I think it is fascinating the two nearly opposite but both legitimate approaches to the acquisition of knowledge. Most research I have done (even though is elementary) or been taught about is in the conventional school of thought: there is one truth, phenomena have cause-effect relationships, and in order to study the phenomena, the variables affecting it must be isolated and individually approached.
However, after reading about the constructivist school of thought, I think I would have to agree with its principles more. The idea that truth is the most informed and most sophisticated construction (with consensus) is more realistic that the hermetically sealed conventional ideas about truth (that allow for no questioning). Specifically regarding humans, children, and especially education, it makes more sense/is more realistic that truth is relative to its context. For example, the “truth” about the best way of educating people (or for that matter what the purpose of “formal education” is) is dependent on the context of the question: who is being educated and by whom? Where is this happening? What are other methods already in place to transmit knowledge to the younger generation? What are other things affecting “formal” schooling in the community?
The constructivist monistic subjective epistemology that the inquirer and that which is being inquired about are interlocked in such a way that the findings are a product of the inquiry process I think is especially relevant to our class. In general, data we see about schooling and educational practices and progress that is collected in the classroom is not a “true” representation. In a sense, the very fact that research is being conducted within the classroom changes the outcome; everyone has had the experience in elementary school where the principal monitors the classroom for a few hours, and all the students are on their best behavior. I think we must keep this in mind when conducting our own research (the interviews). Our relationship with our teacher affects how they will answer our questions (but I don’t think negatively or positively). If they know our intentions for conducting the interview, I think they will tailor their answers to what they think we are looking for and not give a complete representation of their teaching methods and ideology. Because of this I think that until the interview is complete we must conceal from the teachers the purpose of it.
I think this reading really hits upon the idea of truth and what that exactly means in research. The first thing I think in terms of education is how within the schooling system when you are younger and first learning how to research or are being educated you are sold on the idea of things being fundamental 'truths' such as gravity or simple addition. It is only when you get older that you are introduced to the constructivist school of thought and that no matter how established or basic a principle may seem it is only true relatively. Of course the articles goes even farther putting importance on the inquiry of the inquirer itself. This ties into our own research in this class in that we are all deciding our own relative truth which is that we are picking a specific teacher because they were our favorite, therefore we deem them to be a good teacher. But that truth is specific to each of us with in the class. The more classical approach to cause and effect research would probably deem our research very subjective and perhaps illegitimate as grounds to draw conclusions about the education system. But I fundamentally believe that that is not the case since our own 'truths' that we are researching still have an importance and can reveal certain truths about the very subjective topic which is education.
However I will be the first to admit that much of this writing reminds me of readings we had to do in Honors philosophy which in my experience though they were freeing hypothetically posed problems when actually applied to situations that require action. For example I agree with the idea of truth being relative and that that allows for a much more inquisitive and freeing world view, when it comes to practical application it gets difficult to proceed. This is why I believe change in education is hard to approach because the truth of what is the 'solution' to education is incredibly subjective and relative to so many factors and yet it is an issue that demands action. These abstract concepts are hard to connect with grounded actions.
I believe the reason why we do research is to discover and understand the world around us, to figure out the “truth.” For much of my schooling years, I have been exposed to the Scientific Method. It involves doing some research, coming up with predictions, controlling various aspects of the experiment, conducting trials, and analyzing the findings and drawing some kind of a conclusion from them. It’s also based on the idea that multiple trials help increase the validity of the results, for something that happens over and over again probably has a specific reason behind it that we can pinpoint. However, even though it takes into account that nothing is set in stone, much of it is based on the idea that seeing is believing. If there is no evidence of something happening in front of you, then you can’t really prove that it exists, and hence you can’t prove that it’s true. This article reminds me of some of the discussions we’ve had in Focused Inquiry and I really like how it brings up the idea that what we believe to be the truth is often influenced by our own perceptions. We can only know what we see right in front of us. What we choose to believe can be influenced by our values and what the majority of society believes. I think what we have to understand is that the truth is complex. There are many instances where there is no one answer to something. The things we know can change at any instance of time. We will always have questions, but there may never be enough answers. We also need to consider that the information presented to us can be skewed or influenced by something else. So what we know as “facts” may not be entirely true. For instance, nowadays, many of us use the Internet to conduct our research, but the Internet is a perfect example of how what we see in front of us may not be the entire truth. Even if a source seems entirely credible, there is always a chance that someone can lie about their findings and if we use their information to help with our own research, this will do us no good. So the way we conduct our research needs to adapt to all this and much more, and we should always approach things with a certain amount of skepticism.
