Note: This material was developed for a potential qualitative textbook by Shirley Freed, Ph.D. Please don't copy, quote, publish, or distribute this information. Thanks a lot!
To say I was not excited about embarking on my first qualitative research experience is definitely an understatement. Why did I want to waste my time on something so invalid and unreliable? I always thought of qualitative researchers as those with their heads in the clouds, those who had no clue about what research and science really are.
As my experience began, I was very uncomfortable. 1, 2, 3, 4, ... black and white...multiple regression...that is how I see the world. That is the kind of researcher I had learned to be. I felt awkward and deficient in the skills required for qualitative research. In addition, I didn=t see the value of the methods that seemed so intensely subjective. As if my attitude wasn=t bad enough, my professor assigned the mind numbing, grueling task of transcribing interviews. Why spend so much time writing down what people say when there are no numbers anywhere to analyze? What could I possibly do with all these words in research? This is a disgrace, I thought. How can qualitative and research and science ever be in the same sentence together?
Well...let=s just say, I=m glad I kept most of my feelings to myself. As I continued through the class, I was still uncomfortable, but for a different reason. I couldn=t believe the thoughts seeping into my mathematical mind as I actually recognized the value of qualitative research. Instead of explaining phenomena as I have done in the past, I was understanding the experiences by exploring meaning, discovering patterns, and interpreting interactions. My research evolved before my eyes.
For the first time in my research experience, I began to understand the true experiences of the people I encountered. They were actually telling me what they were feeling. I felt like a fog was slowly lifting over me. I was seeing human behavior in a new light3holistically without any manipulation or control of any variables. Instead of seeing human behavior as numbers, I began to perceive the human in a broader context. Instead of analyzing checklists of feelings or forced choice surveys, I was hearing the subjects= actual stories, their personal thoughts, and intimate feelings. It was Araw@ human emotion.
I feel lucky to have been introduced to qualitative research. While I thought qualitative researchers were the ones with their heads in the clouds, it was actually me. While I still defend the value of quantitative research, nothing gives one a clearer picture of human behavior than qualitative research. While I would feel much better if I could run a few ANOVAS, as Antony de Mello stated, AYou have yet to understand, my dear, that the shortest distance between a human being and truth is a story.@ I will always be comfortable with the numbers, the mathematics, and the statistics. What has changed is that I am not discounting qualitative research anymore. As I returned to my data several times, my confidence in my data analysis and the qualitative process in general emerged. In the future, I will not only consider it, but may even prefer it3just don=t make me admit it to any of my mathematical buddies. J
Kathy, like all of us, has absorbed concepts from the culture surrounding her. Life experiences have immersed her in ideas that have gone unchallenged. Her researcher self is changing. This chapter is about rivers of thoughts, streams of ideas, rivulets of experience, currents in history, undercurrents of culture and how they shape who we are. It provides multiple opportunities to examine the influences that shape us. Qualitative researchers are effective to the extent they become sensitized to their own ideas of science, knowledge and culture. These three major areas are the topic of discussion in this chapter.
Each of these three represents strong currents of ideas that continue to be revisited in many different forums and that influence our ideas about research in general and qualitative research in particular. Understanding our own perspectives as a researcher, Who I am, opens the door to understanding, Who You are. We, like Kathy, find ourselves standing midstream in strong currents of thought.
History tends to portray ideas in periods (The Period of The Enlightenment, The Modern Period, The Postmodern Period) or ages (The Age of Reason, The Middle Ages, The Dark Ages) or revolutions (The Scientific Revolution, The Industrial Revolution, The Electronic Revolution). This way of documenting historical movements often leaves one with the notion that with each age or period, the ideas of the previous age disappeared or were in some way declared invalid by the scholars of the next age. Previous ideas are often treated as myths to be destroyed in the onward march of Aprogress@. Yet, the irony is that each age tends to propose new myths which again are challenged in the next stream of thought. It may be more realistic to view ideas as currents in the stream of time.
