Individual Journal Assignment

Danielle Peters

91057166

ETEC 500 – 65C

UBC MET Vancouver

Sunah Cho

Word Count: 1102

February 25, 2017

 Norman K. Denzin (2009) and Ercikan & Roth (2006) present different opinions

regarding data analysis and research methods. There are two important issues they

disagree on. One issue is the research paradigms. Norman K. Denzin (2009) argues that

his research relies solely on qualitative data, and should be as valued as mixed method

and quantitative data. Ercikan & Roth (2006) argue against polarizing research into

qualitative and quantitative, because it “is not meaningful or productive.” Another issue

they disagree on is the credibility and value of the three research paradigms. Norman K.

Denzin (2009) argues that qualitative research is like “an elephant in their living room,”

and that its value has been ignored. He wants qualitative research to have its own

standards of quality and criteria. Ercikan & Roth (2006) state “there is value in such

distinct types of research, we believe that research placing itself at either extreme end

cannot be expected to fully answer research questions.”

The first issue they disagree on is a continuum research method rather than a

dichotomy between qualitative research and quantitative research. Ercikan and Roth

(2006) discuss the importance of letting the research question guide the data collection.

“The meaningfulness and completeness of answers to research questions become the

primary focus when we consider the purposes of education research that is intended to

serve society. This meaningfulness and completeness are possible if researchers

formulate the research questions first and let the research questions dictate and determine

what modes of inquiry are more appropriate. The chosen methods may combine several

approaches that are associated with different ends of the continuum” (Ercikan and Roth,

2006). The article supports a continuum approach because the mode of inquiry cannot

always be separated. Quantitative research answers “what” happened and is measurable,

while quantitative research answers “why” it happened. Qualitative research is often

important to help interpret quantitative data, as it is often more flexible and fluid. It can

be used before quantitative to help guide the study, and after to help interpret the data.

This is why Ercikan & Roth (2006) argue the importance of a continuum research

approach. It is dependent on where the research exists on the continuum, as it may be

interwoven from the beginning to the end. Ercikan & Roth (2006) argue that research

can’t always be separated into quantitative and qualitative.

Norman K. Denzin (2009) favors a qualitative approach to research. He discusses

that the “qualitative research community is not a single entity,” and that he “favors

flexible guidelines that are not driven by quantitative criteria” (Denzin, 2009). He argues

that, “quality research is scientific, empirical, linked to theory, uses methods for direct

investigation, and produces coherent chains of causal reasoning based on experimental or

quasi-experimental findings.” Watkins (2012) takes a similar stance, arguing, “qualitative

research is particularly important because much of what we do is grounded in the social

and behavioural sciences-areas that benefit greatly from qualitative research insight. As

we work to change not only life-styles but also systems, built environments, and policies,

the “deeper data” that we can tap into using qualitative methods become increasingly

valuable.”

The second issue the articles disagree on is the validity of the three research

paradigms. Norman K. Denzin (2009) argues that qualitative research needs to have its

own set of criteria like quantitative research. He references Cochrane and Campbell, a

trusted research database, and how “qualitative inquiry falls off the positivist grid,” and
“barely earns a Grade of C- on the Cochrane scale” (Morse, 2006a). Surrounding the

three basic positions to evaluate criteria, Denzin wants to implement a set of specific

criteria to validate qualitative research so that is equally recognized and credited as other

research methods, even if it stands alone. He questions, “who has the power to control the

definition of evidence, who defines the kinds of materials that count as evidence, who

determines what methods best produce the best forms of evidence, whose criteria and

standards are used to evaluate quality evidence? (Norman K. Denzin, 2009). His

approach argues that qualitative research is not acknowledged by the large databases. If

qualitative research was given the proper attention, and there was a set of criteria

attached, it would be given a higher grade on the Cochrane scale. Morse states, “Our

evidence is considered soft … it is considered not valid, not replicable, not acceptable!

We have failed to communicate the nature of qualitative evidence to the larger scientific

community … we have failed to truly understand it ourselves” (2006b). Qualitative

research that stands alone isn’t acknowledged in the research community as quantitative

research is because it’s not measurable. If there was set criteria for qualitative, like there

is for quantitative, it may be more accepted.

Ercikan and Roth (2006) take an opposing viewpoint, arguing that “polarization is

not meaningful or productive.” They stress the importance of focusing on the public

needs instead of arguing about which research method is better. “Instead of

dichotomizing research into qualitative and quantitative, we need integrative approaches

that provide the appropriate forms of knowledge” (2006). They believe that “all

knowledge simultaneously have quantitative and qualitative dimensions,” and that we

should be “encouraging the collaboration of researchers” (2006). Instead of separating

qualitative and quantitative, “the chosen methods may combine several approaches that

are associated with different ends of the continuum” (2006). The significance of viewing

research data on a continuum is because the “different methodologies work together,”

which allows researchers to work together and share their expertise (2006).

In comparing the two research approaches, I support mixed methods research

because quantitative and qualitative combined can be a positive addition to many

research questions. Combining qualitative and quantitative data is important because the

data within the study can be compared. “Mixed methods designs can provide pragmatic

advantages when exploring complex research questions. The qualitative data provide a

deep understanding of survey responses, and statistical analysis can provide detailed

assessment of patterns of responses” (Driscoll, 2007). Solely using a quantitative

approach, a general survey can only collect so much data. Given the option of a mixed

method approach, the addition of qualitative data creates a more open-ended response,

where people can elaborate. This will maximize the amount of knowledge and data

needed for a study. I support the suggestion to put the research question first and the

encouragement of uniting research experts to share and work together. “The purpose or

research is to generate knowledge rather than to concretely realize one method or another.

Research methods are means to answer knowledge-constitutive questions” (Ercikan and

Roth, 2006). This is why I support a mixed methods approach to research.

 References

Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: Or extending the conversation
about the politics of evidence. Qualitative Research, 9(2). 139-160.

Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P. and Rupert, D. J. 2007. Merging qualitative
and quantitative data in mixed methods research: how to and why not. Ecological and
Environmental Anthropology 3 (1): 19-28.

Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and
quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 15-23.

Morse, Janice M. (2006a) ‘The Politics of Evidence’, Qualitative Health Research 16(3):
395–404.

Watkins, D. C. (2012). Qualitative research. Health Promotion Practice, 13(2), 153-158.