Stemhagen and Nomi argued that the influence of many contemporary forms of education research, especially scientifically based research, inevitably position teachers as problems rather than as active agents whose judgement is indivisible from the activity of teaching and learning. We share the authors’ intuitions and concerns about the divide between research and teaching but also wonder if there remains another way into some of the concerns they raise. We start with a different question but one we think is fundamental to Stemhagen and Nomi’s critique: How do the findings of empirical research make their way into the work of teaching? By answering this question, we hope to reframe the authors’ concerns and reconsider their recommendation that teachers become participatory action researchers. It is distressing that practitioners and researchers have not yet found ways (despite the insights of John Dewey and other theorist and practitioners over more than a century) to substantively account for each others’ growing understanding because both the wisdom of practice and the pursuit of scientific insight are central to the effective and generative practice of educating children and adults.
Response to Article
Kurt Stemhagen and Brionna C. Nomi, Scientifically Based Research and Teacher Agency: Combating “Conspiracies of Certainty”
Neel, M. A.
, Stengel, B. S.
The Wisdom of Practice Meets the Pursuit of Scientific Inquiry. A Response to "Scientifically Based Research and Teacher Agency: Combating 'Conspiracies of Certainty'".
Democracy and Education,
(2), Article 7.
Available at: https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol30/iss2/7