2. CONCEPCIONES Y MODELOS EN LA EVALUACIÓN ESCOLAR: DE LA
2.2 Modelos de Evaluación Tradicional
2.2.2 Michael Scriven
The value of this study does not lie in simply accounting for the economic, social and cultural capital of educators in different qualification groups. Linking data to theory is an important part of translating quantitative information into meaning (Bourdieu, 1988), to avoid the “empty empiricism” (Lingard, 2011, p. 378) common in policy-oriented quantitative research (see also Ball, 2006; Lauder, Brown, & Halsey, 2004). This study’s greatest value therefore lies in the power of its theoretical framework to enable the empirical findings to be translated into implications for educators’ practice.
The final part of the study draws together the findings from the data analysis, and the principles of quality ECEC practice set out in the National Quality Agenda, using the theoretical framework of the study to build a conceptual bridge between them. Through the lens of capital, the analysis aims to identify how aspects of educators’ being, belonging and becoming may—through habitus—have consequences for their
professional practice. This connects the study back to the goals of the National Quality Agenda—to improve quality and consistency in Australian ECEC services—in a way that responds to the actual characteristics of educators themselves.
This return from the empirical to the theoretical field is necessarily speculative—theory is, after all, the language of “imagination” (Ball, 2006, p. 19)—and the relationships it proposes between educators’ capital and practice would require substantial further empirical research to confirm. The test of rigour in this discussion is therefore not the verifiability of its conclusions, but its plausibility in bringing theory and data together in a credible logic, and pointing towards constructive pathways for further inquiry. It follows Ball’s (2006) advice that theoretical work must be guided by “a particular concern to maintain coherence”, while resisting “closure” and leaving spaces open for uncertainty, multiplicity, and alternative interpretations (p. 20). This accords with Bourdieu’s own epistemological stance, that social research—even when this “runs counter to the usual
89
idea of intellectual rigour”—must embrace what is “complicated, confused, impure, [and] uncertain”, as the defining characteristics of any sphere of human activity (Bourdieu, Chamboredon, & Passeron, 1991, p. 259).
Ethical considerations
At face value, the ethics involved in research using existing data may seem relatively straightforward, as steps have already been taken to protect participant consent and anonymity at the point of data collection (Thorne, 1998). However, the greater distance between the researcher and participants in such studies arguably places a greater responsibility on the researcher, to consider whether the research aligns with the intentions of the original data collection, and the possible impact of the findings on participants themselves (Smith, 2008). This is a particular risk when findings may position certain groups as somehow in “deficit” (see Yu, 2011, p. 7, for a discussion of this issue in research on Australian Aboriginal communities).
The absence of direct participation from educators is a notable limitation of this study. In terms of the study’s aims, it is well-justified by the theoretical framework, as the inherent invisibility of habitusmeans that “agents are not in a better position than academics when
it comes to translating into explicit discursivity the inherent logic of their own practice” (Nicolini, 2012, p. 63). At the same time, it necessitates the establishment of principles for analysis that aim to mitigate any risk of harm to participants arising from the study, especially to guard against positioning any group of educators in a “deficit” role. The principles that guided data analysis and interpretation in this study are set out below: The value attributed to capital is arbitrary. The arbitrariness of how different forms
of capital are valued is central to Bourdieu’s theory of practice. While recognising that the kinds of capital valued by the dominant class are important for achieving social mobility, this leaves open the possibility for other forms of capital to exist, which have less widely-recognised value. Yu (2011) urges researchers to take seriously what is valued by researched populations themselves, and this study therefore attempts to consider what capital may be valued outside the dominant class. This capital can itself become a strong foundation on which other forms of capital can build.
Every educator is capable of high-quality practice. This principle is one of the driving assumptions of the study, underpinning its aim to reveal the dimensions of socio-economic diversity that may make quality practices more difficult to achieve for some educators than others. Revealing this diversity is not intended to mark certain groups of educators as less capable, but to highlight the kinds of opportunities that may best support their professional growth. This assumption reflects Bourdieu’s view
90
of educational success as the product of opportunity, not of intrinsic merit. It gives attention to the “deep-seated inequalities and their reproduction” that are often obscured in the “policy as numbers” process of data analysis (Lingard, 2011, p. 375). Every educator is an individual. This principle recognises that practices
themselves are made up of individuals, and that quality ECEC practice may be embodied in many different ways. It aims to avoid the “hegemonic” perceptions that may be reinforced through large-scale statistical analysis (Little & Bartlett, 2010, p. 288). While educators are grouped in this study for the purposes of analysis, every group contains myriad variations—just as every case in the data files represents a unique individual to whom the findings may apply in a unique combination of ways. Inclusive workforce development leads to inclusive practice. This principle
reflects a broader ambition for the study, to demonstrate an approach to ECEC workforce development that mirrors the responsive approach that the National Quality Agenda aims to support for children’s learning. The connection is simple—if every educator can learn (with the right opportunities), then so too can every child, irrespective of their background. As educators come to recognise and transform their
habitus, they may in turn become “transformative agents” (Lanas & Kiilakoski, 2013,
p. 343), capable of achieving greater equity in outcomes for children.
Innovations, limitations and implications for future research
The flourishing interest in ECEC research calls for ECEC researchers to embrace diverse methods and innovations (Kilderry, Nolan, & Noble, 2004). This study’s contribution to the field of ECEC research is innovative in a number of ways. By drawing on multiple large-scale data sets, it helps to demonstrate the value of publicly-available data, and the insights that may be gained when discrete components of Australia’s rich data infrastructure are combined to bring new perspectives to bear on prominent policy issues. In this way, it helps to improve return on investment in large-scale data infrastructure, and to justify future investment in its development. It is also an “unobtrusive” method for researched populations (Smith, 2008, p. 4), which increases the benefits derived from information that they have already provided.The preference for large-scale quantitative studies in policy (Blackmore & Lauder, 2005; Gorur, 2015; Lingard, 2011; Lingard, Sellar & Baroutsis, 2015) means that “well- designed quantitative research studies” also have great potential to influence policy decisions; a power that is arguably under-utilised by the ECEC research community (Harrison, 2010, p. 149). At the same time, this study aims to avoid the tendency of quantitative policy-oriented research to reduce complex areas of human activity to
91
simplistic indicators (see Lingard, 2011; Apple, 2006; Ryan, 2015). In relation to large- scale public data, Smith (2008) challenges social researchers to “engage with the data, with full understanding of their limitations and to help establish the link between the empirical data, their social context and the theoretical models that might help explain them” (Smith, 2008, pp. 28–29). This study has attempted to take full advantage of the opportunity that the use of existing data offers to “think more closely” about theoretical interpretation, rather than spending time grappling with the practicalities of data collection (Hakim, 1982, p. 16, as cited in Smith, 2008, p. 42).
Such studies are likely to work best when connected to qualitative research agendas in a mutually reinforcing way. Quantitative studies can be useful for giving greater definition and rigour to qualitative constructs, through empirical analysis. Cheadle and Amato (2011) provide an illustrative example, using large-scale longitudinal survey data to test Lareau’s (2011) qualitative observations about parenting styles across social classes. This study pursues a similar goal, to quantify the differences in social advantage between educators that Osgood (2005; 2009; 2012) and Andrew (2015a) have identified through qualitative research as important for ECEC workforce development.
92