Understanding the Philosophical Underpinnings

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to present the difference between two major methods of research: qualitative research and quantitative research. Research of a topic for study involves a systematic and methodological enquiry (Collis & Hussey, 2009; Kothari, 2004). Every researcher has certain philosophical underpinnings behind their research design and methods, namely, positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism or realism (Creswell, 2013). Such philosophical underpinnings determine the method of research, whether it is qualitative and the quantitative research.

This report will discuss the differences between the mentioned two types of methodologies with references to the philosophical underpinnings. It will comprise of the following sections:

Section 2. This section provides the theoretical approaches applicable to the quantitative and qualitative methodologies. It will provide the reasons why they are applicable to either of the methods by touching upon theories, particularly positivism and interpretivism.

Section 3. This section will provide a clear differentiation between quantitative and qualitative research methods. It will identify the methods, such as inductive, deductive, subjective and objective, and theoretical and random sampling, which are used in the two methods. This section will particularly discuss the difference in the sample sizes and the reasons as adopted in the quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.

Section 4. This section will provide an analysis of a few studies that were conducted using the quantitative and qualitative methods. It will highlight the key arguments in the studies and particularly compare the methods of data collection.

Section 5. This section will conclude the report by summarisation the key points.

Theoretical approaches

Interpretivism has stronger association with qualitative research (Collis & Hussey, 2009). It involves using methods of understanding the social interpretations and meanings of social situations (Browne, 2019, p. 128). It critically determines the scientific realist method in social research with focus on epistemological consideration of the researchers’ views (Saunders, et al., 2012). Epistemology points the researcher to the kind of knowledge that they believe will be attained by their research (Pernecky, 2016). The qualitative method has an anti-foundationalist ontology, which relates to the nature of the social and political world (Marsh, et al., 1995, p. 179). An anti-foundationalist argues there is not a ‘real world’ which exists independently of the meanings of actors attached to their actions, to discover (Marsh, et al., 1995, p. 178).

Positivism can be used in both qualitative as well as quantitative research design. It is scientific in nature and based on objectivism, the research does not overly concern the participants’ world while formulating judgement and conclusion (Easterby-Smith, et al., 2002). Thus, a society is studied using methods like those in natural science (Browne, 2019, p. 128). Accordingly, a researcher accepts assumptions about the way they view the society and formulate research strategy (Collins, 2010). They have a foundationalist ontology meaning the world to be studied and explained with focus on the epistemological view that testing and verification can help understand society and can generate laws (Healy & Perry, 2000).

Realism may be used to guide both qualitative and quantitative research design. It concerns scientific practice, which can be empirical and critical (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Critical realism provides that the real world exists and that there is a need to identify relevant structures that could guide events (Bryman & Bell, 2015, p. 29). Quantitative researchers explain directly observable patterns of behaviour to investigate relationships between the different variables. However, this pattern of behaviour must be explored in an open domain (Bhaskar, 1975, p. 13). This represents a qualitative approach.

Pragmatists value both the qualitative and quantitative research design. They may combine deductive, inductive and abductive approaches allowing flexibility. Such mixed methods enrich research as one method can explain different types of questions than the other methods (Creswell, 2013).

Differences

Qualitative method follows an inductive approach, which involves observing certain phenomena and collecting data leading to a theory. This approach involves moving from specific to general (Collis & Hussey, 2009). Quantitative method, on the other hand, follows a deductive approach, which starts with a general theory and is applied to a specific case or context. This approach moves from general to specific (Perrin, 2015).

Qualitative method is more subjective in nature and focused on theory building (Opoku, et al., 2016). This method derives relationships between the research variables using research strategies including case study research, action research, ethnography and grounded theory. This method determines meanings of the research topic for the participants and hence, focuses on the social meanings of constructs as viewed by such participants (Neuman, 2013). On the other hand, Quantitative method is more objective in nature and involves theory testing. It is deductive, integrating and logical of the methods in natural science and relates to precise measurements (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The researcher has greater control over the variables (Houser, 2014, p. 52).

Qualitative method is open and flexible regarding formulation of design and narratives. It suits complicated research studies as it is not based on any pre-fixed or pre-specified methods or hypotheses (Willis & Jost, 2007, pp. 53-54). On the other hand, Quantitative method is closed and planned and may not be able to address multi-layered information. It involves a streamlined method regarding data collection and analysis (Walliman, 2015).

