Scientific Research in Education/Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research

By Lincoln, Yvonna S. | Academe, November/December 2004 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Scientific Research in Education/Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research


Lincoln, Yvonna S., Academe


Scientific Research in Education Richard J. Shavelson and Lisa Towne, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, National Academy Press, 2002

Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch, eds. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002

For nearly three decades, the research community in the social sciences has engaged in arguments and conversations regarding the proper roles and rules of academic research. It has seemed clear that the major theoretical challenges emanating from Europe and North America, as well as the rising tide of new indigenous and postcolonial voices, would provide new, emerging models for reconsidering the primacy of positivist and postpositivist research in the United States and elsewhere. In part, these conversations have sought ways in which positivist, or conventional experimental, research could coexist with postpositivist methodologies such as phenomenological work and the work of critical theorists. Together, these three approaches might simultaneously contribute to a more precise understanding of social life and provide power, robustness, and subtlety to social policy decisions. In 1977, anthropologist Ray Rist claimed that a certain methodological detente had begun to emerge, along with a sophisticated discourse regarding what the various models of research might reasonably deliver in terms of knowledge and understanding.

These conversations and controversies revolved about the extended and extensive critiques of experimentalism's insistence on being the single best model for achieving reliable, valid, and so-called objective knowledge about social life and the social world. Experimentalism, the best known form of conventional "scientific method," is often based on random assignments of subjects to treatments, programs, or experiments. Proponents of alternative epistemologies challenged its claim to primacy and hegemony, highlighting philosophers' rejection of the possibility of gennine objectivity and the existence of multiple, sometimes conflicting, epistemologies. A sense of rapprochement had begun to settle within the social sciences, as scientists and researchers opened a dialogue around the contributions that several, rather than singular, models might make to comprehending complexity in various social and education contexts. Détente seemed achievable. With the publication of Scientific Research in Education, the 2002 report of the National Research Council's Committee on Scientific Principles for Educational Research, and Evidence Matters: Randomised Trials in Education Research, by Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch, it seems as though the conversation is J once again closing down.

These two new books, in conjunction with provisions of the Bush presidency's national education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, appear to foreclose the possibility that the federal government will support research and evaluation projects that propose multiple views of knowledge and multiple research strategies to obtain that knowledge. The No Child Left Behind Act requires "rigorous testing" of its own effects, primarily through randomized field trials, or experiments in which participants, in a natural, everyday context such as a school, are randomly assigned to receive different treatments or programs.

The National Research Council committee's aim is to delineate what is science and what is not science, and one of its fundamental assumptions is that the principles it proposes in Scientific Research in Education "provide guidance for what constitutes rigorous scientific research," largely by "identify[ing] a set of principles that apply to physical and social science research and to science-based education research," with the purpose of helping "define the domain of scientific research . . . roughly delineating what is in the domain and what is not." This would be less troublesome did the committee not "reject the postmodernist school of thought when it posits that social science research can never generate objective or trustworthy knowledge," thereby discounting most of the new theoretical critiques of Western epistemologies proposed in the past quarter century.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Scientific Research in Education/Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?