Chapter Five Summary Arguments and Reflections

Notwithstanding subtle and at times significant differences between Dewey, Popper, and Rescher, what each has provided are systematic means of probing into complex problems in which variables intersect in ways that typically cannot be reduced to singular, isolated causes. There are sharp differences between their respective views and the positivist research tradition in their mediating perspectives that seek to establish only as much precision as possible within the context of a complex problem focus, in which exactitude may not be the most important need. Within their subtle differences, Dewey, Popper, and Rescher have veered toward the scientific pole of what could be called a postpositivistic temper in the fleshing out of a multi-faceted research design that rejects inductionism as a fundamental axiom.

The biologist Ernest Mayr (1997) argued similarly against positivism, although in an overstated rhetorical flourish, in his repudiation of the “misconception among inductionists that a pile of facts would not only permit generalizations, but almost automatically produce new theories.” Criticizing further a particularly positivist bias that “the aims of science are to understand, predict, and control, Mayer noted that in “many branches of science…prediction plays a very subordinate role” (p. 25). More fundamental is the nature and significance of the problems identified and the rigorous methodological process at work that takes careful hypothesis formation, data collection and analysis, and testing into account in assessing the interaction of variables in the critical work of making sound judgments about complex investigations in the natural and social sciences. This orientation has been central to Dewey, Popper, and Rescher. In this respect, they rejected some of the more relativistic aspects of postmodernism while being in tuned to its non-foundational premises in establishing criteria for a philosophical science that does justice to the complexity of the particular problem area in its relevant contexts under investigation.

While Popper argued that such complexity is normative in the natural sciences, as it certainly is in the life sciences (Mayr, 1997), such is particularly the case in the social sciences, in which the intricacy of how variables interact, renders problematic any assertion of a singular “gold standard” based on experimental design (Comings, Beder, Bingman, Reder, & Smith, 2003). Consider the example highlighted in this essay on the definition of literacy as applied to adults with no or little reading ability in a field in which the research base is limited. A substantial working through of the issues will require much new study through whatever methodologies that brings illumination to the problem of definition as articulated in this essay. Notwithstanding a few key empirically supported ethnographic studies, much of the field’s scholarly literature is of a theoretical nature. Moreover, much of the scholarship on reading, whether of an empirical or theoretical bent, is focused on elementary school studies. However limited, all of these sources provide important elements that could lead into more refined research in adult literacy education.

Thus, in the articulation of the problem focus that I have used as an example throughout this essay, I juxtapose the conflicting theoretical work on reading theory (Smith, 1985; Adams; 1990; and Pressley, 2002) and the socio-cultural interpretation of literacy as highlighted in the New Literacy Studies (Barton, 1994; Merrifield, 1998). The dialectical resolution provisionally suggested through Rescher’s coherence theory stems from this juxtaposition and requires much additional refinement. On this, the research model schematically laid out by Popper, which could have come directly from Dewey or Rescher, provides a framework for additional research on the meaning and significance of adult literacy. A working standard for experimental research as described by Popper (1956/1983) consists of the following:

(1) A clear exposition of the problem—, or if the problem may be assumed to be well known, a clear reference to it and to an exposition of it…[including any clarifications of] the always shifting problem situation(italics in original).

(2) A more detailed survey of the relevant hypotheses bearing on the problem (and of the experiments bearing on the hypotheses, indicating the degree to which these are able to contribute to the appraisal of the hypotheses).

(3) A more specific statement of the hypothesis (or hypotheses) which the author intends to propose, or to discuss, or to test experimentally.

(4) A description of the experiments and the results.

(5) An evaluation: whether the problem situation has changed; and if so, how.

(6) Suggestions for further work arising from the work reported (pp. 50-51).

Popper maintained that his framework is applicable to the natural and social sciences and even to that of mathematical studies, at least in situations that do not depend on pure logic. A painstaking examination into such a claim of a universal scientific methodology would add much in terms of clarifying the role of a postpositivist research paradigm. While that broader analysis moves beyond the purposes of this essay, there is much within the philosophies of Dewey, Popper, and Rescher to suggest that their insights provide considerable grist for a viable social science design. I draw on Popper’s framework, focusing primarily on his first two points, to illustrate the viability of a postpositivistic research design in adult literacy education.

Date: 2014-12-21; view: 949