After reading through Guba and Lincoln’s points picking apart conventional and constructivist methods of research, I think that it is necessary to look at a problem through both scopes. Both a conventional and constructivist approach would be needed to solve any sort of big question, it’s just a matter of which we use more. As stated in the text, taking either a realist or relativist approach to ontology will place constraints on the way one looks at epistemology and methodology. When doing quantitative research, focusing on the factual data would probably be more beneficial than trying to analyze the relationship between the researcher and the subject, if there even is one. This would utilize a more conventional approach to research where the inquirer would be distanced and have little to no contact with the subject. If there is no direct contact with the subjects, the relationship would be irrelevant. I would imagine that this type of research would be used to determine definite truths such as gravity. It would allow for a very interventionist methodology where things could be more easily predicted, rather than constantly questioned. I think that qualitative research, on the other hand, would require a more constructivist approach. In the research that we will do when interviewing a former high school teacher, it would be nearly impossible for our relationship with them to not influence our questions, and thus, our findings. If we were to interview a teacher that we had never met before, our research would probably be conducted more conventionally.
Personally, I have always looked at (and valued) quantitative data and objective observation more than Qualitative. I saw it's subjectiveness as a weakness of it's possible argument. While I may agree with, or find the data's logic possible, I always stayed away from it in order to find more "solid" data. But after joining this class and learning of our opportunity for us to conduct qualitative research, I am actually really exited to see this side of research. Going off of what Miss Emily Marsh said -
"But I fundamentally believe that that is not the case since our own 'truths' that we are researching still have an importance and can reveal certain truths about the very subjective topic which is education"
There is a lot to learn from this kind of data. While I agree finding a way to apply the results will be much harder, there are still "Truths" to be found in this kind of research. Everyone has a different experience, and the specific moments (or turning points) in their education are very important points to be aware of when discussing the power of education.
With all of this said, I am a one reality kind of guy. So I am exited to see how Qualitative data comes out in the class.
Before the project in this class I don't think I've ever done qualitative research. Since my major deals with biology which intertwines itself with chemistry and other hard sciences, I've been taught quantitative research. I've never thought about qualitative research because in order for a field to progress it needs empirical data which generally involves quantitative research. For example, what Freud was proposing or deducing might have been interesting but until instruments were made which could record or measure neural activity his assertions of different levels of consciousness couldn't be supported.
I do agree with the idea that truth is relative - depending on our perception we can see the same situation in different ways. Some see the glass half empty while others see the glass half full. Although there may be no single "truth" as in quantitative research, there may be several "truths" in qualitative research.
Lincoln and Gaba’s ideas really made me think about the way I approach my research. I usually never really thought about the various aspects to the way I conduct qualitative research. I do however feel as if qualitative research is a big aspect of my life. I have always considered my daily observations and research about different cultural situations to be a form of qualitative research. I always have tried to be objective and fair while trying to analyze any kind of qualitative research. However, Lincoln and Gaba’s passage has made me caused me to ask myself if I am going about all of this correctly. The ontological, epistemology, and methodological made me really think about my research. For example, I thought it was very interesting when Lincoln and Gaba touched upon the fact that we are intertwined with our research and we must keep that in consideration. I can already tell this will lead to an interesting class discussion.
I've recently been working with qualitative research in the Peer Leadership Program (UNIV 350) that I'm enrolled in. We're looking at how the program we've created for the UTA's of the University College (FI and UNIV200) has affected the rest of their education and how it's been beneficial. So my experiences, though they are few, are still there.
It could easily be said that our whole purpose of analyzing data is to discover the truth, whatever that may be. I do also think that with analyzing qualitative date we are more likely to find something closer to the truth because we can have more than one, like Faisal noted. This is something I gathered while reading Guba and Lincoln. Another thing to point out is that we also have the privilege of receiving reasoning with the qualitative data versus the qualitative. I suppose I would have to say I agree that I side more with the constructivist view because I can more so agree with the concept of truth.
