515 Assignment #1a Week 2: Leaving the Methodological Sandbox

Photo by Alexander Dummer on Unsplash

When I was in my undergrad, in Psychology and Criminology, I took multiple research methods and statistical courses. They were a prerequisite. In my time there, it was clear as to which form of research was acceptable if you wanted research to have any weight. Quantitative research was the way.  Validity, reliability, replicability, and generalizability were the chants. Vignettes and case studies were cute and cuddly but not  “real” science.

I should preface this by saying that this was in the early 2000’s and things may very well have changed. That being said, qualitative research was fluff in the eyes of many when I went to school. Can it be counted? How do you measure that? Is it significant and how can you prove it is? That is how we were taught to think, to write, and to exist as social scientists in order to be accepted as scientists. I was never truly indoctrinated by this, however the expectation was there. That was the sandbox in which we were expected to play.

As to the reading this week, Assessing the Quality of Mixed Methods Research: Toward a Comprehensive Framework by Alicia O’Cathain (2014), I found it nice to see the idea of mixed methods. However, what I also saw was the need for everyone to put in there own criteria; so much that the method almost became unsustainable.  I saw that people dogmatically need to use their methods’ wording. Do transferability (qualitative) and generalizability (quantitative) not mean the same thing? I do not, and have never, understood the cemented way people see research. In my opinion, if something is found, no matter the method, that helps us as people understand a situation better, is that not a positive? I found, in my undergrad, the tolerance of some towards the qualitative field of study to be like life was to Hobbes in his work Leviathan, “nasty, brutish and short”.

In the education field, there are a lot of studies done at every possible angle. However, which are best? For example, what is more telling research; a study on the number of kids, by percentage, that report bullying at their school every year or a study that looks at the affect of bullying, through interview,  on those who have been bullied, or do the bullying, as the researched? I contest that both are important and that neither one excludes the other. Would it not make sense as a researcher to look at a school that statistically has a lot of bullying and then look into the specifics of that school through interviews. The results of this could lead the; school boards, principals, teachers, parents, as the readers,   to have a greater understand the issues.

I am aware that we are looking at two different types of research (quantitative and qualitative) and that each has their own standards, and that is needed. However, human experience is beyond any one methodology as it it is extremely complex. One can count the number of times someone has been pushed in the halls, but should we not be equally interested in why He/she was pushed and how it made them feel?  Multiple methods can, and should, be used in examining a situation. To be honest, I find strictly quantitative research bland and cold as a reader when describing people and groups. Always have. However, the qualitative element attached to the quantitative element, I feel, paints a fuller picture of the situation.

Andrew Vogelsang