DT>And do you see any validity in qualitative studies (ones where a 
DT>great deal of observing and comparing is done)?
 
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...
DT>I suppose it is a matter of how much confidence one puts in 
DT>qualitative studies.
You're hung up on this "qualitative" issue... The issue is
not qualitative vs. quantitative, it's one of methodology..
DT>I had a thought today regarding a scientific study....isn't 
DT>there a danger in the "explanation" being tainted because of an 
DT>artificial environment created by the need to control certain 
DT>variables? 
I don't think so... If "control" is ALSO a variable, then
problems can develop, but without control, one can never
really understand the process taking place...
DT>Whereas a qualitative study collects data from a pure and unmanipulated 
DT>setting.  
I'd describe it as chaotic and disorganized myself..   ;-)
DT>I'm not sure that we need to know (or even can know) all the 
DT>interrelated cause and effect connections in an educational setting.
That may be the case....
DT>At best maybe we can arrive at what appears to be general truth which 
DT>seem to be consistent from a variety of studies.
At best....
DT>But there is growing acceptance for qualitative research among 
DT>researchers.    
Again, it isn't "qualitative" that's the problem, it's the
unstructured nature of many of these studies, combined with
conclusions drawn on nothing more than statistical or 
inferred (speculative) correlations....  Kind of like those
line drawings that form images visible from the air which
some infer to mean there were interplanetary visitors to
Earth...
DT>For example (and I am simplifying here) when Brian Cambourne
DT>wanted  to study the conditions present in language learning he
DT>observed  over time certain conditions that were present no matter
DT>where or  whom he observed.  From his observations and studies of
DT>those  conditions, he developed what he calls the "seven
DT>conditions" which  must operate for language learning to occur.
 
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?)....
DT>Generally speaking the seven conditions that Cambourne identified 
DT>are all important and necessary.
Based upon what test?  Simply because they show up over and
over?  On this basis, one might conclude that the 
development of civilization requires the wholesale slaughter
of large numbers of people periodically.  Now I don't happen
to believe that, and I don't suggest we try an experiment
with controls, but the inference is "reasonable" based on
multiple observations over long time intervals.  It's also
"reliable"...  Is it valid?
DT>Are you familiar with these 7 conditions?
No, and it doesn't matter in the context of this discussion.
What I mean by this is that the deciding factor isn't WHAT
was concluded, but the PROCESS used to produce those
conclusions.  Since I don't know the process, the conclusions
are immaterial...
DT>It's quite lengthy to describe each one in detail but maybe you could 
DT>find some info on the web.  
WHAT they are doesn't matter; what I THINK of them, also
doesn't matter; and whether I BELIEVE them doesn't matter.
All that matters is HOW he arrived at them....

.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2
---------------