Eclectism is more than considering alternative methods. In its most common
use, the term denotes a combination of elements that do not fit well
together and do not make an integrated whole.
I mentioned the definition was OK, except for the risk of adopting the
eclectic stance. I am concerned with the infiltration of eclectic thinking
and particularly inappropriate substitutions and mixing different thinking
systems. Just borrowing methodological elements and standards for
professional behavior from two opposing paradigms does not make research
designs better. On the contrary, because of inconsistencies in
epistemological and methodological nature, eclectism leads to compromising
quality of data and the interpretations afterwards.
Besides, I can't imagine how people will reason within two different
paradigms. It is like observing the requirements and worshiping the Gods of
two different religions (Just don't tell me that somewhere on this world,
people are doing this, please.) I personally often migrate between symbolic
interactionism, positivism, and dialectical materialism. I know the pain
and the ineffectiveness of the transitions. In the marginal states the
researcher often automatically applies techniques from one paradigm
together with criteria and standards from another paradigm. Six months
later, when the study is revisited, it looks a mess. That is the result of
jumping from one bandwagon to another.
My concern is with the current drive in research to accept compromised
research designs as pluralistic ones. Pluralism is something completely
different.
Regards,
Lubomir Popov
At 01:50 PM 10/3/2000 +0100, Chris RUST(SCS) wrote:
>Lubomir commented on his example of a "mixed mode" questionnaire:
>
>>Many researchers see this as a way to integrate the best of quantitative
>>and qualitative methodology. I would say, this is contemporary
>>methodological eclecticism. That was my concern when I reacted to potential
>>anarchistic implications of the descriptor "eclecticism" in the previous
>>wording for interdisciplinary research.
>
>I wonder if we are misreading the original quotation which Paul supplied. I
>imagined eclecticism to refer to the range of knowledge and experiences
>avaliable to the research group and the possibility of new insights from
>juxtaposing these. I don't suppose any of us would condone methodological
>confusion and I am sure that inter-disciplinary research is going to be more
>demanding in that respect.
>
>best wishes from Sheffield
>Chris Rust
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|