In this commentary, we argue that literacy research would be more productive if researchers had a clearer, more nuanced understanding of theory. Specifically, we argue that theory in a practice-oriented field is most fundamentally productive when it provides instrumental guidance for literacy beyond academic understanding about literacy. Premises…

Outlines three barriers to successful research in reading: design and analysis mismatch; lack of specification of treatment conditions; and inappropriate control groups. (MB)

Comments on considerations that have implications for interpreting the work of Shanahan and associates, which appeared in this journal in 1982. Reviews research that was either ignored or inaccurately reviewed by them and offers suggestions for synthesizing the results of research investigating the sensitivity of the cloze procedure to…

Describes problems resulting from certain uses of research in practical situations that indicate that reading educators should be cautious about how they use the findings of research in teaching. (MKM)

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)

Responds to Goodman's criticisms (volume 12 number 4) of his analysis of Goodman's work, using several linguistic and psychological paradigms to challenge the principles on which the work is based. (AA)

Responds to an article in the same issue of this journal. Explains the apparent "conflicts" between findings of two research studies (with different purposes and methods) of the same classroom. Emphasizes the different natures of qualitative and quantitative research. (SR)

Responds to Peter Mosenthal's criticism (volume 12, number 1). (AA)

Argues that an article by E. Goetz and M. Sadoski in the same issue of this journal is not only inaccurate in its criticisms but is inconsistent in its claims relevant to the research on the memorability of highly interesting but unimportant textual content, also known as "seductive details." (RS)

Replies to another article in the same issue of this journal concerning research on "seductive details" (in which a reader's attention is diverted toward the interesting but unimportant seductive details and away from the uninteresting but important main ideas). Reasserts that there is insufficient evidence to convict seductive details…

Challenges many of the specific ideas and actions discussed in J. Myers's "The Social Contexts of School and Personal Literacy," published in this journal (volume 27, pages 297-333). Argues that the investigator appeared to be the sole source through all analyses, many assumptions were either internally of externally inconsistent, and the effects…

Responds to T. Anderson and C. West's article in the same issue (which criticized the methodological foundations of an earlier article by the current author). Discusses epistemological assumptions of the Anderson and West article. Addresses the nature of meaning and interpretation. Discusses Anderson and West's deterministic assumptions. (RS)

Concludes that attempts to maintain objectivity by measuring surface features of text end up describing effects rather than causes of coherence in text. (FL)

Raises objections to the methodology used and the conclusions drawn by L. S. Fleisher, J. R. Jenkins, and D. Pany in a study reported in a previous issue of this journal (see EJ 210 792). (MKM)

Investigates the claims of scientific objectivity that support recent changes in policies toward early-literacy instruction in the states of Texas and California. Uses a framework to assess the validity of this claim through the analysis of 10 major studies of phonological awareness. Finds the two states' curricular policy statements to be highly…