Running Head: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
Research Design Evaluation and Critique of Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches
Rebecca J. Hatherley
Student Number 2624858
Athabasca University
MDE602
Assignment #1
1
Running Head: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
2
Social science researchers regularly choose between quantitative and qualitative research
approaches. At times, researchers select the methodology that they feel correlates more with their
epistemological beliefs; they may choose a particular methodology because of familiarity or
upon the recommendation of a colleague. However, the problem or issue should guide the
research methodology chosen not the values, beliefs, or limited and/or prior knowledge of the
researcher.
It is important for researchers to be aware of their epistemological beliefs and have selfknowledge, as this awareness is interconnected unconsciously and/or consciously in our actions
and guides methodology choice. If researchers recognize and examine their assumptions, with
respect to the problem and in relation to the research design decision, they move their research
towards having greater internal consistency. If a researcher’s epistemological belief leans more
towards objectivism, and they have limited awareness of their worldviews and beliefs, they
might be viewed as following a positivist social science knowledge paradigm perspective and
more often utilize quantitative research approaches rather than allow the problem to guide the
choice of approach. Likewise, if a researcher’s epistemological belief leans more towards
interpretivism, and they have limited awareness of their worldviews and beliefs, they might be
viewed as following an interpretivist social science knowledge paradigm perspective and more
often utilize qualitative research approaches rather than allow the problem guide the choice of
approach. However, when a researcher is aware of their social self and acknowledges their
worldviews and beliefs they are more likely to be conscious of the reasoning behind their choices
and possible biases that may affect the research—for instance, if interpretations have been
derived from research data or their own worldview. It is not only important to have this self-
Running Head: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
3
knowledge, but it is pertinent to expose and include relevant self-knowledge in research
documentation, as it enlightens and assists the reader to determine possible biases and/or
influences.
Instead of the knowledge paradigm leading the research, the focus should first be on the
problem and its characteristics before selecting an appropriate method (Shulman, 1997). Certain
types of social research problems lend themselves to specific approaches and one should choose
the approach that lends itself more to the objective of the research. When designing a framework
for research there are two major research approaches, quantitative and qualitative. Researchers
using quantitative approaches try to eliminate bias and demonstrate statistically that phenomenon
is likely to be connected with an event rather than chance (Fade, 2003). However, researchers
using qualitative approaches do not seek to show statistical associations or cause and effect
relationships; instead, the emphasis is on describing or illuminating social phenomena and
human experience (Fade, 2003). Quantitative approaches are more formal, objective, and have
deductive systematic processes that use numerical data to obtain information about a problem;
whereas qualitative approaches are more informal, subjective, and are driven by an inductive
process to derive textual data. In addition, quantitative approaches are usually more confirmatory
and analyze data through statistical methods, while qualitative approaches tend to be more
exploratory and use an interpretive means to analyze data. Of course, if one uses statistical
methods to analyze data, interpretation is still involved as each opposing dimension is on a
continuum, not dichotomous (Bazeley, 2004).
Mays and Pope mention that it is difficult to examine the issue of “quality” without
discussing debates about the nature of knowledge and whether researchers can use the same
standards to measure qualitative and quantitative research (Mays & Pope, 2000). May and Pope
Running Head: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
4
describe two extremes of this debate as the ultra relativists who believe all knowledge is situated
and partial and therefore reject the measures of reliability and validity for qualitative research;
and the naive realists who argue that there is a single, unequivocal social reality or truth which is
entirely independent of the researcher and of the research process and therefore differing
accounts of this reality can be assessed of their validity (Mays & Pope, 2000).
All research whether quantitative or qualitative should be judged on the quality of the
methods used (Fade, 2003). As quality is a critical issue in research, research must address
reliability and validity. Vaus notes that reliability is the ability of separate researchers to come to
similar conclusions while using the same experimental design or participants in a study, and
consistently produce the same measurement (2001, p. 29). Validity refers to the ability of a
construct to measure truthfully what it is supposed to measure (Neuman, 2005, p. 188).
