In thinking about “qualitative methods” as I understand it at this point, I suppose the first thing that comes to mind is how “squishy” and subjective it is – I suppose this is true both in concept and in operation, too. Coming from a field that enjoys putting as concrete a face on things as possible, and looks for bright-line rules on which one may hang one’s hat, analyzing an issue or question subjectively is not exactly my comfort zone as such. Not that I’m a whole-hog positivist by any stretch – but neither am I a gung-ho constructivist or naturalist. I like to both explore AND explain. Put simply, I am seeing more and more clearly that both quantitative methods and qualitative methods are somewhat incomplete just on their own – and find the case for at least considering the applicability of BOTH methods to a research problem or question to be more and more compelling. This is, I feel, especially true in my area of interest – which I will short-hand as “information policy concerning information rights”. I want both to be able to explore and understand the dynamics behind policy by collecting information on how people experience it, and to explain the “output” or “upshot” of these policies by measuring their real effects in terms of, for example, impacting information seeking and sharing behaviors – in the interest of trying to propose some new ways to rethink and recast policy to minimize its impact on our intellectual freedoms (specifically as expressed through our information seeking and sharing behaviors…).