Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methodologies - Essay Example

Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methodologies Introduction Research efforts can be described as "a systematic inquiry that uses disciplined method to answer questions or solve problems" (Polit et al., 2001 p4). From this viewpoint, it is apparent that the aim of every research effort is to create knowledge, in the relevant field, to develop, refine and expand the horizon of what is known, and also attempt to proffer answers to the unknown, within the chosen field of study (Polit et al., 2001). Moreover, research studies in the human science fields; such as health and social sciences, not only refine and add to what is already known in theory and practice, it also empowers the professional to capably foresee and manage the complex and constantly changing challenges facing these professions, considering the changing conditions of the human beings (Laws and Marcus, 2003). Unlike research studies in other fields, studies in health and social sciences involving the use of human subjects requires greater caution. The Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association declares that, though progress in health-related fields requires research and experimentation involving the use of human subjects, considerations related to the 'well being of the human subjects should take precedence over science and the society' and that the primary objective of such studies, involving human subjects, is to better understand and improve on diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and to better understand the causes and progression of diseases (WMA, 2000). Furthermore, the drive towards evidence-based practice in several fields has also meant that professional decision must be made on the basis of the best available evidence (Crawford et al., 2002). Putting all these factors together, it becomes obvious that making use of the most appropriate research instruments/methodology is not only important for the validity of the final result, but also for the utility and relevance of the result findings to professional practice. This fact has meant that deciding the best research methodology for any particular research effort is one of the most important decisions of a researcher. Obviously in response to this trend, over the decades, several research methods have been developed, while existing ones have been continually refined to meet the demands of the modern researcher. However, quantitative and qualitative research methodologies though composed of an array of several, and at times contrasting principles; have stood the test of time, in a number of research fields (Murphy, 2000). Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to argue in favour of the use of qualitative and quantitative research methods/methodologies to assess 100 risk factors collected over a period of five years based on interviews and considered as the primary data for a research study. To achieve this, the rest of the paper will be structured thus: the next section will define and briefly explain the concepts of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies; this will be followed by an analysis of the difference and similarities of these two methods of inquiry. The third section will examine the benefits of using qualitative and quantitative research methods in the research study at hand that is, assessing 100 risk factors collected over a five year period through interviews; in the light of other research methods like phenomenology and others. This is intended to show that qualitative and quantitative research methods are better suited for the study at hand. The last part of the essay will present the concluding remarks. According to Lindsay (2002), considering the fact that the ultimate goal of risk assessment is to achieve a health impact, through understanding the aetiology of disease conditions to effect a reduction in mortality and morbidity due to the risks, and thus, achieve an improvement in health (p.571), research studies involved with risk assessment are therefore better presented and more useful in quantifiable terms. As a result, researchers in this field would reasonably rely on quantitative approaches, such as statistical and epidemiological techniques to determine what constitute a risk and to what extent. In the same light, Stange and Zyzanzki (1989), posit that although quantitative techniques may adequately illuminate what constitutes risk and what does not, it is also important to gain deeper insights into the how individuals involved perceive these risks. To be able to gain such understanding, the researcher must first understand how individuals interpret the world around them and how they construct meanings, generate motives and develop relationships between themes, which is possible only though qualitative research methods. Therefore, although quantitative methods are important to document the contribution of risk factors to disease, qualitative research is crucial if findings are to result in changes in practices. In this regard, risk assessment will benefit from both quantitative and qualitative techniques (Lindsay, 2002). From the argument above, it is apparent that qualitative and quantitative research methods adequately serve the purpose of the research being proposed. It is necessary to elaborate on the concepts of qualitative and quantitative research methods, to drive this point home. Quantitative research methods have been described as systematic scientific investigation of quantitative properties and phenomenon, and their relationships. The main objective of this method of inquiry is to develop and make use of mathematical/statistical models, theories and hypothesis; in essence, it is concerned with the what, where, and when of natural phenomenon. As a result of the main emphasis on mathematical models, in quantitative methods, the process of measurement is therefore central to this method of inquiry as this provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships (Ragin, 1994; Ziman, 2000). Though, it is a generally held notion that the process and techniques of quantitative research methods has existed since the dawn of civilisation, when people first began to record events or objects that had been counted, it is still generally accepted that quantitative technologies, as it is known today started with the Positivist work of