Abstract
The discussion opens by characterizing recent discourse about empirical educational research as the “new Babel” – critics, using different theoretical vocabularies and making different deep assumptions about the nature of social life, are failing to communicate with each other. After locating some of the critical positions on a left-right continuum, the main discussion focuses upon the end of this continuum where there are located the recent attempts to restore rigor in educational research by using the so-called “gold standard” of randomized field trials. It is argued that positions at this end of the continuum misrepresent the nature of science, and some examples are mentioned briefly to convey the point that it is fruitful to view scientists as making convincing cases, cases that appeal to a wide variety of evidence. The assessment of scientific cases is called the “platinum standard”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For other discussions of the context-dependent nature of human action, see Cronbach (1975) who develops the notion of webs of interactive effects that change over time – hence “generalizations decay”, and Labaree (1998) who makes the point that humans can often act so as to contradict any generalization that is made about them – hence researchers must live with a “lesser form of knowledge”. Neither of these authors seem to have held serious doubts that educational research is both possible and useful; instead they hold that it must have modest aspirations.
- 2.
In the spirit of full disclosure the present author must admit to being a member of the Committee that authored this report.
- 3.
Various attempts to legislate about scientific rigor are detailed in Eisenhart and Towne (2003).
- 4.
Boruch was also a member of the NRC committee, where not surprisingly he was a strong advocate for the use of RFTs.
- 5.
Lee Shulman recently discussed the different conclusions reached by three different groups of researchers, all highly competent, with respect to the impact of high stakes testing on students in the USA; see Shulman (2005).
- 6.
They also argue, not unreasonably, that the RFT allows the making of good estimates of effect size, a matter that will not be pursued here.
- 7.
Fuller discussion, and examples of each, can be found in Phillips (2005b).
- 8.
Achinstein (2001) gives a detailed discussion of factors of this sort, and shows that the notion of evidence can be relativized to the epistemic situation of the scientist who accepts it, without destroying the objectivity that is so important in the concept of evidence.
References
Achinstein P (2001) The book of evidence. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Booth W, Colomb G, Williams J (2003) The craft of research, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Boruch R, de Moya D, Snyder B (2002) The importance of randomized field trials in education and related areas. In: Mosteller F, Boruch R (eds) Evidence matters. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 50–79
Boruch R, Mosteller F (2002) Overview and new directions. In: Boruch R, Mosteller F (eds) Evidence matters: randomized trials in educational research. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, pp 1–14
Bryk A, Lee V, Holland P (1993) Catholic schools and the common good. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Carr D (2003) Making sense of education. Routledge-Falmer, London/New York
Cronbach L (1975) Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. Am Psychol 30(2):116–127
Dewey J (1938/1966) Logic: the theory of inquiry. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
Educational Researcher (2002) Theme issue on. Sci Res Educ 31(8):3–29
Educational Theory (2005) The education science question: a symposium. Educ Theory 55(3):235–322
Eisenhart M, DeHaan R (2005) Doctoral preparation of scientifically based education researchers. Educational Res 34(4):3–13
Eisenhart M, Towne L (2003) Contestation and change in national policy on ‘scientifically based’ education research. Educational Res 32(7):31–38
Elster J (1989) Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Fay B (1996) Contemporary philosophy of social science: a multicultural approach. Blackwell, Oxford
Feuer M, Towne L, Shavelson R (2002) Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Res 31(8):4–14
Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Goldman A (1994) Argumentation and social epistemology. J Philos 91(1):27–49
Hargreaves D (1997) In defence of research for evidence-based teaching. Brit Educ Res J 23(4):405–419
Heath SB (1983) Ways with words: language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kaplan A (1964) The conduct of inquiry. Chandler, Scranton
Kuhn T (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Labaree D (1998) Educational researchers: living with a lesser form of knowledge. Educational Res 27(8):4–12
Lather P (2004) This IS your father’s paradigm: government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qual Inq 10(1):15–34
Levitt S, Dubner S (2005) Freakonomics. William Morrow, New York
Lyotard J-F (1984) The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Michaels D (2005) Doubt is their product. Sci Am 292(6):96–101
Mosteller F, Boruch R (eds) (2002) Evidence matters. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC
National Research Council (2002) Scientific research in education. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
National Research Council (2005) Advancing scientific research in education. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Nelson J, Megill A, McCloskey D (eds) (1987) The rhetoric of the human sciences. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison
Olssen M (2004) The school as the microscope of conduction: doing Foucauldian research in education. In: Marshall J (ed) Poststructuralism, philosophy, pedagogy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 57–84
Phillips D (2000) The expanded social scientist’s bestiary. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham
Phillips D (2005a) The contested nature of empirical educational research (and why philosophy of education offers little help). J Philos Educ 39(4):1–21
Phillips D (2005b) Muddying the waters: the many purposes of educational inquiry. In: Conrad C, Serlin R (eds) SAGE handbook for research in education: engaging ideas and enriching inquiry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 7–21
Phillips D, Burbules N (2000) Postpositivism and educational research. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham
Qualitative Inquiry (2004) Symposium on scientific educational research. Qual Inq 10(1):5–129
Shulman L (2005) Seek simplicity … and distrust it. Educ Week 24(39):36–48
St. Pierre E (2002) “Science” rejects postmodernism. Educational Res 31(8):25–27
Teachers College Record (2005) A symposium on the implications of the scientific research in education report for qualitative inquiry. Teach Coll Rec 107(1):1–58
Toulmin S (2003) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgements
This chapter is a modified version of Educational Research Review, 1 (1) 2006, 15–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Phillips, D.C. (2014). A Guide for the Perplexed: Scientific Educational Research, Methodolatry, and the Gold Versus Platinum Standards. In: Reid, A., Hart, E., Peters, M. (eds) A Companion to Research in Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6809-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6809-3_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6808-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6809-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)