Quantitative Techniques of Business Research - Essay Example

Introduction Qualitative and Quantitative techniques of business research are marked by different techniques of data collection. For example, Quantitative paradigm uses survey Questionnaires, tests and existing secondary information whereas Qualitative paradigm uses the techniques of focus groups, observations and interviews. Quantitative methods of data collection are more objective and provide more accurate information because they are collected using standardized methods, can be replicated, and, unlike qualitative data, can be analyzed using sophisticated statistical techniques. Both methodologies have their own strengths, weaknesses and requirements that that will affect decisions about which methodologies are best suited for the purpose at hand. Qualitative methods focus on depth and target specific populations whereas Quantitative methods are focused on breadth and are generalizable. For example, Frechtling and Sharp (1997) give example of a sample survey of high school students who participated in special science enrichment program (a quantitative technique). They can yield representative and broadly generalizable information about the proportion of participants who plan to major in science when they get to college and how this proportion differs by gender. But this strict quantitative paradigm can elicit only a few, often superficial reasons for this gender difference. On the other hand, separate focus groups (a qualitative technique) conducted with small groups of male and female students will provide many more clues about gender differences in the choice of science majors and the extent to which the special science program changed or reinforced attitudes. Moreover, philosophical arguments surrounding the various paradigms of research talk about the importance of understanding the context for qualitative studies and of controlling the context by using random methods and sophisticated analysis in the quantitative paradigm. The issue of extreme cases in studies is more relevant to qualitative researchers who feel that ultimately, knowledge is “created” by observing the ground reality. The present paradigm of a broad range of knowledge and understanding in areas of research studies has placed increased emphasis on mixed methods of research. Researches are moving beyond the traditional view of mastering one particular method of research study towards integrating the strengths of different methods in order to materialize the complementarities of the different methods of inquiry. Evaluation of research results has shown that the best results are achieved through the use of mixed method evaluations that combine the technique of quantitative and qualitative studies. For example, Quantitative research is often followed by Qualitative research in order to explore some findings further and gain an understanding of the quantified data. Casebeer and Verheof (1987) suggests this methodology of research as necessary for studying patients of chronic illnesses who need to be understood by a combination of perspectives. In fact, much of the success in health research lies in the shared application of Qualitative and Quantitative research perspectives, methods and tools. Similarly, when investigating human behavior and attitudes, it is most appropriate to use a variety of data collection methods (Patton, 1990). Mixed method employs different sources and methods at various points in the evaluation process therefore the researcher can build on the strength of each type of data collection and minimize the weaknesses of any single approach. A multi method approach to evaluation can increase both the validity and reliability of evaluation data. Potential Advantages of Employing mixed-method approaches As mentioned earlier, combined and sustained uses of mixed method paradigms help to give a long term, broad overview of problems and their proposed solutions. The challenge lies in resolving the philosophical differences (different world views) and practical barriers (lack of knowledge or expertise). Casebeer and Verheof (1987) give six potential uses of combing Qualitative and Quantitative paradigms in the context of studying people with chronic illnesses: 1) To Develop Measures: The most generally accepted use of combined methods is to begin with a qualitative exploration of some little-studied problem so that measurement instruments can be developed for later quantitative research. For example, Bauman and Adair's study of social support (1992) among inner-city mothers of children with chronic illnesses used qualitative interviewing to inform the construction of a questionnaire. An exploratory study of how chronic diabetes affects quality of life and/or treatment choices among cultural groups not yet well researched (in order to subsequently develop a survey tool) provides another example well-suited to this design type. 2) To Identify Relevant Phenomena: Persons coping with chronic conditions often rely on the effectiveness of medications to relieve or at least minimize painful, debilitating symptoms. Such is the case for individuals with heart disease who control pain from angina with prescribed medication. Quantitative research has identified drugs that are "effective" for this pain control. Such study alone, however, does not always sufficiently describe all of the side effects that may accompany this pain relief, nor can it encompass the meaning for individuals suffering from these side effects. The addition of qualitative study can often more fully identify and explain side effects or problems of compliance with drug regimes experienced by people living with chronic heart disease. Clearly, both kinds of evidence are critical if research is to capture the full experience of long-term chronic heart disease. Additional examples from the literature include a study by Bashir (1994) looking at the relevance of qualitative advice to chronic benzodiazepine users, and work by Borges and Waitzkin (1995). The latter researchers conducted a review of both quantitative and qualitative patient-doctor communication techniques in order to develop an interpretive method for their study of women with chronic social and emotional problems. 