Positivist, Interpretive and Constructivist Approaches in Social and Educational Studies - Literature review Example

 A Critical Evaluation of Educational Research There is controversy in the wings. That controversy revolves around the methods used to do evaluation in educational research. There are several research styles being used at the present time. This paper will attempt to discuss and describe some of the types of research used and the positive and negative points about them. Reference to two chosen research articles will be used to illustrate how those styles are used. Those articles are,” Does the Auditory Saltation Stimulus Distinguish Dyslexic From Competently Reading Adults?” by Joanna Kidd and John Hogben (2007) and “In Maturation of Visual and Auditory Temporal Processing School-Aged Children” by Piers Dawes and Dorothy Bishop (2008). The attempt will be made through discussion to determine whether the approach used was positivist, interpretive or constructivist or a combination thereof. The articles will also be compared as to the qualitative and quantitative methods and whether they are empirical or non-empirical in method. Ethics will be touched on as a necessary part of any research that is done today. To begin, let us discuss the different methods presently available for use in designing and carrying out research such as that noted above. In any research there is a method used and though we would often think that the scientific method would always be used, that may not be true. The method of study is usually determined prior to the study being done. Will the study be empirical or non-empiracal? Will it be Quantitative or Qualitative? What about positivist or interpretivist or maybe constructivist? Sometimes the study itself will determine the method to be used. Sometimes there is a particular method or paradigm particularly appreciated by the researcher. Interpretivist research is oftentimes seen as descriptive or summarizing in method. This type of research obtains its data indirectly through other than direct research methods. The data may come from such places as academic books, policies, laws, or regulations (Xinping, 2002). Most of this type of research is done in a library with resources found there. The interpretivist approach is described as often speculative, philosophical or impressionistic. The results of the research are not often used as any direct assistance to any future work. The positivist method is more often used in research today. Many advancements in many fields have occurred because of this method. The positivist method uses a very strict method of research (Xinping, 2002). The result is found through experimentation. The steps are: define the problem, develop a hypothesis, decide on the proposition, verify the results, and conclude with reporting. This type of method is often used to formulate new studies that may be developed from the data or information gained. Constructivist research in education is controversial at best. Constructivist paradigms are often elaborated in debate, reflection, and abstraction. There is the question as to whether this is research at all. It is certainly not done by any methods that are normally thought of as research (Xinping, 2002). However, it is not unusual for a constructivist theory to be followed up by empirical research based on what was determined by the constructivist. There is reality based in this research even though it is sometimes difficult to determine. A theory developed here can be followed up by a positivist study. Non-empirical research is not based on gathering data but developing theoretical ideas. These ideas are meant to reflect ones own thoughts and ideas and can often be spawned from something that has occurred recently or may be a past experience of the researcher. An example might be a man who has described that he is going to do his dissertation on childhood bereavement in schools because he had seen a child told not to talk about her Daddy’s death in school. This creates a need to critique earlier arguments on the subject and review earlier literature. It may involve very few statistical studies of any kind (Clark, 2000). This is most likely going to be a qualitative study though under the right circumstances might be quantitative. Will it be a study that will meet the needs of the educational researcher? Will it be well documented and will it cause more harm than good when used in future studies? Empirical research almost always uses a non-empirical literature review. It may be quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative research requires a collection of data and the interpretation of that data using statistical techniques (Clark, 2000). Qualitative research is the gathering of evidence. That evidence must have significance toward the interpretation of the events to be studied. It would require the explanation of events that impacts these events significantly. Statistical techniques may not be used (Clark, 2000). Again, there is the end result to consider. The scientific method demands the use of well studied data. There are two research tasks necessary to be considered a quantitative study. There is the scientific one of showing relevance which contributes the quantitative side of the study and data collection or numerical side that contributes to magnitude (Michael, 2007). Qualitative research, on the other hand, talks about recurring cycles but each reveals something similar to what came before. In the case of qualitative research, collection and hypothesis do not need to be done in advance (Michael, 2007). “Does the Auditory Saltation Stimulus Distinguish Dyslexic From Competently Reading Adults?” by Joanna Kidd and John Hogben (2007) is a study done to discover whether dyslexia is truly characterized by poor saltation task performance and whether those thresholds are related to reading and phonological processing (Kidd et al, 2007). The study was conducted using thirty-nine adults. It is the contention of the authors that there is conflicting reporting of the research conducted previously on this subject. To conduct this study they chose to use 19 dyslexic and 20 normal reading adults. They restricted them to English speaking as a first language and were required to have average intelligence with a score of 85. They were required to have normal hearing to be part of the study. Each subject would complete two runs of a two alternative forced device saltation tasks and would also complete standard measures of reading and phonological processing (Kidd & Hogben, 2007). According to Kidd and Hogben (2007), acquisition of reading skills depend on the establishment of efficient associations between graphemes and phonological structure of language. Phonological awareness is the ability to reflect and manipulate sounds leading to language. The questions then become, “do dyslexic readers perform poorly on auditory tasks compared with competent readers and is auditory task performance related to reading