Several reviewers have commented that this book basically applies quantitative and statistical reasoning to qualitative research, and that the authors make some major errors in doing so. I don't want to address their misunderstandings of statistics, which other reviewers have identified, but to point out that, contrary to those reviewers who think this book "is excellent as a guide to what an optimal qualitative research design should be," KK&V fundamentally misunderstand qualitative research, and attempt to force this into a quantitative framework that completely misses the actual logic and rigor of qualitative inquiry. Their book has, however, been quite influential and controversial, and has prompted several major rejoinders within political science that attempt to correct KK&V's misunderstandings (Henry Brady & David Collier, Rethinking Social Inquiry; Alexander George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences; Gary Goertz & Jack Levy (Eds.), Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals).



Understanding this debate requires noting a peculiarity of qualitative research in political science (often called "case study research" in this field): that qualitative researchers in political science often describe what they're doing in terms of "variables." In almost all other fields, qualitative researchers don't think of what they're doing in terms of variables, but in terms of events and processes. This difference is connected to two quite different ways of understanding causality: the "regularity" view (derived from David Hume's analysis of causality) that defines causality as simply the regular association of variables, and denies that there is anything beyond this (the standard view in philosophy for much of the 20th century), and a "realist," "process," or "causal/mechanical" approach, which has become prominent in philosophy more recently, that sees causality as the actual mechanisms and processes by which one event or phenomenon influences another. I don't have the space to go into this issue in the detail it requires (in philosophy, see Wesley Salmon, Causality and Explanation; Peter Manicas, A Realist Philosophy of Social Science: Explanation and Understanding; for the implications for qualitative research, see my paper "Causal Explanation, Qualitative Research, and Scientific Inquiry in Education," published in Educational Researcher 33(2), pp. 3-11, March 2004). The point is that imposing a "variable" or "regularity" understanding of causality on qualitative research completely misconceives the way in which most qualitative researchers think about what they're doing. For a more accurate understanding of qualitative research design, see my book Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, or Catherine Marshall & Gretchen Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research.



Joe Maxwell

Скачать книгу бесплатно (pdf, 1.58 Mb)

---

Читать «Designing Social Inquiry»