In this paper, the author will delineate the characteristics between qualitative and quantitative research, as well as their methodologies. The purpose of this paper is to give the reader a brief glimpse behind each research approach, by determining the strengths and weaknesses of both. The terms “subjective” and “objective” will be viewed in accordance with each research paradigm by considering the role of the observer and addressing how the researcher conducts his or her analysis using these approaches. The author will also describe the preferred approach given to each modality and how each model can be utilized in a study of aggression.
Qualitative and Quantitative are two differentiated paradigms of research, which operate under the assumption that measured outcomes, must be proven valid and reliable. However, the distinguishing element between each paradigm resolves to the role of the researcher. Although they can be explicated by the source of the data collected, qualitative being a semantic text and quantitative being in numerical form, in the qualitative paradigm, the role of the researcher is to be an active participant within the study, lending the subjectivity of interpretation to the final measured outcome (Denzien & Lincoln, 2000). However, the quantitative approach finds the role of the researcher as an outside, objective observer, where the possibility for researcher bias is reduced, and the final measured outcome is not subject to researcher interpretations (Patton, 1996).
Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is a multi-dimensional method that utilizes an imperative and naturalistic approach. This design is associated with a phenomenological paradigm and is used by observing human behavior in...
... middle of paper ...
...ht eliminate the need for research participation by sending out surveys in the mail randomly. The qualitative methodology might use an example a focus group. Where the researcher is an active participant in asking open-ended questions, specifically to engage the participants and prompt interpretive answers reflective of emotionality.
When considering the manipulation of variables to alter conditions that are observable and measurable, quantitative analysis could include the manipulation of environmental factors, such as room temperature, lighting, etc, where the researcher is an outside, unattached observer. The qualitative paradigm would insist that the researcher be a participant of the factors of manipulation by using interruptive techniques, verbal commands, etc, and determine the measurable effects on the outcome through personal interpretation of data.
There are debates on why qualitative and quantitative can be combined because the two approaches share the goal of understanding the world in which we live Haase & Myers (1980). However, Reichath &Rallis (1994) argued that the two paradigms are incompatible if the qualitative paradigm assumes that there are no external referents for understanding reality. Howe (1988) suggests that researchers should forge ahead with what works. Quantitative research makes no attempt to have personal relationship with the people being studied and to account of their view. The accounts include feelings, beliefs these being concept of feminist work. Feminism holds on to qualitative method because are interested in how ordinary people observe and describe their Silverman (1993).
The goal of qualitative research is explaining patterns and outcomes in individual cases whereas that of quantitative looks for common patterns that lead to the outcomes in large-N cases (Mahoney and Goertz, 2006). This means that qualitative research may select smaller cases to effectively explain the phenomenon being observed. As a result, the conclusions drawn from the qualitative research may apply to the cases being studied or may only provide partial explanation to what happened in some other cases. In contrast, quantitative analysis would generate broader arguments that could be commonly found in a wide variety of cases selected randomly but its arguments may not necessarily or satisfactorily explain every case in the study. Outliers and some deviations among cases may occur and by the time it happens, the quantitative model would either take out these outcasts and deviations or may add another variable to control their impact on the dependent variable. Such being the case, some patterns may be overlooked and the conclusions drawn from the quantitative analysis may not fully explain the situation for the study. Therefore, in order to generate more inclusive conclusion, these overlooks may be worth to be studied in qualitative analyses. In this way, the limitations between qualitative and quantitative analyses seem to be resolved by using both traditions
The unstructured interview approach, is an excellent way of creating multiple realities by giving the control of the interview over to the participants being interviewed and inviting them to tell their stories peaked by only an open-ended question. This method requires an environment in which the participants readily open up (Hill, 2001). To the credit of the current study, the interviewees did provide detailed accounts when interviewed. Additionally, as the stories are elicited by the participants own volition, they can cover a broad range of topics allows for unplanned comments and topics to come up that may have otherwise been left untouched in a more structured methodology (Kvale, 1983). However, because the responses are so gloriously open ended they are difficult to compare across different cases, and large amounts of irrelevant data must be sifted through in a time consuming manner. The benefit of qualitative phenomenological research is that while most scientific methods focus on what can be physically observed and quantitatively measured, this leaves a gapping hole in our ability to evaluate the human condition as most of what we do is determined by unseen forces in our psyches (Kvale, 1983). Therefore, open-ended phenomenology allows researchers to break the restrictive mold and attempt to discover insights into lived experience that would normally remain invisible to more traditional scientific study (Dale,
Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Beyond the Debate. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 42(3), 266-290. doi:10.1007/s12124-008-9078-3
Qualitative research is an approach that attempts to situate an activity that locates the observer in the world by providing the study to occur in their natural setting and by attempting to make sense of, or interpret information (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). A characteristic of qualitative research is to use a variety of empirical materials such as personal experience, interviews, and questionnaires. It is imperative to understand the task at hand and how to fully carry out the study when using a qualitative research approach in order to find out the information needed. One view of qualitative research is it involves examining individual’s experiences and documenting those experiences in detail (Jones, 2011). By documenting these observations the researcher is ensuring validity in his or her data and giving the correct creditability to those who participated in the study.