3) To Interpret/Explain Quantitative Data: The quantification of rates of chronic disease can often leave researchers with unanswered questions about why rates are different over time or by geographic region. So, for example, when quantitative evidence points to a seemingly unexplained high prevalence of asthma in Alberta compared to other parts of Canada, qualitative analysis of the reasons for this is warranted. Qualitative techniques will tell the story behind the comparative quantification. Wainwright's study (1997) of chronic liver disease employs this approach, describing how qualitative research can lead to additional quantitative and qualitative appraisal of psychological adjustment to end-stage chronic liver disease. 4) To Interpret/Explain Qualitative Data: The exploration of qualitative aspects of living with many chronic conditions can lead to a deep understanding of how certain individuals experience living with their illnesses. Sometimes, these descriptive data on how people live with a particular chronic condition appear inconsistent according to gender or age differences. In the context of a qualitative study, both sample size and method are inadequate to test the validity of any apparent distinctions. Only quantitative study can test these findings with sufficient and appropriate sampling. In Finkler and Correa's study (1996) of patients' perceived recovery and the role of the patient-doctor relationship, statistical analysis revealed that only some components of the relationship significantly influenced treatment outcomes. This prompted review of the qualitative data and further development of a qualitative understanding of the patient-doctor relationship. 5) To Gain Equal/Parallel Value from Both Types of Data: The above reason for combining methods is arguably the most prevalent in today's climate of continuing skepticism about use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in single studies. Examples could include combining the results of any studies that separately, but simultaneously, research a chronic disease. So, while one group of researchers is quantifying the efficacy of a particular treatment for breast cancer, another group may be comparing women's experiences of surviving following detection and treatment of breast cancer. In this case, however, a combined, co-coordinated study design has not really been accomplished. Truly combined method approaches would purposely connect the study objectives and methodologies in the context of a single study or within a planned program of research in order to access a more comprehensive range of information and experience. For example, Martin and Nisa's research (1996) intentionally combines qualitative and quantitative information to describe common features of common chronic children's illnesses. Rutgaizer and Larina's study (1996) of pain syndrome in gastroenterological practice, and Murray and Graham's work (1995) on community health needs also use a truly combined method approach. 6) To Conduct Effective Multistage (Longitudinal) Analysis: The very nature of chronic illness invites longitudinal programs of research. Long-term illness often entails coping with a number of increasingly disabling stages; arguably, each stage requires understanding in and of itself and in the context of the overall condition. A program of ongoing study, using both qualitative and quantitative research, can provide essential knowledge of the changing nature of the disease and the corresponding experience and needs of persons with the illness. So, for example, a survey of persons living with HIV/AIDS, aimed at quantifying the difference that new treatments are making in relation to longevity, might be planned in the context of a follow-up study focused on qualitatively assessing changes in quality of life. These study phases could, in turn, be followed by an experimental intervention designed to compare the efficacy of two different treatment regimes, over time and in relation to length and quality of life. A research program conducted by Bates and Rankin-Hill (1994) combining two qualitative and two quantitative projects among chronic pain sufferers provide a recent example of this longitudinal approach to combined use of methods. The "spiral" approach used by de Vries et al.(1992) in their development of health education program planning also describes the valuable "interaction" that use of both qualitative and quantitative methods over time can achieve. Green et al. (1989) highlight five major advantages of multi method design that rank superior to the potential benefits of any method employed in isolation: 1) Triangulation: tests the consistency of findings obtained through different instruments. In the case study, triangulation will increase chances to control, or at least assess, some of the threats or multiple causes influencing our results. 