as against 13-19 student population; 130

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE has fewer students (rolls: 1100 and 1535); is located in an outer London urban setting, as opposed to drawing from widely spread rural and semi-rural commuter villages; is multi-racial in contrast to being predominantly white. Students in both are largely from middle class families. The profile resulting from staff responses to questions 4.2 and 4.3 in School 4 is shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4. School 4, question 4 (n = 61). Figure 5. School 1, question 4 (n = 81). 131

David Ebbutt When compared with School 1, the profile presented by School 4 has lower response rates on all except one (criterion 13: The ICT facilities available in this school ) of the supportive to criteria. So a higher percentage of the staff of School 1 recognise and acknowledge support on each of 18 out of 19 factors presented, when compared with the staff in School 4. Turning now to the working against criteria, the following is revealed. The staff of School 4 registered a lower percentage response to five out of 19 working against criteria (criteria 5, 8, 11, 17 and 19) than is the case for the staff of School 1: 5. Parental support for this and other initiatives. 8. The leadership qualities of the head/principal/warden. 11. The school s commitment to knowledge creation. 17. The nature of the students who attend this school. 19. Other. Schools 1 and 4 show identical staff response rates on a further four out of the 19 criteria (criteria 7, 12, 13 and 18): 7. The partnership with the University of Cambridge School of Education. 12. The physical facilities within the school. 13. The ICT facilities available in this school. 18. Community support for initiatives in this school. Put the other way around, the staff of School 1 registered a lower percentage response to more working against criteria (10/19) in comparison with the staff of School 4. So, again, the differences between School 1 in terms of reducing disincentives or conditions demotivating to research that were apparent in comparison with the two schools each with an emergent research culture, is also evident when compared with School 4. However, I have argued that both the schools have an established research culture. What I mean is that in both of these schools a culture has been developed where it has become established over a 10-year period that research, in the context of school improvement in its widest sense, is an important component in how we do things here. In addition, a research culture is established in these two schools in the sense that as each new teaching and learning initiative arises, the legitimacy of research as a component of that initiative, does not have to be negotiated afresh. Generally speaking, it is accepted that research will be a feature of each new initiative. As yet, the potential for school-based research in providing leverage to school improvement is only currently being glimpsed by the Teacher Research Coordinators and a few staff in the schools with emergent research cultures (see below). However, additionally and importantly, within School 1, research is both established and embedded (an observation I develop further below) in the culture of the school. Further evidence to support my use of the labels emergent, established and established-embedded to describe the educational 132

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE research culture in schools also derives from the questionnaire. Question 4.1 asked respondents to complete the following sentence so that it sums up the current situation as you see it : With respect to the development of a culture of educational research amongst my colleagues, I would say that my school... A sample of responses to this task by teachers from each of the two schools with an emergent educational research culture is given below: With respect to the development of a culture of educational research amongst my colleagues, I would say that my school... Has a small group of interested teachers who have enjoyed undertaking research, but that the culture remains fundamentally wary and timing, and staffing pressures have not encouraged staff to become involved. Is split. There is a small number of staff that are interested and can be bothered the rest do not have the time or inclination. There is a willingness and openness among staff to take on new ideas, and many have unresolved questions. However, there is a lack of time to explore these areas in a systematic way. Is at a very early stage of development. Is beginning to address some of the preliminary aspects of encouraging and developing research, but as yet it is an initiative in which only a few are involved. Is beginning to widen this ethos, although it is not widely disseminated below middle managers and can be seen as the province of Heads of Department and above. More time needs to be given to main grade staff to pursue their research. Here, we have school-based educational research seen as a marginal, somewhat disconnected activity that has, to date, been limited in both its scale, and in the number and status of its participants, as well as being seen as overly demanding in terms of resource, especially time. These views contrast with those of a sample of staff from School 4 with its established educational research culture: With respect to the development of a culture of educational research amongst my colleagues, I would say that my school... Is willing to take the opportunity to obtain evidence in the context of dayto-day operation of the school. Needs to present the idea in a more open, opportunistic way, not in a way that might be viewed as burdensome or controlling to staff. Research projects could be very successful if approached and developed in the right way in this school. Has worked hard to develop this culture and has invested time and resources on both staff and students. It is important that staff can see the relevance of such research to their own classroom. 133

