The paper provides a comparison of the benefits and challenges of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches to research. The paper defines the three methods of research taking into consideration the purpose of each research method. It identifies the form as well as the nature of the data collected by the stated methods.
¶ … Mixed Methods
Benefits and challenges of Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed methods approaches to research
Benefits and Challenges of Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approach to Research
In any type of research, it is possible to characterize a research's study methodology as qualitative, quantitative, or one that involves the two methods, in which case it becomes a mixed method approach. Moreover, the term research design is popular in research, but it takes varied meanings in various studies. For instance, the term might refer to the entire research process in a given study, whereas in another study, it may refer to the applied methodology (Mary, Hanne and Frank, 2011). It is crucial for one to recognize a study's research design because the design communicates information, which is relevant to the study, and can vary for qualitative (Pop and Mays, 2000), quantitative and mixed methods. In addition, a key element, which is common across the research designs, is that one or more points, during the research process, there is collection of data in form of numbers, words, gestures, in various ways and for varied objectives (Giddings, 2006). Therefore, qualitative studies are studies, which gather and evaluate qualitative data. On the other hand, quantitative studies are studies that gather and evaluate quantitative data.
Qualitative Methods
Qualitative research methods aim at offering an understanding of the experiences, views, and thoughts of participants. In simple terms, this approach explores meaning, aim or reality. In other terms, qualitative research comprises of a set of interpretive and material practices, which make the globe visible to the observer. These practices transform the globe into representations, interviews, and photographs. Owing to this, it is apparent that qualitative researchers study things in their natural environment, and attempt to explain the phenomena using meanings given to them by people (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005, p. 3).
In addition, investigators describe qualitative research as one that allows a detailed exploration of a research problem in which the collected information by the investigator is by case studies, ethnographic work, or interviews. Moreover, qualitative research techniques are inductive, in the sense that an investigator may develop theories or hypotheses, explanations in the information given by a participant. Most importantly, there are several categorizations of research designs in qualitative research, but there is none, which investigators agree for using in a universal context. In addition, Creswell (2003) outlines strategies inquiry in qualitative methods and they include narratives, phenomenological studies, grounded theory studies, case studies and ethnographies.
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative research methods try to maximize objectivity, replication and generalization of the findings, and the methods show interest in prediction. In addition, to this approach is that the researcher might set aside their views, experiences and biases to ensure that the study achieves objectivity, especially in the drawn conclusions. The primary elements of many studies is the utilization of instruments, which may include tests, surveys to collect information, and the dependence on probability theory to test hypotheses that coincide with the research questions. In addition, investigators describe quantitative methods as deductive in nature because inferences from tests result to general inferences concerning the attributes of a given population (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
Some of the categorizations of quantitative research designs abandon the evaluation of variance approach and depend on a trichotomy; randomized controlled trials (Schneider at al., 2007), where investigators assign the participants at random to treatment conditions, quasi-experimental designs and correlation designs. These categorizations tend to focus on the required conditions to justify strong contributory deductions (Schneider at al., 2007). In addition, these methods tend to involve phases, which show similarity to those outlined by Creswell (2003) for qualitative research, but they show substantial difference in aim and execution. Nevertheless, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest, both qualitative and quantitative research methods stress on the truth, consistency, neutrality and applicability, although they follow different approaches to ensure quality.
Mixed Methods
A mixed method is an approach that uses the combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methods, in manners that bridge their variations when addressing a research problem. In addition, this approach is relatively new, whose philosophical and methodological foundations and practice have advanced since the 1990s. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), define mixed methods as a class of study where investigators mix quantitative and qualitative methods, models, notions or languages into a single study. It is an effort to make legal the use of several approaches in answering questions, rather than restraining the choices of investigators. This approach is cheap, inclusive, pluralistic and complementary, and it suggests that investigators take an eclectic model to method selection (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 17-18).
Benefits, Challenges and Comparisons
When investigators require collecting large quantities of information, the appropriate method to use is the quantitative approach. In addition, it is possible to generalize data collected used this approach to a larger population. Most importantly, quantitative approach can provide a clear measure, which scholars can utilize for proposals. Another significant benefit is that this approach, quantitative method, is usually quantifiable; hence, investigators find it more objective in comparison to mixed and qualitative methods. On the other hand, a mixed method approach is applicable when it is feasible. This approach has substantial benefits; when an investigator uses different approaches to focus on the same phenomenon, and they end up providing same results, this gives the investigator superior evidence (Mary, Hanne and Frank, 2011).
In addition, mixed method approach is beneficial because it expands a set of results, complements a set of results with an existing one or prior one (Giddings, 2006). Qualitative methods use open-ended questions, which is valuable because it offers the respondents a chance to answer questions using their own words. Furthermore, qualitative methods allow the investigator to have the flexibility (Johnson and Christensen, 2008) to probe the validity of the feedbacks offered by participants (Creswell, 2003). However, the methods do not fall short of challenges. Quantitative research methods focus on large groups, which can make the method very expensive, when compared to qualitative research that uses small groups (Pop and Mays, 2000).
However, qualitative research methods collect data in respect to what the participants think, behave or feel. It becomes a challenge for investigators because they cannot use such data to make assumptions, this means that it does not allow for generalization. On the other hand, a mixed method approach can be very complex and pose substantial challenges to investigators because it takes more time to plan and implement such an approach. Moreover, the investigator may face problems when trying to solve discrepancies during the interpretation of findings (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003).
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.