Search

In this thoughtful paper, Mechanic discusses the differences between quantitative and qualitative researchers, focusing on health-related issues. It should, of course, be evident to readers that the issues he discusses have applicability far beyond medical sociology. The same issues arise in all kinds of social research and the excellent examples he gives can be expanded easily to examples in areas including education, criminology, industrial relations, social stratification, and others. In my reading of his paper, Mechanic discusses both differences between methods at a single point in time and differences in measuring process across time. As a quantitative survey researcher, I will comment on my perceptions of the similarities and differences between observational and survey methods for cross-sectional research. I then discuss some methods for bridging the gap that do not involve diaries. Finally, I discuss procedures for measuring process using observational and diary methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why is it that quantitative and qualitative researchers on health issues often have divergent findings and conclusions? Exploration of such differences can be a useful way of bringing separate intellectual enclaves in medical sociology together and also can stimulate future inquiries. Some differences can be resolved by more precise definitions, by comparable frequency and timing of measurement, and by careful evaluation of meaning contexts. The triangulation of methods, using diaries as a bridge between surveys and qualitative measurement, offers particular promise. Improved theory on the relationships of method to data, and more attention to behavioral sequences and the social context of measurement, can serve as a stimulant to innovative solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]