Questioning research methodology & other notes

The November 2007 issue of the research journal Dyslexia raises some interesting questions about the applicability of a model of controlled empirical studies to research into dyslexia treatment methods. In an article entitled What kind of evidence do we need for evaluating therapeutic interventions?, Mary Haslum of University of the West of England, Bristol, points out that pitfalls in attempting to structure a controlled study, noting that researchers do not even agree on the definition or diagnostic criteria for dyslexia. She suggests that a more realistic approach to research would be to develop more systematic criteria for evaluating qualitative research based on case studies.

Ina separate article along the same lines (Criteria for Evaluating Interventions), T.R. Miles, with his characteristic delightful style, begins by noting the perils of the placebo or Hawthorne effect, and somehow meanders to a point where he notes the failure of any studies to account for the possibility that some participants have extra-sensory perception (ESP). [Note: with few exceptions, most scientific researchers produce journal articles that are tedious at best, and often border on incomprehensible. Miles is one of the very consistent exceptions -- always lucid, and quite often entertaining and imaginative both with his use of language and the avenues he chooses to explore.] In the end, Miles provides a set of reasoned examples that similarly challenge the idea that dyslexia research can or should be limited to the "gold standard" of the controlled study, while also urging an awareness of the various factors that can lead wishful thinkers to misinterpret the significance of their data.

Citation: Dyslexia, Volume 13, Issue 4 (November 2007)