Auguste Comte (Ragin, 1994). Today, quantitative research methods has become the method of choice in several fields of study, both in the natural and social sciences, including psychology, sociology, geology and medical and nursing studies (Ragin, 1994; Ziman, 2000). Quantitative research methods are generally accepted to be a scientific model of inquiry; it is based on developing useful theories and hypotheses about natural relationships in natural phenomenon. As a form of inquiry, quantitative research methods are often approached in this format: first, models, theories and/or hypotheses are formed about the phenomenon to be studied. Next, the appropriate instruments and methods for measurement are developed, with the particular phenomenon to be studied in mind. This is followed by empirical control and manipulation of variables and then collection of primary data for the study. There are several methods of data collection in quantitative research methods, considering the varying strands of method of inquiry. Once data is collected, modelling and analysis of data along the lines of the theories, models or hypotheses generated at the onset, using the developed instruments and methods of measurement (usually statistical), is carried out and the final results of this data analysis is evaluated and presented (Ziman, 2000) From the description of quantitative research methods above, it is obvious that statistical methods and measurement models are two important features of quantitative methods of inquiry (Stange and Zyzanzki, 1989). However, while statistics is a widely accepted and widely used branch of mathematics in quantitative research studies, even outside the physical sciences like physics where statistics is a central theme, the views regarding the role of measurement in quantitative methods are often divergent. The use of statistical methods is a common feature of quantitative research methods, and its use cut across fields, from economics, through the social sciences and even in biological and health related studies (Ragin, 1994). In this regard, studies using statistical methods often begin with the collection of data based on a formulated hypotheses or theory, which is then analysed using descriptive or inferential statistical methods. The goal of most quantitative researches, especially where statistical methods is involved, is to study and establish causal relationships through the manipulation of factors believed to influence (with respect to the theory or hypothesis), the phenomenon being studied, while controlling for the influence of other variables that could affect the research results. In another sense, empirical relationships and associations between the phenomena of interest could be analysed, usually with the aid of some form of linear model, non-linear model, or factor analysis, which are all tools for quantitative research methods (Ragin, 1994). While quantitative research methods often attempt to study relationships and correlations between phenomenon, using statistical methods, it is a generally agreed fact that correlation does not always imply causation. This principle follows from the understanding that variables exhibiting some degree of covariance often show false relationships (Ragin, 1994), many authors have argued that this is where qualitative research methods comes handy; in refining the research results of quantitative studies, since it looks into in depth meanings of things and events, as they are perceived by parties involved, rather than mathematical classification of facts and figures (Stange and Zyzanzki, 1989; Buchanan, 1992; Barbour; 1999). As noted above, the views regarding the position of 'measurement' as a tool in quantitative research methods are often divergent. To some researchers and authors, measurement is regarded as being only a means by which observations are expressed numerically in order to investigate causal relations or associations; while others believed that measurement play a more important role in quantitative research. For example it is argued that results which seems unacceptable, in the context of the accepted theory or hypothesis, may potentially lead to the search for a new, natural phenomenon; and such anomalies becomes most striking during the process of obtaining measurements. However, depending on the field of study, the purpose and nature of measurement can also vary in quantitative research. For example, while measurement models are often deterministic in physical sciences like physics, probabilistic models of measurement are more employed in social and natural sciences (Ragin, 1994; Ziman, 2000). In sum, using statistical and measurement instruments and models, quantitative research methods attempt to study and establish relationships between natural phenomena in quantifiable terms. In a word, qualitative research methods can be clearly differentiated from quantitative research methods, in that, it is a research method which attempts to address every research question with a more holistic approach that respects, acknowledges and preserve the complexities of human behaviour and experience (Crawford, 2002; Black, 1994). As a research method, rather than classify and quantify natural phenomenon, qualitative research methods strive towards an in depth understanding of the human behaviour and the reasons that govern them. It encompasses a wide array of research procedures that focus on how human beings - individuals, groups, cultures, societies, view and understand the world, and how they construct meanings out of their experiences (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Fischer, 2005). It involves an attempt to understand the dynamism of the human behaviour and experience, as they determine and influence existence. Thus, instead of the 'what, where, and when' emphasis of quantitative research methods, the qualitative researcher strive to understand the reasons and influences behind various aspects of behaviours i.e., it studies the 'why and how' of natural phenomena (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). According to Maykut and Richard (1994), qualitative research, as a method of inquiry has a long history, allegedly beginning with the work of Freud through Carl Rogers (1942; 1951), Piaget and Mary Ainsworth (1979), however, it only began to gain recognition and popularity as a research method in the 1970s. Maykut and Richard suggest that until this