Quantitative and Qualitative Social Researches - Research Proposal Example

Quantitative versus Qualitative Social Research Introduction Fred Kerlinger, a quantitative researcher, was very determined to undermine the importance and reliability of qualitative research by stating that, “There’s no such thing as qualitative data. Everything is either 1 or 0.” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 40). On the other side, researcher D.T. Campbell argued that “all research ultimately has a qualitative grounding” (ibid). The continuous debate between quantitative and qualitative research typically involves many aspects of social research such as role of research, relationship between researcher and subject, researcher’s stance in relation to subject, research strategy and so on. Nevertheless, the fundamental differences between quantitative and qualitative research involve the data and results that they can obtain. For instance, qualitative data is more on words and contexts whereas quantitative data entail numbers; this fundamental difference led some researchers to regard the latter as more scientific than the former because it can produce hard and solid results. Moreover, quantitative research is deductive in approach whereas qualitative research is inductive. Also, in quantitative research, a hypothesis is ultimately necessary before the actual study progresses while qualitative research can commence even though there is no clear-cut hypothesis. Relationship of Researcher to Subject In quantitative research, the researcher’s relationship with the people being studied is fairly transitory or even absent. Even though the data collection period extends for months, the normal interaction between the researcher and the respondents are brief. Undeniably, the methods applied by quantitative research may require no contact with the subjects apart from indirect strategies; postal questionnaire surveys, laboratory experiments wherein the researcher merely monitors others who perform the actual experiment and other forms of low profile, structured examination almost demand no contact between researcher and subject. Also, normally, investigators in an interview survey hires staff that would carry out some and there are times all of the interviews. On the contrary, qualitative research requires more prolonged contact, particularly when participant observation is the method being used. A qualitative researcher needs to establish good rapport with the subjects of the study since the level of analysis desired could only be acquired through the subjects’ perspectives of the world hence distant relationship will create problems in the results of a qualitative research. Unstructured interviewing is less tedious in terms of establishing researcher-subject relationship than participant observation but consistently longer than survey interviews. However, the extensive array of concerns addressed by the unstructured interview regularly requires a comparatively close relationship between researcher and subject, in which consequently repeat visits may deepen. Role of the Researcher Another primary difference between qualitative and quantitative research that spurred much of the debate in social research is the essential assumptions about the role of the researcher. In quantitative research, the researcher is preferably an outside and objective observer that neither partakes in nor manipulates the concern being studied. On the contrary, in qualitative research, a researcher can profoundly learn the most about a social situation through participating and engrossing in it. This fundamental difference between quantitative and qualitative research affect the methodologies and data collection strategies needed to be employed. Likewise, there are a number of researchers who argue that quantitative and qualitative methodologies cannot be merged because the underlying assumptions in each research tradition are so immensely dissimilar. However, there are some researchers who believe that the two methods of research can be used alternatively. Qualitative research is appropriate to answer specific kinds of questions in particular conditions whereas quantitative is suitable for others. And some researchers believe that both quantitative and qualitative methods are useful if simultaneously employed to answer explicit research problems. Conclusion Nevertheless, researchers on both sides of the debate are all correct in one aspect: that each methodology has its shortcomings. Quantitative research, being strictly fixed and structured, compels people to respond to categories that might be inappropriate or meaningless. On the other hand, qualitative research sometimes emphasizes too directly on individual outcomes and fails to create associations to larger situations or probable origins of the results. However, instead of focusing on the drawbacks of the two methodologies, researchers oftentimes search for the most effective and competent ways to integrate elements of both to make certain that their studies are as precise and systematic as possible. There has possibly been more energy exhausted on debating the differences between and comparative advantages of qualitative and quantitative methods than any other