Minding the Gap: Positivism, Psychology, and the Politics of Qualitative Methods

Abstract

This article explores the politics and practices of qualitative research, in particular by interrogating the “gap” between qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Two main claims are elaborated: first, that despite being recommended on grounds of ethical superiority (such as of nonmanipulation and instrumentality), qualitative research is not immune from such problems and may indeed harbor its own practices of exploitation; second, and correspondingly, that the moral high ground associated with qualitative research arises from the ways it is used rather than from any intrinsic features of the methodology. The argument is made that it is important to maintain this distinction in order to counter the tendency toward methodological fetishism so prevalent in scientistic (i.e., aspiring to “natural” scientific status) disciplines such as psychology. After framing these issues with some comments on the current popularity of qualitative methods, the article illustrates these claims by exploring 5 key ways that the positivist agenda of the discovery and control of a natural world can return in qualitative research, especially when this is mistakenly evaluated according to criteria formulated for quantitative analyses. The article concludes with a consideration of the epistemological and political status of attempts either to bridge or exacerbate the gap between qualitative and quantitative approaches.