Quantitative and Qualitative Research - Case Study Example

Any decision is based on a body of knowledge. This body of knowledge is produced through research. By applying the appropriate methodologies and the research method, the body of knowledge can be established and advanced with confidence. While research is considered important there is no consensus on how it should be defined because research means differently to different people. Research is basically a systematic method of investigation which increases knowledge. Research relies on facts and experience, data, concepts and constructs, hypotheses and conjectures, and principles and laws (Amaratunga, Baldry, Sarshar, & Newton, 2002). Research methodology is the procedural framework within which the research is conducted. The methodology would depend upon the topic to be researched and the specific research questions are the primary drivers. Positivism (quantitative with hypothesis testing) and interpretivism (qualitative with hypothesis generalizations) are the different types of research philosophies, each has its own purposes and advantages. Research philosophy highlights two different schools of thought on the how to conduct research. Arguments should be evaluated in different ways because primarily arguments have different roles and purposes and people assess according to the purpose in their mind. At times arguments provide useful information depending on one’s knowledge of how the world works. In a different setting, one can take an abstract approach and ask what follows from a given set of information and then decide on the outcome. Arguments can be evaluated in two qualitatively different ways – in terms of their deductive correctness or in terms of inductive strength (Rips, 2001). Quantitative methodology is a positivist approach in sociology research. Positivism is characterized by operational definitions, objectivity, replicability and causality (Bryman, 1984). Through questionnaire items the concepts can be operationalized; objectivity can be obtained by maintaining distance between the observer and the observed. By applying the same research instrument in another context replication can be maintained and causality is handled through path analysis and related regression techniques. Quantitative investigations look for “distinguishing characteristics, elemental properties and empirical boundaries’ and tend to measure “how much” or “how often” (Nau, 1995 cited by Amaratunga et al.,). Quantitative research designs determine the truth value of propositions and allow flexibility in the treatment of data in terms of comparative analysis, statistical analysis and repeatability of data collection in order to verify reliability. Degree of confidence can be ascertained through the deductive method as participants’ opinion or judgment could be either ‘valid’ or ‘not valid’. Research of this kind is underpinned by a distinctive theory. Qualitative methodology on the other hand is seeing the world from the point of an actor and this implies close involvement. In this case the contextual understanding has to be perfect so that the behavior is understood in the context of meaning systems employed by a particular group or society. The inductive method concentrates on words and observations to describe people in natural situations (Amaratunga et al.,). Qualitative research is more fluid and flexible as the plans can be altered if the situation so demands. In qualitative research the chances of discovering novel or unexpected findings are high. Quantitative research emphasizes on fixed measurements, hypotheses testing and a positivist approach exhibits a tendency for the researcher to view events from the outside. Even though there is a growing acceptance of the qualitative methods in education, the purists assert that both the methods make different assumptions about the social world, about how science should be conducted and what constitutes legitimate problems solutions and criteria of proof (Firestone, 1987). Quantitative research assumes that there are social facts with an objective reality apart from the beliefs of the individuals while qualitative approach holds that reality is socially constructed through individual or collective definition of the situation. Quantitative research attempts to explain the causes of changes in social facts through objective measurement and quantitative analysis. Qualitative research is more concerned with understanding the social phenomenon from the actors’ perspectives through participation in the life of those actors. To minimize errors the quantitative approach uses experimental or co-relational designs which facilitates the right perception, while ethnography in qualitative study helps the researcher understand the definitions of the situation under study. In quantitative study the researcher remains detached from the study while the qualitative researcher becomes immersed. The perception that quantitative researchers remain detached from the study has been contested as such researchers use polling to understand the perspective of others and often immerse themselves in the planning and pre-testing phases of the study. Thus the line of demarcation between the two approaches is fading. Amaratunga et al., however maintain that qualitative method does not bring to light the deeper, underlying meanings and explanations of the data collected even though they focus on natural occurring and ordinary events in natural settings. The qualitative data is rich and holistic and has the potential for revealing complexity. They are nestled in real life context and have an element of truth. In quantitative research the findings are descriptive and empirical and lend themselves to sophisticated statistical analysis (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004), ensuring reliable and valid results. The empirical truth observation is coupled with the analytical truth of logic. When social research has several variables a positivist approach will be suitable. According to Taylor et al., (1995) quantitative data is numerical in form. Questionnaires and interviews are the usual research methods used under this paradigm. Some researchers claim that unless human behavior can be expressed in numerical terms, it cannot be accurately measured (cited by Jones, 2004). Qualitative data covers a range of material collected from previous research, literature review, case studies and unstructured interviews. Some researchers argue that the qualitative approach is better as it provides greater depth. Qualitative research is conducted through an intense and/or prolonged contact with the field of study. Qualitative data has the potential to reveal complexity. Qualitative research has an inherent flexibility because data collection times and methods can change as the research proceeds and the situation evolves (Jones, 2004). This implies that qualitative method is more operational and more controllable. Qualitative data has been considered best strategy for discovery and exploring a new area. There are criticisms against the quantitative approach as well. Quantitative research is descriptive in nature and is known as the “crudest form of inquiry” which has pushed researchers towards adopting the qualitative approach (Sandelowski, 2000). Such researchers started designating their work as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, or narrative study. This created confusion as studies were called narratives even though they included nothing more than structured, open-ended interviews. They were even known as phenomenologic even though they