{"id":56,"date":"2023-01-08T16:19:50","date_gmt":"2023-01-08T21:19:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/activelearningforrealworldinquiry\/?post_type=chapter&p=56"},"modified":"2023-02-04T16:42:35","modified_gmt":"2023-02-04T21:42:35","slug":"exploring-qualitative-and-quantitative-approaches-to-inquiry-through-fishbowl-role-plays","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/activelearningforrealworldinquiry\/chapter\/exploring-qualitative-and-quantitative-approaches-to-inquiry-through-fishbowl-role-plays\/","title":{"raw":"Exploring Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Inquiry through Fishbowl Role Plays","rendered":"Exploring Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Inquiry through Fishbowl Role Plays"},"content":{"raw":"
Doug Hamilton is a Professor in the School of Educational Studies at Royal Roads University, Victoria BC Canada (doug.hamilton@royalroads.ca<\/a>).<\/h6>\r\n

Rationale<\/h1>\r\nDetermining 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, \u201cDr. Digit Head\u201d, and a qualitatively oriented faculty member, \u201cDr. Ima Flyonthewall.\u201d 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 \u201cDr. Digit Head\u201d and \u201cDr. Ima Flyonthewall.\u201d\u00a0 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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).\r\n\r\nFishbowls 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.\r\n

Overview<\/h1>\r\nThe following steps were taken to plan, organize, and implement the activity:\r\n
    \r\n \t
  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 \u201cDr. Digit Head\u201d and \u201cDr. Ima Flyonthewall\u201d are placed in front of each respective chair.<\/li>\r\n \t
  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, \u201cDr. Digit Head\u201d enters the room and proceeds to sit at the chair.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. After a few minutes have passed, \u201cDr. Ima Flyonthewall,\u201d an exemplary and well-known qualitative researcher, enters the room very slowly and takes a few snapshots of the room\u2019s layout at its entrance. They slowly move to the other chair, visibly and obtrusively observing the details of the room on the way.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. \u201cDr. Digit Head\u201d begins to castigate \u201cDr. Ima Flyonthewall\u201d for being late and proceeds to make an offhand remark about \u201ctime being relative to qualitative researchers.\u201d As noted in the script provided in Appendix A, the two researchers begin to trade quips and jokes about each others\u2019 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.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. As the two researchers\u2019 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.<\/li>\r\n \t
  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.<\/li>\r\n \t
  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\u2014qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods\u2014for designing applied research studies.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n

    Notes about the activity<\/h1>\r\nIn-depth readings about the distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research are assigned prior to the launch of this research activity.\r\n\r\nIn 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.\r\n\r\nAlthough this activity has been used primarily in educational leadership programs, its script can be adapted to support applications to specific disciplines and fields.\r\n\r\nThe 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 \u201cDr. Digit Head\u201d and a Chinese-speaking colleague has assumed the role of \u201cDr. Ima Flyonthewall.\u201d The supporting handout of distinctions between qualitative and quantitative research have been translated into Chinese as well.\r\n\r\nAs well, after running this activity a couple of times, I added a third handout, \u201cThe Chair as a Subject-Object of Research\u201d that helps to explain the differences in positivist and interpretivist perspectives using the reference to the \u201cthe chair\u201d in the script. This handout is provided in Appendix C.\r\n\r\nThis 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.\r\n\r\nIn 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.\r\n

    Reflection<\/h1>\r\nI 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 \u201cprofessors\u201d 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.\r\n\r\nIn 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 \u201ccharacters\u201d 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.\r\n\r\nIn 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n

    References<\/h3>\r\n

    Bahari, S. F. (2010). Qualitative vs. quantitative research strategies: Contrasting epistemological and ontological research assumptions. Sains Humanika,<\/em> 52<\/em>(1). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.11113\/sh.v52n1.256<\/a><\/p>\r\n

    Cresswell, J.W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches<\/em>. Sage.<\/p>\r\n

    Hamilton, D.N. & Purvey, D. (2010, July 12). EDL 510: DQ2 Activity<\/em>. Royal Roads University.<\/p>\r\n

    Howell, J. (1992). Using role play as a teaching method teaching. Public Administration, 12<\/em>(1), 69-75.<\/p>\r\n

    Lipmanowicz, H. & McCandless, K. (2014). The surprising power of liberating structures: simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation.<\/em> Liberating Structures Press.<\/p>\r\n

    Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative research.<\/em> Sage.<\/p>\r\n

    Monroe, M.C., Adams, A.E. & Greenaway, A. (2019). \u00a0Considering research paradigms in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 25<\/em>(3), 309-313, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13504622.2019.1610863<\/a><\/p>\r\n

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

    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<\/em>(4), 427-436,\u00a0 https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/14703297.2012.728879<\/a><\/p>\r\n

    Ross, K., Dennis, B., Zhao, P. & Li, P. (2017). Exploring graduate students\u2019 understanding of research: Links between identity and research conceptions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29<\/em>(1), 73-86.<\/p>\r\n

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

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

    Thomas, G. (2013). How to do your research project: A guide for students in education and applied social sciences<\/em>. Sage.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Appendix A: Script for DQ2 Activity<\/h1>\r\n[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.]<\/em>\r\n\r\n[Dr. Ima Flyonthewall quietly enters the classroom... trying to be innocuous, trying to be a \u201cfly on the wall\u201d.]<\/em>\r\n\r\nDigit:\u00a0 Well, here comes Dr. Ima Flyonthewall. Always late. You qualitative researchers, everything is relative to you, even time. I bet you can\u2019t wait to follow me around, studying everything I do, even all of my habits.\r\n\r\n[Dr. Flyonthewall takes him up on his offer, and starts taking pictures and observing him.]<\/em>\r\n\r\nFly:\u00a0 Well, yes, indeed, I do want to follow you around; I want to shadow you.\u00a0 I want to learn about your authentic, lived experiences, as that is your reality.\u00a0 My reality may be very different, but one isn\u2019t necessarily more real or more valid than the other.\u00a0 Multiple realities can, in fact, do, exist.\u00a0 Relativism is not a negative; it is a positive and beneficial perspective.\r\n\r\nDigit:\u00a0 I don\u2019t really get how you carry out your research. There\u2019s nothing really systematic and pre-structured about it\u00a0 - it\u2019s 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?\r\n\r\nFly:\u00a0 Of course I know what a hypothesis is.\u00a0 But I reject that as a starting point.\u00a0 I do field work.\u00a0 I rely on first hand knowledge, where my starting point is situational and related to the environment.\u00a0 Starting with a hypothesis shows your own bias, and you allow your work to be governed by your bias.\u00a0 I prefer to let the themes and theories emerge from my field work.\r\n\r\nDigit:\u00a0 And what does reality mean to you? You always seem so vague about it. Let\u2019s take this chair. To me it\u2019s 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\u2019t be anything else but a chair because humans use it for sitting. Everyone knows this because it is an objective fact \u2013 it just is.\r\n\r\nFly:\u00a0 But what makes this a chair?\u00a0 It may be a chair to you, but it may not be to someone else.\u00a0 In some cultures, there is no such thing as chair.\u00a0 People do not use chairs.\u00a0 So, it is not an objective reality \u2013 it is what you understand it to be.\u00a0 Everything is subjective!\r\n\r\nDigit:\u00a0 And another point, I don\u2019t understand how you can draw conclusions from your data. Actually I don\u2019t even understand what you call data -- there are no numbers, no statistics, no variables, nothing seems standardized or even counted. You don\u2019t 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\u2019t use these methods?\r\n\r\nFly:\u00a0 Excuse me while I just take a photograph of you and make sure the microphone is working....\r\n\r\nLife-histories, intensive interviewing, participant-observation field notes, journal, diaries, photographs \u2013 these are the methods I use.