Abstract (may include machine translation)
Die heutigen Sozialwissenschaften sind von einer eigentümlichen und scheinbar unüberwindbaren Zweiteilung geprägt: Die Unterscheidung in ,quantitative‘ und ,qualitative‘ Forschung schlägt sich in Berufungsverfahren, Projektanträgen und Lehrbüchern nieder, und prägt nicht zuletzt auch Forscherbiografien. Dabei greifen quantitativ arbeitende (oder ,variablen-orientierte‘) Sozialwissenschaftler im Regelfall auf die bekannten statistischen Verfahren zurück, die es ihnen erlauben, große Anzahlen von Fällen zu untersuchen1. Hierbei handelt es sich meistens um eine Stichprobe aus einer vorher festgelegten Population (Grundgesamtheit). Die Abgrenzung qualitativer (oder ,einzelfall-orientierter‘) Methoden ist im Gegensatz dazu ungleich schwieriger. Qualitative Methoden umfassen so unterschiedliche Varianten wie Langzeitbeobachtungen, diskursanalytische Verfahren, Experteninterviews und eher hermeneutische Zugangsweisen. Gemeinsam ist ihnen eine in der Regel (sehr) kleine Fallanzahl, die es erlaubt, eine detaillierte Erfassung des Einzelfalls zu bewältigen.
Today's social sciences are characterized by a peculiar and seemingly insurmountable dichotomy: The distinction between 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' research is reflected in appointment procedures, project proposals and textbooks, and not least also shapes researcher biographies. Quantitative (or 'variable-oriented') social scientists generally fall back on the familiar statistical methods that allow them to examine large numbers of cases1. This usually involves a sample from a previously defined population (population). In contrast, it is much more difficult to distinguish between qualitative (or 'individual case-oriented') methods. Qualitative methods include such different variants as long-term observations, discourse-analytical methods, expert interviews and more hermeneutic approaches. What they have in common is that they generally involve a (very) small number of cases, which makes it possible to carry out a detailed assessment of the individual case.
Today's social sciences are characterized by a peculiar and seemingly insurmountable dichotomy: The distinction between 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' research is reflected in appointment procedures, project proposals and textbooks, and not least also shapes researcher biographies. Quantitative (or 'variable-oriented') social scientists generally fall back on the familiar statistical methods that allow them to examine large numbers of cases1. This usually involves a sample from a previously defined population (population). In contrast, it is much more difficult to distinguish between qualitative (or 'individual case-oriented') methods. Qualitative methods include such different variants as long-term observations, discourse-analytical methods, expert interviews and more hermeneutic approaches. What they have in common is that they generally involve a (very) small number of cases, which makes it possible to carry out a detailed assessment of the individual case.
Original language | German |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Vergleichende politikwissenschaftliche Methoden |
Subtitle of host publication | Neue Entwicklungen und Diskussionen |
Editors | Susanne Pickel, Gert Pickel, Hans-Joachim Lauth, Detlef Jahn |
Publisher | VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden |
Pages | 105-134 |
ISBN (Print) | 978-3-531-14097-1 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2003 |