Quantitative and Qualitative

Research Methods

18

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods

Brigitte Lepine

University of Calgary

Introduction

Its in the nature of people to ask questions. We can see this very early with children. People, just like children, from the past, the present and probably the future, want to find answers to their questions.

By looking back in our past history, we know that astrology; mysticism, religion and other such beliefs were very much part of everyday life and the worldview of the time. These methods were well accepted at the time as a fair way to acquire new knowledge. More recently the worldview has changed and given birth to the scientific method and its positivist approach. Since then, another worldview, the interpretive, came about in opposition to the rigid view of the positivists. The interpretive researchers are concerned about the people. The critical worldview came after, taking what was good from each view and discarded what wasnt. The critical researchers focus on a worldview where action has to be taken.

Research can be described and compared in many ways. In this paper, we will look at the quantitative and qualitative distinction and some methods represented under each distinction.

What is quantitative research?

Quantitative research is a type of research that originated with the positivist worldview. Neuman (2000) defined it as being the approach of the natural sciences. Here are a few variations of positivism:

Varieties of positivism go by names such as logical empiricism, the accepted or conventional view, postpositivism, naturalism, the covering law model, and behaviorism. (p. 65)

Quantitative research is also based on a deductive approach. This means that the process starts with an abstract idea. Hypotheses are spoken in terms of concepts and relations between concepts. Measures are established to collect the data in number format.

Theory is a very important part of the research process because it is representative of the structure of ones work and way of thinking (a theory to base assumptions). Here is what Neuman (2000) suggested:

Theory frames how we look and think about a topic. It gives us concepts, provides basic assumptions, directs us to the important questions, and suggests ways for us to make sense of data. Theory enables us to connect a single study to the immense base of knowledge to which other researchers contribute. (p. 60)

The researcher knows ahead what direction to take before he/she starts with the generalization and the concepts used to represent the reality at stake. This becomes the framework to build on. The measuring techniques are used to measure relationships between the concepts, to collect new knowledge. Quantitative researchers try to convert concepts about various aspect of social life into variables that can be precisely measured with numbers. (Neuman, 2000)

Variables are very important in quantitative research. They represent the concepts that will be analyzed later on to find out the relations between those concepts. The whole design of quantitative research is build on a model of causality and variables. Neuman (2000) suggested 3 types of variables: the dependent variable, the independent variable and the intervening variable. The first two are much better known. The dependent variable is the control variable. It means that it is the variable that will be controlled in the experiment. The independent variable is the one that cannot be manipulated. It is the variable being measured. The third variable is called the intervening variable. Its role is to show the relationship between the two other variables. (Neuman, 2000 & Stark, no date)

Sampling is another factor to consider when doing research. The reason for sampling is to get a representative slice of the general population one wishes to study and to make generalization from. This process is done by choosing an appropriate unit of analysis based on the theory of probability which rely on random process. I should mention that there are two types of sampling: probability sampling and non probability sampling. The first one is much better because it relies on a random process and provides more valid results because it is the closest to the sampling distribution of the normal curve, therefore much more accurate. However, sometimes a researcher has no choice but to choose non probability sampling. (Neuman, 2000)

Validity and reliability are very important regarding the value of the findings in research. Reliability refers to the internal consistency in the measurement of the information. Does the data collected make sense? And validity means that the researcher is in fact measuring what he/she said would be measured (Hayes, 1991). Neuman (2000) suggested 2 types of validity: internal and external validity. Here is their definition:

Internal validity means the ability to eliminate alternative explanations of the dependable variable The logic of internal validity is to rule out variables other than the treatment by controlling experimental conditions and through experimental designs. (p. 236)

External validity is the ability to generalize experimental design findings to events and setting outside the experiment itself. (p. 239)

Depending on the number of variables used, the method of analysis will be different. Statistics represent an analyzing of the relationships between the variables. The type of statistical analysis will depend on the variables and the research methods.

Quantitative Methods

Neuman (2000) suggested 3 categories of research methods: 1) Experimental research, 2) Survey research and 3) Nonreactive research and secondary analysis. Experimental research and survey research are furthermore categorized under the reactive umbrella. This means people are aware they are being studied, while nonreactive research means the reverse: people are not aware they are being observed.

