SHEILA KING spoke of Research to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-26-96
SK>Ed.D in Education? Masters Degree in Education and Ph.D. in
SK>Sociology? 
 
SK>Such credentials do not convince me that they really understand that
SK>mathematics of statistics. 
I offered to you and others here many credentials of which the author's 
degrees are but a part.  Remember, I am trying here to show the 
acceptance of qualitative research techniques in educational research.  
Since I was quoted from the authors textbook, I thought it important to 
list their qualifications.  
You would have no idea the authors understanding of the mathematics of 
statics.  Perhaps their understanding exceeds your own.  Who is to say?  
Part of their text book deals with statistical analysis of quanatative 
data and describes how this data can have conventional uses in 
qualitative research.  
 
Programs that give degrees such as the
SK>ones you cite above do require some training in statistical methods,
SK>but it is not that substantial. It would be more meaningful to many
SK>of us here if the methods used by these Ed. degree researchers were
SK>analyzed by some mathematicians or statisticians and proclaimed as
SK>valid research methods.
Perhaps this is the rub for many of you here.  You can see validity only 
if data can be quantified.  For this to be so, you would only accept a 
researchers credentials if their mathematical/statistical training were 
substantial.  Must ALL research data be quantified for it to be 
acceptable?  
For the record, I don't think any research data "proves" anything.  I am 
willing to accept research data from any "camp" if it proves to be 
reliable.  What makes it reliable?  Acceptance by researchers in general 
and/or educational organizations, duplication or concurrence by other 
researchers/educators, and consistency with what is already acceptable 
knowledge.  (I'm sure others can add here.....just wanted to clarify 
that isolated studies do not impress me....they may interest me....but 
unless studies have support of the educational community I could not 
place much confidence in them.   
Last thought here:
You're a math educator.  I am an early childhood educator.  You probably 
see things more logically/sequentially than I do (I'm guessing).  When 
someone speaks authoritatively regarding Math education, they must have 
significant mathematical expertise and educational experience if their 
ideas are to be considered.  The same is true for early childhood 
education.  
The people whose works I cite, whose ideas I believe in, are considered 
to have significant early childhood educational expertise by the 
majority of early childhood - educators/professional organizations.  
Perhaps we just don't understand each others area of expertise.  Perhaps 
the gap between upper-grade educators and early childhood educators is 
too wide a gap to bridge.
Dunno....
Dan   
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------