11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
1/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
2/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
3/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
4/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
5/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
6/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
7/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
8/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
9/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
10/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
1/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
2/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
3/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
4/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
5/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
6/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
7/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
8/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
9/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
10/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
1/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
2/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
3/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
4/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
5/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
6/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
7/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
8/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
9/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
10/10
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
1/7
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
2/7
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
3/7
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
4/7
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
5/7
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
6/7
11/30/2018
The Practice of Social Research, 14e
PRINTED BY: alexbonilla813@gmail.com. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted without
publisher's prior permission. Violators will be prosecuted.
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305445567/cfi/272!/4/4@0.00:0.00
7/7
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 482 462
AUTHOR
TITLE
PUB DATE
NOTE
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
TM 035 389
Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J.; Leech, Nancy L.
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining
Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies.
2003-11-00
25p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association (Biloxi, MS, November 5-7, 2003).
Reports
Descriptive (141)
Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
*Pragmatics; *Qualitative Research; *Research Methodology;
*Researchers
ABSTRACT
The last 100 years have witnessed a fervent debate in the United
States about quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Unfortunately, this has
led to a great divide between quantitative and qualitative researchers, who often view
themselves in competition with each other. Clearly, this polarization has promoted
purists, i.e., researchers who restrict themselves exclusively to either quantitative
or qualitative research methods. Mono-method research is the biggest threat to the
advancement of the social sciences. As long as researchers stay polarized in research
they cannot expect stakeholders who rely on their research findings to take their work
seriously. The purpose of this paper is to explore how the debate between quantitative
and qualitative is divisive, and thus counterproductive for advancing the social and
behavioral science field. This paper advocates that all graduate students learn to use
and appreciate both quantitative and qualitative research. In so doing, students will
develop into what is termed "pragmatic researchers." (Contains 41 references.)
(Author/SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
Running head: ON BECOMING A PRAGMATIC RESEARCHER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
61/This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
A. Onwuegbuzie
0 Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher:
The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
71-
University of South Florida
00
Nancy L. Leech
University of Colorado at Denver
Correspondence should be addressed to Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Department of
Educational Measurement and Research, College of Education, University of South
Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, EDU 162,Tampa, Florida 33620-7750 or E-Mail:
(tonyonwuecibuzieaol.com).
co
of)
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
cz)
Association, Biloxi, MS, November 5-7, 2003.
'BEST COPY AVM LAkF
1
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
2
Abstract
The last 100 years has witnessed a fervent debate in the United States about
quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Unfortunately, this has led to a great
divide between quantitative and qualitative researchers, who often view themselves as
in competition with each other. Clearly, this polarization has promoted purists, namely,
researchers who restrict themselves exclusively either to quantitative or to qualitative
research methods. Mono-method research is the biggest threat to the advancement of
the social sciences. Indeed, as long as we stay polarized in research, how can we
expect stakeholders who rely on our research findings to take our work seriously? Thus,
the purpose of this paper is to explore how the debate between quantitative and
qualitative is divisive and, hence, counterproductive for advancing the social and
behavioral science field. This paper advocates for all graduate students to learn to
utilize and to appreciate both quantitative and qualitative research. In so doing, students
will develop into what we term as pragmatic researchers.
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
3
On Becoming a Pragmatic-Researcher:
The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies
Throughout the 20th century, social and behavioral science researchers in the
U.S. have witnessed a great divide between two opposing camps of researchers.
Specifically, these camps have comprised positivists on one side and interpretivists on
the other side. Interestingly, as noted by Sechrest and Sidani (1995), it is only in the
social and behavioral sciences that the merits of both research paradigms are so
vehemently debated.
The quantitative versus qualitative contest often has been so divisive that many
social and behavioral science students who graduate from American educational
institutions 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. Even more importantly, these students ire led to believe in the
Incompatibility Thesis (Howe, 1988), which posits that quantitative and qualitative
research paradigms and methodologies cannot and must not be mixed. Yet, there is a
general tendency among researchers to treat epistemology and method as being
synonymous (Bryman, 1984). This is far from being the case because the epistemology
does not dictate what specific data collection and data analytical methods should be
used by researchers. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to explore how the debate
between quantitative and qualitative is divisive and, hence, counterproductive for
advancing the social and behavioral science field. Instead, we advocate that all
graduate students learn to utilize and to appreciate both quantitative and qualitative
research. In so doing, students will develop into what we term as pragmatic
researchers.
