How Different are Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation - Essay Example

?How different are quantitative and qualitative research Introduction The increase of the complexity of research projects has led to the development of research methods, which can be effective under different environmental conditions – referring to the internal and external environment of a research project (Thompson et al. 2002). In this context it has been revealed that methods, which have been considered as having major differences, can be combined, under certain terms, increasing the chances of success of the research developed for a particular study. Current paper focuses on the differences between the qualitative and the quantitative research methods, as two key research methodologies. In order to understand the differences between the qualitative and quantitative research, it would be necessary to refer to their fundamental characteristics as well as to their role, as key research methodologies. The definitions, which have been developed for the above two research methods, are also presented. The review of the literature published in the specific field has led to the assumption that the differences between the qualitative and the quantitative research are often ignored and their simultaneous use is attempted – especially for research projects that are quite demanding. 2. Qualitative and quantitative research – description, forms In the literature, the scope of qualitative research has been explained using different approaches; however, it seems that all relevant views focus on the same fact: qualitative research is used in order to identify the causes of human behaviour in regard to various social events. This view is made clear in the study of Mariampolski (2001) where it is noted that ‘qualitative research seeks the meanings and motivations behind behaviour’ (Mariampolski 2001, p.7). Moreover, emphasis is given on the expansion of qualitative research as a research method; in accordance with the above study qualitative research is broadly used in social sciences but also in ‘politics, health science and education’ (Mariampolski 2001, p.7). In fact, qualitative research is a quite broad research method, so that its precise scope and its potential forms are difficult to be identified. This problem is revealed through the definition of qualitative research presented in the study of Merriam (2009); in accordance with the above definition, ‘qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005, p.3, in Merriam, 2009, p.13). On the other hand, Potter (1996) notes that the role and the value of qualitative research can be understood only by referring to the particular elements of the specific research method. This task is developed through three different types of definitions:’ a) a component-type definition, b) a procedural-type definition and c) a product type definition’ (Potter, 1996, p.20-21). The first of the above definitions, the component-type one, focuses on the parts/ elements of qualitative research; an indicative definition of such type is, for example that of Jankowski and Wester (1991) who emphasized on the content of qualitative, i.e. on the meaning given by people to their social activities and their active presence within the society – meaning that all people in society have a role which tends to be changed under different social conditions (Potter, 1996). The second definition, the procedural-type one, refers to qualitative research as ‘a sequence of tasks’ (Potter, 1996, p.21). A definition which follows a similar path is, for example, that of Pauly (1991) who noted that the qualitative research includes five steps: a) identification of the topic, b) development of the research questions, c) collection of the material, d) explanation of the findings, e) presentation of the researcher’s personal view on the issues under discussion (Pauly, 1991, in Potter, 1996, p.21). Finally, the product-type definition gives emphasis ‘on what is produced by the qualitative method’ (Potter, 1996, p.21). Different views have been developed in regard to the product of the qualitative research. In accordance with Bogdan and Taylor (1995) the qualitative research is used in order ‘to produce descriptive data’ (Bogdan and Taylor, 1995, in Potter, 1996, p.21); the term ‘descriptive data’ in the above case, refers to the statements of individuals (oral or written) in regard to specific events. There is also a different view, in the context of which the qualitative research is used for ‘documenting social phenomena’ (Lofland 1971, in Potter, 1996, p.21). At this point, reference should be made to the forms of qualitative research, as used by researchers studying different social phenomena. The most common types of qualitative research are the following ones: a) ethnography, i.e. the observation of a culture as part of a particular social framework; in accordance with Silverman (2004), ethnography can be developed not only through observation but also through studying the literature (Silverman 2004, p.56); b) interviews; c) focus group research, which refers to the collection of qualitative data through the conversation with a group of persons related to the issues under discussion (Silverman 2004, p.177) and d) visual data (Silverman 2004, p.56). As for the quantitative research, the identification of its scope seems to be easier, as the specific research method is more standardized – referring to its forms, as highlighted in the relevant literature. In the study of Muijis (2011), quantitative research is described as a process used for ‘explaining phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analysed using mathematically based methods’ (Muijis 2011, p.1). Quantitative research is likely to have two different forms: experimental design and non-experimental design; the latter is commonly used in social research (Muijis 2011, p.11). Experimental design is based on controlled conditions (for instance, research developed in regard to the performance of a drug – patients’ responses are evaluated before and after the treatment with the particular drug) and at this point it is differentiated from non-experimental design (Muijis 2011, p.11). 