Doug Hamilton is a Professor in the School of Educational Studies at Royal Roads University, Victoria BC Canada (doug.hamilton@royalroads.ca).

Rationale

Determining a specific research approach is one of the key decisions that students will make when they design their own studies (Thomas, 2013). This decision process likely requires a substantive understanding of the distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research methods (Morgan, 2016; Bahari, 2010; Smeyers, 2008). The activity, originally developed by Hamilton & Purvey (2010), uses a role-playing scenario to help students understand the fundamental characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research as well as their differences and distinctions. At the beginning of the session, students are introduced to two faculty members, a quantitatively oriented faculty member, “Dr. Digit Head”, and a qualitatively oriented faculty member, “Dr. Ima Flyonthewall.” The two faculty members are in the midst of a debate between the relative merits of quantitative vs. qualitative research approaches while waiting for a departmental meeting to start. They each have entrenched perspectives but are able to share the respective assumptions, qualities, and epistemological foundations of their dominant approach to research-based inquiry. The activity uses a fishbowl format (Lipmanowicz & McCandless, 2014) that allows students to encircle the two faculty members as they proceed to debate the relative merits of their own approach. The role play concludes with a third faculty member showing up and explaining the value of mixed methods to “Dr. Digit Head” and “Dr. Ima Flyonthewall.”  The role play is performed in an exaggerated and slapstick way, complete with suitable props and dress to add a sense of levity to a topic that new graduate students often find challenging to explore.

The expected outcome of this activity is to help students describe and discern the differences between qualitative and quantitative research designs with special emphasis on the key assumptions, characteristics, strengths, limitations, and associated research paradigms with both approaches to research. Being aware of these differences helps students decide on appropriate research designs and aids them in explaining the underlying principles and assumptions that frame their own research approach (Monroe et al., 2019; Ross et al., 2017; Thomas, 2013, Mason, 1996; Cresswell, 1994).

Fishbowls feature a small interior circle of participants surrounded by a larger outside circle of participants (Lipmanowicz & McCandless, 2014). While the inside group of participants engage in a discussion, the outside group is free to listen and to share questions with classmates standing beside them. The use of role play is particularly helpful as an engagement strategy when the content can be viewed as somewhat dull and unstimulating (Howell, 1992) or when the instructor wants to use an alternative approach to motivate students and enhance their understanding of certain concepts (Stevens, 2015; Rao & Stupans, 2012). It enables students to actively participate and immerse themselves in situations that are more realistic and relevant to their personal experience. As well, it enables the instructor to vary the instructional process by adding a different kind of learning activity to the teaching of research methods. Furthermore, students who are new to the exploration of research paradigms can observe the role play and join in when they are comfortable.

Overview

The following steps were taken to plan, organize, and implement the activity:

1. At the beginning of the class, a small table with two chairs is arranged in the middle of the classroom with space cleared around the table for students to stand and observe. Cardboard name plates inscribed with “Dr. Digit Head” and “Dr. Ima Flyonthewall” are placed in front of each respective chair.
2. The students are asked in advance to form a circle around the table in the center of the room after they enter the classroom following a break. Once they are positioned, “Dr. Digit Head” enters the room and proceeds to sit at the chair.
3. After a few minutes have passed, “Dr. Ima Flyonthewall,” an exemplary and well-known qualitative researcher, enters the room very slowly and takes a few snapshots of the room’s layout at its entrance. They slowly move to the other chair, visibly and obtrusively observing the details of the room on the way.
4. “Dr. Digit Head” begins to castigate “Dr. Ima Flyonthewall” for being late and proceeds to make an offhand remark about “time being relative to qualitative researchers.” As noted in the script provided in Appendix A, the two researchers begin to trade quips and jokes about each others’ preferred mode of inquiry which then turns into a debate between the virtues, assumptions, epistemologies, and methods of qualitative versus quantitative approaches to research in the social sciences.
5. As the two researchers’ positions and arguments become more entrenched, a third faculty member enters the room and proceeds to comment that the two researchers have been having the same debate for decades and concludes the role play by stating they should both consider a third approach that involves mixed methods.
6. Afterwards, students are given the script as well as a summary table of the distinctions between the two approaches. The summary table, featured in Appendix B, shows the distinctions between qualitative and quantitative approaches along several dimensions including definitions, assumptions, epistemologies, and methods of inquiry.
7. In debriefing the activity, students are invited to ask clarifying questions about the key points raised in the debate. Finally, the class is asked to consider the implications of the three main approaches—qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods—for designing applied research studies.

Notes about the activity

In-depth readings about the distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research are assigned prior to the launch of this research activity.

In the classroom, the two main roles have been played by the course instructors as well as a guest instructor but could also be played by a graduate student, teaching assistant, or a former student.

Although this activity has been used primarily in educational leadership programs, its script can be adapted to support applications to specific disciplines and fields.

