JOHNSON & ONWUEGBUZIE, 2004: MIXED METHODS RESEARCH: A RESEARCH PARADIGM WHOSE TIME HAS COME Flashcards
With what philosophy are quantitative purists often in line with? Explain
Quantitative purists commonly are in line with positivist philosophy in that they believe that social observation should be treated as entities in the same way that physical scientists treat physical phenomena.
How does the philosophy of qualitative purists contrast with this? (philosophy of quantitative purists)
Qualitative purists (i.e. constructivists and interpretivists) reject positivism. For them constructivist, idealism, humanism, hermeneutics, and postmodernism are superior
What other key concept within science are qualitative and quantitative purists at odds over?
Quantitative purists state that social sciences should be objective.
Qualitative purists state that research is value-bound and impossible to separate from its context.
What is meant by the incompatibility thesis?
Both purists view their own paradigms as the idea for research and advocate the incompatibility thesis. The incompatibility thesis states that qualitative and quantitative research methods can’t and shouldn’t be mixed.
What third research paradigm is possible?
On the other hand, a third research method is possible: the mixed methods research paradigm.
What is the goal of mixed methods research and what is the benefits of this? (2)
The goal of mixed method research is to draw from the strength of both paradigms in single research studies and across studies. By taking a mixed methods approach, researchers are able to mix and match components that give them the best chance of answering their specific research questions. . Additionally, research in a specific domain that usually uses one method can be better informed by using other methods.
Give three similarities in quantitative and qualitative research
- Both use empirical observations to address research questions
- Both sets of researchers incorporate safeguards into their research to minimise confirmation bias and other threats to validity that have the potential to exists in every study
- All research in the social sciences tries to provide evidence for theories about human beings and the environments in which they live and evolve
How is the logic of justification often misinterpreted in research?
Logic of justification is often confused with research methods. In other words, there is a tendency for research to treat epistemology and research methods as synonymous. However, the logic of justification does not say what specific data collection and data analytical methods must be used. Instead, it is an important aspect of epistemology and differs from research methods.
What do modern day positivists claim about evidence interpretation?
Modern day “positivists” claim that science involves confirmation and falsification and that these methods are objective and not subjective.
What do modern day positivists often disregard in their beliefs surrounding objectivity?
They often disregard that there are many human and subjective decisions that are made throughout the research process. Fully objective and value-free research is not possible, but as a goal and ideal it is useful.
On the other hand, what ontology do some qualitative purists admit to? What consequence does this have?
On the other hand, some qualitative purists admit that they use unqualified or strong relativism. This, in its strongest form, hinders the development and use of systematic standard’s for judging research quality.
What do the authors suspect the epistemology is that most qualitative researchers subscribe to?
Most researchers are soft relativists (e.g., respecting the opinions and views of different people and different groups). When dealing with human research, soft relativism simply refers to a respect and interest in understanding and depicting individual and social group differences (i.e., their different perspectives) and a respect for democratic approaches to group opinion and value selection.
Are strong and soft relativism both problematic? Give two reasons why both, one or none are problematic
Yes, . Both strong relativism and strong constructivism are problematic. The claim in qualitative research that multiple, contradictory, but equally valid accounts of the same phenomenon are multiple realities poses many problems. Subjective states that vary from person to person should not be labelled as “realities” but as multiple perspectives or opinions or beliefs. Another problem with this method is attention is not given to providing adequate reasoning for interpretations of the data and methods of analysis are often not transparent.
Most qualitative and quantitative researchers has reached basic agreement on several major points. Name and describe seven of these
- The relativity of the “light of reason”
What appears reasonable can vary across persons. - Theory-laden perception or theory-ladennes of facts
What we notice and observe is affected by our background knowledge, theories, and experiences. Observation is not a perfect and direct window into “reality”. - Underdetermination of theory by evidence
It is possible for more than one theory to fit in a single set of empirical data. - The Duhem-Quine thesis or idea of auxiliary assumptions
A hypothesis cannot be fully tested in isolation because to make the test we also must make various assumptions. The hypothesis is embedded in a holistic networks of beliefs. Alternative explanations will continue to exist. - Problem of induction
The recognition that we only obtain probabilistic evidence, not final proof in empirical research. The future may not resemble the past. - Social nature of the research enterprise
Researcher are embedded in communities and they clearly have and are affected by their attitudes, values, and beliefs. - Value-ladennes of inquiry
Human beings can never be complete value free, and that values affect what we choose to investigate, what we see, and how we interpret what we see.
What is meant by the pragmatic rule?
The pragmatic rule (or maxim, or method) states that the current meaning or instrumental or provisional truth value of an expression is determined by the experiences or practical consequences of the belief in use of the expression in the world.
