ABSTRACT
Recent research in education shows the increasing popularity of qualitative methodologies (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, 2005; Eisner, 1997; Erickson & Gutierrez, 2002; Kivinen & Rinne, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Macbeth, 1998; Peshkin, 2000). Lincoln and Guba (2000) consider the legitimacy of the qualitative paradigm to be not only well established but soon may even supersede that of the quantitative paradigm. Eisner and Peshkin (1990) suggest that qualitative research in education has now been institutionalized. At the same time qualitative methodology and research in education has been scrutinized critically and the need for integrating different methodologies has been emphasized (Husén, 1997; Kennedy, 1999; Mayer, 2000, 2001; Miller, Nelson & Moore, 1998; Niaz, 1997, 2008d; Saloman, 1991; Shulman, 1986). Mayer (2000) has pointed clearly to the dilemma faced by educational researchers by asking a very pertinent question: “What is the place of science in educational research?” (p. 38) and has also provided a possible/tentative answer: “scientific research can involve either quantitative or qualitative data; what characterizes research as scientific is the way that data are used to support arguments” (p. 39). An analogy from the history of science can help to illustrate this point. J.J. Thomson (1897), the celebrated British physicist, is generally credited to have “discovered” the “electron”. Thomson’s article in the Philosophical Magazine (Thomson, 1897) is an eye opener for educators as Thomson makes an extraordinary effort to present arguments (and not only data) to his peers so that they could accept a particular interpretation of the data. What, however, has generally been ignored is the fact that two other scientists (Kaufmann, 1897; Wiechert, 1897) also reported similar data at about the same time. Falconer (1987) explains why the work of Kaufmann and Wiechert was ignored, whereas Thomson was recognized as the “discoverer” of the electron:
Kaufmann, an ether theorist, was unable to make anything of his results. Wiechert, while realizing that cathode ray particles were extremely small and universal, lacked Thomson’s tendency to speculation. He could not
make the bold, unsubstantiated leap, to the idea that particles were constituents of atoms. Thus, while his work might have resolved the cathode ray controversy, he did not “discover” the electron.