Fundamental Differences Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research Paradigm
Proponents of both camps (i.e., purists) tend to focus on the differences between
4
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
4
the quantitative and qualitative philosophies rather than on the similarities. According to
purists, distinctions exist between quantitative and qualitative researchers with respect
to ontology, epistemology, axiology, rhetoric, logic, generalizations, and causal linkages.
With respect to ontological differences, theoretically, positivists believe that there
is a single reality and that this reality, which is expressed in terms of variables, can be
measured in a reliable and valid manner using a priori operational and standardized
definitions, whereas interpretivists believe that there are multiple-constructed realities
(i.e., relativist) and that multiple interpretations are available from different researchers
that are all equally valid. In the field of the social and behavioral sciences, interpretivists
posit that these realities are socially constructed, that they are products of human
intellects, and that they alter as their constructors change. Moreover, qualitative purists
believe that researchers should study the social world from the view of the actor.
With regard to epistemological differences, positivists contend that the
researcher (i.e., knower) and object of study (i.e., known) are independent. As such,
according to these proponents, researchers should remain objective in studying
phenomena. Conversely, for interpretivists, the researcher and object of study are
dependent. As such, qualitative researchers attempt to position themselves as closely
as possible to what is being studied.
The role of values (i.e., axiology) are supposed to play a different role in
quantitative and qualitative research. Specifically, positivists contend that inquiry should
be value-free, whereas interpretivists believe that research is influenced greatly by the
values of investigators. In other words, interpretivists believe that inquiry is value-bound.
As such, the rhetoric used by both sets of purists tends to have distinct features.
Positivists advocate rhetorical neutrality, involving an exclusively formal writing style
using the impersonal voice and specific terminology. On the other hand, interpretivists'
writing style predominantly is informal, using the personal voice and limited definitions.
5
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
5
Another difference that quantitative and qualitative researchers emphasize relate
to the reasoning process. The hallmark of positivism is the use of deductive reasoning,
which is a system for organizing known facts in order to reach a conclusion. In general,
deductive reasoning is a cognitive process in which researchers proceed from general
to specific conclusions using established rules of logic. Under the deductive reasoning
framework, conclusions are true only if the premises on which they are based are true.
Thus, positivists emphasize the importance of a priori hypotheses and theories.
Interpretivists tend to incorporate inductive reasoning, in which observations are made
on particular events, and then, on the basis of these observed events, inferences are
made. In other words, conclusions are reached by observing examples and then making
generalizations from the examples. As such, inductive reasoning is the reverse of
deductive reasoning.
Because a major goal in quantitative research is to generalize findings to the
population from which the sample was drawn, samples typically are larger than that for
qualitative research, wherein use of relatively few cases is more the norm. Further, the
preferred sampling method of positivists is that of (probability) random sampling (i.e.,
simple random sampling, stratified random sampling, cluster random sampling,
systematic random sampling, and multi-stage random sampling), interpretivists tend to
select purposive (i.e., judgmental), nonprobability samples in which individuals are
chosen because of their ability to provide thick, rich data. In qualitative research,
generality usually is less of a goal in deciding upon the sample, than who or what can
facilitate understanding of the underlying phenomenon. In fact, of the 16 types of
qualitative sampling techniques identified by Miles and Huberman (1994), only one
method is probability based.
Positivists believe that real causes to social scientific outcomes can be
determined reliably, and, as such, findings are replicable. These causal agents are
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
6
assumed to be either temporally precedent to or simultaneous with effects. In
experimental research, the researcher manipulates at least one independent variable
(i.e., the hypothesized cause), attempts to control potentially extraneous (i.e.,
confounding) variables, and then measures the effect(s) on one or more dependent
variables. According to this line of reasoning, valid cause-effect relationships are
established, if results obtained are due only to the manipulated independent variable
(i.e., possess internal validity). In contrast, however, interpretivists believe that it is
impossible to distinguish cause from effects. From their perspective, an experiment, at
best, represents a piecemeal attempt to understand the relationships between
variables. As such, they believe that experimentation does not identify cause-effect
relationships because reality cannot be broken down into component parts without
running the risk of distorting the findings--thereby justifying holistic analyses that are
generated by qualitative research (Rist, 1977).
As noted by Rossman and Wilson (1985), from the quantitative-qualitative
paradigm wars have evolved three major schools of thought, namely: purists,
situationalists, and pragmatists. The difference between these three perspectives
relates to the extent to which each believes that quantitative and qualitative approaches
co-exist and can be combined. These three camps can be conceptualized as lying on a
continuum, with purists and pragmatists lying on opposite ends, and situationalists lying
somewhere between purists and pragmatists.
