23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Evidence-Based Teaching Interventions: a Critical Discourse Analysis of their Impact on Teachers’ Abilities to Develop Diverse Pedagogies
Jacklyn Barry
University of Plymouth, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Barry, Jacklyn
The movement ‘toward the use of evidence in education in Europe’ (Pellegrini and Vivanet, 2021) is ubiquitous in England. Despite the ongoing and polarising debate about the value and meaning of evidence-based policy and practice, schools attempt to fulfil the expectations set out by policy makers who promote the use of scientific evidence (Wiseman et al., 2010:1). In doing so, school leaders often allocate a portion of their limited funds to evidence-based teaching interventions with many time-poor settings turning to commercially available packaged products. These are bought with the intention of making education more effective, or doing ‘what works’ in the classroom (Biesta, 2020:51), a concept made prevalent by the view that the medical-model can provide the solution to all of the problems in education (Biesta, 2010:492).
As a result, to ‘affect a scientific legitimacy’, intervention products can often draw on neuroscience, cognitive science and/or psychology (Geake, 2009:1) as is the case with products such as Building Learning Power and the Thrive approach (Claxton, 2002; Thrive, 2021).
In the past, intervention products such as these have been added to teacher pedagogy, only to find that the theories on which they rely have later been questioned. For example, it is argued that the mandated method of teaching phonics in early years and primary education ‘is not sufficiently underpinned by research evidence’ (Wyse & Bradbury, 2022:1). This situation is not uncommon. A further example is the wide-spread practice in the 2000s of tailoring teaching to support students’ individual learning styles, the basis of which is now considered to be a neuromyth and is widely discredited (Kirschner, 2016). While the teaching of learning styles has abated, the effects, mainly the misconception that one has a particular mode of learning, remain (Sumeraki and Kaminske, 2020). It is important that we consider the possible effects that readily adopting evidence-based strategies such as these can have, not just on students and their learning but, on teachers and their teaching.
This problem is especially topical as in recent years, the government in England has allocated more than a billion pounds ‘catch up funding’ for learning interventions in primary and secondary schools across the country (DfE,2020b). The use of such interventions is expected to help address the many hours of lost teaching time experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic (DfE, 2020a; DfE,2020b). Given the instability in which education has been operating, more knowledge is needed to better understand how these evidence-based products, in which our schools both trust and invest, come to be used. Understanding the processes through which learning science makes its way from the research into teaching practice could help us to understand the incentive for its use and, if deemed appropriate, implement it more effectively.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedI am currently in the final stage of my doctoral study, in which I have been investigating the relationship between evidence and teaching pedagogy, specifically through how information is presented and changed. Within a critical discourse analysis methodology, I have drawn on Bernstein’s theories on the structuring of pedagogic discourse, specifically the process of recontextualization (Bernstein, 1990), to explore the notion of evidence-based practice as it applies to teacher knowledge and identity.
I questioned the use of ‘brain-based’ (Geake, 2009) interventions and what their use might suggest about the evidence that is perceived as valuable and how that might be being transferred in schools in England. To investigate this process, I conducted key informant interviews with four members of staff involved in converting research into practice in four primary schools. I spoke to teaching assistants, teachers, curriculum leads, governors and special education needs coordinators. Following these interviews, I have drawn on Fairclough’s discourse analysis framework to consider each participant’s ‘relation to knowledge, their relation with others, and their relation with themselves’ (Fairclough, 2003:29).
It is argued that ‘to research meaning-making, one needs to look at interpretations of texts as well as texts themselves’ (Fairclough, 2003: 15) and so I have also collected and analysed ten pieces of documentary data which gives insight into evidence-based interventions which have been, or are currently being, used in English schools.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsCurrently, I am well positioned to prepare a presentation which details my initial findings around the effects of evidence-based interventions on the perceptions of teachers’ profession, professionalism, and professionality.
