To me, like you, the interesting difference is not between quantitative and
qualitative data or even qual and quant techniques of analysis, but between
the paradigms or logics of inquiry within which these are used. The
empirical-analytic and the interpretive (as Berstein, for instance, labels
them, in Beyond Objectivism and Relativism). Much qualitative research is
still conducted within the empirical-analytic paradigm (cf a good article
by John K. Smith in a recent Educational Researcher).
I agree with you that theory *need* not abstract from place, occasion and
person--but this is still the dominant view of theory, not an 'old' view.
Understood differently, theory certainly plays a role in research, but not
necessarily as the *product*.
Of course you're right to say that...
>You do not get closer to members' perspectives by
>narrating them; you may distort them by not also projecting them as
>argument, generalization, metaphor, description, explanation, exchange, and
>negotiation.
My original point about narrative was not that it was "closer" to anything,
but that it is accessible to just-plain-folk in a way that most theory,
even 'new school' theory, is not. Thus it may have a more direct
connection to their practice.
Martin
===========
Martin Packer
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh, PA 15282
office: (412) 396-4852
department: (412) 396-6520
packer who-is-at duq3.cc.duq.edu
http://www.duq.edu/liberalarts/gradpsych/packer.html