Journal Assignment

The Polarization of Research Methodologies

Derek Cowan

Research Methodology in Education - ETEC 500

Dr. Sunah Cho

 The Polarization of Research Methodologies

Denzin (2009) and Ercikan and Roth (2006) both see significant value in the

contributions of qualitative research methods and believe these methods should play an

important role in educational research. However, they differ significantly in their proposed re-

examination of common distinctions made between qualitative and quantitative methodology.

Their main disagreement centers around their opinions regarding the polarization of research

methodologies. Denzin supports further polarization while Ercikan and Roth favour a more

integrated approach. In this article, I will first review the perspectives of both authors, which

will demonstrate their primary disagreement. I will then explore particular issues in more depth

and explain why I believe Ercikan and Roth make a more convincing argument.

Denzin (2009) accepts a distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods and

does not believe that standards for assessing quality research can be the same for both

methodologies. He clearly articulates his support of qualitative research and rejects current

trends within dominant educational institutions which, in his view, disproportionally value

quantitative designs and data. Denzin resists the notion that research in the social sciences

should mimic that of medical research, in which evidence is valued more when it is countable

and measurable. He believes researchers have failed to communicate the nature and value of

qualitative evidence to the scientific community. He questions the rationality of applying

evaluative criteria to qualitative studies commonly associated with quantitative methods. In his

view, qualitative methods are distinctly unique and largely incompatible with quantitative

criteria. For qualitative methods to be recognized as contributing equally valuable research, and
to be supported in kind, Denzin argues that a unique set of flexible criteria be developed that

identifies and values the methodological and interpretive guidelines that exist in qualitative

research. He maintains that [w]e must create our own standards of quality, our own criteria

(Denzin, 2009, p. 140). Denzin essentially argues for increased polarization between

methodologies and that qualitative methods should be more highly valued.

Ericikan and Roth (2006) have a very different perspective. Instead of focusing on the

value of one method over the other, they question the prevailing distinction between

quantitative and qualitative methods entirely. They see the polarization of methods as limiting

research inquiry, leading to incomplete answers to research questions. In their opinion, the

material world has inextricably linked qualitative and quantitative characteristics and maintain

that either method alone cannot adequately explore the complex environments common to

education. The polarization of methods promotes a focus on certain types of data collection

instead of the construction of good research questions and design. Misguided beliefs about

objectivity and generalizability lead researchers to seek quantitative data, as opposed to a more

descriptive qualitative analysis. They see neither method as uniquely objective or generalizable

and endorse a more integrated approach to research moving forward. They recommend

moving beyond dichotomies and recognizing both methods as inextricably linked by

representing research on a common continuum. Research can then be evaluated on a scale,

from low to high inference levels for a variety of relevant dimensions, therefore only differing

by degree. Studies could include multiple hypotheses which could be represented

independently on different parts of the continuum. Research questions could then drive

decision making with regards to which modes of inquiry are best suited to answer them. They
recommend researchers with different expertise work collaboratively to design studies that are

not limited to a particular research methodology.

Although I appreciate the value both authors place on qualitive research, the arguments

put forward by Ericikan and Roth (2006) are more convincing when compared to those of

Denzin (2009). Their solution to polarization and the unequal valuing of research methodologies

are both more logical and functional. Instead of focusing on perceived differences between

qualitative and quantitative methods, Erickson and Roth argue that there are a range of

effective strategies available to researchers and common limitations are not solely associated

with any one method.

The argument made by Ericikan and Roth (2006) that areas of research interest within

education contain elements that are simultaneously qualitative and quantitative is highly

convincing. They argue that the quantitative-qualitative dichotomy not only distorts the

conception of education research but also is fallacious (Ericikan and Roth, 2006, 14). I agree

that polarizing methods on this basis does not make practical sense in terms of research goals.

