This week’s Yin (1981) reading was interesting in replying to
Matthew Miles’ conclusion that “qualitative research on organizations cannot be
expected to transcend story-telling.” When Yin mentions that Miles described
qualitative research as not rational, and of less scientific value, I
remembered one of the first Luker (2010) readings we had done where she discussed the
traditional gendered separation between quantitative and qualitative research. I
couldn’t help but think that gender wasn’t the main differentiating factor
among these different types of research; it seems to also come with
perspective. You’ll notice that more traditional scholars tend to have Miles’
sort of perspective because cold hard facts represent that sort of clarity and
correctness I guess we strive for as academics. It mirrors that whole concept
of our search for the capital-T Truth. Newer, more open and innovative minds
embrace all the messy questions and answers that come with studying humans from
a social science perspective. In this world, the questions and answers change
and evolve as the world evolves (in our case, how information evolves), and it’s
necessary for us to also evolve our traditional rigid views of the hard and fast
method of studying things accordingly. Qualitative research allows us to linger
in the messy data, as opposed to creating a neat narrative.
Luker, K. (2010). Salsa dancing into the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yin, R.K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58-65.
No comments:
Post a Comment