Early indications are that the reliance on these types of evidence-based interventions is a form of ‘complexity reduction’ (Biesta, 2020:40), one which draws from a specific form of knowledge and which arguably seeks to provide certainty in education. At this point, I am considering how policymakers’ emphasis on evidence-based practice and interventions could be leading to ’a narrowing of what counts as educational knowledge’ with the effect of potentially ‘deprofessionalising teachers’ (Hordern, 2019:2). A possible result is that in reducing complexity, the range of pedagogies available to teachers is limited. With fewer strategies from which to draw there is an impact on teachers' ability to adapt to the unique contexts and diverse students which they support.
ReferencesBernstein, B. (1990) Class, Codes and Control Volume IV: The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse, Routledge, New York.
Biesta, G. (2010) Why ‘what works’ still won’t work: from evidence-based education to value-based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29, pp. 491-503.
Biesta, G (2020) Educational research: An Unorthodox Introduction, Bloomsbury, London.
Claxton, G. (2002) Building Learning Power, TLO Limited, Bristol.
Department for Education, (2020a) Guidance: Coronavirus (Covid-19) catch-up premium, available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-catch-up-premium [accessed 18/09/2020].
Department for Education, (2020b) Billion pound Covid catch-up plan to tackle impact of lost teaching time, available at: Billion pound Covid catch-up plan to tackle impact of lost teaching time - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) [accessed 15/01/2022].
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research, Routledge, Oxon.
Geake, J. (2009) The Brain at School: Educational Neuroscience in the Classroom. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Hordern, J. (2019) Knowledge, Evidence, and the Configuration of Educational Practice, Education Sciences, 9(70), pp. 1-11.
Kirschner, P.A. (2016) Stop propagating the learning styles myth, Computers & Education, 106 (1), pp. 166-171.
Pellegrini, M. and Vivanet, G. (2021) Evidence-Based Policies in Education: Initiatives and Challenges in Europe, ECNU Review of Education, 4(1), pp. 25-45.
Thrive (2021) About Thrive, Available at: About Thrive and our approach to wellbeing - The Thrive Approach [Accessed on 18/05/2021].
Wisemen, A., Whitty, G., Tobin, J. and Tsui, A. (2010) The use of evidence for educational policymaking: global contexts and international trends. Review of Research in Education, 34, pp. 1-24.
Wyse, D. and Bradbury, A. (2022) Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers’ practices for teaching phonics and reading, Review of Education, 10, pp. 1-53.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Exploring the Use of Evidence in Education Reform: The Case of Colombia’s 20-Years Pathway Towards School Autonomy With Accountability
Tomás Esper
Teachers College, Columbia University, United States of America
Presenting Author: Esper, Tomás
Over the last two decades, a new reform agenda towards School Autonomy with Accountability (SAWA) has spread globally, transforming school governance around the world (Verger et al., 2019). The SAWA agenda aims to transfer decision-making from central levels to schools while establishing accountability mechanisms and common standards as monitoring instruments of school performance (Verger et al., 2019). Advocated by OECD (2011) and the World Bank (Arcia et al., 2011), both developed and developing countries have progressively adopted the main tenets of this reform. In this context, Colombia arises as one of the few Latin American countries that has transformed its system along the SAWA agenda. However, what differentiates Colombia's case from others is its piecemeal and incremental approach: the reform was progressively adopted over the last 20 years and throughout three different waves marked by three presidential administrations: under Álvaro Uribe (2002-2010), Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2018) and Iván Duque (2018-2022).
The study of policy diffusion has gained large scholarly attention across different disciplines, as globalization has accelerated the spread of global reforms (Wimmer, 2021). What puzzles scholars researching traveling reforms is why countries from different regions, with divergent institutional trajectories or inscribed in varying contexts seem to adopt similar policies (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). Policy diffusion has been explained by different and sometimes overlapping mechanisms, such as competition among countries, coercion from international organizations, normative emulation of global scripts, or policy learning from ‘best practices’ (Dobbin et al., 2007). In particular international organizations have been central to diffusion studies in education, considered carriers of global templates (Ramirez, 2012), or been responsible for transformations due to aid conditionality (Hossain, 2022).
