Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies in Sport and Exercise - Research Paper Example

Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies in Sport and Exercise Introduction Qualitative and quantitative methods are applied to data collection and analysis. Quantitative methods have basic ideas of social phenomena derived from the normative framework. In contrast, qualitative methods are rooted in the premise of the interpretive framework (Jarvis, 2006). These paradigms have repercussions for how facts or findings are represented, interpreted, and disseminated, and each methodology has strengths and weaknesses. Proponents of quantitative methodology argue that behavioural patterns can be studied objectively and numerically. The application of numerical methods is called a quantitative model. Hence, a researcher may want to explore the correlation between the economy of sports and success. The research could conduct this by calculating the amount of resources that has been spent for a specific sport, and ‘quantifying’ outcomes in terms of the number of achievements or winnings (Atkinson, 2011). This would generate a cluster of numerical information, which may afterwards be subjected to statistical analysis to verify whether there is a correlation between the two variables. In contrast, qualitative research seeks to explore phenomena that cannot be measured numerically or be quantified, like experiences, thoughts, and emotions—those elements related to interpretive paradigms of knowledge. Qualitative methods employ non-numerical information, interpretation, and analysis to explain these phenomena (Andrews, Mason, & Silk, 2005). Hence the researcher could use another method to understand the purposes of audiences in attending sports event, by interviewing them. The respondents’ answers to the interview questions are non-quantifiable and cannot be subjected to statistical measurements, and hence have to be interpreted by the researcher (Moran, 2004). Not like quantitative methods, ‘numbers’ are not important in qualitative research. As argued by Krane and colleagues (1997 as cited in Gratton & Jones, 2003, p. 22): Placing a frequency count after a category of experience is tantamount to saying how important it is; thus value is derived by number. In many cases, rare experiences are no less meaningful, useful, or important than common ones. In some cases, the rare experience maybe the most enlightening one. In the field of sports and exercise, early studies were governed by quantitative, positivist models. Experimental studies were conducted in laboratories to quantify behaviour, and create fixed ‘rules’ of human behaviour (Gratton & Jones, 2003, p. 22). Many of these studies did generate valuable data; nevertheless the need to study the core emotions, thoughts, and experiences associated with behaviour has been recognised in the past decade (Smith, 2010), and therefore qualitative methods are gaining more and more significance within the field and sports and exercise. Positivism and Interpretivism: The Foundation of Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies Two general paradigms of knowledge inform the similarities and differences between quantitative and qualitative research, namely, positivism and interpretivism, respectively. Positivism assumes that scientific knowledge—where the theories and practices of the natural sciences are employed to examine human behaviour-- is the only legitimate and genuine form of knowledge (Smith, 2010). While a physicist can observe the laws of nature and make accurate measurements or findings, social researchers can also study human behaviour, generate accurate findings, and determine laws of human behaviour. Phenomena like experiences, thoughts, and emotions are irrelevant within the positivist tradition because they cannot be directly quantified or observed, they are unpredictable, and normally change over time (Hussain, 2011). Positivism would argue that the field of sports and exercise is comparatively constant, spatially and temporally. In this constant framework, the accurate observation, measurement, and analysis of data facilitate the formation of theories, which can afterwards be verified through additional measurements (Hussain, 2011). Measurements must be impartial and value-free, that is not vulnerable to the researcher’s interpretation or beliefs. Exact measurements facilitate statistical testing which produces an objective and accurate answer. Thorough research methods can demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships. Ultimately, the entire research process is impartial or objective, which means that the researcher does not affect the results (Jarvis, 2006). Basically, the positivist model has several attributes, such as hypothesis testing, replication, and control (Gratton & Jones, 2003, p. 25). First, positivistic research requires the formulation of a ‘hypothesis’, which can afterwards be scientifically analysed. Second, to explore and understand an occurrence, the same outcomes would have to come about if the study was to be replicated. And third, the researcher is capable of controlling a particular variable, and evaluating the effect that it has on other variables (e.g. the effect of the number of spectators on players’ performance in a basketball game) (Gratton & Jones, 2003, p. 25). The positivist model has its absolute advantages, particularly as regards objectivity, control, and accuracy. Statistical or numerical measurements eliminate the need for more perceptive or subjective analysis, and normally the analysis is clear and precise. As mentioned previously, early sports research was dictated by the positivist paradigm (O’Donoghue, 2009). This pattern remains apparent; nevertheless, alternative models or methods are becoming increasingly common. The weaknesses of the positivist, quantitative research are apparent, and from such weaknesses another paradigm—the interpretivist, qualitative model—has