Experimental research is based on positivism approach. Neuman (2000) suggested that experiment research is the strongest for testing causal relationship because the three conditions for causality (temporal order, association, and no alternative explanations) are clearly met in experimental designs. (p. 223)

During an experimental one or two hypotheses are being tested with a few variables. Here is an illustration of what happens during an experiment. First, researchers start with a hypothesis. Secondly, they try to modify something in a situation. Neuman (2000) points out that experimenters physically control for alternative explanations. (p. 250). Finally they compare the outcomes with and without modification. Therefore, at least two groups are needed.

It is essential to note here that random assignment is very important. It refers to having two equivalent groups that the researcher will compare with (Neuman, 2000). Neuman (2000) also mentioned that there are various types of experimental research all designs are a variation of the Classical Experimental design. Neuman (2000) stated that experimental research provides precise and unambiguous evidence for causal relationship also it follow the positivist approach and produces quantitative result that can be analyzed with statistics. The real strength of experimental research is its control and logical rigor in establishing evidence for causality. (p. 243)

The survey research is considered to be a reactive method. However, it is different than experimental research. According to Neuman (2000), surveys are one of the most popular methods because a researcher can generalize over the whole population or a large group. There are 3 types of survey: the questionnaire done by mail, by phone or the face-to-face interview. They are easily created and are very cost effective.

The major task of the survey researcher is to determine the best questions to measure the independent variable. The validity of the questions is crucial because the answers will be used to build empirical evidence. Neuman (2000) provided us with the following explanation:

Survey research sample many respondents who answer the same questions. [Survey] measure many variables, test multiple hypotheses, and infer temporal order from questions about past behavior, experiences, or characteristics. (p. 250)

Neuman (2000) explained that: survey research is often called correlational [because] researchers use the control variables to approximate the rigorous test for causality that experimenters achieve with their physical control over temporal order and alternative explanations. (p. 250) This means different questions of the survey measure different hypotheses by using controlled variables. Therefore by using statistic analysis for the findings, the researcher can discard the non valid explanations.

Surveys can easily contains errors. The questionnaire is the most important physical evidence of concept measuring and collecting meaningful data. The researcher needs to make sure that his operationalization for measuring the concepts fits the original conceptualization, and that it does measure what it is supposed to measure.

Finally, Neuman (2000) reported that the best use of survey research is probably when a researcher want to learn about the attitude and the behavior of a population.

The last breakdown in Neuman (2000) is secondary research. This methods consist of researching what other researchers have done and have written. Secondary research usually leads to primary research. Most students have done secondary research. It consists of going and to find information in primary resources and find new information or write report about the information found.

One advantage is that it is usually the cheapest and easiest type of research. However, it is less reliable than primary research because the information is not developed with your particular problem or situation in mind (Neuman, 2000).

According to Neuman (2000) Nonreactive techniques are largely based on positivist principles but also used by interpretive and critical researchers. (p. 290) He proposed 4 types of nonreactive measures. The first one is a loose collection of inventive measures, which we will not discuss in further detail. The second one is better known. It is called content analysis and it builds on the fundamentals of quantitative design. It is a well developed research technique in the social sciences (Neuman, 2000). However, content analysis is a very time consuming method and is difficult to replicate. Two researchers might study the same material but may not come up with the same results. Consequently, reliability is at stake. The third technique refers to existing statistics and the last technique is secondary analysis. These last 2 techniques refer to the government collection or previous survey. (Neuman, 2000)

In secondary analysis the researcher has no control over the quality of the research found and used. The reports could be of very poor quality. So again, the validity might be at stake.

This terminates our summary of quantitative research methods. Following is an overview of qualitative research methods.

What is qualitative research?

Originally, research was based on a positivist approach. Many researchers felt that the positivist view was too rigid and limiting. Consequently, new worldviews emerged namely: the interpretive and critical worldviews. The interpretive worldview emphasized empathetic understanding (Neuman, 2000, p. 71). It focuses on context and relates to getting inside the viewpoint of the person being studied. Field research and participatory research use variations of the interpretive worldview. The critical worldview has a more reflexive view of the world. It focuses on changes and on empowering the general population. Feminist research is a good example of critical research. (Neuman, 2000)

In qualitative research, the approach to analyzing data is inductive. Here is Neuman (2000) description:

Inductive theorizing begins with a few assumptions and broad concepts. Theory develops from the ground up as the researchers gather and analyze the data. Theory emerges slowly, concept by concept. Concepts and empirical generalization emerge and mature relationships become visible, and researchers weave together knowledge from different studies into more abstract theory. (p. 61)

Ragin stated that qualitative researchers tend to use a case-oriented approach [that] places cases, not variables, center stage (1992 a:5). The emphasis is on case and context. Neuman (2000) suggested that, cases are usually the same as a unit of analysis, or the unit on which variables are measured. (p.148) Researchers categorize the collected information (motifs, themes, distinctions and ideas) as part of the process of gathering and interpreting (coding) qualitative data. All the coding during the analysis brings some themes and categories to light.

