Response to Padgett's "Does the Glove Really Fit?"

We are writing because Deborah Padgett's (1998) article is misleading as a result of her misunderstanding of the distinction between a metatheory and a research method and the definition of naturalistic and interventionist research. Although we earlier addressed such misunderstandings, Padgett's article proves the urgency of another consideration of these issues. First, in erroneously characterizing us as "critics of quantitative research in social work," Padgett (1998, p. 379) conflates a method (collection and analysis of quantified data) with a metatheory (or research paradigm). We have never equated a specific method of data collection and analysis with the postpositivist metatheory we call the heuristic paradigm (Heineman Pieper, 1981, 1986, 1989; Tyson, 1995). Both logical positivist researchers and postpositivist researchers sometimes use qualitative methods of data collection and analysis and both logical positivist researchers, and postpositivist researchers sometimes quantify their data and analyze it quantitatively. Only, postpositivist researchers recognize there is no sound bases for privileging any one methodology, because all methods are heuristics that, although useful for some problems, also create different forms of bias (Wimsatt, 1986). Second, Padgett misrepresents our definition of naturalistic clinical research when she says that "naturalistic clinical research . . . places the researcher in an untenable position with regard to conflicting paradigms and goals. . . it raises ethical issues regarding the potential for coercion implicit in the clinician-client relationship" (1998, p. 379). But in the very same articles cited by Padgett, we define "naturalistic clinical research" as "the systematic study of clinical practice that is not intentionally altered for research purposes" (Heineman Pieper, 1994, p. 72; 1995, p. xxi). When a researcher uses naturalistic methods to study an organization or a culture, the researcher is "a member of the group under study, not an outsider" and does not change the system under study for research purposes (Heineman Pieper, 1994, p. 72; 1995, p. xxi). Accordingly, the criticisms Padgett raises with regard to naturalistic clinical research are entirely unwarranted. In contrast to the naturalistic design advanced by Heineman Pieper, interventionist research designs intentionally alter the system under study for research purposes. Padgett fails to recognize the ethical and theoretical issues at stake when interventionist research designs are applied in clinical practice settings (Heineman Pieper, 1981, 1994; Tyson, 1995). Furthermore, Padgett does not mention the biases inherent in interventionist research designs. For example, data about the system as it would function naturally without the research process occurring cannot be studied, and some data are a function solely of the research-motivated interventions. Naturalistic clinical research is free of these biases. It is ironic that Padgett charges us with being unethical when she is recommending that social workers "suspend" their "helping mandate . . . until the study is completed so that rigorous findings can be obtained and their implications made known" (p. 380). Naturalistic clinical research has the advantage that social workers who engage in it never have to compromise their fundamental professional mission. …