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?
My interpretation is that Pring sees this less as a tension between quantitative and qualitative research, and more as a symbiosis. Although there are many who advocate strongly for one or the other as the better method, Pring describes them as reliant on each other for some foundation or grounding. While qualitative research provides a depth of interpretation, quantitative research maintains a basis for reality. This attitude fits well with my thinking; education is messy and unpredictable and educational research should reflect that. The Campbell quote on page 73 speaks to this perspective: “Qualitative knowledge is the test and building block of quantitative knowing…the only route to knowledge – noisy, fallible, and biased though it may be.” I didn't find his ideas disturbing, but his descriptions sounded novel. Most of what I've heard before has been opinions concerning the merit and/or ease of one method over the other, and he proposes instead a co-existence.
I agree with what Pring had to say about the “false dualism” between Qualitative and Quantitative research in education. I particularly liked his point of view that you cannot reject the notion of “reality” because, even if an individual’s reality is constructed, that reality can only be constructed if there are other, real, existing objects (e.g., people) outside of that individual with which to interact dialectically or physically. I also believe that the methods of qualitative and quantitative research are not mutually exclusive; that you need each to inform the other. The quantitative asks, “What?” and the qualitative asks “Why? or How?” Quantitative studies can be useful to examine long-term outcome trends. For example, the August/September 2015 issue of Educational Researcher included a thought-provoking quantitative study on the ethnic/gender gap in science scores from 3rd – 8th grade. The researchers used a large data set from the NCES ECLS-K:99, which features a sample of over 21,000 students followed from kindergarten to the 8th grade. The results told the story of an achievement gap that narrowed over time, at different paces, depending on ethnicity and gender. What that study lacked, however, was the human element. I believe it would have been informative to speak with students, parents, and teachers over time to dig more deeply into whether particular methods were used to narrow the gap or if that narrowing happened as a natural part of the maturation process. My ten-year-old daughter has been part of a long-term US Department of Education research study since she was in kindergarten. Every year, I get a telephone call where I answer both survey-style and semi-structured interview-style questions about her achievement, home life, SES, etc. In my opinion, the mixed methods approach to educational research would seem to offer the most complete view of a problem or intervention.
My comment on Pring’s take on the quant. / qual. tension is rather long and doesn't fit into one posting. Thank you in advance for hanging in there!
Dr. Olivier Sacks, award-winning neurologist, author, many other honors, died on Aug. 30 this year. He is known to me as the author of the book-turned-movie Awakenings (1973/1990) in which he is portrayed by Robin Williams. In the movie, Sacks/Williams is a young neurologist who assumes a post at a sanatorium which is home to a number of people with psychiatric illnesses and disorders. Many of the “patients” have been institutionalized because there was no alternative place of care. The time period is late 1960’s.
We are introduced to the awkward, shy doctor who appears to be out of his element and certainly not someone who might change the lives of any of the patients in this facility. As on-lookers, we are given the impression that maintaining the status quo is the desired course of “treatment” for the patients. The nurses and ancillary staff have all but fallen into a comfortable routine. Many of the patients are catatonic.
I’ve seen this movie a number of times, and it was on TV again last weekend. I found myself watching with a different lens this time, and it inspired me to use it for this week’s blog post.
Our good doctor isn’t good with people, but he is an extraordinary scientist. He is intrigued by a number of catatonic patients who have been in the institution for decades. He methodically looks for answers to their condition in their medical charts and medical histories but can’t seem to put it all together. He pushes onward, still in a scientific mode, and discovers there is brain activity in one of the patients, “Leonard”/Robert DeNiro.
I think medicine provides a great example of the false dualism that Pring discusses. Here, Sacks/Williams follows a strict scientific methodology, carefully documenting his tests and procedures. Science helped him discover that Leonard/DeNiro had brain activity! This is a turning point that leads to other revelations about the neurological condition of the patients. Sacks/Williams would not have been able to discover these things if he had not adhered to his scientific procedures and way of thinking. Still, this kind of science could not take him any further. Sacks/Williams was viewing Leonard/DeNiro as a “mind” trapped in a “body.” This is evidence of Cartesian thinking and this is as far as it went until our goofy scientific-minded doctor makes paradigmatic turn and asks, “What it is like to be them?”