emerged. One of the pioneers of sports research, Norbert Elias (1986), has stated that (as cited in Gratton & Jones, 2003, p. 19): Natural scientists, together with the type of philosophers of science who are deeply committed to the belief in the primacy of law-like natural sciences, have used all their intellectual strength and their social power in order to convince others that the ‘method’ of the natural sciences... is the only legitimate method of scientific discovery. The defenders of this view, as a rule, have very little experience in social science research... It needs to be said, therefore, clearly and unequivocally, that it is possible to advance knowledge and to make discoveries in the field of sociology with methods which can be very different from those of the natural sciences. The discovery, not the method, legitimises research as scientific. The key assumption of critics of positivist research is that the field of sports and exercise is a social fact, specifically, those who manage, watch, and take part in sports and physical activity are influenced by several outside social factors, but also have volition to act in response to these factors in a dynamic manner, and are not unresponsive entities, whose actions or behaviour can be interpreted using the cause-and-effect paradigm (Thomas, Nelson, & Silverman, 2011). Positivism does not consider abstract phenomena associated with freewill, like emotions, and the contribution of these phenomena to the analysis of behaviour in sports. These phenomena build the foundation of the interpretative model. They cannot be analysed statistically— the interpretivist paradigm assumes that such phenomena are very complicated to be quantified. Instead, they are textually and contextually measured (Andrew, Pedersen, & MacEvoy, 2011). The collected data is afterwards interpreted by the researcher, who tries to find out values, meanings, etc. Interpretivist, qualitative research also has its strong and weak points. The advantages are that this model enables the researcher to obtain the research subject’s point of view. This may uncover components that may otherwise be overlooked by quantitative research. Interpretive methods also help researchers study and identify explanations, instead of inferring from measurements (Eccles et al., 2011). Hence, whilst a positivist model may demonstrate a correlation between two variables, an interpretive model may be capable of illustrating and explaining that correlation from the perspective of those being studied. Even though these are the strong points of the interpretivist, qualitative research, proponents of positivism may assert that there are weak points as well (Eccles et al., 2011). According to Tenenbaum and Driscoll (2005), the personal or subjective process of analysing individuals’ emotions and thoughts raises issues of validity and reliability. The results are hardly conclusive for other contexts, and the resources, time, and effort needed to gather such data are greater. Ethnography versus Questionnaire Survey in Sports Research In order to better understand the similarities and differences between qualitative and quantitative research within the field of sports and exercise, one quantitative method—questionnaire survey-- and one qualitative method—ethnographic research-- are compared and contrasted. Ethnographic research has great potential in the field of sports and exercise. Through an emphasis on the qualitative meanings, principles, and norms in the framework of a ‘whole way of life’, specifically a focus on issues about identities, worldviews, and cultures, ethnography offers a way to explain and understand other cultures (Andrews et al., 2005, p. 68). However, defining ethnography is a complex undertaking. Ethnographies are commonly defined by their emphasis on a specific subculture, or group, the gathering and analysis of large, comprehensive chunks of data, generally employing a number of data collection techniques, most commonly in-depth interviews, participant observation, and observation (Andrews et al., 2005, pp. 68-69). Therefore, ethnography explores a group by gathering information over a considerable duration of time, usually, even though not all the time, employing several methods. However, the distinguishing attribute of ethnography is its objective. This objective is to understand a specific population and its culture through studying people’s behaviour (Andrew et al., 2011). To accomplish this, the researcher must assume an ‘insider’s’ role, and live for a certain period of time in the community s/he is studying. Even though there are several methods generally related to ethnography, it is impossible to determine which methods must be employed. The decision must be reached in terms of which technique will generate reliable and valid information (Andrew et al., 2011). There are four common methods used in ethnographic studies, namely, unobtrusive methods, life histories, structured and unstructured interviews, and participant observation. Unobtrusive methods can facilitate analysis of a culture or population, for instance through performing a content analysis of any written materials generated by members of the community (Gratton & Jones, 2003, p. 193). In life histories, the research subject relates his/her experiences to the ethnographer in order to produce an in-depth understanding of the culture under consideration. On the other hand, structured interviews help an ethnographer gather established information, but an ethnographer should not restrict him/herself and try to uncover new and relevant information through unstructured interviews. Meanwhile, generally, participant observation will be an important component of ethnographic studies, to attempt to acquire an empathic knowledge of the behaviour of the group under consideration (Gratton & Jones, 2003, p. 193). On the other hand, questionnaires are possibly the most frequently employed methodology in sports research. A questionnaire is a uniform