Learning Disability and the History of Science: Paradigm or Paradox?

Abstract

The field of learning disabilities faces a fundamental problem of providing a definition acceptable to a broad constituency. In attempting to explain why this situation exists, we offer arguments based upon concepts from the history and philosophy of science. I t is concluded that learning disability is a victim of its own history, and a breaking from the past is necessary for the definitional problem to move closer to resolution. Few of us take the pains to study the origin of our cherished convictions; indeed, we have a natural repugnance to so doing. We like to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to them. -J. H. Robinson

The Newtonian Mechanistic Paradigm, Special Education, and Contours of Alternatives

“…From this perspective, Strauss and Werner did not initiate a paradigmatic framework, as Kavale and Forness (1985) state; rather, they initiated a theoretical framework against the backdrop of the Newtonian paradigm. Thus, it is argued here that the field of special education/learning disabilities does not contain paradigms within itself, nor does it constitute a preparadigm stage; rather, it is part of a paradigm that has dominated the sciences and social sciences for several centuries.…”

Characteristics of Frequently Cited Articles in Learning Disabilities

“…However, previous analyses of the historical literature are available (e.g., Kavale & Forness, 1985, Hallahan & Cruickshank, 1973. Furthermore, the purpose of this study was to analyze contemporary publications.…”

Translating Scientific Progress in Dyslexia into Twenty-first Century Diagnosis and Interventions

“…Critiques of the methodology were voiced just as soon as the ability achievement discrepancy was codified into PL 94-142 in 1975 and into regulations in 1977 (Kavale & Forness, 1985). One of the first problems that became apparent was that children who were clearly struggling as early as kindergarten or first grade had to wait, often until third grade or later, until their failure in reading was of such a magnitude that they met discrepancy requirements.…”

“…But this was changing, and within a decade LD had become one of the most frequently diagnosed conditions in children referred for problems learning in school. Writing in 1985, Kavale and Forness (1985) emphasized that the IQ-achievement discrepancy is essential to the diagnosis of LD and can be reliably determined. At the same time they reviewed many of the methodological challenges associated with defining LD on the basis of an IQ-achievement discrepancy.…”