It is at this point that he crosses into a different ontology and begins to look at Leonard/DeNiro as a whole human being and not a mind in a body. He uses a different methodology and investigates Leonard/DeNiro’s life before he became catatonic, visits the boyhood home, talks with the mother, and discovers a way to “hear” the answer from Leonard/DeNiro of what it is like to be in this condition. There is a very powerful moment in the move when Sacks/Williams reads the passage from a book that Leonard/DeNiro points him to as a way to describe the catatonic condition. This new “knowledge” spurns our doctor to use all of his scientific know-how to “awaken” Leonad/ DeNiro and the others so that they can find some joy in their lives.
Viewing this movie through my “703 lens” helped me see that there are limits to either method of science as individual modes. It took a morphing of different approaches for our doctor to be able to “awaken” the human condition in this movie. Indeed, there were awakenings on many different levels, including Sacks/Williams awakening to friendship and what it means to be alive.
In this story, it was not an either-or, half-and-half, or mixed-methodology that our doctor assumed as he set about to free the patients. This would still be a dualistic mindset. The “science” that led to the awakenings—all of them—was about a whole-ness of knowledge and truth and a whole-ism of being human.
For me, Pring’s paradigm A/paradigm B framework to argue the essence of a false dualism was almost insulting. He reduced one as a “naïve realism” mindset and the other as “the way things ought to be” dogma. He then went about destabilizing those positions so that we could be shown how there is neither one nor the other.
I guess my problem is that we are still in an “either/or” or “ not either/or” dualistic mindset. Are we to imagine what science “is” if it is not the dualism we are discussing? Why are we so stuck in this mode of thinking?
But, look what I’ve done. I’ve killed the messenger and put on my teaching hat to show you “my way” of thinking about science and false dualisms. Dam that Labaree!
Wait. I have to follow Susan?? Ok, well now you can give your mind a rest as you skim through my thoughts on Pring’s dissection of the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research. I must first make it clear that I approach this from a field in which qualitative research is rarely seen in our mid-tier and higher journals. However, I consider myself to be much more open to qualitative research than many in my field. With that said, I find it difficult to disagree with anything that Pring said regarding this topic. And quite honestly, I am becoming a bigger and bigger fan of Pring as we progress through this text. The simple yet thorough breakdown of the two methods of research (p. 63-66) present the quantitative and qualitative research as I view them, yet many, I believe, do not. I especially like Pring’s statement that the false dualism leads to anti-realism in both camps. The fact that quantitative is viewed as positivist style of research while qualitative investigates meanings is accurate, in my opinion. However, the difference is exaggerated when inappropriately the two methods are compared regarding the construction of reality. I do not believe that the view of reality is different between the two. While quantitative research is conducted with the researcher “standing outside” the research, this fact does not eliminate the possible bias that many feel is much more susceptible in qualitative research. As Pring says, “the distinctions within the so-called paradigms are often as significant as the distinctions between them” (p. 66). I completely agree with this assessment, and also concur with Pring’s statement on the following page in which he sums up the views that many people have on the two types of research by calling the “consequences immense.” I think that all of academe is greatly affected by the misnomers regarding quantitative and qualitative research, and I think that Pring does us a service by pointing out these misconceptions. We can only hope that students across the country learn the truth about this false dualism, and that truth can be found by conducting more than just one method of research.
I have been brought up to identify quantitative research with the “hard” sciences, qualitative research with the “soft” sciences, and mixed methods as the best of both worlds. The distinctions between the two, and the duality to which Pring refers, sit within my mind exactly as Pring describes. I have also been raised to downplay the positive contributions of quantitative research and exalt the value of qualitative research, as I am born to the research world through the humanities and social sciences.
