“The Research Says”: Definitions and Uses of a Key Policy Term in Federal Law and Local School Board Deliberations

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 195-213

  Asen, Robert ^a   Gurke, Deb ^b   Solomon, Ryan ^a   Conners, Pamela ^c   Gumm, Elsa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b Wisconsin Association of School Boards   (United States)

^c GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

deliberation; education; evidence; public policy; research

Indexed keywords

EID: 84912014180     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2011.11821747     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Benhabib, S., (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S., Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 67–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. J., (2010). Evidence-based policymaking: Insights from policy-minded researchers and research-minded policymakers. New York: Routledge.
3. Boyd, J., (2002). Public and technical interdependence: Regulatory controversy, out-law discourse, and the messy case of Olestra. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39, 91–109.
4. Brouwer, D. C., (2005). Communication as counterpublic. In G. J., Sheperd, J. St., John & T., Striphas (Eds.), Communication as… Perspectives on theory (pp. 195–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Brouwer, D. C., & Asen, R., (2010). Introduction: Public modalities, or the metaphors we theorize by. In D. C., Brouwer & R., Asen (Eds.), Public modalities: Rhetoric, culture, media, and the shape of public life (pp. 1–32). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
6. Brydon-Miller, M., & Maguire, P., (2009). Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research, 17, 79–93.
7. Coburn, C. E., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M., (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teacher's College Record, 111, 1115–1161.
8. Conquergood, D., (1992). Ethnography, rhetoric, and performance. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78, 80–97.
9. Cox, J. R., (1981). Argument and the “definition of the situation.” Central States Speech Journal, 32, 197–205.
10. Dewey, J., (1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1916).
11. Doxtader, E., (2009). With faith in the works of words: The beginnings of reconciliation in South Africa, 1985–1995. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
12. Dufour, R., & Eaker, R., (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
13. Edelman, M., (1971). Politics as symbolic action: Mass arousal and quiescence. Chicago: Markham.
14. Fabj, V., & Sobnosky, M., (1995). AIDS activism and the rejuvenation of the public sphere. Argumentation and Advocacy, 31, 163–184.
15. Fraser, N., (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C., Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
16. Goodnight, G. T., (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.
17. Goodwin, J., & Honeycutt, L., (2009). When science goes public: From technical arguments to appeals to authority. Studies in Communication Sciences, 9, 19–30.
18. Graham, P. A., (2005). Schooling America: How the public schools meet the nation's changing needs. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Habermas, J., (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T., Burger, Trans.). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. (Original work published 1962).
20. Hipp, K. K., & Weber, P., (2008). Developing a professional learning community among urban school principals. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 4, 46–56.
21. Hogan, J. M., (1991). Between the public and technical spheres of argument: The “televisual” rhetoric of the nuclear freeze campaign. In D. W., Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the Seventh SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 100–106). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
22. Honig, M. I., & Coburn, C., (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices. Educational Policy, 22, 578–608.
23. Hostetler, K., (2010). (Mis)understanding human beings: Theory, value, and progress in education research. Educational Studies, 46, 400–415.
24. Howe, K. R., (2005). The question of education science: Experimentism versus experimentalism. Educational Theory, 55, 307–321.
25. Kanold, T. D., (2006). The flywheel effect: Educators gain momentum from a model for continuous improvement. Journal of Staff Development, 27, 16–21.
26. Kaufer, D., & Carley, K. M., (1993). Condensation symbols: Their variety and rhetorical function in political discourse. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 26, 201–226.
27. Keränen, L., (2005). Mapping misconduct: Demarcating legitimate science from “fraud” in the B-06 lumpectomy controversy. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 94–113.
28. Krippendorff, K., (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. McGee, B. R., (1999). The argument from definition revisited: Race and definition in the progressive era. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 141–158.
30. McGuinn, P.J., (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of education policy, 1965–2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
31. Mitchell, G. R., (2000). Strategic deception: Rhetoric, science, and politics in missile defense advocacy. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
32. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 9101, 115 Stat. 1552, 1645, 1964–1965 (2002).
33. Noffke, S. E., (2009). Revisiting the professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In S. E., Noffke & B., Somekh (Eds.), The Sage handbook of educational action research (pp. 6–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Palczewski, C. H., (1995). Definitional argument: Approaching a theory. In S., Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and values: Proceedings on the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 176–186). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
35. Parry-Giles, T., (2006). The character of justice: Rhetoric, law, and politics in the Supreme Court confirmation process. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
36. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J., Wilkinson & P., Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958).
37. Pezzullo, P. C., (2003). Resisting ‘National Breast Cancer Awareness Month’: The rhetorics of counterpublics and their cultural performances. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89, 345–365.
38. Prelli, L., (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
39. Reyna, V., (2002, February). What is scientifically based evidence? What is its logic? Presentation at the Use of Scientifically Based Research in Education Conference, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
40. Reese, W.J., (2005). America's public schools: From the common school to ‘No Child Left Behind’. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
41. Rothstein, R., (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.
42. Rowland, R. C., (1986). The relationship between the public and the technical spheres of argument: A case study of the Challenger Seven disaster. Central States Speech Journal, 37, 136–146.
43. Schiappa, E., (2003). Defining reality: Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
44. Sapir, E., (1934). Symbolism. In E. R. A., Seligman (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of the social sciences (pp. 492–495). New York: Macmillan.
45. Servage, L., (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 63–77.
46. Shulock, N. B., (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it's not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 226–244.
47. Slavin, R. E., (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.
48. Smith, A., (2003). Scientifically based research and evidence-based education: A federal policy context. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 126–132.
49. Stone, D., (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton.
50. Tracy, K., (2010). Challenges of ordinary democracy: A case study in deliberation and dissent. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.
51. Walton, D., (2001). Persuasive definitions and public policy arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37, 117–132.
52. Wyckoff, P. G., (2009). Policy and evidence in a partisan age: The great disconnect. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
53. Zeichner, K., (2001). Educational Action Research. In P., Reason & H., Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 273–283). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.