Re: In response to Erwin

[AazZ <llon@ATTBI.COM>]

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Assessment Reform Network Mailing List
|[mailto:ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU] On Behalf Of kber
|Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:10 PM
|To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU
|Subject: Re: In response to Erwin
|
|
|Rick
|
|so you have total prejudice against or disregard for anything
|quantitative.  I don't.  Statistics
|can have applicability, aprticuarly within test theory, but
|also in other areas as well.   I am not
|opposed to qualitative research, and I value it as well.  And
|I might point out that while strict replicability may not
|apply in in non-randomized situations, there are elements of
|replicability that do, even with qualitative studies.
|
|My ciriticisms of that application should NOT be taken as
|agreement with your somewhat extreme position on the subject.
|
|As far as your "taking me to task"  that was achieve only in
|your own mind, and I think y9u would find very olittle
|concurrence with that perspective on this list.
|
|That some of us disagree on certain subjects is inevitable,
|and is part of what is interesting in the process of dialog.
|Tht you think you have to demonstrate that you are cleverer
|than anyone else (eg *rap*)  is sad, but proves absolutely
|nothing.  Your assumption that when you cite a owrk that I (or
|others0 have not sepcifically referenced it is demonstrate
|that you know more than us is pitiable - do you think that you
|are the only one who has studied qualitative methods?  You did
|the same thing with respect to chaos theory.
|
|Get a life, Rick.  The wheel is round, and we all know it.
|That we don't find it necessary to mention that every time we
|post does not mean we are ignorant.
|
|Ken
|
|Rick Parkany wrote:
|
|> 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.