Abstract
Methodological discussions often oversimplify by distinguishing between ‘the’ quantitative and ‘the’ qualitative paradigm and arguing that quantitative research processes are organized in a linear, deductive way while qualitative research processes are organized in a circular and inductive way. When comparing two selected quantitative traditions (survey research and big data research) with three qualitative research traditions (qualitative content analysis, grounded theory and social-science hermeneutics), a much more complex picture is revealed: The only differentiation that can be upheld is how of ‘objectivity’ and ‘intersubjectivity’ are defined. In contrast, all research traditions agree that partiality is endangering intersubjectivity and objectivity. Countermeasures are self-reflexion and transforming partiality into perspectivity by using social theory. Each research tradition suggests further countermeasures such as falsification, triangulation, parallel coding, theoretical sensitivity and interpretation groups. When looking at the overall organization of the research process, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research cannot be uphold. Neither is it a continuum between quantitative research, content analysis, grounded theory and social-science hermeneutics. Rather, grounded theory starts inductively and with a general research question at beginning of analysis which is focused during selective coding. The later research process is organized in a linear way, making strong use of theoretical sampling. All other traditions start research deductively and formulate the research question as precisely as possible at the beginning of the analysis and then organize the overall research process in a linear way. In contrast, data analysis is organized in a circular way. One consequence of this paper is that mixing and combining qualitative and quantitative methods becomes both easier (because the distinction is not as grand as it seems at first sight) and more difficult (because some tricky issues of mixing specific to mixing specific type of methods are usually not addressed in mixed methods discourse).
Highlights
If one reframes the question, the debate between “positivism” and “constructivism” implodes, as the comparison of the four research traditions reviewed in this paper illustrates: Quantitative research, qualitative content analysis, grounded theory and social-science hermeneutics all make a strong argument that social theory is absolutely necessary for guiding the research process2
I have shown how four research traditions handle six issues to be resolved when deciding on a social science research design, namely: How is researchers’ perspectivity handled during the research process? How can intersubjectivity be achieved, and what does “objectivity” mean in this context? When and how is the research question is focused? Does the research process start deductively or inductively? Are the diverse research phases organized in a linear or circular way? Is data analysis organized in a linear or circular way? For each of these issues, I have discussed how the four traditions resemble and differ from each other
Quantitative research has always iterated between deduction, induction and abduction, and concerning the overall organization of the research process, quantitative research has recently tried to dissolve linearity as much as possible, as exemplified in the concept of the “Survey Life Cycle.” 2
Summary
I will conclude the paper by discussing what this means for the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research as well as mixed methods research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
