This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 24 October 2014, At: 09:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Oxford Review of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/core20

Building communities of educationalenquiryClaire Cassidy a , Donald Christie a , Norman Coutts b , Jayne Dunnc , Christine Sinclair a , Don Skinner d & Alastair Wilson aa University of Strathclyde , UKb University of Aberdeen , UKc Department of Education, Government of South Australia,formerly, University of Dundee , UKd University of Edinburgh , UKPublished online: 17 Mar 2008.

To cite this article: Claire Cassidy , Donald Christie , Norman Coutts , Jayne Dunn , ChristineSinclair , Don Skinner & Alastair Wilson (2008) Building communities of educational enquiry, OxfordReview of Education, 34:2, 217-235, DOI: 10.1080/03054980701614945

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054980701614945

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Oxford Review of EducationVol. 34, No. 2, April 2008, pp. 217–235

ISSN 0305-4985 (print)/ISSN 1465-3915 (online)/08/020217–19© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/03054980701614945

Building communities of educational enquiryClaire Cassidya, Donald Christiea*, Norman Couttsb, Jayne Dunnc, Christine Sinclaira, Don Skinnerd and Alastair WilsonaaUniversity of Strathclyde, UK; bUniversity of Aberdeen, UK; cDepartment of Education, Government of South Australia, formerly, University of Dundee, UK; dUniversity of Edinburgh, UKTaylor and FrancisCORE_A_261345.sgm10.1080/03054980701614945Oxford Review of Education0305-4985 (print)/1465-3915 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis0000000002007DonaldChristiedonald.christie@strath.ac.uk

This article aims to outline key factors to be considered in the development of communities ofenquiry in an educational context and to establish a conceptual and theoretical framework withinwhich much needed empirical work can be carried out. The literature surveyed considers bothdifferent types of community and different theoretical positions on how communities develop.Seven factors emerge. 1) A community depends on its members’ opportunities to engage indialogue and other modes of participation. 2) Participation in a community is sustained through thequality of relationships. 3) Perspectives and assumptions underpin the relationships of a communityand may offer insights into the dynamics and operation of the community. 4) How a communityoperates is governed by its structure and context, including the extent to which its structure isimposed or constrained either internally or externally. 5) As a community develops, a climate for itsoperation also emerges—involving aspects such as tone, environment and potential conflict. 6) Thepurpose of an enquiry will influence this climate and there may be a need to accommodate orharmonise a multiplicity of purposes arising from the complex interrelationships, perspectives andassumptions involved. 7) A key issue for all communities is control, in relation to who has access tothe community, to resources, constraints and power within it. The authors conclude by highlightinga number of tensions or dualities arising from these themes and potential implications for empiricalinvestigations in this field and for those who may seek to build a community of educational enquiry.

Introduction—the need for communities of educational enquiry1

Given the complex interrelationships among research in education, educationalpolicy and professional practice, as described by Whitty (2006), and the strength ofcriticism levelled at the quality and utility of traditional educational research (e.g

*Corresponding author. Applied Educational Research Centre, Department of Childhood andPrimary Studies, University of Strathclyde, Jordanhill Campus, Glasgow G13 1PP, UK. Email:donald.christie@strath.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

218 C. Cassidy et al.

Radford, 2006), it seems reasonable to explore alternative models of research andenquiry in education. Traditional approaches manifest in ‘big’ research in educationhave typically involved ideas or interventions being introduced and sometimes evenimposed on people and situations in an attempt to demonstrate what works, is effec-tive or makes a difference. Such research finds strong support in many quarters, forexample, among those calling for greater use of randomised control trials in education(Styles, 2006). It is, of course, possible to identify examples of large scale research ofthe kind called for by OECD (2002), which is well conducted, which enhances ourunderstanding of relevant and important educational phenomena, and which at thesame time has the potential to transform practice (e.g. Sylva, 2001; James & Pollard,2005). Radford’s (2006) critique, however, highlights the problem of reductionistapproaches often associated with big research and argues that educational questionsare better characterised by constructs derived from complexity or chaos theories. Onthe other hand, there is strong allegiance to the notion of practitioner research ineducation with research as an integral part of the processes of teaching and curricu-lum development, as advocated by Stenhouse (1975) and Torrance (2004). Thesensitivity of practitioner research carried out by individual teachers to the complexityof their own specific educational situation is both its strength and a potential limita-tion. King (2002) and Loughran (2003) call for practitioner research to be construedas a genuinely collaborative, problem solving activity, operating collectively at schoollevel and beyond.

In this context it would be desirable to combine the respective strengths of largescale research and practitioner action research allied to the legitimate interests ofpolicy-makers in education. Thus, the potential of collaborative effort may beharnessed to enhance the ecological validity and potential impact of educationalresearch. The present paper calls for research practice based on such a model ofcollaborative partnership, namely, ‘community of enquiry’ and explores ideas,tensions and dualities which might inform this model. These ideas, tensions and dual-ities derive from a diverse range of literatures and discourses, including Lave andWenger’s (1991) concept of the ‘Community of Practice’, the practice of Communityof Philosophical Inquiry, as advocated by Lipman (1988; 1991) and Activity Theory(e.g. Engeström, 1999; Daniels, 2004).

Conceptual framework

Drawing on this range of theories and associated literature, the present article isolateskey factors which are arguably crucial considerations in the development and/or in theinvestigation of communities of enquiry in an educational context. These factors areexamined under seven themes which emerged from a process of progressive filteringand interpretation of the authors’ varied and combined experience, reading andprofessional backgrounds, namely: (1) dialogue and participation; (2) relationships;(3) perspectives; (4) structure and context; (5) climate; (6) purpose; and (7) control.Each of these factors having been interrogated in turn are considered together toprovide a valuable conceptual framework offering parameters within which much

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Building communities of educational enquiry 219

needed empirical research can be conducted. Also, the examination and explicationof the seven factors is intended to provide a basis for advice to be used by those estab-lishing a community of educational enquiry. It should be borne in mind that commu-nities of enquiry can operate at different levels and across different sectors dependingon the constituent membership and purpose of the group; these may range from class-room settings to large scale research project teams or those working in and aroundcurrent policy initiatives.

