[senco-forum] [SENco-forum] empirical esearch

In that case the term has been hijacked by those who are fail to do any

With tongue in cheek, I have to ask what you are basing your comments on
Dolfrog? What research have you done and what evidence have you got on those
you claim sit behind their desks? ;-)

On 22/05/2008 20:02, "dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk" <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>
wrote:

> In that case the term has been hijacked by those who are fail to do any
> field research, and only sit behind desks using and not understanding the
> work of others.
> 
> Those who rely on the observations of others and do not carry out any filed
> research themselves. If they are real researchers then they are field
> researchers who make the observations and create theories based on their
> observations.
> The are too many who claim to be researchers who just pass comment on the
> observations of others and do no field work themselves or practical
> observations themselves. They only use the second hand data from the work of
> others and only select the data that supports the claims that they wish to
> make or that they have been asked to make. Making a name for themselves
> using the work and observations of others.
> 
> So may be the imposters are those who make claim to be empirical researchers
> but who are actually distorting the observations of others to conceal their
> own research inadequacies. Not being able to design and carry out their own
> field research programs with real people. The universities appear to be full
> of these pretenders who are only able to pass second hand comments on the
> field observations of others.
> 
> So may be the term empirical research is being miss used by those who sit at
> a university desk reviewing the research of others, and failing to do their
> own research design and field work to substantiate any comments that may
> make. All they do is to make an unqualified review of the work of others,
> and make no attempt to carry out their own field research to justify their
> comments.
> 
> So may be we should require Researchers to define the field observations
> that they will use for their empirical research. And if they are only
> reading the and comparing the works of others then this can not be justified
> as empirical research because they have not designed and carried out their
> own field research to substantiate any conclusions that they may make.
> 
> So any research that states all that has been done is to read the research
> and compare the research of others can not be called empirical research
> because the researcher did not design or conduct a field research program to
> justify any claims he may make from just reading the research of others.
> 
> There is a difference between field based research done say for the Medical
> Research Council based on designing and carrying out a research program
> using observation and practical tests to resolve real problems is empirical
> research.  In comparison to those who spend days reading through the
> selected works of others and who do no practical field work to verify any
> conclusion that they may make, and with no field based observations.
> 
> So I support those who design, and carry out their own field research, and
> carry out research program which justify their claims, or that can
> demonstrate that their observations can apply to at least one individual.
> Such as the work carried out by the Medical Research Council and others
> which has to be peer reviewed.
> 
> But those who site behind a desk using and fail to carry out their own field
> research but denounce the observations of others are charlatans. In many
> cases they do not begin to understand the nature of the observations that
> they are reviewing.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> dolfrog
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maggie Downie [mailto:maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: 22 May 2008 17:53
> To: 'Philip MacMillan'; 'Stuart Lucas'; 'Becta Senco'; SEN at tringham.net;
> dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
> 
> 
> Jeeez, dolfrog,
> 
> How are we meant to take you seriously?
> 
> Try googling 'definition of empirical research'
> 
> Try this for starters:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research
> 
> Maggie
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 22/5/08, dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> From: dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>
>> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
>> To: maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk, "'Philip MacMillan'"
> <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>, "'Stuart Lucas'" <lucass at loretto.com>, "'Becta
> Senco'" <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>, SEN at tringham.net
>> Date: Thursday, 22 May, 2008, 1:03 PM
>> Empirical Researchers do not move away from their desks,
>> they do not look at
>> the complexities of real life. They only statically test
>> theories, using
>> second hand data.
>> These empirical researchers should be forced to go out into
>> the field to
>> test their theories in real life situations.
>> The live in a world of Chinese whispers which they distort
>> to fit their
>> masters needs especially when it comes to educational
>> research. They never
>> go into schools to finds out how children learn. They never
>> do any realistic
>> practical field tests before they reject any theory.
>> Children are not
>> statistical data they are individuals who have greatly
>> varying learning
>> needs.
>> So field researchers should be the researchers we trust not
>> the idiot pen
>> pushers who prove and disprove what ever they like
>> depending on they use the
>> statistical data. Empirical researchers should be the
>> slaves of field
>> researchers, for it is field researchers that get the
>> results, which the
>> empirical researchers play with to best suite their
>> political or financial
>> masters needs.
