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?
I don't think Pring says anything particularly surprising or disturbing re: the quant/qual tension. I'm a big fan of mixed methods research, and his arguments provide a pretty solid rationale for mixed methods. Put super broadly, there are things that can be generalized between people, but there are also other things that can't. For the things that can be reasonably generalized, quant research seems appropriate; for the things that can't be, go-go qual.
I do have one small (and possibly nitpicky) disagreement with Pring's notion that "the complex interactions [that] take place between teacher and learner...cannot be captured in the 'management and means/end' language of research..." (p. 71). In previous chapters, Pring mentions moral and ethical considerations of teaching, and I'd argue that both morals and ethics (particularly ethics) can be viewed through means/ends interactions. In the preface to Moral Principles in Education, Dewey writes "in the conduct of schools, it is well for the citizens to determine the ends proper to them, and it is their privilege to judge the efficacy of results" (p. vii), which suggests that there are certain means schools can employ that are more conducive to promoting a moral education (the ends) than others. I think people too narrowly attach the language of means/ends to economic models of education, when in reality it does (or can, at least) underpin a much broader understanding.
Stephanie -I didn’t find anything particularly surprising or disturbing in the quant./qual. discussion in chapter 4. However, in chapter 3, Pring writes, “There is a mistaken belief that quantitative measures replace qualitative knowledge. Instead qualitative knowledge is absolutely essential as a prerequisite for quantification in any science. Without competence at the qualitative level, one’s computer print-out is misleading or meaningless. (Campbell, 1999, p. 141) (Pring, p. 51). I did find that a bit surprising, because I have not previously heard that it is impossible to do quantitative research without qualitative research. While I often state that (at least with the data I analyze for my job) behind every data point is a person, I would not have said that qualitative research is a prerequisite for quantitative research. However, the points made by Pring make sense, even if they do, at times, seem to be a bit extreme. I think that giving context to a study can definitely improve it and provide a greater understanding of the data.
Stephanie, I agree that the point about qualitative research being a prerequisite for quantitative research is surprising, but it does make sense. I feel that there is space for both and that each has a valuable place in educational research. Honestly, I can see how quantitative research can actually make qualitative research more meaningful. Marsha
As someone who does not have much experience with mixed methods approaches, Pring’s discussion of the false dualism between quantitative and qualitative research refreshingly challenged how I have come to understand the relationship between the two. Until this point, I have (over)simplified quantitative research as hard numbers and qualitative research as interpretations, without ever considering how the two may interact. I have also struggled with how to make my research both considerate of teachers’ individual/contextual experiences while applicable to the broader teaching profession. I was struck by Pring’s discussion of the uniqueness fallacy, or “recognizing that the uniqueness of each individual in certain respects does not entail uniqueness in every respect” (p. 50), and this helpful in opening up how I think about qualitative research.
I agreed with Pring’s cautioning against overly quantifying children’s processes of making meaning. His realistic depiction of how numerical scores are applied to almost every aspect of a student’s education as a way to evaluate “academic growth” is so troubling to me, and in the context of educational research, where data can be used to impact policy and practice, it feels even grosser.
I got the sense that Pring was talking more about positivism versus postmodernism than quantitative versus qualitative. I agree with Pring (as I think most researchers who work more with one methodological approach than another would do) that the qual. versus quant. debate is pitting two methodological approaches against each other that both have a valid place in educational research. What he is really struggling with is how postmodern our thinking can be before we succumb to a kind of paralysis induced by the “knowledge” that there are too many realities that can be constructed, which begs the question how can one take action in such a space of multiplicity? It is clear from Pring’s dismissal of postmodernism in chapter one that he is no fan of it - even to the point of being dismissive: “And as researchers embrace with enthusiasm and uncritically the latest ‘ism’ (such as post-modernism) so the gulf between researcher and teacher is even more unbridgeable” (p. 7). While I acknowledge that a postmodern approach to understanding the world can be problematic on a policy level, many postmodern researchers couple their understanding of constructed and negotiated realities with values stemming from other ontological and epistemological approaches in order to be proactive and conclusive in their work. For example, I have read a researcher who coupled postmodern thinking with neo-Marxism & feminism. Another coupled postmodern thinking with pragmatism and feminism. To conclude, I think Pring is playing into the positivist versus postmodernist narrative rather than acknowledge that there are ways to blend theoretical frameworks to overcome the challenges of trying to understand the moving target of human behavior and thought while making contributions to policy and practice.
