Philosophical and Methodological Perspectives

PROLOGUE

Research, a ‘mystical activity’, has been conventionally dichotomized into Qualitative and Quantitative models which, as Bryman suggests, are viewed as two extremes of the research continuum (Leedy & Ormrod, 2014, pp.141-190). These models represent the holistic paradigms of the naturalistic and positivist philosophies, respectively, which are in constant conflict because of their different virtues and consequent underlining philosophical issues (Robson, 2002, p.43). The Qualitative and Quantitative research methodologies employ unique modus to gather and analyse data for arriving at the results and are thus irreconcilable in a sense that both have their own strengths and logic and one may be more advantageous than the other, depending on the nature of the research problem. The difficulty to integrate the two has therefore resulted in much of the differences in the views of the researchers on social reality, who often tend to refer to qualitative and quantitative research as divergent paradigms (Filstead, 1979).

The Quantitative research methodology adopts a systematic, formal and objective approach to statistically measure ‘counts and measures of things’ across a wide array of people, phenomena and time (Berg, 1995, p.3). The said approach is most often employed by researchers in generalizing concepts, predicting results or investigating causal relationships and involves collection of data and its subsequent analysis through pre-established mathematical formulas (Muijs, 2011). On the other hand, the Qualitative research model that has gained credibility much recently, operates on a more informal and subjective outlook by ‘predominantly or exclusively using words as data’ for providing insights into different aspects of the social phenomena (Tesch, 1990, p.3). It is an attempt to delve into ‘the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem.’

Having distinct theoretical, epistemological and ontological basis, both approaches find ground only at their common goal i.e. explaining the phenomena.

Drawing upon the existing knowledge and literature on the different research traditions, the present essay attempts to reflect upon the epistemological and ontological discourse between these alternative research methodologies that provide opposing assumptions about the social and the individual world.

THE QUAL-QUAN DICHOTOMY

Researchers are often labelled as qualitative or quantitative. But where does this classification come from? In the words of Cohen (2011), such distinctions reside in the paradigms and communities of scholars.

Bryman (2008), argues that the distinction in the paradigmatic approaches of the two research methodologies lies at the heart of their epistemological (ways of understanding the nature of reality) and ontological (set of assumptions about the nature of reality) foundations.

Qualitative research, owing to its multifaceted nature, is deemed ‘difficult to define’ (Hitchcook & Hughes, 1995, p.26). In terms of procedures and techniques that are employed in the collection and analysis of data, Strauss and Corbin (1998) describe qualitative research as ‘any type of research that produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of quantification.’ Ignoring the underlying characteristics of the research methodology, they have merely defined it from a quantitative perspective whilst also overlooking most aspects of the research design. Similarly, Gay and Airasian (2000), define qualitative research as ‘the collection of extensive data on many variables over an extended period of time, in a naturalistic setting, in order to gain insights not possible using other types of research’ (Gay & Airasian, 2000, p.627).

Thus Qualitative research can be understood as a naturalistic approach of collecting data, through instruments of observations, case studies, questionnaires, field notes, interviews, etc., from the participants in their natural setting and deducing them into meanings, concepts, definitions, metaphors, symbols and description of things, with an aim to retain fidelity to the social reality (Berg & Lune 2012). It is ‘an overarching category, covering a wide range of approaches and methods found within different research disciplines’ (Snape & Spencer, 2003, p.3). Whilst covering a broad array of phenomena, the qualitative approach emphasises on the importance of ‘social reality in subjects’ perceptions of their environment’ and therefore provides an abundant data about real life problems and solutions (De Vaus, 2014) Unlike its counter-part that begins on the basis of a theory and subsequently tests the same, the qualitative approach seeks to develop a theory by observing and interpreting reality and thereby explaining the real experiences. While quantitative research generates data on the basis of a theory, the qualitative methodology aids problem-solving where variables are not known (Leedy & Ormrod, 2014, p.6).

Quantitative research, on the other hand, scientifically explains social phenomena in terms of numerical data. It is a statistical means of objectively measuring things that can be illustrated graphically or through charts and generalized across large groups of people, situations and times, through valid and reliable prescribed procedures. It not just measures facts expressed numerically such as average income, age etc. but also analyses those which can be converted into numerical forms. As opposed to Qualitative research, Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2011) argue that the Quantitative approach whilst ignoring opinions and contributions, regards human behaviour as an object capable of being measured.

Thus based upon their strategies, the qualitative and the quantitative researchers in the ontological orientations align themselves with constructivism and objectivism respectively.

The epistemological, theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the research models have set the stage for the much debated dichotomy between the qualitative and quantitative research processes.

Elaborating on their epistemological orientations, Qualitative researchers are best described as constructivists, for they adopt a descriptive and holistic approach for an in-depth examination of the social phenomena through the perspectives of the social actors, with whom they develop a close emphatic relationship. There exists an inextricable connection between the researcher and social participants, as the research focusses on the opinions, feelings and perceptions of the people in order to analyse how social experiences are created and understood. This approach views reality as a social and psychological construction and therefore the participants and events are observed or recorded as they naturally behave or occur. Thus qualitative research is best-suited for providing descriptive information (Johnson & Christensen, 2012).

