A critique of experimentalism
A critique of experimentalism
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1077800403259491
复制
发表时间：
2004-02-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Howe, KR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Howe, KR
基于科学的研究概念在新成立的教育科学研究所的思想中占据着核心地位，并且似乎正在成为更广泛的教育研究的主导范式。因此，什么样的解释被认为是正确的解释具有重要的意义。本文指出了已经出现的两种实验主义版本：新古典主义方法和混合方法。两种版本的实验主义都被认为是方法论上的倒退。新古典实验主义只不过是坎贝尔-斯坦利时代的倒退，它教条地坚持完全依赖定量方法。混合方法实验主义虽然对定性方法起到了辅助作用，但却阻碍了对定性方法更深层次的认识论根源的理解。本文简要概述了混合方法解释主义的替代方案，它将研究参与者的声音提升到主要位置，从而扭转了定量实验和定性解释主义方法的认识论顺序。
The concept of scientifically based research occupies a central place in the thinking of the newly formed Institute of Education Sciences and seems well on its way to becoming the dominant paradigm in educational research more generally. What interpretation becomes recognized as the correct one thus has important implications. This article identifies two versions of experimentalism that have emerged: neoclassical and mixed methods. Both versions of experimentalism are judged to be methodologically retrograde. Neoclassical experimentalism is little more than a throwback to the Campbell-Stanley era and its dogmatic adherence to an exclusive reliance on quantitative methods. Mixed-methods experimentalism, although incorporating an auxiliary role for qualitative methods,jails to understand the deeper epistemological roots of qualitative methods. The article briefly sketches the alternative of mixed-methods interpretivism, which elevates the voice of research participants to a primary position and thereby reverses the epistemological ordering of quantitative-experimental and qualitative interpretivist methods.