Different Methodological Positions Regarding Quantitative and Qualitative Methods:

As a starting point, it is useful to distinguish what is meant by method and by methodology. A method refers to a specific technique used for gathering data and evidence.

Typically, quantitative method refers to utilisation of a standardised set of questions with a large sample, generating data which can be expressed numerically. Common methods within

111 This chapter focuses on the primary data collecting methods. However, secondary data is also used widely in this dissertation, especially in Chapters 7 and 8. Secondary data allowed greater coverage of the area of research, improved the understanding of the problem, found the gaps and deficiencies, and determined the additional data needs to be collected. In this sense, it helped with the formulation of the primary data collection.

172

quantitative research include questionnaires, structured interviews, and statistical analyses.

The qualitative approach adopts a less structured set of questions with a purposive small sample to analyse the underlying meaning of a phenomenon, and it generates textual and observational data (Elliot, 2005). It prioritises “value subjective, personal meaning and definition, commonalities and giving voices to the oppressed” (Brayton, 1997). Qualitative research methods involve interviews, participant observation, focus groups, and other such work.

Methodology is a combination of techniques, practices, and interpretations (Olsen &

Morgan, 2005). Methodologies are essentially concerned with the philosophical assumptions that underlie a particular research, and it is often claimed that certain methods are used in the framework of certain methodologies. Traditionally, qualitative and quantitative methods are perceived as two distinct paradigms through which the social world can be understood. It has become very common for a quantitative method to be described as belonging to the positivist methodology and a qualitative method as belonging to the interpretive methodology.

In this regard, there are several objections or critical approaches to using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in research. Based on the idea that quantitative and qualitative approaches have incompatible epistemological views regarding how they conceptualize knowledge and have conflicting ontological positions regarding the nature of reality, it is often argued that they cannot be combined to generate an accurate understanding of a phenomenon.¹¹²

The argument of this study is that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods, based upon their distinct epistemological stances, is overly simplistic. Following Olsen (2004), this study rejects the idea that a quantitative method is underlain by an epistemology where the empirical facts are thought to be speaking for themselves. It is critical to use qualitative methods to construct theories out of what has been said by the objects of inquiry. Qualitative and quantitative methods can each be employed in research by considering the complexity of the social reality and acknowledging the necessity of undertaking social and structural analyses in examining the data gathered. It should also be noted that in this study the purpose in using mixed methods is not to validate the findings from a single method but to deepen one’s understanding of an object of inquiry. The rest of this section explores the issue by giving a critical account of both positivism and

112 See, for instance, Guba and Lincoln (1989) for a discussion on the incompatibility of the assumptions that underpin quantitative and qualitative methods.

173

interpretivism. Section 6.2 then presents that dialectical materialism is the accurate approach when employing mixed methods.

Positivism, as an epistemological stance, argues that all true knowledge is scientific knowledge and can be measured. The research is “constructed in terms of testing theories and make predictions in an objective, value free way where the researcher is detached from both the participants and the research process” (Brayton, 1997, n.p.). In this regard, the researcher should set aside any preconceptions in order to put forward objective facts built on empirical observation (McEvoy & Richards, 2006). Hence, it implies that there is an objective reality and that the observer should undertake a value-free inquiry in order to capture it. In positivism, it is essential that the observer remains distant and does not interact with the observation.

Positivism is very influential in economics. Mainstream economics has its roots in positivist methodology, and it accepts empirical testing as the dominant strategy for economic analysis. In this sense, there is a strong emphasis on mathematical models and deduction¹¹³ in mainstream economics. As discussed critically in Chapter 2, it is mainstream economics’ commitment to methodological individualism which allows for the application of mathematical methods by expressing different economic dynamics in terms of mathematical formulations. This is done via aggregating rational choices of representative agents in an economy, assuming that every agent has the same opportunities in making decisions.

