Education Journal 2013; 2(2) : 50-57 Published online March 10, 2013 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/edu) doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20130202.14 Qualitative approaches in mathematics education re- search: challenges and possible solutions Sashi Sharma Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Faculty of Education,The university of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zea- land Email address: sashi@waikato.ac.nz (S. Sharma) To cite this article: Sashi Sharma. Qualitative Approaches in Mathematics Education Research: Challenges and Possible Solutions, Education Journal. Vol. 2, No. 2, 2013, pp.50-57. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20130202.14 Abstract: Despite being relatively new in mathematics education research, qualitative researchapproaches need special attention as attempts are being made to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of this approach. It is important that researchers are aware of the limitations associated with these methods so that measures are put in place to try and minimize the effects of these limitations Philosophical roots and key features of this paradigm are outlined. Qualitative methods such as the interview approach in research literature as a data gathering tool are considered next. Challenges faced by qualitative researchers in terms of reliability, validity and generability are considered. Examples are provided to illustrate methodolog- ical problems and solutions related to qualitative methods. Keywords: Research Methods, Qualitative Research, Data Collection, Quality Criteria, Limitations, Possible Solutions 1. Introduction In the last two decades, a new paradigm widely referred to as interpretative research paradigm has begun to domi- nate research in mathematics education. Merriam(1998) traces the philosophical roots of this paradigm to the inter- pretative school of thought which considers education to be a process and school a lived experience. Reality (know- ledge) is constructed socially by individuals through social interactions in their everyday life experiences (Bryman, 2008; Cohen, Manion& Morrison. 2007). There are mul- tiple interpretations of single events and situations, hence knowledge is multi-layered and complex (Cobb, 2007). This paradigm provides a general perspective on know- ledge and research that allow researchers to select specific methods for particular projects (Cobb, 2007; Ernest, 1997). There has been a growing trend in mathematics education for researchers to use qualitative approaches. As Silver (2004, p. 154)stated, “One might argue that researchers in mathematics education have in recent decades erected a monument to qualitative research methods and non experi- mental mode of inquiry.” Although there is often an emphasis on qualitative me- thods, quantitative methods can also be used when re- quired.In many studies (Shaughnessy, 2007; Watson &Callingham, 2003) researchers have gathered and quanti- fied results of surveys on mathematics tasks in large num- bers but have also conducted interviews with smaller num- ber of students. Hypotheses generated about why students were answering survey questions in particular ways were validated in detailed interviews. Interviews often revealed lines of thought that were often missed in the survey data by researchers (Kalinowski, Lai, Fidler, & Cumming, 2010; Shaughnessy, 2007). Although qualitative methods have become common in mathematics education research, questions linger about their soundness. For instance, it is often mis-associated with terms such as subjective or biased (KalinowskiLai, Fidler, & Cumming, 2010). In discussing these challenges, Groth (2010, p. 7) writes: "Although qualitative methods have helped the fields of mathematics and statistics education move forward, and are still employed in current studies, the usefulness of qualita- tive studies is still frequently debated in political and scho- larly discourse. Questions about qualitative research that were addressed during its rise to prominence among ma- thematics education researchers have re-surfaced in recent policy documents written by governmental agencies and scholars in the field." Gergen and Gergen (2000) write that there is a growing dissatisfaction among some qualitative researchers for moving away from scientific standards or being too positiv-