First, I'm not sure whether the difference between "numbers or words" is enough to capture whether a study is quantitative or qualitative,. But if by that you mean a survey to capture numerical variables versus an open-ended interview to capture participants's thoughts about a topic, that separation would match most people's sense of a quantitative versus a qualitative study.

Still, both those data collection tools can be used for a wide variety of purposes. Certainly there is a strong tendency to use statistical analyses of survey data to test hypotheses, as opposed to using more subjective analyses of qualitative data to generate interpretive themes. But that distinction is not absolute. For example, some people use a quantitative content analysis of open-ended interviews to count codes and test hypotheses.

Ultimately, I think the strongest distinctions match a goal or purpose with a method that is designed for that purpose, such as testing hypotheses with survey data or generating themes with open-ended interviews.

I would explain the difference this way. A quantitative study quantitative study begins with a hypothesis in mind and the goal is to test the hypothesis or determine if a particular condition exists. The goal of a qualitative study is to determine why something happened, why it did not, or simply the state of the situation. The qualitative study does not have an outcome hypothesis in mind at the outset.

As explained by James Mclean, a quantitative research sets to prove a hypothesis which is basically a sensible and informed assumption whose eventual proof confirms the hypothesis (assumption). This proof has to be done with the tools of quantitative statistics..

A qualitative study does not require any hypothesis that needs to be proved. The researcher employs texts, numbers and graphics deemed useful for the study.

It is important to stress, however that research work in some academic disciplines employs both quantitative and qualitative techniques in very detailed and comprehensive studies.

In effect, they are both useful.

i would think that neither purpose or objective per se, determines if a study is quantitative or qualitative, but say it's not that simple. It depends more on the topic and what is know or not known and what research has already been done. if a topic is so new, then a quantitative study is possible but would yield little in depth knowledge beyond descriptive statistics.. we know almost nothing about covid survivors (other then anecdotal).

I would judge more by the data (numerical quantitative) and the methodology (nominal survey study) not the objective. The nature of the problem and objectives and research context should drive the choice of methodology, which in turn will drive the type of data suitable to the research design.

See Cresswell, Qualitative Inquire and Research Design for a good overview of the distinctions between Quant and Qual (there is a chart - maybe can "look inside" online).

Comunmente no diferencio por el objetivo, es más por la condición de los datos, un estudio cuantitativo tiene hipótesis y por lo tanto tiene instrumentos que miden numericamente y analizas la información númericamente, sin embargo los estudios cualitativos no tiene hipótesis, por lo general tiene un variable que ha sido poco estudiada, tiene instrumentos cualitativos y analizas la información de forma descriptiva, generalmente en los instrumentos los estudios cuantitativos las preguntas son cerradas y en los estudios cualitativos son abiertas, además es importante tener presente la población que si es menor a 30 sujetos de estudio esta más relacionada para investigación cualitativa. Por lo tanto existen muchos parametros a ser considerados para establecer la diferencias, además existen las investigaciones mixtas donde utilizas ambos tipos de investigación

Busha Taa, to me, your questions are somewhat unclear and confusing. I will respond to your final question by saying that quantitative research can often be reported with fewer words than can qualitative research. That's partly because the results section in which qualitative research is reported often contains quotations from participants.

One other difference is that qualitative researchers seem obliged to spend quite a lot of time defending their methods / methodology (writing at length about constructivism, ontology, epistemology, etc., etc. - which bores me to tears because I've seen it ad nauseam in almost every thesis involving qualitative research) whereas quantitative researchers tend to simply get on with the job.

I hope I've addressed at least one of your concerns.

Yes, in a finished write up (article/thesis) it is possible to determine from the objective/research questions what type of data SHOULD have been used. At this point, the framing of the researchers' final intention /motivation should aline with method and methodology.

But keep in mind that many people are bad at research, and many get published.

