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?
Pring opens chapter 5 discussing qual v. quan researchers working in "different paradigms". One focusing on the scientific model and the other a more subjective. He makes it clear these are two different types of research. But, on p. 57 where Pring discusses that although we can divide and classify things it does entail that any kind of distinction is possible and that researchers are using a specific type of research to construct their knowledge. So instead of the notion that they are relatively different, I see that a common ground between the two is the researchers using the information to find answers to their questions. Therefore, I do not think one has to identify with a specific type of research but rather in order to find answers to certain questions, qual may serve as a catalyst to quan but I do not see it as one type may be better than the other.
Allison on Qual. v. Quant., Pring (2015) states, the distinction between qual. v. quan. is not made on the basis of the "appropriateness to the task" but on the epistemology and ontology (p. 59). Currently we are being taught that research alignment or appropriateness to the task is the most important consideration in conducting educational research. Research alignment considers "different methods to get at these different explanations" (p. 73). I agree with Pring's (2015) argument, "That the opposition between qual. v. quan. is mistaken" (p. 72). Human nature and our assumptions about reality are complex not to be limited by paradigm A or B.
At first, Pring’s discussion of the quantitative vs qualitative debate seemed like familiar territory. It seems as though each approach is fully embraced by some, much to the dismay of others. In fact, I have been asked multiple times if I see myself as a quantitative or qualitative researcher. From what I have seen, those in educational research see a clear divide between the two types of research. Then, Pring surprised me by including the compromising view of Ryle (p. 61) and explained that in the real world, the two views need to merge to fully capture what’s going on. I agree that we should not approach research as either A or B, but should instead be open to using the best methods for the particular research we are conducting.
Initially, Pring discussed the role of the individual versus public (i.e. generalization) in research as a first attempt at introducing quantitative versus qualitative. He discusses the idea of the typical scientific method compared a more individual perspective approach. This is standard argument you hear when thinking about quant vs qual in education or other research. What surprised me was his introduction of the idea that these two sides are not necessarily two different sides but are related. I agree with Lauren's last sentence about "qual serving as a catalyst for quant" more subjective interests driving the quant aspect.
Prior to arriving at Ryle's comprising idea (p. 61), it seemed like there needed to be a move to seeing the two as potentially complimentary, and not adversarial. I was glad to see in writing that someone had made the effort to recognize this fact. Additionally, Pring noted immediately following that the risk of trying to quantify things that "which cannot really be quantified" (p. 61). Few ideas he mentioned were surprising, there's a strong attitude that one must chose to be either/or in their research, however hopefully individuals realize that each has it's positive attributes, and utilizing both kinds of study with the same issue can provide a more well-rounded, wholesome, and even generalizable picture.
In sport management, like many other fields, qualitative research is no respected due to the lack of generalizability associated with the method. Generally, our top journals are reluctant to publish qualitative studies for that reason. It was refreshing to have Pring not talk negatively about qualitative research in the way that I am so used to. As Lauren and others have pointed out, I have been taught that qualitative research should only be done if you are trying to figure out the “why” or “how” of a research question and not the “what”. You’d generally do quantitative for groundwork for when you do not have a lot of information about a specific topic. I agree with Pring’s idea of thinking of the two as working together, but I do not agree with the order for which it is traditionally done. Most researchers do qualitative work first, and then apply their finding to a quantitative design. This implies that qualitative is “less than”. During a session at our sport management conference that I just attended, a researcher advocated for using quantitative methods to lay groundwork for qualitative. While this may seem counterintuitive based on what we are taught a researchers, I do think it would do something to help qualitative research gain more respect.
In my opinion, Pring blurred the lines between quantitative and qualitative research. I like the quote, "The links between knowledge, on the one hand, and power and control on the other, are equally strong within both paradigms, albeit the nature of the connection is different" (p. 72).
I agree with Pring in that education and humans in general are complex topics to study and therefore require multiple methods of study. While the two types of research come at it differently, as explained by the quote above, (one through the scientific method and one by focusing on subjective meanings of the learner) they both seek to explain some aspect of education or human behavior.
I don't think this information was necessarily shocking for me. Special education does not exclusively use one method in research. Therefore, both types are often accepted depending on the context of the study and the information researchers are hoping to gain.
