THE PATTERNS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

THE PATTERNS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP – A LITERATUR REVIEW

This chapter contains, firstly, a presentation of the research utilisation models and Huberman’s (1990) general model. Next, relevant debates about different aspects of the researcher–practitioner relationship are examined, as well as limited publications which empirically report on this relationship.

Research utilisation model

Weiss (1979) proposes seven research utilisation models in her article The many meanings of research utilisation. These models are the knowledge-driven model (linear flow from knowledge creation to usage), problem-solving model (linear flow initiated from a problem that needs to be solved), interactive model (research is among the many sources of decision making and the process is “a disorderly set of interconnection and back-and-forthness” (1979, p. 428), political model (research is used to justify oneself after a stance has already been taken), tactical model (research is used for purposes such as enhancing the prestige of a decision or deflecting criticism, or simply as a bureaucratic politics), enlightenment model (research influences consciousness), research as part of the intellectual enterprise of the society (research responds to current thought, all explanations are adopted from the original text).
Although her categorisation initiates a comprehensive way of viewing research utilisation and also led to many other subsequent works, her categorisation suffers from repetition and lacks consistency in the criteria adopted. The political and tactical model are virtually the same, while the enlightenment model is also very similar to research as part of the intellectual enterprise of the society. Furthermore, the first few models pinpoint the possible drives behind research utilisation, while the latter models focus more on possible methods of research usage.
To address the discrepancies in the inconsistent criteria used in Weiss’s seven models, the discussion below is 16 organised around the following two themes:

• different models of research utilisation, explaining the possible drives behind research utilisation and reasons for its under-utilisation; and
• the debate on instrumental/conceptual utilisation.

 Modes of research utilization

In literature theorising knowledge utilisation, Landry et al. (2001) identified four alternatives, namely the science push model (corresponds closely with the knowledge-driven model identified by Weiss);the dissemination model; the demand pull model (corresponds closely with problem-solving model identified by Weiss) and the interaction model (corresponds closely with interactive model identified by Weiss).
The science push model stresses the supply side of research findings as the major determinant of research utilisation. In this model, utilisation follows a linear flow from the supplier to the users – the researchers comprise the sources from whom to direct research, and the users are there solely to receive the result. According to this model the dimensions that research could use to influence utilisation are the following:

• Content attributes, such as compatibility, complexity, validity, applicability and radicalness (Dearing & Meyer, 1994; Edwards, 1991; Lomas, 1993)
• Types of research: basic/applied; general/abstract (Machlup, 1980), qualitative/quantitative (Huberman & Thurler, 1991, as cited in Landry, Amara, & Lamari, 2001), particular/concrete (Rich, 1997), research domains and disciplines (Oh, 1997; Rich, 1997)

Criticisms of this model include a lack of empirical evidence for the relation between the technical quality of research results and utilisation (Dunn, 1983; Edwards, 1991; Huberman, 1987), as well as the assumption that the transfer of knowledge is automatic and that raw research information is usable without any adaptation.
These criticisms stimulated the emergence of the dissemination model. The dissemination model suggests that, besides the type and content of research, the dissemination effort is also an important factor in explaining knowledge utilisation. Such a dissemination effort includes the identification of useful knowledge and the adaptation of such knowledge in ways suited to potential users. This model explains the absence of any significant impact of research in that much of the research is neither widely nor properly disseminated (MacLean, 1996). Although this model still views the relationship between the knowledge producer and the user as linear, and users, as predicted in this model, are still not involved in the selection of transferable research information, the important role of the users is clearly more advanced.
The demand pull model maintains the emphasis on users. This model suggests that, instead of the researchers (suppliers), the users are the major source with whom to direct research (Rich, 1991; Weiss, 1979; Yin & Moore, 1988). This model also often points to a customer–contractor relationship, in terms of which the practitioners behave like customers who define what research they want, and the researchers behave like contractors who execute contracts. In this model research utilisation is explained only by the needs of the users
– the needs of the users are more important to the researchers than the advancement of scholarly knowledge (Chelimsky, 1997; Frenk, 1992; Orlandi, 1996; Silverside, 1997). As regards an explanation as to the reason why some research is still put aside even when it has been initiated by the practitioners, this model pinpoints the fact that the organisational interests of the users could possibly conflict with the research findings. The main criticism of this model include
In response to the criticisms on the linear view, the interaction model abandons this view and suggests that knowledge utilisation depends on the various interactions which occur between the researcher and the users. This model identifies a lack of two-way interaction between the researcher and the user as the main reason for under-utilisation (Huberman, 1987; Leung, 1992; Lomas, 1997; Oh & Rich, 1996). The cultural differences between these two groups are also often identified as one of the obstacles to engagement. The model further points out that research utilisation, which depends heavily on the transfer of information, occurs best in the context of relationships which are based on familiarity and trust, and often built up over time (Bogenschneider, Olson, Linney, & Mills, 2000). Therefore, unlike the previous models, this model suggests greater attention be given to the relationships between the researchers and the users at different stages of knowledge production, dissemination and utilisation.
Empirical work such as the studies of Caplan, Morrison, and Stambaugh (1975), Landry, Amara, and Lamari (2001) and Yin (1981) suggests that this model offers a better explanation of the under utilisation phenomenon compared to other alternative utilisation models. This could also be supported by a theoretical observation that this model integrates the explanatory factors identified in other models, particularly the importance of a match between the type/content of the research and the interest of the user (science push model) and the importance of a mechanism with which to facilitate the credibility of both the researcher and the research (dissemination model).
The interaction model serves as the theoretical framework in this study.

