Qualitative And Quantitative Methods Of - Research Proposal Example

All Writing Writers 15 December 2006 Qualitative & Quantitative Research Methods The method of research is not new. Historians have always non-quantitative data such as correspondence, as their primary source material, and through oral history methods have added in-depth interviewing to their repertoire in recent decades. “Anthropology, from its conception as a discipline in the mid-nineteenth century, used qualitative methods such as field observation and informant interviewing to understand cultural patterns and social relationships. Sociology has always drawn upon both quantitative and qualitative methods, such as in the influential Chicago school of urban research in the 1920s, and has often utilised both approaches”. (Darlington, 2002, p. 3) Organisational theory has been based largely on case studies created from an amalgam of observation, documentary material and interviews. Qualitative and quantitative methods’ versatility can be analysed from the fact that in recent years specialisations such as medical anthropology and medical sociology have relied heavily on qualitative methods to explore issues relating to health and illness, from the micro-context of the hospital ward or clinic through to the broader socio cultural context. Qualitative methods have extended well beyond the boundaries of the social sciences in academia. Market research was originally based on the social survey but now complements this with focus groups to tap the processes and nuances of consumer opinion, as does research on public opinion and voting intentions. Qualitative and quantitative research have philosophical roots in the naturalistic and the positivistic philosophies, respectively. Virtually all qualitative researchers, regardless of their theoretical differences, reflect some sort of individual phenomenological perspective. Most quantitative research approaches, regardless of their theoretical differences, tend to emphasize that there is a common reality on which people can agree. From a phenomenological perspective, Douglas (1976) believe that multiple realities exist and multiple interpretations are available from different individuals that are all equally valid. Reality is a social construct. If one functions from this perspective, how one conducts a study and what conclusions a researcher draws from a study are considerably different from those of a researcher coming from a quantitative or positivist position, which assumes a common objective reality across individuals. There are different degrees of belief in these sets of assumptions about reality among qualitative and quantitative researchers. For instance, Blumer (1980), a phenomenological researcher who emphasizes subjectivity, does not deny that there is a reality one must attend to. The debate between qualitative and quantitative researchers is based upon the differences in assumptions about what reality is and whether or not it is measurable. The debate further rests on differences of opinion about how we can best understand what we “know,” whether through objective or subjective methods. The qualitative, naturalistic approach is used when observing and interpreting reality with the aim of developing a theory that will explain what was experienced. The quantitative approach is used when one begins with a theory (or hypothesis) and tests for confirmation or disconfirmation of that hypothesis. It is important here to set the stage for abandoning the dichotomy. To do so, we examine a few of the key events in the chronicle of scientific evolution that established the debate in the first place. As long as one view of how we can explain the workings of the world reigns supreme, there is no debate. The debate rests on a dichotomy characterized by a lessening of the dominance of one paradigm over another, leveling the playing field so that the debate could occur. In fact, the debate may be but one more phase in the ebb and flow of an ever changing philosophy of knowledge. All behavioral research is made up of a combination of qualitative and quantitative constructs. We believe that conceptualizing the dichotomy (using separate and distinct categories of qualitative and quantitative research) is not consistent with a coherent philosophy of science and, further, that the notion of a continuum is the only construct that fits what we know in a scientific sense. A secondary theme is equally important; that is, what are known as qualitative methods are frequently beginning points, foundational strategies, which often are followed by quantitative methodologies. Qualitative research methods are those generally subsumed under the heading ethnography. Other headings and names include case studies, field studies, grounded theory, document studies, naturalistic inquiry, observational studies, interview studies, and descriptive studies. Qualitative research designs in the social sciences stem from traditions in anthropology and sociology, where the philosophy emphasizes the phenomenological basis of a study, the elaborate description of the “meaning” of phenomena for the people or culture under examination. This is referred to as the verstehen approach. Often in a qualitative design only one subject, one case, or one unit is the focus of investigation over an extended period of time. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), qualitative data are often coded a posteriori from interpretations of those data. Quantitative research, on the other hand, falls under the category of empirical studies, according to some, or statistical studies, according to others. These designs include the more traditional ways in which psychology and behavioral science have carried out investigations. “Quantitative modes have been the dominant methods of research in social science. Quantitative designs include experimental studies, quasi-experimental studies, pretest-postest designs, and others” (Campbell & Stanley, 1963), where control of variables, randomization, and valid and reliable measures are required and where generalizability from the sample to the population is the aim. Data in quantitative studies are coded according to a priori operational and standardized definitions. It is necessary to adopt some standard by which one can measure whether the qualitative, the quantitative, or a continuum that includes both methodologies is the most effective mode in reaching truth. We assume the standard of science as a way of knowing. Qualitative Methods Conceptualized In their Handbook of Qualitative Research, Denzin and Lincoln (1994) acknowledge that qualitative research means different things to different people. They offer what they call a “generic definition.” Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials--case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactions, and visual texts --the described routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (p. 2) Qualitative data are defined by Patton (1990) as “detailed descriptions of situations, events, people, interactions, observed behaviors, direct quotations from people about their experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts and excerpts or entire passages from documents, correspondence, records, and case histories” (p. 22). Theory’s place in qualitative methods is quite different from that in quantitative methods. Quantitative Methods Conceptualized Quantitative research is frequently referred to as hypothesis-testing research (Kerlinger, 1964). Typical of this tradition is the following common pattern of research operations in investigating, for example, the effects of a treatment or an intervention. Characteristically, studies begin with statements of theory from which research hypotheses are derived. Then an experimental design is established in which the variables in question (the dependent variables) are measured while controlling for the effects of selected independent variables. That the subjects included in the study are selected at random is desirable to reduce error and to cancel bias. The sample of subjects is drawn to reflect the population. After the pretest measures are taken, the treatment conducted, and posttest measures taken, a statistical analysis reveals findings about the treatment's effects. To support repeatability of the findings, one experiment usually is conducted and statistical techniques are used to determine the probability of the same differences occurring over and over again. These tests of statistical significance result in findings that confirm or counter the original hypothesis. Theory revision or enhancement follows. This would be a true experiment. These procedures are deductive in nature, contributing to the scientific knowledge base by theory testing. This is the nature of quantitative methodology. Because true experimental designs require tightly controlled conditions, the richness and depth of meaning for participants may be sacrificed. As a validity concern, this may be a limitation of quantitative designs. Characteristics of Qualitative Research Qualitative methods diversity can be seen from an interpretive worldview of some of its characteristics: Words. “Qualitative research focuses on words rather than numbers, although occasionally numbers are used to indicate the frequency that a theme is found in transcripts or the extent to which a form of action occurs” (Daymon, 2002, p. 23). Researcher involvement. The main research ‘instrument’ in qualitative research is the researcher who closely engages with the people being studied. This differs from quantitative research where researchers are remote from their informants (because their research is based on methods such as surveys or structured interviews). Participant viewpoints. A desire to explore and present the various subjective perspectives of participants is associated with qualitative research. Its privileging of subjectivity is also seen in the way that the interpretation of the data is influenced by the researcher’s own biography together with their involvement with people in the study. Small-scale studies. Qualitative researchers are interested in deep exploration in order to provide rich, detailed, holistic description as well as explanation. Therefore, small samples are the norm. Holistic focus. “Rather than directing their attention to one or two isolated variables, qualitative researchers tend to be oriented to a wide range of interconnected activities, experiences, beliefs and values of people in terms of the context in which they are situated. This provokes qualitative researchers to account for a multiplicity of dimensions and relationships in the context” (Daymon, 2002, p. 23). Flexible. Although researchers have a topic and an agenda which fuel their research progress, they are usually committed to exploring new and often surprising avenues that emerge as informants reveal their understandings and interests. Research procedures may be unstructured, adaptable and sometimes spontaneous. At times the research process may even be described as rather ‘messy’ as researchers attempt to unpack the complexities of the social world of public relations and marketing communications. Natural settings. On the whole, qualitative investigations are carried out in people’s natural environments such as in their offices or where they shop. This enables researchers to observe how they go about their routine activities and interactions. However, this is not always the case as many focus groups involve groups of strangers meeting together in an unfamiliar setting such as a conference room. Inductive then deductive. “Qualitative research tends to start out with inductive reasoning and then, through a sequential process, employs deductive reasoning. This means that you first get ideas from collecting and analysing the data (that is, you move inductively from specific data to more general patterns and commonalities). You then test these ideas out by relating them to the literature and to your further data collection and analysis (deduction). Theory, therefore, emerges primarily out of data collection rather than being generated from the literature and tested out through fieldwork” (Daymon, 2002, p. 23). According to Naresh K. Malhotra, “Qualitative research is unstructured, exploratory in nature, based on small samples and may utilize popular qualitative techniques such as focus groups (group interviews), word association (asking respondents to indicate their first responses to stimulus words), and depth interviews (one-on-one interviews that probe the respondents’ thoughts in detail)” (Malhotra, p. 53). The core qualitative methods include in-depth interviewing of individuals and small groups, systematic observation of behaviour and analysis of documentary data. Qualitative techniques possess the following characteristics: “Small convenience or quota samples are used. The information sought relates to the respondents’ motivations, beliefs, feelings and attitudes. An intuitive, subjective approach is used in gathering the data. The data collection format is open-ended. The approach is not intended to provide statistically or scientifically accurate data”(Kinnear, 1996, p. 305). “The realist worldview usually goes hand-in-hand with quantitative research methods. This is because quantitative techniques seek to distance the researcher from the data, both in the methods of collecting the data and also in analysis where numbers and statistics are favoured over words and the organization of language” (Daymon, 2002, p. 25). Other features of quantitative methods are that they tend to be large-scale with a focus on specific factors which are studied in relation to specific other factors. This