June 7…Qual. v. Quant.?
Comment on Pring’s take on the
quant./qual. tension. Do his ideas conflict with most of what you’ve heard
about the two approaches to research? Does he say anything surprising?
Disturbing?
May 31…Becker (Ch. 1)
Do you see any overlaps between Becker’s talk about writing and what we’ve discussed so far in this class?
What surprises me the most is the belief that there is an inherent dualism between quantitative and qualitative research, and that they belong to separate realms of the human condition. Having said that, I think this is a common perception of quantitative/qualitative research. There also seems to be a belief that quantitative research is somehow more superior because it deals with humanity in an empirical way. Human beings are complex creatures, and I think that the study of human behavior and phenomenon should not be limited to just a study of what is physical, or what is in the mind. We cannot always confine groups of individuals to being data-points on a chart. It helps in some way, but I think we need to be open to the idea that qualitative research can be as useful – if not more, in generating insights on why people do what they do.
ReplyDeletePring makes a point about objectivity, reality and truth in chapter 4 (p. 54) that I thought was interesting. While objectivity of the research can be undermined by the researcher, does this make reality and truth any less valid? Can we as researchers be truly objective when conducting research? Let’s assume that the researcher is able to be completely objective in their research, using language in the research that is used by the research participants and reflecting the most accurate description of the participants’ reality and truth. How does this get interpreted, if at all, by the reader? Is it the assumption that the reader does not interpret the text through their own perceptions, reality and truth?
Ashlee Lester:
DeleteIn my experience in Educational Psychology thus far, it has been clear to me that quantitative research is valued much more than qualitative research. It is viewed as more rigorous and valid research. However, I agree with your comment, Melissa, and Pring's sentiment that we cannot always "confine people to data-points on a chart." I would like to see Educational Psychology move in a direction where it equally values both qualitative and quantitative (much like Pring seems to do). Recognizing the rigor and value of each methodology and how despite their "dualism", they can be used to complement each other in differing research questions.
However, instead of equally valuing quantitative and qualitative research, my field seems to advocate for mixed methods, which definitely allows the two methods to complement each other. The issue that arises then is one that Shannon discusses below. These projects are robust and time intensive, often slowing down the research process.
The Problem with survey research – any procedure or instrument that asks questions of respondents- is answers to questions not reliable. Those who rely on survey research, on the asking method- I call them, “askers” – only have answers to questions, and this means it’s impossible for them, or anyone else, to know whether or not one or more answers are correct or incorrect: whether or not answers do or do not correspond to what’s really going on. The only way to know is to check or verify answers with information from one or, preferably, two or more non-asking sources of information: say, form observation, experimentation, and documents. Survey researchers- askers- do not have information from non-asking sources and, therefore, all they have is The Problem; all they have in unreliable information (George Beam, 2012, The Problem with Survey Research, xv).
DeleteI think what Beam is describing here is that survey research can produce unreliable data and this provides evidence for the claim that the evidence from the survey is unreliable. This can be extended to question the value of empiricism. “Surveys are empirical, surveys are unreliable, empiricism is unreliable. The problem to me is throwing up one’s hands and saying “this is an unknowable mystery.” Beam continues:
The tone of The Problem with Survey Research is captured by Zizek’s description of one of his books: “What [it] offers is not a neutral analysis but an engaged and extremely ‘partial’ one – for truth is partial- accessible only when one takes sides.” The side I take is against survey research as a method for obtaining reliable information, and for what I call “proper” methods of data collection (observation and document analysis), and proper research designs (experimentation, multiple sources of non-asking data, formal model building and testing, and comparison).
From a worldview where one is looking for critiques of standardized testing as survey research, qualitative and quantitative research are both important and they both can provide valuable grounds for termination of the current politically enforced testing regimen. Pring writes:
"The distinctions within the so-call paradigms are often as significant as the distinctions between them. Quantitative research, as was illustrated in the last chapter, covers enquiries which range from the detailed measurement and correlation of performances within a strictly behaviorist tradition to the large-scale surveys of social trends within the tradition of ‘political arithmetic.’ Qualitative research embraces symbolic interactionism, phenomenology, ethnography, hermeneutics. And within any open piece of research there is often the employment of different approaches as different questions are addressed."