Purists posit that quantitative and qualitative methods stem from different
ontologic, epistemologic, and axiologic assumptions about the nature of research
(Bryman, 1984; Collins, 1984; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Moreover, for purists, the
assumptions associated with both paradigms are incompatible about how the world is
viewed and what is important to know. Purists, such as Smith (1983) and Smith and
Heshusius (1986), contend that quantitative and qualitative approaches cannot and
7
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
should not be mixed. As such, they advocate mono-method studies.
Situationalists maintain the mono-method (paradigmatic) stance held by purists,
but also contend that both methods have value. However, they believe that certain
research questions lend themselves more to quantitative approaches, whereas other
research questions are more suitable for qualitative methods. Thus, although
representing very different orientations, the two approaches are treated as being
"complementary" (Vidich & Shapiro, 1955, p. 33).
Finally, at the other end of the continuum, pragmatists, unlike purists and
situationalists, contend that a false dichotomy exists between quantitative and
qualitative approaches (Denzin, 1970). These proponents believe that quantitative
methods are not necessarily positivist, nor are qualitative techniques necessarily
hermeneutic (Cook & Reichardt, 1979; Daft, 1983; Miller & Fredericks, 1991; Sieber,
1973). As such, pragmatists advocate integrating methods within a single study
(Creswell, 1995). Moreover, Sieber (1973) articulated that because both approaches
have inherent strengths and weaknesses, researchers should utilize the strengths of
both techniques in order to understand better social phenomena. Indeed, pragmatists
ascribe to the philosophy that the research question should drive the method(s) used,
believing that "epistemological purity doesn't get research done" (Miles & Huberman,
1984, p. 21). In any case, researchers who ascribe to epistemological purity disregard
the fact that research methodologies are merely tools that are designed to aid our
understanding of the world.
The differences between the three major research paradigms are outlined in
Figure 1. This figure represents a bi-dimensional diagram portraying two sets of poles,
namely, (a) a vertical pole with the quantitative research paradigm and the qualitative
research paradigm at the opposite ends of the pole, and (b) a horizontal pole with
quantitative methods and qualitative methods at the opposite ends of the pole. That is,
8
7
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
8
the vertical pole is at the level of logic of justification (Smith & Heshusius, 1986),
reconstructed logic (Kaplan, 1964), or epistemology (Bryman, 1984), whereas the
horizontal pole is at the methodological level (Smith & Heshusius, 1986), logic in use
(Kaplan, 1964), or technical level (Bryman, 1984).
In Figure 1, the upper left quadrant, labeled as "(1)," represents quantitative
purists, who believe that research should be undertaken via the exclusive use of the
quantitative framework, adhering to the positivist assumptions and utilizing only
quantitative research methodologies. In stark contrast, the bottom right quadrant,
labeled as "(4)," represents qualitative purists, who ascribe exclusively to hermeneutical
principals using only qualitative techniques. The upper right quadrant, labeled as "(2),"
represents a direct challenge to positivism because it involves the use of qualitative
methods to test hypotheses and the like. Finally, the lower left quadrant, marked as
"(3)," represents a direct challenge to interpretivist dogma because it entails the use of
quantitative methods to discover meaning of social phenomena. Situationalists
advocate the separate use of quadrants "(1)" and "(4)," but do not believe that the
combinations represented by quadrants "(2)" and "(3)" are possible. On the other hand,
pragmatists believe that regardless of the research paradigm, quantitative and
qualitative methodologies should be mixed, if the research question lends itself to this
format. As such, pragmatists champion the simultaneous use of quadrants "(1)" and
"(2)," as well as the combined use of quadrants "(2)" and "(4)."
Insert Figure 1 about here
Misconceptions Held by Purists and Situationalists
Many of the differences that are perceived to prevail between quantitative and
qualitative research stem from the misconceptions and mis-claims of proponents of both
9
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
9
camps. On the positivist side, the barriers that they have built arises from their narrow
definition of the concept of "science." As noted by Onwuegbuzie (2002), positivists claim
that the essence of science is objective verification, and that their methods are
objective. However, positivists disregard the fact that many research decisions are
made throughout the research process that precede objective verification decisions. For
example, in developing instruments that yield empirical data, psychometricians select
items in an attempt to represent the content domain adequately (Onwuegbuzie &
Daniel, 2002). Yet, choosing these items represents a subjective decision at every
stage of the instrument-development process. Thus, although the final version of the
instrument can lead to objective scoring, because of the subjectivity built into its
development, any interpretations of the scores yielded cannot be 100% objective.