After years of learning the scientific method, I have always known research to be: see something + question it = research. This method has always been used in a quantitative way. Thinking off the top of my head, I cannot think of one time that I have experienced a research opportunity that was qualitative, so of course I am pretty excited about the research we will be conducting.
Lincoln and Guba have given me a whole different perspective on the way I view research. I am a strong believer in the saying “numbers don’t lie”, so take away the numbers and you have a whole bunch of truths.
I agree with Katie, in the sense that quantitative research is like conventional and qualitative research is like constructivist. As I read the article, I leaned more to conventional side of answering the questions; whereas the constructivist gave me a different outlook that I understand, but am not entirely comfortable with yet. For example, in methodology, the key process of conventional is explaining, but in constructivist it is understanding. In quantitative research, the numbers are there to explain why things happen or do what they do. Without the numbers, the research is then conducted to gain a better understanding of why things MIGHT happen or do what they do, because it might not necessarily be “truth”.
My experience with research in school has been much like Navami’s. In high school we used the scientific method for all research. One thing that was taught to me along with this was that nothing in science or even the life is completely set in stone. There is no such thing as an “exact” science and thus hypothesizes can never be proven true. Evidence can only support a hypothesis or prove it false. When things can be “proven” through repetition or compounding evidence, future evidence can disprove years of past research. “Truth is any assertion, whether about entities or their relationships, that is isomorphic, that is, that stands in a one-to-one relationship to objective reality. The ultimate test of the validity of any inquiry findings is that they should describe reality exactly.”
I found the three basic belief styles (Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology) were interesting and I could see how they are used in many research topics and questioning. I think that humans’ cognitive brain functions do have a limit but we have not tapped it. It would be amazing to see the day when someone does but till then theories will rule the world of thought. I look forward to researching how the three belief styles can be coordinated in with our interview research project.
I really liked how this reading touched on the fact that there is always going to be some amount of influence on research that is going to be conducted no matter what, but the objective is to minimize as much outside influence as possible. Where this gets a little tricky is the idea that there researcher although trying to be as objective as possible, must maintain their humanism in order to understand and relate to the humanism of who they are researching upon. I personally believe that no matter how hard we try to conduct research that is unbiased in order to uncover the uninfluenced truth of the matter we are studying, we will always unknowingly sway the research a little bit in one way, whether intentional or not it is bound to happen. How does this happen? The types of questions you ask to uncover the truth may cause you to unknowingly sway the research participant in one way; even the way you say or phrase a question can have influence on the outcome as well as the environment in which the research is being conducted. The littlest things can throw all means to uncover the real truth off completely. So the way I think about research is that it is a good investment in time and sometimes can uncover certain things that we would like to know about humans and the society we live in but no matter how hard we try we will never be able to fully uncover the truth. It is not in human nature to not let things get in the way.
In this chapter, the ideas that Lincoln and Guba bring up about the beliefs of conventional versus constructivist systems both represent ideas, to some extent, of what I understand the nature of research to be. For example, the answer to the question of how we know what we know (epistemology), is answered in two different ways in conventional and constructivist systems. The way the conventional system answers this question is to take part in objective research, where the “inquirer” separates his/herself from what he/she is studying. To a certain extent, I feel this is the kind of approach to research that is often used in the scientific and mathematic fields, where the mentality is that the best results and/or truth will come from an emotionally removed perspective. I have essentially been instructed to do so in many of my science classes throughout high school, and I think the field of medicine operates similarly. This way, there is no bias or lens with which the researcher looks at an experiment; so he/she will not miss anything from lack of objectivity.
On the other hand, however, I see research in the field of language arts and historical perspectives to be quite the opposite. In any English class I have taken where I have had to write papers, I have been encouraged to take my values and interests into the project, in order to guide my research. In addition, the constructivist approach encourages analysis and critique of different facets of the research, which is again something highly regarded in research papers. This method is often the main focus of synthesis papers, where one compares and contrasts the validity of two different arguments, in order to come to a consensus or a conclusion based on which source presented the strongest argument, rather than a cold, hard truth. Finally, I believe that in situations of qualitative research, is especially important to use the constructivist method, as we will be trying to construct our own conclusions based on analysis of informal data we have gathered from our conversations with the teachers.
It is interesting to read this article because I think everyone is taught a different way of looking at research depending on their subject of interest. Hard sciences require quantitative data as Faisal said, and the belief that every truth is the absolute truth once it is proven. On the other hand social sciences and art and things that are constantly changing can use qualitative research, because no truth is absolute, each truth is simply modified and improved from the last.
In my mind, the nature of research has always been taught to show that when something is proven, it is true, and concrete evidence is proving that truth. However, I feel that there are more things about life that we don't know than what we do know, and we can never actually know if the things we do know are real or true. If that makes sense...
In the world of qualitative research, it's a must that we, as the researcher, follow a specific path that's already been carved out. There isn't much room for creativity because the motive behind research is to find out the truth. Lincoln and Guba's evaluation on the nature of research isn't too different than what I expected. Each may have a slightly different approach to explaining their methods, but it all boils down to the fact that the research must be credible, dependable, and manageable. There must the notion of confidence in the truth of our research, because if the author doesn't truth his or her research then how is the reader going to believe what he or she is reading is credible. There must also be the ability to transfer that research or apply it other texts. And with a consistent pattern throughout your research, you will become a dependable author. Which all leads to the confirmability of the author, or the fact that the findings are shaped by the respondents and not some researcher bias.
The reading were pretty much in line with my knowledge of the nature of research. What I really mean is this reading just reiterated the research chapter in my my high school biology textbook. Lincoln and Guba talk about the "truth" in research, and the process of how one reaches that conclusion. I agree with what Emily in that "truth" is subjective, and I believe that one "truth" can be different for the researcher, the researched, and the interpreter of the information. Truth will be fundamentally different to each person.
Now, I know that there is a difference between "fact" and "truth," as there are certain facts that we accept to be true--such as basic math, addition, and subtraction, or the existence of gravity. However, even those presumably basic ideas are questioned by some. I took AP Calculus my senior year, and there was an 8th grader in my class. He was autistic, but he understood math more than my teacher even. To him, addition was not a basic truth, or even a fact. He saw a million other questions and answers within a simple equation, and he wanted to know all the possible outcomes and solutions.
I think that our research should be approached with this kind of open mind and intellectual vigor. With a subject like social justice, or educational reform, it can be near impossible to settle on one "solution." Rather, I think all possible outcomes--or a large number of possibilities!--should be explored before moving toward a solution.
Until before this class I haven't been exposed to a lot of qualitative research. The reason for that is that I am a science major, and usually what we are expected to do is quantitative research. I am actually currently working on a project where I am expected to quantitatively assess the effect of a mutation on a molecule's effectiveness in our brain. Such are the rest of most of the science experiments. I think the points they proposed were definitely interesting and new to me. The reason being as mentioned is because I was learning about it mostly for the first part. I look forward to comparing qualitative research through our class to the quantitative neuroscience research that I am already a part of. -Mohamed Ibrahim
Lincoln and Guba had completely opposing ideas. These concepts of research are somewhat unfamiliar to me because I have not ever seriously scientifically researched. However, the conventional school of thought is what I am most familiar with. The conventional school of thought is what you are taught when you first start studying science and it is what you continue with throughout high school and college. The conventional method of research is based on finding the one truth by using a controlled setting with a hypothesis. This type of experiment is the most helpful for me to ascertain an outcome because I think very mathematically. I think of conventional research as data based with specific outcomes. The contrast to conventional research is constructivist research. In this type of research there are many truths which are relative to its context. Although I have never really thought about constructivist research before, I now see its advantages. In the hard sciences, one would frown upon constructivist research because it would lead to too many confounding variables. However, the constructivist point of view could be very useful in the social sciences. This could be important to education because it is conducting research in the natural setting and applying certain aspects based on the context or goal.
