On the danger of blurring methods, methodologies and ideologies in environmental education research

Environmental Education Research

Volumn 12, Issue 3-4, 2006, Pages 549-558

  Dillon, Justin ^a   Wals, Arjen E J ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 40549083924     PISSN: 13504622     EISSN: 14695871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13504620600799315     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Connell, S., 1997. Empirical-analytical methodological research in environmental education: response to a negative trend in methodological and ideological discussions. Environmental Education Research, 3(2): 117–133.
2. Corcoran, P. B., Walker, K. E., and Wals, A. E. J., 2004. Case studies, make-your-case studies, and case stories: A critique of case-study methodology in sustainability in higher education. Environmental Education Research, 10(1): 7–21.
3. Chatzifotiou, A., 2005. Implementing environmental education in the primary schools of northern Greece. Environmental Education Research, 11(5): 504–523.
4. Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Sanders, D., Teamey, K., and Benefield, P., 2003. Improving the understanding of food, farming and land management amongst school-age children: a literature review. Research report 422, London: Department for Education and Skills.
5. Feyerabend, P., 1975. Against method, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
6. Hammersley, M., 2004. Social science research methodology today: diversity or anarchy? Available online at: http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/lcl/newmedia_in_langlearn/assests/sources_ hammersleypaper.pdf (accessed 26 January 2006)
7. Hart, P., 2000. Requisite variety: the problem with generic guidelines for diverse genres of inquiry. Environmental Education Research, 6(1): 37–46.
8. Howe, K. R., 1988. Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility theses or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8): 10–16.
9. Johnson, R. B., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J., 2004. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7): 14–26.
10. Lave, J., and Wenger, E., 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Mrazek, R., 1993. “ Alternative paradigms in environmental education research ”. In Monographs in environmental education and environmental studies, VIII, Edited by: Mrazek, R., Troy, OH: North American Association for Environmental Education.
12. Pallas, A. M., 2001. Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity. Educational Researcher, 30(5): 6–11.
13. Phillips, D. C., and Burbules, N.C., 2000. Postpositivism and educational research, New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
14. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., and Benefield, P., 2004. A review of research on outdoor learning, Preston Montford: Field Studies Council.
15. Robottom, I., and Hart, P., 1993. Research in environmental education: engaging the debate, Geelong: Deakin University Press.
16. Soltis, J. F., 1984. On the nature of educational research. Educational Researcher, 13(10): 5–10.