Comment: Culture, Rigor, and Science in Educational Research

Erickson, Frederick; Gutiérrez, Kris D.

doi:10.3102/0013189x031008021

Cited by 201 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some researchers believed that experiment and other quantitative methodologies are the gold standards for science (e.g., Slavin, 2002), others (e.g., Berliner, 2002;Eisenhart & Towne, 2003;Erickson & Gutierrez, 2002;St. Pierre, 2002) contended that the dominance of quantitative methods is unacceptable and the use of a wide range of research methodologies should be encouraged.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Empirical Review of Research Methodologies and Methods in Creativity Studies (2003–2012)

Long

2014

Creativity Research Journal

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the data collected from 5 prestigious creativity journals, research methodologies and methods of 612 empirical studies on creativity, published between 2003 and 2012, were reviewed and compared to those in gifted education. Major findings included: (a) Creativity research was predominantly quantitative and psychometrics and experiment were the most frequently utilized quantitative methodologies, (b) judges were employed frequently to assess creativity and correlational techniques were utilized most widely to analyze quantitative data, (c) case study was the most frequently used qualitative methodology, (d) most mixed-methods studies were rooted in quantitative methodology, and (e) both creativity and gifted education research were dominated by quantitative methodologies, but there were less qualitative studies and slightly more mixed-methods studies on creativity. Implications of these findings were further discussed and future research directions were suggested.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Empirical Review of Research Methodologies and Methods in Creativity Studies (2003–2012)

Long

2014

Creativity Research Journal

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This concern is evidenced by the recent publication in the Educational Researcher of several critical commentaries on the report (Berliner, 2002;Erickson & Gutierrez, 2002;St. Pierre, 2002) as well as by a number of critical addresses and sessions devoted to the report at the 2003 AERA meeting (e.g., Lather, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education

Maxwell

2004

Educational Researcher

506

372

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

has elicited considerable criticism from the education research community, but this criticism has not focused on a key assumption of the report-its Humean, regularity conception of causality. It is argued that this conception, which also underlies other arguments for "scientifically-based research," is narrow and philosophically outdated, and leads to a misrepresentation of the nature and value of qualitative research for causal explanation. An alternative, realist approach to causality is presented that supports the scientific legitimacy of using qualitative research for causal investigation, reframes the arguments for experimental methods in educational research, and can support a more productive collaboration between qualitative and quantitative researchers.

show abstract

“…Interpretations are unavoidably 'shaped by the linguistic and cultural resources the interpreter already possesses' (Moss 2005, 266;Siegel 2006) and by the nature of questions the interpreter/ researcher brings to the data. In the community of education researchers, it is increasingly being recognised that erasing personal perspectives on (both object and mode of) research is not the issue (Erickson and Gutierrez 2002;Feuer, Towne, and Shavelson 2002). Rather these notions are substituted by explication and authenticity (McCall and Green 2004).…”

Section: Taking Positionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Articulating choice and deliberation in conducting research – researchers ‘working in the interpretive zone’

Tillema

Barak

Mena

2008

Ethnography and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For researchers, committed to a research problem, finding meaningful answers is a process of careful weighting and interpreting what is actually found as an outcome of their mode of inquiry in reference to initial intentions and research goals. Particularly in doing qualitative research in/on teaching researchers have recognised the need to acknowledge the ways in which one's intentions interact with the process of study, and how they serve to shape research outcomes. Such a recognition calls for attention to working in the interpretive zone (Wasser and Bresler 1996). Based on our own studies on teachers' reflective expertise, we show how articulation of researchers' intent and deliberation in designing a study could ameliorate critical subjectivity and reflection while analysing and interpreting accounts of data and clarifying interactions between researcher and their object of study in the construction of knowledge. This lead us to construct a heuristic tool for achieving greater reflexivity in conducting research, which may be utilised, primarily, in programmes aimed at research education.

show abstract

Comment: Culture, Rigor, and Science in Educational Research

Cited by 201 publications

References 6 publications

An Empirical Review of Research Methodologies and Methods in Creativity Studies (2003–2012)

An Empirical Review of Research Methodologies and Methods in Creativity Studies (2003–2012)

Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education

Articulating choice and deliberation in conducting research – researchers ‘working in the interpretive zone’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About