Squeezing dried fruits: Mixed methods, methodological dogmatism and methodological eclecticism
Vladimir Ilić
Abstract
Open-access reader
Vladimir Ilić
Abstract
Open-access reader
In this paper the relations among qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches are considered. Basic evidence for this methodological analysis is consisted by Vladan Vidicki`s and Snezana Stojsin`s article and Zivan Ristic`s book devoted to this topic. Vidicki and Stojsin are critics of methodological dogmatism related to rival approach. Their comprehension is analyzed in the first and second sections of the paper. Third section deals with Ristic`s criticism of methodological eclecticism. Forth part of the paper explores particular issue of relations of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approach to different paradigms. In the conclusion is stated that division among qulatitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach is artificial and disadvantageous. It is emphasized that the division embarrasses the development of sociological theory and that its focusing to the role of research objectives is related to social reformism.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In this paper the relations among qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches are considered. Basic evidence for this methodological analysis is consisted by Vladan Vidicki`s and Snezana Stojsin`s article and Zivan Ristic`s book devoted to this topic. Vidicki and Stojsin are critics of methodological dogmatism related to rival approach. Their comprehension is analyzed in the first and second sections of the paper. Third section deals with Ristic`s criticism of methodological eclecticism. Forth part of the paper explores particular issue of relations of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approach to different paradigms. In the conclusion is stated that division among qulatitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach is artificial and disadvantageous. It is emphasized that the division embarrasses the development of sociological theory and that its focusing to the role of research objectives is related to social reformism.
Key concepts: Eclecticism, Epistemology, Multimethodology, Sociology, Criticism, Qualitative research, Comprehension, Social science