What counts as “good” quantitative research and what can we say about when to use quantitative and/or qualitative methods?

Abstract

In response to points raised by Dawson, Fischer, and Stein; Stam; and Stiles, the author delineates what counts as “good” quantitative research according to his proposal for explicitly interpretive quantitative methods. The key points concern how to employ these methods, not which quantitative methods we should use—“strong” rather than “soft” or vice versa. The author discusses ways in which what others would consider “strong” quantitative procedures can be extremely useful, although he argues that these procedures are interpretive. The reconceptualization of quantitative research offered here also suggests that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is much less fundamental than most researchers think. In a consideration of what we can say in general about when to employ quantitative and/or qualitative methods, the author returns to the theme of the limits of possible understanding in psychology.