and phonological processing skills?” (Kidd, et al. 2007) Prior results as studied for this testing are highly conflicted. As reported in this article by Kidd and Hogben (2007), the original work done shows that saltation illusion has great promise as a measure of ATP and as a biological marker to help determine dyslexia. However, as they reexamine the evidence they find that the results may not be what they seem. Therefore, they chose to repeat the study using criteria as close as possible to the original study. They used thirty nine adults between the ages of eighteen and sixty four. Those were all required to speak English and demonstrate adequate nonverbal intelligence in the range of eighty five or above. Nineteen participants were classified as dyslexic with a standard score below eighty five and each had self reported issues with reading (Kidd et al. 2007). The end result of the testing was nonspecific. The conclusion was that the saltation skills are of little worth as a tool for identifying dyslexia (Kidd et al. 2007). This was a disappointing result. Kidd and Hogben (2007) used an empirical method of research with a quantitative research method. The research is considered empirical because it follows scientific technique in the fact that there was not a presupposed decision. In fact their questions were derived from what appeared to be inconsistent previous results. Their statistical values were well founded and well tracked and their conclusion was generated from the results of their statistical data. There was a preliminary thesis done through a goal statement. The goal of this quantitative study was to determine if the above issues were true. The data was generated from testing done within this study. The data was then compared to previous data publicized. There is a qualitative piece to the study. It was a process of taking previous data and attempting to prove or disprove the results. Prior results had been conflicting and the researcher is hoping to obtain results that are clearer. The study was well documented for future use. This study is also positivistic in nature. The steps of the scientific method were followed and reporting was done after a conclusion was formulated. There are some interpretivist pieces to this study as they did use qualitative research at the same time. In other words, they gathered some of their data through research from areas that might be found in the library. The researcher appears to understand the ramifications of both a positive and negative answer and had studied literature on both sides of the facts. Kidd and Hogben (2007) seemed to choose the correct method of dealing with this study. They also followed through very well. Their end result did not agree with the previous study done and they did not apologize for that but explained their data in a realistic way. This study argues for the side that educational research should be quantitative in nature though it may have a qualitative piece (Michael, 2007). The disadvantage of course is that they do not prove the hypothesis that they wanted to. This means that further study is necessary to find out what the real answer is. It also causes some controversy as the previous study was positive and theirs was negative. However, they will have good documentation of a well conducted study to start with. Ethically the study is accepted. It was done well under scientific methods and its data is well recorded. The affects of the study would be positive in treating the problem of dyslexia, in the fact that it would prevent the use of a method that is not well proven. It however, does follow that another study probably needs to be done as this study disproves the results of an earlier accepted study. It would bring into question the correct method to use. I do not believe from what was seen of this study that the researcher would ever have to defend the results that were achieved. “ In Maturation of Visual and Auditory Temporal Processing School-Aged Children” by Piers Dawes and Dorothy Bishop (2008) the purpose was “to examine development of sensitivity to auditory and visual temporal processes”(Dawes et al. 2008). According to Dawes (2008), the cochlea and the brainstem mature early in life. There may be development problems with complex auditory processes related to these developments that may affect speech. Attention is related to the ability to decide what to notice and what to screen out. The hypothesis is believed to be that auditory processing can lead to speech perception problems (Dawes et al., 2008). This is somewhat controversial to study because the deficits can only occur in children who are affected therefore having a reasonable control study is difficult. Previous results showed that results depended on the child’s age, the task being monitored, and specifics about the child. Normal data was collected for comparison. Eighteen adults and ninety eight children aged six to ten were tested. Test and retest data was collected on twenty one children (Dawes et al. 2008). With the exception of some temporal processing, performance on most perceptual tasks improved. They found that there was no evidence to back up any common temporal processing technique that worked. They chose twenty children of each age group from six to ten. The six year olds had a group eighteen and there were also eighteen adults. This is a large statistical sampling and the statistical results produced were quite well done in a scientific manner. It is much clearer in this study that this empirical study was done with quantitative methods and the result that was reported was much more succinct. This study provided the reader with a well formed hypothesis as well as well described study methods and statistical correlations of results. This is also a positivistic research study. It followed scientific research guidelines very strictly. There was a problem identified, a hypothesis was formulated though it seems rather weak, the study methods were determined as well as a controlled sample, the results were verified and a conclusion was published. This is the most often accepted type of study in both science and educational research. The study was also done in an empirical fashion with quantitative data. There was some qualitative research data used. The one problem that is noted here is that the research was not conducted exactly like the previous research which brings to mind whether the study results were different because some of the study was changed or because there were actually flaws in the original research. In the end, this study found that many things that were done through the testing were unreliable. They felt that the study was not well founded in its original result as they did not show the same result with testing. The reader is left to wonder whether some of the previous testing was done with constructivist thinking. It is believed by the previous researcher that a particular result should happen and therefore it does. Also, like so many