Article Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications...

Article A pragmatic basis for mixed‐method designs

Article Remaining Open to Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed‐Metho...

https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fedulll.ekt.gr%2Fedulll%2Fbitstream%2F10795%2F2235%2F2%2F2235_2%2520%2520QUANTITY%2520QUALITY.pdf

Article Mixed Methods Research: The "Thing-ness" Problem

The method to use is the one that gives you the best answer to your research question(s).

Nugroho - as suggested - the best approach to adopt is the one that best answers the knowledge-gap that you have identified and the resultant appropriate methodology to address it. It is all about 'best fit'. It is also about practicality and pragmatics i.e. which approach produces the best potential outcomes.

Agreed with Dr. Booth and Dr. Whitehead.

However, I prefer to apply mixed method approach most of time if I can fit my research questions.

I think nearly everyone agrees that the research question should determine which methods are chosen. But I also think that this answer is too simple, because most people also choose their questions according to the methods skills they have available.

No qualitative researcher is going to go out and learn structural equation modeling, just because it is supposedly the "best" method to answer a given research question (and the same is true, in reverse for quantitative researchers). Instead, I think we often choose questions that fit our long-term commitment to a set of methods. So, if you prefer in a so-called "scientific" approach, then you will choose both questions and methods that fit under that umbrella. And if you believe in a more interpretive approach, you will do likewise but with very different choices.

In the end, I believe the distinction between choosing a method or a question is a false dichotomy, because both preferences are usually developed together.

Both are equally important depending on the research questions to be addressed. Some research questions, which are deductive, may just seek to test or validate theories and the quantitative approach is most suitable. However, with the emerging complexities of social phenomena, using both approaches may be more apposite. Qualitative research may need to be carried out first to ascertain the underlying issues/constructs that may then need to be further validated by quantitative research. In social research, I think the two are becoming more and more complementary.

Nugroho Dwi Priyohadi - Thank you for your questions. Let me say that not all questions can be answered by quantitative research. Qualitative research has its place in research and should be used to answer these questions, that cannot be answered by quantitative research. For example, the causes of a problem in a remote community can not be identified by quantitative research. Qualitative research using case study can dig deeper into the issue, and we can locate possible contributing factors (develop theories) or reach to the truth.

Agree with both Dr. Booth and Dr. Whitehead above (i.e. it depends on the research question), so perhaps it is useful to reflect on a useful typology for research questions and what the various components might then suggest for the blend between qualitative and quantitative approaches. My own work has focused on challenges in the governance of natural resources. As such I've found Kurtz and Snowden's 'Cynefin' framework useful in understanding the key differences between cause and effect in their four-part typology of problems - simple, complicated, complex & chaotic. This typology then maps across to work by Ralph Stacey on a decision-making matrix, drawn up across axes of the state of knowledge (certainty/uncertainty) and extent of agreement/disagreement amongst the stakeholders. The matrix indicates the nature of decision-making in the different circumstances, from which one might better determine the sort of research questions that need answering - and in governance cases, the extent to which stakeholders have to be drawn into or even actively carry out the 'research' - action research.

This response is based on approaches to addressing real world problems, typically comprising both complicated and complex issues - the former amenable to cause and effect analysis and solutions, the latter not. This may fall outside your enquiry? If it doesn't, then in the context of a real world situation - improving catchment governance - the above is set out in the following workshop report (section 5): Technical Report SWAUM: Report of the Insights Meeting with Formal Organisati...

Kurtz, C.F. and D. J. Snowden, 2003, The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, Vol 42, No 3, 2003.

Stacey, R. D. 2002. Strategic management and organisational dynamics: the challenge of complexity. 3rd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

I also agree with a mixed method approach (using both qual and quant methods) but as has already been mentioned alot depends on your research question. For my dissertation I used a mixed methods approach in order to fully flesh out the information and the qualitative provides more context and depth in addition to triangulating the data to provide your study with more rigor. I also love doing a focus group or interview at the end to recap and find out what the experience was like for the participants and what they feel needs to be captured in order to have a voice.

I'm a proponent of mixed methodology as the two ontologies can be used to reinforce the other. Quantitative methods are best used to make quick decisions for large populations; whereas, qualitative methods provide the decision-maker with in-depth information on the issue.

The obvious limitation to advocating mixed methods comes from the demands of mastering two very different kinds of research. In particular, collecting and analyzing quantitative methods typically requires training in collecting survey data as well as statistical expertise for analyzing the data, while working with qualitative data requires knowing how to conduct semi-structured interviews and apply techniques such as thematic analysis. Each of these requires its own separate kind of training, so it can be quite time consuming to achieve satisfactory proficiency in both qualitative and quantitative methods.

In my experience, it is more likely that a researcher who does both will have a notably higher skill level in one and an adequate but not equal level of skill in the other.

Interesting...

I think, is not really a matter of just saying which approach (Qual. Quan) is important, comprehensive, useful, or best over another since both approaches have their own demand and characteristics in the process of research. This is just like someone asking which one is more important and useful, drinking water every day (Qual.) or drinking 3 bottles of water every day (Quan.). However, my response to your question has to do, not only with someone’s research plan, beliefs, Ideology, morality, values and techniques, but also ultimate goal which acts as a guide or map to make the most proper decision about the research action and outcome.

I think the methodology should not be pre-determined based on personal interest or convenience. The gap you seek to fill should determine which of the methods is appropriate. Therefore consider what you seek to achieve first and answer how to achieve that. This I believe should the way to go.

I think qualitative and quantitative researches are complementary. There is no better or bad method, it depends on your research objectives. You should choose the appropriate one according to your research phases. For example, I would say that qualitative methods are more appropriate for exploratory researches, while quantitative methods are better for confirmatory researches.

After experiencing the processes as initially I planned to conduct a mixed-method research. However, after going through the previous literature and based on sv team guidance, i'm pursuing a full quantitative research. I agree with Prof David Morgan. To achieve a quality research outcomes using both qualitative and quantitative methodology needs a quality training and involve important processes. Thus to be able to be fully developed as an independent researcher requires extensive amount of time. Again as long as you’ve taken those opportunities to master knowledge and skills for both methodologies with the right guidance , I believe you’ll be successful to complete your journey witha quality research outcomes.

Siti Khalid, your experience is not unusual. Among my thesis students who planned to do a mixed methods study, almost all of them settled for a mono-method study instead. The problem was not only the skills required, but also the extra time and resources to do two studies with different methods.

Personally, both quantitative and qualitative are better, useful and comprehensive. both can be used depending on the research objectives and what you wanted to measure.

Nugroho, this debate about whether the use of quantitative methods is better than qualitative methods and vice versa has been going on for sometime. The arguments that have been proffered from each have tended to be based on the benefits that each of the methods offers to research and the advancement of knowledge and practice. Other scholars have also provided similar arguments using mixed methods. Whichever, method is chosen, it is important that their use is seen to contribute something that has been missing from the academic discourse and is therefore deepening our understanding and appreciation in a way that has not been attempted previously. Interesting debates here.

To answer this valuable question, let me repeat what I have written in my recording sheet during my bachelor study:

• While Quantitative data collection methods use mathematical calculations to produce numbers, Qualitative data collection methods concern with words and produce descriptions.
• While Quantitative methods are more structured and allow for aggregation and generalization, Qualitative methods are more open and provide for depth and richness.
• Quantitative and qualitative each has their strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes numbers are more useful; other times, narrative (qualitative data) are more useful. Oftentimes, a mix of quantitative and qualitative data provides the most useful information. However, arriving at the correct-manageable mixture of them is not an easy task.

Now, the following points can help you to choose between the two methodologies:

• The purpose of your evaluation. The knowledge gap in an area that needs to be investigated and the goal you seek to achieve have a great effect in determining which methodologies is more convenient. The research problem itself identifies what is problematic about a given topic.
• The respondents (i.e. audience): how can they be reached?
• Resources available: The choice between them ultimately depends upon the available resources like time, money, and analytical tools.
• The needed types of information.

Furthermore, there are other factors that have a great effect like cultural considerations.

Note: The source for the attached image is:

https://www.publichealthnotes.com/differences-qualitative-quantitative-research/

I think, it all about your research purpose.. Sometimes quantitative is more preferred over qualitative research because it is more scientific, objective, fast, focused and acceptable.. But anyhow some of your research need to analyze more insight.. So here we can use to delve deeper into issues of interest. Qualitative data adds the details and can also give a human voice to your results