Factorial Designs and Continuous Measure Developments - Essay Example

? The Issues When Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies in Research and Is A Comparison between These Two Methodologies Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Thesis Statement 3 Discussion 3 Works Cited 11 13 Thesis Statement Research methodologies can be of various types which are used to evaluate the opinions and views obtained from the people concerned. However, the processes are mostly based upon two key approaches that determine the qualitative and quantitative value of the entire study. Henceforth, the discussion in this thesis will address the issues likely to emerge when implementing the qualitative and quantitative methodologies in a particular research process. Furthermore, it will compare and contrast the two key approaches and its significance to obtain an in-depth understanding to the ideologies. Discussion According to Creswell, a researcher, while developing a proposal, should focus on the three key elements, namely, the philosophical hypothesis about the factors behind the knowledge claims, the general procedures for performing the research with due consideration towards the strategies of inquiry, and the development of comprehensive processes for data collection and data analysis often categorised as research methodology (3-6). The three approaches, i.e. the quantitative approach, qualitative approach and mixed approach include each of these three elements differently for formulating the research methods (Creswell 3-6). Thus, it can be stated that the researcher should emphasise on the three main elements irrespective of whatever approach preferred. Furthermore, the philosophical and social factors should also be considered while developing the processes of analysing the opinions of the respondents to evaluate both the quantitative and the qualitative values of the research. As observed by Shadish, Cook & Campbell, quantitative research were those that raised the perspectives of the positivist (13-19). The research includes real and less accurate experiments which are known as quasi-experiments along with the philosophies of parallel studies which are related to specific single-subject experiments. However, the authors further stated that recently, the strategies of quantitative approach involved various complex experiments with numerous variable factors and conducts such as factorial designs and continuous measure developments. In other words, it can be concluded that researchers have been implementing various methods to the quantitative approach which were further diversified from the traditional process. Moreover, modern researchers have instigated elaborate structural models that have contributed towards the identification of the collective strengths of the numerous variable factors engaged in a research process (Shadish, Cook & Campbell 13-19). In this respect, Walcott identified 19 strategies that could be implemented for conducting qualitative research approach (4-13). Thereby, the author emphasised more on the ethnographic procedures in which the researcher studies an integral cultural group in a natural situation over a long-lasting period of time principally collecting observational data. Such kind of research processes, are often termed to be flexible and normally evolve around the contextual responses from the respondents encountered in the field of research (Walcott 4-13). Thus, it can be stated that modern day researchers have identified numerous ways for measuring the qualitative value of the research question which have evidently rewarded a wide scope of conducting researches. According to Creswell, a quantitative approach is considered to be a unique framework in which the researcher attempts to study the positive responses from the respondents for analysing the information gathered (118-178). The author also states that the researcher employs various strategies for performing the enquiry sessions in order to collect adequate information on predetermined processes which are further quantified and thus result in statistical data (Creswell 118-178). Accordingly, it can be concluded that while determining the qualitative score from the responses obtained in the data gatheration process, a researcher uses this approach to measure the effectiveness of the study as a whole. As observed by Lee, qualitative techniques receive considerably more coverage in comparison to quantitative research approach owing to the fact that most of the researchers have significant information about the procedural framework and are comfortable with quantitative rather than qualitative methods (2-8). The author further states that categorical data analysis consists of non-mathematical and conversational-level data which are found to be based on formality discussions that include derivations, formula and proofs that can be quite distracting to the target audiences (Lee 2-8). Thus, it can be stated that researchers prefer using qualitative research methods, particularly for those objectives which are based upon case studies, questionnaire surveys and other methods of rational assumptions. Cassell and Symon identified six differences between qualitative and quantitative methods that are largely practised by British psychologists (5-190). The foremost and the most important difference between these approach are often identified on the ground that quantitative research is derived from the quantifications of the data collected, whereas qualitative method deals with various ways of interpretation based on defined assumptions. The qualitative researchers unambiguously apply their own subjective interpretations to analyse the findings; whereas, quantitative