The review represents a distillation of the relevant literature derived from thecombined reading of the present authors, informed by their different experiences,disciplinary perspectives and professional backgrounds. The ideas gleaned from theliterature were subjected to a process of thematic content analysis. The analysis wasitself conducted through collaborative discussion from the authors’ varying perspec-tives, which threw up further relevant sources for consideration. This was not aroutine search conducted using standard systematic approaches, but rather an itera-tive process of ideas emerging from discussion informing further individual searches,which in turn were followed by subsequent shared scrutiny and discussion in whatconstituted a transactional, interactive model of engagement. Wherever possible,relevant published research evidence is used to illuminate and substantiate the emer-gent themes. Significant elements in this conceptual framework are the notions of‘community’ and ‘enquiry’ and these demand some initial consideration prior to theanalysis of the seven themes.

The concept of ‘community’

While the notion of community is not easy to define or pin down, it is important forthe purpose of the present article that what is meant by the term is clarified.Community, of necessity, involves individuals, but individuals coming together insome sense and for some common purpose or goal. It is this shared dimension thatallows community to form and that distinguishes it from other groups within societyor microcosms thereof. In essence, the members of a community work together;although not necessarily working in agreement, yet they strive toward a shared andcommon understanding. It should be understood that community will not beformed instantly by virtue of individuals meeting; community evolves, grows anddevelops over and through time. Communities develop and evolve their discoursesand those initiating the community usually take the lead in establishing thatdiscourse. Participants work together and will arrive at private languages that carrymeanings and understandings particular to that community. Given that educationcan be construed as a practical field, as a field of research and enquiry and as anacademic discipline in its own right, constituent members of a community of educa-tional enquiry will tend to come from a range of disciplines or academic ‘tribes’(Becher & Trowler, 2001) and, as a consequence, arrive with a set of terms,languages, jargons and understandings that will influence the new community form-ing. It should be noted that even though members of a community come together ina shared sense in that they are forming a community with a common purpose, each

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

220 C. Cassidy et al.

will equally belong to a range of backgrounds and tribes beyond the connection thathas brought them together.

The concept of ‘enquiry’

Enquiry may be defined as an investigation into an issue or some phenomena.It involves a search for answers. These answers may be to questions of a simple naturerequiring little research or to questions of a deeper and more analytical bent to whicha full, settled and comprehensive answer may not be available or attainable. Earl andKatz (2005) include ‘enquiry’ as one of their list of seven key features underpinningnetworked learning communities and define it as ‘the process for systematically andintentionally exploring and considering information from research, from experts andfrom each other, in support of decision-making and problem-solving’ (Earl & Katz,2005, pp. 6–7).

One may enquire in order to solve a problem. In education, say, the problem maybe how to engage school children—and their teachers—in science. This may beviewed as a problem and requires more than a surface response; it demands anenquiry into behaviours, attitudes and policy. While this example would lead to adeeper understanding with the view to a resolution of or solution to the problem, anenquiry may be conducted purely to deepen understanding. This may be the under-standing of an individual, a group of interested individuals, stakeholders or a specificcommunity. One example of an enquiry to attain deeper understanding—perhaps toshape future practice and involving a range of stakeholders and interested parties andcommunities—would be an enquiry into what it means or takes to build a communityof educational enquiry. In the first instance, those participating in the enquiry needto enquire—thus gaining deeper understanding in order to move on with furtherquestions—into the notion of community and even of enquiry itself.

For all these things to be called enquiry there must be something in common,perhaps a Deweyan problem-solving or reflective process. It may be suggested thatenquiries within philosophy, art or history are different and these, in turn, will nottake the same form as enquiries in behavioural psychology, physics or mathematics.In striving to be systematic, an effective enquiry should also retain sufficient flexibilityto enable creativity. While the enquiry itself may focus on a topic from a particularperspective, the manner under which the enquiry is conducted should in all cases berigorous, methodical, probing, reflective, analytical and disciplined with a view tocoming towards understanding or a satisfactory answer (Aristotle, 1955) as opposedto a clear cut conclusion. On the other hand, Pring (1976), relating to Dewey andKilpatrick’s project method, argues for enquirers owning the enquiry and followingtheir intuition as the enquiry develops, crossing boundaries where necessary andeventually coming to some unfinished stopping point. Nonetheless, those within acommunity of enquiry will have shared aims in common and these aims may them-selves evolve through the course of the enquiry (Dewey, 1916).

Indeed, enquiries in different fields adopt different methods to suit the nature ofthe field in question. Some place particular emphasis on factual evidence or empirical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Building communities of educational enquiry 221

data. Indeed, the whole notion of Community of Enquiry grew up around the scien-tific community with Pierce at the helm (Pardales & Girod, 2006). Others adopt moreof an exploration of ideas, concepts, logic, meaning, interpretation such as inCommunity of Philosophical Inquiry. Enquiry in all fields, though, will considerempirical and conceptual questions and these are at times difficult to disentangle. Infact, inherent within most enquiries there will be ethical and political questions to beresolved. It is perhaps, therefore, the initial question that leads and directs the natureof the enquiry. The question will also signal the discipline or disciplines to beinvolved. While traditionally, enquirers have been from single disciplines and investi-gations tend towards a single discipline, a community of enquiry approach might beexpected to involve a range of disciplines working together to address the question.In the current educational climate there is a need to draw policy-makers, practitionersand professional researchers together and widen the disciplinary range. For instance,there may be an enquiry into healthy eating. Most certainly this would involve a rangeof disciplines and professionals: nutritionists, social workers, teachers, psychologists,sociologists, doctors, politicians. Some enquiries, therefore, are multi-disciplinaryand in the end at least attempt to integrate insights from sub-enquiries in differentdisciplines.

Dialogue and participation

In order to participate in a community it is necessary for people to have access toopportunities for both dialogue and thinking. Involvement in a community requiressome knowledge about the discourses within which its dialogue operates. Dialoguerequires access to physical (or virtual) and mental space. It is also desirable that thereis a disposition to become involved and to participate in the dialogue in the firstinstance.

