When comparing the KKV article with article two, there are several similarities’ and differences that stand out. The differences stand out because they are so extreme. However it’s the similarities that are fascinating. This is because they unit the gap between quantitative and qualitative research practices.
Both articles seem to agree that weak designs can not be saved with statistical manipulation. They also agree about the nature of qualitative research, the definition of falsification, and the importance of design social inquiry. How ever, they seem to disagree greatly on the validity of quasi-experimental analysis.
Regarding the issue of weak designs, both articles seem to agree that weak designs can not be saved or be deemed usable by manipulating the statistics. “ Research that is structurally defective in the sense that there is no variation in explanatory variables (or more explanations then observations) is doomed to fail, no matter how insightful the analyst. Without an appropriate organizing structure, additional data, even the most sophisticated analysis can tell us little.” (Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. Pg, 1)
What the above quote means simply is that if a research question is poorly developed, no amount of statistical manipulation is going to make the research useable. If the researcher has not taken into account all the variables and other central issues, then that research case study is doomed to fail.
Personally I find this idea very encouraging. The fact that multiple professionals in the field of research place so much emphasis on conducting good research is a good thing. This means that researchers are making sure that all the information is supported by scientific proof. This helps to ensure more accurate results. Another issue that both articles agree on is the nature of qualitative research. Both articles seem to think that …”qualitative research [is] based on in-kind rather then...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document