Quantitative and Qualitative Methods of Research - Case Study Example

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods of Research A traditional setting and paradigm in research would usually associate quantitative methods to studies on topics such as mathematics, physics, medicine and other topics that are affected by a host of different variables (Griffiths and Byrne, 1998). On the other hand, qualitative methods are associated with studies and researches on social science, behavior, psychology, culture and language. The classification delineates the technical and systematic from the artistic or social fields of study, one with numbers and equations, and the other with words and pictures. Today, with the onset of various developments in the methods of research in different fields and the general recognition that integrating both methods provide a realistic and complete model required for evaluation, the boundary of the terms becomes vague yet integrative, complementary and supportive of each other. More and more health studies, for example are utilizing qualitative methods to improve healthcare and medicine (Borreani et al., 2004), while human behavior is also quantified by using statistical and mathematical models (Griffiths and Byrne, 1998; McKibbon and Gadd, 2004). As evidence, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Maryland, USA have also incorporated the investigation of aspects concerning social science and behavioral science in many of its medical researches (Bachrach and Abeles, 2004). Quantitative methods usually aim to measure progress while qualitative procedures measure the human effect of a product or process in the quality of human life (Weinreich, 2006). This adds to an in-depth, broad and holistic perception of the test or process in question. In fact, because of overlapping studies and mixed protocols and methods, especially in health care, a consensus on qualifying the nature and applicability of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of a study has been developed (Borreani et al., 2004) and a study of the different methods that can be applied depending on their prescribed functions and roles has been described (OCathain et al., 2007). Qualitative and quantitative research methods A majority of qualitative methods focus on the subject of the research and his emotional perception of the study (Borreani et al., 2004) which usually requires him to plunge into a cultural condition. Because of this, the researcher, especially in the social sciences, directly relates with the subjects under observations and gathers data by conducting intensive interviews and observation, focus groups discussions and exhaustive meetings and consultation (Meyer, 2000). The researcher generally finds out the effect and significance of a common experience or condition and unfolds the psychological course which elicits a behavior. Thus, the measurements are subjective, non numerical, applicable only to the cluster concerned, labor-intensive and, oftentimes, affected by the biases of the researcher (Weinreich, 2006). Although Flyvbjerg (2006) rejects the idea that qualitative methods especially case studies are partial and difficult to summarize. Pope and Mays (1995) also mention that this method is inductive, theoretical and action-based. In a different perspective, qualitative methods provide systematic measures that guide quantitative data. Qualitative research techniques, such as description and analysis, also precede measurements and classification as it takes an issue or a structure in general, thus allowing easier and accurate interpretation of variables (Griffiths and Byrne, 1998). On the other hand, quantitative methods express the relationships of different variables through the systematic method of investigation. For quantitative methods, data gathering usually uses an equipment and is method based, it typically consider statistics in analyzing the validity of the tests and measurements in question to give meaning to numerical measurements (Meyer, 2000). Theses measurements are objective and results are reliable and reproducible if conducted under the same variables independent of the experimenter. Thus, quantitative measurements can be extrapolated to an industrial scale or a larger population (Weinreich, 2006). Qualitative measurements answer the questions who and why and tests often involve field work but quantitative methods answer the question by how many and by how much (McKibbon and Gadd, 2004) but it does not consider human behavior. Experiments mostly involve laboratory work and focus only on variables that are tested during the study (Weinreich, 2006). This method sometimes considers assumptions to nullify the effect of a certain variable that is difficult to measure or results in a series of response which compounds the problem. By dissecting researches in the medical field, OCathain et al. (2007) creates a breakdown of the general purposes of each method in a study. Mainly qualitative experiments explain and understand an issue in the real life context and reveal the content of an instrument. By rank, other studies involving qualitative methods include investigations on how a treatment works, developing a treatment for a particular illness, studying new cases, evaluating a process, testing equipment cognitively, exploring issues on care delivery, acceptability of treatment and other issues arising from quantitative methods. A minor fraction deals with understanding other minor groups affected and identifying the legitimacy of a questionnaire. Quantitative medical experiments play roles determining the potency of a treatment or intervention, identifying applicable test samples, illuminating variability, generalizes results and provides consensus applicable to a larger environment and psychometric tests. Incorporating both methods and making it work The combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods of research has been referred to as mixed methods research and offer a comprehensive analysis of the study that is otherwise neglected if one aspect alone is considered. Usually, this is approach is done for strategic functions such as in acquiring subsidy for the research (OCathain et al., 2007). The effectiveness of a method that is applied, however, largely depends on the type of response being measured. For example, in the medical field, quantitative methods are widely accepted while qualitative measurements are usually ambiguous (Borreani et al., 2004). Like many fields of research, social marketing research uses both qualitative and quantitative methods all through out project, and not just at the beginning or at the end of a test method. Weinreich (2006) stresses the difference between qualitative and quantitative methods of research and indicates the advantages and disadvantages of both methods but strongly advises assimilating the two methods by complying with three steps, formative research, integrative process evaluation and integrative outcome evaluation, at different points during the research. This way, the researcher delves into the different aspects and facades of the method and its effect on the behavior of people and the change it elicits. Studies employing both quantitative and qualitative methods often involve researches on assessment topics, exploratory work and field topics, explaining a phenomenon, feasibility studies, case studies or method and instrumentation development (OCathain et al., 2007). In some researches, quantitative data is measured over a certain period and analysis is done using both methods to assess the interaction of variables affecting the phenomena with time. The incorporation of chaos and complexity theories in interpreting quantifiable variables has also given the advantage of effecting change in thrusts for a particular study or specify portions requiring modifications (Griffiths and Byrne, 1998). Steckler et al., (1992) suggests that different degrees of combination of the qualitative and quantitative methods in social marketing research are based on operative degrees by which each research method combine and develop another method. The research classifies the integration of these two methods as, first, being purely qualitative but helps advance quantitative aspects of the study; second, being largely quantitative yet interpreted by qualitative means; third, being mostly qualitative but interpreted by quantitative means; or lastly, with equivalent qualitative and quantitative aspects. Advantages and disadvantages The whole process of using both qualitative and quantitative methods of research is labor intensive and requires careful planning at each step of the study. It is multi-faceted and can sometimes be confusing both to the test subject and the researchers. Because of this, the method requires a pool of experts from different fields. Also, it can entail data sharing and information transfer from one institute or laboratory to another. During the process of data transferring, information might be lost, misunderstood or infringed. Combining both methods also increase the complexity of the study, incorporates factors that can compound and affect the result and behavior of other variables. In addition, since the study entails a great deal of manpower and employs several methods, it also requires a large budget. It requires incorporation of fellowship programmes, especially in medical trials (OCathain et al., 2007) and in the social field of study, it requires devising equipment and identifying measurable quantities for analysis (Weinreich, 2006). The results, though reproducible, may be difficult to replicate as it usually entails a huge amount of resources, loner periods of time and many researchers. These are among the disadvantages of using a mixed-method scheme. Despite minor disadvantages, many researchers have stressed the applicability of using both methods of research in virtually all fields. OCathain et al. (2007) have reviewed that advantages of mixed method research and included its practicality and comprehensiveness as a major factor of its adoption in many studies. It tries to answer a wide variety of questions that also introduces multiple methods of analysis for each. In clinical trials, this method can help improve aspects that are usually unnoticed in medical service records, and include steps to humanize a particular treatment and consider it realistically. In an NIH study, for example, it was observed that engaging in group activities; specifically religious groups can improve wellbeing. In addition, political conditions, economic plights and even the media has considerable effects on health (Bachrach and Abeles, 2004). The method also assures the accuracy of the results and findings and provides means for considering factors or groups that were once neglected or not sample from. Thus, it is an efficient tool to plan and develop the different measures and steps in a research, ensuring equal sampling, efficient data gathering and supervised analysis. In addition, although complex, in the long run it can simplify the conditions and result in a more sound judgment regarding the topic. It also