Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Knox, KT (2004)
Publisher: Management Centre International Ltd
Languages: English
Types: Article
In many research textbooks the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is inadvertently linked with philosophical perspectives. This in essence creates a mutually exclusive relationship between method and philosophy. Initially researchers are led to believe, from these textbooks, that research is neatly divided into mutually exclusive categories, these being quantitative and qualitative research and ‘never the twain shall meet’. This divide is further strengthened with the inference that the relationship extends further; associating deduction with quantitative methods and similarly induction with qualitative methods. What happens in most texts is that qualitative research methods and quantitative research methods are set against each other as polar opposites (Crotty 1998, p19). This paper argues that methodological pluralism is acceptable but what is not acceptable is philosophical pluralism. By naively linking methods and approaches to specific philosophy researchers and students may miss out on potentially innovative or creative data collection methods. Alternatively and more importantly by feeling tied or constrained by their philosophical stance to particular methods and approaches, associated with them by textbooks, they may in fact reduce the credibility, validity, and or significance of the research. There maybe an elective affinity between certain philosophies and methods but this should not necessarily constrain the methods chosen.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003). Business Research Methods. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    • Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social Research: meaning and perspective in the research process. London, Sage Publications.
    • Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (2002). 2nd. Management Research: An Introduction. London, Sage Publications.
    • Fogel, R. and Engerman, S. (1974). Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. Boston, Little, Brown and Company.
    • Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitiative Research. Chicago, Aldine.
    • Hussey, J. and Hussey, R. (1997). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. Basingstoke, Macmillan Business.
    • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-hall.
    • Mingers, J. (2003). The paucity of multimethod research: a review of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal 13: 233 - 249.
    • Mutch, A. (2004). Personal communication with Alistair Mutch on the merits of philosphical pluralism and methodological pluralism. K. T. Knox. Nottingham.
    • Pickard, A. and Dixon, P. (2003). The applicability of constructivist user studies: How can constructivist inquiry inform service providers and systems designers? K.T.Knox. Newcastle upon Tyne.
    • Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). 3rd. Research Methods for Business Students, Prentice Hall.
    • Sayer, A. (1992). 2nd. Method in Social Science: A realist approach. London, Routledge.
    • Ticehurst, G. W. and Veal, A. J. (2000). Business Research Methods: a managerial approach, Longman, Pearson Education Pty Limited.
    • Waring, A. (2000). Practical Systems Thinking. London, International Thomson Publishing.
    • Yates, J. S. (2004). Doing Social Science Research. London, Sage Publications in association with the Open University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article