David Ebbutt Offers many opportunities and much encouragement for staff to become involved in action research. Has become more aware of the possibilities offered to staff and students by various projects, but has yet to formally review the overall benefits to the school community. Here, staff are by no means uncritical of aspects of various research initiatives, but research is seen to be about collecting and using evidence. It is also seen as a worthwhile investment, with potential implications for improvement in pedagogy. Moreover it is accepted and seen as legitimate and certainly not out of the ordinary for individuals from a critical mass of staff and students to be carrying out research from time to time, on a broad curriculum front from Yr 7 to Yr 12. Even so, I am reluctant to offer the label of embedded to add to that of established about the research culture in this school. This is because in my view research thrives here, in the way that it does, partly by being dependent upon the Teacher Research Coordinator s vision and enthusiasm. Successive Heads have been happy to indulge and feed off this enthusiasm. Indeed, 10 years ago, one of the prime motives behind the inception of a research strategy in the school was as a tool to unite a staff deeply divided about teaching and learning. The Teacher Research Coordinator has driven the process, first as a Head of Department and subsequently as Deputy. If she were to leave, I am doubtful if a viable research culture would long survive her departure. Last, but not least, here are the responses to the same task by a sample of teachers from School 1 with the established-embedded research culture. Most of what has just been said applies to the culture of research in this school. Once again, staff accept the potential link between research and pedagogy for the enhancement of student learning and for the professional learning of teachers. In addition, research can be said to be embedded in this school in the sense that it is seen as a pervasive and inclusive activity to be undertaken by the many, regardless of role (staff or students), status, or curriculum speciality. What is more, if the head, who has provided the ultimate driving dynamic over the preceding 10 years were to leave now, it is my judgement that the culture of research, by its very pervasiveness, is embedded enough to thrive after his departure. The final, critical contribution (below), sounds a necessary note of humility. It implies that, despite important aspects of the research process being seen as embedded, the means of dealing in any sophisticated way with knowledge issues and especially research knowledge utilisation, may yet await satisfactory resolution: With respect to the development of a culture of educational research amongst my colleagues, I would say that my school... is deeply involved in educational research and to research as a means of increasing staff expertise and developing students involvement in the process of learning; 134

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE is working hard to share common values of sharing ideas amongst both staff and students to develop a culture where all value research as a way of focusing upon improvement; has a positive approach and outlook regarding this area and is keen to involve staff from all areas of the curriculum, as well as valuing the input students can make; is moving towards near 100% acceptance of the importance of research; it has taken nearly 10 years to get there; spends far too much time and effort researching, but not enough spreading information, implementing or evaluating things. Such a coherent set of views and messages has resonances with the rhetorics normally associated with the private corporate sector, and brings to mind an observation by Nias (1989a) that:... we can be in no doubt, conceptually or empirically, that strong cultures are rooted in a shared vision or mission which is itself the manifestation of jointly held and deeply internalised beliefs and values. The detail of the 10-year story of how this school sought to realise its mission, a central mechanism of which has been a heavy investment in the creation of what I have come to call an established and embedded research culture, has been told elsewhere (Beresford & Payne, 1997; Hopkins et al, 1994; Jackson, 1998, 1999; Jackson et al 1998; Hooper, 1999). This school, in common and contemporary with a number of schools in the USA (the Accelerated Schools Project 1986 to present) has undergone similar developments. The process, when pared down to its absolute basics, has been summarised by Finnan & Levin (2000), as seeking to bring about the cultural transformation of the school along the following five fundamental dimensions: the school s expectations for students; students expectations for their own school experience; expectations for adult members of the school community including parents; opinions about acceptable educational practices; the fostering of (a change) process of continuous improvement. I strongly suspect that the School 4 Teacher Research Coordinator would recognise these dimensions as summarising the essence of her 10-year journey towards an established research culture. Data deriving from interviews with the Teacher Research Coordinators of schools with either emergent or established research cultures puts some more flesh on the idea of types of or stages in the development of an educational research culture. In schools with an emergent research culture, if there has been any history of school-based research it is fragmented and discontinuous. By the same analysis, motivated teachers, experienced and expert in school-based research are few. So, the main preoccupation to 135

