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?
I enjoyed reading Pring’s take on qual. vs. quant. I especially liked his talk about how each could be argued as the building block for the other and can help researchers narrow what and how they want to study. Counselor education, while mainly qualitative research (from what I have read), also uses mixed-methods and quantitative, which I appreciate (partially because for my dissertation I want to have models to build upon!). Due to what Pring talks about in how our views of the world shape how we research and what questions we ask, so do the different ways to conduct studies. This also reminds me of how the different educational philosophies we studied in 702 approach qualitative and quantitative research differently because their epistemology/ontology is different. To me, a strong researcher will be comfortable with using both.
Jodi…Pring’s statement that surprised me included when he said qualitative research was not the type of research to be quantified. I disagree with this as there are parts of qualitative research that can be quantified in education. There are tables of information that are quantified within quite a bit of qualitative research I have read. When conducting a case study there are areas that can be quantified such as counting times behaviors occur and time intervals at which they occur among many other aspects. Pring’s comments about the political leaders and how they conduct research about education was interesting to think about. It is not that I have not thought about this before, it was just another punch at teachers and the people who are making decisions over their effectiveness in their classrooms. We have watched Common Core Standards develop through the hands of mostly business leaders who have political ties and have never taught in the classroom. They take their own “research” and ideas of what they think is effective and push it into education without truly understanding that their research is mostly tainted by their ideas. (Sorry, soap box moment after living in a state with CCS in schools.) This is just an example of qualitative and quantitative research gone bad as they “ignored the complex transactions which take place between teacher and learner…” (p.71) which also disempowers teachers. I was not surprised by Pring’s ideas due to learning about different perspectives and how they use different approaches to conducting qualitative and quantitative research. While they may differ in ontology and epistemology, they are both important types of research to be conducted in the realm of education.
This is Holly … Pring’s ideas did conflict with what I’ve heard about the two research approaches before. Specifically, his contention that we create “too sharp a contrast” or a “false dualism” between quantitative and qualitative research was a new – but exciting - idea to me. In the past, I’ve always been taught, and conceived of these two approaches, as mutually exclusive (outside the confines of mixed methods research). You either “did” quantitative or you “did” qualitative, and you either “liked” quantitative or you “liked” qualitative. Pring knocks down some of the major distinctions in exciting ways. I was interested in his take on how socially constructed realities have, at their core, a few basic commonalities – and by being agreed upon indicate a form of objectivity - that dispute the idea that we can only acknowledge multiple realities in social/educational research. I was also intrigued by his description of how negotiating constructed meaning still implies that there will be winners and losers – that neither quantitative nor qualitative approaches are free from the dynamics of power. I have to say that I really liked this chapter. His argument was compelling and I thought about quantitative and qualitative research in new ways. Again, this stuff is a lot more complicated than I had initially thought. No easy answers in this chapter either …
At the risk of being overly reductive, I think most of Pring’s rumination can be summed up in a quote from Robin Williams: “Wow, reality, what a concept.”
Ever since I started this program and discovered that qualitative research is a thing that exists, I have been trying to figure out why people appear to feel the need to choose between it and quantitative – as if the two paradigms are the Cowboys and that unfortunately named team from DC. I was relieved, then, when I read the passage in which Pring rejects the dualism and asserts “Understanding human beings, and thus researching into what they do and how they behave, calls upon many different methods, each making complex assumptions about what it means to explain behaviours and personal and social activities.”
I guess, at least for now, I can blissfully and naïvely continue to believe educational researchers use a wide variety of inherently flawed methods to kaleidoscopically construct increasingly complex and nuanced versions of a variety of unknowable realities/little-t truths/warranted assertions that might, eventually, lead to a way to help kids.
Or will this class be disabusing me of that notion?
This is Mo... Pring’s take on the quant./qual. tension is refreshing as it recognizes the complexity of educational research. According to Pring, the opposition (false dualism) between the quantitative and qualitative paradigms is mistaken due to the fact that the distinctions within paradigms are often as significant as the distinctions between them.
His main argument is that the ways in which both physical and social realities are conceptualized presuppose the existence of reality with certain distinguishing features which make possible our different construction of the world. There is no ‘a priori’ reason why social realities cannot be quantified and studied as objects.
Also, his argument that links between knowledge, power and control exist within both quantitative and qualitative paradigms is interesting to think about. He talks about power and control, but not resistance. How is resistance negotiated within and between paradigms?
Pring’s opinions regarding the tensions between qual/quant echo what I have heard throughout my tenure here at VCU. There is much controversy over which approach is more scientifically sound and relevant to the unique nature of educational research. When I began this program I was a staunch supporter of qualitative research due to the appearance of objectivity and generality. Over the course of a year, however I have come to develop a much greater appreciation for qualitative research. This appreciation grew from an altering of my understanding of reality and knowledge itself. Knowledge and reality are historically and socially situated, as Pring argues, and are greatly affected by the conditions and environments of the individual experiencing the reality and using the knowledge. Qualitative research lends itself to understanding the reality of the subjects being studied.
I agree with Pring that researchers make too great a distinction between the two and fail to see the commonalities and usefulness of both methods. As discussed in previous courses Qualitative research can often reveal the need for quantitative study and vice versa. I don’t like that Pring infers that the two are similar because they are both flawed, as if to say, “They both have limitations so it doesn’t matter which one you use”. The preference for one or the other is deeply rooted in the researcher’s philosophy of education.
I found Pring's argument of a false dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative research to be refreshing. Qualitative research is prevalent in the counselor education discipline, and although the results cannot be generalized as broadly as quantitative results can be, the research is just as important and influential. I also found it refreshing because my tendency towards thinking about research projects is to think of it in terms of mixed methods. Both types are important in their own ways, but as Pring says, they are not opposites. Instead, they complement each other well.
I am fortunate to be in a department that embraces both types of research, so any negative comments about qualitative research have been from outside of my field. When asked, our faculty will not rate one over the other, which is helpful for us while we form our own opinions.
Tonya here: Pring points out interesting accounts of the contrasting realities of quantative and qualitative research that many of us have learned to be so completely different. While reading, I often imagined Mr.Pring in a boxing ring attempting to knock himself out from both sides of the ring. I agree with his ideas about research and its attempts to draw hard and fast lines between the two camps of thought. That there are things not so cut and dry as we would like to believe. He offers many “Pringlisms” when talking about the problems with different research approaches that I admit made me reflect further on their use. And I agree with his conclusions: that everything is observable and is ultimately based on the experiences and interpretation of the person or “researcher” observing whether it be observation, experiments, surveys, or interview. Pring highlights the complex nature of research that makes it difficult to put it in a nicely wrapped box. It is no surprise to me that a diversity of approaches and methods are needed, and as a researcher the integration and overlapping of both methods can serve educational research well.
When completing my M.P.A. degree, the faculty were very focused in quantitative research, and the program itself sort of looked down on qualitative research. The ‘us (quantitative researchers) vs them (qualitative researchers)’ mentality really became apparent. I don’t know if it has to do our language, philosophies, or culture, but we are quick to pit two ideas against one another and create these binary oppositions. Good vs. evil, legal vs. illegal, light vs. dark, male vs. female, right vs. wrong, I don’t know if it is about absolutism or laziness, or perhaps we feel uncomfortable not being able to easily align ourselves or ideas with a prescribed/predesigned ideology. In class last week, we discussed the how one of the easiest ways to show credibility as a researcher is to use in-text citations in your work, to show that others have found similar knowledge that can support your claim. However, this really stuck with me this week, especially in the wake of what happened in Orlando. I’ve seen a lot of different viewpoints regarding the LGBTQ community pop up in social media recently with in-text citations (mostly biblical citations). Some of these citations have been used to show support Orlando’s LGBTQ community, but there have also been a few that have been used in a more unkind way. It’s interesting to think about the fact that these two viewpoints are coming from the same text. I know this may seem like a tangent, but the point that I am trying to make is that no matter what kind of research (qualitative, quantitative, or some other kind), we have to be diligent and critical of it, we can’t accept something as truth just because it has been observed before, or just because it is quantifiable, we have to become comfortable with the grey area in between our absolutes, in between what is ‘known’ and what is ‘unknown’.
Vivian here... Pring’s perspective is contrary to much of what I had previously heard regarding quantitiative and qualitative research – that it is a matter of either/or and that most researchers prefer one over the other. When mixed-methods approach was introduced (during the Research Methods course), I remember thinking that it makes sense for educational research. Pring recognizes the importance of individual cases, while also embracing the possibility of tentative generalizations (‘uniqueness fallacy’, pg. 49). Educators face many situations in the classroom where they must individualize for a student, but this is not always the case for every student. In education, using both quantitative and qualitative research makes sense and, in my opinion, provides much richer information. Research based practices offer educators a ‘tried & true’ approach to instruction and interventions, but it would not make sense to rely only on quantitative research, since not every student/situation will respond is the same. It is the expert’s role (the educator) to determine the effectiveness for any individual student or situation. Pring’s discussion of the ‘uniqueness fallacy’ caught my attention because of my experience in special education and how the need to individualize is always stressed. Some take this to mean that everything must be different for each student, but there are situations where an intervention is appropriate for several students – again, this is not always the case for every student – but, it should not mean that we cannot look to ‘tried & true’ interventions and requires educators to use their expertise.
This is Carolyn. I agree with Pring that if we deny all attempts to understand what is real when we reject the “naïve realism” of a quantitative “Paradigm A” perspective, we’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Even if we humans, with our contexts and points of view and values, can’t fully grasp all the complex ins and outs of education, that doesn’t mean that reality isn’t real, or that we shouldn’t try to understand it. I think his appraisal of the tension between quantitative and qualitiative research as a false dualism or false dichotomy is useful. Although the two approaches are distinct, they are not opposite, because both are grounded in something real.
I think Pring does an interesting job of describing of the problematic way educational research is used for political ends. I agree that the appropriation of educational research by political leaders for policy and the management of schools in service of social and economic interests to manage schools based on what is deemed as generally “effective,” as Pring says, ignores complex interactions between teacher and learner that are not easily captured generalized in the “management and means/end language of research.” This distorts research findings and disempowers and disenfranchises the teachers (and also the students) who are negotiating those transactions for themselves individually, in their own specific contexts.
I’m not sure, though, I understand what Pring says on page 72 about the dangers of being overpowered by Paradigm B. Yes, there are strong negotiators and weak negotiators, but in reality, the strong negotiators leverage the “the data” or “research base” regardless of local circumstances, and this is where the danger lies. Paradigm A “truth” in most contexts might not be the empirical truth for some teachers and students when operating in their individual contexts. (Just because something generally works does not necessarily mean that if it doesn’t work in a particular context, it’s the teacher’s fault.)
Pring’s chapter on quantitative versus qualitative research challenged my understanding of the two camps being very distinct and separate from each other. I like his view that “qualitative investigation can clear the ground for the quantitative”. Quantitative research is used to make generalities that can be made once you have established some predictability through qualitative research. I like the idea of the back and forth of the two types of research. I also agree research questions are complex and employing only one method can be limiting to the entire enquiry. Pring framed the political influence and the use of research in an interesting way. The recognition of “management” ignoring the intricate relationship between teacher and student and disempowering the teacher. Seeking general solutions to educational problems does indeed leave the teacher out of the process and tell them what to do.
Weade here...It was refreshing to read Pring’s views on the dichotomy of quantitative and qualitative research. There’s an ubiquitous assumption that quantitative research is more rigorous, and produces more valid and reliable findings than qualitative research. Based on Pring’s views, one can argue that there’s valuable knowledge that is lost in quantitative research because it focuses solely on what is “objective” and “measurable”, without seeking perspectives from the “subjective” and “non-measurable” aspect of an individual involved in the research. I agree with Pring’s viewpoint that the tension between quantitative and qualitative research is mistaken. I also agree that “qualitative knowledge is the test and building block of quantitative knowledge.” (p. 73) Therefore, having a distinct separation between the two types of research limits the generation of new ideas and findings to improve educational practice. Pring also discussed political control of research and how it contributes to the false dualisms of quantitative and qualitative research. (p. 71) I found his claims to be interesting given that major research studies are funded by government entities, including the federal government. I wonder, are majority of politicians or government entities funding more quantitative research because they see more value in the findings of a quantitative study?
