Research Principles and Educational Values

  • Michelle Cannon


Chapter 3 gives an account of the principles and values that underpin the research, and the ways in which ‘ontological politics’ have informed methodology. It offers an overview of current trends in educational research in relation to wider debates on the construction of mediated knowledge and the nature and development of arts-based research methods. In a historical moment that favours centrally mandated objectives for literacy and pre-determined research outcomes, there is an emphasis rather on the educational values that imbue the case studies. This is followed by a rationale for using an (auto)ethnographic approach and techniques of participant observation and narrative representation.


  1. Alasuutari, P. (1995). Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies. California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. (Ed.). (2010). Children, their World, their Education: Final Report and Recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. London: Random House Business Books.Google Scholar
  4. Anyon, J. (2009). Theory and Educational Research: Toward Critical Social Explanation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Appadurai, A. (1986). The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arendt, H. (1981/1971). The Life of the Mind. San Diego: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  7. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, S. J. (2013). The Education Debate (2nd ed.). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Barone, T. (2001). Pragmatizing the imaginary: A response to a fictionalized case study of teaching [online]. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4), 734–741. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from Scholar
  10. Barone, T. (2007). A return to the gold standard? Questioning the future of narrative construction as educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(4), 454–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bassey, M. (1998). Fuzzy generalisation: An approach to building educational theory [online]. In BERA: British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. The Queen’s University of Belfast, Northern Ireland. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  12. Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of Culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  13. Bold, C. (2012). Using Narrative in Research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bradford City of Film (2010–2015). Bradford Film Literacy Programme [online]. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  15. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bruner, J. S. (2009/1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Buckingham, D. (2003). Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Buckingham, D. (2009). ‘Creative’ visual methods in media research: Possibilities, problems and proposals. Media Culture and Society, 31(4), 633–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burke, C. (2008). ‘Play in focus’: Children’s visual voice in participative research. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People (pp. 23–36). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Burn, A., & Durran, J. (2007). Media Literacy in Schools: Practice, Production and Progression. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  22. Burnett, C. (2011). The (im)materiality of educational space: Interactions between material, connected and textual dimensions of networked technology use in schools. E-Learning and Digital Media, 8(3), 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Burnett, C., Merchant, G., Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2012). The (im)materiality of literacy: The significance of subjectivity to new literacies research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 90–103.Google Scholar
  24. Cannon, M., Bryer, T., & Lindsey, M. (2014). Media production and disruptive innovation: Exploring the interrelations between children, tablets, teachers and texts in subject English settings. Media Education Research Journal, 5(1), 16–31.Google Scholar
  25. Cannon, M., Potter, J., & Burn, A. (2018). Dynamic, playful and productive literacies. Changing English, 25(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clandinin, D. J., & Murphy, S. (2009). Relational ontological commitments in narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 598–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clough, P. (2002). Narratives and Fictions in Educational Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Conteh, J., Gregory, E., Kearney, C., & Mor-Sommerfeld, A. (2005). On Writing Educational Ethnographies: The Art of Collusion. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.Google Scholar
  29. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  30. Dall’Alba, G., & Barnacle, R. (2007). An ontological turn for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 679–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive Interactionism (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Dewey, J. (1997/1938). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  33. Dezuanni, M. (2014). The building blocks of digital media literacy, socio-material participation and the production of media knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1–24.Google Scholar
  34. Dezuanni, M., & Woods, A. (2014). Developing media production skills for literacy in a primary school classroom: Digital materials, embodied knowledge and material contexts. In G. Barton (Ed.), Literacy in the Arts: Retheorising Learning and Teaching (pp. 143–160). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. EEF. (2015). About the Education Endowment Foundation [online]. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  36. Eisner, E. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Eisner, E. (2005/2002). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education? [online]. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Reimagining Schools (pp. 205–214). Abingdon: Routledge. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  38. Freire, P. (1993/1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  39. Furedi, F. (2013). Keep the scourge of scientism out of schools. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  40. Furstenau, M., & Mackenzie, A. (2009). The promise of ‘makeability’: Digital editing software and the structuring of everyday cinematic life. Visual Communication, 8(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Le Gallais, T. (2008). Wherever I go there I am: Reflections on reflexivity and the research stance. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(2), 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures [online]. London: Hutchinson. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  43. Gell, A. (1998). Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Grady, J. (2004). Working with visible evidence: An invitation and some practical advice. In C. Knowles & P. Sweetman (Eds.), Picturing the Social Landscape: Visual Methods and the Sociological Imagination (pp. 18–31). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Hall, S. (1992). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies [online]. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 277–294). London and New York: Routledge. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  47. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Heikkinen, H. L., Huttunen, R., & Syrjälä, L. (2007). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Educational Action Research, 15(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Heikkinen, H. L., Jong, F. P. C. M. d., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). What is (good) practitioner research? Vocations and Learning, 9(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm [online]. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from Scholar
