School of Education

Research Training Programme

Unit: Data Collection – CRN: 10988

Unit tutor: Dr Gill Clarke MBE

Student: Hilra Vinha – mhgv1k06@soton.ac.uk

Assignment: Discussion on Theoretical and Political Implications of Methods

Abstract

This essay discusses the influences of methodological approaches on the research elements, namely on researcher, researched and findings. The discussion is presented in sections and subsections, which point out the key facets of the debate. The first section presents a background of the scenario of qualitative and quantitative research methods, and some considerations about them. The second section presents the heart of the paper that consists of the main discussion about the implications, which is subdivided into small chunks in order to analyse each aspect in a reasonable level of depth. The third section presents inferences concerning the student’s own research intentions.

Introduction

The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the claim that methods are not mere technical means of generating data for research but have theoretical and political implications that affect the researcher and researched and the status and utility of the findings. This claim is part of the classic debate about quantitative and qualitative research, which in some aspects reflects a kind of dualism of the human dilemma upon life. On one hand, we value things that help us to make sense of our human condition, to interpret the world, the others and the things themselves; on the other hand, our aspiration of clarifying obscure questions lead us to look for objective – sometimes factual – answers, which are frequently regarded as truths . In this sense, the notion of scientific knowledge is commonly associated with objectivity in opposition to subjectivity, which presupposes that the researcher remains impartially separated from the researched. When objectivity is taken as the absolute absence of subjectivity in the research process it is somehow an apology of quantitative procedures as sterilized instruments that work in disinfected hands upon some sort of living being or event.

The claim discussed in this paper is a response rather than a question, having in account that although objectivity is a necessary characteristic of any reliable method of inquiry or investigation, it cannot exclude subjectivity because however empirical is a research, it remains a human activity, which only exists in the presence of subjectivity. Currently, advances in qualitative research are largely validated, and there is a wide recognition of the researcher’s subjectivity as part of the research intrinsic characteristics, as Denzin and Lincoln point out “every researcher speaks from within a distinct interpretive community that configures, in its special way, the multicultural, gendered components of the research act.” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, p. 99) In addition, the knowledge constructed by the scientific community is currently more susceptible to critique than it was earlier, because the contemporary society recognizes that some findings are determined by commercial interests, market demands and other cultural factors rather than the so called truth .

This is a significantly subtle ground to touch at present, but it is part of the process of demystifying a sense of scientificism that no longer convinces people without hesitation. Having this in account, the notion of the researcher as a ‘pure’ observer is highly arguable, though, the demand for objectivity in research extrapolates the simplistic notion of the dichotomy objectivity-subjectivity. Through the diverse philosophical fundamentals comes the division of educational research methods into quantitative methods, related to positivism; and qualitative methods, associated with anti-positivism. In other words, such dichotomy is a consequence of divergent epistemologies, theoretical assumptions and political positions.

Despite the increase in the employment of qualitative research in the last decade, the apology of quantitative approaches remains significantly strong, and the outcomes of this apology have political effects, as the instance that Hammersley mentions:

Recent government educational policy has for the most part flown in the face of the findings of educational research. More than this, though, recent policy has been premised on a belief in the necessity for, and availability of, quantitative indicators of the quality of educational outputs, inputs and processes. Yet the move to qualitative method within educational research arose in large part from doubts about the validity of standardized quantitative indicators. There is, then, a direct conflict not just between findings of much educational research and the direction in which national educational policy is going but also between the methodological assumptions built into that policy and those now characteristic of much educational research. (Hammersley, 1993, p. ix)

That sort of scenario pushes educational researchers to present qualitative outcomes persuasively and even more evidence-based with a consistent reliable scope. Although objectivity is often associated with quantitative methods, researchers engaged with qualitative approaches also need to consider that “objectivity is one of the most cherished ideals of the educational research community. In fact, it is so important that if our work is accused of being subjective, its status as a source of knowledge sinks slowly into the horizon like a setting sun.” (Hammersley, 1993, p. 49) Therefore, the use of qualitative methods does not remove the call for objectivity. The researcher has to find a balance between the inevitable role played by subjectivity and the urge for findings that can be generalised. As Hammersley argues:

It is now widely accepted that observation is always theory-laden. Due largely to the work of N.R. Hanson (although Wittgenstein and Popper could claim priority), researchers are aware that when they make observations they cannot argue that these are objective in the sense of being ‘pure’, free from the influence of background theories or hypotheses or personal hopes and desires (Hammersley, 1993, p. 62).

