Philosophical synthesis of qualitative research paradigms

Qualitative vs. quantitative research: The importance of a human touch -- and ear 'Just the facts' -- the allure of quantitative research is that it claims to provide facts, plainly and simply, in neat rows of tabulated data. However, qualitative researchers deny the possibility of knowing anything for certain, even with facts that are tabulated. Their approach to knowledge is relativistic. They accept the subjective nature of human experience. Instead of establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables, or finding an association between data sets in an experiment, qualitative research proceeds into the raw fabric of human life, and establishes its conclusions after the fact, after detailed observation of a small (not necessarily statistically significant) population group.

Qualitative research deploys case studies, ethnographies and other methodologies, such as the study of historical accounts (essays, journals, and letters) to derive conclusions. "Unlike quantitative research, there is no overarching framework for how qualitative research should be conducted; rather each type of qualitative research is guided by particular philosophical stances that are taken in relation by the research to each phenomenon" (Neill 2006). For example, if a researcher wished to analyze the different sociological status of people accused of witchcraft vs. witchcraft accusers in Salem, he might embark upon a study of various transcripts of the witchcraft trials. In contrast, Margaret Mead, when seeking to answer the question if adolescence was stressful across all cultures, embarked upon ethnography of Samoan society that cumulated in her seminal work Coming of Age in Samoa.

An advocate of a quantitative approach might use Mead as an example of why qualitative research is problematic -- Mead was biased by her own upbringing in a relatively constrained household, and looked upon more open Samoan society as an eroticized artifact. This is typical problem when a culture deemed 'other' is being studied by an outsider. Advocates of qualitative research would state that it was the way Mead embarked upon her research that was the problem. Mead only interviewed the members of the Samoan community when accompanied by a chaperone and her pre-determined bias to find that Samoa was more sexualized than American society was what skewed her interpretation. Today's qualitative anthropologists doing case studies are more apt to live amongst the peoples whom they are studying. They often temporarily live the lifestyle of their subjects, and learn the native language.

Of course, this provokes an equally vociferous response from quantitative advocates, who argue that such subjective ways of knowing yield more information about the researcher's own psyche and excitement with traveling than paint a true portrait of another culture. Qualitative advocates respond it is the idiosyncrasies of a foreign culture that are revealed, not that of the researcher, necessarily "A major strength of the qualitative approach is the depth to which explorations are conducted and descriptions are written, usually resulting in sufficient details for the reader to grasp the idiosyncrasies of the situation" (Myers, cited by Neill 2006).

Furthermore, the instruments created to retrieve objective data by quantitative advocates do not fall from the sky -- when a quantitative researcher creates a study to determine adolescent attitudes about sexuality (to use Mead's example), his or her biases are manifest in the structure of the questions. The questions are likely to be more meaningful to a person from the researcher's culture and point-of-view, not the subjects. Even a researcher from the culture of his or her subjects, such as a marketer compiling data, has a particular bias. And furthermore, the presumption of objectivity in quantitative research is perhaps the most biased and dangerous methodological assumption of all, as the quantitative researcher enters into the research with a singular hypothesis that must be proven or disproven, and cannot accept idea that he or she lacks a subconscious ideological slant.

The ability of qualitative research to reveal the unexpected is perhaps its greatest asset, for marketers as well as for anthropologists and academics. Consider the famous story of how differently sized McDonald's potions were born in Fast Food Nation. Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's, was searching for a new way to market his brand. A manager had noticed that many customers would eat the tiny bag of McDonald's French Fries and lick the salt on the package until not a morsel remained. Kroc's employee suggested introducing larger sizes of fries. Kroc initially dismissed the idea, pointing out that people could always order a larger size. However, the response was ingenious: people did not order two because they felt gluttonous going back for more, while ordering a larger size seemed less stigmatizing. Kroc introduced the new sizing, and now, much to the horror of nutritionists, the larger sizes at McDonald's are more popular than the small sizes. If Kroc had submitted questionnaires to people, they might not want to admit, even to themselves, that they wanted more fries with their burgers. Moreover, sizing as a menu option had not even occurred to Kroc. Only through observation did he learn what his customers really wanted, as oppose to what they said they wanted.

This dichotomy between what people say they want and what people actually want reflects another strength of qualitative research. People often say that they want healthier options on menus and at the supermarket when they are constructing an idealized image of themselves on a piece of paper, but what they actually purchase is often quite unhealthy and laden with sugar and fat. Attitudes about subjects such as virginity, for example, may conflict with actual behavior. A young girl may say that she believes in not having sex before marriage as an ideal, even though she does not practice this philosophy. A skilled interviewer in quantitative methods can 'tease out' such contradictions between behavior and a self-image that is inconsistent with reality.

This points to yet another strength of qualitative research: "Human behavior is significantly influenced by the setting in which it occurs," and qualitative field research allows human beings to be observed in context (Marshall & Rossman, 1980). "The physical setting?… schedules, space, pay, and rewards ?and the internalized notions of norms, traditions, roles, and values are crucial contextual variables. Research must be conducted in the setting where all the contextual variables are operating," while quantitative research must isolate behavior from external variables, often in an experimental setting (Marshall & Rossman, 1980).

One of the criticisms of the infamous Stanley Milgram shock experiments, which correlated obedience with a variety of types of social pressures exerted by researchers, was that it created artificial circumstances for the individuals in question that did not really mimic what the researchers actually desired to find, namely how human beings could commit atrocities in real life. A qualitative ethnographer would state that doing the 'leg work' to interview war criminals and to live amongst the people who condoned such atrocities in Germany would have been a more illuminating experience. That is why it is said that "past researchers have not been able to derive meaning...from experimental research… the research techniques themselves, in experimental research, [can]...affect the findings. The lab, the questionnaire, and so on, [can]...become artifacts. Subjects [can become]...either suspicious and wary, or they [can become]...aware of what the researchers want and try to please them" (Marshall & Rossman, 1980). The explanations of what is going through people's minds when they behave in a certain fashion are lost in measurable approaches that take people out of the naturally conflicted environment of real life, where multiple influences are always present.

Anyone who has ever had to fill out a survey or questionnaire and wished to check 'none of the above' or 'it depends on the situation/how I feel' can sympathize with the contention that quantitative survey instruments have a narrow focus. And the problem with a 'none of the above' option is obvious -- it is frustratingly vague, while a qualitative researcher can always say to a subject "please explain yourself further" (Marshall & Rossman, 1980). And finally, particularly in the case of subjects who do not come from the tradition of Western empirical knowledge of the researchers, it is important to remember that the subjects themselves may not understand what the researcher is asking and the "feelings, interactions, and behaviors" they are asked to reflect upon are subconscious or unconscious "so they cannot articulate them to respond to a questionnaire" in a meaningful fashion (Marshall & Rossman, 1980).