In his provocative contribution to this special issue of the LDQ, Scot Danforth uses the lens of history to challenge contemporary scholars in the field of learning (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 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 salient instance in the history of our field provides useful case in point for detailed evaluation of our 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. Danforth's Analysis In brief, Danforth argues that the critiques of process training published by Hammill and his colleagues in the early 1970s (Hammill, 1972; Hammill, Goodman, & Wiederholt, 1974; Hammill & Larsen, 1974) were shaped and, ultimately, limited by broader set of epistemological changes at work during that decade in the LD field, set of changes that altered not only the preferred methods of inquiry but also the nature of the phenomena deemed amenable to study. In Danforth's terms, these changes involved shift from to an approach to the study of learning disabilities, shift that represented a turning point in the scientific character of the young field of learning disabilities (p. 127). He characterizes the clinical approach as holistic and subjective. In contrast, he sees the actuarial approach as atomistic and objectivist. Although his concern is with one moment in the history of the field, his implicit argument is that our field is still limited by its stubborn refusal to embrace plurality of approaches. Danforth uses his analysis of the historical context of Hammill's critiques as telling example of the value of historical scholarship. His rich analysis of the work of pioneering clinical scholars in the LD field constitutes second such example. His description of their work, including his summary of the theoretical and methodological arguments made by Frostig in her dissertation, brings alive this early work, and helps us appreciate the nuanced approach taken by these scholars. In scholarly climate in which early work can be dismissed as dated or simplistic, it is valuable to have detailed reminders of the complexity of such work. Danforth's arguments are thoughtful, and the concerns he raises are important ones for the field to consider. However, I have some reservations about the conclusions he draws. I agree with him about the potential dangers of paradigmatic blinders and the value of historical analysis in highlighting those dangers. At the same time, I see some limitations to his argument, stemming in part from his analysis of the publication trends, in part from his implicit extrapolation from one period to broader assertions about the field of LD. Reflections on Danforth's Analysis The core of Danforth's historical analysis of Hammill's critiques involves the use of publication counts to characterize the paradigmatic context of that work. Danforth uses content analysis of published work from the decade of the 1970s to argue that Hammill's conclusions regarding the process training movement were biased by Hammill's methodological decisions, decisions flowing from an emerging objectivist zeitgeist in the LD field. Although Danforth's analysis is suggestive, his conclusions may need some qualification, largely because of limitations in his database and in the methodology he employs. …
Read full abstract
Jul 16, 2024
Henrik Berg 
Open Access
