The main goal of this article is to introduce physics education research (PER) to researchers in other fields. Topics include discussion of differences between science education research (SER) and physics education research (PER), physics educators, research design and methodology in physics education research and current research traditions and trends (e.g. current research ideas) within PER.

This is a comparative study of the education research policies in several countries and international organizations. The purpose of the comparison is to discover the trends in this field. Four dimensions are used for education research policy: the aims of education research, the promoted research methods, the priority areas in education research, and databases for education research. These dimensions need direction and support from government. The findings are that public interest is pursued by education research institutes. However, any research result that runs counter to current policies will be suppressed. Stakeholders, such as sponsors, researchers and journals, do not take public interest as their main concern. The most promoted method in education research is evidence-based research because it is thought to be more useful and reproducible. The priority area for education research, however, is not so evident. But basic research and new areas, like neuroscience and popular culture, are more common. There are databases for education research in many countries. PISA of OECD is the most conspicuous one in recent years. Education research and educational policy is interwoven together. Education research can contribute to educational policy, while educational policy many direct the orientation of education research. Each should have the other in mind.

The lack of effective and consistent research mentorship and research mentor training in both undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) is a critical constraint on the development of innovative and high quality medical education research. Clinical research mentors are often not familiar with the nuances and context of conducting education research. Clinician-educators, meanwhile, often lack the skills in developing and conducting rigorous research. Mentors who are not prepared to articulate potential scholarship pathways for their mentees risk limiting the mentee's progress in early stages of their career. In fact, the relative paucity of experienced medical education research mentors arguably contributes to the perpetuation of a cycle leading to fewer well-trained researchers in medical education, a lack of high quality medical education research, and relative stagnation in medical education innovation. There is a path forward, however. Integration of doctoral-level educators, structured inter-departmental efforts, and external mentorship provide opportunities for faculty to gain traction in their medical education research efforts. An investment in medical education research mentors will ensure rigorous research for high quality innovation in medical education and patient care.

My purpose is to reflect on the state of education research and on what ails it. Part of what ails it, of course, is that the public regards much of our work with more than a trace of skepticism. Education research rarely gets credit for such headway as is being made in American education. Rather, it tends to be associated with educational faddism on the one hand and pointy-headed intellectualism on the other.

As Foucault’s ironic approach to history is to suggest that looking at our past can help us to change the future, I contend that connections make the best disruptions. To wit, I introduce citation networks to make connections between articles and citations as a way of disrupting assumptions about what has been and can be done in the name of mathematics education research. The purpose of this paper is to introduce citation networks, a novel method for identifying field connections, and a theory of spatiality that deploys the metaphors of bubbles and foams to imagine disruptions. After introducing the method and theory that guide this investigation, I introduce and describe the foams of the research published in the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education and Educational Studies in Mathematics during the 2010s. In doing so, I show what topics of inquiry constitute the dominant research foci of our field, or at least of our field as it is published in these mainstream mathematics education journals. Later, I read these maps with a critical lens towards the foci to discern what is marginalized and excluded, namely the urban. This research builds on earlier work that names the ghettoization of urban mathematics education research and provides a critical interrogation of the ways that urban research is marked and marginalized within dominant mathematics education research journals. I conclude by situating the role of the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education as a place to blow bubbles, a place to reconfigure what we can see, say, think, and do in the name of (urban) mathematics education research.

Federal Grants & ContractsVolume 46, Issue 16 p. 1-1 Grants alerts National Center for Special Education Research Special Education Research (ED) First published: 19 July 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/fgc.32477Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume46, Issue1621 July 2022Pages 1-1 RelatedInformation