I think it is fascinating the two nearly opposite but both legitimate approaches to the acquisition of knowledge. Most research I have done (even though is elementary) or been taught about is in the conventional school of thought: there is one truth, phenomena have cause-effect relationships, and in order to study the phenomena, the variables affecting it must be isolated and individually approached.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after reading about the constructivist school of thought, I think I would have to agree with its principles more. The idea that truth is the most informed and most sophisticated construction (with consensus) is more realistic that the hermetically sealed conventional ideas about truth (that allow for no questioning). Specifically regarding humans, children, and especially education, it makes more sense/is more realistic that truth is relative to its context. For example, the “truth” about the best way of educating people (or for that matter what the purpose of “formal education” is) is dependent on the context of the question: who is being educated and by whom? Where is this happening? What are other methods already in place to transmit knowledge to the younger generation? What are other things affecting “formal” schooling in the community?
The constructivist monistic subjective epistemology that the inquirer and that which is being inquired about are interlocked in such a way that the findings are a product of the inquiry process I think is especially relevant to our class. In general, data we see about schooling and educational practices and progress that is collected in the classroom is not a “true” representation. In a sense, the very fact that research is being conducted within the classroom changes the outcome; everyone has had the experience in elementary school where the principal monitors the classroom for a few hours, and all the students are on their best behavior. I think we must keep this in mind when conducting our own research (the interviews). Our relationship with our teacher affects how they will answer our questions (but I don’t think negatively or positively). If they know our intentions for conducting the interview, I think they will tailor their answers to what they think we are looking for and not give a complete representation of their teaching methods and ideology. Because of this I think that until the interview is complete we must conceal from the teachers the purpose of it.
Manon Loustaunau
I think this reading really hits upon the idea of truth and what that exactly means in research. The first thing I think in terms of education is how within the schooling system when you are younger and first learning how to research or are being educated you are sold on the idea of things being fundamental 'truths' such as gravity or simple addition. It is only when you get older that you are introduced to the constructivist school of thought and that no matter how established or basic a principle may seem it is only true relatively. Of course the articles goes even farther putting importance on the inquiry of the inquirer itself. This ties into our own research in this class in that we are all deciding our own relative truth which is that we are picking a specific teacher because they were our favorite, therefore we deem them to be a good teacher. But that truth is specific to each of us with in the class. The more classical approach to cause and effect research would probably deem our research very subjective and perhaps illegitimate as grounds to draw conclusions about the education system. But I fundamentally believe that that is not the case since our own 'truths' that we are researching still have an importance and can reveal certain truths about the very subjective topic which is education.
ReplyDeleteHowever I will be the first to admit that much of this writing reminds me of readings we had to do in Honors philosophy which in my experience though they were freeing hypothetically posed problems when actually applied to situations that require action. For example I agree with the idea of truth being relative and that that allows for a much more inquisitive and freeing world view, when it comes to practical application it gets difficult to proceed. This is why I believe change in education is hard to approach because the truth of what is the 'solution' to education is incredibly subjective and relative to so many factors and yet it is an issue that demands action. These abstract concepts are hard to connect with grounded actions.
Emily Marsh
I believe the reason why we do research is to discover and understand the world around us, to figure out the “truth.” For much of my schooling years, I have been exposed to the Scientific Method. It involves doing some research, coming up with predictions, controlling various aspects of the experiment, conducting trials, and analyzing the findings and drawing some kind of a conclusion from them. It’s also based on the idea that multiple trials help increase the validity of the results, for something that happens over and over again probably has a specific reason behind it that we can pinpoint. However, even though it takes into account that nothing is set in stone, much of it is based on the idea that seeing is believing. If there is no evidence of something happening in front of you, then you can’t really prove that it exists, and hence you can’t prove that it’s true. This article reminds me of some of the discussions we’ve had in Focused Inquiry and I really like how it brings up the idea that what we believe to be the truth is often influenced by our own perceptions. We can only know what we see right in front of us. What we choose to believe can be influenced by our values and what the majority of society believes. I think what we have to understand is that the truth is complex. There are many instances where there is no one answer to something. The things we know can change at any instance of time. We will always have questions, but there may never be enough answers. We also need to consider that the information presented to us can be skewed or influenced by something else. So what we know as “facts” may not be entirely true. For instance, nowadays, many of us use the Internet to conduct our research, but the Internet is a perfect example of how what we see in front of us may not be the entire truth. Even if a source seems entirely credible, there is always a chance that someone can lie about their findings and if we use their information to help with our own research, this will do us no good. So the way we conduct our research needs to adapt to all this and much more, and we should always approach things with a certain amount of skepticism.
