Quality & Quantity

, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 2063–2077 | Cite as

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer

  • Izhak BerkovichEmail author


Scholarly discourse concerning the distinction between qualitative and quantitative approach often takes on a binary character. This structuralism undermines the legitimacy of positivist qualitative research, a unique method frequently used in social science research. In the present essay, the author argues that positivist qualitative research should be recognized as a unique form of qualitative research. The essay focuses on three issues: (a) the paradigmatic roots of positivist qualitative research, (b) the components of positivist qualitative research as an empirical research approach, including a typology for mapping various manifestations of partially and fully positivist qualitative research, and (c) incorporating a paradigmatic disclaimer section in articles to improve the quality of qualitative research, positivist and non-positivist alike. Recognizing positivist qualitative research as a distinct and legitimate type can improve qualitative studies in social science.


Paradigm Paradigmatic disclaimer Positivism Positivist qualitative research Qualitative research 


  1. Allwood, C.M.: The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic. Qual. Quant. 46(5), 1417–1429 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9455-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashworth, P.D.: Conceptual foundations of qualitative psychology. In: Smith, J.A. (ed.) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide To Research Methods, pp. 4–25. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2008)Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth, P.D.: Qualitative research methods. Estud. pedagóg. (2000). doi: 10.4067/S0718-07052000000100007 Google Scholar
  4. Ashworth, P.D.: The variety of qualitative research. Part one: introduction to the problem. Nurse Educ. Today 17(3), 215–218 (1997). doi: 10.1016/S0260-6917(97)80136-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barzilai, S., Eshet-Alkalai, Y.: The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learn. Instr. 36, 86–103 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkovich, I., Eyal, O.: Methodological review of studies on educational leaders and emotions (1992–2012). Insights into the meaning of an emerging research field in educational administration. J. Educ. Adm. 55(5), 469–491 (2017). doi: 10.1108/JEA-07-2016-0078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernard, H.R.: Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Rowman Altamira, Lanham (2011)Google Scholar
  8. Berry, A.J., Otley, D.T.: Case-based research in accounting. In: Humphrey, C., Lee, B.H. (eds.) The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research, pp. 231–255. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bogdan, C.R., Biklen, S.K.: Qualitative Research for Education. Allyn ve Bacon, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  10. Bryman, A.: The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: a question of method or epistemology? Br. J. Sociol. 35(1), 75–92 (1984). doi: 10.2307/590553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chesebro, J.W., Borisoff, D.J.: What makes qualitative research qualitative? Qual. Res. Rep. Commun. 8(1), 3–14 (2007). doi: 10.1080/17459430701617846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2013)Google Scholar
  13. Deetz, S.: Crossroads—describing differences in approaches to organization science: rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organ. Sci. 7(2), 191–207 (1996). doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.2.191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y.: The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (2nd ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  15. Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.): The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2011)Google Scholar
  16. Denzin, N.K.: The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. Qual. Res. 9(2), 139–160 (2009). doi: 10.1177/1468794108098034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denzin, N.K.: The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 21(4), 315–325 (2008). doi: 10.1080/09518390802136995 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donmoyer, R., Galloway, F.: Reconsidering the utility of case study designs for researching school reform in a neo-scientific era: insights from a multiyear, mixed-methods study. Educ. Adm. Q. 46(1), 3–30 (2009). doi: 10.1177/1094670509353041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisner, E.W.: Are all causal claims positivistic? A reply to Francis Schrag. Educ. Res. 21(5), 8–9 (1992). doi: 10.3102/0013189X021005008 Google Scholar
  20. Firestone, W.A.: Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educ. Res. 22(4), 16–23 (1993). doi: 10.3102/0013189X022004016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Firestone, W.A.: Meaning in method: the rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educ. Res. 16(7), 16–21 (1987). doi: 10.3102/0013189X016007016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., Gall, J.P.: Educational Research. Longman, White Plains, NY (1996)Google Scholar
  23. Gephart Jr., R.P., Richardson, J.: Qualitative research methodologies and international human resource management. In: Stahl, G.K., Björkman, I., Morris, S. (eds.) Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management, pp. 29–52. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2008)Google Scholar