To fully explore complex topics and environments relevant to education, both continuous and

discontinuous elements need to be analyzed. Denzin accepts polarizing inquiries based on

quantitative and qualitative elements and firmly supports the latter. His perspective

perpetuates the focus of researchers on generating specific types of data, which I believe could

limit research inquiry. For example, if a researcher was to explore gender differences in regards

to learning with a certain technology, designing a study that only generated one type of data

could be limiting. A more integrated approach could investigate the effectiveness of an

intervention on learning while exploring contextual considerations by undertaking, for example,

phenomenological research. Ericikan and Roths recommendations allows for this option.

Both authors also disagree with regards to how research is assessed. I believe that the

introduction of a continuum to assess research which recognizes both qualitative and

quantitative elements is an effective recommendation. This will allow researchers more

freedom to select methods that best suit the specific scope and purpose of each study. It allows

for more types of data to be valued and a deeper analysis of research topics. The continuum

addresses generalizability concerns associated with qualitative research by allowing inquiries to

be inferred at different levels. Studies that are specific to a particular context can be rated as

low-inference, while those using quantitative methods can be rated higher. This allows the

researcher to focus on good research questions and designs as primary concerns. All

methodologies can be recognized for their relative strengths and employed depending on the

specific nature of the inquiry. In an area that has a lot of research, an experimental model to

test a specific hypothesis might be appropriate. In new areas of research, more exploratory

qualitative methods could help uncover phenomena that can later be tested empirically. An

integrated approach would support this type of decision-making and, when justified, promote

mixed-methods designs. The example within the article regarding an ethnographic study of

knowing and learning in two eighth-grade science classrooms demonstrates this point. The

research design generated both high-inference and low-inference data by utilizing an

integrated method. The researchers were able to answer their research question more

completely by incorporating both qualitative and quantitative data, making it relevant to a

wider range of educational actors. Denzin (2009) does not see value in mixed-method designs.
He writes mix-methods inquiry fails to address the incommensurability issue the fact the two

paradigms are in contradiction (Denzin, 2009, p. 141). Denzin advocates developing unique

criteria to assess qualitative work separate from that of quantitative methods. His partiality for

descriptive data creates the potential for the incomplete exploration of research topics.

The two authors also differ in terms of which audiences they are focused on. Ericikan and Roth

(2006) state that researchers need integrative approaches that provide the appropriate forms

of knowledge needed by decision makers located differently in society and dealing with

different units of analysis (Ericikan and Roth, 2006, p. 23). Individual teachers will benefit from

different forms of knowledge than that of policymakers and funding bodies. An integrated

approach will help facilitate a variety of research. Denzin however, focusses on qualitative

research being more valued by the scientific community and educational institutions. I believe

that the polarization of methods leads researchers to focus on other researchers using similar

research methodology as their main audience. In my opinion, Denzins approach to research

places commitment to a methodological stance above pragmatic judgments focused on best

answering research questions for pertinent actors within the educational community.

The collaboration between researchers employing different methodologies is another area of

disagreement. Like Ericikan and Roth (2006), I believe that by joining expertise researchers

would have practical support in addressing limitations in their designs by extending the

methods they utilize. Denzin (2009) views the two approaches as contradictory and highlights

issues with the sharing of different types of data. In my view, collaboration seems highly

pragmatic and mutually beneficial. If a researcher conducting a grounded theory study

uncovered clear themes, a quantitative study that tested specific hypotheses related to the

research could help triangulate data by produce knowledge that was both descriptive and

predicative. Without collaboration, both types of research would miss an opportunity to gain

supporting context and direction.

Exploring and constructing knowledge of complex educational environments requires a

variety of approaches. Researchers who collaborate with other experts and allow research

questions to guide their selection of methodologies will produce more complete and relevant

answers. This knowledge can then be utilized by the important educational actors who depend

on it to make informed decisions.

References:

Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the

politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9(2) 139160.

Ercikan, K., & Roth, W-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and

quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35, 14-23.