I would opine that the problem is more paradigmatic than methodological;
i.e., the qual vs. quant distinction can be misleading--I've seen
qualitative methods used in a reductive manner and quantitive methods used
in expansive ways, by men and women both. However I suspect, and would tend
to agree, that excessive quantification in studies of systems we know to be
complex (and these certainly include the social) tends to become more
prevalent where elites are weak, where private negotiation is suspect, and
where trust is in short supply (as alas, it very much seems to be these
days). Theodore M. Porter (1995. _Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of
Objectivity in Science and Public Life_. Princeton University Press) does (I
think) a really first class job of expanding and explicating this
phenomenon. I would also recommend his earlier book (1986) _The Rise of
Statistical Thinking, 1820-1900_. In everyone's copious free time of course=
:-)
Regards, Rolfe
Rolfe Windward [UCLA GSE&IS: Curriculum & Teaching]
e-mail: rwindwar who-is-at ucla.edu (Text/BinHex/MIME/Uuencode)
70014.0646 who-is-at compuserve.com (text/binary/GIF/JPG)