Benefits and challenges of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research
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.
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
¶ … 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.
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).
Tabular Comparison of Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Quantitative
Mixed Methods
Qualitative
Scientific method
It is deductive and aims at testing hypotheses and theories with data
It is deductive and inductive
It is inductive and aims at generating a new hypothesis
Nature of Study
It studies behavior under artificially controlled conditions
It involves the study of behavior in more than one condition
It involves the study of behavior in its natural setting
Form of data collected
Data collected involves numeric data, and involves the use of structures and validated instruments such as surveys, rating scales and measurable behavior responses
It utilizes multiple forms of data
It involves the collection of narrative data using unstructured instruments, such as open-ended survey, interviews, focus groups, documents and observation
Nature of data
Mostly, this approach involves the use of numeric variables
This approach uses a mixture of numeric variables, images and words
The nature of collected date include words, images, categories and themes
Results
Involves the generalization of findings, general understanding from a participant's perception and investigators framed results
Involves corroborated findings that may allow for generalization
Involves particularistic findings, in-depth understanding of a participant's point-of-view, and the participant's framed results
Common research objectives
The study is descriptive, explanatory and predictable
It has multiple objectives
It is descriptive, exploratory and discovery
Create your account
- Creswell, J. W. (2003). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.).
- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
- The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Giddings, L. S. (2006). Mixed-methods research: Positivism dressed in drag? Journal of
- Research in Nursing, 11(3), 195–203.
- Johnson, B., & Christensen, B. L. (2008). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and
- mixed approaches 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
- Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
- whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Mary A. M., Hanne, S.O. N., Frank H. S., (2011). Lessons learned: advantages and
- disadvantages of mixed method research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8 I(1), 59 - 71
- Pope, C., & Mays N. (2000). Qualitative Research in Health Care. London: BMJ Books.
- Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Estimating
- causal effects using experimental and observational designs. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
- Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
- quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.