Focusing on surveys and questionnaires, and quantitative research methods, it varies on the person getting questioned as to which method they prefer. Some individuals may prefer to fill in a questionnaire, as it is quick and simple for them, whereas someone else would rather have a face-to-face interview because they may find questionnaires to complicated. Giving people the choice gives the more chance of getting a response overall. It is important that the researchers are aware of the advantages and disadvantages because they will then be aware of what method to use, and will know what method is best to use. It is also an advantage to work with experienced researchers in order to find out the best results.
. . Qualitative approaches are particularly useful when the topic under investigation is complex, dilemmatic, novel or under researched and when there is a concern with understanding processes, not measuring outcomes (Smith and Dunworth, 2003, pp. 603–604)’’. This quotation in the article gives a broad summary of the strengths of qualitative research.
Marshall, C, Rossman, Gretchen B, (2006). Designing qualitative research, 4th edition, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
In social research, researchers are always confronting with a vast majority of options for opting the research methods. Among all of the existing research methods, quantitative and qualitative research paradigms appear to be the most celebrated methods for the majority of the social researchers. However, social researchers (e.g. David and Sutton, 2004; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) have argued for many decades with regards to the differentiated nature and ideologies of the terms ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ within social research. Some researchers (e.g. Ayer, 1959; Schrag, 1992; Maxwell and Delaney, 2004) who advocate quantitative research uphold a ‘positivist philosophy’, that objective social science observation is desirable and that the determined scientific outcomes need to be valid and reliable (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004:14). In this sense, research quantitatively denotes that research intends to quantify the
Qualitative research was designed as a way to be directly connected with the subjects researched. Participant researchers may choose to merely observe and collect data or to be an active participant. Covert participation has the advantage of reducing the “reactive effects” of the social setting or group (Bachman & Schutt, 2012). Most researchers who use the participation method of research will often strike a balance between participation and observation. Through participation, an observer may gain the trust of the research subjects which can provide more fruitful results. Some research may however be unethical or a violation of law. A good researcher should use prudence beforehand when crafting their research design.
We believe it is clear that both qualitative and quantitative research have many benefits and many costs. In some situations the qualitative approach will be more appropriate; in other situations the quantitative approach will be more appropriate.
Qualitative and Quantitative study designs both can be beneficial in research design. They both provide valuable options for researchers in the field. These techniques can either be used separately in a research study or they can be combined to achieve maximum information. This paper will define the terms qualitative and quantitative; describe the similarities and differences between each; discuss how qualitative and/or quantitative research designs or techniques could be used in the evaluation of my proposed research; and discuss why linking analysis to study design is important.
Chapter four and five in Creswell (2013) helped me realize how important it is to focus on one type of qualitative research. This leads to writing a coherent paper in the approach chosen. It was also interesting to learn that because subjective and objective experiences, phenomenology lies somewhere in between both qualitative and quantitative research.
Traditional research may use quantitative or qualitative research method. According to Hendricks (2009), quantitative research is a general conclusion based on hard data. Hen-dricks describe quantitativ...
The human experience is this focus of qualitative research. Qualitative research focuses on the behaviors, perspectives, actions, and reactions of subjects (Criswell, 2015). Qualitative research is described in “crisis of legitimation, meaning that the methods are consistent with a philosophical underpinning of questions such as a teacher who believes in Skinner’s behaviorism is the best way to classroom manage and want to prove it or interviewing a student about their social media use and how it has impacted their appearance to peers (Newman and Benz, 1998).