{"title":"跨学科领域的“定性”和“定量”方法和途径:对研究价值、假设和实践的影响","authors":"Nick Pilcher, Martin Cortazzi","doi":"10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is considerable literature showing the complexity, connectivity and blurring of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods in research. Yet these concepts are often represented in a binary way as independent dichotomous categories. This is evident in many key textbooks which are used in research methods courses to guide students and newer researchers in their research training. This paper analyses such textbook representations of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' in 25 key resources published in English (supported by an outline survey of 23 textbooks written in German, Spanish and French). We then compare these with the perceptions, gathered through semi-structured interviews, of university researchers (n = 31) who work in a wide range of arts and science disciplines. The analysis of what the textbooks say compared to what the participants report they do in their practice shows some common features, as might be assumed, but there are significant contrasts and contradictions. The differences tend to align with some other recent literature to underline the complexity and connectivity associated with the terms. We suggest ways in which future research methods courses and newer researchers could question and positively deconstruct such binary representations in order to free up directions for research in practice, so that investigations can use both quantitative or qualitative approaches in more nuanced practices that are appropriate to the specific field and given context of investigations.","PeriodicalId":49649,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Quantity","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices\",\"authors\":\"Nick Pilcher, Martin Cortazzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract There is considerable literature showing the complexity, connectivity and blurring of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods in research. Yet these concepts are often represented in a binary way as independent dichotomous categories. This is evident in many key textbooks which are used in research methods courses to guide students and newer researchers in their research training. This paper analyses such textbook representations of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' in 25 key resources published in English (supported by an outline survey of 23 textbooks written in German, Spanish and French). We then compare these with the perceptions, gathered through semi-structured interviews, of university researchers (n = 31) who work in a wide range of arts and science disciplines. The analysis of what the textbooks say compared to what the participants report they do in their practice shows some common features, as might be assumed, but there are significant contrasts and contradictions. The differences tend to align with some other recent literature to underline the complexity and connectivity associated with the terms. We suggest ways in which future research methods courses and newer researchers could question and positively deconstruct such binary representations in order to free up directions for research in practice, so that investigations can use both quantitative or qualitative approaches in more nuanced practices that are appropriate to the specific field and given context of investigations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality & Quantity\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality & Quantity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Quantity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
'Qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices
Abstract There is considerable literature showing the complexity, connectivity and blurring of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods in research. Yet these concepts are often represented in a binary way as independent dichotomous categories. This is evident in many key textbooks which are used in research methods courses to guide students and newer researchers in their research training. This paper analyses such textbook representations of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' in 25 key resources published in English (supported by an outline survey of 23 textbooks written in German, Spanish and French). We then compare these with the perceptions, gathered through semi-structured interviews, of university researchers (n = 31) who work in a wide range of arts and science disciplines. The analysis of what the textbooks say compared to what the participants report they do in their practice shows some common features, as might be assumed, but there are significant contrasts and contradictions. The differences tend to align with some other recent literature to underline the complexity and connectivity associated with the terms. We suggest ways in which future research methods courses and newer researchers could question and positively deconstruct such binary representations in order to free up directions for research in practice, so that investigations can use both quantitative or qualitative approaches in more nuanced practices that are appropriate to the specific field and given context of investigations.
期刊介绍:
Quality and Quantity constitutes a point of reference for European and non-European scholars to discuss instruments of methodology for more rigorous scientific results in the social sciences. In the era of biggish data, the journal also provides a publication venue for data scientists who are interested in proposing a new indicator to measure the latent aspects of social, cultural, and political events. Rather than leaning towards one specific methodological school, the journal publishes papers on a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative data. Furthermore, the journal’s key aim is to tackle some methodological pluralism across research cultures. In this context, the journal is open to papers addressing some general logic of empirical research and analysis of the validity and verification of social laws. Thus The journal accepts papers on science metrics and publication ethics and, their related issues affecting methodological practices among researchers.
Quality and Quantity is an interdisciplinary journal which systematically correlates disciplines such as data and information sciences with the other humanities and social sciences. The journal extends discussion of interesting contributions in methodology to scholars worldwide, to promote the scientific development of social research.