Guzik response paper ii

1. Running head: Written Response 2 1
Written Response 2
Kyle Guzik
3/15/2017
Virginia Commonwealth University

2. Response 2 2
Interpretivism
Interpretivists accept that language inextricably mediates construction of models of reality.
Ontologically, interpretivists believe that “in shifting the focus of inquiry from objects to
meanings, interpretive social science invites a corresponding shift from theories to stories”
(Bochner, 2005, p. 66). Ontological claims are contingent on narrative. Intepretivist epistemology
views knowledge as constructed upon a mental framework. There is duality between knowing and
knower; “we make sense of our lives and experience by placing them in an intelligible frame
(Bochner, 2005, p. 66). These claims about knowledge and reality suggest a particular research
methodology. Interpretivism can be described as a “qualitative revolution” with both intellectual
and political goals (Bochner, 2005, p. 66). These include “mounting criticisms of scientism,
foundational philosophy, realism, modernism, and the ethics of experiments with human subjects”
(Bochner, 2005, p. 66). Scientism is the belief that excessive reductionism gates alethological
claims. Intepretivist methodology is also informed by axiology. Inquiry is value laden.
Researchers must understand that their values influence their research choices, rather than view
themselves as objective axiomatically.
Researchers are not spectators; they are “agents and participants” (Bochner, 2005, p. 66.). Bochner
(2005) explains, “this conversational interactive, or communicated model of inquiry redefines how
we see ourselves in position to our research; that is, who we are in relation to the ‘others’ we study
and who they are in relation to us” (p. 66). Therefore, interpretation is dependent on the
interrelationship between the individual interpreter, and multiplex factors internal and external to
their consciousness. An individual experiences sensory stimuli and interrelates this data with their
preexisting knowledge scaffold. Prior knowledge, and preexisting beliefs, values, dispositions,
and other characteristics unique to the individual researcher must inform their methods of inquiry.
Researchers conducting inquiry have the “moral responsibility” to “create value and inscribe
meanings” (Bochner, 2005, p. 65).
Interpretivist Critique of Carr et al.
Carr et al. (1999) claim that “assessment and intervention approaches for dealing with problem
behavior need to be extended so that they can be effectively and comprehensively applied within
the community (p. 5). The stated goal of their research is to conduct a “controlled research study
that (a) addresses the issue of remediating problem behavior while producing lifestyle change, and
(b) uses procedures that are practical, relevant, and capable of generating long term maintenance”
(Carr et al., 1999, p. 6). However, their study is subject to an inherent scientism, which
disempowers and to some degree dehumanizes the study participants.
The description of participants in the method section of the study consists primarily of a highly
specific list of selection criteria. Carr et al. selected three male subjects for experimentation. The
subjects are Val (14, intelligence quotient [IQ] 30, cerebral palsy with ataxia and dyskinesia), Gary
17, IQ 28, mental retardation with autistic features), and Juan (38, IQ 12, mental retardation with
autistic features) (Carr et al., 1999). Linguistically, Carr et al. attempt to describe their subjects as
suffering from particular ailments; however, because of the brevity and structure of this description
of these subjects, it appears that they are viewed as specimens of disease. This bias is evident in
the proximity in the text of their age and a numerical intelligence quotient score as determined by

