Getting nowhere : confronting the methodological debate in composition research

Abstract

For many years scholars in composition and rhetoric debated the benefits, limitations, and appropriateness of the various methods used in research. It was important for scholars to both adhere to a paradigm that fit the examination of writing and created knowledge that was credible and generalizable. Some researchers strongly advocate the use of quantitative research, pointing to its wide spread academic use and acceptance. Other believe that though quantitative research is certainly useful, qualitative methods are more suitable for the examination of writers and writing communities. Today, researchers on both sides tend to endorse a "methodological pluralism" or an acceptance of diverse research methods that represent both major research models. However, despite this compromise or understanding, many researchers still promote the utilization of one type of research, while marginalizing other types of work. In other words, researchers claim that they value and benefit from this plurality, yet in their zeal to defend their methodological choices, many tend employ derisive and negative argumentation against the other methods of research. What follows is a rhetorical analysis of this discussion. I contend that in using a trope of methodological acceptance and plurality, the free exchange of ideas among composition researchers is stifled. I examine the ways that scholars discuss types of research and what impact that discussion has on the larger research community in composition and rhetoric.