Praxeological Research Within a Learning Community: Developing

Evidence Based Practice

Chris Pascal, Tony Bertram and colleagues from the CREC Learning Circle

Centre for Research in Early ChildhoodBirmingham, UKwww.crec.co.uk

Presentation aims to:

Offer a challenge to traditional keynote formats offering exemplification of a community of practice in action

Trace the paradigm debate in early years research Challenge notions of ‘evidence based’ programmes and practice Clarify what we mean by praxeological research and the set of

principles which give it its distinctness Foreground the strengths and limitations of this paradigm and its

particular contribution Explore issues of status, credibility, utility and power across paradigms

and methodologies Explore the growing profile, status and utility of praxeological research

in the UK

Tracing the evolving paradigm debate Empirical research Interpretive research Critical research Reflective practice Theories of action: action research Practitioner or practice based research Phronesis and episteme: Praxeological inquiry

Nb: WE MUST CHALLENGE CRITERIA FOR DEFINING ‘EVIDENCE BASED’ PROGRAMMES

Pioneering ideas for PR Aristotle (384 BC) Phronesis and Episteme von Mises (1949,1996) Praxeology Freire (1972) Participatory practice for change and liberation Stenhouse (1975) Teacher researchers McIntyre (1981, 2007) Virtue ethics Schon (1983) Reflective practitioners Whitehead (1989) and McNiff (2006) Action research and living

theories Bourdieu et al (1992) Theory of practical reason Wenger (1998) Communities of practice Flyvbjerg (2001) Phronetical social science Reason et al (2008) Participatory and cooperative inquiry

What is praxeological research?

Praxeological research OR practice based research OR action research :

is grounded in real world situations and acknowledges unpredictability of human beings and their interactions

is carried out by practitioners (anyone involved in practice) in the situation who know the context well and have an immediate use for the results of their work

is research done with people NOT to people and always done in the company of others

uses and generates theories of action to reveal the underlying assumptions we have about our work – to discover why we do what we do

What is praxeological research? Contd. is based on a strong ethical code of action aims to advance practice and support practitioners to

develop a more profound understanding of their work involves critical self evaluation, reflection and action

(praxis) is more than trying out new ideas but exploring why or

how something works through systematic evidence gathering where the action happens

Is action based and transformational

Underpinning principles of PRPraxeological research is:

1. subjective and acknowledges multiple perspectives

2. systematic and methodologically rigorous

3. action based, useful, creative and transformational

4. educational, generating and sharing learning

5. democratic, inclusionary, participatory and collaborative

6. ethical, moral and values driven/committed

7. empowering and redistributes power

8. dynamic and continuous with no end point

9. critical, risky and courageous

10. political, concerned with social justice and equity

SUBJECTIVE

SUBJECTIVE

SYSTEMATIC

SUBJECTIVE

ACTION

SYSTEMATIC

SUBJECTIVE

ACTION

EDUCATIONAL

SYSTEMATIC

SUBJECTIVE

ACTION

EDUCATIONAL

DEMOCRATIC

SYSTEMATIC

ETHICALSUBJECTIVE

ACTION

EDUCATIONAL

DEMOCRATIC

SYSTEMATIC

ETHICALSUBJECTIVE

ACTION

EDUCATIONAL

DEMOCRATIC

SYSTEMATIC

EMPOWERING

ETHICALSUBJECTIVE

ACTION

EDUCATIONAL

DEMOCRATIC

SYSTEMATIC

EMPOWERING

DYNAMIC

ETHICALSUBJECTIVE

ACTION

EDUCATIONAL

DEMOCRATIC

SYSTEMATIC

EMPOWERING

DYNAMIC

CRITICAL

ETHICALSUBJECTIVE

ACTION

EDUCATIONAL

DEMOCRATIC

SYSTEMATIC

EMPOWERING

DYNAMIC

CRITICAL

POLITICAL

Strengths and limitationsPR Strengths: Identifies ways to improve practice and takes

responsibility for this action Inspires and generates collaborative learning and action Gives a close account of what works, how and why Has an ethical and values transparent stance Has credibility and utility in the real world of practice

PR Limitations: Focuses on specific contexts and smaller numbers Does not show cause and effect Does not support comparisons or predictions Less credibility and utility to guide policy decisions due to

lack of perceived rigour in method

Where does praxeological research sit? Issues of status, credibility, utility and power

High table, minstrels gallery or amongst the masses? Historically low status and low visibility BUT high

involvement and impact Is status, credibility, utility and power of PR changing in

the new world of ECEC? Evidence of change in visibility, credibility and power of

PR which is evident in profile of PR in recent conferences, research projects, international publications and policy debates

Are we at Gladwell’s Tipping Point?

Gladwell’s Concepts: Social epidemic: An epidemiology term applied to the

contagious spread of ideas, behaviours and products with geometric progression (doubles and doubles again)

Tipping Point: The magic moment when a virus spreads with geometric progression (doubles and doubles again) and the momentum becomes unstoppable

Stickiness: When an idea, behaviour or product becomes irresistable

Gladwell M. (2000)

Has praxeological research become ‘sticky’ and has it reached a ‘tipping point’?

Practitioner research centres and communities of practiceIn the UK (CREC, Pen Green) and elsewhere (Childhood

Association, Portugal) practitioner research centres and professional networks are developing which offer:

Forums for deliberation and debate about EC practice and policy and the generation of knowledge

Spaces for ethical association, open, inclusive and safe learning communities which aspire to be developmental and innovative

Interaction based on mutual respect, shared curiosity and humanity

Support and encouragement for ‘Communities of Practice’

Troubling what comes next Clear NOT one paradigm for EC research: different and

complementary approaches are needed New ways of perceiving EC research are emerging and

changing traditional frames and research processes New spaces for intellectual engagement are opening up

and allowing EC research to move forward Acknowledged need in policy and practice to be open to

multiple ways of knowing and using research and practice: challenge to existing ‘evidence based’ selection process

More open, critical engagement developing between paradigm camps and more respect, congruence, innovation, democracy in EC research is evident