Running head: DISSECTING THE RESEARCH DICHOTOMY 1

Dissecting the Research Dichotomy

Paige McClelland

University of British Columbia

February 25, 2017

ETEC 500 Section 65A

Professor: Dr. Sunah Cho

DISSECTING THE RESEARCH DICHOTOMY 2

After reading the assigned articles and related research, I now have a better understanding

of the key issues pertaining to dichotomous research, and its influence on policy and pedagogy. I

am also more aware of how assumptions are rooted in research at the individual, community,

national (and, arguably, global) levels. In fact, despite strong arguments from the authors of

“What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative?” and “The elephant in the

living room: Or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence,” they have all

articulated biases and assumptions that undergird the “current” dichotomy debate. The authors

acknowledge that a single, productive discourse around qualitative and quantitative research does

not yet exist. However, Ercikan and Roth’s technical argument is in sharp contrast to Denzin’s

political and philosophical argument. Their main issues of contention are the following: the

appropriateness of polarizing research, methods to generalize evidence, and responsibility for

constructing and presenting data. Although focusing on a dichotomy seems counterintuitive, I

will argue that it is necessary to first understand the representation of qualitative and quantitative

research before we engage in productive conversations about how to limit the polarization in a

critical, integrative way in the hopes that a continuum for research is possible.

Ercikan and Roth argue that polarizing qualitative and quantitative research has no place

in the current debate; however, Denzin provides a strong case that the construction of qualitative

data needs to be understood in isolation in order to minimize unfair representations of this

method in the education field. I agree with Ercikan and Roth’s stance that the purpose of

research is to generate knowledge rather than place value on one research method over the other,

yet current research is often driven by quantitative criteria. In fact, when Ercikan and Roth

(2006) emphasize the importance of establishing “good” research questions, they cite the

National Research Council (NRC) and the science-based method (p. 21). They acknowledge that
DISSECTING THE RESEARCH DICHOTOMY 3

research contains both qualitative and quantitative elements, yet their biases and assumptions

about which stages of research require which methods may undermine qualitative research. We

live in a time of rapid technological advancement both inside and outside the classroom, and we

often rely on a flood of research reports to keep up with the changes. Therefore, it is critical that

we recognize a research dichotomy does exist, and it influences the type of information we

receive and the decisions we make. For example, the NRC Canada (2013) has a keen interest in

technological innovation for education, and the strategy for 2013-2018 appears to place value on

the scientific or evidence-based method to find creative solutions (p. 3), supporting Denzin’s

(2009) assertion that quantitative research is often (tacitly) valued over qualitative research (p.

143). Ercikan and Roth’s argument against “subjective” or “objective” research reminds us that

we must assess biases in our language and research selections as well as understand the political

influence of national research councils that help structure a research dichotomy.

Denzin, a seemingly radical constructivist, claims that the narrative around qualitative

research must change if we are to produce more effective evidence and generalizations. Although

he does not provide concrete strategies, he does articulate the importance of a critical pedagogy

to inform researchers and others in the field how data is used and circulated. As expressed by

Kincheloe, McLaren, and Steinberg (2011), “critical research . . . disallows a proclamation to

correctness, validity, truth, and the tacit axis of Western power through traditional research” (p.

173). Indeed, there are inherent power structures in traditional educational research, and we must

recognize the historical and political nature of these structures to be informed members of the

current conversation. Although Denzin provides a powerful argument through a social justice

framework, he presents his own troubling bias: “qualitative data can’t be fudged, mis-

represented, altered, or distorted, because they are life experiences” (p. 151). Anyone who is
DISSECTING THE RESEARCH DICHOTOMY 4

familiar with Wakefield’s fraudulent MMR vaccine and autism study can attest that qualitative

research, including case studies, can be misrepresented and falsified, sometimes causing

cataclysmic damage (Godlee, Smith, & Marcovitch, 2011, p. 64) in the education community,

the medical field, and beyond. On the other hand, Ercikan and Roth (2006) recognize that

subjectivity is found in both the qualitative and quantitative fields (p. 17). Ercikan and Roth

provide a rich narrative about the dichotomy debate, but their main focus is on providing a

technical solution for generalizing research results in the form of an integrative framework.

Despite my concerns about the design’s assumptions and biases, a continuum framework does

show promise because it has the ability to meaningfully integrate a mixed-methods approach.

