RM>It may, in fact, be difficult to isolate variables, and
RM>educational studies (or almost ANY sociological study) will
RM>be ESPECIALLY difficult.  The attempt is VERY important if
RM>one wishes to understand the connections between the various
RM>parameters involved.
DT>Could you elaborate on the attempt and what it is you mean by that?
The attempt to isolate variables; applying the scientific
method....
DT>And do you see educational studies different from sociological 
DT>studies or do they interconnect?
As you define them, they are probably the same....
DT>And do you see any validity in qualitative studies (ones where a 
DT>great deal of observing and comparing is done)?
Validity.... Let's put it this way: Studies can help us to 
identify the questions which require asking, but they do not 
usually provide any answers to the questions...
DT>I am of the opinion that very few, if any, scientific studies 
DT>actually "prove" anything.
 
RM>Depends on your definition of "prove"... 
DT>Webster says "...to establish truth or validity of by demonstration; 
DT>to ascertain the correctness."
And Ron McDermott replies: One can seldom KNOW whether 
something is "correct", because one can never finish asking
all the possible questions... The answers to the questions
that HAVE been asked may lead to explanations (which may
prove to simply be temporary)... What scientific studies do 
is to link cause and effect; if you change one thing, and 
continually see the same resulting effect, it's reasonable 
to infer a linkage, and the linkage may then also be  
quantifiable (that isn't necessary, but the DEGREE of linkage 
is always nice to know as well)...
DT>I think that at best we can say that research can "prove" reliable 
DT>and has shown something to probably be true.
Your use of the term "research" is still a problem, as we do
not all agree on what constitutes "research"... By proper
use of the scientific method, one can often get a clearer
picture of how things are interrelated; which things cause
which results.  Studies, on the other hand, suggest which
connections may exist, but seldom shed sufficient light to
see the structure of the relationships...
DT>I am willing to accept research data from any "camp"
DT>if it proves to be reliable.  What makes it reliable?
 
RM>Reliable, in a scientific sense, is synonymous with being
RM>repeatable....
DT>If the same phenomena is observed in similar situations over and 
DT>over again by several researchers, I would think that this qualifies 
DT>as repeatable.
Yes...
DT>For example (and I am simplifying here) when Brian Cambourne wanted 
DT>to study the conditions present in language learning he observed 
DT>over time certain conditions that were present no matter where or 
DT>whom he observed.  From his observations and studies of those 
DT>conditions, he developed what he calls the "seven conditions" which 
DT>must operate for language learning to occur.
And, of course, the fact that he observed 7 conditions in 
operation does not necessarily indicate, for example, that
all 7 are necessary, important, or that one or more might
not actually be DETRIMENTAL to the process... Nor, is it
unlikely that some conditions, NOT observed, might have
contributed to the process... Nor yet that there are OTHER
conditions which are not in use which would be superior to
what he observed (but having identified the 7 NECESSARY
conditions, why would someone look beyond them?)....
DT>(it is perhaps the interpretations of his studies and not his 
DT>personal conclusions that most educators find themselves at odds 
DT>with).
That is a possibility...
DT>I believe that the idea of "proving to be reliable information"
DT>better describes all research including the quantitative kind.
 
RM>Again, something may be reliable without being understood;
___
 * MR/2 2.26 *
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2
---------------