Quantitative methodology entails an empiricist ontology and objectivist epistemology; while qualitative methodology preaches constructionist ontology and interpretivist epistemology; both seem extreme positions regarding reality ‘out there’ and reality ‘socially constructed‘. What do you suggest?
I take a different stance as argued in this piece about quantitative methods - I argue for and from a realist position which is certainly not empiricist
Chapter The practice of quantitative methods
I would argue for emphasizing your research questions and the appropriate methods for addressing them. Meanwhile, leave metaphysics to the philosophers.
Think in terms of assumptions if you want to explore epistemologies and ontologies, not methods. Method is a technical question rather than an epistomological one. The assumptions of what the data can tell you is probably what you are out to get? Assigning different ontologies and epistemologies to quantitative and qualitative methods won't get you very far and has very little utility in advancing research.
I agree with the previous responses, but would emphasize that it is NOT true that "Quantitative methodology entails an empiricist ontology and objectivist epistemology; while qualitative methodology preaches constructionist ontology and interpretivist epistemology." Both quantitative and qualitative research can be done from a variety of ontological and epistemological positions; see the attached paper for a detailed argument. I agree with Kelvyn Jones that quantitative research can be done from a realist (as opposed to an empiricist) ontology, but would make the same claim for qualitative research; see my book "A Realist Approach for Qualitative Research (Sage, 2012). The "paradigm wars" of the late 20th century, in which prominent qualitative researchers insisted that the two "paradigms" were incompatible, is one of the worst things to ever happen to research methods.
I definitely agree with Joseph Maxwell that the claim that there were incompatible qualitative and quantitative "paradigms" was a huge waste of time and ink. And most of the disagreement was about ontology and epistemology (hence my previous comment about metaphysics). The debate barely reached down to the level of methodology, and even Lincoln and Guba explicitly stated that it was not about methods. But ultimately, all research comes down to the methods you choose, and if that choice was irrelevant, then what does that say about the other claims?
And one more thing that continually frustrates me: Anyone who claims that realism and constructivism (let alone qualitative and quantitative methodology) are paradigms has clearly never read Thomas Kuhn's original work on paradigms.
Dr. David L Morgan, Dr. Edouard Novatorov, Dr. Johnny Långstedt, Dr. Joseph Alex Maxwell, & Dr. Kelvyn Jones,thank you very much for your insightful sharing. Really appreciate your effort.
Yousaf, Ph.D.
Dear my colleges, with all my due and respect, I still agree with these works they are relevant to Frankfurt the philosophy of social science,
I think what Frankfurt Social school of thought were in a right way
Gultung, J. (1990). Theory formation in social research: A plea for pluralism. In E. Oyen (Ed.), Comparative methodology: Theory and practice in international social research (pp. 96-112). London: Sage Publications,.
Habermas, J. (1967). Theorie and praxis. [Theory and Practice] Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag.
I agree that since research is really about knowledge in the end it is really about the path you choose to get to that knowledge.The rigor required for academic work is the same for quantitative and qualitative but varies in the research process based on the decisions you make to create such knowledge. Qualitative methods may take you a little longer but in the end with the right choices you get there.
In my view, the most important consideration is that quantitative and qualitative methods are best at answering different kinds of questions. Quantitative methods are better for learning WHETHER a particular intervention was responsible for an outcome, or whether two variables are actually related. Qualitative methods are best for understanding HOW these are related, including how participants' perspectives and the specific context are involved in the actual process by which a particular intervention or variable affects the outcome. See the attached paper for a more detailed argument.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude