Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:45:56.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oecuménisme méthodologique et dialogue entre paradigmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

Verena Haldemann  and
Ron Lévy
Verena Haldemann
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton
Ron Lévy
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While multi-method research is currently provoking much interest, there is little reflection on the legitimacy of this kind of research and on the conditions for achieving high quality research. This article first describes the scientific and socio-political contexts from which this movement towards multi-method research has emerged. It then goes on to discuss why comparative analysis is central to the triangulation of methods and why the notion of triangulation itself requires an external point of reference. It is suggested that the reason why we produce only half-hearted or even illigitimate comparisons is because the reference points are hidden. For multi-method research to be of high quality it must clearly externalize valid inferences at each moment in the spiral of knowledge, identify its analytical logic and establish its internal reference points. (This article is the result of joint research and the respective positions of the authors are reflected in the way in which the article is presented.)

Résumé

La recherche multi-méthodes suscite beaucoup d'intérêt, mais peu de réflexion sur les conditions de qualité et même de légitimité de ce type de recherche. Cet article décrit le contexte scientifique et socio-politique dans lequel a émergé une forte demande pour la recherche multi-méthodes. Il montre ensuite que l'analyse comparative est un processus central à la triangulation des méthodes, processus qui exige un réfèrent extérieur. C'est parce que ce réfèrent reste le plus souvent implicite que des comparaisons boiteuses ou «illégitimes» peuvent se produire. A moins d'être écartée pour des raisons d'antagonisme entre paradigmes, la recherche multi-méthodes sera de qualité si elle explicite ses référents et sa logique d'analyse, et dans la mesure où elle produit des inférences valides à tous les «moments» de la spirale de connaissance. (Cet article est le fruit d'une réflexion conjointe des auteurs dont il reflète les positions respectives dans sa présentation graphique même.)

Keywords

Recherche multi-méthodesparadigmestriangulationanalyse comparative.Multi-method ResearchParadigmsTriangulationComparative Analysis.
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 14 , Issue S1 , Été/Summer 1995 , pp. 37 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Bookstein, F.L., & Achenbaum, W.A. (1993). Aging as an explanation: how scientific measurement can advance critical gerontology. Cole, Dans T.R., Achenbaum, W.A., Jakobi, P. & Kastenbaum, R. (Éds.), Voices and visions of aging: toward a critical gerontology (pp. 20–45). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: a synthesis of styles. New-bury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2e éd.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative studies. Denzin, Dans N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Éds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fielding, N.G., & Fielding, J.L. (1986). Linking data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. Guba, Dans E.G. (Éd.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Denzin, Dans N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S., Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Herman, J. (1988). Les langages de la sociologie. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Houle, G., & Ramognino, N. (1993). Présentation. Sociologie et sociétés (No spécial sur «La construction des données»), XXV(2), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefrançois, R. (1995). Pluralisme méthodologique et stratégies multi-méthodes en gérontologie. La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 14 (hors série 1, 52–67).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, R. (1993). Believability and doubtfulness: A paradigmatic view of qualitative methods. La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 12(2), 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Minkler, M., & Estes, C.L. (Eds.). (1991). Critical perspectives on aging: the political and moral economy of growing old. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Moody, H.R. (1993). Overview: what is critical gerontology and why is it important? Cole, Dans T.R., Achenbaum, W., Jakobi, P. & Kastenbaum, R. (Éds.), Voices and visions of aging: toward a critical gerontology (pp. xv–vl). New York:Google Scholar
Neysmith, S.M. (1995). Feminist methodologies: A consideration of principles and practice for research in gerontology. La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 14 (hors série 1, 100–118).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar