Against the Quantitative-Qualitative Incompatibility Thesis or Dogmas Die Hard

Over approximately the last 20 years, the use of qualitative methods in educational research has evolved from being scoffed at to being viewed as useful for provisional exploration, to being accepted as a valuable alternative approach in its own right, to being embraced as capable of thoroughgoing integration with quantitative methods. Progress has been halting, and it is not surprising that certain thinkers are now balking at the latest stage of development. The chief worry is that the capitulation to "what works" ignores the incompatibility of the competing positivistic and interpretivist epistemological paradigms that purportedly undergird quantitative and qualitative methods, respectively. Appealing to a pragmatic philosophical perspective, this paper argues that no incompatibility between quantitative and qualitative methods exists at either the level of practice or that of epistemology and that there are thus no good reasons for educational researchers to fear forging ahead with "what works."

[1]  N. Goodman.  Fact, Fiction, and Forecast , 1955 .

[2]  Ma. de la Natividad Jiménez Salas,et al.  The Conduct of Inquiry , 1967 .

[3]  P. Jackson.  Life in Classrooms , 1968 .

[4]  Y. Morrison.  presented at the Annual Meeting of the , 1970 .

[5]  The Concept of Equal Educational Opportunity and the Chicano: Methodological Footnotes on a Study of School Systems in the Southwest. , 1972 .

[6]  Donald Davidson,et al.  On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme , 1973 .

[7]  C. Geertz.  "From the Native's Point of View": On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding , 1974 .

[8]  D. Campbell.  III. “Degrees of Freedom” and the Case Study , 1975 .

[9]  A. Giddens.  NEW RULES OF SOCIOLOGICAL METHOD , 1980 .

[10]  T. Cook,et al.  Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods , 1979 .

[11]  Brian Mackenzie,et al.  Behaviourism and the Limits of Scientific Method. , 1979 .

[12]  Richard Rorty,et al.  Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism , 1980, The New Social Theory Reader.

[13]  T. Cook,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research , 1981 .

[14]  D. Smith.  Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature , 1981 .

[15]  R. Rorty.  Consequences of pragmatism , 1982 .

[16]  J. Smith.  Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research: An Attempt to Clarify the Issue , 1983 .

[17]  Ernest R. House,et al.  Philosophy of Evaluation , 1983 .

[18]  John K. Smith,et al.  Quantitative versus interpretive: The problem of conducting social inquiry , 1983 .

[19]  K. Howe,et al.  Two Dogmas of Educational Research , 1985 .

[20]  Jim Garrison,et al.  Some Principles of Postpositivistic Philosophy of Science , 1986 .

[21]  John K. Smith,et al.  Closing Down the Conversation: The End of the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate Among Educational Inquirers , 1986 .

[22]  Paul Rabinow,et al.  Interpretive social science , 1987 .

[23]  Brian Holmes,et al.  Philosophy, science, and social inquiry , 1987 .

[24]  W. Firestone.  Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research , 1987 .

[25]  Michael Huberman.  How Well Does Educational Research Really Travel? , 1987 .

[26]  Egon G. Guba,et al.  What Have We Learned About Naturalistic Evaluation , 1987 .

[27]  L Ramer,et al.  Quantitative versus qualitative research? , 1989, Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN.

[28]  Marta Fehér,et al.  The essential tension , 1990 .