n this hypothetical situation, and they help us all the more in real research situations in which we simultaneously must learn the principles and what they mean concretely.
4. It's'' good'' quantitative research and it's interpretive
Studies by Fischer and his colleagues (eg, Fischer, 1980; Fischer & Bidell, 1998) and Dawson (2006) have investigated development in a wide range of domains, including among many others, understanding of social interaction concepts such as '' Nice'' and'' mean,'' skills in mathematics, and understanding'' leadership.'' This research has provided a great deal of support for a clearly delineated 13-level developmental sequence in complexity ranging from reflexive actions to understanding principles. Dawson et al. (2006) claimed that it demonstrates the value of'' strong,'' positivist quantitative methods, which, they say, are excluded in the approach to quantitative research I offered in my position paper. In particular, they argued that their work provides a'' developmental ruler'' that represents a universal, content-independent measure of increasing hierarchical integration.
Do their examples show that Stam was off the mark when he argued that, although such research is highly desirable, it is something that we see rarely if at all in the field? Do the examples demonstrate that my approach fails to incorporate an important range of research efforts?
In fact, I believe that this research offers us excellent examples of'' good'' quantitative research. I disagree with Dawson et al. 's characterizations of their own research, however. As I see it, the research in question is a fascinating example of one of the situations I described earlier: the case in which initial findings in a particular domain or a few domains suggest a general principle. In particular, in this situation, the general principle is the developmental sequence of hierarchical integration. There is a real risk here (given our philosophical tradition) of imagining that this sequence is a fully abstract, reified structure that'' lies behind'' concrete phenomena and failing to recognize the ways in which interpretation enters into the research.
The studies by Fischer, Dawson, and their colleagues employ measures that are extremely useful, but not '' Strong'' in the positivist sense marked out by classical notions of measurement or Stam's idea about measures that'' refer back to some concrete feature of the world.'' Consider examples from Dawson's (2006) LecticalTM Assessment System. In that system, a child's understanding is said to be at the level of single representations if the child offers a statement like'' Camping is fun'' in an assessment interview. By contrast, the child's ...
