This article argues for the importance of replication and data sharing in educational research. Relying on standards set in other disciplines, such as sociology, the article discusses how professional associations can help to create norms and incentives for data sharing and data archiving. The author discusses the importance of data sharing across disciplines and points out how qualitative and quantitative data are currently being shared across a range of investigators. Data sharing is essential to replication and creates a vehicle through which researchers can build upon their designs, create and revise measures, and study different populations for purposes of developing new theories. The sharing of information about studies, including the actual data upon which findings are based, allows researchers to verify, extend, and generalize findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottA. (1988). The system of professions. An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BazermanC. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
BurtonL., and LeinL. (2003, June). The walls of Jericho: Poverty, work, and mothering. Paper presented at the conference Workforce/Workplace Mismatch? Work, Family, Health, and Weil-Being, Washington. DC.
5.
ColemanJ. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
6.
CronbachL. J. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
CronbachL. J., and ShapiroK. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
FeuerM. J., TowneL., and ShavelsonR. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4—14.
MostellerF., and MoynihanD. P. (Eds.). (1972). On equality of educational opportunity. New York: Vintage Books.
17.
National Center for Education Statistics (2003). National Center for Education Statistics home page. Retrieved September, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/.
18.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1988). National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Retrieved September, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nels88/
19.
NyeB., HedgesL., and KonstantopoulosS. (2002). Do low achieving students Benefit more from small classes? Evidence from the Tennessee Class Size Experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 201—217.
20.
PetersonP. E., HowellW. G., and MyersD. E. (1998). An evaluation of the New York City School Choice Scholarships Program: The first year. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
SchneiderB., and StevensonD. L.1999. Ambitious generation: America's teenagers–Motivated but directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
SchneiderB. (2003). Sociology of education: An overview of the field at the turn of the twenty-first century. In HallinanM.T., GamoranA., KubitschekA., and LovelessT. (Eds.), Stability and change in American education. New York: E. Werner Publications.
23.
SearsR. R., MaccobyE. E., and LevinH. (1951). Patterns of child rearing: A study. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
ShadishW. R., CookT. D., and CampbellT. D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
25.
ShavelsonR. J., and TowneL. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26.
ThomasJ., HaertelE., and LevinH. M. (1989). Comparing public and private schools, (Vol. 2). New York: Falmer Press.
27.
ThomasJ., and LevinH. M. (1988). Comparing public and private schools, (Vol. 1). New York: Falmer Press.
28.
WinstonP., AngelR. J., BurtonL. M., Chase-LandsdaleP., LindsayC., MoffittA. J., and WilsonW. J. (1999). Welfare, children, and families: A three-city study. Retrieved September, 2003, from http://www.jhu.edu/∼welfare/overviewanddesign.pdf
