While different fields draw on various philosophical frameworks, there are two overarching research approaches: Qualitative Research and Quantitative Research. Please draw from the readings thus far to explain which approach has the most resonance for you. Your explanation should account for philosophical resonance and the role of objectivity/subjectivity (pp 14 & 20 in your text might provide helpful starting points in thinking about philosophical resonance).

            I have spent these past 40 years working in law enforcement, and I enjoy working with qualitative and quantitative research approaches. My preference is qualitative research because I enjoy dealing with people and not numbers. The philosophical resonance for me is that I have skewed the results using both approaches to suit either my or the police need to profit from the results. I am not proud of that, but it is a fact. Please try not to be offended by that comment. The skewing of the results is for many reasons but mostly for the good of the community. “It is important to remember that all research reflects a point of view, whether it is declared or not “(Reid et al., 2017, p. 47). On many occasions, my point of view and direction were pre-set before my research. For example, to show the crime rate had dropped (quantitative) in my community is a worthy and meaningful purpose by identifying the type of crime to identify low or less crime. “We live in a numbers dominated world” (Denzin, 2017, p. 9). I conducted interviews with a few choice citizens in the community (qualitative) who said they felt safe and the community was happy. I understood my location as a researcher was vitally important, resulting in meaningful social action. My positionality limited my understanding of others, but I did not care because I was focused on the results. I lived in the community and was as close as possible to the group being studied. My reflexivity was open, honest, and I considered my power and researcher position while in a position of power to translate and interpret (Ali, 2015). My documents and statistics were transparent, and I appreciated methodological, epistemological, and political influences in all stages of my research. I created my own standards of evaluation, my own measures of quality, influence, excellence and social justice impact (Denzin, 2017).

My research was conducted, statistics gathered, results analyzed. Crime in my community was reduced – at least on paper – and my stakeholders were happy.

            I know research and ethical dilemmas are an incredibly challenging topic of conversation. Add the role of objectivity vs subjectivity while lacking an ethical framework, and the flood gates are open to bias, personal values, attitudes, and theoretical perspectives.

Ali, R. (2014, October). Rethinking representation: negotiating positionality, power and space in the field. Gender Place and Culture A Journal of Feminist Geography 22(6):1-18

DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2014.917278

Denzin, N. K. (2017). Critical qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 8–16. https://journals-sagepub-com.libraryservices.yorkvilleu.ca/doi/full/10.1177/1077800416681864

Reid, C., Greaves, L., & Kirby, S. (2017). Experience, research, social change: Critical methods (3rd ed.). University of Toronto Press. Chapter 3: Being a Researcher, pp. 47-52.

I can empathize with your remarks Laurie,

I think as researchers it can feel like meaningless work when the results are inconclusive and do not represent what the goal of the research is. I agree with your first quote from Reid et al., understanding that all research reflects a point of view. What is most important when demonstrating the results is disclosing your bias. Reid et al. (2017) mention that “it is normal the covert biases that are harmful to research” (p. 8).  

When presenting your research, how did you disclose your bias? 

What is really interesting in conducting research using my example and many more in the mounted police, I was not under any obligation to identify any of my biases. I was never asked. The research and numbers were merely accepted as objective and as long as the desired results were obtained all was good. Do not worry, this is NOT how research should be conducted nor will it be done that way in the future. 

As stated by Robin DiAngelo, American academic and author, “I don’t believe it’s humanly possible to be free of bias.”

How do I disclose my bias?

I have spent 40 years in law enforcement and diagnosed with PTSD for the majority of that time. I stuffed my feelings and emotions down, but my bias and prejudices were allowed to flourish. As a result of years of counselling, I realize what triggers contribute to the creation of personal biases. Self-awareness of all my biases is important – positive or favourable, as well as negative or unfavourable.  That allows me to manage, mitigate, or avoid them actively. I try to encourage an empathy-centred approach to instruction and my learners. I get to know my professional self and develop self-awareness as an on-going process.