requires researchers to isolate variables from their natural context in order to study how they work and their effect. For example, you might isolate budgets from all the different aspects of sponsorship and test the hypothesis that “the larger the budget, the more effective the sponsorship programme will be”. A further feature of quantitative studies is that they tend to be structured; procedures and questions are determined before primary research begins. This means that theory is tested out through research rather than emerging from the research. Because quantitative methods are associated with numbers and detachment, they are not well suited to description. This contrasts with qualitative methods, where deep, rich description is one of the latter’s key strengths. A trawl through the literature on public relations and marketing (as well as marketing communications) indicates that most studies are realist in their standpoint and quantitative in their methodological approach. Even where qualitative methods are used, it is not unusual to find a realist stance behind the interpretive facade. This applies to both scholarly and industry research and occurs when researchers apply the methods pragmatically. For example, in the advertising sector, qualitative focus groups are used extensively to test out advertising concepts prior to the development of advertisements or to test campaigns before they go into production. Such research, however, rarely goes beyond sifting the good ads from the bad because the focus too often is on the performance of advertising rather than on what the ad means for research participants. Quantitative data are actually intended to quantify or precisely measure a problem, often using sophisticated statistical procedures and scientifically drawn samples. “Quantitative data are usually associated with formal or conclusive research” (2006a). The most common quantitative techniques include observation techniques, experimentation and survey techniques. “The most common applications of quantitative research are determining market factors, identifying customer characteristics and behaviors, and measuring the attitudes and opinions of consumers” (2006b). Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Qualitative research provides insights and understanding of the problem setting, whereas quantitative research seeks to quantify the data and typically applies some form of statistical analysis. “Whether it is qualitative aspects or quantitative aspects of an analysis, we intentionally induce a systematic variation in terms of different domain and problem representations” (Fehse et al, 1999, p. 179). “Whenever a new marketing research problem is being addressed, quantitative research must be preceded by appropriate qualitative research. Sometimes qualitative research is undertaken to explain the findings obtained from quantitative research. However, the findings of qualitative research are misused when they are regarded as conclusive and are used to make generalizations to the population of interest. Qualitative and quantitative researches are viewed as complementary rather than in competition with each other” (Malhotra, p. 356). However, qualitative and quantitative research in combination can provide rich insights that can help in formulating successful marketing strategies, as in the case of Kolson Foods. Example of Qualitative and Quantitative Research When Kolson Foods came out with its new product, Lasagne, they thought it was going to be a great success. Kolson has the same taste as Kolson’s original macaroni and cheese but its preparation is somewhat different from them. They thought that British population would love the convenience and the speed of preparing the product. However, the first year sales were disappointing. Kolson conducted focus groups to figure out what went wrong. The focus groups revealed that customers were aware of the product but perceptions of the product were low. Consumers were skeptical about the taste and quality of the product. The focus groups also revealed that mothers liked the product because their older children could make it by themselves. After confirming these findings in a descriptive survey involving interviews and questionnaires, Kolson launched ad campaigns stressing how older kids can make it themselves. They also included an easy three-step instruction process on the back end of the box to make it easier for consumers to understand the making of product. As a result these ad campaigns were a hit and sales greatly increased for the new Kolson product. Focus groups (qualitative research) and survey (quantitative research) used in a complimentary way allowed Kolson to discover the needs of its consumers. Qualitative Research Quantitative Research Objective To gain a qualitative understanding of the underlying reasons and motivations To quantify the data and generalize the results from the sample to the population of interest Sample Small number of nonrepresentative cases Large number of representative cases Data collection Unstructured Structured Data analysis Nonstatistical Statistical Outcome Develop an initial understanding Recommend a final course of action (Malhotra, p. 137) “The qualitative, naturalistic approach is used when observing and interpreting reality with the aim of developing a theory that will explain what was experienced. The quantitative approach is used when one begins with a theory and tests for confirmation or disconfirmation of that hypothesis” (Newman & Carolyn, 1998, p.3). There are several considerations when deciding to adopt a qualitative research methodology. Strauss and Corbin claim that qualitative methods can be used to better understand any phenomenon about which little is yet known. They can also be used to gain new perspectives on things about which much is already known, or to gain more in-depth information that may be difficult to convey quantitatively. Thus, qualitative methods are appropriate in situations where one needs to first identify the variables that might later be tested quantitatively, or where the researcher has determined that quantitative measures cannot adequately describe or interpret a situation. Some questions are readily transformed into testable propositions and can be investigated using quantitative methods. Sometimes this involves a major endeavor to collect and analyze the necessary data but it can also involve the analysis of data which can be collected easily or which already exists. For example, hypotheses such as ‘Clients who are rung the day prior to an appointment will be more likely to keep the appointment’ or ‘Clients who are offered an appointment within three days of making the appointment will be more likely to keep the appointment’ are easy to test even in a small human service organization. The client information systems and management