\u00a0 Quite frankly, I don\u2019t know how you can understand anything about human experience if you just rely on numbers.\u00a0 According to you, unless you survey me, digit-ize me, I just don\u2019t exist.\u00a0 I\u2019m not an individual to you, I\u2019m just a number.\u00a0 Step outside your numbers, step outside your veil of objectivity and get to know people as individuals.\u00a0 We are not just numbers, we are individuals with rich experiences and you can learn from us.\u00a0\u00a0 Step out from behind your desk and get involved with the real world!\r\n\r\nDigit:\u00a0 And furthermore, I\u2019ve studied questionnaire design. I know that I can\u2019t analyze my data unless I have a large sample size of research subjects that have been randomly selected. I don\u2019t know how you can study anything with the small sample sizes you use \u2013 I mean, really, a sample of 10? How did you statistically determine this number?\r\n\r\nFly:\u00a0 Why do you need a large sample size?\u00a0 One individual\u2019s life experiences is enough information for you to feast on your entire career!\u00a0 You focus on breadth, but what you end up with is so shallow.\u00a0 I go for depth, for richness, for the messiness of data.\u00a0 My data\u00a0 is not something easily removed from people, but deeply embedded with them.\r\n\r\nDigit:\u00a0 Then what about research bias? Where are all of your controls? I don\u2019t interact with my subjects because that\u2019s going to affect my results. I have to remain detached and objective and impersonal. I\u2019m a researcher \u2013 I need to be impartial and removed from the research setting.\r\n\r\nFly:\u00a0 You think you are impartial??\u00a0 HA!\u00a0 You wear your biases on your sleeve.\u00a0 Look at you \u2013 everything about you screams digit head.\r\n\r\nI don\u2019t value impartiality \u2013 it is impossible not to be biased.\u00a0 I accept and acknowledge my biases.\u00a0 I know myself.\u00a0 I collaborate and become involved with my participants, because the knowledge I gain from collaborating with my research participants helps my analysis.\u00a0 I purposefully minimize the distance between myself and my participants.\u00a0 I use triangulation methods, I confirm my analysis with my participants, and I search for robust patterns across my data gathering methods.\u00a0 You quantitative digit-heads think that qualitative researchers have no quality control or credibility, but it is not true!\r\n\r\nDigit:\u00a0 Validity is really important to my work \u2013 it\u2019s important to me to be always certain that my instrument measures what it is supposed to measure.\r\n\r\nAlso, reliability is important too. I have to statistically determine if my instrument measures things consistently across multiple administrations.\r\n\r\nDo these terms mean anything to you?\r\n\r\nFly:\u00a0 What these terms mean to me is that you are stuck in the academy.\u00a0 You are detached from your subjects and you live in a highly controlled environment.\u00a0 You are not creative, you are not willing to think outside the box.\u00a0 Your lens is so narrow and so controlled that you wouldn\u2019t notice a new idea or an authentic experience if you stepped on it!\r\n\r\nDigit: But, I am<\/em> creative. My pie charts always have lots of colours on them!\r\n\r\n[Wendy walks in, shaking her head and smiles like she has heard this debate many times before]<\/em>\r\n\r\n\u201cWait a minute.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cWait a minute.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cYou two will NEVER agree.\u00a0 You will be having this argument when you are retired and grey and too old to walk.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cCan\u2019t you see the world is shifting?\u00a0 Many, many people now realize that these approaches do not have to be in opposition.\u00a0 They work with each other, not against each other.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cThis new approach is called ... Mixed Methods!\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cTry it, you will like it!\u201d\r\n\r\nTHE END<\/em>\r\n

