Some subscribers to Phys-L might be interested in a post "Seventeen
Statements by Gold-Standard Skeptics #2" [Hake (2010)].
The abstract reads:
***************************************
ABSTRACT: Andy Rudd in an EdResMeth post 6 Apr 2010 titled "Cause and
Effect" wrote: "Today I dealt with a doctoral student who was
adamantly opposed to the idea that causal relationships can be
studied using non experimental designs. . . . . . I am curious what
others think about the use of non experimental designs to study
causal relationships if it is not possible to use an experimental or
quasi-experimental design."
This initiated an 18-post thread of diverse comments on the student's
opinion, accessible at <http://tinyurl.com/y4um3g3>. Rudd's student
may have been influenced by the fact that the "Randomized Control
Trial" has been enthroned by the U.S. Dept. of Education (USDE, 2008)
and Mosteller & Boruch (2002) as the "gold standard" for
demonstrating causality in education research.
For consideration by Rudd's student and others, herewith are
SEVENTEEN STATEMENTS BY GOLD-STANDARD SKEPTICS:
(1) American Education Research Association;
(2) American Evaluation Association;
(3) Hugh Burkhardt & Alan Schoenfeld;
(4) Tom Cook & Monique Payne;
(5) Margaret Eisenhart & Lisa Towne;
(6) European Evaluation Society;
(7) Richard Hake;
(8) Burke Johnson;
(9) Annette Lareau & Pamela Barnhouse;
(10) Joseph Maxwell;
(11) National Education Association;
(12) Dennis Phillips;
(13) Barbara Schneider, Martin Carnoy, Jeremy Kilpatrick, William Schmidt, &
Richard Shavelson;
(14) Michael Scriven;
(15) Mack Shelley, Larry Yore, and Brian Hand;
(16) Deborah Stipek; and
(17) Carol Weiss.
***************************************