"Research" could reasonably be interpreted in any of these ways. Each of these interpretations is quite different and implies different processes, different types of effort, and different levels of expertise. Literally, the word only means to look diligently for something (search) and then to look again (re-search)

The new reading program is research-based. "It should be easy to get the district to approve us to purchase it for every classroom," says the principal. The program will help students improve their comprehension and fluency. It will also help students with vocabulary and vocabulary skills.

Pause the scene again. What do you think she meant by "research-based?" Did she mean that the program was designed upon literacy principles found in research literature? Or did she mean an unbiased, outside organization had conducted randomized classroom implementations to see how the program influenced standardized reading test scores? And if that was the case, then how valid was the test?

The term "research" might mean any number of things, allowing interested parties to pass just about anything off as "research-based" in some form or fashion. This equates the most thoughtful, rigorous experimental project with the most superficial word-of-mouth check into a product’s value.

If the term "research" is applied to education in too broad a fashion, then suddenly anything can count as research. Such imprecision and willy-nilly use of the term makes the rigor and clout of research lose its persuasive sway and confuses us into thinking that we are talking about the same thing.

If we apply the term "research" too narrowly, we might miss out on truly meaningful and insightful examples of research. So, though there does seem to be a clear need to define research more narrowly than it is used in the vernacular, we need to be careful not to describe it so narrowly that we lose its key benefits.

We might sometimes have different meanings in mind when we use the term "research," but we would generally agree on at least four things. The four things we would agree on are that education research is important, and that it should be done in a positive way. We would also agree on the importance of focusing on the problems, rather than on the solutions.

Research operates as a form of inquiry (Mertens, 2010) The process of doing research is one of asking questions and seeking answers. We might ask a single question in a research study or we might ask many. Researchers operate differently in this regard, but we all ask questions for the purpose of finding answers.

Research is systematic (Mertens, 2010). While trying to answer our questions, there are specific, intentional steps we take. We don't just shout against the wall "Are learning styles real?!" and expect the universe to answer. We embark on a step-by-step process to ever-more-certainly approach the answer.

Third, research is auditable. We document the steps that we are taking and how they either align with or deviate from the systematic approaches others have taken in the past. This makes the process we followed, from start to finish or from question to answer, visible to anyone else who might also be interested.

Fourth, research is empirical. Unlike other forms of inquiry that operate exclusively in the internal mind of the inquirer, education research relies upon evidence observable in the external physical and social world. This means that research involves the observation or analysis of people or things, not just ideas. Theory generation, literature synthesis, and critical reflection might all be valuable activities in their own right, but they can only be called education research as they are combined with empirical analysis.

Education research is "systematic, auditable, empirical inquiry" that is done within the realm of education. Research is done to address problems impacting learners, educators, or their educational institutions. It is a fairly simple and straightforward definition of education research. It can be done in a variety of ways, such as to address issues impacting learners and educators.

Research should be done with a goal of influencing others' thinking, says professor. "We want others to trust our answer and for them to find it compelling or persuasive," he says. "This may further complicate matters in education," he adds, because the imagined audience might represent teachers, students, parents, policymakers.

Problems in education are complicated partially because they influence such different stakeholders. They are found in complex and unique social institutions and involve various disciplinary knowledge domains. Such complexity makes education research quite different from research in many other fields. For researchers, this means that upon completing a study, we might write up our results in a journal article.

As researchers, we will often find ourselves doing research for mixed audiences to achieve our goals. For instance, other researchers in our audience will value work that exhibits "careful design, solid data, and conclusions based on cautious and responsible inference" Researchers relish nuance and recognize the importance of context for their results to be valid.

Teachers value ready applicability of research findings to their current needs and contexts. Teachers will not adopt purported solutions to achievement gaps if they do not think the solutions will be effective or can be implemented in their specific contexts. This does not mean that practitioners are antagonistic toward emerging research or are resistant to change.

Policymakers will value research that is compatible with their prior beliefs and commitments. This leads to very blunt or simplistic interpretations of research findings that may lack nuance or precision. This reflects limited trust in scientific findings. "Aunt Minnie's opinion may carry equal or greater weight" because of her 30 years as a teacher or parent.

The general public has limited understanding of research methodology and limited interest in and access to scholarly journals. This means that they will typically rely upon popular news outlets, such as television news hours, news sites, and popular blogs. Such outlets also will be heavily biased toward research studies with findings that seem to be novel, troubling, or contentious.

Elected officials, practitioners, and the general public cannot reasonably be expected to study and evaluate the research literature at the same depth that scholars do. Such divides between potential research audiences are often lamented but may be necessary and deserving of respect in democratic societies. How this is done via a variety of publication venues will be explored more deeply in later chapters on research reporting.

Research serves several important functions in our society, such as adding to general knowledge, improving practice, and informing policy debates. Education research tends to start with some specific assumptions and goals, and at the heart of these lies a central, golden premise that we go about doing research for the direct purpose of improving education.

Education research is unique as a discipline because it attempts to connect systematic data-gathering and analyses to better achieve improved educational outcomes. This typically takes the form of researchers tackling social problems and issues that can be very complex and highly politicized. It requires researchers to both rigorously grapple with problems in thoughtful, insightful ways via critical thinking and also to socially influence the world.

Western narratives of research have historically positioned the researcher as an objectivist outsider. Such monastic views of the researcher have emphasized his role as a dispassionate observer. The researcher must prevent passions, connectedness, and proximity from skewing his rational judgment and unbiased analysis of the facts as they are.

Critical thinking is indeed a necessary requirement of the researcher. Yet, treating critical thinking as an unequivocal virtue and monastic approaches as the only or even best way of knowing seems dubious. In subsequent chapters, I will explore ways of knowing in more detail but will close this chapter with a brief explanation of why critical thinking and advocacy must work in tandem.

All humans face problems that require critical thinking on a daily basis. We engage in critical thinking for the purpose of coming to a reasonable conclusion. If we fail to come to a conclusion, then have we done it right? We would regularly purchase expired produce, speak to people in languages they cannot understand, and generally waste our time.

If I spend the entirety of my time browsing the options but never settle on one to watch, then have I successfully employed critical thinking? I might have weighed my options, read the synopses, looked at ratings, and checked out the cover photos. But if this process doesn't produce a decision that I then act upon, then was the effort worth it?

Critical thinking exists to serve a purpose: to inform action. Properly employed, critical thinking consists of temporary inaction that is undertaken to provide better-informed action. If an action does not follow, such paralysis should not be lauded as expert critical thinking but as failed critical thinking.

By shifting from critical thinking to advocacy, we take an (again) temporary stance of confident action toward the problems we are trying to solve. This might mean adopting an intervention, advocating for a policy change, or writing a provocative op-ed. We boldly act on what we have learned and attempt to put it into action.

The imagery that emerges from this constant stepping forward in advocacy and back in critical thinking is that of a pair of dancers aesthetically moving about a stage. At the macro-level, movement is occurring, change is happening, and the dance progresses to an eventual beautiful finale, even though the micro-footsteps of the dancers skirt back-and-forth in every direction.

The best education researchers find their homes in this constant dance of stepping back to think critically about evidence. We engage in this dance not to try to announce to the world from our tower that we understand the masses better than they understand themselves. Rather, we step forward to advocate for improvement.