Having the above postulation in mind, it is important to understand the implications of this unfeasibility of a ‘pure’ objectivity, in terms of research. Research can promote some political tendencies, and refute or reinforce others, depending on its paradigm. Therefore, it is necessary to position researcher, researched and findings, within the construction of knowledge. Knowledge itself has been regarded as a social construct, instead of a merely transferable range of information, as it used to be regarded until recent years. Additionally, “it is now recognized that there is no absolutely secure starting point for knowledge; nothing is known with such certainty that all possibility of future revision is removed. All knowledge is tentative” (Hammersley, 1993, p. 59). This premise is the base of the discussion presented along this essay, and is also the primary premise of my own attempt to carry out a qualitative research, with a narrative approach, that intends to give voice to participants. The subsequent section brings the main discussion, and consequently points out some of my concerns about my personal desire to contribute significantly to the construction of new knowledge on the field of inclusive education, and for life story research repertory.

1. Discussing the claim

For the sake of the present discussion mode, the claim referred in the introduction as the focal point of analysis was broken down in small chunks, but this division is merely didactic, in order to pay attention to each aspect as an independent factor. However, they are in fact interdependent and interrelated.

1.1. Are methods merely technical means of generating data?

This is the central question presented in this essay. The heart of the discussion is whether this assumption is valid or unfounded. One important consideration is about the purpose of the research in terms of production, because research ideally intends to produce knowledge rather than create data. Furthermore, “the purpose of research is to generate knowledge rather than to concretely realize one method or another. Research methods are means to answer knowledge-constitutive questions.” (Ercikan and Roth, 2006, p. 21) The focal issue in a research needs to be the research questions, which must drive the whole process, including the approaches to methodology. Therefore, the question about methods as technical means changes direction to the purposes of the research, its assumptions and questions. What determines the nature of methods we choose is the kind of answers we are seeking, and perhaps desiring to find, instead of the characteristics of the data that will form the scope of the evidence. When I plan to use narratives in my research project what motivates me is my long term belief in stories as a means of making sense of things, and to promote empowerment and emancipation of individuals who are dealing with complex aspects of life. This is not only a procedural choice that has in account technical aspects, but an election based on personal beliefs, theoretical preferences and political intentions. Having said that, it’s necessary to discuss the alleged implications that affect researcher, researched and findings, which takes place in the subsequent subsections.

1.1.1. Methods have theoretical implications

Methods are intrinsically related with paradigms, ideologies and beliefs. Goodley points out that “an ethnographer’s theoretical position will noticeably influence the ways in which they choose their methods, deal with their material and later conceptualize their analyses” (2004, p. 98). This line of reasoning supports the premise that there is not such thing as a ‘pure’ method, which can be taken as granted of being free of any subjective influence. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are human products, therefore are driven and influenced by subjectivity. However, the inevitability of the subjectivity influence must not be taken as an excuse to neglect the need of objectivity, because:

‘Objectivity’ is the label – the ‘stamp of approval’ – that is used for inquires that are at one end of the continuum; they are inquires that are prized because of the great care and responsiveness to criticism with which they have been carried out. Inquiries at the other end of the continuum are stamped as ‘subjective’ in that they have not been sufficiently opened to the light of reason and criticism. Most human inquires are probably located somewhere near the middle, but the aim should be to move in the direction that will earn a full stamp of approval. (Hammersley, 1993, p. 71)

In this sense, the division between qualitative and quantitative research is determined by the theoretical preferences of the researcher, moreover for the sake of the research purposes. “The polar categorization of research in terms of the quantitative–qualitative distinction contributes to promoting research that emphasizes a certain type of data collection and certain construction modes rather than focusing on the construction of good research questions and conducting of good research.” (Shaffer and Serlin, 2004, p. 14) Although quantitative research is more likely to be labeled as reliable, this reliability must be questioned if the eager for objectivity caused a lack of human interpretive attitude upon the whole process, and moreover upon the findings. Human here must be read as the inexorable subjective ‘agent’.

1.1.2. Methods have political implications

Although the traditional concept of researcher as an impartial observer, totally detached from the researched subject remains as part of a tradition on research, new advocacies have granted contrasting views that reveal the political interferences that affect research and researcher decisions.

