Social Science Research Are Qualitative and Quantitative

¶ … social science research are qualitative and quantitative research methods. Qualitative research is believed to operate from a subjective, constructionist view of reality, whereas quantitative research operates from an objective, positivist viewpoint of the world. There has been quite a bit of debate over the merits of each of these approaches, often with one paradigm belittling the assumptions of the other. The current literature review explores the philosophical foundations of each paradigm, compares their practical differences, and discusses the strengths and weakness of both approaches as they relate to research in the social sciences and to human resources research. The rationale for mixed-methods research, where the two paradigms are combined, is also discussed.

In recent years there has been substantial interest concerning the role of specific paradigms and philosophical assumptions with regards to doing research. There has been a growing concern regarding the adequacy of research methods in social sciences and human resources (HR) studies (Anderson, 2004). This interest developed with the increasing interest in cross-cultural influences in the social sciences and as they related to understandings regarding employees and management. There have been ambiguities in interpreting and utilizing the findings in previous areas of research. Many researchers and past findings have been accused of producing scientific research studies that do not fully explain phenomena as they occur in the real world. A good deal of HR research has been largely empirical predicated on a positivist research philosophy. This is a different approach from the phenomenological research viewpoint that has inspired research in the traditional HR management disciplines. Much of the empirical research in HR has largely evolved from doctoral dissertations underscoring the importance of sound research grounding predominantly where quantitative approaches, primarily hypothesis testing, is concerned (Anderson, 2004). In its traditional context, human resources management has not been a quantitative discipline preferring the qualitative approach (Anderson, 2004; Huselid, 1995). The difference between qualitative and quantitative research reflects two different philosophical viewpoints.

The predominant school of empirical thought has traditionally used a quantitative approach based on research in "hard" science such as biology and medicine (Blalock, 1984). Beginning in the 1970s serious concerns were raised about the limits of quantitative research methods that were associated with the prevalent paradigm of the time, positivism (Blalock, 1984). Positivism presupposes that the world is objective and that scientific methods can inherently measure and represent aspects of the world and explain and predict causal relations among central variables. However, critics countered that positivistic methods take away contexts from meanings during the process of developing quantified measures (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). These critics charge that quantitative measures leave out the subjective interpretations from data, impose the researchers' interpretations on the data, require statistical samples that are not representative of specific groups which does not allow for generalization to individual cases.

Positivism was the dominant influence on social research for many years; however, it has been challenged by critics from two different traditions: interpretive constructionism and critical postmodernism (Blalock, 1984). Constructionism and postmodernism have offered alternative theoretical and methodological research approaches regarding management and organizations by generating interest in political and social issues that positivist-oriented research did not address. Positivistic research relies on experimental or survey methodologies that have been criticized by interpretivists as impose a worldview on subjects as opposed to describing and understanding these views. Postmodernists have argued that positivist methods implied forms of knowledge support capitalist structures and inequality. As a result of these criticisms there has been an interest in qualitative research methods that does not follow the quantitative interpretation of variables and statistical methods, but seeks to delve into the subjective experiences of the research participants (Blalock, 1984). Both quantitative and qualitative research methods should be viewed as complimentary instead of being held as opposites. This literature review discusses and compares the use of qualitative and quantitative research procedures in research and the need to rely on both.

The Philosophy of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods

To understand the paradigms of quantitative and qualitative research one should briefly trace their origins. These origins date back to at least to the seventeenth century philosophical debates regarding the nature of knowledge and its relationship to reality. Burrell and Morgan (1979) suggest that assumptions about the nature of reality can be conceptualized in terms of a subjective (qualitative)-objective (quantitative) dimension.

The subjective (qualitative) view is centered on the supposition that the social world outside of individual cognition is composed of nothing more than labels, names, and concepts that serve as artificial creations. Their usefulness is based upon their convenience as devices that allow for describing, interpreting, and negotiating the world (Anderson, 2004). This view believes that a social action takes place when an actor (person) assigns a meaning to their conduct or environment and by means of this meaning relates their act to the acts of others. Human actions are reciprocally oriented to one another not in a mechanistic method of stimulus and response, but are oriented by way of an interpretative process (Blalock, 1984). Therefore in order to be able to understand the significance and meaning of social phenomena it is first necessary to appreciate this interpretative process. It is important to discover and understand the motives and goals which guide people to act. For the subjectivist researcher understanding and interpretation take precedence over simple causal explanations or differences in groups of people (Firestone, 1987).

