Thoughts on the Qualitative-Quantitative Debate.

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. Educational Research; Higher Education; *Qualitative Research; *Research Methodology; *Social Science Research; *Statistical Analysis; *Statistics This paper assesses the value of research, not on its methodology type but on its goal and accomplishments. It outlines an idea for developing a knowledge base capable of informing teacher education program planning and other educational policy decisions. Studies are described that advance knowledge about causal relationships between classroom processes and student outcomes, especially studies that document and describe desirable practices. The paper is divided into the following sections: (1) "Introduction"; (2) "Factors that Contribute to the Value of Research Studies"; (3) "Quantitative Methods"; (4) "Qualitative Methods"; (5) "Shift in Focus from Methods to Questions"; and (6) "Needed Research in Social Studies. " (EH) *****-%. ***********************************************i *****"**** * * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************:,AAA*****:************ THOUGHTS ON THE QUALITATIVE-QUANTITATIVE DEBATE Jere Brophy Michigan State University PERMISSION To REpPoDuCE THIS M ER1AL HAS BEEN CRANTED BY To THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES +NEORMATION CENITR (ERIC1 0 SDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ED;:CAlIONAL PESOURCES INFORMATION XCENTER ,Enic, r Nib Doeo I epl odt /COO A S '0, oo.ed 1;,,, :he por! ,or, or . o:Ir! ,ng ,t 0 1,,, oo, o. ,Qoq ,,,i,o ht,eo rn.ide li, ,,1,-,,,, ,. 1-,. ,;. ,,, Q.o. O.TV P,,,! , 0! ,,te. 11, . 1, OFfii This presentation was made as part of a symposium entitled "The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate and its Relevance for Social Studies Education: Still Alive and Kicking or Beating a Dead Horse? " held at the annual meeting of the College and University Faculty Assembly of the Natit,-Ial council for the Social Studies, Chicago, November, 1995. 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE My views on research methodology are rooted in the fact that although I take an interest in developing grounded theory, I approach research on teaching primarily from a practical rather than a theoretical standpoint. I prefer to work primarily inductively, by first establishing empirical information about variables and their relationships, then identifying the causal linkages that explain these relationships and developing implications for teachers. I view both teaching and research as means, not ends. Teaching is action taken to help students make progress toward instructional goals. Research is action taken to answer some question. To evaluate either teaching or research, we need to consider both the importance of their goals and the degree to which they get accomplished. Good teaching is good because it succeeds in helping students attain worthwhiLe learning goals. Good research is good because it succeeds in answering worthwhile questions. From this perspective, attempts to argue qualitative versus quantitative research methods make no more sense than arguing the value of hammers versus screwdrivers. To argue the relative merits of tools productively, we need to consider the purposes and goals for which they might be used. Tools offer trade-offs. They are ideally suited for some purposes, usable but not ideal for other purposes, and irrelevant or counterproductive for still other purposes. This is as true for research methods as it is for other tools. Any systematic, clearly described, replicable method is scientifically acceptable, but particular methods are more suited to some purposes than others. Sensible research planning begins with goals. Presumably, the research is needed because some information is needed--the test of the hypothesis, the answer to a question, or some other knowledge to be generated. Clarifying research goals allow us to identify the kinds of data that we need to achieve our goal. In turn, achieving clarity about needed data allows us to identify the research methods needed to produce those data. It is only at this stage of research planning, after clarification of research goals and data needs, that we should turn to methodological issues. We then can consider relevant methods with an eye toward their potential for generating the needed data, their cost effectiveness, and other criteria. I believe that scientists who proceed in'this goals-oriented fashion are the most likely to investigate important questions using methods that are well suited to those questions. In the process, they may need to invent new methods, if the needed information cannot be generated using existing methods. These invented methods are then available for use by others, who may apply them, for good or ill, in ways that were not foreseen by their inventors. Scientific advances, especially in young sciences such as research on teaching, often are stimulated at least as much by tool invention as by theoretical developments. However, researchers sometimes fall in love with their methods. Some of them keep doing the same kinds of studies, even when there no longer are good reasons to do so. This leads to work that is methodologically elegant but substantively trite. Others shift to new questions but cling to their old methods, even when these are not well suited to the questions ostensibly under investigation. People whose methodological commitments are this strong and misdirected are no longer acting primarily as scientists seeking to generate needed knowledge. Instead, they are behaving compulsively for overdetermined reasons, treating a means as if it were an end in itself. When I assess the value of research, I focus not on its methodological type but on its goals and accomplishments. Was it designed to generate knowledge that would contribute significantly to the literature and carry important theoretical or practical implications? If so, I will be eager to find out