The good, the bad, and the aggregate

To evaluate progress and focus goals, scientific disciplines need to identi fy relations that are robust across many situations. One approach is the li terature review, which characterizes generality across studies. Some writer s (e.g., Baron & Derenne, 2000) claim that quantitative literature reviews, but not narrative reviews, violate the methodological precepts of behavior analysis by pooling data from nonidentical studies. We argue that it is im possible to assess generality without varying the context in which relation ships are studied. Properly chosen data-aggregation strategies can reveal w hich behavior-enviromnent relations are general and which are procedure dep endent. Within behavior analysis, reluctance to conduct quantitative review s may reflect unsupported assumptions about the consequences of aggregating data across studies. Whether specific data-aggregation techniques help or harm a research program is an empirical issue that cannot be resolved by un structured discussion. Some examples of how aggregation has been used in id entifying behavior-environment relations are examined.