Methodological Joints: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Methodological validity is achieved by obtaining consistent results using different methods. This is the core of Triangulation, specifically methodological triangulation.
The increased activity of subjects observed in the research process ensures that observation methods are not perceived as an external imposition. This is the core of Joint Integration, which shares features with joint chains but adds a crucial element: the participation of the observed subjects. These participants contribute significantly to understanding research results and applying them to other design techniques.
These four types of joints are ideally present to varying degrees in complex social research patterns.
The first emphasizes complementarity, while the second, chained, focuses on approaches. The logic of triangulation can be extended significantly. The four types of joints can be seen as degrees on a spectrum. As joint integration increases, different parts or techniques occupy intermediate positions, moving from triangulation to articulation chains. The results of one approach are integrated into the next, and so on.
USE OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
The articulation of various technical and social research practices involves different perspectives, such as quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Reflection on what divides and unites quantitative and qualitative methods: the same object of inquiry can be addressed quantitatively (number of occurrences, unit size, distribution of results) or qualitatively (text structure analysis, stakeholder identification).
The differences appear minor, and most studies articulate qualitative and quantitative perspectives.
The quantitative-qualitative linkage has various names and overlaps with other terms like triangulation. The lack of a specific designation highlights the need for reflection on methodological aspects. The joint use of quantitative and qualitative techniques, while not a formal doctrine, has gained significant attention recently.
The articulation between these two types of techniques stems from the opposition between two identities. This position overlooks that both quantitative and qualitative methods belong to the same family, derived from the verb ‘quaero,’ meaning to ask or inquire. Moreover, these identities are not isolated; they are constituted in relation to each other:
- Deductive logic of quantitative versus inductive logic of qualitative
- Enumerative induction versus analytic induction
- Objective facts versus social construction of reality
- Centrality of variables versus interactive processes and events
- Reliability versus external validity
- Independence of context versus situational context
- Statistical analysis versus thematic analysis
- Researcher distance versus researcher involvement
One of the primary objectives of the proposed joint approach is to address these positions. Bryman describes two ways of understanding this opposition:
- Epistemological level: Quality and quantity are seen as distinct paradigms. According to Guba, paradigms cannot be combined.
- Technical level: The qualitative-quantitative difference presents few obstacles to a research strategy that includes both. In practice, combining approaches creatively is possible.