Myth #6 -- Research can be used
to support whatever your beliefs are -- lots of programs are "research
based"
Unfortunately, it is true that a
lot of people do selectively search and sample the research literature,
citing only the research that seems to support their pre-conceived notions.
Often research results are skewed or biased to appear to be consistent
with hypotheses proposed. And unfortunately, there are many people
who are unwilling to reject a hypothesis or a theory even when research
evidence does not support that theory. Adding to the problem of poor
research is the problem that the public is largely uninformed about what
the hallmarks of good research are.
Many articles seem to be "research"
articles, but are not. The article you are reading right now, for
example, might be cited as "research" by some, but in fact this is not
a research article -- this is an article written by a researcher, and that
is an important distinction. This article, and others that appear
in journals like Phi Delta Kappan and The Reading Teacher are typically
created as informative journalistic documents. These articles are
meant to be analogous to newspaper articles, but are often more like editorials
and commentaries. They stimulate thought, and focus attention on
interesting issues, but they are not in any way "research" articles.
Real research requires replication.
Real research requires peer review. Real research is tested and attacked
and scrutinized from all angles by multiple, unrelated researchers.
There is rigor and objectivity associated with real research, and even
after all of that, a "healthy skepticism" is still adopted by the research
community. Researchers know that one piece of research evidence is
nothing to get excited about. Several bits of evidence might get
some attention. But it is only when there is substantial "convergent
evidence" from multiple sources supporting a theory that the research community
is willing to embrace the theory.
It takes years to convince the research
community that a theory has merit, but it takes no time at all to convince
the public. If there were thousands of research articles showing,
for example, that cold fusion is not possible given our current technology
and understanding of physics, and one single research team claiming that
they have found the solution to cold fusion, what do you think would be
the lead on the news and the cover story of Time Magazine? When there
is a preponderance of evidence supporting a theory, the research community
puts a great deal of faith in that theory, but when there is one claim
that refutes the preponderance of evidence, the public tends to pay inordinate
attention to the exceptional claim and ignore the preponderance of evidence
that would refute that claim. A wall of mundane consistency fades
to the background when one incongruent speck appears.
It is true that new "research based"
fads and programs come and go, but that stems from a misuse of the term
"research based." All of us need to adopt a bit of healthy skepticism,
and we need to demand that a substantial research base be provided as evidence
to support claims. And we need to learn to pay more attention to
the research evidence and less attention to the messenger -- the credentials
of a researcher are important, but even researchers can editorialize and
put forth unfounded opinions. Just because a well-known researcher
said it, that doesn't make it so.
In short, we should always remember
the researcher's credo: "Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence."
Return
to 10 Myths of Reading Instruction
