As I read this discussion of methods and pseudo-research I recalled a paper by N.L. Gage and a student who investigated the empirical question of whether well-designed research is better than poorly-designed research! I cannot find the study, but as I recall, they found no significant difference in terms of effect size or direction.
In looking for the source of this wisdom, I pulled Gage [Gage, N.L. (1977). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.] from my shelf. There are many interesting points in this book.
The above hypothesis is suggested on pp. 24-5. Gene Glass (1976) is quoted as saying, "a study with half a dozen design and analysis flaws may still be valid ... it is an empirical question whether relatively poorly designed studies give results significantly at variance with those of the best designed studies."
Let us have no more talk of pseudo-science unless someone can come up with evidence that supports that hypothesis. I submit that the pseudo-science position is religion, not science.
Pages 31-32: In a comparison of open versus formal schooling, there was no correlation with achievement in middle class schools, but a negative correlation between openness and achievement in lower class schools. A similar comparison found higher achievement and lower anxiety in formal schools.
Page 33: A negative correlation between innovation and achievement.
Page 59: A correlation between lower-order questioning and higher-order understanding.
Pages 82-83: A comparison between quantitative and qualitative research (20 years ago, boys and girls) in which he suggests that qualitative research is better suited for discovery and quantitative research for validation.