ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

This is a fascinating post, but I'm not sure I understood all of it--in particular the idea that rigor is an idea that is evolving. Carey, are you saying that applied science needs different standards of rigor than other science? Could you give an example of what criteria would be more appropriate to, say, a clinical drug treatment trial than a pre-clinical one?

Thanks,
Jennie Dusheck
Science Writing & Editing
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

On Jun 25, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Carey Tisdal wrote:

> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
> *****************************************************************************
> 
> I think we also need to consider the societal context of these critiques of social science. With overall federal  funding cuts there is lobbying from the physics, engineering, and medical areas which have more political clout to maintain funding in the areas that support their own economic interests. Science as a societal endeavor has always been a value-laden and political process. It isn't surprising that these types of critiques come out at this time when scarcity has been created in the economic system. The prestige hierarchy of university sciences is also well-identified phenomena and when conflated with corporate interests, it is not an inconsequential factor in producing these critiques.
> 
> On the other hand, rigor is a topic that continues to evolve. Particularly in all applied areas, the traditional criteria for rigor (including repeatability/replication) are being called into question across multiple areas of science. Engineering and drug research have some ongoing issues, both with investigator independence (sponsors influencing results) and the initial focus and design blinding researchers from identifying essential questions.  For example, random control designs may be considered highly rigorous, but the length of the studies (influenced both by patient need and commercial interests)  prevent the identification of serious, sometimes even fatal, side-effects.
> 
> Michael Quinn Patton recently recommended that evaluators look at the work of Zelik and his collaborators for better criteria for rigor. Zelik (et. al) looked at several situations (e.g. the Challenger Incident) where  where decisions, based of evidence, failed and have recommended criteria for rigor appropriate to applied situation. I think we need to consider this framework for rigor in informal science education evaluation.

***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.

Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.

The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.

To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]