This article examines a group of defenses of qualitative evaluation methods that are based
upon a hard relativistic interpretation of the work of Thomas Kuhn. Hard relativism holds
that (1) truth is a function of framework, and (2) all frameworks are equally legitimate
because they are only to be criticized on the basis of internal criteria. Soft relativism
accepts the first point but denies the second. It is argued, following Karl Popper, that hard
relativism is an indefensible position. A defense of qualitative evaluation based upon this
position, therefore, will be equally shaky. Kuhn, however, is a soft—not a hard—relativist.
Thus, a more promising defense of qualitive evaluation may be found in a soft-relativist
interpretation of Kuhn's analysis of the nature of scientific discovery.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, H.A. (1985) "The qualitative turn in evaluation: an ecumenical analysis." Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
2.
Eisner, E.W. (1975) "The perceptive eye: toward the reformation of educational evaluation." Stanford, CA: Stanford Evaluation Consortium.
3.
———(( 1976) "Educational connoisseurship and educational criticism: their form and function in educational evaluation." J. of Aesthetic Education, bicentennial issue.
4.
---( 1979a) "The use of qualitative forms of evaluation for improving educational practice." Educ. Evaluation and Policy Analysis1, (November/ December): 11-19.
5.
---( 1979b) The Educational Imagination. New York : Macmillan.
6.
———( 1981a) "On the difference between scientific and artistic approaches to qualitative research." Educ. Researcher10, 4: 5-9.
7.
———( 1981b) "The role of the arts in cognition and curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan63: 1.
8.
Guba, E. (1978) Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in Education. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.
9.
Hansen, N.B. (1958) Patterns of Discovery. London : Cambridge Univ. Press.
10.
House, E. (1977) The Logic of Evaluative Argument. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation .
11.
Husserl, E. (1929) The Paris Lectures (P. Koestenbaum, trans.) The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
12.
---( 1950) Cartesian Meditations (D. Cairns, trans.) The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
13.
Jarvie, I.C. (1970) "Understanding and explanation in sociology and anthropology," in R. Borger and F. Cioffi (eds.) Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
14.
Krausz, M. and J. W. Meiland [eds.] (1982) Relativism: Cognitive and Moral . Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press.
15.
Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
16.
---( 1969) "Postscript to the second edition," in T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
17.
---( 1970a) "Logic of discovery or psychology of research," in A. Musgrave and I. Lakatos (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
———( 1970b) "Reflections of my critics," in A. Musgrave and I. LakatosCriticism and Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
19.
———( 1973) "Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice," in The Essential Tension. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
20.
———( 1974) "Second Thoughts on Paradigms," in F. Suppe (ed.) The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
21.
Lakatos, I. (1970) "Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes," in A. Musgrave and I. LakatosCriticism and Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
22.
Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman (1984) "Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft." Educ. Researcher13, 6: 20-30.
23.
MacKenzie, B. (1977) Behaviorism and the Limits of Scientific Method . Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
24.
Musgrave, A. and I. Lakatos [eds.] (1970) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
25.
Pareto, V. (1935) The Mind and Society. New York : Harcourt Brace.
26.
Patton, M. (1978) Utilization Focused Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
———( 1980) Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28.
Phillips, D.C. (1983) "After the wake: postpositivist educational thought ." Educ. Researcher12, 5: 4-12.
29.
Popper, K.R. (1945) The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
30.
———( 1961) "Facts, standards, and truth: a further criticism of relativism ." Addendum to K. R. Popper The Open Society and Its Enemies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
31.
———( 1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.
32.
———( 1970) "The dangers of normal science," in A. Musgrave and I. Lakatos (1970) Criticism and Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
33.
Quine, W.V.O. (1960) Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
34.
Rist, R. (1977) "On the relation among educational research paradigms ." Anthropology and Education Q.8, 2: 37-57.
35.
Scheffler, I. (1982) Science and Subjectivity (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
36.
Schwab, J. (1969) "The practical: a language for curriculum." School Rev.78, 1: 1-24.
37.
———( 1971) "The practical: arts of eclectic." School Rev.79, 4: 493-543.
38.
———( 1973) "The practical: translation into curriculum." School Rev.81, 4: 501-522.
39.
Stake, R.E. (1978) "The case study method in social inquiry." Educ. Researcher7, 2: 5-8.
40.
Tarski, A. (1943) "The semantic conception of truth." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research4, 3: 341-373.
41.
Winch, Peter (1958) The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
42.
———( 1970) "Comment," in R. Borger and F. Cioffi (eds.) Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
