The Power of Knowledge
The Power of Knowledge
Peer-reviewed, published research has been the cornerstone of growing bodies of knowledge for centuries. As far back as the 15th Century, journals published the work of their scholars so others could read, understand, and push past known boundaries (Ratcliff, 2015). Through published research, every new discovery can be disseminated among an author’s peers, challenged, corrected, and used as the foundation for the next new, deeper understanding. It is possible, however, for research to be misused, facts to be misrepresented, a subjective agenda supported, and ultimately to lose the objective trait on which scholars have come to depend.
In the area of educational research, more is pouring forth than the field has seen in the past. However, Hess (2008) noted concern that with so much research flooding into the field, it is becoming harder to make sure the quality of scholarly research does not falter. Hess argued that technology has made it possible for anyone to get published. This allows quasi-researchers and their pseudoscience to find their way into the world of academic publication, flaws and all, and with no one the wiser. Once out there, once available for consumption, it becomes impossible to know which publication has been truly reviewed and scrutinized and which simply carries an appropriate name, is properly printed, and has all the markings of legitimate work. Stover (2007) noted that, even though the quality of the research has been improving since studies in the previous decade (Hall, Ward, & Comer, 2001), problems still remain. Work is published that has not been thoroughly examined and undergone the scrutiny that should be the hallmark of peer-reviewed work. Instead, the field is subjected to research that is of poor quality, serves not as unbiased work but platforms on which agendas may be driven, or is intended only to advocate a specific belief, ideology, or system. Hall et al. went one step farther, however. They argued that up to 40 percent of the research available in a given year of inquiry (1983) “contained flaws sufficient to warrant rejecting the articles” (pp. 182). In other words, had the work been properly reviewed among peers and adequately challenged, it would have failed to meet the rigid standards assumed for quality publications. Hall et al. noted the most common failures appeared in the research procedure: validity, reliability, and design.
There was a time when the effects of poor quality research might have had greater limitations than seen today. However, as Stover (2007) noted, the advancements in technology have made accessing information – even misinformation – easy and fast. Although educational research may have struggled for quality since the 1970’s (Hall et al., 2001), its distribution was limited. That is no longer the case. Policy makers and those who serve them are completing their own research, hiring others to do it, self-publishing and completely by-passing the world of academia that has for years been both the source of and integrity-police for research Hess, 2008). This practically ensures that unbiased work based on objective scientific study will be mixed indiscriminately with agenda-driven papers which generally lack the scholarly objectivity they are presumed to have. This alone gives a false sense of security among those who are trying to make decisions and formulate policies (Hall et al.). Despite the push for improved quality in education research, a financially limited science community is now forced to compete with political machines pushing specific ideas with nearly-limitless budgets. Furthermore, with the ease of publication there is a growing misconception that research is readily available to meet specific needs (Hess, 2008). This has resulted in a “growing demand for policy-relevant research” (p. 535) creating a vacuum being quickly filled by biased or self-promoting researchers producing unreliable research.
The poor quality of today’s research and the unlimited options to publish research without the rigor of legitimate peer-review creates even greater complications when the many uses for research are better understood. As has been the case for many years, scientific research shapes, guides, and even justifies policy (Stover, 2007). If the quality of the research cannot be controlled such that there is certainty policy-makers are presented with objective scientific work, then the information used to create policy may be flawed and the policy itself flawed. It is unfortunate, however, that those people who are driven by money, agenda, or ideology may have little regard for the long-term consequences of their poorly-completed work, specifically the ill-informed decisions resulting from it. Scientific research is not always easily read and understood, readily available, or able to be summarized in a catchy sound byte. Stover argues, though, that if legitimate work is to compete with lesser efforts, then there must be some attempt to ensure it is presented to the right people in the right way to be understandable and relevant (Stover). But presented by whom? If the author himself is driven by self-interest, is it not reasonable to assume the presenters may be as well (Hess, 2008). Hess would argue, instead, that end-users should take it upon themselves to be better informed about research design and therefore able to differentiate between work that is and is not of appropriate quality. It may be unreasonable, however, to expect those in positions to make decisions to inherently know if this piece of research is legitimate but this is not.
Hess (2008) noted that significant among the many problems plaguing educational research is a cultural need for immediate gratification. Education problems are both deep and broad, have no immediate fix, and must be understood with appreciation for the long-terms effects of policy development. Instead, both researchers and policymakers are eager to take immediate action resulting in knee-jerk responses to vastly complicated issues (Hess, 2008).
References
Hall B. W., Ward A. W., and Comer B. C. (2001). Published Educational Research: An Empirical Study of its quality. Journal of Educational Research 2001. Print.
Hess, F. M. (2008). When Education Research Matters. Social Science and Public Policy,
45:534-539. Springer Science + Business Media.
Ratcliff, R. (2015). Impact of research: 350 years of publishing from the world’s oldest science journal – in pictures. The Guardian [online]. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/gallery/2015/feb/12/philosophical-transactions-of-the-royal-society-350-years-of-science-publishing-in-pictures
Stover, D. (2007). Politics and Research. American School Board Journal, November 2007.