 Instrumental/conceptual utilization debate

Another angle from which to approach the issue of research utilisation is that of the instrumental and conceptual debate. Although this debate also arose from the attempt to explain the research–practice gap in many disciplines, it highlights the possible disciplinary difference between natural science and social science.
The many meanings of research utilisation model of Weiss (1979) points out that research could be among the many factors influencing decision making. It may also be used to justify after a decision has been taken, or serve as general enlightenment. In accordance with this, the most commonly accepted classifications of research use are instrumental, conceptual and symbolic.
Instrumental use involves applying research results in specific, direct ways. Conceptual use involves using research results for general enlightenment: results influence actions but more indirectly and less specifically than in instrumental use. Symbolic use involves using research results to legitimate and sustain predetermined positions (Beyer, 1997, p. 17).
The remaining discussion will be limited to only the instrumental and conceptual use, since symbolic use is of a very different nature compared to the other two types (in terms of the role to inform decision making/legitimate predetermined decision) and often remains the least desired type of research utilisation.
Instrumental use has been in use from way back in history. During World War II when programmeme evaluators found that their recommendations had no significant impact on policy decisions, they complained. “At that time, expectations of programme evaluators and university researchers were that decision makers would have made direct use of their research results” (Amara, Ouimet, & Landry, 2004, p. 76). During the period following World War II the social sciences endeavoured to demonstrate their utility, often in the same sense (Lewis, 2002).
It was only in the 1980s that some researchers began to challenge this view, arguing that research could be useful for other purposes, such as for general enlightenment or conceptual use (Caplan, 1980; Cohen & Garet, 1975; Feldman & March, 1981; Knorr, 1977; Lindblom & Cohen, 1979; Pelz, 1978; Rich, 1975; Rich, 1977; Weiss, 1979; Weiss & Bucuvalas, 1980).
This view quickly gained popularity and, in the social sciences, it is now commonly accepted that conceptual use does indeed happen more often than instrumental use. In fact, both Weiss (1980) and Dunn (1980) state that instrumental use seems to be rare. This dominance of conceptual utilisation is claimed to be related to the characteristics of social science itself, for instance, its nature of being both tacit and context bounded; the lack of strength, authority and efficacy of an individual study (Hammersley, 1997; Hargreaves, 1996; Herie & Martin, 2002); and lack of incentives for rapid and direct knowledge dissemination (compared with the patent or other reward system existing in natural science). To conclude, Weiss (1980) names such utilisation as knowledge creep and claims that the use of social science knowledge ought not be viewed as having a direct impact on specific decisions as is the case in instrumental use; rather it has a diffuse relationship with practice, and often permeates practice in the form of new concepts, frameworks and world-views. Many other writers also support this view and echo that the research practice relationship follows an indirect path, often through the collective power of several research studies over time (Hellstrom & Raman, 2001; Lindblom & Cohen, 1979; Rich, 1977; Weiss, 1979; Weiss & Bucuvalas, 1980).
The above discussion can be summarised as follows:

• Instrumental utilisation exercises greater influence on actions; yet it seldom occurs in social science.
• Conceptual utilisation is a more realistic way in which to view research impact; it is indirect, occurs over time, or, in other words, is less influential.

