Research is... Qualitative research is...

Research is...

• something that gets you tenure
• difficult to do, or at least difficult to do well: hard to conceptualize, hard to do, hard to write up, hard to explain; hard to fund, often, or at least hard to consent. Lots of conceptual pitfalls (e.g., overlooked latent variables or interaction effects or maturation...), and really hard to control.
• about establishing relationships between things (can I be more specific?), finding interactions between things (lame).
• all about description. I started to write 'measurement', but then stopped -- to quantitative, right? But I figure 'description' is good -- measurement IS description, just a lower-bandwidth form of it.

Qualitative research is...

• also hard to do. It's easier to start, though: you just have to decide that you're interested enough in something to do it, to do a whoooooole lot of it.
• one way to guarantee that you'll end up with SOMETHING, if you just keep going. Quant ed research seems to usually end up in a RND or else it has a demonstrated result but a serious flaw (e.g., NAEP's lack of attention to motivation).
• appropriate when you're looking into complex situations with uncontrollable variables (e.g., most ed research) -- when you're interested in capturing cognitive processes or mental models. I think quant is appropriate for a lot of 'what' or 'when' or 'who' or 'where' questions, but qual is perhaps more appropriate as you get into the more interesting 'why' or 'how' questions.

Reading Wineburg

Lots of good points. Without looking at the book, just off the top of my head....

• First chapter: Kids don't know history. Has been true since 1917, probably has been true since Socrates....
• Comment on what-to-study-as-an-ed-researcher: we know that traditional or typical methods are wildly unsuccessful. So, instead, let's focus on the extraordinary, the successful -- find out what the good and effective teachers are doing and then think about how to replicate it. Me: True, but...doesn't this potentially mean that we'll be advocating strategies that only the top 2% can pull off? "C'mon, everyone, have an encyclopedic knowledge of your subject! Have a flair for drama! Run the risk of getting fired for saying something inflammatory in class while trying to create a teachable moment!"
  
• Last chapter: GREAT section on finding out what's in kids' heads, how it got there, and how much of an impact schools/teachers/textbooks have. Answers: not much, movies, and none. 1967 Pentagon protest (flowers in rifle barrels) = big "Dunno"; guesses = eulogy, American prisoner of NVA. Pro-war demonstration at Manhattan City Hall = "against the war" protest! OK, so what the kids DO know (or think they know), where does it come from? Example of "baby killers": (a) not historically accurate (or part of what Wineburg calls the 'historical memory'), and (b) it's eventually traced back to Forrest Gump. Similar lineage to idea of 'War is good for the economy' (Schindler's List). Lines up with VanSledright on possible role of Pocahantas in shaping students' perception of Governor Percy during starving time (fat). Students in Wineburg's study all from Seattle area and from three different schools: public, private elite, and private religious. Kids had been exposed to different teachers, textbooks, emphases, etc. But all shared the same pattern of non-informed/mis-information. So, again lining up with VanSledright (sticking to colonists' side no matter what; then again, those were fifth-graders, right?), collective memory or popular perception is far more powerful (dominates students' thinking) than the teacher/textbook/pedagogy.
• Nice bit about the significance of video-on-demand (e.g., Forrest Gump): the always-available-past. Creates understanding of, view of 'reality' or 'historical fact.'
• So: let's think about textbooks. I'm starting to think that they're not worth fighting about, or at least that the best way to use a textbook is to teach AGAINST it where appropriate. The best textbook in the world (whatever that is, in someone's opinion) won't necessarily have an effect, won't overcome students' 'preconceived misconceptions.' So just roll with it and get into something interesting/juicy by teaching against it and bringing in more accurate sources when appropriate (e.g., midwife, slave ship).
• More on textbooks: I'm starting to think that they're a bad idea for the humanities, or at best a necessary evil. The humanities are all living, breathing things, but by issuing students a textbook, you're also sending them a message: "Here's your dose of history / language arts / foreign language; don't mark in it and turn it back in at the end of the course. Take dosage as instructed until course of treatment is done." So the humanities are something done to the student rather than something done by the student. Ironic, eh? Instead, I'd rather students learn from collections of sources or even write their own textbooks. (In fact, Wineburg says something in line with this last point.) Textbooks are just a crutch for the teacher and/or the school. They're probably necessary, but let's not kid ourselves about them being a good thing (a la Mr. Barnes, in the chapter on the Stanford TAP -- but even he acknowledged that kids don't and will never read textbooks). Note: I don't feel the same way about, say, economics textbooks or stats textbooks, or (kinda) programming textbooks. We all KNOW that these are living, breathing disciplines, and the 'textbook effect' doesn't (for me) kick in as much.
• Lots of great, qualitative work is summarized in this book. I have a lot of respect for Wineburg and his partners. I especially like the picture work (identify/explain what's going on in these iconic photos; "draw a hippie," "draw hippies at a protest").