In Qualitative method, the researcher is close to the respondents (Collis & Hussey, 2009, p. 47). Hence, it is suitable for those studies that are more interpretative or involve multiple narratives. Its aim is to gain more insight into the research topic (Creswell, 2013). In Quantitative method, the researcher is distant from the respondents. Thus, this impacts the mode of sampling. Qualitative method employs theoretical sampling and Quantitative method employs random sampling. Sample sizes in the two methods differ. In the former, the sample size is pre-determined. It focuses on establishing the significance of the data. Hence, the focus shift is towards understanding the depth of the participants’ information (Monsen & Horn, 2007). Qualitative method requires smaller sample sizes. The reason is that qualitative method focuses on the quality of the data collected. Each participant is considered a source of a large volume of data. Thus, a small sample size is considered reasonable and common (Boswell & Cannon, 2011). Since quantitative method focuses on the deductive method and it moves from specific case to a general theory, the method requires a bigger sample size.

Key arguments quantitative and qualitative articles

Qualitative research is an iterative process. This is seen in the study conducted by Pfefferbaum and colleagues (2020) concerning mental health and the Covid-19 pandemic. They identified shortages of resources, imposition of unfamiliar public health measures, risk of increasing financial losses, and conflicting messages from authorities as majorly as majorly causing widespread emotional distress and the increased risk for psychiatric illness. They connect various variables, such as public health emergencies with issues of health, safety, and well-being of individuals and communities, which may in turn cause emotional issues, non-compliance with public health directives. For deriving these findings, they have health care providers, people who contract the disease, people confined at home due to directives, and infected family members as participants (Pfefferbaum & North, 2020). The focus is on the quality of the data deriving maximum information regarding the research topic.

Qualitative method involves choosing the right literature to avoid bias. It is a theoretical sample. This could be seen in the literature review regarding the development of social theory and the concept of Enlightenment. For example, work by Habermas (1992) is referred to defend modernity or Enlightenment. Baudrillard (2005) and Lemert (2006) are against the concept of Enlightenment. Hamilton (1997:23) sees Enlightenment as the creation of a new framework of ideas regarding man, nature and society challenging existing concepts rooted in the predominantly Christianity-based traditional world view. The ideological shift represents a cultural shift in modern times where modernity as defined by the Western society mostly judges the political and social movements (Hughes, 1979). This means there are western idea-based assumptions of the world that divide and judge using the practices of seeing ‘other’ people through the prism of its own standards (Bronowski & Mazlish, 1970).

The qualitative research findings above move from a general theory to a specific finding. This is unlike the quantitative method that moves from a specific case to a general theory. This is elaborated by the findings of the study conducted by Chirikov and colleagues (2020). They covered data specific to undergraduates, graduates and professional students at nine public research universities. It covered more than 45,000 students to cover many designated variables in the study, such as gender, race, type and their academic fields to name a few. It used a questionnaire format with two-item scale to screen for major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder with each question scaled from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly everyday). The data studied was able to show that COVID-19 pandemic has significant negative impacts on mental health across the students. It was further able to differentiate between one-third of participants who were suffering from major depressive disorder from the two-fifths who were suffering from a generalised anxiety disorder.

The quantification of data generally specifies a comparative analysis of the data and differentiation amongst the participants. For example, the study by Shah and colleagues (2020) was able to differentiate the level or extent of impact of Covid 19 on mental health amongst obstetrics and gynaecology doctors across both the sexes and age distribution. A total of 207 doctors comprising both the set of doctors including men and women were surveyed using questionnaires with scales. The sample collected was to have a cross-sectional understanding of and a comparative scale of the impact on the participants. The study was able to find that major depressive and generalised anxiety disorders were higher when compared to the UK-wide estimates. Female doctors were more prone to anxiety when compared to males. The quantification of data may lead to generalisability regarding a self-selected community. This was seen in the cross-sectional online survey conducted by Jia and colleagues (2020) by selecting minority ethnic groups with predominantly females at mean age of 44 years. They found that younger, female and in a recognised COVID-19 risk group were exposed to increased stress, anxiety and depression.

In comparison, the studies that used the quantitative data cover a high number of participants with an objective-based questions in the form of surveys and questionnaires. This is unlike the studies that used the qualitative data that focussed more on the quality of data from a relatively small number of theoretical data to derive a subjective analysis on the topic in question.

Conclusion

This report has demonstrated that for a qualitative research method, interpretivism could strongly help in seeking answers to research questions. This method normally focuses on finding meanings of actors and their actions in understanding the construct of society or the world. Positivism, Realism and Pragmatism can be used in both qualitative as well as quantitative research design. They have a scientific approach. Positivism focuses on testing and verification to understand society. Realism concerns empirical and critical scientific practice and explores observable patterns of behaviour and relationships between variables in an open domain. Pragmatism is a mixed method comprising deductive, inductive and abductive approaches explaining different types of questions.

The articles discussed in this report show methods of sampling data that elaborated on the type of methods and process involved in the qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative method focuses on the quality of the data with a subjective approach to derive maximum information regarding a research topic. It involves choosing the right literature to avoid bias. Quantitative method focuses on a stricter collection of data to deduce a finding by adopting a comparative, scale-based analysis of the data collected through non-personal contact with participants. For this, it focuses on a higher quantity of data unlike the qualitative method that focuses on in-depth insight and one-to-one narratives of participants.

To conclude, qualitative method adopts a personal narrative-based judgment of a social issue, whereas quantitative method involves judgement and conclusion that is not overly concerned with participants’ world.

Bibliography

Baudrillard, J., 2005. The Conspiracy of Art. New York: Semiotext.

Bhaskar, R., 1975. A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso.

Boswell, C. & Cannon, S., 2011. Introduction to Nursing Research Incorporating Evidence Based Practice. s.l.:Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Bronowski, J. & Mazlish, B., 1970. The western intellectual tradition: From Leonardo to Hegel. s.l.:Penguin .

Browne, K., 2019. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge : Polity.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2015. Business Research Methods. 4 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Collins, H., 2010. Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries. Lausanne: AVA Publishing.

Collis, J. & Hussey, R., 2009. Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. London: Palgrave Macmillon.

Creswell, J. W., 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Jackson, P., 2002. Management Research. 4 ed. London: Sage.

Habermas, J., 1992. Postmetaphysical Thinking. Cambridge:: Polity.

Hamilton, P., 1992. The Enloightenment and the Birth of Social Sciences. In: Hall & Gieben, eds. Formation of Modernity. s.l.:Polity Press.

Healy, M. & Perry, C., 2000. Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm.". Qualitative market research: An international journal.

Houser, R. A., 2014. Counseling and Educational Research: Evaluation and Application. 3 ed. THousand Oaks: Sage.

Kothari, C., 2004. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. Delhi: New Age International.

Lemert, C., 2006. Durkheim's ghosts: cultural logics and social things. s.l.:Cambridge University Press .

Marsh, D., Ercan, S. A. & Furlong, P., 1995. A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science. In: D. Marsh, G. Stoker & V. Lowndes, eds. Theory and Methods in Political Science. s.l.:Macmillan Education UK.

Monsen, E. R. & Horn, L. V., 2007. Research Successful Approaches. s.l.:American Dietetic Association.

Neuman, W., 2013. Social Research Methods: : Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Pearson New International Edition.

Opoku, A., Ahmed, V. & Akotia, J., 2016. Choosing Appropriate Methodology and Method. In: V. Ahmed, A. Opoku & Z. Aziz, eds. Research Methodology in the Built Environment: A Selection of Case Studies . Oxon: Routledge, pp. 32-50.

Perrin, K., 2015. Principles of Evaluation and Research for Health Care Programs. Burlington: Jones and Bartlett.

Pernecky, T., 2016. Epistemology and Metaphysics for Qualitative Research. s.l.:SAGE Publications.

Pfefferbaum, B. & North, C. S., 2020. Mental health and the Covid-19 pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine , 383(6), pp. 510-512.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2012. Research Methods for Business Students. London: Pearson.

Walliman, N., 2015. Social Research Methods: The Essentials. London: Sage.

Willis, J. W. & Jost, M., 2007. Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage .

Hughes, S., 1979. Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought 1890-1930. Brighton: Harvester.

Dig deeper into Understanding the Impact of Leadership Styles on Nurse with our selection of articles.