researchers regularly use the objective and delicately standardized calculations to interpret the research issue. Furthermore, qualitative researchers generally influence considerable flexibility within the research procedures compared to rule driven approach which are quite frequently used by quantitative researchers. It is in this context that qualitative researchers generally focus on understanding organisational processes rather than predicting results, whereas quantitative researchers mostly focus on predicting results rather than emphasising on the variables of the processes. It is worth mentioning in this regards that the qualitative research is largely based within the local context in which the event of awareness occurs, owing to which, obtaining results related to a larger population becomes quite challenging. In contrast, the quantitative research represents a context-free framework and therefore, covers a wider population. Another noteworthy difference observed by the authors is that the qualitative researchers are more focused towards the respondents’ attitudinal and behavioural reactions compared to quantitative researchers who are examined to be largely emphasised on the quantifiable edges of such reactions (Cassell and Symon 5-190). Thus, it can be concluded that various pros and cons are associated with both the research approaches; however, it is the choice of the researcher as to which type of approach would be suitable for the research purpose. Kvale observed that qualitative research considerably focuses on the identification of significant facets concerning the structural fact, as a result of which content analysis and nominal or ordinal value is involved (59-80). Comparatively quantitative research includes more thorough research of structural facets where its analysis usually involves or presumes the minimum equal gap required for scaling. Furthermore, the author stresses that the primary difference between qualitative and quantitative research largely on the varying tools that are used in the research methods (Kvale 59-80). Thus, with reference to Kvale’s observations, it can be stated that qualitative research can be better assumed by questions related to the different research issues; whereas, quantitative research can be better analysed with the questions of differences pertaining within such issues. It was further observed by Mitchell & Ginzberg, that two other differences exist in the qualitative and quantitative research (20-60). Contextually, it is presumed that qualitative research is better suited for the creation of the theory, whereas, quantitative research is suitable for theory testing rigorously rather than concluding. Qualitative research methods, furthermore, may display a particular form of short-sightedness, whereas, quantitative research methods represent a larger view of the results obtained (Mitchell & Ginzberg 20-60). Thus, it can be stated that researchers, while using the quantitative research method, tend to represent all the virtual data through experimental designs or graphical representation, whereas, in qualitative method the researcher mostly applies methods of definite data analysis to predict the outcomes of the respondents’ opinions. According to Newman & Benz, most of the qualitative researchers, irrespective of their theoretical dissimilarities, reveal some sort of individual phenomenological perceptions, whereas, most quantitative researchers tend to focus on graphical data representation which are generally agreed by the common people (1). Furthermore, the authors’ state that in qualitative research, the perspectives of multiple individuals or interpretations are involved which are all equally valid, whereas, in quantitative research approaches, the researcher assumes a common objective-oriented reality across various individualistic perspectives (Newman & Benz 1-30). Thus, it can be concluded that different degrees of belief is associated with the different assumptions about reality among quantitative and qualitative researchers which are equally valid in their own perspectives even though these facets tend to present differing values. According to Elliot, “the two research traditions i.e. qualitative and quantitative approaches can be thought of as divergent genres, especially in regard to their modes of presenting research findings and programmatic statements such as the employment of a scientific rhetoric experiment, variables, controls, etc.” (184). The author further states that quantitative research enforces the expectations of the reader about the type of framework he/she is about to encounter, while qualitative researchers’ presentation style expresses the self-consciousness and literary devices used by them (Elliot 116-184). Thus, it can be stated that the researchers using both the approaches represent their findings and impersonate different opinions or views in the mind of the readers which are legitimate in both the cases. According to Sarstedt and Mooi, the two types of researches, i.e. qualitative and quantitative, use different methodologies such as different types of data sources and emphasises on research issues from varying philosophies (11-22). Furthermore, the authors suggested that while implementing a research process, researchers often regarded the different approaches between qualitative and quantitative research to be guided by philosophies and numerals respectively, with quantitative researches focussing on numbers and qualitative researchers on words. However, the authors stated that the distinction between the two approaches is not much appropriate, as qualitative researchers have been found to be using numbers in their analysis; rather, the difference should be cited according to the time the information is being quantified which in turn indicates that a risk pertains in case of qualitative approaches with regards to the availability of updated information (Sarstedt and Mooi 11-22). Thus, it can be concluded that researchers using a qualitative approach generally tend to depend on the quantitative conclusions derived by other researchers previously. Hence, quantitative research can be regarded as the primary approach, while a qualitative research can be identified as the secondary method. As stated by Denzin and Lincoln, qualitative research focuses on the multi-method objectives that involve an explanative and normal approach to the identified subject matter (110-150). It refers that the qualitative researches analyse the participants in their usual situations, with an attempt to interpret information in terms of their actual importance to the surroundings. Furthermore, the authors state that the qualitative research includes case studies and various experimental data that impersonated according to an individual’s viewpoint (Denzin and Lincoln 110-150). Thus, it can be stated that the qualitative research consists of different case studies and questionnaire surveys which are focussed towards obtaining an understanding regarding the views perceived by individuals. According to Patton, qualitative data can be defined as a detailed description of locations, communications, people, experiential behaviours and events that result from the experiences, beliefs and attitudes derived with regards to the past occurrences in an individual’s life (110-127). However, the author states that these methods are difficult to be represented accurately, as distinct information overlap with each other when deriving the results and therefore the interpretation largely depends on the researchers understanding of the situation (Patton 110-127). Thus, through the views of the authors it can be concluded that outcomes from qualitative research cannot be measured accurately as the views of different individuals vary from time to time increasing the chances of biasness during interpretation. Denzin and Lincoln observed that qualitative researchers generally come up against the limitations encountered in everyday social life (110-130). The researchers view the world as the field of analysis and structure their findings accordingly. In contrast, the quantitative researchers derive the theoretical information from the social world seeking the help of numerical and scientific explanations of probabilities derived through the data collected from a wide range of indiscriminately selected cases or individuals. Thus, it can be stated that researchers using a qualitative approach have to face various difficulties as they are required to involve a varied population of respondents in order to gather information through a broader perspective based on the questionnaire surveys. Contradictorily, the qualitative researchers do not require pursuing a physical contact with the respondents; rather, they have the privilege to accumulate information through online surveys (Denzin and Lincoln 110-130). According to Antonius, researchers using the quantitative approach interpret the findings through graphical representation such as histograms, bar diagrams and pie charts among others, which are explicitly understandable to the readers (22-55). Moreover, the differences in the opinions of the respondents can be accurately measured and compared due to the simple presentation owing to the usage of tabular formats and diagrammatic representations. Whereas, researchers implementing qualitative approach, derive the required findings with reference to case studies and literature review analyses which are mostly based on the different views suggested by the respondents (Antonius 22-55). Thus, it can be concluded that quantitative research findings are more accurate compared to qualitative approach which provides the opportunity to study a wide range of respondent population. Works Cited Antonius, Richardson. Interpreting Quantitative Data with SPSS. United States: SAGE, 2003. Print. Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. United States: SAGE, 2003. Print. Cassell Catherine, and Gillian Symon. Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide. United States: SAGE, 1994. Print. Denzin Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Handbook of Qualitative Research. United States: Sage Publications, 1994. Print. Denzin Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. United States: SAGE, 2003. Print. Elliot, Barbara Jane. Using Narrative in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. United States: SAGE, 2005. Print. Kvale, S. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. United States: SAGE, 1996. Print. Lee, Thomas W. Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. United States: SAGE, 1999. Print. Mitchell Wesley Clair, and Eli Ginzberg. The Backward Art of Spending Money. United States: Transaction Publishers, 1999. Print Newman Isadore, and Carolyn R. Benz. Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. United States: SIU Press, 1998. Print. Patton Michael Quinn. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. United States: Sage Publications, 1990. Print. Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald Thomas Campbell. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. United States: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Print. Sarstedt Marko, and Erik Mooi. A Concise Guide to Market Research: The Process, Data, and Methods Using IBM SPSS Statistics. United States: Springer, 2011. Print. Walcott, Harry F. Writing up Qualitative Research. United States: SAGE, 2001. Print. Read More