Education researchers seek to collaborate via new media

May 1, 2009

aero

The Ontario Educational Research Organization (AERO) is working with a government group (Ontario Educational Research Panel) to coordinate resources and build virtual spaces for education researchers to collaborate. The hope is to use new communication tools, including Twitter, to facilitate networking.

Chris Conley has set up @ResearchChat to “support educational researchers by posting events and resources and networking,” and asks whether any similar groups would like to coordinate resources.

Chris envisions educational research discussions akin to #educhat and #journchat and would like to hear from interested researchers or organizations. (For example, many people contributed to the #AERA Twitter stream at the recent annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association).

Chris says, “the possibility for international discussions are pretty exciting and could lead to some interesting collaborations in educational research.” I agree.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by paul

Communicating about education research

October 22, 2008

Jeffrey Henig

Education has gotten short shrift during the debates in this election cycle.
Am I surprised?   Nope.
But communicating about education research with media outlets, bloggers, educators, and policymakers will form an important topic at a series of meetings in D.C. this week sponsored by the American Educational Research Association (AERA).
With other members of the Communications & Outreach committee, I will meet with members of the AERA Technology Committee and the Professional Development committee to talk about long range communication plans.
And I’m really looking forward to hearing a presentation Friday by ‘Spin Cycle’  author Jeffrey Henig, whose scheduled talk is titled, “Must research used be research abused?  Why cool research gets into hot waters.”

From Spin Cycle:
“I’ve argued that the demands and dictates of politics make it problematic whether good research will trump weaker studies…. Researchers have some responsibility in remedying this. Ironically, they need to do so by framing their claims about the importance of research more realistically, which means more modestly. At the same time we sound the call for improved research designs and investment in the infrastructure of data, we need to be educating the media, funders, policy makers, and public more about the limitations of research…. When funders or the media say they need a sharp and definitive and broadly stated lesson, we sometimes need to hold our ground and say that available evidence permits only tentative, contingent, and qualified conclusions.” pp. 243-244

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by paul

Book review: Evaluating Research Centers

August 18, 2008

Evaluating Research Centers and Institutes for Success: A Manual and Guide with Case Studies
William R. Tash
WT & Associates, 2006. 229 pages

There are more than 14,000 research centers in the US.
University research centers, non-profit institutes, government and corporate laboratories, and multi-unit research organizations perform over half of all applied research, says William R. Tash. He offers “Evaluating Research Centers and Institutes for Success” as “a guidebook for research unit directors, vice presidents for research, sponsored projects managers, funding officers, government officials, policy analysts, research administrators, graduate and professional educators.”

The book outlines how to evaluate center-sponsored science, including medical, educational, economic, engineering, agricultural, and interdisciplinary research.

Tash, also author of 2008’s Strategic Planning for Success and 2007’s Planning, Funding, and Evaluating Nanotechnology Research Centers and Initiatives, presents a systematic way for research directors, laboratory operators, and senior managers to apply a comprehensive and strategic evaluation model to their research units, and to educate stakeholders about the importance of evaluation from a number of perspectives and measures.

Tash says that it’s essential to determine the focus of the evaluation. A center might be assessed on its ability to attain short-term and long-range goals, time spent on preparing proposals, award ratios, the ability to adapt to changes in science, contributions to regional and national needs, balance between direct or latent outputs, and efficiency of center organization in achieving multidisciplinary outcomes.

The manual includes explanations, questionnaires, templates, and forms that a center director can use to measure things like ratios of expenditures to income, efficiencies of operation, attaining research objectives, technological impacts, social and economic change, client satisfaction, staff-to-faculty ratios, extent of applied-to-basic research, and proportion of time devoted to educational activities and other mandated activities.

Illustrative case studies include Wayne State University’s review of its Automotive Research Center and a recent Temple University self-evaluation intended to decrease the size of some centers.

Tash discusses politics as well: Issues that have pitted a University Provost against a center director, how an unusually large grant turned one center upside-down and led to dismissals, and how research faculty do or don’t align their own research priorities with those of the center.

Above all, Tash says, the audience of the evaluation report should know why your center is unique and essential to the growth of your research university, state, and region.

My only quibble with this rich resource is the surprising lack of attention given to proofreading, copy editing, and consistency of page formatting.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by paul