Many professional journals publish research reports of interventions for persons with developmental disabilities which traditionally have been expected to fulfill two quite different functions. First, this research literature is the scientific data base to support the validity of recommended most promising practices. Second, these same reports are expected to be a source of information to guide the efforts of practitioners to implement those most promising practices. In a parallel fashion, the experimental method has been used both to test intervention hypotheses in research studies and as an evaluation model for practitioners in evaluating applications in typical settings. This paper explores the extent to which it is reasonable or practical to expect conventional experimental methodologies and research reports to perform this dual purpose. Recommendations are made for research and practice that require multiple perspectives and approaches better suited to a human science.
AppleM. W. (1972). Adequacy of systems management procedures in education. Journal of Educational Research, 68(9), 10–18.
2.
BaumeisterA. A. (1981). Mental retardation policy and research: The unfulfilled promise. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 445–456.
3.
BerkmanK. A.MeyerL. H. (1988). Alternative strategies and multiple outcomes in the remediation of severe self-injury: Going “all out” nonaversively. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 76–88.
4.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn 8#x38; Bacon.
5.
BogdanR.KugelmassJ. (1984). Case studies of main-streaming: A symbolic interactionist approach to special schooling. In BartonL.TomlinsonS. (Eds.), Special education and social interests (pp. 173–191). London: Croon-Helm.
6.
BolsterA. S. (1983). Toward a more effective model of research on teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 294–308.
7.
BrowderD. M. (1991). Assessment of individuals with severe disabilities: An applied behavior approach to life skills assessment (2nd ed.) Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
EifertG. H.EvansI. M. (Eds.). (1990). Unifying behavior therapy: Contributions of paradigmatic behaviorism. New York: Springer.
10.
EvansI. M. (1993). Constructional perspectives in clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 5, 264–272.
11.
EwertG. D. (1991). Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of the influence of Habermas in educational literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 345–378.
12.
FischerF. (1980). Politics, values, and public policy—The problem of methodology. Boulder, CO: Westview.
13.
FoxxR. M.DufrenseD. (1984). “Harry”: The use of physical restraint as a reinforcer, timeout from restraint, and fading restraint in treating a self-injurious man. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 1–13.
14.
GleickJ. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.
15.
GuessD. (1990). Transmission of behavior management technologies from researchers to practitioners: A need for professional self-evaluation. In ReppA. C.SinghN. N. (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 157–172). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
16.
GuessD.HelmstetterE.TurnbullH. R.IIIKnowltonS. (1986). Use of aversive procedures with persons who are disabled: An historical review and critical analysis (Monograph). Seattle: The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
17.
GuessD.TurnbullH. D.HelmstetterE. (1990). Science, paradigms, and values: A response to Mulick. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 157–163.
18.
HornerR. H.DunlapG.KoegelR. L. (Eds.). (1988). Generalization and maintenance: Lifestyle changes in applied settings. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
19.
HornerR. H.DunlapG.KoegelR. L.CarrE. G.SailorW.AndersonJ.AlbinR. W.O'NeillR. E. (1990). Toward a technology of “nonaversive” behavioral support. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 125–132.
20.
HoshmandL. T.PolkinghorneD. E. (1992). Redefining the science-practice relationship and professional training. American Psychologist, 47, 55–66.
21.
JohnstonJ. M. (1991). What can behavior analysis learn from the aversives controversy?The Behavior Analyst, 14, 187–196.
22.
KaiserA. P. (1992). Is JASH fulfilling its purpose?Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 1–2.
23.
KirkS. A.KutchinsH. (1992). The selling of DSM: The rhetoric of science in psychiatry. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
24.
KuhnT. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
KurtinesW. M.AzmitiaM.AlvarezM. (1992). Science, values, and rationality: Philosophy of science from a critical co-constructivist perspective. In KurtinesW. M.AzmitiaM.GewirtzJ. L. (Eds.), The role of values in psychology and human development (pp. 3–29). New York: John Wiley 8#x38; Sons.