Taking the two above statements into account, research utilization from the social sciences into practice is expected to be weak.
This conclusion is also in line with studies investigating the way in which practice is informed. Weiss’s (1979) suggestion that research could be one among many other sources of knowledge usage is confirmed by the studies of DeMartini and Whitbeck (1986) and Patton et al (1977) in which they conclude that an experiential knowledge source is the most important in informing practice, and is followed by interpersonal and theoretical knowledge. Research into evidence-based practice or into the reasons why practice does not follow research findings also points out that professional habits, routines and norms, personal beliefs, and general resistance to change (Ben-Peretz, 1994/95; Caldwell, 1991; Kirk, 1999; Lomas, 1993) are often more powerful in shaping practices than are theories.¹⁰
In his explanation of why “the relations between theorist and practitioner of pedagogy have in general been neither close or highly productive”, Bolster (1983, p. 294) highlights again the difference that teachers, as practitioners, often operate in a particular situation and are interested in what could explain or work within that particular situation, while theorists are, in general, more interested in establishing general principles or defining/demonstrating the principles across similar situations. This could surely be regarded as a typical two-community explanation, yet it also points to the ultimate dilemma faced by social science – if context-specific is recognised as one of main characteristics of social science (Nowotny, Scott, & Gibbons, 2002) as well as multiple realities (implying that there is no absolute truth or universal principle), why are social scientists still interested in developing general principles or theory in general? From this point of view, the emphasis on the existence and prevalence of conceptual utilisation in social science might also be viewed as an excuse rather than a proper explanation. If teachers were naturally more interested in their particular situation and, if this interest also often accompanies a desire to find things that work in the specific situation, then the idea of instrument utilisation (at least in that specific context) should indeed be revived instead of abandoned or ignored. In the same vein, the meaning of theory, whether it could/should refer to a general principle only or whether it could also refer to an explanation that is context specific, might also need to be revisited.

DECLARTION 
AKNOWLEDGEMENT 
ETHICAL CLEARANCE
ABSTRACT
CONTENT
LIST OF FIGURES 
LIST OF TABLES
1 INTRODUCTION 
1.1 PURPOSE STATEMENT
1.2 BACKGROUND
1.3 RATIONALE AND UNIQUENESS OF THIS STUDY
1.4 EXPLANATION OF THE BOUNDARIES
1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.6 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.7METHODOLOGY
1.7.1 Paradigm, epistemological assumptions and research approach.
1.7.2 Research design
1.7.3 Research questions
1.7.4 Data collection
1.7.5 Data analysis
1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
1.9 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
1.10 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
2 THE PATTERNS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP – A LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.1 RESEARCH UTILISATION MODEL
2.2 HUBERMAN’S GENERAL MODEL
2.3 RESEARCHER/PRACTITIONER CONTEXT—WHAT INFLUENCES THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP?
2.4 EMPIRICALLY REPORTED RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
3 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS
3.2 RESEARCH APPROACH
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.4METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
3.5 THE RESEARCHER AS BOTH AN INSIDER AND OUTSIDER
3.6MEASURES OF VALIDATION
3.7 ETHICAL ISSUES
4. THE WAY IN WHICH DISSERTATION WRITERS DESCRIBE THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP
4.1 SAMPLING FRAME
4.2 TO WHAT EXTENT IS THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP REVEALED IN THE TEXT OF  THE DISSERTATIONS?
4.3 HOW DID THESE RESEARCHERS EXPERIENCE THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER ENGAGEMENT?
4.4 HOW DID RESEARCHERS REFLECT ON THEIR ENGAGEMENT WITH THEIR PARTICIPANTS?
4.5 SYNTHESIS
5 THE WAY IN WHICH DISSERTATION WRITERS AND THEIR PARTICIPANTS EXPERIENCE THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP
5.1 CASE 1 (CATEGORY I): FRANCIS—EXPLORING FACILITATION SKILLS IN ASSET-BASED TRANSDISCIPLINARY TEAMWORK (MASTERS)
5.2 CASE 2 (CATEGORY II) THABO –THE INFLUENCE OF CROSS-CULTURAL INTERVIEWING ON THE GENERATION OF DATA (MASTERS)
5.3 CASE 3 (CATEGORY III):  SEHLOLA– SIR, ON WHAT PAGE IS THE ANSWER? EXPLORING TEACHER DECISION-MAKING IN THE CONTEXT OF COMPLEX CURRICULUM CHANGE (PHD)
5.4 SYNTHESIS
5.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY
6 HOW EXPERIENCED RESEARCHERS AND THEIR PARTICIPANTS EXPERIENCE THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP
6.1 CASE 4: HENDRICKS—EXAMINING CAUSES OF DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS IN A SOUTH AFRICAN BOARDING SCHOOL
6.2 CASE 5: SANI—EXCEPTIONAL PATTERNS OF DESEGREGATION
6.3 SYNTHESIS
7 HOW MY PARTICIPANTS INTERACTED WITH ME 
7.1 RESEARCHER/PRACTITIONER CONTEXT
7.2 RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP
7.3 POWER HIERARCHY?
7.4 TRUST OR MISTRUST?
7.5 SYNTHESIS
8 RETHINKING THE RESEARCHER–PRACTITIONER RELATIONSHIP.
8.1 REVISITING THE FINDINGS
8.2 CONCLUSION
8.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.
8.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR RESEARCH PRACTICE
8.5 SIGNIFICANCE
8.6 CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT