A paradigmatic map of professional education research

Humphrey, Caroline

Abstract

This article maps out research in professional education with reference to a threefold typology of paradigms i.e. the positivist, interpretivist and critical paradigms. The rationale for such an endeavour is fourfold. First, it directs attention to the neglected territory of methodology which is essential for researcher reflexivity. Second, it shows that most research in social work education has been situated within the positivist or interpretivist paradigms, and the relative dearth of studies in the critical paradigm raises important questions about anti-oppressive practice in research. Third, a comparison of studies in different spheres of professional education indicates that research into social work education has often not been as rich or robust as research into medicine or teaching, and this deserves further reflection. Finally, there is a practical rationale – although this exercise casts doubt upon our current capacity to develop evidence-based educational reforms, it should also signpost fruitful avenues for future research.

Citation

Humphrey, C. (2013). A paradigmatic map of professional education research. Social Work Education, 32(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2011.643863

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Feb 1, 2013
• Deposit Date: Nov 13, 2014
• Publicly Available Date: Nov 13, 2014
• Journal: Social work education
• Print ISSN: 0261-5479
• Electronic ISSN: 1470-1227
• Publisher: Routledge
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 32
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 3-16
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2011.643863
• Keywords: Social Sciences (miscellaneous); Education
• Public URL: https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/464126
• Publisher URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02615479.2011.643863
• Additional Information: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Social work education on 16th December 2011 available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02615479.2011.643863