Neuman (2000) stated that qualitative data is empirical. It is real data that qualitative researchers deal with. The researcher collects the data through interviewing, observations, videotaping, and case study. (McRoy, no date)

Neuman (2000) stated that from the analysis of the data, a grounded theory develops itself. The theory is built from the data or in other words, grounded in the data. According to Neuman (2000) many researchers use grounded theory as it makes research more flexible because data and theory interact (conceptualization and operationalization occurs at the same time)

Myers (2000) suggested that the methods used would influence how the researcher collects data. He stated that qualitative data includes participant observation, interviews and questionnaires, documents and, the researchers impression and reactions toward the situation and context.

Qualitative research is said to be working best with a small population (case study) studied in their own environment (Neuman, 2000). The researcher involves him/herself in the environment as well. His/her involvement might differ accordingly to what type of research is performed. Context is crucial for the data collection as it is closely related to the validity of the data. To get the full picture of the context, the researcher immerses him/herself in the environment and in the worldview of the people being study. This helps to better understand them. It is important to note that the integrity of the researcher in this case is a critical issue as the data collected is about the interaction of people and also on the many details that refers to the context of their life. (Neuman, 2000)

Qualitative studies use the case as the sampling element. (Neuman, 2000) The more cases a researcher presents, the greater the reliability of the study. It is much harder to replicate qualitative studies because the unit of analysis is the specific case. The validity of the research will depend on the quality of the evidence and the interpretation. (Neuman, 2000)

Qualitative researchers do not use statistical analysis for their inquiry to build knowledge. The cases cannot be calculated as the data is much more fluid. Researchers follow a nonlinear path and [they] emphasize becoming intimate with the details of a natural setting or a particular cultural-historical context (Neuman, 2000, p. 154). Consequently, as Neuman (2000) stated it, successive passes through the steps are needed to grasp the full version of reality, to be able to do a valid interpretation of reality.

Qualitative Methods

Qualitative researchers often talk about qualitative research using a different classification and sometimes a different terminology as well. In the following part, we will be looking at different classifications by different researchers.

Neuman referred to qualitative methods in terms of: Field Research and Historical-Comparative Research. (Neuman, 2000)

Field research is generally a less structured, more informal and open ended type of interview where the researcher is directly involved with the participants. Neuman (2000) mentioned that field research is good for studying small group of people in unfamiliar social setting. It can also be called Ethnography or Participant Observation.

The second classification is the historical-comparative research. Neuman (2000) stated that the historical-comparative research is a collection of techniques and approaches (p. 382) used in the collecting and in the analyzing of the data. Historical-comparative research is currently used in many disciplines that are social related. Interpretive, critical and positivist researchers all use historical-comparative research as mentioned by Neuman (2000). Apparently, the essence of each approach (interpretive, critical and positivist) is related to how the researcher looks at the question, its method of inquiring and collecting data and, coming up with an explanation. (Neuman, 2000)

Myers (2000) provided us with the following categories: 1) action research, 2) case study research, 3) ethnographic research and 4) grounded theory. He provided us with definitions given by other researchers of what each category represent. He also suggested that the method used would influence how the researcher collects data. Following is a definition for each type:

Action research definition

As quoted in Myer (2000):Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework (Rapoport, 1970, p. 499)

Case study definition

As quoted in Myer (2000):A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin 1994, p. 13).

Ethnographic definition

As quoted in Myer (2000):Ethnographers immerse themselves in the lives of people they study (Lewis 1985, p.380) and seek to place the phenomena studied in their social and cultural context.

Grounded theory definition

As quoted in Myer (2000):According to Martin and Turner (1986), grounded theory is inductive, theory discovery methodology that allows the researcher to develop a theoretical account of the general features of a topic while simultaneously grounding the account in empirical observations or data.

Summarized from Myers (2000).

Myers provided us with a set of definitions that helps to understand some of the different skills, assumptions, worldviews and research practices under each method.

