[NLA] More on OERI

[Art LaChance]

This is a wonderful question, and I would be very interested in hearing
the answer.  But unfortunately, I don't think we'll get one because I
think the rationale for 'reliable' research has been lost somewhere
along the road to confusion.

Thanks,

Art



Art LaChance
Gilmer Learning Center
Ellijay, GA



Eileen Eckert wrote:

> 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
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [NLA] More on OERI
> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:55:07 -0500
> From: M C Smith <mcsmith at niu.edu>
> Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
> To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>
> This just came across the wires today, reported in the Chronicle of
> Higher Education, and follows upon recent discussion about fed funding
> for adult literacy education:
>
> >THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S Office of Educational Research
> > and Improvement will be replaced by an autonomous Academy of
> > Education Sciences, with the goal of infusing the beleaguered
> > area of federal education research with scientific rigor,
> > under legislation passed by Congress last week. President
> > Bush is expected to sign the bill.
>
> There appears to be a slight error in the above. The article indicates
> that the new office is to be called the Institute of Education
> Sciences. Not quite sure what the difference is between an Academy and
> an Institute...
>
> Cecil Smith
>
>
> M Cecil Smith, Ph.D.
> Professor of Educational Psychology
> Northern Illinois University
> DeKalb, IL 60115-2854
> (815) 753-8448
> (815) 753-8750 (fax)
> mcsmith at niu.edu
> http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~smith
>
> "Hey, that's astute, I said. Why don't we get together and call
> ourselves an institute?"
> -Paul Simon (singer-songwriter, not the former Senator)
> _______________________________________________ NLA mailing list:
> NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla LiteracyTent: web
> hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20021022/f3ae0dd6/attachment.htm