Techniques to increase the reliability in quantitative approaches appear straightforward; the
researcher can clearly conceptualize constructs, use a precise level of measurement, use multiple
indicators, and use pilot tests (Neuman, 2005, p. 190). However, to increase the validity and
reliability within qualitative approaches is more complex and controversial. Fade advocates that
using the same terminology for quantitative and qualitative research can be misleading (Fade,
2003). For instance, the term “validity” carries different meanings when used in quantitative
research then in qualitative research (Fade, 2003). Thus, Fade recommends a different set of
criteria to measure quality of qualitative research, which are credibility, criticality, authenticity,
and integrity.
One strategy to assist the quality of research is the use of triangulation. Using this
strategy can add validity or depth to research—depending on a researcher’s epistemological
belief. If a researcher believes that there is one reality then triangulation can be used as a strategy
Running Head: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
5
to confirm conclusions—validation. Contrary, if a researcher asserts that there are multiple
realities then triangulation may not provide corroborating evidence, as different methods may
raise different issues and thus produce different perspectives, but it may add depth and/or breadth
to research and help overcome personal biases.
To illustrate different approaches, consider the example of an educational institution
experiencing a sudden increase in attrition rates. The administration is unsure why attrition rates
have suddenly increased and commissions a study to establish the cause. Researchers may
analyze the situation differently to determine the cause(s) of the increased attrition rates
depending on the research method chosen. The researcher hired offers to the administration two
very different approaches to this problem.
The first recommendation uses a quantitative approach. They note that they will start by
gathering demographic data in order to describe the student population. Then use a datagathering instrument, for example a survey, to glean information such as personal characteristics
of the former students and reasons for leaving the institution. The data will then be numerically
analyzed to find any correlations between variables. Additionally, the researcher suggests that
this data could be used for generalizabiltiy purposes—to predict future attrition rates based on
the variables studied.
In contrast, the second recommendation uses a qualitative approach. First they will
conduct a case study, using observations and personal interviews, to try to determine the cause(s)
for the increased attrition rates. The researcher then will use these opportunities to try to
determine this group’s version of reality (rather than accepting one general version of reality
produced from quantitative research). The researcher cautions administration that since the
sample sizes for the qualitative approach are to be smaller than qualitative research approach the
Running Head: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
6
results will probably lack the ability of generalizability; and since the results of the study are for
experiences for this specific institution, the research results are only applicable to this institution.
However, the results might be able to be extended for institutions that have very similar
characteristics.
Since both researchers seek to explain events from different perspectives and have
different intents both are legitimate ways to evaluate attrition rates in this context. However, the
administration needs to be informed of the different approaches and the type of data that each
will generate and have discussions with the researchers about desired outcomes. Only when the
desired outcomes and feasibility have been determined and finalized can the choice be made
between different approaches. The choice of approach will probably heavily and realistically
depend upon the administrations desired outcomes and feasibility. One cannot conclude from the
information given which method is best for the institution, as the problem is situated and not all
pertinent information is known. However, using the word “situated” implies that the qualitative
approach is viewed as the preferred choice as the intent appears to be to describe or illuminate a
social phenomena that has occurred at his institution.
In conclusion, researchers need to have self-knowledge in order to be cognizant of their
epistemological beliefs. This epistemological awareness helps researchers “disassociate”
themselves from their worldviews and biases so they are more “free” to choose methodologies,
techniques, and procedures rather than subscribing to a paradigm and/or approach—such as
qualitative or quantitative approaches. It is essential to bear in mind that the problem or issue
should guide the research approach rather than researcher epistemological beliefs.
Running Head: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
7
References
Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research. In
Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research (pp. 141-156). Palgrave
Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.researchsupport.com.au/MMIssues.pdf
Fade, S. A. (2003). Communicating and judging the quality of qualitative research: the need for a
new language. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 16(3), 139-149. doi:
10.1046/j.1365-277X.2003.00433.x
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative
research, 320, 50-52. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117321/
Neuman, W. L. (2005). Social Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (6th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Shulman, L. S. (1997). Disciplines of Inquiry in Education: A new overview. In Complementary
methods for research in education (pp. 3-30). Washington, D.C: American Educational
Research Association.
Vaus, D. D. (2001). Research Design in Social Research (1st ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Research-Design-Social-ProfessorDavid/dp/0761953477/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255368274&sr=8-6