Business Research Methods - Case Study Example

?Methods Employed in Business Research 0 Introduction Researchers challenged the oversimplified differentiation between quantitative and qualitative data. Available literature mistakenly stress that the only distinction between quantitative and qualitative method lies on how the former transforms individual experiences into numbers while the latter translates individual experiences into words (Duffy & Chenail, 2008). This paper sought to outline the differences between the quantitative and qualitative research, and the data collection and data analysis of qualitative research. 2.0 Differences Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods Several experts stressed that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research lies on its epistemology. Quantitative research emphasizes quantification in the data collection and analysis. It entails a deductive approach on the correlation between research and theory, wherein emphasis is put on testing theories (cited in Bryman & Bell, 2007, p.28). Quantitative research combined norms and practices of positivism and scientific model. It supports the view that social reality represents the objective reality. In contrast, qualitative research emphasizes the importance of words instead of quantification in data collection and analysis (cited in Bryman & Bell, 2007, p.28). It entails an inductive approach on the correlation between research and theory, wherein the emphasis is put on generation of theories. Qualitative approach rejected the norms and practices of positivism and natural scientific model. It focuses on the interpretation of individuals with their social world. It supports the premise that social reality is constantly shifting (cited in Bryman & Bell, 2007, p.28). Quantitative methods reflect the “positivist” approach in conducting researches. Positivism is based on the premise that the world is explainable, controllable, and measurable. Experts argue that the world exists and functions externally; thus, its properties should be studied and measured through objective means. Positivism asserts that knowledge which can be observed and quantified is considered as valid (cited in Brown & Remenyi, 2004, p.243). Positivism stresses the need to objectively and accurately perform observations. Researchers who adhere to this perspective concentrate on eliminating biases and values. They identify factors that lead to a particular event (Marlow, 2010, p.9). Qualitative methods are associated with interpretivism as its general philosophy. Positivism is driven to explain the phenomena to predict and manipulate them while interpretivism concentrates on the interpretation and understanding. Interpretivism supports the premise that reality is not single, objective, and divisible, but it is multiple, contextual, and socially constructed. It concentrates on individuals and their manner of making sense and interpreting the reality (Holloway, 1997, p.93). Holloway (1997, p.93) noted that researchers should not consider individuals as existing in a vacuum but as inseparable to the context of their lives. Researchers who adhere to this perspective believe that understanding the individual experiences is as indispensable as the positivist belief in the importance of explanation, prediction, and control (Holloway, 1997, p.93). This ontological premise suggests the use of multiple methodologies. It emphasizes on the richness instead of the amount of data collected (Phillimore & Goodson, 2004, p.157). Qualitative research focuses upon the relations with employees, managerial work, organizational control systems, and identity and gender at work. However, researches which utilized qualitative methods were infrequently presented in practitioner and academic outlets of the business field (Cassell, Buehring, Symon, & Johnson, 2006, p.17). Researchers stress the need for researches that employ diverse sources of data. These researchers further reiterated that conventional research studies led to studies that support repetitive topics and narrow paradigms. They suggested the use of qualitative research to concentrate on the context of discovery instead of the context of justification (Tucker, Power, & Meyer, 1995). 3.0 Qualitative Approaches 3.1 Data Collection Qualitative research commonly employs the face-to-face interview with individuals or groups of respondents. The kind of questions asked to the respondents varies and results to different kinds of data. Structured interviews are considered as quantitative means of data collection, while unstructured and semi-unstructured interviews are regarded as the qualitative means of data collection (Srivastava & Rego, 2011, p.6). Unstructured interview tends to be opened and flexible. The interviewer considers the exchanged relationship with the interviewee as open-ended, which is designed to collect information on the qualities and meanings of the interviewee’s experiences. Alvesson (2003 cited in Marshan-Piekkari & Welch, 2004, p.231) considers qualitative interviews as open and loosely structured to what the interviewee regards as essential and relevant to talk about. Interviewees are not restricted by the interview guide and structured questionnaires in qualitative interviews. The interviewer utilized relevant language skills to be responsive and flexible to emerging and unexpected themes of the interview situation (Marschan-Piekkari & Welch, 2004, p.231). Onwuegbuzie, Leech, and Collins (2010) stress the importance of nonverbal communication during interviews. It is essential in gaining a deeper shared meaning. Data collection can also be performed through the telephone and Internet discussions (Pellissier, 2008, p.23). The language-based approaches such as conversation and discourse analysis also serve as qualitative methods of the data collection (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p.28). Observation is one of the most frequently employed qualitative methods of collecting data (Srivastava & Rego, 2011, p.6). Observation is more costly compared to the questionnaire method; however, the data obtained from observation are considered as more reliable. The observer bias is eliminated as researchers do not interfere on the process (Srivastava & Rego, 2011, p.6). Observation offers information that otherwise may not be provided by other data collection methods. It is commonly employed to access a process wherein researchers critically observe and note the process (Srivastava & Rego, 2011, p.6). According to Neelankavil (2007, p.107), focus group is one of the most widely known techniques for supporting numerous marketing decisions. It assists the business executives in acquiring in-depth information about service quality, marketing programs, personal issues, and other areas which necessitate inexpensive and fast information. Focus group serves as the primary step in the research process (Neelankavil, 2007, p.107). It brings together recognized experts and qualified individuals in a structured setting to devise, assess, and assimilate their individual’s point of view regarding a certain topic. Researchers defined focus group as the group interview undertaken by a moderator through unstructured discussion (Neelankavil, 2007, p.107). 3.2 Data Analysis Unlike quantitative researches, qualitative researches are not constrained by statistical analysis of data. Qualitative researches are subjective in nature as data collection and data analysis are identified by the researchers. The primary goal of researchers who employ the qualitative method is to accurately present expressions and views of the respondents. In theory, researchers strive to eliminate his or influence in the research. In practice, these researchers recognize the difficulty of separating their personal preferences with those from the subjects (Pellisier, 2008, p.23). Monette, Sullivan, and Dejong (2010, p.434) defined data analysis as the application of the coding schemes and several procedures to the data and materials obtain through the qualitative research. Maxwell (2005, p.96) stresses that the primary step in the qualitative analysis involves reading observational notes, interview transcripts, and other documents which are to be analyzed. There are two types of qualitative data-analysis namely, categorizing strategies, and contextualizing strategies. Categorizing strategy sought to abstract and generalize through generating the theories and concepts from the available raw data. Meanwhile, contextualizing strategies involve treating raw data as a coherent whole. It attempts to grasp the whole context through retaining as much information provided by the raw data (Monette, Sullivan, & Dejong 2010, p.434). The categorizing strategies include coding, memos, and reflective remark. Coding pertains to the classification of observation into a number of categories. It functions to simplify and reduce the data without eliminating the words and their respective meanings (Monette, Sullivan, & Dejong, 2010, p.434). The codes are created through the data collected by the researchers. Qualitative coding schemes are derived from existing theoretical stance wherein researchers determine if the data fit to the particular coding scheme (Monette, Sullivan, & Dejon, 2010, p.434). A memo functions to clarify a certain idea or existing coding classification. It connects the data from varying parts of field notes. A memo may provide a hypothesis or new pattern of code, or determine something puzzling which does not suit the conceptual framework in other memos (Monette, Sullivan, & Dejong, 2010, p.434). Reflective remarks serve as the means of inscribing ideas in the paper and utilizing writing as a way of facilitating analytical insight and reflection. It transforms the perceptions of researchers into visible form, which allows reflection (DeGross, 1997, p.551). Contextualizing analysis sought to understand the data in context through employing different methods to determine the association among elements of the text. Unlike categorizing analysis, it does not fracture text into elements and classify it into categories. Contextualizing analysis involves case studies, narrative analysis, profiles, and ethnographic microanalyses (Bickman & Rog, 1998). Holland and Rees (2010, p.93) stress the eight steps of data analysis namely, organizing the data collected, rereading the available data, classifying materials into sections, highlighting important phrases, contrasting and comparing categories, searching for coherent patterns of meanings, looking for relationships, and describing themes. 4.0 Conclusion Quantitative methods reflect positivism while qualitative methods support interpretivism. Qualitative research employs interview, observation, participant observation, and focus group in data collection. It utilized categorizing strategies and contextualizing strategies in data analysis. References Bickman, L. & Rog, D., eds., 1998. Handbook of applied social research methods. USA: SAGE. Brown, A. & Remenyi, D., 2004. Third European conference on research methods in business & management, blackhorse house, university of reading, UK, 29-30 April 2004. UK: Academic Conferences Limited. Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2007. Business research methods. USA: Oxford University Press. Cassell, C., Buehring, A., Symon, G., & Johnson, P., 2006. Qualitative methods in management methods in management research: an introduction to the themed issue. Management Decision, 44 (2), pp.161-166. DeGross, J., 1997. Information systems and qualitative research. UK: Springer. Duffy, M. & Chenail, R., 2008. Values in qualitative and quantitative research. Counselling and Values, 53 (1), pp.22+. Holland, K., & Rees, C., 2010. Nursing: evidence-based practice skills. USA: Oxford University Press. Holloway, I., 1997. Basic concepts for qualitative research. USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Marlow, C. R., 2010. Research methods for generalist social work. USA: Cengage Learning. Marshan-Piekkari, R., & Welch, C., 2004. Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business. USA: Edward Elgar. Maxwell,J., 2005. Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. USA: SAGE. Monette, D., Sullivan, T., & Dejong, C., 2010. Applied social research: a tool for the human services. USA: Cengage Learning. Neelankavil, J. P., 2007. International business research. USA: M. E. Sharpe. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K., 2010. Innovative data collection strategies in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 15 (3), pp.696+. Phillimore, J. & Goodson, L., 2004. Qualitative research in tourism: ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies. USA: Routledge. Pellissier, R., 2008. Business research made easy. South Africa: Juta and Company Ltd. Srivastava, T. N. & Rego, S., 2011. Business research methodology. New Delhi: Tata Mc-Graw-Hill Education. Tucker, M., Powell, K. S., & Meyer, D., 1995. Qualitative research in business communication: a review and analysis. The Journal of Business Communication, 32 (4), pp.383+. Read More