RON MCDERMOTT spoke of RESEARCH 1 to DAN TRIPLETT on 11-25-96
RM>DT>And do you see any validity in qualitative studies (ones where a 
RM>DT>great deal of observing and comparing is done)?
RM> 
RM>Validity.... Let's put it this way: Studies can help us to 
RM>identify the questions which require asking, but they do not 
RM>usually provide any answers to the questions...
I suppose it is a matter of how much confidence one puts in qualitative 
studies.  I think that such studies provide more than questions.  I 
believe they give us answers as well (or point us in directions -- you 
know, so we can do more qualitative studies  :)  ) 
RM>RM>Depends on your definition of "prove"... 
RM> 
RM>DT>Webster says "...to establish truth or validity of by
RM>DT>demonstration;  to ascertain the correctness."
RM> 
RM>And Ron McDermott replies: One can seldom KNOW whether 
RM>something is "correct", because one can never finish asking
RM>all the possible questions... The answers to the questions
RM>that HAVE been asked may lead to explanations (which may
RM>prove to simply be temporary)... What scientific studies do 
RM>is to link cause and effect; if you change one thing, and 
RM>continually see the same resulting effect, it's reasonable 
RM>to infer a linkage, and the linkage may then also be  
RM>quantifiable (that isn't necessary, but the DEGREE of linkage 
RM>is always nice to know as well)...
I'll buy that...I like the idea of "lead to explanations" since it seems 
this is the whole idea behind any research -- understanding of some 
thing.  I had a thought today regarding a scientific study....isn't 
there a danger in the "explanation" being tainted because of an 
artificial environment created by the need to control certain variables?  
Whereas a qualitative study collects data from a pure and unmanipulated 
setting.  
 
RM>Your use of the term "research" is still a problem, as we do
RM>not all agree on what constitutes "research"... By proper
RM>use of the scientific method, one can often get a clearer
RM>picture of how things are interrelated; which things cause
RM>which results.  Studies, on the other hand, suggest which
RM>connections may exist, but seldom shed sufficient light to
RM>see the structure of the relationships...
I'm not sure that we need to know (or even can know) all the 
interrelated cause and effect connections in an educational setting.  At 
best maybe we can arrive at what appears to be general truth which seem 
to be consistent from a variety of studies.  My use of the term 
"research" is a problem for you and many others I suppose.  But there is 
growing acceptance for qualitative research among researchers.    
RM> 
RM>DT>I am willing to accept research data from any "camp"
RM>DT>if it proves to be reliable.  What makes it reliable?
RM> 
RM>RM>Reliable, in a scientific sense, is synonymous with being
RM>RM>repeatable....
I think I have said that....so if one research does a qualitative study 
and reports certain "findings" then another researcher should be able to 
repeat the study and the new "findings" should be consistent with the 
previous ones.  
RM>DT>If the same phenomena is observed in similar situations over and 
RM>DT>over again by several researchers, I would think that this
RM>DT>qualifies  as repeatable.
RM> 
RM>Yes...
RM> 
RM>DT>For example (and I am simplifying here) when Brian Cambourne
RM>DT>wanted  to study the conditions present in language learning he
RM>DT>observed  over time certain conditions that were present no matter
RM>DT>where or  whom he observed.  From his observations and studies of
RM>DT>those  conditions, he developed what he calls the "seven
RM>DT>conditions" which  must operate for language learning to occur.
RM> 
RM>And, of course, the fact that he observed 7 conditions in 
RM>operation does not necessarily indicate, for example, that
RM>all 7 are necessary, important, or that one or more might
RM>not actually be DETRIMENTAL to the process... Nor, is it
RM>unlikely that some conditions, NOT observed, might have
RM>contributed to the process... Nor yet that there are OTHER
RM>conditions which are not in use which would be superior to
RM>what he observed (but having identified the 7 NECESSARY
RM>conditions, why would someone look beyond them?)....
Generally speaking the seven conditions that Cambourne identified are 
all important and necessary.  Are you familiar with these 7 conditions?  
If not, then to suppose anything about them will lead nowhere.  
Cambourne studied the conditions that operate when language learning 
takes place.  Though he said that the conditions he identified were many 
and complex, there were seven that stood out.  He believes that these 
seven conditions are relevant to all kinds of language learning.  It's 
quite lengthy to describe each one in detail but maybe you could find 
some info on the web.  
It is important to note that others have contributed to his word and 
made similar conclusions.  His findings are accepted because they are 
reasonable and workable in an educational setting.  I think if you read 
a bit about this specific study you would find many areas of agreement.  
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------