According to Lipman (1988, 1991), dialogue is central and the primary vehiclefor the formation of ‘Community’ in Communities of Philosophical Inquiry (COPI).A COPI may consider topics such as the nature of justice, the way to lead a good life,the nature of identity or the place of art in life. Within COPI there are four rulespertaining strictly to dialogue. When participants contribute during a session, theirinput follows a set structure which notes valid arguments or fallacies within thedialogue and of making connections between contributions. There is no search for aconsensus or conclusion within the dialogue as thinking, reasoning and wonderingcontinue for individuals even after a session has come to an end. Further, one is notpermitted to use any technical language or jargon in one’s contributions. There is arange of reasons for this. In the first instance, people may find it easy to hide behindtechnical terminology. In barring technical language speakers are forced to find acommon language, one that is not exclusive and which encourages others to partici-pate and engage in the dialogue. Participants, too, must work harder to say what theymean and mean what they say without resorting to the confines of their disciplines orareas of expertise or specialist knowledge. Just as one must aim to communicate inplain language, it is necessary that as a speaker one is conscious of the meaning such

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

222 C. Cassidy et al.

jargon may carry or the assumptions embedded within such terms. Similarly, withinCOPI one is aware of the assumptions underlying words or phrases within everydayusage and these too may be examined.

While one may be part of a COPI one need not necessarily speak in order toparticipate. The silence of the Community is a key feature within the dialogue andoften plays a vital role. However, an individual participant, too, may remain silent.It cannot be assumed that because an individual is not contributing outwardly thatthey are not reflecting on the dialogue itself and that the individual’s life is not beinginfluenced or affected by the dialogue. Indeed, for some participants it takes sometime for them to feel they want to or are able to contribute outwardly to the dialogueand, likewise, others take time to realise and appreciate the need for and importanceof silence.

It is essential for effective operation that a community works cooperatively to reachunderstanding and while language used in one discipline such as in psychology oreducation or philosophy may carry some shared meaning for participants there is aneed for clarification in order that meaning and understanding are further engen-dered and that the community may move forward together without confusion. It neednot be the case that meaning is agreed but in order that the community can commu-nicate effectively, understandings of terms and jargon used should be clear. In thisway, new meaning, languages, jargons and discourses will normally materialise.Further, it is this very range of discourses each individual brings that allows for furthergrowth and fluidity in meaning and understanding. Just as individuals do not exist inisolation, disciplines do not do so either. It is this cross-fertilisation of ideas, knowl-edge and understandings that enables community to form and evolve. And it isthrough this cross-fertilisation that learning within the community will occur and willspread further to influence and inform other communities beyond because individu-als contribute and learn in one particular community and return to others of whichthey are also members influencing these in turn.

Vygotsky (1934/1987) reminds us that dialogue may include periods of silence, toallow for the necessary thinking or internalisation. Boreham and Morgan (2004)argue for dialogue ‘as the foundational process by which organisations learn’ (p. 314).Dialogue and internalisation allow for the co-construction of knowledge, where theconditions are right for the appropriate levels and qualities of dialogue to occur.Drawing on Russian social cultural theory, which sees dialogue as a set of culturalpractices which constitute a common world by creating shared meanings, Borehamand Morgan (2004) highlight ‘a willingness to listen, respect for others and opennessto alternative interpretations’ (p. 315) as principles on which constructive dialoguecan be built. These principles lie at the heart of the way in which dialogue is construedwithin Activity Theory (AT) since here the basic unit of analysis is not the individualbut the activity system, i.e. the functioning collaborative community of individualswho interact and learn through their joint activity. AT places the emphasis on actionmediated by the use of tools in a given context. The most important shared tool inmost communities, construed as activity systems, is language. Participation in acollaborative activity system, such as in professional practice and workplace learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Building communities of educational enquiry 223

communities, can be defined in terms of dialogue, discourse and internalisation ofshared meaning, rules and conventions (Engeström, 1999; Daniels, 2004).

Participation may exist in different ways and for different people at different times,since levels of commitment in terms of time dedicated to the work of the communitymay vary over time. In relation to this notion of participation, dialogical communitiesare often informal, self-organising groups and include members who are self-selecting(cf. Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Participants may have different motivating forces forjoining. For example, some may participate because they seek to create new knowl-edge in a given domain; others participate because of the sense of community withlike-minded colleagues, and others might simply want to learn about particular prac-tices within an area of practice. However, there are also other forms of participationsuch as peripheral participation. Wenger (1998) argues that peripheral participationis essential to effective Communities of Practice. It includes those people who arewatching and learning from the Community of Practice’s activity at a distance whichmay provide a route to fuller participation in future.

Within online or virtual communities participation is open to all members regard-less of geography or circumstance and necessarily entails some form of dialogue, oftendescribed in this context as ‘discussion’. However, stimulating and sustaining partic-ipation is identified as a problem in many studies of virtual communities. Henri andPudelko (2003) describe four types of virtual community, distinguished according totheir degree of cohesion and intentionality, as communities of interest, goals, learnersor practice. Other studies report that fear of criticism, of misleading the community,or lack of trust are barriers to participation in knowledge building and sharing activi-ties (e.g. Ardichvili et al., 2003). These studies confirm accounts of low participationin Computer Mediated Communication learning environments (e.g. Carswell et al.,2000). Adrianson and Hjelmquist (1991) report that groups online often find it diffi-cult to reach closure or consensus. These difficulties are exacerbated when overlaidwith cultural considerations and unresponsive technologies (McLoughlin, 1999), butthe prospect of harnessing online tools for research (Menon, 2002), building distrib-uted understandings (Salmon, 2000), exploring multiple perspectives and networkedscholarship (Oblinger & Rush 1997) in service of collaborative research and knowl-edge building networks continues to excite enthusiasm and demands attention.

Hodgson and Reynolds (2005), in their critique of the concept of community asapplied to forms of learning in electronic networks, argue against the idea of commu-nities being based on assumptions of conformity. They advocate conceptions ofcommunity which accord greater scope to plurality and difference. This view pointsto the importance of considering the relationships which develop in any community.

