Quantitative and Qualitative research methods

Consider how qualitative and quantitative research methods complement one another, and consider the role of mixed methods designs. Quantitative and qualitative social science study techniques have, for long, remained discrete, barely overlapping, spheres. But, of late, innovations have shed light on quantitative and qualitative techniques’ complementarity (Maxwell, 1998). Complementarily employing both methods offers broader understandings besides facilitating research findings’ confirmation or triangulation using different techniques, thus improving overall result validity and making the research more useful for targeted entities.

However, the quest for genuinely complementary research techniques is also a greatly challenging task as it implies extra expenses, in terms of human as well as monetary resources, in addition to the development of ethical quandaries pertaining to follow- up and a need for collaboration and respecting diverse epistemological and methodological stands (Maxwell, 1998). Using a qualitative process prior to engaging in survey work is, without a doubt, the most widely considered form of multi- technique complementarity.

It can involve employing qualitative techniques to serve a general descriptive purpose, or to improve insights into how emic definitions differ from etic ones utilized in the research, or to provide context- specific data vital to questionnaire creation within the quantitative research, or to offer a general context wherein one can accurately interpret quantitative findings, or to formulate distinct hypotheses (Maxwell, 1998). Mixed methods studies necessitate familiarity with qualitative as well as quantitative research techniques.

A large number of researchers lack training in qualitative and quantitative methodologies, which requires finding and hiring additional research workers having expertise in the specific fields. Nummela and Hurmerinta- Peltomaki (2006) reviewed research works published on the subject of mixed methods studies in business to examine the approach’s value within the business field. The study concluded that mixed methods research added value through increasing findings’ validity, informing the second information source’s collection, and facilitating knowledge creation.

The integration element is a second value- adding aspect of the mixed methods technique. This element provides readers with increased confidence in outcomes and conclusions arrived at in the course of the research (O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl, 2010). Additionally, mixed methods aids scholars in developing research ideas for the future (O’Cathain et al., 2010), besides being the sole means of being confident of interpretation and findings (McKim, 2017).

Would it ever be viable to consider only quantitative or only qualitative methods for a research study? No clear- cut boundaries exist between the diverse kinds of mixed techniques or between mixed method and single method designs (Sage, 2015). Even a cursory examination of innumerable qualitative and quantitative study designs will typically lead to one finding certain facets of the other class of methods.

One reason for examining mixed methods separately is for improving insights into why it may be so essential to incorporate certain components of a given approach into studies employing another approach (e.g., specific behavioral counts in group observation or qualitative (or cognitive) interviewing in the creation of survey questions). Considering such a study plan with regard to issues cropping up in mixed methods research designs is useful, though specific researches, of course, only employ a single method design (Sage, 2015). How can mixed methods vs.

single (qual- quan) methods extend our understanding of a research problem? The mixed methods study approach is a controversial subject in the area of anthropological study methodology. Mixed methods proponents believe this third paradigm employs the best features of quantitative as well as qualitative study designs, but purists are of the view that it is hard to integrate the two owing to the essentially divergent nature of both kinds of information (Holland, 2016).

For instance, quantitative information encompasses information of a closed- end nature which is subject to statistical analysis and leads to numerical representation. Meanwhile, qualitative information is of a more open-ended and subjective nature, permitting respondents to “voice” their views and beliefs and facilitating observation interpretation (Holland, 2016). Why would it be important for a researcher to be conversant in both quantitative and qualitative methods? Quantitative information encompasses information of a closed- end nature which is subject to statistical analysis and leads to numerical representation.

On the contrary, qualitative information is of a more open- ended and subjective nature, permitting respondents to “voice” their views and beliefs regarding the problem under study and facilitating interpretation following observation. Hence, the researcher must be familiar with both methods in order for being able to effectively apply them to mixed methods studies (SAGE, 2018).

How do your thoughts on these questions relate to your worldview? What strategies might you use to help you become more comfortable with or develop further expertise in mixed methods research — as a consumer and/ or producer of research? Prior to deciding to adopt a mixed methods study design, it is imperative that a research scholar first take a number of preliminary considerations into account (SAGE, 2018). For instance, the researcher needs to.