Simply put,
SUBJECTIVITY + OBJECTIVITY = SUBJECTIVITY
Moreover, although in the natural sciences, many properties of objects can be
measured with near-perfect reliability, in the social sciences, the vast majority of
measures yield scores that are, to some degree, unreliable. This is because constructs
of interest in the social science fields typically represent abstractions (e.g., personality,
achievement, intelligence, motivation, locus of control) that must be measured indirectly
(Onwuegbuzie & Daniel, 2002). Failure to attain 100% score reliability implies
measurement error, which, in turn, introduces subjectivity into any interpretations. In the
social science field, at least, the techniques used by positivists are no more inherently
scientific than are the procedures utilized by interpretivists.
Interpretivists also are not safe from criticism. In particular, their claim that
multiple, contradictory, but valid accounts of the same phenomenon always exist is
extremely misleading, inasmuch as it leads many qualitative researchers to adopt an
"anything goes" relativist attitude, thereby not paying due attention to providing an
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
10
adequate rationale for interpretations of their data. That is, many qualitative methods of
analyses "often remain private and unavailable for public inspection" (Constas, 1992, p.
254). Yet, without standards, when do we know whether what we know is trustworthy?
Similarities Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research Approaches
Indubitably the most disturbing feature of the paradigm wars is the relentless
focus on the differences between the two orientations. As noted by Onwuegbuzie (in
press, p. 2), "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 researchers." Indeed, the two dominant research paradigms have
resulted in two research subcultures, "one professing the superiority of 'deep, rich
observational data' and the other the virtues of 'hard, generalizable' survey data"
(Sieber, 1973, p. 1335).
Yet, there are overwhelmingly more similarities between quantitative and
qualitative perspectives than there are differences. First and foremost, both quantitative
and qualitative procedures involve the use of observations to address research
questions. As noted by Sechrest and Sidani (1995, p. 78), both methodologies "describe
their data, construct explanatory arguments from their data, and speculate about why
the outcomes they observed happened as they did."
Not emphasized by purists is the fact that both sets of researchers use
techniques that are relatively analogous at some level of specificity. Most researchers
incorporate safeguards into their research in order to minimize confirmation bias and
other sources of invalidity that have the potential to prevail in every research study
(Sandelowski, 1986). For example, both quantitative and qualitative researchers often
attempt to triangulate their data. Further, like interpretivists, to some degree,
quantitative data analysts attempt to provide explanations as to their findings
(McLoughlin, 1991) as well as to make interpretive, narrative conclusions pertaining to
11
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
11
the implications of their findings (Dzurec & Abraham, 1993).
As noted by Dzurec and Abraham (1993), meaning is not a function of the type of
data collected (i.e., quantitative vs. qualitative). Rather, meaning results from the
interpretation of data, whether represented by numbers or words. Whereas quantitative
researchers utilize statistical techniques and subjective inferences to make decisions
about what their data mean in the context of an a priori theoretical or conceptual
framework, qualitative researchers use phenomenological procedures and their views of
reality to discover meaning (Dzurec & Abraham, 1993).
Both sets of researchers select and use analytical techniques that are designed
to obtain the maximal meaning from their data, and manipulate their data so that
findings have utility with respect to their respective views of reality (Dzurec & Abraham,
1993). Moreover, both types of inquirers attempt to explain complex relationships that
exist in the social science field. To this end, quantitative researchers utilize multivariate
techniques (Elmore & Woehlke, 1998), whereas qualitative researchers incorporate the
collection of rich, thick data into their design via prolonged engagement, persistent
observation, and other strategies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Additionally, both quantitative and qualitative investigators utilize techniques to
verify their data. The former incorporate a myriad of control procedures and random
sampling techniques to maximize internal and external validity, respectively, with the
latter using an array of methods for assessing the auditability or credibility of qualitative
research. Such techniques include triangulation, prolonged engagement, persistent
observation, leaving an audit trail, member checking, weighting the evidence, checking
for representativeness of sources of data, checking for researcher effects, making
contrasts/comparisons, checking the meaning of outliers, using extreme cases, ruling
out spurious relations, replicating a finding, assessing rival explanations, looking for
negative evidence, obtaining feedback from informants, peer debriefing, clarifying
12
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
12
researcher bias, and thick description (Creswell, 1998).