The other main approach in the methodology literature, interpretivism, is generally associated with qualitative methods. In contrast to positivism, here the social reality is understood from within, not explained from out (Elliot, 2005). This paradigm puts an intense emphasis on the relation between the object of the research and the researcher, arguing that reality is a subjective process which requires an observer’s construction. Hence, its ontological position can be described as constructionist, implying that reality is perceived as an outcome of interactions between individuals rather than a phenomena out there waiting for the researcher to observe it. There are multiple possible realities based on each observer’s construction of the reality. So, indeed, there is no reality independent from the observer.

Researchers can only grasp the subjective meaning of social outcomes. Since the aim is to see the world from the viewpoint of the objects of the study, in undertaking any study, the researcher should avoid imposing his or her theoretical framework (Wainwright, 1997).

113 Deduction refers to the process where one starts with general laws and assumptions and confirms or refutes the hypothesis using empirical observations.

174

Interpretivism, as an epistemological stance, has been much less influential in economics in comparison to other social sciences (Downward & Mearman, 2007). As Lavoie (1990, p.1) argues, it is fair to say that economists are not very familiar with a hermeneutic, interpretive philosophy which “is essentially a philosophy of understanding which elucidates how is that one person comes to understanding the actions or the words, or any other meaningful product, of any other”. The avoidance of interpretivism among economists is mainly related to their reliance on empirical testing and mathematical formulation as the requirements of a positive science.

This study employs both qualitative and quantitative methods, and, in doing so, it pursues neither a positivist nor an interpretivist methodology. It criticises positivism because it rejects the idea of the necessity of placing a distance between object or subject for the sake of neutrality. It also refutes the conceptualisation of knowledge in a positivist paradigm as a phenomenon that can be easily captured and generalized. The relations between different elements of a social system are complex and they cannot be dealt with in isolation from each other; therefore, they should not be treated as though they are isolated from external influences in a closed system. Instead, in analysing a social phenomenon, “the interactions between mechanisms and the context in which they occur” should be taken into account (McEvoy & Richards, 2006).

This study is also critical of interpretivism, as it disagrees with the idea that all true knowledge can be learned from the objects of inquiry. It argues that qualitative methods should be employed not to identify the experiences of the objects — the participants — but to unravel their social structures and the relations underlying their actions (McEvoy & Richards, 2006). It is crucial to situate the things learned from the objects of study within a broader historical and structural analysis (Wainwright, 1997).

This dissertation’s empirical analysis is built on an alternative methodological approach, drawing insights from Marxist dialectical materialism. This approach is not attached to a single method but rather acknowledges the benefits of combining different methods depending on the nature of the research question. In what follows, the Marxist dialectic materialism approach underpinning this research is presented, as well as a discussion on the appropriateness of using mixed methods in this framework.

175 6.2 Methodology of Dialectical Materialism

In Marxist dialectical materialism, a social phenomenon is treated as a part of a totality, as a product of whole social and economic relations. The analysis focuses on any relational part as a starting point for reconstructing the interconnections of the totality, elements of which emerge, cohere, and develop over time (Ollman, 2003). This study, in analysing consumer credit, is built on this framework. The developments in the realm of consumer credit are interpreted with reference to broader capitalist relations and historical circumstances of the country under consideration; in this case, Turkey.

Application of dialectic logic is key to the Marxist analysis, as it attempts to deal with changes and relations regarding a phenomenon. Dialectics can be characterized as “a way of thinking that brings into focus the full range of changes and interactions that occur in the world” (Ollman, 2003, p.12). Ollman (2003) distinguished between dialectic and nondialectic research as follows:

[Nondialectical research] starts with some small part and through establishing its connections, tries to reconstruct the larger whole…. [whereas dialectical research]

begins with the whole, the system, or as much of it as one understands, and then proceeds to an examination of the part to see where it fits and how it functions, leading eventually to a fuller understanding of the whole from which one has begun.

(p. 14)

A detailed analysis of dialectic logic is beyond the scope of this study. This section, rather, identifies the methodological consequences of applying the dialectic logic to research.

The first element in this regard is to analyse a phenomenon over time to reveal its changes during the process of its historical development and also to identify its historical specificity (Waingwright, 1997). The second element is to deconstruct categories in order to capture changes and interactions related to a phenomenon (Ollman, 2003). This enables a research to see a single phenomenon as a part of a whole network of social and economic relations.

Undertaking such a dialectical research necessitates applying the method of abstraction. The method of abstraction in Marxist analysis is different from a simple abstraction, which “investigates contingent and external relations among different objects”

(Roberts, 1999, p. 29). Max Weber’s attempt to build a link between the Protestant ethic and the development of capitalism would be an example of simple abstraction (Roberts, 1999).

176

Mainstream economists also utilise it when they abstract a phenomena out of the whole economic system and examine it as static. This is the case, for instance, when economists treat capital as a material accumulation without dealing with the production process, capital-labour relations, and other related issues.

In contrast, “creating an objective concrete abstraction” of a phenomenon implies

“considering a quite particular recurring fact with respect to its own immanent content, it means considering ‘in itself’, as the familiar phrase has it” (Ilyenkov, 2008, p. 102). The goal of abstraction is to isolate certain aspects of social reality in order to investigate them in depth. This paves the way to build them over time and to gain an accurate understanding of the concrete reality. For a meaningful abstraction, it is necessary to replace the concept of

“thing” with the concepts of “process” and “relation” (Ollman, 2003), and hence to analyse a phenomenon within broader social relations by considering its historical development.

The key to undertaking such a dialectic inquiry into the nature of a social phenomenon is to have an accurate understanding of knowledge acquisition, which has to be concerned with the study of social objects and the production relations they enter into. This is connected to the materialist view of the relation between subject and object in the Marxist methodology.

Marx synthesised the materialist basis of consciousness designated by Feuerbach with the dialectical notion of Hegel.

For Marx, consciousness came from the individual's experience of the real world, but this experience was one of practical activity, of conscious intervention to adapt nature to meet human needs…. The human head is not seen as a purely physical entity, but as a social head, full of socially constructed information on how to understand and act in the world, for example, language, concepts and categories. The focus on conscious human activity (production in its broadest sense), essential to the materialist conception of dialectics, re-introduces Hegel's problematic, but sets it on a materialist footing — effectively turning Hegel on his head, as Marx put it. The problem resides in the gap between socially constructed phenomena, as they exist in the real world, and the equally socially constructed representations of those phenomena in the consciousness of the individual (Wainwright, 1997, n.p.)

What needs to be considered in this line of reasoning is the continual evolution of phenomenal forms. Although they are generated over time, phenomenal forms can manifest themselves as static and immutable. The dialectical logic enables researchers to recognise the

177

historical specificity and social construction of those phenomenal forms (Wainwright, 1997).

The production of knowledge should also be related to specific historical and social contexts, and should contain within it a theoretical framework to guide social analyses. However, this does not imply the examination of social phenomenon with predetermined theories.

Objects of theories do not exist out there in the world just waiting for theories to observe and explain them. Our view of world — the objects we find in it — is itself shaped by the theories we use to analyse the world that we see…. [It is not] true that we first have theories in our heads which then determine both the particular objects we see and how we understand them. (Wolff & Resnick, 1987, p. 18)

From a dialectical materialist approach, one should be aware of the dialectical relation between theory and practice. Knowledge generation is based on the notion of praxis, “a process whereby human beings, by means of continuous transformation of nature and societal relationships, secure their existence” (Bodemann, 1979, p. 155). It is the practical activity through which true content of concepts is established. The theories that are considered should be able to generate the desired results. Knowledge generation is a creative and critical process, and theories produced by this process guide the practical activity.

