Quantitative and Qualitative Data Reporting

¶ … mixed research approach would work best. It could be argued that such an approach is usually the best methodology to use, because the mixed research approach allows for speculation and analyzing using more than just the numbers. One recent study determined that the "the combining or mixing of qualitative and quantitative methodologies is not a new or unique phenomenon" (Frels, Onwuegbuzie, 2012, p. 184). The same study found that researchers "routinely collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data as a necessary part of their profession" (p. 184).

The mixed research methodology is often used in other areas of study in a most effective manner. For example, a recent study states "addition to an adequate sample size for statistical analysis of outcomes, the validation of prognostic factors using a mixed methods approach also obviously requires a longitudinal design to reach the relevant endpoints, such as completion of treatment, hospital discharge, or mortality" (Zickmund, Yang, Mulvey, Bost, Shinkunas, LaBrecque, 2013, p. 2210).

In other words, using a mixed research approach (at least in the above case) allows for both the best of the quantitative and qualitative approaches. Each approach complements the other.

Some experts may contend that a qualitative methodology may not make much sense in a blood splatter case, but this researcher contends that quantitative measurements should almost always be founded with a certain degree of qualitative judgments.

As stated in a recent study that analyzed trends in forensics, most practicing forensics "must apply professional judgment, understand complex interrelationships, and work within a multidisciplinary environment, often struggling to correctly identify the problem before attempting to formulate the recommended solutions and lessons learned" (Macdonald, Back, Johnson, 2011, p. 550).

The quantitative measurements assist the forensic scientist in their attempts to solve crimes. These same scientists, however, have to provide for much more than just what the quantitative measurements show. Oftentimes the scientists are asked to testify in court, and as one study determined that might be more difficult than just reciting numbers. The 2010 study found that while forensic scientists support police efforts by investigating evidence in almost every kind of crimes "in the broadest sense, they have to distinguish between two different versions of events -- usually one from the prosecution and one from the defense" (Fendley, 2010, p. 9).

In the case being studied above, the blood splatters can tell one story or another, based on the interpretations of those splatters. While the string convergence shows that the lamp is the central object that may be easily explained away by the defense team. The researcher must understand and present the data in a manner that most effectively takes the entire crime scene and breaks it down into its various components. Because the point of origin appears to be close to the wall, and the flow patterns indicate that the sheets were affected most, these items must be presented as quantitative measures that make sense in a qualitative manner.