The Peter Effect in Early Experimental Education Research

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication Jan 2003

The Peter Effect in Early Experimental Education Research

Joseph Little University of California, Santa Barbara

Abstract

One of the signatures of scientific writing is its ability to present the claims of science as if they were “untouched by human hands.” In the early years of experimental education, researchers achieved this by adopting a citational practice that led to the sedimentation of their cardinal method, the analysis of variance, and their standard for statistical significance, 0.05. This essentially divorces their statistical framework from its historical conditions of production. Researchers suppressed their own agency through the use of passive voice and nominalization. With their own agency out of the way, they imbued the methods, results, and presentational devices themselves with the active agency of the situation through the use of personification. Such a depiction creates the impression that the researchers and audience stand on equal epistemic ground as interested witnesses to the autonomous activity of a third party, the method, which churns out the brute facts of science.

Journal: Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Published: 2003-01-01
DOI: 10.2190/j5cb-2qnk-jgkk-yhx0
Open Access: Closed
Topics: quantitative research scientific writing voice and style

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

Moran et al. (2012)

A Bibliography of Works Published in the History of Professional Communication …

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Little (2007)

Achieving Objectivity through Genred Activity: A Case Study

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

Cites in this index (4)

Little (2001)

Understanding Statistical Significance: A Conceptual History

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Little (2001)

Toward Sociocultural Sensitivity in Rhetorical Studies of Analogy: Theoretical …

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Little (2000)

Analogy in science: Where do we go from here?

Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Little (1999)

Confusion in the Classroom: Does Logos Mean Logic?

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

Also cites 40 works outside this index ↓

10.1086/349468

↗
10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001

↗
10.1037/0033-2909.87.1.166

↗
10.1037/h0043943

↗
10.1080/00220973.1993.10806593

↗
10.1017/CBO9780511524059

↗
10.1177/030631277800800305

↗
10.1080/00220973.1934.11009960

↗
10.1080/00220973.1940.11010165

↗
10.1080/00220973.1940.11010166

↗
10.1080/00220973.1940.11010204

↗
10.1080/00220973.1941.11010215

↗
10.1080/00220973.1941.11010221

↗
10.1080/00220973.1941.11010242

↗
10.1080/00220973.1942.11010257

↗
10.1080/00220973.1942.11010264

↗
10.1080/00220973.1943.11010286

↗
10.1080/00220973.1943.11010287

↗
10.1080/00220973.1943.11010295

↗
10.1080/00220973.1944.11010302

↗
10.2307/2094370

↗
10.1017/CBO9781139173865.012

↗
10.1080/00220973.1932.11009894

↗
10.1080/00220973.1933.11009938

↗
10.1080/00220973.1934.11009961

↗
10.1080/00220973.1938.11010099

↗
10.1080/00220973.1941.11010246

↗
10.1080/00220973.1942.11010259

↗
10.1080/00220973.1942.11010270

↗
10.1080/00220973.1942.11010271

↗
10.1080/00220973.1942.11010272

↗
10.1080/00220973.1943.11010281

↗
10.1080/00220973.1943.11010296

↗
10.1080/00220973.1944.11010298

↗
10.1080/00220973.1944.11010311

↗
10.1080/00220973.1944.11010313

↗
10.1080/00220973.1944.11010315

↗
10.1080/00220973.1944.11010317

↗
10.1080/00220973.1944.11010318

↗
Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1282, D.C. Cir. 1984.

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 3 View in citation network →