Running Head: SUPPORTING A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK

Supporting a Unified Framework:

Journal Assignment
Danielle F. Couture
UBC

SUPPORTING A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK

Supporting a Unified Framework:

Journal Assignment
The qualitative/quantitative debate (QQD) reverberates in the positions described
by Ercikan and Roth (2006) and Denzin (2009). Although both these articles concur that
the current state of the QQD is far from ideal, the proposed solutions vary largely; where
Denzin (2009) argues for the polarization of the research methods, Ercikan and Roth
(2006) search for a common collaborative ground. Furthermore, although the divisional
characteristics of subjectivity and generalizability are questioned in both articles, Denzin
(2009) suggests forging specific decisive criteria for qualitative research whereas Ercikan
and Roth (2006) suggest a change in semantics which would reflect the reality of the
various components of educational research. As such, I will side with the position
described in the article of Ercikan and Roth; their position of creating a unified
framework has less negative implications and permits for greater collaboration,
application, accessibility and rigour of educational research.
Implications and Rationales
Whereas grouping qualitative and quantitative research under a unique banner
reflects the overall purpose of educational research, Denzins view requires efforts which
might limit the scope of educational research. The polarization of qualitative and
quantitative research begs the continued comparison between the two. Establishing
divisive criteria, in which researchers must choose one type over another, might render
collaboration difficult as it will increase division amongst research groups and different
fields which develop their own methodologies (Flick, 2015).

SUPPORTING A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK

The polarization of research might not be aligned with the needs of the numerous
stakeholders of the educational system. For example, policy makers that need to
effectively communicate the reasoning behind the adoption of specific educational
strategies/programs require both by qualitative and quantitative data. However, if
research is polarized, these policy makers might solely rely on the research that can
convey information faster (favoring numerical data over detailed descriptions) or that
they are most comfortable with (Ercikan & Roth, 2011). As such, a combined framework
would better reflect the reality in which educational research is likely to be used.
A researcher should be free to select the method best suited for their research
(Ercikan & Roth, 2011), needs and abilities, regardless of their field of study. Providing a
common framework eases collaboration and changes the focus from the methodology to
the research question (Ercikan & Roth, 2006). By focussing on the driving question, the
research might be seen as more relevant and accessible; a feat that polarization will
achieve with difficulty as it primarily focusses on which research type to choose.
Furthermore, by dividing education into two distinct factions, we will be limiting
its rigour. Research is cyclical in nature (Mertler, 2015) and the division between
qualitative and quantitative is not clearly defined (Ercikan & Roth, 2006; Walsh, 2012). It
is only by combining qualitative and quantitative research that we truly achieve breadth
and depth of a study topic, to ensure rigour.
Conclusion
We should not judge the merits of one form of research using the criteria of
another (Walsh, 2012). Yet considering the complementarity of qualitative and

SUPPORTING A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK

quantitative research, creating clear criteria to polarize these types of research might not
be the ideal solution. Working towards a unified framework seems the only viable option
that promotes the application, accessibility and rigour of educational research. After all,
creating a unified framework seems to truly coincide with the goal of educational
research as defined by Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2009) and cited in Mertler (2015): to
describe, explain, predict, or control [educational] phenomena (chap. 2, Kindle position
417).

SUPPORTING A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK

References
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(5), 14-23.
Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2011). Constructing data. The SAGE Handbook for
Research in Education: Pursuing Ideas as the Keystone of Exemplary Inquiry,
219.
Flick, U. (2015). Qualitative Inquiry - 2.0 at 20? Developments, Trends, and Challenges
for the Politics of Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 599.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2009). Educational research: competencies
for analysis and applications (Vol. 9th). Upper Saddle River, N.J:
Merrill/Pearson.
Mertler, C. A. (2015). Introduction to educational research: SAGE Publications.
Walsh, K. (2012). Quantitative vs qualitative research: A false dichotomy. Journal of
Research in Nursing, 17(1), 9-11.