This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Miller, S. I. Articles by Fredericks, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Miller, S. I. Articles by Fredericks, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Naturalistic Inquiry and Reliabilism: A Compatible Epistemological Grounding

Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Counseling Psychology, Loyola University Chicago.

Marcel Fredericks

Office of Research in Medical Sociology

In this brief analysis, the authors suggest that naturalistic inquiry as a field must return to a more rigorous interpretation of epistemological issues. The need is highlighted by the fact that ideological and methodological claims are increasingly becoming conflated. This produces a distancing of what is truly at stake: a need to defend a genuine epistemological theory consistent with the aims of naturalistic perspectives and establish some ontological commitments as a result. The authors argue that the epistemological theory of process reliabilism is worth examining critically. They also suggest its consistency with the ontological claims of minimal realism.

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 12, No. 7, 982-989 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/104973202129120395


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. L. Johnstone Mixed Methods, Mixed Methodology Health Services Research in Practice Qual Health Res, February 1, 2004; 14(2): 259 - 271. [Abstract] [PDF]