Quantitative Methods Glorification
We tend to think of quantitative methods as the "gold standard" of social science methods because of its close alignment to the "hard" sciences and math which is seen as "unbiased." For this week, I want you to consider some critiques of quantitative methods since you may not come across opportunities to do so in other classes. As you write your response, consider answering one or more of the following questions:
How have you experienced this glorification/preference of quantiative methods over other methods in your time in college?
What are some of the weaknesses of quantitative methods? What do quantiative methods fail to provide social scientists?
If quantitative methods are subject to just as many of the same flaws as all other methods, why are they considered to be more "pure" or "unbiased"?
Discussion Question
Name
Institution Affiliation
Course
Professor
Date
Quantitative Methods Glorification.
Throughout college, quantitative research methods have been glorified and preferred over qualitative methods. Additionally, many believe that quantitative methods are fast, relatable, scientific, and more focused than other methods. Also, quantitative methods have been referred to be unbiased as they provide accuracy and objectivity to a research topic. However, according to Lash et al. (2016), both qualitative and quantitative research methods can be biased. This is because research bias can occur at any level of research, which makes the glorification biased.
Further, quantitative methods fail to provide social scientists with the thoughts, feelings, motivations, and drivers of a particular group. This is because it provide statistical results for any study ...