Abstract
This paper is adapted from a recently completed systematic review. See:
Ellis, V., Correia, C., Turvey, K., Childs, A., Andon, N., Harrison, C., Jones, J., & Hayati, N. (2023). Redefinition /redirection and incremental change: A systematic review of innovation in teacher education research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, [103918].
Abstract:
In a recent systematic review of innovation in teacher education research (Ellis, Correia, Turvey, Childs, Andon, Harrison, Jones, & Hayati, 2023) the problematic nature of ‘evidence relations’ between theory, policy and practice were evident in a number of different ways. Firstly, policies framing the concept of innovation have led to critiques of innovation as merely a buzzword in the field. Secondly, the meaning oftheorisations of some types of innovation (Sternberg et al., 2003) were found to be too open to subjective interpretations to be of use. Thirdly, innovation as a concept in teacher education research is often undefined and disconnected from wider social scientific theories of change. The inherently problematic character of evidence in teacher education, we suggest is indeed a factor that can lead to political and ideological exploitation if evidence becomes a disconnected ‘rationalized myth’ and used merely to justify policy as Helgetun and Menter, 2020 document. However, our systematic review of innovation in teacher education research also highlighted new opportunities to challenge the ideological exploitation of constructs such as innovation, through reconstructing the governance of evidence (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2013) as a process of responsible innovation in the field, where a genuine commitment to centring issues of value, purpose and ethical deliberation could be given more priority. This paper will present key findings from our systematic review and also open the discussion to how responsible innovation in teacher education research might enable more agentic and meaningful engagement with evidence.
References
Ellis,V., Correia, C., Turvey, K., Childs, A., Andon, N., Harrison, C.,
Jones, J., & Hayati, N. (2023). Redefinition /redirection and
incremental change: A systematic review of innovation in teacher
education research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, [103918].
Helgetun, J .B., & Menter, I. (2022). From an age of measurement to
an evidence era? Policy-making in teacher education in England, Journal
of Education Policy, 37(1), 88-105.
Owen, R., Bessant, J. R., & Heintz, M. (2013). Responsible
innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation
in society. Wiley.
Sternberg, R. J., Pretz, J. E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2003). Types of
innovations. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on
innovation (pp. 158e169).
Elsevier Science.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a
framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568 -
1580.
Ellis, V., Correia, C., Turvey, K., Childs, A., Andon, N., Harrison, C., Jones, J., & Hayati, N. (2023). Redefinition /redirection and incremental change: A systematic review of innovation in teacher education research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, [103918].
Abstract:
In a recent systematic review of innovation in teacher education research (Ellis, Correia, Turvey, Childs, Andon, Harrison, Jones, & Hayati, 2023) the problematic nature of ‘evidence relations’ between theory, policy and practice were evident in a number of different ways. Firstly, policies framing the concept of innovation have led to critiques of innovation as merely a buzzword in the field. Secondly, the meaning oftheorisations of some types of innovation (Sternberg et al., 2003) were found to be too open to subjective interpretations to be of use. Thirdly, innovation as a concept in teacher education research is often undefined and disconnected from wider social scientific theories of change. The inherently problematic character of evidence in teacher education, we suggest is indeed a factor that can lead to political and ideological exploitation if evidence becomes a disconnected ‘rationalized myth’ and used merely to justify policy as Helgetun and Menter, 2020 document. However, our systematic review of innovation in teacher education research also highlighted new opportunities to challenge the ideological exploitation of constructs such as innovation, through reconstructing the governance of evidence (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2013) as a process of responsible innovation in the field, where a genuine commitment to centring issues of value, purpose and ethical deliberation could be given more priority. This paper will present key findings from our systematic review and also open the discussion to how responsible innovation in teacher education research might enable more agentic and meaningful engagement with evidence.
References
Ellis,V., Correia, C., Turvey, K., Childs, A., Andon, N., Harrison, C.,
Jones, J., & Hayati, N. (2023). Redefinition /redirection and
incremental change: A systematic review of innovation in teacher
education research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, [103918].
Helgetun, J .B., & Menter, I. (2022). From an age of measurement to
an evidence era? Policy-making in teacher education in England, Journal
of Education Policy, 37(1), 88-105.
Owen, R., Bessant, J. R., & Heintz, M. (2013). Responsible
innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation
in society. Wiley.
Sternberg, R. J., Pretz, J. E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2003). Types of
innovations. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on
innovation (pp. 158e169).
Elsevier Science.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a
framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568 -
1580.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication status | Published - 22 Aug 2023 |
| Event | European Conference on Education Research: The Value of Diversity in Education and Educational Research - University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom Duration: 22 Aug 2023 → 25 Aug 2023 https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-2023-glasgow |
Conference
| Conference | European Conference on Education Research |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | ECER 2023 |
| Country/Territory | United Kingdom |
| City | Glasgow |
| Period | 22/08/23 → 25/08/23 |
| Other | The aim of the ‘European Conference on Educational Research’ is to create an inclusive platform for initiating, reporting, discussing and promoting high quality educational research, that not only acknowledges its own context but also recognises wider, transnational contexts with their social, cultural and political similarities and differences. The conference is organised for emerging, as well as experienced, researchers and builds on and promotes free and open dialogue and critical discussion. It has a comprehensive approach to theory, methods, arguments, findings and research ethics. |
| Internet address |