Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal Assignment The Polarization of Research Methodologies
Journal Assignment The Polarization of Research Methodologies
Derek Cowan
Denzin (2009) and Ercikan and Roth (2006) both see significant value in the
contributions of qualitative research methods and believe these methods should play an
important role in educational research. However, they differ significantly in their proposed re-
Their main disagreement centers around their opinions regarding the polarization of research
methodologies. Denzin supports further polarization while Ercikan and Roth favour a more
integrated approach. In this article, I will first review the perspectives of both authors, which
will demonstrate their primary disagreement. I will then explore particular issues in more depth
and explain why I believe Ercikan and Roth make a more convincing argument.
Denzin (2009) accepts a distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods and
does not believe that standards for assessing quality research can be the same for both
methodologies. He clearly articulates his support of qualitative research and rejects current
trends within dominant educational institutions which, in his view, disproportionally value
quantitative designs and data. Denzin resists the notion that research in the social sciences
should mimic that of medical research, in which evidence is valued more when it is countable
and measurable. He believes researchers have failed to communicate the nature and value of
evaluative criteria to qualitative studies commonly associated with quantitative methods. In his
view, qualitative methods are distinctly unique and largely incompatible with quantitative
criteria. For qualitative methods to be recognized as contributing equally valuable research, and
to be supported in kind, Denzin argues that a unique set of flexible criteria be developed that
identifies and values the methodological and interpretive guidelines that exist in qualitative
research. He maintains that [w]e must create our own standards of quality, our own criteria
(Denzin, 2009, p. 140). Denzin essentially argues for increased polarization between
Ericikan and Roth (2006) have a very different perspective. Instead of focusing on the
value of one method over the other, they question the prevailing distinction between
quantitative and qualitative methods entirely. They see the polarization of methods as limiting
research inquiry, leading to incomplete answers to research questions. In their opinion, the
material world has inextricably linked qualitative and quantitative characteristics and maintain
that either method alone cannot adequately explore the complex environments common to
education. The polarization of methods promotes a focus on certain types of data collection
instead of the construction of good research questions and design. Misguided beliefs about
objectivity and generalizability lead researchers to seek quantitative data, as opposed to a more
descriptive qualitative analysis. They see neither method as uniquely objective or generalizable
and endorse a more integrated approach to research moving forward. They recommend
from low to high inference levels for a variety of relevant dimensions, therefore only differing
independently on different parts of the continuum. Research questions could then drive
decision making with regards to which modes of inquiry are best suited to answer them. They
recommend researchers with different expertise work collaboratively to design studies that are
Although I appreciate the value both authors place on qualitive research, the arguments
put forward by Ericikan and Roth (2006) are more convincing when compared to those of
Denzin (2009). Their solution to polarization and the unequal valuing of research methodologies
are both more logical and functional. Instead of focusing on perceived differences between
qualitative and quantitative methods, Erickson and Roth argue that there are a range of
effective strategies available to researchers and common limitations are not solely associated
The argument made by Ericikan and Roth (2006) that areas of research interest within
education contain elements that are simultaneously qualitative and quantitative is highly
convincing. They argue that the quantitative-qualitative dichotomy not only distorts the
conception of education research but also is fallacious (Ericikan and Roth, 2006, 14). I agree
that polarizing methods on this basis does not make practical sense in terms of research goals.
To fully explore complex topics and environments relevant to education, both continuous and
quantitative and qualitative elements and firmly supports the latter. His perspective
perpetuates the focus of researchers on generating specific types of data, which I believe could
limit research inquiry. For example, if a researcher was to explore gender differences in regards
to learning with a certain technology, designing a study that only generated one type of data
phenomenological research. Ericikan and Roths recommendations allows for this option.
Both authors also disagree with regards to how research is assessed. I believe that the
freedom to select methods that best suit the specific scope and purpose of each study. It allows
for more types of data to be valued and a deeper analysis of research topics. The continuum
be inferred at different levels. Studies that are specific to a particular context can be rated as
low-inference, while those using quantitative methods can be rated higher. This allows the
researcher to focus on good research questions and designs as primary concerns. All
methodologies can be recognized for their relative strengths and employed depending on the
specific nature of the inquiry. In an area that has a lot of research, an experimental model to
test a specific hypothesis might be appropriate. In new areas of research, more exploratory
qualitative methods could help uncover phenomena that can later be tested empirically. An
integrated approach would support this type of decision-making and, when justified, promote
mixed-methods designs. The example within the article regarding an ethnographic study of
knowing and learning in two eighth-grade science classrooms demonstrates this point. The
integrated method. The researchers were able to answer their research question more
wider range of educational actors. Denzin (2009) does not see value in mixed-method designs.
He writes mix-methods inquiry fails to address the incommensurability issue the fact the two
paradigms are in contradiction (Denzin, 2009, p. 141). Denzin advocates developing unique
criteria to assess qualitative work separate from that of quantitative methods. His partiality for
descriptive data creates the potential for the incomplete exploration of research topics.
The two authors also differ in terms of which audiences they are focused on. Ericikan and Roth
(2006) state that researchers need integrative approaches that provide the appropriate forms
of knowledge needed by decision makers located differently in society and dealing with
different units of analysis (Ericikan and Roth, 2006, p. 23). Individual teachers will benefit from
different forms of knowledge than that of policymakers and funding bodies. An integrated
approach will help facilitate a variety of research. Denzin however, focusses on qualitative
research being more valued by the scientific community and educational institutions. I believe
that the polarization of methods leads researchers to focus on other researchers using similar
answering research questions for pertinent actors within the educational community.
disagreement. Like Ericikan and Roth (2006), I believe that by joining expertise researchers
would have practical support in addressing limitations in their designs by extending the
methods they utilize. Denzin (2009) views the two approaches as contradictory and highlights
issues with the sharing of different types of data. In my view, collaboration seems highly
research could help triangulate data by produce knowledge that was both descriptive and
predicative. Without collaboration, both types of research would miss an opportunity to gain
variety of approaches. Researchers who collaborate with other experts and allow research
questions to guide their selection of methodologies will produce more complete and relevant
answers. This knowledge can then be utilized by the important educational actors who depend
Denzin, N. K. (2009). The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the
Ercikan, K., & Roth, W-M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and