Introduction
The main elements of both quantitative and qualitative are described. A diagram is used to illustrate the quantitative approach while a textual description is felt sufficient for the qualitative approach. The views of various experts are presented.
The strengths and weaknesses of both approaches are presented with reference to the views of various experts whose overall consensus weighs down in favour of adapting a mixture of both approaches to tailor the demands of the task in question.
Finally examples of both approaches are presented to illustrate the different approaches.
the quantitative approach employ highly structured techniques of data collection, such as surveys that allow quantification, hypotheses , measurement and operationalisation which are secondary in nature, such as newspapers, magazines, journals, books, statistics, survey and websites. Large samples are used. Consistency is required of the data collected.
The quantitative approach is prepared in a precise and accurate manner with the study problem formulated in advance. The underlying thinking of this approach holds that all understanding of cause in the social sciences can arise only from unbiased and generalisable quantitative estimates of relationships between a causal variable and an outcome variable. This is because being able to generalise to a larger population is the major goal, this approach concentrates on how accurately estimates of a relationship in the researchers sample reflect those in the population as a whole (M25 2005.).[i]
This method of arguing from the particular to the general by showing the relationship between the causal variable to the outcome variable is called the deductive method and is a major characteristic of the quantitative approach.
Gill and Johnson[ii] describe this in the following diagram;
|
Theory/ Hypothesis Formulation |
|
Operationalisation – translation of abstract concepts into indicators or measures that enable observations to be made |
|
Testing of theory through observation of the empirical world |
|
Falsification and discarding |
|
Creation of as yet unfalsified theories covering laws that explain past and predict future observations |
This view of A causing B is challenged by proponents of the inductive approach such as Laing (1967)[iii] who argue that it ignores the complexities of human behaviour. However effective use of the deductive technique of theory development depends on a process of continuous testing.
Opponents of the qualitative approach argue that it sets too few observations to generalise for the larger population
The Qualitative Approach
This inductive method focuses on the development of theories and explanations of the real world. (http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.htm 19/09/05)1 Gill and Johnson,(1977)[iv] said “there is then in this approach an emphasis on the analysis of subjective accounts which are generated by ‘getting inside’ situations and involving the investigator in the everyday flow of life. Emphasis is on theory grounded in empirical observations which take account of subjects meaning and interprational systems in order to explain by understanding. This approach generates and uses mainly qualitative data and minimum structure. (Gill & Johnson, 1997.)[v]
this method is described by Mason (2002)[vi] as not encumbered by structures that are a feature of the quantitative method and focuses on getting inside the real world, a lsee formal or mechanical relationship between researcher and respondent. The study starts often starts out with no intention of producing hypotheses, although hypotheses emerge from the research. Creswell (2003)[vii] has summarised the key processes of the inductive approach which begins with the researcher gathering information, he then formulates questions posed from that information. From the data analysis thus gleaned, themes or categories are formed. These are then scanned for broad patterns, generalisations or theories which are related to past experiences or literature.
Strengths and weaknesses
There are strengths and weaknesses in both methods which has been the focus of academic debate. While not appearing to come down on either side David de Vaus (2002)[viii]. succinctly summarises the strengths and weaknesses of both methods;
“Survey research is widely regarded as being inherently quantitative and positivistic and is contrasted to qualitative methods that involve participation observation, unstructured interviewing, case studies, focus groups etc. Quantitative survey research is sometimes portrayed as being sterile and unimaginative but well suited to providing certain types of factual, descriptive information-the hard evidence. Qualitative methods are often regarded as providing rich data about real life people and situations and being more able to make sense of behaviour within its wider context. However qualitative research is often criticised for lacking generalisability, being too reliant on the subjective interpretations of researchers and being incapable of replication by subsequent researchers.
This distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is frequently unhelpful and misleading. It is more helpful to distinguish between two stages of the research process; collecting data and analysing data”
Kaplan and Maxwell (1994) are quoted in http://qual.auckland.ac.nz/general.htm Kaplan,B and Maxwell, J.A. 21/09/05 as saying; 2
“Qualitative research methods are designed to help researchers understand people and the social and institutional context is largely lost when textual data are quantified.”.
Palys (1997)[ix] however is quoted in Module 25 Lecture Notes, in defence of the quantitative approach as arguing;
“One of the key challenges of the deductive approach and the development of a theory, is that it should be continually tested and utilised for making predicitions and that it is through this process that the theory’s utility and value can be accurately addressed…. a theory is expected to to be put continually on the line in new and fair tests of its veracity.”
An example of the quantitative approach survey is The Employment and Vacancies Survey: July 2005. which was commissioned by Fas and undertaken by the Economic and Social Research Institute. (See Appendix 1)
An example of the qualitative approach is “Informal Labor and Social Relations in Northern Malawi: The Theoretical Challenges and Implications of Ganyu Labor for food security.” by Rachel Bezner Kerr, Department of Development Sociology, Cornell University 2005.
Conclusion
We have described the various elements of both approaches to social research
We have described the various elements of both quantitative and qualitative approaches to social research. With regard to the quantitative approach we looked at the highly structured techniques of data collection, which largely defines the role of that approach, deductive in nature, which involves the use of sources of secondary information such as government statistics, printed press, journals and surveys.
The quantitative approach is precise and accurate, inspired by an underlying thinking that its authority and superiority as a method of social research is predicated on its unbiased and scientific approach. The views of leading experts such as Gill and Johnson and Laing are presented to illustrate differing thinking on the subject.
The qualititative approach, however which employs the inductive method of arguing from the specific to the general by developing theories and explanations of the real world drawing its conclusions from the outcome of such human research materials as focus groups, interviews and case studies.
Recent thinking on the strengths and weaknesses of both methods generally agree that a mixture of ingredients of both methods adapted to the individual requirements of the
particular research question under consideration is the most appropriate method to adopt.
[i] Phelan, J. (2005)Module 25, Lecture Notes, UCD
[ii] Gill J. and Johnson P. (1997) Research Methods for Managers, 2nd Edn. Paul Chapman Publishing, London
[iii] Laing. R.D (1967). The Politics and Experience of the Birds of Paradise, Penguin, Harmondsworth
[iv] ibid
[v] ibid
[vi] Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching, 2nd Edn., Sage Publications, London.
[vii] Cresswell, J. (2003), Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods/ Approaches 2ND Edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks
[viii] De Vaus, David (2002) Surveys in Social Research, p5..Routledge, London,5th Edn.,
[ix] Palys (1997) Quoted in Lecture Notes Module 25, couldn’t find other details of this author
Webliography
1(http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.htm 19/09/05)
2http://qual.auckland.ac.nz/general.htm Kaplan,B and Maxwell, J.A. 21/09/05