Relationships

Any community will have both internal and external relationships and associateddynamics. These relationships function with respect to members internally and on anexternal dimension with such groups as stakeholders, policy makers or fundingbodies. The relationships within the community are likely to be influenced by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

224 C. Cassidy et al.

cultural perspectives and other variables such as gender, power or perceived status.Relationships within the community can depend on the extent to which participantscommit themselves to the process. Research on creating and sharing effective profes-sional learning communities has shown that building relationships is effortful andlikely to distract from the task in hand (Bolam et al., 2005). Dialogue should ideallytake place in a ‘safe’ environment where relationships are such that participants canbe confident that the sharing of ideas is based on mutual trust. The quality of rela-tionships within a community of practice or enquiry will, it may be argued, determinethe degree to which it achieves its desired purpose. It is critical that the group devel-ops a deepened sense of trust which facilitates critical debate. The importance oftrust is confirmed by views expressed by participants in the professional learningcommunities evaluated by Bolam et al. (2005). How this is done and the degree towhich this is achieved will depend upon the participants within the group. Thenumber of participants within the community of practice will have an impact uponthis. A community of practice needs enough people to sustain a critical mass for arich dialogue without being too large to inhibit the quality of internal relationships.Relationships are represented in and through, and created by, the exchange of ideasand information.

Within COPI, relationships are partly the result of the Community and Communityis partly the result of the relationships between the participants. Relationships withinthe Community construct the very nature of that Community and it is through thisthat the dialogue emerges. The COPI is an egalitarian forum (Cassidy, 2004) whereno one individual is afforded any more status than any other; everyone participateson an equal footing. This is evident too in the seating arrangements; all participantssit in a circle where each chair is equidistant to its neighbour and so no-one is set apartfrom the rest of the Community as either an authority or in order to subvert anotherparticipant’s contribution. Dialogue can only emerge if participants work together.COPI is a practice and is truly interactive and cooperative in nature. There is one indi-vidual, however, who is, strictly speaking, not part of the group and, some maysuggest, not part of the Community: this is the facilitator whose role is to oversee theinquiry and whose loyalty is certainly to the dialogue rather than to the participants.The facilitator does not offer ideas for examination or investigation but may requestclarification or further explanation; there is no place for a personal agenda in thefacilitator’s role. Instead, as the facilitator will have a philosophical background andtraining in the practice of COPI, her/his role is to ensure the dialogue remains philo-sophical and works to juxtapose styles of thinking or philosophical perspectives in theselection of speakers in order that the dialogue maintains some kind of forwardmomentum and dynamic. The role of the facilitator may borrow from Socrates’ meta-phor when he described himself as a midwife in his helping others to bring their ideasto bear. In contrast to COPI’s egalitarian nature, AT places emphasis on the divisionof labour.

According to AT, relationships are governed by culturally defined mediating tools,especially language and artefacts which embed shared meanings. Since the basic unitof analysis is the activity system and not the individual, the pattern of social interactions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Building communities of educational enquiry 225

and the interrelationships that characterise a group are centrally important. Learningand the creation of new knowledge occurs as a function of social interaction or jointactivity in a given context. Of course, as highlighted by Russell (2004), each participantbrings to any given community her or his own unique history of involvement withdiverse others from participation in the many different activity systems which compriseher or his own unique social context. This has a direct influence on the ways in whichthey negotiate new ways of joint working in any new context. AT envisages divisionof labour and hence ascribes different roles to individuals within any activity system.In this respect it is distinct from COPI where essentially all members are seen as havingequal roles and status (with the exception, of course, of the facilitator of the communitywho has a singular, distinctive role). Clearly the potential diversity of roles will havea significant bearing on the pattern of interrelationships in any community.

Perspectives and assumptions

The discussion on relationships highlights the need to make perspectives and assump-tions explicit. One feature of ‘academic tribes’ may be that their norms are in the ‘tacitdimension’ (Polanyi, 1966); that is, experts in the discipline all recognise and act onthem, but do not necessarily know that they are doing so. When multidisciplinarygroups begin to form, these norms may arise as problematic since they representpotentially competing perspectives. The holders of different perspectives may havedifferent aims and thus be engaged in different activities. However, new assumptionsarise through sharing perspectives, possibly drawing on a shared history with refer-ence points back, for example, to earlier meetings. As a group begins to develop, vari-ous ‘in-group markers’— such as in-jokes and a reduced need to explain what is beingsaid—also develop (Cutting, 2000). These perhaps point to the emerging commu-nity. Varying perspectives brought to any community are usually beneficial; occasion-ally the practices may appear to clash, for example, with the precepts of particular‘academic tribes’ or with different individual preferences. It may be the case that ifthe process does not suit people, they will withdraw rather than attempt to subvertthe process, but it can be disruptive if they prefer to stay. On the other hand, inPiagetian terms, these contrasting perspectives and associated cognitive conflict canbe the driver for the creation of new knowledge and understanding.

For example, in taking account of different perspectives and assumptions, partici-pants in communities of practice or enquiry will need to address issues such aslanguage conventions, methods of enquiry, resolution of internal disputes, powerrelations and the generation of shared understandings. The practice of COPI encour-ages participants to acknowledge, value and build upon the contributions of others.Participants can be of any age and have any experience. The range of perspectives andbackgrounds is welcomed and this diversity can only enrich dialogue and broaden thephilosophical perspectives. It is the dynamic of the different philosophical perspec-tives that the facilitator recognises and uses to drive the Inquiry forwards. These indi-vidual perspectives must draw upon an individual’s assumptions as both a speakingand as a listening member of the community and it is this in part which effects change.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

226 C. Cassidy et al.

Structure and context

There is an issue already emerging from the discussion above over how much struc-ture is imposed on the group. By structure is meant the framework and arrangementswithin which the community operates. This will depend on the context of the group,what is expected and what constraints they operate under. For instance, in the caseof schools as professional learning communities, some structural constraints such asthe configuration of buildings and other physical spaces are not under the control ofparticipants while others, such as the timetabling of tasks, may reflect decisions madewithin the group (Bolam et al., 2005). Another aspect of structure which may createtension is whether it is imposed from outside the group, for example, by a fundingbody or other stakeholder, or whether the structure evolves from the emergingcommunity itself. Other structural considerations are the rules and roles establishedfor the community, and where its boundaries lie. This latter point determines who hasaccess to the community. However, structure cannot be established in isolation fromcontextual considerations and vice versa. Therefore, the context in which thecommunity finds itself both facilitates and constrains. For example, certain contextsimply specific purposes and hence will engender desirable outcomes. Within educa-tion, say, the context may be established whereby a cluster of schools are funded toengage in collaborative curriculum development, leading to outcomes valued both byparticipants and by other stakeholders. Constraints need not always be imposed; theycan arise from the means and modes of interaction available. Resources such as infor-mation and communication tools may be utilised to overcome constraining factorsthat may impede enquiry. On the other hand, under some circumstances, such toolsmay themselves prove to constrain and limit the activity of the group and the qualityof the interaction. Practical considerations such as the time available to the group willhave a bearing on both its structure and function.

While there are constraining factors, it should also be acknowledged that there arelikely to be more facilitative influences, both external and internal. For instance,where group members have opportunities to be proactive in decision making, this inturn is likely to create a climate conducive to meaningful enquiry.

Climate

The climate under which a group operates is characterised by such facets as context,environment, patterns of interaction, expectations, tone, nature of relationships andcontrol (see, e.g., Muijs & Reynolds, 2005). The climate that emerges from groupinteractions and group dynamics will have an effect on motivation and confidence tointeract. In any community, climate is determined by the internal workings of thegroup and the extent to which individual perspectives are respected. Productive work-ing in a community of enquiry is likely to emerge from a willingness to examine crit-ically others’ ideas while also respecting their right to a viewpoint.

The potential importance of climate is highlighted by research into the practice ofCOPI, which has identified as key features of climate in an effective Community

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Building communities of educational enquiry 227

aspects such as openness, pluralism, egalitarianism, discipline, mutual respect andthe valuing of difference (Lipman, 1988, 1991; Lushyn, 2003; Pardales & Girod,2006). A positive ethos where Philosophical Inquiry is encouraged and actively stim-ulated is all-important; if the practice is undermined by those allocating time, spaceor funds, so too are the participants and their respective ideas. Climate may be furtherevidenced within activity systems, which operate according to rules ranging frombeing clear, formal statements on the one hand, to implicit, unarticulated routines orhabits on the other. According to AT, rules function to shape the interactionsbetween the individuals in the group and the tools available. Rules will evolve overtime as the activity system expands and learns, but at any one point in time theypermit a degree of stability within the system (Russell, 2004). The ways in which indi-viduals engage with the rules and contribute to the establishment of the rules in thefirst place might be said to be a function of the climate of any group. How dissent andpotential conflict is interpreted and handled is an important consideration. Clearlyconflict has the potential to be a source and driver for enquiry, but handled lessconstructively it can destroy relationships and undermine the whole system. It isimportant to have the opportunity to share initial assumptions in a non-threateningand supportive environment in order to create the conditions for purposeful enquiry.Work on networked learning communities undertaken in England by the NationalCollege of School Leadership provides further evidence of the importance of a climateof trust, respect and debate. For example, Eagle, French and Malcolm (2005)describe their schools as aspiring communities of enquiry where ‘there was a strongsense of teamwork and trust in colleagues’ and where ‘staff talked of the possibilitiesof sharing both the good things and the disasters … with colleagues without beingthought badly of on either account’ (p. 13). It should also be acknowledged that thepurpose of any enquiry will have a bearing on setting the climate characterising thecommunity.

Purpose

Communities of enquiry may be generated for a range of purposes. Individual partic-ipants will have a range of reasons—purposes—for being part of such a group.Individuals will have their own motivations and purposes for being part of a commu-nity; some may be more interested in change, some in understanding, while otherswill focus on networking opportunities and others will attend to the dialogue/enquiryfor its own sake. For some, there will be more pressure to be published, while othersengage in the enquiry simply for intellectual interest or to improve their professionalcompetence. These purposes are not mutually exclusive. This said, there will beexternal purposes that need consideration. For communities of educational enquirypurposes will vary in terms of their relevance to practitioners, policy makers andresearchers.

Purpose may be imposed within or upon a group. In essence, in the case of thelatter, this means that there is some external agency, for instance, a funding body oran employer that establishes a group for its own end. An example of this might be a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

228 C. Cassidy et al.

group seeking to enquire into the nature of education in the 21st century. What makesthis imposed is that the power structure dictates an end product or finite results at theend of the project. There may, however, be a number of individuals from within thisimposed group who share a common interest in the topic of the nature of educationin the 21st century or a topic branching-off from this who may then elect to createself-selecting groups. This entails individuals with a common interest in comingtogether to enquire for a common purpose. This group need not work within theconstraints of the imposed order from the original group.

To be clear, while participants will have individual, personal interests such as thosesuggested above, they may also be bound by the externally imposed topic or goal.This is not to suggest that self-selecting groups are more conducive to authenticenquiry than those that work under the yoke of some imposed structure or field ofenquiry. It is simply the case that it should be acknowledged that while an over-arch-ing purpose will exist—either through imposition or shared interest—individuals willembark on the practice of enquiring for their own ends also. In other words, acommunity of enquiry is multi-purposed and this should be taken into account inestablishing or maintaining a group working towards community.

Moreover, as Dewey (1916) argued, our aims or ‘ends-in view’ often change as weapproach them. Aims that evolve in the way posited by Dewey may be to build knowl-edge and/or enhance practice. This is likely to be achieved by building research exper-tise and understanding. For example, the research group who form the authorship ofthe present article came from different disciplines to initiate the study. It was impor-tant to begin reading outwith one’s own discipline before critically considering thisreading from the perspective of one’s own discipline. The next phase entailed engag-ing in dialogue which was the route to new knowledge. Knowledge building can beconstrued as an essential component of innovation in communities of practice(Hildreth & Kimble, 2004). A further interpretation of purpose can be located withinthe practice of COPI where purpose is communal and goes a large way to creating‘Community’ as opposed to a discussion group. There is no desire to come to anyconclusion or consensus; any by-product such as enhanced self-esteem or bolsteredconfidence is a bonus. The value of this practice is for the sake of the practice; it isvaluable in and of itself. Certainly one may form a group as a facilitator with otheraims in mind such as trying to engender participation in local community, facilitatingand creating aesthetic awareness, to offer empowerment for the disenfranchised or topromote inter-community or positive working relationships. However, this wouldrarely be the reason a Community is established but it may be the way to have aCommunity of Philosophical Inquiry project funded.

