Quantitative and Qaulity Research

vicenary & soft Research COMPARISON OF QUANTITATIVE AND soft RESEARCH METHODS Introduction This composing comp ars and contrasts soft and three-figure look for modes in tether basic aras. These ar the of their epistemological foundations, info collection methods, and selective instruction abbreviation methods. The paper ends with a brief summary of the principal(a) come ins make. Comparison archness, Borg and cheekiness (1996) discuss several similarities and residuums in the midst of soft and three-figure interrogation methods. With obeisance to similarities, twain kinds of interrogation formulate epistemological positions regarding the spirit of causation and world and slightly(prenominal) comprise a good deal of methods for aim explore, collecting instruction, analyzing data, and deriving tuition from data collection and analysis.However, they differ in impairment of the epistemological positions they advocate and in the methods they call for to be suppress for meaningful scientific inquiry. whizz primary difference amid the ii inquiry methods according to bitter, Borg and Gall (1996) involves their epistemological assumptions more or less the temperament that causality. The numeric method, according to the authors, rests on a fantasy of causation as an external, measurable constrict that occurs independently of the observer and shag be utilise to explain diverse phenomena.On the or so new(prenominal) hand, the conceptual foundation of qualitative explore holds that causation itself is predominately a human informative process. The foregoing assumptions grow implications for how scientists should education reality. vicenary question roots its methods of acquiring information in a view that holds that reality is external to the observer whereas the qualitative method grounds its methodological principles and practices in the nonion of reality as an interpretative construct.This point has been d iscussed by Wainwright (1997) who states that typically qualitative explore seeks to discover information ab emerge any habituated phenomenon by obtaining an in-depth apprehension of the meanings and definitions of the phenomenon that ar conceptualized by informants moreover, these take on not be umteen informants a saucer-eyed case study of one various(prenominal)ist is utter to yield much given the subjective element of reality.Quantitative explore, based on its assumptions of causation and reality, onrushs to arrive at an in-depth brain of the phenomenon by measuring it in roughly fairly objective manner with results that loafer be established as well-grounded by a ensnare of stately scientific/methodological principles of inquiry and dress criteria for reliability and logicality. It seeks for results that argon unchanging crossways time.Thus, while qualitative explore aims at discovering how a very refined-scale collective interpret a phenomenon, numer ic look into looks at some(a) objective power of the phenomenon attempting to produce information that is stable and validated for long creations and takes. Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) handbill that for some domains such as education, the existing friendship base consists of information obtained by both decimal and qualitative interrogation.The authors point come on that many an(prenominal) research experts believe it is preferably acceptable to use both kinds of research to collect information intimately a given phenomenon despite their differing assumptions- returnd that the two methods are assigned differing usages in name of the part they drive to sense the phenomenon world studied. With consider to the foregoing, qualitative methods are assigned the role of intensively observing some small sample and conceptualizing possible themes, patterns, processes, and/or structures as creation involved in the phenomenon of interest.Quantitative methods are then calle d upon to determine whether the conceptualized constructs are tolerable or confirmed. For example, a quantifiable study might be considered of three supernumerary education students receipts to inclusion with possible patterns of response being conceptualized based on this small sample. Quantitative methods would then be apply to determine whether this pattern of response is bring out in a much bigger collective of special education students.Thus, qualitative and duodecimal research can be seen as pull ining together in complementary color spirt. Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) report that the period to which the two types of research can work to complement from each one other(a), in developed practice, is dependent on two contingencies. First, the phenomena being studied moldiness be stable across time. Second, qualitative detectives must provide constructs that can be operationalized which is to say that can be prised in some objective way employ a numerical system of some sort.If these conditions are satisfied, quantitative measures can then be utilise to support whether what is array at the individual or case level is also present for larger populations and samples. Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) further report that some research workers do not believe the two research approaches can tangiblely work together in a complementary fashion this because of their differing epistemological views of causation and reality views which make for not only conceptual nevertheless also profound methodological differences.For example, quantitative research stipulates that a police detective must state what can be evaluate to be revealed by his data analysis based on existing research (hypothesis formulation and testing). Qualitative researchers, however, believe that theories and concepts are only meaning wide-cuty derived AFTER the data has been collected. Similarly, the two research types differ in the methods they use to derive meaningful information from the data. Quantitative methods hold that the data should be analyzed statistically while quantitative research holds that it should be analyzed exploitation formal methods of reasoning and interpretation.Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) have also tended some of the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods in basis of the reports each side outputs following their investigations. In this regard, the authors state that the reports of quantitative research consort to be impersonal and objective write-ups of research findings. Qualitative research reports, on the other hand, are said to reflect the researchers analytical reconstruction and interpretation of data provided to readers with an awareness that the readers themselves will, in fact, reinterpret what is reported.However, since it is likely that the epistemological structures of both research methods have some truth and some error in their epistemological frameworks, Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) state t hat it is preferably possible that both methods can tolerate valid data and so crystallise scientists attempts to find out a given phenomena when used together in a complementary fashion. Given the foregoing, it seems reasonable to suggest that the decision as to whether a given researcher should use qualitative or quantitative methods, or use both conjointly, may depend upon the nature of information he desires and the use to which it shall be put.For example, Crowl (1996) states that if a researcher desires to focus on some multiform bring down and to use it in a pragmatic way, then it is wise to conduct research using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Both methods are said to provide a broader examination of the phenomenon and olibanum yield a fuller understanding of its complex structure. This broader look, in turn, is said to nurture greater insight into the ways the information can be practically applied. Mertes (1998) states that there are certain kinds of i nformation ineluctably that are better suited to being answered using qualitative methods than quantitative methods.These are said to include (1) the penury to understand in detail why an individual does something (2) the need to determine what aspects, components, or elements of a given issue or phenomenon are crucial and why they are grievous (3) the need to identify a full range of responses or opinions existing in a given collective and (4) the need to find areas of consensus in patterns of response. On the other hand, Mertes (1998) states that quantitative research is probably the scoop out choice if there is a need to determine how many or to measure some volume-related feature of speech of a collective.In other words, quantitative research should be used when there is an interest in how many people in a population have a particular characteristic or response. Further, Mertes (1998) reports that quantitative research is appropriate for measuring attitudes and behaviors, for profiling certain groups, and for formulating predictions. One particularly interesting point about qualitative and quantitative research methods is to note that the distinguishing characteristics are actual differences only to a certain extent.For example, McKereghan (1998) notes that qualitative and quantitative research can be distinguished in several ways and goes on to list some of these differences. Specifically, it is noted that quantitative research is objective qualitative research is subjective. Quantitative research seeks informative laws qualitative research aims at in-depth description. Quantitative research measures what it assumes to be a static reality in hopes of development universal laws. Qualitative research is an exploration of what is assumed to be a dynamic reality.It does not claim that what is observed in the process is universal and, thus, replicable. However, what McKereghan (1998) points out is that when actual research studies are examined in met hodological detail, they seldom fit the sagacious clear models of differences that are provided in written discussions of the two research approaches. Rather, in most any given study, elements of quantitative and qualitative procedures can be found. Because of this, McKereghan argues that discussing research using this dichotomy may not be oddly applicable to what actually goes on in the world of research.Thus, while the two methods can be distinguished, it is probably important to note that this clarity of distinction is present far more in supposition than in practice. Finally, it can be noted that quantitative methods help to make generalizations to larger groups and follow a well-established and respected draw of statistical procedures, of which the proper(ip)ties are well-understood. However, in toll of practice, there is again an important issue related to whether practice actually meets the standards fall for this research approach.As noted by Gall, Borg and Gall (199 6), many studies are designed poorly, i. e. , many studies cannot find a significant difference when one exists, due to insufficient sample sizes or to extremely small upshot sizes. Further, quantitative methods are often misinterpreted. abstract In this papers comparison of qualitative and quantitative research methods, several points were made. It was noted that the two research approaches differ in terms of their epistemological positions on causation and reality and this in turn makes for a account of methodological differences in the approaches.For example, it was noted that qualitative research typically entails in-depth analysis of comparatively few subjects for which a rich set of data is collected and organized. Quantitative research, on the other hand, was said to entail the proper application of statistics to typically a large number of subjects. Further, the points were made that while quantitative research is objective qualitative research is subjective. Also, it was noted that quantitative research seeks explanatory laws qualitative research aims at in-depth description.In addition, quantitative research was said to measures what it assumes to be a static reality in hopes of developing universal laws while qualitative research is an exploration of what is assumed to be a dynamic, shifting, interpretative reality. It was noted that due to the differing nature of the two research approaches, it is likely that the survival of the fittest of which to use will depend upon the nature of the information sought by the researcher and the use to which this information will be put. Examples were offered showing the kind of research to which each method or a conclave of methods are particularly suited.Finally, the point was made that while there appear to be large differences between the approach from a philosophical/conceptual position, in actual research, methods from both approaches are often used. Further, the standards set for conducting each parti cular type of research, especially quantitative research, are often not met. References Crowl, T. K. (1996). Fundamentals of educational research (2nd ed. ) Madison, WI brownish and Benchmark. Gall, M. D. , Borg, W. R. & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research An introduction (6th ed. whitened Plains, NY Longman. McKereghan, D. L. (1998). Quantitative versus qualitative research An attempt to clarify the problem. Document available athttp//socrates. fortunecity. com/qvq. html. Mertes, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage. Wainwright, D. (1997). Can sociological research be qualitative, critical and valid? The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Document available http//nova. edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/wain. html.