The conventional status hierarchy for methods of research could (should?) be inverted.
It is conventional for social science and education doctoral programs to include courses on quantitative methods (statistics and perhaps survey and experimental design). Sometimes such courses are supplemented by qualitative methods. Action Research may be mentioned, but the value given to the products of Action Research is lower to the extent that there are multiple authors, including non-academics, and distributed in non-academic venues (e.g., reports, meetings). Moreover, tools and processes for dialogue, collaboration, and reflective practice are rarely if ever included in methods courses. After all, how are they related to evidence-based practice? Let us consider where this status hierarchy gets us.
View original post 369 more words