The dichotomy then would not be between qualitative and quantitative research but between asking questions and describing reality.
Relates to today's discussion of Becker (Ch. 2) on language in academic writing:
Deletehttp://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/182496995/
Jen Gellock
ReplyDeleteSomething I have heard in my short-time as a doc student from numerous faculty members is they are strictly a quantitative researcher or a qualitative researcher. Which after reading this week’s chapters of Pring, made me think we should be using the methodology that most accurately answers our research questions. Which then again made me think, do some researchers just avoid certain research questions because they do not want to perform a certain methodology to conduct the research?
Campbell (1999) as stated by Pring stated, “There is a mistaken belief that quantitative measures replace qualitative knowledge. Instead qualitative knowledge is absolutely essential as a prerequisite for quantification in any science”. This leads to some more interesting questions…do some scholars just wait for others to do exploratory qualitative work before embarking on quantitative designs or are they using survey and observations right away as exploratory work?
On the other hand if a researcher’s finds interesting quantitative data will a “quantitative” researcher avoid following-up with qualitative interviews to tap into further the psychological constructs and why a person may have answered on a scale the way they did? Since Pring states, “The good interviewer is able to draw out from the person interviewed the deeper significance of the event,…The individual’s consciousness and intentions are the significant factors in explaining why things happen the way they do”.
Cassandra
DeleteI agree with your response. It is interesting that in the beginning it sounds as if Pring is following the same argument that its either one or the other but then on pg. 61 he quotes Ryle by saying the world of real life cannot be captured by either one or the other and there needs to be integration or overlapping of the two. I think each type has its place however, one is not superior to the other. As a doctoral student, not yet knowing a dissertation topic or MAP subject yet, being open to both I believe makes for a more well rounded experience.
I agree with you both. I have heard the same things from researchers, and in some cases, those who do only quantitative research seems to have a disdain for those who do only qualitative research - as though it is somehow inferior research. I thought that was an interesting opinion to have.
DeleteI remember having a similar conversation with a professor in my master's program, and his evaluation of the situation was that it all came down to training. Quant researchers are trained specifically to do quantitative research, so every research question - even if it taps deeper into constructs, is a quantitative question. On the other hand, qualitative researchers are trained to asked questions in a qualitative way. I can see value in both forms of research, so I am still trying to wrap my head around that.
Michael Here:
DeleteI also agree, and would add that many professors I have spoken with have the opinion that Mixed Methods research is too difficult to pursue. But, it seems as if that is the "sweet spot" of educational research because it blends the quantitative with the qualitative.
Hannah Sions:
ReplyDeleteWhile the qual/quan discussion is one that I have heard a lot about, I don't know if it necessarily is a debate or tension. Art Ed is a highly qualitative field, but it does not devalue quantitative work. While many art educators do focus on qualitative research, from my experience, I have heard most of them voice the importance of quantitative research. I think, and this is just my interpretation, that researchers may value another method of research, but do not feel (as) confident in executing it to the degree that is necessary to do it justice. Qualitative and quantitative research both require specific skills that take time to master. When we only have so much time at our disposal, it may be the case where people choose a side, not necessarily only based on their interest or perception of academic hierarchy, but also based on what they feel they can do the most justice to.
I found Pring's approach to the qualitative/quantitative debate a bit refreshing. Instead of perpetuating tension between the two by showing favor of one method over the other, I appreciated his value of each method of research. My perspective always has been that education is much like a giant pie, in which we can only focus so much energy to a limited number of subjects. While I may only cover a slice of the pie through qualitative research, a colleague will help add to our body of knowledge through their methods of research, resulting in a more complete and wholistic understanding of education.