information systems used in human service agencies today provide an extraordinary reservoir of quantitative data which can be analyzed very simply to answer many questions about service user characteristics, the nature of service provision and, to some extent, the outcomes of service. Furthermore, hypotheses about patterns of presentation to a service in relation to different sections of the community can be relatively easily investigated if the demographic profile of an area is known. Thus the over or under representation of males or females or people of different age groups, occupational status or ethnic backgrounds can be identified. The reasons why this might be so cannot be so easily investigated using quantitative methods, however, and qualitative methods may have a place in exploring how people define their needs and why and how they seek assistance in certain places. Similarly, feedback from those using services can be obtained easily through routine client satisfaction scales which rate different aspects of a service, but hearing how the clients have benefited or not from a service in their own words will require more than a standard quantitative approach. To tap both dimensions of consumer feedback may require a combination of questionnaire items with predetermined response categories as well as a number of open-ended questions such as ‘How did you expect to benefit from this service?’, ‘What were the most useful/least useful aspects of the service?’ and ‘What suggestions could you make for improving the service?’ The latter type of question does not presuppose a particular classification of responses, and in analyzing such data the researcher has to inductively derive categories from the individual responses. This involves making qualitative judgments about their meaning before they can be allocated to a particular category. Of course, one can ‘allow the data to speak for itself by reproducing all of the individual responses but this merely leaves the task of making sense of the responses up to the reader. It is possible to turn qualitative data of this nature into quantitative data if the categories are clearly defined. Thus, with some risk to the diversity and nuances of the data, and recognizing that those with literacy problems may remain unheard, it is possible to take some qualitative data from the swamp up to the high hard ground and analyze it there. In other situations, questions from both the high ground and the swampy lowland emerge from the same setting but cannot be transformed into quantitative data. Thus a social worker in an oncology unit of a hospital who is interested in establishing a support group for women with gynecological cancers may ask herself a range of very different questions. As she looks at a list of the patients in a particular ward she may ask the following sorts of questions: How many women in the ward at this time have a similar diagnosis? How many with this diagnosis are at a similar stage in the trajectory of their condition? What is their average length of admission? These are fairly straightforward numerical questions for which the data already exist. The next question she may ask is of a very different order: What are the multiple meanings of such a diagnosis for these women and significant others in their lives at this time? This is a hermeneutic question, that is, it is about the construction of meaning. The responses to such a question are unlikely to be easily classified into mutually exclusive categories that could be quantitatively analyzed and, even if they were, it is likely that much damage would be done to their complexity and subtlety. The same question which our social worker asks about the meaning(s) of gynecological cancers could equally be asked by a medical sociologist. The difference would be, however, that for the professional practitioner such a question is immediately and directly connected with what she then does and leads to a series of equally complex questions. Would it be helpful or unhelpful to form a support group for these women? What would be the best way to facilitate such a group? How could one know whether the group was successful or not? For whom might it have been helpful or unhelpful and why? How might forming such a group affect and be affected by the current pressures on staff in the ward and the interprofessional tensions and dynamics? Researchers could explore (and some have done so) certain aspects of these questions using quantitative methods, for example, by investigating the long-term outcomes of cancer support groups in relation to years of survival. On the other hand, qualitative methods may allow some of the questions to be explored in a different way. For example, the views of the women themselves on their experience in a group and what they may have found helpful or unhelpful would be important. References Blumer H., 1980. “Comment, Mead and Blumer: The convergent methodological perspective of social behaviorism and symbolic interaction”: American Sociological Review, 45, 409-419. Campbell D. T., & Stanley J. C., 1963. “Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research”: Chicago: Rand McNally. Darlington Yvonne & Scott Dorothy, 2002. “Qualitative Research in Practice: Stories from the Field”: Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, N.S.W. Daymon Christine & Immy Holloway, 2002. “Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications”: Routledge: London. Denzin N. K., & Lincoln Y. S., 1994. “Handbook of qualitative research”: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Douglas J. 1976. “Investigative social research”: Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Fehse Eric, Kneser Cornelia, Ploetzner Rolf & Spada Hans, 1999. “Learning to Relate Qualitative and Quantitative Problem Representations in a Model-Based Setting for Collaborative Problem Solving” in Journal of the Learning Sciences. Volume: 8. Issue: 2. Glaser B. G. & Strauss A. L., 1967. “The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research”: Chicago: Aldine Press. Hoepfl C. Marie, 1997. “Choosing Qualitative Research” in Journal of Technology Education. Vol: 9: 1 Kinnear C. Thomas & Taylor K. James, 1997. “Marketing Research: An Applied Approach”. Fifth Edition Kerlinger F., 1964. “Foundations of behavioral research”: New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Malhotra K. Naresh, “Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation”: Fourth edition. Georgia Institute of Technology. Newman Isadore & Benz R. Carolyn, 1998. “Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum”: Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale, IL. Patton M. Q., 1990. “Qualitative evaluation and research methods”: Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 2006a, accessed on July 17, 2006 from 2006b, accessed on July 17, 2006 from Read More

