RON MCDERMOTT spoke of WHOLE LANGUAGE 2      1/2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-
13-96
RM>DT>And what is the alternative process?
RM>REAL research... Take what you're calling a "study", make
RM>sure it limits variables as much as possible, repeat it to
RM>verify results, then try modifying the variables (run an 
RM>experiment) to determine the dependencies, etc...
Then you are saying that a "study" can be conducted and be considered 
research if certain conditions exist?
RM>DT>Do you mean that only Qualitative (should read Quantitative)  
research is to be considered reliable?
RM>First of all, I think you mean quantitative, and, no, it
RM>isn't essential to be numerical (though that often helps),
RM>but it IS essential that it be RESEARCH and not unstructured
RM>observation....
Yes I do mean quantitative.....and I don't know what you mean by 
unstructured.  Do you mean the data collecting must be structured or the 
environment must be structured? 
RM>DT>I think others have argued that research in general can be slanted
RM>DT>to prove this or that theory.
RM>Research can't be slanted if it is performed properly.. DATA 
RM>can often be interpreted "creatively" if one wishes to do so,
RM>however...  Usually, this creative interpretation applies to
RM>"studies" more so than to research, simply because research
RM>has very little "wiggle room".  Usually the worst that can
RM>happen with research is to come up with no clear conclusion.
RM>Studies often have MANY variables involved, some hidden, and
RM>"conclusions" are often suspect, imo... The vagueness of what
RM>is being tested allows one great latitude in inferring what
RM>the results mean....
I have never been a big fan of the "research can be slanted" theory but 
it does go around and around.  I think that research can be considered 
valid when other research supports findings.  
I see you use studies and research separately.  You have a narrow 
definition of research I think.  Studies are conducted by researchers, 
their work is considered research (as in the case of field-studies) and 
the scientific community accepts these "studies" as research.  Why do 
you differentiate between the two?
RM>I guess I have to point out that for me, research involves 
RM>scientific method, not simply thrashing about hoping to
RM>stumble across something by collecting observations more or
RM>less randomly...
Qualitative research is scientific and is far from "thrashing" about 
hoping to find something.  It is systematic and each research strategy 
is specific in its approach.  
RM>DT>If I understand you correctly I am assuming that you refer to
RM>DT>single,  unsupported research when you say that conclusions are
RM>DT>inferential. 
RM>I think our confidence in the DATA improves, but the meaning
RM>of the data is in question if the process of collecting it
RM>is haphazard...  
This would be true no matter what the study was.....I am not arguing 
that simply because a study is conducted that constitutes validity.  But 
studies can be highly reliable.  Many are.
RM>DT>... it can also be said that it is unnecessary to run an 
RM>DT>experiment every time one conducts a study.
RM>Absolutely, as long as one realizes that any conclusions
RM>are questionable and unverified without running further
RM>tests, and conducting experiments which modify variables.
I'm not sure this is a necessary procedure in every research project.
RM>DT>Not every study requires an experiment or control groups.
RM>Then, frankly, any conclusions that one may be tempted to
RM>draw as a result are meaningless....
Then explain how one must conduct an experiment or have control groups 
in case studies.  A case study is a detailed examination of a particular 
setting, subject, documents, or events.  How could one do a control 
group for a historical organizational case study?  Suppose I want to do 
research on the origins of a particular group of folk-lore or gorillas 
in the wild.  What about anthropological studies as applied to American 
education?  Such studies are rigorous and systematic but how does one 
apply the control variables as you suggest?  (Consider the work of 
Margaret Mead)
RM>DT>Qualitative research methods are employed not out of convenience
RM>DT>or  expediency, but because that which is being studied can best
RM>DT>be examined  using a qualitative research approach.
RM>Now here I'm at a loss.... Qualitative is non-numerical..
RM>Previously it appeared that you were confusing qualitative
RM>with quantitative, but in this context I'm not so sure..
I'm not confusing the two.  I am referring to qualitative vrs 
quantitative.  I am saying that there are some things in education we 
wish to know more about that a qualitative approach is more appropriate.  
Dan.....
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
"ATHEISM: A non-prophet organization.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------