THE DEBATE BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODS
As explained in Module 1, demographers are frequent users of statistical modelling and advanced statistical methods. They use latest versions of regression analysis, factor analysis and multidimensional scaling. In the recent times, however, there is a greater appreciation of qualitative methods. Today in population studies, as in other social sciences, qualitative methods such as participatory rapid (or relaxed) appraisal, discourse analysis, narratives, case history methods, biographical methods are more in demand than the advance statistical techniques. Importance of qualitative methods is derived from greater appreciation of multiparadigmatic and shifting paradigmatic stances in various fields of social sciences, metatheoretical commitments, and growing popularity of postmodernism. All this also implies popular distrust of experts, importance of subjective and social representations, historical research, and empowerment. Social constructionists have diverted attention of researchers from exploring the causal connections to understanding of the knowledge which is taken for granted.
Today in sociology in general and in population studies in particular, qualitative methods such as participatory rapid (or relaxed) appraisal, discourse analysis, narratives, case history methods, and biographical methods are as much in demand as the advance statistical techniques. They are very useful tools of operations (policy) research.
Yet, for a long time, sociologists favoured one of the two approaches – statistical and qualitative - and took a rigid stand on the matter. A polarity between the quantitative and qualitative methods has emerged very clearly in the disciplines of sociology and psychology. While a large number of researchers, for example, believe that meaningful research cannot be carried out without employing statistical tools, an equally strong number of researchers seem to be absolutely dissatisfied with this approach. Historically sociologists have always endeavoured to bring sociology at par with pure sciences. This is true for both those who used methodological structuralism and those who used methodological individualism. However, for several years now, social scientists have been critical of such an approach and view it as a major source of narrowness in research. A considered view would be that no particular method is essential to social science research in all circumstances. Which method should be used and whether several methods should be used in combination, depends on the purpose and approach of the study. |
