This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Arnd-Caddigan, M. Articles by Pozzuto, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Truth in Our Time

East Carolina University School of Social Work, USA

Richard Pozzuto

East Carolina University School of Social Work, USA

The debate over the legitimacy of qualitative and quantitative research approaches has been of interest to social workers over the last 25 years. The authors suggest that a parallel debate among qualitative researchers is now taking shape. Where once the disagreement was between metaphysical or naive realists and post-positivists, the new debate is between critical realists and constructionists. Like the metaphysical realists before them, the critical realists are calling for methodological hegemony and reject as nonscientific research that is based on constructionist ontologies and epistemologies. The authors are calling for détente in this debate. Ontology is not provable; it is ultimately based on belief. Just as our profession champions diversity in belief systems regarding other phenomena, research that reflects ontological diversity can also strengthen social work by providing practitioners and scholars greater access to a wide range of information.

Key Words: constructionism • critical realism • fundamentalism • methodological • qualitative research • science

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Alphonse, P. George, and K. Moffatt Redefining social work standards in the context of globalization: Lessons from India International Social Work, March 1, 2008; 51(2): 145 - 158. [Abstract] [PDF]