Individual Journal Assignment ETEC 500

Scott Meech
Issues

At first, being so confused by the Denzin (2009) article, I was not sure where to start, but after

delving into his research and publication history and reading the article for the third time, it became

quite clear what the major issue in contrast between his and the Ercikan & Roth (2006) articles. Denzin

(2009) states that qualitative and quantitative research methods are incommensurable or are in

contradiction with each other. Simply by looking at the title of their article "What good is polarizing

research in qualitative and quantitative", we can obviously see that Ercikan & Roth (2006) would

disagree on this point. They seem to strongly believe that the material world (ontology) and the

knowledge about it (epistemology) have both qualitative and quantitative features. They also suggest

we consider an integrative framework, using a mixed methods designs, which puts research questions

first and encourages investigators to join expertise and work together and to view the

quantitative/qualitative dichotomy more as a continuum instead. They further their argument by stating

that "motivation and emotion may have emerged and developed, first in evolutionary and subsequently

in cultural historical processes that continuously transform quantity into quality and vice versa" (p. 16).

So it is quite clear that Ercikan & Roth (2006) clearly see qualitative and quantitative research as

intertwined, not incommensurable as Denzin (2009) so ineloquently states. Furthermore, Ercikan & Roth

(2006) believe that "data construction processes follow similar interpretation processes for all education

research" (p. 18), whereas Denzin (2009) appears to think that turning qualitative interpretations into

data is "apples turned into oranges" (p. 151). Here the respective authors most definitely take different

outlooks on how to interpret data obtained using these two methods of educational research. Finally,

although both seem to agree that qualitative research can be generalizable, Ercikan & Roth (2009) seem

to show us that this this generalizability can be enhanced by using experimental methods which

obviously implies the use of mixed-method research, something that, more recently, Denzin (2009)
takes issue with. I personally have a viewpoint which is stronger than which is stronger than Ercikan &

Roth (2006), so I mostly agree with the perspective put forth in their article. I do not see purely

qualitative research as complete science, but view it as being of "primary interest when it is included as

a data gathering technique in an experimental, or quasi-experimental study" (Briggs, 2006, as cited in

Denzin, 2009, p. 148).

Rationales

As I previously mentioned, when I finished reading the Denzin (2009) article, I was rather

confused about his position, perhaps it was because the overuse of persuasive sarcasm fell rather flat

with me, as I felt many of his sarcastic allusions to be absurd. He repeatedly stated the opponent views

of qualitative research as if they were absurd, such as the idea that qualitative research is not "real"

science, yet this a belief I agree with, and I also believe the majority of those in academia also agree with.

I did my undergraduate studies as a double major in Psychology and Anthropology, with a heavy focus in

my anthropological studies in ethnography, which happens to have its main focus of research using

qualitative measures. Now at both UBC and UVIC it is only possible to graduate with a Bachelor of Arts,

not a Bachelor of Science. Why might this be so? The answer is simple, qualitative research is not

science in of itself, but one of the steps which can be taken when undertaking scientific research. When

we do not follow scientific principles we open ourselves up to the biases which purely qualitative

research will open itself up to. There is nothing wrong with qualitative research but I do not agree with

passing it off as science, and especially not using it as "evidence" to effect larger scale educational

policies without testing data results and interpretation with deeper replicable experimental research. I

do not believe "Objectivity and evidence are political and ethical terms" (Denzin, 2009, p. 155), but are

two necessary aspects of scientifically-based research (SBR), which all policy decisions should be based

upon, not only from an educational perspective. Simply put, the replicability of SBR is what makes it
trustworthy, and if we choose to ignore it we move into the realm of "Alternative Facts". Ironically, in his

final summation Denzin (2009, p.154) states, "Here are some of the certain things we can build our new

fable around". I see fable as a perfect word to describe his argument, a fictional story, especially since

his "certain things" are, in my opinion, vague, difficult, and anything but certain.

