In Praise of (Reasoned and Reasonable) Speculation: A Response to Robinson et al.’s Moratorium on Recommendations for Practice

Abstract

In response to the call by Robinson et al. (25(2): 24–28, 2013) for a moratorium on recommendations for practice and policy in articles published in primary research journals, Alexander forwards four counterarguments that allow for what are termed reasoned and reasonable speculations. Among those counterarguments are the claim that (a) seeking influence in educational practice is a raison d'etre for educational psychology researchers; (b) problems evident in authors’ conclusions and implications are indicative of a deeper and broader issue; (c) speculations are unavailable and essential aspects of educational research; and (d) potential recommendations should be situated within the primary research document and with the data that justify their articulation.