Veronica Shuford - I appreciated Pring’s insight and perspective on quantitative and qualitative research. Pring states (Page 67) that the false dualism lies in the belief that in rejecting quantitative research, researchers must embrace qualitative research. In health sciences education it is common for researchers to use quantitative research to make generalizations, as this helps to increase the validity of the study. However, I agree with Ryle (Page 61) that there should be an integration and overlap of both quantitative and qualitative research to capture the complexities of the “real world.” Given that most of the research in which I have been involved has been quantitative, sometimes I fail to consider how social constructions of social groups change and evolve, and may impact my research projects because I am focused on measurement and analytics. A take-a-way from Chapter 5 is that in understanding the physical world and personal and social reality, both methods of research have a place and a purpose. I agree that “qualitative knowledge is the test and building block of quantitative knowing” and “quantitative research may suggest issues to be explored in a more interpretive manner” (Page 73).
Pring's view on the quant./qual. tension is at odds with much of the discussion or lectures I have experienced since beginning this Ph.D. program one year ago. There is a line drawn by most of the text we have read between these two research approaches, and it makes each department seem to fall on one or the other side of that line depending on their field. Paradoxically, this emphasizes Pring's view that, in Paradigm B, there are multiple realities, and truth is negotiated by each field; a truth is constructed which makes perfect sense to them, but is not universal.
Through collaborations in other part so my life, I have confronted conflicting views about the same work many times. One competent person may view something this way, and an equally competent person may view it entirely differently. One paradigm believes there is one correct way to interpret a work, and another paradigm of thinkers believe each individual person, only their own personal interpretation is valid.
It is quite difficult to negotiate contemporary classical music without immediately confronting these very issues, which have been at the forefront of art since at least 1945... what is art was brought into question. Everything about how humans interpret the world was brought into question by relativity, war, science, technology like computers, going to the moon, social change, climate change, and Amazon.com. It has been this way ever since I was alive, and has only quickened its pace in recent years. So, I would say that although I have never heard it applied to research quite so eloquently, it seems to be commonplace in 2016.
Jorli- Pring introduces Ryle's idea that "the world of common sense cannot be captured by either one or the other [qualitative or quantitative], and indeed there must be an overlapping of the two. I firmly believe that this is true. When one is out in the world and making decisions, you do not use just hard physical evidence or descriptions of how things are/ work. Rather these two things are combined together to make a full picture. However, in the research field you are either qualitative or quantitative and this distinction carries over to the classrooms. Rather then being taught a research class that covers a wide array of qualitative and quantitative topics, students take: research methods with a quantitative class and then a qualitative research class.
Pring opens chapter 5 discussing qual v. quan researchers working in "different paradigms". One focusing on the scientific model and the other a more subjective. He makes it clear these are two different types of research. But, on p. 57 where Pring discusses that although we can divide and classify things it does entail that any kind of distinction is possible and that researchers are using a specific type of research to construct their knowledge. So instead of the notion that they are relatively different, I see that a common ground between the two is the researchers using the information to find answers to their questions. Therefore, I do not think one has to identify with a specific type of research but rather in order to find answers to certain questions, qual may serve as a catalyst to quan but I do not see it as one type may be better than the other.
ReplyDeleteAllison on Qual. v. Quant., Pring (2015) states, the distinction between qual. v. quan. is not made on the basis of the "appropriateness to the task" but on the epistemology and ontology (p. 59). Currently we are being taught that research alignment or appropriateness to the task is the most important consideration in conducting educational research. Research alignment considers "different methods to get at these different explanations" (p. 73). I agree with Pring's (2015) argument, "That the opposition between qual. v. quan. is mistaken" (p. 72). Human nature and our assumptions about reality are complex not to be limited by paradigm A or B.
ReplyDeleteAt first, Pring’s discussion of the quantitative vs qualitative debate seemed like familiar territory. It seems as though each approach is fully embraced by some, much to the dismay of others. In fact, I have been asked multiple times if I see myself as a quantitative or qualitative researcher. From what I have seen, those in educational research see a clear divide between the two types of research. Then, Pring surprised me by including the compromising view of Ryle (p. 61) and explained that in the real world, the two views need to merge to fully capture what’s going on. I agree that we should not approach research as either A or B, but should instead be open to using the best methods for the particular research we are conducting.
ReplyDeleteInitially, Pring discussed the role of the individual versus public (i.e. generalization) in research as a first attempt at introducing quantitative versus qualitative. He discusses the idea of the typical scientific method compared a more individual perspective approach. This is standard argument you hear when thinking about quant vs qual in education or other research. What surprised me was his introduction of the idea that these two sides are not necessarily two different sides but are related. I agree with Lauren's last sentence about "qual serving as a catalyst for quant" more subjective interests driving the quant aspect.
