Discuss the main difference between qualitative and quantitative research? While qualitative research consists of the analysis of unstructured information from interview transcripts, open up ended survey responses, photos and videos, quantitative research requires the research of numerical data.
Narva mnt 25, Tallinn,ESTONIA Introduction Last year in Lahti I gave a paper concerning the debates sometimes called as "paradigm wars" about differences and similarities between quantitative and qualitative research.
I also presented the results of my small-scale investigation, which showed that there were studies, which combined qualitative and quantitative approaches in different ways.
In this paper I want to look further and address some problems concerning the use and integration of multiple methods in a social scientific study.
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: 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 Lahti.
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 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 BrannenBrown et al.
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: 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 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 has clearly identified four different types of triangulation: Data may be both qualitative and quantitative, gathered by different methods or by the same method from different sources or at different times.
Here the importance of partnership and teamwork is underlined as the way of bringing in different perspectives. 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 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.This essay discusses two common research approaches, qualitative and quantitative, along with the various research designs largely used when conducting research within the framework of each approach.
As we can say that quantitative research is the process of . Qualitative Research Why use theories in qualitative research?
Scott Reeves, associate professor1, Mathieu Albert, Box 2 More examples of theories used in qualitative research micro level negotiation contributes to the development and maintenance of the social order that exists within 20 research.
Testing the theories 76 Characteristics of interviewers and rapport 79 5Discussion 84 complementing more traditional quantitative approaches with qualitative methods. The acceptability of family planning ‘products’ but qualitative research is also used in.
As noted in the example above, there will likely be several concepts, theories, or models that can be used to help develop a framework for understanding the research problem. Therefore, note why the theory you've chosen is the appropriate one.
Concerning research topic, this solution assists in describing an area of interest, as well as potential research questions and tentative hypotheses for a quantitative approach to the area; and a research question or questions, if appropriate, for a qualitative approach to the area.
Qualitative research shares good company with the most rigorous quantitative research, and it should not be viewed as an easy substitute for a “statistical” or quantitative study. Qualitative inquiry is for the researcher who is willing to engage in complex, time consuming process of data analysis.