Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches
Quantitative and
qualitative approaches to research.
Quantitative
approaches deal with numerical measurements (i.e. quantities). They are typical
of the mainstream scientific approach in psychology. They are the preferred
methodologies of empirical, hypothetico-deductive and experimental psychology.
Quantitative approaches aim to test hypotheses, and usually to identify
numerical differences between groups.
By contrast, qualitative approaches deal
with how people understand their experiences (i.e. qualities). The use of these
approaches in psychology is often associated with a broader theoretical
critique of quantitative approaches. This critique tends to point to certain
problems with naturalism. Naturalism is the application of the methods
of the natural sciences to the study of social or psychological phenomena.
Thus, qualitative methods in psychology aim to explore meaning, and
might well be chosen for the investigation of issues which, for ethical,
practical or epistemological reasons, are difficult to 'measure.'
(Epistemological reasons - e.g. because we have a philosophical concern about
whether something can be known.)
Note that, while these two approaches to research
are often presented as if they were in binary opposition to one another, they
can also be used to complement one another. Furthermore, some methods (e.g.
Q-methodology) actually fuse elements from both approaches. Investigators' methodological
choices are always informed by their theoretical and philosophical positions.
Distinctive features of quantitative and
qualitative approaches to psychology:
There has been widespread debate in recent years
within many of the social sciences regarding the relative merits of
quantitative and qualitative strategies for research. The positions taken by
individual researchers vary considerably, from those who see the two strategies
as entirely separate and based on alternative views of the world, to those who
are happy to mix these strategies within their research projects. For example,
Bryman (1988) argued for a `best of both worlds' approach and suggested that
qualitative and quantitative approaches should be combined. Hughes (1997),
nevertheless, warns that such technicist solutions underestimate the politics
of legitimacy that are associated with choice of methods. In particular,
quantitative approaches have been seen as more scientific and `objective'.
In exploring issues of qualitative and
quantitative research, this material builds directly on the epistemological
foundations presented in the package `What is Research?' For example, in
exploring the distinctions between qualitative and quantitative forms of
research we need to consider the different ontological and epistemological
questions we considered when discussing positivism, interpretivism and critical
paradigms. Thus, on first consideration, the use of questionnaires as a research
technique might be seen as a quantitative strategy, whereas interviews and
observations might be thought of as qualitative techniques. Similarly, it is
often assumed that quantitative approaches draw on positivist ontologies
whereas qualitative approaches are more associated with interpretive and
critical paradigms. A further assumption is that some critical approaches to
research, such as feminism, only use qualitative approaches (see Graham, 1984;
Jayrantine, 1993 to prove this assumption wrong!). And so in practice, of
course, it is often more complicated than that! Thus, interviews may be
structured and analysed in a quantitative manner, as when numeric data is
collected or when non-numeric answers are categorized and coded in numeric
form. Similarly, surveys may allow for open-ended responses and lead to the
in-depth study of individual cases. In addition, quantitative and qualitative
approaches are strongly associated with objectivity (quantitative) and
subjectivity (qualitative). These were issues that we considered in terms of
the role of the researcher within the research process earlier in the course.
Finally, the choice of approach is linked to the research objectives.
The main aim of this package is to introduce you
to, and facilitate your understanding of, the key debates concerning
qualitative and quantitative approaches. The learning outcomes are:
· To outline the qualitative and quantitative
paradigms;
· To illustrate the distinctiveness of each
paradigm;
· To illustrate issues of similarity between each
paradigms;
· To outline the ways in which qualitative and
quantitative methods can be combined;
· To apply this learning to individual research
projects.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE DIVIDE
Read the quotations below. Draw up a list of the
characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research.
As long ago as 1957, Cronbach drew
attention to the existence of two quite separate `disciplines of scientific
psychology'. One sort of psychologist attempts to test general principles about
human and animal behaviour, and is concerned with documenting average
performance; the other sort of psychologist in interested in describing and
interpreting individual differences, in particular with respect to various
dimensions of intellectual ability, personality and psychopathology. The first
sort of psychologist does experiments, typically on small samples obtained for
reasons of convenience. The other sort of psychologist does larger-scale
questionnaire surveys or interview studies, attempts to procure representative
samples, and tends to use standard, pre-validated measures. When analysing
results, the first sort of psychologist tends to compute t-tests and analyses
of variance. The second sort tends to use correlation, regression, and factor-analytic
techniques. (Everitt and Hay, 1992: 3-4)
Quantitative research consists of
those studies in which the data concerned can be analysed in terms of numbers
... Research can also be qualitative, that is, it can describe events, persons
and so forth scientifically without the use of numerical data ... Quantitative
research is based more directly on its original plans and its results are more
readily analysed and interpreted. Qualitative research is more open and
responsive to its subject. Both types of research are valid and useful. They
are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a single investigation to use
both methods. (Best and Khan, 1989: 89-90)
Qualitative research is harder, more
stressful and more time-consuming than other types. If you want to get your MEd
dissertation or whatever finished quickly and easily do a straightforward
questionnaire study. Qualitative research is only suitable for people who care
about it, take it seriously, and are prepared for commitment (Delamont, 1992:
viii)
Quantitative research is, as the term
suggests, concerned with the collection and analysis of data in numeric form.
It tends to emphasize relatively large-scale and representative sets of data, and
is often, falsely in our view, presented or perceived as being about the
gathering of `facts'. Qualitative research, on the other hand, is concerned
with collecting and analysing information in as many forms, chiefly
non-numeric, as possible. It tends to focus on exploring, in as much detail as
possible, smaller numbers of instances or examples which are seen as being
interesting or illuminating, and aims to achieve `depth' rather than `breadth'.
(Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 1996: 61)
Research is a systematic
investigation to find answers to a problem. Research in professional social
science areas, like research in other subjects, has generally followed the
traditional objective scientific method. Since the 1960s, however, a strong
move towards a more qualitative, naturalistic and subjective approach has left
social science research divided between two competing methods: the scientific
empirical tradition, and the naturalistic phenomenological mode. In the
scientific method, quantitative research methods are employed in an attempt to
establish general laws or principles. Such a scientific approach is often
termed nomothetic and assumes social reality is objective and external
to the individual. The naturalistic approach to research emphasises the
importance of the subjective experience of individuals, with a focus on
qualitative analysis. Social reality is regarded as a creation of individual
consciousness, with meaning and the evaluation of events seen as a personal and
subjective construction. Such a focus on the individual case rather than
general law-making is termed an ideographic approach. (Burns, 2000: 3)
Quantitative research is empirical
research where the data are in the form of numbers.
Qualitative research is empirical
research where the data are not in the form of numbers. (Punch, 1998: 4)
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
CONTROL: This is the
most important element because it enables the scientist to identify the causes of
his or her observations. Experiments are conducted in an attempt to answer
certain questions. They represent attempts to identify why something happens,
what causes some event, or under what conditions an event does occur. Control
is necessary in order to provide unambiguous answers to such questions. To
answer questions in education and social science we have to eliminate the
simultaneous influence of many variables to isolate the cause of an effect.
Controlled inquiry is absolutely essential to this because without it the cause
of an effect could not be isolated.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION:
This means that terms must be defined by the steps or operations used to
measure them. Such a procedure is necessary to eliminate any confusion in
meaning and communication. Consider the statement `Anxiety causes students to
score poorly in tests'. One might ask, `What is meant by anxiety?' Stating that
anxiety refers to being tense or some other such term only adds to the
confusion. However, stating that anxiety refers to a score over a criterion
level on an anxiety scale enables others to realize what you mean by anxiety.
Stating an operational definition forces one to identify the empirical
referents, or terms. In this manner, ambiguity is minimised. Again, introversion
may be defined as a score on a particular personality scale, hunger as
so many hours since last fed, and social class as defined by occupation.
REPLICATION:
To be replicable, the data obtained in an experiment must be reliable; that is,
the same result must be found if the study is repeated. If observations are not
repeatable, our descriptions and explanations are thought to be unreliable.
· HYPOTHESIS TESTING:
The systematic creation of a hypothesis and subjecting it to an empirical test.
QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
STRENGTHS
· Precision - through quantitative and reliable
measurement
· Control - through sampling and design
· Ability to produce causality statements,
through the use of controlled experiments
· Statistical techniques allow for sophisticated
analyses
· Replicable
LIMITATIONS
· Because of the complexity of human experience
it is difficult to rule out or control all the variables;
· Because of human agency people do not all
respond in the same ways as inert matter in the physical sciences;
· Its mechanistic ethos tends to exclude notions
of freedom, choice and moral responsibility;
· Quantification can become an end in itself.
· It fails to take account of people's unique
ability to interpret their experiences, construct their own meanings and act on
these.
· It leads to the assumption that facts are true
and the same for all people all of the time.
· Quantitative research often produces banal and
trivial findings of little consequence due to the restriction on and the
controlling of variables.
· It is not totally objective because the
researcher is subjectively involved in the very choice of a problem as worthy
of investigation and in the interpretation of the results.
Questions to consider
· Why are only testable ideas of worth in
science?
· Scientific study is empirical and objective.
What is meant by this statement?
(Adapted from Burns, 2000: 9-10)
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
· Events can be understood adequately only if
they are seen in context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses
her/himself in the setting.
· The contexts of inquiry are not contrived;
they are natural. Nothing is predefined or taken for granted.
· Qualitative researchers want those who are
studied to speak for themselves, to provide their perspectives in words and
other actions. Therefore, qualitative research is an interactive process in
which the persons studied teach the researcher about their lives.
· Qualitative researchers attend to the
experience as a whole, not as separate variables. The aim of qualitative
research is to understand experience as unified.
· Qualitative methods are appropriate to the
above statements. There is no one general method.
· For many qualitative researchers,
the process entails appraisal about what was studied.
Ely et al add the following from Sherman and Webb
(1988) to their definition:
Qualitative implies a direct concern
with experience as it is `lived' or `felt' or `undergone' ... Qualitative
research, then, has the aim of understanding experience as nearly as possible
as its participants feel it or live it.
QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS
· The problem of adequate validity or reliability
is a major criticism. Because of the subjective nature of qualitative data and
its origin in single contexts, it is difficult to apply conventional standards
of reliability and validity.
· Contexts, situations, events, conditions and
interactions cannot be replicated to any extent nor can generalizations be made
to a wider context than the one studied with any confidence.
· The time required for data collection, analysis
and interpretation is lengthy.
· Researcher's presence has a profound effect on
the subjects of study.
· Issues of anonymity and confidentiality present
problems when selecting findings.
· The viewpoints of both researcher and
participants have to be identified and elucidated because of issues of bias.
STRENGTHS
· Because of close researcher involvement, the
researcher gains an insider's view of the field. This allows the researcher to
find issues that are often missed (such as subtleties and complexities) by the
scientific, more positivistic enquiries.
· Qualitative descriptions can play the important
role of suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects and dynamic
processes.
· Because statistics are not used, but rather
qualitative research uses a more descriptive, narrative style, this research
might be of particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to
qualitative reports in order to examine forms of knowledge that might otherwise
be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.
· Qualitative research adds flesh and blood to
social analysis.
Questions to consider
· What is meant by `deep' when referring to
qualitative data?
· How limiting is the problem of non-replication?
(Adapted from Burns, 2000: 13-14)
QUALITATIVE AND
QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO SOCIAL RESEARCH
THE SIMILARITIES
· Whilst
quantitative research may be mostly used for testing theory it can also be used
for exploring an area and generating hypotheses and theory.
· Similarly
qualitative research can be used for testing hypotheses and theories even
though it is mostly used for theory generation.
· Qualitative
data often includes quantification (eg statements such as more than, less than,
most as well as specific numbers).
· Quantitative
(ie questionnaire) approaches can collect qualitative data through open ended
questions.
· The
underlying philosophical positions are not necessarily so distinct as the
stereotypes suggest.
THE COMBINED APPROACH
ELEVEN WAYS TO COMBINE QUALITATIVE
AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
1. Logic of triangulation. The
findings from one type of study can be checked against the findings deriving
from the other type. For example the results of a qualitative investigation
might be checked against a quantitative study.
2. Qualitative research facilitates
quantitative research. Qualitative research may: help to provide
background information on context and subjects; act as a source of hypotheses;
aid scale construction.
3. Quantitative research facilitates
qualitative research. Usually this means quantitative research helping
with the choice of subjects for a qualitative investigation.
4. Quantitative and qualitative research
are combined in order to provide a general picture. Quantitative
research may be employed to plug the gaps in a qualitative study which arise
because, for example the researcher cannot be in more than one place at any one
time. Or if not all issues are amenable solely to a quantitative or a
qualitative investigation.
5. Structure and process.
Quantitative research is especially efficient at getting at the structural
features of social life while qualitative studies are usually stronger on
process aspects.
6. Researchers' and subjects' perspectives.
Quantitative research is usually driven by the researcher's concerns, whereas
qualitative research takes the subject's perspective.
7. Problem of generality. The
addition of some quantitative evidence may help generalizability.
8. Qualitative research may facilitate the
interpretation of relationships between variables. Quantitative
research readily allows the researcher to establish relationships among
variables, but is often weak when it comes to exploring the reasons for those
relationships. A qualitative study can be used to explain the factors
underlying the broad relationships.
9. Relationship between macro and micro
levels. Employing both quantitative and qualitative research may
provide a means of bridging the macro-micro gulf. Qualitative research can tap
large-scale structural features of social life while qualitative research tends
to address small-scale behavioural aspects.
10. Stage in the research process.
Use at different stages of a longitudinal study.
11. Hybrids. Use of qualitative
research is a quasi-experimental quantitative study.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE
APPROACHES: WHICH TO CHOOSE?
SIX FACTORS TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT
1. Research Questions: What exactly are
you trying to find out? Focus on the `exactly' as this can lead you either into
the quantitative or qualitative direction.
2. Are we interested in making standardized
and systematic comparisons or do we really want to study this phenomenon or
situation in detail?
3. The Literature: How have other
researchers dealt with this topic? To what extent do you wish to align your own
research with standard approaches to the topic?
4. Practical Considerations: Issues of
time, money, availability of samples and data, familiarity with the subject
under study, access to situations, gaining co-operation.
5. Knowledge payoff: Will we learn more
about this topic using quantitative or qualitative approaches? Which approach
will produce more useful knowledge? Which will do more good?
6. Style: Some people prefer one to the
other. This may involve paradigm and philosophical issues or different images
about what a good piece of research looks like.
The question `quantitative or
qualitative?' is commonly asked, especially by beginning researchers. Often,
they are putting the `methods cart' before the `content horse'. The best advice
in those cases is to step back from questions of method, and give further
consideration to the purposes and research questions, bearing in mind that the
way questions are asked influences what needs to be done to answer them. But
when that has been done, and the question still remains, the above factors help
in making the decision.
Of course, a reasonable decision in
any study might be to combine the two approaches.
Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches
Introduction
Last year in
In a long run there are three
different widely advocated positions towards the possibility and usefulness to
use quantitative and qualitative approaches in complimentary, combined or mixed
ways:
The advocates of the first position,
which I would call strong paradigmatic view, declare that only one of
those approaches is good/appropriate/scientific enough for the inquiry about
the social life. They say that quantitative and qualitative research
methodologies are tightly bound to different mutually exclusive epistemological
positions. From here follows that there is no point even to talk about the
possibility of combining or mixing of those approaches. The proponents of this
position are sometimes called purists.
The advocates of the second position,
which I would call week paradigmatic view, are somewhat more tolerant
towards different methodologies saying that both of them can be used and are
useful, but as they carry with them different philosophical underpinnings they
are suitable in very different situations and contexts and therefore one can
not and should not mix or combine quantitative and qualitative approaches in
the framework of one study. The proponents of this view are sometimes called situationalists.
The advocates of the third position
regard quantitative and qualitative approaches both as useful and proper ways
of going to study the social world. Although they see some major differences
between quantitative and qualitative research they also see some important
similarities between them and advocate the integrated use of different
methodologies if this can advance our understanding about the phenomenon under
the investigation. The proponents of this position are sometimes called pragmatists.
All of these three positions bring up
some skeptical questions and problems one needs to address and solve. In this
paper I will take the pragmatist position, which means that I will not question
the feasibility of combining quantitative and qualitative ways of doing
research in general. I rather try to look more closely on problems, which we
have to be aware of in the process of doing so.
Thus, I will not discuss problems,
which paradigmatic view brings with it as this subject has been the focus of
many previous papers (including mine from the last conference in
Calls for multimethod
approach.
Although the calls for the use of
multiple methods in the framework of one study are maybe even older than the
quantitative-qualitative debate, the area of 'how, when and why different
methods might be combined' has got much less attention than the philosophical
aspects of paradigmatic view (Bryman 1988, 155). One can not say that there is
a complete lack of literature concerning different aspects of combining
divergent methodologies. Still most of the literature, which classifies under
the broad area of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, are
arguments why this integration is possible and needed. On the other hand there
is a considerable number of papers either describing authors' own experiences
on integrating some aspects of quantitative and qualitative methodologies or
following so called 'case law' approach where a number of different experiences
are assembled together and called upon as exemplars one could follow (see for
example Brannen 1992, Brown et al. 1996, Bryman 1988, Caracelli & Greene
1993, Carey 1993, Maxwell et al. 1986).
As an example of the early call for
leaving our methodological preconceptions behind us and for considering all
possible ways for advancing our knowledge about the important aspects of social
life I would like to quote Trow's paper where he suggested that we, researchers
in social sciences, should:
'get on with the business of
attacking our problems with the widest array of conceptual and methodological
tools that we possess and they demand' (Trow 1957, 35; also quoted in Brewer
& Hunter 1989).
Approximately as early Donald
Campbell and his co-authors published several papers where they advocated the
use of multitrait-multimethod matrixes and triangulation of measurement for
validation, proposed 'transition experiments' and quasi-experimental designs
(see Campbell 1957, Campbell & Fiske 1959, Campbell & Stanley 1963,
Webb et al. 1966). Although remaining in the framework of quantitative
tradition we can see in these early works the attempt to advocate the use of multiple
methods as well as the possibility to mix some aspects of quantitative and
qualitative methodologies.
Triangulation
Drawing on these ideas Denzin (1978)
developed the concept of triangulation - the term that is probably most widely
used to denote any attempt to combine or mix different methods in a research
study. As it often happens, the most widely used terms tend to be the most
overused and abused terms as well, and 'triangulation' is not an exception here
I think. One could draw obvious parallels in how the term's 'paradigm' and
'triangulation' have lost their initial quite narrow and well-defined meaning
and became to denote something general and indefinite.
However, by Denzin triangulation
means more than using multiple measurements of the same phenomenon - in
addition to the use of diverse data, it involves combining different methods
and theories, as well as perspectives of different investigators. Denzin (1978)
has clearly identified four different types of triangulation:
data triangulation -
the use of variety of data sources and data sets in a study. Data may be both
qualitative and quantitative, gathered by different methods or by the same
method from different sources or at different times.
investigator triangulation -
the use of several different researchers. Here the importance of partnership
and teamwork is underlined as the way of bringing in different perspectives.
theory triangulation -
the use of different theoretical viewpoints for determining competing
hypotheses as well as for interpreting the single set of data.
methodological triangulation -
the use of multiple methods to study a single problem or phenomenon. It may
also include the use of the same method on different occasions and situations.
We can see that the concept of triangulation
is based on the assumption that by using several data sources, methods and
investigators one can neutralize bias inherent in one particular data source,
investigator or method (Jick 1979). It is often stressed out that different
methods have different weaknesses and strengths and therefore the main effect
triangulation can offer is to overcome the weaknesses of any single method.
Thus, if we use several different methods for investigation of the phenomenon
of our interest and the results provide mutual confirmation we can be more sure
that our results are valid. Within this context, quantitative and qualitative
approaches are usually seen as different ways of studying the same phenomenon
and able to answer the same research questions (Bryman 1988).
Although the perspective of
triangulation seems to be very promising several authors have warned us about
the hidden problems that the combined use of qualitative and quantitative
methods for the purposes of triangulation can bring with it. Bryman (1992) has
raised three alarming questions. First, as quantitative and qualitative
researches have different preoccupations it is highly questionable whether they
are tapping the same things even when they are examining apparently similar
issues. Second, if quantitative and qualitative findings do not confirm each
other how should the researcher respond. And third, if the conflict in results
is present what it actually means and comprises. Thus, in the context of
combining qualitative and quantitative approaches the concept of triangulation
is not as unproblematic as it may appear.