ABSTRACT
Recent research in education has dealt extensively with the debate over the use of qualitative or quantitative research methodologies (Bereiter, 1994; Eisner, 1992; Gage, 1989; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Howe, 1988; Lincoln, 1989; Loving, 1997; Martin & Sugarman, 1993; Maxwell, 1992; Niaz, 1997; Phillips, 1987, 1994b; Schrag, 1992). It appears that most qualitative researchers have been inspired by Kuhn’s (1970) thesis of paradigm shifts, so that there are multiple realities – all of which are true at the same time (cf. Niaz, 1996a; Phillips, 1983). Guba and Lincoln (1982) have expressed this point of view very cogently: “[Qualitative researchers] focus upon multiple realities that, like the layers of an onion, nest within or complement one another. Each layer provides a different perspective of reality, and none can be considered more ‘true’ than any other” (p. 57). Qualitative researchers’ debt to the Kuhnian conceptualization of progress in science has been acknowledged explicitly by Lincoln (1989):
As scientists proceed with their work, anomalies occasionally occur . . . Sooner or later, however, the anomalies begin to take on the appearance of regularities, and a crisis is precipitated, according to Kuhn. In simplest terms, the crisis revolves about whether the scientific community will reject traditional theory and begin anew to construct theory which accounts for the anomalies, or whether it will remain tied to classical theory.
