Abstract

In their introduction, Kannapel, Coe, Aagaard, and Reeves (1999) say, "this evolved more into a study of systemic reform in schools located in rural places than a study of rural schools per se'' (p. 5). This is an important distinction, invisible to many researchers. Unless one studies the context in which the school is embedded-and that context is rural-it can't be a study of rural education; it is a study of education taking place out in the country. There are three dangers in using an exclusively geographic definition for rural education: (a) researchers make causal inferences between behavior and geography that aren't supportable, (b) they miss asking more important questions, and (c) our understanding of the world is not increased.

How to Cite:

Haas, T., (1999) “A Reply to Kannapel, Coe, Aagaard, and Reeves”, Journal of Research in Rural Education 15(1), 16–16.

Rights: Copyright