The concept of purpose, according to Vygotsky (1934/1987), relates to his conceptof the learning ‘object’ which is taken to mean the raw material or the problem spaceon which individuals in a group or community act using the various tools at theirdisposal. In other words, the object is the focus of activity of the group. It is importantto consider that the object or purpose is heavily influenced by the culture and historyof the group. However, it should be borne in mind that there are inevitable differencesin understanding, tensions which derive from individuals’ unique personal histories

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Building communities of educational enquiry 229

which they bring to any situation. These can be the key to creative growth within acommunity. The actual outcome of the collective activity may either be as anticipatedor come as a surprise to the community, but what appears to be critically importantis that at any one point in time there is a shared focus within the community for it tofunction. If individuals are disengaged or feel disenfranchised from the group theywill be unlikely to benefit from being members of a community; this undermines notonly the individual members but the community itself. This raises the question of theextent to which the community can be, or is, controlled.

Control

A key consideration for any group or community is where the power resides and howcontrol is exercised. The nature of control is manifested in determining such issues aswho has control over its practices, products and dissemination. In relation to thispoint communities need to be aware of both internal and external mechanisms andprocesses of control which, in turn, may influence their functioning. In terms ofcommunities of educational enquiry, there are some obvious external sources ofpower such as funding bodies, institutional hierarchies and research assessment exer-cises as well as national and local policy makers and managers. In this context,academic journals are sources of considerable control over what can be disseminatedand how. Once people are published, they may become the new ‘authorities’ and thusthey may themselves exercise power, control and influence.

The issue of control can determine who has access to the community, how its rela-tionships should be conducted, what assumptions can be tolerated, how it can oper-ate (for example, its resources and constraints), and the extent to which its purposecan be supported. However, while the aim of communities of enquiry is to fostercertain types of dialogue, it should also be remembered that dialogues can themselvesbe sources of hidden power (Fairclough, 1989). Boreham and Morgan (2004) arguethat organisational learning depends on employees relating to each other in a way thatenables all points of view to be expressed and which gives everybody access to acommon knowledge-base; they provide an example of procedural changes whichenable a clear change in power relationships and access to knowledge. There appearto be clear parallels between organisational learning and features of communities ofeducational enquiry.

If communities elect to work with a facilitator, then this role demands consider-ation. It is the facilitator who offers a range of techniques and strategies to developthe enquiry. The facilitator may adapt techniques available to the group to suit localconditions and the initial purpose of the group. Even with a facilitator a communitymay retain much of its own control. The facilitator role also offers support againstexternal constraints and controls that may impede enquiry. This leaves considerableintellectual freedom and scope for initiative (Laurie, 2001).

AT sees individuals as active agents within any activity system, but the extent towhich that agency is expressed in terms of control is afforded, or facilitated, andconstrained by the social relationships, by the tools available and by the history,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

230 C. Cassidy et al.

values and cultural expectations which shape the collective activity. Individual rolesand power relationships are continually being negotiated and re-negotiated, so itcould be said that control is not a fixed characteristic of the members of any commu-nity. However, the previous history and norms of any group may lead to more or lessflexibility in terms of power and control likely to be a consequent of external factors.While a community may physically be stopped from meeting, it is not necessarily thecase that Community itself ceases to exist.

Conclusions

There is a considerable variety of literature which can inform the study of communi-ties of educational enquiry and how these may be established. The seven factorsemerging for consideration are dialogue and participation, relationships, perspectivesand assumptions, structure and context, climate, purpose and control. This list showssome interesting correspondence with the seven ‘key features’ identified by theNational College for School Leadership (NCSL) in England as important underpin-nings of networked learning communities, namely, focus, relationships, collabora-tion, enquiry, leadership, accountability and building capacity and support (Earl &Katz, 2005).

The work of authors including Lave and Wenger (1991) and Barab and Duffy(2000) suggests that questions relating to such factors or key features are not best seenas requiring some final answer applicable to all communities of practice or enquiry.Rather, they are best described as continuing tensions—though as dualities notdichotomies. Thus it is not a matter of choosing between structure and spontaneityor between control or accountability, on the one hand, and freedom or creativity, onthe other, but rather of finding an appropriate balance, for example, of action andreflection—to suit a particular context and purpose. Good educational enquiry, likegood teaching itself, depends heavily on context and implies seeking to resolve dual-ities and applying principles intelligently and with judgement to suit particularcircumstances. There are no universal answers. If communities of educationalenquiry are to be investigated or if one seeks to build such a community, what isrequired is an awareness of the dualities or tensions and an ability to consider thesein relation to other contextual factors, aims and purposes in order to examine, orevolve in practice, an effective set of structures and relationships.

Any group aiming to develop into a community of enquiry will find it important toconsider and resolve in practice several dualities and tensions. Evidence from profes-sional learning communities and communities of practice discussed above suggeststhat from the outset the group will benefit from being clear as to the need for sharedvalues and purposes and about individual and collective responsibilities for workingpractices. While the nature of communities of enquiry would imply collaborativeworking, there will be occasions when participants will undertake individual tasks inorder to further the project. This is closely related to the notion of restrictive or inclu-sive grouping. The group must consider carefully the composition of the group andto whom it is open. As a consequence, it is important to establish the optimum size

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Building communities of educational enquiry 231

of group in order to generate a meaningful community. While some communities—such as online communities—may be effective by nature of having a large number ofpotential contributors or participants, it may be the case that the number constitutinga community may be better served by being of a small and cohesive number in orderto facilitate communication, understandings and constructive dynamics. This couldlead to the tension between having a restricted or inclusive form of participation.

While the notion of community is an inclusive one in contexts such as COPI, thesame may not necessarily be true in establishing communities of educational enquiry.It is important to be clear about how the membership is to be composed. There willbe benefits and drawbacks in having participants from either eclectic or single disci-plinary areas. By having members from across a range of disciplines the resultingenquiry may lack focus or depth, although it will ensure a broader range ofexperience, insight and expetise to be taken into account. There is here an addedconsideration: determining the breadth of focus may precede deciding the composi-tion of the group in terms of the disciplines represented, or vice versa. It will also,then, be worth considering the participatory roles of individuals within the structureto facilitate enquiry. This relates to the tensions surrounding control of and freedomfor the individuals within the community, or imposed upon them and it from outsidethe immediate workings of the group as this may be determined before the group isconstituted.

Similarly, there will be a need to establish the desired outcome resulting from thecommunity’s enquiry. There may be a need or demand for outcomes in the form ofaction emanating from the work of the community, yet this may in some ways conflictwith the community’s own need for reflection upon its work, or for others to reflectupon its conclusions since not all enquiry need ultimately end with a tangible prod-uct. Again, as with the other dualities or tensions, there is the added dimension thatthese considerations do not fall within an easy or distinct pattern and that any oneaspect may not lead neatly to another. Rather, what is likely to occur is a cycle thatfeeds into itself and presents these issues to be explored and resolved throughout theprocess.

A further task is for the group to clarify its views on the processes and methods ofeducational enquiry. While the literature on research methods is a prime source here,wider writings on the nature of education have an important role to play in helpingthe community of educational enquiry consider its aims, purposes and ways of work-ing. There are important ideas on the nature of educational enquiry (for examplePring, 1976) which can be traced back to educationists such as Kilpatrick and Dewey,and on the nature of education as a field of knowledge to which a range of disciplinescan contribute, along with teachers’/practitioners’ practical knowledge (for example,Carr, 2003).

Discussion in communities of enquiry should be conducted on the basis that allcontributions are equally valued by the community in the sense that they arewelcomed as informing the dialogue, not that they are of equal weight, validity orimport. The focus should be on the quality of the ideas rather than the status of theperson voicing them. However, it should also be acknowledged that collaborative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

232 C. Cassidy et al.

enquiry in the context of educational research demands respect for rigour and soundmethodology as highlighted by Furlong and Oancea (2005), which in turn has impli-cations for the role of researchers and others who may have that kind of knowledge tocontribute. Since participants will have differing roles and functions within a commu-nity, trust becomes an important ingredient to establishing a community. Groupsshould be alert to the accumulating research evidence that the dynamics of interactioncan vary considerably between face to face meetings, video-conferencing and othermodes of communication.

The theoretical perspectives discussed above should inform both research intocommunities of educational enquiry and practical advice offered to those seeking toestablish such communities. Developing such communities of enquiry may ultimatelyprovide a new model for knowledge creation through educational research. Whatemerges is a collaborative model which may enable multi-disciplinary working andconstructive partnerships between practitioners, policy makers and those traditionallyinvolved in research. There has always been a relationship between theory and prac-tice, but this tradition can be expanded upon in order that educational researchembraces knowledge and understanding from a range of perspectives and disciplines.Within a community of educational enquiry, this knowledge is validated, approvedand warranted. By including practitioners in such a community, the broad ethicalpurposes of research can be furthered. What is vital to the whole notion of communityof educational enquiry is that it is designed to facilitate cross-fertilisation of ideas,to enhance understanding and practice. Crucially, this is undertaken with a view toengaging in action. This innovative approach necessitates dialogue and cooperation,but within an applied field, such as education, there is little use for dialogue and coop-eration on purely theoretical grounds if it does not have, as one of its key aims, thedesire to engage in action and to effect change.

It can be argued that if the potential of collaborative research in education is to befulfilled then those setting up or researching communities of educational enquiry willneed to give consideration to the issues discussed above. In this very rapidly develop-ing field, the emerging research, theoretical literature and the experience of actualcommunities of educational enquiry demand to be investigated and reviewed further.

Note

1. The present study arises from the work of the Learners, Learning and Teaching Network whichis itself part of the Applied Educational Research Scheme (AERS), jointly funded by theScottish Funding Council and the Scottish Executive Education Department with the intendedpurpose to enhance educational research capability in Scottish HE institutions, and to use thatcapability to conduct high-quality research which will benefit school education in Scotland.One of the hallmarks of the research networks established under AERS is a collaborative modelof educational research involving collaboration among all relevant stakeholders, that is to sayacross institutional boundaries and among communities historically seen as separate, namely,the research, policy and practice communities. All of the contributors are members of a collab-orative project team which is examining communities of enquiry as models for educationalresearch. The work is supported by the Learners, Learning and Teaching Network of theApplied Educational Research Scheme in Scotland (AERS).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Building communities of educational enquiry 233

Notes on contributors

Claire Cassidy is a Lecturer in the Department of Childhood and Primary Studies,University of Strathclyde. Her research interests are in practical philosophy andin particular Community of Philosophical Inquiry, as a model for the inclusionof individuals as active, participative, political and philosophical agents withinsociety.

Donald Christie is Professor of Childhood and Primary Studies at the University ofStrathclyde and Convenor of the AERS Learners, Learning and TeachingNetwork. His research interests are in social development, collaborative learningand teachers’ professional development.

Norman Coutts is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University ofAberdeen. He has research interests in educational applications of informationand communications technology, future schools and teachers’ professionaldevelopment.

Jayne Dunn works for Organisation and Professional Development Services,Department of Education, Government of South Australia and was formerly visit-ing scholar in the Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Dundee.

Christine Sinclair is a Lecturer in the Centre for Academic Practice and LearningEnhancement at the University of Strathclyde. Her main research interests are inlanguage and cultural issues relating to higher education.

Don Skinner is Senior Lecturer and Deputy Head of Educational Studies at theMoray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh. His research inter-ests include oral presentations in higher education, conceptions of teaching andcourse design in ITE problem-based learning.

