1

The Great Divide: The unfortunate debate between qualitative and quantitive research
methodologies

Journal Assignment

Dustin Hyde

ETEC 500-65B

University of British Columbia

Prof. Lori MacIntosh

Feb 20, 2018

Much of the quantitative-qualitative debate has involved the practice of polemics, which

has tended to obfuscate rather than to clarify, and to divide rather than to unite

educational research (Onwuegbuzie, 2003, p. 394 as cited in Onwuegbuzie,

2005, p. 378).

Anyone conducting formal research is well aware of the polarizing debate that exists

between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. In fact, according to

Onwuegbuzie (2005) so divisive is the divide between research camps that many graduate

students “with an aspiration to gain employment in the world of academia or research are left

with the impression that they have to pledge allegiance to one research school of thought or

the other” (p. 376). Such divisiveness has resulted in three schools of thought in the qualitative

- quantitative debate: purists, situationalists, and pragmatics (p. 376). Purists hold the belief

that research methodology are secular and thus are incompatible and should not be mixed,

situationalists, are essentially, purists but acknowledge both methodologies have value in

certain circumstances, and finally pragmatics argue that quantitative and qualitative

methodologies have pros and cons and thus should be mixed and used together (p. 376-377).

Interestingly, Onwuegbuzie has noted that despite the great divide that exists between the

camps, there is actually “overwhelmingly more similarities” than differences when comparing

quantitative and qualitative perspectives (p. 379). He notes that “both methodologies describe

their data, construct explanatory arguments from their data, and speculate about why the

outcomes they observed happened as they did” (p. 379). Yet despite sharing significant

practices, the debate has existed for over 100 years and has caused colossal division in the

field of research.

Denzin’s (2009) “The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about

the politics of evidence” and Ercikan and Roth’s (2006) “What Good Is Polarizing Research into

Qualitative and Quantitative” are classic examples that highlight the great debate that exists in

the world of research methodology. Denzin, a true purist, offers a thorough analysis of the
3

debate through the lens of the evidence based community model that exists within the

qualitative camp focusing on the importance of defending the value of pure qualitative research

methodology. Ercikan and Roth by comparison, are true pragmatics, and take the approach of

defending both quantitative and quantitative research methodologies and instead offer reason

to end the polarity that exists between the camps by offering and suggesting a blended model

based on a continuum.

Much of Denzin’s (2009) article is dedicated to countering the quantitative camp’s

assertion that “qualitative research does not count as research” (p. 140). Denzin argues that

qualitative research should not “be made to conform to inappropriate definitions of scientific

research” and further it's appalling that “qualitative research should not be funded if it fails to

conform to these criteria” (p. 140). In true purist form, Denzin argues strongly against the

blending of the qualitative and quantitative research methodologies when he states:

“Meta-analyses of published articles hardly counts as qualitative research in any sense

of the word. The return to mix-methods inquiry fails to address the incommensurability

issue - the fact the two paradigms are in contradiction. Any effort to circumvent this

collision, through complimentary strengths, single paradigm, dialectical, or multiple

paradigm, mixed-methods approaches seems doomed to failure (p. 141).

Denzin also takes issue with global state and discipline sponsored organizations such as the

National Research Council (NRC), British Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), as well as the

Institute of Education Science (IES), and the Cochrane-Campbell Collaboration (CCC) among

others. For Denzin, these institutions “are based, more or less, on the assumption that since

medical research is successful, and randomized experimental designs are used and

appreciated in medical science, this should be the blueprint for all good research” (p. 142).

Ultimately, Denzin argues against the endorsement of a globalized ‘gold standard’ advocated

by the NRC and others, and instead takes a purist approach and advocates for unequivocal,

equal endorsement and support of qualitative research methodology free of quantitative based

criteria.

Erckian and Roth (2006) by comparison represent the pragmatic perspective on the

great research methodology debate calling for an end to the polarity that has plagued the field

for over a century. They begin by asserting that “we believe the polarization is confusing to

many and tends to limit research inquiry, often resulting in incomplete answers to research

questions and potentially inappropriate inferences based on findings” (p. 14). At the heart of

Erckian and Roth’s argument is their deconstruction of the assertion that qualitative research is

subjective while quantitative research is objective and instead that “both types of research

activities involve subjective judgments” (p. 17). In this regard, Erckian and Roth stray far from

Denzin making the claim that there exists common ground in the characteristics of quantitative

and qualitative methodologies. Further, Erckian and Roth offer a strong deviation from Denzin’s

purist approach, in that they argue and propose for a “integrative framework” based first and

foremost on “putting research questions first” and encouraging researchers to “join expertise

and work together” (p. 20). In this model, a framework based on a continuum of low-level-

inference to high-level-inference allows investigators to blend methodologies based on

research questions where “research at different ends of this continuum addresses different

questions” (p. 21). As pragmatics, Erckian and Roth make a strong case to end the seemingly

endless debate between research methodologies and instead call for the transcendence of

dichotomies “that go beyond forms that can be placed on a single location on the scale” (p.

22).

Reflecting on the debate myself, I can’t help but to feel disheartened by the seemingly

childish fight over which research methodology reigns champion. Based on the allegations put

forth by Denzin it would appear that the qualitative camp has been critiqued, devalued, and

essentially bullied for years by political, state, and educational institutions. The result has been

an enduing, ferocious debate with ethnocentric undertones running through both camps. This

is truly unfortunately and ultimately counterproductive to the fundamental goal of research in

general. Based on the knowledge acquired through this journal assignment, I would consider

myself part of pragmatic research methodology camp. I fundamentally agree with Erckian and
5

Roth in that research methodologies should be not be defined by ‘either or’, but instead should

transcend camps and work together to achieve sound answers to research questions.

Currently I am a member of a leadership group tasked with the responsibility at looking

to the issue of chronic non-attendance in our urban high school with over 1200 students. The

purpose of the research group is to provide a framework to improve overall student

attendance. Guiding questions such as how can we improve overall student attendance and if

we involve students and parents in the creation of an attendance framework will we experience

improvement in overall student attendance are the driving questions in the research process.

We have poured over the quantitative attendance data which paints a concerning picture but

certainly lacks the ‘why this is happening’ and ‘how can we improve’. For our leadership team,

we will blend both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies to guide us through the

process of developing a framework of improving overall student attendance. Through a

quantitative data crunching process we will confirm the existence of an attendance problem

followed by an analysis of the data to unveil trends and patterns. Next will come a qualitative

process involving interviews with students representing various cohorts, along with parents and

subsequent involvement and participation by both stakeholders in the development of a new

proposed attendance framework. We could not get the bottom of the student attendance issue

if we simply looked at the numbers. Instead, a pragmatic approach involving a mixed

methodology will allow us to identify trends and patterns in student attendance and offer us the

ethnographic perspective that serve to answer the research question(s) and ultimately help us

develop a holistic framework to combat student attendance issues.

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., & Roth, W.-M.. (2006). What Good Is Polarizing Research into Qualitative and

Quantitative?.Educational Researcher , 35(5), 14– 23. Retrieved from:

http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/3699783

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The

importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.

International journal of social research methodology, 8(5), 375-387.