Dai, Swanson and Cheng (2011) claim that international research on giftedness has seen rapid growth in the past few decades. Sternberg (2012), however, maintains that such research has shown only limited progress and change over recent years. Sternberg (2012, p. 207) attributes this to the "dogmatism of gifted education".
Research is restricted or limited in its development, because of the strictness or inflexibility in which gifted education is conceptualized. Particular forces influence how new research in the field is interpreted, understood and explained. These include a narrow conception of giftedness, and a bias towards defining it as an analytical ability rather than any other kind of skill, as well as the replication of what has already been taught and the continued use of traditional testing measures. All these have had a significant influence on how research is conducted and have led to stagnation in the study of gifted education (Sternberg, 2012, pp. 209-212). This dogmatic approach restricts the development of new, contemporary perspectives, causing research in gifted education to continue in traditional perspectives.
These are compounded by real-world practices, the availability of budgets, and the movement for accountability. Not only is research in gifted education inhibited by restricted budgets, it is also restrained by having to be accountable to the needs of the majority. A further limiting factor is the tunnel vision over identification procedures, which seem to be limited to traditional psychometric assessment measures. In addition, policy initiatives tend to focus on students who have difficulties and are marginalized, which in turn may leave schools with "little incentive to pay attention to gifted students" (Sternberg, 2012, p. 209). Sternberg (2012) suggests that research in gifted education is constrained because it can only move at the pace the "education marketplace" (Sternberg, 2012, p. 209). Change in the field of gifted education therefore seems to be determined by what takes place in schools. Such change tends to be initiated by policy initiatives, reformation and adjustments. Thus if policy initiatives are carried out and educational advances take place in in schools, change in gifted education may be considered and eventually realized. However, if "things regress in schools, the field of gifted education can regress too" (Sternberg, 2012, p. 209). This seems to be the case as reflected in the findings of this research. According to the literature, the conventional ways of implementing gifted programs are being dismantled (Wallace, 2007) and seem no longer to be relevant to the multi-cultural South African context.
Further research could also be carried out on how policy initiatives are formulated and implemented. How these may either constrain or allow the development of gifted education in mainstream schools should also be researched, explored and reported on. In addition, research initiatives should be undertaken to investigate how the education marketplace could accommodate the needs of gifted learners. Given the findings in this study, I agree with Maree and Van der Westhuizen (2009, p. 14) in stressing the importance of extending the "existing body of knowledge in gifted education to better understand giftedness in the context of a third world" developing country.
Another contentious terrain which needs attention is the 'limited' and unreliable conventional procedures used to identify giftedness. I concur with Ziegler et al. (2012, p. 195) that future researchers should strive to design new methods which are not simply "selection-oriented", targeting individuals. Research should aim to create "learning pathways (to eminence)" in order to make identification more reliable and justifiable (Ziegler et al., 2012, p. 195). At present, certain populations and cultures are under-represented in the field of giftedness and gifted education (Shaklee, 1997; Dai et al., 2011). I suggest that it is essential to conduct
research on how diverse populations and cultures in South Africa perceive, understand and identify giftedness, as well as defining their specific educational needs.
The way giftedness is interpreted depends on the values and worldviews of each culture. In accord with Hernandez de Hahn (2000), I suggest that researchers should address the design of effective services and intervention strategies which address the needs of culturally diverse students and ultimately aid in their retention in gifted programs throughout the world. It is important to recognize that time and space often determine the gifts and talents which any given society nurtures, as well as the way it chooses to identify gifted individuals.
Research on how giftedness is understood and constructed in a multicultural context could inspire new and appropriate identification strategies, helping teachers and other relevant role-players in South Africa to identify gifted learners. The importance of further research on the impact cultural differences and disadvantaged conditions has on giftedness and gifted education cannot be over-emphasized. Such research, if focused on the country's different ethnic groups, could inform and direct both the Department of Basic Education and the government on the need to attend to gifted learners. A minority group in terms of numbers, their intellectual capital could nevertheless make critical contributions to the benefit of society, as well as making them accountable, responsible citizens and possible future leaders.
In addition, I would suggest comparative studies exploring the differences and similarities in perceptions of giftedness and gifted education in different cultures internationally. These could help to combat the narrow perceptions which have become "stuck" due to the dogmatism of gifted education (Sternberg, 2012, p. 210). From this perspective, multiple approaches could be yielded, which, as Van Tassel-Baka (cited in Sternberg, 2012) suggests, could aid us in challenging our own out-dated assumptions, dogmatic views or beliefs. A willingness to engage with and synthesize new models as well as being open to new ideas could generate innovations and initiatives relevant to the modern world.
Research is fundamental in any given field. Taking account of contemporary changes and trends, it explores and maps both the known and the unknown in any specific scientific field (retrieved online: http:www.ebabbie.net/resource/practice/04/purposes.html). It is a tool by which advances can be made to empower those who have been disregarded, marginalized or neglected.
Pioneering work is needed to develop new models and educational programmes in gifted education, taking into account how such education is perceived and understood in the South African context. Hitherto, it has been politicized and regarded as controversial and contentious (Wright, 2008), while the field of research on giftedness has been described as "fractured, contested, porous rather than unified" (Dai et al., 2011, p. 127). Nevertheless, the need for research in this field cannot be ignored.
Continued research on these themes may inform the South African Department of Basic Education on the specific needs of gifted learners and guide fundamental policy and decision-making. It could draw attention to the neglect of the gifted in the education system, which at present seems mainly to be focused on those with disabilities (Van der Westhuizen & Maree, 2006; Kokot, 2011).