In contrast, quantitative research methods originated from hard sciences such as chemistry, biology, and physics and follow an objectivist view that is centered on the ontological assumption that the social world exists independently of one's appreciation or subjective experience of it (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). This objective viewpoint of reality as a tangible, solid, physical structure supports an epistemological position that highlights the importance of studying the characteristics of relationships among those elements that make up that particular structure. The knowledge of the organization of reality from this point-of-view involves the need to understand and diagram the causal relationships between the components, ingredients, or factors of the structure (Firestone, 1987). This viewpoint encourages an objective type of knowing that specifies the particular nature of the laws and relationships amid phenomena and measured in terms of facts (Anderson, 2003; Blalock, 1984).

This phenomenological-oriented point-of-view (qualitative) disputes the notion that there can be any real type of objective knowledge that can be spelled out and communicated in a tangible form as what we know is simply an expression of the manner in which we have arbitrarily imposed our frame of reference on the reality (Firestone, 1987). We mistakenly perceive reality is consisting of an external and separate sphere, but interpretations of reality our subjective.

The objectivist attitude (quantitative) supports the epistemology following in the positivist tradition which attempts to describe and predict events in the world by seeking out the causal relationships and regularities between its components (Firestone, 1987). The research methodology here is influenced by experimental designs that originated mostly from the biological sciences. Research methods such as questionnaires can be used to investigate a range of topics as well leading to the designation of research into experimental and correlational designs occurs: true experiments can explain casual relations, correlational designs explain relationships, but these cannot be assumed to be causal. Quasi-experimentation (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) is a research approach that can be used to examine causal relationships in situations where true experiments that require random assignment to treatment conditions is difficult to achieve or is inappropriate altogether. The quantitative approach highlights the use of statistical procedures, measures of association, and the expansion of models of measurement. This approach has been developed on the basis of an ontology which is appropriate for physical sciences and assumes that objects in the world and the relationships people have are interrelated by a lawful force that is called causation. Researchers can use experimental methods to ascertain these lawful relationships. This paradigm forces the language of social behavior to become the language of variables. The over usage of experimental models of behavior that are based on methods and models derived from chemistry and physics can be criticized due to a "closed" nature and may not be the only way to study the more "open systems" that are found in human organizations, but ignoring these principles can also lead to investigating ineffective methods of change (Blalock, 1984).

Wilden (1972) proposed that if one accepts a purely reductionist approach then there are always going to be causes that inevitably cause causes to cause causes etc. In a sense an argument can be made as to whether we accept that human action/behavior is a fundamentally distinct type of phenomenon; that is that human behavior perhaps cannot be completely studied by a scientific approach or any means that makes an attempt to break down its totality into various components and variables which are then separately analyzed (Firestone, 1987). Phenomenology (qualitative) supports the argument that the whole is always greater than the mere sum of its parts. From the phenomenologist perspective human behavior should be viewed from its totality. Human behavior must be experienced to be understood. If researchers perform an analysis which requires an effort to decompose a phenomenon they miss out on many of the true meanings of the action. The subjectivist adheres to the notion that human behavior can only be understood in terms of meaning and in the purview of natural sciences. Thus, phenomenologists believe that the measurement-oriented, mechanistic models of explanation that are supported by the positivist approach are not appropriate to understand human behavior (Blalock, 1984). This approach strongly supports the notion that researchers should acquire understanding of the ways and the meanings in which the members of a group or society in general create and shape their social roles by way of their subjective interpretations of events. However, objectivists rightly point out that they do not believe that all people are the same, but there are similar trends that can be observed, and this is what quantitative research searchers for (Firestone, 1987).

The subjectivist (qualitative) viewpoint challenges the objectivist view regarding the basic issue of whether or not people can achieve or understand any kind of knowledge that is independent of their subjective construction of reality. Subjectivists question if it is truly possible to achieve a true sense of objectivity in interpretation of behavior because people are active agents through which all forms of knowledge is experienced and perceived (Blalock, 1984). Because of this it is improbable that the researcher's personal assumptions, values, and purposes do not somehow shape the particular methods or techniques that they choose to implement. Therefore the subjectivists claim that the knowledge of research methods or research techniques should be balanced by an understanding of the nature of research as a characteristically human process through which the researchers actually create knowledge. Qualitative research attempts to focus on a particular here-and-now situation; the focus is often the situational relevance. Qualitative investigations seek to describe the meaning of social life and the unfolding of social processes as opposed to the describing the social structures that are the focal point of quantitative researchers.

