Bridging Key Research Dilemmas: Quantitative Research Using a Critical Eye

For many of us who use quantitative methodology on a regular basis, we confront constraints while at the same time attempting to stretch the boundaries of current theory and develop models relevant to specific populations. This becomes clearer over the course of a long-term research agenda, because the topics we choose and who we are as researchers become evident through our work. In this chapter, we explore several key research dilemmas and potential solutions for quantitative researchers intent on using a critical eye for examining current theory and models. These dilemmas involve describing how the role of the quantitative researcher becomes apparent on examination of a body of work, the choice between comparing groups or highlighting variability in a single group, choosing approaches for generalizability or context specificity, and remaining “distant” or participating in action research. Finally, we propose potential solutions to some of these dilemmas, which we have confronted in our own work. In this chapter, we argue that (1) quantitative research is not wholly objective and that there are ways in which autobiography can intersect with research; (2) critical quantitative approaches identify discrepancies between theory and fact; and (3) there are positives and negatives for comparative group versus context-specific approaches to understanding group differences.