IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v40y1995i4p459-468.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Researching public health: Behind the qualitative-quantitative methodological debate

Author

Listed:
  • Baum, Frances

Abstract

Debates about appropriate methodologies for studying public health problems have tended to be polarized. Traditionalists, advocating the use of epidemiology and other methods drawn from a reductionist research tradition have tended to devalue the potential contribution of more interpretive research methods. Those advocating the use of more qualitative methods have often established the legitimacy of these methods by criticising the contribution of quantitative techniques. These debates often mask more fundamental differences in epistemology and approaches to dealing with the issues of power raised by research which aims to be compatible with the philosophy of the new public health. This paper argues that these underlying issues are crucial to contemporary public health debates and the methods are simply tools that are used to further knowledge and have no inherent status as sound or unsound. Public health problems result from complex social, economic, political, biological, genetic and environmental causes. A range of methods are needed to tackle these and public health researchers are most effective when they are eclectic in their choice of methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Baum, Frances, 1995. "Researching public health: Behind the qualitative-quantitative methodological debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 459-468, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:4:p:459-468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)E0103-Y
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Divine Ikenwilo & Sebastian Heidenreich & Mandy Ryan & Colette Mankowski & Jameel Nazir & Verity Watson, 2018. "The Best of Both Worlds: An Example Mixed Methods Approach to Understand Men’s Preferences for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 55-67, February.
    2. Theobald, Sally & Nhlema-Simwaka, Bertha, 2008. "The research, policy and practice interface: Reflections on using applied social research to promote equity in health in Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 760-770, September.
    3. Schoon, Rebecca & Chi, Chunhuei, 2022. "Integrating Citizens Juries and Discrete Choice Experiments: Methodological issues in the measurement of public values in healthcare priority setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    4. Joanna Sale & Lynne Lohfeld & Kevin Brazil, 2002. "Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 43-53, February.
    5. Kim, Tae Hyun & Wu, Cheng-Lung & Koo, Tae-Ryang, 2017. "Implications of the ageing society and internationalisation for airport services: A perspective on passenger demand for personal space at airport terminals," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 84-92.
    6. Hentschel, Jesko, 1998. "Distinguishing between types of data and methods of collecting them," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1914, The World Bank.
    7. Yulia Kartalova-O'Doherty & Donna Tedstone Doherty, 2009. "Satisfied Carers of Persons With Enduring Mental Illness: Who and Why?," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 55(3), pages 257-271, May.
    8. Jolley, Gwyneth, 2014. "Evaluating complex community-based health promotion: Addressing the challenges," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 71-81.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:40:y:1995:i:4:p:459-468. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.