Re:Hake's challenge: "I wonder if Greeno would consider assisting the math community in "distinguishing genuine scientific research from the rest" by setting forth his own *necessary and sufficient* conditions for "genuine scientific research"?"
Hake has astutely identified a challenge that is *crucial* for the future of scientific educational research! It is imperative for such "iff" conditions [for educational research to qualify as being genuinely scientific] to be formulated, ASAP, in at least one version that fully manifests the essence of science ... and if that does not happen in mathematics, it is not likely to happen elsewhere.
Certainly, I am willing to assist in mobilizing such an evolution, but I would have neither the expertise nor the audacity to go it alone. Instead, the development of such "iff" criteria must be an "open source" collaborative effort of contributing mathematicians who are strongly concerned and knowledgeable about the issue. Personally, I have little faith in "consensus" about such matters. But I also know that constructive appraisals are powerful tools for convergence of perspectives.
If nothing else, an ad hoc internet "forum" might greatly help to clarify the sorely needed "iff" conditions for math-education research to qualify as being scientific research. Although my own years are running out, I am willing to (help) initiate, catalyze, mobilize, facilitate, and coordinate such an initiative ... but not as a single leader. As Harbach and Hammerstein projected, "Start me with ten who are stout hearted men and I'll soon give you [a bunch] more...." Without a dedicated team, I will be content to produce my own publications and demonstrations ... without proffering the formal criteria which is sorely needed.
Despite Schremmer's pessimistic projection that this dialog might lead nowhere, I optimistically perceive that these interactions might stimulate some genuine progress. But I strongly suspect that such progress would happen best through tentative identification of research activities/findings that might be *candidates* for exemplifying "scientific educational research" ... so that the ensuing "forum" debates might better surface the needed "iff" conditions.
[Professionals who wish to help launch such a forum may volunteer to the above e-dress. The present need is for identification of the forum's prospective *workers* ... not merely of "interested parties."]
Into such a milieu, I would be willing to submit (for such a forum's consideration) the MALEI Institute's STAGML theory of scientific mathematics instructology. Hopefully, it exemplifies the "iff" conditions, but even if it were so accepted, there might perhaps be other kinds of activities/studies/theories that also could so qualify.
[Do NOT expect Google presently to route you to much information about scientific mathematics instructology. But for professionals who will be near to Tulsa on February 28, a special seminar on scientific mathematics instructology will help nurture the advent of that science. You may e-request an invitation, by contacting me, directly.]
So, Hake's challenge is not truly addressed to me, as an individual, but to the professorial ranks of the mathematics-education community. If ten who care are courageous. diligent, and persistent, the nation soon will follow suit.
From: Richard Hake Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:36 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [math-learn] Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno
Some subscribers to Math-Learn might be interested in a recent post "Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno" [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:
************************************************** ABSTRACT: In response to "Math Education Research Doesn't Exist? Response to Schremmer" [Hake (2012a) at <http://bit.ly/U7dJi3>, Clyde Greeno at <http://bit.ly/RW0fFF> wrote that his statement that the six principles that, according to "Scientific Research in Education" at <http://bit.ly/VjrQaV>, p. 2: "underlie all scientific inquiry (including educational research)" are "glibly superficial and badly unknowing about the nature of science" was simply an observation that those six principles in no way *suffice* as criteria (i.e., are both necessary and sufficient) for distinguishing scientific from non-scientific educational research.
Greeno wrote "Tragically, much of educational research now can use the NRC report as a basis for so polluting the name of 'scientific educational research' that distinguishing genuine scientific research from the rest will be a very cumbersome task."
I wonder if Greeno would consider assisting the math community in "distinguishing genuine scientific research from the rest" by setting forth his own *necessary and sufficient* conditions for "genuine scientific research"?
BTW, I attempted to address the two crucial questions: (a) "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'?" and (b) "What's 'Scientific'?" in a 75 kB post "Can Education Research Be 'Scientific'? What's 'Scientific'?" [Hake (2012b)] at <http://bit.ly/Ujaogk> containing over 100 references and over 180 hot-linked URL's, but, as far as I know, no *substantive* responses were forthcoming. **********************************
REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 07 Nov 2012.] Hake, R.R. 2012. "Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine Scientific Research - Response To Greeno" online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/Qp3H0w>. Post of 7 Nov 2012 13:49:33-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/Qp8fnA> with a provision for comments.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]