Abstract

Process-Product research uses observation, experiment and statistics to attempt to show that some ways of teaching are superior to others. There is a difference between scientific research and empiricist research, and Process-Product research is empiricist rather than scientific as its practitioners claim. Both empiricist and scientific research are however empirical, i.e. both attempt to discover and explain the world of empirical phenomena. ;The striking differences between scientific and empiricist enterprizes are demonstrated through comparing examples from astronomy and physics, chemistry, biology and the earth sciences, with paradigmatic Process-Product studies. ;Science makes use of several different kinds of theory; it involves rational connection between abstract concepts, and isomorphism to the empiricial world; it uses mathematics and ratio scales; as a result it develops formidable theories. It explains, predicts, and applies with precision in technologies. In contrast, Process-Product's empiricist activity largely ignores theory and any claims to theory are hortatory; it involves empiricist connection between general concepts, does not provide isomorphism, uses statistics, and nominal and ordinal scales rather than interval or ratio ones; it provides ceteris paribus, and commonsense explanations, and statistical probabilities not predictions; thus Process-Product is not scientific but sophisticatedly empiricist in a statistical way. ;This confusion between scientific and empiricist research leaves Process-Product in a no-man's land where it is impossible for it to be effective scientifically or truly effective in an empiricist manner. Despite its laudable aims it has achieved very little, but may be able to redeem itself in either of two ways. ;First, it can attempt to make itself scientific through developing scientific theory which amongst other things; must include abstract concepts. Or second, and much more realizable, Process-Product researchers can unashamedly recognize the empiricist status of their research, realize what this means for future developments, and modify their methodology to make it more empiricistically congent. This will involve taking into account humanistic and normative critiques, the many different kinds of relevant theory, and the vast complexity of teaching: all three of which it corrently ignores. In short it must be embedded in a practical theory of pedagogy