procedural concern in social research. It is crucial for researchers to understand that quantitative and qualitative methods can be used in concurrence with each other. There are differences between quantitative and qualitative research in terms of the nature of data that each produces and the level of examination at which each functions. Thus, each of the two social research methodologies has its own strengths and weaknesses. Nonetheless, it is significant not to underscore the similarities between the two research traditions. The assumption that quantitative research can be used in verifying theories whereas qualitative research is associated with the production of theories can accordingly be viewed as a principle that have very little to do with either the practices of several researchers immersed in the two traditions or the feasibility of the approaches of data gathering themselves. Ethical Dilemmas in Human Research Introduction The mid-twentieth century witnessed much atrocity in human research which is manifested by the unethical nature of the research community. Experiments using human subjects became more common in the period which is characterized by the negligence of the researchers on the codes of ethics regarding experiments on human subjects. The initial stage of the Tuskegee experiment was conducted in the period in which there are no well-built ethical standards on human experimentation. Even though notable physicians such as Claude Bernard and William Osler advocated the necessity of having ethical codes on human experimentation, disreputable experiments on human subjects still continued unabashed. In Henry Beecher’s article in New England Journal of Medicine released in 1966, he daringly exposed 22 studies with ethical defiance which includes the notorious Tuskegee syphilis study (Shamoo and Resnik, 2003, p. 187). The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment: The Infamous Violation of Ethical Research It is quite well-known in the field of scientific research that misconduct and immorality in terms of procedures fail to achieve accurate results hence the maxim “good science is irreconcilable with bad ethics”. This is a comforting belief to those who struggle with the medical abuses on human subjects since it implies that key individuals who endeavor in an unethical human research will utterly fail in contributing significant knowledge to medicine. However, the findings on the Tuskegee syphilis experiment which are largely obtained through dreadful research procedure on human subjects are the knowledge relied upon by subsequent medical specialists in diagnosing and treating syphilis (Caplan 1992: para 6). Therefore, the painful negligence on the unethical and inhumane nature of the Tuskegee study was bolstered by the biomedical community’s reliance on the Tuskegee findings as vital information for the diagnosis and treatment of syphilis. In this case, bad ethics is overcome by the Tuskegee experiment’s findings thus forfeiting the belief that researches that abuse and harm human subjects will never produce useful scientific results. The Tuskegee study became a representation of medical dishonesty, conspiracy, unprofessional conduct and neglect. Nevertheless, despite the grave allegations on the ethical standards of the Tuskegee experiment, the medical institutions in the United States did insignificant attempts to acknowledge the human tragedy caused by the Tuskegee study. There were no medical organizations that carried out a convention to discuss the detrimental effects of the Tuskegee experiment to the Black community and there were no academic journals released that examine the knowledge gained from the study. Thomas and Quinn (1991: p. 1498), scholars on public issues, argued that health officials should be responsive to the needs of the Blacks of substantial information that may ease their fear and anxiety of genocide which is induced by the AIDS outbreak. Moreover, as a part of human ethics, public health officials should accept the truth that the competence of scientific knowledge has its limitations since it doesn’t have the absolute answers to all the human concerns. The Tuskegee study on syphilis is on the surface unethical and inhumane. It apparently violated many of the ethical standards in human research. The conscious effort to hide from the human subjects the true nature of their health situation is a blatant human rights’ misdemeanor. Moreover, the mere selection of the human subjects for the experiment is laden with racial bigotry and negative stereotype, which is that Blacks are more prone to syphilis than the Whites. Even though the Tuskegee findings are useful to modern medicine, it is still urgent and important to commit to memory the heartrending abuses hauled against the Black community in the Tuskegee experiment so as to devise effective programs that would lessen the burden and misery caused by the incident to the families of the experiment’s victims and to avoid history repeating itself. Conclusion The Declaration of Helsinki states that in the context of medical research, “In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflict of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and the potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail. The subject should be informed of the right to abstain from participation in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal.” (Boomgaarden et al, 2003, p. 49). It is very important not to compromise the ethical guidelines set in writing to the actual uses of research because what is important are the subjects or the respondents being studied in different forms of research. Many past and contemporary researchers violated the ethical guidelines regarding the use of human as subject of experiments and research for varied reasons. Yet, these reasons usually range from tangible incentives such as monetary benefits to intangible enticements such as prestige that would be brought out of the precise results. Hence, commonly, the welfare and human rights of the subjects are discarded and put into the remotest fringes of scientific concern for the sake of generating knowledge that would be much helpful to the majority. Therefore, ethics in human research is somewhat in disalignment with the objectives and goals of a particular research study, quantitative or qualitative. Alzheimer ’s disease in UK Introduction In the modern age, the weakening of the mind due to the inevitable aging of the brain is termed as the Alzheimer’s disease. Generally, Alzheimer’s is a disease of the brain that normally results in a steady but progressive failure to remember, to think, to reason, to judge, to orient and even worst, to speak. People suffering from the condition are eventually incapable to accomplish the most fundamental activities of everyday living such as bathing, dressing and cooking. Nevertheless, it is significant to emphasize that Alzheimer’s disease is not the consequence of normal aging yet it usually occur more often to people who are 65 years of age and above (Gruetzner, 2001, p. 6). Traditional British stoicism is a public health problem with patients affected with Alzheimer’s disease taking years to come forward for tests, according to the Birmingham Post in 2004. The notice comes as a new European review is published demonstrating that Britain has the longest time between first symptoms being detected and a diagnosis of the disease being given. In the UK, it was discovered that the process of detection and diagnosis of the disease take almost a year long. Dr. David Wilkinson, a consultant old age psychiatrist from Southampton, announced that Alzheimer’s specialists were starting to see people in their 40s anxious about small incidences of forgetfulness, but older people with legitimate symptoms were unhurried to seek advice from doctors. Dr. Wilkinson said, “Traditional British stoicism is a public health problem in terms of Alzheimer’s disease. I am seeing people in their 50s, some in their 40s, who are worried because they have mislaid their car keys. Some have got what I call memory neurosis. But we are not getting through to people who really need the help, those in their 70s. We are getting the message through about early treatment but in the wrong places. We have got to get the message through that older people are vulnerable.” (Miller, 2004, p. 1). Some of the medical specialist state publicly that people with Alzheimer’s disease that are kept back from disclosing to their doctor their condition is far higher in number in UK than seen in any other country. When government intervention regarding this health issue was investigated, it was discovered that the government is not investing enough resources for the tackling and alleviating of the Alzheimer’s disease problem. Moreover, 80 percent of the selected health care providers in UK to respond to the questionnaire surveys believe that the government is a hindrance to those seeking treatments for Alzheimer’s, which is substantially a high figure compared to any other country. Nevertheless, Alzheimer’s disease is the most common origin of dementia which usually affects adults older than 65 years and mostly those over 85 years (Spira and Edelstein, 2007, p. 1) hence the primary risk factor for the disease is increased age. Also, there are findings which specify that women are more affected by the Alzheimer’s disease than the men. Moreover, there are genetic factors that contribute to the likelihood of individuals to contract the disease. Children of parents affected by the disease will perhaps develop the disease at the later onset of their life. Moreover, other health disorders such as hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes and probably increased blood cholesterol, are factors that could result in the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Likewise, people who have the disease at age 30 to 40 are probably victims of Down syndrome, although the precise explanation is still unknown. Furthermore, individuals who were only able to complete less than eight years of education have a great possibility to contract the disease (Carcione, 2007, para 5). Nonetheless, just like other health illnesses, Alzheimer’s disease can be treated with different types of medication. Since medical researchers devote much of their time and effort in understanding the physical and chemical changes that take place in the Alzheimer’s brain, knowledge on how to prevent or treat the disease effectively have been formulated. Experimental studies show that drug therapies on Alzheimer’s patients have been efficient in delaying the onset of the disease. However, studies that were completed so far demonstrate inconsistent results in terms of patients’ response to drug medications. Hence, it is imperative for specialists to investigate further about the nature and characteristics of the disease and its causes (Devanand, 1999, p. 33). Alzheimer’s disease became a prominent health illness in many developed nations. It has been one of the main causes of a weakening lifestyle and misunderstanding. Unfortunately, many believe that the disease is an inevitable repercussion of aging thus many people ignores the signs and symptoms of the disease. Early detection and treatment of the disease would really help in controlling its progression along with the process of aging. Drug treatments and psychiatric interventions will not be successful in treating the disease if the loved ones or significant others of individuals affected with it remain offstage. Research Questions In connection to this, this research proposal would focus on the current circumstances of the issue of Alzheimer’s disease in UK through the perspectives of the elderly population and the health care providers for the disease. The research problems that would be addressed in the paper are the following: 1.) Does the elderly population of UK believe that they need to consult a doctor at the early onset of the disease’s symptoms?; 2.) What are the factors that are commonly considered by the Alzheimer’s patients when deciding whether to consult a specialist or not?; 3.) Does the health care providers for Alzheimer’s disease believe that the government plays a significant role in the improvement or worsening of the statistics of Alzheimer’s patients that consult doctors?; and 4.) What are the parameters used by the health care providers in assessing if the government has been good or worse off in providing the necessary resources for the lessening of the Alzheimer’s disease problems? In seeking answers to these research problems, the researcher will attempt to combine quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Methodology This research proposal will endeavor to seek answers to the research problems being laid out previously through various techniques inherent in the two social research traditions. In the quantitative side, the researcher would employ an open-ended questionnaire survey that will be distributed to the health care providers. The questionnaire will contain questions pertaining to their belief whether the government’s effort is sufficient or not in alleviating the problem of late diagnosis in Alzheimer’s patients. On the other hand, for the qualitative methodology, the researcher would make use of face-to-face interviews with the old people who are apparently having symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. The researcher would attempt to establish good rapport with the elderly so as to obtain the necessary data needed to analyze the current standpoint of the elderly in UK regarding their disease. Also, the personal interview method will be very much useful in obtaining the reasons explaining the contemporary perspective of the elderly about early consultation. Moreover, aside from actual field work, the researcher would try to do a secondary-analysis of completed research studies on the traditional British stoicism that seems to be largely contributing to UK’s health condition. Ethical conditions will be considered in the carrying out of the methodologies. The prior consent of the randomly selected respondents will be requested so as to avoid misunderstanding. Also, before the actual process of data gathering, the researcher will brief the respondents about the description and objectives of the study being performed. Timetable Period Task 1st month Drafting of the first part of the research proposal: Chapter 1: Introduction and Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature 2nd month Making of the Survey and Interview Questionnaires; Random Selection of Respondents 3rd month Pilot Survey and Interview 4th month Actual Field Work: Data Gathering 5th month Data Analysis, Interpretation and Presentation 6th month Finalizing and polishing of the Research paper Works Cited Boomgarden, J. (2003). Issues in Medical Research. New York: Berghahn Books. Carcione, Joseph (2007, 01 01). Alzheimers Disease: Causes and Risk Factors. Retrieved August 3, 2008, http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/causes-risk-factors Devanad, D. (1999). The Interrelations Between Psychosis, Behavioral Disturbance and Depression in Alzheimers Disease. Alzheimers Disease and Related Disorders . Gerics, Jennifer (2006, 08 03). Alzheimers Disease Definition. Retrieved August 3, 2008, http://neurologicalillness.suite101.com/article.cfm/alzheimer_s_disease_definition Gruetzner, H. M. (2001). Alzheimers: A Caregivers Guide and Sourcebook. New York: Wiley. Miles and Huberman (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Miller, S. (2004). Alzheimers Time Bomb Ticks. The Birmingham Post . Resnik, D. B. & Shamoo, A. (2003). Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More