constructivist research studies, it brought about a study to prove or disprove the result. There are some ethical questions about this happening in educational research. The question has to arise as to why two empirical studies find that two previous studies are incorrect in their result. This study might be considered a new study instead of a way to prove or disprove the original study as there were certainly differences in the studies. Ethically this study is well founded and well supported. Again, I do not believe that there would be an instance when this researcher would have to defend his study with the one question being the exception. Why change the parameters? It is reported in the article that the procedure had been somewhat changed to save time. Is time a reasonable reason? In the end, though the study was conducted or at least reported well, that one statement has to make me question the result. Seeing that research methods are not always the same and that some are certainly more thorough than others, as well as more accepted than others, it is argued that educational research is qualitative and not quantitative. However, in the case of both of the studies previously noted, qualitative studies were carried out to compliment the quantitative studies done. Though both articles are founded in positivistic research, the first article is better documented and easier to follow through the steps. The quantitative side in both studies is able to show us the relevance to present and past research. Though again, there is certainly some question about the results of the second study as it relates to the original study. They both might be used for further study although the first is most likely. The fact that both of these studies were conducted in a quantitative way under positivist methods does not rule out that there are other methods to do research on educational material. There are those that would say that research students must choose between methods of study. They feel that students must learn to use quantitative methods in a way that is statistically significant. Rowbottom (2006) however, would say that what has to happen is a critical approach to knowledge claims in general. Does that dictate a specific way of study? Maybe not, yet as seen by the rest of the culture, the student’s reputation may depend on how well they perform research and complete their study. According to Sikes, (2006), “there are only problems and the need to solve them”. Then, why all the controversy? Sikes (2006) would ask us why we are spending so much time analyzing the research for proper technique rather than learning from the result of the research. There may have been an answer generated by the review of these two studies. There has been so much theoretical writing on the use of quantitative and qualitative research that other research needed to improve education itself may be ignored (Rowbottom, 2006). Yet the criticism of methods used by education goes on. It may seem, at this time, engaging in any kind of qualitative research may be problematic for ones career. It would be said, (Sikes, 2006), that the educational research profession needs to be protected from subjective, auto/biographical, and fiction. In Sikes (2006) opinion, this would include qualitative research. Smith and Hodkinson (2002) would also tell us that we can no longer choose our subjects and write an introductory text to research for social and educational subjects when we are not sure of the use of empirical research. We must gather our subjects, form our thesis, and do our research using only empirical research as our base if we are to show believable results. In the past, we have not done as well as would be expected and have caused others to question whether we have a mastery of the subject of study (Smith et al, 2002). This brings us to the ethics of study and the controversial aspects of it. Research does have the potential to cause harm in many ways. There is much evidence in the literature to that affect. Research is not contained solely in the annuls of the work done. This is the reason we have ethical codes, guidelines, and protocols (Sikes, 2006). Remember that research affects not only the research but those that read and use that research. It is the reason that we get permission signed and document our studies well. It is the reason we follow protocol in our effort to conduct research. “Research is neither neutral nor innocent. There are implications to all research, for all those touched by the research, including the researchers themselves” (Sikes, 2006). In conclusion, in both research studies that we examined there was strong science involved and the results that were reported seem to be morally and ethically accomplished. The results are also useful in future study and stand alone in their accomplishment. The results reported were founded under an empirically correct, quantitative and positivistic research method. However, it also clear in both studies there are some qualitative and constructivist pieces. There are not clear lines as to what is the best way to do a research study that is related to education and there is much controversy in the literature as to what techniques are necessarily used. It is also not totally clear as the ethics of the second study. There is also much criticism as to the ways we have researched and used research in the past and whether that research is well founded for use in the future. It appears that the research done in these two cases was well done and well reported under an ethical manner, although in both cases there is the clear indication for further study. References Clark, J. (2000). The Tooley Report on Education Research: two philosophical objections. Social and Policy Studies in Education, College of Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 32. available at http://www.ebscohost.com Dawes, D & Bishop, D. (2008). Maturation of Visual and Auditory Temporal Processing in School-Aged Children. Journal of Speech, Language, and hearing Research. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Vol. 51. Kidd, J. & Hogben, J. (2007). Does the Auditory Saltation Stimulus Distinguish Dyslexic From Competently Reading Adults? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol 50. Michael, J. (2007). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology. available at http://ebscohost.com Rowbottom, D. & Aiston, S. (2006). The Myth of ‘Scientific Method’ in Contemporary Educational Research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol 40, No. 2 available at; http://www.ebscohost.com Sikes, P. (2006). On dodgy ground? Problematics and ethics in educational research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education. Vol. 29. available at http://www.ebscohost.com Smith, j. & Hodkenson, P. (2002). Fussing about the Nature of Educational Research: The neo realists versus the relativists. British Education Resource Journal. Vol 28. available at http://www.ebscohost.com . Read More