Qualitative Inquiry and the Debate Between Hermeneutics and Critical Theory

被引:4
作者
Shaw, James A. [1 ]
DeForge, Ryan T. [2 ]
机构
[1] Toronto Rehabil Inst, Toronto, ON M5G 2A2, Canada
[2] St Josephs Hlth Care, Aging Rehabil & Geriatr Care Res Ctr, London, ON, Canada
关键词
critical methods; hermeneutics; interpretive methods; language; linguistics; research design; research evaluation; research; qualitative; POLITICS; RORTY; RICHARD; PRAGMATISM; EXCHANGE; FREEDOM; TRUTH;
D O I
10.1177/1049732314549028
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Two issues have been central to ongoing disputes about judgments of quality in qualitative inquiry: (a) the ways in which paradigmatic orientations are understood to guide procedural decisions and (b) the meaning and intelligibility of paradigmatic incommensurability. In this article, we address these two key issues through an exploration of the debates between hermeneutics and critical social theory, including the exchanges between Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jurgen Habermas, and between Richard Rorty and Thomas McCarthy. We suggest that the key epistemological issue addressed in these debates is the nature of interpretation, separating the two philosophical camps based on beliefs about whether foundational knowledge is possible to achieve. We conclude the article by discussing the implications of these different positions for beliefs about quality in qualitative inquiry, and comment on the role of judgment in assessments of the value and quality of different approaches to qualitative research.
引用
收藏
页码:1567 / 1580
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]   The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research [J].
Amis, John M. ;
Silk, Michael L. .
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2008, 11 (03) :456-480
[2]  
Bernstein R.J., 1982, PSA P BIENNIAL M PHI, VTwo, P331
[3]  
Bochner A.P., 2000, QUAL INQ, V6, P266, DOI DOI 10.1177/107780040000600209
[4]  
BOUMAPREDIGER S, 1989, J AM ACAD RELIG, V57, P313
[5]   Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research [J].
Carter, Stacy M. ;
Little, Miles .
QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2007, 17 (10) :1316-1328
[6]   Language and power: Ascribing legitimacy to interpretive research [J].
Ceci, C ;
Limacher, LH ;
McLeod, DL .
QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2002, 12 (05) :713-720
[7]  
Cumming R, 1991, PHENOMENOLOGY DECONS, V1
[8]   The ambivalent practices of reflexivity [J].
Davies, B ;
Browne, J ;
Gannon, S ;
Honan, E ;
Laws, C ;
Mueller-Rockstroh, B ;
Petersen, EB .
QUALITATIVE INQUIRY, 2004, 10 (03) :360-389
[9]  
Denzin N.K., 2000, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, VSecond., P1
[10]   Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences [J].
Eakin, JM ;
Mykhalovskiy, E .
JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2003, 9 (02) :187-194