David Ebbutt date, for coordinators in schools with an emergent research culture, has been to actually get research started. If research was to happen at all, coordinators felt they needed to act at a tactical level and so found themselves doing much of the initial research work themselves, almost as a sort of public demonstration: TRC1:... Now what have I actually done last term? Well I had already got some single sex classes running in Year 9 [The school is co-ed] and I did a bit of investigation, and research and evaluation last year and the year before and the SUPER partnership allowed me to re-evaluate what we were doing this time a bit more systematically really. Because last time I just used questionnaires and a little bit of formal interviewing. And this time I was able to do some classroom observation and interview pupils. So I did it on quite a small scale but I actually felt that the data was quite rich from that small sampling... and last December [the Head] and I went to London and did a workshop and presented our findings and all that kind of thing. (My emphases; for a more detailed account see Mary Martin s article in this volume) TRC 2: Well, this has been the problem. Because I have been leading the Year 9 Praise project[1]most of my Fridays have been spent doing that, has actually been coordinating that, you know doing the data analysis with the students, getting the questionnaire together, getting the questionnaires back. DE: So you have been leading from the front? TRC 2: I have been leading from the front on that one. As one might expect, and by way of contrast, in schools with established research cultures, where as a consequence of the 10-year history of engagement in research, there are more staff willing, experienced and capable of carrying out research, then the role of the Teacher Research Coordinator is interpreted as going beyond the short-term tactical and is much more about realising a longer-term strategy. This longer-term strategy provides a view of the role of research as contributive to the ongoing development of the school. It is also about the coordination of others towards the realisation of that strategy. So coordination can and does involve working with, and providing encouragement and guidance to groups of teacher researchers working together on a similar idea or a range of ideas, as opposed to leadership from the front in order to demonstrate the feasibility of the research process. This distinction is a little too precise and, in fact, there was a degree of coordination of others required in the earlier examples, especially in the case of TRC2, and, from time to time, elements of leading from the front, in School 4 with its established research culture. Nevertheless, I think the interpretation of the role by the Research Coordinator in that school, as 136

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE being about a longer-term strategic view, is apparent from the following extract: TRC 4:... as far as I can see, until you get this kind of critical mass you cannot really change the experience of children. You can change it for one hour of the day, but one hour of the day is not a lot out of five years, is it? DE: That notion of critical mass, is that a critical mass of staff who share some view of the benefits of doing these things? TRC4: Yes. I think really that we share the view that [ ] teaching is such a difficult thing to do and understanding learning is so complex that, if you take it seriously and look at it seriously and examine it carefully, and then listen to what other people are saying, you stand some chance of trying to improve it. This Teacher Research Coordinator has described the overall strategy that she is implementing as a learning improvement model, which uses research as a means to try and improve children s education so that they leave school as autonomous learners. Similarly the Teacher Research Coordinator in School 1 with its established-embedded research culture would describe the overall strategy pursued in the school, as seeking to use research to inform the implementation of what they term Really Powerful Learning. Within this umbrella title there are six [2] sub-projects that comprise the school-wide initiative, which is scheduled to run for two full years. A Deputy also shares the coordination function with respect to the Really Powerful Learning initiative. In addition, budgeting and management by the school provides for a full-time researcher, one of whose functions is to process data collected by staff! A sense of coordination that underlies the overall strategic vision comes through in the Teacher Research Coordinator s response to my question: DE: What would the six projects look like in 18 months time? TRC 1: Well in 18 months time I would hope that they have each produced case studies showing real examples of excellent practice, that [have been] agreed by staff, and through the research that we all do, that s what it actually represents. But in most cases, probably not all, that there will be some form of Coaching Guide [3] in existence. This will be really helpful in terms of coaching new members of staff to the school, and also [helpful] to people who want to develop their own practice, to help them to do that. And all of that is linked with observation, development, appraisal, going through the thresholds, performance management the whole lot s kind of woven together. Quite how 137

David Ebbutt that s going to work I don t know, but I m beginning to see that they will marry up very well. The final lines of the above quote read to me very like a really distinctive view of what evidence-based practice might look like. Summary and Discussion I have described the characteristics of the research culture within a sample of SUPER Project schools. Of course, there are many schools elsewhere where there is absolutely no culture of educational research whatsoever. One way of seeing the differences between the research cultures of the schools that I have described is to view them as a series of developmental stages along an evolutionary path. The implication of this observation is that should schools wish to develop to the point of embracing an embedded research culture, they will need to evolve through the prior stages: no culture of research? emergent research culture? established research culture? established-embedded research culture Several questions arise. For example, one view of teaching is that it should become an evidence-based profession (Hargreaves, 1996). For this to come about, would schools be expected to develop an established or even an embedded educational research culture? If this was the expectation upon the mainstream of schools, how might the process be managed by schools, such that what appears to be a 10-year evolutionary period might be condensed? Or is 10-years about right for this sort of cultural change in schools as they are currently organised? What, most appropriately, would be the roles of HEIs (Higher Education Institutions), LEAs and Central Government in bringing about cultural change of this nature? At the time of writing (April 2001) it is possible to glimpse governmental responses to the last of these questions. These responses should be viewed against a backdrop of a wider ongoing debate about the knowledge society. Within this debate, notions of useful professional knowledge, evidence-based practice and continuing professional development (CPD), fit rather comfortably with ideas about lifelong learning. Practitioner research is now officially recognised as an important component contributing to an individual teacher s continuing professional development (DfEE 2001a,b). At a practical level, mechanisms have been put in place nationally and monies made directly available to individuals or groups of teachers to finance school-based practitioner research. An additional aspect of this response is that LEAs or, as is more likely, HEIs are invited to provide mentors, experienced in educational research, to support the practice-based inquiries of teacher researchers. When seeking to bring about educational change, it has not been a general characteristic of recent UK governments to take the long-term view. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the evidence presented here, the long view might well be a 138

