Special educators have given little attention to the historical roots of their practice or research. The history of special education suggests that interventions become disabling when they are based on improbable extrapolations from initial data and when advocates' interpretations are naively literal. Similarities are noted between nineteenth century efforts to educate students with mental retardation and current efforts to accommodate all mildly handicapped students in regular classes. Alternatives to special education research in the natural science tradition, including holism and qualitative research, are discussed. Findings from quantitative research are concluded to be a necessary though not sufficient guide for competent practice. Educational research in the scientific tradition, including articles in this issue, can contribute to humane decisions about students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1987). In defense of different numbers. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 53–56.
2.
Biklen, D., & Zollers, N. (1986). The focus of advocacy in the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 579–586.
3.
Carnine, D. (1987). A response to “False standards, a distorting and disintegrating effect on education, turning away from useful purposes, being inevitably unfulfilled, and remaining unrealistic and irrelevant.”Remedial and Special Education, 8(1), 42–43.
4.
Cruickshank, W.M. (1974). Foreword. In J.M. Kauffman & C.D. Lewis (Eds.), Teaching children with behavior disorders: Personal perspectives (pp. v–xi). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
5.
Cullinan, D., & Epstein, M.H. (Eds.). (1983). Reading and interpreting research in special educationExceptional Education Quarterly, 4(3). [special issue].
6.
Drew, C.J., Preator, K., & Buchanan, M.L. (1982). Research and researchers in special education. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 2(4), 47–56.
7.
Forness, S.R., & Kavale, K.A. (1987). Holistic inquiry and the scientific challenge in special education: A reply to Iano. Remedial and Special Education, 8(1), 47–51.
8.
Hallahan, D.P., & Kauffman, J.M. (in press). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.
Hallahan, D.P., Keller, C.E., & Ball, D.W. (1986). A comparison of prevalence rate variability from state to state for each of the categories of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 7(2), 8–14.
10.
Hallahan, D.P., Keller, C.E., Keogh, B.K., Lloyd, J.W., & McKinney, J.D. (in press). Examining the research base of the regular education initiative: Efficacy studies and the ALEM. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
11.
Heshusius, L. (1984). Why would they and I want to do it? A phenomenological-theoretical view of special education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 363–368.
12.
Iano, R.P. (1986). The study and development of teaching: With implications for the advancement of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 7(5), 50–61.
13.
Iano, R.P. (1987). Neither the absolute certainty of prescriptive law nor a surrender to mysticism. Remedial and Special Education, 8(1), 52–61.
14.
Kauffman, J.M. (1985). Characteristics of children's behavior disorders (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
15.
Kauffman, J.M., Gerber, M.M., & Semmel, M.I. (in press). Arguable assumptions underlying the regular education initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
16.
Keller, C.E., Ball, D.W., & Hallahan, D.P. (1987). Questioning the defense of different numbers: A reply to Algozzine and Ysseldyke. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 57–59.
17.
Lloyd, J.W. (1987). The art and science of research on teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 8(1), 44–46.
18.
Lloyd, J.W., & Kauffman, J.M. (1987). Systemic school-based interventions for promoting integration of SED students. Grant No. G0087C3033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Special Education Programs.
19.
Medawar, P.B., & Medawar, J.S. (1983). Aristotle to zoos: A philosophical dictionary of biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Neal, C. (1984). The holistic teacher. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 309–313.
21.
Poplin, M.S. (1984). Toward an holistic view of persons with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 290–294.
22.
Salzberg, C.L., Strain, P.S., & Baer, D.M. (1987). Meta-analysis for single-subject research: When does it clarify, when does it obscure? Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 43–48.
23.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Casto, G. (1987a). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33.
24.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Casto, G. (1987b). Reply to Owen White. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 40–42.
25.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Casto, G. (1987c). Response to Salzberg, Strain, and Baer. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 49–52.
26.
Seguin, E. (1866). Idiocy and its treatment by the physiological method. New York: William Wood.
27.
Smith, J.K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4–12.
28.
Walker, H.M., Shinn, M.R., O'Neill, R.E., & Ramsey, E. (in press). A longitudinal assessment of the development of antisocial boys: Rationale, methodology, and first year results. Remedial and Special Education.
29.
Wallace, G., & Kauffman, J.M. (1973). Teaching children with learning problems. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
30.
Wang, M. (1987). Toward achieving educational excellence for all students: Program design and student outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 8(3), 25–34.
31.
White, O.R. (1987). Some comments concerning “The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research.”Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 34–39.
