Re: [xmca] What new and interesting?

Michael-- I would find it really helpful to have a copy of whichever paper
you think xmca-ites might use to get a summary of your ideas on these
issues. I am sure I am not
alone.

Criticisms of treating quantitative/qualitative as mutually exclusive, or
simply picking and choosing eclectically have been discussed previously on
xmca, but I do not recall if we have ever had a thorough discussion. Maybe
we need to add that to the growing list of topics of interest.

In this connection, we are exploring ways to supplement xmca with a forum
structure.... and old idea that was used with earlier technologies that did
not work, but which may work for us now.
mike

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> I have mixed reactions to your message! :) Shavelson, one of the
> presenters, has articulated a position that seems similar to yours:
>
> Overall, ³It¹s the question ­ not the method ­ that should drive the
> design
> of education research or any other scientific research. That is,
> investigators ought to design a study to answer the question that they
> think
> is important, not fit the question to a convenient or popular design²
> (Shavelson & Towne, 2004).
>
> But then his NRC committee went on to identify the methods most
> appropriate
> to answer three fundamental types of question: (1) What¹s happening? (2)
> Is
> there a systematic (causal) effect? and (3) What is the causal mechanism
> or
> how does it work? They concluded that the first type of question is asking
> for a description, which they recommended should be provided by a survey,
> ethnographic methods, or a case study. The second type of question is
> asking
> Did X cause Y? Here the most desirable method is a randomized clinical
> trial. Quasi-experimental, correlational, or time-series studies may by
> needed when random assignment is either impractical or unethical, but
> ³logically randomized trials should be the preferred method if they are
> feasible and ethical to do.² The third type of question ­ how does it
> work?
> ­ asks for identification of the causal mechanism that creates a described
> effect. Here it seems mixed methods could do the job. (The committee
> seemed
> a bit confused here, perhaps because they believe that causal mechanisms
> can
> never be directly observed.)
>
> A significant problem with these recommendations, well-intended though
> they
> undoubtedly are, is that they perpetuate a widely held but incorrect
> belief
> that qualitative research can answer only descriptive questions, while
> quantitative research is able to answer explanatory questions and that
> such
> questions are always answered by identifying a causal mechanism. If this
> were so, qualitative research would be adequate for generating hypotheses,
> but measurement and experimentation would be needed to test these
> hypotheses. Experimentation, the committee asserts, ³is still the single
> best methodological route to ferreting out systematic relations between
> actions and outcomes² (Feuer, Towne & Shavelson, 2002, p. 8). Although
> they
> say they regret that ³the rhetoric of scientifically based research in
> education seems to denigrate the legitimate role of qualitative methods in
> elucidating the complexities of teaching, learning, and schooling,² they
> see
> this ³legitimate role² as a limited one: ³When a problem is poorly
> understood and plausible hypotheses are scant ­ as is the case in many
> areas
> of education ­ qualitative methods such as ethnographiesŠ are necessary to
> describe complex phenomena, generate models, and reframe questions² (p.
> 8).
>
> In my view this is a sadly limited and completely inaccurate conception of
> qualitative research, and indeed of research itself.
>
> Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and
> educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
>
> Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2004). What drives scientific research in
> education? American Psychological Society Observer, 17(4).
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> On 3/31/08 7:14 AM, "Wolff-Michael Roth" <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:
>
> > Hi Martin,
> > I am a trained statistician and quantitative modeler (physical
> > systems as a physicist, neural networks) who asks questions that
> > require a lot of qualitative categorical work, so developed
> > competencies in a panoply of methods, and now have become a
> > qualitative methodologist. As such, I happened to be asked a few
> > years back to write a chapter with a statistician (Kadriye Ercikan),
> > the co-organizer of the session you are referring to. As we were
> > writing this chapter, we saw that the opposition of quantitative/
> > qualitative does not assist researchers a lot and that organizing
> > research from a method perspective is not a good one, an
> > understanding I developed through years of experience teaching
> > statistics and qualitative interpretive methods. (I also co-edit an
> > online journal on qual methods, its called FQS: Forum Qualitative
> > Social Research).
> >
> > Kadriye and I then decided to write an article for Educational
> > Researcher, which was published in 2006. And now we are almost
> > finished editing this book entitled "Generalizing from Educational
> > Research" (Routledge/Taylor&Francis) where people from all sorts of
> > methods backgrounds contribute, including Bachmann (applied ling),
> > Allan Luke, Margaret Eisenhart (anthrop), Jim Gee, Ken Tobin, Rich
> > Shavelson, Pam Moss, Willy Solano, and others. It is an exciting
> > project, as people seem to agree that we need to move away from the
> > polarity of research methods to begin asking questions that matter.
> >
> > I would therefore not ask or contest LSV into one or the other camp.
> > I would ask questions along the lines LSV suggested we ask and then
> > pose the subsidiary question, "How do I answer this question?" A well-
> > formed research question tends to IMPLY the method, or so I show my
> > graduate students.
> >
> > You will have noticed that in my Vygotsky talk, I used purely
> > mathematical methods for the analysis of vocal parameters. . .
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On 30-Mar-08, at 8:59 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
> >
> > I am curious about a session I was unable to attend, one on mixed
> > methods
> > which I know Mike attended, and at which Michael Roth presented. One
> > of the
> > other presenters was Pamela Moss from U of Michigan - several years ago
> > Pamela and I designed and co-taught a 2-semester graduate course on
> > integrated research methods, which I think was unique at the time, so
> > I'm
> > curious to discover what is now state of the art. I'm also curious
> > because
> > the AERA session I organized was titled "Vygotsky's Qualitative
> > Methodology," and some questions were raised there about whether this
> > is an
> > appropriate label for CHAT research. Is it qualitative, mixed, or ..?
> >
> > Can people who attended that session share their impressions?
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On 3/29/08 8:35 AM, "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I thought it might be interesting to all if everyone took a few
> >> minutes
> >> either to report on some interesting talk or paper they have
> >> encountered
> >> recently, or a new idea that they
> >> have had that others might have something to contribute to, and
> >> post it
> >> here. (This includes, in my case, ideas that came up from people
> >> whose work
> >> we have discussed here!).
> >>
> >> I'll post a couple of such ideas as examples a lilttle later, but
> >> want to
> >> float the suggestion while I have a minute.
> >>
> >> mike
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Mon Mar 31 09:33 PDT 2008