User talk:Bonjabow

If you can't fix Qualitative psychological research, perhaps you could just mention even one specific example of a biased statement in the article. Then we could work on fixing that. See how easy it is to fix things? John FitzGerald 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is also clearly not in accord with Wikipedia policy to write an article which consists of POV ("you should be arguing for it"). As far as I can see, it's the balance in the argument which annoys some fans of qualitative research, all of whom seem to lack the energy to do anything about what they see as bias except abuse me and the other people who've bothered to actually do some work on the topic. John FitzGerald 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I told you you could do it. I think the article is greatly improved thanks to your recent edits. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness, brother. I think I understand why you removed the section about arguments against quantitative research, but if you could briefly explain that would be helpful. I don't know if the section is essential (which is why I haven't restored it), but to my mind it was informative. Perhaps some of the issues, at least, could be raised in other sections.

Thanks for mentioning grounded theory, of which I am a big fan. I'll check to see if there's an article about it. John FitzGerald 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)