Pring says the duality is false. If so, it may be a necessary fabrication. We humans often create duality and even exaggerate the tension between two opposites. That which is starkly different gets our attention, and the attention is important.
I am fascinated by dialectics as a way to understand the world. According to a fabulous kid’s website http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm, there are three law of dialectics a la Frederick Engels:
One--Every thing (every object and every process) is made of opposing forces/opposing sides.
Two--Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one opposite overcomes the other.
Three--Change moves in spirals, not circles.
In brief, two bodies in contrast together make a whole, and it is through the processes of understanding and negotiating tensions in the two that we understand more about the whole. Duality is sometimes necessary for us to learn, change and grow. Through a spiraling process of debate, knowledge is created that brings the two opposing forces closer together.
Pring allows us to engage with him in the conversation that brings qualitative and quantitative research together. Writes Pring, we live in a physical world with boundaries and limits. Some of the boundaries and phenomenon can be more easily observed and measured (albeit temporarily) than others. The world is also a product of how we see it through and with the lenses that we have made and have been made for us, and here is where individual experiences brings so much richness and depth to life.
I disagree with Pring that the dualism is a mistake. I think it is sometimes necessary for us to break a whole into opposites, to release the energy within, and to spiral into a deeper understanding of ourselves and the worlds we inhabit as we bring the opposites closer together. I am very glad for the insight that dualism brings.
Pring starts out by explaining the challenges of both quantitative and qualitative research. For both, as one reads initially, it feels like he is explaining why neither form of research provides dependable and/or generalizable results, at least not for educational inquiries. Quantitative research does not allow one to truly see what is occurring. We are humans studying humans and their successes and challenges in education. This is not an exact science where one can have one variable that is being tested while controlling all others. One cannot get into the minds of the students studied to see how they are learning and if the ‘intervention’ is the reason for their learning and/or improved performance. There are too many outside sources, including us as the researchers. Certainly, we cannot be ignored. Because of this, the ‘truth’ of the results can come into question (and critics will argue that this ‘truth’ is not a ‘truth’ but a falsely perceived one.) Qualitative research involves the negotiation of ideas so that one can better read and understand a particular situation for an individual or a group. Because of the design of qualitative research, the ideas and results in educational research are difficult to general overall, unless one sees that humans can have some things in common, and we can make assumptions and agree about having those things in common.
Pring does not really say anything that is too surprising to me. Somehow I have always sort of known that there were those who valued quantitative research and others who valued qualitative research. While Pring was describing the limitations of both forms of research, I did start to feel frustrated. At one point, I felt like he was inferring that we should all just throw up our hands and forget about educational research, for the limitations of both forms is thus that one cannot determine any ‘truth’ from the research findings one has learned. It exists, but is it really ‘true’? However, Pring provided a good history of the dichotomy between the two paradigms. His descriptions allow the reader to understand the two ‘camps’ and to view their take on one another. It is extreme; I knew this as I read it. However, I also knew that there are those out there that indeed believe in only one way to do research—either quantitative or qualitative. It has always felt odd to me, but I have heard others speak about one only and when the other is mentioned, well, it is like the black sheep in the family that no one wants to admit is out there and of which no one approves.
Pring further explains how the two methods of research, both flawed but in different ways, can be useful. He says what I have always thought; employing quantitative and qualitative research in a study strengthens the inquiry and the “other paradigm’s” weaknesses. I imagine that a dualism still exists for many. However, those who hold this view need to step back and change the lenses from which they are viewing research, in particular, educational research. They need to see the value in the other paradigm and how that “other” can help strengthen their preferred method of research.
We seek to find the ‘truth’ even if we are debating what ‘the truth’ means and whether there is a real and only one ‘truth’. As a society, we want to learn and grow, so it is only natural that we would strive to find out how to improve. I believe that Pring ends (as I sort was expecting him to do so) with great explanations about why the dualism of the two approaches is not only unnecessary but also fruitless if one really wants to find out the ‘truth’ in their research.
