Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T19:11:50.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Believability and Doubtfulness: A Paradigmatic View of Qualitative Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

Ron Levy
Ron Levy
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the past, the focus of the literature concerning the comparison between quantitative and qualitative research has been on the relative warrants of the methodology of each approach. The aim of this essay is to reformulate this argument in terms of paradigmatic perspectives. In this respect, descriptions of the realist paradigm which determines quantitative methods and the constructivist paradigm which determines qualitative methods are laid out. It is shown that these paradigms are essentially incommensurate and direct comparisons are counter-productive. It is, in addition, suggested that the choice of one paradigm over the other is more a distinction between the relative values of research exactitude and research sufficiency and, as such, a question of believability.

Résumé

Par le passé, les textes comparant la recherche quantitative et la recherche qualitative mettaient l'accent sur la crédibilité relative de la méthodologie de chacune des approches. Le but de cet article est de resituer ce débat au niveau des perspectives paradigmatiques qui sous-tendent l'une et l'autre approche méthodologique. Le paradigme réaliste qui produit les méthodes quantitatives et le paradigme constructiviste qui produit les méthodes qualitatives sont décrits. L'auteur démontre que ces deux paradigmes sont essentiellement incommensurables et que toute comparaison directe est oiseuse. Enfin, l'auteur suggère que le choix d'un paradigme plutôt que l'autre est plus une distinction entre les valeurs relatives accordées à l'exactitude ou à la suffisance de la recherche et, comme tel, qu'il constitue une question de croyance.

Keywords

Qualitative MethodsInterpretive MethodsRealist ParadigmConstructivist Paradigm.Méthodes qualitativesméthodes interprétativesparadigme réalisteparadigme constructiviste.
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 12 , Issue 2: Qualitative Methods/Les méthodes qualitatives , Été/Summer 1993 , pp. 233 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1977). L'acteur et le système. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Deslauriers, J.-P. (Ed.). (1987). Les méthodes de la recherche qualitative. Sillery: Presses de l'Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Dupuy, J.-P. (1982). Ordres et désordres: Enquête sur un nouveau paradigme, Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Goodwin, L.A., & Goodwin, W.L. (1984). Are validity and reliability “relevant” in qualitative evaluation research? Evaluation and the Health Professions, 7(4), 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guba, E.G. (1990). The paradigm dialogue. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Herzog, D. (1989). Happy slaves: A critique of consent theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leininger, M. (1992). Current issues, problems and trends to advance qualitative paradigmatic research methods for the future. Qualitative Health Research, 2(4), 392–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Moigne, J.-L. (1977). La théorie du système general: Théorie de la modélisation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y.S. (1992). Sympathetic connections between qualitative methods and health research. Qualitative Health Research, 2(4), 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C, & Rossman, C.B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Murphy, J.P. (1990). Pragmatism: From Peirce to Davidson. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Pourtois, J.-P., & Desmet, H. (1989). Pour une recherche qualitative et néanmoins scientifique. Réseaux, 55–56–57, 13–35.Google Scholar
Rochberg-Halton, E. (1986). Meaning and modernity: Social theory in the pragmatic attitude. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sandelowsky, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Research, 8(3), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales from the field. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wartofsky, M.W. (1979). Models. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, W.F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar