This article examines the usefulness of meta-analysis, and articulates many of the criticisms that have been made of its workings. An attempt is made to outline the precautions that have to be taken before a scientifically useful and meaningful meta-analysis can be carried out. The problems encountered include heterogeneity of samples, conditions, interventions and end-points; narrow focus; curvilinearity of regression; lack of independence of determinants; synergistic interactions; contradictory experimental results. It is suggested that best-evidence synthesis, or theory-directed analysis, might be a safer option.

Meta-analysis or best-evidence synthesis?

(1994). The problem of ‘transferable’ skills. Melbourne Studies in Education: Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 4-28.

The problem of ‘transferable’ skills

"mainstream." Proposal readers were not frequently seized by the originality of a research strategy or a fresh conceptualization of an old problem. There were some of these, to be sure, but not a lot. Possibly there were more in the early stages of the competition. Perhaps the peer review process itself, and the government rating systems behind it, tended to screen out less conventional approaches. But even if not exhilarating, the outcome was satisfactory. The centers we ended up with are all promising; each has a serious mission, able individuals, and a worthy plan, some worthier than others at this early stage. I feel good about the process, hopeful about the winners, and determined to do all we can to help them succeed-a judging process, I might add, in which we will use various peer review mechanisms. The situation with the regional labs is a bit more problematic. The new contracts describe an ambitious agenda of work that, if satisfactorily carried out, will surely benefit American education. So far, so good. But virtually all the "new" labs were also "old" labs or close facsimiles thereof. And of the old labs, while it is both conventional and true to remark that their work was "uneven," I am not aware of any evidence that American education was palpably improved in consequence of their activities as a group over the years. I say this with sadness, not satisfaction, and in the fervent hope that the future will yield a different record. We on the OERI side of this contractual relationship will do our level best to bring this about. But the record remains to be established. Yet the principles of peer review remain sound, and we shall apply them throughout OERI, even to the point of requiring outside participation in the review of proposals (such as contracts let by our Center for Statistics) that heretofore were appraised only by Department staff members. But we apply them in the full awareness that peer review is a help for decisionmakers, not a substitute for them, and that the ways a peer review process is constituted and managed matter greatly, especially in this field of education where a linear extension of past thinking and familiar practices into the future is simply not good enough.

Peer Review and the NIE/OERI Competition for Regional Educational Laboratories and National R&D Centers

Our paper explores the relationship between knowledge and power first articulated in the modern age by Francis Bacon, in terms of M. Foucault's postmodern critique of Power/Knowledge that seems to reverse the meaning of Bacon's “knowledge is power” maxim. We apply Foucault's critique to instructional technology concentrating especially on hypermedia. We remark on the many similarities between Foucault's postmodern critique and the concerns of Theodore Nelson who coined the words “hypertext” and “hypermedia.” We will combine Foucault's Nietzschian insights with Nelson's characterization of “the Information Lords” to conclude with the following postmodern questions: Who makes the categories and constraints that are translated into truth and power? Is God dead, and if so, who will become the Information Lord?

Knowledge, Power, and Hypermedia

A he Congressional season dictates the pace of AERA's Governmental and Professional Liaison Program. Since GPL's charge is to monitor the political scene as it relates to educational research at the federal level, the program for the most part tracks Congress. Unlike an academic calendar, which begins in the fall, the Congressional calendar winds down at that time and begins anew sometime in late January. “Winds down\" fails to describe exactly how Congress takes its leave from Washington amidst threats of presidential vetoes, government shut-downs, and late night sessions. In an election year, like this one, Congress looks more like a computer system crashing or a punchdrunk boxer reeling on the ropes than an austere and august body settling down for adjournment. A lull in the action like this should be used judiciously, for transitions can escape in a moment's notice. Before you realize it, the time has passed. The action has started up again and the past session's activities only become important as a baseline for planning the next session's actions. Initially, there's some awkwardness. After all, gaining closure on what has just happened means coming to terms with what was accomplished and what efforts fell short. This article is not a record of events so much as an attempt to record what was learned during the 99th Congress about the status of educational research in the world of Washington politics.

Governmental and Professional Liaison Report: A Matter of Principle:

Controlling Costs at the Expense of Academic Freedom

xvesearch, as the key to continued progress in all major fields of endeavor, has rarely been perceived as strategy for improving the quality of education. The trials and tribulations of the Department of Education's research and statistics functions have attracted considerable notoriety over the years. And at the National Science Foundation, an agency that might be expected to appreciate and support research to improve education, especially science and engineering education, educational research remains a very modest program. That is not to say that NSF has not supported activities to improve science and engineering education and training, but rather research has not played a prominent role in those efforts. It is not immediately apparent why NSF has neglected science education research. After all, the budget for science and engineering education is driven by the same issues as the budget for science and engineering research. Our efforts to sustain our nation's economic growth and productivity, secure and maintain the country's national defense, and improve the quality of life of all citizens rests on the health and vitality of our scientific and technological base. A corollary is the predominant role of the nation's colleges and universities in the process, through the production of knowledge, its transfer to technology, and the education and training of scientists and engineers. Elementary and secondary education have benefited from a downward extension of the logic and reasoning behind support for academic research, for those years are the staging ground for our nation's scientists and engineers. But educational research, regardless of whether or not it's related to the disciplines, has not achieved the status of either science or education in the budget.

Governmental and Professional Liaison Report: A Look at NSF’s Educational Research Budget:

be used judiciously, for transitions can escape in a moment's notice. Before you realize it, the time has passed. The action has started up again and the past session's activities only become important as a baseline for planning the next session's actions. Initially, there's some awkwardness. After all, gaining closure on what has just happened means coming to terms with what was accomplished and what efforts fell short. This article is not a record

A Matter of Principle

Governmental and Professional Liaison Report: Controlling Cost at the Expense of Academic Freedom

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Laurie Garduque

Author Tools

Chat about Author