group of questions to gather data from a respondent. They are usually related to quantitative research when fairly simple statistical procedures are needed from a big sample (Houlihan & Green, 2010). They are hence applied more in fields directly related to the natural sciences but have been employed by social researchers to collect data, for example, on sports audiences. The benefits of employing a questionnaire survey are commonly believed to be the following: they provide research subjects with confidentiality, and thus they have been applied to surveys of unlawful activities, like substance abuse in sport; they are likely to be quite resistant to bias since they require less interpretation from the researcher; they produce structured and uniform information that can be subjected to statistical measurement; and they require less cost and time (Moran, 2004). Nevertheless, the disadvantages of employing questionnaire survey are that response rates have a tendency to be insufficient and particular populations may not be represented in the study; it is difficult to control who answers the questionnaire and the truthfulness of their responses; there is not much opportunity to explore why a respondent has answered in a certain manner; and data are likely to be plain and straightforward because questionnaires do not usually include difficult or complicated questions, such as those about intentions and emotions (Tenenbaum & Driscoll, 2005). Even though at first glance ethnographic research and questionnaire survey appears completely different from each other, there are still similarities between the two. First, both are interested in explaining and understanding human behaviour. For instance, both may be used to understand the behaviour of spectators in a soccer game. Both have the capacity to draw out ‘rich’ information from research subjects. Second, both are focused and take into consideration several explanations for a particular phenomenon. Third, both seek reliability and validity of their findings. And lastly, both are widely used in the field of sports and exercise. However, despite these similarities, the differences between these two methods overshadow such commonalities. Ethnographic research requires the study of culture or a group, through which the researcher becomes directly involved in the group’s setting for a certain duration of time. On the contrary, questionnaire surveys are usually a suitable methodology to gather huge amounts of comparatively plain information. Unlike ethnographic research, questionnaire surveys seek larger samples to guarantee the representativeness of its findings. Ethnographic research is less concerned about generalisability, hence it usually uses a small sample group. Data gathering is commonly flexible and diverse, generally employing various methods. In contrast, questionnaire surveys are more rigid and inflexible. Due to the quantitative nature of questionnaires, they tend to ask close-ended questions, which limit the respondent to a set of answers. An ethnographer has to take into consideration several factors like their specific role within the community s/he is studying, because these could have repercussions for the validity of the results. On the other hand, questionnaire surveys do not have any control over such factors because of the nature of the sampling method it uses. Moreover, they cannot verify why a particular respondent answered in a particular manner, unlike in ethnographic research where in the researcher has the opportunity to look at responses. Conclusions The decision to use either qualitative or quantitative methodology rests in the nature and objectives of the study. In the field of sports and exercise, both quantitative and qualitative methodology has been used extensively. Apparently, if a sports researcher is interested in measuring a certain occurrence or a correlation between two variables, such as between the number of spectators and success in sports, s/he has to use quantitative methods. If a sports researcher is more interested in the emotions or thoughts of individuals, such as the expectations or experiences of sports spectators, a qualitative methodology will be more suitable. The fact is quantitative and qualitative methodologies are equally important. Both have strengths and weaknesses. As aforementioned, the decision to use either a quantitative or qualitative methodology depends on the research questions and objectives. A researcher will not simply choose a qualitative methodology because s/he is not comfortable with numerical or statistical procedures. It is not all about personal preferences. References Andrews, D., Mason, D., & Silk, M. (2005) Qualitative Methods in Sports Studies. New York: Berg. Andrew, D., Pedersen, P., & MacEvoy, C. (2011) Research Methods and Design in Sport Management. UK: Human Kinetics. Atkinson, M. (2011) Key concepts in sport and exercise research methods. London: Sage. Eccles, D. et al. (2011) ‘Where’s the Emotion? How Sport Psychology can Inform Research on Emotion in Human Factors’, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics 53(2), 180-202. Gratton, C. & Jones, I. (2003) Research Methods for Sport Studies. New York: Routledge. Houlihan, B. & Green, M. (2010) Routledge Handbook of Sports Development. New York: Taylor & Francis. Hussain, T. (2011) Research Methodology in Physical Education. New Delhi: Pinnacle Technology. Jarvis, M. (2006) Sport Psychology: A Student’s Handbook. London: Routledge. Moran, A. (2004) Sport and exercise psychology: a critical introduction. London: Routledge. O’Donoghue, P. (2009) Research Methods for Sports Performance Analysis. London: Routledge. Smith, M. (2010) Research Methods in Sport. London: Sage. Tenenbaum, G. & Driscoll, M.P. (2005) Methods of research in sport sciences: quantitative and qualitative approaches. UK: Meyer & Meyer Verlag. Thomas, J., Nelson, J., & Silverman, S. (2011) Research methods in physical activity. UK: Human Kinetics. Read More