“For many years, logical positivism and an emphasis on quantitative methods contained and channeled the nature of my research. Ultimately my personal inclination to follow philosophical questions and research topics wherever they went—across cultural and disciplinary boundaries, in whatever language was appropriate to the task—created a conflict with those constraints. Positivism began to look increasingly like a list of things that couldn't be studied successfully, or at all, because of bad controls over the subject matter: it was too elusive for behavioral groundings (minds in black boxes, emotions); it wouldn't yield to positivist reductions without great distortions (ordinary reality, dialogic constructions of meaning); replication for comparative purposes was impossible or impractical (views of the nature of the world and our place in it); it couldn't be tied in any causal way to the material forces at work in provisioning society (poetry); or the problem was such that “unscientific” disciplines already had a claim on it (English, Art, Music, Theater, etc.), making it too “soft” for hard-minded methods and inquiry.” ~ Ivan Brady

Source Link: http://www.oswego.edu/~brady/fullecture.pdf