ReplyDeleteNavami Ravindra
After reading through Guba and Lincoln’s points picking apart conventional and constructivist methods of research, I think that it is necessary to look at a problem through both scopes. Both a conventional and constructivist approach would be needed to solve any sort of big question, it’s just a matter of which we use more. As stated in the text, taking either a realist or relativist approach to ontology will place constraints on the way one looks at epistemology and methodology.
ReplyDeleteWhen doing quantitative research, focusing on the factual data would probably be more beneficial than trying to analyze the relationship between the researcher and the subject, if there even is one. This would utilize a more conventional approach to research where the inquirer would be distanced and have little to no contact with the subject. If there is no direct contact with the subjects, the relationship would be irrelevant. I would imagine that this type of research would be used to determine definite truths such as gravity. It would allow for a very interventionist methodology where things could be more easily predicted, rather than constantly questioned.
I think that qualitative research, on the other hand, would require a more constructivist approach. In the research that we will do when interviewing a former high school teacher, it would be nearly impossible for our relationship with them to not influence our questions, and thus, our findings. If we were to interview a teacher that we had never met before, our research would probably be conducted more conventionally.
Katie Ketcham
Stewart Bova,
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have always looked at (and valued) quantitative data and objective observation more than Qualitative. I saw it's subjectiveness as a weakness of it's possible argument. While I may agree with, or find the data's logic possible, I always stayed away from it in order to find more "solid" data. But after joining this class and learning of our opportunity for us to conduct qualitative research, I am actually really exited to see this side of research. Going off of what Miss Emily Marsh said -
"But I fundamentally believe that that is not the case since our own 'truths' that we are researching still have an importance and can reveal certain truths about the very subjective topic which is education"
There is a lot to learn from this kind of data. While I agree finding a way to apply the results will be much harder, there are still "Truths" to be found in this kind of research. Everyone has a different experience, and the specific moments (or turning points) in their education are very important points to be aware of when discussing the power of education.
With all of this said, I am a one reality kind of guy. So I am exited to see how Qualitative data comes out in the class.
Before the project in this class I don't think I've ever done qualitative research. Since my major deals with biology which intertwines itself with chemistry and other hard sciences, I've been taught quantitative research. I've never thought about qualitative research because in order for a field to progress it needs empirical data which generally involves quantitative research. For example, what Freud was proposing or deducing might have been interesting but until instruments were made which could record or measure neural activity his assertions of different levels of consciousness couldn't be supported.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the idea that truth is relative - depending on our perception we can see the same situation in different ways. Some see the glass half empty while others see the glass half full. Although there may be no single "truth" as in quantitative research, there may be several "truths" in qualitative research.
Faisal Ali
Lincoln and Gaba’s ideas really made me think about the way I approach my research. I usually never really thought about the various aspects to the way I conduct qualitative research. I do however feel as if qualitative research is a big aspect of my life. I have always considered my daily observations and research about different cultural situations to be a form of qualitative research. I always have tried to be objective and fair while trying to analyze any kind of qualitative research. However, Lincoln and Gaba’s passage has made me caused me to ask myself if I am going about all of this correctly. The ontological, epistemology, and methodological made me really think about my research. For example, I thought it was very interesting when Lincoln and Gaba touched upon the fact that we are intertwined with our research and we must keep that in consideration. I can already tell this will lead to an interesting class discussion.
ReplyDeleteI've recently been working with qualitative research in the Peer Leadership Program (UNIV 350) that I'm enrolled in. We're looking at how the program we've created for the UTA's of the University College (FI and UNIV200) has affected the rest of their education and how it's been beneficial. So my experiences, though they are few, are still there.
ReplyDeleteIt could easily be said that our whole purpose of analyzing data is to discover the truth, whatever that may be. I do also think that with analyzing qualitative date we are more likely to find something closer to the truth because we can have more than one, like Faisal noted. This is something I gathered while reading Guba and Lincoln. Another thing to point out is that we also have the privilege of receiving reasoning with the qualitative data versus the qualitative. I suppose I would have to say I agree that I side more with the constructivist view because I can more so agree with the concept of truth.
-Sarah Meier
After years of learning the scientific method, I have always known research to be: see something + question it = research. This method has always been used in a quantitative way. Thinking off the top of my head, I cannot think of one time that I have experienced a research opportunity that was qualitative, so of course I am pretty excited about the research we will be conducting.
ReplyDeleteLincoln and Guba have given me a whole different perspective on the way I view research. I am a strong believer in the saying “numbers don’t lie”, so take away the numbers and you have a whole bunch of truths.
I agree with Katie, in the sense that quantitative research is like conventional and qualitative research is like constructivist. As I read the article, I leaned more to conventional side of answering the questions; whereas the constructivist gave me a different outlook that I understand, but am not entirely comfortable with yet. For example, in methodology, the key process of conventional is explaining, but in constructivist it is understanding. In quantitative research, the numbers are there to explain why things happen or do what they do. Without the numbers, the research is then conducted to gain a better understanding of why things MIGHT happen or do what they do, because it might not necessarily be “truth”.
Arielle Preston
My experience with research in school has been much like Navami’s. In high school we used the scientific method for all research. One thing that was taught to me along with this was that nothing in science or even the life is completely set in stone. There is no such thing as an “exact” science and thus hypothesizes can never be proven true. Evidence can only support a hypothesis or prove it false. When things can be “proven” through repetition or compounding evidence, future evidence can disprove years of past research. “Truth is any assertion, whether about entities or their relationships, that is isomorphic, that is, that stands in a one-to-one relationship to objective reality. The ultimate test of the validity of any inquiry findings is that they should describe reality exactly.”
ReplyDeleteI found the three basic belief styles (Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology) were interesting and I could see how they are used in many research topics and questioning. I think that humans’ cognitive brain functions do have a limit but we have not tapped it. It would be amazing to see the day when someone does but till then theories will rule the world of thought. I look forward to researching how the three belief styles can be coordinated in with our interview research project.
Craig Luskey
I really liked how this reading touched on the fact that there is always going to be some amount of influence on research that is going to be conducted no matter what, but the objective is to minimize as much outside influence as possible. Where this gets a little tricky is the idea that there researcher although trying to be as objective as possible, must maintain their humanism in order to understand and relate to the humanism of who they are researching upon. I personally believe that no matter how hard we try to conduct research that is unbiased in order to uncover the uninfluenced truth of the matter we are studying, we will always unknowingly sway the research a little bit in one way, whether intentional or not it is bound to happen. How does this happen? The types of questions you ask to uncover the truth may cause you to unknowingly sway the research participant in one way; even the way you say or phrase a question can have influence on the outcome as well as the environment in which the research is being conducted. The littlest things can throw all means to uncover the real truth off completely. So the way I think about research is that it is a good investment in time and sometimes can uncover certain things that we would like to know about humans and the society we live in but no matter how hard we try we will never be able to fully uncover the truth. It is not in human nature to not let things get in the way.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Hiegel
In this chapter, the ideas that Lincoln and Guba bring up about the beliefs of conventional versus constructivist systems both represent ideas, to some extent, of what I understand the nature of research to be. For example, the answer to the question of how we know what we know (epistemology), is answered in two different ways in conventional and constructivist systems. The way the conventional system answers this question is to take part in objective research, where the “inquirer” separates his/herself from what he/she is studying. To a certain extent, I feel this is the kind of approach to research that is often used in the scientific and mathematic fields, where the mentality is that the best results and/or truth will come from an emotionally removed perspective. I have essentially been instructed to do so in many of my science classes throughout high school, and I think the field of medicine operates similarly. This way, there is no bias or lens with which the researcher looks at an experiment; so he/she will not miss anything from lack of objectivity.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, however, I see research in the field of language arts and historical perspectives to be quite the opposite. In any English class I have taken where I have had to write papers, I have been encouraged to take my values and interests into the project, in order to guide my research. In addition, the constructivist approach encourages analysis and critique of different facets of the research, which is again something highly regarded in research papers. This method is often the main focus of synthesis papers, where one compares and contrasts the validity of two different arguments, in order to come to a consensus or a conclusion based on which source presented the strongest argument, rather than a cold, hard truth. Finally, I believe that in situations of qualitative research, is especially important to use the constructivist method, as we will be trying to construct our own conclusions based on analysis of informal data we have gathered from our conversations with the teachers.