allows the researcher to evolve and consider new aspects aside from his field of study. Because of this, new discoveries can be opened and other mixed fields can be further explored and developed. It ensures complementarity, verifiability and provides ways for an expanded study that is both reasonable and practical (OCathain et al., 2007). Because of these approaches, the application of community-level programmes to improve living conditions has also been implemented and socio-cultural factors affecting health will be considered (Bachrach and Abeles, 2004). OCathain et al. (2007) also mention that a multi-faceted study does not only ensure funding because of its applications to many fields, it also ensures that publications can be made because of the credibility of the research. In fact, the introduction of this new concept has also introduced a new category of research that can be published in journals such as the Journal of Mixed Methods Research, and the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches (OCathain et al., 2007). Many scientific and medical articles, which traditionally depend on quantitative research methods, have also considered the effect of qualitative variables. The prevalence of medical articles discussing patient living conditions and quality is a testament to the general implementation of a mixed method research. Articles published in Journals such as Health and Quality of Life Outcomes also exemplify the importance of considering both research methods, and, thus, both factors in assessment of medical data (Herber et al., 2007). Conclusion The incorporating of two very distinct methods of research in many fields that were once thought to be on different poles offers exciting possibilities to researchers and enlightens both worlds of the universality of both types of measurements and their applications in different research arena. The mixed method scheme allows a strategy for analyzing different aspects of a research and assessing the effects of each on different variables. Thus, the study becomes more complex and rigorous but is complete, reliable and often surpasses boundaries made by human behavior and culture. In addition, the disadvantages of each separate method are minimized and the different characteristics of the process are determined. This type of integration involves all aspects of the plan and provides an assessment that is supported by a holistic investigation. References Bachrach, CA and Abeles, RP. 2004. Social science and health research: growth at the National Institutes of Health. Am J Public Health. 94:22–28. Borreani, C; Miccinesi, G; Brunelli, C; Lina, M. 2004. An increasing number of qualitative research papers in oncology and palliative care: does it mean a thorough development of the methodology of research? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2:7. Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry. 12 (2): 219-245. Griffiths, F. and Byrne, D. 1998. General practice and the new science emerging from the theories of ‘chaos’ and complexity. British Journal of General Practice. 48:1697-1699. Herber, OR; Schnepp, W; Rieger, MA. 2007. A systematic review on the impact of leg ulceration on patients quality of life. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 5:44:1477-7525. McKibbon, KA and Gadd, CS. 2004. A quantitative analysis of qualitative studies in clinical journals for the 2000 publishing year. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 4:11 OCathain, C.; Murphy, E; Nicholl, J. 2007. Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research. 7:85. Pope, C and Mays, N. 1995. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. British Medical Journal. 311:42-45. Steckler, A; McLeroy, KR; Goodman, RM; Bird, ST; McCormick, L. 1992. Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Education Quarterly. 19:1-8. Weinreich, NK. 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in social marketing research. Weinreich Communications. [Electronic copy] Accessed on October 17, 2007. http://www.social-marketing.com/research.html. Politics essay (200 words): When is it right to break the law? Laws are largely dependent on cultural and regional backgrounds since the dedication of the people to its set of rules is dictated by their beliefs and conviction. Thus, different territories, peoples and religion have different sets of rules, varying measures to ensure the compliance to it and different degrees of punishment for various cases of severity. In most cases, it is possible that implementation and punishment are key factors to prevent a person from violating the law. Others contend that even minor offenses against the law which usually go unpunished are still morally wrong. Rattner and Yagil (2003) conducted a study on the different motivations for a person’s willingness to break the law. Using a three-year survey, they were able to create a model indicating that a person living in a prejudiced, estranged and hostile environment is an ideal situation which can result in one breaking the law. In addition, loyalty to his personal beliefs remains one important reason of committing crimes. Also, among the reasons indicated where one is expected to be ready to violate the law include disagreements between a person’s ethical and religious values and the law, when conditions are threatening national security, public safety and when human rights are at risk. Reference Rattner, A. and Yagil, D. 2003. Taking the law into ones own hands on ideological grounds. International Journal of the Sociology of Law. 32 (1): 85-102. Read More