It is but obvious that a quantitative (empirical) work stands a better chance to be accepted in a reputed journal as compared to a qualitative one. This is particularly true in the Indian context where I have come across many empirical works which, despite not having much strong conceptual framework and literature support, find acceptance and get published in reputed journals whereas qualitative (conceptual) work finds it harder to be accepted for the reason that unless it doesn't propose a new model or some path-breaking concept, it would not go through. I mean even a decent review of the extant literature along with personal thoughts could add value to the ongoing research in the author's area. Now the question here is, what needs to be done to ensure that a fairly decent qualitative work stands as good chance (if not better) as a quantative one?
Mentalities, shaped up by the scientific way of thinking, believe strongly in "Facts & Figures" as the ordinary people may say or in "Deductions based on quantitative study" as the intellectuals may say.
When you state that a sample of water is warm, this is a qualitative description. When you measure its temperature by a thermometer which reads, say 50 oC, then this is a quantitative description. Obviously, the latter approach is scientifically stronger than the former. However, the qualitative description can be strengthened if there is more in-depth analysis, more elaborate discussion, clever conclusions, and "good" presentation of the case in terms of science as well as language.
Hi, Amit,
The goal of research is to produce generalizable knowledge. For this reason and this reason alone there will always be a preference for quantitative studies by research journals. Even exploratory quantitative studies can be combined through meta-analysis to improve our knowledge base. Even replication might be of value to some journals.
Qualitative studies simply cannot be generalized because the insights provided through the qualitative method are always contextualized within the theoretical framework of the researcher and the limited perceptions of the participants' lives and places. That is why the burden in qualitative research is to uncover something new. Without a new insight, qualitative research produces nothing of value for others to consider.
I strongly believe that the sole purpose of research is not just generalization, instead, getting insight into the wider worldviews and perspectives also remains important. Qualitative research plays a vital role in this.
Talking in the context of India, this question is very relevant. It is true that Quantitative methods are given much higher preference than Qualitative. This is very much vivid from the number of published literature appear in the journals of Indian origin. The higher education system also pays much attention to Quantitative research. Elements of Qualitative research in Indian syllabuses at Post Graduation and above level are comparatively very low. This made many to believe that research means Quantitative research.
The employment of a systematic and scientific qualitative design ensure the publishability of papers. The methods adopted and research conducted must be convincing. A large number of papers are submitted (some of them are getting published) with a title indicating QUALITATIVE method, but the content fails to justify the same.
I think there is an error in assuming that quantitative means empirical, whereas qualitative means conceptual. Quantitative and qualitative are both specifying a type of empirical analysis to be employed.
The aim of science is explanation. Generalized knowledge (a strength of quant research, but this is also always a bounded generalization) is only one form of explanation. Another is contextual knowledge or the uncovering of meaningful mechanisms, both of which are suited to qualitative research.
Now whether or now quant or qual research are fulfilling this aim depends on how much they are bridging the empirical and theoretical worlds by explaining something. Both quant and qual research can get caught in the empirical details without ever explaining what they mean in terms of the social world. While certain countries and disciplines may privilege one type of empirics (quant or qual) over the other, it is more sound, logically speaking to admit that there are a whole range of methods that can yield different types of explanations, all furthering our knowledge of phenomena.
Amit,
I think you can also consider ways to present your data that may appeal to quantitative lenses and thinkers. Can you visualize your data? Maybe with a concept map, or figures to highlight quotes, or graphs/charts of quantifiable pieces of the qualitative data. For example, you could provide descriptive statistics on the frequency of key themes or codes (if you do thematic analysis or coding). Find ways to organize participants and the textual data into numbers, such as "x percent of participants discussed this theme..."
You might also have better luck if your study is mixed methods. While qualitative research can be conceptual, it would be a mistake to generalize it as ONLY such. It can be empirical and used to explain quantitative findings. Outside of experimental designs, we have to interpret possible causation, and qualitative research is an excellent way to do so. Furthermore it often informs a quantitative method, or vice versa. For example, you could conduct a survey, and then based upon analysis, conduct interview or focus groups with participants where you present the findings to better understand possible explanations, interpretations, and causality. Or, you could conduct interviews about a topic (vaccination behavior for example) and then based upon the findings, create a quantitative survey that attempts to measure important concepts and constructs.
Hope this helps, and best of luck! Cheers!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals