RON MCDERMOTT spoke of RESEARCH 1            1/2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 11-
28-96
RM>You're hung up on this "qualitative" issue... The issue is
RM>not qualitative vs. quantitative, it's one of methodology..
Perhaps you are right.  Maybe we can change the thread to methodology.  
I was under the impression that you considered qualitative methods (any 
and all) as unscientific.  Am I mistaken?
RM>DT>Whereas a qualitative study collects data from a pure and
RM>DT>unmanipulated  setting.  
RM>I'd describe it as chaotic and disorganized myself..   ;-)
I don't really believe you view all qualitative studies in this way.  
You're far to smart for such an over generalization.  (grinning)
RM>DT>But there is growing acceptance for qualitative research among 
RM>DT>researchers.    
RM>Again, it isn't "qualitative" that's the problem, it's the
RM>unstructured nature of many of these studies, combined with
RM>conclusions drawn on nothing more than statistical or 
RM>inferred (speculative) correlations....  Kind of like those
RM>line drawings that form images visible from the air which
RM>some infer to mean there were interplanetary visitors to
RM>Earth...
So you are saying the the previous posts of Shelia's cannot be trusted 
(they compared math instruction in the US to countries where math 
education is apparently more successful).  Or is this where the 
structured part comes in.  What of controls here?  There can be none in 
a comparative study, right?  And isn't a study like the ones described 
in Shelia's post qualitative in methodology?
RM>DT>Generally speaking the seven conditions that Cambourne identified 
RM>DT>are all important and necessary.
RM>Based upon what test?  Simply because they show up over and
RM>over? 
If you were familiar with Camborune's work and specifically the seven 
conditions he writes on you wouldn't ask that question.  You would see, 
as I have and as nearly *every* early childhood expert and educator, 
that his ideas are very solid.  I have read so much on this subject in 
my training and have experienced it at well that I don't care of his 
methodologies.  It would be too time consuming to track down every study 
I ever read about. Are you saying you know more than a whole host of 
early childhood educators?  (hehehe)  
On this basis, one might conclude that the 
RM>development of civilization requires the wholesale slaughter
RM>of large numbers of people periodically.  Now I don't happen
RM>to believe that, and I don't suggest we try an experiment
RM>with controls, but the inference is "reasonable" based on
RM>multiple observations over long time intervals.  It's also
RM>"reliable"...  Is it valid?
This is a silly comparison Ron.
RM>DT>Are you familiar with these 7 conditions?
RM>No, and it doesn't matter in the context of this discussion.
Yes it does matter because Cambourne's work is so significant to our 
understanding of how children acquire language.  His research was far 
more structured than a casual observation.  I don't know much of 
Piaget's methodology either, but it seems to me that much of his 
theories were based on what he witnessed.  Certainly a great deal of 
other factors influenced his conclusions but basically he made 
observations and made some inferences from what he saw.  Not every thing 
he contributed to furthering our understanding of child development has 
stood up perhaps, but the majority of his work is considered solid.  
RM>What I mean by this is that the deciding factor isn't WHAT
RM>was concluded, but the PROCESS used to produce those
RM>conclusions.  Since I don't know the process, the conclusions
RM>are immaterial...
I agree with this in part.  I think the process is important.  But you 
do many things in your profession based upon what you have personally 
experienced and based upon what you have read.  You don't personally dig 
up the exact methodology used in research that would support every thing 
you believe in education.  It just isn't done that way and you know it.    
RM>WHAT they are doesn't matter; what I THINK of them, also
RM>doesn't matter; and whether I BELIEVE them doesn't matter.
RM>All that matters is HOW he arrived at them....
Yes...and if his conclusions are valid and you get hung up on his 
methodology of which you aren't sure of exactly (neither am I 
*exactly* ) then where does that put you?  Upon what are you basing your 
pedagogical beliefs?  
Dan
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------