3. Response 2 3
the “Stanford-Binet (Form L-M)” assessment (Carr et al., 1999, p. 6). Val, Gary, and Juan have
“problem behaviors,” such as “kicking,” “hand-biting,” “property destruction” and “tantrums” (p.
7). This is the reader’s introduction to these human subjects: their gender, age, IQ, illnesses, and
problem behaviors. What does Val enjoy doing? What skills does Gary have? When is Juan’s
birthday? Carr et al. seem to reduce the multifaceted characteristic of these unique, human
individuals to a perhaps otherwise arbitrary set of statistics convenient in use for quantitative
analysis. The lexical portion of the participant description also suggests a certain callousness; the
term “retarded” is bundled with stigma and stereotype. While it is important to explain the
challenges the participants face, the researchers should portray them as whole, three-dimensional
people to demonstrate that the researchers have, in fact, treated the subject of their interventions
with dignity, respect, and kindness.
Carr et al. also provide scanty information about all others involved in the study beyond, Val,
Gary, and Juan. The first table in the article, “multisituational intervention implementation: agents,
settings, and tasks” acknowledges multiple stakeholders including “parents, siblings, group home
staff, classroom teachers, gym teacher, speech therapists, bus drivers, job coaches, and
undergraduate clinical assistants” (Carr et al., 1999). However, the text describes nothing or next
to nothing about these “intervention agent[s]” (Carr et al., 1999, p. 13). We know that Gary has a
mother, and that an observer named “Gene” watched while Gary attempted to make a sandwich,
was asked by his mother to clean up after himself, “threw silverware on the floor,” and “bit
himself” (Carr et al., 1999, p. 8). We know that judges who rated videotapes of Gary, Val, and
Juan before and after experiencing interventions, represent “approximately 90% of the total direct
care staff in three service agencies on Long Island” (Carr et al., p 13). By rating these videos, the
judges provided the quantitative data that Carr et al. use to make claims about changes in Juan,
Val, and Gary’s behaviors in constructs of “responsivity,” “communicative acts,” “problem
behavior,” and “task engagement” (Carr et al., 1999, p. 16). Carr et al. (1999) found a reduction
of the severity and dangerousness of Val, Juan, and Gary’s actions as well as a decrease in incidents
where they were placed in restraints. For Carr et al. this validates the efficacy of their
interventions. Yet, questions remain about the reasons for these findings. The lack of attention in
the text to the narrative details of Val, Gary, and Juan’s interactions with the others involved in
their lives as well as the other stakeholders in this study reveals an incomplete picture of these
inquiring, interventive events.
Response by Dr. Carr
Interpretivist critique is relevant to this study and suggests potential avenues for future research.
Conventions in language have changed in the last twenty-years, so it is important to acknowledge
that the terminology involving the construct “retardation” is subject to change. Contemporary
researchers may find jargon such as “intellectually disabled” more acceptable and it is important
to acknowledge that individuals with medical conditions suffer from disease and are not their
diseases.
Narrative research should not be discounted, but this study is not a work of fiction. The article
does indeed convey a narrative, albeit an empirical one which does include reductionist
quantitative methods and analysis. The purpose of this study is to find objective evidence, which
demonstrates that claims made in this study are made truthfully. The text in this study

4. Response 2 4
acknowledges and validates the humanity and personhood of the study participants. We
incorporated lexical narrative elements in descriptions of our interventions:
After 2 minutes, his mother turned the music off. Gary immediately requested more
music. His mother responded by saying, “Sure, Gary, you can have more music,
but first let’s do some work. Do you want to vacuum, wash the car, or sweep the
floor first?” Typically, Gary then chose one of the options. As he began to work,
his mother turned the music on again. In this manner, the demands associated with
work were embedded in the music-listening context.
We provide lexical description of intervention agents when necessary to demonstrate the
replicability of our study and to demonstrate that it is possible for our findings to be confirmed or
invalidated. For example: “an undergraduate with extensive employment experience in the field
of developmental disabilities served as the reliability observer” (Carr et al., 1999, p. 15).
Explaining the qualifications of the undergraduate observer is a response to anticipated doubts that
readers may have about the reliability and validity of our findings. While we greatly appreciate
our reliability observer, we do not feel that a description of their life aspirations or favorite color
is critical to validate our claims. This information might be interesting but it would waste the
reader’s time if the goal of the reader is to judge if specific interventions were effective in
ameliorating specific challenges experienced by our participants. One of the goals of our study is
to develop a model of multisituational intervention implementation. Continued expansion of our
research across intervention agents, settings, and tasks would improve our model. Indeed, it would
be useful to modify our interventions and demonstrate that they caused positive, lasting outcomes
for multiple stakeholders, including Gary, Val, and Juan, their families, caregivers, and teachers.
We cannot make claims, construct hypotheses, or model natural events without evidence.
Evidence consists of data collected from nature. Nature is objective reality which exists
independent of consciousness. In order for a thought to influence reality it must be connected in
a causal chain to any influenced event in question. A sequence of synaptic firings constructing
one thought as opposed to another has a negligible effect on the external world. A sequence of
synaptic firings that directs a hand to push a button has more consequence. There may be any
number of intermediate steps in a given causal chain. Identification of these steps requires
reductionism to deconstruct any event, system, argument, or line of inquiry into its constituent
parts. This is interpretation, the integration of (limited) sensory data with consciousness.
Interpretation is useful for understanding the natural world.

5. Response 2 5
References
Carr, E., Levin, L., Mcconnachie, G., Carlson, J., Kemp, D., Smith, C., & Mclaughlin, D. (1999).
Comprehensive Multisituational Intervention for Problem Behavior in the Community:
Long-Term Maintenance and Social Validation. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions,1(1), 5-25.
Bochner, A. P. (2005). Perspective 4: Interpretive and narrative. In Paul, J. (Ed.), Introduction to
the philosophies of research and criticism in education and the social sciences. (pp. 65-
67) Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.