Particularly in the heyday of all-encompassing learning theories, it was common for competing research teams to challenge each other's work. Studies by one team would be critiqued, reanalyzed, replicated, or extended by another research team to evaluate predictions based on competing theoretical perspectives. This multimethod approach has also been evident in our self-concept research, in which colleagues have challenged our conclusions or we challenged the conclusions of others: Marsh and Yeung's (2001) reanalysis of Bong's earlier research challenged her interpretation of the internal-external frame of reference model; Marsh, Byrne, and Shavelson's (1988) reanalysis of Byrne and Shavelson's research clarified the multidimensional nature of self-concept; Marsh, Walker, and Debus
(1991) demonstrated how frame of reference has different effects on self-concept and self-efficacy in response to Skaalvik's failure to replicate the internal-external frame of reference effect; Marsh, Roche, Pajares, and Miller (1997) clarified methodological issues in Pajares' self-efficacy research; Marsh, Plucker, and Stocking's (2001) reanalysis of Plucker's earlier research demonstrated that the SDQII worked well with gifted students; Marsh and Craven (1998) pointed out methodological problems and logical inconsistencies in Gross's rebuttal of the BFLPE for gifted students; Marsh (1993c) began an ongoing debate and dialogue with Pelham about the role of importance, certainty, and ideals in moderating or mediating relations between specific components of self-concept and global measures of self-esteem; Marsh and Rowe's (1996) reanalysis of Rowe's earlier research clarified the effects of singlesex versus coeducational math classes; and Marsh, Byrne, and Yeung's (1999) reanalysis of Byrne's classic causal-ordering study established new criteria for this research paradigm. Interestingly, most of these reanalyses, critiques, extensions, and ongoing dialogues involved such constructive interaction between research teams that initial differences were substantially resolved in subsequent publications, frequently co-authored by the so-called competing researchers. Although apparently less common, constructive dialogues and even rebuttals between different researchers are a potentially important application of the multimethod perspective in which the multiple methods are the researchers themselves.
Was this article helpful?