Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

This is Your Father’s Paradigm: Government Intrusion and the Case of Qualitative Research in Education

Lather, Patti·2004·Qualitative Inquiry
DOI 10.1177/1077800403256154
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This talk was the Egon Guba Invited Lecture at the American Educational Research Association annual conference, April, 2003, Chicago. This article mobilizes three counterdiscourses to critique the federal government’s incursion into legislating scientific method in the realm of educational research via the “evidence-based” movement of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Foucauldian policy analysis, feminism via Luce Irigaray, and postcolonialism via Stuart Hall are used to situate such scientism as a racialized masculinist backlash against the proliferation of research approaches that characterize the past 20 years of social inquiry. Congressional disdain for educational research is addressed within a context of the Science Wars and the needs of neoliberal states, including conservative restoration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077800403256154

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Apple, M. (2001). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
  2. Atkinson, E. (2004). Thinking outside the box: An exercise in heresy. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1). · DOI
  3. Bennett, T. (1992). Putting policy into cultural studies. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 23-37). London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
  4. 10.1353/rhe.2000.0002 · DOI
  5. Blomfield, R. & Hardy, S. (2000). Evidence-based nursing practice. In L. Trinder & S. Reynolds (Eds.), Evidence-based practice: A critical appraisal (pp. 111-137). London: Sage. · DOI
  6. Boruch, R. & Mosteller, F. (2002). Overview and new directions. In F. Mosteller & R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 1-14). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  7. Burtless, G. (2002). Randomized field trials for policy evaluation: Why not in education? In F. Mosteller & R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 179-197). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  8. Canclini, N. G. (2001). The North-South dialogue on cultural studies. In N. G. Canclini (Ed.), Consumers and citizens: Globalization and multicultural conflicts (pp. 3-13). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  9. 10.1177/0022487102053003001 · DOI
  10. Conley, V. (2000). Become-woman now. In I. Buchanan & C. Colebrook (Eds.), Deleuze and feminist theory (pp. 18-37). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
  11. Cook, T. D. & Payne, M. R. (2002). Objecting to the objections to using random assignment in educational research. In F. Mosteller & R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters(pp. 150-178). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  12. 10.1080/0954025032000042167 · DOI
  13. 10.1215/01903659-29-1-125 · DOI
  14. Ferguson, M. & Golding, P. (1997). Cultural studies and changing times: An introduction. In M. Ferguson & P. Golding (Eds.), Cultural studies in question (pp. xiii-xxvii). London: Sage. · DOI
  15. 10.3102/0013189X031008004 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fink, B. (1995). The Lacanian subject: Between language and jouissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Foucault, M. (1994). The punitive society. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Ethics, subjectivity and truth (Vol. 1, pp. 23-38). New York: Free Press.
  19. Foucault, M. (1998). On the archaeology of the sciences: Response to the epistemology circle. In J. Faubion (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Aesthetics, method, and epistemology (Vol. 2, pp. 297-333). New York: Free Press.
  20. Friedman, S., Dunwoody, S. & Rogers, C. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  21. Galison, P. & Stump, D. (Eds.). (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  22. 10.1136/bmj.324.7335.493 · DOI
  23. Graham, L. (1978). Concerns about science and attempts to regulate inquiry. Daedalus, 107(2), 1-21.
  24. Greenberg, D. (2001). Science, money and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  25. Hall, S. (1996). Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (D. Morley & K.H. Chen, Eds.). London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
  26. 10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00195 · DOI
  27. Hammersley, M. (2000). Evidence-based practice in education and the contribution of educational research. In L. Trinder & S. Reynolds (Eds.), Evidence-based practice: A critical appraisal (pp. 163-183). London: Sage. · DOI
  28. 10.1177/1468794103003001767 · DOI
  29. Kuhn, T. B. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  30. Lagemann, E. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of educational research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  31. 10.1080/1047621022000023253 · DOI
  32. Lather, P. (in press). Foucauldian “indiscipline” as a sort of policy application. In B. Baker & K. Hayning (Eds.), Dangerous coagulations? The uses of Foucault in the study of education. New York: Peter Lang.
  33. 10.1177/153270860100100204 · DOI
  34. McRobbie, A. (1997). The E’s and the anti-E’s: New questions for feminism and cultural studies. In M. Ferguson & P. Golding (Eds.), Cultural studies in question (pp. 170-186). London: Sage. · DOI
  35. Mosteller, F. & Boruch, R. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  36. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education (Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research; R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  37. Olkowski, D. (2000). Body, knowledge and becoming-woman: Morpho-logic in Deleuze and Irigaray. In I. Buchanan & C. Colebrook (Eds.), Deleuze and feminist theory (pp. 86-109). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. · DOI
  38. Plotnitsky, A. (2002). The knowable and the unknowable: Modern science, nonclassical thought, and the “two cultures”. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. · DOI
  39. Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Reynolds, S. (2000). The anatomy of evidence-based practice: Principles and methods. In L. Trinder & S. Reynolds (Eds.), Evidence-based practice: A critical appraisal (pp. 17-34). London: Sage. · DOI
  41. Ross, A. (Ed.). (1996). Science wars. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  42. Shaker, P. (2002, October). Is Washington serious about scientifically based research? Paper presented at the Curriculum and Pedagogy Conference, Decatur, GA.
  43. Shavelson, R., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L. & Feuer, M. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28. · DOI · Paper page
  44. Trinder, L. (2000a). Introduction: The context of evidence-based practice. In L. Trinder & S. Reynolds (Eds.), Evidence-based practice: A critical appraisal (pp. 1-15). London: Sage. · DOI
  45. Trinder, L. (2000b). A critical appraisal of evidence-based practice. In L. Trinder & S. Reynolds (Eds.), Evidence-based practice: A critical appraisal (pp. 212-241). London: Sage. · DOI
  46. Trinder, L. & Reynolds, S. (Eds.).(2000c). Evidence-based practice: A critical appraisal. London: Sage. · DOI
  47. Vivovskis, M. (2002). Missing in practice? Development and evaluation at the U.S. Department of Education. In F. Mosteller & R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 120-149). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  48. West, C. (1990). The new cultural politics of difference. In R. Fergusonet al. (Eds.), Out there: Marginalization and contemporary cultures (pp. 19-36). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  49. 10.17763/haer.49.4.b103114415055218 · DOI
  50. 10.3102/0013189X030001005 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lather, P.
Venue
Qualitative Inquiry
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-02
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
15-34
ISSN
  • 1077-8004 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7565
DOI
10.1177/1077800403256154
OpenAlex
W2021619559
Cited by
282
References
1
FWCI
94.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.