Interestingly, data reduction typically is an important part of the data analysis
process for both quantitative and qualitative researchers. Whereas statisticians utilize
data-reduction methods such as factor analysis and cluster analysis, interpretivists
conduct thematic analyses. Thus, factors that emerge from multivariate analyses are
analogous to emergent themes from thematic analyses. Indeed, Onwuegbuzie (in
press) demonstrated how themes emerging from qualitative data analyses can be factor
analyzed to obtain meta-themes that subsume the original themes, thereby describing
the relationship among these themes. Additionally, the popularization of complex
multivariate analyses (e.g., structural equation modeling and hierarchical linear
modeling), coupled with the increased emphasis on generalizability theory, allow
quantitative researchers to pay better attention to context effects than previously has
been the case.
As noted by Newman and Benz (1998), rather than representing bi-polar
opposites, quantitative and qualitative research represent an interactive continuum.
Moreover, the role of theory is central for both paradigms. Specifically, in qualitative
research, the most common purposes are that of theory initiation and theory building,
whereas in quantitative research, the most typical objectives are that of theory testing
and theory modification (Newman & Benz, 1998). Clearly, neither tradition is
independent of the other, nor can either school encompass the whole research process.
Thus, both quantitative and qualitative research are needed to gain a more complete
understanding of phenomena (Newman & Benz, 1998).
Another way in which quantitative and qualitative research are congruent lies in
the fact that both empirical and qualitative data are interchangeable. That is, just as it
could be contended that all data are basically qualitative (Berg, 1989) inasmuch as they
represent an attempt to capture a raw experience, so it could be argued that all data
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
13
can be quantified (Sechrest & Sidana, 1995). More specifically, all data can be
binarized, a term coined by Onwuegbuzie (in press) to describe dichotomously
expressing a variable in binary form (i.e., "1" vs. "0"). Indeed, just as experimental,
quasi-experimental, and correlation research designs can incorporate the collection of
observational and interview data, so can qualitative designs include the collection of
empirical data. As aptly stated by Kaplan (1964, p. 207), "Quantities are of qualities, and
a measured quality has just the magnitude expressed in its measure." Additionally,
Onwuegbuzie illustrated how inferential statistics can be utilized in qualitative data
analyses. According to this author, "this can be accomplished by treating words arising
from individuals, or observations emerging from a particular setting, as sample units of
data that represent the total number of words/observations existing from that sample
member/context" (p. 2). Onwuegbuzie argued that inferential statistics can be used to
provide more complex levels of verstehen than is presently undertaken in qualitative
research. Building on Onwuegbuzie's work, Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2002) outlined
different ways of conducting mixed methodological analyses.
However, quantification should not be viewed as an end to itself, but instead as a
means of utilizing existing techniques that provide incremental validity to thematic
analyses (Weinstein & Tamur, 1978). Further, it should be stressed that mixed method
analyses always are possible or even appropriate. Indeed, the challenge is knowing
when it is useful to count and when it is difficult or inappropriate to count (Gherardi &
Turner, 1987).
As discussed above, many parallels exist between quantitative and qualitative
research. Regardless of orientation, all research in the social sciences represents an
attempt to understand human beings and the world around them. Thus, it is clear that
although, presently, certain methodologies tend to be associated with and utilized by
one particular research tradition or the other, as stated by Dzurec and Abraham (1993,
14
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
14
p. 75), "the objectives, scope, and nature of inquiry are consistent across methods and
across paradigms." Indeed, the purity of a research paradigm is a function of the extent
to which the researcher is prepared to conform to its underlying assumptions. If
differences exist between quantitative and qualitative researchers, these discrepancies
do not stem from different goals but because these two groups of researchers have
operationalized their strategies differently for reaching these goals (Dzurec & Abraham,
1993). This suggests that methodological pluralism should be promoted. The best way
for this to occur is for as many investigators as possible to become pragmatic
researchers.
Barriers Affecting the Pragmatic researcher Movement.
The lack of epistemological ecumenism that appears to prevail in the United
States in the behavioral and social science field in general, and in the field of
educational research in particular, stems from several factors. The century-long trend of
doctoral students graduating with basic competency in only one research orientation
(i.e., purists) has arisen from American graduate-level instruction in which quantitative
and qualitative research methodologies are taught as two independent and isolated
fields, rather than as parts of a holistic, interactive, and unifying process. Further,
graduate-level programs of study tend to minimize students' exposure to quantitative
and qualitative content, by including no or inadequate instruction in mixed
methodological techniques. Other barriers include the promotion of various misleading
"mythologies" about the nature of quantitative and qualitative research; increasing
numbers of instructors teaching research methodology courses when they are not
qualified to do so, and from an inability, unwillingness, or even refusal to accept that the
epistemological purity that was popularized in previous decades no longer represent
best practices and, moreover, may now be considered inappropriate, unreliable, invalid,
or outmoded.
