Qualitative Inquiry and the Debate Between Hermeneutics and Critical Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.462 | 0.398 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.230 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".