Besides the use of hypotheses testing versus research questions, as has been mentioned, another clue can be if the approach is deductive or inductive. Quantitative studies tend to be deductive, starting with a theory or concept or known descriptors about a phenomenon. Using the COVID-19 example, quantitatively a researcher could test whether or not patients infected with the virus have certain identified symptoms, like a fever, difficulty breathing, fatigue, and so forth. We know that's a question out in the field of research.

A qualitative study, which is better with unknown or new areas of interest, would ask COVID-19 victims, what is it like to be infected with the COVID-19 virus? There are no preassumed hypotheses or preassumed symptoms.

One of the additional issues with distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research is problems with researchers being uncomfortable with not having predetermined situations in qualitative research. This leads to additional methods added to qualitative studies. Often those additional methods are quantitative. If I'm going to ask COVID victims what's it's like to be infected, I have to trust the people will give me answers. I need to in fact bracket pre-conceived ideas.

Heather Douglas is correct, although remember that a study can use both quantitative and qualitative methods. In that case, it is the research question that leads to the methodology. Each research question should have a related method of data collection and analysis.

Hi all, may not quant and qual data collection be done and analysed simultaneously? if obviously research questions/objectives predict the use of mixed method ! Thanks for clarification

Francois Iradukunda Yes but not really. Large projects often do split work into 'workpackages' with separate methods and research questions. These are often completely separate. In addition, ethnographies would use a range of methods at the same time. But there would be an overall coherency about how we are interacting with our research 'subjects'.

What I think works less well is doing an in-depth hour-long interview and then at the end of that meeting getting the person do a questionnaire (etc). They will be tired etc but they will also be thinking about the phenomena in a particular way. As a generality qualitative tries to get 'deep' views and experiences -Quant asks you to rank the same thing and give a single number back. So asking someone "tell me in rich detail about X" and following this with "great, now give me a number to sum all that up'...really doesn't work.

However -market research has used focus groups in this way -kind of. Which is why it is very important to know the standard of research which your discipline expects. Some disciplines will see open-ended questions in questionnaires as qualitative -but they aren't really. The sampling and analysis is within a quan framework.

So I'd say that yes, it can be done, but it is complicated and often fails.

Francois Iradukunda The key issue in conducting qualitative and quantitative research simultaneously is one of integration. Too, often these kinds of studies end up being little more than reports of two separate data sets.

i think the researcher decides which method to use and it it not determined by any factors. the reseacher should know/study/consult the topic and related subject matter, plus consider all the relevant factors then make a decision.

Objectives can inform any method, Quant, Qual or mixed. Its up to you to decided what would satisfy the study and fulfil it effectively. Eg. if your sample size is large and you would like to get multiple responses, then go Quantitative. If you would prefer a narrower sample but with 'deeper' responses, then go qualitative. you could ofcourse do both - Send a questionnaire (quantitative) to a larger proportion and also interview a handful as well. But first determine what 'you' wish to achieve in the study.

• David L Morgan and Ingrid Holme thank you for your valuable responses/clarifications to my question

so not true-maybe 25 years ago. here is a list of journals publishing qualitative research articles:

Journalsqualitative research

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Qualitative Research

Qualitative Health Research

Qualitative Inquiry

The Qualitative Report

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Qualitative Sociology

Qualitative Social Work

Organizational Research Methods

Quality & Quantity

Journal of Family Nursing

Western Journal of Nursing Research

Qualitative Research Reports in Communication

Nursing Science Quarterly

International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being

Sociological Methods & Research

Journal of Nursing Scholarship

Canadian Journal of Nursing Research

Psychological Bulletin

Nurse Researcher

Journal of Nursing Education

Nursing Inquiry

Mary-Helen Castanuela, you have provided a really useful list here (though, of course, some of the journals are not focused solely on qualitative research).

And I think you've not really disproven the statement made by Hermann Gruenwald, but rather complemented it nicely.

there's nothing to "prove"-- it's just not true, as the list shows , we dont have to have a count; it's just not true as the list sows, hat, " A quantitative study is often easier to get published and btw there is no replication in qualitative studies

Busha,

to answer the first and last questions in your post----"Yes".

