For several years, researchers, scholars,
psychologists and many other professionals have been trying to determine if
quantitative or qualitative methods of inquiry are best. This difference in varied
opinion has also caused a major debate within the scientific community. This is
because collecting and analyzing data with each of these methods, can acquire
varying results. When collecting quantitative data, the researcher will focus
on numbers and it may include audio recordings, videos, photos and more. This
method can also be beneficial when a researcher wants to determine the why and how that is associated with an inquiry. Those who support this
method also believe that the acquired data is credible, scientific, hard and
rigorous. However, when collecting qualitative data, the researcher will focus
on words and the results can include statistical information. This method is
best when a researcher wants to determine the what, who and when that
is associated with an inquiry. Those who support this method also believe that
the data is detailed, contextual, sensitive and nuanced compared to that of
quantitative method.
One
other major factor that initiates this debate is that “in quantitative research,
the researcher is ideally an objective observer that neither participates in
nor influences what is being studied. In qualitative research, however, it is
thought that the researcher can learn the most about a situation by
participating and/or being immersed in it” (Writing@CSU. 1993-2003).
With
this in mind, the following paper provides several aspects that are associated
with each of these inquiry methods. Some of these include the approaches and techniques
that are used, along with individual strengths and weaknesses. One other major
issue that has been addressed is how credibility
can be an issue when conducting an inquiry. This includes the credibility of a
researcher and which method is most credible within the scientific
community.
Approaches
and techniques that are used for each method
One other major reason that the
quantitative versus qualitative debate may exist is because different approaches
and/or data collection techniques are used for each method. According to (Griffin. 2001), “quantitative
research is generally defined as four types: true experimental,
quasi-experimental, ex post facto, and correlational” (p.1). The
techniques that will be used are also based on statistics. The most common
method of data collection is “surveys” which can be administered by one’s self or another
individual. One other great thing about this technique is that they can be
completed via face-to-face, mail, online or by telephone. A second technique
that may be used is “questionnaires” and according to (Dawson, C. 2002. p.32), “there are three
basic types of questionnaire – closed-ended, open-ended or a combination of both.”
A third technique that can be used for quantitative inquiry is administration
of pre-post tests. This can be beneficial because it may provide data that was
collected prior to and after the inquiry. This is important because certain
data can change over time and therefore, may affect the overall results of the
inquiry.
When using the qualitative method, common
approaches are grounded theory, ethnography,
critical social research, foundational research, ethical inquiry, phenomenology, historical research, and philosophical research. The techniques are also non-statistical.
One specific data collection technique is “interviews” which can be done to
acquire data that offers lengthy details concerning individual opinion, experiences, and/or behaviors. This
method can also be very beneficial if a researcher wants to inquire about
complex or sensitive subject matter. According to
(Patton. 2001), “interviews are interventions. They affect people. A good
interview lays open thoughts, feelings, knowledge, and experience, not only to
the interviewer but also to the interviewee. The process of being taken through
a directed, reflective process affects the persons being interviewed and leaves
them knowing things about themselves that they didn’t know- or at least were
not fully aware of-before the interview” (p. 405). Since, this is the case, a
good interviewer will consider what ethical codes may be pertinent to ensure
that the interviewee is treated with respect and protected from further harm. A
second technique that can be used is “focus groups.” This can include a small number of people who are non-randomly
selected to share relevant experiences which are related to the inquiry. This
can also be beneficial because it is a great way to generate possible
ideas, strategies, definitions of a problem, or solutions among a small group.
One other benefit of this technique is that may acquire more information than
an interview can. A third technique that may be used in qualitative inquiry is
“observations.” This can be used when a researcher wants to simply observe
participants rather than question them. This is important in research because
it can offer several benefits within the field of inquiry. One specific benefit
may include the opportunity to better understand certain child or adult
behavior/s. A second benefit of using this technique is that it can identify
outcomes that were initially unanticipated.
Strengths and weaknesses of each
method
Since, there are many differences between
quantitative and qualitative methods and/or techniques there are also times
when “thinking about design alternatives and methods choices leads directly to
consideration of the relative strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and
quantitative data” (Patton. 2009. p. 13). This is a concern because these
factors can ultimately determine
which method should be used for the inquiry. One example of what a researcher
may question during this process is which method can address several questions
in less depth or only one question in greater depth. With this in mind, some
specific strengths and weaknesses associated with quantitative and qualitative
methods are as follows:
Quantitative
strengths - This can produce data that is based on the reactions of many participants
so the findings can be generalized
to the overall population or community. The data that is collected with this
method can also be easy to analyze, consistent, reliable and precise. One other
major strength of this method is that it may save time and be cost efficient
for the researcher/s.
Quantitative
weaknesses - When using
this method, secondary or follow up data is not available. It may be difficult
or impossible for the researcher to access data that is available. One other
major weakness with this method is that the collected data may lack breadth and
depth.
Qualitative
strengths - Qualitative methods can produce data which has greater breadth and
depth concerning the topic of inquiry. The results may complement and refine
any quantitative
data that might be acquired during the inquiry. One other major
strength of this method is that there are multiple methods that can be used to
address sensitive subjects.
Qualitative
weaknesses - Results
usually can’t be generalized to the overall population or community because
data is gathered from fewer participants. The data that is collected with this
method can also be difficult to analyze, lack consistency, reliability and
precision. One other major weakness of this method is that it may be time
consuming and costly for the researcher/s.
