Should Corruption Be Studied Quantitatively or Qualitatively - Essay Example

Should Corruption be studied quantitatively or qualitatively? According to Morris (1991, p corruption canbe defined as a situation that takes place when public officials are induced through various means, to act in a manner that is against their responsibility or public interest. In such instances, inducements can include either being bribed monetarily or by being given a social favour resulting in their serving the interests of individuals rather than those of the public (Cohen, 2012, p.285). The result tends to vary with some being very severe while others are quite mild in the public interest. However, when a study is being conducted, it is essential that the researcher recognize that all corruption goes against the rule of law. Furthermore, Kaufmann and Vicente, (2011, p.195) state that there is often the need to determine the “motivations behind individuals”, especially public officials, getting involved in corrupt deals when they have been tasked with representing and defending the interests of the public. When making a study of corruption, it is best to conduct it qualitatively rather than quantitatively as a means of getting accurate results. When conducting studies on corruption, it should be recognized that qualitative methods have many characteristics that define them and these can be used for the development of ideas, which determine the findings of the studies (Devine, 2002, p.201). One would argue that among the most impressive aspects of qualitative methods, when compared to quantitative ones, is the development of the design which is extremely important because among its contents is the study of real world situations as they unfold in a natural state. For example, in a situation where a study of corruption is being conducted, the researcher is bound by the situation under study as it is and does not get involved in attempting to control the situation to get the results he requires (Vishnevsky & Beanlands 2004, p.236). Furthermore, Castellan (2010, p.5) argues that unlike in the use of quantitative methods, the researcher is not hindered by any ideas that have been predetermined and the findings are as they are discovered, ensuring that there is a measure of credibility that does not appear in situations where studies are generalized. Castellan further argues that when using qualitative methodologies, the researcher will more often than not be required to “adapt his findings to the situation as it unfolds,” so that there are no predetermined or rigid designs when conducting a study on corruption. These methods can be extremely useful in a study of such an elusive subject as corruption, because it enables the researcher to remain flexible, hence increasing the credibility of his work. In addition, Riviera (2011, p.615) argues that the use of qualitative methods when conducting research is more advantageous because the researcher is likely to select those study cases, “which are rich in information and are illuminative.” This method, one would argue, has an advantage over quantitative methods because it ensures that there is purpose in the study since the methods of sampling are aimed at gaining an insight on corruption, and not to generalize from using samples to make a determination concerning a population. However, it can be argued that despite an insistence on the use of qualitative research, quantitative methods can also be useful, albeit to a lesser extent, in research on corruption. Quantitative methods can be used to increase the credibility of the study because quantitative methods can every now and then provide a better appreciation of the nature of the problems that are run into in the study of corruption and thus add to insights into studying it according to various contexts (Franklin, 2008; Frels and Onwuegbuzie, 2013, p.189). For example, in depth discussions with public officials can be carried out to determine their views corruption and how they would respond if they were offered an opportunity to get into corrupt deals (Frels and Onwuegbuzie, 2013, p.190). In addition, one would follow Anderson’s (2010, p.3) idea of the case study approach through the examination of practice and in depth discussions to survey the views of individuals in society (in this case concerning corruption), and in the case of developing countries, where corruption is extremely prevalent, how this vice has come to affect their lives. It can be argued that the case study approach allows for the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods to ensure that precise data that can be used to deduce reliable findings is collected. Roger and Halas (2012, p.122) argue that it is beneficial to use a combination of verbal interviews and questionnaires in the collection of the data related to corruption. For example, the two data collection methods can be used as a means of saving time when conducting interviews among a proposed number of public officials at the different work environments so that an accurate determination of their motivations to get involved in corruption can be developed. In addition, to ensure that there is even spread in relation to data collection, the use of these methods allows for equal sampling in all places where the study is being conducted. According to Wang (2013, p.49) the use of qualitative methods in the study of corruption requires that the researcher goes to a place where corruption has a potential of taking place and develop a network of informants who can be used to gather information that can be used in the study of the subject. One would argue that using qualitative methods over quantitative ones would be more efficient because, depending of the number of public employees in a work place, there might be a slight variation of the number of these individuals to be interviewed, because the number of employees in various public institutions tends to vary. Moreover, Kaufmann and Vicente (2011, p.197) argue that the study of corruption requires that there is diversity of data collected through conducting the study in different public institutions so that “the data collected is not skewed” to one type of public institution because this might affect the accuracy of the study. It can be argued that such a situation would help in the final evaluation of the data in finding and determining if any, the profession or department in the institution that is most prone to corruption. It can be argued that because of the subjective nature of qualitative studies, it is essential that the questionnaire and verbal interviews contain related questions; an advantage over quantitative studies where questions tend to be more generalised. Furthermore, questionnaires in qualitative studies tend not to be handed out at the time of collecting the responses since they are supposed to be given and collected at the time of the interview (Frels and Onwuegbuzie, 2013, 185). In a qualitative study, which relies more on getting actual facts rather than generalisations, there is often the risk that depositing the questionnaire with the respondent might make him vulnerable to gathering of data that are not precise. This is because there might be a chance that the individuals with questionnaires might end up debating the questions and come up with universal responses that are a product of collective and not personal views. Patton (2011, p.1422) argues that the use of qualitative methods over quantitative ones in studying corruption allows for data analysis and coding which is extremely important in transforming the collected information into that which communicates precise and concise information to the interested parties. Qualitative methods, therefore, become advantageous because the communication obtained from the study is a direct consequence of how the data is analysed. One would further argue that making analyses through qualitative methods allows for it to be consistent with the objectives of the study proposed