Valuing a Plurality of Research Methodologies and Instructional Ideologies in Classroom Research

The critical issue Connor, Gallagher, Ferri, Dudley-Marling, and others have put before us in this special issue of the LDQ is the hegemony of quantitative methodologies and subsequent marginalization of qualitative research. On this I am in full agreement. When the human sciences use only quantitative data, we end up with a narrow, piecemeal view of reality and, thus, narrowed solutions. Like them, I am not suggesting that we simply equally marginalize the quantitative paradigm; both are essential to have a full view of effective classrooms. The old adage "if all I have is a hammer, everything looks like (and must be treated as) a nail" holds true for both methodological and theoretical hegemony. Methodological Hegemony I admire Connor, Ferri, and Gallagher's desire to promote a healthy dialogue; these are in short supply these days. And I am impressed with Curt Dudley-Marling's balanced discussion of the method and results of his research. He writes, "We do not dismiss the utility of the evidence indicating that the practice of Shared Inquiry at South Bronx Elementary worked to improve scores on the district achievement tests. Our particular focus, however, was on "how these discussions worked to support student learning" (p. 145; emphasis added). This is the essence of great research; we have an accountability measure linked to actual lived experience (the "what" happened linked to the "how" and "why" it happened). Whether the question is simply what works or how do teachers and students work together to construct rigorous meanings, we all ultimately want some lasting results from our work--ideally, results that more than a couple of observers can see, as well as results that provide us more than a number. We want to know how what happened really happened; we want to know what is behind those results, both practically and theoretically. Both inductive and deductive research strategies are vital to forming a full picture of a successful classroom. Dudley-Marling rightly challenges the imperative to use solely quantifiable data to verify "what works. " However, in critiquing the methodological imperative of experimental and quasi-experimental procedures as "objective, scientific research," he goes one step further than I am comfortable doing. I believe qualitative inquiry, his research being a good example, can be equally scientific and objective. The real question is whether we can conduct either form of research objectively and scientifically, unapologetically seeking some truth (another word in short supply these days) that will advance our work with children who struggle in school. What we need is more thick description like Dudley-Marling's classroom dialogues to sharpen teachers' sensitivities to and insights about their students and their own practice. Our ultimate goal are teachers who are so intuitive and responsive that they can educate students so that they have a fighting chance of knowing and fulfilling whatever they are uniquely designed to be in the world, whether a master brick layer, a lawyer, a mother, an artist, a professor, or a train conductor. I completely agree with Dudley Marling that this will require us to open up our research and theoretical paradigms without giving up the idea that some ways of being in the classroom may be better (more effective) than others for particular children. This will mean we need to use every tool in the bag and perhaps even discover some new ones. Qualitative methodology can reach understandings and answer questions that quantitative methodology either cannot answer or answers poorly. Qualitative methodologies such as the ones used by Dudley-Marling reveal intricate details that relate to deep levels of comprehension, values, rigor, feelings, interests, intensity, human interactions, and processes that quantitative methods can reach only superficially. Quantitative methods generally examine lived experiences using tools like surveys, which by necessity already have embedded in them not only methodological but also theoretical assumptions. …