time, the term 'qualitative research' was still marginalised as a discipline of anthropology or sociology, and such terms like, ethnography, fieldwork, participant observation and Chicago school (sociology) were used to describe this research method. However, the 1970s and 1980s saw the spread of qualitative research to other fields and disciplines and it gradually became a significant research method of choice in the disciplines of women studies, disability studies, education studies, social work studies, information studies, management studies, nursing service studies, human service studies (Maykut and Richard, 1994; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). However, as Howe and Margaret (1998) recalls, the spread of qualitative research methods to other fields of study was not without criticism. Most of the criticism of qualitative research methods, usually from the quantitative side, was about legitimacy, validity, reliability of results and lack of precise methods of data analysis. As a fallout of this, the 1980s and 1990s saw a refinement of qualitative modes of inquiry, to further address the problems of data analysis and validity of research outcomes (Patton, 2002; Maykut and Richard, 1994; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). In recent times, qualitative research methods have burgeoned into and become a major research method in several fields, even in fields where quantitative research methods was the primary mode of inquiry. Combining qualitative methods with quantitative research methods is increasingly being encouraged, as this is said to allow for a better understanding of the phenomenon being researched. Though with exceptions, there are three major data collection mechanism in qualitative research methods, this includes: participant observation, interview, and social artefact (documents) content analysis (Wolcott, 1999). Each of these data collection techniques represents a range from less (or unstructured) to structured; and depending on the field of study, emphasis is usually placed on one method of data collection or another. Even though qualitative research methods strive to understand human experiences and how they construct meanings, it also strives not to invent perspectives of the subject. Instead, inner concepts, knowledge and experiences that subjects hold about the real world are unveiled, in order to fully understand motives and reasons behind actions (Fischer, 2005; Steven and Robert, 1998). As a result, qualitative research methods are often very labour intensive. Several software packages have, however, been developed to help automate the task of content analysis, and there are numerous commercial and open source software packages that serve this purpose (Patton, 2002). The various strands of qualitative research methods includes; ethnography, ethnology, oral life history, case study, focus groups, conversation analysis, phenomenology, and portraiture (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Steven and Robert, 1998). Though these types of qualitative research vary in their approach, analysis and data collection, they still maintain the central theme of the qualitative mode of inquiry, which is to understand human experiences, how they construct meanings from these experiences and knowledge and how these constructed meanings and beliefs influence actions. In sum, qualitative research methods study the why and how of natural phenomenon (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). Given the features and qualities of both quantitative and qualitative research methods described so far, it becomes obvious that these research methods are most appropriate for evaluating risk assessment, than other modes of inquiry. However, it is sill pertinent to examine the specific characteristics of these research methods that make them most appropriate for risk assessment, compared to other research methods. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods subsume an array of research methodologies that can be used to study almost any set of phenomena in any field. For example, qualitative research methods subsume a wide variety of research approaches from ethnography through phenomenology and others. According to Maggs-Rapport (2000), studies using ethnographic research paradigm are more interested in the meanings and descriptions people give to their cultural world, and thus providing them with the opportunity to describe their experiences in their own terms. Ethnographic methods concentrate on the routine, daily lives of people, allowing for a number of views to be examined at the same time. By encouraging participants to describe their culture, the researcher can build up an overall picture of the language, rituals and relationships within a given community (Maggs-Rapport, 2000). Phenomenology, on the other hand, is another strand of qualitative research method that is concerned with the lived experiences of individuals. It strives to make explicit the implicit structure and meaning of the human experience. In phenomenology, the human subjective experience that is obviously missing or ignored in objective scientific research approaches became a central theme. Though, this research methodology concerns itself with only observable realities and every thing that cannot be observed is considered non-existent (Sanders, 1982). This is often considered as the downside of this research paradigm. Just like the qualitative research, quantitative research method also encompasses a range of research methods. Concerns about data collection, methods of analysis, validity and reliability of findings are often the most paramount when choosing the appropriate research methodology. Quantitative methodologies, such as ecological studies and other forms of numerical data collection paradigms of the quantitative approach help to quantify, measure and classify whatever phenomena is being studied (Lindsay, 2002). In this respect, using quantitative approach to study risk assessment will evaluate risks and exposure in statistical terms that will greatly help in classifying the population according to the risk level. While on the other hand, qualitative research methods, with its rapid data collection methods such as structured interviews, focus groups and others will generate deeper understanding of the experiences of the subjects involved in the study, which can be most helpful in planning intervention measures to cut risks. These two methods can greatly complement each other for this study (Stange and Zyzanzki, 1989; Lindsay, 2002). Discussing the reliability and validity of qualitative research methods, Murphy (2000) posit that the effectiveness and efficiency of the qualitative approach to research adds to its relative advantage compared to others, arguing that on both philosophical and methodological grounds, qualitative and quantitative research methods, though differing to some extent, provide sound analytical frameworks for carrying out research studies. Further defending this stand, the author suggest that qualitative research methods are very useful in the exploratory stages of a research project, where they can help to clarify or set the research question, aid conceptualisation and generate hypotheses, which can then be tested later with quantitative methods to further strengthen the reliability and validity of such theories or hypotheses. He also argued that, conversely, qualitative research may be used to interpret, qualify or illuminate findings of quantitative research and to test hypotheses. He also argued that the same ethical principles apply to qualitative and quantitative paradigms (Murphy, 2000). Therefore, even on ethical grounds, both qualitative and quantitative research methods are capable of providing reliable and valid outcomes for risk assessment, which can be triangulated to further strengthen and increase the application of the research outcome (Crawford, 2002). On data collection and analysis, qualitative and quantitative research methods are sound and advantageous. Both research paradigms provide a wide range of methods and data collection. For quantitative studies, different numerical and statically relevant data can be collected in several ways, though questionnaires, cohort studies, case control, cross-sectional, ecological studies etc (Lindsay, 2002). Within the qualitative paradigm too, an array of methods are available. Participant observation can be used to carry out risk assessment, through in depth, non-obtrusive observation of the routine activities of the research participant. Such method for example, has the advantage of providing data that is not biased based on the construction of the research subjects, like Sanders (1982) noted, 'people do not always do what they say they do'. Where this is inapplicable, conversation analysis could also be used to unravel individuals' beliefs and opinions, while, qualitative structured interviews can be used to study a wide range of perceptions and ideas relevant to the research study, although interviews maybe restricted, depending on the context in which they are collected, however, analysis of documents may provide relevant and important data for the research (Black, 1994; Murphy, 2000). Moreover, qualitative and quantitative research methods provide the researcher with a wider choice of sampling methods, to further strengthen the reliability of the data collected. Where the research study is exploratory in nature, Opportunistic sampling methods can be employed. However, where representativeness is of central importance, the researchers have the option of employing purposive sampling techniques, and where establishing a theory is the goal, theoretical sampling methods fulfils the need of the researcher (Black, 1994; Murphy, 2000). Qualitative and quantitative research methods respond to the same criteria for research validity and relevance. For any research method, judgements about validity is largely dependent upon the ability and ease of forming a judgement of the research process. For quantitative research methods, this is quite standardised. There are statistical and mathematical instruments that are used in the analysis and presentation of results, which are easily verifiable, based on standard principles. Though qualitative research methods lack such standardisation, reliability, validity or trustworthiness of the research results are reinforced by the elaborate and explanatory nature of research outcomes presentation. This is further enhanced, where researchers can demonstrate that they have considered alternative, plausible explanations for their data and where researchers do not present one-sided accounts (Murphy, 2000). Arguing for the combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods health related studies, Crawford et al (2002) identified the following benefits of qualitative research methods in clinical trials: Qualitative research can help to identify the active components of interventions Contribute to the development and refinement of experimental interventions Assist with the development and selection of appropriate outcome measures Generate testable hypothesis for examination in the subsequent research studies Qualitative research methods can examine the fidelity of treatment delivered to those receiving experimental and control treatments Provide further information about the active ingredients of interventions Be used to explore interactions between subjects, interventions and those who deliver them Qualitative research can be used to explore reasons for the positive (or negative) findings of a research study Provide further information about components of interventions that may lead to differences in patient outcomes (Crawford et al., 2002 p.8). The discussion so far is not intended to suggest that there are no differences in quantitative and qualitative research method, or that these research paradigms do not have limitations and weaknesses. On the contrary, several differences exist and have been established between qualitative and quantitative research methods. While these differences are sometimes, numerous, the major ones will be highlighted here. Qualitative research, to a large extent, attempts to describe meanings or discovery, while quantitative research methods are more concerned with relationships and causation. As Maykut and Richard (1994) put it; qualitative approaches use multiple realities which can only be understood by the intersecting socio-psychological constructions. Quantitative approaches, on the other hand, have one reality created from dividing and studying parts of an entity. Qualitative approaches have interdependency between the knower and the known. Quantitative approaches believe true objectivity exists because the knower can be studied outside of the known. Qualitative approaches have non-numerical