    Appendix B: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Summary Table<\/h1>\r\nFOCUSING YOUR STUDY: Distinctions between Quantitative and Qualitative Research<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
    <\/td>\r\nQualitative<\/strong><\/td>\r\nQuantitative<\/strong><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    PURPOSE:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cGoals of Inquiry\u201d\r\n\r\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • seeks to understand concepts, phenomena, perspectives<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • seeks to explain causes<\/li>\r\n \t
    • prove definitively through hard data, explain social changes<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    EPISTEMOLOGY:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cStudy of Knowledge\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cRole of Science\u201d\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • focus on description<\/li>\r\n \t
    • sympathetic to participants\u2019 frame of reference<\/li>\r\n \t
    • focus on unique as well as commonly-held perspectives particular to the case<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • focus on explanation and prediction<\/li>\r\n \t
    • search for generalizable \u201cnatural laws\u201d (that explain and predict)<\/li>\r\n \t
    • there are regularities and causal relationships that can be definitively established<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    ONTOLOGY<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cNature of Reality\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cAssumptions about the World\u201d<\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • reality is socially-constructed, socially-defined, open to more than one opinion<\/li>\r\n \t
    • multiple realities exist<\/li>\r\n \t
    • focus on relativism<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • reality exists external to and independent of the individual<\/li>\r\n \t
    • social world is concrete like the natural world\u2014there are natural \u201claws\u201d that govern it<\/li>\r\n \t
    • behaviour can be explained through objective facts, one reality<\/li>\r\n \t
    • focus on realism<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    METHODOLOGY<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u201cMethods of Inquiry\u201d\r\n\r\n\u201cScientific Procedures\u201d<\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • use of inductive approach<\/li>\r\n \t
    • acquire first-hand knowledge<\/li>\r\n \t
    • situational and related to inquiry and environment<\/li>\r\n \t
    • do \u201cfield work\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • rely on \u201clife histories, intensive interviewing, participant-observation, field notes, journals\/diaries<\/li>\r\n \t
    • primary focus is on \u201ctextual\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • use of deductive approach<\/li>\r\n \t
    • test hypotheses<\/li>\r\n \t
    • use of established procedures, focus on observable variables, sees other variables as noise, addresses other variables to minimize impact on results,<\/li>\r\n \t
    • use \u201csystematic protocols\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • rely on \u201cstandardized tests\u201d, \u201csurveys\u201d, \u201cinstruments\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • primary focus is on \u201cnumeric data\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    RESEARCH DESIGN<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • \u201cemergent\u201d, unfolds depending on context<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • \u201chighly-controlled\u201d, prescriptive, conforms to established norms<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    ROLE OF THEORY<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • use of inductive approach<\/li>\r\n \t
    • theory generated from the data<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • use of deductive approach<\/li>\r\n \t
    • data used to confirm theory<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    FOCUS OF INQUIRY<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • focus on \u201cdepth\u201d of discovery and explanation<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • focus on \u201cbreadth\u201d of explanation<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • interactive with \u201cparticipants\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • subjective<\/li>\r\n \t
    • value-laden<\/li>\r\n \t
    • report \u201cfaithfully\u201d multiple perspectives<\/li>\r\n \t
    • understand the context<\/li>\r\n \t
    • focus on individual interpretations and perspectives<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • independent of \u201csubjects\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • objective<\/li>\r\n \t
    • value-free<\/li>\r\n \t
    • discover objective truths<\/li>\r\n \t
    • de-emphasize individual judgments<\/li>\r\n \t
    • control for context<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    RESEARCH SETTING<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • naturalistic<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • applied or laboratory<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECTS<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • immersed within setting<\/li>\r\n \t
    • collaborative where the researchers are interested and often emotionally involved with the participants, sometimes even the participants are emotionally involved<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • detached, clinical relationship with subjects, subjects become data rather than individuals in a context<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    STRENGTHS<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • description and exploration<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • causation and prediction<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    SAMPLING PROCESS<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • purposive, convenience<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • random, representative<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    RESOURCES<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • uses everything at disposal<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • highly-controlled<\/li>\r\n \t
    • rely on established procedures<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    ROLE OF VALUES<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • accepted, acknowledged, articulated<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • de-emphasized or removed by methodology and language<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    USE OF LANGUAGE<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • informal, descriptive, \u201crich\u201d, active and personal voice (1st person sometimes)<\/li>\r\n \t
    • tell story, use language of participants<\/li>\r\n \t
    • report perspectives, beliefs, observations<\/li>\r\n \t
    • use accepted qualitative terminology<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • formal, prescriptive, detached, neutral, impersonal (3rd person) and passive voice,<\/li>\r\n \t
    • report \u201cfacts\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • use accepted quantitative terminology<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    ANALYSIS OF DATA\r\n<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • coding and categorizing using comparative methods and grounded theory<\/li>\r\n \t
    • search for robust patterns<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • statistical techniques and tests<\/li>\r\n \t
    • striving to test statistical hypotheses<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    QUALITY CONTROL\/CREDIBILITY\r\n<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • minimize distance between researcher and participants<\/li>\r\n \t
    • strive for \u201ctrustworthiness\u201d, \u201cauthenticity\u201d and \u201cconsistency\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • use triangulation, confirmations with participants, rival explanations and hypotheses<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • control for \u201cbias\u201d and \u201cerror\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • strive for \u201cvalidity\u201d and \u201creliability\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
    • use statistical and operational methods to control error and variability, increase generalizability<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    RELATED NAMES<\/strong>\r\n\r\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • constructivism, post-positivism, interpretive theory, phenomenology, naturalistic inquiry, postmodernism<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/td>\r\n
    		\r\n