This is just a quick acknowledgement that yes, I’m quoting The Beatles in my title. And now, on with the post…
After reading “Research Methodologies. A Comparison of Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods,” I could identify the differences among quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, but I didn’t feel particularly moved to write a blog post about them. Seeking inspiration, I read my classmates’ blog posts, and that’s when I felt a genuine response stirring, so thank you to Daniel, Cindy, and Fran! In her blog post on this week’s readings, Fran wrote about how the clarity of the quantitative method appeals to her and I, too, like knowing what I am supposed to do and having a set of rules or guidelines to follow. She also mentioned how it would be awful to “find out you have been testing the wrong question or hypothesis the entire time,” and I agree. But once I envisioned myself in that situation of testing the wrong question, I realized that I embrace constant revision in my writing process, so why should I be afraid of it in my research process? Even if I need to return to square one in a piece of writing, I don’t feel like all is lost, and I still feel like the work that I did leading up to that point is valuable, so why can’t I think about research this way? It’s a little less daunting to approach research with this in mind, so thanks to Fran for sparking my revelation!
Now that I’m less afraid of the quantitative method, I’m realizing that it actually appeals to my rule-following, logical side. To balance things out, the qualitative research method appeals to the language-loving, creative side of me. When I read that in a grounded theory approach “one step of the process predicates the actions of the next step,” that definition sounded a lot like my approach to writing, where I’m constantly revising. (The grounded theory approach is under the umbrella of qualitative methods.) Having learned that both the quantitative and qualitative methods have their limitations, I have come to think that the mixed methods approach is the one that would make me feel the most confident in my research results.
After considering the three research methods, it was interesting to read the article on the CARS model because it gave me an idea of the structure of the paper that would result from all of the research. That being said, it would have helped me better understand the benefits of the CARS model if there were an accompanying before-and-after example to show it in action. Similarly, without an example, I’m left wondering whether every element in the “Questions for Revision” section is essential to an introduction. However, despite my uncertainties about some of the details of the CARS model, having a point of reference certainly proved useful for this week’s blog post, so when the time comes to start writing a research paper, I will definitely appreciate having a model to follow.