Reawakening the Qualitative/Quantitative Debate

Author #1

Abstract

This paper presents a case for reawakening the qualitative/quantitative debate in IS research. By exploring how quantitative and qualitative methods may be intrinsically bound up to their traditional paradigms of positivism and interpretivism, the paper asks researchers to consider whether quantitative methods are inextricably linked to an ontology of a true reality that can be identified and described, and whether qualitative inquiry holds intrinsic the assumption that only a subjective understanding of individuals and society is possible, or whether these methods can be detached from paradigmatic assumptions and be considered rigorous and worthwhile for use in their own right within different paradigms, rather than being considered secondary and limited if used within their non-traditional paradigm. The paper asks whether we can and should apply the knowledge claims made within another paradigm to our own research and build upon these claims, arguing that at the very least the ideas developed in other paradigms should be given some merit, even if as individual researchers we feel the need to test those ideas using our own methods.

 

Reawakening the Qualitative/Quantitative Debate

This paper presents a case for reawakening the qualitative/quantitative debate in IS research. By exploring how quantitative and qualitative methods may be intrinsically bound up to their traditional paradigms of positivism and interpretivism, the paper asks researchers to consider whether quantitative methods are inextricably linked to an ontology of a true reality that can be identified and described, and whether qualitative inquiry holds intrinsic the assumption that only a subjective understanding of individuals and society is possible, or whether these methods can be detached from paradigmatic assumptions and be considered rigorous and worthwhile for use in their own right within different paradigms, rather than being considered secondary and limited if used within their non-traditional paradigm. The paper asks whether we can and should apply the knowledge claims made within another paradigm to our own research and build upon these claims, arguing that at the very least the ideas developed in other paradigms should be given some merit, even if as individual researchers we feel the need to test those ideas using our own methods.