The activity was originally performed in English but, more recently, the script has been translated into Simplified Chinese and delivered in Mandarin to classes of Chinese and bilingual (Chinese and English) graduate students in China. With practice and the assistance of Pinyin, an English-speaking instructor has assumed the role of “Dr. Digit Head” and a Chinese-speaking colleague has assumed the role of “Dr. Ima Flyonthewall.” The supporting handout of distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research have been translated into Chinese as well.

As well, after running this activity a couple of times, I added a third handout, “The Chair as a Subject-Object of Research” that helps to explain the differences in positivist and interpretivist perspectives using the reference to the “the chair” in the script. This handout is provided in Appendix C.

This activity has informed the undertaking of two subsequent student assignments. The first assignment is a team activity that requires students to research and present a specific data collection method to the rest of the class. As part of their presentation, they examine and explain if and, potentially, how the method could be undertaken from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. The second assignment involves the development of a short proposal for developing a research study related to a leadership or teaching issue that is relevant to their professional role.

In its current form, the activity has not been adapted to an online format. Several strategies could be employed, however, to overcome this limitation and to facilitate the re-purposing of the activity for online course use. For example, the role play activity could be video recorded, or a cartoon version created using an application such as Powtoon. In either case, discussion forums or a virtual fishbowl activity could accompany the video or cartoon to support the student debriefing and reflection process.

Reflection

I have used this activity in research methods classes over a 10-year period. Positive feedback from students has emphasized the value of having complex material presented in a fun and lighthearted way. There is some initial confusion and wonderment among students at the beginning of the activity when the two “professors” silently and surreptitiously enter the classroom because it is an unexpected change in the kind of learning activity expected. As well, students have appreciated receiving the supplemental handouts and having an opportunity to collectively unpack key distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research in the follow-up debriefing session.

In more recent years, I have modified the activity to enable students to jump into the centre of the fishbowl, take an active part in the role play by replacing one of the original “characters” and, in an improvisational manner, contribute further arguments to one side of the quantitative-qualitative debate. The transition from observer to actor has been facilitated by giving the participating students the hats of the corresponding characters to wear when they assume their respective roles. This addition has made the activity a more engaging and dynamic for the class.

In addition to the benefits to students, I have found that this activity has served to energize my teaching by giving me another strategy to introduce quite dry and complex concepts to relatively new graduate students besides conducting lectures or seminars. As such, the role play serves not only as an example of active learning for students but also an example of active teaching for instructors.

The role play is a fun and energizing activity to do in a team-teaching context, but I have also used the activity when willing colleagues are available to play the other two roles. It has been helpful, after the role play, to invite the guest actors to share their experiences with qualitative and quantitative methods as a way to honour their involvement and assistance in the role-playing process.

References

Bahari, S. F. (2010). Qualitative vs. quantitative research strategies: Contrasting epistemological and ontological research assumptions. Sains Humanika, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.11113/sh.v52n1.256

Cresswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage.

Hamilton, D.N. & Purvey, D. (2010, July 12). EDL 510: DQ2 Activity. Royal Roads University.

Howell, J. (1992). Using role play as a teaching method teaching. Public Administration, 12(1), 69-75.

Lipmanowicz, H. & McCandless, K. (2014). The surprising power of liberating structures: simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation. Liberating Structures Press.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative research. Sage.

Monroe, M.C., Adams, A.E. & Greenaway, A. (2019).  Considering research paradigms in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 25(3), 309-313, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1610863

Morgan .DL. (2018). Living within blurry boundaries: The value of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 12(3), 268-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816686433

Rao, D. & Stupans, I. (2012). Exploring the potential of role play in higher education: development of a typology and teacher guidelines, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(4), 427-436,  https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.728879

Ross, K., Dennis, B., Zhao, P. & Li, P. (2017). Exploring graduate students’ understanding of research: Links between identity and research conceptions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 73-86.

Smeyers, P. (2008). Qualitative and quantitative research methods: old wine in new bottles? On understanding and interpreting educational phenomena, Paedagogica Historica, 44:6, 691-705, https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230802486168

Stevens, R. (2015). Role-play and student engagement: Reflections from the classroom. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(5), 481-492, https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1020778

Thomas, G. (2013). How to do your research project: A guide for students in education and applied social sciences. Sage.

Appendix A: Script for DQ2 Activity

[Students in circle, 3 chairs and desk in the middle, Dr. Digit Head is busily punching numbers into his calculator. He keeps looking at his watch and seems exasperated.]

[Dr. Ima Flyonthewall quietly enters the classroom… trying to be innocuous, trying to be a “fly on the wall”.]

Digit:  Well, here comes Dr. Ima Flyonthewall. Always late. You qualitative researchers, everything is relative to you, even time. I bet you can’t wait to follow me around, studying everything I do, even all of my habits.

