It seems to me that this is an area where theory has had a dangerous
effect. The popular tendency to wrap research procedures up in
theoretically opposing bundles creates illusions of difference and suggests
that we must sign allegiance to one camp or the other.
Not only is it possible to use multiple methods in any one study, but it is
unavoidable. Quantitative concepts are deeply embedded in qualitative
procedures. Whenever we decide that something occurred or didn't occur,
that there was more or less of it, that it was kindly rather than hurtful,
that it was red rather than green, we are engaged in quantitative analysis.
It is not possible to use language without using the categories and
quantities embedded in it.
The same argument can be made for qualitative judgements being buried
deeply in quantitative analyses. Martin alluded to them as 'assumptions'.
I like Aristotle's notion that the problem should determine the method
-It might be supposed that there was some single method of inquiry
applicable to all objects whose essential nature we are endeavouring to
ascertain ... in that case what we would seek would be this unique method.
But if there is no such single and general method ... our task becomes
still more difficult. In the case of each different subject we shall have
to determine the appropriate process of investigation. (de Anima, 1:1)
I thought one of the important messages in Mike's Cultural Psychology was
that there is a constant search for ways to include, remain aware of every
aspect of what we are investigating.
I have just had a letter from a researcher on the other side of the world
asking if I considered my research to be quantitative or qualitative. I
find it very hard to know how to answer such questions.
Graham
Graham Nuthall
Professor of Education
University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch, New Zealand
Phone 64 03 3642255 Fax 64 03 3642418
http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/educ/ultp.html