In my experience, it's usually rather obvious from the objective(s) to decide whether a study is qualitative or quantitative.

well in all my years conducting and/or taking part in research, it NEVER occurred like this: the primary objective of this study is to discover if single mothers are more likely to abuse their children than married mothers" "OH this objective determines that this be quantitative research. (or insert qualitative ).

It is the researcher who thoughtfully and considering a lot of factors( previous research, available data/information, time and money- yes practical factors are always decisive-- experience/skilled in either and own interest/like/dislike of either research). many studies lend themselves to either quant or qual, so of course the researcher decides and not necessarily by objective.

Mary-Helen,

my previous post was simply an observation that SOMETIMES one can see from the stated research objectives ( I was not clear in this) whether a study is qualitative or quantitative.

Otherwise, I agree with you

A formal study (e.g., a PhD dissertation or a funded research project) would require a statement of both the research objective(s) _and_ research question(s) (RQs). The RQs would logically stem from the objectives. The RQs can be very exact and precise (in a quantitative study) or more "loosely" formed and open to refinements later on (in a qualitative study).

I am not very sure what you mean by " can the objective of a study leads to numbers or words?" and perhaps cannot give an answer you seek. If you mean whether a study would be more verbose depending on its objective, then my answer is "no". The length of a written report of a study (e.g., a PhD dissertation) would depend on the nature of the RQs and how the researcher chooses to answer them. Qualitative studies would be more verbose as they provide rich(er) / "thick" descriptions and are often concerned with interpretations or explorations of meaning-making processes.

I would say no, not generally, with the exception of certain material empirical observations such as measuring the cosmic background radiation or electron mass. I.e., once you have a large enough number of participants to give your inquiry statistical power, you can apply statistical methods to investigate phenomena. For example, even if the phenomena does not exist, such as an investigation into how many children under 10 years old believe in Christmas visitations by Santa Claus, you can still use statistical methods and longitudinal studies, etc., to explore the question.

However, because of the laborious nature of qualitative methods, for practical reasons unless you had a large pool of trained human resources to do the work, it would be difficult to examine the phenomenological experience of a child suddenly learning that the Christmas visitation of Santa Claus has been a deception played on them by society, applied to a large number of participants, (say N>50).

Moreover, in the case of investigations with children, proper ethics for human subjects research and related laws require informed consent of parents to give permission for minors to participate, which is also time-consuming and laborious.

So, while investigations of empirical material phenomena or mathematical derivatives of them (like stock markets) will imply quantitative methods. But many other phenomena can be investigated using both methods.

(Sadly ethics protocols seem to be going the way of belief in Santa Claus, with #BigData, #BigPharma, etc., attempting and succeeding with campaigns to do away with informed consent and lowering the legal classification age of vulnerable minors/children, but that is another topic area requiring critical attention of serious methods researchers! )

when conducting research, one should decide on methodology by the scope of the study, subject matter, etc. evern such practical matters as time and money. it is definitely a no as to, " determine whether a study be quantitative or qualitative from its objective?" i would never make such a statement to my students in research class.

I am glad to hear Mary-Helen Castanuela mention "such practical matters as time and money." Too often, I hear the overly broad claim that the "research question should determine the research method," as if that were all that matters. In many situations, that statement it is true but trivial, because it is hard for me to imagine a research topic that is so narrow that it can only possibly be addressed by either qualitative or quantitative methods.

I agree that the claim research question should determine research method can be overly broad for those researchers who prefer mixed methods; but it might be reasonable for those who prefer either solely quantitative or qualitative methods (despite that from the holistic perspective, mono-method research is not comprehensive).

The research questions, research goal, time, and resources will determine the research method.

Larisa,

you state that RQs logically stem from research objectives. Shouldn't you have this the other way around?

If you don't know what you want to find out (RQ[s]), how can you logically then have specific research objectives?

The design will be determined by research questions, hypothesis.

All hypothesis driven studies are mostly quantitative in nature