Here. We. Go.

The Dark Knight is one of my all-time favorite comic book movies. I particularly love quoting this phrase whenever things get a little heated in an argument:

Welp, the discourse about growth mindsets has gotten a little heated again, so: Here. We. Go.

This entire issue of Psychological Bulletin is devoted to scholars debating whether growth mindset interventions do…well…anything at all. One meta-analysis says they work for students who need such a mindset shift whereas the other meta-analysis says they don’t work, for anyone. Then various commentators critique the methods and assumptions of each meta-analysis (and their underlying theoretical and conceptual perspectives), ending with a reply to the commentaries from one set of meta-analysis authors (I wonder why the second set didn’t reply?). Fascinating stuff that I can’t wait to really dig into.

Perhaps more importantly, though, is that special issues like this illustrate what strong scholarly discourse looks like. Scholars should be reading and critiquing each other’s work, including questioning theories, methods, and conclusions. That’s how rigorous scholarship works. Iron sharpens iron. Scholarly ideas must be debated and scholars must be responsive to new data, changing conditions, and alternative ideas.

Note that I am talking about scholars critiquing each other’s work, not each other, personally. Personal attacks are not part of good scholarship and should not be tolerated. But rigorously vetting, testing, and debating ideas? That’s how scholarship gets better. And I love to see examples of it in special issues like this one on growth mindset. See here for another example on the debates regarding direct instruction versus guided discovery learning. Making these debates public helps laypeople and early career scholars better understand how scholarship really happens.  And to people who stubbornly defend ideas that have not survived rigorous scholarly debate, I say: