Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Journal Assignment
Sarah Winkler
ETEC 500/65A
30 March 2016
JOURNAL ASSIGNMENT 2
Journal Assignment
Denzin (2009) and Ercikan & Roth (2006) articles both agree that something needs to be
done in the field of educational research, unfortunately that is where the similarities end as both
articles present two differing viewpoints on the solution to our current education research
dilemma. Denzin is firmly rooted in the qualitative research camp and Ercikan & Roth believe
that developing a continuum that allows research to flow between both styles is important and
essential to stop the “polarization of research activities into qualitative and quantitative and the
associated polarization of the “subjective” versus the “objective” and the attribution of
generalizability to only one end of the polarity.” (Ercikan & Roth, 2006) I believe that the idea
of a continuum presented by Ercikan & Roth (2006) allows research of all kinds to focus on
presenting the issues and producing research that allows us to gain a better understanding of the
world around us in whatever research style is best suited to the research question being studied.
Issues
I believe there are two central issues in this debate. One, as Denzin argues that in our
“global audit culture” (2009) evidence-based model is creating an “external threat to our
‘collective research endeavor’ (Denzin, 2009). He argues that because qualitative research
doesn’t use numerical data it doesn’t mean that it is less effective and our focus is too much on
research that can be used by policymakers. Secondly, the focus on the importance of having
generalizability of the research findings. As Ercikan & Roth (2006) state that the “potential for
Rationales
JOURNAL ASSIGNMENT 3
Denzin believes that qualitative research is essential in the social sciences and that we are
trying to base educational research too much on medical research, which while highly effective
due to its numerical nature, in educational research it misses that there is a place and a need for
qualitative research. By imposing a strict set of evaluative criteria on qualitative studies it does
not acknowledge that for example “few critical ethnographers (Madison, 2005) think in a
language of evidence, they think instead about experience, emotions, events, processes,
performances, narratives, poetics, the politics of possibility.” (Denzen, 2009) Ercikan and Roth
(2006) show that qualitative and quantitative studies are different but argue that the “polarization
of research into qualitative and quantitative is neither meaningful nor reflective of the realities of
research.” They make three suggestions that culminate in the concept to “locate different forms
research questions become the primary focus when we consider the purposes of education
Implications
Ercikan and Roth (2006) argue that by using one method over the other results in missed
opportunities in research to fully get to the truth. To get a fuller picture of the research inquiry it
is necessary to incorporate both research designs. The current research debate stand to further
polarize each camp firmly into their positions and make the concept of cooperation challenging
at best and near impossible if one style of research is presented as more desirable. Ercikan &
Roth (2006) summarize the implications best as they say “the polarization is confusing to many
and tends to limit research inquiry, often resulting in incomplete answers to research questions
suggests “research is – and should always be – central to how we function as a successful and
JOURNAL ASSIGNMENT 4
productive society” then ensuring we develop a continuum “is key to answering our questions,
solving our problems, and fostering creativity, innovations, and advancements.” (Mertler 2016)
Without all styles of research and a harmonious relationship between them we are limiting the
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, 14-23.