Quantitative and Qaulity Research

numerical & soft Research comparability OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS Introduction This paper comp ars and contrasts soft and duodecimal enquiry rules in three basic beas. These are the of their epistemological foundations, entropy collection methods, and selective breeding analysis methods. The paper ends with a brief compend of the primary points make. Comparison devil, Borg and Gall (1996) discuss several similarities and disagreeences between soft and decimal question methods. With pry to similarities, twain kinds of search formulate epistemological positions regarding the disposition of causality and humanity and both comprise a set of methods for blueprint research, collecting data, analyzing data, and deriving instruction from data collection and analysis.However, they differ in price of the epistemological positions they advocate and in the methods they hold to be catch for substantive scientific inquiry. One primary difference bet ween the dickens research methods according to Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) involves their epistemological assumptions around the nature that causality. The numerical method, according to the authors, rests on a hatful of causation as an external, measurable force that occurs in lookently of the observer and idler be apply to inform diverse phenomena.On the other hand, the conceptual foundation of qualitative research holds that causation itself is predominately a human interpretive process. The foregoing assumptions perplex implications for how scientists should composition reality. Quantitative research roots its methods of acquiring culture in a view that holds that reality is external to the observer whereas the qualitative method grounds its methodological principles and practices in the notion of reality as an interpretative construct.This point has been discussed by Wainwright (1997) who states that typically qualitative research seeks to discover information about any given phenomenon by obtaining an in-depth discretion of the meanings and definitions of the phenomenon that are conceptualized by informants moreover, these impoverishment not be some informants a simple case study of wiz individual is verbalise to yield much given the essential element of reality.Quantitative research, based on its assumptions of causation and reality, attempts to arrive at an in-depth reasonableness of the phenomenon by measuring it in slightly fairly objective mood with results that can be established as well-grounded by a set of orchis scientific/methodological principles of inquiry and set criteria for reliableness and bindingity. It seeks for results that are stable across time.Thus, while qualitative research aims at discovering how a very small bodied interpret a phenomenon, three-figure research looks at nigh objective index of the phenomenon attempting to produce information that is stable and valid for large populations and samples. Ga ll, Borg and Gall (1996) note that for some domains much(prenominal) as education, the existing knowledge base consists of information obtained by both denary and qualitative research.The authors point out that galore(postnominal) research experts view it is quite acceptable to use both kinds of research to collect information about a given phenomenon despite their differing assumptions- give upd that the two methods are delegate differing roles in terms of the contri onlyion they make to find outing the phenomenon being examine. With respect to the foregoing, qualitative methods are assigned the role of intensively observing some small sample and conceptualizing possible themes, anatomys, processes, and/or structures as being mired in the phenomenon of interest.Quantitative methods are then called upon to determine whether the conceptualized constructs are supportable or confirmed. For example, a decimal study might be conducted of three exceptional education students res ponses to inclusion with possible patterns of response being conceptualized based on this small sample. Quantitative methods would then be utilize to determine whether this pattern of response is present in a much larger collective of special education students.Thus, qualitative and quantitative research can be seen as working together in complementary fashion. Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) cross that the extent to which the two types of research can work to complement each other, in tangible practice, is accountent on two contingencies. First, the phenomena being studied must be stable across time. Second, qualitative police detectives must turn in constructs that can be operationalized which is to say that can be measured in some objective way exploitation a numerical corpse of some sort.If these conditions are satisfied, quantitative measures can then be used to support whether what is present at the individual or case take is also present for larger populations and samples . Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) further report that some detectives do not believe the two research accesses can truly work together in a complementary fashion this because of their differing epistemological views of causation and reality views which make for not only conceptual but also profound methodological differences.For example, quantitative research stipulates that a researcher must state what can be expected to be revealed by his data analysis based on existing research (hypothesis aspect and testing). Qualitative researchers, however, believe that theories and concepts are only meaningfully 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 apply formal methods of reasoning and interpretation.Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) have also listed some of the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods in terms of the reports each side outputs next their investigations. In this regard, the authors state that the reports of quantitative research tend 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 sentience 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 that it is quite possible that both methods can contribute valid data and so edify scientists attempts to understand a given phenomena when used together in a complementary fashion. Given the foregoing, it seems reasonable to bring up that the determination 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 complex issue 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 thus yield a fuller understanding of its complex structure. This broader look, in turn, is said to foster greater insight into the shipway the information can be practically applied. Mertes (1998) states that there are legitimate kinds of information requires that are better suited to being answered using qualitative methods than quantitative methods.These are said to include (1) the need to understand in detail wherefore an individual does something (2) the need to determine what aspects, components, or elem ents of a given issue or phenomenon are important and why they are important (3) the need to identify a full send 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 best choice if there is a need to determine how many or to measure some volume-related characteristic 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 special(prenominal) characteristic or response. Further, Mertes (1998) reports that quantitative research is appropriate for measuring attitudes and behaviors, for indite 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 (1 998) notes that qualitative and quantitative research can be stately in several ways and goes on to list some of these differences. Specifically, it is historied that quantitative research is objective qualitative research is subjective. Quantitative research seeks explanatory laws qualitative research aims at in-depth description. Quantitative research measures what it assumes to be a static reality in hopes of developing universal laws. Qualitative research is an geographic expedition of what is assumed to be a dynamic reality.It does not claim that what is discovered in the process is universal and, thus, replicable. However, what McKereghan (1998) points out is that when actual research studies are examined in methodological detail, they seldom fit the nipping 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, Mc Kereghan argues that discussing research using this dichotomy may not be in particular applicable to what in reality 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 short letter is present far more in theory than in practice. Finally, it can be noted that quantitative methods help to make generalizations to larger groups and attach to a well-established and respected set of statistical procedures, of which the properties are well-understood. However, in terms of practice, there is again an important issue related to whether practice actually meets the standards set for this research approach.As noted by Gall, Borg and Gall (1996), 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 belief sizes. Further, quantitative methods are often misinterpreted. Summary In this papers compari son 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 rate of methodological differences in the approaches.For example, it was noted that qualitative research typically entails in-depth analysis of relatively few subjects for which a juicy 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 ex ploration 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 selection 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 combination 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 particular type of research, especially quantitative research, are often not met. References Crowl, T. K. (1996). Fundamentals of educational research (2nd ed. ) Madison, WI cook and Benchmark. Gall, M. D. , Borg, W. R. & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research An introduction (6th ed. Whit e 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. super acid 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.