at its commencement. Goussinsky, Reshef, Yanay-Ventura, and Yassour-Borochowitz (2011, p.127) argue that among the consequences of data being collected qualitatively rather than quantitatively is that it allows for proper demographic classification and coding of the respondents in terms of gender, age, and job group category so that the prevalence of corrupt practices can be determined. One would further argue that using qualitative methods, the data can also be analysed according to the respondents that agree or refute the study objective of whether their environment has a prevalence of corruption or not. This is in line with Roger and Halas (2012, p.121), who declare that “the institutional responses as categorized by the questionnaire” can also be considered in order to evaluate whether corruption is more prevalent in certain institutions than others. This point can be taken further by arguing that the nature of corruption in different institutions can also be analysed in order to find out whether it is corruption occasioned by human nature or by the setting of their position or place of work. Moreover, one would argue that qualitative methods have an advantage over quantitative ones because they allow for the analyses of whether corruption can be tackled using legal channels to challenge their not only those who practice it but also its institutionalization. Unlike a quantitative study, a qualitative study of corruption has to be conducted under very strict measures to ensure that quality, credibility and ethics are followed without hesitation because it is essential that viability, reliability and preciseness of data collected are essential in the attainment of proper results (Morris, 1991, p.23). One would argue that the interpretation of data concerning corruption and its subsequent reporting all depend on the data collected as well as its quality. Frels and Onwuegbuzie (2013, p.184) concur, stating that the quality of the data collected can be enhanced by ensuring that its collection is done through verbal responses and instant questionnaires, since this allows for the control of conflicting information through the reception of duplicate responses. The use of qualitative over quantitative methods also improves on the credibility of data since the proposed means of data collection eliminates any form of unreliable responses. Qualitative methods also allow for ethical concerns related to this study to be brought forth because it touches on the perception of corruption by public officials in the institutions within which they work. Furthermore, the use of qualitative methods in the study of corruption, where information is mostly attained anonymously and at a more personalised level than quantitatively, makes sure that there is no identification of the respondents by their actual names, their identification number within the institution under study or any other tangible evidence that can be used to connect a response to a particular respondent. The anonymity of the respondents is essential because the information that they provide in this study can be used to compromise their status as employees when the connection is traced. Goussinsky, Reshef, Yanay-Ventura and Yassour-Borochowitz (2011, p.128) argue that because it is impossible to achieve complete objectivity using quantitative methods, and the use of complete subjectivity in qualitative methods work towards undermining credibility, the researchers focus should be a reflection of a balance between these methods in understanding and portraying the subject “realistically in all its complexity”. The researcher is also required to be self-analytical, politically aware and correct, and be spontaneous in consciousness so that his work can be considered to be not only authentic, but also of the best quality. Examples of such attributes when studying corruption are the selection and description of samples, their analysis and explanation, the transformation of data, reporting on the findings, making a connection between the findings and their various interpretations, credibility and trustworthiness, and finally, the theoretical foundation of these samples (Coleman, Guo & Charlotte 2007, p.55). Taken together, they are displays of quality and can be used to critique the studies that have been conducted by the researcher. In conclusion, the discussion above has shown that the study of corruption qualitatively is one of the best ways through which research can be credibly conducted. This is because of the fact that unlike quantitative methods, it allows for the subjective study of relevant cases to provide answers and solutions for the problem of corruption that is under study. Researchers should conduct research qualitatively because it not only allows for the effective analysis of the cases involved but also ensure that the researcher has a better understanding of corruption as he is studying it. The adoption of qualitative over quantitative methods in studying corruption is essential in ensuring that the research is not only credible, but also helps in studying the reasons why people indulge in this vice so that proper solutions to this problem can be determined. References Anderson, C., 2010. "Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research", American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol. 74, no. 8, pp. 1-141. Castellan, C.M., 2010. "Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A View for Clarity",  International Journal of Education, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-14. Cohen, N., 2012. “Informal payments for healthcare – The phenomenon and its context.” Journal of Health Economics, Policy and Law, vol.7, no.3, pp. 285–308. Coleman, L.J., Guo, A. & Charlotte, S.D. 2007, "The State of Qualitative Research in Gifted Education as Published in American Journals: An Analysis and Critique", The Gifted Child Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 51-63. Devine, F., 2002. “Qualitative methods.” In D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds). Theory and Methods in Political Science (2nd edition). London: Palgrave. Franklin, M., 2008. “Quantitative analysis.” In Donatella Della Porta & Michael Keating (eds). Approaches & Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frels, R.K. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 2013. "Administering Quantitative Instruments With Qualitative Interviews: A Mixed Research Approach", Journal of Counseling and Development : JCD, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 184-194. Goussinsky, R., Reshef, A., Yanay-Ventura, G. & Yassour-Borochowitz, D. 2011, "Teaching Qualitative Research for Human Services Students: A Three-Phase Model", The Qualitative Report, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 126-146. Kaufmann, D. & Vicente, P. 2011, “Legal Corruption”, Economics and Politics, vol. 23, pp. 195–219. Morris, S.D. 1991, Corruption and Politics in Contemporary Mexico. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa Patton, C.L., 2011. "Induction, Deduction and Cyclical Movement: A Review of Qualitative Research Methods", The Qualitative Report, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1421-1424. Riviera, D., 2011. "Successfully Writing and Defending the Dissertation Proposal: A Review of Designing Qualitative Research", The Qualitative Report, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 614-616. Roger, K.S. & Halas, G. 2012, "Building Interdisciplinary Qualitative Research Networks: Reflections on Qualitative Research Group (QRG) at the University of Manitoba", The Qualitative Report, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 120-130. Vishnevsky, T. & Beanlands, H. 2004, "Qualitative Research", Nephrology Nursing Journal, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 234-8. Wang, P. 2013, "The rise of the Red Mafia in China: a case study of organised crime and corruption in Chongqing". Trends in Organized Crime, vol. 16, no.1, pp. 49–73. Read More