The qualitative, naturalistic approach is used when observing and interpreting reality with the aim of developing a theory that will explain what was experienced. The quantitative approach is used when one begins with a theory (or hypothesis) and tests for confirmation or disconfirmation of that hypothesis. It is important here to set the stage for abandoning the dichotomy. To do so, we examine a few of the key events in the chronicle of scientific evolution that established the debate in the first place.

As long as one view of how we can explain the workings of the world reigns supreme, there is no debate. The debate rests on a dichotomy characterized by a lessening of the dominance of one paradigm over another, leveling the playing field so that the debate could occur. In fact, the debate may be but one more phase in the ebb and flow of an ever changing philosophy of knowledge. All behavioral research is made up of a combination of qualitative and quantitative constructs. We believe that conceptualizing the dichotomy (using separate and distinct categories of qualitative and quantitative research) is not consistent with a coherent philosophy of science and, further, that the notion of a continuum is the only construct that fits what we know in a scientific sense.

A secondary theme is equally important; that is, what are known as qualitative methods are frequently beginning points, foundational strategies, which often are followed by quantitative methodologies. Qualitative research methods are those generally subsumed under the heading ethnography. Other headings and names include case studies, field studies, grounded theory, document studies, naturalistic inquiry, observational studies, interview studies, and descriptive studies. Qualitative research designs in the social sciences stem from traditions in anthropology and sociology, where the philosophy emphasizes the phenomenological basis of a study, the elaborate description of the “meaning” of phenomena for the people or culture under examination.

This is referred to as the verstehen approach. Often in a qualitative design only one subject, one case, or one unit is the focus of investigation over an extended period of time. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), qualitative data are often coded a posteriori from interpretations of those data. Quantitative research, on the other hand, falls under the category of empirical studies, according to some, or statistical studies, according to others. These designs include the more traditional ways in which psychology and behavioral science have carried out investigations.

“Quantitative modes have been the dominant methods of research in social science. Quantitative designs include experimental studies, quasi-experimental studies, pretest-postest designs, and others” (Campbell & Stanley, 1963), where control of variables, randomization, and valid and reliable measures are required and where generalizability from the sample to the population is the aim. Data in quantitative studies are coded according to a priori operational and standardized definitions.

It is necessary to adopt some standard by which one can measure whether the qualitative, the quantitative, or a continuum that includes both methodologies is the most effective mode in reaching truth. We assume the standard of science as a way of knowing. Qualitative Methods Conceptualized In their Handbook of Qualitative Research, Denzin and Lincoln (1994) acknowledge that qualitative research means different things to different people. They offer what they call a “generic definition.” Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter.

This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials--case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactions, and visual texts --the described routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (p.

Read More