  53. Hill Bulman, J. (2014). Developing a Progression Framework for Children’s Reading of Film. PhD Thesis, School of Education, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.Google Scholar
  54. Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hughes, E. C. (1971). The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  56. Hymes, D. H. (1981). Ethnographic monitoring. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture and the Bilingual Classroom: Studies in Classroom Ethnography (pp. 56–68). Newbury House: Rowley, MA.Google Scholar
  57. Ito, M., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., et al. (2013). Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design [online]. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  58. Jenkins, H., Purushota, R., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. J. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century [online]. Chicago: The John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  59. Jones, K. (2006). A Biographic researcher in pursuit of an aesthetic: The use of arts-based (re)presentations in ‘performative’ dissemination of life stories [online]. Qualitative Sociology Review, 2(1), 66–85. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  60. Jones, K., & Fenge, L.-A. (2017). Gifted stories: How well do we retell the stories that research participants give us? Creative Approaches to Research, 10(1), 35–35. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  61. Kaplan, I. (2008). Being ‘seen’, being ‘heard’: Engaging with students on the margins of education through participatory photography. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People (pp. 175–191). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2008). Remix: The art and craft of endless hybridization. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lather, P. (1991). Research as Praxis. In Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy With/In the Postmodern (pp. 50–69). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Law, J., & Urry, J. (2003). Enacting the Social [online]. Department of Sociology and the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  66. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Y. S. Lincoln & E. G. Guba (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  67. Loveless, A. (2008). Moving from the margins creating space with digital technology: Wonder, theory and action [online]. In C. Palmer & D. Torevell (Eds.), The Turn to Aesthetics: An Interdisciplinary Exchange of Ideas in Applied and Philosophical Aesthetics (pp. 189–198). Liverpool: Liverpool Hope University Press. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  68. Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
  69. Mäkelä, M. (2007). Knowing through making: The role of the artefact in practice-led research. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The Primacy of Perception. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Miller, D. (2008). The Comfort of Things. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  73. O’Reilly, T. (2017). WTF?: What’s the Future and Why It’s Up to Us. Louth: R H Business Books.Google Scholar
  74. Orr, S. (2013). Making Teaching Work in Media [online]. Media Education Summit, Sheffield Hallam University. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  75. Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  76. Pink, S. (2013). Doing Visual Ethnography (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  77. Potter, J. (2012). Digital Media and Learner Identity: The New Curatorship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Potter, J., & Gilje, Ø. (2015). Curation as a new literacy practice. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(2), 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Potter, J., & McDougall, J. (2017). Digital Media, Culture and Education: Theorising Third Space Literacies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Prensky, M. (2012). From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom: Hopeful Essays for 21st Century Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pring, R. (2004). Philosophy of Educational Research (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  83. Prosser, J., & Loxley, A. (2008). Introducing Visual Methods [online]. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM Review Papers 010. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  84. Reid, A. (2007). The Two Virtuals: New Media and Composition. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
  85. Roberts, B. (2008). Performative social science: A consideration of skills, purpose and context [online]. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(2), Art.58 [99]. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  86. Scott, D., & Usher, R. (2011). Researching Education: Data, Methods and Theory in Educational Inquiry (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  87. Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Learning at Not-School: A Review of Study, Theory, and Advocacy for Education in Non-formal Settings. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT & MITE.Google Scholar
  88. Selwyn, N. (2012). Ten suggestions for improving academic research in education and technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shirky, C. (2009). Here Comes Everybody: How Change Happens When People Come Together. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  90. Thomson, P. (2008). Children and young people: Voices in visual research. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People (pp. 1–19). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  91. Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (2007). The methodology of students-as-researchers: Valuing and using experience and expertise to develop methods. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 327–342.Google Scholar
  92. Thomson, P., & Gunter, H. (2011). Inside, outside, upside down: The fluidity of academic researcher ‘identity’ in working with/in school [online]. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 34(1), 17–30. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from Scholar
  93. Thomson, P., Hall, C., Jones, K., & Sefton-Green, J. (2012). The Signature Pedagogies Project: Final Report [online]. London and Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Creativity, Culture and Education. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  94. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vygotsky, L. (2012/1934). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  96. What Works Network. (2015). Guidance from the Cabinet Office on Public Services. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from
  97. Williams, F. (2004). What matters is who works: Why every child matters to new labour. Commentary on the DfES Green Paper Every Child Matters. Critical Social Policy, 24(3), 406–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wright Mills, C. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Cannon
    • 1
  1. 1.UCL Knowledge Lab, Institute of EducationUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations