Differentiating Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies - Research Paper Example

? Qualitative Research in Scientific Study: Differentiating Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies and the Emergence of Mixed Methodology School Research design is an integral part of the scholarly process that often determines the integrity of the outcome of the study. The methodology used by the researcher appropriately distinguishes the course of an initially hypothetical study into fruition through a comprehensive understanding of the goal of the research which correlates to the results. The choice between using quantitative and qualitative instruments in scientific research had been historically lenient to a quantitative process rather than a qualitative measurement. Administering quantitative research design had become a default option that many have grown accustomed to. However, recent years have proved to be more accommodating to alternative approaches to research by not only accepting qualitative method as a credible means of measurement but by enforcing a hybrid of the two research methods through a combination in mixed method. Shuval et al. (2011) writes that the most recognized standard in the conduct of medical research is quantitative, more specifically through randomized controlled trials (RCT) in contrast to qualitative which had often been dismissed and placed in the level of case reports and anecdotal findings. This, on the other hand, has changed as recognition for the value of a qualitative assessment has been seen to be significant in particular kinds of research in the medical field. Qualitative is suitable in studies that aim to measure behavior in what is regarded as naturalism as it supports answering questions on ‘how’ and ‘why,’ whereas, quantitative is geared towards answering questions that are fundamentally based on an inquiry of ‘what.’ Essentially, the basis of the research questions determines the most appropriate type of research design that must be adopted. John Creswell (2003), in his book ‘Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches’ has identified the different strategies associated with each kind of methodology. He notes that quantitative focuses on postpositivism and incorporates true experiments, correlational studies and quasi-experiments which often makes use of multiple variables to test data in strategies such as surveys and experiments. Alternatively, qualitative which is a more recent approach is a more diverse variation which could focus on ethnographies in cultural research and grounded theory which compares data in relation to theoretical sampling among others. Choosing the right type of research methodology is grounded on factors that determine the most appropriate approach to be applied. Creswell states that “The knowledge claims, the strategies, and the method all contribute to a research approach that tends to be more quantitative, qualitative, or mixed” (p.18). The distinctions between quantitative and qualitative are a helpful step in evaluating the tool the researcher must use. Dobrovolny and Fuentes (2008) provides for a comprehensive table distinguishing the two. Quantitative method is founded upon the testing of a hypothesis while qualitative places emphasis on context. Quantitative has a positivist objective while qualitative is more constructivist. The first usually has sampling frames from a population where individuals are referred to as subjects and the scientist maintains distance, where, the latter demarcates cases or groups from a whole as representative of the population and people are referred to as participants with the scientist generating a participant-observer dynamics. Quantitative focuses on numbers and predetermined variables from substantial sample populations through experiments while qualitative focuses on the meanings of human behavior in its original context through observations that describe participants’ actions. More important distinctions rests on the method of analysis where quantitative makes use of widely-acceptable statistical methods compared to qualitative that uses induction and offer a broad description of the data gathered in the form of a report. The emergence of qualitative research as a viable option in the conduct of scientific research had immensely improved in the past decades. Though it has been viewed that Sigmund Freud can be credited for its early use in his psychoanalytic studies, the vast use of qualitative methodology had only been steadily used increasingly in the past four decades. David Rennie (2012) enumerates that there are three kinds of this method, namely, experiential, discursive and experiential/discursive. In his article, Rennie states four propositions that draw parallel to the kinds of qualitative research he previously presented. Rennie provides the following propositions base upon his studies: Proposition 1: Qualitative Research is Methodically Hermeneutical. Proposition 2: The Hermeneutic Circle Method Involves Eduction That Modifies and Cycles With Abduction, Theorematic Deduction, and Induction. Proposition 3: Qualitative Research Involves Demonstrative Rhetoric. Proposition 4: The Demonstrative Rhetoric of Qualitative Research Is Enhanced by Disclosed Reflexivity. Most criticisms on the value of qualitative research stems from the general notion that it has no systematic formula and the researchers generally draw from his own understanding and therefore vulnerable to his subjectivity. The propositions of Rennie expounds on the connection of methodical hermeneutics as initially espoused by Schleiermacher and its development not only as a competent means of measurement in research but more importantly in scientific research. The first proposition discusses the origin of hermeneutics as originally a study toward the interpretation of Scriptures and legal documents which eventually led to all kinds of texts and subsequently encompassed oral texts. Proposition 2 centers on the argument that eduction proves that hermeneutics is dependent on “the logic of validation” and not the “logic of construction” (p.388). The third proposition relates how qualitative research revolves around interpretation of experiences and action of the subject participants and the findings are then translated written data. “It is meant to persuade and so is clearly rhetorical” (ibid, p.391). The final proposition discloses that there can be no absolute objectivity on the part of the researcher and he in turn must reveal his perspectives as this “disclosure helps the reader to understand the researcher’s understanding” (ibid, p.392). Despite the growing trend to adopt qualitative measures in scientific research, the study of Shuval et al. (2011) illuminates that published articles on medical journals is far from taking precedence over quantitative studies. They conducted longitudinal study which examines 67 medical journals in general and internal medicine over a period of 10 years from 1998 to 2007. This included journals from the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe and the rest of the world. They found that there has been a steady increase of publishing qualitative research over the set period with an