ReplyDeletePrior to arriving at Ryle's comprising idea (p. 61), it seemed like there needed to be a move to seeing the two as potentially complimentary, and not adversarial. I was glad to see in writing that someone had made the effort to recognize this fact. Additionally, Pring noted immediately following that the risk of trying to quantify things that "which cannot really be quantified" (p. 61). Few ideas he mentioned were surprising, there's a strong attitude that one must chose to be either/or in their research, however hopefully individuals realize that each has it's positive attributes, and utilizing both kinds of study with the same issue can provide a more well-rounded, wholesome, and even generalizable picture.
ReplyDeleteIn sport management, like many other fields, qualitative research is no respected due to the lack of generalizability associated with the method. Generally, our top journals are reluctant to publish qualitative studies for that reason. It was refreshing to have Pring not talk negatively about qualitative research in the way that I am so used to. As Lauren and others have pointed out, I have been taught that qualitative research should only be done if you are trying to figure out the “why” or “how” of a research question and not the “what”. You’d generally do quantitative for groundwork for when you do not have a lot of information about a specific topic. I agree with Pring’s idea of thinking of the two as working together, but I do not agree with the order for which it is traditionally done. Most researchers do qualitative work first, and then apply their finding to a quantitative design. This implies that qualitative is “less than”. During a session at our sport management conference that I just attended, a researcher advocated for using quantitative methods to lay groundwork for qualitative. While this may seem counterintuitive based on what we are taught a researchers, I do think it would do something to help qualitative research gain more respect.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Pring blurred the lines between quantitative and qualitative research. I like the quote, "The links between knowledge, on the one hand, and power and control on the other, are equally strong within both paradigms, albeit the nature of the connection is different" (p. 72).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pring in that education and humans in general are complex topics to study and therefore require multiple methods of study. While the two types of research come at it differently, as explained by the quote above, (one through the scientific method and one by focusing on subjective meanings of the learner) they both seek to explain some aspect of education or human behavior.
I don't think this information was necessarily shocking for me. Special education does not exclusively use one method in research. Therefore, both types are often accepted depending on the context of the study and the information researchers are hoping to gain.
Veronica Shuford - I appreciated Pring’s insight and perspective on quantitative and qualitative research. Pring states (Page 67) that the false dualism lies in the belief that in rejecting quantitative research, researchers must embrace qualitative research. In health sciences education it is common for researchers to use quantitative research to make generalizations, as this helps to increase the validity of the study. However, I agree with Ryle (Page 61) that there should be an integration and overlap of both quantitative and qualitative research to capture the complexities of the “real world.” Given that most of the research in which I have been involved has been quantitative, sometimes I fail to consider how social constructions of social groups change and evolve, and may impact my research projects because I am focused on measurement and analytics. A take-a-way from Chapter 5 is that in understanding the physical world and personal and social reality, both methods of research have a place and a purpose. I agree that “qualitative knowledge is the test and building block of quantitative knowing” and “quantitative research may suggest issues to be explored in a more interpretive manner” (Page 73).
ReplyDeletePring's view on the quant./qual. tension is at odds with much of the discussion or lectures I have experienced since beginning this Ph.D. program one year ago. There is a line drawn by most of the text we have read between these two research approaches, and it makes each department seem to fall on one or the other side of that line depending on their field. Paradoxically, this emphasizes Pring's view that, in Paradigm B, there are multiple realities, and truth is negotiated by each field; a truth is constructed which makes perfect sense to them, but is not universal.
ReplyDeleteThrough collaborations in other part so my life, I have confronted conflicting views about the same work many times. One competent person may view something this way, and an equally competent person may view it entirely differently. One paradigm believes there is one correct way to interpret a work, and another paradigm of thinkers believe each individual person, only their own personal interpretation is valid.
It is quite difficult to negotiate contemporary classical music without immediately confronting these very issues, which have been at the forefront of art since at least 1945... what is art was brought into question. Everything about how humans interpret the world was brought into question by relativity, war, science, technology like computers, going to the moon, social change, climate change, and Amazon.com. It has been this way ever since I was alive, and has only quickened its pace in recent years. So, I would say that although I have never heard it applied to research quite so eloquently, it seems to be commonplace in 2016.
Jorli-
ReplyDeletePring introduces Ryle's idea that "the world of common sense cannot be captured by either one or the other [qualitative or quantitative], and indeed there must be an overlapping of the two. I firmly believe that this is true. When one is out in the world and making decisions, you do not use just hard physical evidence or descriptions of how things are/ work. Rather these two things are combined together to make a full picture. However, in the research field you are either qualitative or quantitative and this distinction carries over to the classrooms. Rather then being taught a research class that covers a wide array of qualitative and quantitative topics, students take: research methods with a quantitative class and then a qualitative research class.