Aims I 16
Ethnography and Theory of Knowledge
Ethnographic studies and naturalistic or qualitative methods in research
are often considered synonyms. In fact, there is no inherent contradiction
in using quantitative methods in qualitative research, provided that 'the
primary concern is with deciding what makes sense to count'
(Erickson,1981:18), and naturalistic observations can complement
experimental studies.
In some fundamental aspects, however, an ethnographic approach is not
only radically different from quantitative or experimental methods, but
also Irreconcilable; these aspects are more related to conceptions and
theories of knowledge than to research techniques. Ethnography seems able
to avoid much of the criticism currently directed to the 'positivist
paradigm' of science, and It has Indeed a large body of experience to
offer in the construction of alternative 'new paradigms' in research
(Season and Rowan,1981).
The 'post-positivist' paradigm is also called 'naturalistic' (Lincoln and
Guba,1985), and it shares with ethnography many of its axioms: in
ontology, it considers realities as holistic and not fragmentable; in
epistemology, it does not accept the traditional division between the
knower and the known; in axiology, it considers inquiry as value-bound,
and phenomena as taking their meaning from their contexts as much as
from themselves; and it fundamentally questions the possibility of
generalization and cause-effect relationships that are at the basis of
positivist science. The two tables reproduced in Annexes 1.1 and 1.2 show
the affinity between the ethnographic approach and the post-positivist
paradigm in their dimensions of contrast with, respectively, the
quantitative approach in research and the positivist paradigm of inquiry.
These positions are not confined to social sciences; on the contrary, the
reaction to positivism started in 'hard' sciences such as physics and
geometry, where alternative principles of inquiry have opened up new
developments: