Raises a number of questions about current descriptive definitions of reading. (FL)

Examines the benefits of descriptive and predictive models of reading. Argues that the choice of reading model influences the outcome of reading research. (MM)

Proposes a "partial explanatory" model of document processing. Describes research underlying the model, presents a grammar of documents, defines and illustrates the variables underlying the model using a set of tasks relating to a bus schedule, and demonstrates the advantages of explanatory over exploratory models of document processing. (SR)

Discusses three approaches to the history of reading: (1) reading as definition, focusing on the features that characterize reading; (2) reading as cause and effect, focusing on why different definitions of reading come into being; and (3) reading as ideology, focusing on what goal or ideology is implied by a particular history. (MM)

Points out some of the difficulties involved in carrying out reading research, emphasizing the importance of simplification. (ARH)

Discusses the different ways theorists and researchers define "reading." (FL)

Discusses techniques used by reading researchers to derive "operational definitions" of reading phenomena. (FL)

Asserts that experimental research articles are "explanatory minihistories," of reading containing elements of prescription, description, and prediction found in most histories. Argues that reading historians will have to select from among these minihistories to arrive at an explanatory history of the reading field. (MM)

Defines two types of antimony--minor, contradictory statements that have major effects--and shows how they abound in reading research. Concludes that the problem of antimonies must be resolved before research, on empirical grounds alone, can effectively improve practice. (MM)

Surveys issues raised in earlier articles in this issue of the journal regarding standards for reading research methodologies. Offers a tentative explanation of why debates, paradigm wars, and parallel play are prevalent in literacy research. (RS)

Discusses research methodology in general, and suggests ways of identifying what is and is not known in the field of reading. Points out that reading research has not yet investigated how adults and children read nonschool materials in nonschool settings. (ARH)

Compares the Darwinian approach to understanding reading (irrational) with the Cartesian approach (rational). Argues for the superiority of the Darwinian approach, and in the future will consider how research and practice might be conceptualized from a Cartesian approach to understanding and reading. (NKA)

Examines two metaphors for reading research approaches: the "vertical grave metaphor" and the "architectural design metaphor." Claims that while "vertical grave" researchers only add to the body of knowledge by publishing articles, "architectural" researchers actually deal with real world problems. Notes…

Argues that researchers and practitioners largely view reading in terms of a "storage and conduit metaphor." Examines the metaphor and explains why it is necessary for the profession to move beyond it. (FL)

Notes that while researchers talk about many things--what to teach, how to teach, and when to teach reading--they don't talk about why to teach it. (FL)