跨学科领域的“定性”和“定量”方法和途径:对研究价值、假设和实践的影响

Q1 Mathematics Quality & Quantity Pub Date : 2023-09-30 DOI:10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4
Nick Pilcher, Martin Cortazzi
{"title":"跨学科领域的“定性”和“定量”方法和途径:对研究价值、假设和实践的影响","authors":"Nick Pilcher, Martin Cortazzi","doi":"10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is considerable literature showing the complexity, connectivity and blurring of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods in research. Yet these concepts are often represented in a binary way as independent dichotomous categories. This is evident in many key textbooks which are used in research methods courses to guide students and newer researchers in their research training. This paper analyses such textbook representations of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' in 25 key resources published in English (supported by an outline survey of 23 textbooks written in German, Spanish and French). We then compare these with the perceptions, gathered through semi-structured interviews, of university researchers (n = 31) who work in a wide range of arts and science disciplines. The analysis of what the textbooks say compared to what the participants report they do in their practice shows some common features, as might be assumed, but there are significant contrasts and contradictions. The differences tend to align with some other recent literature to underline the complexity and connectivity associated with the terms. We suggest ways in which future research methods courses and newer researchers could question and positively deconstruct such binary representations in order to free up directions for research in practice, so that investigations can use both quantitative or qualitative approaches in more nuanced practices that are appropriate to the specific field and given context of investigations.","PeriodicalId":49649,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Quantity","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices\",\"authors\":\"Nick Pilcher, Martin Cortazzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract There is considerable literature showing the complexity, connectivity and blurring of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods in research. Yet these concepts are often represented in a binary way as independent dichotomous categories. This is evident in many key textbooks which are used in research methods courses to guide students and newer researchers in their research training. This paper analyses such textbook representations of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' in 25 key resources published in English (supported by an outline survey of 23 textbooks written in German, Spanish and French). We then compare these with the perceptions, gathered through semi-structured interviews, of university researchers (n = 31) who work in a wide range of arts and science disciplines. The analysis of what the textbooks say compared to what the participants report they do in their practice shows some common features, as might be assumed, but there are significant contrasts and contradictions. The differences tend to align with some other recent literature to underline the complexity and connectivity associated with the terms. We suggest ways in which future research methods courses and newer researchers could question and positively deconstruct such binary representations in order to free up directions for research in practice, so that investigations can use both quantitative or qualitative approaches in more nuanced practices that are appropriate to the specific field and given context of investigations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality & Quantity\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality & Quantity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Quantity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01734-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大量文献显示了研究中“定性”和“定量”方法的复杂性、连通性和模糊性。然而,这些概念往往以一种二元的方式表示为独立的二分类。这在研究方法课程中用于指导学生和新研究人员进行研究训练的许多关键教科书中都很明显。本文分析了英语出版的25种主要资源(以德语、西班牙语和法语编写的23种教科书的大纲调查为支持)中“定性”和“定量”的教科书表征。然后,我们将这些与通过半结构化访谈收集到的看法进行比较,这些访谈是由从事广泛艺术和科学学科的大学研究人员(n = 31)进行的。将教科书上所说的内容与参与者在实践中所做的报告进行比较,可以发现一些共同的特征,这可能是假设的,但也存在显著的对比和矛盾。这些差异倾向于与其他一些最近的文献一致,以强调与术语相关的复杂性和连通性。我们建议未来的研究方法课程和新研究人员可以质疑并积极解构这种二元表示,以便为实践中的研究提供方向,以便调查可以在更细致的实践中使用定量或定性方法,这些方法适合于特定领域和给定的调查背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
'Qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices
Abstract There is considerable literature showing the complexity, connectivity and blurring of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' methods in research. Yet these concepts are often represented in a binary way as independent dichotomous categories. This is evident in many key textbooks which are used in research methods courses to guide students and newer researchers in their research training. This paper analyses such textbook representations of 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' in 25 key resources published in English (supported by an outline survey of 23 textbooks written in German, Spanish and French). We then compare these with the perceptions, gathered through semi-structured interviews, of university researchers (n = 31) who work in a wide range of arts and science disciplines. The analysis of what the textbooks say compared to what the participants report they do in their practice shows some common features, as might be assumed, but there are significant contrasts and contradictions. The differences tend to align with some other recent literature to underline the complexity and connectivity associated with the terms. We suggest ways in which future research methods courses and newer researchers could question and positively deconstruct such binary representations in order to free up directions for research in practice, so that investigations can use both quantitative or qualitative approaches in more nuanced practices that are appropriate to the specific field and given context of investigations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality & Quantity
Quality & Quantity 管理科学-统计学与概率论
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
276
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality and Quantity constitutes a point of reference for European and non-European scholars to discuss instruments of methodology for more rigorous scientific results in the social sciences. In the era of biggish data, the journal also provides a publication venue for data scientists who are interested in proposing a new indicator to measure the latent aspects of social, cultural, and political events. Rather than leaning towards one specific methodological school, the journal publishes papers on a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative data. Furthermore, the journal’s key aim is to tackle some methodological pluralism across research cultures. In this context, the journal is open to papers addressing some general logic of empirical research and analysis of the validity and verification of social laws. Thus The journal accepts papers on science metrics and publication ethics and, their related issues affecting methodological practices among researchers. Quality and Quantity is an interdisciplinary journal which systematically correlates disciplines such as data and information sciences with the other humanities and social sciences. The journal extends discussion of interesting contributions in methodology to scholars worldwide, to promote the scientific development of social research.
期刊最新文献
Biodegradable electronics: a two-decade bibliometric analysis Developing the halal-sufficiency scale: a preliminary insight Measuring income inequality via percentile relativities. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches / sixth edition Using biograms to promote life course research. An example of theoretical case configuration relating to paths of social exclusion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1