Michael Huberman’s research while affiliated with Michigan State University and other places

For several years, both North American and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries have labored over the stimulation and improvement of work in science, mathematics, and technology. In the American context, one area of special interest has been the middle grades, 5–8. Promising projects have been designed, field tested, and carried out, usually leaving few tracks for us to study closely afterward. Some of these projects are still in operation, but the memory of their adoption and the keys to explain the success of some and the demise of others are missing.

When one of the authors (MH) was beginning his career in Geneva in the early 1970s, he had the privilege of working with the celebrated psychologist Jean Piaget on a study of the human life cycle. ‘Tell you what,’ Piaget said, ‘I’ll take the period from neonatal development to 14 years, and you take the rest. But don’t be disappointed. There won’t be much going on after 14.’

For several years, educators in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have aimed to stimulate and improve work in science, mathematics, and technology. In the American context, an area of special interest has been the middle school curriculum (grades 5–8). Promising projects have been designed, field tested, and carried out—unfortunately, however, usually leaving few tracks for us to study closely in their wake. Although some of these projects are still in operation, the memory of their adoption and the keys to explain the success of some and the demise of others are missing.

For several years, educators in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have aimed to stimulate and improve work in science, mathematics, and technology. In the American context, an area of special interest has been the middle school curriculum (grades 5–8). Promising projects have been designed, field tested, and carried out—unfortunately, however, usually leaving few tracks for us to study closely in their wake. Although some of these projects are still in operation, the memory of their adoption and the keys to explain the success of some and the demise of others are missing.

‘Professional development’ has become a password to a variety of activities ranging from self‐directed experimentation in the classroom to full‐blown research projects with peers and, occasionally, with external sources of expertise. From its initial, more restrictive and individual sense of in‐service training, it has taken on institutional, even systemic dimensions, and has been identified as a pre‐condition for thorough‐going school reform. Even in its present form, however, the concept is problematic. The claim is made here that (a) it does not take into account the more ‘artisan’ or ‘craft‐centered’ nature of work in the classroom, (b) that it is overly school‐centered, and (c) that it under‐estimates the real gradient of instructional change. A research‐based, cross‐school alternative for reflection and change is proposed, with a focus on bridging the gap between peer exchanges, the interventions of external resource people, and the greater likelihood of actual change at the classroom level.

As a field of study, “research utilization” (RU) has addressed the gap between research and practice for some 80 years, providing conceptual scaffoldings, empirical findings, and periodic syntheses. The core problem, however, is that many social and educational dilemmas are there in the first place not because of absence of knowledge, but because of conflicting interests. As a result, the “soft technology” developed by RU specialists has had an uneven impact. At the same time, the paradigms of the RU field itself are undergoing change, with a greater appreciation of practitioner-generated research, the ascent of postmodernism and the tenets of critical theory. The articles in this special issue cover this territory, with concerns ranging from the epistemological level to new arrangements for exchanging research findings between social scientists and professionals.

A synthesis of the literature on knowledge dissemination and use in education, notably in science and mathematics, is presented. Perspectives have changed in the ways in which knowledge and products are seen to reach potential users. From the top-down, linear models, we have come closer to bottom-up approaches and to the crucial role of linking agents. At present, the most influential approach is a constructivist one, whereby research and other kinds of specialized knowledge is exchanged between researchers and professionals in a mutually constructed social context. While there is still debate over the best predictors of successful knowledge use, the scope of the field has been considerably enlarged by including users' perspectives. To some extent then, specialists in this field are now working in a new paradigm.

As a field of study, “research utilization” is at a turning point. Despite an accumulation of replicable findings, robust constructs, even a “soft technology” for bridging the gap between theory and practice, we are still largely in the situation of the distance between social problems of, let us say, conflict or inequality and the ability of social science to provide credible, reliable and usable solutions. At the same time, the initial paradigms, suffering from hyperrationalism, have given way to more transactional ones, and have been shaken by the tenets of postmodernism. Shaken, but not undone, as “middle-level” constructs emerge, ones that appear to link the research community with a variety of professional communities in more meaningful and durable ways.

The study of man's life cycle has always inspired minds, in any event ever since philosophers and writers have been studying the "seasons" of life. On the other hand, as an object for scientific study human life has a more recent history and assumes different contours depending on the disciplines involved in this study. For example, there is a clear line evident in psychodynamic literature beginning with the writings of Freud, to the famous studies by Henry Murray and Gordon Allport, down to the normative conceptualization of Erickson (1950), The Eight Crises of Life, and the influential works of Robert White, Lives in Progress (1952). All in all, the most recent popular studies, such as by Vaillant, Gould, and Levinson, have continued this tradition.

To talk about the dissemination of research is to talk about the relationship between theory and practice. A body of empirical and conceptual knowledge has accumulated in an area known as the dissemination and utilization of scientific knowledge. Researchers and practitioners will interact at two points: as the knowledge base is transferred, and as practitioners communicate their needs to researchers. This paper centers on the dynamics regulating the process of transfer of knowledge from research centers to schools and teachers. A robust finding in the research utilization literature is that when researchers have used an approach to the dissemination of their results characterized as "sustained interactivity," the impact of the study on users and user organizations is pronounced. Basically, sustained interactivity involves multiple exchanges between researchers and potential users of that research at different phases of the study. To illustrate the dynamics of sustained interactivity on users and researchers, a recent vocational training research program in Switzerland, called "Education et Vie active," is described. (5 figures) (22 references) (MLF)