At the same time, policymaking has moved towards evidence-based regulation, which means showing that decisions are not purely politically driven but also evidence-based (Maroy, 2012). A growing body of literature has looked into the knowledge architecture behind policy reforms (Baek et al., 2020), as well as the role of international organizations as knowledge brokers for policy diffusion (Waldow & Steiner-Khamsi, 2019). Arguably, the choice of certain evidence and knowledge sources is indicative of important dimensions of the policy process, such as the problem-framing and selection of potential solutions (Haas, 1992), neglected by scholars who have focused on policy coalitions (Kingdon, 1984), actors' motivations, and interests (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003) or supranational coercion or emulation (Dobbin et al., 2007) when studying reforms adoption. Clearly, what sources are chosen from all available data and what actually counts as evidence and knowledge can uncover the ideological affiliation, sources of legitimacy, and policy preferences behind a policy reform adoption.
In this particular case, the first question I explore is what type of knowledge has Colombia used through the years to justify the adoption of SAWA? In other words, what has been, if any, the linkage between the different administrations when planning and implementing changes in education? Secondly, in the context of a global movement towards evidence-based policy, how has the use of knowledge changed during the last 20 years? To answer these questions, I aim to explore the knowledge sources used by Colombia’s policymakers over the years to justify and inform the reform adoption as well as how these sources have shaped the Colombian policy discourse around education. By studying the use of knowledge and the authorship of those sources, I intend to contribute to the understanding of a key dimension behind the policy diffusion process like the role of ‘reference societies’ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2016) and ‘sources of legitimacy’ (Edwards et al., 2018), as well as their role in the context of global policy diffusion. often steered as key determinants of reform adoption.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedColombia's policymaking is a highly technical and hierarchical procedure, where different government agencies create policy and research reports, long-term planning documents, and policy programs. Hence, to answer the research questions, I looked into all the education-related documents from Colombia’s government for the 2002-2022 period and analyzed their respective citations. In this case, similar to Baek et al., (2018), I focused on ‘official policy knowledge’, using documents published by the National Council of Social and Economic Policy, the National Planning Department, and the National Ministry of Education. In total, I retrieved 25 documents. From each of the documents, I coded all the references and authors into a single database. I entered a total of 1233 citations divided into three reform waves linked to the different administrations: 552 citations from wave I, 177 from wave II, and 504 from wave III. In addition to the quantitative analysis of measuring the frequency of citations, I coded different attributes for all documents: (i) year of publication, (ii) publisher or institutional affiliation of the author, (iii) location of publication, and if authors or publishers were international government organizations (IGOs). From the database, I have created a text-based network analysis (Borgatti et al., 2013) to examine both the social structure of policy discourse and to interpret the different resulting knowledge networks.
To analyze the data, I used the software program UCINET 6.289 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) to create the database and generate descriptive statistics. Then, the program NetDraw 2.097 enabled me to visualize the relationships between the documents in the data set. I created a 2-modes network of documents and their references, followed by a 2-mode network of documents and authors. The rationale for going beyond documents and creating an authors-documents network lies in the key role actors have in policy discourse formation. In the context of Colombia’s incremental adoption of the SAWA agenda advanced by the OECD and the World Bank and the fact that Colombia became an OECD member in 2018, one would expect a growing presence of these IGOs throughout the documents. Yet, the interest is not just the frequency with which these or other authors are cited, but also how important they are in the context of the knowledge architecture of Colombia’s ecosystem. For this, I calculated an ‘in-degree’ centrality measure from both authors and documents. This measure captures the total of incoming citations for a given author or document.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn line with the movement towards evidence-based regulation (Maroy, 2012), Colombia’s policy documents relied more frequently on citations across the reform waves. Where in the first wave (2002-2010) each document had on average 45 citations, whereas on the third wave (2018-2022), the citations average was 126. In addition, all documents in the last reform wave had a separate reference list section on top of footnotes, which didn’t happen in the two first periods.
