Abstract
Paradigm-dialogues are important for several reasons. One reason is to clarify what kind of paradigmatical aspects do have an effect on choosing a qualitative or quantitative research method. To be successful a paradigm-dialogue should have informational quality, self-reflective quality, argumentative quality and communicative quality. The argumentative quality, however, should not be of a persuasive or competitive nature because of the partial a-rationality of paradigms. Paradigm-dialogues should be aimed at self-clarification, mutual understanding and sharing learning processes. That is why communicative quality is important to protect and to promote argumentative quality of a non-persuasive kind. Communicative quality should be understood in terms of striving for a dialogical relationship which is characterized by interactivity, communicative symmetry, openness, multiple hermeneutics, mutual trust and respect. Communicative symmetry is feasible and desirable. An ironic attitude may be helpful.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blaikie, N. W. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research. Quality & Quantity, 25: 115–136.
Boer, Th. De (1978). Hermeneutiek en ideologiekritiek. In: H. Kunneman (ed.), Wetenschappen ideologiekritiek. Meppel/Amsterdam: Boom, pp. 96–134.
Boog, B., H. Coenen, L. Keune & R. Lammerts (eds) (1996). Theory and Practice of Action Research. With special reference to The Netherlands, Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Cockcroft, R. & S. M. Cockcroft (1992). Persuading People. An Introduction to Rhetoric. London: Macmillan.
Coenen, H. (1987). Handelingsonderzoek als exemplarisch leren. Groningen: Konstapel.
Elders, F. (1996). Dialogue and meaning. In: Dialogue and Universalism, Vol. 6, Nos. 5–6, pp. 27–40.
Flood, R. L. & N. R. A. Romm (1996). Diversity Management. Triple Loop Learning. Chichester: Wiley.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1960). Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr.
Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In: E. G. Guba (ed.), The Paradigmdialog. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 17–30.
Habermas, J. (1971). Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz. In: J. Habermas & N. Luhmann (eds), Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie — Was leistet die Systemforschung? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, pp. 101–141.
Habermas, J. (1973). Wahrheitstheorien. In: H. Fahrenbach (Hrsg.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion: Pfüllingen: Neske, 211 vv.
Halfpenny, P. (1997). The relation between quantitative and qualitative social research. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologigue 57: 49–64.
Hermans, H. J. M. & H. J. G. Kempen (1993). The Dialogical Self. Meaning as Movement. San Diego: Academic Press.
Heron, J. (1996). Co-Operative Inquiry. Research into the Human Condition. London: Sage.
Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism. Bakhtin and his World. London: Routledge.
Kellendonk, F. (1986). Idolen. From: Oprecht veinzen. In: F. Kellendonk (1992), Het complete werk. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, pp. 847–860.
Kuhn, Th. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2nd edn).
Kuhn, Th. S. (1977). The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kunneman, H. (1986). De waarheidstrechter. Een communicatietheoretisch perspectief opwetenschap en samenleving. Meppel/Amsterdam: Boom
Lincoln, Y. S. & E. G. Guba (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
Linell, P. (1990). The power of dialogue dynamics. In: I. Markovà & K. Foppa (eds), The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 147–177.
Marsh, D. (1980). The Quattrocento Dialogue. Classical Tradition and Humanist Innovation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Reason, P. (ed.) (1994). Participation in Human Inquiry. London: Sage.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smaling, A. (1994). Paradigmatic and pragmatic aspects of choosing a qualitative or quantitative method. Quality & Quantity 28: 233–249.
Smaling, A. (1995). Open-mindedness, open-heartedness and dialogical openness: the dialectics of openings and closures. In: I. Maso, P. Atkinson, S. Delamont & J. Verhoeven (eds), Openness in Research. Assen: Van Gorcum, pp. 21–32.
Smaling, A. (1996a). Qualitative interviewing: contextualization and empowerment. In: I. Maso & F. Wester (eds), The Deliberate Dialogue. Brussel: VUBpress, pp. 15–28.
Smaling, A. (1996b). Argumentation, cooperation and charity in qualitative inquiry. In: Dialogue and Universalism, Nos. 5–6, pp. 163–172.
Smaling, A. (1998). Dialogical partnership — The relationship between the researcher and the researched in action research. In: B. Boog, H. Coenen, L. Keune & R. Lammerts (eds), The Complexity of Relationships in Action Research. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, pp. 1–16.
Smith, J. K. & L. Heshusius (1986). Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitativequalitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher 15: 4–12.
Snyder, J. R. (1989). Writing the Scene of Speaking. Theories of Dialogue in the Late Italian Renaissance. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smaling, A. What Kind of Dialogue Should Paradigm-Dialogues Be?. Quality & Quantity 34, 51–63 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004747524463
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004747524463