The Logic of Causal Investigations

Abstract

A familiar quest in the realms of educational research is to seek and produce knowledge that is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Framed as a journey and marked by challenges of ‘burden of proof’, it has become closely associated with a logic that argues the validity and superiority of a research design by applying a randomized controlled trial. But what is actually required if research about education is to be generalized beyond the task and context to hand? Is establishing the theoretical basis and limits of inference non-negotiable? Indeed, do the standards of evidence in educational research always require claims that are testable and verifiable by others, or when might some other consideration, criterion, or quest be more apt? Such issues are widely debated in the literatures on educational research and evaluation, attracting particular scrutiny when a ‘gold standard’ is proposed for what to prefer – and fund – as studies of education. The chapter illustrates why critical observation and logical reasoning matter in interpreting the quality and usability of particular methodologies and findings as much as in designing a research strategy, especially when due consideration of theoretical, methodological and practical constraints is absent or muddled in accounts of research design and meta-analysis. The chapter then, raises the value of pausing: at recognition of configuration rather than defaulting to the pursuit of causation amongst factors, and at the challenges presented by elevating certainty to the status of sine qua non for legitimate, research-based knowledge in education. In short, monolithic research strategies are found wanting; while the promise and prospect of moving beyond impasse between ‘warring parties’ – such as via mixed methods – are also considered.