Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

1

Researchers in the Rift: How mixed methodology can strengthen educational research

Diana Loewen

ETEC 500
2

Researchers in the Rift: How mixed methodology can strengthen educational research

In their article, What good is Polarizing Research into Qualitative and Quantitative? Ercikan

and Roth seek to resolve the debate surrounding the polarization of researchers along the qualitative

and quantitative spectrum and refocus on what they see as important: knowledge and the acquisition of

knowledge. Their approach offers researchers a way to view the acquisition of knowledge in such a way

that it no longer falls into one paradigm or another, but along a continuum allowing researchers to

utilize the full advantages of both qualitative and quantitative methods. This seems to be a more

pragmatic approach than the one suggested in the article, The Elephant in the Living Room, written by

Denzin, which recommended working within the confines of the qualitative method. I feel that using a

mixed method approach, to studies in education, similar to one advocated by Ercikan and Roth, may

give researchers the contextual foundation and the evidence based validity that they need to assist

educational professionals and other organizations in the field of education.

Denzins article seems to struggle with the era of increasing calls for evidence based data and

research. Denzin is responding, in part, to a National Research Council document in which, among many

other statements, it is said, that education policy and practice ought to be fashioned based on what is

known from rigorous researchoffers a compelling way to approach reform efforts, (National

Research Council, 2005). This is also the era in the United States where standardized test scores, the No

Child Left Behind Act (signed into law in 2002), and statistics were used to drive funding for schools,

teacher salaries, and research into education. It seems that in this age of science based research

practices, quantitative elements are encroaching on qualitative research methods, and there has never

been a more uncertain time, given the rise of the evidence-based movements, with their colonization,

prescription, and determination of what constitutes rigor, evidence, and even research, (Cheek, 2008).

Denzin feels that qualitative researchers must make qualitative evidence based research structures
3

favor flexible guidelines that are not driven by quantitative criteria. [He seeks] a performative model of

qualitative inquiry, a model that enacts a performance ethic based on feminist, communitarian

assumptions, (Denzin, 2009). It is interesting that he seeks to work within the framework of qualitative

research when twenty years prior Denzin was an advocate for between method triangulation.

Denzin (1978) recommended the use of between-method triangulation, contending that by


utilizing mixed methods, the bias inherent in any particular data source, investigators, and
particularly method will be canceled out when used in conjunction with other data sources,
investigators, and method, (Johanson, Ongwuebuzie, & Turner, 2006).

This could be an example of the flexibility of mixed method research. Some researchers lean more

toward qualitative studies, what Johnson would call Qualitative Dominant and others lean more toward

quantitative research, or Quantitative Dominant (Johnson et al., 2006).

The challenge for researchers focused on primarily qualitative studies, according to Denzins

article, is that the knowledge that they have acquired through ethnographic or phenomenological

research is often subsumed by the statistics and empirical data generated by quantitative researchers,

which is erroneously perceived as more rigorous and generalizable, (Denzin, 2009). Qualitative studies

are very valuable at providing information about context and ethnography where quantitative statistics

and empirical studies cannot. Denzin asserts that research within the qualitative method is rigorous and

effective, but due to the politics of evidence and bias toward data collection and statistics, it is

perceived as being less important or relevant than quantitative research. However, if researchers are

flexible enough to allow for both contextual and statistical data, they may find that their data is more

useful to a broader audience.

It would seem as though Ercikan and Roths suggestion that the polarization of research

methods as a hindrance to research is valid. In fact in 2002, the National Research Council stated that,

we recognize that both [methods] can be pursued rigorously, we do not distinguish between them as

being different forms of inquiry. We believe the distinction is outmoded, and it does not map neatly in a
4

one-to-one fashion onto any group or groupings of disciplines. (National Research Council, 2002).

Perhaps it is time to consider more flexibility with method driven by the research question, and not by

strict adherence to the methodology.

Through my research on the qualitative and quantitative debate, I frequently encountered

researchers who said that qualitative research may be used as a good foundation or starting point

because it provides in-depth insight into the subject the researcher is studying, (Newman, & Benz, 1998)

(Libarkin, & Kurdziel, 2002). This rich contextual information might then be augmented or refined with

quantitative data which can then be generalized on a broader scale. Ercikan and Roth, suggest that

researchers should focus on providing different kinds of knowledge to different decision makers because

they have unique needs.

The politicians who need to make spending decisions about educational funding require
different forms of knowledge than the teacher who has a child with spina bifida in her
classroom. The decisions that these different (groups of) individuals make require knowledge
that summarizes experience in different ways. (Ercikan, & Roth, 2006)

For example, it would not make a lot of sense for a researcher studying anxiety in children to spend a lot

of time preparing narrow, case-study specific information for politicians who deal with millions of dollars

for thousands of people every day. Instead, the researcher may want some broad contextual

information about school and home life in the community, and would likely want more statistics about

child health, poverty, mental health etc. However, for a new teacher who finds themselves in a class

with a child suffering from anxiety, a case study involving successful interventions for a child with

anxiety might be very helpful.

A mixed method approach offers the broad, generalized data for the government and school

district decision makers who need empirical data and statistics for funding formulae. It can also provide

the context for the individual teachers or educational professionals who work within the school districts

who see the allocation of these resources and know where to provide support at the local level. By
5

understanding both, the people and the social setting that the data is collected, as well as the empirical

and statistical data, studies become more relevant and offer a clearer picture of exactly what they are

meant to analyze.

Mixed methods researchers look to different approaches when they conduct their studies rather

than focusing on one particular method. The use of qualitative information for context and quantitative

information for data means that, these dual studies are able to inform educational practice for both the

local setting under study and the broader context, (Libarkin, & Kurdziel, 2002). In addition to being a

strong source for information about local settings and useful to educators and decision makers, a

researcher conducting this type of study would seek to choose the method that is more appropriate for

the research they are conducting regardless of their own bias. Therefore, design validity is more likely

to be built into studies when the researcher is open to both paradigms rather than precluding one or the

other. The better methodology is the one that best serves to answer the research question, (Newman,

& Benz, 1998). This is similar to the advice that Ercikan and Roth advocate in their article where they

advise researchers to let research questions, not the method, drive educational research, (Ercikan &

Roth, 2006).

Ercikan and Roth are correct that the polarization caused by the debate between quantitative

and qualitative researchers is incompatible with effective research. I assert that each method has its

own strengths and weaknesses and that through the use of mixed methodology, researchers can

provide valuable information that is needed to make educational decisions at the highest levels of

government and at the classroom level.


6

References

Biesta, G. (2007). Why what works wont work: Evidencebased practice and the democratic deficit in
educational research. Educational theory. 57(1), 1-22.

Cheek, J. (2008) Positioning Qualitative Inquiry in the Wake of the Politics of Evidence, in Denzin, N. K., &
Giardina, M.D (eds). Qualitative inquiry and the politics of evidence. Left Coast Press. 119-134.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage
Publications. 1-17

Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of
evidence. Qualitative Research, 9(2) 139160.

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

"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2005. Advancing Scientific Research in Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 7-8

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
approaches. Sage Publications.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods
research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2), 112-133.

Libarkin, J. C., & Kurdziel, J. P. (2002). Research methodologies in science education: The qualitative-
quantitative debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(1), 78-86.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press. 18-19

Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the
interactive continuum. SIU Press.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen