Theme 3: qualitative and quantitative pre-seminar

Our two reviewed articles are no doubt linked; the first describing methods and designs for qualitative research, quantitative research and blends of the two in P. Lowenthal's Mixed Research and Online Learning. Our second article, M. Cleveland-Innes' Emotional Prescence, Learning and the Online Environment focused on one such study, the style of which Lowenthal attempts to describe in his article. It appears one bears reflection on the other and so I will attempt here to reflect on what I learned through these two pieces, and to analyze the form of the papers.
First, a good idea of qualitative and quantitative research methods needs to be developed; Lowenthal helps with this. In my simplistic words, quantitative research describes that which is mathematical and non-subjective systems based, while qualitative research is deeper in its abstraction and reflects the subjective how and why of a premise; certainly why it is used predominantly in the social sciences which requires such interpretations of scientifically ambiguous data. Lowenthal proceeds quickly to his point: suggesting a special mixed research is necessary and beneficial for online learning research, combining qualitative and quantitative methods into an elevated language of research. He recommends this path for several reasons. In his words, "One common purpose of using a mixed approach is to facilitate the richness of data and to expand the interpretation of the findings," as well as, "...quantitative and qualitative research questions can lead to very different samples, data, and analyses." This is a very important distinction as the purpose of research is to define acceptable and provable theories, and if different methods of research can produce different findings from the same data, something is amiss. "By relying on only one type of analysis, these researchers are possibly making interpretative errors," he suggests, and it is a very reasonable analysis, therefore leading to a model of mixed methods between the two.
The question now is how Dr. Cleveland-Innes designed her research into online learning based upon emotional activity through "communities of inquiry." My understanding posits that what appears to be predominantly qualitative research does bear the indications of a kind of mix in the final measure. Lowenthal does describe the difficulty in mixing these methods, as it requires the research team to be masters of both, as well as developing new skills of analyzing the interactive data between the two, which is a relatively new concept.
Cleveland-Innes' design of her experiments are rigorously scientific and based upon simple-answer quantitative questions which can be mathematically categorized and understood and formulated into the test design. However, this team certainly understood that in a social science experiment like this one, dealing with such unmeasurable input as human emotions, qualitative analysis was a necessity. As the article states, "Knowledge about the impact of emotion on learning broadly (Brookfield, 2006; Lipman, 2003) is starting to emerge, but we are at early stages of discerning appropriate actions by students and teachers online, let alone being able to explain how emotion impacts online learning." To discern these "appropriate actions" requires an understanding of the subjects and their interior lives and feelings. At this time I must argue that there is no quantitative way to accurately measure this broadly from individual to individual.