3. Differences between qualitative and quantitative research Various arguments can be used in order to justify the differentiation of qualitative from quantitative research; in fact, this differentiation can be identified in all the aspects of these research methods, including their scope, their forms and their implications. In accordance with Yin (2010), in the context of qualitative research, the researcher has to communicate with different audiences; in order for the qualitative research to be completed successfully, the researcher should use appropriate methods for addressing these audiences. An indicative example is the following one: when having to develop a qualitative research method referring to a social phenomenon, for instance, the gender discrimination in the workplace, the researcher needs to highlight on different issues when presenting his work on the audiences participated in the specific qualitative research project; when addressing the focus group – employees of a firm – participated in the study, emphasis should be given on the level of gender discrimination across the organization; when addressing the group of those funding the specific research project, emphasis should be given primarily on the value of the research method chosen – justifying the relevant cost and time, especially in comparison with other research methods of different format, for instance a survey. Yin (2010) uses a similar example for highlighting the potential need for the engagement of different approaches by the researcher in the context of a qualitative research project. From another point of view, within the field of qualitative research, two different trends seem to exist: there are qualitative researchers who tend to use a qualitative research method even when the conditions and the material related to a research project are not quite appropriate for such research methodology; there are also qualitative researchers who tend to choose among qualitative and quantitative research methods depending on the terms of their research project; such a conflict does not exist in the area of quantitative research; the latter is in conflict only with qualitative research, i.e. no internal conflicts are developed among quantitative researchers (Neergard et al. 2007, p.5). However, the most important difference between the qualitative and the quantitative research methods seems to be the following one: in quantitative research, the data collected and analysed need to be numerical, for instance the figures referring to the financial performance of a particular organization through the years or the data retrieved through a survey; no such need exists in qualitative research (Muijis 2011, p.2). This issue is also highlighted in the study of Marczyk et al. (2010); in accordance with the above study, the key difference between the qualitative and the quantitative research is the following one: quantitative research is based on ‘formal and systematic measurement’ (Marczyk et al. 2010, p.15) while the qualitative research does not require ‘formal measurement’ (Marczyk et al. 2010, p.16). Also, different criteria are used for the evaluation of the quality of findings in the qualitative and quantitative research (Pfister 2009, p.114, see Figure 1, Appendix); this fact can lead to the following assumption: studies which are based on both the qualitative and quantitative research need to be carefully reviewed as of their credibility and validity; because of the different criteria of evaluation applied on each one of these research methods. Moreover, qualitative research can be based on a series of data of different forms, for instance information retrieved through interviews, focus groups, literature review/ case studies; even visual data can be used in qualitative research (Thomas 2003). From this point of view, the material used in quantitative research is limited, whereas the qualitative research has the advantage of variability of sources – as described above. As for the role of paradigm in the differentiation of qualitative from quantitative research, this seems to be non-important; indeed, in the study of Goodwin et al. (1996) reference is made to the positivist paradigm on which quantitative research is based compared to the phenomenological paradigm – used in qualitative research. In the above study it is made clear that ‘the linkage between paradigm and research method is not an inherent requirement’ (Goodwin et al. 1996, p.158). In accordance with this view, the distance between qualitative and quantitative research is not such as initially thought. However, the following detail should be mentioned: in qualitative research, the design of the study can be developed simultaneously with the research (Maxwell 2005, p.13); in quantitative research, such strategy cannot be engaged; all details of the quantitative research method should be reviewed in advance, before applying the research tool involved – usually, the survey. The potential differences between qualitative and quantitative research can be understood through the following examples: a) qualitative study: chronicle; the study entitled as ‘A History of Kent Center: 1783-2000’ (Thomas 2003, p.3) is based on the following research methods: ‘review of literature/ studies and interviews with long-time residents’ (Thomas 2003, p.3); b) a qualitative study: ethnography; the study of a doctor who spent a period of time in a particular community in order to identify the causes of a particular social problem, for instance, ‘child – rearing in a Hopi Community’ (Thomas 2003, p.3); c) qualitative study: documentary analysis; a researcher who tries to identify the performance of an institution needs to review the financial statements, reports, newsletters and memos available on the particular institution (Eckstein 2003, p.42), d) quantitative study: a telephone survey; a survey developed for the identification of social trends in regard to a social phenomenon (Thomas 2003, p.4), e) quantitative study: experiment; the researcher tries to identify the views of consumers on two different products; two different leaflets are issued to the participants – each leaflet includes a photo of one of the products and questions referring to the product’s quality – as perceived by the participants (Thomas 2003, p.5); after gathering the leaflets, the research will be able to identify the views of the consumers/ participants on these two products and develop appropriate assumptions – in accordance with the issues discussed in his study. There are also cases where qualitative data are processed using quantitative research methods and vice versa: for instance, the representation of a series of quantitative data using a graph – instead of equations – reveals the value of qualitative techniques for the analysis of quantitative data (Babbie 2010, p.414). 4. Conclusion The availability of different approaches when developing a research project increases the chances for its success. However, in many cases, another challenge appears: the choice of the research method that would be most appropriate for a specific study. In accordance with the issues discussed above, the identification of the research method engaged in a particular study can be a challenging task; trends have been identifying regarding the expansion of qualitative research across various areas of academic research. It seems though that, still, work needs to be done for the establishment of qualitative research as the key research method for academic studies of different characteristics (Goodwin et al. 1996). In any case, the differentiation between the qualitative and the quantitative research is not as high as initially estimated; in fact, it seems that the two research methods are often combined for developing a particular research project. In this case, the qualitative research method is used for developing the hypotheses of the research; at the next level, these hypotheses are tested using an appropriately customized quantitative research method (Kothari 2008). The level at which these research methods can interact depends on the nature of each research project but also on the capability of the researcher to develop such task. References Babbie, E. (2010) The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, USA: Cengage Learning Eckstein, S. (2003) Manual for research ethics committees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Goodwin, W., Goodwin, L. (1996) Understanding quantitative and qualitative research in early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press Kothari, C. (2008) Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Delhi: New Age International Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., Festinger, D. (2010) Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons Mariampolski, H. (2001) Qualitative market research: a comprehensive guide. London: Sage Maxwell, J. (2005) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. London: Sage Merriam, S. (2009) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons Muijis, D. (2011) Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. London: Sage Neergaard, H., Ulhoi, J. (2007) Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Pfister, J. (2009) Managing Organizational Culture for Effective Internal Control: From Practice to Theory. New York: Springer Potter, J. (1996) An analysis of thinking and research about qualitative methods. London: Routledge Silverman, D. (2009) Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Silverman, D. (2004) Qualitative research: theory, method and practice. London: Sage Thomas, M. (2003) Blending qualitative & quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. California: Corwin Press Thompson, C., Dowding, D. (2002) Clinical decision-making and judgement in nursing. London: Elsevier Health Sciences Yin, R. (2010) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guilford Press Appendix Quantitative Research Qualitative Research Internal validity Credibility External validity Transferability Reliability Dependability Objectivity Confirmability Figure 1 – Criteria for evaluation of qualitative and quantitative studies (Source: Pfister 2009, p.114) Read More