What counts as "good" quantitative research and what can we say about when to use quantitative and/or qualitative methods?

Michael A. Westerman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In response to points raised by Dawson, Fischer, and Stein; Stam; and Stiles, the author delineates what counts as "good" quantitative research according to his proposal for explicitly interpretive quantitative methods. The key points concern how to employ these methods, not which quantitative methods we should use-"strong" rather than "soft" or vice versa. The author discusses ways in which what others would consider "strong" quantitative procedures can be extremely useful, although he argues that these procedures are interpretive. The reconceptualization of quantitative research offered here also suggests that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is much less fundamental than most researchers think. In a consideration of what we can say in general about when to employ quantitative and/or qualitative methods, the author returns to the theme of the limits of possible understanding in psychology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)263-274
Number of pages12
JournalNew Ideas in Psychology
Volume24
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2006

Fingerprint

Research
Qualitative Research
Research Personnel
Psychology

Keywords

  • Hermeneutics
  • Interpretation
  • Measurement
  • Practices
  • Qualitative research
  • Quantitative methods

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

What counts as "good" quantitative research and what can we say about when to use quantitative and/or qualitative methods? / Westerman, Michael A.

In: New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 3, 12.2006, p. 263-274.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{795255b3f95645c28a514785fff59af7,
title = "What counts as {"}good{"} quantitative research and what can we say about when to use quantitative and/or qualitative methods?",
abstract = "In response to points raised by Dawson, Fischer, and Stein; Stam; and Stiles, the author delineates what counts as {"}good{"} quantitative research according to his proposal for explicitly interpretive quantitative methods. The key points concern how to employ these methods, not which quantitative methods we should use-{"}strong{"} rather than {"}soft{"} or vice versa. The author discusses ways in which what others would consider {"}strong{"} quantitative procedures can be extremely useful, although he argues that these procedures are interpretive. The reconceptualization of quantitative research offered here also suggests that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is much less fundamental than most researchers think. In a consideration of what we can say in general about when to employ quantitative and/or qualitative methods, the author returns to the theme of the limits of possible understanding in psychology.",
keywords = "Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Measurement, Practices, Qualitative research, Quantitative methods",
author = "Westerman, {Michael A.}",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.10.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "263--274",
journal = "New Ideas in Psychology",
issn = "0732-118X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What counts as "good" quantitative research and what can we say about when to use quantitative and/or qualitative methods?

AU - Westerman, Michael A.

PY - 2006/12

Y1 - 2006/12

N2 - In response to points raised by Dawson, Fischer, and Stein; Stam; and Stiles, the author delineates what counts as "good" quantitative research according to his proposal for explicitly interpretive quantitative methods. The key points concern how to employ these methods, not which quantitative methods we should use-"strong" rather than "soft" or vice versa. The author discusses ways in which what others would consider "strong" quantitative procedures can be extremely useful, although he argues that these procedures are interpretive. The reconceptualization of quantitative research offered here also suggests that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is much less fundamental than most researchers think. In a consideration of what we can say in general about when to employ quantitative and/or qualitative methods, the author returns to the theme of the limits of possible understanding in psychology.

AB - In response to points raised by Dawson, Fischer, and Stein; Stam; and Stiles, the author delineates what counts as "good" quantitative research according to his proposal for explicitly interpretive quantitative methods. The key points concern how to employ these methods, not which quantitative methods we should use-"strong" rather than "soft" or vice versa. The author discusses ways in which what others would consider "strong" quantitative procedures can be extremely useful, although he argues that these procedures are interpretive. The reconceptualization of quantitative research offered here also suggests that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is much less fundamental than most researchers think. In a consideration of what we can say in general about when to employ quantitative and/or qualitative methods, the author returns to the theme of the limits of possible understanding in psychology.

KW - Hermeneutics

KW - Interpretation

KW - Measurement

KW - Practices

KW - Qualitative research

KW - Quantitative methods

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846662350&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846662350&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.10.004

DO - 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.10.004

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 263

EP - 274

JO - New Ideas in Psychology

JF - New Ideas in Psychology

SN - 0732-118X

IS - 3

ER -