The scientific study of education: Its status, development, and alternatives.

摘要

The context of this dissertation is the current discussion among members of the educational research community as to whether the natural science model of inquiry is the most appropriate and productive way to study education or whether an alternative approach--e.g., naturalistic inquiry--could be profitably employed and should be accorded higher status than it has had. This study is set up to determine: (1) whether there is a dominant conception of educational research in the U.S. and if so, what it is; (2) how it came to gain its present hegemony; (3) the nature of current criticism and the extent to which the criticisms are warranted; and (4) whether alternative conceptions of "educational research" set forth along with criticisms are justified.;The study begins with the claim that a particular conception of "scientific study" of education is the dominant rationale for much of contemporary educational research, and the presentation of evidence to support that claim; gives an historical account of ways in which certain scientific societies and associations--e.g., the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Society for the Study of Education and the American Educational Research Association--have promoted and institutionalized that conception; and then considers criticism and supporting arguments advanced regarding the alleged merits and limitations of scientific and naturalistic inquiry as applied to the study of education.;The conclusions of the study are: (1) A review of the relevant literature and examination of the views of key authors in philosophy of social science and education indicate that there is a dominant conception of educational research and that conception reflects a commitment to the natural science model of inquiry; (2) There are grounds for criticism regarding the hegemony of this model among educational researchers and the appropriateness of this model for study of human action in complex social settings; (3) Delineation of differences between the two approaches and arguments in support of naturalistic inquiry have not been clearly articulated; and (4) Basic assumptions underlying the two approaches need to be understood, refined, and preserved in the interest of adding dimension to our understanding of the educational enterprise.