The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has explicitly promoted randomized research designs and implicitly promoted clinical trials as the only legitimate educational science. In doing so, the law seeks to remodel educational research in a medical mode. This article draws on the narrative of a human subject participating in a medical randomized experiment to raise questions about the extent to which such designs secure the goals NCLB claims they will: validity, rigor, replicability. In contrasting the narrative of science in NCLB and the narrative of science as told by human subjects, the author draws on de Certeau as well as Bowker and Star to make sense of the difference in structure of the narratives and to highlight the extent to which randomized designs are mythologized in the law and current debates over methodology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altman, L. K. (1986). Who goes first: The story of self-experimentation in medicine. Berkeley: University of California.
2.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.
3.
Birnbaum, M. N. (1996). Breaking the paradigm. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 11, 160-161.
4.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. J. (1998). The golem: What you should know about science (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Crane, M. (2003, June 21). Pediatricians say Paxil highlights problem: Drugs aren’t kid tested. Columbus Dispatch, p. A4.
7.
de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. Rendall, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(December), 781-795.
9.
Haraway, D. J. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
10.
Haraway, D. J. (1991a). The actors are cyborg, nature is coyote, and the geography is elsewhere: Postscript to “Cyborgs at large.” In C. Penley & A. Ross (Eds.), Technoculture (Vol. 3, pp. 183-202). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
11.
Haraway, D. J. (1991b). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In D. J. Haraway (Ed.), Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 183-201). New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
12.
Haraway, D. J. (1994). A game of cat’s cradle: Science studies, feminist theory, and cultural studies. Configurations, 2(1), 59-71.
13.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
14.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15.
Heath, D., Rapp, R., & Taussig, K.-S. (2000, November). Mapping webs of genetic engagement. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, CA.
16.
Helms, R. (2002a). Aguinea pig among the lepers: What I did once between drug studies. In R. Helms (Ed.), Guinea pig zero: An anthology of the Journal for Human Research Subjects (pp. 199-209). New Orleans, LA: Garrett County Press.
17.
Helms, R. (Ed.). (2002b). Guinea pig zero: An anthology of the Journal for Human Research Subjects. New Orleans, LA: Garrett County Press.
18.
Jacobs, E. (Ed.). (2002a). Scientific research in education [Special issue]. Educational Researcher, 31(7).
19.
Jacobs, E. (Ed.). (2002b). Scientific research in education [Special issue]. Educational Researcher, 31(8).
20.
Jones, J. H., & Tuskegee Institute. (1993). Bad blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment. New York: Free Press.
21.
Jonsen, A. R. (1998). The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
Keller, E. F. (1995, May). Developmental biology as a feminist cause? Paper presented at the Women, Gender, and Science Question Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
23.
Kraemer, H. C. (1996). Fear of heterogeneity in the study of human populations and the statistical artifacts it produces. In P. M. Kateo & T. Mann (Eds.), Handbook of diversity issues in health psychology (pp. 20-35). New York: Plenum.
24.
Kraemer, H.C. (2001). History, philosophy, the present and the future (?) of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Paper presented at the Summer Institute on Design and Conduct of Randomized Clinical Trials Involving Behavioral Interventions, Airlie, VA.
25.
Kraemer, H. C. (2003). “Rules” of evidence in assessing the efficacy/effectiveness of treatments. Developmental Neuropsychology.
26.
Lather, P. (2003, April). This IS your father’s paradigm. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
27.
Lugones, M. (1990). Playfulness, “world”-traveling, and loving perception. In G. Anzaldúa (Ed.), Making face, making soul, haciendo caras: Creative and critical perspectives by women of color (pp. 390-402). San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation Books.
28.
Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Megil, A. (Ed.). (1994). Rethinking objectivity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
30.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.(1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Retrieved from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/mpa/belmont.php3
31.
National Research Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-348.
32.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
33.
Penley, C., & Ross, A. (1991). Cyborgs at large: Interview with Donna Haraway. In C. Penley & A. Ross (Eds.), Technoculture (Vol. 3, pp. 1-20). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
34.
Rothman, D. J. (1991). Strangers at the bedside: A history of how law and bioethics transformed medical decision making. New York: Basic Books.
35.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
Star, S. L. (1995). Ecologies of knowledge: Work and politics in science and technology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
37.
Toumey, C. P. (1996). Conjuring science: Scientific symbols and cultural meanings in American life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
38.
Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2003). FDA talk paper: FDA statement regarding the anti-depressant Paxil for pediatric population (No. T03-43). Washington, DC: Author.
40.
Weinstein, M. (2001). A public culture for guinea pigs: US human research subjects after the Tuskegee Study. Science as Culture, 10(2), 195-224.
41.
Weinstein, M. (n.d.). Bioethics from the street: Human subject activism and reconceptualizing the good. Manuscript submitted for publication.
42.
Willett, W. C., Skerrett, P. J., Giovannucci, E. L., & Callahan, M. (2001). Eat, drink, and be healthy: The Harvard Medical School guide to healthy eating. New York: Simon & Schuster.
43.
Zink, S. (in press). “Maybe we should pay them more”: Comments on Grady et al. American Journal of Bioethics.
