With each iteration, it is argued, scientists are able to get closer to a clearer comprehension of what was observed. Provided those iterations are conducted with established methodologies, the results can be acknowledged as “accurate” within the confines of a broader commonly accepted code of research practice.<\/p>\n
Is Qualitative Methodology Soft Science?<\/h2>\n
The two decades between the 1930s and 1950s saw\u00a0a paradigm shift in favor of quantitative methods. The prevalent steady growth in acceptance of qualitative research methodologies coming out of anthropological and humanistic studies was brought to a dramatic halt.<\/p>\n
Under the mantra of \u201cif it can\u2019t be measured it doesn\u2019t exist,\u201d qualitative methodologies built upon researcher observation were dismissed as being \u201csoft science\u201d that could not be aligned to the rigid conventionalism of statistical analysis<\/a>.<\/p>\n Only after the passage of time and the development of a portfolio of successful research in environments where\u00a0quantitative methodologies could not be applied did qualitative methods stage a complete recovery. The social upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s, in particular, and the subsequent growth in interest in phenomenology and ethnomethodology were critical to this revival.<\/p>\n The approach of accepting one methodology<\/a>\u00a0based on broad application with a corresponding derision of any alternative approaches is fundamentally flawed<\/a>.<\/p>\n A universal dismissal of one methodology until a specific research situation forces a revisitation of that dismissal is both closed-minded and potentially detrimental to the continued advancement of scientific knowledge.<\/p>\n If every new idea is benchmarked at an unattainable level of “better” or “not better enough,”\u00a0future advances in research will be limited to routine incremental improvements rather than the transformational shifts that are often needed to move a body of knowledge forward.<\/p>\n Burns and Stalker noted in The Management of Innovation<\/i> that \u201corganic structures are appropriate in unstable, turbulent, unpredictable environments and for nonroutine tasks and technologies.\u201d Organic change should be equally nonlinear and non-routine.<\/p>\nIt’s Not About One Methodology Versus the\u00a0Other<\/h2>\n
Organic Change in Academic Research<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"