On the Compatibility Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods_Fielding

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 21
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Documents

Published:

Views: 0 | Pages: 21

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
On the Compatibility Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods_Fielding
Tags
Transcript
  Introduction: On the Compatibility between Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods Nigel Fielding & Margrit Schreier  Table of Contents 1. Overview 2. The Contributions in this Volume 3. Approaches to Method Combination: The Triangulation aradigm !e erences AuthorsCitation 1. Overview # $ou happen to be an avid reader o FQS % $ou ma$ have noticed that the title o this volume has changed since it was irst announced as &'ualitative and (uantitative methods: )ow the two research traditions see each other&. This irst title re lects the srcinal orientation behind the volume: to ta*e a loo* at (ualitative researchers+ views o (uantitative methods and at (uantitative researchers+ views o (ualitative methods. #s there an$thing that the$ value about the &other& tradition% and in what wa$ do the$ believe that their own methodological orientation might pro it rom integrating such elements, -1 As it has turned out% this was obviousl$ an overl$ optimistic idea% presupposing the e/istence o researchers on both sides o the methodological divide willing to ta*e an unbiased loo* both at what the$ themselves do and what the &others& do in their research practice. resumabl$ it will not be much o a surprise% either% that (ualitative researchers were o ten (uite willing to go along with this idea0whereas it proved to be much more di icult although not completel$ impossible: c . A#C)4 to ind (uantitative researchers willing to consider that there might be a point to doing things the (ualitative wa$ at least some o the time. This situation (uite accuratel$ re lects the methodological situation in the social sciences. #n man$ disciplines% the (uantitative paradigm is still the dominant one although there is some within5discipline variation rom one countr$+s social and behavioural science communit$ to another4. As a conse(uence% (ualitative researchers usuall$ cannot get b$ without some sometimes even (uite substantial4 *nowledge o (uantitative methods and methodological standards% whereas in several disciplines there is no immediate need or (uantitative researchers to &bother& much with (ualitative methods. Thus the orientation and with it the title4 o the volume have changed% re lecting the concern o (ualitative researchers in particular with the combination o (ualitative and (uantitative methods. -26e have grouped the resulting contributions into three sections. The irst and in a sense most &abstract& section comprises papers that are concerned with the logic 7 2881 9' http:www.(ualitative5research.net (s9orum 'ualitative o;ial orschung  9orum: 'ualitative ocial !esearch #< 1=3>5?@24 Volume 2% <o. 1% Art. = 9ebruar$ 2881 FORUM: QUALITATIVESOCIAL RESEARCHSOZIALFORSCHUNG  FQS  214% Art. =% <igel 9ielding B Margrit chreier: #ntroduction: On the Compatibilit$ between 'ualitative and 'uantitative !esearch Methods underl$ing (ualitative and (uantitative approaches and the conse(uences or the inter5relation o method &The logic o relating (ualitative and (uantitative method&4. #t is in this section that topics such as the conceptualisation o triangulation% abductive logic% or (uestions concerning the reconciliation o positivist and constructivist epistemologies are dealt with. #n ection two% papers presenting methodological approaches or inter5relating (ualitative and (uantitative methods have been assembled &i erent approaches or inter5relating (ualitative and (uantitative method&4. #n some cases the proposed methodologies e/tend over the entire research processD other suggestions or method integration concentrate on one phase o the research process in particular% such as the &initial telephone contact& in surve$ studies. #n ection three% the ocus is on the application o the most prominent among such integrative methodological approaches0i.e. triangulation0to actual research practice in di erent disciplines such as economics% media studies% and sociolog$ &#nnovative applications o methodological inter5relation&4. #n the ollowing% we will irst give an overview o the papers 2.4 and then go on to outline the maEor t$pes o the inter5relation o (ualitative and (uantitative method e/empli ied b$ the contributions 3.4. This is most notabl$ triangulation which will there ore be dealt with in some detail. -3 . The Contributions in this !olume ection one on the logic o relating (ualitative and (uantitative method begins with a contribution that ta*es us into the ver$ methodological center o the volume. Combining (ualitative and (uantitative methods is almost b$ de inition an issue o across5method triangulation. ince it was introduced into the social sciences b$ F<G#< 1H84% the term triangulation has become something o a catchphrase. &Triangulation& is now ubi(uitous in the methodological literature o the social sciences0and as it is o ten the case with such ubi(uitous terms% its precise meaning has become lost over time. #n his contribution% Ido JFF proceeds to identi $ the various meanings in which &triangulation&0which he regards as a metaphor rather than a precise concept0has come to be used and to determine which o these meanings is most appropriate or conceptualising the combination o (ualitative and (uantitative methods. -=)e distinguishes three meanings or models o triangulation: 14 triangulation as the mutual validation o results obtained on the basis o di erent methods the validit$ model4% 24 triangulation as a means toward obtaining a larger% more complete picture o the phenomenon under stud$ the complementarit$ model4% and 34 triangulation in its srcinal trigonometrical sense% indicating that a combination o methods is necessar$ in order to gain an$ not necessaril$ a uller4 picture o the relevant phenomenon at all the trigonometr$ model4. These three models are in turn brought to bear upon the potential relationships between the results $ielded b$ (ualitative and (uantitative methods emplo$ed in the same stud$. -?#n order to determine the applicabilit$ o these models to the combination o (ualitative and (uantitative methods% JFF goes on to e/amine the results o 7 2881 9' http:www.