Considering Scholarly Practitioners as Translational

Researchers

Bryan Maughan, University of Idaho

Debby Zambo, Associate Director CPED

Tricia Browne-Ferrigno, University of Kentucky

Presentation at the 2014 CPEC convening

Session OverviewGuiding Questions [25 minutes]

What is translational research?

Why is it needed in education?

Who are translational researchers?

How do translational researchers engage the system?

What does their training entail and promote?

Group Work [25 minutes]

Share Out [20 minutes]

Closing Reflection [10 minutes]

Theory Practice

Challenges: Research is Typically

Not Accessible or UseableReasons for the “knowing-doing gap” (Ball, 2013) • Research is often inaccessible to those who need

it.

• Research is often not aimed at the public good because large-scale solutions do not address the problems that matter most.

• Practitioners and policymakers rarely engage in research that informs their work.

• No forum exists for collaboration among educational practitioners, policymakers, and researchers.

Translational Research Originated in Medical Field:

Typically Two Types

1. Applying discoveries generated during basic laboratory research to the development of trials and studies in humans (i.e., cross the laboratory to human divide in quick and efficient manner).

2. Developing research aimed at enhancing the adoption and understanding of promising practices in the community, such as cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment strategies (i.e., cross the laboratory to community divide in a cost effective manner).

Translational research is DIFFERENT from

both basic and applied research because it

• includes “action steps”

• forms partnerships with the community

• generates co-authored interventions and measures of effectiveness

Given these ideas, the TRAINING of translational

researchers often entails • Common and individualized

curricula with problem-based, critical thinking foci

• Transdisciplinary work

• Mentoring

Scholarly Practitioners

• Blend practical wisdom with professional skills and knowledge to name, frame, and solve problems of practice.

• Use practical research and applied theories as tools for change because they understand the importance of equity and social justice.

• Disseminate their work in multiple ways.

• Have an obligation to resolve problems of practice by collaborating with key stakeholders, including the university, the educational institution, the community, and individuals.

Analytical

Theory

Scholarly Practition

er

Normative

Practice

• CRAFT or TACIT KNOWLEDGE (Polanyi,

1966)

• CULTURE KNOWLEDGE (Choo, 1996; Wenger et al., 2002)

• TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE (Choo, 1996; Labaree, 2003)

Translates into…

2. Analytical

(Reflective and Intuitive Connectedness)

1. Normative

• Reflection•Introspection•Critique•Personal voice (Bulterman-Bos, 2008)

3. Wisdom of Practice

Holistic Systems Thinking

Today

The Knowledge

System

Feedback Loop

Future

Inputs

Reflection

OutputsThroughputs

Knowledge Domains

Break-Out Questions: How can we encourage scholarly

practitioners to . . . Ask pragmatic questions about teaching, learning, policy, and environments required to conduct research and use tools appropriate for making critical decisions? That is, adopt cultural orientations that lead to problem finding that is normative and analytical, personal and intellectual, particular and universal, experiential and theoretical (Bulterman-Bos, 2008; Labaree, 2003) [Group 1 with Debby]

Became better reflective thinkers able to address problems of practice? [Group 2 with Bryan]

Work together on transdisciplinary teams or teams across multiple institutions (i.e., form network improvement communities)? [Group 3 with Tricia]

While in Small Groups

• Brainstorm ideas to answer your overarching question (and other questions)

• Create a poster that captures your group’s ideas

• Select reporter(s) to share your work with the entire group

Closing Reflection

What have you learned today about developing scholarly practitioners

who can act as translational researchers?

References Ball, A. (2013). To know is not enough: Knowledge, power and the zone of

generativity. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 283-293.

Bulterman-Bos, J.A. (2008). Will a clinical approach make education research more relevant for practice? Educational Researcher, 37(7), 412-420.

Choo, C. W. (2006). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). CGS Task Force report on the professional doctorate. Washington, DC: Author.

Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13-22.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41(155), 1-18.

Smith, J. S., & Helfenbein, R.J . (2009). Translational research in education. In W. S. Gershon (Ed.), The collaborative turn: Working together in qualitative research (pp. 89-102). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.