Qualitative and quantitative research are often presented as two fundamentally different paradigms through which we study the social world. These paradigms act as lightning conductors to which sets of epistemological assumptions, theoretical approaches and methods are attracted. Each is seen to be incompatible with the other. These paradigmatic claims have a tendency to resurface from time to time, manifesting themselves in the effects of different cultural traditions upon intellectual styles of research. There are pressures to view research in terms of this divide but perhaps more pressures to ignore such a divide. In this paper I examine how qualitative and quantitative approaches are in practice woven into the research process. In doing so I discuss the phasing of the research process and the different considerations which apply in different phases. A distinction is made between the context of enquiry or research design phase and the context of justification where data are analysed and interpreted. Part of the research process that is also considered here and is often ignored in the literature concerns contextualization, an important phase particularly in cross-national research. The Case for Separation and the Case for Convergence The case for separate paradigms is that qualitative and quantitative researchers hold different epistemological assumptions, belong to different research cultures and have different researcher biographies that work against convergence (Brannen, 1992). Indeed qualitative researchers are embracing even greater reflexivity, for example

The article examines three bodies of theory: individualization, the lifecourse, and concepts of time. It interrogates these theories with respect to the following questions: how young people speak about the future; and the bearing of young people's situations and time perspectives upon the way they envisage the transition to adulthood. It draws upon empirical research from a five-country European study, in particular material from focus group discussions conducted with young people in two west-European countries, Britain and Norway. It analyses variations in young peoples' ways of thinking about their future lives, and proposes, as a basis for further research, three ideal typical models.

In this paper we seek to explore a tendency in current sociological thought to highlight notions of choice and autonomy in writings about contemporary Western societies. We wish to draw attention to some of the consequences of leaving out discussions of the structural aspects of societies and people's lives, for individuals as well as for the development and application of sociological theory and its ability to understand the connection between history and individual biography. Our discussion is based on qualitative research that we have conducted in recent years, and draws on focus groups with young people in Norway and Britain. From this critique we seek to demonstrate how concepts that take account of context and structure as well individual subjectivities can create a better 'fit' with complex and diverse realties.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.