Can quantitative and qualitative
methods be combined to create one integrated inquiry?
When
conducting an inquiry, if a researcher evaluates these method techniques,
strengths and weaknesses, but still can’t determine which is best, it is possible
to combine them. Many researchers and other professionals also agree that
combining quantitative and qualitative techniques should be done because it can utilize the strengths associated with both
methods. When this is completed it is known as a mixed method
inquiry. Following this process can also produce a more comprehensive and in
depth inquiry.
How does credibility affect the
inquiry process?
Credibility and acceptance in the scientific community - According to (Moore.
1999-2012), “in general, conclusions reached through quantitative
research tend to be more specific and detailed than those reached through
qualitative research. This is because qualitative research often starts out
without a specific goal in mind, while quantitative research sets out to prove
a hypothesis. In this way, quantitative results tend to be more
"scientific" than qualitative results. However, qualitative research
is often used to set up a quantitative inquiry” (p. 1).
The philosophical belief in the value of qualitative inquiry may also lead to
questions of credibility. This is because some people in the scientific
community may possess a strong fundamental appreciation for qualitative methods, inductive
analysis, naturalistic inquiry, purposeful sampling, qualitative methods, and holistic thinking. When this is the case,
issues with credibility may apply because these individuals want to ensure and
protect their fundamental beliefs and/or principles.
Credibility
and the researcher - When conducting a quantitative or qualitative inquiry, it
is very important to establish credibility so the results can be viewed as more
viable and/or valuable in the field of science. However, there are times when this factor can become an
issue due to researcher qualifications or inquiry results. This can also occur
because there is no universal agreement among all people due to varying
opinions, emotions, feelings, ideas and solutions.
One example is if a researcher
conducted qualitative inquiry to address a topic of interest, but certain data
and/or results cause skepticism among critics. In this case, it would be
necessary to defend certain aspects of one’s inquiry approach, framework,
methodology and/or results. A researcher could also accomplish this by
providing data that supports 5 sets of criteria for judging quality and
credibility of qualitative inquiry. These sets of criteria are as follows:
1. Traditional scientific research
criteria - This includes validity, reliability, results that determined
consistency of findings across methods and data sources, triangulation, the
strength of evidence associated with a hypothesis when inquiry is combined with
quantitative data, contributions to the theory and generalizability.
2. Social construction and
constructivist criteria - This includes enhanced or a deeper understanding,
subjectivity, authenticity, reflexivity, particularity, praxis, capturing and
respecting multiple perspectives via triangulation, trustworthiness, and
contributions to dialogue.
3. Artistic and evocative criteria -
This includes creativity, aesthetic quality, interpretive vitality, whether it
was stimulating, level of connection with audience, level of expressiveness,
and if it flows from self.
4. Critical change criteria - Some
of these may include critical perspective, consequential validity, whether I
presented potential change-making strategies, whether I made a collaborative
and respectful effort to engage those peers who may have less power, and
identified the nature and possible sources of certain inequalities and
injustices.
5. Evaluation standards and
principals - Certain peers may disagree with some of these aspects which are
utility, ensuring responsibility to the general public, integrity, honesty,
propriety, evaluator competence, fairness, accuracy, feasibility, and it is a
systematic inquiry. During this overall process, the
researcher would also need to keep an open mind and listen to all feedback by
others. This is because some people could offer constructive criticism that
proves or disproves certain aspects of the inquiry. This crucial information could
also be used to try and increase the overall strength and/or viability of one’s
overall work.
Conclusion
Researchers, scholars, psychologists and other
professionals have tried to determine if quantitative or qualitative methods of
inquiry work best. This difference in opinion has also caused a major debate
within the scientific community for many years. One reason for this data is due
to the fact that both of these methods use different approaches and data
collection techniques to acquire data. When collecting quantitative data, the
researcher will focus on numbers and it can be beneficial to determine the why and how that is associated with an inquiry. Many who support this
method believe that the results are credible, scientific, hard and rigorous.
However, when collecting qualitative data, the researcher will focus on words
and it can be used to determine the what,
who and when that is associated with an inquiry. Supporters of this method
also believe that the results are detailed, contextual, sensitive and nuanced
compared to that of quantitative method. One other major factor that may be
causing this debate is that in quantitative research, the researcher is objective
but in qualitative research, the researcher is subjective. Since this is the
case, my paper addressed several aspects concerning these inquiry methods. Some
of these included which approaches and techniques are used, along with individual
strengths and weaknesses. One other major issue that was addressed is how
credibility may be an issue when conducting an inquiry. This included why the credibility
of a researcher is important and which method is most credible and accepted
within the scientific community.
References:
Dawson, C. (2002). Practical
research methods: A user-friendly guide to mastering research techniques and
projects. Oxford, England: How to Books Ltd.
Patton, M.Q. (2001). Qualitative research &
evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
Moore, M. (2012). Qualitative Vs. Quantitative Research Differences. Retrieved via the World Wide Web at http://www.ehow.com/info_8094966_qualitative-vs-quantitative-research-differences.html
Writing@CSU:
The Qualitative versus Quantitative Debate (1993-2012). Retrieved via the World Wide Web at http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/gentrans/pop2f.cfm
Griffin,
W. B. (2000). Quantitative Research Matrix. Retrieved via the World Wide Web at http://coe.georgiasouthern.edu/foundations/bwgriffin/edur7130/quantitative_research_matrix.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment