The demand for scientifically-based educational research has fostered a new methodological orthodoxy exemplified by documents such as the National Research Council's Scientific Research in Education and Advancing Scientific Research in Education and American Educational Research Association's Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Journals. This article criticizes the new orthodoxy as being a throwback to positivist reductionism and the “two dogmas” of educational research: the quantitative/ qualitative incompatibility thesis and fact/value dichotomy. It then criticizes the new orthodoxy for fostering a “third dogma” of educational research cut from the same cloth as the first two: the empirical science/humanities dualism. The article advances the view that no fundamental epistemological dividing line can be drawn between the empirical sciences and the humanities and that, accordingly, empirical research in education should not be cordoned off from the humanities, particularly their focus on values. It concludes with several observations about the problems and prospects for interdisciplinary research in education across the empirical science/humanities divide.
Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (Eds.). (1993). Feminist epistemologies . New York: Routledge.
2.
American Educational Research Association. ( 2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://aera.net/opportunities/?id=1480.
3.
Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
Bullough, R. (2006). Developing interdisciplinary researchers: What ever happened to the humanities in education? Educational Researcher, 35(8), 3-10.
5.
Campbell, D. (1974, September). Qualitative knowing in action research. Kurt Lewin Award Address, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues . Presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
6.
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally .
7.
Condliffe Lageman, E. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Cronbach, L. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology . American Psychologist, 30, 116-127.
9.
Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Boston : MIT Press.
10.
Dewey, J. (1973). Search for the great community. In J. McDermott (Ed.), The Philosophy of John Dewey (pp. 620-642). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Firestone, W. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16-21.
12.
Fonow, M., & Cook, J. (Eds.). (1991). Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship and lived research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
13.
Freeman, M., deMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25-32.
14.
Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method. New York: Basic Books.
15.
Guba, E. (1987). What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation?Evaluation Practice, 8(l), 23-43.
16.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests, Boston: Beacon.
18.
Harding, S. (2006). Social science and inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
19.
Holland, D., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement and college culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
20.
Hostetler, K. (2005). What is "good" education research? Educational Research, 34(6), 16-21.
21.
House, E., & Howe, K. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Howe, K. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis (or dogmas die hard). Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.
23.
Howe, K. (1998). The interpretive turn and the new debate in education . Educational Researcher, 27(8), 13-20.
Howe, K. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), 42-61.
26.
Howe, K. (2005). The question of education science: Experimentism versus experimentalism. Educational Theory, 55, 307-322.
27.
Howe, K.R. (1985). Two dogmas of educational research. Educational Researcher, 14(8), 10-18.
28.
Howe, K., & Ashcraft, C. (2005). Deliberative democratic evaluation: Successes and limitations of an evaluation of school choice. Teachers College Record, 7, 2274-2297.
29.
Howe, K., Eisenhart, M., & Betebenner, D. (2001). School choice crucible: A case study of Boulder Valley. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2), 137-146.
30.
Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research. A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher , 33(7), 14-26.
31.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond positivism and relativism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
33.
Mackenzie, B. (1977). Behaviorism and the limits of scientific method . Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
34.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35.
National Research Council. (2004). Advancing scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36.
Passmore, J. (1967). Logical positivism. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 5, pp. 52-57). New York: Free.
37.
Putnam, H. (1990). Realism with a human face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
Putnam, H. (2002a). Are values made or discovered? In The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
39.
Putnam, H. (2002b). The entanglement of fact and value. In The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
40.
Quine, W.V.O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 20-43.
41.
Rabinow, P., & Sullivan, W. (1979). The Interpretive turn: Emergence of an approach . In P. Rabinow & W. Sullivan (Eds.), Interpretive social science (pp. 1-21). Los Angeles: University of California Press.
42.
Reichardt, C., & Cook, T. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods . In T. Cook & C. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43.
Root, M. (1993). Philosophy of social science. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
44.
Scriven, M. (1983). The evaluation taboo. In E. House (Ed.), Philosophy of evaluation (pp. 75-82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45.
Searle, J. (1984). Minds, brains and science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free.
47.
Smith, J.K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 15(l), 4-12.
48.
Snow, C.P. (1959). The two cultures. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
Sperber, D. (2003). Why rethink interdisciplinarity? Retrieved September 21, 2007, from http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/1 .
50.
Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25-74). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. Farnborough, UK: Saxon House.
52.
Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge .
53.
Wright, G. H. von (1971/1997). Explanation and understanding . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
54.
Yanchar, S., & Williams, D. (2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher , 35(9), 3-12.
55.
Young, I.M. (2004). Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