15
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
15
Many purists feel alienated by researchers with different orientations. This feeling
of alienation is exacerbated by the terminology used by writers from both disciplines.
The language used in quantitative research is particularly problematic for students. In
fact, Onwuegbuzie, DaRos, and Ryan (1997) found that for many graduate students,
statistics anxiety stems from the conventions of notation and terminology. These
learners find the language and structure to be unusual. Also, some students report an
uneasiness at being asked to accept certain assumptions, formulas, and concepts, as is
common in statistical analyses.
Finally, as noted above, the dearth of pragmatic researchers also appears to
stem from researchers' faulty perceptions of a one-to-one relationship between
epistemology and method. Interestingly, Snizek (1976), who analyzed many published
research articles, concluded that the research techniques utilized cannot be directly
extrapolated from a knowledge of the investigator's epistemological underpinnings and
assumptions. More recently, Gueulette, Newgent, and Newman (1999), who analyzed
339 randomly selected studies that were labeled by their authors as representing
qualitative research, found that 44.1% of these articles actually involved the blending of
qualitative and quantitative methodologies. This latter finding illustrates the existing
blurred line between quantitative and qualitative research.
Towards Methodological Pluralism
In order to become pragmatic researchers, the barriers mentioned above must
be dismantled or at least minimized. One step towards accomplishing this is to re-frame
the concept of research in the social and behavioral sciences by de-emphasizing the
terms quantitative and qualitative research and, instead, sub-dividing research into
exploratory and confirmatory methods (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2002). According to
Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2002), such a re-conceptualization unites quantitative and
qualitative data collection and data analytical procedures under the same framework.
16
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
16
Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2002) conceptualized a model in which quantitative data
analysis techniques are labeled as exploratory (e.g., descriptive statistics, exploratory
factor analysis, and cluster analysis), and exploratory qualitative data analysis involves
the traditional thematic analyses. With regard to confirmatory methods, quantitative
data-analytical techniques incorporate the assortment of inferential statistics, whereas
qualitative data-analytic methods involve confirmatory thematic analyses, in which
replication qualitative studies are conducted to assess the replicability of previous
emergent themes (i.e., research driven) or to test an extant theory (i.e., theory driven),
when appropriate (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2002).
Using Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie's (2002) framework, quantitative and qualitative
research courses can be re-designed as courses in exploratory and confirmatory
techniques that teach quantitative and qualitative methodologies within each course,
either simultaneously or in a sequential manner. Qualitative and quantitative research
faculty team-teaching a course would be truly creative and exciting. Moreover, such
courses would send a strong message to students that both applied quantitative and
qualitative research, for the most part, have the same goal: to understand phenomena
systematically and coherently. As such, students enrolled in these courses will come to
regard research as being a collaborative undertaking. Additionally, these courses would
allow students to focus on the similarities of quantitative and qualitative research
outlined above, rather than on the differences. However, most importantly, such courses
will help to develop pragmatic researchers equipped to utilize both quantitative and
qualitative techniques.
Advantages of Being a Pragmatic researcher
Becoming a pragmatic researcher offers a myriad of advantages for individuals.
First and foremost, it enables researchers to be flexible in their investigative techniques,
as they attempt to address a range of research questions that arise. Pragmatic
17
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
17
researchers also are more likely to promote collaboration among researchers,
regardless of philosophical orientation. Based on Newman and Benz's (1998)
conceptualization of the role of theory in quantitative and qualitative inquiries, pragmatic
researchers are more likely to view research as a holistic endeavor that requires
prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and triangulation (Lincoln & Guba,
1985).
By having a positive atfitude towards both techniques, pragmatic researchers are
in a better position to use qualitative research to inform the quantitative portion of
research studies, and vice versa. For example, the inclusion of quantitative data can
help compensate for the fact that qualitative data typically cannot be generalized.
Similarly, the inclusion of qualitative data can help explain relationships discovered by
quantitative data.
Pragmatic researchers also are more able to combine empirical precision with
descriptive precision (Onwuegbuzie, in press). Also, armed with a bi-focal lens (i.e.,
both quantitative and qualitative data), rather than with a single lens, pragmatic
researchers are able to zoom in to microscopic detail or to zoom out to indefinite scope
(Willems & Raush, 1969). As such, pragmatic researchers have the opportunity to
combine the macro and micro levels of a research issue.
