[NLA] More on OERI

[Eileen Eckert]

Is "scientific rigor" so productive that it is worth rigid, mandated (that 
word again) emulation? Is scientific rigor even real, or just a myth?

>From a 1990 article by Elliot Mischler of Harvard Medical School and 
Massachusetts Mental Health Center:

"Recent studies in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science have 
seriously damaged the 'storybook image of science' (Mitroff, 1974)--an image 
that has served to legitimate the dominant conception of validation. These 
new studies, which focus on actual practices of scientists rather than on 
textbook idealizations, reveal science as a human endeavor marked by 
uncertainty, controversy, and ad hoc pragmatic procedures--a far cry from an 
abstract and severe 'logic' of scientific discovery. Validation has come to 
be recognized as problematic in a deep theoretical sense, rather than as a 
technical problem to be solved by more rigorous rules and procedures." (p. 
417).

Back again to recurring questions: What is good research? Who decides?

Reference:
Mischler, E.G. (1990). Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role of 
Exemplars in Narrative Studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60 (4), 415-442.











>From: M C Smith <mcsmith at niu.edu>
>Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>Subject: [NLA] More on OERI
>Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500


_________________________________________________________________
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: M C Smith <mcsmith at niu.edu>
Subject: [NLA] More on OERI
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500
Size: 3659
Url: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20021022/e39e0ec6/attachment.eml