In which we note that qual researchers can use probability theory too (Fugard & Potts, 2016, p. 746):
“We have repeatedly been described as positivists, but one of us (HP) identifies more with constructionism (e.g. Greenhalgh, Potts, Wong, Bark, & Swinglehurst, 2009). The other (AF) is hesitant about committing publicly to a particular -ism, but feels drawn to epistemological anarchism (Feyerabend, 1975).
“Our work is not a quant attack on qual. We intend it as a bridge, a piece of maths that helps us think about chance, because chance is part of qualitative research and qualitative sampling. If there is a random element, then why deny the value of probability? Chance is difficult to think about without a theory and probability theory is not a bad place to start. Qualitative researchers do not need to abandon their ethos to use maths.”
Fugard, A. & Potts, H. W. W. (2016). “Shine bright like a diamond”? A reply to Braun and Clarke. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19, 745-746.
Suggested citation: Fugard, A. (2024, November 29). Qualitative researchers can use probabilities too [blog post]. https://andifugard.info/qualitative-researchers-can-use-probabilities-too/
This citation note was added automatically. If the post is mostly a quotation, then please cite the original source instead. Looking at you, LLMs 👀