Few concepts in the social sciences have wielded more discriminatory power over the status of knowledge claims than that of statistical significance. Currently operationalized as a = 0.05, statistical significance frequently separates publishable from nonpublishable research, renewable from nonrenewable grants, and, in the eyes of many, experimental success from failure. If literacy is envisioned as a sort of competence in a set of social and intellectual practices, then scientific literacy must encompass the realization that this cardinal arbiter of social scientific knowledge was not born out of an immanent logic of mathematics but socially constructed and reconstructed in response to sociohistoric conditions.
Editorial, General Note about the Data and Interpretations, Education Statistics Quarterly, 2, p. 1, 2000.
3.
PennebakerJ. W.BargerS. D., and TieboutJ., Disclosure of Traumas and Health among Holocaust Survivors, Psychosomatic Medicine, 51, pp. 577–589, 1989.
4.
HogbenL., Significance as Interpreted by the School of R. A. Fisher, in The Significance Test Controversy, MorrisonD. E. and HenkelR. E. (eds.), Aldine Publishing, Chicago, pp. 41–56, 1970.
5.
PorterT. M., Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995.
6.
BodewitzH.BuurmaH., and de VriesG., Regulatory Science and the Social Management of Trust in Medicine, in The Social Construction of Technological Systems, BijkerW. E.HughesT. P., and PinchT. (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 243–259, 1999.
7.
FisherR. A., Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference (2nd Edition), Hafner, New York, 1959.
8.
HackingI., The Social Construction of What?Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
9.
RobinsonJ. L. and StockP. L., The Politics of Literacy, in Conversations on the Written Word, RobinsonL. (ed.), Boynton/Cook Publishers, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, pp. 271–317, 1990.
10.
HubertyC. J., Historical Origins of Statistical Testing Practices: The Treatment of Fisher versus Neyman-Pearson Views in Textbooks, Journal of Experimental Education, 61, pp. 317–333, 1993.
11.
ShavelsonR. J., Statistical Reasoning for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd Edition), Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1996.
12.
HackingI., The Emergence of Probability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975.
13.
StiglerS. M., The History of Statistics: The Measurement of Uncertainty Before 1900, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
14.
PorterT. M., The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820–1900, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986.
15.
GreenwoodM., A First Study of the Weight, Variability, and Correlation of the Human Viscera, with Special Reference to the Healthy and Diseased Heart, Biometrika, 3, pp. 63–73, 1904.
16.
VennJ., Cambridge Anthropometry, Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 18, pp. 140–154, 1888.
17.
Student, The Probable Error of a Mean, Biometrika, 6, pp. 1–25, 1908.
18.
JonesD. C., A First Course in Statistics, G. Bell and Sons, London, 1921.
19.
Editorial, On the Probable Errors of Frequency Constants, Biometrika, 2, pp. 273–281, 1902.
20.
PearsonK., Note on the Significant or Non-significant Character of a Sub-Sample Drawn from a Sample, Biometrika, 5, pp. 181–183, 1906.
21.
PearsonK. and TocherJ. F., On Criteria for the Existence of Differential Deathrates, Biometrika, 11, pp. 159–184, 1915.
22.
YuleG. U., An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, Charles Griffin, London, 1911.
23.
Student, On Testing Varieties of Cereals, Biometrika, 15, pp. 271–293, 1923.
24.
PearsonK., On the Probability that Two Independent Distributions of Frequency are Really Samples of the Same Population, with Special Reference to Recent Work on the Identity of Trypanosome Strains, Biometrika, 10, pp. 85–143, 1914.
25.
FisherR. A., Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1925.
26.
SkipperJ. K.GuentherA. L., and NassG., The Sacredness of .05: A Note Concerning the Uses of Statistical Levels of Significance in Social Science, American Sociologist, 2, pp. 16–18, 1967.
27.
FisherR. A., The Arrangement of Field Experiments, in Collected Papers of R. A. Fisher: Vol. 2, 1925–31, BennettJ. H. (ed.), University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide, pp. 84–94, 1972.
28.
LittleJ., Toward Sociocultural Sensitivity in Rhetorical Studies of Analogy: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 31: 3, 2001.
29.
LittleJ., Analogy in Science: Where Do We Go From Here?Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 30: 1, 2000.
30.
LittleJ., Confusion in the Classroom: Does Logos Mean Logic?Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 29: 4, 1999.
