Commentaries on “The case for qualitative research”

Abstract

AbstractIn this article, three scholars comment on Fischer and Guzel's (2023) method dialog. The process included initial open discussions between the authors and a number of reviewers. Then commentators provide interpretation and guidance on the published version. All three comments applaud the clear justification for qualitative research and guidance on how it should be enacted, but differ on how JCP readers should prioritize and evaluate quantitative research. Craig Thompson takes a broad philosophy of science perspective building on the inseparability from the topics that are qualitatively studied. That ontology focuses on a context‐based deep understanding of the individual's history, society, and environment. In his role as Associate Editor for JCP, he is uniquely qualified to expand the focus at JCP to be more in line with fields like cognitive anthropology or cultural psychology that accept qualitative and quantitative research. David Mick for his part examines the dialogue from a perspective of psychology broadly defined, generating examples from leaders in analytical and humanistic psychology such as Freud, Maslow, and Rogers. Citing his own qualitative work, he acknowledges difficulties with replication, but recommends case‐based replication within the norms of qualitative research. Finally, Stijn van Osselaer applauds the way qualitative research provides insights that are difficult or impossible to gather using quantitative methods. He encourages (1) quantitative researchers to adopt qualitative researchers' focus on induction and abduction, (2) quantitative researchers to incorporate qualitative studies in their quantitative articles, and (3) both qualitative and quantitative researchers to speak to each other's literatures.