26.
LewinK. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.
27.
LinscheidT. R.LandauR. J. (1993). Going “all out” pharmacologically?: A re-examination of Berkman and Meyer'sAlternative strategies and multiple outcomes in the remediation of severe self-injury: Going all-out nonaversively. Mental Retardation, 31(1), 1–6.
28.
LovaasO. I.BucherB. D. (1974). Perspectives in behavior modification with deviant children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
29.
MacIverD. J.EpsteinJ. L. (1991). Responsive practices in the middle grades: Teacher teams, advisory groups, remedial instruction, and school transition programs. American Journal of Education, 99, 587–622.
30.
MeyerL. H. (1991). Advocacy, research, and typical practices: A call for the reduction of discrepancies between what is and what ought to be and how to get there. In MeyerL. H.PeckC. A.BrownL. (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 629–640). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
31.
MeyerL. H.BerkmanK. A. (1993). What's straw and what's real: A reply to Linscheid and Landau. Mental Retardation, 31(1), 7–14.
32.
MeyerL. H.EvansI. M. (1989). Nonaversive intervention for behavior problems: A manual for home and community. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
33.
MeyerL. H.EvansI. M. (1993). Meaningful outcomes in behavioral intervention: Evaluating positive approaches to the remediation of challenging behaviors. In ReichleJ.WackerD. P. (Eds.), Communicative approaches to the management of challenging behavior (pp. 407–428). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
34.
MeyerL. H.EvansI. M.WuerchB. B.BrennanJ. M. (1985). Monitoring the collateral effects of leisure skills instruction: A case study in multiple-baseline methodology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23, 127–138.
35.
MiltenbergerR. G.SudaK. T.LennoxD. B.LindemanD. P. (1991). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral treatments to persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 291–298.
36.
O'NeillR. E.HornerR. H.AlbinR. W.StoreyK.SpragueJ. R. (1990). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A practical assessment guide. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
37.
PopperK. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper 8#x38; Row.
38.
SchlosserR. W.GoetzeH. (1992). Effectiveness and treatment validity of interventions addressing self-injurious behavior: From narrative reviews to meta-analyses. In GadowK. (Ed.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: A research annual (Vol 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
39.
SchonD. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
40.
SchwartzB. (1986). The battle for human nature: Science, morality and modem life. New York: W. W. Norton 8#x38; Co.
41.
SchwartzI. S.BaerD. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art?Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189–204.
42.
ScottiJ. R.EvansI. M.MeyerL. H.WalkerP. (1991). A meta-analysis of intervention research with problem behavior: Treatment validity and standards of practice. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 233–256.
43.
SidmanM. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.
44.
SkrticT. M. (1986). The crisis in special education knowledge: A perspective on perspective. Focus on Exceptional Children, 18(7), 1–16.
45.
SkrticT. M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver: Love Publishing Co.
46.
StaatsA. W. (1981). Paradigmatic behaviorism, unified theory, unified theory construction methods, and the zeitgeist of separatism. American Psychologist, 36, 240–256.
47.
StaatsA. W. (1988). Paradigmatic behaviorism, unified positivism, and paradigmatic behavior therapies. In FishmanD. B.RotgerF.FranksC. M. (Eds.), Paradigms in behavioral therapy: Present and promise (pp. 211–253). New York: Springer.
48.
TharpR. G. (1981). The metamethodology of research and development. Educational Perspectives, 20, 42–48.
49.
TharpR. G.GallimoreR. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50.
The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. (1986). Resolution on the cessation of intrusive interventions (originally adopted October 1981, Revised November 1986). Seattle, WA: TASH.
51.
VoeltzL. M.EvansI. M. (1983). Educational validity: Procedures to evaluate outcomes in programs for severely handicapped learners. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 8, 3–15.
52.
YinR. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (rev. ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
53.
YuskauskasA. (1992). Perspectives on changing treatment approaches for persons with developmental disabilities: Conflict within a discipline, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