I enjoyed reading Pring’s take on qual. vs. quant. I especially liked his talk about how each could be argued as the building block for the other and can help researchers narrow what and how they want to study. Counselor education, while mainly qualitative research (from what I have read), also uses mixed-methods and quantitative, which I appreciate (partially because for my dissertation I want to have models to build upon!). Due to what Pring talks about in how our views of the world shape how we research and what questions we ask, so do the different ways to conduct studies. This also reminds me of how the different educational philosophies we studied in 702 approach qualitative and quantitative research differently because their epistemology/ontology is different. To me, a strong researcher will be comfortable with using both.
ReplyDeleteJodi…Pring’s statement that surprised me included when he said qualitative research was not the type of research to be quantified. I disagree with this as there are parts of qualitative research that can be quantified in education. There are tables of information that are quantified within quite a bit of qualitative research I have read. When conducting a case study there are areas that can be quantified such as counting times behaviors occur and time intervals at which they occur among many other aspects.
ReplyDeletePring’s comments about the political leaders and how they conduct research about education was interesting to think about. It is not that I have not thought about this before, it was just another punch at teachers and the people who are making decisions over their effectiveness in their classrooms. We have watched Common Core Standards develop through the hands of mostly business leaders who have political ties and have never taught in the classroom. They take their own “research” and ideas of what they think is effective and push it into education without truly understanding that their research is mostly tainted by their ideas. (Sorry, soap box moment after living in a state with CCS in schools.) This is just an example of qualitative and quantitative research gone bad as they “ignored the complex transactions which take place between teacher and learner…” (p.71) which also disempowers teachers.
I was not surprised by Pring’s ideas due to learning about different perspectives and how they use different approaches to conducting qualitative and quantitative research. While they may differ in ontology and epistemology, they are both important types of research to be conducted in the realm of education.
This is Holly … Pring’s ideas did conflict with what I’ve heard about the two research approaches before. Specifically, his contention that we create “too sharp a contrast” or a “false dualism” between quantitative and qualitative research was a new – but exciting - idea to me. In the past, I’ve always been taught, and conceived of these two approaches, as mutually exclusive (outside the confines of mixed methods research). You either “did” quantitative or you “did” qualitative, and you either “liked” quantitative or you “liked” qualitative.
ReplyDeletePring knocks down some of the major distinctions in exciting ways. I was interested in his take on how socially constructed realities have, at their core, a few basic commonalities – and by being agreed upon indicate a form of objectivity - that dispute the idea that we can only acknowledge multiple realities in social/educational research. I was also intrigued by his description of how negotiating constructed meaning still implies that there will be winners and losers – that neither quantitative nor qualitative approaches are free from the dynamics of power. I have to say that I really liked this chapter. His argument was compelling and I thought about quantitative and qualitative research in new ways. Again, this stuff is a lot more complicated than I had initially thought. No easy answers in this chapter either …
Hey, it’s Laurie.
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of being overly reductive, I think most of Pring’s rumination can be summed up in a quote from Robin Williams: “Wow, reality, what a concept.”
Ever since I started this program and discovered that qualitative research is a thing that exists, I have been trying to figure out why people appear to feel the need to choose between it and quantitative – as if the two paradigms are the Cowboys and that unfortunately named team from DC. I was relieved, then, when I read the passage in which Pring rejects the dualism and asserts “Understanding human beings, and thus researching into what they do and how they behave, calls upon many different methods, each making complex assumptions about what it means to explain behaviours and personal and social activities.”
I guess, at least for now, I can blissfully and naïvely continue to believe educational researchers use a wide variety of inherently flawed methods to kaleidoscopically construct increasingly complex and nuanced versions of a variety of unknowable realities/little-t truths/warranted assertions that might, eventually, lead to a way to help kids.
Or will this class be disabusing me of that notion?
This is Mo... Pring’s take on the quant./qual. tension is refreshing as it recognizes the complexity of educational research. According to Pring, the opposition (false dualism) between the quantitative and qualitative paradigms is mistaken due to the fact that the distinctions within paradigms are often as significant as the distinctions between them.
ReplyDeleteHis main argument is that the ways in which both physical and social realities are conceptualized presuppose the existence of reality with certain distinguishing features which make possible our different construction of the world. There is no ‘a priori’ reason why social realities cannot be quantified and studied as objects.
Also, his argument that links between knowledge, power and control exist within both quantitative and qualitative paradigms is interesting to think about. He talks about power and control, but not resistance. How is resistance negotiated within and between paradigms?
Pring’s opinions regarding the tensions between qual/quant echo what I have heard throughout my tenure here at VCU. There is much controversy over which approach is more scientifically sound and relevant to the unique nature of educational research. When I began this program I was a staunch supporter of qualitative research due to the appearance of objectivity and generality. Over the course of a year, however I have come to develop a much greater appreciation for qualitative research. This appreciation grew from an altering of my understanding of reality and knowledge itself. Knowledge and reality are historically and socially situated, as Pring argues, and are greatly affected by the conditions and environments of the individual experiencing the reality and using the knowledge. Qualitative research lends itself to understanding the reality of the subjects being studied.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pring that researchers make too great a distinction between the two and fail to see the commonalities and usefulness of both methods. As discussed in previous courses Qualitative research can often reveal the need for quantitative study and vice versa. I don’t like that Pring infers that the two are similar because they are both flawed, as if to say, “They both have limitations so it doesn’t matter which one you use”. The preference for one or the other is deeply rooted in the researcher’s philosophy of education.
Elizabeth...
ReplyDeleteI found Pring's argument of a false dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative research to be refreshing. Qualitative research is prevalent in the counselor education discipline, and although the results cannot be generalized as broadly as quantitative results can be, the research is just as important and influential. I also found it refreshing because my tendency towards thinking about research projects is to think of it in terms of mixed methods. Both types are important in their own ways, but as Pring says, they are not opposites. Instead, they complement each other well.
I am fortunate to be in a department that embraces both types of research, so any negative comments about qualitative research have been from outside of my field. When asked, our faculty will not rate one over the other, which is helpful for us while we form our own opinions.
Tonya here:
ReplyDeletePring points out interesting accounts of the contrasting realities of quantative and qualitative research that many of us have learned to be so completely different. While reading, I often imagined Mr.Pring in a boxing ring attempting to knock himself out from both sides of the ring. I agree with his ideas about research and its attempts to draw hard and fast lines between the two camps of thought. That there are things not so cut and dry as we would like to believe. He offers many “Pringlisms” when talking about the problems with different research approaches that I admit made me reflect further on their use. And I agree with his conclusions: that everything is observable and is ultimately based on the experiences and interpretation of the person or “researcher” observing whether it be observation, experiments, surveys, or interview. Pring highlights the complex nature of research that makes it difficult to put it in a nicely wrapped box. It is no surprise to me that a diversity of approaches and methods are needed, and as a researcher the integration and overlapping of both methods can serve educational research well.
When completing my M.P.A. degree, the faculty were very focused in quantitative research, and the program itself sort of looked down on qualitative research. The ‘us (quantitative researchers) vs them (qualitative researchers)’ mentality really became apparent. I don’t know if it has to do our language, philosophies, or culture, but we are quick to pit two ideas against one another and create these binary oppositions. Good vs. evil, legal vs. illegal, light vs. dark, male vs. female, right vs. wrong, I don’t know if it is about absolutism or laziness, or perhaps we feel uncomfortable not being able to easily align ourselves or ideas with a prescribed/predesigned ideology. In class last week, we discussed the how one of the easiest ways to show credibility as a researcher is to use in-text citations in your work, to show that others have found similar knowledge that can support your claim. However, this really stuck with me this week, especially in the wake of what happened in Orlando. I’ve seen a lot of different viewpoints regarding the LGBTQ community pop up in social media recently with in-text citations (mostly biblical citations). Some of these citations have been used to show support Orlando’s LGBTQ community, but there have also been a few that have been used in a more unkind way. It’s interesting to think about the fact that these two viewpoints are coming from the same text. I know this may seem like a tangent, but the point that I am trying to make is that no matter what kind of research (qualitative, quantitative, or some other kind), we have to be diligent and critical of it, we can’t accept something as truth just because it has been observed before, or just because it is quantifiable, we have to become comfortable with the grey area in between our absolutes, in between what is ‘known’ and what is ‘unknown’.
ReplyDeleteWell said!
DeleteVivian here...
