Recently, educational researchers seem fascinated with the type of knowledge science creates. The acme of educational research is to create universally generalisable theories leading from quantifiable, replicable results. In other words: application of the scientific method. Yet this seems ludicrous: taking the trappings of one system and uncritically applying it to another. Many projects ignore the philosophy of science and purpose of science - to create a specific type of knowledge for a specific endeavour - and apply the tools to projects for which they are not suited. For example, the double-blind trial is suitable for analysing knowledge creation but not in examining what happens to students when we teach. The latter case has so many variables - how the tutor is feeling, what they are thinking whilst they teach, what they have read, how the students respond to the lesson emotionally etc - that the requirement of reproducibility becomes absurd.
I can see why educational research has taken on the tools of science. In one sense, it is an attempt at gaining authority. Yet, this highlights another fact: the hegemony of the scientific method eclipses all other epistemologies. In other words, our society currently values those knowledges which were created through the scientific method almost the the exclusion of all others. Educational research, it seems, in a vain grasp at being "taken seriously" has taken the trappings of this method and applied it uncritically. I am not advocating that such approaches are unsuitable for educational research but that the techniques we employ in researching education should be matched to our project; no matter what techniques or methodologies we use we should choose critically -rather than by default.
