[Xmca-l] Re: The Science of Qualitative Research 2ed

Sun Dec 17 17:39:02 PST 2017

Hi Martin,
the term quantitative is a misnomer in the sense that qualitative
researchers are counting, and this does not mean that they do the kind of
research that generally is referred to as quantitative. There are forms of
statistical inference and experimental research that people use, which are
distinct from observations in ethnographic research.

Kadriye Ercikan (statistician) and I (statistician turned "qualitative" and
mixed methods researcher) once edited a book with some of the leading U.S.
scholars concerning method of all types. The consensus was that the
distinction quantitative/qualitative does not make much sense. Here the
book:
Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (Eds.). (2008). Generalizing from educational
research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Kadriye and I also wrote a couple of articles on the topic, and in the
first one (2006) argue that it doesn't make much sense to polarize
research.
Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Limits of generalizing in education
research: Why criteria for research generalization should include
population heterogeneity and users of knowledge claims. Teachers College
Record, 116(5), 1–28
Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into
qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 14-23.

You also know that Vygotsky not only rejects the "scientific psychology"
(quantitative?!) but also the "interpret(at)ive psychology" (qualitative?!).

Michael

Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> wrote:

> Hi Huw,
>
> In the field of research methodology in the social sciences the labels
> “quantitative” and “qualitative” are somewhat misleading; the issues at
> stake are better viewed as paradigmatic ones, rather than whether or not
> one uses numbers.
>
> The position I develop in the book is that the logical positivists’
> attempt to define a single scientific method has been a disaster for
> psychology, in particular. Positivism has led to the view that the ‘gold
> standard’ for research is a randomized clinical trial, in which one seeks a
> causal explanation of a phenomenon through testing a hypothesis, by
> defining and manipulating variables, and by measuring outcomes. This
> approach is what has come to be called “quantitative” research, and it is
> what is taught in most research methods classes. It is an approach that
> assumes that all explanation is causal, when in fact many explanations are
> constitutive. It assumes that causes are invisible and must be inferred:
> they are not, much of science involves making causal processes visible. And
> it assumes that measurement is an objective process: it is not, it always
> involves theory and interpretation.
>
> I have nothing against numbers, and have no quarrel with mathematics. I
> studied math and physics as an undergraduate until specializing in
> psychology (which was considered a natural science) in the final year. But
> understanding what people do has always struck me as requiring something
> more than this. My book explores the ‘what more?’
>
> Martin
>
> > On Dec 17, 2017, at 4:29 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Do you define quality? And if not can you tell me why, from your
> > perspective, QR avoids defining it?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Huw
> >
> > On 17 December 2017 at 01:15, Martin John Packer <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Helen,
> >>
> >> It’s not a how-to book, but rather an exploration of the roots of
> >> qualitative research — phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory -
> and
> >> an examination of the logic underlying interviews, ethnographic
> fieldwork,
> >> and analysis of interaction. That might be too theoretical for your
> class.
> >> I continue to work away at a book on how to do qualitative research,
> which
> >> I have taught many times. In case it’s useful I’ve attached the syllabus
> >> from the last time I taught the course in English. You’ll see I assigned
> >> only selected chapters from the first edition.
> >>
> >> But of course you should still buy a copy for each of your friends!  :)
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Martin, I’ve just been given the go-head to teach a social science
> >> research methods class to undergraduates at Ton Duc Thang U. in Ho Chi
> Minh
> >> City, VN. This sounds like a humane book - do you think it could be used
> >> for undergraduates?
> >>>
> >>> The undergrads are in the Faculty of Labor Relations and Trade Unions
> so
> >> the sites of their research will be workplaces.
> >>>
> >>> H
> >>>
> >>> Helena Worthen
> >>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >>> Berkeley, CA 94707 510-828-2745
> >>> Blog US/ Viet Nam:
> >>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> >>> skype: helena.worthen1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Martin John Packer <
> >> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Cambridge University Press, in their infinite wisdom, have just
> >> published an expanded second edition of my book The Science of
> Qualitative
> >> Research. It will be a perfect holiday gift for a loved one!  :)
> >>>>
> >>>> The book continues to make the case that a common view of qualitative
> >> research — that it amounts to a set of techniques for describing
> people’s
> >> subjective experience — is mistaken. I propose that in fact qualitative
> >> research can take us beyond the taken for granted ontological dualisms
> of
> >> subjectivity/objectivity, mind/world, and appearance/reality. Human
> beings
> >> have created the worlds, the cultures, in which we live, and we are
> >> products of these worlds. Qualitative research can be the study of the
> >> ‘ontological complicity’ that people have with the social reality in
> which
> >> they live, and the ‘constitution’ in which specific ways of being human
> are
> >> formed. The constituents of qualitative research — and in the book I
> focus
> >> on three: interviews, analysis of interaction, and ethnographic field
> work
> >> — can be combined and aligned to focus on ontology, in a scientific
> study
> >> of the constitution of human beings. This science is centrally a matter
> of
> >> interpretation, of hermeneutics, not of coding.
> >>>>
> >>>> The new material includes a discussion of the centrality of
> >> constitution (not only causation) in every scientific discipline --
> think
> >> of Watson and Crick discovering how DNA is constituted -- in Chapter 1.
> >> Discussion of Bruno Latour’s work has been included in several chapters:
> >> there are treatments of his book Laboratory Life, of actor-network
> theory,
> >> and of his Inquiry into Modes of Existence.
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition, a new final chapter presents as an example and case study
> >> the research conducted by Löic Wacquant with boxers in south Chicago.
> >> Wacquant joined the gym, learned to box, and came to be on familiar
> terms
> >> with the men who were becoming constituted as boxers. His ethnographic
> >> fieldwork focused on the bodily practices of the boxing life, while his
> >> interviews illustrated how the boxer’s ontological complicity with this
> >> life builds a way of understanding the gym, and the body. Wacquant
> helps us
> >> to see the ideals and morality that are inherent in a boxer’s way of
> human
> >> being, of being human. His research illustrates the potential of
> >> qualitative research to enable us to recognize the diverse ways in which
> >> people make themselves into particular kinds of person, so we can better
> >> understand the ethical freedom that is key to being human. This, in my
> >> view, is what makes this kind of scientific investigation both exciting
> and
> >> important.
> >>>>
> >>>> CUP:
> >>>> <http://www.cambridge.org/co/academic/subjects/social-
> >> science-research-methods/qualitative-methods/science-
> >> qualitative-research-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781108404501>
> >>>>
> >>>> Amazon:
> >>>> <https://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=
> >> qs&keywords=9781108417129>
> >>>>
> >>>> Facebook author’s page:
> >>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pg/The-Science-of-Qualitative-
> >> Research-2e-1851273521851365/posts/?ref=page_internal>
> >>>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>