1. Why a negative frame of mind is prevalent among the most thesis examiners and editors of the top journals in the field of Humanities and Social Sciences about qualitative study?
2. Why a bunch of pseudo academicians will navigate the ideas of qualitative inquiry and decide the whole community of qualitative researchers in the name of some vague terms, e.g. numbers, quantifiable data, or statistical analysis?
3. Why qualitative researchers need to express their views about generalization time and again where there is no more any idea left called "generalization" in the postmodern world?
4. Why only qualitative researchers have to prove themselves immune of manipulating and of data and establish the reliability, whereas, manipulation of quantitative data is much easier operation to conduct?
Dear Mohammad Mosiur Rahaman,
You have certainly broached up a very interesting issue concerning the application of qualitative approaches in humanities and social sciences. However, I personally think that the "negative frame of mind" against the use of qualitative methods is personal and untenable. The main reason is that the choice of one approach rather than the other is decided by the nature of the topic the researcher aims to investigate. In addition, the nature of the treatment necessitates a carefully planned agenda for establishing the reliability of qualitative data. Being close to the data and using one's personal judgments as the basis for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting qualitative data create a precautionary zone wherein the researcher tries to dilute the degree of the subjectivity involved by utilizing parallel supplementary steps like triangulation.
Best regards,
R. Biria
Estimado Mohammad:
El abordaje metodológico de un fenómeno objeto de estudio no se dice por el investigador, es propio el objeto que nos encamina hacia una perspectiva metodológica. Sin embargo, el positivismo siempre ha estado presente y domina la mirada de diversos investigadores, los cuales buscan la validez y confiabilidad. Pese a ello, la mirada cualitativa es enriquecedora por el acercamiento natural al fenómeno, siempre bajo el distanciamiento y la subjetividad. Ahora me pregunto, ¿Bajo que metodología enfrentar el objeto de estudio? Mi respuesta es: depende. Depende del objeto de estudio. Sin duda, hay quienes estarán en contra de la naturalidad, pero también están otros en contra del positivismo. Pero "muchos están en una u otra mirada", porque se encuentra en la zona de comodidad. Ignoran las metodologías que existen y cómo abordar el problema, por lo que únicamente miran el objeto bajo su perspectiva y rechazan todo lo que está en su contra. Finalmente, ninguna es mejor que la otra, "todo depende de lo que se desea indagar". Abrazo fraterno.
Dear Mohammed,
I disagree with you regarding the negative look for using qualitative methods in social studies. Research organizations in many countries and Omani one of them, the researchers arevencourage to do qualitative studies inorder to produce high quality studies. However, it is important to choose the most appropriate methods for what is being investigated. Qualitative research is not appropriate to answer every research question and researchers need to think carefully about their objectives. Do they wish to study a particular phenomenon in depth (eg, students' perceptions of studying in a different culture)? Or are they more interested in making standardized comparisons and accounting for variance (eg, examining differences in examination grades after changing the way the content of a module is taught). Clearly a quantitative approach would be more appropriate in the last example.
Dear Mohammad
I went through this "why should we believe you" debate numerous times.
Short answer is social life is too complex and cannot be reduced to quantifications. Limited generalisation from qualitative research is possible and that is why the details are so important.
A good qualitative approach with bias being addressed (it arguably starts when you choose a topic) can discover a wider range of social life because it focusses on the invisible and non-measurable interactions.
The reasoning for this, possibly, is the horizon of some people. They mistake social research as an exact science (like biology, physics etc) which it is not. It is easier for some people to receive the answer "4" instead of a long interpretation and description.
Kind Regards
Roland
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science