ABSTRACT
Prominence such as Kohlberg's in a field of psychology brings its critics. This is as it should be: those theories and findings that claim our attention and that carry a certain degree of authority should be carefully scrutinized and critiqued. Evans has done us a service in providing a discussion of the criticisms made of the Kohlberg research approach and scoring system. If anyone ever entertained the notion that there is unanimous agreement and acceptance of Kohlberg's work, he/she should be convinced otherwise by Evans' chapter. However, several questions remain after citing the arguments of the critics: (1) Which criticisms are valid, in contrast to misunderstandings of Kohlberg's position? (2) Which criticisms were valid once but are no longer valid (because of recent changes or developments in Kohlbergian research)? (3) Which criticisms might logically be a potential problem but which have insufficient documentation to sustain the criticism? (4) Which criticisms are simple assertions of an alternative view and approach that may reflect different research priorities and interests, but that ultimately may be reconcilable with Kohlberg's work? (5) Given that there are bound to be some problems in any research area, on balance do they nullify the weight of evidence in support of the theory? In other words, are any of the problems 'fatal flaws'? (6) Which criticisms apply to other researchers who claim to be conducting 'Kohlbergian' research but whose standards of scholarship Kohlberg has no control over?
