Re: In response to Erwin

[William Cala <wcala@ROCHESTER.RR.COM>]

Of course much of what Ken posits about the need for the "quantitative" and
elements of "replicability" is true as well.  The zealots I deal with in the
testing bureaucracy, however, never seem to find the balance.  Somewhat like
the vehement discourse dichotomizing whole language and phonics as an either
or proposition.

That said, I do wonder if the personal attacks on each other could be
minimized.  It's easier to read the message instead of the messenger.

Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Cala" <wcala@ROCHESTER.RR.COM>
To: <ARN-L@listsrva.CUA.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: In response to Erwin


> Rick said:
>
> "Again, Folks:   this idea of *replicability* is one carried over from the
> physical sciences. It is not valid to use it in the science that
> (indierctly) investigates itself! The science of the human being is the
only
> one in which the data talks back to you, argues, disagrees, and acts
> intentioinaly and with malice aforethought. Do any other physical data
sets
> do this? well then why investigate them as if the data
> were inert and mute???"
>
> I really like your logic here, Rick.  The issue of replicability is one
with
> which E.D. Hirsch is in love as well.  Thinking that we can assemble,
> analyze, disaggregate and subsequently *replicate* and *proliferate* the
> characteristics of human beings without contact with said humans is silly
> AND dangerous.
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Parkany" <rparkany@BORG.COM>
> To: <ARN-L@listsrva.CUA.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: In response to Erwin
>
>
> > Again, Folks:   this idea of *replicability* is one carried over from
the
> physical
> > sciences. It is not valid to use it in the science that (indierctly)
> investigates
> > itself! The science of the human being is the only one in which the data
> talks back
> > to you, argues, disagrees, and acts intentioinaly and with malice
> aforethought. Do
> > any other physical data sets do this? well then why investigate them as
if
> the data
> > were inert and mute???
> >
> > When are we going to make the obvious distinctions between the *social
> sciences* (I
> > call them the sciences of the human being) and those, other physical
ones,
> like
> > physics and chemistry. The science(s) of the human being will use
> constructs such as
> > *transferability* for *replicability* and *generalizability*; it will
use
> > trustworthiness and authenticity in the *data* set instead of
> *reliability* and
> > *validity* for its verification criteria.
> >
> > For not the last time, I'm sure, I repeat: The theory underwriting
> statistics is only
> > valid when analyzing large scale populations of animals, minerals, or
> vegetables. The
> > human being is not predictable, though populations may be considering a
> limited
> > number of dimesnions or characteristics. Students are individuals, as
are
> classrooms,
> > teachers, buildings, sttaes, and nations. To extrapolate or interpolate
> from vast
> > populations to the individual is a twisted and highly suspect manner of
> abusing the
> > *logic* underneath this manner of inquiry. No?
> >
> > No, folks, we do neither ourselves nor our research any favours when we
> use *one size
> > fits few* frameworks in our inquiry...this a *transferable* notion from
> our own,
> > dear, Susan O! (Hi! Susan...notice I refused to use generalizable))
> >
> > Take a look @ the work of Guba & Lincoln, for example, Ken, if you want
a
> pretty
> > thorough critique of this manner of directly applying the strictures of
> physical
> > science to that of the human being.
> >
> > Are you with me on this, Ken? It's the same point I made when I brought
> you to task
> > for applying these strictures to Joe's idea of *theory* concerning
> faith...             ;-} rap.
> >
> > REFs:
> > Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury
> Park,
> > California: Sage Publications.
> >
> > Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985)  Naturalistic inquiry. London,
> England:Sage
> > Publications.
> >
> > AND
> >
> > Mathison, S. (1997). The role of deliberation in evaluation. Manuscript
in
> press.
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Dein Wachstum sei feste und lache vor Lust!
> > Deines Herzens Trefflichkeit
> > Hat dir selbst das Feld bereit',
> > Auf dem du bluehen musst." JS Bach: Bauern Kantata
> > Richard A. Parkany: SUNY@Albany
> > Prometheus Educational Services
> > http://www.borg.com/~rparkany/
> > Upper Hudson & Mohawk Valleys; New York State, USA
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.