Methods: Mixed, Qualitative, And Quantitative - Research Paper Example

Research Methods: Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Introduction The debate between the two different modes of research, qualitative and quantitative has been going on for more than ten decades now. The quantitative camp has produces purists whose stand is that the use of quantitative data should be treated to actual facts and measurable phenomenon. They argue that the social sciences should be described accurately as an objective study. That is that the factors like time and context free generalizations can be measured as possible, real and actual data. The validity of this data as the source of social scientific outcomes can be measure and verified accurately. Research should be an unbiased field, free from emotions and involvement with the objects of study. They must be required to test the validity of the study and to empirically justify the results in relation to the hypothesis. Proponents of this thought include Campbell and Stanley, Lincoln and Guba, Ayer, Maxwell and Delaney Popper and Schrag. They believe in these tenets and subscribe to a positivist philosophy regarding research. (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) Qualitative purists believe that the positivist outlook is not suited to research particularly in the social sciences. They believe that the representation of actual verifiable data can be interpreted and inferred upon. They believe that it is impossible to obtain time and context free generalizations. They believe that the main role of data is to provide a basis for inference and to generate an explanation by means of induction. There is no separation of cause and effect. They disdain the robotic and sterile writing promoted by quantitatvists and promote instead a more liberal and “human” form of interpreting and displaying data. What is common in both sides of purists is that they view their ideals as the only one ideal for research. They resort to what is called the incompatibility thesis, which basically put forth the notion that both qualitative and quantitative research designs exist separately and should not be mixed. (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) Mixed method research has been a popular commodity lately in various fields of research. Mixed methods research design does not limit itself to following a single design paradigm and uses tenets from both qualitative and quantitative research designs. The paper aims to analyze the effectiveness of these three methods in evaluation and measuring leadership qualities in human resource management. Literature Review (qualitative, quantitative, mixed) Tashakkori and Teddlie in their 1998 paper put forth the rebuttal that it would be more appropriate to denote the term “mixed” model instead of mixed method. The term encompasses research using different approaches in all or in any of the research stages. The point in this is that the mixing occurs beyond simply the methods used. Tashakkori and Teddlie laid the foundation of introducing the concept of mixed method research design to the popular world.(Tashakkori, 1999) Prior to that, the research design choices were limited to the paradigms of quantitative and qualitative research design. Purists from these included in their work the divisiveness and separation of the two; (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Lincoln & Guba, 1985, Ayer, 1959; Maxwell & Delaney, 2004; Popper, 1959; Schrag, 1992). (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) Integration of mixed method research design into mainstream research was evident and particularly highlighted on Creswell’s 2003 book entitled Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approach. Compare and contrasts were drawn as well as the advantages, disadvantages and limitations of each design. (J. W. Creswell, 2003) Sandelowski in an article published in Residential Nursing Health showed the uniqueness and versatility of mixed method research. In the article entitled “Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies” Sandelowski showcased the lack of motivation by paradigm and philosophy in mixed method research. This aspect makes mixed method research design versatile in that it can easily adapt to the needs of the researcher. Although lacking method wise, mixed method research makes up for it with adaptability to the questions and inquiry made by the researcher.(Sandelowski, 2000) A problem of mixed method research was discussed by Moffatt et al in the 2006 paper entitled “Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research - what happens when mixed method findings conflict?” In the paper, discrepancies were noted between the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the mixed methodology research. The study concluded that the use of mixed method research provides more information regarding the subject matter, information that would not be otherwise gained using only one of the traditional methods. Mixed Method research has been touted as being highly suitable to health research. (Moffatt, White, Mackintosh, & Howel, 2006) This was verified by Kroll et al. in the 2005 paper entitled “Using mixed methods in disability and rehabilitation research”. In the paper, Kroll et al. discussed the integration of both qualitative and quantitative means of research in disability and rehabilitation research. The paper praised the effectiveness of mixed method research and recommended it in the field of rehabilitation research.