COMBINING METHODS
One can prevent indiscriminate application of one or other types of methods by spreading knowledge about the nature and limitations of each of them. At the moment there is very little critical understanding of quantitative methods among sociologists in India . Statistical methods are often misused (due to avoidance of assumptions, fallacious use of small samples for ‘show-biz', deliberate concealment of facts, use of computing equipment, and lack of knowledge of appropriate techniques). This charge, however, applies equally to qualitative methods. It is important to note that the problem actually does not lie with the statistical methods or the qualitative methods per se. The actual problem may arise due to misuse of any particular approach. The misuse might occur due to lack of knowledge and ritualistic usage of a method, whether quantitative or qualitative. Statistical methods such as chi-square may be used or abused. The mindful and creative use of statistics may rest some of the criticisms of the positivistic paradigm. Qualitative approach on the other hand has to be evaluated in terms of its quality and reliability. Most of the criticisms of qualitative methods are directed towards the question of validity and reliability.
The aforementioned discussion makes it clear that both the approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. In practice, the distinction between the two is more or less spurious, superficial and not well grounded. What should then be the answer to this debate? A complementary relationship between the two is a good idea, i.e., the idea of triangulation or method-mix or employing multi-method approach is very useful. Operations researchers commonly advocate use of combining different methods, such as questionnaires, interviews, check-lists, content analysis etc., to study the various components of a complex phenomenon. They suggest collapsing the construct into its components (values, ideas, images etc.) and using different methods to study each component.
|
