Strengths and Weaknesses of a Qualitative Approach, as Opposed to a Quantitative Approach - Literature review Example

Name Professor Course Date Research Methods: Strengths and Weaknesses of a Qualitative Approach as Opposed to a Quantitative Approach Introduction A research entails a logical investigation into a study of sources and materials with the goal of establishing facts and attaining novel conclusions into a given matter. It is a purposeful and intensive search for understanding and knowledge of physical and social phenomena. Research involves an academic action comprising of a systematic search for relevant data on a specific subject. There are various methodologies that facilitate the quest for knowledge. Effective organisational research can adopt different methods among them qualitative and quantitative research paradigm. The selected research method holds a significant impact on the research results and findings. As a result, a researcher should choose a suitable research method based on consideration of the research questions, research objectives, data availability, cost and time constraints and availability of the study sample. The focus of this paper is on the strengths and weaknesses of the qualitative approach compared to the quantitative approach. Qualitative Research Qualitative research involves compilation and application of dissimilar kinds of pragmatic materials that include interviews, observations, focus groups and case studies (Karkukly 2004, p. 60). Qualitative study facilitates collection of detailed data mostly obtained from personal experiences and perspectives. The approach provides results unobtainable via statistical process, or any other quantification means as it is the case with the quantitative approach that necessitates crucial datasets and statistics. Qualitative approach involves first-hand data from interviews. The approach allows the research to start from empirical level and culminates with conceptual level. Hypothetical statements and contributory relationship realized in the qualitative study usually connected to the study topic. Weaknesses and Strengths of Qualitative approach as Opposed to Quantitative Approach Qualitative research is inductive while quantitative research is deductive. Inductive approach allows researchers to perform their studies from experimental observations to ordinary principles. Inductive approach facilitates discovery and explanation of research findings. Qualitative approach is founded on inductive reasoning where research findings form and explain a hypothesis generated during the study (Bernard 493). Qualitative research does not commence with a hypothesis as it is the case with deductive approach that functions to test theories. Inductive study formulates theories, and it is associated with qualitative interviews. Relative to the deductive approach, inductive approach necessitates the researcher to devise a question, observe, generate the hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the data and draw a tangible conclusion. Inductive approach is effective compared to the deductive approach. Furthermore, inductive approach is a natural form that allows researchers to make sensible assumptions regarding their observations. In addition, inductive approach allows researchers to gather concepts regarding a fathomless number of phenomena in an organization or society. On the other hand, inductive approach provides ultimate conclusions founded on observations, therefore, cannot present explicit attestation about some assumptions. The approach can yield erratic results due to shifts in the natural setting. Callingham, an author, asserts that it is hardly essential to state that qualitative research approach differs to a great extent from quantitative research (103). The disparities at the superficial level are sample representatives, sample size and the absence of structured questionnaires. Both qualitative and quantitative approach is corresponding inquiry methods, and every approach has its weaknesses where the other is strong and strength where the other is weak. However, the basic difference between qualitative and quantitative approach is that the qualitative approach takes the whole person as its beginning point. The approach holds a wish to comprehend how a person works in terms of her or his connection with, for example, markets and brands. Qualitative research, as a result, entails talking to persons in a holistic manner (Callingham 103). Qualitative approach generates non-statistical data while quantitative approach generates numerical or statistical data that can changed into numbers. Qualitative research centres on collecting verbal data where the collected data is analysed in a subjective, diagnostic, impressionistic or interpretative manner. The principal goal of the qualitative approach is to offer a detailed and complete description of a given topic. Quantitative approach, on the other hand, centres on counting and categorising features besides creating statistical figures and models to explain an observation. Rubin and Babble, authors, confirm that all research methods have their unique weaknesses and strengths (231). Qualitative research is effective for examining social procedures over time. As such, the principal strength of the qualitative approach lies in the depth of comprehension it permits. Qualitative research is flexible in that one can modify the research design at any time. Apart from being flexible, qualitative research approach is extremely subjective and is created to surpass the percentages in order to obtain a comprehension of respondents’ impressions, viewpoints and feelings. The interviews involved in qualitative research are long an aspect that allows the researcher to elicit highly candid and complex reaction from respondents. The outcome is in-depth, rich data loaded with insight that cannot be attained in quantitative research approach. Qualitative research approach is highly-focused, flexible and planned to be quickly finished because it involves smaller sample size compared to larger sample sizes involved in quantitative research paradigm. Quantitative research entails the use of statistical analysis and numbers. It helps in analyzing data that is measured through an instrument. Larger sample size in quantitative research makes this approach to be expensive and time-consuming. More so, the logistical complexities inherent in collecting