Quality & Quantity

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 97–111 | Cite as

Wither Qualitative/Quantitative?: Grounds for Methodological Convergence

  • Barbara HansonEmail author


The qualitative quantitative issue has been given attention in sociological scholarship for decades. Upon theoretical examination of the basis of separations, the commonly used criteria of subjectivity versus objectivity, systematization, quantification and generalization, do not separate. This suggests that the impetus for the qualitative/quantitative issue is more political than intellectual owing to several factors in the practice of sociology: diverse intellectual heritages, the domination of quantitative sociologists in teaching methods and writing methods text books, the proliferation of computer technology in the past 20 years, and separation of theory and method. Advancing sociological methods means transcending the quantitative/qualitative issue and moving on to consider issues like science, validity, causality and multiverse.


qualitative quantitative epistemology science validity causality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Babbie E. (1983). The Practice of Social Research. 3rd edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  2. Babbie E. (1992). The Practice of Social Research, 6th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Babbie E. (1995). The Practice of Social Research, 7th edn. Toronto, Wadsworth Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  4. Babbie E. (2001). The Practice of Social Research, 8th edn. Toronto, Wadsworth Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogdan R., Ksander M. (1980). Policy data as a social process: A approach to quantitative data. Human Organization 39(4): 302–309Google Scholar
  6. Bryman A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: a question of method or epistemology?. British Journal of Sociology 35(1): 75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burawoy M. (2003). Revisits: an outline of a theory of reflexive. American Sociologal Review 68(5): 645–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crombie A.C. (1959). Medieval and Early Modern Science. New York, Doubleday & Company IncGoogle Scholar
  9. Dell P. (1980). Researching the family theories of schizophrenia: An in epistemological confusion. Family Process 19(4): 321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denzin N.K. (1989). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  11. DeVault M. L. (1990). Novel readings: The social organization of intrepretation. American Journal of Sociology 95(4): 887–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dooley D. (1995). Social Research Methods. Toronto, Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  13. Egler F.E. (1970). The Way of Science: A Philosophy of Ecology for the Layman. New York, Hafner Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  14. Erzberger C., Prein G. (1997). Triangulation: Validity and empircally-based hypothesis construction. Quality and Quantity 31:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foucault M. (1980). The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Vol. 1. New York, BooksGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank P. (1949). Modern Science and Its Philosophy. Cambridge, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Gartrell G.D., Gartrell J.W. (2002). Positivism in sociological research: USA and UK (1966–1990). British Journal of Sociology 53(4): 639–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert L.S. (2002). Going the distance: ‘closeness’ in qualitative data analysis software. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 5(3): 215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goffman E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York, Doubleday and CompanyGoogle Scholar
  20. Goffman E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanson B. (1992). Human rulers: The constructivist question in reliability based on inter-rater agreement. Methodology and Science 25: 102–115Google Scholar
  22. Harding S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Holzman P.S. (1986). Similarity and collaboration within the sciences. In: Donald W.F., Richard A.S.(eds). Metatheory in Social Science. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 347–352Google Scholar
  24. Kirchgassler K.U. (1991). Validity – The quest for reality in quantitative and qualitative Research. Quality and Quantity 25(3): 285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. La Pelle N. (2004). Simplyfying qualitative data using general purpose software tools. Field Methods 16(1): 85–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemert C. (1997). Postmodernism Is Not What You Think. MA, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  27. Lofland J., Lofland L.H. (1995). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, 3rd edn. Toronto, Wadsworth Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin J.L. (2003). What is field theory?. American Journal of Sociology 109(1): 1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLaughlin E. (1991). Oppositional poverty: The quantitative/qualitative divide and other dichotomies. Sociological Review 39(2): 292–308Google Scholar
  30. Meijer P. Verloop N., Beijaard D. (2002). Multi-method riangulation in a qualitative study on teachers’ practical knowledge: An attempt to increase internal validity. Quality and Quantity 36(2): 145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morales M. (1995). Uses of qualitative/quantitative terms in social and educational research. Quality and Quantity 29(1): 39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrow R.A., Brown D.D. (1994). Critical Theory and Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  33. Payne G., Williams M., Chamberlin S. (2004). Methodological in sociology. Sociology 38(1): 153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ragin C.C., Shulman D., Weinberg A., Gran B. (2003). Complexity, generality, and qualitative comparative analysis. Field Methods 14(4): 323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richards T. (2002). An intellectual history of NUD*IST and NVivo. Journal of Social Research Methodology 5(3): 199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smaling A. (1994). The pragmatic dimension: paradigmatic and pragmatic aspects of choosing a qualitative or quantitative method. Quality and Quantity 28(3): 233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith R.B. (2003). Inferential causal models: Integrating quality & Quality. quality and Quantity. 37(4): 337–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watzlawick P. (1984). The Invented Reality. Watzlawick, New York, W.W. Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar
  39. Woodberry R.D. (1998). When surveys and people tell the truth: How surveys church attenders. American Sociologal Review 63(1): 119–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woolgar S. (1988). Science: The Very Idea. New York, TavistockGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology-AtkinsonYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations