Do we Need Methodological Theory to Do Qualitative Research

Bibliographic Data

ID5454729
AuthorsMark Avis (0000-0002-0581-8827, Mark Avis is a reader in the social contexts of health, Nottingham University, United Kingdom.), 恵一 村岡, 篤志 新村, 隆志 小林, 和弘 森, 茂 竹山
Year2003
Volume13
Issue7
Pages995-1004
Publication date2003-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueQualitative Health Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1049-7323 • E-ISSN: 1552-7557
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/1049732303253298
OpenAlexW14502964
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited6

Positivism is frequently used to stand for the epistemological assumption that empirical science based on principles of verificationism, objectivity, and reproducibility is the foundation of all genuine knowledge. Qualitative researchers sometimes feel obliged to provide methodological alternatives to positivism that recognize their different ethical, ontological, and epistemological commitments and have provided three theories: phenomenology, grounded theory, and ethnography. The author argues that positivism was a doomed attempt to define empirical foundations for knowledge through a rigorous separation of theory and evidence; offers a pragmatic, coherent view of knowledge; and suggests that rigorous, rational empirical investigation does not need methodological theory. Therefore, qualitative methodological theory is unnecessary and counterproductive because it hinders critical reflection on the relation between methodological theory and empirical evidence

Stromal cell · Stromal tumor · Gastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment · Medicine · Cancer Research