comps reading - What Good is Polarizing Research into Qualitative and Quantitative?

The purpose of this paper co-written by Kadriye Ercikan and Wolff-Michael Roth is twofold:

1. to demonstrate that this polarization is not meaningful or productive for education resarch
2. to propose an integrated approach to education research inquiry

To achieve such integration, the authors argued that the research questions asked should determine the modes of inquiry that are used to answer them.

First the authors believed that polarization in research is confusing to many people and tends to limit research inquiry, often resulting in incomplete answers to research questions and potentially inappropriate inferences based on findings. To demonstrate such polarization, the authors unfolded from four aspects:

1. The problem
2. Existence of qualitative and quantitative characteristics in phenomena: as data are representations of phenomena in nature, society, education, and cultures, the main determining factor of the classification of research activities into qualitative and quantitative is the nature of the data.
3. Objectivity and subjectivity in constructing data: both types of research activities (qualitative and quantitative) involve subjective judgments. Basically, the subjectivity involved in data construction phase depends on "who is involved in scoring," "their level of experiencing in scoring," "the scoring rules," and "the students response or products." Any data that are constructed arise through an interpretation model that involves subjective judgments. The processes involved in constructing data may be quantitative or qualitative in nature and include three dimensions: data sources, interpretation model, and data.
4. Generalizability

Based on the following three reasons, the authors concluded that polarization in research is problematic.

1. All phenomena and all knowledge simultaneously have quantitative and qualitative dimensions
2. The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, normally associated with that between quantitative and qualitative research, is neither accurate nor useful
3. Generalizability is not a feature of mathematization but a description for the tendency of inferences to go beyond the context and participants involved in the research.

To counter these problems, the authors proposed moving beyond polarization by:

1. using a different classificatory continuum based on the relational terms "low inference" and "high inference"
2. emphasizing a focus on the research questions
3. encouraging the collaboration of researchers with expertise in forms of research formerly labeled quantitative and qualitative

comps reading - Handbook of Research on Educational Communication and Technology Ch.39 Qualitative Research Issues and Methods

It's been a while since last post, the one on 24th Aug. For one reason, I was busy in using google site to build my resume, as mentioned earlier, though not much progression since then. On the other hand, I think I need to apologize for myself being procrastinated over and over again. It almost tool me one week to finish another comps reading: Handbook of Research on Educational Communication and Technology-Ch.39 Qualitative Research Issues and Methods: An Introduction for Educational Technologists. Though it is a big book and the chapter I read was really many pages long, yet I admit these are only excuese. It's really only a matter of being persistent and concentrated enough to determine if you can succeed.

Anywyay, here's the excerpt, three pages long in MS word. Though lengthy it is, I think this does provide a comprehensive overview for qualitative study in our field. With other revelant textbook handy, now I don't think I need to print the CH.39 out. In a way, I save some small money, which is always something I did as usual.

1. Borg and Gall (1989) name the two approaches (i.e. qualitative and quantitative) positivistic and naturalistic, comparing them on the dimensions of the vision of the nature of reality, the relationship of the researcher to the research subject, issues of generalizability, discussion of causality, and the role of values (P.1046).

2. Early research efforts often used qualitative methods to evaluate and describe the use of media in the classroom (P.1047).

3. Although not researchers per se, instructional systems designers have always used the qualitative methods of surveys, interviews, and observations during the front-end analysis and evaluation phases of development. […] Driscoll (1995) suggests that educational technologists select research paradigms based on what they perceive as the most critical questions. […..] Many teachers, trainers, administrators, managers, community members, and instructional leaders contend that the evolution of new technologies will continue to change the nature of teaching, training, instruction, and learning (Ambron & Hooper, 1990, 1998; Lambert & Sallis, 1987; Schwartz, 1987; Schwier, 1987; U.S. Congress, OTA, 1988). (P.1048)

4. Qualitative Research Methods:

(1) Grounded theory

(2) Participants Observation

(3) Nonparticipant observation

(4) Interviews—Goetz and LeCompte (1984) describe three techniques for structured interviews: confirmation instruments, participant-construct instrument, and projective devices (P.1057).

¨ Confirmation instruments verify the applicability of data gathered from key-informant interviews or observations across segments of the population being studied.

¨ Participant-construct instruments may be used to measure degrees of feelings that individuals have about phenomena or in having them classify events, situations techniques, or concepts from their perspectives.

¨ Projective devices such as photographs, drawings, other visuals, or other objects may be used to elicit individuals’ opinions or feelings, helping researchers clarify what is going on in the situation.

(5) Documents and artifacts analysis (P.1058)

¨ Goetz and LeCompte (1984, P.155) provide guidelines for artifact collection, identifying for activities in this type of method: locating artifacts, identifying the material, analyzing it, and evaluating it. They recommend that the more informed the researcher is about the subjects and setting, the more useful artifacts may be identified and the more easily access may be gained to those artifacts.

¨ The meaning of artifacts is often intensely personal and subjective, so that verification of findings through triangulation is recommended.

5. Overall approaches to analyze qualitative data—based on the philosophical approach underlying the study (P.1059). Miles and Huberman (1994) outline three overall approaches to analyzing qualitative data:

¨ An “interpretive” approach would be phenoniological in nature or based on social interactionism.

¨ A “collaborative social research” is often used by action researchers in partnership composed of members of many, and sometimes opposing, organizations.

¨ “Social anthropology” relies primarily on ethnography, providing detailed and rich descriptions across multiple data resources. Goetz and LeCompte (1994) call this “recursive approach.”

6. Miles and Huberman (1994, P.10) state that qualitative data analysis consists of “three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification.”

7. Researchers may derive patterns in ways Goetz and LeCompte call “analytical induction (P.179),” reviewing data for categories of phenomena, defining sets of relationships, developing hypothesis, collecting more data, and refining hypotheses accordingly. Those using a grounded-theory approach may employ “constant comparison.” […..] Field notes consist of observations and the researcher’s interpretations. Bogdan and Biklen (1984) call former content “the descriptive part (P.108)” and the latter “the reflective part (P.121).”

8. Coding data (P.1060):

(1) Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest that data can be coded descriptively or interpretively.

(2) Bogdan and Biklen (1992) recommend reading data over at least several times to begin to develop a coding scheme.

(3) Goetz and LeCompte describe coding to form a taxonomic analysis, a sort of outline of what is related to what, and in what ways.

9. Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies (P.1063)—validity can be created in three ways:

(1) multiple observers in teams can cross-check data and patterns continually

(2) the researcher can refine and test propositions and hypotheses throughout the study, in a grounded-theory approach

(3) the researcher can write using “verisimilitude” or “vraisemblance” (P.383), or writing that makes the world of the subjects real to the reader; the reader recognizes the authenticity of the results. (member check)

10. Lincoln and Guba (1985) agree with others that conventional criteria are inappropriate for qualitative studies and that alternate criteria do exist: a) credibility; b) transferability; c) dependability; and d) confirmability. Erlandson et al (1993) describe the following techniques for ensuring the quality of a qualitative study (P.1064):

(1) prolonged engagement

(2) persistent observation

(3) triangulation

(4) referential adequacy

(5) peer debriefing

(6) member checking

(7) reflexive journal

(8) thick description

(9) purposive sampling

(10) audit trail