ReplyDeletePring’s perspective is contrary to much of what I had previously heard regarding quantitiative and qualitative research – that it is a matter of either/or and that most researchers prefer one over the other. When mixed-methods approach was introduced (during the Research Methods course), I remember thinking that it makes sense for educational research. Pring recognizes the importance of individual cases, while also embracing the possibility of tentative generalizations (‘uniqueness fallacy’, pg. 49). Educators face many situations in the classroom where they must individualize for a student, but this is not always the case for every student.
In education, using both quantitative and qualitative research makes sense and, in my opinion, provides much richer information. Research based practices offer educators a ‘tried & true’ approach to instruction and interventions, but it would not make sense to rely only on quantitative research, since not every student/situation will respond is the same. It is the expert’s role (the educator) to determine the effectiveness for any individual student or situation. Pring’s discussion of the ‘uniqueness fallacy’ caught my attention because of my experience in special education and how the need to individualize is always stressed. Some take this to mean that everything must be different for each student, but there are situations where an intervention is appropriate for several students – again, this is not always the case for every student – but, it should not mean that we cannot look to ‘tried & true’ interventions and requires educators to use their expertise.
This is Carolyn. I agree with Pring that if we deny all attempts to understand what is real when we reject the “naïve realism” of a quantitative “Paradigm A” perspective, we’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Even if we humans, with our contexts and points of view and values, can’t fully grasp all the complex ins and outs of education, that doesn’t mean that reality isn’t real, or that we shouldn’t try to understand it. I think his appraisal of the tension between quantitative and qualitiative research as a false dualism or false dichotomy is useful. Although the two approaches are distinct, they are not opposite, because both are grounded in something real.
ReplyDeleteI think Pring does an interesting job of describing of the problematic way educational research is used for political ends. I agree that the appropriation of educational research by political leaders for policy and the management of schools in service of social and economic interests to manage schools based on what is deemed as generally “effective,” as Pring says, ignores complex interactions between teacher and learner that are not easily captured generalized in the “management and means/end language of research.” This distorts research findings and disempowers and disenfranchises the teachers (and also the students) who are negotiating those transactions for themselves individually, in their own specific contexts.
I’m not sure, though, I understand what Pring says on page 72 about the dangers of being overpowered by Paradigm B. Yes, there are strong negotiators and weak negotiators, but in reality, the strong negotiators leverage the “the data” or “research base” regardless of local circumstances, and this is where the danger lies. Paradigm A “truth” in most contexts might not be the empirical truth for some teachers and students when operating in their individual contexts. (Just because something generally works does not necessarily mean that if it doesn’t work in a particular context, it’s the teacher’s fault.)
Pring’s chapter on quantitative versus qualitative research challenged my understanding of the two camps being very distinct and separate from each other. I like his view that “qualitative investigation can clear the ground for the quantitative”. Quantitative research is used to make generalities that can be made once you have established some predictability through qualitative research. I like the idea of the back and forth of the two types of research. I also agree research questions are complex and employing only one method can be limiting to the entire enquiry. Pring framed the political influence and the use of research in an interesting way. The recognition of “management” ignoring the intricate relationship between teacher and student and disempowering the teacher. Seeking general solutions to educational problems does indeed leave the teacher out of the process and tell them what to do.
ReplyDeleteWeade here...It was refreshing to read Pring’s views on the dichotomy of quantitative and qualitative research. There’s an ubiquitous assumption that quantitative research is more rigorous, and produces more valid and reliable findings than qualitative research. Based on Pring’s views, one can argue that there’s valuable knowledge that is lost in quantitative research because it focuses solely on what is “objective” and “measurable”, without seeking perspectives from the “subjective” and “non-measurable” aspect of an individual involved in the research. I agree with Pring’s viewpoint that the tension between quantitative and qualitative research is mistaken. I also agree that “qualitative knowledge is the test and building block of quantitative knowledge.” (p. 73) Therefore, having a distinct separation between the two types of research limits the generation of new ideas and findings to improve educational practice. Pring also discussed political control of research and how it contributes to the false dualisms of quantitative and qualitative research. (p. 71) I found his claims to be interesting given that major research studies are funded by government entities, including the federal government. I wonder, are majority of politicians or government entities funding more quantitative research because they see more value in the findings of a quantitative study?
ReplyDelete