D. C. Phillips

On the Science of Education Design Studies

The authors argue that design studies, like all scientific work, must comport with guiding scientific principles and provide adequate warrants for their knowledge claims. The issue is whether their knowledge claims can be warranted. By their very nature, design studies are complex, multivariate, multilevel, and interventionist, making warrants particularly difficult to establish. Moreover, many of these studies, intended or not, rely on narrative accounts to communicate and justify their findings. Although narratives often purport to be true, there is nothing in narrative form that guarantees veracity. The authors provide a framework that links design-study research questions as they evolve over time with corresponding research methods. In this way, an integration can be seen of research methods focused on discovery with methods focused on validation of claims.

Learning From Our Differences: A Dialogue Across Perspectives on Quality in Education Research

The dialogue re-presented in this article is intended to foster mutual engagement—and opportunity for learning—across different perspectives on research within the education research community. Participants in the dialogue each addressed the following questions: (1) What are the touchstones by which you judge quality or rigor in education research (for a single study, a set of studies, or a “field” or community of researchers in dialogue)? What is your chief concern or fear that the touchstones guard against? (2) Where do you see challenges to your perspective in the perspectives of other members of the panel? How might your perspective evolve to respond to those challenges? Given all of this, what are the implications for the preparation of education researchers? Opening and closing comments set the dialogue in historical context, highlight issues raised, and suggest next steps for collaborative learning from the diversity of perspectives in our field.

Coming to Grips with Radical Social Constructivisms

This essay distinguishes two broad groups - psychological constructivists and social constructivists - but focusses upon the second of these, although it is stressed that there is great ’within group‘ variation. More than half of the paper is devoted to general ’clearing of the ground‘, during which the reasons for the growing acrimony in the debates between social constructivists and their opponents are assessed, an important consequence of these debates for education is discussed, and an examination is carried out of the radical social constructivist tendency to make strong and exciting but untenable claims which are then backed away from (a tendency which is documented by a close reading of the early pages in Bloor‘s classic book). The last portion of the essay focuses upon social constructivist accounts of the causes of belief in science - the more radical of which denegrate the role of warranting reasons, and which give an exalted place to quasi-anthropological or sociological studies of scientific communities.

Telling the truth about stories

Abstract This paper opens with two stories—about the “joking relationship” discovered by anthropologist Radcliffe-Brown Structure and function in primitive society . New York: The Free Press (1965), and an incident in the life of Rousseau—which illustrate that sometimes a story needs to be true, and that the opinion of an outsider can be preferable to that of the insider whose story it is. Recent papers by Carter and Polkinghorne Educational Researcher, 22 (1), 5–12 (1993) and International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8 (1), 5–23 (1995) are analysed; it is argued that a clear and enticing plot is no indicator of a storys truth, furthermore the need to be true can hold both of “analysis of narratives” and “narrative analysis”.

On Describing a Student's Cognitive Structure

For several decades, a model has been developing which depicts the learning process in terms of interaction between a students cognitive structure and the structure of the discipline being studied. There arc a number of conceptual difficulties here that are trapping researchers in cognitive psychology, especially the problem of not confounding the two types of structure. Doubts can even be raised about the usefulness of the notion of cognitive structure as it is presently developed. Throughout the paper, insights from recent relevant philosophical work are used to throw light on the empirical research that is being carried out.

The Methodological Basis of Systems Theory

Systems theorists maintain that the traditional analytic methods of science are inadequate when a system composed of interrelated parts is being investigated. This paper argues, on the contrary, th...

Empiricism and the Knowledge Base of Educational Practice

As John Dewey recognized, humans have always longed for security in an uncertain universe and have sought to achieve command over nature in order that they might better be insulated against disaster and, perhaps, also be able to improve their lot. Myths, legends, and superstitions often reflect these deepseated human urges; so do fairy tales. Consider the wonderful story by the brothers Grimm of Rumpelstiltskin, the gnome who had gained enough control over nature to be able to spin straw into gold. The unfortunate young maiden to whom Rumpelstiltskin gave assistance had to pay a terrible price for his help. In the end, thankfully, the maiden learned Rumpelstiltskins name. She thereby not only avoided Rumpelstiltskins price but also ended up gaining control over him.

When evaluators disagree: Perplexities and perspectives

It is often held that one function served by evaluation in the fields of education and social policy generally is to assist the administrator in the making of rational decisions. If, under these circumstances, several evaluators come to different conclusions about a research proposal or a pilot social program, on what basis can the administrator make his decision? He can hardly be expected to resolve any technical dispute between the experts who are his advisors.After discussing the various functions of the evaluation process, and analyzing some of the factors that may lead to such lack of consensus amongst experts, the paper recommends that if the administrator is concerned solely with making a rationally defensible decision, then he should select his evaluating panel so that all members share the same theoretical orientation.

Forty years on: Anti‐naturalism, and problems of social experiment and piecemeal social reform

In The Poverty of Historicism, Karl Popper attacked a number of anti‐naturalistic doctrines while advocating a program of piecemeal social reform. However, recent work in social science, and especially in the evaluation of social programs and social reforms, has exposed difficulties that have led many scientists to fall back on one or other of these same anti‐naturalistic positions. It is suggested that Poppers strategy for dealing with anti‐naturalism is no longer efficacious, although the difficulties in contemporary social science do not warrant the abandonment of naturalism.

Key Questions for Thought and Action

As we stated in the Preface, “there are no universal solutions to the problems involved in setting up and operating a quality doctoral program. Rather, educators would be wise to be aware of the alternatives at their disposal and make informed choices based on an understanding of their institution and the larger societal contexts.”