(Kroll, Neri, & Miller, 2005) Hakeela (2004) described the research approach with three specified objectives and a pluralist approach. The study also has greater emphasis on quantitative methods rather than the qualitative methods dimensions. The first objective was to obtain data with backgrounds of the respondents like gender, age and managerial level or formal education examined from the date with ample sample measurements. The second prominent feature of the study involves the study on two island nations; Maldives and Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. It was the first comprehensive study done in these areas. The third feature of this study is its design of analysis on cross-cultural boundaries. This is executed through clear definitions of the questions that do not compromise the quality and the validity of the responses to the questions. There is also a consideration regarding the research strategy and instruments that were used to enhance the determination of the data that has significant relevance to ensure the quality of study in the two nations. (Hakeela, 2004) Research Key Discussion Topics In conducting independent research, one major question that should be answered primarily is whether to use quantitative or qualitative approach. It is important to determine the distinction between these two approaches to further assess their strengths and limitations as a research approach. When we describe quantitative research, it uses primarily charts, figures and graphs that entail facts, qualitative research touches the attributes of the population under study in a manner that we can say, soft and fuzzy. Qualitative research involves first hand and personal means to interview or obtain information regarding the consumers. This approach enables the research to look into the factors surrounding the formed questions. It concerns the subjective feel of the topic and involves small number of participants. An example of a qualitative research technique is the focus group. Quantitative research is structured with the use of figures and statistical measures that presents hard facts regarding the topic. In marketing analysis, qualitative approach is suited to understand the perspective of the customer; it can determine the process of the consumer when deciding on a particular product. Qualitative research is flexible to adapt to unexpected events, although, flexibility also is a tradeoff to data reliability. Quantitative research provides a picture of how populations are studied. Qualitative research is a free-form design that allows brainstorming sessions that tackles the development and marketing problems. With the exchange of ideas from customer and the company, perspective for innovations can be a significant result. One example is the development a new method of online purchasing. The company may convene a group of potential customers and talk to them regarding their experiences. In this way, customers will eventually open up with their experiences, their observation, criticism or suggestions for more efficient method in online purchasing. Information gathered in this manner can initiate more quantitative research that will represent a cross-section of the market and issues that appeals to the customers. Qualitative research can serve as planning tools in quantitative research. Qualitative sessions are effective before embarking on more sophisticated and expensive research thereon. This provides more efficient results that minimize the need to redo techniques once mistakes show up. Qualitative research also provides visceral feedback that is absent in the quantitative approach. Qualitative research, through group dynamics enhances results. It also provides human perspective on the consumer that quantitative approach, through charts and graphs, lacks. Qualitative research also thus entails its limitations with including small number of participants that increase the cost of the research if large number of participants is involved. When using small sample sizes, there is a greater probability that the consumer is different from the rest of the marketplace. (Bezeley, 2002) Quantitative research presents an accurate representation of the population being studied given proper procedure and method. Qualitative research can not provide this information since it is limited to only qualitative measurements of the variables under study. Quantitative research edge over qualitative research is its role in providing data in order to arrive at critical decisions. To provide accurate measures on research, quantitative as a process give significant attention to the consumers of the study. For consistency, methods like questionnaires and interview materials are standardized. Through this process, quantitative research can overcome the challenge of cross geographic boundaries and include respondents from a large and entire target population. This particular method is crucial especially with regards to online respondents wherein automated interviews allow large sample sizes, and the limitation of cultural and global boundaries. On quantitative research, statistical techniques reviews simple averages or frequency distributions that provides ample description of the nature of the population under study. But more in-depth analysis and computations are dedicated in the research using quantitative descriptors. Research analysis can involve multivariate procedures like cluster analysis, conjoint analysis or factor analysis. Properly administered quantitative research can also replicate and tracked. Say the results yielded are nearly identical with identical studies in the same population; changes in a population can be tracked over a period of time through same study at regular intervals. This will produce results showing the trends and changes of the population. This procedure allows research to monitor changes with regards to the population, more specifically to the customer characteristics. For example is the research with regards to advertising effectiveness. Tracking and monitoring customer characteristic and behavior enables the research to determine the effect of advertising on brand consciousness, awareness and perception. The result will contribute significantly to the evaluation of business decisions and can provide feedback on the impact of marketing or product development decisions. With the advancement in technology, the online environment has provided the use of its resources affordable to the firms, compare to its availability then to large brands and established companies. Quantitative research also has an advantage on its ability to improve its process over time and consequently reducing the cost of conducting research studies. Once methods for collecting, analyzing and reporting data is made available, research studies can be done quickly to attend to posing questions of the firm. True to the nature of the online environment, the interviewing and data collection process can be built once but can be used repeatedly over time. The expenditure is also greater when conducting the research offline or employed to outside vendor. But despite of the quantitative advantage over qualitative research, most companies and firms utilize qualitative measures because primarily they lack the knowledge