Debate about the relationship between quantitative and qualitative paradigms is often muddled and confused and the clutter of terms and arguments has resulted in the concepts becoming obscure and unrecognizable. It is therefore very important to reconsider evaluation criteria regarding rigor in social science. As Lincoln & Guba have already compared quantitative paradigms (validity, reliability, neutrality, generalizability) with qualitative paradigms (credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability), we have discuss use of evaluation criteria based on pragmatic perspective. Validity/Credibility is the paradigm concerned to observational framework, while Reliability/Dependability refer to the range of stability in observations, Neutrality/Confirmability reflect influences between observers and subjects, Generalizability/Transferability have epistemological difference in the way findings are applied. Qualitative studies, however, does not always chose the qualitative paradigms. If we assume the stability to some extent, it is better to use the quantitative paradigm (reliability). Moreover as a quantitative study can not always guarantee a perfect observational framework, with stability in all phases of observations, it is useful to use qualitative paradigms to enhance the rigor in the study.
|ジャーナル||[Nippon kōshū eisei zasshi] Japanese journal of public health|
|出版ステータス||Published - 2006 5|
ASJC Scopus subject areas