Shannon
ReplyDeleteThough we weren’t outright taught to marry specific paradigms and forms of enquiry in EDUS 703, the idea of warring worldviews is one I absorbed in an effort to remember the different perspectives. That left me fairly surprised to see Pring outline the concept of “false dualism” so quickly, but it was incredibly affirming. To this point, I’ve felt myself pulled between different perspectives, with a firm footing in quantitative research, and deep curiosity/appreciation for qualitative work. I specifically recognized myself in Pring’s note about the problems involved in quantifying “children’s understandings, knowledge, and attitudes” using surveys and scores. My research interests involve student/teacher perceptions and I keep feeling the need to have qualitative data that can further explain quantitative results.
But…it’s twice the work, right? The marriage of qualitative and quantitative makes so much sense, but somehow most of what I hear around mixed methods are jokes about dissertation length and never finishing anything. It also requires developed skills in both qualitative and quantitative research, which I imagine can be difficult to maintain over time. Like Jen G. mentioned above, perhaps the divide between the two is more practical than philosophical.
Melissa Cuba
DeleteSimilar to you, I also feel pulled between different perspectives, with experience in both quantitative and qualitative methods as part of my job. I especially see the value in using qualitative work to inform quantitative instruments as exploratory research that involves participant voice and ideas. As part of my assistantship, I interview student teachers, collect surveys, and conduct focus group sessions. Each approach provides a different layer of insight and information about how student teachers and new teachers experience their role and place within a school. It also helps makes sense of how they view their environment, which is a high-needs school, and how they relate to their students.
I couldn’t imagine one method without the other. When I read purely quantitative studies, I often want to know what are the contextual factors and hear participant perspectives. I shared my gripes with using a quantitative social indicator, as stated in Campbell’s Law, to make decisions that impact social factors. This approach has had detrimental effects as we have seen with standardized testing policy and practice. It fails to see the complexity of teaching and learning, but also absolves the testing instruments used and practice of any biases and poor construction.
Jen U
ReplyDeleteIt took me a while to figure out what I thought about Pring's discussion of quantitative versus qualitative, especially his explanations of qualitative perspectives. At first, I thought he was too dismissive of social constructivism and the recognition of multiple realities. At times it bordered on condescending. As I read further, however, I appreciated his point that "It is not that there are multiple realities. Rather are there different ways in which reality is conceived, and those differences may well reflect different practical interests and traditions" (p. 68). Clearly we all operate in some level of shared reality - and I've never had a qualitative researcher try to convince me otherwise. I've also worked on quantitative research projects that have done an excellent job of recognizing and trying to capture different experiences of a shared reality. The benefit of qualitative research is that it provides direct insight into how people live and operate in reality - in other words how they experience their reality. As he accurately pointed out, those voices and perspectives can get lost when experiences are reduced to numbers. This is especially important when dealing with marginalized groups who are in danger of being lost and rendered invisible. While I wish he had addressed how power and privilege impacts people, and the role research can play in that, more in his discussion, overall I agree with his conclusion that quantitative and qualitative research should be seen as complementary paths that are both needed.
Josh here
DeleteI agree Jen. At one point in one of the earlier chapters, he made some disparaging reference to post-modernism and its irrelevance, but didn't seem to explain further. Chapters 4 & 5 resonated more with me as well. The other part that jumped out to me was his discussion of Guba and Lincoln's idea of fourth generation evaluation, and presenting outcome findings as constructions and approximations of reality rather than the bonafide Truth.
I was also surprised at Pring's turn toward a more qualitative appreciation. I would agree that reality is in the mind of the beholder and it's application within the culture they live. A modernist may argue that postmodern philosophy advocates for relativism, but isn't that what qualitative research is; a perception of truth as it applies in that person's world? Again, I find academic research hypocritical in that those who value, for example, quantitative will patronize qualitative on it's own or even as an addition (mixed methods) after endorsing alternate views and debate. I value mixed method research, but as I see it ideas and truth that arise are communicated in the current world with language we invented, so truth is in fact relative and not objective reality.
DeleteVirginia here:
ReplyDeleteAs a psychology major in college, my introduction to research was through quantitative studies. As a result, quantitative research methods have served as the foundation for my knowledge of conducting research. I remember questioning the value of qualitative research methods as I went through my master’s program in education where I was pretty much told that was how I was going to conduct the study for my master’s thesis. However, by the end of my project I saw the advantage of a qualitative research design. I enjoyed Pring’s discussion of quantitative and qualitative research methods because it expands on ideas I have been thinking about since the beginning this program (the “uniqueness fallacy,” the role of language in how humans perceive ideas, and the ability for quantitative and qualitative research methods to compliment each other.
Pring makes a strong argument to reject the dualism of quantitative and qualitative research methods, but like others have already mentioned I too have found that professors seem to side with one over the other. Pring makes a case that they go hand-in-hand and that makes sense to me. I like statistics and numbers, but I also see value in conducting interviews and hearing the thoughts of the participants in a study. Pring quotes Campbell (1999) saying, “…. qualitative knowledge is absolutely essential as a prerequisite for quantification in any science. Without competence at the qualitative level, one’s computer print-out is misleading or meaningless” (p. 51). As a first year doctoral student, I am still conceptualizing what my dissertation study will look like, and I wonder about the reality of a mixed-method research design. I have heard you should stick with one or the other, but perhaps that is the time to hone your skills and become versatile in both.
Michael Here:
ReplyDeleteThe hermeneutic value of education is often overlooked within the argumentative dualism offered in the quantitative and qualitative research. Pring astutely navigates the assured objectiveness of quantitative research, as well as, the relativistic qualities associated with qualitative research. I really enjoyed the term ‘naïve realism’ he employs to dissuade the reader from the simplification of research. To put it plainly he embraces the murkiness of research without just simply saying researchers should combine the two. In my estimation, there is value in both, but both do not fully allow for a full understanding of the complexities occurring within an educational environment.
I think where Pring could have added more weight to his example, and would have helped the reader in understanding the concepts a little better would have been to develop a language surrounding the dualities of research. He starts to allude to this fact a bit, but falls short and maybe it will come later, but there seems a need to establish central philosophical ideas surrounding the certainty of quantitative and qualitative research. All to say, Pring does elucidate the philosophical perspective associated with interpretation and what the researchers’ obligation as not merely an observer, but also a participant of knowledge creation. Often times, researcher propose seemingly objective information, but really is subjective based on a theory they are applying or some bias.
Coming from a special education background, I would have expressed that I was a quantitate person. We collected data in order to support our decisions as to how best to support the students we worked with. As I progressed through my career I began to appreciate the usage of a qualitative method in order to inform the qualitative method. This is supported by the dualism in the chapter. Then once coming to VCU, and working on BEST in CLASS, we are working through a mixed method design. This has opened my eyes to a whole new world, and given me a desire to learn more.
ReplyDeleteMorgan
ReplyDeleteOverall, my opinions aligned well to how Pring explained the false dualism. Whereby his eventual explanation and appreciation to both methods and their utility is similar to my own. Much of my research focuses on quantitative methods of inquiry, but I also significantly rely upon qualitative methods to close the loop—so to speak. In essence, there is no dualism.
Although I think there are significant “tensions” between those who favor one mode of inquiry over another, my own perspective is quite different. A vast majority of my work uses mixed methods, although I find the most comfort in quantitative inquiry. That said, I also think that each is traditionally more powerful on its own. In other words, often times in mixed methods research it appears that both quantitative and qualitative methods are diminished to make things fit or not seem overwhelming. Some of the most powerful pieces of individual quantitative or qualitative work have been expansive in scope and on their own. So, ultimately, I think using them appropriately to answer the questions at hand or what is needed in a field is warranted. To this degree, understanding each’s limitations, appropriateness, and benefits is imperative to dispelling educational phenomenons that are worthy of inquiry.