Evandra -- From what I know so far, there seems to be an emphasis on the rigor and relevance of quantitative research. Within educational research, quantitative research appears to answer questions related to learning, achievement, college and career ready, disproportionalities etc., but do not account for the many other factors that influence each of these quantifiable terms. I think Pring’s assessment of the tension between the two is accurate. I will most likely be a qualitative researcher, due to believing knowledge, values, and beliefs are constructed by nature and other social interactions. People are not independent of the sciences, thus qualitative research is the foundation of any quantitative undertaking as Pring eludes to.
This tension is one I experience in my own development as a research. I can see myself in both worlds and have have troubling landing in one or the other and his summary on pages 72-74, as helpful to see how the two work together and can give insight into the other. Pring’s ideas that Qual and Quant are not as diametrically opposed as often said to be is intriguing to me. It tries to show how connected to the two are and that there is much more overlap than either side will often admit. Ultimately, it feels as though he is advocating for Mixed-Methods research (p. 73) as a way to compliment and use the strengths of both. I am sure he, as many other scholars do, would have issues with Mixed, but it seems like a reasonable solution and one that can encompass realities from both Quant and Qual. In the end if feels as though he is arguing for Qual or Paradiam B, as he continuously talks about ‘meaning, ‘negotiating’, ‘social construction’, and context.
Tom here--I'm a little bothered by our research conversation at the moment. I understand Pring's argument that qualitative research informs quantitative research. Both are necessary, but there's a resigned acceptance of the superiority of quantitative research. It reminds me of our class discussion on Monday. My general takeaway: people can say what they want, but quantitative research is considered superior to qualitative research. The reason I am bothered--at what point do we stop learning "the way things have always been" and start shaping the future of our fields? I see qualitative research as having equal or greater value in the field of education. The relationship between teacher and learner is so complex and nuanced that qualitative research seems like the better option. Am I required to capitulate, accept, and agree that quant is better to gain entry into my field? I don't like it.
When I first read his idea on qualitative knowledge being a prerequisite for quantitative measures, I was a little surprised. But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. In order to conduct relevant quantitative research, you must first have an understanding of the issues. I think of qualitative knowledge as having an awareness of the current trends in education. Pring does not state that it is necessary to conduct qualitative research, but to have that qualitative knowledge. Once you have that knowledge, then you are better equipped to conduct quantitative research with results that reflect practice.
Kendra- Robin, I had the same experience and revelation with regard to this concept of qualitative knowledge. I appreciated what feels like "research language" being applied to a concept that has always been in the back of my mind, but didn't appear to be supported by the texts and authors I've been exposed to. You point to the difference between a call for research and a call for context (knowledge). I think that had been the missing link in my ability to make a worthwhile assertion, similar to the one Pring makes here. Although I know that mixed methods studies exist; this feels like an opportunity to connect these two major approaches to research, while still leaning more heavily to one direction. Context feels important for any type of research, in many ways it represents the “why” for the researcher. Why is it important? Why is it necessary? Why should it be studied? Qualitative knowledge seems to me like a suitable response to these questions. It make clear for the researcher and the consumer of the research in what contexts, field, circumstance the research was intended and provides direction for the researcher.
Amy-- I always find the quantitative vs. qualitative debate intriguing. Why does a person have to choose one over the other as their researcher identity? I don’t think it is so. Plenty of my professors have engaged in both quantitative and qualitative methods. I see value in both approaches and the choice to employ either method depends on your goals for the type of knowledge that you hope to gain. I believe that quantitative research reveals existing issues and qualitative divulges the why and how behind the issues.
Paige - The idea that one kind of research is better than another or that we should determine which is the direction to go in education seems strange to me. Clearly, there is a need for both. On p. 70, Pring states that how we describe reality depends greatly on the purpose of the description. While, obviously, as a behaviorist, I tend to lean toward quantitative measures. I have always known, however, that not everything can be quantified. Pring confirms this on p.71 describes the “peculiarities and complexity” of each context. Both quantitative and more interpretive methods are needed to fully define and describe human conditions and interactions.