As noted by Madey (1982), combining quantitative and qualitative research helps
to develop a conceptual framework, to validate quantitative findings by referring to
information extracted from the qualitative phase of the study, and to construct indices
from qualitative data that can be used to analyze quantitative data. Further, because
quantitative research typically is motivated by the researcher's concerns, whereas
qualitative research often is driven by a desire to capture the participant's voice,
pragmatic researchers are able to merge these two emphases within a single
investigation.
18
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
18
Because pragmatic researchers utilize mixed methodologies within the same
inquiry, they are able to delve further into a dataset to understand its meaning and to
use one method to verify findings from the other method. Indeed, building on Rossman
and Wilson's (1985) work, Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) outlined the following
five broad purposes of mixed-methodological studies: (a) Triangulation (i.e., seeking
convergence and corroboration of results from different methods studying the same
phenomenon); (b) Complementarity (i.e., seeking elaboration, enhancement, illustration,
clarification of the results from one method with results from the other method); (c)
Development (i.e., using the results from one method to help inform the other method);
(d) Initiation (i.e., discovering paradoxes and contradictions that lead to a re-framing of
the research question); and (e) Expansion (i.e., seeking to expand the breadth and
range of inquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components). Greene et
al.'s framework, as well as those outlined in Tashakkori and Teddlie's (2002) book,
entitled, Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, offer potential
for developing pragmatic researchers.
Conclusions
The last 100 years has witnessed a fervent debate about quantitative and
qualitative research paradigms. Unfortunately, this has led to a great divide in the
United States between quantitative and qualitative researchers, who often view
themselves as in competition with each other. Clearly, this polarization has promoted
purists, namely, researchers who restrict themselves exclusively either to quantitative or
to qualitative research methods. Yet, relying on only one type of data (i.e., number or
words) is extremely limiting. As such, mono-method research is the biggest threat to the
advancement of the social sciences. Indeed, as long as we stay polarized in research,
how can we expect stakeholders who rely on our research findings to take our work
seriously?
19
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
19
It has been shown throughout this paper that a false dichotomy exists between
quantitative and qualitative research. In fact, as noted by Tashakkori and Teddlie
(1998), all distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research methods lie on
continua. For example, the extent to which an independent variable is manipulated lies
on a continuum ranging from situations in which the investigator is the agent of change
in the "treatment" to cases where the investigator has no control over such changes.
Similarly, the research setting used lies on a continuum ranging from natural to
controlled. Indeed, experiments can occur in natural settings (e.g., field experiments),
while case studies can occur in controlled settings (e.g., clinical case studies).
Additionally, hypotheses lie on a continuum ranging from exploratory to confirmatory.
These are just a few examples that illustrate the false dichotomy prevailing between
both traditions. Indeed, if a construct is measured using only one research method, then
it would be difficult to differentiate the construct from its particular mono-method
operational definition (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
As noted by Sechrest and Sidani (1995), a growth in the pragmatic researcher
movement has the potential to reduce some of the problems associated with singular
methods. By utilizing quantitative and qualitative techniques within the same framework,
pragmatic researchers can incorporate the strengths of both methodologies. Most
importantly, pragmatic researchers are more likely to be cognizant of all available
research techniques and to select methods with respect to their value for addressing the
underlying research questions, rather than with regard to some preconceived biases
about which paradigm is a hegemony in social science research.
0
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
20
References
Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question
of method or epistemology? British Journal of Sociology, 35, 78-92.
Collins, R. (1984). Statistics versus words. In R. Collins (Ed.), Sociological theory (pp.
329-362). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative data analysis as a public event: The documentation
of category development procedures. American Educational Research Journal,
29, 253-266.
Cook, T. D., & Reichardt, C. S. (Eds.) (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in
evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (1995). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Daft, R. L. (1983). Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of
Management Review, 8, 539-546.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New York: Praeger.
Dzurec, L. C., & Abraham, J. L. (1993). The nature of inquiry: Linking quantitative and
qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 16, 73-79.
Elmore, P. B., & Woehlke, P. L. (1988). Statistical methods employed in American
Educational Researcher and Review of Educational Research from 1978 to
1987. Educational Researcher, 17(9), 19-20.
Gherardi, S., & Turner, B. A. (1987). Real men don't collect soft data. Quarderno 13,
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
21
Dipartimento di Politica Sociale, Università di Trento.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 11, 255-274.
