Logically then, when utilizing qualitative methods, a hypothesis is not required prior to the data gathering phase as the researcher reaches their conclusions as the data is being collected.
Quantitative research, on the other hand, is more involved with the gathering of empirical data, numbers and statistics. As quantitative analysis is more concrete in nature, as it deals with figures as opposed to words which can be interpreted, quantitative analysis is perceived to be more logical in nature. Also, when using this method, the researcher is generally categorized as an impartial observer as opposed to an active participant. Logically, with quantitative research the basic premise of the research needs to be defined prior to the data collection. Therefore, a hypothesis needs to be established prior to the commencement of data collection ("The qualitative", 2006).
Due to the empirical foundations of quantitative research many people feel that it is more scientific in nature and therefore 'better'; however, this is not necessarily true. The main determinant in arriving upon a research methodology is the type of data collection method that best achieves the goals of the researcher. Each type has an appropriate use and more frequently researchers are combining the two techniques in order to gain better insight into the research topic. For the purpose of this research undertaking, however, it was determined that a qualitative approach better suited the aims and objectives to be achieved, in order to determine if motivation is central to successful management
Types of Qualitative Research Methods
Upon determining that qualitative research was the preferred method of research, the author needed to research the several methodologies available and select the one best suited to enable the author to research and analyse the effect of motivation on successful management. In the following paragraphs the various types of qualitative research methods evaluated and the strengths and weaknesses of each are presented and discussed.
Secondary Research/Desk Research
Secondary research is designed to provide the evaluation of experts which has been reviewed by other experts (Haley, 2003). This type of research, sometimes referred to as desk research, involves "systematically and objectively locating, evaluating, and synthesizing evidence in order to establish facts and draw conclusions concerning a set of events. Rather than collecting data, secondary data is used, that is, documents that are already in existence, published and unpublished" (Britton, 1996, p. 1). The use of secondary research allows for the analysis of a broad range of topics that can be thoroughly investigated and has proven to be credible. In addition, there are time limitations that may inhibit the ability of the researcher to conduct primary research and secondary research allows for analysis of a great amount of data in minimal time. According to Haley (2003) many researchers have opted to conduct secondary research as opposed to primary research. Procter (1993) asserts that "more generally, limited opportunities for conducting primary research