A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences

by Gary Goertz, James Mahoney

Some in the social sciences argue that the same logic applies to both qualitative and quantitative methods. In A Tale of Two Cultures , Gary Goertz and James Mahoney demonstrate that these two paradigms constitute different cultures, each internally coherent yet marked by contrasting norms, practices, and toolkits. They identify and discuss major differences between these two traditions that touch nearly every aspect of social science research, including design, goals, causal effects and models, concepts and measurement, data analysis, and case selection. Although focused on the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, Goertz and Mahoney also seek to promote toleration, exchange, and learning by enabling scholars to think beyond their own culture and see an alternative scientific worldview. This book is written in an easily accessible style and features a host of real-world examples to illustrate methodological points.

Genres: Political Science, Social Science, Nonfiction, Science, Research Methods

248 pages, Paperback

First published September 9, 2012

About the author

Gary Goertz is professor of political science and peace studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. His many methods books include A Tale of Two Cultures and Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies (both Princeton).

Reviews

[Bookshark · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is satisfactory at accomplishing what it sets out to do, namely, comparing the quantitative and (positivist strain of) qualitative cultures in a way that suggests that they are fundamentally of equal value. There are even some moments of significant insight, such as the discussion of the mathematical foundations of (positivist) qualitative research in logic/set theory. However, the book falls short of actually describing the full richness of the qualitative tradition because of its baffling refusal to discuss non-positive qualitative research such as the interpretive tradition. Actually, that critique could apply to their description of quantitative culture too - they could do more to explore the differences between Bayesian and frequentist statistical approaches, for instance (although at least they discuss that from time to time). While it would expand the scope of the book, I think it would be much more useful and informative if the authors provided a more nuanced account of the differences within the two cultures in addition to the differences between them.

[Kw Estes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read only a few chapters for a seminar, but Goertz and Mahoney seem to do well to explain the epistemological differences between traditional quantitative work in political science (ie linear regression) and their conceptualization of qualitative research. Indeed, they do seem to be discussing a discrete type of qualitative research concerned with exploring the effects of causes at an aggregate (ie country) level. Though this is certainly a useful tool for comparativists, others may find it less so.

The writing style is lucid and there are many helpful examples from recent political science and sociology literature that clarify the methodological and epistemological points they are attempting to make.

[Corey Colyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Assigned for a graduate level qualitative research methods seminar. The authors set forth to compare and contrast two cultures of research methodology (qualitative and qualitative) in the social sciences. They persuasively show that the normal science presumes assumptions from the quantitative culture (often forcing qualitative scholars to force square pegs into round holes at the research proposal stage). But, there is a distinct set-theoretic logic to most qualitative inquiries that stand on its own. This book is strongest in: (a) differentiating the logical assumptions of these two cultures, and (b) in laying out some logical tools for pursuing set-theoretic analyses. A worthwhile book for any scholar who works with non statistical models.

[Franco Bernasconi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Es bueno el libro y contiene discusiones sobre la lógica y matemática que subyace a las tradiciones cuali/cuanti que son muy interesantes. Sin embargo, solamente se enfoca en los métodos cuali que buscan establecer inferencias causales, los que parece son bastante usados en Ciencia Política, pero no necesariamente en otras disciplinas. No se discute en absoluto la tradición cuali post-positivista (interpretación, significados) que es más usada en antropología y muchas veces en sociología, por lo que no cubre métodos como entrevistas, focus group o etnografías. Es importante tener eso en cuenta al momento de leerlo.

Usando la jerga del libro, podríamos decir que tiene una gran profundidad, pero un scope bastante limitado.

[Marin Beal · Rating 4 out of 5]

OKAY F*CK IT I'M LOGGING MY SOCI PHD BOOKS ON GOODREADS.

This one is pretty interesting if you're interested in how quantitative and qualitative methods miss each other. It goes into the theoretical frameworks underpinning these two different "cultures" in a way that explains some of the tensions in social science research.

I disliked how the authors seemed to frame mixed methods research exclusively as being quantitative research supplemented by qualitative research. This feels like a really tired trope that already exists everywhere—Let's dig deeper and think differently.

[Paulo Sérgio · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read for both quantitative and qualitative researchers, particularly those investigating or applying research synthesis methods.

[Mike Peleah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quantitative researchers are from Mars, Qualitative researchers are from Venus. They have different cultures of research, there is no set that unifies all social scientific work. However they could coexist peacefully, and there is a room for dialogue, which could enrich both groups.

Very well written, short but crisp book. Must read if you are involved in social research, either qualitative or quantitative.

[Sasha]

Actually it was great.