IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v53y2024i3p1035-1070.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Quantitative and Qualitative Research Reflect two Distinct Cultures? An Empirical Analysis of 180 Articles Suggests “noâ€

Author

Listed:
  • David Kuehn
  • Ingo Rohlfing

Abstract

The debate about the characteristics and advantages of quantitative and qualitative methods is decades old. In their seminal monograph, A Tale of Two Cultures (2012 , ATTC ), Gary Goertz and James Mahoney argue that methods and research design practices for causal inference can be distinguished as two cultures that systematically differ from each other along 25 specific characteristics. ATTC’s stated goal is a description of empirical patterns in quantitative and qualitative research. Yet, it does not include a systematic empirical evaluation as to whether the 25 are relevant and valid descriptors of applied research. In this paper, we derive five observable implications from ATTC and test the implications against a stratified random sample of 90 qualitative and 90 quantitative articles published in six journals between 1990–2012. Our analysis provides little support for the two-cultures hypothesis. Quantitative methods are largely implemented as described in ATTC, whereas qualitative methods are much more diverse than ATTC suggests. While some practices do indeed conform to the qualitative culture, many others are implemented in a manner that ATTC characterizes as constitutive of the quantitative culture. We find very little evidence for ATTC's anchoring of qualitative research with set-theoretic approaches to empirical social science research. The set-theoretic template only applies to a fraction of the qualitative research that we reviewed, with the majority of qualitative work incorporating different method choices.

Suggested Citation

  • David Kuehn & Ingo Rohlfing, 2024. "Do Quantitative and Qualitative Research Reflect two Distinct Cultures? An Empirical Analysis of 180 Articles Suggests “noâ€," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 53(3), pages 1035-1070, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:1035-1070
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241221082597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241221082597
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241221082597?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:somere:v:53:y:2024:i:3:p:1035-1070. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.