We have stood beside the Mississippi, the Colorado and the Indus rivers and noticed the different shades of water - some very clear blue, others a muddy green and others a very dirty brown - all in the same river. We have often wondered, AWhere do the different streams come from?@ and, AHow long will it take before the water is blended and the stream has only one color - a merging of all the streams that flow into it?@
Ideas too flow as currents. Occasionally one current is stronger or more visible than another or the color is more acceptable to our eyes. But, rarely do new currents totally blend with the old current. More often they run side by side just like the different currents in our favorite rivers. Scholars often try to set up boundaries within which to contain their particular idea or viewpoint but rarely is that possible - ideas are floating in the media, in our parent=s minds, in our teacher=s minds and in our own minds. We absorb them like breathing air - without thought and often without notice. They become lenses through which we see our world. Novice researchers try to find and stay within the boundaries of accepted viewpoints B sometimes unaware of the currents of thought running freely alongside the supposedly more accepted ideas and unaware of the lenses they are wearing. The first lens we examine is that of Ascience@.
Reflection: What is science? Recall some of your early experiences with Ascience@. Where did your ideas of science come from? Share your ideas with a colleague. In what ways are they similar or different? What life events may have influenced your notions of science?
Watch the evening news and you=ll be reminded of the pervasiveness of scientific thought in our culture. See white-coated women and men filling sterile test tubes with multicolored concoctions. Notice the graphs and diagrams and hear the words, AScience has shown@. Feel your heart throb with optimism as you think of what will be discovered next - a cure for cancer, or Alzheimer=s disease or HIV. Feel your heart miss a beat as you see what science has made in ADolly@ - the sheep who was replicated from another sheep and genetically altered corn and what it does or does not do to animals who feed on it. Scientific thought has been institutionalized in our culture. We accept that somehow with enough time and money, scientists will discover what is needed to make our lives healthy and happy. And why shouldn=t we? Early we learned of Galileo who perfected the telescope and Newton who discovered many laws of physics. In elementary school we studied AThe Enlightenment@ and the AAge of Reason@ and the AScientific Revolution@. What were the ideas you received from your traditional education? Who are You? In terms of your notions of science?
A Historical Context
Western historians usually portray history in three major parts: ancient, medieval, and modern. These time periods are an effort to capture in broad strokes what life was like during each time period. They provide a context for our discussion but it=s important to keep in mind that in reality people don=t live their lives in time periods. Their lives are lived on a complex landscape flowing freely with ideas and powerful influences. Civilizations tend to change gradually -- often over long periods of time. However, it may be helpful to think about ancient history as including those events up to the decline of the Roman Empire which occurred in the fourth or fifth century A.D. Medieval history comprises the approximately one thousand years ending in the fifteenth century (Kirchner, 1991). The transition from medieval to modern times, sometimes called the Renaissance or the Enlightenment or the Scientific Revolution, was a time of major upheaval, wars and bloodshed. The Renaissance or revival of classical learning and arts began in the tenth century in Italy while the Enlightenment lasted approximately two hundred years during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. During this time the philosophers and scientists emphasized reason, logic, and experimentation as the best methods to learn truth and there was rapid advancement in astronomy, chemistry, physics, anatomy and mathematics. Independent thought was encouraged in contrast to the unthinking acceptance of church authorities during the Middle Ages. The Enlightenment led into the American and French revolutions during the late 1700's. It promised that when the basic laws of the universe were understood, a better world could be engineered by those who were rational!
Three of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment were Francis Bacon, John Locke and Isaac Newton. AIn 1789, Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, ordered for his library a composite portrait of the same three Englishmen@, believing that they were the founders of modernity and the greatest men to have lived. (Spencer and Krauze, 1997, pg. 41). Bacon (1561-1626), widely known as the father of experimental philosophy, advocated that knowledge should be based on direct observation. John Locke (1632-1704) is usually remembered for his Atabula rasa@ or Ablank slate@ concept that stated there are no innate ideas and therefore, all that humans can know is derived from experience.
Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was highly influential in the scientific revolution because he developed mathematical ways of describing the universe. Building on the earlier work of Copernicus and Galileo, his portrayal of the universe as orderly and predictable made him a model of true science. Natural philosophers were entranced with a view of celestial bodies orbiting around the sun and their ability to predict natural phenomenon using mathematical formula was exhilarating. Science had revealed some of the errors of medieval times and now it was the hope that experimental/observational methods combined with mathematics would be used to solve all human problems. A strong current in the stream of time had started to flow. It was based on notions of certainty, rationality, uniformity and objectivity.