From a phenomenologist viewpoint human behavior, what people do or what they say, is a result of how these people subjectively define and construct their reality. For qualitative research the mission of the researcher is to try to grab hold of this process of interpretation. This can be viewed as a sort of "inquiry from the inside" (Evered & Louis, 1981; Mahoney & Goertz, 2006). This type of method of investigation often requires the direct or indirect involvement on the part of the researcher, an absence of any a-priori analytical categories, and a sincere intent to understand the individual situation. This frame of view attempts to understand the reality or the world from the respondent's frame of reference. It operates on the assumption that researcher can best come to know the respondent's subjective reality by being there, by becoming a part of the flow of activities and events, and by becoming immersed in the phenomena under study. So actually being an active part of the situation is essential since knowledge can best be validated experientially.

The quantitative (objectivist) school would counter by stating that subjectivity certainly does exist, but that there are indeed certain principles that will apply to most everyone. If this was not the case and all subjective views were equally valid, then we would not have laws regarding human conduct (Firestone, 1987). There are indeed generalities that apply to large groups. The positivist model (quantitative) operates under the assumption that research is a neutral and mechanical process by which the researchers discover or uncover knowledge. Quantitative researchers have techniques which allow them to answer their questions scientifically, precisely, theoretically, and systematically (Blalock, 1984). A necessary prerequisite of any scientific answer to a research question is an acceptable empirically-based database which is comprised of representativeness, random selection, and other statistically-based requirements. In addition, theoretical knowledge which results from the methodical application of the scientific method on the phenomena in the world in order to distinguish the researcher's scientific account or explanation from ordinary lay people's views. Through these scientific methods (especially random sampling or replication) the research findings can be generalized from the particular experiment(s) to a group of theoretical statements that are universally applicable in the same way that gravity, chemical reactions, and contraction of diseases are universally applicable (Firestone, 1987). Even findings not subjected to strict methodologies such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954) are perceived to be applicable on an overall basis.

Qualitative researchers claim to know relatively little about a given sample of observed behavior without first knowing and understanding the context in which the particular behavior takes place and have also made an attempt to view or understand that particular behavior from the stance of the originator (Firestone, 1987). Subjectivists believe that such a contextual understanding of behavior and these empathetic-type objectives are not likely to be accomplished without a firsthand and an intimate knowledge and understanding of the particular research setting in which the behavior takes place. As a result qualitative researchers believe that the research process is actually a form of social interaction during which the researcher interacts, often converses with, and learns about the phenomena that is being studied. This is particularly true when the object of inquiry is a human being or a group of people (Blalock, 1984). Moreover, subjectivists believe that the presence of this interactivity with the research subjects makes it possible for the researcher to be a knowledgeable instrument in the research process by using their sensitivity, adaptability, and responsiveness to acquire information and ideas (Blalock, 1984).

Positivists (quantitative) believe that knowledge receives validation via the methodological procedures that they utilize and by way of logic (Blalock, 1984). Researchers are guided by the belief that reality is external and made up of facts arranged in a law-like formation. Therefore, researchers adopt the "inquiry from the outside" attitude (Evered & Louis, 1981) that requires detachment on the part of the researcher. The researchers gather their data according to a priori analytical categories attempting to discover knowledge that is able to be generalized across to many environments or situations. Researchers most often preselect their variables which are based on their particular paradigm or frame of reference and are relevant to the researcher's hypotheses. Hypotheses are phrased in the researcher's language of variables and only data that are relevant to the variables are collected. In the quantitative approach it is crucial that the researcher preserve a careful distance between the participants/subjects of the study and themselves. This is particularly true if the research subjects are people. There are particular methodological safeguards that need to be put into place to protect the research design against reactivity on the part of the subjects as such reactivity can influence the outcome of the research (Firestone, 1987).

Researchers from both camps, quantitative and qualitative researchers, have come to understand that the people and groups under study have a lifestyle and have a culture that belongs to them. According to this view if researchers truly wish to understand the behavior of people and the interactions in groups or organizations which they comprise the researchers need to be able to both to describe and appreciate the cultural slants on these behaviors. Qualitative research proponents such as Morgan and Smircich (1980) have argued that researchers at the organizational level should no longer be content to remain solely as external observers of behavior merely measuring their observations. Instead researchers are encouraged to move into the subjective world of their subjects in order to investigate subject of study from within and to utilize techniques that are consistent with such an approach. To operate from a qualitative mode requires that the researcher trade in linguistic symbols and attempt to reduce the distance between the theory and the data, between indicated and the indicator, and between context and action. Qualitative research attempts to employ interpretative techniques that attempt to translate, decode, describe, and come to terms with the meaning as opposed to just the frequency, of the phenomena under study in the social context. Descriptive research is a principal method of data collection for a qualitative design. Among the qualitative methodologies that are currently employed the ethnographic method has a distinguished history of being useful. Ethnography involves a collection of methodological procedures and interpretative procedures that were developed during twentieth century (Lassiter, 2005). There are two primary approaches: symbolic interactionism that concentrates on patterns of communication, interpretation patterns, and adjustment between people (Griffin, 2012) and ethnomethodology, study of the daily methods that people use for the construction of social order (Garfinkel, 2002). These approaches involve the use of different techniques such as participant observation, in depth interviews, content analysis, linguistic analysis, biography, and even forms of psychotherapy.

