[ Current Issue ] [ Back Issues ]

Editorial

Volume 34, Number 1, Spring 2002

The name of the game
Richard Edwards, University of Stirling, UK

Colleagues who have read these editorials previously will be familiar with the sorts of musings in which I engage as Editor. These arise often from a combination of general circumstances and the articles we are publishing in specific editions of Studies. This editorial is no exception, as alongside the preparation of the edition, I have also become heavily involved in putting together a research bid for the UK's Economic and Social Research Council's Teaching and Learning Research Programme. The latter is a major programme of research that seeks to improve pedagogic practices and learning attainment. It has developed over three phases and Phase Three, due to start next year, is focusing on post-compulsory education and lifelong learning. Millions of pounds will go into research projects that will stretch up to five years in duration. It is therefore hugely significant for research in the education of adults in the UK and, if findings are generalisable to some degree, elsewhere.

However, Phase Three of the Programme is also highly performative. It is concerned with 'what works', what we can do to improve learning. In itself, this is not a bad thing. Indeed, like lifelong learning itself, it is difficult to be against the idea that we can and should improve learning. But this is located within a notion of research practices and discourses that extend the role of the consumer in research and look for practical and pragmatic outcomes, which seem to sustain the fantasy of mastery through research. Thus, in relation to the former, applicants have to demonstrate how 'users' have been involved in establishing the research focus and in negotiating how the research will be conducted. In relation to the latter, the solidity of the outcomes and how they are achieved is to the fore. The bringing together of the consumer and producer is to ensure that the research will be delivered, deliverable and useful. With millions of pounds of public money at stake, this is not surprising.

Yet, involvement in the process of bidding for funds from this Programme has made me uneasy. I, like no doubt many others, have taken the specification laid down and tried to work out how best to target a research project to push the right buttons. This has involved both writing work - in constructing the bid - and identity work - in reconstituting myself. With increasing demands to bring in research income and large amounts available through this Programme, I have become involved in a process of learning the name of the game. And like all games, this involves accepting other's rules, even when one does not always agree with them. Certain sensibilities are suspended in wishing to be part of this game...

Well, not entirely of course, as in some games the rules are less rigorous and less rigorously enforced than in others. But game-playing it is. And it is not frivolous to consider all research and scholarship in the education of adults as in one form or another a game. Or more precisely, many games, as this reflects the different histories, values, paradigms and genres of scholarship. To call these 'games' may appear to trivialise, but there is a serious tradition of scholarship on such matters, with Wittgenstein and Lyotard to the fore in my mind. To play games is a serious business, with consequences for experimentation, conformity and identification.

So what are the games in which current contributors to Studies are engaging? Who is playing what games? And are they subverting any rules in the process? To pose such questions is to suggest a reading strategy, a way to engage with the texts herein. It is also to suggest that we need to read to examine what is beyond the text, those assumptions and exclusions that make a particular piece or writing possible, a way of claiming authority and making authoritative claims. And to bring to bear critical insight based upon other players of the game and even other games.

So we may consider ourselves to be in a playground of scholarship - both a field of games and a space for bullying and loneliness - and indeed research on playgrounds is proving to be some of the more interesting in the general world of educational research. It is in such playgrounds that the serious learning takes place. With that in mind, maybe attempting the performative is not all bad after all. However, if bruising, then that is a different matter.

One game that is particularly important for journals is that associated with book reviews. This edition of Studies is the last in which the book reviews section has been put together by Janet Bunker. Janet has been Reviews Editor for six years, the maximum an editor can remain in post with Studies. During that time she has been tireless is trying to develop relationships with publishers and reviewers and with ensuring a steady flow of good quality reviews. Often book reviews sections are seen as the bolt-on of journals. For the Studies Board, it is as central as the scholarly articles, as it assists in the democratisation of knowledge. On behalf of the Board, therefore, I would like to pay tribute publicly to Janet for her hard (and voluntary) work over the years.

Janet's departure inevitably means the arrival of someone new into the role of Reviews Editor. The Board is delighted that this is being taken up by John Field. John is well known to the readership of this journal and has been a member of the Board for a number of years. I have no doubt that he will be looking to build upon and develop the work done previously by Janet.

And one final game to consider...Studies goes electronic. Watch this space...

Note

My thanks to John Field for comments on a draft of this editorial, even if it does add to the metaphorical complexity