The Status of Knowledge

One reason for the persistence of the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is that the two approaches represent different ways of thinking about and understanding the world around us. Underlying the development of different research traditions and methods is a debate on the nature of knowledge and the status of assertions about the world, and the debate itself is ultimately a philosophical one. It is commonly assumed that the function of research is to add to our knowledge of the world and to dem­onstrate the 'truth' of the commonsense notions we have about the world. In developing one's own philosophy on research, it is important to determine how the notion of 'truth' relates to research.

• • What is truth?

  • Even more basically, do we accept that there is such a thing as \'truth\'?

  • What is evidence?

  • Can we ever prove anything?

  • What evidence would compel us to accept the truth of an assertion or proposition?

These are questions which need to be borne in mind con­stantly as one reads and evaluates research. In a television advertising campaign, the following claim was made about a popular brand of toothpaste: University tests prove that Brand X toothpaste removes 40% more plaque. The question of 40% more than what was not addressed. By invoking the authority of 'university tests' the manufacturers are trying to invest their claim with a status it might otherwise lack. There is the implication that claims based on research carried out in universities are somehow more 'scientific' and therefore believable than claims made on the basis of anecdotes, the experience of the layperson, or the in-house research of the manufacturers themselves. According to Winograd and Flores (1986), the status of research based on 'scientific' experiments and, indeed, the rationalist orientation which underlies it, is based on the success of modern science.

The rationalist orientation . . . is also regarded, perhaps because of the prestige and success that modern science enjoys, as the very paradigm of what it means to think and be intelligent. . . . It is scarcely surprising, then, that the rationalistic orientation pervades not only artificial intelligence and the rest of computer science, but also much of linguistics, management theory, and cognitive science . . . rationalistic styles of discourse and thinking have determined the questions that have been asked and the theories, methodologies, and assumptions that have been adopted. (p. 16)

The following assertions have all been made publicly. Con­sider them and the evidence on which they are based, and reflect on which deserve to be taken seriously on the balance of the evidence provided.

ASSERTION 1 Second language learners who identify with the target culture will master the language more quickly than those who do not. (Evidence: A case study of an unsuccessful language learner.)

ASSERTION 2 Schoolchildren are taught by their teachers that they need not obey their par­ents. (Evidence: A statement by a parent on a radio talk-back programme.)

ASSERTION 3 Immigrants are more law abiding than native-born citizens. (Evidence: An analysis of district court records.)

ASSERTION 4 Deaf children are more successful in school if their parents do not succumb to a sense of powerlessness when they experience difficulty communicating with their children. (Evidence: A study based on data from 40 deaf and 20 hearing children.)

ASSERTION 5 Affective[2] relationships between teacher and students influence proficiency gains. (Evidence: A longitudinal ethnographic study of an inner city high school class.)

ASSERTION 6 Students who are taught formal grammar develop greater proficiency than students who are taught through 'immersion' programmes. (Evidence: A formal experiment in which one group of students was taught through immersion and another group was taught formal grammar.)

In actual fact, all of these assertions can be challenged on the basis of the evi­dence advanced to support them. Some critics would reject assertions 1, 2, and 5 on the grounds that they are based on a single instance (in the case of 1 and 2 on the instance of a single individual, and in the case of 5 on the instance of a single classroom). Such critics would argue that the selection of a different individual or classroom might have yielded a very different, even contradictory, response. Assertion 3 could be challenged on the grounds that the causal relationship between fewer court convictions and demographic data has not been demonstrated. It might simply be, for exam­ple, that criminals from immigrant communities are smarter, and therefore less likely to be caught than native-born criminals. The problem with this study is that we can account for the outcomes through explanations other than the one offered by the researchers. Someone versed in research methods would say that the study has poor internal validity. Assertion 4 might be criticised on the grounds that 'power' and 'powerlessness' have not been adequately defined. Such a criticism is aimed at the construct validity of the study. The final assertion can be challenged on the grounds that the two groups might not have been equal to begin with.

In the final analysis, the extent to which one is prepared to accept or reject particular methods of inquiry and the studies utilising these methods will depend on one's view of the world, and the nature of knowledge. For some people the notion that there are external truths 'out there' which are inde­pendent of the observer is self-evident. For others, this notion, which underlies the quantitative approach to research, is questionable (see, for example, Win­ograd and Flores 1986).