Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Hyslop-Margison, E. (2010). Scientific paradigms and falsification: Kuhn, Popper, and problems in education research. Educational Policy, 24, 815–831.

Abstract: By examining the respective contributions of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn to the philosophy of science, the author highlights some prevailing problems in this article with the methods of so-called scientific research in education. The author enumerates a number of reasons why such research, in spite of its limited tangible return, continues to gain institutional momentum in colleges and faculties of education Furthermore, the author argues that the various identified problems, when considered collectively, effectively reduce many claims emerging from scientifically designed education research to the realm of logically invalid hypotheses and questionable circumstantial evidence insulated from academic criticism by various professional and institutional interests.

Journal Article 2: Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44, 54–61.

Abstract: The theory and tools of “improvement science” have produced performance improvements in many organizational sectors. This essay describes improvement science and explores its potential and challenges within education. Potential contributions include attention to the knowledge-building and motivational systems within schools, strategies for learning from variations in practice, and focus on improvement (rather than on program adoption). Two examples of improvement science in education are examined: the Community College Pathways Networked Improvement Community and lesson study in Japan. To support improvement science use, we need to recognize the different affordances of experimental and improvement science, the varied types of knowledge that can be generalized, the value of practical measurement, and the feasibility of learning across boundaries.

Journal Article 3: Guticle 3: al and imPenuel, W. R. (2014).. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43, 19–23.

Abstract: The authors argue for a reconceptualization of rigor that requires sustained, direct, and systematic documentation of what takes place inside programs to document how students and teachers change and adapt interventions in interactions with each other in relation to their dynamic local contexts. Building on promising new programs at the Institute of Education Sciences, they call for the formulation of collaborative research standards that must require researchers to provide evidence that they have engaged in a process to surface and negotiate the focus of their joint work, and to document the ways participation in this process was structured to include district and school leaders, teachers, parents, community stakeholders, and, wherever possible, children and youth. They close by describing how this new criterion—“relevance to practice”—can ensure the longevity and efficacy of educational research.