Thanks Sera. I will read the materials

Hi Muhammad,

It is true that there is lots of material out there that explain the difference well.

A very broad brush but still good answer (I think) is that the direction of "doing research" is actually different. In quantitative methods, you use previous findings and theories to hypothesise and then collect a relatively high amount of data to verify or falsify. Representativity and significance of your statistical results (often calculated). are very important.

In qualitative research, you often do not have something concrete you want to "put to the test". You rather go out into an open field and make a theory/a statement from what you find there. Qualitative research often involves a smaller number of n but this must not be the case. Representativity does not come through numbers and statistical significance calculated from data, but through context information you get for example in interviews etc.

Quantitative research is rather deductive: from theories to empirical evidence

Qualitative research is rather inductive: from empirical evidence to theories

Thanks Trebbin,

The contribution is helpful.

There is a lot of information on quantitative and qualitative on google as well as slideshare

http://www.slideshare.net/jrdn_27/qualitative-and-quantitative-methods-of-research.

The URL above is a slide presentation from slide share

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00313830500109535

Students conceptions of qualitative and quantitative approach

http://www.xavier.edu/library/help/qualitative_quantitative.pdf

Hi everybody !

Just to say thank you to you all especially to Muhammad. I am also interested in finding the difference between the two (qualitative and quantitative methods) so the contributions help me too.

Thanks.

The supreme difference between the two is this: quantitative research transforms data into numbers, while qualitative research is basically non-numeric, relying on interpreting the meaning of some segment of social reality, without attempting to convert it into statistics. Qualitative research tends to be employed either when the subject of research cannot be quantified, or by statistically impaired researchers who hate to "crunch numbers." As a rule, it is always better to use the two approaches combined, in other words, to use what is called "methodological triangulation." Recently, qualitative research has taken a very clear anti-scientific flavor, defining itself in complete opposition to the quantitative approach (dubbed "the received view" of doing research). In fact, despite the aggresive marketing of this ontological, epistemological, and methodological schism (by inveterated qualitativists like Norman Denzin), there isn't any fundamental incompatibility between qualitative and quantitative (post-positivist) approaches.

Quantitative research entails using numbers to make a representation of a statement or results. From the word, it stands to quantify to make a claim. Quantitative On the other hand, entails providing explanations to the claims that are made. Qualitative research tries to answer for instance, why this claim. What is behind the claims or the motivation. Thus, it helps to understand the answers or claims of people in order to make a reliable conclusion of the results. I have noted that, most often pure science uses quantitative research and the social sciences uses large qualitative with a little of quantitative data.

Qualitative research methodology is used to understand a phenomena in a context in-depth. This methodology allows researcher to gather information from all possible sources and thus researcher would be able to access rich research data despite of planned tools of measurement. Support and guidance from a trained and experienced qualitative researcher would ensure the rigor of the study. Researcher must select qualitative or quantitative or mixed methodology according to the aim of the study.

I recommend caution in the use of this methodological categorization for research; at least until the researcher is very familiar with foundational theories of knowledge and research on which the categorizations are based.

The categories are not incorrect; but they constitute only a small component of research methods.

Quantitative research is essentially research that follows a hypothetico-deductive, positivistic, empiricist set of principles (i.e. knowledge is perceived as mind-independent or objective, truth is established through correspondence to some observation or sense data according to Russell, and it is confirmatory in nature having a theory or hypothesis precede finding observed instantiations). This would be typical of research that posits a hypothesis and then tries to validate the hypothesis through a collection of "objective" data, often in an experiment or using questionnaires.

Qualitative research is generally defined as inductive, interpretivist, and empiricist (i.e. conclusions are drawn from data, it relies on an inference being made from the data to the conclusion, and it also relies on truth being established through correspondence). Grounded theory is typically a methods that falls into this group.

The quantitative and qualitative categories do not include other permutations that are possible, such as positivistic induction (data mining). It also completely fails to capture rationalistic (continental rationalism) methods used in fundamental OR, econometrics, theoretical physics, mathematics, areas of systems analysis, and a growing number of disciplines. The addition of a "mixed methods" category has created a logical tautology that must be correct since it basically captures all that was not being described well by the qualitative-quantitative distinction. Its addition, however, adds little value since the mixed methods group is not based on a single set of disciplinary canons. In some fields it describes well over 50% of research and is made up of several easily defined types of research.

The lack of understanding or awareness of these distinctions often leads to incorrect categorization of methods. The consequence is that an inconsistent set of rules are imposed on the research. A common one that I have seen is the imposition of the canons for quantitative research on fundamental OR research. In fundamental OR validity is not contingent on, or established through observation (empiricist data) but rather on the rules that govern sound arguments. "Real" data adds nothing to the confidence that one should have in the research conclusions since truth is based on the Coherence Theory of Truth, not Correspondence...

Hi, colleagues! I see a lot of philosophical discussions here, but I think our friend just wants a clear idea. Quantitative: Has to do with numbers, obtaining data that can be analyzed with statistics. You usually collect data with instruments such as surveys (and others that allow for numeric data). Qualitative: It is based on observations right on the field, discussions, analysis of discourse, in-depth interviews, and so on. It uses interpretation as the method for analysis.

A simple way to remember is:

Qualitative has an "L" in it which means Literature

So... anything that has to do with analyzing words

Quantitative has an "N" in which means numbers

So... anything that has to do with analyzing numbers

I hope this helps.