Content area
Full Text
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7&domain=pdf
Web End = Qual Quant (2015) 49:26172632
DOI 10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7
Kendra L. Koivu Erin Kimball Damman
Published online: 22 November 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Epistemological differences between positivists and interpretivists and methodological divisions between quantitative and qualitative scholars elide very important divisions within qualitative methods based on ontology. These differences can lead qualitative methodologists to make conicting prescriptions and embrace incompatible standards. Though divergent standards may divide qualitative methodologists, what unite them are similar tools.
Keywords Qualitative methods Set theory Interpretive methods
Scholars commonly encounter the acronym KKV in the opening remarks of research on qualitative methods. KKV refers to the King, Keohane and Verba (1994) volume Designing Social Inquiry, wherein the authors outline the schematics for qualitative research design, while also providing a synthesis of mainstream quantitative methods. The volumes advice urged qualitative researchers to take cues from their quantitative counterparts to augment their inferential leverage on empirical testing.
Though debates about the utility of statistical versus case study research had been ongoing within the social sciences for decades, the publication of KKV in 1994 engendered a number of well-reasoned responses, some in favor of the volumes recommendations, some more critical of the privileged position granted to the quantitative template. The critical voice grew in volume and culminated in the edited piece by Brady and Collier, Rethinking Social Inquiry (2004; 2010, hereafter RSI). RSI reprinted a number of earlier articles questioning the recommendations of KKV, while also presenting new work on qualitative methods. Sections
K. L. Koivu
University of New Mexico, Social Sciences Room 2048, MSC05 3070, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USAe-mail: [email protected]
E. K. Damman (B)
Florida International University, MMC, SIPA 405, 11200 SW 8th St, Miami, FL 33199, USA e-mail: [email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7&domain=pdf
Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11135-014-0131-7&domain=pdf
Web End = Qualitative variations: the sources of divergent qualitative methodological approaches
123
2618 K. L. Koivu, E. K. Damman
include critiques of the quantitative template, discussions of tools for qualitative research, and suggestions on how to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches within one research design.
The contribution of RSI notwithstanding, qualitative methodologists still...