Keith S.
Taber
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK. E-mail: kst24@cam.ac.uk
Indeed there is something rather tautological about the whole notion of a field, as in effect the field is defined by those people who are recognised (by the field) as having authority in that field. To refer to some idea as being canonical in a field (that matter is composed of submicroscopic particles; that students often bring alternative conceptions about chemical phenomena to class) is to make a claim about what is generally agreed upon by those who are considered to be active within that field – where those best placed to judge who should be considered active within a field…are those who are themselves active in the field! So deciding what counts as public knowledge in say chemistry, or in chemistry education, may not be as clear-cut and easily determined as the term ‘public knowledge’ may imply (Taber, 2013). There is then something of a self-referential process – or to put a more positive spin upon it, a dialectical process – from which fields, and their contents, emerge.
Many of those teaching chemistry in universities around the world consider themselves (quite rightly) as practitioners of chemistry education. However, contributing to the research field requires an engagement with the current state of knowledge, shared concepts and accepted methodologies in the field. Unfortunately the journal regularly receives submissions that report (what authors suggest is) a good idea for teaching some topic, or moot some new approach for conceptualising some aspect of chemistry, or suggest innovative laboratory work, but which make minimal engagement with previous related research and scholarship in the field. Chemistry Education Research and Practice is a journal which explicitly seeks to support the development of chemistry education practice: but through publishing articles that engage with current knowledge in the field and look to build upon what has already been established in order to move understanding forward. Some submissions which remain disconnected from the wider field may indeed reflect good practice: but unless the accounts of such work are clearly positioned within the existing field, and evaluated according to accepted standards, this cannot be demonstrated. This is unfortunate as well-meaning authors who are keen to share their ideas, and who have spent time and effort writing up their work, will find their submission declined for publication.
Indicators of an active field include research publications and conferences that are focussed specifically on that field, as well as specified academic appointments and designated research groups identifying with the specialism. CER certainly meets these criteria. Chemistry education now has a number of specific research journals (such as Chemistry Education Research and Practice) as well as well-established conferences which take place in diverse parts of the world.
A productive research field encompasses ‘progressive’ research programmes. In a progressive (or scientific) research programme individual studies build upon each other so that over time there is a development of the empirical base and theoretical content of the programme: empirical studies test and motivate new theory, and theoretical developments both explain existing findings and predict the outcomes of future enquiries (Lakatos, 1970; Taber, 2009). Readers of Chemistry Education Research and Practice will recognise how the CER field encompasses various lines of work where researchers in different parts of the world are building upon each other's research in this way.
Perhaps more significantly, in the past few years we have begun to see an increasing number of scholarly books concerned with specific aspects of chemistry education. Some of these are primarily concerned with drawing upon research to inform teachers (Eilks and Hofstein, 2013; Taber, 2012), but others are primarily aimed at developing dialogue in the field itself – as a means of communication between researchers. As a few notable examples: in recent years Gilbert and Treagust (2009) offered an edited work on the role of multiple representations in teaching and learning chemistry; Anastas et al. (2009) edited a volume on green chemistry education; Tsaparlis and Sevian (2013) edited a volume on the key issue of teaching about the nature of matter; and Devetak and Glažar (2014) have edited a volume on teaching for understanding in chemistry. Other announced volumes due for publication in the coming months include one on the affective dimensions of chemistry education (Kahveci and Orgill, 2015) and a volume that according to its publisher will provide “a thorough review of the vibrant field of chemistry education” (Garcia-Martinez and Serrano-Torregrosa, 2015).†
The RSC has a long history of publishing in many areas of chemistry, and has established a tradition of supporting book series in major areas of scholarship and research in chemistry. The establishment of a dedicated book series on Chemistry Education, by a major learned society and academic publisher, is another indicator of the increasing maturity of CER as a research field.
It is intended that the RSC Advances in Chemistry Education book series will publish volumes that explore current knowledge and understanding and report cutting edge research in major topics in chemistry education. The scope of the series has been set wide, to reflect the range of work published in CER journals such as Chemistry Education Research and Practice. Volumes in the new series will have to have a direct relevance to the teaching and learning of chemistry, but will be inclusive of level of education (e.g. school, undergraduate, teacher education, vocational education, etc.), and may focus on issues in teaching and learning relating to certain topics of chemistry, or address wider pedagogic themes related to chemistry education – such as assessment, enquiry teaching, problem-solving etc. – as long as the focus is on what is particular to the teaching and learning of chemistry. The public understanding of chemistry and research related to chemistry outreach will be included, as well as such themes as (chemistry) teacher thinking and the nature of the chemistry curriculum.
A journal, such as Chemistry Education Research and Practice responds to the latest developments in a field by publishing work as and when submitted, as long as it meets the quality criteria for inclusion in a research journal. With the exception of special themed issues of journals, then, journals do not ‘manage’ content by either selecting papers according to topic or indeed seeking a balance of topics in an issue or across a volume: but rather offer the community the latest, peer-reviewed, quality work as soon as it can be published.
The role of scholarly books is somewhat different, as a particular volume can review progress in a particular subfield, or focus on the state of a specific research programme within a wider field. Where journal articles tend to be limited in length, a research monograph gives an author space to set out a more detailed account of work within a personal research programme, and so to show how a series of studies can collectively build up knowledge and understanding in a topic. An edited book allows the editors to bring together the key scholars working on a topic to write a set of related accounts of how their collective scholarship and research reflects the current state of our knowledge in some especially important or currently active area of a field. Often, then what makes a contribution to a scholarly book different from an article in a journal is the wider context in which the book chapter is situated: a context that is managed by the editors of the book so that the book as a whole offers more than just a compilation of scholarly articles.
Footnotes |
† http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527336052.html. |
‡ Announced at http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/people/staff/taber/rscaice.html. |
§ Colleagues who wish to informally explore ideas for volumes in the series are invited to contact the author of this editorial, or one of the other editorial board members: Avi Holstein, Vicente Talanquer or David Treagust. |
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 |