absolute increase of 2.9% from varying percentages over the period. To elucidate, there has been only 1.2% qualitative studies published in 1998 which increased to 2.5% in 2002 and then to 4.1% in 2007 in the United States. Journals in the United Kingdom showed better results compared to the United States and the rest of the world with a 6% absolute increase. The study concludes that the policies of medical journals remain lenient toward publishing quantitative studies over original qualitative and that the United Kingdom and Europe has been more accepting of the credibility of qualitative research in the medical field as they pose more significant results. Nevertheless, the increase found in this study, though not groundbreaking, remain as concrete proof of the surfacing of qualitative measures in the scientific community that may help better understand professionals in particular fields that are geared toward behavior and context. The study by Shuval et al. also recognized some of its limitations, “The current study only focused on journals of general-internal medicine; other medical and health related disciplines were excluded. Previous research has shown that qualitative studies are more prevalent in other health-related fields, such as nursing” (p.5). Parallel to this suggestion of the value of qualitative methodologies in nursing, Houghton, Shaw and Murphy (2013) discussed the assessment process of its rigour through the four criteria of confirmability, dependability, transferability and credibility. To delineate their topic, they chose case-study research or CSR and provided examples on adopting the strategies in practical terms. The approaches to rigour are an essential element to providing the desired results in a qualitative study in nursing. Strategies in determining rigour are enumerated according to each criterion to be tested. Credibility is essentially believability which is enforced through conducting convincingly authentic research and demonstrating the same credibly this could be determined through a number of strategies such as “prolonged engagement and persistent observation, triangulation, peer debriefing and member checking” (Houghton, Shaw and Murphy, 2013, p.13). Dependability is reliability which depends on the stability of the data this could be determined through “audit trail” and “reflexivity” (ibid). Confirmability is accuracy which directly correlates to dependability since the strategy to determine rigour for conformability is the same as dependability. Transferability is the capacity of the data to pose the same results when applied to an analogous context or situation and its rigour could be determined through “thick descriptions” (ibid). These measures are applied to establish the trustworthiness of rigour in qualitative research especially in case-study researches. Currently, researchers have found the value in integrating the strengths of qualitative methods with the credibility and accuracy of quantitative methods. The formulation of a mixed method of research has become a new way that addresses the weak points that solely relying on qualitative research can bring. There are commonly five research purposes according to Greene, Caraceli and Graham that makes mixed research ideal and these are triangulation , complementarity, development, initiation and expansion (as cited by Frels and Onwuegbuzie, 2013). This could be beneficial since quantitative answers a specific type of question sets while qualitative answers a different one. Where quantitative is able to answer questions that are fundamentally where, who, how many, what and how much, qualitative will be useful in answering questions that pertain to why and how. Setting up a research study that incorporates these factors through mixed research approach can be viable in interview-based studies as an example. Frels and Onwuegbuzie (2013) maintain that interview is an ideal mode of inquiry as a qualitative method and this could further be enhanced by the proponent through the collection of quantitative data. This new approach of recognizing that qualitative methodology is not inferior to quantitative in the scientific field paves the way for its utilization toward the accommodation of their differences and the progression toward a fusion of the best of both worlds in enriching scientific research. Essentially, though the previous connotation is to favor quantitative as the more accurate means of methodology over qualitative, there is truly no point in comparing two sides of the same coin as both are equally credible in their own merit and they also each have their own weaknesses. The identification of which method to use will be dependent on the type of research that the proponent would like to establish and on the kind of results he wants to generate. As Dobrovolny and Fuentes (2008) has emphasized, quantitative and qualitative methods each have their advantages, their disadvantages and their consequent implications. Where quantitative is efficient, uses least resources and is able to maintain anonymity with results coming from a larger population, questions that are substantive may remain unanswered. Thus, it is viewed as impersonal and margin of error is dependent upon the number of subjects. On the other hand, qualitative methods provide rich data answering how and why questions and deeper communication is established with the participants but generalization of the findings is extremely difficult and it is time as well as resource intensive. This method, however, is able to highlight issues that would otherwise have remained unnoticed and give solution to the problems the participants have recognized. In the end, choosing the right method through a careful study by means of a rigorous evaluation relative to the research questions and the resources available to the researchers translates to the credibility and acceptability of the outcome of the study. Bibliography Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=nSVxmN2KWeYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=quantitative+and+qualitative+research&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n4KaUde8F4SZiAeo5oCQDQ&redir_esc=y Dobrovolny, J.L. & Fuentes, S.G. (2008). Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation: A tool to decide which to use. Performance Improvement, 47(4), 7-14. doi: 10.1002/pfi.197 Frels, R.K. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013). Administering quantitative instruments with qualitative interviews: A mixed research approach. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 184-194. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00085.x Houghton C., Casey, D., Shaw, D. & Murphy, K. (2013) Rigour in qualitative case-study research. Nurse Researcher, 20 (4), 12-17. Retrieved from www.nurseresearcher.co.uk Rennie, D. (2012). Qualitative research as methodical hermeneutics. Psychological Methods, 17 (3), 385-398. doi: 10.1037/a0029250 Shuval, K., Harker, K., Roudsari, B., Groce, N.E., Mills, B., et al. (2011) Is qualitative research second class science? A quantitative longitudinal examination of qualitative research in medical journals. PLoS ONE, 6(2): e16937. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016937 Read More