Whose Reality? A Meta-Analysis of Qualitative Research in International and Comparative Education

Abstract

This meta-analysis seeks to critically examine the qualitative research being published in influential journals in the field of international and comparative education in order to determine whether qualitative research has remained true to the constructivist paradigm and its theoretical and philosophical underpinnings. Decades after the heated paradigmatic debates within the field of education in the 1980’s, we seek to examine whether predictions that the constructivist paradigm would be pushed out by the call for post-positivist, quantifiable, data-driven research have come to fruition. Based on a review of all qualitative research published in the past three volumes of five influential journals in the field, we conclude that while qualitative articles are represented in approximately equal numbers as quantitative articles, there are key elements of the constructivist paradigm that are largely absent from these qualitative articles. In particular, our conclusion attempts to address the concern that qualitative researchers are failing to address the issue of researcher positionality in their qualitative work.

Lasting Effects: What the Post Pandemic Return to In-person Teaching Tells Us About the State of e-Learning and its Future Trajectory

“…A qualitative case study research methodology was chosen for the study for several reasons: i) its suitability for investigating complex human activity and for uncovering participant voices (Denizen et al 2005, ); ii) its underlining goal to study real-life contemporary systems in-depth and over time (Creswell, 2013b, Da Costa, 2016; iii) the potential within a case to develop theory, evaluate programs, and develop interventions (Baxter, 2008); iv) ); iii) the connection the case study assumes between the researcher(s) and participants. In this case for example, one researcher is a colleague of the participants while the other leads the program in which the teacher participants teach.…”

Field motor tests in handball research studies focused on speed and strength - a systematic review

“…Kvalitativní výzkum se zabývá porozuměním, zatímco kvantitativní výzkum prostřednictvím objektivního měření hledá příčiny a vysvětlení. Tento druhý typ zobecnění je více v souladu s post-pozitivistickými předpoklady o povaze znalostí do značné míry nezávislé na sociokulturním kontextu (da Costa, Hall & Spear, 2016;Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Při pohledu na články obsažené v tomto přehledu bylo naším cílem podívat se spíše na konstrukci znalostí než na popis příčin a změn pro generování kauzálních vysvětlení.…”