an adequately big sample can interfere with the study (Rubin & Babble 231). When tackled incorrectly, quantitative research is vulnerable to statistical error that can undermine the projectability, validity and accuracy of the results. However, quantitative approach focuses on objective measurement and the numerical, mathematical and statistical analysis of data gathered via surveys, questionnaires or polls. Quantitative research is not flexible given that data collection instruments cannot be modified after the commencement of the study. Additionally, reduction of information into numbers instigates information loss. While qualitative research generates hypothesis, Quantitative research tests hypothesis. An example of a hypothesis testing quantitative research is the Redmond (2013) research that explored how employees perceive and react to the competency model at work. The research involved a cross-sectional survey of 278 workers in Norwegian organizations that indicated that competency models were closely linked to supervisor-rated work effort and self-rated employability and organizational citizenship behaviour. Redmond (2013) included four hypotheses that aimed at testing the relationship between job performance and fairness and competency model; the link between organizational citizenship behaviour and competency model and fairness; the link between employability orientation and competency model and fairness, and relationship between employability activities and competency model relevance and fairness. Although, Redmond (2013) could not generalize the findings because data was obtained from employees in Norwegian service organizations, a quantitative researcher is usually concerned to obtain findings that can be generalized beyond the confines of a given context in which the research is conducted (Bryman 176). Generability of study findings to a bigger population is not the goal of qualitative research as it is with quantitative research. Generability is the criterion used in a quantitative study to evaluate the degree to which findings can be applied to other settings and groups (Martella and Nelson 319). Critical Analysis: Data Collection Methods Interviews Qualitative research offers an in-depth inquiry of a given topic while quantitative research offers a measure of a given topic. Qualitative research follows unstructured or semi-structured interviews. While both qualitative and quantitative research interviews are akin because they involve a respondent and a researcher, the process of conducting and assessing findings differ. Each perspective holds unique weaknesses and strengths. Quantitative approach involves structured interviews or closed-ended questionnaires. In qualitative research, on the other hand, interviews are open-ended or unstructured where the respondents are allowed to express their views and provide as much information as possible. For instance, Keaveney (1995) involved unstructured interviews that allowed respondents to provide adequate data to comprehend customers’ switching behaviour in service industries. Interviews are a key aspect of research (Healey & Rawlinson 344). They can be written or oral interviews. Interviews assist researchers in bringing together first-hand information from the participants. They give the researcher a prospect to collect data that can be clarified and useful in the future Given that Keaveney (1995) aimed ant exploring consumer switching behaviours in services industries, use of unstructured or semi-structured interviews was appropriate. Interviews give the researcher a prospect to investigate deeper into the participants’ responses by this means offering a guarantee of a higher rate of response. However, interviews mostly unstructured interviews allow for the inclusion of personal opinions vis-à-vis the area of study. Personal opinions can affect results and in so doing lead to undependable results. On the other hand, Closed-ended questions applicable to the quantitative approach produce insufficient information because the respondents are not allowed to articulate their opinions to the best of their knowledge. Interviews are time-consuming and not suitable for bigger population. However, given that a qualitative research approach uses a small sample size, unstructured interviews are appropriate. Focus Group A focus group entails a group of persons gathered to take part in a guided discussion. The objective of focus group in research is to surpass superficial answers and discover insights on a given research topic. A focus group is appropriate for qualitative research approach. An example of a research involving focus group is Field (2000) that explored the constructive role of focus groups and lifelong learning. Field asserts that focus groups allow researchers to surpass the individual as the subject and focus on an inquiry (327). A focus group is appropriate for organisational research as it helps in studying the behaviours and attitudes of people towards a given topic, and for project evaluation and needs assessment purposes. Focus group is comparatively inexpensive, and participants offer candid responses (Stokes and Bergin 27). However, focus groups depend so much on assisted discussions to deliver results. According to Hatch, an author, focus groups offer concentrated data and generate a lot of information in a comparatively short period. In addition, focus groups hold the ability to capture the dynamic of group interaction (Martella & Nelson 132). They give the respondents a say in how the direction of the interview ought to go besides providing a sense of comfort and security that leads to more reflective and candid responses compared to the individual interview. However, focus groups are hard to control thereby requiring the interviewer to develop skills of a moderator. Focus groups also generate voluminous and less systematic data compared to structured survey. Analysing voluminous data is tedious, difficult and subject to the biases of the evaluator (Rubin and Babblie 478). Focus groups offer ease in data collection and depth of information. However, the quality of data collected through focus group depends on the skills of the group moderator. Case Studies Besides in-depth interviews and focus groups, a qualitative researcher can collect data from a case study. A case study is a comprehensive enquiry of a given issue in a real-life context. A case study does not rely on accessible