Skip to main content
Log in

How to Support Prescriptive Statements by Empirical Research: Some Missing Parts

  • Essay
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper continues a discussion started in a special issue about the acceptability of prescriptive statements in educational research articles. In light of some ambiguities concerning what counts as a prescriptive statement, and the special issue’s focus on causal relations as a requirement for the justification of prescriptive statements, a more detailed characterization of prescriptive statements and the structure of a complete argumentation for them is offered. This reveals two major obstacles to valid justifications of prescriptive statements that have received little attention before: the problem of normativity and the problem of generality. The proposed solution to the problem of normativity—that is, the impossibility to support prescriptive statements by empirical research alone—is to take into account that arguments for prescriptive statements target an audience that may agree on the values of many educational goals. The proposed solution to the problem of generality—that is, the necessity of well-established general causal regularities for the justification of prescriptive statements—requires appropriate designs for testing the generality of claims. Methodological suggestions include nested designs with quasi-representative samples of treatments as well as standard procedures for determining the cost and side effects on an agreed-upon set of relevant outcome dimensions for both current practice and any new intervention. If such steps are undertaken, prescriptive statements are no less justified in discussion sections than general descriptive claims as long as the final decision about them is suspended if the available normative and empirical arguments are not yet conclusive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anscombe, G. E. M. (1963). Intention (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, E. (1989). Von Wright on practical inference. In P. A. Schilpp & L. E. Hahn (Eds.), The philosophy of Georg Henrik von Wright (pp. 377–404). La Salle, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L. (1952–53/1979). How to talk: Some simple ways. In J. L. Austin, Philosophical Papers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Black, M. (1989). Some remarks about ‘practical reasoning’. In P. A. Schilpp & L. E. Hahn (Eds.), The philosophy of Georg Henrik von Wright (pp. 405–416). La Salle, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5(4), 437–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brashers, D. E., & Jackson, S. (1999). Changing conceptions of ‘message effects’: A 24-year overview. Human Communication Research, 25, 457–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. J. S., & Wilson, M. (2011). A model of cognition: The missing cornerstone of assessment. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62(3), 193–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Call for papers. (2009). Educational Psychology Review, 21, 91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D. (1993). A quasi-sampling theory of the generalization of causal relationships. In L. Sechrest & A. G. Scott (Eds.), New directions for program evaluation: Understanding causes and generalizing about them (pp. 39–82). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D. (2000). Toward a practical theory of external validity. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Validity & social experimentation: Donald Campbell’s legacy (Vol. 1, pp. 3–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D. (2002). Generalization: Conceptions in the social sciences. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 6037–6043). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D. (2004). Causal generalization: How Campbell and Cronbach influenced my theoretical thinking on this topic. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences (pp. 88–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornfield, J., & Tukey, J. W. (1956). Average values of mean squares in factorials. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27(4), 907–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Shapiro, K. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1963). Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16, 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P. (1955). The logic of moral discourse. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, W. D. (1953). Goading and guiding. Mind, 62, 145–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1925/2003). Statistical methods for research workers. In R. A. Fisher, Statistical methods, experimental design and scientific inference: A re-issue of statistical methods for research workers, the design of experiments, and statistical methods and scientific inference. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Fisher, R. A. (1935/2003). The design of experiments. In R. A. Fisher, Statistical methods, experimental design and scientific inference: A re-issue of statistical methods for research workers, the design of experiments, and statistical methods and scientific inference. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Fontenelle, G. A., Phillips, A. P., & Lane, D. M. (1985). Generalizing across stimuli as well as subjects: A neglected aspect of external validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 101–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glüer, K., & Wikforss, Å. (2009). The normativity of meaning and content. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning-normativity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2011). Commentary on causal prescriptive statements. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 279–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. M. (1952). The language of morals. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1994). Increasing the quality of educational intervention research. Educational Psychology Review, 6(3), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V. (1994). Statistical considerations. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 29–38). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., & Harckiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harckiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1739–40/1978). A treatise of human nature (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

  • Jeffrey, R. C. (1965). The logic of decision. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1785/1956). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten [Foundations of the metaphysics of morals]. In I. Kant, Werke in sechs Bänden. Bd. 4: Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie (reprinted 1998; pp. 7–102). Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  • Kenny, A. (1975). Will, freedom and power. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulikowich, J. M. & Sperling, R. A. (2010, April/May). Or so you claim! What claims do our methodologies allow? A town meeting. Symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association “Understanding Complex Ecologies in a Changing World”, Denver, 30th April to 4th May 2010.

  • Kulikowich, J. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2011). Prescriptive statements: Philosophical, theoretical, and methodological considerations: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 189–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. R. (2004). Random thoughts on the (in)credibility of educational-psychological intervention research. Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). What to do about educational psychology’s credibility gaps? Issues in Education, 5, 177–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marley, S. C., & Levin, J. R. (2011). When are prescriptive statements in educational research justified? Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. J. (2011). Prescriptive statements and educational practice: What can structural equation modeling (SEM) offer? Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matt, G. E., & Cook, T. D. (1994). Threats to the validity of research syntheses. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 503–520). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, S. K., Keesler, V. A., Kauffman, N. J., & Schneider, B. (2006). Scaling-up exemplary interventions. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolen, A., & Talbert, T. (2011). Qualitative assertions as prescriptive statements. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 263–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, A. A., & Gray, D. L. (2011). Cause and event: Supporting causal claims through logistic models. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. H. (2006). Editorial. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 115–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. (2011). Editor’s note. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 293–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B. (1994). The conduct and reporting of intervention studies. Educational Psychology Review, 6(3), 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1978). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. L. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Serlin, R. C., Wampold, B. E., & Levin, J. R. (2003). Should providers of treatment be regarded as a random factor? If it ain’t broke, don’t ‘fix’ it: Comment on Siemer and Joormann (2003). Psychological Methods, 8, 524–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, S. M., Walls, S. M., Dacy, B. S., Levin, J. R., & Robinson, D. H. (2010). A follow-up note on prescriptive statements in nonintervention research studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 982–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, R. E. (1974). Representative and quasi-representative designs for research on teaching. Review of Educational Research, 44, 265–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, S., & Pan, W. (2011). The philosophical foundations of prescriptive statements and statistical inference. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. W. (1962). Prescribing and evaluating. Mind, 71, 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. (1963). Norm and action: A logical enquiry. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. (1972). On so-called practical inference. Acta Sociologica, 15(1), 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1904/1988). Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis [‘Objectivity’ in social science and social policy]. In M. Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (pp. 146–214). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr.

  • Weber, M. (1917/1988). Der Sinn der ’Wertfreiheit’ der soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften [The meaning of ‘ethical neutrality’ in sociology and economics]. In M. Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (pp. 489–540). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr.

  • Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yussen, S. R. (2011). When is it acceptable to make prescriptive statements in educational research articles? Commentary on the special issue papers. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 287–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Andreas Hetmanek and Anna Wecker-Delatrée for helpful comments on the first draft of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christof Wecker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wecker, C. How to Support Prescriptive Statements by Empirical Research: Some Missing Parts. Educ Psychol Rev 25, 1–18 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9208-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9208-9

Keywords

Navigation