Kvalitativní výzkum si v našem vědeckém bádání vydobyl svou jistou pozici. Jakkoliv se někdy může zdát, že přetrvává odlišení na ty, kdo preferují kvalitativní přístup a na ty kdo preferují kvantitativní perspektivu, v praxi velmi často dochází k používání obou přístupů, ať už paralelně nebo konsekutivně, v rámci jednoho výzkumného projektu. Tuzemská i zahraniční literatura již na tento trend reaguje a mluví se o tzv. třetím paradigmatu (mixedmethods, v Česku obvykle smíšený nebo integrovaný přístup). V následujícím článku uvedu rovinu uvažování nad kombinací kvalitativního a kvantitativního přístupu, přičemž k tématu přistupuji z pozice kvalitativního přístupu. Souhrn východisek kvalitativního přístupu na základě interpretativní pozice bude následován aktuálními diskusemi týkajícími se smíšeného výzkumu. Záměrem textu je předložit především zahraniční zdroje uvažující nad teoretickými východisky výzkumné praxe. Text tak může být inspirativní pro doplnění a rozvoj probíhajících diskusí v českém prostředí.

Qualitative research has achieved a distinct position in the scientific conduct. Even though it might seem that there is still a dividing line between those focused on qualitative perspective and those preferring quantitative methods, in practice both approaches are often combined. In international literature this trend is reflected in the formulation of so-called third paradigm named mixed-methods. However tensions still remain and the international debate continues. This theoretical study departures from the qualitative research position and shares a reflection on some issues that might come up when trying to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods. In the first part of the following text principles for interpretative qualitative research tradition will be reviewed, theoretically embedded primarily in critical psychology. This philosophical standpoint dwelling in broader critical perspectives invites researchers to focus on complex data that are openly sensitive towards particular context, and analyze tensions, but also silences and omitted positions. They uncover dichotomies and false differentiation. Some inspiration for conducting qualitative research in interpretative tradition is offered, as well as example of research using both qualitative and quantitative methods with contradictory results is provided. So this parts concludes with stating importance of knowing ones position towards research and its possibilities. It also suggests that the basis for mixing methods is not smooth, even if the respective parties are interested in mutual collaboration and do not leave the option of mixing aside as such. In the next part of the text, overview on current debates on mixing methods resulting in establishing so-called third research paradigm is provided. While qualitative approach to research is typically embedded in interpretative paradigm, quantitative approaches tends to be embedded in positivism and related streams of thought. In order to reconcile possible contradictions some authors prefer to adopt a position called epistemological pragmatism. This enables to leave the discussion on inherent tensions between qualitative and quantitative approach based on epistemological differences and utilize respective methods to be able to fully engage their benefits and overcome disadvantages of each of them. On the other hand other authors acknowledge the possible epistemological conflicts and tensions and suggest to work with and through them, in the tradition described as dialectic pluralism. In this sense it seems difficult to use any method as just method, without the epistemological position that it might evoke. Overall the aim of the study is to introduce international debates evolving around theoretical background of research conduct with focus on interpretative qualitative paradigm and mixed methods. Thus the text can be inspiration and supplement for current debates in the Czech context.

Ústav pro profesní rozvoj pracovníků ve školství Pedagogická fakulta Univerzita Karlova Praha

Review of qualitative approach in the context of mixed-methods research development

Literatura