Features of Qualitative & Quantitative - Research Paper Example

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research ID number School or Department Unit Lecturers Due Table of contents Page no. Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………..…. 3 Introduction..………………………………………………………………………..….. 4 Features of Qualitative & Quantitative Research …………………………..…..…… . 4 Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Modes of Inquiry …………….... .. . 6 Contrasting Positivist and Naturalist Axioms (Beliefs and Assumptions) ……….. 10 Further Distinction between qualitative and quantitative research …………….. .. ... 10 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..11 Executive Summary Research is a pursuit of beauty or truth. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are ways of attaining such beauty or truth. Quantitative approach and Qualitative approaches differ in features as well as in assumptions and predispositions. The feature of each is determined by its aim and purpose. While qualitative research can not start with a design and hence cannot formulate a hypothesis at the earliest part of the paper, it has the advantage of exploration and putting events n different contexts under different times. It subjective nature does not limit the researcher to ask more questions to generate more hypotheses at the end of research study. Quantitative research will generalize what has been observed in a qualitative research. Viewed differently each actually complements the other but the quantitative research is more of completing a stage of a research study. We have seen distinctions of the two types of research. Each has its own merits and demerits. Despite their differences, a combination of the two approaches is possible. Combining the unique characteristics of the two approaches could produce a synergy for various approaches will encourage us to discover and understand different things about the world in a more varied manner. There much to learn from having to combine the two but there is beauty in learning the difference of each, too. Introduction This paper will discuss the differences between qualitative and quantitative research. First, the paper will dwell on the main features of qualitative and quantitative research and then followed by the predispositions of quantitative and qualitative modes of inquiry and then by contrasting the belief and assumptions of each mode. Predispositions will then be correlated with the assumptions and features as well as further distinctions that may be discovered between the two. Features of Qualitative & Quantitative Research Neill, J. (2004), citing Miles & Huberman (1994, p. 40), discussed various features of qualitative and quantitative research and some them are as follows: Under qualitative research, "All research ultimately has a qualitative grounding" – Donald Campbell while under quantitative research, "Theres no such thing as qualitative research as everything is either 1 or 0", - Fred Kerlinger The aim of the first is a complete, detailed description, while that of the latter, its aim is to classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed. It is quite obvious that the features of qualitative and quantitative research are consistent as to their aims. To illustrate: to be able to do a detailed description, more words should be used than numbers since it is in the used of words that one could use adjectives to describe a phenomenon. While a number may be used to measure something, the meaning of these measurements must still be articulated in words. Hence in qualitative research, it is more exploratory than that of quantitative research. It is for this reason that qualitative is recommended during the earlier phases of research projects since at that stage the researcher may only know roughly in advance what he/she is looking for (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 40) . But as the researcher becomes convinced in what he she is looking for, he must use quantitative research. In so doing the latter, the quantitative researcher need to have numerical data in order to manipulate the same through classifying the feature, counting them and constructing mathematical or statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed. (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 40) As a necessary result of such process in qualitative research, the design is not there at the start but it just emerges as the study unfolds. It is therefore logical to state that it would be difficult to conduct a quantitative research if the design in not clear at the start since in such type of research, something is already observed, hence the need for hypothesis which is not present yet in at the early part in qualitative research. Miles & Huberman (1994, p. 40) also said that in the first, the researcher is the data gathering instrument, while in the second, the researcher uses tools, such as questionnaires or equipment to collect numerical data. Data is in the form of words, pictures or objects in the first, while data is in the form of numbers and statistics in the second. Qualitative data is more rich, time consuming, and less able to be generalized, while quantitative data is more efficient, able to test hypotheses, but may miss contextual detail. Researcher tends to become subjectively immersed in the subject matter in the first, while researcher tends to remain objectively separated from the subject matter in the second. (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 40) The authors statement matches with the purpose of the research as they just describe the process. Since the aim of qualitative research is a complete, detailed description, the researcher must be the data-gathering instrument. This means that much will depend upon the researchers effort and subjective immersion in the subject matter on how to have complete detailed description. Hence, data could be varied and ‘rich’ but time consuming because the possible volume of data that the researched could inject. As a result therefore, the researcher could be less able to make generalization in qualitative research. On the other hand, according to Miles & Huberman (1994, p.40), in quantitative research, “we classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed; hence the researcher must use tools, such as questionnaires or equipment to collect numerical data.” This means that the researcher must detach himself from the data gathered hence, the need to be objective. To be able to have an explanation, he must use a model that may explain a reality in order to formulate his conclusion based on that model. However, his overzealousness on number and statistics to afford him manipulation of the data may make him or her miss contextual detail. Having correlated some of the features for two types of researches, let try to study further the distinctions of the two by relating the features with predispositions of quantitative and qualitative modes of inquiry in the next section Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Modes of Inquiry Del Siegle (n.d.) citing Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A.(1992, p.9) in distinguishing quantitative and qualitative modes of inquiry, said that quantitative modes of inquiry assume that social facts have an objective reality, that there is there is the primacy of method and that variables can be identified and relationships measured. On the other hand, the same authors said qualitative modes of inquiry assume that reality is socially constructed, that there primacy of subject matter and those variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to measure. Assumptions may be considered as premises for purposes of comparing choice of actions or decisions. Hence knowing the same for both type of research would help us understand the deeper distinction of the concepts. The assumption of objective reality therefore in quantitative research justifies the use of numbers and statistics since objective reality could be easily explained or accepted in terms of scientifically viable process or methods, hence the primacy of method is also one of its basic assumptions. Moreover objective reality to be considered as such implicitly assumes that such variables can be identified and that relationships can be measured. The assumption of whose point of view is also consistent with the purpose of the research. Objectivity connotes verifiability by outside sources hence applicable to quantitative research. On the other hand, subjectivity matches with insider’s point of view because of objective of complete and detailed description, whose parameters depend much on the researcher. Del Siegle (n.d.) citing Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992, p.9) informed that generalizability, prediction and causal explanations as purposes of quantitative research while contextualization, interpretation and understanding actors perspectives as purposes of qualitative research. They also compared the approaches as follows: 1. Quantitative research (QnR) begins with hypotheses and theories; Qualitative research (QlR) ends with hypotheses and grounded theory. 2. The first uses manipulation and control; the second uses emergence and portrayal. 3. The first uses formal instruments; the second makes researcher as instrument. 4. The first is about experimentation; the second is naturalistic, 5. The first is deductive while; the second is inductive, 6. The first used component analysis; the second searches for patterns. 7. The first seeks consensus, the norm; the second seeks pluralism, complexity, 8. The first reduces data to numerical indices; the second makes minor use of numerical indices. 9. The first uses abstract language in write-up; the second uses descriptive write-up Since QnR begins with a hypothesis while the other ends with a hypothesis, then the first one seems necessary to produce more research topics while the second seem to put some emphasis through the generalizations made. This is again consistent with the first using deductive approach the other uses inductive approach. It means that what is given birth is being refined still. In earlier statement the aim of qualitative analysis is a complete, detailed description, while that of the quantitative research, is to classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed. The aim of QlR is very much consistent with its purposes of contextualization, interpretation and understanding of actor’s perspectives. To be able to attain these purposes the researcher must be articulate to put into words what best described the context of what is being talked and analyzed about in the paper. Wikipedia (2006) defines contextualization as a word first used by linguists involved in communicating the translation of the Bible into relevant cultural settings. It also noted its formal adoption by a gathering of scholars in the Theological Education Fund (TEF) in its mandate to communicate the Gospel and Christian teachings in cultures which had not previously experienced them. Wikipedia (2006) discussed about continued use of word in theology mainly in the sense of contextualizing the biblical message as perceived in the mandate originated by Jesus in the gospel accounts. It however admitted the widening of the meaning of the word since the early 1970s. Presently it admits the use of the word by secular, religious and political groups to render their message into different settings by adjusting or accommodating words, phrases or meanings into understandable contexts in respondent cultures. On the other hand, the purposes of generalizability, prediction and causal explanations could be attained with the aim to classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed. Putting data in to numbers allow manipulation with the use of formulates and model and as what determined the output is the depth of the analysis made data are being classified and grouped into meaningful relationships. As a necessary result, the researcher’s role in quantitative research must be impartial while that of the researcher under qualitative researcher will have personal involvement, partiality and emphatic understanding. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992, p.9) further said: “Although some social science researchers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Schwandt, 1989) perceive qualitative and quantitative approaches as incompatible, others (Patton, 1990; Reichardt & Cook, 1979, pp. 7 - 32) believe that the skilled researcher can successfully combine approaches. The argument usually becomes muddled because one party argues from the underlying philosophical nature of each paradigm, and the other focuses on the apparent compatibility of the research methods, enjoying the rewards of both numbers and words. Because the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms rest on different assumptions about the nature of the world, they require different instruments and procedures to find the type of data desired.” As explained by the same authors the resting on different assumptions does not mean, that the positivist never uses interviews nor that the interpretivist never uses a survey. The authors said that these approaches may, but such methods are supplementary, not dominant. The combination of the approaches appears of to be wise choice as there are different approaches in understanding the world. The best example is that of a scientist and an artist. While scientist need to use his formulas and statistics to prove the truth of his assertions while artist may easily compose the lyrics of a song express the same truth discovered by the scientist under a different approach. In other word there is not only way to reach the truth. Why the people use different approaches in their search for truth? Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992, p.9) explained saying: “Different approaches allow us to know and understand different things about the world....Nonetheless; people tend to adhere to the methodology that is most consonant with their socialized worldview.” Contrasting Positivist and Naturalist Axioms (Beliefs and Assumptions) Woods & Trexler (n.d., p. 295), citing Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985)., in contrasting Axioms About Positivist Paradigm (Quantitative) Naturalist Paradigm (Qualitative), also said that the nature of reality in QnR is single, tangible and fragmentable while that of QlR, it is multiple, constructed, and holistic. Further Distinction between qualitative and quantitative research Del Siegle, (n.d) citing Spradley (1979), further gave distinction between Research with Subjects (Quantitative) and Research with Informants (Qualitative). The author aid under the first, the researcher would ask: “What do I know about a problem that will allow me to formulate and test a hypothesis?” Under the second, the researcher would ask: “.What do my informants know about their culture that I can discover?” Conclusion: Each of the approaches is a way to finding the truth. Each serves a particular purpose in man’s search for truth or beauty. While qualitative research can not start with a design and hence cannot formulate a hypothesis it has the advantage of exploration and putting events and in different context under different times. It subjective nature does not limit the researcher to ask more questions to generate more hypotheses at the end of research study. In different literatures, quotations have different meanings on different cultures and it’s the role of qualitative research to keep the search rich and interesting on new discoveries. Quantitative research goes for the numbers and the use of the models suing the data to explain what was observed. Hence it may generalize its finding or put exceptional statement to make some qualifications. It beauty lies in confirming or denying what may have been asserted early in the hypothesis We have seen distinctions of the two types of research. Each has its own merits and demerits. An author has said their purposes are incompatible but a combination of the two approaches is possible. While there may be basis for the charge of incompatibility because of different assumptions for QnR and QlR. This writer agrees with the proposition that positivist (quantitative) also uses interviews or that the interpretivist (qualitative) also uses a survey. Such methods may make supplementary but not dominant. Combining the unique characteristics of the two approaches could produce synergy for various approaches will encourage us to discover and understand different things about the world. There much to learn from having to combine the two but there is beauty in learning the difference of each, too. Bibliography: 1. Del Siegle, (n.d), {www document} URL http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Qualitative/qualquan.htm, accessed May 24, 2006 2. Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman. 3. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 4. Miles & Huberman (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition, SAGE Publications, 5. Neill, J. (2004) Qualitative versus Quantitative Research: Key Points in a Classic Debate, {www document} URL http://www.wilderdom.com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitativeResearch.html, accessed may 24,2006) 6. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 7. Reichardt, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7 - 32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 8. Schwandt, T. (1989). Recapturing moral discourse in evaluation. Educational Researcher, vol. 18, 11-16. 9. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. 10. Wikipedia, (2006) Contextualization, {www document} URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextualization, Accessed May 24,2006 11. Woods, M. & Trexler C. (n.d.) Expanding the Agricultural Education Research Toolbox: A Case for an Interpretive Perspective, Iowa State University, {www document} URL http://aaae.okstate.edu/proceedings/2000/web/f3.pdf, accessed May 24, 2006, Read More