Search

In this work I compare some characteristics and results obtained from two different methodologies used to study work in the informal sector. On the one hand, I used confirmatory factor analysis to study the relationships between social structure, life conditions, and psychological functioning. On the other hand, workers participated in the critical retrieval of their work histories, and in the discussion and analyses of their testimonies to research how we understand, communicate, and react to our work conditions. My aim is to explore how do these two methodologies complement each other. The quantitative and qualitative approaches respond to different questions, use different analytic categories, explore distinct patterns of relationships, imply very different relations between those who participate in the research, and serve different purposes for distinct people. The differences between research methodologies stem from distinct assumptions about the social world and the ways people perceive their world. Therefore, the task of combining both approaches becomes impossible, and one must accept that they only provide accounts of the same phenomenon from two different standpoints. The scientist is responsible for choosing a research methodology that determines how the phenomenon of his interest will be revealed and what will be the consequences of the knowledge thus obtained. Methods condition knowledge. The choice of methodology is related to personal assumptions about human beings and the world in which they live. Awareness of these relationships is basic for the work of a researcher who aims to help in the making of a different society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]