Understanding the styles of science in the study of reading

Remarkable progress has been made in the last 30 years toward understanding the ba-sic psychological processes that underlie the act of reading. Dissemination of these re-sults has sometimes been hampered because they are associated with strong stances on 5 different dimensions that represent styles of doing science. Research into the psychology of reading has been characterized by an emphasis on correspondence the-ories of truth rather than coherence, an emphasis on analytic reductionism rather than holism, an emphasis on probabilistic prediction (as opposed to a case-based ap-proach), the search for robust-process explanations (rather than actual-sequence ex-planations), and a concern for consilience. These scientific styles have served the field well to this point, but that does not mean that we have calibrated their use in the optimal manner. Critiques by those with differing scientific styles may help the field to adjust its stance on these style dimensions in ways that foster scientific progress. This article ends with some thoughts on the difficulty of defining the scientific method. The honor of delivering the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award address to the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR) allowed me to discuss some of the obstacles we face in disseminating the results of scientific investiga-tions on the acquisition and teaching of reading. The work honored was made pos-sible by collaborative research with a host of individuals. I have been unusually blessed in my colleagues. In Richard West and Anne Cunningham I have had two continuous collaborators and friends for more than 2 decades. A host of other