: The challenge to and from phenomenological paradigms. Yvonna S. Lincoln (2008). In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 221-244). Thousand Oaks, London, New Dehli and Singapore: Sage.
Lincoln argued that the current wind toward methodological conservatism proliferated in the name of evidence-based research or scientifically based educational research not only has brought about overall increased scrutiny over research involved human subjects, in particular, researchers and doctoral students who are involved in ethnography or participatory action research, but also, more critically, has contributed to shaping legitimate forms of scientific inquiry.
She pointed out the backlash of the conservatism, reflected in the NCR report Scientific Research in Education (2002):
1. It contributes to "narrowing the range of what is to be considered 'scientific,' effectively shutting out of the scientific community a wide rage of critical and alternate epistemology researcher" (p. 171)
2. The NCR report "lends support to IRBs in their attempts to limit the range of activities that researchers can undertake with human subjects" (p. 171-172). She noted, "IRBs are rarely favorably disposed toward emergent research methods, paradigms, and methodologies (e.g., action research, participatory action research, constructivist inquiries, qualitative studies), especially when these boards are constituted primarily of hard scientists and experimentalist, as they have traditionally been" (p. 172)
3. By defining "scientific," it supports criticism of critical inquiry and limits academic diversity and openness.
4. It directly and indirectly limits "discussions on individual campuses concerning what constitutes disciplined scientific inquiry and, therefore, what studies are approved by IRBs and which researchers find that their academic freedom to engage in significant research on social problems may be curtailed or abrogated altogether" (p. 173). In this sense, Lincoln stated that the NRC report act as a type of "political barometer" (p. 173).
Lincoln defined methodological conservatism as a mechanism that governs research practices "by prescribing a set of practices that are to be considered normative and standard, and relegating all others to subsidiary statue, frequently with the threat of disapproval" and regulates research "by ensuring conformity to certain sets of practices and discouraging nonconformity by dismissing some forms of inquiry as 'dangerous,' 'unscientific.' or harmful to the institution" (p. 174). Lincoln pointed out that in the name of protecting the institution's reputation and integrity, institutional ethics review processes shy away from the purposes of the IRB, that is, "to ensure freedom from harm for human subjects, to establish the likelihood of beneficence for a large group (of similar research participants), and to ensure that subjects' consent to participate in the research is fully and authentically informed" (p. 174).
Lincoln pointed out that IRBs sometimes improperly review students' proposals using more participatory methodologies by reviewing them with inappropriate criteria in mind, and also, such criteria threaten academic freedom by limiting the models and methodologies that academic believe to be the most efficacious for answering certain questions.
