Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 2006 27(3):527-530; doi:10.1093/applin/aml025
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ross, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2006

A Response to Paul Stapleton's ‘Critiquing Research Methodology’

Steven J. Ross

Kwansei Gakuin University

Paul Stapleton's (2006) critique of quantitative research brings to the surface some common interpretive problems arising when experimental and quasi-experimental research designs are compared. While Stapleton may be correct in pointing out the superiority of experimental research designs because they best eliminate the influence of extraneous factors, his construction of factitious intervening variables do little to support his argument that naturalistic field studies are invalidated by imaginary spurious influences on the outcomes of interest. In this reply, the differences between randomized experiments and real-world effectiveness studies are also reviewed with the aim of stressing the potential practical utility of the latter. While it is well-known that naturalistic field studies rarely provide conclusive results, it is argued that they can still provide useful evidence to justify inferences about worthwhile assessment practices.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.