Changing the terms of the debate

Quantitative methods in explicitly interpretive research

Bibliographic Data

ID20400751
AuthorsMichael A Westerman (New York University, corresponding author), Stephen C Yanchar (0000-0002-2739-5386, Brigham Young University, corresponding author)
Year2011
Volume21
Issue2
Pages139-154
Publication date2011-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueTheory & Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0959-3543 • E-ISSN: 1461-7447
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0959354310393565
OpenAlexW2152770665
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited29

We introduce this special issue by arguing that quantitative and qualitative research methods do not line up neatly with the guiding philosophical commitments of the two sides of the schism in the field between the mainstream, natural science approach, and the minority, human science position. This leads to the motivating idea for the issue, the view that quantitative methods, when used appropriately, can contribute to interpretive inquiry in psychology. We discuss the issue’s two main objectives—(1) presenting lines of actual research that illustrate how quantitative approaches can be used in ways that are consistent with a human science approach to the field, and (2) providing critical examination of the motivating idea—and introduce the articles in the issue that address each of these objectives. In the final section of this introductory article, we offer our thoughts about what the full set of papers accomplishes and suggest that the issue’s many-sided exploration goes some distance toward changing the terms of the quantitative—qualitative debate

Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Mainstream · Management science · Political science · Politics · Schism · Sociology · Computer Science · Management and Organizational Studies · Philosophy · Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research · Social Representations and Identity

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access