  Griffiths is a clear example of those who open up their intentionality as researchers, making explicit statements, as she does in the following piece:

I am not contributing to the debate just for academic reasons. I am also trying to act politically: to influence the parameters of the debate in order to effect changes in educational practices. So I am trying to state the reasons for my approach persuasively because I believe it has the potential to contribute to the improvement of the education of all, and so to the improvement of the society in which we all live. (Griffiths, 1998, p. 7)

Regardless of the extent that researchers state – or omit – their political intentions, every research is potentially affected by some kind of policy, and can bring some political effect in some level. What the

  Griffiths’ statement enlightens in between the lines is that the awareness of researchers concerning the political implications of the research methods they apply can be a source of empowerment and emancipation for both researcher and researched. One example of how this empowerment takes place is the feminist emphasis on emancipation of the subject/participant. “Feminist standpoint epistemologies in research emphasise the perspectives of those whose lives are shaped and constrained (or marginalised) by the dominant social order” (Goodley et al., 2004, p. 102), having this in account, it’s plausible to assume that a feminist researcher is more likely to select qualitative methods, rather than quantitative, emancipatory strategies rather than non-emancipatory ones, and so on, but the same researcher could select quantitative strategies, on the other hand, if quantitative outcomes can add value to the research purposes, such as political empowerment. In other words, the method is selected regarding its political effects, “the values and politics affect the choice of techniques as well as details of how they are used. They also constrain the choice of methodologies, such as action research, ethnography and philosophical research.” (Griffiths, 1998, p. 133)

1.2. Who/What is affected by methods?

At this point it’s plausible to assume that the main part of the claim discussed in this paper is valid. In other words, the implicit subjectivity, the epistemological influences and the political aspects are widely recognized as actual elements of methodology, therefore inherent characteristics of methods. As

  Griffiths explains, “any piece of research, however small, cannot help but have an epistemology. It is also always implicated in power relations. And these factors always influence the methodology, even in those cases where they are not explicitly mentioned” (Griffiths, 1998, p. 33) Assuming that it is valid to argue that methods have theoretical and political implications,the need to clarify the extent of those effects emerges. The next subsections briefly present some considerations over those alleged affected.

1.2.1. Researcher

Although researchers have the prerogative to choose methods, which means that they directly influence the methodological approach, they are also influenced by their own choice in multiple ways. Firstly, if the researcher is aware that methods can have some sort of impact on findings, the research decision may have this in account. Secondly, the kind of interaction between researchers and researched will depend on the methodological approach. Thirdly, considering that a number of methods can be regarded as more valid than others, more generalizable than others, or more reliable than others, in that case methods can influence the level of authority of the researcher as a knowledge generator/producer. Another important influence of methods on researchers is their potential to empower. Some approaches such as “life history research can be a socially empowering and emancipatory experience for informants, an experience that can change their life for the better” (Goodson and Sikes, 2001, p. 99), and consequently affect the researcher as well, because if an emancipatory experience can change a participant’s life, it inevitably affect the person who has been seeking that emancipation, made a plan for it and mediated the experience. The effects can vary, however one thing can be inferred: giving voice, empowering others can be – as a minimum – a powerful basis for self-confidence and lead a researcher to become even bolder.

1.2.2. Researched

Looking again at the example of life story research, the effects of methods on researched are noticeably clear. At the same time that other methods contrarily can be totally unimpressive for informants, such as some surveys, that a person can participate and never notice any result from it, or even remember participating on it. According to Griffiths “looked at from the perspective of those who are socially excluded, the effects of political positioning are highly significant in the construction of knowledge” (1998, p. 61), which imply that in some cases political implications on methods, which lead to findings that unfold new meanings, are directly related with participants, especially when these new meanings affect groups rather than only individuals:

It is when, for instance, women, black people, lesbians, or any combination of these develop a political consciousness that it is possible to make something of these meanings, and for the gaps in ‘standard’ theory to get noticed and brought together systematically. These new meanings cannot be disentangled from a politics of position and intent. (Griffiths, 1998, p. 54)

1.2.3. Findings status and utility

Generalization is the aspect that most determines the status and the utility of the findings, therefore the method potential to produce generalizable knowledge can influence how the findings are recognised as valid and reliable or not. Hammersley points out that “in the past decade, interest in the issue of generalizability has increased markedly for qualitative researchers involved in the study of education”, (Hammersley, 1993, p. 93) and he explains this increase arguing that the main cause was the shift of the use of qualitative research in this period. Another aspect discussed earlier in this essay is objectivity, which also is a determinant factor in terms of findings status, regardless of the inevitability of subjectivity interference. Similarly to other disciplines, there is a call in human sciences for methods that can “provide objective knowledge, where ‘objective’ refers to independence from the particular observer who happened to produce it” (Griffiths, 1998, p. 46). Having this in account, it’s clear that the more objectivity a method can provide the more it is likely to be considered valid. The validation is the desirable condition of findings and it directly influences their utility. Findings that are labelled as invalid are less likely to serve as basis for widespread decisions and actions. Therefore, the selection of the methods to be employed in a research is a crucial stage of the whole process.

2. Conclusions: putting all together

This essay started questioning the validity of the argument that methods are not mere technical means of generating data for research but have theoretical and political implications that affect the researcher and researched and the status and utility of the findings. The argument was presented in small chunks taken from the claim, reflecting on each aspect separately, with the explicit intention to look at methods’ significance to research as deep as possible, and bearing in mind the limits of the present discussion.