Bring brings about different ways of seeing quantitative and qualitative research. He alludes to the "world of real life" or "the world of common sense". This ties into some of the notion in which education research of quantitative versus qualitative. While they are not exactly the same in analogy, we can see the two as two sides of the same coin. Qualitative research includes the researcher, but who can't say that quantitative researchers can design a study to better reflect their own views as well? Between these paradigms, it's easy to get into a trap of thinking of the two as conflicting dualisms. What I believe might be a more representative manifestation of qualitative and quantitative research in education would be a gradation of sorts. Bring brings about this in the form of paradigms. Paradigm A is pretty clear and cut, but paradigm B is much more cloudy. This "cloudiness" would be in part due to the fact that education research can not really be 100% truly objective in my opinion since human beings can not 100% act in a certain way given initial conditions.
Pring raises many questions or thoughts to ponders without any solutions or conclusions. As has been stated many times, the idea of educational research is an extremely complex topic. There are varying view of what constitutes educational research as well as how to carry it out. There are many methods of research each with its own pros and cons. I feel that at the end of the day, your research method depends upon your research, your participants, and the information you are trying to obtain. The question is how much do we buy into the criticisms? The controversy between quantitative and qualitative is a longstanding issue. One that I personally feel is overrated. I think there is a place for both in the world of education. I also believe that both can produce empirical, scientifically based (sorry Dr. Stemhagen) research. With whatever research method or design of study chosen, there will be limitations. We can only control for so much or generalize to a certain degree. However, that is with any research conducted. I believe that the issue with educational research is that the research begins with ambiguity and is continued through the study of it. My hope is that we aren’t too critical to the point that we are missing out on valuable research. Luckily on page 81 it states “there must be an integration and overlapping of the two”. Is this possible? I’m not sure that we are there yet. I was pleased to read about the “false dualism” as it confirms for me that you don’t have to reject one (quantitative) for the other (qualitative). However, there is still more work to do in bridging the gap between the two or a better way to state is accepting both as valuable types of research. Marsha
I find myself coming from a discipline that embraces both Paradigm A (the more scientific postpositivist search of Truth) and Paradigm B (that embraces both the individual experience with the collective tradition defined by shared experience). I suppose I'm most comfortable with a mixed-method approach that sees both qualitative and quantitative research approaches as complimentary rather than at tension with each other. I'm glad to see that Pring speaks of this "rejection of dualism" (rejection of either/or) between Quant and Qual while pointing out the importance of the underlying purpose of how and why we define the reality we are researching. I appreciate that Pring sees that educational research, and human beings, are complicated and thus cannot purely be the "object of science" (one definition of quant research), but rather individuals with personal interpretations, social customs, traditions, and "public ways of understanding the world" (one way of looking at qual research).
Like Michelle, I come from a discipline where qualitative and quantitative research are given equal respect, so my awareness of a tension between qualitative/quantitative research in education (starting in 702 and continued here) have been more surprising to me. One of the main reasons I chose the research & eval track is because I'm looking for methodologies and lenses that will help me answer questions and create knowledge in my job, and as Pring states, different methodologies are simply better suited to different questions: some of my questions will require exploratory qualitative methods, others need methods as close to experimental as possible, and others will best be answered through a mixed methods approach.
I fully agree with Pring (not to mention Wieman, and Rallis and Rossman) that quantitative research must be preceded by qualitative research. As Wieman notes, quantitative research isn't very good if the researcher doesn't know which variables are important and which are irrelevant, and that understanding generally comes from having previously established a solid foundation of exploratory and descriptive qualitative research. Policymakers' lack of understanding of the vital importance of this foundational research is perhaps what I find most frustrating about their uninterest in qualitative research: not only is qualitative research incredibly valuable, but the quantitative research policymakers prize so highly is likely to draw irreproducible ("wrong" as Wieman puts it) conclusions when it doesn't build on that foundation of knowledge. The prevalence of ineffective 'fad' educational fixes, as Rudolph describes, when educational policy is entirely based on this kind of quantitative research, is, I'd argue, not coincidental.