regarding the tools that can be used in quantitative research. Quantitative research has advantages as well as its limitations. The attributes of quantitative research being reliable and easily replicated also reflects drawbacks of the type of research employed. The standardized questionnaires and interviewing techniques limits the study to predetermined hypotheses. Potentially spontaneous and tangential responses are often missed or excluded with standardized interviews and questionnaires. With regards to exploratory research, quantitative methods can be considered insufficient for accurate results. Usually researchers use two-pronged approach to get the best of both worlds. Qualitative methods determine the issues surrounding the topic while quantitative research establishes the degree as to which the issues exist. Quantitative research is strongly utilized when understanding established brands or markets. The reason for such is the challenge that lies when innovative concepts are being conveyed. It has been found that email has been an invaluable tool in communication due to its passive nature. Personal experience and hearsay opinions somehow enable respondents to reacting surveys which are foreign to them. This issue however is irrelevant with online research because studies can greatly use the descriptive multimedia tools to help convey innovations to the respondents. Multimedia enables respondents to be familiarized with the subject and that is necessary with generating opinions. Another limitation is also the attribute of quantitative research being an abstraction, thus it entails difficulty for decision-makers. There is a lack of interpretation abilities that limits the use of quantitative research thus, giving favor to qualitative methods. A company who has this notion disregards the fact that quantitative methods can be cheaper and more appropriate given the right resources. There is also a potentially misleading idea in quantitative research. The greatest limitation quantitative methods have is that if the study is poorly conducted, the results are perceived to be irrefutable by individuals with limited experience. Figures, charts and graphs provide empirical implications but several cases suggest that information gathered with confidentiality given as “truth” is unreliable. Number of factors can affect the legitimacy of the research thus entailing questionnaires can include leading questions, bias data collection methods, margin of error attributed to small sample sizes that generates insignificant results and analyst with unseen agenda. Qualitative and quantitative research both has common grounds for having major impacts on the results with interpretation of data unbiased but in a meaningful manner. Survey research used in quantitative research is best used in measuring concrete and easily categorized attributes for market factors or consumer characteristics in the marketing process. Quantitative research is generally used in measuring customer attitudes, attributes and preferences, but the challenge being is the accurate measures that must be collected amidst the complexity of the factors involved. Most quantitative research is employed in determining market factors, customer identification and measuring the attitudes and opinions of consumers. (Denzin, 1998) Quantitative and qualitative measures have two different techniques for data collection. The conventional wisdom of the two measures also has different strengths and limitations, including the requirements of the two approaches. We shall the issues involving the two measures as theoretical or practical. In theoretical issues, three topics serve as the core of the discussion- the value of types of data, relative scientific rigor of the data, or the basic underlying philosophies of evaluation. In analyzing the value of data, quantitative and qualitative techniques provide distinction between breadth and depth of generalization and targeting specific populations. But noting this, the survey can only elicit few and superficial reasons for say, gender difference.(John W. Creswell, 2003) Qualitative technique conducted with focus groups will provide more significant data for example, in the process of choosing a major subject or reinforced attitudes. But the qualitative technique is limited to the extents to which results applied in specific individuals. Quantitative methods results and produced data are said to be more objective and accurate because of the standard methods that can be replicated over experiments. They can also be analyzed through statistical techniques that are accurate. There is also a traditional wisdom that qualitative methods are most suited to formative evaluations compared to the hard facts produced through quantitative methods. This distinction is very simple, because both methods can not judge the scientific strength of the data. Credibility and validity concerns are raised with quantitative methods because surveys may not be evaluated and understood by respondents easily, probably because some of the respondents have a hard time recalling facts and events. Whereas, qualitative research have better techniques in classifying and analyzing larger data sets. Another important factor both methods have is the operation within cultural context that can may or may not affect the end result. There is also a philosophy distinction between the two methods. They have different views regarding the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. Qualitative research argues that all knowledge are constructed through observation which is the outcome and reflection of beliefs, perception and the political and social environment in which they thrive. Quantitative response to this argument is the development of more sophisticated models and techniques to adapt to the change and the continued pursuit to develop statistical tools that can gauge social phenomena. The qualitative approach is more concerned with the context of an event or outcomes; quantitative approach desires to control the context through random assignments and multivariate analysis. Another distinction is that qualitative research studies the deviant cases because it provides viable data and interpretation of results, while qualitative research tries to ignore the deviant cases given that it is small and its extremity. The distinctions mentioned affect the nature of designs adapted in the research. Most orthodox practitioners often relate that qualitative research does not start with specific questions for evaluation; rather it provides specific questions after completion of open-field research. The qualitative approach may be difficult to devise as questions regarding the effectiveness of interventions that are the subject of evaluation is done after when it is expected to guide the evaluation process. Other distinction med by studies includes qualitative work referring to methods prior to evaluation and hypothesis testing and quantitative work referring to open-ended data collection like in-depth reviews in a structured research. With regards to practicality, four issues that affect the choice of method to use are the credibility of findings, staff skills, costs and time constraints. Credibility is an issue mainly because evaluations are designed to a specified audience. Evaluators’ deals with skeptical audiences often that wants to discredit findings which are sometimes too critical or uncritical towards the outcome of the process. Thus, there is a possibility of the rejection of the evaluation methodology employed as judged either weak or unsound for the conclusion. With regards to staff cost, qualitative methods which includes interviews and observations and focus groups, requires additional skills of the staff with considerable supervision. Small scaled and self-administered questionnaires employed in the quantitative approach is mastered easily, but on the larger scale which involves complex surveys, skilled personnel are needed to achieve accurate results as different statistical measurements are employed in the process. The cost is also an issue in differentiating the two approaches. Depending on the information needed, quality standards are set in data collection and cases required for credibility and accuracy. A short survey maximum of 50 respondents with simple and easy questions is usually inexpensive though data is limited and sacrificed. Much cheaper is the qualitative approaches’ of the focus group in which one group serves as a subset of the entire population under study. This method usually produces interesting results and can be used to generate new hypotheses to be furthered studied. But generally, both approach entails high cost for its data collection. Time constraints should also be considered. Time is affected by data quality and complexity. Quantitative benefited from advancements in technology that can easier process data but it is compensated with time needed to create and pretest questions for more accurate results. Qualitative methods on the other hand can be time consuming considering data collection and analysis overlap functions but the exploration process allows new evaluation questions. Time dedicated to evaluation is crucial as other time allotted for data collection or analysis can also lessen. Especially when a challenge arises in the form of operation under time constraints, choosing between the two methods is serious. The debate over whether which approach is better, quantitative or qualitative, practitioners’ settles on the suggestion of building a new approach with complimentary strengths from two approaches. Mark and Huberman (1994) suggest that there is validity and usefulness in merging the two approaches. In most evaluation of EHR projects, the use of mixed-method is useful because interventions of the EHR are not confined in sterile laboratories; rather it involves the complex social environment. In able to disregard the complexity of the environment, it is suited to improve the evaluation method employed. Human behavior also contributes to the use of various data collection methods. The evaluation team can be effective if each type of data collection is analyzed with its strengths so to minimize the weakness of any single approach. The use of mixed-method increases validity and reliability of the evaluated data. Using the triangulation approach, the validity of approach can be strengthened. Using mixed-method also improves instrumentation date collection process and analysis. A mixed-method approach also lead evaluators to modify and expand the evaluation design through the realization of the need for reevaluating the techniques or framework employed in the process. Immediately after evaluators recognize the discrepancies and flaws of the employed design, they can easily adapt to the needed changes. Mixed-method approach integrates both qualitative and quantitative approaches that evaluator deems still significant for enriched formative and summative evaluations. (Frechtling & Sharp, 1997) Conclusion Qualitative and quantitative research designs have been used in many fields. However, with the advent of mixed methods research design, several fields have come to prefer this over the others. In particular, the fields of social sciences and health research have adopted the use of mixed method research design as the norm. Qualitative research deals with data that can be inferred upon. It is primarily used when dealing with abstract data as well as hard data that require additional interpretation to be useful. Quantitative research on the other hand focuses on the use of hard, measurable data to provide a basis and proof to a hypothesis. In fields of exact sciences dealing with unbiased facts, the use of quantitative research design is optimal. However, when dealing with abstract, non empirical data in research the use of qualitative method is advised. Mixed method research is ideal in several ways. It gives additional basis for confirming or rejecting the hypothesis. It considers and gives importance to both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of research. It adds weight to whatever conclusion the researcher formulates since it covers more ground than quantitative and qualitative research design separately. In terms of measuring leadership qualities in the modern entrepreneurial setting, mixed method seems to be the preferred and most viable choice. The use of only qualitative or quantitative methods would provide gaps within the evaluation. Leadership qualities are both quantitative and qualitative and to use only one or the other would isolate and limit key research areas and would not provide a complete and accurate evaluation. As manifested by Hakeela, the use of mixed methods in leadership research has been considered and done. REFERENCES Read More