The last distinctions, is provided by Routio (1999). He referred to the qualitative methods in these terms: 1) Case study, 2) comparative study, 3) classification and 4) historical study. The author separated these four methods in two other distinctions that are related to time frame. The first one is cross-sectional study which look at a single point in time and the second is diachronic research, which refers to phenomena as they change through time.

Here is a summary of Routios categorization:

Cross-sectional category

-a single point in timeDiachronic research

-phenomena as they change through time, longitudinal study

Case study -one single case

Comparative study -two cases

Classification -many cases

Historical study, bibliography

Modified from Routio (1999).

Case study refers to a single case study at a static time time. Comparative study refers to studying specimens which belong to the same group but differ in some respect. Routio (p. 6). Used in field research. Sample population and finding the same information in more than one case (comparing) bring more validity and reliability to the research. Classification provides a structure when studying many cases. It also provides many types of classification for data analysis. You can study many attributes of cases at the same time and then, create and study associations between attributes.

Historical study refers to studies where the dimension of time is considered. In historical study the researcher look at the influence time has on specific attributes in various cases.

This terminates our overview of qualitative research methods. Following is a discussion of the differences and similarities between the quantitative approach and qualitative approach.

Discussion

Quantitative research and qualitative research have both differences and similarities. The differences are very explicit. Lets look at some differences that make quantitative research apart from qualitative research.

One of the major differences between quantitative and qualitative researcher is the way they see the world. Both, Neuman (2000) and Myers (1997), provide 3 majors worldviews or perspectives to science: Positivist, Interpretive and Critical. Each worldview has different assumptions about social life. The positivist view is use by quantitative researchers, while the interpretive and the critical views are used by the qualitative researchers.

Another important difference between quantitative and qualitative research, as suggested by Neuman (2000), is the logical approach researchers use to find answers to their questions. Quantitative researchers use a deductive approach. It follows a logical path and appears very organized. They start with an abstract theory providing some basic assumptions to their thinking, then, create some logical relationships between the concepts to be measured and then, move toward collecting concrete empirical evidence. Qualitative researchers use an inductive approach. It is relatively messy, more ambiguous but more flexible and, is tied up to specific cases. Qualitative researchers start with a few assumptions and broad concepts. Then, a detailed observation is needed to help developing concepts or themes. Identification of relationships between concepts follows to help building a new theory. It is worth noting that the research question comes from the viewpoint of the people being studied not the outsider like in quantitative. (Neuman, 2000)

Another difference is the type of data being collected. While the quantitative researcher focus on collecting hard data in form of numbers, the qualitative researcher focus on soft data such as impression, words, sentences, picture and symbols. Consequently, the data collection techniques and research strategies will also be different. Quantitative researchers speak a language of variables and relationships between variables while the qualitative researchers refer to the contexts and the specifically of each cases. (Neuman, 2000)

Data analysis for quantitative and qualitative research is different a well. Neuman differentiated quantitative analysis in term of using statistics. Data analysis starts after the data is collected and transformed into numbers. Numbers that represent empirical facts are manipulated in order to test an abstract hypothesis. Consequently, the research is more abstract from the day-to-day details of social life. Qualitative analysis is less standardized. Researchers look for patterns and relationship when they collect the data. Collection of empirical evidence and building of theory is blended together and done at the same time. (Neuman, 2000)

Finally, the replication of a research is generally easier under quantitative methods. We cannot say the same of qualitative researches as the qualitative researchers feelings and understanding of events in a specific case may be completely different with a different researcher making replication almost impossible (Neuman, 2000)

We have looked at some differences between the two approaches. Even though the two approaches to research are quite different, they do share a few things in common. Neuman (2000) suggested that both approaches systematically collect and analyze empirical data and carefully examine the patterns in them to understand and explain social life. (p. 122) For example, we can say that both types perform studies built on certain assumptions and theories that fit with their own specific worldview. We can also say that both use a logical approach (such as deductive, inductive) to perform their studies. Both methods consider the dimension of time while performing research. Both use cross-sectional research such as a snapshot of one point in time and longitudinal research for longer time periods.

Both use sampling. Both use the processes of conceptualization and operationalization. Both methods refer to the validity and reliability of the information being collected. However, validity and reliability are approach differently accordingly to the type of research performed.

Some techniques are use by both sides. Both methods perform interviews to collect information. However, the questions are developed with different methods. Content analysis and secondary analysis are use by some of both approaches as a means for data analysis. Both methods can present results in the form of tables or charts.