2) Complementarities: clarifies and illustrates results from one method with the use of another method. In our case, in-class observation will add information about the learning process and will qualify the scores and statistics. 3) Development: results from one method shape subsequent methods or steps in the research process. In our case, partial results from the preprogram measures might suggest that other assessments should be incorporated. 4) Initiation: stimulates new research questions or challenges results obtained through one method. In our case, in-depth interviews with teachers and principals will provide new insights on how the program has been perceived and valued across sites. 5) Expansion: provides richness and detail to the study exploring specific features of each method. In our case, integration of procedures mentioned above will expand the breadth of the study and likely enlighten the more general debate on social change, social justice, and equity in Brazil and the role of the public and private sector in this process. In sum, the examination of this case study helps us see that a research strategy integrating different methods is likely to produce better results in terms of quality and scope. In addition, it encourages us to probe the underlying issues assumed by mixed-method. Two of them are professionals with broader technical skills and financial resources to cover "extra" activities. Mixed-method is a way to come up with creative alternatives to traditional or more monolithic ways to conceive and implement evaluation. It is likely that these alternatives will not be able to represent radical shifts in the short run. However, they are a genuine effort to be reflexive and more critical of the evaluation practice and, ideally, more useful and accountable to broader audiences. Mixed Research Method Techniques and Designs - Conclusion The range of possible benefits that carefully crafted mixed method designs can yield has been conceptualized by a number of evaluators including Green et al. (1989). Using more than one method to study the same phenomenon can strengthen the validity of results. This approach - called triangulation – as mentioned earlier is most often mentioned as the main advantage of the mixed method approach. Combining the two methods pays off in improved instrumentation for all data collection approaches and in sharpening the evaluator's understanding of findings. A typical design might start out with a qualitative segment such as a focus group discussion, which will alert the evaluator to issues that should be explored in a survey of program participants, followed by the survey, which in turn is followed by indepth interviews to clarify some of the survey findings But this sequential approach is only one of several that evaluators might find useful (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Thus, if an evaluator has identified subgroups of program participants or specific topics for which indepth information is needed, a limited qualitative data collection can be initiated while a more broad-based survey is in progress. A mixed method approach may also lead evaluators to modify or expand the evaluation design and/or the data collection methods. This action can occur when the use of mixed methods uncovers inconsistencies and discrepancies that alert the evaluator to the need for reexamining the evaluation framework and/or the data collection and analysis procedures used. Bibliography Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd Ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bauman LJ, Adair EG. The use of ethnographic interviewing to inform questionnaire construction. Health Educ Q 1992;19(1):9-23. Bashir K, King M, Ashworth M. Controlled evaluation of brief intervention by general practitioners to reduce chronic use of benzodiazepines. Br J Gen Pract 1994;44:408-12. 28. Borges S, Waitzkin H. Women's narratives in primary care medical encounters. Women Health 1995;23(1):29-56. Wainwright SP. Transcending chronic liver disease: a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs 1997;6(1):43-5. Finkler K, Correa M. Factors influencing patient recovery in Mexico. Soc Sci Med 1996;42(2):199-207. Martin C, Nisa M. Meeting the needs of children and families in chronic illness and disease: a greater role for the GP? Aust Fam Physician 1996;25(8):1273-81. Rutgaizer IM, Larina NA. Pain syndrome in gastroenterological practice: potentialities of evaluation [Russian: abstract only] Klin Med 1996;74(4):45-8. Murray SA, Graham LJ. Practice based health needs assessment: use of four methods in a small neighbourhood. BMJ 1995;310(6992):1443-8. Huber GP, Van de Ven AH, editors. Longitudinal field research methods: studying process of organizational change. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 1995. Bates MS, Rankin-Hill L. Control, culture and chronic pain. Soc Sci Med 1994;39(5):629-45. de Vries H, Weijts W, Dijkstra M, Kok G. The utilization of qualitative and quantitative data for health education program planning, implementation and evaluation: a spiral approach. Health Educ Q 1992;19(1):101-15.   Greene, Jennifer C., Caracelli, Valerie J. and Graham, Wendy F. 1989. "Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation design." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), pp. 255-74. Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, p. 40-43 Read More