Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research

Two important aspects of qualitative research relates to the role of the researcher and the manner in which knowledge is viewed. These two aspects fundamentally distinguish qualitative research from quantitative research (Creswell, 2014). In qualitative research, the researcher seeks to cultivate a closer relationship with the subject(s). This means that the researcher focuses on a single or a small number of subjects, and utilises designs that allow closer interaction with the subjects such as in-depth interviews, observations, and focus group discussions. Cultivating a closer relationship with the subjects is informed by the need to gain a deeper understanding of the research phenomenon (Denscombe, 2010). This arises from the assertion that knowledge is subjective (Bryman, 2008). In other words, different individuals tend to have different meanings and worldviews about a given phenomenon. The role of the researcher, therefore, is to understand the unique interpretation a subject holds about the phenomenon in question, not the researcher's meaning or the meaning suggested by extant literature (Creswell, 2014).

These two aspects have important implications for criminal justice research. For instance, using qualitative research designs such as case study, ethnography, and phenomenology places the researcher in a better position to understand the psychological and behavioural characteristics of a certain criminal or type of criminals. More fundamentally, understanding the distinct nature of qualitative research enable consumers of research to more appropriately interpret published research findings. They interpret those findings oblivious of the fact that they may not be readily generalised beyond the subjects included in the study. These two tenets would be relevant in answering a criminal justice research question, especially with regard to questions that require a more detailed understanding of the research phenomenon as opposed to just cause-and-effect relationships.

Creswell (2014) provides six steps for conducting effective qualitative analysis. The first step involves organising and preparing the collected data for analysis. This step is important as it ensures a smooth data analysis process. The second step entails getting a broad sense of the data. At this stage, the researcher goes through the data to grasp a general understanding and tone of participants' responses. Step three involves coding the data. This is a particularly crucial step as it makes the data more comprehensible. At this stage, the researcher should focus on creating simple, relevant, and fascinating codes. Step four encompasses describing the setting and themes. The descriptions appear in the findings section, meaning the researcher should convey the perspectives provided by the subjects. The fifth step involves representing the descriptions and themes, mainly through narrative text and illustrations such as tables and visuals, while step six entails interpreting the findings. The last two steps are vital as they present the theory to explain the research phenomenon, convey important information about subjects, highlight convergence or divergence between the present findings and past research, and highlight questions for further inquiry.

The six steps have important implications for evaluating criminal justice data and interpreting published research. Indeed, evaluating criminal justice data and presenting it in a manner that makes sense to both the researcher and the reader can be quite difficult, often taking a substantial amount of time and effort. Knowledge of these steps minimises this difficulty. Personally, knowledge of these steps will be useful in answering criminal justice research questions wherein qualitative designs such as ethnography and phenomenology would be the most appropriate.

Two important tenets that underpin quantitative research are generalisation and cause-and-effect relationships (Creswell, 2014). In quantitative research, knowledge is viewed as objective and universal (Martin & Bridgmon, 2012). This means that the findings obtained from a sample within a given population can be representative of the general population. This aspect is what fundamentally differentiates quantitative research from qualitative research. The findings essentially explain the relationship between two or more variables. Generating representative findings means that the researcher must recruit a sufficient sample, often using random sampling techniques (Kothari, 2004). This is imperative for eliminating or minimising bias. Since the researcher collects data from a large number of subjects, there is often no close interaction between the researcher and the subjects (Bryman, 2008). This explains why instruments such as surveys and experiments are utilised. As quantitative research seeks to explain cause-and-effect relationships, it usually does not provide an in-depth understanding of the research phenomenon (Thomas, 2009).

The relevance of quantitative research in the criminal justice field is wide ranging. From law enforcement to corrections, most policies have been informed by quantitative research, a clear indication of the usefulness of generalisation and causality in evaluating criminal justice data and interpreting published research data. There are obviously criminal justice questions that require quantitative techniques. The tenets of universality and causality will be useful in answering research questions in the field of criminal justice.

Creswell (2014) identifies six important steps in analysing and interpreting data in quantitative research. These include: 1) reporting the survey response rate; 2) reporting how response bias was addressed; 3) identifying the descriptive techniques used to analyse both the dependent and independent variables; 4) reporting the statistical procedures conducted; 5) identifying the statistics and the computer software used to generate the statistics; and 6) presentation and interpretation of findings using figures and tables. The importance of these steps cannot be overemphasised. As quantitative research involves formulating a hypothesis or a set of hypotheses and collecting data to test the hypotheses, the procedures utilised in testing the hypotheses must be properly documented and justified. This is important for reinforcing the validity, reliability, and credibility of the findings. Also, the six steps are important for evaluating criminal justice data and interpreting published research. Whenever presented with data and research, one understands what variables to look for, how they relate with one another, and the implication of the relationship on the general population under study. In my future research work, these steps will be useful in answering criminal justice questions based on the quantitative approach.

At times, it is important to combine quantitative and qualitative techniques in a single study, in large part due to the limitations inherent in each type of research (Creswell, 2014). While quantitative research provides readily generalisable findings, it provides little or no understanding of the research phenomenon (Kothari, 2004). On the other hand, qualitative research provides in-depth understanding, but the findings may not be readily generalisable (Creswell, 2013). Therefore, using a mixed methods approach compensates for these limitations, thereby resulting in more robust and representative findings (Creswell & Clark, 2011). The ability to generate robust yet generalisable findings is the most important aspect of mixed methods research. In other words, the researcher seeks to not only explain cause-and-effect relationships, but also explain the reasons underlying those relationships. These aspects are relevant for evaluating criminal justice data and interpreting published research. For instance, while research may suggest certain criminal behaviour is attributable to certain demographic characteristics, it may be more important to obtain the unique perspectives of the individuals involved in the behaviour. This would result in a better understanding of the behaviour.