This interview sheds light on current developments threatening the disciplinary ‘heart’ of education. Taking a starting point in the continental ‘configuration’ of the field, Gert Biesta and Stefan T Siegel argue that there are forms of theory considered distinctively educational. Based on this premise, they discuss why defining educational theories ( Erziehungswissenschaftliche Theorien) is so challenging, and why it is nevertheless a rewarding endeavour. By distinguishing between (genuinely) educational theories in a narrow sense and (educationally relevant) theories in a wider sense, Biesta and Siegel attempt to tackle the problem of educational theory and to stimulate the discourse on theorizing education.

The relative autonomy of Pädagogik (education) as an academic field has always been in jeopardy. Consequently, we take a closer look at its past, present, and future. We begin by retracing the historical development of this field of study in the German-speaking context. In the second part, we look at the current state of the discipline and spotlight current developments threatening education’s autonomy, first and foremost the steep rise and dominance of Empirische Bildungsforschung (empirical educational research). In the last part, we argue for education as an independent discipline and outline how educationalists can strengthen its autonomy and disciplinary identity.

(1) Background: Educational theories are a constitutive element of educational studies. Despite their theoretical relevance, little is still known about students’ and instructors’ understandings of educational theories and their theory-related attitudes and beliefs. (2) Methods: To elucidate these constructs and to test their relevance, we conducted a mixed-methods study with 32 students and 12 instructors of educational studies at a German university. (3) Results: We found that both groups perceived educational theories as rather abstract concepts. Students reported rather negative attitudes and naive beliefs. For both groups, we found that attitudes and beliefs were strongly tied to motivational and affective aspects when dealing with educational theories, which stresses their relevance for educational studies. (4) Conclusions: We suggest a systematic theoretical clarification of the term educational theories. Furthermore, consideration of students’ and instructors’ theory-related attitudes and beliefs can give rise to meaningful practical implications (e.g., through self-reflection).

Research is often specialized and varies in its nature between disciplines, making it difficult to assess and compare the performance of individual researchers. Specific qualitative and quantitative indicators are usually complex and do not work equally well for different research fields. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to develop an economical questionnaire that is valid across disciplines. We constructed a Short Multidisciplinary Research Performance Questionnaire (SMRPQ), with which researchers can briefly report 11 quantitative and qualitative performance aspects from four areas (research quality, facilitation, transfer/exchange, and reputation) in relation to their peer reference groups (fellow researchers with the same status and discipline). To validate this questionnaire, 557 German researchers from Physics, History, and Psychology fields (53% male, 34% post-docs, and 19% full professors) completed it, and for the purpose of convergent and discriminant validation additionally made assessments regarding specific quantitative and qualitative indicators of research performance as well as affective, cognitive, and behavioural aspects of their research activities (perceptions of positive affect, help-seeking, and procrastination). The results attested reliable measurement, endorsed the postulated structure of the newly developed instrument, and confirmed its invariance across the three disciplines. The SMRPQ and the validation measure were strongly positively correlated, and both demonstrated similar associations with affect, cognition, and behaviour at work. Therefore, it can be considered a valid and economical approach for assessing research performance of individual researchers across different disciplines, especially within nomothetic research (e.g. regarding personal antecedents of successful research).