Conclusion

Both methods are good. The reason to choose one method over the others has more to do with the worldview of the researcher. Even though they are very different, both approach utilize a process to perform research. Quantitative methods are good to work with numerical data in a straight forwards fashion and to measure the relationships between concepts. Qualitative methods are good when there is a need for flexibility, data is more fluid and cases and contexts are important to the interpretation of the data.

References

Hayes, E. R., (1991). A brief guide to critiquing research. Book of readings, fall 2000, EDER 601, Edited by M. Cleveland-Innes (p. 35-41)

Lewis, I.M. Social Anthropology in Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985. In M. D. Myers, Qualitative Research in Information Systems. Discovery, updated version, September 12, 2000 http://www.auckland.ac.nz/msis/isworld/.

Martin, P.Y. and B.A. Turner. "Grounded Theory and Organizational Research," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (22:2), 1986, pp. 141-157. In M. D. Myers, Qualitative Research in Information Systems. Discovery, updated version, September 12, 2000 http://www.auckland.ac.nz/msis/isworld/.

McRoy, R. G. Qualitative Research. Professor in Services to Children and Families (no date) University of Texas School of Social Work, Austin, TX 78712.

Retrieved December 1st, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.uncp.edu/home/marson/qualitative_research.htmlMyers, M. D., Qualitative Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly (21:2), June 1997, pp. 241-242. MISQ Discovery, archival version, June 1997, http://www.misq.org/misqd961/isworld/MISQ Discovery, updated version, September 12, 2000 http://www.auckland.ac.nz/msis/isworld/.

Neuman, W. L., (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Ragin, Charles C. (1992a). Introduction: Cases of what is a case? In What is a case: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry, edited by C. Ragin and H. Becker, pp. 1-18, New York: Cambridge University Press. In W. Lawrence Neuman, Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.) (p.148). Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Rapoport, R.N. "Three Dilemmas in Action Research," Human Relations, (23:4), 1970, pp. 499-513. In M. D. Myers, Qualitative Research in Information Systems. Discovery, updated version, September 12, 2000 http://www.auckland.ac.nz/msis/isworld/.

Routio, Pentti. Arteology: Qualitative Research. (April 4, 1999).

Retrieved November 19, 2000, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.uiah.fi/projects/metodi/170.htmStark, M. Independent & Dependent Variables. (no date).

Experiments 101 with Serious Statistics Made Simple

Retrieved November 5, 2000, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mstark/exp101/expvars.htmlYin, R.K.Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, Sage Publications, 1994. In M. D. Myers, Qualitative Research in Information Systems. Discovery, updated version, September 12, 2000 http://www.auckland.ac.nz/msis/isworld/.

Note: online references have been formatted according to the Electronic reference formats recommended by the American Psychological Association. (2000, August 22). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Retrieved November 26, 2000, from the World Wide Web:

http://www.apa.org/journals/webref.htmlSelf Evaluation

My goal for this assignment has been to have an overview of the qualitative and quantitative research process and to understand better their worldview. I wanted to have a broad overview of their research designs and understand better the terminology related to them. I wanted to be able to understand the major concepts involved in the quantitative approach and in the qualitative approach. I dont pretend that I know it all now, far from there, but compared to the beginning of the class where I didnt know anything and now today, I can say that I have succeeded in giving myself an overview of both process. Im happy with the knowledge I gained by doing this assignment.

I must say that I found this assignment very time consuming. My brain has been working overtime for the last month or so. However, I find this course has been very interesting and beneficial.

The qualitative side was harder to understand because it is more fluid, there is no clear cut methods to facilitate the comprehension. The quantitative side seems to be more straight forwards. So to understand better the qualitative side, I had to do more reading and reread some articles on the qualitative side. Today, I feel that I understand it better but still, I will have lots of reading to do to pretend I have a good grasp on it. I know I will need to go back to fill-the-blank.

I wanted to do an overview of the 2 approaches and the methods/techniques under each category for 2 reasons. First of all, as I mentioned earlier in an email in First Class, I am currently collecting online resources that are supposed to be related to research methods. So doing this assignment has helped me to fit all the pieces together (and Im still working on it). Secondly, this is my first course in my program and I felt it would be beneficial to me to have a good overview and eventually a good understanding of the research process in general. There is just so much to learn! Today, I can say that I have a better overview of both processes and the methods under each of them.