Most people are acquainted
with Æsop's fable "The Hare and the Tortoise"
about a race, and its moral: slow and steady wins the race
(Jones, 1912). The moral is also apt when considered in the
context of research. In a recent issue of The Guardian Weekly
appeared an obituary for Sir Richard Doll (Tucker, 2005).
Among other accomplishments, Doll is credited with being among
the first researchers to ascertain a strong and consistent correlational
link between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer.
His first study on this subject, published in 1950, appeared many
years before the general consensus about cigarettes became that
they were unhealthy at best and the cause of particular diseases
at worst.
If, as Tucker (2005) states, Doll's findings "statistically
proved the link between lung cancer and smoking" (p. 30),
why did not Doll's research immediately alter attitudes toward
cigarette smoking? A number of factors explain why this did not
occur including: difficulty in disseminating results; opposition
from advertisers of cigarettes; the influence of the tobacco industry;
and the established belief among the general public at that time
that cigarettes were innocuous. In addition, a skepticism existed,
and still exists to some degree, about the findings of new research.
From our present vantage point it seems beyond question that smoking
or the use of other tobacco products will result in a greater
likelihood of a user developing particular disease conditions
than one who does not use tobacco or is not in an environment
where tobacco smoke is present. Indeed, in many areas of the world
people who use tobacco are considered either pariahs or addicts.
Nevertheless, it took the better part of 35 years following Doll's
initial study for public opinion to be so firmly consolidated
against tobacco. One may speculate that had pubic opinion shifted
sooner, then many individuals who have succumbed to tobacco-related
diseases might not have perished. On the other hand, although
I do not advocate smoking or any other method of ingesting tobacco
products, it is important to consider that changing policy and
opinion on the basis of a single study is risky, both in medicine
and in education. Indeed, it was partly this kind of view that
enabled the tobacco industry and others to diffuse the findings
of studies that suggested a link between tobacco and disease.
Besides questioning matters such as sample and study design, results
from studies using different research methodologies were sometimes
used to confuse the issue. For example, if I had wished, I could
have undertaken a single-case study of my Great-Uncle Harry (1879-1975)
and his smoking habits. He claimed to have begun smoking at 15,
and he continued to smoke cigarettes on the order of a pack a
day, as well as smoking a pipe in between cigarettes, until shortly
before his death at the age of 95. His death was the result of
pneumonia, which was not directly attributable to his use of tobacco.
On the basis of this information, I could conclude that Uncle
Harry's health probably had not been adversely affected by tobacco.
To be sure he might have lived longer had he not smoked, but succumbing
at 95 far exceeds the national average for life expectancy. Therefore,
on the basis of Uncle Harry's life, we can conclude that smoking
does not contribute to diseases that result in early death. Of
course, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek, as even most
undergraduate students know that it is untenable to generalize
from a single case study. Uncle Harry was extremely fortunate,
either because of genetics or environment (he lived most of his
life on a farm), or a combination of such factors. Nevertheless,
it is tempting to some people to justify a position on the basis
of ad hominem argument. In addition, referring to the harmful
effects of tobacco use, some tobacco companies deliberately suppressed
information or spread falsehoods about the effects of tobacco.
This topic, and the various consequences, is described vividly
in the motion picture The Insider, released in 1999.
By the same token, research findings from a single study or studies from the same research team that are taken to be indicative of how things are can also create problems if the recommendations are put into practice without replication of the study by others or through similar studies that corroborate findings. As I have noted in earlier editorials, problems have resulted when the opinions of high-profile individuals influence educational practice without additional inquiry or research findings. In such cases students themselves become participants in a study whether or not they wish. Consider the advocacy of open-area schools in the early 1960s. Before this time school buildings were usually either a single rectangular classroom or an aggregation of rectangular classrooms connected by some sort of corridor. Rooms of different configurations existed for specialized subjects and for administration. Although John Dewey (1915) advocated a modified design with the library and other resources in a central area, individual rectangular classrooms surrounding the central area continued to be the locus of most teaching. It does not appear that Dewey's design resulted in much architectural change of school buildings at the time.
Beginning in the late 1950s, some school districts experimented with innovative designs that either eliminated the box-type classroom altogether or minimized the number of discrete classrooms. In both cases versions of open-area design were employed (Estes, 1965; Shaver, 1962). Typically, such structures were built new and took a cylindrical shape. Little formal research into the advantages and disadvantages of open-area schools, especially in the long term, appear to have been undertaken at that time. Nevertheless, the lack of research findings did not stop some people from extolling the merits of open-area schools (Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1965).
Unfortunately, the paucity of research on aspects of open-area schools or comparing the effectiveness of open-area schools with more traditional school designs did not lead governments and school districts either to proceed slowly or to request further study. Rather, many plunged headlong into constructing new school buildings, especially for the elementary grades, based on the open-area concept. Although some claimed that open-area schools would force teachers to become collaborative and supportive (Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1965), in many instances teachers instead experienced a cacophony of noise both from other teachers and from students. Besides the noise, there were many visual stimuli that although educational were not always germane to what a particular student was supposed to be attending to. In this manner much time on task was lost. Teachers and students usually found the open-area experience frustrating. Also, round open-area schools proved difficult to heat and ventilate (Hall, 1972). The ultimate result was that in most jurisdictions the construction of open-area schools ceased, and existing buildings were retrofitted to discrete classrooms at great expense and with difficulty (Hall, 1972). The rapid and widespread deployment of open-area schools in much of North America, reinforced by high-profile support, proved an ill-advised and costly impromptu widespread study.
On one hand, as in the case of tobacco, protracted delay in implementing research findings was probably detrimental. On the other hand, as in the case of open-area schools, implementing a seemingly "great idea" on the basis of little research was also detrimental. In both cases consistent research findings ultimately led to the view now prevalent. On the basis of these examples, should extensive research be done before widespread implementation of something innovative or new, even if it means the potential delay of something beneficial? Or should the research be done after a seemingly good innovation is implemented, thus speeding the implementation of something that might be beneficial? Although it may not be easy to answer these questions, it should be easier to take into account something that neither case seemed to consider, that is, the welfare of the individuals affected. In either circumstance-early implementation or delay until more research is done-the potential consequences to those affected should always be uppermost in consideration, but often they are not.
George H. Buck
References
Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Educational Facilities Laboratories. (1965). Schools without walls. New York: Author.
Estes, N. (1962). Valley winds elementary school. Audiovisual Instruction, 10, 142-143.
Hall, L.G. (1972). School buildings in Canada: A survey. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Department of Education.
Jones, V.S. (1912). Æsop's fables. New York: Avenel Books.
Shaver, J.A. (1962). Build the school to fit the program. Audiovisual Instruction, 7, 518-521.
Tucker, A. (2005, August 5-11). Richard Doll: Doctor and scientist who statistically proved the link between
lung cancer and smoking. Guardian Weekly, 173(7), p. 30.
Copyright © AJER, the Faculty of Education, and the University
of Alberta, 2005.
Last revised: December 5, 2005.
Designed by G.H. Buck