Research Commentary: A Rejoinder: A Reflection on the Evolution of a Replication Study

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the thoughtful comments made by Alan Schoenfeld (2018) and Jon Star (2018) in their commentaries on replication studies in this issue of JRME, including their comments on our study of teacher expectancy effects (Jamil, Larsen, & Hamre, 2018). I have decided to write this rejoinder in the form of a personal reflection. As academics, we carry the tremendous burden of expertise, and perhaps that is partly why, as pointed out by Schoenfeld (2018), the academic reward system focuses so heavily on novelty and innovation. With our expertise, we are supposed to have all the answers, solve all the problems, and do so in brilliant, new ways. Replication studies are undervalued because they not only, by definition, recreate past research but, perhaps, also bring into question another scholar‧s expertise. Star (2018) even states that one of the three criteria of an outstanding replication study is that it “convincingly shows that there is reason to believe that the results of the original study may be flawed” (p. 99). Although this rigorous examination is precisely the way to build trust in the quality of our findings and move the field forward, it is also what makes it challenging to have candid conversations about what we do not know.

Contributor Notes

Faiza M. Jamil, Clemson University, 409-C Tillman Hall, Clemson, SC 29634;

(Corresponding author is Jamil
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 9 9 3
Full Text Views 8 8 0
PDF Downloads 13 13 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0