included nothing more than the reports of the subjective experiences of the participants. They were known as ethnographic even though it was nothing more than having the participants from different ethnic groups. Quantitative research is supposed to be more descriptive but according to Sandelowski all enquiry requires description and all description entails interpretation. Descriptions depend on perception, inclination, sensibility and the sensitivity of the describer. One researcher may narrate the ‘feelings’ of a woman while the other may merely report the events in the woman’s life, both will in any case reveal the salient features in the woman’s life. One researcher may concentrate on the spatial arrangement in the room while the other may concentrate on the social interactions but they will agree with each other’s descriptions. This implies that both will agree on the facts of the case although they may not feature the same facts in their descriptions. A researcher has the freedom to choose what to describe. That means any description is filtered through human perceptions. Qualitative research presents facts in common everyday language while quantitative research re-presents events in other terms. Qualitative description is more interpretive while quantitative description uses surveys or other means to obtain a common data set on pre-selected variables. In quantitative studies the researcher sets the horizon of expectations for the study by pre-selecting the variables that will be studied. They then draw conclusions from the results of the statistical tests which are themselves based on assumptions. This is also a kind of interpretation that does not move beyond the pre-set confines. Quantitative descriptions limit what can be learned about the meaning that participants give to events and there is less room for the unanticipated. In qualitative method the researcher collects as much data as possible and cannot insulate themselves from the data whereas in quantitative method there is a distinct line drawn between exploration and description. In qualitative studies the researcher is closer to the data whereas in quantitative studies language is the vehicle of communication. Wynekoop and Russo (1997) contend that use of multiple research method is necessary to adequately understand and evaluate an activity, process or project. Relying on one method would make the results immune to variations in the way the different groups of participants use the ratings scale (Amaratunga et al.,). According to Caporaso (1995) variables in any research can be of two types – across categories (types of government, gender) and across quantities of the same variable (income, degree of labor repression). Qualities are represented as nominal variables and quantities as ordinal, interval and ratio measures. Quantitative variation is variation in magnitude which qualitative is not. These characteristics demonstrate that it is not really the numbers (which includes nominal measures) that are important but the issue of magnitude versus quality. Thus a sound qualitative research strategy requires attention to the same rules of inference as a quantitative strategy. In social research qualitative research involving thick description and interpretation may serve as ends and not merely as spadework preparatory to explanation. It also provides empathetic understanding and interpretation of meanings. The use of qualitative approach has been under much debate and discussions. Despite the discussions on incompatibility between the two paradigms, educationists and social science researchers have come to accept that paradigms can be complementary to each other (Salomon, 1991). This is evident from the fact that the quantitative approach is used by researchers in social psychology and education, and as hypotheses testing by qualitative researchers. The quantitative researchers also use it for descriptive study of individuals’ phenomenological perceptions, values and beliefs. The different paradigms face similar challenges. The qualitative approach also needs some validation or means of persuasion. In the case of both the paradigms the question arises – why should one accept your findings, observations, conclusions, and interpretations? Standards of quality are questionable in each paradigm. Qualitative methods give concrete descriptions of detail, portrayal of process in an active mode, and attention to the perspectives of those studied. These help to overcome the weakness of the quantitative approach. Quotations and descriptions in qualitative study illustrate the perspectives of different people and segments of the society. In reality qualitative and quantitative methods provide different kinds of information. They have different descriptive strengths. The quantitative study demonstrates the magnitude of relationships while qualitative study makes ambiguous statements. Data in qualitative study is collected over a sustained period of time which makes it powerful. Qualitative approach is flexible and the research process can be altered even during the process of research which is not possible in the quantitative approach. On the same issue different methods can be used to assess the robustness or stability of findings. Quantitative study demonstrates a pattern that extends across a large number of situations. When the studies using different methods produce similar results, it indicates that the methodology does not influence. When the results diverge then more research is needed. There are a number of reasons for choosing a particular paradigm. The method selected encourages one to adopt conventions of presentations that help give credibility to the conclusions reached. The qualitative method is chosen when straight descriptions are required which reveals who what and where of events. Attempting to combine the two methods lead to confusion as to which one should be given priority. At the same time, some authors argue that to attain fruitful outcomes it is essential to combine the two methods. Hence both the paradigms gave their own advantages and drawbacks and several attempts to combine the two processes have not been effective. References: Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R., (2002), Quantitative and Qualitative Research in the built environment: application of mixed research approach, Work Study, Vol. 15 No. 1 2002, pp. 17-31 Bryman, A., (1984), The Debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A Question of Method or Epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 35, No. 1. (Mar., 1984), pp. 75-92 Caporaso, J. A., (1995), Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative divide, American Political Science Review, Vol. 89. No. 2 Firestone, W. A., (1987), The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 19 Oct 2007 Jones, C., (2004), Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Conflicting Paradigms or Perfect Partners? 19 Oct 2007 Rips, L. J., (2001), Two Kinds of Reasoning, American Psychological Society, Vol. 12 No . 2 pp. 129-134 Salomon, G., (1991), Transcending the Qualitative- Quantitative Debate: The Analytic and Systemic Approaches to Educational Research, 19 Oct 2007 Sandelowski, M., (2000), Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description? Research in Nursing & Health, 2000, 23, 334-340 Schiffman, L.G., Kanuk, L.L. (2004), Consumer Behavior, Pearson Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, . Wynekoop, J., & Russo, N. L., (1997), Studying System Development Methodologies: an examination of research methods, Info Systems J (!997) 7, 47-65 Read More