Not science but engineering?
How about engineering science? I'm not kidding! This discussion is not turning to pudding but getting down to some very basic considerations regarding what we do. I started with Charles Reigeluth's view (in the book--and also in his comments) that values play a major role in ID. I countered with "But they shouldn't!." And it goes on from there.
In the francophone world, there are "Departements des sciences de l'education," and also "sciences politiques." Sounds crazy...until we realize that a slightly different conception of science (from the Anglo-Saxon one) is involved here, that of disciplined inquiry--what Machlup referred to as "the cosmopolitan view of science." The ideal pursued is one of extricating oneself, as much as can be done!, from one's values in order to arrive at an impassioned, "scientific," description of phenomena, be they educational, political, or whatever else. Realizing, as most do today, that such science is but a series of currently-accepted descriptions or views of the world, knowing they are not perfect but also that they seem to work (for us at this time). Now the question Steve Draper raises is the science versus engineering one, and I contend that engineering can and should be scientific in the cosmopolitan sense. I think economics will serve well at times as an analogy here.
[quoting Draper, 19 Sep 98] In the short introduction, he offers a proposition "A theory is a collection of choices made about what is important to consider". This is manifestly false as stated as a generalization about all theories: what is plausible
Just a note here: choices must be taken within the "descriptive" view of science--choices as descriptions. Along the lines of Steve's...
When I observe a piece of CAL in action in a classroom, I long for a theory not to make quantitative predictions but to specify all the factors I need to worry about, ...
..."A theory of instructional design is a collection of choices made about what is important to consider". Since the paragraph it appears in makes it very clear that instructional design (ID) is the context, this would seem to be a pedantic quibble. But in the very next paragraph (still the introduction) we see "... create the framework for a Physics-like grand theory of instructional design". Theories, if any, of instructional design are never going to be similar to theories in physics. They are not theories of the external world independent of humans, but proposals about methods for constructing artifacts. They are part of an enterprise which, if it is or becomes rational and methodical enough, we might call engineering.
The issue revolves around the object of explanation--whether of the external world or of methods of constructing artifacts.
The question becomes "can we be scientific (disciplined) about the latter?" I believe we can and, further, that that is exactly what ID theories are. The fact that human goals enter the picture makes it harder, but does not detract from the aim of being disciplined. Economics is a good reminder of status here--economics is a very practical matter and very goals/values/ideology driven, and yet it hopes to raise above all that and describe the social mechanisms that are at play. That latter aim turns it into science (as opposed to an economic philosophy such as Marxism for instance). ID theory is in precisely the same position. It can remain stuck in educational philosophies (even ideologies), or raise itself above them in searching for the instructional mechanisms that are at play. In this manner, instructional engineering can become science, hence 'engineering science'.
There are two subsidiary issues that Steve raises: how difficult it is, and the focus on the particular. I'll start with the first.
The prospects aren't good though. Science has achieved a lot of unifications in the last few centuries (though none are complete yet); but I know of no engineering areas that have got anywhere close at all. Still, the past is not a certain guide to the future.
Recognizing that we are doing engineering not science is also important in recognizing the fact that our knowledge is incomplete and going to remain that way for the foreseeable future, and that this most fundamental of all facts...
..."Engineering is the art of modeling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze, so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance." [A.R. Dykes presidential address 1976 to the British Institute of Structural Engineers. Quoted in an Equinox TV program Sept. 1992.]
Any science of the artificial will be difficult because of the human connection (that fact that it has to include values in its analyses). Just look at the state of economics! But scientific ID is the way to go, the aim to strive for. Otherwise we remain stuck in a quagmire of opinion, perhaps highly politicized opinion.
The Dykes quote is amusing, and correct in its first part, but the second should be changed from hoodwinking the public (merely some British tongue in cheek there!) to something like achieving a scientific description that leads to effective results (such as bridges holding up and instruction that is great). In other words that help us do our best in spite of uncertain knowledge.
And now for the focus on the particular...(4) So, most importantly, the analogy with science (e.g., physics) is a false analogy leading to wrong conclusions. A science theory, at any rate a physics theory, aims to identify something (e.g., a force) that is universally applicable: true everywhere, however insignificant in some situations. It makes no attempt to give a complete account of a single situation, but rather a single account of part of every situation. In engineering, we need exactly the opposite: we need to know all but only the factors that have a significant causal impact on the situation we are examining.
It is true that practical ID is very focused on the specifics of a given situation--taking into account all the constraints and all the particulars and coming up with a "best fit" solution. Like building a bridge for a specific site, wind conditions... or a political economy for a particular society with a particular history, etc. That is practicing ID. Theorizing about ID is different: it involves seeking the generalizable descriptions that cut across situations, those that deal for instance with learning, with motivation, with structure... It is looking for the big picture, for the descriptive aspects of ID, including process descriptions. In the end, of course, it is up to the designer to apply the theory to the situation at hand--the art facet that Lloyd Rieber [18 Sep 98] has alluded to. Just consider that without the general theories, the designer would be left only with his/her own theory, whatever that might be. Think of the variability and uncertainty here. Theories are integrative by their very nature--it is their mission in life.
In sum, despite the difficulties, we need to strive towards a science of ID, knowing very well that we will only approach that ideal, never realize it to the same extent that our natural science cousins might. Giving up on this is denying the possibility of furthering our understanding and the possibility of doing better what we do, as well as regressing into ideology.
Steve, thanks for raising these issues.