Research methods are "technique(s) for.gathering data" (HARDING 1986) and are generally dichotomised into being either quantitative or qualitative.It has been argued that methodology has been gendered (OAKLEY 1997; simply boho classroom 1998), with quantitative methods traditionally being associated with words such as positivism, scientific, objectivity, statistics and masculinity.In contrast, qualitative methods have generally been associated with interpretivism, non-scientific, subjectivity and femininity.These associations have led some feminist researchers to criticise (REINHARZ 1979; GRAHAM 1983; PUGH 1990) or even reject (GRAHAM & RAWLINGS 1980) the quantitative approach, arguing that it is in direct conflict with the aims of feminist research (GRAHAM 1983; MIES 1983).
It has been argued that qualitative methods are more appropriate for feminist research by allowing subjective knowledge (DEPNER 1981; DUELLI KLEIN 1983), and a more equal relationship between the researcher and the researched (OAKLEY 1974; JAYARATNE 1983; STANLEY & WISE 1990).This paper considers the quantitative/qualitative divide and the epistemological reasoning behind the debate before investigating two research methods, the statistical survey and the semi-structured interview, in respect of their use to feminist researchers.It concludes by arguing that different feminist issues need different research methods, and that as long as they are applied from a feminist perspective there is no need for the dichotomous "us against deus gorras them", "quantitative against qualitative" debates.URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0101135.