RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 41
particular experiences. In response to this, some
feminist researchers (p. 40) suggest that researchers
only have the warrant to confine themselves to
their own immediate communities, though this is
acontentiousissue.Thereisvalueinspeakingfor
others, not least for those who are silenced and
marginalized, and in not speaking for others for
fear of oppression and colonization. One has to
question the acceptability and appropriateness of,
and fidelity to, the feminist ethic, if one represents
and uses others’ stories (p. 41).
An example of a feminist approach to research
is the Girls Into Science and Technology (GIST)
action research project. This took place over three
years, involving 2,000 students and their teachers
in ten coeducational, comprehensive schools in
one area of the United Kingdom, eight schools
serving as the bases of the ‘action’, the remaining
two acting as ‘controls’. Several publications have
documented the methodologies and findings of
the GIST study (Kelly 1986; 1989a; 1989b; Kelly
and Smail 1986; Whyte 1986), described by
its co-director as ‘simultaneous-integrated action
research’ (Kelly 1987) (i.e. integrating action
and research). Kelly is open about the feminist
orientation of the GIST project team, seeking
deliberately to change girls’ option choices and
career aspirations, because the researchers saw
that girls were disadvantaged by traditional sexstereotypes.
The researchers’ actions, she suggests,
were a small attempt to ameliorate women’s
subordinate social position (Kelly 1987).
case of ‘categorically funded’ and commissioned
research – research which is funded by policymakers
(e.g. governments, fund-awarding bodies)
under any number of different headings that
those policy-makers devise (Burgess 1993). On
the one hand, this is laudable, for it targets
research directly towards policy; on the other
hand, it is dangerous in that it enables others
to set the research agenda. Research ceases to
become open-ended, pure research, and, instead,
becomes the evaluation of given initiatives. Less
politically charged, much research is evaluative,
and indeed there are many similarities between
research and evaluation. The two overlap but
possess important differences. The problem of
trying to identify differences between evaluation
and research is compounded because not only do
they share several of the same methodological
characteristics but also one branch of research is
called evaluative research or applied research. This
is often kept separate from ‘blue skies’ research
in that the latter is open-ended, exploratory,
contributes something original to the substantive
field and extends the frontiers of knowledge and
theory whereas in the former the theory is given
rather than interrogated or tested. Onecandetect
many similarities between the two in that they
both use methodologies and methods of social
science research generally, covering, for example
(see http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/
9780415368780 – Chapter 1, file 1.9. ppt), the
following:
Chapter 1
Research and evaluation
The preceding discussion has suggested that
research and politics are inextricably bound
together. This can be taken further, as researchers
in education will be advised to pay serious
consideration to the politics of their research
enterprise and the ways in which politics can
steer research. For example, one can detect
a trend in educational research towards more
evaluative research, where, for example, a
researcher’s task is to evaluate the effectiveness
(often of the implementation) of given policies
and projects. This is particularly true in the
the need to clarify the purposes of the
investigation
the need to operationalize purposes and areas of
investigation
the need to address principles of research design
that include:
formulating operational questions
deciding appropriate methodologies
deciding which instruments to use for data
collection
deciding on the sample for the investigation
addressing reliability and validity in the
investigation and instrumentation