Master’s theses as the mosaic of a discipline: a 25-year analysis of master’s theses in pedagogy
This study analyzes 149 master's theses in pedagogy over 25 years to demonstrate how these works serve as valuable indicators of disciplinary development, revealing evolving thematic trends, diverse theoretical frameworks, and gender-based differences in topic selection.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
The Hidden Library of Growing Minds
Imagine a giant, bustling library where every book represents a new idea in the world of education. Usually, when scientists want to understand how a field like "pedagogy" (the art and science of teaching) is changing, they only look at the books that have already been published in fancy, expensive journals. These are the "bestsellers" of the academic world—ideas that have passed strict tests and are ready for the public. But there is a whole other section of the library that no one really checks: the "work-in-progress" shelves. This is where students write their master's theses. Think of these theses as the rough drafts, the sketches, and the practice runs before a student becomes a full-fledged researcher. They are like the blueprints of a building before the walls go up. By looking at these blueprints, we can see what new ideas are just starting to form, what old ideas are fading away, and what the students are actually curious about before they become experts. This paper decides to dust off these blueprints to see how the "science of education" is evolving from the ground up, rather than just looking at the finished skyscrapers.
The Mosaic of 25 Years
In this study, two researchers from the University of Bergen decided to treat a collection of master's theses like a giant, colorful mosaic. Instead of looking at one single tile, they gathered 149 different theses written over a span of about 25 years. They wanted to see how the picture changed over time. Did the students keep painting the same scenes, or did they start drawing new worlds? They looked at three main things: what topics the students chose, what theories they used to explain those topics, and whether the students' gender made a difference in what they decided to study.
The researchers found that the field of education is a bit like a garden that never stops growing and changing. Some plants, like research on kindergartens and issues related to minorities, have been growing steadily for the whole 25 years. They are the sturdy, reliable trees in the garden. However, other plants have had a much wilder ride. For a long time, there was a lot of interest in ICT and digitalization (using computers and technology in schools), but then that interest seemed to dry up for a while. Suddenly, in the most recent years (2021–2025), those digital plants sprouted back up with a vengeance, likely because the real world is becoming more digital every day. On the flip side, topics that used to be very popular, like "learning" as a standalone concept, have almost disappeared from the students' lists. It's not that learning stopped being important, but rather that students started wrapping those questions inside bigger topics like "policy" or "technology."
The Invisible Hand of the Supervisor
One of the most interesting discoveries in this paper is about how students choose their theories. You might think a student picks a theory because they just really like it, like choosing a favorite flavor of ice cream. But the data suggests something else is going on. The researchers found a very strong link between the supervisor (the teacher guiding the student) and the theory the student used.
Imagine a dance floor. The student is the dancer, but the supervisor is the DJ playing the music. The study suggests that the students are mostly dancing to the tunes their supervisors are playing. If a supervisor is an expert in a specific theory, their students are very likely to use that same theory. The researchers ran a statistical check and found a very strong connection between the two, meaning the "intellectual family" a student joins matters a lot. However, when it came to the topic itself (like choosing between studying "kindergartens" or "policy"), the supervisor didn't seem to have as much control. Students seemed to pick their own topics more freely, even if they were dancing to the same musical beat as their peers.
The Gender Gap in the Garden
The researchers also noticed some clear patterns based on gender. In this group of 149 theses, about 75.51% were written by women. While men and women often studied the same things, there were some distinct differences in their favorite "garden patches."
Topics related to ICT and digitalization were overwhelmingly chosen by male students. It was as if the boys were the only ones building the robot garden. In contrast, topics like kindergartens, educational policy, and assessment (testing and grading) were almost exclusively chosen by female students in this dataset. This doesn't mean men can't study kindergartens or women can't study computers, but it shows that even at the student level, there are invisible lines dividing who studies what. The researchers are careful to say this is just a pattern they observed, not a rule that everyone follows, but it suggests that these gendered habits start early in a researcher's career.
What This All Means
The main takeaway from this paper is that master's theses are a treasure trove of information. They show us that a discipline like education is a mix of continuity (keeping the old, reliable ideas alive) and change (jumping on new trends like digitalization). The study suggests that while students have their own ideas about what to study, the way they study it (the theories they use) is heavily shaped by the teachers they work with.
The authors are careful to note that they only looked at one university in Norway, so we can't say for sure if this is exactly how things work everywhere. They also point out that they only looked at theses that were made public, which might miss a few hidden gems. But, by treating these student papers as a mosaic, they've given us a new way to see how academic fields grow: not just from the top down, but from the ground up, shaped by the choices of students and the guidance of their mentors. It turns out that if you want to know where a field is going, you don't just look at the finished building; you look at the blueprints the students are drawing today.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.