Yet again we are confronted with the notion that action research is not considered ‘real’ research. Lather argues that the push by the federal government (Lather is specifying the USA government, but it is parallel to the issues seen in the Canadian education system) to use the ‘gold standard’ in educational research is not good enough (2006). Contradicting the ‘gold standard’ Lather says that educational research should be “about saying yes to the messiness, to that which interrupts and exceeds versus tidy categories” (2006). The fact is, educational research just does not fit into a neat little box, but that is not to say that it has no bounds. Anfara and Mertz suggest that while educational research may not appear to fit under traditional theoretical frameworks, qualitative studies has its place. In opposition to traditional theoretical frameworks, in qualitative studies “the development of a theory or comparison with other theories comes after the gathering and analysis of data.” (Anfara & Mertz 2006). It is the development of such theories, whether contradictory or consistent with other theories, that moves research forward.
Works Cited
Anfara, V. A. & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Introduction. In V.A. Anfara & N.T. Mertz (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. xii-xxxii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35-57. doi:10.1080/09518390500450144
Works Cited
Anfara, V. A. & Mertz, N. T. (2006). Introduction. In V.A. Anfara & N.T. Mertz (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research (pp. xii-xxxii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35-57. doi:10.1080/09518390500450144
RSS Feed