The network of the source-documents and their respective cited documents shows an incohesive network with clusters of sources and cited documents in each reform wave. First, this means that each reform period draws knowledge from highly specialized sources. Second, only a few citations bridge the different reform waves. In spite of the lack of connexions across reform periods, Colombia’s overall direction moved towards the incremental adoption and consolidation of the SAWA agenda throughout different administrations.
When compared to the network of source documents and cited authors, this network is not only more dense and cohesive but also shows a high number of authors being repeatedly cited across different source documents and reform waves. First, Colombia’s government bodies rank at the top of cited authors, showing a clear focus on its own knowledge to justify and create reforms. Second, the OECD ranks fourth as the most cited author, appearing in all reform periods and more often since 2014, after Colombia’s accession process started in 2013. Lastly, degree centrality shows the National Planning Department and the National Ministry of Education as the most central actors, followed by the OECD and the World Bank. These initial findings highlight the importance of both domestic and global sources in policy diffusion while further content analysis of most cited documents will reveal new insights about the knowledge used for SAWA adoption in Colombia.
ReferencesArcia, G., Macdonald, K., Patrinos, H. A., & Porta, E. (2011). School Autonomy and Accountability. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21546
Baek, C., Hörmann, B., Karseth, B., Pizmony-Levy, O., Sivesind, K., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2018). Policy learning in Norwegian school reform: A social network analysis of the 2020 incremental reform. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 4(1), 24–37.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzings Social Networks. Routledge.
Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. (2007). The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 449–472.
Edwards, D. B., Okitsu, T., Da Costa, R., & Kitamura, Y. (2018). Organizational legitimacy in the global education policy field: Learning from UNESCO and the global monitoring report. Comparative Education Review, 62(1), 31–63. https://doi.org/10.1086/695440
Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
Hossain, M. (2022). Diffusing ‘“ Destandardization ”’ Reforms across Educational Systems in Low- and Middle- Income Countries: The Case of the World Bank , 1965 to 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407221109209
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Agenda-Setting: Policy determinants, policy ideas, and policy windows. In M. Howlett & M. Ramesh, Studying Public Policy. Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems (pp. 120–142). Oxford University Press.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown.
OECD. (2011). School Autonomy and Accountability: Are They Related to Student Performance? OECD.
Ramirez, F. O. (2012). The world society perspective: Concepts, assumptions, and strategies. Comparative Education, 48(4), 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.693374
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). Comparing the Receptions and Translations of Global Education Policy, Understanding the Logic of Educational Systems. In T. D. Jules (Ed.), The Global Educational Policy Environment in the Fouth Industrial Revolution (Vol. 26, pp. 35–57). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Parceriza, L. (2019). Constructing School Autonomy with Accountability as a Global Policy Model: A Focus on OECD’s Governance Mechanisms. In The OECD’s Historical Rise in Education.
Waldow, F., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2019). Understanding PISA’s Attractiveness: Critical Analyses in Comparative Policy Studies. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Wimmer, A. (2021). Domains of Diffusion: How Culture and Institutions Travel around the World and with What Consequences. American Journal of Sociology, 126(6), 1389–1438.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Dialogic Public Policies. Successful scale-up of evidence based educational practices in Portugal.
Aitor Gomez1, Garazi Alvarez2, Maria Vieites Casado3, Susana Leon-Jimenez4
1Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain; 2University of Deusto; 3University of Barcelona; 4University of Barcelona
Presenting Author: Vieites Casado, Maria
Scientific research shows the necessity of implement educative reforms and practices based on scientific evidence (Slavin et al., 2021; European Commission, 2007). The challenge identified by Elmore (1996) decades ago, and other authors (Cohen-Vogel et al., 2015) on successful replication of larger educational scale projects remains understudied. Top-down approaches developed by most Public educative Administrations are achieving limited deep and long-lasting transformations specially by the lack of shift in ownership (Coburn, 2003). This means that the educational policy is feel as external, controlled by the public authorities, instead of an own transformation of practices that schools are able to sustain and spread.
