{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012584704743465635, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.585987261146497, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

The current debate about quantitative and qualitative methods focuses on whether there is a necessary connection between method-type and research paradigm that makes the different approaches incompatible. This paper argues that part of the connection is rhetorical. Quantitative methods express the assumptions of a positvisit paradigm which holds that behavior can be explained through objective facts. Design and instrumentation persuade by showing how bias and error are eliminated. Qualitative methods express the assumptions of a phenomenological paradigm that there are multiple realities that are socially defined. Rich description persuades by showing that the researcher was immersed in the setting and giving the reader enough detail to “make sense” of the situation. While rhetorically different, the results of the two methodologies can be complementary. Examples are drawn from two studies using different methodologies to study the same problem.