Gueulette, C., Newgent, R., & Newman, I. (1999, December). How much of qualitative
research is really qualitative? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Advancement of Educational Research (AAER), Ponte Vedra,
Florida.
Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatability thesis or
dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Madey, D. L. (1982). Some benefits of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods
in program evaluation, with some illustrations. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 4, 223-236.
McLoughlin, Q. (1991). Relativistic naturalism: A cross-cultural approach to human
science. New York: Praeger.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, S. I., & Fredericks, M. (1991). Uses of metaphor: A qualitative case study.
Qualitative Studies in Education, 1(3), 263-272.
Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology:
Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois
University Press.
92
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
22
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (in press). Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon.
Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002). Positivists, post-positivists, post-structuralists, and
post-modernists: Why can't we all get along? Towards a framework for unifying
research paradigms. Education, 122, 518-530.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daniel, L.G. (2002). A framework for reporting and
interpreting internal consistency reliability estimates. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 89-103.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., DaRos, D. A., & Ryan, J. (1997). The components of statistics
anxiety: A phenomenological study. Focus on Learning Problems in
Mathematics, 19, 11-35.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., &Teddlie, C. (2002). A framework for analyzing data in mixed
methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Rist, R. (1977). On the relations among educational research paradigms: From disdain
to detente. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly, 8, 42-49.
Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and
qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review,
9, 627-643.
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in
Nursing Science, 8(3), 27-37.
Sechrest, L., & Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an
alternative? Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 77-87.
Sieber, S. D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American
Journal of Sociology, 73, 1335-1359.
23
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
23
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the
issue. Educational Researcher, 12, 6-13.
Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the
quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4-13.
Snizek, W. E. (1976). An empirical assessment of sociology: A multiple paradigm
science. The American Sociologist, 11, 217-219.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & C. Teddlie (Eds.) (2002), Handbook of mixed methods in social
and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vidich, A. J., & Shapiro, G. (1955). A comparison of participant observation and survey
data. American Sociological Review, 20, 28-33.
Weinstein, E. A., & Tamur, A.J. (1978). Meaning, purposes, and structural resources in
social interaction. In J.G. Manis & B.N. Meltzer (Eds.). Symbolic interaction (3rd
ed., pp. 138-140). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Willems, E. P., & Raush, H. L. (1969). Naturalistic viewpoints in psychological research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
24
On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher
24
Figure /. Bi-dimensional representation of purist, situationalist, and pragmatist philosophies.
Quantitative
Paradigm
(2)
Quantitative
Methods
Qualitative
Methods
(4)
(3)
Qualitative
Paradigm
25
BEST COPY AVA1ABLE
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OER1)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
E IC
Educollonol Resources Inhumation Center
REPRODUCTION RELEASE
(Specific Document)
TM035389
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
p
Title: UN.)
"Z)
r
Author(s):
Corporate Source:
C
A
-11-(
/
iZt
17.1
Ni CV\ (4
if
it'Lt;1
1
r
;,...N.117
Publication Date:
cs
L
L
irvi r
,
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and
electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction
release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom
of the page.
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 1 documents
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 2A downents
The sample sticker shown below will be
&lured to all Level 20 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA
FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
c4tTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
2A
1
2B
Level 1
Level 2A
Check Mire for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archtval
media (e.g., electronic) end paper copy.
Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction
end dissemmation in microfiche and in electronic media for
ERIC archival collection subscribers only
V-
Level 28
Check here for Level 28 release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination in microfiche only
Documents will be processed as imlicated provided reproduction quality Permits
If permissOn to reproduce is granted, but no box is Checked, documents will be processed at Level 1
4 .2
re.)
,
Sign
here,
please
"
e ,:c1
I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this
document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and
its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries
and other
service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.
Spnature
Organizationdddreu ;
,
Rnnted Nernells Montt
fr.
f&
Ce-j Ad44.q
L,
4 leff- Tilerre `6R
FAX.
E-Mail Address:
(1
414.4
4.,
6:7-4 1 iC
Date:
;
k4".t6
\t.1)
ca.\ /
ILLeir
III.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source,
please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is
publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are
significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV.
REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and
address:
Name:
Address:
V.
WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being
contributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility
4483-A Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, Maryland 20706
Telephone:
Toll Free:
FAX:
e-mail:
WWW:
EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2003)
301-552-4200
800-799-3742
301-552-4700
info@ericfac.piccard.csc.com
http://ericfacility.org
Purchase answer to see full
attachment