27 Oct 96.c
Tom Reeves

I think Lloyd's critique of my pseudoscience classification scheme makes several important points. I must confess that I chose to use the controversial term "pseudoscience" simply in hopes of getting the attention of the educational technology research community because earlier critiques of research in our field that I had written seemed to go unheard. I defined my use of the term pseudoscience in 1993 as: "Research that purportedly adheres to the structure of a given scientific paradigm, but fails to do so, should be labeled 'pseudoscience'" (p. 39). In this sense, the list of signs of pseudoscience I have described (Reeves, 1995) are more a list of what distinguishes good research from poor research rather than Casti's (1989) definition.

Also, I hasten to point out that a similar list of signs of pseudoscience could be constructed for qualitative methods (or any other approach). And I suspect we might find just as much poor research masking as interpretive, critical theory, action, or developmental research as I have detected in the empirical studies in our field. In my use of the term, pseudoscience results when you say you are following a given research paradigm, but you are actually violating the assumptions and methods of that approach in fundamental ways.

Even using Casti's list, I think Steve Tripp's study can be characterized as pseudoscience on at least three counts. Casti defines Anachronistic Thinking as: "Cranks and pseudoscientists often revert to outmoded theories that were discarded by the scientific community years, or even centuries, ago as being inadequate" (p. 57). I view Steve's ignoring of the conclusions of all of the major literature reviews of media research as an obvious sign of this hallmark of pseudoscience.

Casti defines Spurious Similarities as: "Cranks often argue that the principles that underlie their theories are already part of legitimate science..." (p. 58) Pseudoscientists try to piggy back their research onto research in other fields which supposedly found the same results as their study. Steve's use of Furnham and Gunter's research that represent mass communications studies focused on memory to support his work which is supposed to be educational media research focused on learning is a classic instance of this flaw.

Casti defines Refusal To Revise as: "Cranks and crackpots pride themselves on never having been shown to be wrong. It's for this reason that the experienced scientific hand never, under any circumstances, enters into a dialogue with a pseudoscientist." (p. 59). Given the tone of Steve's responses to criticism during the past week, I fear that my own inexperience has been demonstrated to the hilt.

Deterring graduate students or anyone else from research is not my intent, but I think we have a responsibility to expose poor practice when we see it. Frankly, one of the reasons that I have spent so much time on ITForum this week is that I am responsible for leading our department research seminar for our new doctoral students this quarter, and I know they are all tuned in to this forum. I hope that the "dialogue" this week, as frustrating as it has been for me at times, will encourage rather than discourage novice as well as veteran researchers. Casti closes his book with these words:

"Nuclear holocaust, cosmic catastrophe, AIDS, and a thousand other demons sit waiting to snuff out this small flicker of intelligence and light in what looks like a vast, empty void. Whatever we humans are and whatever we can be, I think we have a responsibility not to lose it through carelessness and neglect, benign or otherwise. Periodic reflection on the assessments given here may help keep this imperative in mind. Let's hope so." (p. 499)

Periodic reflection in what we are doing in the name of education research may also help us act in a more socially responsible manner. Let's hope so.