Laura Zoellner
It is interesting to read this article because I think everyone is taught a different way of looking at research depending on their subject of interest. Hard sciences require quantitative data as Faisal said, and the belief that every truth is the absolute truth once it is proven. On the other hand social sciences and art and things that are constantly changing can use qualitative research, because no truth is absolute, each truth is simply modified and improved from the last.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, the nature of research has always been taught to show that when something is proven, it is true, and concrete evidence is proving that truth. However, I feel that there are more things about life that we don't know than what we do know, and we can never actually know if the things we do know are real or true. If that makes sense...
Taylor Thornberg
In the world of qualitative research, it's a must that we, as the researcher, follow a specific path that's already been carved out. There isn't much room for creativity because the motive behind research is to find out the truth. Lincoln and Guba's evaluation on the nature of research isn't too different than what I expected. Each may have a slightly different approach to explaining their methods, but it all boils down to the fact that the research must be credible, dependable, and manageable. There must the notion of confidence in the truth of our research, because if the author doesn't truth his or her research then how is the reader going to believe what he or she is reading is credible. There must also be the ability to transfer that research or apply it other texts. And with a consistent pattern throughout your research, you will become a dependable author. Which all leads to the confirmability of the author, or the fact that the findings are shaped by the respondents and not some researcher bias.
ReplyDeleteThe reading were pretty much in line with my knowledge of the nature of research. What I really mean is this reading just reiterated the research chapter in my my high school biology textbook. Lincoln and Guba talk about the "truth" in research, and the process of how one reaches that conclusion. I agree with what Emily in that "truth" is subjective, and I believe that one "truth" can be different for the researcher, the researched, and the interpreter of the information. Truth will be fundamentally different to each person.
ReplyDeleteNow, I know that there is a difference between "fact" and "truth," as there are certain facts that we accept to be true--such as basic math, addition, and subtraction, or the existence of gravity. However, even those presumably basic ideas are questioned by some. I took AP Calculus my senior year, and there was an 8th grader in my class. He was autistic, but he understood math more than my teacher even. To him, addition was not a basic truth, or even a fact. He saw a million other questions and answers within a simple equation, and he wanted to know all the possible outcomes and solutions.
I think that our research should be approached with this kind of open mind and intellectual vigor. With a subject like social justice, or educational reform, it can be near impossible to settle on one "solution." Rather, I think all possible outcomes--or a large number of possibilities!--should be explored before moving toward a solution.
Until before this class I haven't been exposed to a lot of qualitative research. The reason for that is that I am a science major, and usually what we are expected to do is quantitative research. I am actually currently working on a project where I am expected to quantitatively assess the effect of a mutation on a molecule's effectiveness in our brain. Such are the rest of most of the science experiments. I think the points they proposed were definitely interesting and new to me. The reason being as mentioned is because I was learning about it mostly for the first part. I look forward to comparing qualitative research through our class to the quantitative neuroscience research that I am already a part of. -Mohamed Ibrahim
ReplyDeleteLincoln and Guba had completely opposing ideas. These concepts of research are somewhat unfamiliar to me because I have not ever seriously scientifically researched. However, the conventional school of thought is what I am most familiar with. The conventional school of thought is what you are taught when you first start studying science and it is what you continue with throughout high school and college. The conventional method of research is based on finding the one truth by using a controlled setting with a hypothesis. This type of experiment is the most helpful for me to ascertain an outcome because I think very mathematically. I think of conventional research as data based with specific outcomes.
ReplyDeleteThe contrast to conventional research is constructivist research. In this type of research there are many truths which are relative to its context. Although I have never really thought about constructivist research before, I now see its advantages. In the hard sciences, one would frown upon constructivist research because it would lead to too many confounding variables. However, the constructivist point of view could be very useful in the social sciences. This could be important to education because it is conducting research in the natural setting and applying certain aspects based on the context or goal.