Howe criticized neoclassical experimentalism—appropriating medical research as a model for all science research--saying “it gets the shoe on the wrong foot” (p. 49); On the other hand, mixed-methods experimentalism—predominantly in education field--is an advance over neoclassical experimentalism. Yet, it also places quantitative methods and centering technocratic perspective, what works for the research, and randomized experiments, thus Howe wrote this, too, is retrograde. He argued that it focuses on the question “whether interventions are effective in achieving given outcomes” (p.54).
Howe argued that there is no preset of criteria to determine what constitutes “scientific” research. Instead, researchers should decide what is counted as science or scientific, he said, adding such decisions are value laden.
Pointing out the pervasive influence of interpretivism on social science, Howe drew attention on Cronbach’ (1975) generalizations decay and Giddens’s (1976) double hermeneutic. What Cronbach meant by generalization decay is generalizations are fallible and subject to change over time. Double hermeneutic means that there are two types of interpretations in social science—one by researchers and the other by their audience. Howe pointed out, “For ‘critical’ researchers, making generalizations decay—generalizations documenting oppressive relationships, in particular—is an explicit goal of social research” (51-52).
Criticizing the mainstream mixed methods experimentalism, Howe looked into mixed methods interpretivism. He stressed that the outcome of this type of research are open to end and determined by stakeholders, thus, for him, inclusion and dialogue are central to this research approach. He put qualitative methods at the front versus QUAN. More importantly, the role of participants divides this approach from mixed methods experimentalism.
In conclusion, Howe noted that the contrast between the technocratic experimentalism and democratic interpretivism gets at the political dimensions of educational research. [Here Howe’s democratic interpretivism can be framed as “participatory” research, although he does not mention.]
