Dr. Celia Rosemberg—a member of the Academic Committee for the Doctor of Education program—visited Uruguay to serve on the panel for Claudia Cabrera’s doctoral defense.
In this context, she reflected on her role as director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Research in Psychology, Mathematics, and Experimental Sciences (Ciipme). She also discussed the projects she is currently working on, as well as the importance and challenges of conducting research in education.
What does your job as director of CIPME entail?
The center has a long tradition of research in experimental psychology. However, over the past 15 to 20 years, it has taken on a much more interdisciplinary character.
There are several lines of research, but the one we have been pursuing focuses on educational psychology, classroom discourse analysis, and children’s psycholinguistic development. It also addresses early literacy processes in preschool, reading and writing acquisition in elementary school, and second language learning.
They are profoundly interdisciplinary fields of study. One studies classroom discourse or teaching situations and focuses on language, but these interactions are social and psychological because they involve interconnected minds. At the same time, they are linguistic because language serves as the channel of communication, yet they are rooted in a wealth of gestures, so they go beyond the verbal proper.
What are the characteristics of your work?
We aim to do what is known, at least in Argentina, as the transfer of research findings. In other words, educational intervention projects.
We study the processes involved in how children use and develop language. At the same time, we aim to propose educational interventions that improve classroom practices and expand opportunities for development.
In my view, the researcher’s responsibility—as a social actor—lies in studying a subject of inquiry; however, if they have something to say, they should try to influence those processes in some way.
What are you currently researching?
We run a language and cognitive development program for young children living in extreme poverty in Buenos Aires. We also work with children from indigenous communities in Chaco, with a focus on intercultural literacy.
We are also conducting a longitudinal study of language development in infants, from eight months to three years of age.
My area of expertise ranges from educational psychology to child development psychology.
Are you working on all those projects?
No, I lead a research team consisting of ten people. Our group’s work, which is part of Ciipme—a center of which I am the current director, having been selected through a competitive process—focuses on the topics I mentioned earlier.
Ciipme, for its part, consists of approximately 60 people. Our work is largely collaborative. We are completely interdependent.
What I always strive to do is coordinate everyone’s efforts, since that makes things much easier and more rewarding. Specifically, the analyses I’m most involved in are those related to vocabulary, but it’s very common to work on group projects. It’s not that I’m an exception in Argentina; rather, researchers at my level typically work this way.
What is the Argentine scientific system like?
It’s very different from the Uruguayan system. There is an organization called theNational Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET)—to which CIIPME belongs. There, tenured research staff are government employees who are specifically paid to conduct research.
In addition, one can—as in my case—teach at the university. However, professors who only teach don’t have many opportunities to conduct research because the salaries are very low. Generally speaking, it’s difficult to work exclusively at the university.
What do you think are the two or three key issues for an education research agenda?
There are two areas that I believe are central to the Doctorate in Education: teacher training and the use of technology in education. But I also believe that the discussion and promotion of language in the classroom is a fundamental aspect. In my opinion, this should also be a focus of teacher training.
Is this uncharted territory?
The thing is, we take what we don't see for granted. For us adults, language is something obvious. We have to take specific steps to promote it in the school environment, since it's everywhere. So we don't see it, and we don't pay attention to all the things we can do to foster its development.
We are naturally equipped to develop language: there is an innate component to it. However, the discursive aspects, vocabulary diversity, and the use of explicit language depend on opportunities. All of these are educational goals, and it is very important that all levels of education take steps to promote them.
I think this is an issue that should be encouraged and that is entirely feasible. It should be a priority. In that regard, the United States and Chile have done a lot of work on this. They are quite clear about the importance of developing oral language skills, which are then leveraged for reading and writing.
If it were up to you, what steps would you take to promote collaboration among research centers in Latin America?
I think it’s really important. There are opportunities to develop joint projects, and I think it would be very important to try to establish a partnership.
From a theoretical and methodological perspective, the collaboration with the Universidad ORT Uruguay —given its focus on technology—is of great interest to me. Furthermore, it is a personal interest since the research we are conducting involves working with large data sets and a significant amount of computer-based work.
We need to keep looking for ways to make this happen, but we must also stay on the lookout for funding opportunities and other possibilities. Currently, the funding situation for the scientific community is quite challenging. That said, I’m always on the lookout for available options, with a view to establishing regional collaboration that can enhance the work we’re currently doing.