  24. Gephart, R.P.: Qualitative research and the academy of management journal. Acad. Manag. J. 47(4), 454–462 (2004). doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2004.14438580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gill, M.J.: The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 17(2), 118–137 (2014). doi: 10.1177/1094428113518348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giorgi, A.: An application of phenomenological method in psychology. Duquesne Stud. Phenomenol. Psychol. 2, 82–103 (1975). doi: 10.5840/dspp197529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Pub. Co, Chicago (1967)Google Scholar
  28. Goldstein, J., Keohane, R.O.: Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1993)Google Scholar
  29. Goulding, C.: Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greckhamer, T., Koro-Ljungberg, M.: The erosion of a method: examples from grounded theory. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 18(6), 729–750 (2005). doi: 10.1080/09518390500298204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gringeri, C., Barusch, A., Cambron, C.: Epistemology in qualitative social work research: a review of published articles, 2008–2010. Social Work Res. 37(1), 55–63 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S.: Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin N. K., Lincoln Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 163–194. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1994)Google Scholar
  33. Guest, G., Namey, E.E., Mitchell, M.L.: Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2012)Google Scholar
  34. Guest, G.: Describing mixed methods research: an alternative to typologies. J. Mixed Methods Res. 7(2), 141–151 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hammersley, M.: Deconstructing the qualitative–quantitative divide. In: Brannen, J. (ed.) Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, pp. 39–55. Ashgate Publishing Company, Aldershot (1992)Google Scholar
  36. Hammersley, M.: The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In: Richardson, T.S. (ed.) Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology and the Social Sciences, pp. 159–174. BPS Books, Leicester (1996)Google Scholar
  37. Harper, M., Cole, P.: Member checking: can benefits be gained similar to group therapy? Qual. Rep. 17(2), 510–517 (2012)Google Scholar
  38. Head, B.W., Alford, J.: Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Adm. Soc. 47(6), 711–739 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Healy, M., Perry, C.: Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 3(3), 118–126 (2000). doi: 10.1108/13522750010333861 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Howe, K.R.: Against the quantitative–qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educ. Res. 17(8), 10 (1988). doi: 10.2307/1175845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Howe, K.R.: Getting over the quantitative–qualitative debate. Am. J. Educ. 100(2), 236–256 (1992). doi: 10.1086/444015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hsieh, H.F., Shannon, S.E.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15(9), 1277–1288 (2005). doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Huberman, A., Miles, M.: The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hunt, S.D.: positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research: toward critical pluralism and rapprochement. J. Consum. Res. 18(1), 32 (1991). doi: 10.1086/209238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hyde, K.F.: Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 3(2), 82–90 (2000). doi: 10.1108/13522750010322089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., Symon, G.: Defining qualitative management research: an empirical investigation. Qual. Res. Organ. Manag. Int. J. 2(1), 23–42 (2007). doi: 10.1108/17465640710749108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson, P., Cassell, C.: Epistemology and work psychology: new agendas. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 74(2), 125–143 (2001). doi: 10.1348/096317901167280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33(7), 14–26 (2004). doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Deductive reasoning. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50(1), 109–135 (1999). doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kothari, C.R.: Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International, New Delhi (2004)Google Scholar
  51. LeCompte, M.D., Goetz, J.P.: Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Rev. Educ. Res. 52(1), 31–60 (1982). doi: 10.3102/00346543052001031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leech, N.L., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual. Quant. 43(2), 265–275 (2009). doi: 10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lichtman, M.: Qualitative Research for the Social Sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2013)Google Scholar
  54. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1985)Google Scholar
  55. Lincoln, Y.S.: The ethics of teaching in qualitative research. Qual. Inq. 4(3), 315–327 (1998). doi: 10.1177/107780049800400301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lindlof, T.R., Taylor, B.C.: Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2010)Google Scholar
  57. Lund, T.: The qualitative–quantitative distinction: some comments. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 49(2), 115–132 (2005). doi: 10.1080/00313830500048790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Macbeth, D.: On “reflexivity” in qualitative research: two readings, and a third. Qual. Inq. 7(1), 35–68 (2001). doi: 10.1177/107780040100700103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Macionis, J., Gerber, L.: Sociology, 7th edn. Pearson Canada, North York (2010)Google Scholar