>> 
>> If an empirical researcher has a theory regarding people
>> then they should go
>> out and do a great deal of filed research to either prove
>> or disprove that
>> theory, and not sit behind a desk playing with numbers.
>> People are people
>> with feelings and needs they are not numbers.
>> 
>> Empirical researchers are just over rated, deskbound,
>> number manipulators;
>> who have no real life experiences or research to form the
>> basis their
>> opinions. And they are not able to prove anything one way
>> or the other. 
>> 
>> No, you can not trust empirical researchers many of whom
>> have secret or
>> hidden agendas, but you can trust field researchers who try
>> to make sense of
>> the problems that exist in real life.
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> dolfrog
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Maggie Downie [mailto:maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk]
>> Sent: 21 May 2008 16:46
>> To: 'Philip MacMillan'; 'Stuart Lucas';
>> 'Becta Senco'; SEN at tringham.net;
>> dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
>> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
>> 
>> I think you are somewhat confused as to what 'empirical
>> research' actually
>> is.  
>> 
>> This is one definition:
>> 
>> 1.
>> a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment:
>> empirical results
>> that supported the hypothesis.
>> b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or
>> experiment: empirical
>> laws.
>> 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory,
>> especially in medicine.
>> 
>> In other words, a researcher sets up an experiment in order
>> to test a theory
>> and uses the data gained from that experiment to judge
>> whether it confirms
>> or disproves that theory.  A good piece of empirical
>> research, far from
>> 'ignoring the complex issues that exist in real
>> life' will be carefully
>> controlled to take account of those issues.  The experiment
>> will generate
>> data, which is then analysed.  A researcher may be
>> *wanting* to prove a
>> theory, but if the evidence from their research results is
>> contrary to their
>> theory they will abandon it.  If the results seem to
>> confirm their theory
>> and can be replicated by other researchers in the field,
>> then the theory
>> will generally be accepted as being valid.  The process of
>> peer review and
>> replication of results is meant to ensure that any one
>> particular theory
>> will not gain acceptance without solid evidence of its
>> validity.
>> 
>> If you can't trust rigorous empirical research then you
>> can't trust
>> anything.
>> 
>> Maggie
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Wed, 21/5/08, dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
>> <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> From: dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
>> <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>
>>> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
>> recovery
>>> To: "'Philip MacMillan'"
>> <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>, "'Stuart
>> Lucas'"
>> <lucass at loretto.com>, maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk,
>> "'Becta Senco'"
>> <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>, SEN at tringham.net
>>> Date: Wednesday, 21 May, 2008, 4:27 AM
>>> Hi Philip
>>> 
>>> I find empirical research to lack credibility, and
>> ignores
>>> the complex issue
>>> that exist in real life. There is a greater need to
>> get
>>> these desk bound
>>> number crunchers to do some real field research and so
>>> begin to understand
>>> the real problems.
>>> From what I have read from empirical researches is
>> that
>>> they are selecting
>>> their source data, and then use their selected data to
>>> prove and justify
>>> their own interest groups cause.
>>> This may not be the case of some empirical
>> researchers, but
>>> from my own
>>> experience they usually ignore the most important
>> details,
>>> and have little
>>> understanding of the field research data that they are
>>> assessing.
>>> 
>>> So get these researchers out in the field to do their
>> own
>>> field research
>>> instead of sitting behind desks speculatingor should
>> we say
>>> guessing.
>>> 
>>> Best wishes
>>> 
>>> dolfrog
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
>>> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On
>> Behalf
>>> Of Philip
>>> MacMillan
>>> Sent: 20 May 2008 19:43
>>> To: Stuart Lucas; maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk; Becta Senco;
>>> SEN at tringham.net
>>> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
>> recovery
>>> 
>>> Empirical educational research is just ignored by the
>>> system at all levels.
>>> The system spends other people's money (they have
>> no
>>> option but to pay) on
>>> other people's children (they have no choice as to
>> what
>>> is provided to them,
>>> 
>>> unless of course you can afford private).   The
>> government
>>> is always 
>>> bleating about tax payer value for money and how we
>> all
>>> need ot be 
>>> accountable for what we do and yet they ignore the
>> advice
>>> from their own 
>>> chosen experts for that of the old guard.  RR has been
>>> shown to be close to
>>> fraudulent in the way that it gathered and manipulated
>> the
>>> data and what 
>>> does HMG do, why it gives them more.  A bit like all
>> the
>>> failed IT 
>>> contracts, those who fail get paid more as there is
>> plenty
>>> more where that
>>> came from.  Oh to be a non dom and pay nothing to live
>> in
>>> the UK.  Fat 
>>> chance!
>>> 
>>> Philip EP
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Stuart Lucas"
>> <lucass at loretto.com>
>>> To: "Philip MacMillan"
>>> <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>;
>>> <maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>;
>>> 
>>> "Becta Senco"
>>> <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>;
>>> <SEN at tringham.net>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:58 AM
>>> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
>> recovery
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 10 O'clock news last night -
>>> Reading Recovery - being pushed by .......?
>>> Looks like added some 20 odd billion pounds to Ed
>> budget
>>> but not much
>>> rewards??????
>>> 
>>> Stuart
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
>>> [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On
>> Behalf
>>> Of Philip
>>> MacMillan
>>> Sent: 19 May 2008 20:36
>>> To: maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk; Becta Senco;
>> SEN at tringham.net
>>> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
>> recovery
>>> 
>>> If you look at the INDEPENDENT evaluations of RR you
>> will
>>> find that it
>>> by
>>> and large a sham.  RR obviously still has big friends
>> in
>>> big government.
>>> 
>>> They should not be spending any of our money on it.
>>> 
>>> Philip EP
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Maggie Downie"
>>> <maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>
>>> To: "Becta Senco"
>>> <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>;
>>> <SEN at tringham.net>
>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 7:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
>> recovery
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --- On Mon, 19/5/08, SEN at tringham.net
>>> <SEN at tringham.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Where the system always breaks down is for the
>> unlucky
>>>> 20-25% where dealing with
>> phonics/blending/consonant
>>>> clusters 'str' or 'tion', or,
>> abstract
>>>> whole words - 'was/are' is difficult and
>> where
>>>> context in dictation sentences has to be used to
>> learn
>>> and
>>>> then these broken back down to individual words
>> in
>>>> isolation.
>>> 
>>> Sharon, I don't quite understand what you are
>> saying
>>> here.  I work with
>>> 'the
>>> bottom 25%' of readers in my school ( a perfectly
>>> ordinary comp. in an
>>> area
>>> of social deprivation)and I suppose I must count
>> myself
>>> fortunate that
>>> I've
>>> never worked with a single child who couldn't
>> grasp the
>>> principles of
>>> phonics and of blending.  On the other hand, they are
>>> uniformly confused
>>> and
>>> messed up by having had a mish mash of methods thrown
>> at
>>> them at primary
>>> 
>>> school.  While I appreciate that you have had
>> particular
>>> problems with
>>> your
>>> own children, I strongly suspect that Solity's
>> figure
>>> of 3 -5% of
>>> children
>>> being REALLY difficult to teach is the truer one.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure how this scheme got to be pushed to the
>> fore
>>> by
>>>> government.
>>>> 
>>> I think it's a case of money talking (RR are
>> extremely
>>> well funded) a
>>> relentless publicity machine and knowing the right
>> people
>>> (they have the
>>> ear
>>> of the PM).
>>> 
>>> Maggie
>>> 
>>> 
>>>      
>>> 
>> __________________________________________________________
>>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
>>> A Smarter Email
>> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
>>> Security System.
>>> For more information please visit
>>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> School postal address: Loretto School, Linkfield Road,
>>> Musselburgh,
>>> East Lothian, Scotland, UK. EH21 7RE.  T +44 (0)131
>> 653
>>> 4444
>>> E reception at loretto.com  www.loretto.com
>>> 
>>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> Charity No. SCO13978. Loretto School Ltd is registered
>> in
>>> Scotland,
>>> No. SCO59500. Registered office: 16 Heriot Row,
>> Edinburgh,
>>> EH3 6HR.
>>> 
>>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
>>> Security System.
>>> 
>>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>>      
>> __________________________________________________________
>> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
>> A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> 
> 
>       __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 