Alastair Wilson is Senior Research Fellow in the Applied Educational ResearchCentre, University of Strathclyde with responsibility for the work of the AERSLearners, Learning and Teaching Network. His personal research interestsinclude mental health and young people with learning disabilities.

References

Adrianson, L. & Hjelmquist, E. (1991) Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediatedcommunication, Behaviour and Information Technology, 10(4), 281–296.

Ardichvili, A., Page, V. & Wentling, T. (2003) Motivation and barriers to participation in virtualknowledge-sharing communities of practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77.

Aristotle (1955) The ethics of Aristotle: the Nicomachean ethics (Trans. J. A. K. Thomson) (London,Penguin Classics).

Barab, S. A. & Duffy, T. (2000) From practice fields to communities of practice, in: D. Jonassen &S. M. Land (Eds) Theoretical foundations of learning environments (Mahwah, NJ, LawrenceErlbaum Associates).

Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001) Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture ofdisciplines (2nd edn.) (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press).

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S. & Wallace, M. with Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K.,Ingram, M., Atkinson, A. & Smith, M. (2005) Creating and sustaining effective professionallearning communities: research report RR637 (London, Department for Education and Skills).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

234 C. Cassidy et al.

Boreham, N. & Morgan, C. (2004) A sociocultural analysis of organisational learning, OxfordReview of Education, 30(3), 307–324.

Carr, D. (2003) Philosophy and the meaning of ‘education’, Theory and Research in Education,1(2), 195–312.

Carswell, L. T., Petre, M., Price, B. & Richards, M. (2000) Distance education via the internet:the student experience, British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 29–46.

Cassidy, C. (2004) Children: animals or persons? Thinking: the Journal of Philosophy for Children,17(3), 13–16.

Cutting, J. (2000) Analysing the Language of Discourse Communities (Oxford, Elsevier Science).Daniels, H. (2004) Activity theory, discourse and Bernstein, Educational Review, 56(2), 121–132.Dewey, J (1916) Democracy and education (New York, Macmillan).Downing, J. (1967) Evaluating the initial teaching alphabet (London, Cassell).Eagle, S., French, J. & Malcolm, P. (2005) Thinking head teachers: thinking schools (Nottingham,

National College for School Leadership).Earl, L. & Katz, S. (2005) Learning from networked learning communities: phase 2- key features and

inevitable tensions (Nottingham, National College for School Leadership).Engeström, Y. (1999) Activity theory and transformation, in: Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L.

Punamäki (Eds) Perspectives on activity theory (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and power (London, Longman).Furlong, J. & Oancea, A. (2005) Assessing quality in applied and practice-based educational research: a

framework for discussion (Swindon, Economic and Social Research Council).Henri, F. & Pudelko, B. (2003) Understanding and analysing activity and learning in virtual

communities, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 474–448.Hildreth, P. M. & Kimble, C. (2004) Knowledge networks: innovation through communities of practice

(Hershey PA, Idea Group).Hodgson, V. & Reynolds, M. (2005) Consensus, difference and multiple communities in

networked learning, Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 11–24.James, M. & Pollard, A. (2005) Improving teaching and learning in schools: a commentary by the teach-

ing and learning research programme (London, Economic and Social Research Council/TLRP).King, M. B. (2002) Professional development to promote schoolwide inquiry, Teaching and

Teacher Education, 18(3), 243–257.Laurie, N. (2001) How managers can learn through dialogue: a concrete case study, in: T.

Curnow (Ed.) Thinking through dialogue: essays on philosophy in practice (Oxted, PracticalPhilosophy Press).

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press).

Lipman, M. (1988) Philosophy goes to school (Philadelphia, Temple University Press).Lipman, M. (1991) Thinking in education (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Loughran, J. (2003) Exploring the nature of teacher research, in: A. Clarke & G. Erickson (Eds)

Teacher inquiry: living the research in everyday practice (London, Routledge Falmer).Lushyn, P. (2003) Some reflections on the ecology of pedagogical space, Thinking: the Journal of

Philosophy for Children, 16(3), 4–11.McLoughlin, C. (1999) Culturally responsive technology use: developing an on-line community of

learners, British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 231–243.Menon, G. M. (2002) Using the Internet as a research tool for social work and human services (New

York, Haworth Press).Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2005) Effective teaching (London, Sage).OECD (2002) Educational research and development in England: examiners’ report (Paris, OECD).Oblinger, D. & Rush, S. C. (1997) The learning revolution: the challenge of information technology in

the academy (Bolton, MA, Anker).Pardales, M.J. & Girod, M. (2006) Community of inquiry: its past and present future, Educational

Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 299–309.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Building communities of educational enquiry 235

Polanyi, M. (1966) The tacit dimension (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).Pring, R. (1976) Knowledge and schooling (Wells, Open Books).Radford, M. (2006) Researching classrooms: complexity and chaos, British Educational Research

Journal, 32(2), 177–190.Russell, D. R. (2004). Looking beyond the interface: activity theory and distributed learning, in:

H. Daniels & A. Edwards (Eds) Psychology of education (London, Routledge Falmer).Salmon, G. (2000) E-Moderating: the key to teaching and learning online (London, Kogan Page).Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development (London, Heinemann

Education).Styles, B. (2006) Educational research versus scientific research, BERA Research Intelligence, 95,

7–9.Sylva, K. (2001) Quality matters, after all: findings from the effective provision of pre-school

education, Early Childhood Review, 8, 2–11.Torrance, H (2004) Using action research to generate knowledge about educational practice, in: G.

Thomas & R. Pring (Eds) Evidence-based practice in education (Maidenhead, Open UniversityPress).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1987) Thinking and speech, in: R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds) Thecollected works of L. S. Vygotsky (New York, Plenum).

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity (New York, CambridgeUniversity Press).

Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (2000) Communities of practice: the organizational frontier, HarvardBusiness Review, January/February, 2000, 139–145.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide tomanaging knowledge (Harvard, Harvard Business School Publishing).

Whitty, G. (2006) Education(al) research and education policy: is conflict inevitable? BritishEducational Research Journal, 32(2), 159–176.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

05 2

4 O

ctob

er 2

014