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE necessity if a viable research culture is to develop in schools to the extent that it is able to generate useful professional knowledge within a practice that can be claimed to be truly evidence based. Correspondence David Ebbutt, School of Education, University of Cambridge, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2BX, United Kingdom (postmaster@davidebb.demon.co.uk). Notes [1] A school-based project designed to investigate the effects of various forms of reward on motivation and learning in year 9 students. [2] Teaching with Style; Teaching for Thinking; Learning through Digital Technology; Teaching for Responsibility; Interactive Whole Class Teaching and Learning through Cooperative Group Work. [3] See Joyce, B.R., Calhoun, E.F. & Hopkins, D. (1997) Models of Learning: tools for teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press. References Beresford, J. & Payne, G. (1997) Generating Data for School Improvement, paper for BERA Annual Conference: University of York, UK. Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Coleman, J.S. (1961) The Adolescent Society. Glencoe: Free Press. DfEE 0071/2001 (2001a) Learning and Teaching: a strategy for professional development. London: Department for Education and Employment. DfEE 0059/2001 (2001b) Good Value CPD A Code of Practice for Providers of Professional Development for Teachers. London: Department for Education and Employment. Ebbutt, D. (1998) Evaluation of Projects in the Developing World: some cultural and methodological issues, International Journal of Educational Development, 18, pp. 415-424. Finnan, C. & Levin, H.M. (2000) Changing School Structures, in H. Altrichter & J. Elliott [Eds] Images of Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hargreaves, D.H. (1995) School Culture, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6, pp. 23-46. Hargreaves, D.H. (1996) Teaching as a Research Based Profession: possibilities and prospects. London: Teacher Training Agency. Hargreaves, D.H. (1999) The Knowledge Creating School, British Journal of Educational Studies, 47, pp. 122-144. Halpin, A.W. (1966) Theory and Research in Administration. London: Macmillan. 139

David Ebbutt Halpin, A.W. & Croft, D.B. (1963) The Organisational Climate of Schools. Chicago: Mid West Administration Center, University Chicago. Hillage, J., Pearson, R., Anderson, A. & Tampkin, P. (1998) Excellence in Research on Schools. London: Institute for Employment Studies/DfEE/HMSO. Hollingshead, A.B. (1949) Elmstown s Youth. New York: John Wiley. Hooper, N.P. (1999) Interaction, Collaboration and Knowledge Creation: mapping the professional culture of four curriculum areas. Unpublished MEd dissertation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education. Hopkins D., West, M. & Ainscow, M. (1994) School Improvement in an Era of Change. London: Cassell. House, E. (1979) Technology Versus Craft: a ten year perspective on innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11, pp. 1-15. Jackson, D. (1998) Reconceptualising School Development: one school s experience. Contribution to the International Workshop for School Transformation, Max Planck Institute, Berlin. Jackson, D., Raymond, L., Wetherill, L. & Fielding, M. (1998) Students as Partners in the School Improvement Process. Contribution to 11th International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement: Manchester, U.K. Jackson, D. (1999) School Improvement, An Alternative Model: IQEA activity at Sharnbrook Upper School. Mimeo. Bedford: Sharnbrook Upper School. James, M.E. & Worrall, N. (2000) Building a Reflective Community: development through collaboration between an HEI and one school over 10 years, Educational Action Research Journal, 8, pp. 93-114. McIntyre, D. (2000) Has Classroom Teaching Served its Day? in M. Ben Perretz, S. Brown & R. Moon (Eds) The Routledge Compendium of Education. London: Routledge. Nias, J. (1989a) Refining the Cultural Perspective, Cambridge Journal of Education, 19. pp. 143-146. Nias, J. (1989b) Primary Teachers Talking: a study of teaching as work. London: Routledge. Rudduck, J. & McIntyre, D. (Eds) (1998) Challenges for Educational Research, New BERA Dialogues. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Schein, E.H. (1985) Organisational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Stenhouse, L. (1967) Culture in Education. London: Nelson s University Paperbacks. Waller, W. (1932) The Sociology of Teaching. New York: John Wiley. 140

DEVELOPING A RESEARCH CULTURE 141

David Ebbutt 142