Re: [xmca] What new and interesting?

Hi Martin,
this is PRECISELY the point the book makes in its final chapter, at
least one, mine; it is also a point others make, that generalization
is not relegated to the clinical paradigm but that qualitative
research (e.g., in the phenomenological work a la Husserl) is making
very generalized statements about cognition or Merleau-Ponty on
knowing and learning (now confirmed in neurocognitive studies).

I hope this helps,

Cheers,

Michael

On 31-Mar-08, at 9:17 AM, Martin Packer 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, “It’s 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 design”
(Shavelson & Towne, 2004).

But then his NRC committee went on to identify the methods most
appropriate
to answer three fundamental types of question: (1) What’s 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
“logically randomized trials should be the preferred method if they are
feasible and ethical to do.” 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, “is still the single
best methodological route to ferreting out systematic relations between
actions and outcomes” (Feuer, Towne & Shavelson, 2002, p. 8).
Although they
say they regret that “the 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,”
they see
this “legitimate role” as a limited one: “When a problem is poorly
understood and plausible hypotheses are scant – as is the case in
many areas
of education – qualitative methods such as ethnographies… are
necessary to
describe complex phenomena, generate models, and reframe
questions” (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 09:37 PDT 2008