However, I am curious as to how these researchers arrived at eight specific levels of inference.

Who decided these are the most important levels of inference? Although Denzin disavows the

mixed-methods approach because of inherent biases in the education field against qualitative

research, I think that a continuum could sustain “conclusions . . . enhanced and extended through

the collection of [a] complementary type of data and subsequent analysis” (Mertler, 2016, p.

157). Ironically, the authors of both articles did not explicitly state their own biases or limitations

in the field, providing rather subjective approaches to the debate. In order to see a continuum as a

legitimate possibility for generalizing results, I think that there needs to be more critical

discussion about researchers’ biases and assumptions in the education community.

Finally, the authors present differing perspectives in terms of who is responsible for data

construction and presentation. Ercikan and Roth (2006) conclude that researchers need to make

informed decisions regarding data sources, methods of analysis, and modes of inquiry that best

fit the research question and then provide generalized results for people, such as policymakers, to

make decisions (p. 23). Conversely, Denzin (2009) argues that we must pay attention to the
DISSECTING THE RESEARCH DICHOTOMY 5

politics of evidence if we are to avoid a gold standard of research that places the responsibility of

data construction in policymakers’ hands (p. 152). While I agree with Ercikan and Roth that

research questions should be clearly mapped out before selecting an appropriate research

method(s), it is troubling that they do not take into account the politics of evidence. While an

integrative framework may prove effective and useful, which type of knowledge and data is it

circulating? Does it provide some policymakers with an advantage that promotes quantitative

data, and does this reinforce the dichotomy? For example, ERIC is a popular governmentally

funded database in Canada and the United States. Their mandate is to provide “access to

education research in a user-friendly, timely, and efficient manner” (ERIC, 2016, p. 1). As

educators, we need to be aware of how databases and journals present and accept research,

especially if we refer to them regularly. I agree with Denzin (2009) that it is our responsibility as

educators and critical consumers of information to question the politics of evidence and realize

that “ways of knowing are always already partial, moral, and political” (p. 154). Ultimately, we

must resist a gold standard of research and consider the voices we bring into the classroom.

Although I have presented an argument that recognizes the value of both articles;

ultimately, I think there is great urgency to address the issues presented by Denzin. As educators

in the information age, it is our responsibility to deconstruct the research dichotomy, question the

politics of evidence, and reflect on our own and other researchers’ biases. We must assess how

knowledge and data are constructed at the national, community, and individual level. It is

important to recognize that both qualitative and quantitative methods have strengths and

limitations, and that labeling a dichotomy is perhaps not the most productive way to move the

conversation forward. However, it is important to dissect the reasons for the dichotomy and to

understand current methods used to generalize research in the education field as well as uncover
DISSECTING THE RESEARCH DICHOTOMY 6

whose voices and whose ideas of “good research and good research questions” (Ercikan & Roth,

2006, pp. 14-15) we are hearing. Hopefully we can move forward with a better understanding of

how to create a fair continuum that speaks to the value of both qualitative and quantitative

research. After reading both articles, I have a clearer understanding of my own responsibility as

an educator who regularly refers to educational and pedagogical research. I must think critically

about the research I refer to and be able to defend my decisions, understand how certain evidence

is valued and constructed, and identify my own and others’ assumptions that inform my practice

and influence.

Word count: 1419 words

DISSECTING THE RESEARCH DICHOTOMY 7

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.

doi:10.1177/1468794108098034

Ercikan, K., & Wolff-Michael, R. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and

quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23. doi:10.3102/0013189X035005014

ERIC. (2016). ERIC selection policy [PDF]. Retrieved from

https://eric.ed.gov/pdf/ERIC_Selection_Policy.pdf

Godlee, F., Smith, J., Marcovitch, H. (2011). Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and

autism was fraudulent [Editorial]. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452

Kincheloe, J. L., McLaren, P., & Steinberg, S. R. (2011). Critical pedagogy, and qualitative

research: Moving to the bricolage. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE

Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 163-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications. doi:10.3102/0013189X028005012

Mertler, C. A. (2016). Introduction to educational research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE

Publications.

National Research Council Canada. (2013). Strategy 2013-2018 [PDF]. Retrieved from

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/doc/reports-rapports/NRC_Strategy_2013_2018_e.pdf