The Gap Within: Differences between Approaches in Qualitative Methods
42 Pages Posted: 23 Aug 2010
Date Written: August 22, 2010
Abstract
Since the debate between qualitative and quantitative research began, most scholars have treated qualitative methods as a homogeneous entity. This homogenization of the "qualitative methodologist" is both harmful and unwarranted. In this article, we seek to rectify this burgeoning assumption before it becomes further entrenched in the field. Rather than a "tale of two cultures," we argue that the practice of qualitative methods within the social sciences is actually a tale of many sub-cultures, and that these dissimilarities emerge as a result of differences in ontological and epistemological assumptions. Specifically, we argue that there are four "ideal types" represented within qualitative methods: Quantitative Emulation, Eclectic small-N research, Set-theory, and Empirical Interpretivism.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy. Evaluating Alternative Indices
By Gerardo L. Munck and Jay Verkuilen
-
Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research
By Robert Adcock and David Collier
-
A Global Model for Forecasting Political Instability
By Jack A. Goldstone, Robert Bates, ...
-
Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness
By Michael Coppedge, Angel Alvarez, ...
-
Giving Order to Districts: Estimating Voter Distributions with National Election Returns
-
Varieties of Democracy Project Description
By Michael Coppedge, John Gerring, ...
-
Elections and Political Instability: Ballots to Bullets, Voting to Violence?