Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods

The purpose of this study is to define quantitative and qualitative research methods and provide the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. According to (Creswell, 2013), if the researcher is asking why or how, qualitative research should be the primary approach. If the researcher is asking how much, then quantitative research is the better approach. Creswell stated that “Data, evidence, and rational considerations shape knowledge. In practice, the researcher collects information on instruments based on measures completed by the participants or by observations recorded by the researcher” (Creswell, 2013, p. 7).

Benefits of Quantitative Research        

        Quantitative research aims at gathering, analyzing, and measuring data from a large sample to see if there is any relation between different variables, but qualitative research focuses on gaining a deeper understanding of a problem by collecting and analyzing data on ideas, feelings, and attitudes (Bless & Higson-Smith, 2008). Qualitative research methods are mainly phenomenological, and the purpose of qualitative research is to understand the current situation from the participants’ perspective (Sarantakos, 2010).  Qualitative research focuses on observation, participation, interviewing and ethnography (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p.1).  Quantitative researchers argue the importance of the replication of data, and argue’s that because there is no standard procedure to be followed qualitative researchers have to rely on their creativity (Bryman, 2008, p.391).  Qualitative researchers often tie up their own experiences as part of their inquiries (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998).  Quantitative researchers argue that this is too subjective (Bryman, 2008, p.391).

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research as defined by Shank (2002) is a form of systematic, empirical inquiry into meaning, which simplified as a planned, ordered, and public way of how researchers try to understand what others make sense of when going through a certain experience. It is a field of inquiry in its own right, and it crosscuts fields, disciplines and subject matter (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). Qualitative research involves an interpretive and naturalistic approach, meaning that qualitative researchers always study things in their natural environment, in an attempt to interpret and make sense of a phenomena in terms of the meanings people annotated with it (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Ospina, 2004). This distinguishes it with quantitative research, where studies are carried out in a controlled condition (Chesebro and Borisoff, 2007). Qualitative research embraces uncertainty, context, rich or thick description, and a range of approaches towards the analysis, all of which are oriented to pursuing meaning (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; Shank, 2002). However, quantitative research is more statistical, has a specific goal to focus on, or specific hypothesis to test on (Chesebro and Borisoff, 2007). Qualitative researchers also are focused on the understanding of the process, context and would employ a few methods such as interviews, observations, photographs and artifacts to interpret and understand the world (Parker, 2003), similar to a ‘bottom-up’ approach, while quantitative research is more narrow, and seemingly like a ‘top-down’ approach (Chesebro and Borisoff, 2007).

        There are four major types of qualitative research: phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, and case study. According to Cepeda and Martin (2005), phenomenology is ‘a qualitative research approach concerned with understanding certain group behaviours from that group’s point of view’. In phenomenology research, researchers often try to gain access to individuals’ world of experience. Phenomenological researchers search for commonalities across individuals rather than focusing only on what is unique to a single individual. The primary method used for data collection is usually in-depth interviews with up to 15 people.

        Ethnography is the study or group and/or cultures over a period (Cepeda and Martin, 2005). Arnould (1998) suggested that ‘ethnography attempts to explicate structured patterns of action that are cultural and/or social rather than merely cognitive, behavioral or affective’. It involves prolonged participation within a specific culture or sub-culture and has various data collection methods, ranging from surveys to recording of speech in action (Goulding, 2006).

        Grounded theory is the practice of developing other theories that emerge from observing a group where researchers add their own insights into why the group’s observable experiences exist (Cepeda and Martin, 2005). Grounded theory is usually used to generate theory which provides explanation about a phenomenon. It can also be used to test or elaborate upon previously grounded theories.

 Benefits of Qualitative Research

        Qualitative studies are frequently conducted in settings involving the participation of people in their everyday environments. Therefore, any research that includes people requires an awareness of the ethical issues that may be derived from such interactions. Research includes appropriateness of the research design, the methodological design, and the funding sources, as well as behaviors in reporting data.

        Validity testing per se is not an element of qualitative phenomenological study. In a quantitative study, statistical analysis would be conducted to determine how many people answered the questions in a similar fashion, and so on. This is not appropriate for qualitative phenomenological study. The phenomenological study does not address whether or not the revealed beliefs correspond with anything in the scientific or social world. Instead, the belief of the individual is their own belief and is therefore, valid on the face assuming the researcher does not put his or her own interpretation of those responses. Thus, if the materials have been properly bracketed, the phenomenological study will be valid assuming that the other concerns herein have

        In the paradigm suggested by Petty (2012), internal validity is replaced with credibility, or “the degree to which the findings can be trusted or believed by the participants of the study” (p. 382). It is important to take note at this point that the credibility is determined by the study participants, not by the researcher or the reader. This is because the qualitative study deals with how the participants think and feel, and not to any externally constructed reality. According to Petty et al; persistent observations, prolonged engagement with the participants, peer debriefing, triangulation, and use of a research journal to record the researcher’s thoughts and impressions during the research can help ensure credibility of the results.