“…(For an incisive analysis that illuminates why this may have happened, see Collins, 1990, p. 219, andHartman, 1995. ) Proponents of logical empiricism continue to constrain academic freedom (as documented by Cloward, 1998), devalue research contributions that do not match their unwarranted, methodologically-based criteria for scientific knowledge (Grinnell, 1997;Rubin & Babbie, 2001;Task Force on Social Work Research, 1991;Williams, Unrau, & Grinnell, 1998), create divisions between practitioners and researchers and between scientists and advocates (Gibbs, 1983;Reid, 1994a;Rubin & Babbie, 2001;Thyer & Myers, 1998), promote or exclude approaches to practice based solely on whether or not they are supported by a flawed and pervasively distorting (logical empiricist) approach to research (Myers & Thyer, 1997;Reid, 1994aReid, , 1994bThyer, 1991), and completely misrepresent the heuristic paradigm and the issues at stake for the field (Anastas & MacDonald, 1994;Anastas, 1999;Bolland & Atherton, this issue;Thyer, 1993;Williams, Unrau, & Grinnell, 1998). These problems are exacerbated by logical empiricist textbooks that first thoroughly misrepresent the ideas and issues involved, and then do not even provide students with citations to the sources capable of rectifying these thoroughgoing misrepresentations (Grinnell, 1997;Royse, 1999;Rubin & Babbie, 2001).…”