statistics but the meticulous evaluation of a given event. A case study is apposite when drawing together research information and when performing thematic evaluation amid different cases. Case studies help researchers in gaining a profound contextualised analysis of a given topic. They are relatively easy to accomplish but case but yield inadequate information. In this regard, case studies provide no ground for bringing in generality or consistency of results. Although case studies are helpful in understanding a given phenomenon, they are time-consuming and the data collected through case studies cannot be generalised to the broad population (Tayle 85). For instance, the finding of research called out by Li and Wang (2014) involving the study of Bakery Cafe from Taiwan cannot be generalised to other firms offering similar services. Li and Wang explored the relationship between service quality and consumer behaviours through a case study approach involving quantitative analysis. The case study approach was feasible for the study because it helped in offering in-depth data regarding consumers’ behaviours and service quality. Overcoming the Weaknesses of Qualitative Approach The weaknesses of the qualitative approach can be reduced through mixed methods or methodological triangulation where a researcher employs both qualitative and quantitative approach. According to Copes, an author, mixing qualitative and quantitative methods draws on the strengths of each approach while minimising the weaknesses of each approach (20). Another way to minimise the flaws of the qualitative approach is through data triangulation. Data triangulation entails the use of multiple data sources to authenticate conclusions. It requires space, time and respondent’s triangulation. Collecting detailed data through diverse methods and perspectives coincides with the basic premise of viewing a given phenomenon via more than one methodological or theoretical lens yields a complete picture of the phenomenon under study. Qualitative Research Philosophy Every research is underpinned by a given philosophy or way of viewing the world and making sense out of it. A research philosophy entails a belief regarding the manner in which data should be collected, analysed and used. The qualitative researcher employs interpretivism while quantitative research employs positivism. An interpretivist depends on qualitative data while a positivist depends on quantitative data. Interpretivism argues that it is only through subjective interpretation of an occurrence that reality can be completely comprehended while positivists seek to assess objectively and observe data. Interpretivists believe that valid realities subsist and that subjectivity is essential to understanding a given phenomenon. Qualitative research is a naturalistic and realist approach, and most researchers employing this approach trust that behaviours of human beings are affected by their immediate environment. The approach is, therefore, suitable for studying social phenomenon in society and organisations. According to Lewis, a scholar, all social activities happen within the context provided by a set of pre-subsisting social structures (22). As result, qualitative researchers believe that human behaviour is influenced by the immediate environment, hence the naturalistic approach to research study. Conclusion The richness of the qualitative approach is irrefutable. The approach involves a smaller sample size compared to the quantitative approach and uses unstructured interviews, focus groups and case studies for data collection. The approach holds a high level of soundness of results because the approach involves the collection of first-hand information from focus groups, case studies, observations or interviews. Qualitative research method is usually subjective given that the researcher includes his/her personal insight and skills as a constituent of relevant data. As a result, absolute objectivity becomes quite rigid to apprehend. In addition, the approach is prone to changes that may lead provision of unreliable results. Given that qualitative analysis is subjective, projectability of results is not attainable. More so, the results from qualitative research do not offer definitive conclusions because results from qualitative research only offer companies enough data to create a firm foundation for decision-making. To overcome these flaws, research can use data triangulation or mixed methods approach. Work Cited Bernard, H. Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Texas: Rowman Altamira, 2006. Bryman, A. Social research methods. UK: Oxford University Press, 2012 Callingham, M. Market intelligence: How and why organisations use market research. UK: Kogan Page Publishers, 2004. Copes, H. Advancing qualitative methods in criminology and criminal justice. UK: Routledge, 2014. Field, J, Researching lifelong learning through focus group. Journal of Further & Higher education, 24: 1 (2000), 323-335. Hatch, A. Doing qualitative research in education settings. USA: SUNY Press, 2010. Healey, M & Rawlinson, B. Interviewing business owners and managers: A review methods and techniques. Geoforum, 24 (3), 339-355. Karkukly, W. An investigation into outsourcing of PMO functions for improved organizational performance. New York: Trafford Publishing, 2004. Keaveney, S. Customer switching behaviour in service industries: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59:1 (1995), 71-82. Lewis, P. Agency, structure and causality in political science: A comment on Sibeon. Politics, 22: 1(2002), 17-23. Li, C & Wang, H. Exploring the relations between service quality and consumer behaviour: A case study of 85°C Bakery Café from Taiwan. International Journal of Organisational Innovation, 6: 3(2014), 31-41. Martella, R & Nelson, R. Understanding and interpreting educational research. UK: Guilford Press, 2013. Redmond, E. Competency models at work: The value of perceived relevance and fair rewards for employee outcomes. Human Resource Management, 52: 5 (2013), 771- 792. Rubin, A & Babbie, E. Essentials research methods for social work. UK: Cengage Learning, 2009. Stokes, D & Bergin, R. Methodology or ‘methodolatry’? An evaluation of focus groups and depth interviews. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9: 1(2006), 26-37. Tayie, S. Research methods and writing research proposals. Cairo: Pathways to Higher Education, 2005. Read More