NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ931420
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2011
Pages: 3
Abstractor: ERIC
Reference Count: 12
ISSN: ISSN-0731-9487
An Unfortunate Divorce
Stone, C. Addison
Learning Disability Quarterly, v34 n2 p137-139 Sum 2011
In his contribution to this special issue of this journal, Scot Danforth uses the lens of history to challenge contemporary scholars in the field of learning disabilities (LD) to think critically about their implicit epistemology and methods of inquiry. Using the specific case of Hammill and colleagues' critical reviews of the process training movement (e.g., Hammill, 1972; Hammill & Larsen, 1974), Danforth argues that a historical analysis helps scholars to understand how the sociohistorical context of their work influences that work. This line of argument is not new in the broader scientific discourse, or even in the LD field (e.g., Heshusius, 1974, 1989), but Danforth's close examination of a salient instance in the history of the field provides a useful case in point for a detailed evaluation of specific constructs and methods. At the same time, by extrapolation, he provides an implicit argument regarding the potential limitations of current approaches to the study of learning disabilities, an argument that warrants careful consideration. (Contains 1 note.)
Council for Learning Disabilities. P.O. Box 4014, Leesburg, VA 20177. Tel: 571-258-1010; Fax: 571-258-1011; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Opinion Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A