Looking at the issue as a whole again, reflecting on the interference of values over facts, and how this interference is seen by different researchers, I took a division proposed by Griffiths (1998, p. 46) locating researchers within four distinct groups, according to their points of view in terms of values and facts. The following schematic overview is a summary of her explanation:

• Group 1: researchers expect to stick to the facts (facts are interpretation free, moreover value free);
• Group 2: researchers expect that value judgements will always bias research;
• Group 3: researchers think that all facts and information are value laden, but it is not helpfully described as ‘bias’; and
• Group 4: researchers maintain that knowledge gets its meaning from the political position of the knower, as well as from other systems.

The difficulty here is how researchers situated in the first group deal with values and how their researches are affected by their attempt to dismiss these values in favour of a supposed absolute truth which doesn’t exist. As Denzin and Lincoln argue “there is no single ‘truth’. All truths are partial and incomplete” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, p. 162), moreover there is no paradigm to which all researchers can converge and agree, and those authors continue arguing that “we occupy a historical moment marked by multivocality, contested meanings, paradigmatic controversies, and new textual forms. This is an age of emancipation; we have been freed from the confines of a single regime of truth and from the habit of seeing the world in one color” (2000, p. 162). Therefore, the rationale of to stick to the facts without any judgment is disproportional in relation to the possibilities of realistically accomplish it. On the other hand to consider any sort of value influence as bias – as researchers in group 2 do – is a radical purist positioning, and is more likely to promote some level of bias rather than to eliminate it.

Returning to

  Griffiths’ postulations we can find a reasonable distinction between recognizing subjectivity and producing biased research. She maintains that “all serious researchers recognize the difference between opinion and knowledge – even if they disagree about how to identify each of them” (1998, p. 47). What she is advocating is not the negation of the existence of bias, in fact it’s the opposite, she clearly declares that bias exists, however it emerges “especially from the lack of reflection on the values held by the researcher or researchers’ team. (…) The removal of bias requires researchers to address their value positions, which need to be explicitly stated as far as possible” (Griffiths, 1998,, p. 47).

This argument makes clear that the theoretical and political implications of methods discussed in this paper are not necessarily a source of bias, neither a depreciative aspect of some methodologies. Those implications are conversely the realization of human intervention upon reality and, when taken consciously, they can be a powerful source of critical analysis. This point of view is similarly defended by Denzin and Lincoln when they point out that:

We are all creatures of our own social and cultural pasts. However, in order to be meaningful to others, the uniqueness of our own research experience gains significance when it is related to the theories of our predecessors and the research of our contemporaries. Ethnographers can find social and cultural understanding only if they are aware of the sources of the ideas that motivate them and are willing to confront them – with all that such a confrontation entails. (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, p. 62)

All these reflections motivate me to think carefully about which strategies will be used in my project to collect data, which are intended to consist of small pieces of life experience in relation to a specific context and to multifaceted interactions. After discussing the theoretical and political implications of methods, I am even more challenged and motivated to carry out a qualitative research, which in some aspects is likely to be questioned by those who have a traditional point of view about knowledge and consequently about the production of it. Although all the newness of a first research is somehow frightening, it is also a challenging and authentic source of emancipation, not only for those who my research ideally will give voice, but mainly for myself.

The best form I found to sum up the present discussion and to highlight the main inferences that emerged from all the readings and reflections is to end this essay with the following two quotations from Denzin and Lincoln:

This historical overview of theory and practice points to the need for an entirely new model of research ethics in which human action and conceptions of the good are interactive. (2000, p. 149)

The interpretive practice of making sense of one’s findings is both artistic and political (2000, p. 23).

References

DENZIN, N. K. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks-London-New

  Delhi, SAGE Publications.

ERCIKAN, K. & ROTH, W.-M. (2006) What Good Is Polarizing Research into Qualitative and Quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35, 5 14–23.

GOODLEY, D., et al. (2004) Researching Life Stories: Method, Theory and Analyses in a Biographical Age, London and

  New York, RoutledgeFalmer.

GOODSON, I. & SIKES,, P. (2001) Life History Research in Educational Settings: Learning from Lives, Buckingham-Philadelphia, Open University Press.

GRIFFITHS, M. (1998) Educational Research for Social Justice: Getting Off the Fence, Buckingham-Philadelphia, Open University Press.

HAMMERSLEY, M. (1993) Educational Research: Current Issues,

  London, The Open University/SAGE Publications.

SHAFFER, D. & SERLIN, R. (2004) What Good Are Statistics That Don’t Generalize? Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 9 14-25.