I don't think Pring says anything particularly surprising or disturbing re: the quant/qual tension. I'm a big fan of mixed methods research, and his arguments provide a pretty solid rationale for mixed methods. Put super broadly, there are things that can be generalized between people, but there are also other things that can't. For the things that can be reasonably generalized, quant research seems appropriate; for the things that can't be, go-go qual.
ReplyDeleteI do have one small (and possibly nitpicky) disagreement with Pring's notion that "the complex interactions [that] take place between teacher and learner...cannot be captured in the 'management and means/end' language of research..." (p. 71). In previous chapters, Pring mentions moral and ethical considerations of teaching, and I'd argue that both morals and ethics (particularly ethics) can be viewed through means/ends interactions. In the preface to Moral Principles in Education, Dewey writes "in the conduct of schools, it is well for the citizens to determine the ends proper to them, and it is their privilege to judge the efficacy of results" (p. vii), which suggests that there are certain means schools can employ that are more conducive to promoting a moral education (the ends) than others. I think people too narrowly attach the language of means/ends to economic models of education, when in reality it does (or can, at least) underpin a much broader understanding.
Stephanie -I didn’t find anything particularly surprising or disturbing in the quant./qual. discussion in chapter 4. However, in chapter 3, Pring writes, “There is a mistaken belief that quantitative measures replace qualitative knowledge. Instead qualitative knowledge is absolutely essential as a prerequisite for quantification in any science. Without competence at the qualitative level, one’s computer print-out is misleading or meaningless. (Campbell, 1999, p. 141) (Pring, p. 51). I did find that a bit surprising, because I have not previously heard that it is impossible to do quantitative research without qualitative research. While I often state that (at least with the data I analyze for my job) behind every data point is a person, I would not have said that qualitative research is a prerequisite for quantitative research. However, the points made by Pring make sense, even if they do, at times, seem to be a bit extreme. I think that giving context to a study can definitely improve it and provide a greater understanding of the data.
ReplyDeleteStephanie, I agree that the point about qualitative research being a prerequisite for quantitative research is surprising, but it does make sense. I feel that there is space for both and that each has a valuable place in educational research. Honestly, I can see how quantitative research can actually make qualitative research more meaningful.
DeleteMarsha
As someone who does not have much experience with mixed methods approaches, Pring’s discussion of the false dualism between quantitative and qualitative research refreshingly challenged how I have come to understand the relationship between the two. Until this point, I have (over)simplified quantitative research as hard numbers and qualitative research as interpretations, without ever considering how the two may interact. I have also struggled with how to make my research both considerate of teachers’ individual/contextual experiences while applicable to the broader teaching profession. I was struck by Pring’s discussion of the uniqueness fallacy, or “recognizing that the uniqueness of each individual in certain respects does not entail uniqueness in every respect” (p. 50), and this helpful in opening up how I think about qualitative research.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with Pring’s cautioning against overly quantifying children’s processes of making meaning. His realistic depiction of how numerical scores are applied to almost every aspect of a student’s education as a way to evaluate “academic growth” is so troubling to me, and in the context of educational research, where data can be used to impact policy and practice, it feels even grosser.
I got the sense that Pring was talking more about positivism versus postmodernism than quantitative versus qualitative. I agree with Pring (as I think most researchers who work more with one methodological approach than another would do) that the qual. versus quant. debate is pitting two methodological approaches against each other that both have a valid place in educational research. What he is really struggling with is how postmodern our thinking can be before we succumb to a kind of paralysis induced by the “knowledge” that there are too many realities that can be constructed, which begs the question how can one take action in such a space of multiplicity? It is clear from Pring’s dismissal of postmodernism in chapter one that he is no fan of it - even to the point of being dismissive: “And as researchers embrace with enthusiasm and uncritically the latest ‘ism’ (such as post-modernism) so the gulf between researcher and teacher is even more unbridgeable” (p. 7). While I acknowledge that a postmodern approach to understanding the world can be problematic on a policy level, many postmodern researchers couple their understanding of constructed and negotiated realities with values stemming from other ontological and epistemological approaches in order to be proactive and conclusive in their work. For example, I have read a researcher who coupled postmodern thinking with neo-Marxism & feminism. Another coupled postmodern thinking with pragmatism and feminism. To conclude, I think Pring is playing into the positivist versus postmodernist narrative rather than acknowledge that there are ways to blend theoretical frameworks to overcome the challenges of trying to understand the moving target of human behavior and thought while making contributions to policy and practice.