Based on this line of reasoning, it can be inferred that research is always influenced by the researchers’ beliefs and truths, worldviews, and desires. The aim of a researcher is neither to produce objective or value-free results, as in the case of positivism, nor to adapt an open-ended approach, as in the case of interpretivisim. In either qualitative or quantitative methods, the researcher should aim for a sceptical approach to the results from both methods, being aware that facts may disguise the essence of a phenomenon. Rather than accepting them at face value, a researcher should examine the results by the insights offered by the structural and historical analyses in order to deepen an understanding of the issue.

6.3 Justification for Using Mixed Methods

The argument in this study is that research methods, which are usually kept separate within positivist and interpretive approaches, could be mixed, depending on the purpose of the study. Mixed methods can offer the potential to have an in-depth understanding of an object that would not be possible with a single method. Therefore, a researcher should be

178

aware of the strengths of the both quantitative and qualitative methods and how to benefit from both.

Some studies employ mixed methods in order to verify the findings from the quantitative method with insights from the qualitative method, or vice versa. However, in this study, mixed methods are not used for the purpose of confirmation. Rather, mixing methods is seen as a tool for gaining a better understanding of the object of inquiry, which in this case is the growth of debt among workers in Turkey. What is the importance of mixing methods for a methodological approach of dialectical materialism? The quantitative method enables a researcher to see empirical facts about phenomena in the real world at a specific location and time. As stated by McEvoy and Richards (2006, p. 71), “the strength of quantitative methods is that they may be used to develop reliable descriptions and provide accurate comparison. In the explanatory phase of an investigation, quantitative methods can identify patterns and associations that may otherwise be masked”. Employing a quantitative method by carrying out fieldwork is especially useful when official statistics do not provide data on a certain categories, such as working-class people, as in the case of this research. The aim is not to test or confirm hypotheses through the statements of initial axioms and assumptions, as in the case of positivist approach, but to discover the descriptive statistics about the case under consideration.

However, quantitative methods by itself may not be enough because empirical verifications can mask the essence of a phenomenon which is different from its appearance.

In such a situation, qualitative methods might enable a researcher to see the hidden, underlying structures related to the object of inquiry and to avoid taking descriptive statistics as cut-off points. As McEvoy and Richards (2006, p. 71) put forward, “qualitative methods can help to illuminate complex concepts and relationships that are unlikely to be captured by predetermined response categories or standardized quantitative methods”. A further benefit of qualitative methods is that, since they are open-ended, they may enable a discovery of themes that could not be predicted in advance (McEvoy & Richards, 2006). However, it is important to insert a caveat here. Under a dialectical materialist methodology, the aim in exploring the hidden themes is not to identify lived experiences and social beliefs of social actors; here, instead, qualitative methods are employed with the goal of seeing the evolution of a phenomenon and unravelling the relations underlying it (Wainwright, 1997).

A further challenge in using mixed methods is related to which phase of research the different methods are introduced. One method may be employed to facilitate the next phase of the study. For instance, in this study, a quantitative survey was followed by a series of

179

qualitative interviews. The purpose of the survey was to reveal the patterns related to workers’ indebtedness in a specific time and place. The interviews were then carried out in order to explore how these patterns emerged and how they affected the workers.

6.4 Research Design: Setting and Sample Construction

The research was carried out among metal workers in Istanbul, Turkey. There are two main reasons for choosing Istanbul as the geographical place of my research. The first is related to the fact that the banking sector is well developed there. Second, it is an area where the weight of the industrial sector is significant and wage earners cluster. Istanbul is a city of approximately 13 million people, and the share of employment in Turkey’s manufacturing sector, at 38%, is highest in Istanbul. Within this project, the focus is on workers in the metal sector, which is one of the most important in Turkey, as it employs more than 1 million workers, according to statistics from Turkey’s Social Security Institution (SSI, 2010).

Once the research area and the target population are chosen, the next step is to construct the sample. There are two major types of sampling methods, namely, probability and nonprobability sampling (Blaikie, 2000). The availability of information, the nature of

Once the research area and the target population are chosen, the next step is to construct the sample. There are two major types of sampling methods, namely, probability and nonprobability sampling (Blaikie, 2000). The availability of information, the nature of