Rethinking research dichotomies

Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 269-285

  Christensen, Donna Hendrickson ^a   Dahl, Carla M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b Bethel Seminary   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85000790595     PISSN: 1077727X     EISSN: 15523934     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077727X970253002     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Acker, J., Barry, K., and Esseveld, J., (1983). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6, 423-435.
2. Allen, K. A., and Baber, K. M., (1992). Ethical and epistemological tensions in applying a postmodern perspective to feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 1-15.
3. Allen, K. R., and Gilgun, J. F., (1987, November). Qualitativefamily research: Unanswered questions and proposed resolutions. Paper presented at the National Council of Family Relations Pre-Conference Workshop on Theory Construction and Research Methodology, Atlanta, GA.
4. Babbie, E., (1986). Observing ourselves: Essays in social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
5. Brewer, J., and Hunter, J., (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6. Cicourel, A. V., (1986). Social measurement as the creation of expert systems. In D. W.Fiske & R. A.Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities (pp. 246-270). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Cook, J. A., and Fonow, M. M., (1990). Knowledge and women’s interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. In J. M.Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social sciences (pp. 69-93). Boulder, CO: Westview.
8. Dahl, C. M., (1994). A phenomenological exploration of the definition and expression of spirituality withinfamilies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
9. Denzin, N. K., (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10. Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S., (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Floyd, F. J., and Markman, H. J., (1983). Observational biases in spouse observation: Toward a cognitive/behavioral model of marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 450-457.
12. Gilgun, J. F., (1992). Definitions, methodologies, and methods in qualitative family research. In J. F.Gilgun, K.Daly, & G.Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 22-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L., (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
14. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S., (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Harding, S., (1987). Conclusion: Epistemological questions. In S.Harding (Ed.), Feminism & methodology (pp. 181-190). Bloomington: Indiana University.
16. Harding, S., (1991). Whose science? Whoseknowledge? New York: Cornell UniversityPress.
17. Hawkesworth, M. E., (1989). Knowers, knowing, known: Feminist theory and claims of truth. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14, 533-557.
18. Holstein, J. A., and Gubrium, J. F., (1994). Phenomenolgy, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 262-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Houts, A. C., Cook, T. D., & Shadish W. R., Jr. (1986). The person-situation debate: A critical multiplist perspective. Journal of Personality, 54, 52-105.
20. Howe, K. R., (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16.
21. Keller, E. F., (1985). Reflection on genderand science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22. Kerlinger, F. N., (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
23. Kuhn, T. S., (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. LaRossa, R., and Wolf, J. M., (1985). On qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 531-541.
25. Larzelere, R. E., and Klein, D. M., (1987). Methodology. In M. B.Sussman & S. K.Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and thefamily (pp. 125-155). New York: Plenum.
26. Lavee, Y., and Dollahite, D. C., (1991). The linkage between theory and research in family science. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 361-373.
27. Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M., (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Miller, B. C., Rollins, B. C., and Thomas, D. L., (1982). On methods of studying marriages and families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 851-873.
29. Miller, S. I., and Fredericks, M., (1991). A case for “qualitative confirmation” for the social and behavioral sciences. Philosophy of Science, 58, 452-467.
30. Nielsen, J. M., (1990). Introduction. In J. M.Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social sciences (pp. 1-37). Boulder, CO: Westview.
31. Nye, F. I., (1988). Fifty years of family research: 1937-1987. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 569-584.
32. Olson, D. H., (1977). Insiders’ and outsiders’ views of relationships: Research studies. In G.Levinger & H. L.Raush (Eds.), Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy (pp. 115-135). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
33. Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., and Sprenkle, D. H., (1983). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Family Process, 22, 69-83.
34. Patton, M., (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35. Peplau, L. A., and Conrad, E., (1989). Beyond nonsexist research: The perils of feminist methods in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 379-400.
36. Rank, M. R., (1988, November). The blending of quantitative and qualitative data in family research. Paper presented at the National Council of Family Relations Pre-Conference Workshop on Theory Construction and Research Methodology, Philadelphia, PA.
37. Reason, P., (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324-339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Reinharz, S., (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Rettig, K. D., Tam, V. C., and Magistad, B. M., (in press). Applying justice theories to analysis of actual injustice experiences with child support guidelines. Marriage and Family Review.
40. Rosenau, P. M., (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. Rosenblatt, P. C., and Fischer, L. R., (1993). Qualitative family research. In P. G.Boss, W. J.Doherty, R.LaRossa, W. R.Schumm, & S. K.Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook offamily theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 167-176). New York: Plenum.
42. Small, S. A., (1995). Action-oriented research: Models and methods. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 941-955.
43. Smith, J. K., and Heshusius, L., (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among education inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-12.
44. Suppe, F., (1977). The search for philosophic understanding of scientific theories. In F.Suppe (Ed.), The structure of scientific theories (2nd ed., pp. 3-15). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
45. Surra, C. A., and Ridley, C. A., (1991). Multiple perspectives on interaction: Participants, peers, and observers. In B.Montgomery & S.Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 35-55). New York: Guilford.
46. Thompson, L., (1987, November). Objectivity and subjectivity infeminist andfamily science. Paper presented at the National Council of Family Relations Pre-Conference Workshop on Theory Construction and Research Methodology, Atlanta, GA.
47. Thompson, L., (1992). Feminist methodology for family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 3-18.