| Abstract: | Professors in 6 matched pure and applied fields of study were interviewed to determine the validation processes and truth criteria used in their disciplines. Differences across disciplines were found in the validation processes and in the importance placed on conceptual frameworks or models. Use of empirical evidence was more important in the natural and social sciences; peer review was more important in the humanities. Professors in pure fields of study were more likely to use conflicting evidence or counterexamples in validating their work than were professors in applied fields. The results suggest that different fields of study operate according to different sets of rules. An important part of university instruction is to provide students with a sense of what these rules are and how they affect learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
