Is qualitative research more credible than it used to be? Can we say that it is scientific compared to quantitative research? Has its methodology achieved the level of recognition it deserves?
Please give a clear definition of
Qualitative research =
Quantitative research =
Qualitative Research is a means of exploring and understanding the meaning individuals and groups attribute to a social or human problem. The research process involves emerging questions and procedures, data collected in the participant's setting, data analysis inductively building from specific to general themes, and the researcher making interpretations of the meaning of the data.
Quantitative Research is a way of testing theories by examining the relationship among variables. These can be measured, on instruments, as such, numericaldata can be analysed using statistical techniques. Researchers engaging in this form of enquiry make assumptions about testing theories deductively, controlling for alternative explanations, and being able to generalise and replicate their findings.
Why do you limit qualitative research to a social or human problem?
To give a simple example to illustrate the two:
Qualitative research: A is bigger/taller/wider etc... than B
Quantitative research: A = 2 cm, B = 1cm
This can be applied to any discipline or not?
Then there is the precision? How much precision does one need to go from qualitative research to quantitative research?
No Marcel, it is not a matter of precision, it is a matter of paradigm.
You are approaching qualitative research from a quantitative perspective!
You say that one of the goals of quantitative research is to replicate findings. Finding will never be truly replicable from a quantitative point of view. Each phenomenon, event, living being is unique in physical expression in at least one level of perception or analysis...
Indeed every event is unique and replication of findings is not easily achievable, specifically because social systems are open systems. However, the role of the assumptions (boundary conditions) is to close the system artificially. Thus making the phenomenon under investigation liable to quantitative analysis only, while it would have changed qualitatively.
What is your opinion about qualitative research?
People can get ideas/inspiration by observing/perceiving matter (e.g. objects, living beings). It does not imply that the physics of matter can be measured/quantified with precision, even using the most sophisticated techniques. For instance, empirical research is mainly based on the study of reflectance patterns of matter without having direct access to the (true) physics of matter, whatever the techniques used (telescopes, electron microscopes, cameras...). The extent to which the (measurable) proxies of the physics of matter (e.g. reflectance patterns) are biased visions of the (true) physics of matter cannot be verified (in detail) with quantitative approaches.
How to measure the true speed of a car when we know that Earth is moving around the sun and the solar system is moving in space. There is no fixed reference point to know the true speed of the car. What can be quantified at one scale (the speed between point A and B on a road) cannot be quantified at another scale of analysis or perception (the true speed of the car taking the speed of space objects into account).
I think that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is artificial, human invented, and perhaps not really necessary. We try to quantify phenomena, but will never truly succeed in at least one scale of analysis or perception.
Quantitative research is an inquiry approach useful for describing trends and explaining the relationship among variables found in the literature. To conduct this inquiry, the investigator specifies narrow questions, locates or develops instruments using statistics. From the results of these analyzes, the researcher interprets the data using prior predictions and research studies. The final report, presented in standard format, display researcher objectivity and lack of bias.
Qualitative research is an inquiry approach useful for exploring and understanding a central phenomenon. To learn about this phenomenon, the inquirer asks participants broad, general questions, collects the detailed views of participants in the form of words or images, and analyzes the information for description and themes. From this data, the researcher interprets the meaning of the information drawing on personal reflections and past research. The structure of the final report is flexible, and it displays the researcher’s biases and thoughts.
Educational Research by John W. Creswell
The clear answer is NO. Both are valid for the situation they require. If you want to say qualitative is less scientific then you are saying Darwin's life long research on evolution and Jane Goodall's research in Africa is not scientific. They are both great qualitative studies and well respected.
Quantitative - more closed
1. Probable cause/Effect (“Why did it happen?”)
2. Use of theories (Why did it happen in view of an explanation or theory?”
3. Assessing differences and magnitude
“How much happened?”
“How many times did it happen?
What were the differences among groups in what happened?
Qualitative - more open-ended
1. Descriptive (“What happened?”)
2. Interpretive (“What was the meaning to people of what happened?”)
3. Process-oriented (“What happened over time?”)
Educational Research by John W. Creswell
Qualitative research is normally a prelude to quantitative research methods. The former asks, what are the variables? The latter asks, what are the magnitude of differences between or among the known variables? Therefore, the dependency of one method upon the other is mutual. Thus, both are valid scientific methods of inquiry, one no less than the other.
May I know what's the difference between if (1) I did in-depth conversation with everyone among my neighborhoods about their spouses bad behaviors and (2) a well-designed qualitative research to answer the same questions among my neighborhoods?
To my knowledge, an in-depth interview is a qualitative research design technique and can be well designed based on the moderator or researcher. i guess your question Mohd Aizat Mohd Zain , was the comparison between an in-depth conversation which is a qualitative design and a a well design structured quantitative design. As was mention, to answer the basic questions of the why's, how's ,what and when's , you need an in-depth (qualitative). The advantage is, this means gives you the grass root information needed to pursue further studies using a well designed quantitative research design.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Qualitative Research