The paper aims to analyze the effectiveness of these three methods in evaluation and measuring leadership qualities in human resource management. Literature Review (qualitative, quantitative, mixed) Tashakkori and Teddlie in their 1998 paper put forth the rebuttal that it would be more appropriate to denote the term “mixed” model instead of mixed method. The term encompasses research using different approaches in all or in any of the research stages. The point in this is that the mixing occurs beyond simply the methods used.

Tashakkori and Teddlie laid the foundation of introducing the concept of mixed method research design to the popular world.(Tashakkori, 1999) Prior to that, the research design choices were limited to the paradigms of quantitative and qualitative research design. Purists from these included in their work the divisiveness and separation of the two; (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Lincoln & Guba, 1985, Ayer, 1959; Maxwell & Delaney, 2004; Popper, 1959; Schrag, 1992). (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) Integration of mixed method research design into mainstream research was evident and particularly highlighted on Creswell’s 2003 book entitled Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approach.

Compare and contrasts were drawn as well as the advantages, disadvantages and limitations of each design. (J. W. Creswell, 2003) Sandelowski in an article published in Residential Nursing Health showed the uniqueness and versatility of mixed method research. In the article entitled “Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies” Sandelowski showcased the lack of motivation by paradigm and philosophy in mixed method research.

This aspect makes mixed method research design versatile in that it can easily adapt to the needs of the researcher. Although lacking method wise, mixed method research makes up for it with adaptability to the questions and inquiry made by the researcher.(Sandelowski, 2000) A problem of mixed method research was discussed by Moffatt et al in the 2006 paper entitled “Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research - what happens when mixed method findings conflict?” In the paper, discrepancies were noted between the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the mixed methodology research.

The study concluded that the use of mixed method research provides more information regarding the subject matter, information that would not be otherwise gained using only one of the traditional methods. Mixed Method research has been touted as being highly suitable to health research. (Moffatt, White, Mackintosh, & Howel, 2006) This was verified by Kroll et al. in the 2005 paper entitled “Using mixed methods in disability and rehabilitation research”. In the paper, Kroll et al. discussed the integration of both qualitative and quantitative means of research in disability and rehabilitation research.

The paper praised the effectiveness of mixed method research and recommended it in the field of rehabilitation research.(Kroll, Neri, & Miller, 2005) Hakeela (2004) described the research approach with three specified objectives and a pluralist approach. The study also has greater emphasis on quantitative methods rather than the qualitative methods dimensions. The first objective was to obtain data with backgrounds of the respondents like gender, age and managerial level or formal education examined from the date with ample sample measurements.

The second prominent feature of the study involves the study on two island nations; Maldives and Mauritius in the Indian Ocean. It was the first comprehensive study done in these areas. The third feature of this study is its design of analysis on cross-cultural boundaries. This is executed through clear definitions of the questions that do not compromise the quality and the validity of the responses to the questions. There is also a consideration regarding the research strategy and instruments that were used to enhance the determination of the data that has significant relevance to ensure the quality of study in the two nations.

Read More