Qualitative Analysis Paper

A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research

The purpose of this article was to guide the scientific community into merging both quantitative and qualitative methodologies and to enhance cross-tradition communication between scholars of quantitative and qualitative methods. This article is written from the perspective of qualitative researchers who wish to communicate with quantitative researchers in efforts to help each other towards their similar end goal of producing valid descriptive and causal inferences. The differences amongst these two methods are contrasted amongst ten areas: approaches to explanation, conceptions of causation, multivariate explanations, equifinality, scope and causal generalization, case selection practices, weighting observations, substantively important cases, lack of fit and concepts and measurement. The authors acknowledge they are analyzing the methods based on norms and practices found within the field and that the comparison mostly focused on issues related to causal analysis.

A goal of qualitative analysis is the explanation of outcomes in individual cases (Page 230).

Qualitative analysis uses a cause-of-effects approach to explain its outcomes in which qualitative scholars start with the outcome then look at the causes. Where there are holes in scientific research in which scientists cannot use their theories to explain individual events, qualitative analysis fills the void. However, quantitative analysis focuses on effects-of-causes by looking at the variables and coming to a conclusion. Both qualitative and quantitative intellectuals rephrase research questions to fit their certain criteria to solve, however the way these two methods are approached cause misunderstanding between the two. However, the authors believe that these two methods complement each other and can help further understand a topic if they both are employed. This leads to the possibly of mixed-method

research.
Given the understanding that this paper was written by a qualitative researcher and the author hoped to reach quantitative researchers, bias is to be expected in favor of the qualitative side. With that stated, it is still the belief that the paper did not offer enough information on the quantitative side and frequently mentioned qualitative analysis far more than quantitative. If the author’s goal is to woo the opposing side into working with qualitative methodologists, then more should have been stated on the quantitative mindset instead of complementing qualitative information with more qualitative information. The purpose of this paper was to forge the way to create a bridge between the two caucuses of analysis. Granted, the paper did provide an adequate amount of reasons why the two research methods complement each other, as seen with the ten forms of comparison used. However, the style through which this information was displayed was uninteresting and did not spark any interest from the reader. Had the information been presented in a manner that proved to draw the reader in, whether that be through such devices like agendas, comedy, or personal experiences, the paper would have been better perceived and the information would’ve flowed a lot easier and been able to be well understood by a larger audience.
Although the paper was overall lengthy and repetitive with little substance, it was extremely well organized. By providing ten different schema for comparison, the author was able to divide his thoughts into categories and further expand on his points. This organization, although the right choice for this sort of paper, did add to the repetitiveness of the paper and helped the reader stray away from the true purpose of this paper which was to try to find common ground between the two methods. The author spent too many words working to divide the two into two different methods, and not enough words trying to bring them together. Overall, it is believed to be a good paper but it did not draw in the reader and it did provide bias where it should have had an even distribution of facts and mentions about the two methods.