comps reading reflection: Meaning in Method

The dispute over the difference and importance of quantitative and qualitative research has long been the focus of research method and methodology. In general, people are consistent that quantitative methods explain the positivist paradigm, which assumes there is an object reality, while qualitative methods are derived from pragmatic and phenomenological paradigm, where multiple realities exist and are "constructed through individual or collective definitions of the situation" (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). The extremists from both sides see little complementarity between quantitative and qualitative methods. Firestone in this article explicated part of the discrepancies is actually originated from the rhetorics, in an attempt of addressing the complementariy between quantitative and qualitative methods and how such complementarity can corroborate educational researches.

Firestone first pointed out the relationship between paradigms and methods. While a logical relationship exists between paradigms and methods in quantitative research, within qualitative research, the relationship is relatively instrumental. Between quantitative and qualitative methods, differences are revealed in the four primary aspects: 1) assumptions about the world; 2) purpose; 3) approach; and 4) researcher role. To understand why quantitative studies are typically more positivistic than most qualitative research, Firestone though it would be helpful to understand the rhetoric device of research first. He then defined what "the rhetoric of research" is: rhetoric analysis of research proceeds by examining the product of research in literary terms to identify the values, meanings, and beliefs projected by a work and the values to which it appeals either explicitly or implicitly (Firestone, 1987). With the rhetoric examination of two studies as to how they use different strategies to persuade readers the research validity, Firestone summarized with three categories: 1) persuasion; 2) assumptions; and 3) complemtarity.

In the strategy of persuasion, while quantitative study faithfully employs the established procedures and format to avoid researchers' subjectivity and to corroborate research validity, qualitative study uses rich description and strategic comparison to persuade readers. Regarding assumptions, it can be described through three dichotomies:1) variables versus actions; 2) hydraulic determinism versus limits and opportunities; and 3) randomness and error versus choice. Overall it is observable from these dichotomies that quantitative studies tend to be more fixed, while qualitative ones are more dynamic and flexible. Such distinction turns out to be the complementarity for each other and for a research. As the quantitative studies assess the magnitude of relationship more precisely (by concretely numbers or percentages), qualitative studies conclude with more ambiguous yet relative statements (Firestone, 1987), which facilitate readers to form a more integrate concept.

With this article and the analysis of the two studies Firestone tried to suggest there is a rhetoric connection between method types and paradigms. What remains to be clarified is how tightly or consistently the convention link paradigm and method (Firestone, 1987). It should be noted that, after reading this article, readers ought to know the relationship between quantitative and qualitative methods is not arbitrary but complementary. It is also hoped that researchers can make better use of the strength of both methods to corroborate their research statement.