An Etymological Context
The word Ascience@ was coined between 1300 and 1350 from the root Ascire@ meaning Ato know@ (Webster Random House). What kinds of knowledge do we produce when we do Ascience@? Today, the most common usage of the word may be Aa branch of study that is concerned with observation and classification of facts and especially with the establishment or strictly with the quantitative formulation of verifiable general laws chiefly by induction and hypothesis@ (Webster=s Third New International (1993)). Do you associate the words Afacts@ and Alaws@ with Ascience@? The root Ascire@ is akin to the Latin Ascindere@ which means to cut or split. One wonders if one of the effects of the scientific revolution was the breaking apart of disciplines into smaller and smaller specializations! We continue to see the fragmentation of knowledge into small manageable pieces. (See #1 below for further exploration of early definitions of science).
AThe term >scientist= was coined in the 1830s by William Whewell (1794-1866), a physicist and historian of science; before that scientists were seen as >natural philosophers=. Whewell saw the scientist as someone engaged in a unique social role who required protection and had autonomous existence from the rest of the society@ (Sardar, 2000, pg.9). In less than two hundred years, scientists became an integral part of our society.
AScience@ Today
We have looked briefly at the historical roots of science and some etymologies of the words. In our search to discover the shade and thickness of our science lens, it may be helpful to review how current research texts are using the word Ascience@. This is not meant to be a comprehensive overview but rather a random look at some current usages. Graziano and Raulin (2000) define Ascience@ as Aa process of formulating specific questions and then finding answers in order to gain a better understanding of nature. Science is a process of inquiryB a particular way of thinking. . . . The essence of science is the scientist=s ways of thinking B the logic used in systematically asking and answering questions@ (pg. 1). Bernard (2000) explains that the norms of science are clear and then quotes Lastrucci=s (1963) definition that science is Aan objective, logical, and systematic method of analysis of phenomena, devised to permit the accumulation of reliable knowledge@. Bernard (2000) claims that Athe idea of truly objective inquiry has long been understood to be a delusion@ but that Ascientists do hold, however, that striving for objectivity is useful@ (pg. 10). This is a subtle difference! Is Atruly objective inquiry a delusion@? And what happens when we keep striving for it?
McMillan and Schumacher (2001) state that Athe ultimate aim of science is the generation and verification of theory. A theory predicts and explains natural phenomena@ (pg. 8). That sounds a lot like the dictionary definition above. And no one would deny that useful theories and laws are developed from the practice of science. But how do we Ado@ science on human beings. Is it the same science as is used in understanding other natural phenomenon? Do the assumptions of science make sense in seeking to understand human activities?
Christensen (2001) suggests that five basic assumptions underly science: 1) Determinism B the belief that behavior is caused by specific events, 2) Reality in Nature B the assumption that the things we see, hear, feel, and taste are real and have substance, 3) Rationality B the assumption that there is a rational basis for the events that occur in nature and they can be understood through the use of logical thinking, 4) Regularity B the assumption that events in nature follow the same laws and occur the same way at all times and places, and 5) Discoverability B the assumption that it is possible to discover the uniformities that exist in nature (pg. 20 & 21). The same author, Christensen when writing a mixed method textbook with Johnson (Christensen and Johnson, 2000) frames the assumptions of science slightly differently omitting determinism and rationality. One wonders if Ascience@ is different when using different methods. Other research texts (Sowell, 2001) don=t discuss science but frame their comments in the context of research.
That educational researchers are concerned with science is demonstrated in a dialogue that began with Elliot Eisner in the Educational Researcher in 1997. In the most recent rebuttal Mayer (2000) responded in an article entitled AWhat is the place of science in educational research?@ He states that Awhat characterizes research as scientific is the way that data are used to support arguments@ (pg. 39).
It is obvious that the word Ascience@ is still an important concept and that it has multiple interpretations. One thing is certain, however, that a simple portrayal of science emerging in the Enlightenment and creating some kind of panacea for humankind has come under attack.
