Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education

Amajor effort to establish “scientifically-based research” (SBR) in education has been under way for some time (Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002). Key manifestations of this effort are found in the No Child Left Behind Act and the reauthorization and reorganization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement as the Institute for Educational Science (Eisenhart & Towne, 2003). The most detailed presentation of what SBR would mean for education research is the report by the National Research Council (NRC), Scientific Research in Education (NRC [2002] report). This work, unlike some others that use “scientifically-based research” mainly as a code word for randomized experiments, calls for a broad definition of science that encompasses a range of approaches and methods, both qualitative and quantitative, which is consistent with the American Educational Research Association’s (2003) “Resolution on the Essential Elements of Scientifically-based Research.” Despite this, the NRC (2002) report has provoked substantial criticism and concern among education researchers (Eisenhart & Towne, 2003). This concern is evidenced by the recent publication in the Educational Researcher of several critical commentaries on the report (Berliner, 2002; Erickson & Gutierrez, 2002; St. Pierre, 2002) as well as by a number of critical addresses and sessions devoted to the report at the 2003 AERA meeting (e.g., Lather, 2004). However, none of the criticism of the NRC (2002) report, or of SBR generally, has systematically challenged a key feature of SBR, the claim that experimental methods are the preferred stratCausal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education