Conflict between the quantitative and qualitative inquiry paradigms is ineluctable. Six solutions for resolving the conflict—denial, co-optation, supremacy, replacement, primacy of method, and anarchism—are reviewed and found wanting. In this article I propose that inquirers must choose an inquiry paradigm that is resonant with the values they wish to promote in the conduct of educational inquiry. I defend this modest proposal by examining the values expressed in inquiry paradigms and explain how one chooses an inquiry paradigm to achieve a state of value fit.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BEDNARZ, D.
(1983) “Quantity and quality in evaluation research: a divergent view.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Evaluation Research Society and the Evaluation Network, Chicago.
2.
BERNSTEIN, R. J.
(1983) Beyond Objectivism and Relativism.Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
3.
BROWN, H. I.
(1977) Perception, Theory and Commitment.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
4.
CAMPBELL, D. T.
(1975) “Degrees of freedom and the case study.”Comparative Pol. Studies8: 178-193.
5.
CAMPBELL, D. T.
(1978) “Qualitative knowing in action research,” pp. 184-209 in M. Brenner, P. Marsh and M. Brenner (eds.) The Social Contexts of Method.New York: St. Martins.
6.
COMSTOCK, D. E.
(1983) “A method for critical research,” pp. 370-390 in E. Bredo and W. Feinberg (eds.) Knowledge and Values in Social and Educational Research.Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
7.
ECKBERG, D. L.
and L. HILL, Jr. (1979) “The paradigm concept in sociology: a critical review.”Amer. Soc. Rev.44: 925-937.
8.
FILSTEAD, W. J.
(1979) “Qualitative methods: a needed perspective in evaluation research,” pp. 33-48 in T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (eds.) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
FORESTER, J.
(1983) “Critical theory and organizational analysis,” pp. 234-246 in G. Morgan (ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
FRANKENA, W. K.
(1963) Ethics.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11.
GEERTZ, C.
(1980) “Blurred genres.”Amer. Scholar49: 165-179.
12.
GIBBS, J. C.
(1979) “The meaning of ecologically oriented inquiry in contemporary psychology.”Amer. Psychologist34:127-140.
13.
GLENNON, L. M.
(1983) “Synthesism: a case of feminist methodology,” pp. 260-271 in G. Morgan (ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
GOULDNER, A.
(1970) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology.New York: Basic Books.
15.
GUBA, E. G.
and Y. S. LINCOLN (1981) Effective Evaluation.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
GUBA, E. G.
and Y. S. LINCOLN (1982) “Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry.”Educ. Communication and Technology30: 233-252.
17.
HABERMAS, J.
(1971) Knowledge and Human Interests (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon.
18.
HEILMAN, J. G.
(1980) “Paradigmatic choices in evaluation methodology.”Evaluation Rev.4: 693-712.
19.
HEISENBERG, W.
(1958) Physics and Philosophy.New York: Harper & Row.
20.
HEMPEL, C. G.
(1966) Philosophy of Natural Science.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
HESSE, M.
(1980) Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science.Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.
22.
HOLTON, G.
(1975) “On the role of themata in scientific thought.”Science188: 328-332.
23.
JACOB, E.
(1987) “Qualitative research traditions: a review.”Rev. of Educ. Research57: 1-50.
24.
JAMES, W.
(1957) Essays in Pragmatism.New York: Hafner.
25.
JICK, T. D.
(1983) “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action,” pp. 135-148 in J. Van Maanen (ed.) Qualitative Methodology.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
KAPLAN, A.
(1964) The Conduct of Inquiry.New York: Harper & Row.
27.
KERLINGER, F. N.
(1973) Foundations of Behavioral Research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
28.
KIDDER, L. H.
(1981) Research Methods in Social Relations (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
29.
KNAPP, M. S.
(1979) “Ethnographic contributions to evaluation research,” pp. 118-139 in T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (eds.) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
KUHN, T. S.
(1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
31.
LINCOLN, Y. S.
and E. G. GUBA (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
MILES, M. B.
(1978) “Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis.”Admin. Sci. Q.24: 590-601.
33.
MILES, M. B.
and A. M. HUBERMAN (1984) “Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft.”Educ. Researcher13: 20-30.
34.
MILLS, C. W.
(1958) The Sociological Imagination.New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
35.
MITROFF, I. I.
and T. V. BONOMA (1978) “Psychological assumptions, experimentation, and real world problems.”Evaluation Q.2: 235-259.
36.
MORGAN, G.
(1983a) “Knowledge, uncertainty and choice,” pp. 383-391 in G. Morgan (ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37.
MORGAN, G.
(1983b) “Research as engagement,” pp. 11-18 in G. Morgan (ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
38.
MORGAN, G.
(1983c) “The significance of assumptions,” pp.377-382 in G. Morgan (ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
MORGAN, G.
(1983d) “Toward a more reflective social science,” p. 368-376 in G. Morgan (ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
NEWTON-SMITH, W. H.
(1981) The Rationality of Science.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
41.
PATTON, M. Q.
(1980a) “Making methods choices.”Evaluation and Program Planning3: 219-228.
42.
PATTON, M. Q.
(1980b) Qualitative Evaluation Methods.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43.
PATTON, M. Q.
(1982) Practical Evaluation.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44.
PHILLIPS, D. C.
(1983) “After the wake: postpositivistic educational thought.”Educ. Researcher12: 4-12.
45.
PHILLIPS, D. C.
(1987) Philosophy, Science, and Social Inquiry.New York: Pergamon.
46.
POPPER, K.
(1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery.New York: Harper & Row.
47.
POWERS, J.
(1982) Philosophy and the New Physics.London: Methuen.
48.
REICHENBACH, H.
(1938) Experience and Prediction.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
49.
REICHARDT, C. S.
and T. D. COOK (1979) “Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods,” pp. 7-32 in T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (eds.) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
50.
REICHARDT, C. S.
and T. D. COOK (1980) “ `Paradigms lost:' Some thoughts on choosing methods in evaluation research.”Evaluation and Program Planning3: 229-236.
51.
REINHARZ, S.
(1979) On Becoming a Social Scientist.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
52.
REINHARZ, S.
(1981) “Implementing new paradigm research: a model for training and practice,” pp. 415-435 in P. Reason and J. Rowan (eds.) Human Inquiry.New York: John Wiley.
53.
RUDNER, R. S.
(1966) Philosophy of Social Science.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
54.
SCHWANDT, T. A. (1984) “An examination of alternative models for socio-behavioral inquiry.” Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Dissertation Abstracts International 45 (9), 3007A.
55.
SMITH, J. K.
(1983) “Quantitative versus interpretive: the problem of conducting social inquiry,” pp. 27-51 in E. R. House (ed.) Philosophy of Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation 19.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
56.
SMITH, J. K.
and HESHUSIUS, L. (1986) “Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers.”Educ. Researcher15: 4-12.
57.
TOULMIN, S.
(1983) “The construal of reality: criticism in modern and post-modern science,” pp. 99-117 in W.J.T. Mitchell (ed.) The Politics of Interpretation.Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
58.
TREND, M. G.
(1979) “On the reconciliation of qualitative and quantitative analyses,” pp. 68-86 in T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt (eds.) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
59.
ZUKAV, G.
(1979) The Dancing Wu Li Masters.New York: William Morrow.