The level of analysis for the quantitative researcher is statistical (Mahoney & Goertz, 2006). The empirical surveys that dominate much of HR research, many of them large scale, are good examples of the methods that operate on the assumptions that are distinctive of an objectivist method. They attempt to portray reality as a type of concrete structure. By analyzing data by means of sophisticated quantitative techniques like multivariate statistical analysis researchers can determine group differences that are statistically significant and not due to chance (Firestone, 1987).

Practical Differences between Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods

In addition to philosophical differences, there are practical approaches to research that drive both qualitative and quantitative methods. Mahoney and Goertz (2006) discuss ten areas of discrepancy that differentiate qualitative and quantitative research studies:

1. Different approaches to explanation. Qualitative methods seek to explain individual cases and use a "causes of effects" approach. Quantitative methods estimate mean or average effects of selected independent variables. This is an "effects of causes" approach.

2. Different conceptions of causation. Qualitative researchers conceptualize causes in terms of necessary and sufficient causes. Quantitative research explains causes in terms of probability and statistical theories.

3. Multivariate explanations. Qualitative research operates on the assumption that individual events do not have a cause and in order to facilitate understanding one must include an assortment of casually relevant factors. Quantitative research operates on the assumptions of additive causes or statistical interactions (differential effects at different levels of an independent variable; Holland, 1986).

4. Equifinality is the concept of multiple causation (George & Bennett, 2005). This refers to the notion that there are potentially multiple causal paths to the same outcome. It has been embraced by qualitative researchers but is less well accepted by quantitative researchers who are interested in relative contributions to causal effects.

5. Scope and generalization. Qualitative research attempts to adopt a narrow scope and avoids generalization. Quantitative research attempts to adopt a broader scope to maximize statistical leverage and to maximize generalization.

6. Case selection practices. Qualitative research tends to seek out positive cases of interest (e.g., one doing research in conflict management would only seek out instances of conflict in organizations). Quantitative researchers look for random selection on independent variables (in an ideal design) and include all cases.

7. Weighing of cases. In qualitative research the evaluation of a theory is sensitive to individual observations. One case that does not fit in with the theory can have important implications. In quantitative research the overall pattern of fit is important. All observations are given a-priori equal consideration.

8. The treatment of substantially important cases. Some cases in qualitative research are more important than others, for instance cultural factors may make some cases more relevant than others. In quantitative research traditionally unless the important aspects of a case are operationalized as an independent variable all cases are treated the same.

9. The treatment of a lack of fit. In qualitative research the tendency is to treatment non-conforming cases with more interest. In quantitative research the trend is to treat them as error. However, this does not mean that the cases are not important to consider.

10. Concepts and measurement. In qualitative research concepts are the center of attention and error can lead to a revision of concepts. In quantitative research measurement tends to take over the center of attention; however, error can be modeled and new indicators can be identified.

The interesting observation here is that when one compares the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods one is inevitably navigating some very sensitive grounds. Researchers that associated with either of these traditions will always respond very defensively to perceived criticisms of their disciplines or to perceived mischaracterizations of their practices, goals, and assumptions. The potential for numerous misconstructions of either one of these viewpoints are many. This misunderstanding of the paradigm is boosted by the very labels of "qualitative" and "quantitative" as they really do not do a good job of grabbing hold of the differences between the two traditions. Quantitative analysis intrinsically involves the use of numbers; however all statistical analyses depend very heavily on words and explanations in order to interpret them. In contrast, qualitative studies frequently use numerical data and in fact a good number of qualitative techniques require the use of quantitative information in order to understand them (Creswell, 2003). Thus, the differences are not always as clear cut as they may seem. In order to compensate for the deficiencies of either model some researchers rely on mixed-method type designs which generally approach an analysis using both designs (Creswell, 2003).