"In the intellectual arena of built environment studies, we seldom encounter a text that challenges the bedrock of our understanding. There are many reasons for this hiatus. Prime among these is the general tendency towards globalized processes of standardization, quantification and the conformity demanded by the publication process itself. Academics are now encouraged to think in specific, linear processes that frequently stifle imagination and creativity"
From the review essay titled, "Understanding fracture, inconsistency and the mnemonic in urban form" by Alexander Cuthbert & Gusti Ayu Made Suartika (2024)
I have always wondered whether quantified research is an obstacle to further and deeper understanding of everyday issues or not. I understand that there are methods that can quantify social sciences and humanities, but does this serve the purpose? If numbers are set within a certain interpretation, and then they change within a different interpretation, does that make them reliable?
Would love to hear some thoughts on this....
"...the general tendency towards globalized processes of standardization, quantification and the conformity demanded by the publication process..."
Isn't that what in everyman language would be called "a sing of dictatorship?
If there is general pressure in western media to direction of "only one opinion, one system is allowed" why it would be different in the field of science?
The passage you quoted points to a core tension: the desire for clarity, rigor, and comparability (which quantification promises) versus the richness, nuance, and unpredictability of human experience (which often resists being reduced to numbers). Let’s unpack your reflections piece by piece:
1. Is quantified research an obstacle to deeper understanding?
Not necessarily—but it can be. Quantification can bring clarity to patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed. For example, identifying systemic biases or trends across large datasets can be immensely powerful. Think of urban studies that track displacement due to gentrification through housing prices, income shifts, or demographic change.
However, if quantification becomes the only valid form of knowledge—if it becomes a gatekeeper of legitimacy—it can severely limit the scope of what we consider “valuable” or “real” knowledge. This is especially problematic when dealing with subjective, emotional, or historically layered urban experiences, which are central to the human experience but harder to measure.
2. Does quantification in the humanities/social sciences serve the purpose?
It depends on what the purpose is.
If the aim is to generalize, compare, or argue for policy change at scale, quantification has its place.
But if the goal is to understand meaning, identity, symbolism, or emotional resonance, quantification might not only fall short—it could obscure the very thing you're trying to reveal. That’s why many qualitative researchers insist on narrative, ethnographic, or interpretive methods to engage with lived realities in all their contradictions.
3. If numbers shift based on interpretation, are they reliable?
This is the crux of the issue. Numbers seem objective, but they are always embedded in context:
- What questions were asked?
- Who was surveyed or studied?
- How were variables defined?
- Who interpreted the data—and from what perspective?
Taher Abdel-Ghani Consider using a mixed-methods research methodologies, strategies, and techniques which is a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to encapsulate what you want to measure in your research study.