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?
I found it interesting how Pring on page 45 referred to the rift between qualitative and quantitative research as a "philosophical trap". He goes on to clarify that different types of questions require different kinds of research.
I also agree with what he says on page 50 and 51 when he says too often researchers embrace one type of research while excluding the other. In my opinion both qualitative and quantitative research have the potential to work hand in hand and inform the other.
I think understanding and researching how human beings learn is a complex endeavor that requires more than one style or method. I also think it is important to understand that no matter what method you use to research, that there are limitations and weaknesses. There is no perfect method or instrument.
Pring brings a different perspective distinguishing qualitative and quantitative research methods. His distinction of the two research methods, from my understating is that he is a pure advocate of qualitative methods. This is one of the few readings that I can read about criticism of quantitative methods. His argument on critiquing the use of quantitative research instruments is that questionnaires and surveys do not bring out the uniqueness and differences in individuals or researchers. He therefore, questions the generalizability of research findings done using quantitative methods. On p.50 he said, “there would seem to be certain aspects of being human which enables us to make tentative generalization about how individuals will perform or react, while at the same time recognize that there will inevitably be exceptions to the rule” Furthermore, the nature of questions used in quantitative may not capture the real meaning of the researcher’s thoughts, since, they are closed ended questions. There is a lot of criticism about the quality of qualitative research exposed than it is in quantitative methods, making qualitative methods lose its rigor. What I got from reading this chapter is that both methods have their own pro and cons. Both research methods can serve the purpose of inquiry depending on the direction of what the researcher wants to find out. Therefore, the choice of methods can be guided by the research questions and not what accounts in terms of quality. Both methods bring their own unique ways of understanding the truth.
I think you both and Pring highlight the point that different circumstances warrant different modes of research. The question you want answered will likely determine if you choose qualitative or quantitative. However, regardless of method, researchers should be aware of the limitations of their chosen method and pursue their research with as much veracity as possible. What I struggle with is what Beatrice brings up about Pring's criticism of quantitative. He acknowledges that there are "exceptions to the rule," however with the (hopefully) larger sample sizes of quantitative, it would be easier to identify outliers (the "exceptions") than a 8-10 person qualitative study.
I think it these were definitely important chapters to read at this point in our doctoral scholarship. Throughout last semester, while we were learning about different research approaches, it was easy to fall into cognitive dualism...that quantitative and qualitative should be thought of as mutually exclusive. It was refreshing to read that these concepts work together well. I think what Pring was getting at, was that in a quantitative study, we still interpret the results based on schemas and contexts (like qualitative research!). William Perry would be supportive of this transition into relative thinking....
I think that Pring actually brings up some very good points about the "false dualism" between quantitative and qualitative research methods. They should not be looked at as two opposites sides of research, but more often as complementary to each other.
I also think looking at quantitative research as purely objective and qualitative as purely subjective is a dangerous dichotomy. Whether it's quantitative or qualitative, we are looking at human beings and assigning/constructing meaning to either numbers or words. They both serve very important purposes, but all research should be done with extreme caution and thoughtfulness.
He talks about dualism as an age old trap. I think the main point I got from this section was a reinforcement of the grayness of the world. Academia is no exception. Things aren't often black of white, but more on a spectrum and highly subjective and relative. I understand the importance of discussing such things, but the point that nothing is correct or incorrect and that things are constantly changing, makes discussing these things feel meaningless.
I think academia can fall into dichotomous thinking, especially with research. At the same time, dichotomous thinking often implies that there is knowledge of what is correct and of what is incorrect. Personally, the more down the rabbit hole I go, the less I believe I know and the more I question everything. This makes it difficult to fall into dualism, but I still find myself there at times. I am curious if society and academia reward dichotomous thinking. It does seem like society at the very least teaches and reinforces it.
I found it refreshing to read Pring's take on the quantitative/qualitative debate. The reference to learning theories and the idea that they've gone "out of style" or are neglected while the scientific model still hangs on, specifically referencing the evidence-based practice and policy actually made me chuckle - one of the biggest grievances I've seen from educators is the term "initiative" and how those come/go before the full results or outcomes are given opportunity to show themselves. The description of an educational activity and acknowledgement that "present thoughts shape future reactions" certainly gave me pause although I would argue past/present thoughts (schema?) impact educational activities. The dualism Pring describes heavily resonated with me and provided a general sense of relief. I agree with what Pring spells out in chapter 5, comparing/contrasting paradigms A/B & find it slightly surprising to see someone actually commit to paper/text that you can find bits & pieces of value each and even utilize a combination of the two for research purposes - to me that seems common sense. In my experience to date most conversations have centered around an either/or line of argument. Black/white, right/wrong ... we live in a world of varying hues of color, correctness and morality. Why would that not spill into the quantitative & quantitative realm as well? Finally, his term "uniqueness fallacy" left me somewhat uncomfortable - with lip/fingerprint print patterns that are completely unique, I can't completely agree with what he's suggesting but instead again fall back to my hues reference above. - P.
I agree with the quote Chad brought up about often researchers rely heavily on either qualitative or quantitative. There are some questions that are not going to be answered by only using quantitative methods and visa versa. It is not productive in academia to think of quantitative vs qualitative and that one is better or worse then the other. However, often times quantitative research is viewed with more respect. I think as a doctoral student beginning the research journey this "philosophical trap" should be avoided early on and we should explore a variety of methods in our beginning research.
I found it interesting how Pring on page 45 referred to the rift between qualitative and quantitative research as a "philosophical trap". He goes on to clarify that different types of questions require different kinds of research.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what he says on page 50 and 51 when he says too often researchers embrace one type of research while excluding the other. In my opinion both qualitative and quantitative research have the potential to work hand in hand and inform the other.
I think understanding and researching how human beings learn is a complex endeavor that requires more than one style or method. I also think it is important to understand that no matter what method you use to research, that there are limitations and weaknesses. There is no perfect method or instrument.
Pring brings a different perspective distinguishing qualitative and quantitative research methods. His distinction of the two research methods, from my understating is that he is a pure advocate of qualitative methods. This is one of the few readings that I can read about criticism of quantitative methods. His argument on critiquing the use of quantitative research instruments is that questionnaires and surveys do not bring out the uniqueness and differences in individuals or researchers. He therefore, questions the generalizability of research findings done using quantitative methods. On p.50 he said, “there would seem to be certain aspects of being human which enables us to make tentative generalization about how individuals will perform or react, while at the same time recognize that there will inevitably be exceptions to the rule” Furthermore, the nature of questions used in quantitative may not capture the real meaning of the researcher’s thoughts, since, they are closed ended questions.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of criticism about the quality of qualitative research exposed than it is in quantitative methods, making qualitative methods lose its rigor. What I got from reading this chapter is that both methods have their own pro and cons. Both research methods can serve the purpose of inquiry depending on the direction of what the researcher wants to find out. Therefore, the choice of methods can be guided by the research questions and not what accounts in terms of quality. Both methods bring their own unique ways of understanding the truth.
I think you both and Pring highlight the point that different circumstances warrant different modes of research. The question you want answered will likely determine if you choose qualitative or quantitative. However, regardless of method, researchers should be aware of the limitations of their chosen method and pursue their research with as much veracity as possible.
ReplyDeleteWhat I struggle with is what Beatrice brings up about Pring's criticism of quantitative. He acknowledges that there are "exceptions to the rule," however with the (hopefully) larger sample sizes of quantitative, it would be easier to identify outliers (the "exceptions") than a 8-10 person qualitative study.
I think it these were definitely important chapters to read at this point in our doctoral scholarship. Throughout last semester, while we were learning about different research approaches, it was easy to fall into cognitive dualism...that quantitative and qualitative should be thought of as mutually exclusive. It was refreshing to read that these concepts work together well. I think what Pring was getting at, was that in a quantitative study, we still interpret the results based on schemas and contexts (like qualitative research!). William Perry would be supportive of this transition into relative thinking....
ReplyDeleteI think that Pring actually brings up some very good points about the "false dualism" between quantitative and qualitative research methods. They should not be looked at as two opposites sides of research, but more often as complementary to each other.
ReplyDeleteI also think looking at quantitative research as purely objective and qualitative as purely subjective is a dangerous dichotomy. Whether it's quantitative or qualitative, we are looking at human beings and assigning/constructing meaning to either numbers or words. They both serve very important purposes, but all research should be done with extreme caution and thoughtfulness.
Agreed! They are complementary and I think that there are times when we don't see the full picture from just having one.
DeleteHe talks about dualism as an age old trap. I think the main point I got from this section was a reinforcement of the grayness of the world. Academia is no exception. Things aren't often black of white, but more on a spectrum and highly subjective and relative. I understand the importance of discussing such things, but the point that nothing is correct or incorrect and that things are constantly changing, makes discussing these things feel meaningless.
ReplyDeleteI think academia can fall into dichotomous thinking, especially with research. At the same time, dichotomous thinking often implies that there is knowledge of what is correct and of what is incorrect. Personally, the more down the rabbit hole I go, the less I believe I know and the more I question everything. This makes it difficult to fall into dualism, but I still find myself there at times. I am curious if society and academia reward dichotomous thinking. It does seem like society at the very least teaches and reinforces it.
I found it refreshing to read Pring's take on the quantitative/qualitative debate. The reference to learning theories and the idea that they've gone "out of style" or are neglected while the scientific model still hangs on, specifically referencing the evidence-based practice and policy actually made me chuckle - one of the biggest grievances I've seen from educators is the term "initiative" and how those come/go before the full results or outcomes are given opportunity to show themselves. The description of an educational activity and acknowledgement that "present thoughts shape future reactions" certainly gave me pause although I would argue past/present thoughts (schema?) impact educational activities. The dualism Pring describes heavily resonated with me and provided a general sense of relief. I agree with what Pring spells out in chapter 5, comparing/contrasting paradigms A/B & find it slightly surprising to see someone actually commit to paper/text that you can find bits & pieces of value each and even utilize a combination of the two for research purposes - to me that seems common sense. In my experience to date most conversations have centered around an either/or line of argument. Black/white, right/wrong ... we live in a world of varying hues of color, correctness and morality. Why would that not spill into the quantitative & quantitative realm as well? Finally, his term "uniqueness fallacy" left me somewhat uncomfortable - with lip/fingerprint print patterns that are completely unique, I can't completely agree with what he's suggesting but instead again fall back to my hues reference above. - P.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the quote Chad brought up about often researchers rely heavily on either qualitative or quantitative. There are some questions that are not going to be answered by only using quantitative methods and visa versa. It is not productive in academia to think of quantitative vs qualitative and that one is better or worse then the other. However, often times quantitative research is viewed with more respect. I think as a doctoral student beginning the research journey this "philosophical trap" should be avoided early on and we should explore a variety of methods in our beginning research.
ReplyDelete