  60. Marsh, D., Furlong, P.: A skin not a sweater: ontology and epistemology in political science. In: Marsh, D., Stoker, G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science, pp. 17–41. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Marshall, C., Rossman, G.B.: Designing Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2006)Google Scholar
  62. Marvasti, A.: Qualitative Research in Sociology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  63. Maxwell, J.A.: Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educ. Res. 33(2), 3–11 (2004). doi: 10.3102/0013189X033002003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mays, N., Pope, C.: Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 320(7226), 50–52 (2000). doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McNabb, D.E.: Research Methods for Political Science: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods. Routledge, Abingdon (2015)Google Scholar
  66. Morgan, G., Smircich, L.: The case for qualitative research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 5(4), 491–500 (1980). doi: 10.5465/AMR.1980.4288947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Morrow, S.L.: Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J. Couns. Psychol. 52(2), 250–260 (2005). doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Myers, M.D.: Qualitative Research in Business and Management. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2013)Google Scholar
  69. Nersessian, N.J.: Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In: Magnani, L., Nersessian, N., Thagard, P. (eds.) Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, pp. 5–22. Springer, Berlin (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nkwi, P.N., Nyamongo, I.K., Ryan, G.W.: Field research into socio-cultural issues: methodological guidelines. International Center for Applied Social Sciences, Research, and Training, Yaoundé, Cameroon (2001)Google Scholar
  71. Patton, M.Q.: Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry. Qual. Soc. Work 1(3), 261–283 (2002). doi: 10.1177/1473325002001003636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Payne, G., Williams, M.: Generalization in qualitative research. Sociology 39(2), 295–314 (2005). doi: 10.1177/0038038505050540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Polanyi, M.: The logic of tacit inference. Philos. 41(155), 1–18 (1966)Google Scholar
  74. Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T.: Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 47(11), 1451–1458 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Prasad, P.: Crafting Qualitative Research: Working in the Postpositivist Traditions. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY (2005)Google Scholar
  76. Pratt, M.G.: From the editors: for the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Acad. Manag. J. 52(5), 856–862 (2009). doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.44632557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ragin, C.C.: Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA (1994)Google Scholar
  78. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. (eds.): Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  79. Sadovnik, A.R.: Qualitative research and public policy. In: Fischer F., Miller G., Sidney M.S. (eds.) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory Politics and Methods, pp. 417–427. CRC Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sale, J.E., Lohfeld, L.H., Brazil, K.: Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual. Quant. 36(1), 43–53 (2002). doi: 10.1023/A:1014301607592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sandelowski, M.: Rigor or rigor mortis. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 16(2), 1–8 (1993). doi: 10.1097/00012272-199312000-00002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sarantakos, S.: Social Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2012)Google Scholar
  83. Schrag, F.: In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educ. Res. 21(5), 5–8 (1992). doi: 10.3102/0013189X021005005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Seidman, I.: Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. Teachers College Press, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  85. Smith, J.A. (ed.): Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2015)Google Scholar
  86. Snape, D., Spencer, L.: The foundations of qualitative research. In: Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. (eds.) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Scientists. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2006)Google Scholar
  87. Sobh, R., Perry, C.: Research design and data analysis in realism research. Eur. J. Mark. 40(11/12), 1194–1209 (2006). doi: 10.1108/03090560610702777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Suddaby, R.: From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Acad. Manag. J. 49(4), 633–642 (2006). doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tan, J., Fischer, E., Mitchell, R., Phan, P.: At the center of the action: innovation and technology strategy research in the small business setting. J. Small Bus. Manage. 47(3), 233–262 (2009). doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00270.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wang, Y., Bowers, A.J.: Mapping the field of educational administration research: a journal citation network analysis. J. Educ. Adm. 54(3), 242–269 (2016). doi: 10.1108/JEA-02-2015-0013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Woolgar, S.: Reflexivity is the ethnographer of text. In: Woolgar, S. (ed.) Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge, pp. 14–36. Sage, London (1988)Google Scholar
  92. Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education and PsychologyThe Open University of IsraelRa’ananaIsrael

Personalised recommendations