actually... no, it doesn't. what it answers is the abstraction or
representation of that question that you can create into quantifiable terms...
This suggests (whether or not you intend it to) that there is some sort of question that could be asked in terms not biased by the tools that are anticipated to be employed to answer. There are no "pure questions." Those who prefer to work with qualitative methods are likely to generate questions that are tractable qualitatively, those who prefer quantitative methods are likely to think of questions for which quantification makes good sense, and those who tend to prefer analytical methods (I'm using the term in tension with "empirical methods") are likely to ask questions that lend themselves to analytical processes. This isn't just a "where you stand depends on where you sit" sort of argument; I think it's worth recognizing the weaknesses in any approach, and particularly the dangers of endorsing methodological orthodoxy. It's valuable recognizing that methodological heterodoxy (or "triangulation" or what-have-you) is more than just a way to keep multiple scholarly audiences happy; it's a way of detecting and counterbalancing leaky questions and answers no matter your approach. Alex -- // // This email is // [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [X] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //