Two issues have been central to ongoing disputes about judgments of quality in qualitative inquiry: (a) the ways in which paradigmatic orientations are understood to guide procedural decisions and (b) the meaning and intelligibility of paradigmatic incommensurability. In this article, we address these two key issues through an exploration of the debates between hermeneutics and critical social theory, including the exchanges between Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jurgen Habermas, and between Richard Rorty and Thomas McCarthy. We suggest that the key epistemological issue addressed in these debates is the nature of interpretation, separating the two philosophical camps based on beliefs about whether foundational knowledge is possible to achieve. We conclude the article by discussing the implications of these different positions for beliefs about quality in qualitative inquiry, and comment on the role of judgment in assessments of the value and quality of different approaches to qualitative research.
AmisJ.SilkM. (2008). The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 456–480. doi:10.1177/109442-8108315858
2.
BernsteinR. (1982). What is the difference that makes a difference? Gadamer, Habermas, and Rorty. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982, 331–359.
3.
BochnerA. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 266–272. doi:10.1177/107780040000600209
4.
Bouma-PredigerS. (1989). Rorty’s pragmatism and Gadamer’s hermeneutics. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 57, 313–324. doi:10.1093/jaarel/LVII.2.313
5.
CarterS.LittleM. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1316-1328. doi:10.1177/1049732307306927
6.
CeciC.LimacherL.McLeodD. (2002). Language and power: Ascribing legitimacy to interpretive research. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 713–720. doi:10.1177/104973202129120106
7.
CummingR. (1991). Phenomenology and deconstruction (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
DaviesB.BrowneJ.GannonS.HonanE.LawsC.Mueller-RockstrohB.PetersenE. B. (2004). The ambivalence of reflexivity. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 360–389. doi:10.1177/1077800403257638
9.
DenzinN.LincolnY. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–33). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
EakinJ.MykhalovskiyE. (2003). Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: Reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 9, 187–194. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00392.x/abstract
EssC. (1996). The political computer: Democracy, CMC, and Habermas. In EssC. (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 197–230). Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
FinlayL. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2, 209–230. doi:10.1177/146879410200200205
15.
FinlayL.GoughB. (2003). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
16.
FrostN.NolasS.Brooks-GordonB.EsinC.HoltA.MehdizadehL.ShinebourneP. (2010). Pluralism in qualitative research: The impact of different researchers and qualitative approaches on the analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative Research, 10, 1–20. doi:10.1177/1468794110366802
17.
GadamerH.-G. (1986). On the scope and function of hermeneutical reflection. In WachterhauserB. (Ed.), Hermeneutics and modern philosophy (pp. 277–299). Albany: State University of New York Press.
18.
GadamerH.-G. (2004). Truth and method (3rd ed.). London: Continuum.
19.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
HabermasJ. (1986). A review of Gadamer’s truth and method. In WachterhauserB. (Ed.), Hermeneutics and modern philosophy (pp. 243–276). Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
HabermasJ. (2001). From Kant’s “ideas” of pure reason to the “idealizing” presuppositions of communicative action: Reflections on the detranscendentalized use of “reason.” In RehgW.BohmanJ. (Eds.), Pluralism and the pragmatic turn: The transformation of critical theory (pp. 11–33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
HollowayI.TodresL. (2003). The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research, 3, 345–357. doi:10.1177/1468794103033004
24.
HoyD. (1993). Heidegger and the hermeneutic turn. In GuignonC. (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Heidegger (pp. 170–193). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
KremerA. (2013). Gadamer and Rorty on the history of philosophy. Philosophy Today, 57(2), 81-96.
27.
KuhnT. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
KvaleS. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 19–40. doi:10.1177/1077-80049500100103
29.
MacLureM. (2011). Qualitative inquiry: Where are the ruins?Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 997–1005. doi:10.1177/10778-00411423198
30.
MastersonM. (1970). The nature of the paradigm. In LakatosI.MusgraveA. (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
McCarthyT. (1990a). Ironist theory as a vocation: A response to Rorty’s reply. Critical Inquiry, 16, 644–655. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343644
32.
McCarthyT. (1990b). Private irony and public decency: Richard Rorty’s new pragmatism. Critical Inquiry, 16, 355–369. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343617
33.
McCarthyT. (1996). Philosophy and critical theory: A reply to Richard Rorty and Seyla Benhabib. Constellations, 3(1), 95–104. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.1996.tb00046.x
34.
McCarthyT. (2009). Race, empire, and the idea of human development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
MorganD. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combing qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
RolfeG. (2006). Judgments without rules: Toward a postmodern ironist concept of research validity. Nursing Inquiry, 13(1), 7–15. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1800.2006.00298.x
42.
RortyR. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
RortyR. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
RugoffR.HancockC.McCrackenS.Christov-BakargievC. (2007). The painting of modern life: 1960’s to now. London: Hayward.
46.
SandelowskiM. (2004). Using qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1366-1386. doi:10.1177/1049732304269672
47.
SayerA. (2009). Who’s afraid of critical social science?Current Sociology, 57, 767–786. doi:10.1177/0011392109342205
48.
ScheiblerI. (2000). Gadamer between Heidegger and Habermas. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
49.
SchraderG. (1987). Hermeneutics and critical theory. In WeltonD.SilvermanH. (Eds.), Critical and dialectical phenomenology (pp. 64–72). New York: State University of New York Press.
