2004
Volume 29, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1385-1535
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7324

Abstract

Abstract

In this essay, an argument is made to reconsider the quantitative-qualitative distinction in social science research. To make this argument clear, three main issues are discussed: 1) quantitative and qualitative scientific research can generally be seen as a specific form of problem-solving; whereby 2) the dual mental-empirical character of human reality in the formulation of the problem and the conduct of the research as a systemic whole of both perspectives is recognized and applied; and 3) the choice for a more quantitative and/or qualitative approach is not, or at least not solely, determined by the interpretive versus causal nature of the problem statement, but more broadly by the intended scope and/or depth of the evidence. Based on a clarification of these three issues, it is concluded that the quantitative-qualitative distinction can be conceived of as an ideal-typical model. In the everyday research practice, there is a large diversity of good quantitative-qualitative mixed forms. Therefore, a choice between the two research practices cannot be conceived of as being mutually exclusive alternatives on a one-dimensional dimension. Rather, it concerns a flexible choice for the optimal mix of these alternatives in relation to the specific problem within a system.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2024.3.007.HUTJ
2024-11-01
2024-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for creating business knowledge. Second edition. Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Boer, F. de, & Smaling, A. (Red). (2011). Benaderingen in kwalitatief onderzoek. Een inleiding. Boom/Lemma.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Fifth edition. Sage publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Denzin, N.K. (1978). A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Second edition. McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Groot, A.D. de (1975). Methodologie. Grondslagen van onderzoek en denken in de gedragswetenschappen. Achtste druk. Mouton & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hutjes, J.M., & Buuren, J.A. van (1992). De gevalsstudie. Strategie van kwalitatief onderzoek. Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. HutjesJ.M. (1989). Beleidsonderzoek in het spanningsveld tussen kennisvergaring en kennistoepassing: Ontwerpen van toegepast onderzoek. In: C.J.MCorver & M.Elchardus (Red). Sociologisch en antropologisch jaarboek 1989 (pp.133-167). SISWO.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. JansenH. (2011). De kwalitatieve survey. Onderzoek naar verscheidenheid. In: F.de Boer & A.Smaling (Red). Benaderingen in kwalitatief onderzoek. Een inleiding (pp.179 – 188). Boom/Lemma.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Reichardt, C.S. & Cook, T.H. (1979). Beyond quantitative and qualitative methods. In: T.D.Cook & C.S.Reichardt (Eds). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. SchavelingJ., Bryan, B., & Goodman, M. (2016). Systeemdenken, van goed bedoeld naar goed gedaan. Tweede herziene druk. Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Swanborn, P.G. (1987). Methoden van sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek. Tweede druk. Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Swanborn, P.G., & Zouwen, J. van der (Red). (1987). Interpretatie en variantie: ontmoeting tussen kwalitatieve en kwantitatieve onderzoeker. De Sociologische Gids34, 406 – 489.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Teddlie, C.A., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the sociaal and behavioral Sciences. Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. VerschurenP. (2017). Kernthema’s in de methodologie, Op weg naar beter onderzoek. Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Wester, F., Smaling, A., & Mulder, L. (Red). (2000). Praktijkgericht kwalitatief onderzoek. Coutinho.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2024.3.007.HUTJ
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2024.3.007.HUTJ
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error