Like Mark, I agreed with a lot of what Pring said about the false dualism between quantitative and qualitative research. I guess I’ll be considered a mixed methods researcher because I will move towards different ends of the spectrum depending on the study.
One thing that stood out for me during the reading was on p. 50 when Pring talked about the “uniqueness fallacy.” “The answer must lie in recognizing that the uniqueness of each individual in certain respects does not entail uniqueness in every respect…there would seem to be certain aspects of being human which enable us to make tentative generalizations about how individuals will perform or react, while at the same time recognizing that there will inevitably be exceptions to the rule.” I think his argument struck me because in my area of interest- African American student achievement, it can be considered blasphemous to make generalizations. It doesn’t take much to be accused of stereotyping. I recently read an article that made a similar argument to Pring’s- individual differences “do not negate commonalities in experiences and the significance of those commonalities in proposing system efforts to improve [a group’s] educative experiences. I would make this case to anyone who doesn’t think quantitative research has anything to offer in education or other social sciences.
My big takeaway the reading was this- Educational research is not all or nothing. The field has room for quantitative and qualitative research. Each method/paradigm/orientation… has strengths and shortcomings in educational/social science research depending on the question at hand. Making blankets statements about the value of one method over the other is inappropriate.
You all have made some really interesting points! I have to agree with Penny that much of what Pring has said on duality in the matter of Qual v. Quan sounds very familiar to me. I see the ease with which we recognize their differences and can frequently assume they are opposing or that we must pick a team. #teamQual? #teamQuan? But Pring is not the first, nor do I think he will be the last, to tell me to recognize differences, but chill out about it already. There is space an appropriateness to both hashtags. I also like a lot of what I am seeing in other’s posts about how exploring the tension helps us understand more fully the benefits and challenges of distinct, although not mutually exclusive approaches. I’m having a hard time reacting to his thoughts a whole lot more than that. I must be more rested than last week, because none of this inspired my righteous indignation. I’ve sort of been in this headspace lately of trying to deconstruct and de-emphasize my viewpoints, and just absorb. That makes reactions a bit tough. Also, this aligns with my allegedly deconstructing viewpoints, so that makes it easier. Teri and I shared the same “hmm… yup!” moment from Pring’s uniqueness fallacy. We are not all special snowflakes about everything. Even snowflakes have commonalities, although Big Christmas and my over-recognition-granting parents would never admit to the unromantic reality that snowflakes are kind of similar. This post is not circling around to some grand idea. Pring made sense. I can dig it. He is saying that research approaches are on a spectrum, y’al!. It’s okay to fall wherever. I’m a little inexperienced at this point, but I’d guess that I’m bi-methodological. Bi-curious? Questioning? I respect it all though. Let’s have a parade!
Pring’s discussion of the quant/qual tensions aligned with what I have heard. Like Teri stated in her post, I too identify myself as a mixed-methods researcher where the research question guides the data collection method. Personally, I don’t comprehend why researchers created a “false dualism” between quant and qual modes of research when they could blend the two approaches, taking the strengths from each research paradigm, and obtain a more holistic picture of the behavior studied. Pring’s statement “the distinctions within the so-called paradigms are often as significant as the distinction between them” (p. 66) serves as a reminder to researchers of the differences within their preferred paradigm. Furthermore, Pring reminds the reader that just because one doesn’t embrace paradigm A does not mean it accepts paradigm B, rather one can reject aspects within the paradigm.
Pring emphasized the importance of social and cultural traditions and the evolution of these traditions over time, which influence the way we interpret our experiences (p. 68). Social, political, economic, and cultural factors all contribute to one’s perspective on a situation, in a given context. For this reason, I wonder if it is feasible to reach a universal truth; perhaps it is the multiple perspectives of truth combined that count as “Truth.”
