{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030927835051546393, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011246485473289597, 'mean_word_length': 5.395209580838324, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Letters: The Wrong Time for Mechanistics in Qualitative Research

Gibson (1966), have put an end to the myth of the "neutral" observer. A consensus has been built in psychology around the belief that prior knowledge affects perception and future knowledge acquisition (Glaser, 1984). In education this consensus means that the days of the educational scientist being seen as a neutral (i.e., unaffected by previous experience) observer of reality are over (cf. Weimer, 1979). It also means that the distinction between “qualitative" and "quantitative" research is no longer relevant. If scientists are not neutral observers of reality, then all scientific research is qualitative: All scientific research involves qualitative value judgements and interpretation. In our opinion, current attempts to categorize various research methodologies as either qualitative or quantitative do a disservice to the field. There are useful distinctions to be made between various research methodologies in education but the qualitative/ quantitative distinction is not one of them.