Considering Quantitative and Qualitative Issues Together

Quantitative and qualitative researchers use different methods and have different goals. At the level of methods, quantitative researchers criticize qualitative researchers for not performing null hypothesis significance tests. However, I review literature showing that these are invalid, and so it is not particularly meaningful to criticize a lack of performance of something that should not be performed anyhow. More generally, I suggest that there are strengths and limitations to quantitative and qualitative methods. The more interesting question pertains to goals, and quantitative and qualitative researchers differ there, too. I briefly mention some limitations of the usual quantitative goal, which is to find causal mechanisms. But a typical qualitative goal of describing personal or subjective experience also has limitations. Finally, I compare both quantitative and qualitative social science research to physics and show that each has similarities and differences. There is much for quantitative and qualitative social science researchers to gain, not only by considering each other's methods and goals carefully but also by going outside social science and considering the accomplishments in nonsocial sciences.

[1]  W. W. Rozeboom The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. , 1960, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  D. Trafimow The Ubiquitous Laplacian Assumption: Reply to Lee and Wagenmakers (2005). , 2005 .

[3]  L. Berkowitz Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation. , 1989, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  D. Trafimow Using Epistemic Ratios to Evaluate Hypotheses: An Imprecision Penalty for Imprecise Hypotheses , 2006, Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs.

[5]  D. Bakan,et al.  The test of significance in psychological research. , 1966, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  Leon M. Lederman,et al.  The God Particle , 1993 .

[7]  T. Beauchamp Philosophical problems of causation , 1974 .

[8]  Charles Lambdin,et al.  Significance tests as sorcery: Science is empirical—significance tests are not , 2012 .

[9]  D. Trafimow,et al.  Issues in Publishing , Editing , and Reviewing What If Social Scientists Had Reviewed Great Scientific Works of the Past ? , 2009 .

[10]  R. P. Carver The Case Against Statistical Significance Testing, Revisited , 1993 .

[11]  Jacob Cohen The earth is round (p < .05) , 1994 .

[12]  E. Sosa Causation and conditionals , 1975 .

[13]  David Trafimow,et al.  A Test of the Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Procedure Correlation Argument , 2009, The Journal of general psychology.

[14]  P. Ekman,et al.  Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. , 1971, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  M. Hassandra,et al.  Predicting students’ intention to smoke by theory of planned behaviour variables and parental influences across school grade levels , 2011, Psychology & health.

[16]  J. Pearl Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[17]  D. Trafimow Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: surprising insights from Bayes's theorem. , 2003, Psychological review.

[18]  J. Krueger,et al.  Null hypothesis significance testing. On the survival of a flawed method. , 2001, The American psychologist.

[19]  M. Pitman Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach , 1998 .

[20]  P. Killeen Replicability, Confidence, and Priors , 2005, Psychological science.

[21]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach , 2009 .

[22]  P. Killeen,et al.  An Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Significance Tests , 2005, Psychological science.

[23]  The Problem With Bayes , 2006 .

[24]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. , 1978 .

[25]  F. Schmidt Statistical Significance Testing and Cumulative Knowledge in Psychology: Implications for Training of Researchers , 1996 .

[26]  P. Killeen,et al.  BETTER STATISTICS FOR BETTER DECISIONS: REJECTING NULL HYPOTHESES STATISTICAL TESTS IN FAVOR OF REPLICATION STATISTICS. , 2007, Psychology in the schools.

[27]  W. W. Rozeboom Good Science Is Abductive, not Hypothetico-Deductive , 2016 .

[28]  C. Gallistel,et al.  The Importance of Proving the Null , 2022 .

[29]  Michael D. Lee,et al.  prep: an agony in five fits , 2009 .

[30]  C. Spearman The proof and measurement of association between two things. , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.

[31]  R. P. Carver The Case Against Statistical Significance Testing , 1978 .

[32]  M. Urner God Particle If The Universe Is The Answer What Is The Question , 2016 .

[33]  Wesley C. Salmon,et al.  Causality and Explanation , 1998 .

[34]  Michael D. Lee,et al.  prep misestimates the probability of replication , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[35]  D. Trafimow,et al.  How often is prep close to the true replication probability? , 2010, Psychological methods.