A Justice Site
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: April 12, 2004
Latest Update: April 12, 2004
Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, April 2004.
"Fair use" encouraged.
Arteology or the Science of Artefacts This site by Pentti Routio, University of Art and Design, Helsinki, does a good job of making sense of the qulaitative/quantitative dilemma. For example, he speaks of the difference between descriptive and normative research:" Many researchers earlier wanted to make a sharp distinction between descriptive and normative research. The former was regarded as "objective" and "universally true" while the latter was "subjective" and influenced by personal values, which are variable. Today the general opinion is that no researcher can wholly eliminate his values and thus there is no absolute division between the two modes of research." ?
The whole methodological field is in flux today, which makes it hard for those of you who are trying to learn the basics. Just remember that there are always multiple perspectives, and that there is always new information. That makes sense because even if the world weren't changing all by itself, we do things to it and in it, and create changes. Whenever something doesn't make sense in the real world in methodology, ask someone who is an informed respondent. Someone who is supposed to know. Then take whatever he/she knows with a grain of salt, allowing for change and for perspective. But for goodness' sakes, don't try to reinvent the wheel. We have informed respondents just so we won't have to reinvent the wheel. We call them "experts."
I know you have a question that asks which measurements are quantitative and which are qualitative. If it helps, you can tell your professors that even I don't know. I should have thought that nominal measurement, since it involves no more than naming, would need some qualitative filling out to make sense. But I've never heard it described that way. Ordinal measures can be ranked from high to low or low to high. Does that obviate the need for qualitative measures??? What's the dilemma here? It's a term of art someone is using that reflects a specific textual context. I'm sure it makes sense if you know the contextual context, but I don't. So what do you do? Ask an informed respondent. Check with Dr. Blischke and Dr. Ryave and find out what the textual context is. Then the question will be as simple as "nominal definition" and "real definition." Please don't look up "real" in the dictionary!