Alan
Bryman asserted that the terms “quantitative research” and “qualitative
research” have come to denote more than just ways of gathering data and that the
terms now represent divergent assumptions about the nature and purpose of
research in the socials sciences. This term paper will argue for Bryman’s
assertion and show agreement by proving that the two are more than just
different ways of gathering data. This will be achieved by giving examples,
comparing and contrasting the two research methods and logically and
subjectively supplying arguments.
Research
in general is any investigation intended at expanding human knowledge or to
answer a question and to discover a previously unknown fact. There are two main
ways of conducting research: quantitative research and qualitative research,
though the likes of Bryman (1988) would add ‘mixed methods’ to this list.
Qualitative research, broadly defined, means
"any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of
statistical procedures or other means of quantification" (Strauss & Corbin,
1990). This type of research focuses on words and meaning of the research
subject. Methods employed in this type of research include focus groups,
intensive interviews and direct observation.
Quantitative research on the other hand is conclusive in its purpose as it tries to quantify the
problem and understand how prevalent it is by looking for projectable results to
a larger population. Quantitative research relies of statistical analysis of subjects’
responses which are then used to generalize the results onto a bigger
population.
The two research methods were initially regarded as
just ways of gathering data, they were used interchangeably but scholars
started to differ and what followed was the widening gap between the two such
that these days, the mere mention of a research method tells of the
underpinning philosophy of the research and researcher in addition the purpose
of the research.
Qualitative research has its roots in constructivism
or interpretivism where truth is not universal but rather relative and subject
to time and place, an assumption that rejects the very hub of quantitative
research which believes in positivism where the truth is universal as is in the
physical sciences. This epistemological difference makes the main difference
between the two methods.
Interpretivism charges that because positivists can
measure a part and conclude about the whole, they stand to miss some elements
of the phenomena it’s why the part itself has to be studied in detail.
The qualitative researcher will inductively make
conclusions while the quantitative researcher will use induction this to say
the quantitative researcher will make conclusion about the bigger population by
examining a small sample (deductive reasoning). The qualitative researcher will
only speak about what they are studying and dare generalise.
From the differences in the underlying philosophy
it is evident that the two methods are a miles apart, as if that is not enough,
the rift between the two methods has also been transferred to the purpose of
research itself as Potter (1996) says: “...two scholars who hold different beliefs
[paradigms] may be interested in examining the same phenomenon but their
beliefs will lead them to set up their studies very differently because of
their differing views of evidence, analysis and the purpose of the research.” (P.36,
quoted in Dominick and Wimmer, 2006: 114-115)
The ultimate aim of qualitative research is to
offer a perspective of a situation and provide well-written research reports
that reflect the researcher's ability to illustrate or describe the
corresponding phenomenon. One of the greatest strengths of the qualitative
approach is the richness and depth of explorations and descriptions.
This difference in underlying philosophy between
the two methods of collecting data has crept into the minds of researchers and
academicians and consequently affected their perceptions of the two.
Qualitative research is now confined to college halls while the industry is at
peace with quantitative methods.
Since qualitative research usually doesn’t build on
existing theory, it is left to academics who have to develop the theory after
which, quantitative researchers who usually are advertisers and marketers come
to build on the research to design quantitative research on the theory.
(Creswell and Clark, 2007 quoted in Johnson, 2008)
Qualitative research requires the participation of
the researcher, and the questions are unstructured and open such that the
research focus can change anytime. This is not permissible in quantitative
research where the researcher distances themselves from the research and the
fact that the other method has a high chance of being tampered with by
subjective intonations of the researcher has made qualitative research even
more weak among many researcher and hence condemned to university corridors.
The
development of the two research methods also backs the Bryman's 1988 assertion.
Initially research was quantitative and it was in the areas of the physical
sciences, when social scientists began developing they found it difficult to
explain behaviour using quantitative means and thus qualitative methods were
born. (Morgan, 1983 quoted in Charoenruk [no year])
This is an
indication of the intended purpose; if the two were just ways of collecting
data the earlier positivists could have developed qualitative methods. The fact
that they were only developed after some vacuum was discovered means that they
mean more than just data collection methods. It is a whole new way of
researching not collecting data.
Despite some calls by the likes of Bryman that the
dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative researchers is useless and that
the mixed model should be championed after all, they argue, all research
findings can be quantified or qualified, the two are very mutually exclusive as
Dominick and Wimmer (2006) argue: “...although the methods maybe the same,
however, the research goal, the research questions are quite different...”
(p.115)
The two
are so differentiated that they now represent two fronts: qualitative research
is concerned with complex research questions of “how” and “why” and it deals
with issues that seek to illustrate complex phenomena such as human behaviour;
quantitative research on the other hand has come to be perceived as practical, asking
questions such as “what” and “when,” simple and industry-friendly research that
deals with simple question that attempt to describe group behaviour and to
prove an existing theory.
For example it would be unheard of in some quarters
to use qualitative research to try and find out the popularity of a radio
program among a population, this because the question can best be answered by
quantitative research. If the researchers then want to know why the program is
popular they are ready to summon the qualitative guns.
By just hearing the two terms being mentioned, one
knows what to expect. If it is qualitative, it probably is not an advertising
or marketing question but rather in the field of ideology and similar abstract
and complex areas.
Bryman himself conducted a survey in 2007 and found
that his 1988 assertion was so deep rooted in researchers’ minds in the United
Kingdom such that they couldn’t efficiently use the mixed methods model but
rather chose between qualitative and quantitative according to their purposes
and philosophical origins. (Bryman, 2007) this is proof that the two terms are
now philosophies themselves, representing schools of thought among researchers
and academicians.
In summary, therefore, in agreeing with the
assertion by Bryman that the terms qualitative research and quantitative research
now mean more than just ways of gathering data, the essay has exposed the
philosophical differences, the purpose differences, the research questions
variations and given examples of how the two are used today to confirm Bryman’s
statement.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bryman,
Alan (2007) Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research
(Journal Article) Volume 1, Number 1 of 2007: Journal of Mixed Methods
Research. Downloaded from:
http://www.pdfsearch .com
Dominick,
R and Wimmer, R (2006) Mass Media Research: An introduction (8th Ed)
Sydney: Thomson Wadsworth
Gordon Marshall, (1998) (www document) Qualitative
versus quantitative debate, retrieved from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-qualitativeverssqntttvdbt.html
accessed: March 06, 2011
Holstein, James and Gubrium, Jaber, (2002) [www document] Qualitative
Research Retrieved from: http://www.encyclopedia.com accessed: 3 Mar. 2011
Johnson, Kevin (2008) Comparing and contrasting
quantitative research methods, Nova South Eastern University.
GORDON MARSHALL.
"qualitative versus quantitative debate." A Dictionary of
Sociology. 1998. Encyclopedia.com. (March 6, 2011). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-qualitativeverssqntttvdbt.html
