Monday, February 9, 2009

The Revenge of the Strategy Theorists

Previously, I had written off the strategy theories of reasoning (e.g., the reasoning research group at Plymouth) as irrelevant to my research problem. Today, I re-read Bacon, Handley, and McDonald's (2007) paper on reasoning and dyslexia, and traced a citation back to Bacon, Handley, and Newstead's (2004) book chapter that described protocol and behavioral data on verbal and spatial strategies in transitive reasoning.

It looks like I need to reframe my theoretical thinking. This empirical battle may not be between mental models and imagery theories of reasoning, but rather between the domain-general vs domain-specific views on reasoning competence. Mental models theory falls squarely in the domain-general camp, and the logic of the VI-hypothesis rests partially on the assumption that we (i.e., normal, healthy adults) are "not supposed" to reason with visual images. The strategy theorists, however, argue against universal theories of reasoning, preferring to allow for individual variation in the algorithm classes that are employed in reasoning, each as valid as the other but differing in "fit" for various problem contexts (Bacon et al, 2004).

This has enormous implications for my data interpretation and discussion. It would be scientifically untenable to merely ignore the arguments of the strategy camp. In fact, my data have the potential to actually support their position: if I do find the VI effect, one possible reinterpretation of it would be as evidence for difference between "verbal" and "spatial" reasoners, as identified by Bacon et al (2007). In any case, the ardent call of the strategy camp to consider their data cannot be ignored in my case.

I must read a little more from the strategy literature and perhaps reframe the structure of my review of literature. There seems to be less and less impetus for devoting special sections to "syntactic" and "semantic" classes of reasoning theories; rather, it appears that a fruitful strategy for lively intellectual discussion would be to pit universal theories (spearheaded by the mental models theory) against the domain-specific views. Perhaps a novel synthesis might be reached using this dialectical approach. :)

The Bacon et al (2004) paper is in Roberts & Newton (2005) Methods of Thought: Individual Differences in Reasoning Strategies.

No comments:

Post a Comment