ReplyDeleteEvandra -- From what I know so far, there seems to be an emphasis on the rigor and relevance of quantitative research. Within educational research, quantitative research appears to answer questions related to learning, achievement, college and career ready, disproportionalities etc., but do not account for the many other factors that influence each of these quantifiable terms. I think Pring’s assessment of the tension between the two is accurate. I will most likely be a qualitative researcher, due to believing knowledge, values, and beliefs are constructed by nature and other social interactions. People are not independent of the sciences, thus qualitative research is the foundation of any quantitative undertaking as Pring eludes to.
ReplyDeleteThis tension is one I experience in my own development as a research. I can see myself in both worlds and have have troubling landing in one or the other and his summary on pages 72-74, as helpful to see how the two work together and can give insight into the other. Pring’s ideas that Qual and Quant are not as diametrically opposed as often said to be is intriguing to me. It tries to show how connected to the two are and that there is much more overlap than either side will often admit. Ultimately, it feels as though he is advocating for Mixed-Methods research (p. 73) as a way to compliment and use the strengths of both. I am sure he, as many other scholars do, would have issues with Mixed, but it seems like a reasonable solution and one that can encompass realities from both Quant and Qual. In the end if feels as though he is arguing for Qual or Paradiam B, as he continuously talks about ‘meaning, ‘negotiating’, ‘social construction’, and context.
ReplyDeleteTom here--I'm a little bothered by our research conversation at the moment. I understand Pring's argument that qualitative research informs quantitative research. Both are necessary, but there's a resigned acceptance of the superiority of quantitative research. It reminds me of our class discussion on Monday. My general takeaway: people can say what they want, but quantitative research is considered superior to qualitative research. The reason I am bothered--at what point do we stop learning "the way things have always been" and start shaping the future of our fields? I see qualitative research as having equal or greater value in the field of education. The relationship between teacher and learner is so complex and nuanced that qualitative research seems like the better option. Am I required to capitulate, accept, and agree that quant is better to gain entry into my field? I don't like it.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read his idea on qualitative knowledge being a prerequisite for quantitative measures, I was a little surprised. But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. In order to conduct relevant quantitative research, you must first have an understanding of the issues. I think of qualitative knowledge as having an awareness of the current trends in education. Pring does not state that it is necessary to conduct qualitative research, but to have that qualitative knowledge. Once you have that knowledge, then you are better equipped to conduct quantitative research with results that reflect practice.
ReplyDeleteKendra- Robin, I had the same experience and revelation with regard to this concept of qualitative knowledge. I appreciated what feels like "research language" being applied to a concept that has always been in the back of my mind, but didn't appear to be supported by the texts and authors I've been exposed to. You point to the difference between a call for research and a call for context (knowledge). I think that had been the missing link in my ability to make a worthwhile assertion, similar to the one Pring makes here. Although I know that mixed methods studies exist; this feels like an opportunity to connect these two major approaches to research, while still leaning more heavily to one direction. Context feels important for any type of research, in many ways it represents the “why” for the researcher. Why is it important? Why is it necessary? Why should it be studied? Qualitative knowledge seems to me like a suitable response to these questions. It make clear for the researcher and the consumer of the research in what contexts, field, circumstance the research was intended and provides direction for the researcher.
DeleteAmy-- I always find the quantitative vs. qualitative debate intriguing. Why does a person have to choose one over the other as their researcher identity? I don’t think it is so. Plenty of my professors have engaged in both quantitative and qualitative methods. I see value in both approaches and the choice to employ either method depends on your goals for the type of knowledge that you hope to gain. I believe that quantitative research reveals existing issues and qualitative divulges the why and how behind the issues.
ReplyDeletePaige - The idea that one kind of research is better than another or that we should determine which is the direction to go in education seems strange to me. Clearly, there is a need for both. On p. 70, Pring states that how we describe reality depends greatly on the purpose of the description. While, obviously, as a behaviorist, I tend to lean toward quantitative measures. I have always known, however, that not everything can be quantified. Pring confirms this on p.71 describes the “peculiarities and complexity” of each context. Both quantitative and more interpretive methods are needed to fully define and describe human conditions and interactions.