My interpretation is that Pring sees this less as a tension between quantitative and qualitative research, and more as a symbiosis. Although there are many who advocate strongly for one or the other as the better method, Pring describes them as reliant on each other for some foundation or grounding. While qualitative research provides a depth of interpretation, quantitative research maintains a basis for reality. This attitude fits well with my thinking; education is messy and unpredictable and educational research should reflect that. The Campbell quote on page 73 speaks to this perspective: “Qualitative knowledge is the test and building block of quantitative knowing…the only route to knowledge – noisy, fallible, and biased though it may be.” I didn't find his ideas disturbing, but his descriptions sounded novel. Most of what I've heard before has been opinions concerning the merit and/or ease of one method over the other, and he proposes instead a co-existence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Pring had to say about the “false dualism” between Qualitative and Quantitative research in education. I particularly liked his point of view that you cannot reject the notion of “reality” because, even if an individual’s reality is constructed, that reality can only be constructed if there are other, real, existing objects (e.g., people) outside of that individual with which to interact dialectically or physically. I also believe that the methods of qualitative and quantitative research are not mutually exclusive; that you need each to inform the other. The quantitative asks, “What?” and the qualitative asks “Why? or How?” Quantitative studies can be useful to examine long-term outcome trends. For example, the August/September 2015 issue of Educational Researcher included a thought-provoking quantitative study on the ethnic/gender gap in science scores from 3rd – 8th grade. The researchers used a large data set from the NCES ECLS-K:99, which features a sample of over 21,000 students followed from kindergarten to the 8th grade. The results told the story of an achievement gap that narrowed over time, at different paces, depending on ethnicity and gender. What that study lacked, however, was the human element. I believe it would have been informative to speak with students, parents, and teachers over time to dig more deeply into whether particular methods were used to narrow the gap or if that narrowing happened as a natural part of the maturation process. My ten-year-old daughter has been part of a long-term US Department of Education research study since she was in kindergarten. Every year, I get a telephone call where I answer both survey-style and semi-structured interview-style questions about her achievement, home life, SES, etc. In my opinion, the mixed methods approach to educational research would seem to offer the most complete view of a problem or intervention.
ReplyDeleteMy comment on Pring’s take on the quant. / qual. tension is rather long and doesn't fit into one posting. Thank you in advance for hanging in there!
ReplyDeleteDr. Olivier Sacks, award-winning neurologist, author, many other honors, died on Aug. 30 this year. He is known to me as the author of the book-turned-movie Awakenings (1973/1990) in which he is portrayed by Robin Williams. In the movie, Sacks/Williams is a young neurologist who assumes a post at a sanatorium which is home to a number of people with psychiatric illnesses and disorders. Many of the “patients” have been institutionalized because there was no alternative place of care. The time period is late 1960’s.
We are introduced to the awkward, shy doctor who appears to be out of his element and certainly not someone who might change the lives of any of the patients in this facility. As on-lookers, we are given the impression that maintaining the status quo is the desired course of “treatment” for the patients. The nurses and ancillary staff have all but fallen into a comfortable routine. Many of the patients are catatonic.
I’ve seen this movie a number of times, and it was on TV again last weekend. I found myself watching with a different lens this time, and it inspired me to use it for this week’s blog post.
Our good doctor isn’t good with people, but he is an extraordinary scientist. He is intrigued by a number of catatonic patients who have been in the institution for decades. He methodically looks for answers to their condition in their medical charts and medical histories but can’t seem to put it all together. He pushes onward, still in a scientific mode, and discovers there is brain activity in one of the patients, “Leonard”/Robert DeNiro.
I think medicine provides a great example of the false dualism that Pring discusses. Here, Sacks/Williams follows a strict scientific methodology, carefully documenting his tests and procedures. Science helped him discover that Leonard/DeNiro had brain activity! This is a turning point that leads to other revelations about the neurological condition of the patients. Sacks/Williams would not have been able to discover these things if he had not adhered to his scientific procedures and way of thinking. Still, this kind of science could not take him any further. Sacks/Williams was viewing Leonard/DeNiro as a “mind” trapped in a “body.” This is evidence of Cartesian thinking and this is as far as it went until our
goofy scientific-minded doctor makes paradigmatic turn and asks, “What it is like to be them?”