(ualitative5research.net (s  FQS  214% Art. =% <igel 9ielding B Margrit chreier: #ntroduction: On the Compatibilit$ between 'ualitative and 'uantitative !esearch Methods three mi/ed5method studies rom li e course research% thus t$ing his methodological considerations bac* to the actual research process. Kudging the applicabilit$ o di erent understandings o triangulation% however% is something which rom JFF+s point o view should involve not onl$ methodological and epistemological considerations% but also include theoretical considerations. JFF+s conclusion that it is the trigonometric model o triangulation which holds the greatest promise or conceptualising the combination o (ualitative and (uantitative methods is thus a (uali ied conclusion% holding especiall$ or sociological studies with its distinction between micro5 and macrolevel descriptions. JFF thus clari ies the discourse surrounding triangulation b$ presenting us with a number o models o triangulation to choose rom and he adds to the grounds on which to ma*e such a choice b$ drawing our attention to the relevance o theoretical issues0implicitl$ raising% o course% the (uestion o what such a choice would loo* li*e in other disciplines. -@hilipp MAL!#< starts out rom the observation that the call or the combination o (ualitative and (uantitative methods has become almost a commonplace in methodolog$ te/tboo*s in the social sciences. This call% reasonable as it ma$ be% MAL!#< argues% is nevertheless a long wa$ rom actual research practice and does little to tell the researcher how e/actl$ such a combination is to be achieved. N$ suggesting ive levels at which (ualitative and (uantitative methods can be related0ranging rom data to the entire research process0MAL!#< alerts us to the details which lie behind the global call or the combination o the two paradigms. -#n closing% MAL!#< turns to a premise o the inter5relation o the two paradigms which is more o ten than not le t implicit: what are the advantages o such an inter5relation, #t is especiall$ in the conte/t o his outline or an integrative documentation o the (ualitative or (uantitative4 research process that MAL!#< shows what the two paradigms stand to gain b$ no longer ignoring each other. #n the case o the (uantitative paradigm% this is in particular the greater pro/imit$ to the research subEect% while the (ualitative paradigm will pro it most b$ ma*ing the various stages o the research process more transparent and s$stematic% thus increasing the generalisabilit$ o the results. ->The ontological position o constructivist realism which is at the heart o erald CIC)#J+s contribution ma$ stri*e one0at irst sight0as something o a parado/. &!ealism& with its implications o a world out there which can be apprehended and *nown b$ scientists% is a position which has gone out o ashion in our postmodern times. &Constructivism&% on the other hand% carries associations o precisel$ such a postmodern discourse% suggesting that &the world& is real onl$ to the e/tent that we ma*e it so% that there are as man$ worlds% as man$ &realities& as there are minds to construe them. -H#n his e/plication o constructivist realism% CIC)#J cuts across such dichotomies. )is starting point is the assumption that in ever$da$ li e% we usuall$ have ver$ little doubt about the realit$ o events that be all us% our actions and our interactions with others. To the e/tent that it is precisel$ these personall$ and 7 2881 9' http:www.(ualitative5research.net (s  FQS  214% Art. =% <igel 9ielding B Margrit chreier: #ntroduction: On the Compatibilit$ between 'ualitative and 'uantitative !esearch Methods sociall$ relevant realities which constitute the subEect matter o the social sciences% the social sciences deal with phenomena which are real0hence &constructivist realism &. Let their realit$ is not a given% but it is constructed b$ imbuing the phenomenon in (uestion with meaning0hence & constructivist realism&. # this meaning is sociall$ shared% the process o meaning construction will hardl$ be noticeableD the more discrepant the social realities o two persons% however% the less the$ will be able to agree upon the realit$ o a phenomenon. #n stressing the importance o the social constitution o meaning% CIC)#J+s position is thus a*in to that o social constructionism c . or instance F!F< 1H>?4. -18# one starts out rom this ontological position% CIC)#J argues% the competition between (ualitative and (uantitative research is resolved into complementarit$. 6hile researchers rom the two paradigms tend to stress either the realist (uantitative4 or the constructivist (ualitative4 end point% the$ are in the same position: the$ both deal with real phenomena in the above sense% with social processes% and the$ both have to ascribe meaning to their data. !ather than se(uencing (ualitative and (uantitative research in some wa$% CIC)#J sees both approaches as essentiall$ inter5related% with (uantitative research contributing towards the precise identi ication o relevant processes% and (ualitative research providing the basis or their &thic* description&. -116hile most contributors to this volume unanimousl$ advocate the inter5relation o (ualitative and (uantitative methods% )arald 6#TT cautions us against the indiscriminate combination o methods rom the two paradigms. )e points out that a maEor di erence between (uantitative and (ualitative research is to be seen in their research strategies which he describes as linear and circular respectivel$. Noth research strategies% he argues% are cut out or di erent research goals% the$ accomodate di erent *inds o data and di erent sample t$pes. 6#TT goes on to show how combining (ualitative and (uantitative methods does not necessaril$ result in getting the best rom both worlds. !ather% certain t$pes o method inter5relation ma$ be cumbersome at bestD at worst% the results achieved b$ such an &unhapp$& combination will all ar short o what could have been achieved b$ remaining e/clusivel$ within one o the two paradigms. This applies in particular to the use o a (ualitative method or data collection in the conte/t o a circular research strateg$. 6#TT thus draws attention to what is easil$ orgotten in the enthusiasm over transcending the boundaries between the (ualitative and the (uantitative paradigm: Combining (ualitative and (uantitative methods is not a good thing at all times% but onl$ provided that such a combination is in line with the overall research goals. 6#TT also shows that the willingness to combine methods is not enough to ma*e such an in ormed choice o method or method combination. The researcher who wants to combine methods had better *now them all% (ualitative and (uantitative0no mean eat considering the proli eration o methods both in the (uantitative and the (ualitative area. -129or ar$ )A<J% (ualitative research is the s$stematic empirical in(uir$ into meaning. # % at the broadest level% triangulation is about adopting a sceptical 7 2881 9' http:www.(ualitative5research.net (s
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks