Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i3GNEQm07599; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:14:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20040416.191018.6398.1.socrates555@juno.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George E. Demetrion" <socrates555@juno.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:515] positivism and empiricism X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 2874 Lines: 63 Hi Karen, Though I can't wade into this discussion right now, let me point out a couple of texts that point to research traditions that are both empirical and postpositivist (That is, beyond the positivistic research tradition). D.C. Phillips and Nicholas C. Burbles (2000). Postpostivism and Education Research. Roman & Littlefield. This text draws alot on research traditions stemming from John Dewey's Logic: A Theory of Inquiry and the various writing on science by Karl Popper. While both Popper and Dewey rejected the positivism of their day, their approach to research would have to be described as rigorous and systematic Raw Pawson and Nick Tilley (1997). Realistic Evaluation. Sage Pawson and Tlley draw on the school of critical realism to ground their assumptions about research, especially Roy Bhaskar and Rom Harre. Their Chapter Two, "Out with the Old: Weaknesses in Experimental Evaluation," is their sustained critique on positivism. Their Chapter Three, "In with the New: Introducing Scientific Realism," is their "beyond" positivistic theoretical statement. I don't think they actually use the term "postpositivism," but their work is very much in the spirit of Philipps and Burbles. If one doesn't privilege experiential design as the gold standard, but focuses on a rigorous scientific methodology in which data and hypothesis formation as part of an ongoing work of constructing and progressively working through a research problem, then empiricism doesn't need to be inevitably equated with the positivistic or neopositivist research traditions.. Both Dewey and Popper as well as Philipps and Burbles and Pawson and Tillich reject any assumption that one starts with observation and the data and then build theory. Rather, all of these authors look at problem identification as core, then the setting up of controlled inquiry experiments in which hypothesis formation and data analysis at varying levels and relationships ensue until the problem is progressively resolved, at least for the time being. I do have to run, but I wanted to comment on that small portion of your message. BTW, a google search for postpositivism will yield interesting results. Regards, George Demetrion PS kudos to Maria Cora for her great work as moderator! On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:48:31 -0400 (EDT) HthKar@aol.com writes: >Colleagues > >Re positivism; this is another of those words with lots of meanings: I >never know quite what people mean by it. Vienna school or just >anything involving mathematics???? Or the physical as opposed to the >'social' sciences? A text about literacy that someone recommended to >me recently stated that its writers believed in being empirical but >not in being positivist. At first sight this struck me as being >self-contradictory. I suppose it is possible but it depends on your >definitions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:15 EST