Design education research is part of design research. This has been a JMD position for quite some time, with a special issue dedicated to the topic in July 2007 with Mike McCarthy as editor and Phil Doepker and Clive Dym as guest editors. In his introductory editorial for that issue, Mike McCarthy mentioned the following: “Clearly without the fundamentals nothing else matters, but then when the fundamentals are in place the rest of this must happen effectively for engineering to be successful. In the past our industry colleagues would teach these details, but the demands of the modern marketplace are making them less patient with our students’ inexperience. This is one of many challenges that I believe research in design engineering education can address to our benefit as researchers, educators, and engineers.”These comments ring even more true today, when ideas such as innovation and globalization quickly dominate the discussion on how to advance economies and create good jobs. Design is closely linked with these ideas, and what happens in design education—in the classrooms, laboratories, and beyond—is critical for society’s progress. Yet, writing an educational research paper is more than a success story; it needs the usual ingredients of research found in the social and behavioral studies, such as hypotheses testing, repeatability, and validation.We have been fortunate at JMD to have Janis Terpenny serving as associate editor, specifically for design education research, over the past couple of years. Janis has recently assumed also the position of program director for the Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources at the U.S. National Science Foundation, working in programs advocating science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and cyber service. I asked Janis to share some thoughts with us on what makes good design education research papers so that more of you can be encouraged to send your contributions in this area to JMD. I am grateful to Janis for offering us a guest editorial this month, in her usual no-nonsense manner.

Medical education research is not as well understood or established as is basic science or clinical research. The reasons for this are many, but most importantly, there is insufficient funding for medical education research and a dearth of skilled and experienced medical education researchers. There is no nationally centralized force to build and sustain a medical education research enterprise. Yet faculty and training programs are held accountable for the quality of patient care rendered by those that they train. New regulatory requirements at all levels of physician training demand assurance that physicians are competent to practice in the current health care environment and provide optimal patient care. Documenting the relationship between education and patient outcomes represents one of the biggest challenges and greatest opportunities in medical education research. There is no research infrastructure in place to support such outcomes studies. The majority of medical education research that is currently being done is supported by volunteer faculty time and resources. This is not a viable model to sustain a medical education research mission. Compared with medicine in general, these challenges are multiplied in radiology, where there are relatively fewer extramural research dollars available and skilled investigators to carry out radiology education research. Building a critical mass of radiology education researchers through education fellowship programs specific to radiology and mobilizing the existing radiology education researchers into one group with a shared vision are opportunities for elevating the status of radiology education research.

In his introduction to the International Handbook on Mathematics Education, Bishop (1996) commented that the 36 chapters of the Handbook provide "glimpses into the future in many important aspects of mathematics education/' and collectively, "constitute a blueprint for mathematics education in the 21st century" (p. 4). I have a similar conviction about the articles published in the Mathematics Education Research Journal. Although the word "conviction" may sound emotional, and perhaps even extreme in this context, unless articles published in MER], and other similar international mathematics education research outlets, are thought of as sources from which new directions for the future can be conjectured, then mathematics educators are in danger of looking back complacently at their past achievements, of not reflecting sufficiently on past impediments, and of not using the results of research to achieve improvement. In other words, we need to be forward looking, consciously seeking to learn from the past while at the same time grasping the nettle of future possibilities invited by the results and directions of research. At present there is no shortage of published reports of quality mathematics education investigations, ~nd of high-quality syntheses of research findings (see, for example, the reviews in Grouws, 1992). But what is the purpose of such publications if they do not inspire reflection and action which enables many more learners, around the world, to learn mathematics well? Reflection, I believe, should be a key to the planning, conduct, and interpretation of all mathematics education research. But to talk solely of reflection about data gathered, or about the mode of analysis, or about the methodology adopted, would be to trivialise the whole process of reflection. For unless we are able to stand back from our immediate small worlds of research-including the pressure to produce research output-and reflect on and problematise the criteria for proposing and evaluating mathematics education research, then it is almost impossible to look forward in the true sense of the word.

As with clinical care, radiology education benefits when stakeholders collaborate to gather and analyze data to answer questions and solve issues. Just as importantly, radiology educators benefit academically and professionally when they demonstrate a portfolio of published scholarship to promotion committees and department leaders. The principles and techniques used in the design of medical education research are not well understood by many radiology educators because educational scholarship methodologies have received little attention in our literature. Lack of familiarity and inexperience with research methodologies, particularly qualitative research, are barriers that education researchers can address with knowledge acquisition and practice. This overview surveys the landscape and offers suggested medical education research resources to help researchers explore topics to increase understanding of quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, survey, and educational design methodologies.