Employing questionnaires in terms of a constructivist epistemological stance: Reconsidering researchers' involvement in the unfolding of social life

18Citations
Citations of this article
110Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In this article, I delve into what it might mean to employ questionnaires without regarding them simply as a way of attempting to discern relationships of correlation or causality between defined variables (as in positivist and post-positivist conceptions of questionnaires). I shall consider the implications of researchers using questionnaires on the basis of alternative paradigmatic orientations. I shall discuss, in particular, interpretivist stances and more constructively-oriented stances (as qualitatively-oriented paradigmatic positions) with reference to different understandings of questionnaire use. I shall also reflect on how qualitative positions that embrace a constructivist epistemological stance can lead to a redirection of questionnaires in relation to more "usual" (post-positivist-directed) usages. In the course of the discussion I make a case, drawing on a version of constructivism, for researchers taking responsibility for their involvement-no matter what methods are used- in the unfolding of the social worlds of which research is a part. Taking into account the constructivist epistemological understanding that questionnaires-as well as other research methods-contribute to the construction of responses rather than merely "finding" responses from research participants, I suggest that some responsibility needs to be taken by those employing questionnaires for the potential social impact of these on research participants as well as wider audiences. © 2013 Romm.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Romm, N. R. A. (2013). Employing questionnaires in terms of a constructivist epistemological stance: Reconsidering researchers’ involvement in the unfolding of social life. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 652–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200136

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free