Applying AQAL to the Quantitative/Qualitative Debate in Social Sciences Research

Applying AQAL to the Quantitative/Qualitative Debate in Social Sciences Research
By Timothy G. Black
The author argues that the debate between the relative merits and scientific credibility of quantitative versus qualitative methods in the social sciences is predicated on confusion regarding the definitions of three key terms: empiricism, paradigm, and validation.
Format
PDF
158.1 KB
Published: 01-01-2008
Length: 14 Pages
USD
*100% of all donations go directly to the Integral Planet Endowment and are tax deductible.
A download link will appear in the files tab on your account page after checkout.

Drawing on Integral Theory, the author argues that the debate between the relative merits and scientific credibility of quantitative versus qualitative methods in the social sciences is predicated on confusion regarding the definitions of three key terms: empiricism, paradigm, and validation. The argument is made that both quantitative and qualitative methods are means of representing interior, subjective experience and, in particular, how the confusion of terms has allowed the quantitative/qualitative debate to survive in the social sciences. This article also serves as an introduction to the concept of Integral Methodological Pluralism, contextualized in the quantitative/qualitative debate. The author concludes that, once the confusion regarding these terms is remedied, this debate can be laid to rest once and for all.