values that mediate and shape what is understood. Quantitative approaches believe that non-numerical values can be ignored or otherwise rendered unimportant. Qualitative approaches involve multidirectional relationships where events shape each other. Quantitative approaches claim that a preceding event can be said to cause a following event. Qualitative approaches have only tentative explanations for one time and one place. Quantitative approaches believe that explanations can be generalised to other times and places. Qualitative approaches seek to discover or uncover hypotheses. Quantitative approaches generally seek verification or proof of hypotheses (Maykut and Richard, 1994). The weakness of both research methods can be discerned from their differences. Qualitative approaches, to a large extent, lack standardised or generally accepted methods of analysis; however, to compensate for this, several software and research instruments have been developed over the years, to increase the validity and reliability of qualitative research outcomes. On the positive side, qualitative research methods have several rapid and effective data collection techniques; it also strives at a deeper understanding of phenomena, rather than the superficial classification, and objectivistic search for mathematical proofs for causation and relationship (Barbour, 1999; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Patton, 2002). Quantitative research methods are important in testing and establishing theories. In quantifiable and easily understandable terms, quantitative research methods examine and present the correlation and relationships between different naturally observable phenomena. It also has the added advantage of standardisation and regularised research procedures, which add to research validity and application of research outcomes. However, on the negative side, emphasis on quantification and classification of research outcomes does not easily lend itself to practice. As a result, research outcomes of quantitative studies are not easily imported into practice (Stange and Zyzanzki, 1989; Ragin, 1994; Ziman, 2000). Apparently, the inherent strength ad weaknesses of both qualitative and quantitative research methods complement each other, and when they are effectively combined, they make for better examination and evaluation of a study on 100 risk assessment which have been collected over a period of five years based on interviews, which is, obviously, one of the data collection methods of the qualitative research paradigms. Conclusion In deciding what research method to use for a particular research study, decisions are supposed to be made based on effectiveness and efficiency of a research method, with particular reference to the research question at hand, instead of prior epistemological and/or ontological assumptions. By analysing the several features, merits and characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research methods, this paper has adequately shown that these research approaches are most suitable for evaluating 100 risk assessments which have been carried out over a five year period and considered as primary data for the research. This essay has discussed the concepts embedded in the qualitative and quantitative paradigms, with respect to research validity and reliability, and has shown the effectiveness of these methods, especially when combined, for the particular research hand. Bibliography Barbour R.S (1999). The Case For Combining Qualitative And Quantitative Approaches In Health Services Research. J Health Services Research & Policy 4(1):39-43. Black, N. (1994). Why We Need Qualitative Research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 48: 425-426. Buchanan D.R (1992). Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods: An Uneasy Alliance. Health Educ Q 19(1):117-135. Crawford, Michael, Timothy Weaver, Deborah Rutter, Tom Sensky, Peter Tyrer (2002). Evaluating New Treatments in Psychiatry: The Potential Value of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. International Review of Psychiatry, 14:6-11. Denzin, N. K, and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook Of Qualitative Research ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fischer, C.T (Ed.) (2005). Qualitative Research Methods For Psychologists: Introduction Through Empirical Studies. Academic Press. Howe, Kenneth and Margaret Eisenhart (1998). Standards for Qualitative (and Quantitative) Research: A Prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, Vol. 19 (4): 2-9. Laws, S.Harper, C. and Marcus, R. (2003) Research for Development: A Practical Guide: London: Sage. Lindsay, Ana Cristina (2002). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods to Assess the Impact of Child Survival Programs in Developing Countries. Health Education & Behaviour, Vol. 29 (5): 570-584. Maggs-Rapport Frances (2000). Combining Methodological Approaches in Research: Ethnography and Interpretive Phenomenology, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(1): 219-225. Maykut, Pamela and Richard Morehouse (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research. Falmer Press. Murphy E (2000). Qualitative Research Methods In Health Technology Assessment: A Review Of The Literature. The Research Findings Register. Summary number 87. Retrieved 8 December 2006, from http://www.ReFeR.nhs.uk/ViewRecord.aspID=87 Patton, M. Q (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Polit, F.D, Beck, C.T, and Hungler, B.P (2001). Essential of Nursing Research: Methods of Appraisal, and Utilisation, 5th edition, Philadelphia: Lippincott Ragin, Charles C (1994). Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Pine: Forge Press. Sanders Patricia (1982) Phenomenology: A New Way of Viewing Organisational Research, Academy of Management Review, 7(3): 353-360 Stange KC, Zyzanzki SJ (1989). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. FamMed, 21:448-451. Steven J. Taylor and Robert Bogdan (1998). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods, Wiley. Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. World Medical Association [WMA] (2000). The Helsinki Declaration adopted by 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland. Retrieved online 7th Dec. 2006 from http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm Ziman, John (2000). Real Science: what it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More