Possible Ways to Blend
Qualitative and Quantitative
Research Methods
Ian McDowell
Seminar Presentation
1997
Overview of Talk
• Research methods gradually evolving in
recognition of inadequacies in current methods
• Two paradigms: positivist / quantitative vs.
subjectivist / postmodern
• There are strengths in each …
• Types of blend of the two, in:
–
–
–
–
study design
data collection
analysis
comunicating results
Styles of Thought
(how do we know that we know what we
think we know?)
Many dualisms throughout history of thought:
• Quantitative vs. qualitative
• Deductive vs. inductive
• Right brain and left
• Yin and Yang
• Apollonian and Dionysiac
• Male and female
• Reductionist vs. systems thinking
Changing philosophies of
knowledge
• 17th & 18th centuries: order, logic and science,
world seen through senses. Mechanical world.
Realism and logical positivism
• 19th century - social revolution: can we analyze
behaviour logically? Idealism: the human mind as
source of knowledge; people, not logic, crucial in
explaining reality
• 20th century - phenomenology; qualitative research
Two paradigms
• Challenge: biological variability – should
we focus on the general or the specific?
• General = public health; epidemiology;
deduction. Nomothetic
• Specific = clinical medicine; psychology;
induction. Idiographic
Quantitative approach
• Describes and imposes external structure on data
• Gives parsimonious summary of results: reductionist
(for example, shared variance is attributed to one
variable; hence it is reductionistic)
• Seeks to isolate systems from their enviornment and to
generalize
• Efficient, but incomplete view of interconnectedness
of reality
• Asks the “How?” question
• Externally valid
Qualitative approach
• Interprets, explains; generates concepts
• Seeks to be open, flexible
• The investigator is the instrument; art
versus science
• Sampling becomes a crucial issue (in data
collection and in analysis)
• “Somewhat magical approach to analysis”
• Asks the “Why?” question
• Particularizes; internally valid
Blending Qualitative and
Quantitative
• Metaphor of binocular vision
• Seeks to array strengths of one against
limitations of the other
• Nature of the balance may depend on stage
of study: qualitative in a process evaluation,
quantitative in outcome study, for example
Five blends
Hierarchical model: one method takes the lead
i.
ii.
qualitative leads
quantitative leads
Partnership model: equal but contrasting
contributions
iii. sequential
iv. cyclical
v. simultaneous application (triangulation)
Applying these Types of Blend
In different stages of research:
1. Conceptualizing the study
2. Collecting data
3. Analysing data
4. Interpreting the data
Stage 1: Conceptualizing the
Study
• Hierarchical model, quantitative leading, in
“hard” studies
• Hierarchical model, qualitative leading, in
“soft” topics
• Partnership model applicable in mixed
studies or in broad programme of research
that involves sequence of individual studies
• Sequential partnership in formulating study:
qualitative leads into quantitative
Stage 2: Collecting the Data
• Goal of blending approaches is to
compensate for limitations in each approach
• Hierarchical model illustrated by data
supplementation (e.g., qualitative interviews
highlight responses to a standardised
questionnaire)
• Partnership sequential model illustrated in
qualitative work to develop questionnaires
Stage 3: Data analysis
• Generally hierarchical; determined by design of study.
Orientation of funding agencies often makes it hard to
achieve a true balance (“disciplinary racism”)
• Hierarchical, quantitative leading illustrated by
analyses of outliers
• Hierarchical, qualitative leading: case studies are
followed by secondary analysis fo quantitative data
(e.g. a survey) to estimate representativeness of
insights gained from the case study
• Iterative analyses in partnership model, but this will
probably be criticized from both camps.
4: Interpretation & Dissemination
• Hierarchical, quantitative leading:
– Use case histories or quotations to illustrate
quantitative results
– Use qualitative results to comment on
exceptions to the rule
• Hierarchical, qualitative leading: use
quantitative results to validate what people
suspected all along
Future Directions
• There’s increasing awareness in funding agencies of
the importance of qualitative research. It’s a start,
but….
• However, the paradigms are sufficiently different that
it’s very hard to blend them: attempts rapidly lead to
criticism that you are perverting the tenets of each
approach
• Disciplinary purity seems remarkably important to
academics – a fundamental part of personal identity –
so conflicts will be common
• A successful blend will be truly “transdisciplinary”