Quantitative researchers, on the other hand are classified as objectivists, as they endorse the view that social and psychological phenomena are based on objective reality and are independent of the subjects being studied. Such an approach, is described by Denscombe (1998) as ‘researcher detachment’ research approach, as the participants have no hand in contributions to the study and it is the researcher who is placed on the ‘driver’s seat’ (Bryman, 2012). It is characterized as being structured with predetermined variables, hypotheses and designs, leaving no room for imaginative, critical and creative thinking (De Vaus, 2014). Such a process therefore serves useful where one embarks upon a study of what is already known, as opposed to unravelling the unknown (Shank, & Brown, 2007).

Methodology adopted under the qualitative and quantitative approaches, as well as their respective methods of data collection and analysis, also differ significantly.

Methodology under Qualitative research employs inductive reasoning to examine and understand the process, context, meanings and interpretations by capturing the people’s lives and experiences in their dynamic natural social setting. Through interactions and communication in the form of interviews and observations, a qualitative researcher seeks to make an in-depth study of the people’s lives by understanding how they make sense of the world surrounding them and examining their experiences without proceeding on any assumptions or pre-determinations of such standpoints. The findings arrived at under the qualitative methodology, are often disseminated in a first-person narrative and are a combination of the outsider or researcher’s perspective called the ‘etic’ and the insider’s or participants’ perspectives called the ‘emic’ (Denzin, & Lincoln, 1998). Thus the findings disseminated by the qualitative researchers are more detailed and variable as compared to the quantitative findings and are limited to only the specific group or phenomena being studied (De Vaus, 2014). The intricate relationship between the researchers and the participants, enables greater contribution of the participants in shaping the outcome of the qualitative research. However unlike quantitative research, the findings of qualitative research are not replicable, as the results once obtained by one researcher may not be similarly obtained at any other time or place (Bryman, 2008). It is the interpretation and ingenuity of the researcher which determines outcomes of the qualitative research.

In contrast, Quantitative studies, whilst employing deductive reasoning, make use of set standards, pre-constructed instruments or categories of pre-determined responses, for weighing an array of perspectives and experiences and for deducing the ultimate outcomes, predictions and generalizations. Data is analyzed through mathematical models and statistics and analogy is consequently drawn through broad and generalizable set of findings which per se ignore personal insights and experiences of the participants and the meanings they ascribe to the phenomena being studied (Patton, 2002). Therefore, unlike Qualitative research that aids more individualized programmes of study, Quantitative research is more useful for studying a comprehensive phenomena or large groups of people, as being cost-effective, it provides a succinct and parsimonious summary of major patterns (Patton, 2002).

CONCLUSION

Not one is better than the other nor are they at par with each other. Then which approach be adopted when embarking upon a research?

The crucial point in answering the millenniums most debatable dilemma is to determine the real subject under study and whilst abolishing the ongoing debate, an attempt is required to be made to improve the research findings through an integration of the two research strategies.

The present article has critically examined the features of the qualitative and quantitative research methodologies whilst also analyzing their relative advantages and disadvantages. Having explained the dichotomy between the two research methodologies it can well be concluded that while quantitative research paradigm is based on well-established strategies and approaches, for being practiced for a long-time, the qualitative research methodology is still evolving. Both the research methodologies have their own strengths and pitfalls and hence the suitability of these approaches ought to be determined in the context of the proposed research question. Certain phenomena may be best illustrated by qualitative research methods while others may only be deducible through quantitative research methods. It is therefore, Bryman (1988) suggests that the selection of technique should depend upon their suitability in tackling the particular research situation. An analysis of both the research techniques undoubtedly reveals that both methodologies have their own inherent strengths which if integrated may improve the study design and strengthen the conclusions arrived at by the researchers.

References

• Berg, B.L. (1995). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 2nd Edn. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
• Berg, B.L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 8th Ed, USA: Pearson Educational Inc.
• Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman 1988.
• Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. 3rd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. 7th Ed. New York: Routledge Falmer.
• De Vaus, D.A. (2014). Surveys in Social Research. 6th Ed. Australia: UCL Press.
• Denscombe, M. (1998). The Good Research for Small –Scale Social Research Project. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

• Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. 2nd Ed. California: Sage Publications.
• Filstead, W. J. (1979). Qualitative methods: A Needed Perspective in Evaluation Research. In Cook, T.D. & Reichardt, C.S. (eds). Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills Calif.: Sage Publications Inc.
• Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Educational Inc.
• Hitchcook, G. & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to School-based Research. 2nd Ed. London: Taylor & Francis.
• Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational Research, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Approach. 4th Ed. California: SAGE Publication.
• Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J. E. (2014). Practical Research Planning and Design. 10th Ed. Edinburgh: Pearson Educational Inc.
• Muijs, D. (2011). Doing Qualitative Research in Education with SPSS. 2nd Ed. London: Sage Publications Inc.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. 2nd Ed. Blackwell Publishing.
• Shank, G. & Brown, L. (2007) Exploring Educational Research Literacy. 1st Edn. New York: Routledge.
• Snape, D. & Spencer, L. (2003). The Foundations of Qualitative Research. In Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (eds). (2003) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
• Tesch R., (1990). Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. 1st Ed. Hampshire: Falmer Press.