Descriptive statistics in research and teaching: are we losing the middle ground?
Abstract There is a poignant divide in contemporary research between qualitative and quantitative approaches, with relatively few disciplines employing the two concurrently and harmoniously. Qualitative methods are to be found almost exclusively in social sciences, and only a few disciplines in this field integrate them with quantitative approaches. The quantitative approach is especially developed in natural sciences, with exceptionally sophisticated methodology developed around hypothesis testing and inferential statistics. The obvious middle ground is represented by the historical approach, combining verbal description with descriptive statistics. The latter offers amazing options towards data visualisation, yet carries relatively little weight in terms of academic success. This paper presents an account of how descriptive statistics has fared historically, with an emphasis on disciplines in the natural sciences and geography—where the author can contribute a personal account. I argue that a more even spread of the three broad types of methodologies would benefit research across fields. Such a spread, if reflected in the school system, would be particularly helpful in facilitating the transition from secondary to tertiary education, and from there to entering research.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 50 (2016)
Issue (Month): 5 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11135|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ismael Rafols & Alan L. Porter & Loet Leydesdorff, 2010. "Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(9), pages 1871-1887, September.
- Bhupatiraju, Samyukta & Nomaler, Önder & Triulzi, Giorgio & Verspagen, Bart, 2012. "Knowledge flows – Analyzing the core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and science and technology studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1205-1218.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:50:y:2016:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-015-0256-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.