[Dr. Flyonthewall takes him up on his offer, and starts taking pictures and observing him.]

Fly:  Well, yes, indeed, I do want to follow you around; I want to shadow you.  I want to learn about your authentic, lived experiences, as that is your reality.  My reality may be very different, but one isn’t necessarily more real or more valid than the other.  Multiple realities can, in fact, do, exist.  Relativism is not a negative; it is a positive and beneficial perspective.

Digit:  I don’t really get how you carry out your research. There’s nothing really systematic and pre-structured about it  – it’s like you decide on the spot what data you want to collect and from whom. Do you really know what an hypothesis really is anyway?

Fly:  Of course I know what a hypothesis is.  But I reject that as a starting point.  I do field work.  I rely on first hand knowledge, where my starting point is situational and related to the environment.  Starting with a hypothesis shows your own bias, and you allow your work to be governed by your bias.  I prefer to let the themes and theories emerge from my field work.

Digit:  And what does reality mean to you? You always seem so vague about it. Let’s take this chair. To me it’s a chair, it looks like a chair, it feels like a chair, so it is a chair, nothing more. The natural laws of science tell me that it can’t be anything else but a chair because humans use it for sitting. Everyone knows this because it is an objective fact – it just is.

Fly:  But what makes this a chair?  It may be a chair to you, but it may not be to someone else.  In some cultures, there is no such thing as chair.  People do not use chairs.  So, it is not an objective reality – it is what you understand it to be.  Everything is subjective!

Digit:  And another point, I don’t understand how you can draw conclusions from your data. Actually I don’t even understand what you call data — there are no numbers, no statistics, no variables, nothing seems standardized or even counted. You don’t even use questionnaires or tests to determine how many of your respondents share the same viewpoints. How can you make any inferences about human behaviour in general if you don’t use these methods?

Fly:  Excuse me while I just take a photograph of you and make sure the microphone is working….

Life-histories, intensive interviewing, participant-observation field notes, journal, diaries, photographs – these are the methods I use.  Quite frankly, I don’t know how you can understand anything about human experience if you just rely on numbers.  According to you, unless you survey me, digit-ize me, I just don’t exist.  I’m not an individual to you, I’m just a number.  Step outside your numbers, step outside your veil of objectivity and get to know people as individuals.  We are not just numbers, we are individuals with rich experiences and you can learn from us.   Step out from behind your desk and get involved with the real world!

Digit:  And furthermore, I’ve studied questionnaire design. I know that I can’t analyze my data unless I have a large sample size of research subjects that have been randomly selected. I don’t know how you can study anything with the small sample sizes you use – I mean, really, a sample of 10? How did you statistically determine this number?

Fly:  Why do you need a large sample size?  One individual’s life experiences is enough information for you to feast on your entire career!  You focus on breadth, but what you end up with is so shallow.  I go for depth, for richness, for the messiness of data.  My data  is not something easily removed from people, but deeply embedded with them.

Digit:  Then what about research bias? Where are all of your controls? I don’t interact with my subjects because that’s going to affect my results. I have to remain detached and objective and impersonal. I’m a researcher – I need to be impartial and removed from the research setting.

Fly:  You think you are impartial??  HA!  You wear your biases on your sleeve.  Look at you – everything about you screams digit head.

I don’t value impartiality – it is impossible not to be biased.  I accept and acknowledge my biases.  I know myself.  I collaborate and become involved with my participants, because the knowledge I gain from collaborating with my research participants helps my analysis.  I purposefully minimize the distance between myself and my participants.  I use triangulation methods, I confirm my analysis with my participants, and I search for robust patterns across my data gathering methods.  You quantitative digit-heads think that qualitative researchers have no quality control or credibility, but it is not true!

Digit:  Validity is really important to my work – it’s important to me to be always certain that my instrument measures what it is supposed to measure.

Also, reliability is important too. I have to statistically determine if my instrument measures things consistently across multiple administrations.

Do these terms mean anything to you?

Fly:  What these terms mean to me is that you are stuck in the academy.  You are detached from your subjects and you live in a highly controlled environment.  You are not creative, you are not willing to think outside the box.  Your lens is so narrow and so controlled that you wouldn’t notice a new idea or an authentic experience if you stepped on it!

Digit: But, I am creative. My pie charts always have lots of colours on them!

[Wendy walks in, shaking her head and smiles like she has heard this debate many times before]

“Wait a minute.”

“Wait a minute.”

“You two will NEVER agree.  You will be having this argument when you are retired and grey and too old to walk.”

“Can’t you see the world is shifting?  Many, many people now realize that these approaches do not have to be in opposition.  They work with each other, not against each other.”

“This new approach is called … Mixed Methods!”

“Try it, you will like it!”

THE END

Appendix B: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Summary Table

FOCUSING YOUR STUDY: Distinctions between Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Appendix C: The Chair as an Object-Subject of Research

The Chair (researched from different perspectives)