Correcting the Record: A Response to Backman and Barker (2020)

This article is a response to Backman and Barker's Re-thinking Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Physical Education Teachers-Implications for Physical Education Teacher Education. It affords us an opportunity to correct their misrepresentation of our research. Multiple perspectives on teaching and teacher education are necessary to advance the field because they provide different lenses to help us understand a particular phenomenon. However, there is a critical difference between interpretation and misrepresentation. Interpretation is the right due to all researchers to draw inferences. Misrepresentation, in contrast, is the attributing of positions and outcomes that are not supported by the empirical record. In making their case for phronesis in a 2020 publication, Backman and Barker used our research as the basis for their critique and in doing so, they misrepresented our body of research as well as the epistemology of Radical Behaviorism. We identify misrepresentations in their paper and address them using the empirical record.

Automated summary

This article is a response to the misrepresentation of the authors' research by Backman and Barker. It emphasizes the importance of multiple perspectives in advancing the field and the difference between interpretation and misrepresentation. The authors address the misrepresentations in Backman and Barker's paper using empirical evidence.