Reshaping the methodological identity of education research: Early signs of the impact of federal policy

Evaluation Review

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 391-400

  Constas, Mark A ^a  

^a Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics   (United States)

Author keywords

Federal policy; Lexicon; Methodology

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; EDUCATION; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; POLICY; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; EDUCATION; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34547347332     PISSN: 0193841X     EISSN: 15523926     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X07300176     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Berk, A. 2005. Randomized experiments as the bronze standard. Journal of Experimental Criminology 1: 417-33.
2. Berliner, D. 2002. Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher 31: 18-20.
3. Boruch, R., D. De Moya, and B. Snyder. 2002. The importance of randomized field trials in education and related areas. In Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research, ed. F. Mosteller and R. Boruch, 50-79. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
4. Bryk, A., and S. Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Cook, T. 2002. Sciencephobia: Why education researchers reject randomized experiments. Education Next Fall: 63-8.
6. Erickson, F., and K. Gutierrez. 2002. Culture, rigor and science in educational research. Educational Researcher 31: 21-4.
7. Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
8. Gee, J.P. 1991. What is literacy ? In Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other, ed. C. Mitchell and K. Weiler, 3-11. New York: Bergin and Garvey.
9. Institute of Education Sciences. 2002. Teacher quality grant program request for applications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
10. Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 2006. Research funding opportunities. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/funding/
11. Kress, G. 1990. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11: 3-9, 11-13.
12. Lagemann, E. 2000. An elusive science: The troubling history of educational research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Lather, P., and P. Moss. 2005. Implications of the scientific research in education report for qualitative inquiry. Teachers College Record 107: 1-3.
14. Luke, A. 1995. Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education 21: 3-48.
15. Moss, P. 2005. Toward epistemic reflexivity in educational research: A response to scientific research in education. Teachers College Record 107: 19-29.
16. National Research Council. 1992. Research and education reform: Roles for the Office of Education Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17. National Research Council. 2002. Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. Rorty, R. 1989. Contingency, irony and solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press. St Pierre. E. 2002. Science rejects postmodernism. Educational Researcher 31: 25-7.
19. United States Congress. (2001). The elementary and secondary education act of 2001 ( Public Law 107-110 ).
20. United States Congress. (2002). The education sciences reform act ( Public Law 107-297 ).
21. United States Department of Education. (2001). Strategic and performance indicators for the U.S. Department of Education.