Can Education Research Be "Scientific"? What's "Scientific"? (was "in Defense of. . . .")
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:56:38 -0700
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@...>
Reply-To: "(AERA SIG Teaching Educational Psychology Forum)"
Subject: Can Education Research Be "Scientific"? What's "Scientific"? (was
"in Defense of. . . .")
Some subscribers to TeachEdPsych might be interested in a recent post "Can
Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'? (was 'in Defense of. .
. .') " [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "In Defense of the NRC's 'Scientific Research
in Education' " [Hake (2012a)] at <http://bit.ly/VtXvAV> [response by Greeno
at <http://bit.ly/TXbnID>], PhysLrnR's Noah Podolefsky (2012) at
<<http://bit.ly/TMOR56>> (here and below <<. . .>> signifies that access may
require filling out a form to obtain a Listserv password).
(a) Pointed to articles (1) "Is the National Research Council Committee's
Report on Scientific Research in Education Scientific? On Trusting the
Manifesto" [Popkewitz (2004)] at <http://bit.ly/RqBTpp>.; (2) "Causal
Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education"
[Maxwell (2004)] at <http://bit.ly/VwWtE9>; and (3) "A Discourse that
Disciplines, Governs, and Regulates: The National Research Council's Report on
Scientific Research in Education" [Bloch (2004)] at <http://bit.ly/XFxPoL>;
stating that "these papers argue that the NRC book is incomplete at best, and
at worst a cartoonish caricature of science."
(b) Implied that the NRC's report "Scientific Research in Education" [Shavelson
& Towne (2002)] at <http://bit.ly/VjrQaV> did not adequately reflect the way
science works, a topic discussed in a 14-post thread PhysLrnR thread "Should
the History of Science Be Rated X?" of 9-13 July 2012 at
In this post I:
A. Argue that Podolefsky's claim that the articles by Popkewitz, Maxwell, and
Bloch show that the NRC's report is (1)"incomplete" has been addressed by the
authors of the report, and (2) "at worst a cartoonish caricature of science" is
B. Argue that Podolefsky's apparent implication (please correct me if I'm
wrong) that the way science *actually works* is contrary to the way it's
*claimed to work* in the NRC report is incorrect.
C. Provide a bibliography related to the questions "Can Education Research Be
'Scientific'?" and "What's 'Scientific'?"
To access the complete 75 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/Ujaogk>.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
"It is not enough to observe, experiment, theorize, calculate and communicate;
we must also argue, criticize, debate, expound, summarize, and otherwise
transform the information that we have obtained individually into reliable,
well established, public knowledge."
- John Ziman (1969): "Information, Communication, Knowledge," Nature 224
(5217): 324 online at <http://bit.ly/cNPB1d>.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 01 Nov 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012. "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'?
(was 'in Defense of. . . .') "; online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
<http://bit.ly/Ujaogk>. Post of 31 Oct 2012 19:34:16-0700 to AERA-L and
Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to
several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
<http://bit.ly/YrZJUS> with a provision for comments.
An American Educational Research Association List