ReplyDeleteBring brings about different ways of seeing quantitative and qualitative research. He alludes to the "world of real life" or "the world of common sense". This ties into some of the notion in which education research of quantitative versus qualitative. While they are not exactly the same in analogy, we can see the two as two sides of the same coin. Qualitative research includes the researcher, but who can't say that quantitative researchers can design a study to better reflect their own views as well? Between these paradigms, it's easy to get into a trap of thinking of the two as conflicting dualisms. What I believe might be a more representative manifestation of qualitative and quantitative research in education would be a gradation of sorts. Bring brings about this in the form of paradigms. Paradigm A is pretty clear and cut, but paradigm B is much more cloudy. This "cloudiness" would be in part due to the fact that education research can not really be 100% truly objective in my opinion since human beings can not 100% act in a certain way given initial conditions.
ReplyDeletePring raises many questions or thoughts to ponders without any solutions or conclusions. As has been stated many times, the idea of educational research is an extremely complex topic. There are varying view of what constitutes educational research as well as how to carry it out. There are many methods of research each with its own pros and cons. I feel that at the end of the day, your research method depends upon your research, your participants, and the information you are trying to obtain. The question is how much do we buy into the criticisms? The controversy between quantitative and qualitative is a longstanding issue. One that I personally feel is overrated. I think there is a place for both in the world of education. I also believe that both can produce empirical, scientifically based (sorry Dr. Stemhagen) research. With whatever research method or design of study chosen, there will be limitations. We can only control for so much or generalize to a certain degree. However, that is with any research conducted. I believe that the issue with educational research is that the research begins with ambiguity and is continued through the study of it. My hope is that we aren’t too critical to the point that we are missing out on valuable research. Luckily on page 81 it states “there must be an integration and overlapping of the two”. Is this possible? I’m not sure that we are there yet. I was pleased to read about the “false dualism” as it confirms for me that you don’t have to reject one (quantitative) for the other (qualitative). However, there is still more work to do in bridging the gap between the two or a better way to state is accepting both as valuable types of research.
ReplyDeleteMarsha
I find myself coming from a discipline that embraces both Paradigm A (the more scientific postpositivist search of Truth) and Paradigm B (that embraces both the individual experience with the collective tradition defined by shared experience). I suppose I'm most comfortable with a mixed-method approach that sees both qualitative and quantitative research approaches as complimentary rather than at tension with each other. I'm glad to see that Pring speaks of this "rejection of dualism" (rejection of either/or) between Quant and Qual while pointing out the importance of the underlying purpose of how and why we define the reality we are researching. I appreciate that Pring sees that educational research, and human beings, are complicated and thus cannot purely be the "object of science" (one definition of quant research), but rather individuals with personal interpretations, social customs, traditions, and "public ways of understanding the world" (one way of looking at qual research).
ReplyDeleteLike Michelle, I come from a discipline where qualitative and quantitative research are given equal respect, so my awareness of a tension between qualitative/quantitative research in education (starting in 702 and continued here) have been more surprising to me. One of the main reasons I chose the research & eval track is because I'm looking for methodologies and lenses that will help me answer questions and create knowledge in my job, and as Pring states, different methodologies are simply better suited to different questions: some of my questions will require exploratory qualitative methods, others need methods as close to experimental as possible, and others will best be answered through a mixed methods approach.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with Pring (not to mention Wieman, and Rallis and Rossman) that quantitative research must be preceded by qualitative research. As Wieman notes, quantitative research isn't very good if the researcher doesn't know which variables are important and which are irrelevant, and that understanding generally comes from having previously established a solid foundation of exploratory and descriptive qualitative research. Policymakers' lack of understanding of the vital importance of this foundational research is perhaps what I find most frustrating about their uninterest in qualitative research: not only is qualitative research incredibly valuable, but the quantitative research policymakers prize so highly is likely to draw irreproducible ("wrong" as Wieman puts it) conclusions when it doesn't build on that foundation of knowledge. The prevalence of ineffective 'fad' educational fixes, as Rudolph describes, when educational policy is entirely based on this kind of quantitative research, is, I'd argue, not coincidental.