This contribution advances knowledge to demonstrate that on one hand, to scale-up educational practices based on scientific evidence with social impact contribute to this shift of ownership and, on the other hand, shows the benefits of dialogic policy process implementation where this evidence is recreated in egalitarian dialogue with all the stakeholders.
The objective of the research was to understand the Portuguese case of implementation of educational policies co-created with the educational community based on the best scientific evidence with social impact. And the research question was to identify the improvements for students, families, trainers and teachers involved in this dialogic co-creation and implementation.
The paper presents the case of the Ministry of Education in Portugal that has promoted the implementation of dialogic policies (Álvarez et al., 2020) based on scientific research with social impact (Sordé et al., 2020). Meaning that it has been a sustained effort to stablish an egalitarian dialogue between decision makers, centres of professional teacher development, schools, families, and other beneficiaries of the policy and that this dialogue have been based on the scientific evidence that achieves the best results.
The Directorate General of Education has promoted since 2017 the implementation of Successful Educational Actions (SEAs) and the training of trainers in those actions. SEAs were identified through the INCLUD-ED research (FP6, 2006-2011), coordinated by CREA (Community of Research in Excellence for All), which analysed case studies and European education systems in which students with low SES were achieving the best educational and socio-emotional development outcomes. These actions, based on dialogic learning and educational participation of the community (Flecha, 2015) have already demonstrated a broad social impact (Morla-Folch et al., 2022), sustained over time and transferred to many different contexts.
This paper will present, on one hand, the dialogic methods used to co-construct the scale; It will explain how the constant and equal dialogue between the different stakeholders was established both, in the training of trainers and in the implementation of the schools, to recreate these SEAs in each of the contexts (Vieites et al., 2021). On the other hand, will present evidence of social impact (improvement) in the professional and personal development of the trainers and in the teachers, students, families and communities in which those SEAs were implemented. It is worth mentioning that the Ministry of Portugal chose to scale up these actions first in schools categorised as TEIP, which stands in Portuguese for Educational Territories of Priority Intervention. Despite the complexity of the territories and the great impact of the COVID pandemic, the results are very positive and may help other policy makers to reflect on the content and the form in which reforms are implemented.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research was carried out using a Communicative Methodology (Gomez et al., 2011) in both, the research design and the collection and analysis of data, which implies an intersubjective and egalitarian dialogue among all potential participants involved in the communities and realities being studied (Roca, Merodio, Gomez & Rodriguez-Oramas, 2022). The Communicative Methodology is recognized at international level by two clear contributions. First, its orientation to social transformation and second, a research design based on a communicative organization of the research (co-creation process) between researchers, research participants, social agents and policy makers (Munte, Serradell & Sorde, 2011).
Participants and development
The Portuguese Ministry of Education started the pilot implementation in 11 School Clusters (30 schools) in 2017. Following its social and educational success, extended the project in 2019 to 41 more Clusters (157 schools) reaching more than 8,000 students and 1,300 teachers with the support of Structural reform funds of the EC. Also, 36 trainers were trained for 180 hours in SEAs by CREA.
Data collection techniques
- Official evaluation data provided by the Portuguese Ministry of Education.
- Survey of the 157 schools involved in the SEAs scale.
- Reports submitted by the 36 trainers trained in SEAs.
- Eight semi-structured interviews with a communicative orientation on the reports delivered to eight trainers who had also implemented the SEAs in the schools to which they belonged.
Communicative data analysis
The data was analysed using the transformative and exclusionary dimensions of the Communicative Methodology. Emerging categories were created and applied to categorize all qualitative data following the main obstacles and barriers detected during the work (exclusionary dimension) and the ways to overcome it (transformative dimension) (Pulido, Elboj, Campdepadrós & Cabré, 2014).
Ethics
To protect the identity of each participant, pseudonyms were used throughout the coding and analysis process. Consent forms were signed by all participants with detailed information of the research and the possibility to withdraw from the research at any time. The research passes the evaluation of the Ethics committee at CREA, that is in line with the with the Ethics Appraisal Procedure required by the EC. Finally, the research also complies with the Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the EU new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe scale of this policy based on scientific evidence, which has been discussed in egalitarian dialogue and recreated by all stakeholders involved, has proven to generate ownership of the policy by schools, teachers, and families, with no sense of top-down imposition.
The data analysis reveals relevant results in three domains a) The dialogical methods used for scaling b) The professional and personal gains reported by the trainers c) The positive benefits for the teachers, students, families, and the community where SEAs were implemented.
In the first domain, the data analysed reveal the existence of a continuous multidirectional dialogue between all educational agents (public administration, teachers, head-teachers, trainers, researchers, educational community) at different times and in different spaces, which allows the SEAS to be re-created in each context, favouring the maintenance of the social impact previously demonstrated. A dialogue that has been identified as egalitarian, improvement-oriented and based on the discussion of the best scientific evidence of social impact.
Regarding the capacities created in the country to extend the policy, trainers reported professional improvements related to empowerment and leadership skills. Improved educational practices now based on scientific evidence and therefore on a dialogic conception of learning. Improved collaboration between teachers, and a new creation of meaning for the teaching profession. The trainers who participated in the interviews and in the report, writing was not asked about personal improvements, although these did appear as an emerging category. Thus, transformations in personal relationships, improvement of self-concept, new dreams, values, and feelings, as well as a dialogical turn in their personal lives were reported.
Finally, the promotion of this policy in the schools had a positive impact on students' academic performance, inclusion, and socio-emotional development; a reduction of conflicts in the participant´s school; and a clear increase of family and community involvement.
ReferencesÁlvarez, G., Aiello, E., Aubert, A., García, T., Torrens, X., & Vieites, M. (2020). The dialogic public policy: A successful case. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(8–9), 1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420938886
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking Scale: Moving Beyond Numbers to Deep and Lasting Change. Educational Researcher, 32(6),3-12. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X032006003
Cohen-Vogel, L., Tichnor-Wagner, A., Allen, D., Harrison, C., Kainz, K., Socol, A. R., & Wang, Q. (2015). Implementing Educational Innovations at Scale: Transforming Researchers into Continuous Improvement Scientists. Educational Policy, 29(1), 257-277. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904814560886
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.
European Commission. (2007). Towards more knowledge-based policy and practice in education and training [Commission Staff Working Document SEC 2007.1098]. European Commission.
Flecha, R. (Ed.). (2015). Successful educational actions for inclusion and social cohesion in Europe. Springer.
Gomez, A., Puigvert, L., & Flecha, R. (2011). Critical communicative methodology: Informing real social transformation through research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 235–245.
Morlà-Folch, T., Renta A.I., Padrós, M., & Valls-Carol, R. (2022) A research synthesis of the impacts of successful educational actions on student outcomes. Educational Research Review, 37, 100482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100482.
Munte, A., Serradell, O., & Sorde, T. (2011). From Research to Policy: Roma Participation Through Communicative Organization. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 256–266. doi: 10.1177/1077800410397804.
Pulido, C., Elboj, C., Campdepadrós, R., & Cabré, J. (2014). Exclusionary and Transformative Dimensions Communicative Analysis Enhancing Solidarity Among Women to Overcome Gender Violence. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(7), 889–894. doi: 10.1177/1077800414537212.
Roca, E., Merodio, G., Gomez, A., & Rodriguez-Oramas, A. (2022). Egalitarian Dialogue Enriches Both Social Impact and Research Methodologies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221074442.
Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A. C. K., & Zhuang (庄腾腾), T. (2021). How Could Evidence-Based Reform Advance Education? ECNU Review of Education, 4(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120976060.
Sordé, T., Flecha, R., Rodríguez, J. A., & Condom-Bosch, J. L. (2020). Qualitative inquiry: A key element for assessing the social impact of research. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(8–9), 948–954. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1077800420938117.
Vieites Casado, M.; Flecha, A.; Catalin Mara, L. (2021). Dialogic Methods for Scalability of Successful Educational Actions in Portugal. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211020165.
|