AScience@, Under Attack
Toulmin (1995) suggests that the Areceived view of Modernity rested not only on the Quest for Certainty and the equation of Rationality with a respect for formal logic: it also took over the rationalists= belief that the modern, rational way of dealing with problems is to sweep away the inherited clutter from traditions, clean the slate, and start again from scratch.@ (pg. 175) He goes on to advise that Awe are not compelled to choose between 16th-century humanism and the 17th-century exact science: rather we need to hang on to the positive achievements of them both@ (pg. 180). Grant (1998) explains that modern science didn=t suddenly appear in the 17th century but that it Awas the legacy of a scientific tradition that began in Ancient Greek and Hellenistic civilizations, was further nurtured and advanced in the far-flung civilization of Islam, and was brought to fruition in the civilization of Western Europe, beginning in the late twelfth century.@
Has science served education well? In commenting on special education Gallagher (1998) states that Amasquerading under the guise of science, this knowledge base, or more accurately, the scientistic version of empiricism that produces it, can neither provide the foundation for nor sustain adequate reforms in special education@ (pg. 499). He goes on to suggest that Arather than attempting to draw upon traditional empiricism, we might instead find our rightful ancestry in the realm of the interpretive, hermeneutical framework. In surrendering the perpetual attempt at prediction and control, we may be chagrined to find that the methods of science have served more to obscure than enlighten our current educational practices@ (pg. 500). And Alexander (2000) states that Aas a research community, we have not immersed ourselves in the kind of longitudinal, multidimentional, multimethod studies that would allow us to articulate credible models and theories of academic development@ (pg. 28). Which is another way of saying, AWe don=t really know what happens when people go to school for 12 or 16 years!@ While we know something of best practices Athese data offer only a glimpse of the long-term changes that students undergo when engaged in formal learning@ (pg. 28).
When did science begin to fall into disrepute? No doubt, the World Wars cast a huge shadow over the prospect of a neutral, objective science that would be for the betterment of all. Then Kuhn (1962) created more questions about the purity of science by suggesting that Amyths can be produced by the same sorts of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge@ (pg. 2). He suggested that in normal science, the scientist functions within a frame of reference that virtually dictates assumptions, methods and basic concepts. These represent a paradigm or lens through which the scientist observes, hypothesizes and continues to build theory. Kuhn (1962) further states that Anormal science . . . often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments@ (pg. 5). In contrast to normal science Kuhn suggested that paradigm shifts were more like scientific revolutions. The old paradigm is completely replaced by the new one. For example, the idea of the celestial bodies rotating around the sun rather than around the earth did indeed amount to a revolution. (See #2 below for further exploration).
What was the impact of Kuhn=s AStructure of Scientific Revolutions@? Sardar (2000) states that by the late 60's, Ait sold over a million copies in 20 languages, becoming one of the most influential academic books of the twentieth century. Its concept of paradigm shifts began to be used in such disciplines as political science and economics. In sociology, it was embraced wholeheartedly. Soon, a new discipline was to emerge: the critical sociology of science@ (pg. 33). Obviously, Kuhn=s work was not the only influence that questioned science as a pure enterprise. But it was successful because its ideas reached a ready audience. A trickle of ideas was becoming a stream and today, some would say the flow of alternative ideas is not mixing well with previous ideas and in fact are warring against each other! (See #3 below for further exploration).
Sardar (2000) summarizes the state of science by saying of the science wars, AThe fury of the scientific community stems from its recognition that the traditional legitimacy of science is eroding; and the authority of science has haemorrhaged beyond repair. . .The old paradigm of science which provided certainty and assurance is no longer valid@ (pg. 62-63).
Reflection: So what happened to the Enlightenment? Is the scientific revolution a gentle stream that continues to flow across the landscape of your life, or is it a strong, rushing river tearing away at your assumptions of life? Remember the Colorado River made the Grand Canyon!
In summary, there are currents of ideas about science and the scientific process flowing in your world. They will influence how you conduct your research and how it will be accepted in your community. Your voice is needed in the ongoing dialogue. Will you accept this invitation to shape the direction and strength of this strong current in your world today?