Quantitative approaches to research are established upon one very straightforward fact – that there is something called objective reality (Spinelli, p. 1), namely, facts are out there which we can perceive and known to be true.  The idea of interpretation and subjective realities can find no place in quantitative research, for they are rejected as actually existing.  This is a wonderful use of rhetoric on the part of this positivist project, for it is simply able to deny all competing approaches out of existence.  Quantitative research is therefore able to argue that the laboratory, as a crucible in which the complexity of the real world is burn away, is able “to clearly isolate causes and effects, to properly operationalize theoretical relations, to measure and to quantify phenomena, to create research designs allowing the generalization of findings and to formulate general laws” (Flick, pp. 2-3).  As well, this laboratory crucible is able to ensure that all research subjects can be codified as automatons which reflect a segment of the population and not necessarily their own particular vantage point.  Subjects therefore become objectified representations rather than participants in their own constructed realities.  As well, the researcher is ensured a place of objective neutrality in quantitative research, for “studies are designed in such a way that the researcher’s (interviewer’s, observer’s etc.) influence can be excluded as far as possible…This should guarantee the objectivity of the study, whereby the subjective views of the researcher as well as those of the individuals under study are largely eliminated” (Flick, p. 3).  The notion that social and cultural influences can be bracketed when exploring real world phenomena is an oxymoron in the positivist epistemology, for positivism does not attempt to explore real world phenomena but rather distills cause-effect relationships which cannot exist in their simplicity in the real world.  However, like much of my graduate school education up to the beginning of this past semester, I sensed there was something, just simmering in the background that I was not grasping.  Namely, that an interrogation of the positivist project was not only warranted, but necessary as it had proven to be an extremely narrow epistemology – as witnessed by the lack of use of social science results “in everyday life because – in order to fulfill methodological standards – their investigations and findings often remain too far removed from everyday questions and problems” (Flick, p. 3).

Qualitative research methods can be simplified into three particular epistemological and ontological perspectives.  The first perspective is known as symbolic interactionalism and can be best summed up as the ‘what’ in the making of social reality.  Here, there is an understanding that there are many “different ways in which individuals invest objects, events, experiences etc. with meaning” (Flick, p. 17), and each of these subjective perspectives, when reconstructed by the researcher “becomes the instrument for analyzing social worlds” (Flick, p. 17).  Essentially, the purpose of this perspective is the better understand ‘what’ goes into our understanding of the social world/reality.  Two particular methods utilized to understand the ‘what’ are Repertory Grids (Personal Construct Theory) and Q-Method.  The second perspective is sometimes called ethnomethodolgy, it examines the making and course of interactions and ‘how’ these interactions make social realities.  Two particular methods utilized to understand the ‘how’ are Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and Conversation Analysis.  The third perspective at times utilized the title of structuralist models and recognized that “cultural systems of meaning are assumed to somehow frame the perception and making of subjective and social reality” (Flick, p. 22).  At its essence, this perspective endeavours to understand and explain the ‘why’ in the making of social realities – ‘why’ do we see the social world/reality a certain way.  Three particular methods utilized to understand this ‘why’ are Discourse Analysis, Feminist Research and Objective Hermeneutics.

There are issues within qualitative research which must be addressed to ensure the quality and credibility of this alternative paradigm.  One issue, which is derived from the positivist perspective, is the perception of qualitative research as not providing any ‘objective truths’ – this is of course a positivist interpretation of qualitative research – but is very prevalent and needs to be responded too.  Therefore, the use of appropriate methods and theories is absolutely necessary when engaging in qualitative research, moreover, the justification of methods and theories needs to be actively addressed, more so than is generally expected in quantitative research.  Validity and reliability of data and analysis are also important issues, for the notion of pluralism and the new multitudes of life worlds it opens the door upon ensure that arguments regarding the subjective interpretations of data are bound to occur.  However, a careful and measured use of qualitative methods can ensure the validity and reliability of interpretations.  In particular, undertaking researcher reflexivity and taking the participants’ perspectives into account helps to better explain the existence of complex models in reality which cannot simply be factored down to cause-effect relationships.

References:

Flick, Uwe (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research 2nd Ed.. London: SAGE.

Spinelli, Ernesto (1989). The Interpreted World: An Introduction to Phenomenological Psychology. London: SAGE Thousand Oaks.

Comments may be directed to Bhuvinder S. Vaid.

Click here to continue on to the Definition of Concept section