It is at this point that he crosses into a different ontology and begins to look at Leonard/DeNiro as a whole human being and not a mind in a body. He uses a different methodology and investigates Leonard/DeNiro’s life before he became catatonic, visits the boyhood home, talks with the mother, and discovers a way to “hear” the answer from Leonard/DeNiro of what it is like to be in this condition. There is a very powerful moment in the move when Sacks/Williams reads the passage from a book that Leonard/DeNiro points him to as a way to describe the catatonic condition. This new “knowledge” spurns our doctor to use all of his scientific know-how to “awaken” Leonad/ DeNiro and the others so that they can find some joy in their lives.
Viewing this movie through my “703 lens” helped me see that there are limits to either method of science as individual modes. It took a morphing of different approaches for our doctor to be able to “awaken” the human condition in this movie. Indeed, there were awakenings on many different levels, including Sacks/Williams awakening to friendship and what it means to be alive.
DeleteIn this story, it was not an either-or, half-and-half, or mixed-methodology that our doctor assumed as he set about to free the patients. This would still be a dualistic mindset. The “science” that led to the awakenings—all of them—was about a whole-ness of knowledge and truth and a whole-ism of being human.
For me, Pring’s paradigm A/paradigm B framework to argue the essence of a false dualism was almost insulting. He reduced one as a “naïve realism” mindset and the other as “the way things ought to be” dogma. He then went about destabilizing those positions so that we could be shown how there is neither one nor the other.
I guess my problem is that we are still in an “either/or” or “ not either/or” dualistic mindset. Are we to imagine what science “is” if it is not the dualism we are discussing? Why are we so stuck in this mode of thinking?
But, look what I’ve done. I’ve killed the messenger and put on my teaching hat to show you “my way” of thinking about science and false dualisms. Dam that Labaree!
Thanks for reading my manifesto! :)
Wait. I have to follow Susan?? Ok, well now you can give your mind a rest as you skim through my thoughts on Pring’s dissection of the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research. I must first make it clear that I approach this from a field in which qualitative research is rarely seen in our mid-tier and higher journals. However, I consider myself to be much more open to qualitative research than many in my field. With that said, I find it difficult to disagree with anything that Pring said regarding this topic. And quite honestly, I am becoming a bigger and bigger fan of Pring as we progress through this text. The simple yet thorough breakdown of the two methods of research (p. 63-66) present the quantitative and qualitative research as I view them, yet many, I believe, do not. I especially like Pring’s statement that the false dualism leads to anti-realism in both camps. The fact that quantitative is viewed as positivist style of research while qualitative investigates meanings is accurate, in my opinion. However, the difference is exaggerated when inappropriately the two methods are compared regarding the construction of reality. I do not believe that the view of reality is different between the two. While quantitative research is conducted with the researcher “standing outside” the research, this fact does not eliminate the possible bias that many feel is much more susceptible in qualitative research. As Pring says, “the distinctions within the so-called paradigms are often as significant as the distinctions between them” (p. 66). I completely agree with this assessment, and also concur with Pring’s statement on the following page in which he sums up the views that many people have on the two types of research by calling the “consequences immense.” I think that all of academe is greatly affected by the misnomers regarding quantitative and qualitative research, and I think that Pring does us a service by pointing out these misconceptions. We can only hope that students across the country learn the truth about this false dualism, and that truth can be found by conducting more than just one method of research.
ReplyDeleteI have been brought up to identify quantitative research with the “hard” sciences, qualitative research with the “soft” sciences, and mixed methods as the best of both worlds. The distinctions between the two, and the duality to which Pring refers, sit within my mind exactly as Pring describes. I have also been raised to downplay the positive contributions of quantitative research and exalt the value of qualitative research, as I am born to the research world through the humanities and social sciences.
ReplyDeletePring says the duality is false. If so, it may be a necessary fabrication. We humans often create duality and even exaggerate the tension between two opposites. That which is starkly different gets our attention, and the attention is important.
I am fascinated by dialectics as a way to understand the world. According to a fabulous kid’s website http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm, there are three law of dialectics a la Frederick Engels:
One--Every thing (every object and every process) is made of opposing forces/opposing sides.
Two--Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one opposite overcomes the other.
Three--Change moves in spirals, not circles.
In brief, two bodies in contrast together make a whole, and it is through the processes of understanding and negotiating tensions in the two that we understand more about the whole. Duality is sometimes necessary for us to learn, change and grow. Through a spiraling process of debate, knowledge is created that brings the two opposing forces closer together.
Pring allows us to engage with him in the conversation that brings qualitative and quantitative research together. Writes Pring, we live in a physical world with boundaries and limits. Some of the boundaries and phenomenon can be more easily observed and measured (albeit temporarily) than others. The world is also a product of how we see it through and with the lenses that we have made and have been made for us, and here is where individual experiences brings so much richness and depth to life.
I disagree with Pring that the dualism is a mistake. I think it is sometimes necessary for us to break a whole into opposites, to release the energy within, and to spiral into a deeper understanding of ourselves and the worlds we inhabit as we bring the opposites closer together. I am very glad for the insight that dualism brings.
Susan Dudley here...
ReplyDeletePring starts out by explaining the challenges of both quantitative and qualitative research. For both, as one reads initially, it feels like he is explaining why neither form of research provides dependable and/or generalizable results, at least not for educational inquiries. Quantitative research does not allow one to truly see what is occurring. We are humans studying humans and their successes and challenges in education. This is not an exact science where one can have one variable that is being tested while controlling all others. One cannot get into the minds of the students studied to see how they are learning and if the ‘intervention’ is the reason for their learning and/or improved performance. There are too many outside sources, including us as the researchers. Certainly, we cannot be ignored. Because of this, the ‘truth’ of the results can come into question (and critics will argue that this ‘truth’ is not a ‘truth’ but a falsely perceived one.)
Qualitative research involves the negotiation of ideas so that one can better read and understand a particular situation for an individual or a group. Because of the design of qualitative research, the ideas and results in educational research are difficult to general overall, unless one sees that humans can have some things in common, and we can make assumptions and agree about having those things in common.
Pring does not really say anything that is too surprising to me. Somehow I have always sort of known that there were those who valued quantitative research and others who valued qualitative research. While Pring was describing the limitations of both forms of research, I did start to feel frustrated. At one point, I felt like he was inferring that we should all just throw up our hands and forget about educational research, for the limitations of both forms is thus that one cannot determine any ‘truth’ from the research findings one has learned. It exists, but is it really ‘true’?
However, Pring provided a good history of the dichotomy between the two paradigms. His descriptions allow the reader to understand the two ‘camps’ and to view their take on one another. It is extreme; I knew this as I read it. However, I also knew that there are those out there that indeed believe in only one way to do research—either quantitative or qualitative. It has always felt odd to me, but I have heard others speak about one only and when the other is mentioned, well, it is like the black sheep in the family that no one wants to admit is out there and of which no one approves.
Pring further explains how the two methods of research, both flawed but in different ways, can be useful. He says what I have always thought; employing quantitative and qualitative research in a study strengthens the inquiry and the “other paradigm’s” weaknesses. I imagine that a dualism still exists for many. However, those who hold this view need to step back and change the lenses from which they are viewing research, in particular, educational research. They need to see the value in the other paradigm and how that “other” can help strengthen their preferred method of research.
We seek to find the ‘truth’ even if we are debating what ‘the truth’ means and whether there is a real and only one ‘truth’. As a society, we want to learn and grow, so it is only natural that we would strive to find out how to improve. I believe that Pring ends (as I sort was expecting him to do so) with great explanations about why the dualism of the two approaches is not only unnecessary but also fruitless if one really wants to find out the ‘truth’ in their research.
Like Mark, I agreed with a lot of what Pring said about the false dualism between quantitative and qualitative research. I guess I’ll be considered a mixed methods researcher because I will move towards different ends of the spectrum depending on the study.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stood out for me during the reading was on p. 50 when Pring talked about the “uniqueness fallacy.” “The answer must lie in recognizing that the uniqueness of each individual in certain respects does not entail uniqueness in every respect…there would seem to be certain aspects of being human which enable us to make tentative generalizations about how individuals will perform or react, while at the same time recognizing that there will inevitably be exceptions to the rule.” I think his argument struck me because in my area of interest- African American student achievement, it can be considered blasphemous to make generalizations. It doesn’t take much to be accused of stereotyping. I recently read an article that made a similar argument to Pring’s- individual differences “do not negate commonalities in experiences and the significance of those commonalities in proposing system efforts to improve [a group’s] educative experiences. I would make this case to anyone who doesn’t think quantitative research has anything to offer in education or other social sciences.
My big takeaway the reading was this- Educational research is not all or nothing. The field has room for quantitative and qualitative research. Each method/paradigm/orientation… has strengths and shortcomings in educational/social science research depending on the question at hand. Making blankets statements about the value of one method over the other is inappropriate.
You all have made some really interesting points! I have to agree with Penny that much of what Pring has said on duality in the matter of Qual v. Quan sounds very familiar to me. I see the ease with which we recognize their differences and can frequently assume they are opposing or that we must pick a team. #teamQual? #teamQuan? But Pring is not the first, nor do I think he will be the last, to tell me to recognize differences, but chill out about it already. There is space an appropriateness to both hashtags.
ReplyDeleteI also like a lot of what I am seeing in other’s posts about how exploring the tension helps us understand more fully the benefits and challenges of distinct, although not mutually exclusive approaches. I’m having a hard time reacting to his thoughts a whole lot more than that. I must be more rested than last week, because none of this inspired my righteous indignation. I’ve sort of been in this headspace lately of trying to deconstruct and de-emphasize my viewpoints, and just absorb. That makes reactions a bit tough. Also, this aligns with my allegedly deconstructing viewpoints, so that makes it easier.
Teri and I shared the same “hmm… yup!” moment from Pring’s uniqueness fallacy. We are not all special snowflakes about everything. Even snowflakes have commonalities, although Big Christmas and my over-recognition-granting parents would never admit to the unromantic reality that snowflakes are kind of similar.
This post is not circling around to some grand idea. Pring made sense. I can dig it. He is saying that research approaches are on a spectrum, y’al!. It’s okay to fall wherever. I’m a little inexperienced at this point, but I’d guess that I’m bi-methodological. Bi-curious? Questioning? I respect it all though. Let’s have a parade!
Pring’s discussion of the quant/qual tensions aligned with what I have heard. Like Teri stated in her post, I too identify myself as a mixed-methods researcher where the research question guides the data collection method. Personally, I don’t comprehend why researchers created a “false dualism” between quant and qual modes of research when they could blend the two approaches, taking the strengths from each research paradigm, and obtain a more holistic picture of the behavior studied. Pring’s statement “the distinctions within the so-called paradigms are often as significant as the distinction between them” (p. 66) serves as a reminder to researchers of the differences within their preferred paradigm. Furthermore, Pring reminds the reader that just because one doesn’t embrace paradigm A does not mean it accepts paradigm B, rather one can reject aspects within the paradigm.
ReplyDeletePring emphasized the importance of social and cultural traditions and the evolution of these traditions over time, which influence the way we interpret our experiences (p. 68). Social, political, economic, and cultural factors all contribute to one’s perspective on a situation, in a given context. For this reason, I wonder if it is feasible to reach a universal truth; perhaps it is the multiple perspectives of truth combined that count as “Truth.”