The power of words: is qualitative research as important as quantitative research in the study of autism?

Editorial Honestly, who among us was properly academically trained to conduct qualitative research? Who can spontaneously cite a qualitative study of autism, or would say his or her favorite study of autism is a qualitative one? Who thinks qualitative research is as valuable as quantitative research? Without either qualitative or quantitative evidence for it, only an n = 1 personal experience, I would assume with good confidence: not many of you, correct? The number of original studies that use qualitative methods in respected peer-reviewed journals is negligible compared to quantitative ones. Why is that so? In this editorial, I will first explain why I think there still is an implicit attitude among many of my esteemed peers that the results of qualitative research cannot be taken seriously, and then argue that disrespect for qualitative research is a well-cultivated myth, and that rigorous qualitative research is as necessary as quantitative research. A note of caution for readers: I feel somewhat appointed to write about these issues, as I have gone through a recent transition from rather hostile to rather enthusiastic about qualitative research, which I will describe later. So, why is there relatively little qualitative research in autism, and why are related methods not well accepted by the scientific community? First, I assume, few are well trained in qualitative research. For most, it is something that others do, and is viewed as bad (or at best, incomplete) science. Second, there is perhaps a perceived lack of need; the main objective of qualitative research is to gain deeper understanding of human behavior and experiences based on (a series of) cases. Data from qualitative studies can be used to generate good hypotheses, for which quantitative support can be sought, as well to illuminate quantitative findings. However, many autism researchers are clini-cians, too. Therefore, they may encounter enough informative cases in naturalistic settings and gain sufficient insight into their behavior (" clinical experience ") from which to derive concrete hypotheses, and to interpret quantitative data in an insightful fashion. Third, the scientific quality of many qualitative studies in the autism field is indeed often low, which further discredits qualitative research as a legitimate form of empirical research. Much published qualitative research is too exploratory, with weaknesses in rationale, clarity, documentation, replicability, and sound-ness of conclusions. I also have observed that in some qualitative studies, quantitative methods in general or results from quantitative studies are …