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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1963). Intention (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5(4), 437–474.
Brashers, D. E., & Jackson, S. (1999). Changing conceptions of ‘message effects’: A 24-year overview. Human Communication Research, 25, 457–477.
Brown, N. J. S., & Wilson, M. (2011). A model of cognition: The missing cornerstone of assessment. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 221–234.
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62(3), 193–217.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
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.
Call for papers. (2009). Educational Psychology Review, 21, 91.
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297–312.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cornfield, J., & Tukey, J. W. (1956). Average values of mean squares in factorials. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27(4), 907–949.
Cronbach, L. J., & Shapiro, K. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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.
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.
Edwards, P. (1955). The logic of moral discourse. New York: Free Press.
Falk, W. D. (1953). Goading and guiding. Mind, 62, 145–171.
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.
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.
Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2011). Commentary on causal prescriptive statements. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 279–285.
Hare, R. M. (1952). The language of morals. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1994). Increasing the quality of educational intervention research. Educational Psychology Review, 6(3), 191–208.
Hedges, L. V. (1994). Statistical considerations. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 29–38). New York: Sage.
Hulleman, C. S., & Harckiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Levin, J. R. (2004). Random thoughts on the (in)credibility of educational-psychological intervention research. Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 173–184.
Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). What to do about educational psychology’s credibility gaps? Issues in Education, 5, 177–229.
Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.
Marley, S. C., & Levin, J. R. (2011). When are prescriptive statements in educational research justified? Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 197–206.
Martin, A. J. (2011). Prescriptive statements and educational practice: What can structural equation modeling (SEM) offer? Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 235–244.
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.
McDonald, S. K., Keesler, V. A., Kauffman, N. J., & Schneider, B. (2006). Scaling-up exemplary interventions. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 15–24.
Nolen, A., & Talbert, T. (2011). Qualitative assertions as prescriptive statements. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 263–271.
O’Connell, A. A., & Gray, D. L. (2011). Cause and event: Supporting causal claims through logistic models. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 245–261.
Robinson, D. H. (2006). Editorial. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 115–117.
Robinson, D. (2011). Editor’s note. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 293–294.
Rosenshine, B. (1994). The conduct and reporting of intervention studies. Educational Psychology Review, 6(3), 245–254.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.
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.
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Dover.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Snow, R. E. (1974). Representative and quasi-representative designs for research on teaching. Review of Educational Research, 44, 265–293.
Sun, S., & Pan, W. (2011). The philosophical foundations of prescriptive statements and statistical inference. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 207–220.
Taylor, P. W. (1962). Prescribing and evaluating. Mind, 71, 213–230.
von Wright, G. H. (1963). Norm and action: A logical enquiry. London, UK: Routledge.
von Wright, G. H. (1972). On so-called practical inference. Acta Sociologica, 15(1), 39–53.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9208-9