This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by HOWE, K. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Two Dogmas of Educational Research

Michigan State University

Educational researchers rightly puzzle about the relative merits of qualitative versus quantitative research methods and about the role that value judgments should play in the conduct of research. Unfortunately, discussions of these issues are often unproductive because they assume (albeit unwittingly) a positivistic epistemological framework. The aim of this paper is to show how rigid epistemological distinctions between quantitative and qualitative methods and between factual and value judgments rest on positivistic dogmas, and how post-positivistic thought eliminates the intractable problem engendered by positivistic epistemology of a forced choice between value-laden/qualitative and value-free/quantitative research methods. The paper also briefly suggests general criteria for evaluating educational research once the positivist-inspired quantitative-qualitative and fact-value dogmas are set aside.

Educational Researcher, Vol. 14, No. 8, 10-18 (1985)
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X014008010


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. R. Howe Positivist Dogmas, Rhetoric, and the Education Science Question Educational Researcher, August 1, 2009; 38(6): 428 - 440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. R. Howe Isolating Science from the Humanities: The Third Dogma of Educational Research Qualitative Inquiry, April 1, 2009; 15(4): 766 - 784. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. S. Moses Chapter 1: The Heart of the Matter: Philosophy and Educational Research Review of Research in Education, January 1, 2002; 26(1): 1 - 21. [PDF]

				M. M. Kennedy A Test of Some Common Contentions About Educational Research American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 1999; 36(3): 511 - 541. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Eisenhart Research news and Comment Educational Researcher, December 1, 1995; 24(9): 32 - 33. [PDF]

				L. A. Shepard Chapter 9: Evaluating Test Validity Review of Research in Education, January 1, 1993; 19(1): 405 - 450. [PDF]

				S. W. Raudenbush Book Reviews: Summarizing Evidence: Crusaders for Simplicity Educational Researcher, October 1, 1991; 20(7): 33 - 37. [PDF]

				M. S. Rosenberg and L. Jackson Theoretical Models and Special Education: The Impact of Varying Worldviews on Service Delivery and Research Remedial and Special Education, May 1, 1988; 9(3): 26 - 34. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. L. Swanson and M. Trahan Characteristics of Frequently Cited Articles in Learning Disabilities Journal of Special Education, July 1, 1986; 20(2): 167 - 182. [Abstract] [PDF]