Skip to main content
Log in

A postmodern critical theory of research use

  • Feature Articles
  • Published:
Knowledge and Policy

Abstract

The knowledge use field is in a state of conceptual disarray that has contributed to problems in the dissemination and use of knowledge. Examining the nature of knowledge in a critical realist epistemology results in a reconceptualization of knowledge use from a postmodern critical theorist perspective. This theory takes as its focus the study of research, dissemination, and use as cultural structure, ritual, and ideology; and addresses concerns about knowledge use by articulating a conceptual frame-work that triangulates among issues related to knowledge construction, power and action, and ethics and ideology, as integral to any concept of knowledge and its use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985).Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, R. (1978).The restructuring of social and political theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannen, M. (1992). Bwana Mickey: Constructing cultural consumption at Tokyo Disneyland. In Tobin, J. (Ed.)Remade in Japan: Everyday Life and Consumer Taste in a Changing Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredo, E., & Feinberg, W. (Eds.). (1982).Knowledge and values in social and educational research. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (Eds.). (1986).Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993).Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, P. (1994).Reevaluating evaluation: Returning evaluation to those who need to learn from it. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Derrida, J. (1978). Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences.Writing and Difference. Trans., Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fendler, L., & Popkewitz, T. (1993). (Re)constituting critical traditions.Educational Researcher, 22(6), 24–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetterman, D. (1993).Empowerment evaluation. Presidential address at the American Evaluation Association annual meeting, Dallas.

  • Foucault, M. (1984).Politics and ethics: An interview. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Foucault, M. (1971). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In D. F. Bouchard (Ed.). (1997).Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giarelli, J. (1992). Critical theory and educational research: An introduction.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. (1992).Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. (1982). Sociology: Contradictions and intrastructure. In Bredo, E., & Feinberg, W. (Eds.),Knowledge and Values in Social and Educational Research. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art. In Gordon, E. (Ed.),Review of Research in Education, 10, 151–252. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1970). On systematically distorted communication.Inquiry, 13, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1971).Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1979). Towards a reconstruction of historical materialism.Communication and the evolution of society. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1989). Situated knowledge: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective.Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havelock, R. (1969).Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, C., & Kemmis, S. (1986).Action research in curriculum: A course guide. Deakin University.

  • Huberman, M. (1983). Recipes for busy kitchens.Knowledge: Creation, Dissemination, Utilization, 4(4), 478–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, M. (1989). Predicting conceptual effects in research utilization: Looking with both eyes.Knowledge in Society, 2(3), 6–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, M. (1973).The dialectical imagination: A history of the Frankfort School and the Institute of Social Research. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970).The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lather, P. (1988).Ideology and methodological attitude. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans.

  • Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967).Organization and environment. Irwin.

  • Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision in social change. In Maccoby, E., Newcomb, T., & Hartley, E. (Eds.)Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K., Dentler, R., Kell, D. (1981).Putting knowledge to work: Issues in educational dissemination. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J., & Lincoln, Y. (1990). Methodology and epistemology: A dialogue.Harvard Education Review, 60(4), 497–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. (1993).Qualitative research design. Unpublished manuscript.

  • McLaren, P. (1992). Collisions with otherness: “Traveling” theory, post-colonial criticism, and the politics of ethnographic practice—the mission of the wounded ethnographer.International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 5(1), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (1990).Creating spaces and finding voices: Teachers collaborating for empowerment. New York: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979).The structure of organizations: A synthesis of research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oja, S., & Smulyan, L. (1989).Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. The Falmer Press.

  • Patten, M. (1986).Utilization focused evaluation, 2nd Edition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow, P. (Eds.), (1984).The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow, P., & Dreyfus, H. (Eds.). (1983).Michael Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, 2nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneier, L. (1991). Respondent in, Duckworth, E.,Teaching and Research in One: Extended Clinical Interviewing. Invited Address, the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Chicago.

  • Sirotnik, K. (1991). The school as the center of change. In Sergiovani & Moore (Eds.),Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reforms to Issues that Count. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.Curriculum and Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, J. (1989). Collaborative ethnographic evaluation in a complex organization. Presentation for the Committee on Ethnographic Evaluation, Council on Anthropology in Education, the American Anthropological Association annual meeting, Washington, D.C.

  • Watkins, J. (1992). Critical friends in the fray: An experiment in applying critical ethnography to school restructuring. In, Hess, G. A. (Ed.).Empowering Teachers and Parents: School Restructuring Through the Eyes of Anthropologists. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, J. (1993).Ethnographic evaluation: Problems in praxis. Invited panel discussion, Committee on Ethnographic Evaluation, Council on Anthropology in Education, the American Anthropological Association annual meeting, Washington, DC.

  • Weick, K. (1979).The social psychology of organizing, 2nd Ed. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (1975). Evaluation research in the political context In Guttentag, M., & Struening, E. (Eds.).Handbook of Evaluation Research (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, K. (1982). Ethnography as a methodology and its applications to the study of schooling: A review. In Spindler, G. (Ed.).Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Watkins.

Additional information

John M. Watkins is a private consultant atInquiry and Learning for Change. His primary work is in the area of action research and critical inquiry with schools and communities.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Watkins, J.M. A postmodern critical theory of research use. Knowledge and Policy 7, 55–77 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02696292

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02696292

Keywords

Navigation