Interesting remarks Florentina. I share and understand your sentiments. However, the split is sometimes necessary for emphasis of the methodological approach and the main route to the research findings. Every research has its strong string to any of the sides whether purely qualitative, qualitative or mixed method. The truth is that many anthropological types of research dance more to the qualitative approaches to yield more beneficial findings and sometimes applying the quantitative approaches may not yield any results. On the other end, engineering, medical and conventional scientific research may dwell more or entirely on the quantitative approach to better yield the best data. Therefore, researchers must carefully weigh the research questions and the best methodological approach that can generate the most novelty of findings for solving the problems identified.  If a type of research calls for superposing, superimposing or juxtaposing all the known methodological approaches to YIELD THE BEST RESULTS OR FINDINGS TO SOLVE THE IDENTIFIED PROBLEM then so be it.

Thanks

Dickson Adom

Thank you very much, Dickson Adom!

I think the main route to the research findings is basically the same in social research.

We collect qualitative and quantitative data with structured and unstructured techniques. For exemple we gather qualitative data from open-ended questions in a questionnaire. Or we get quantitative data like the age of the respondents in an unstructured interview.

We process qualitative and quantitative data categorizing them (we use inductive or deductive categories) and, when is relevant, quantifying them. See content analysis or coding or thematic analysis or index construction.

We analyze quantitative and qualitative data showing the relations between categories of data and, when is relevant, counting and measuring.

And we interpret data confirming, discovering theories etc.

Dear Florentina

Very interesting your point of view. I also value the position expressed by Dickson.

Qualitative and quantitative methods have underlying very different philosophies and forms of data collection and processing. Quantitative methods are generally deductive. Qualitative methods are inductive. Not always the simultaneous use of both in one research, leads to a mixed methods approach. This only occurs when there is synergy, otherwise just a multimethod approach is taken.

While a growing number of scholars argue for the use of mixed methods, advantages and disadvantages have to be considered.

Advantages: Synergy, ie achieve breadth and depth.

Disadvantage: Mixed methods research is more expensive and certainly more complicated to perform.

While researchers should have an open mind to choose between different methods, not all have the same ability to contribute to a field of study. For example, I would expect only a limited contribution from qualitative methods to economics and from quantitative methods to anthropology.

Greetings,

Jorge

I always emphasize that different methods serve different purposes. In some cases your purposes will match the strengths of qualitative methods, in other cases quantitative methods will be preferred. Mixed methods represents a third option, but it does not replace studies where the primary goals can be met by either qualitative or quantitative methods.

In terms of teaching, I advocate exposing students to all three approaches, so that they can choose the one that best meets their needs for a given project.

Dear Jorge and dear professor Morgan,

Thank you very much for your answers!

I think we have induction and deduction in every step of the social research; we inductively and deductively discover research questions, hypotheses, theories; we have induction in quantitative research too for example when we inductively generalize results from the sample to the entire population; then we have deduction even in the process of inductive generation of theories (in grounded theory studies).

I think that we have to guide our researches by epistemological and theoretical approaches (and that some research questions and some theoretical orientations require some specific research methods), that we have to consider costs and other things but I also think that we have to leave ourselves more space and liberty in methodological issues.

Why do we use and complicate things with terms like multi-methods, mixed-methods etc.? Why is it so important to demarcate between qualitative and quantitative if those are used both and are equally important for the sociological research?

Students could learn that it is just fine to use every and each of the methods and techniques we have in social research when appropriate and if they follow the methodological rules without strange and unnecessary complications like sequential, concurrent and other design strategies.

I always go back to the research question.  What methodology answers the question.  sometimes it is singular other times it might be a combination.

The difference between induction and deduction is something I would associate with the broader terms Qualitative and Quantitative Research, rather than the narrower difference between qualitative and quantitative methods. In particular, Qualitative Research is typically not only inductive but also subjective and context-oriented, while Quantitative Research is typically not only deductive but also objective and generality-oriented.

Seen in that light, qualitative methods are a particularly good fit to the inductive, subjective, and context-oriented goals of Qualitative Research, while quantitative methods are a good fit to the deductive, objective, and generality-oriented goals of Quantitative Research. When you have research that involves both kinds of goals, then Mixed Methods Research can be appropriate.

Of course, these are not hard and fixed rules, and one can find exceptions to them. But those exceptions are relatively rare, compared to the much larger number of studies that can easily be sorted into the categories of Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research. 

Ultimately, to my way of thinking, what matters most is what works in practice, and researchers have for decades (if not longer) found the distinction between Qualitative and Quantitative Research to be a useful, if less than perfect, way to think about the different kinds of goals that social scientists pursue.

I second Mel Duffy and David L Morgan. The decison of employing a particular method is purely depends on the research questions. It is not mandatory to have a clear cut diviaion between qualitative and quantitative. The purpose is finding an appropriate answer for the research question. This can only be achieved through an appropriate usage of a method that suit for finding the answers. 

You have an interesting approach to your course design, one that views research as more holistic and not from the divisions we typically associate with the topic. I have to agree with both Morgan and Duffy, though. Whether Inductive, deductive, or abductive reasoning, qualitative, quantitative, or mix-methods, I focus on the research question and the purpose for answering that question. I teach my students to focus on the question first, methodology second. 

Thank you all very much for your interest in my question!

I was a very passionate qualitative researcher despite the fact that my mentor constantly accused me for years of being an epistemological ignorant person when I used terms like qualitative research and quantitative research. Something convinced me that he was wright: I found something in my favorite Romanian sociologist writings. Traian Rotariu argues that qualitative and quantitative are methodological terms and that it is correct to use them to define types of data like qualitative data and quantitative data. But it is incorrect to define types of researches using these labels. It will be an illegitimate extension of terms to an ontological and an epistemological approach of the social and of the social knowledge.

So here I am trying to do something about it.

I just discovered some researchers (mostly from educational field) who have the same ideas. It is a bad feeling of not being original but also a good feeling of not being alone in it.

I don't think that if something is used for decades is also good. If we do not question the tradition, we do not have progress.

I think you might also look into Pragmatism as an alternative to the older attempt to define methodological issues in terms of ontology and epistemology. Here are two of my articles on that approach.

Article Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Impli...

Article Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research

The variability in the definitions of the Q words makes them confusing to discuss across disciplines. As David says, other ways to divide things have better grounding. What I'd add to this discussion is that research methods courses should focus more on theory development. McGuire (http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1973-30203-001) discusses this in his wonderful Ying and Yang of Social Psychology paper in JPSP (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology).

I think that for a comprehensive research  on a sociological topic ,both qualitative and quantitative approaches are necessary. Quantitative approach is needed for a overall view of the data on a topic. Sample surveys on any particular topic enable us to collect data along a broad area , without going into in-depth analysis of particularities. In fact outliers cannot be accommodated in such a study. It is here that qualitative and descriptive approaches  are needed Qualitative approaches , like case studies , focus on atypical cases which cannot be properly accommodated in sample survey research. Ideally both these approaches should be combined in a research project. But , often , we do not have adequate time or resources  for such comprehensive studies.In such cases we should clearly spell out the limitations of the study.

ANIRBAN BANERJEE

Professor of Sociology

The University of Burdwan

Golapbag,

Burdwan 713104

West Bengal

INDIA

Me parece que la razón para distinguir entre método cuantitativo y método cualitativo se origina en la clasificación de las ciencias. El objeto material y el objeto formal  de estudio de cada ciencia permite distinguir con claridad el método de investigación que requiere.

Aún cuando cualquier tema se puede enfocar cuantitativa y cualitativamente, las ciencias especulativas requieren mayormente el método cualitativo, y las llamadas ciencias prácticas requieren mayormente el método cuantitativo.

Pienso que no considerar lo anterior puede conducirnos a hablar de  la existencia de un solo método científico, aplicable a toda clase de objetos de estudio, de ciencias y de tecnologías. Y esta discusión me parece que ya ha sido ampliamente superada, pues es más moderno hablar del método de investigación adecuado a cada ciencia, considerando su objeto de estudio, que en mi entender determina el método de investigación requerido en cada caso.

Dear All, Here is a working paper on my thoughts on the issue of methodological dispute. I would be keen to know your criticism on this working paper. It is a work in progress. 

Working Paper THE FUTILE WAR BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE

Subhanjan Sengupta, with regard to your working paper, my first rule when writing a potential article is to decide where I would like to send it for publication. If you do not think your work is publishable, then you need to reconsider the effort you are putting into writing it.

Instead, you might ask if there is a South Asian that journal would be interested in a discussion of the post-paradigm practices that have become more prominent in the west? Or, alternatively, is there a western journal that might be interested in an article on why these debates have persisted in other parts of the world?

Professor David Morgan,

I understand what you are talking about. Perhaps I got carried away. I have made the amendments as per your advise. And I am searching for a journal that would be interested in such a paper. Thank You. 

I think that we should have both quantitative as well as qualitative considerations in our research; we do not need to split them (whatever this means in practical terms), but they could be part of the same collection of data. In out methods we chose we can have questionnaires that contain fixed questions that ask for numbers or others we can easily quantify (yes/no) and we can ask open questions that expects narratives, meaning qualitative answers. We can set up Focus Group discussions on subjects that provide narratives about qualitative properties and at times even quantitative ones. I would not see a war or even a conflict between quantitative and qualitative research, but I feel that both complement each other. Using both help us to better understand how (how big, how often, how frequent, etc....) something is and why these how questions can be explained concerning the causality......

New thinking to break the deadlock between quantitative and qualitative. In my opinion, the researcher is free to choose his approach method with various reasons and of course the truth he believes. Truth arises because of the researchers' understanding based on the experience of each researcher. That is, we do not need to justify the choice of our method, it is important that we perform the procedure according to the rules of each method supported by our belief in the choice of method. Thus, we do not need to seek justification or claim each other's truth for every choice of our method. That is my opinion, thank you.

As an engineer, I see qualitative and quantitative differently. All problem statements that require a design to solve have some kind of performance envelope ("This fast, that strong, etc"). The design is done to achieve that performance envelope, and it tested against predictions. Quantitative approaches require evidence, and are repeatable, objective, and (mostly) independent of the observer.

Qualitative issues come up based on the experience of the users. These would be subjective, in-the-moment, and highly dependant on both the questioner and the observer (although can be quite repeatable in some circumstances). 'Satisfaction' is an example, and it tends to be very non-scientific, but still very useful.

Qualitative measures can be seen as the symptoms of underlying problems that can't be identified in other ways. When we do Environmental Assessments, we ask the public some very open-ended questions to get qualitative answers. Invariably, most are repeating one or two ideas, but the outliers are very interesting, and direct attention to what we would otherwise miss. We will then study those thing quantitatively (we are engineers, after all), and see what we overlooked to at the beginning.