In the issues section of this paper, I mentioned that Denzin (2009) "more recently" takes issue

with mixed-method research. I would like to address that comment here, as it may have seemed out of

context being introduced without the following argument. Denzin himself authored what is still today

one of the more defining texts on mixed method and sociological triangulation research almost 50 years

ago (Denzin, 1970). Currently, Denzin (2009) seems to being trying to discredit mix method research as

covert positivism or quasi-foundationalism. It is seemingly difficult to side with someone who cannot

maintain a consistency in their argument. Originally arguing for triangulation in 1970, Denzin supported

the idea that we can be more confident in a research result in multiple methods lead to the same or

similar result. It is interesting for me to use the same author's work to justify my position against his

more current work. It would be interesting to see how he, himself, justifies this dichotomy. I am a strong

supporter of triangulation, and believe that using multiple methods provides much more credibility, not

only the notion of credibility alluded to by Denzin (2009) that happens when applying a quantitative grid

to qualitative research.

Implications on Education

My favorite concept from the Ercikan & Roth (2006) article was that the material world and the

knowledge about it have both qualitative and quantitative features to it, and the acceptance of this

viewpoint has major implications on how we think about educational practice in general and how we

approach research in education. The social sciences in general have since their inception had the task of

transforming quality into quantity, and when studying issues surrounding humanity we must accept that
things are not as black and white as in the medical sciences and we must allow a certain amount of grey,

subjectivity, into any study of humanity. However to think that we can achieve any meaningful gains in

our research from collecting date from only one side of the other is extremely short-sighted. We can

look to see this practice as far back as 1932 when Dr. Rensis Likert first presented his idea of how to

estimate mental attitudes in a scientific manner. Likert's (1932) goal was to create a way to measure

attitudes similar to how we measure length in meters or weight in kilograms; he wanted to quantify

qualitative data. To me this is the beginnings of mixed-methods research, and it is student attitudes

which interest me most in the field of educational research because of the strong relationship with

motivation and effort.

As mentioned above, I already view the measurement of attitudes as a mixed-method design

but we can also take this a step further during educational research and employ an Embedded or

Explanatory Sequential Design to collect more qualitative data to support the data we collect from

surveys using a Likert scale by adding additional open-ended questions or later face-to-face interviews

(adding a second follow-up or sequential phase) asking for reasons for the participants' attitudes. This

can give us more specific information about the attitudes towards the treatment, while still relying on

the generalizability that quantitative data provides. We can use the quantitative data to provide us with

a bigger general picture, then use qualitative data to help us refine, extend, or explain that picture and

possibly lead to further research questions. If we have also collected data on student outcomes in such a

study, we can further study the relationship between attitudes and outcomes, to help us further our

understanding of how important designing curricula which instill positive attitudes in our students is.

The reasons why and the qualitative processes that drive better student outcomes are important to

understand so as to help us design better curricula that enhance the student experience.

Another example of how to apply mixed methods design to educational research would be to

have students record weekly journals during the study periods, recording their experiences and
attitudes about a treatment (possibly a different teaching method or style) and measure the outcomes

of that treatment to see if there are attitudes within the qualitative data which relate to the assessment

outcomes. This loosely follows an exploratory sequential design with the collection of qualitative data

followed by a second phase of quantitative data analysis based on what was learned through the

analysis of the students' journals. This has the advantage of identifying measures of data defined by the

study participants, rather than coming into the study with a predetermined set of variables.

I have taken the position that qualitative research alone does not constitute true science, but

can be used in conjunction with quantitative research to add more credibility and allow us to make

more informed evidence-based policy decisions within the field of education. I believe that I have shown

that they can be complimentary to each other and are not incommensurable.
References

Briggs, Joanna (2006) Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group, The Cochrane Collaboration,
URL: http://www.joannabriggs.eduau/cqrmg/role.html

Denzin, N.K. (1970) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.

Denzin, N.K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of
evidence. Qualitative Research, 9(2) 139-160.

Ercikan, K., & Roth, W-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative?
Educational Researcher, 35, 14-23.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. New York: The Science Press.