I am amazed how often we hear qualitative researchers applying their standards to quantitative research or quantitative researchers applying their standards to qualitative research. Each functions within different assumptions. Finding fault with one approach with the standards of another does little to promote understanding. Each approach should be judges on its theoretical basis.
The Assumptions of Qualitative Designs
.....Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
.....Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Arguments Supporting Qualitative Inquiry
.....Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1980). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Modes
|Quantitative Mode||Qualitative mode|
Although some social science researchers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schwandt, 1989) perceive qualitative and quantitative approaches as incompatible, others (Patton, 1990; Reichardt & Cook, 1979) believe that the skilled researcher can successfully combine approaches. The argument usually becomes muddled because one party argues from the underlying philosophical nature of each paradigm, and the other focuses on the apparent compatibility of the research methods, enjoying the rewards of both numbers and words. Because the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms rest on different assumptions about the nature of the world, they require different instruments and procedures to find the type of data desired. This does not mean, however, that the positivist never uses interviews nor that the interpretivist never uses a survey. They may, but such methods are supplementary, not dominant....Different approaches allow us to know and understand different things about the world....Nonetheless, people tend to adhere to the methodology that is most consonant with their socialized worldview. (p. 9)
.....Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Contrasting Positivist and Naturalist Axioms (Beliefs
|Axioms About||Positivist Paradigm (Quantitative)||Naturalist Paradigm (Qualitative)|
|The nature of reality||Reality is single, tangible, and fragmentable.||Realities are multiple, constructed, and holistic.|
|The relationship of knower to the known||Knower and known are independent, a dualism.||Knower and known are interactive, inseparable.|
|The possibility of generalization||Time- and context-free generalizations (nomothetic statements) are possible.||Only time- and context-bound working hypotheses (idiographic statements) are possible.|
|The possibility of causal linkages||There are real causes, temporally precedent to or simultaneous with their effects.||All entities are in a state of mutual simultaneous shaping, so that it is impossible to distinguish causes from effects.|
|The role of values||Inquiry is value-free.||Inquiry is value-bound.|
.....Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Research with Subjects (Quantitative)
Research with Informants (Qualitative)
|1. What do I know about a problem that will allow me to formulate and test a hypothesis?||1. What do my informants know about their culture that I can discover?|
|2. What concepts can I use to test this hypothesis?||2. What concepts do my informants use to classify their experiences?|
|3. How can I operationally define these concepts?||3. How do my informants define these concepts?|
|4. What scientific theory can explain the data?||4. What folk theory do my informants use to explain their experience?|
|5. How can I interpret the results and report them in the language of my colleagues?||5. How can I translate the cultural knowledge of my informants into a cultural description my colleagues will understand?|
.....Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Del Siegle, Ph.D