Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Faculty member, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract
In the history of our (Iranian) Higher Education, the decades of 1370’s/1990’s witnessed the development of scientific research in many areas including educational and behavioral sciences. In our educational and behavioral researches, which are usually conducted by using descriptive and semi-experimental approaches, hypothesis- testing, mainly carried out by recourse to statistical significance testing, has gained a privileged status. But there is no consensus among methodologists and epistemologists concerning the procedures of hypothesis testing on the one hand, and statistical siginficance testing on the other.
In this article educational and behavioral research is’ looked at against a broad methodological and epistemological perspective to see how it stands with respect to hypothesis testing in general and significance testing in particular. To attain this goal, first an analysis of ‘hypothesis’ is given. Then hypothesis testing is explored within the tenets of empiricism and rationalism, leading to a discussion of Reichenbach’s inductivism and Popper’s deductivism. Finally, some of the basic criticisms leveled against statistical significance testing are reviewed. The arguments offfered point to certain methodological drawbacks in the educational and behavioral research of our higher education. It is concluded that progress in basic research in our country depends very much on overcoming these drawbacks implying that certaAj aspects of our research approaches should be reviewed.
Keywords
Coplestone, F. (1963). A History of Philosophy. Vol. 3. p’1 II. Garden City, N.Y.: 1 mage Beeks.
coplestone, F. (1964). A history ot Ph ilosOphv. VoL 5. Part I and II. Garden City, N.Y: I mage Books.
Hagen, R.L. (1997). In praise ol the null hypothesis statistical test. American Psychologist. Vol. 52(1). 15-24.
Haldane. E.S. and G.R. Ross (1984). The Philosophical Works ot Descartes
London: Ca mbridge U nivershv Press.
Hillwav. T. (1 %4). Introduction to Research. Boston: Houghion Mitflin Co.
Kuhn. T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University ot Chicago Press.
Meehi, P.E. 1967). Theory testing in psychology and physics: A methodolgical paradox. Philosophy ot science. 34. 103-115.
Meehl, P.E. ( 1990a). Appraising and amending theories: The slrateg’ ut Lakatosian defense. and two principles that warrant ii. Psychological Inquiry. Vol. 1(2). lOS- 141.
O’Connor. D.J. (1957). An lntrodctiun to the Philosophy ut’ Education. cw
York: Philosophical Library.
Reichnhach. H. (1962). The Rise ot Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley:
University of Calitornia Press.
Schmidt, F.L. (1992). What do data really mean? American Psychologist, Vol. 47 (10), 1173-81.
Skidmorc, A. (1987). An Introduction to Logic. Lexington, Massachaussetts:
Ginn Press.
Skinner, B.F. (1955). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11: 221-233.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993). Chicago:
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.
)