Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Methods in Social Science
This literature review examines the philosophical foundations, practical differences, and relative strengths of qualitative and quantitative research methods as applied in the social sciences and human resources (HR) research. Drawing on constructionist and positivist traditions, the paper traces the origins of each paradigm to seventeenth-century debates about knowledge and reality, outlines ten practical dimensions on which the approaches differ, and evaluates arguments for combining them into mixed-methods designs. The review concludes that neither paradigm is universally superior, that both make use of each other's data types, and that the choice of method should be determined by the specific research question under investigation.
- Introduction: Contextualizes qualitative-quantitative debate in HR research
- The Philosophy of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods: Traces paradigm origins to subjectivist-objectivist philosophical traditions
- Practical Differences between Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods: Ten concrete dimensions distinguishing the two approaches
- The Logic of Combining Methods: Arguments for and against mixed-methods research designs
- Conclusions and Implications for HR Research: Five take-home principles for future HR researchers
- References: Full bibliography of cited sources
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Systematically traces each paradigm to its philosophical roots, giving the comparison historical depth rather than treating methods as purely technical choices.
- Uses Mahoney and Goertz's (2006) ten-point framework to translate abstract philosophical differences into concrete, numbered practical contrasts — making the argument easy to follow and cite.
- Balances critique fairly: neither paradigm is dismissed, and the discussion of mixed-methods honestly acknowledges that many studies adopt the approach without adequate rationale.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies comparative literature synthesis: rather than summarizing sources independently, it uses each citation to build a cumulative argument that neither paradigm is self-sufficient. This technique — staging philosophical debate, then practical contrast, then methodological synthesis — is characteristic of strong graduate-level literature reviews in social science research methods courses.
Structure breakdown
The review opens with a framing introduction that contextualizes the paradigm debate in HR research, then moves to a substantial philosophy section covering subjectivist and objectivist ontologies. A numbered practical-differences section follows, giving readers a concrete comparison tool. The mixed-methods section evaluates arguments for and against combining paradigms, including Bryman's (2006) empirical survey of 232 studies. The paper closes with five take-home points for future HR research. This progression from abstract to concrete to applied is a model structure for a methods-focused literature review.
Introduction
Two of the most prominent approaches in 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 approach, often with one paradigm belittling the assumptions of the other. This literature review explores the philosophical foundations of each paradigm, compares their practical differences, and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches as they relate to research in the social sciences and to human resources (HR) 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 regard to conducting research. There has been a growing concern regarding the adequacy of research methods in social sciences and HR studies (Anderson, 2004). This interest developed alongside increasing attention to cross-cultural influences in the social sciences and as they related to understandings of employees and management. Ambiguities have emerged in interpreting and utilizing findings from previous areas of research. Many researchers and their findings have been accused of producing scientific studies that do not fully explain phenomena as they occur in the real world.
A good deal of HR research has been largely empirical and predicated on a positivist research philosophy. This differs from the phenomenological research viewpoint that has inspired research in traditional HR management disciplines. Much of the empirical research in HR has evolved largely from doctoral dissertations, underscoring the importance of sound research grounding — predominantly where quantitative approaches, primarily hypothesis testing, are 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 distinct philosophical viewpoints.
The predominant school of empirical thought has traditionally used a quantitative approach based on research in "hard" sciences such as biology and medicine (Blalock, 1984). Beginning in the 1970s, serious concerns were raised about the limits of quantitative research methods 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, explaining and predicting causal relations among central variables. Critics countered, however, that positivistic methods strip context from meanings during the process of developing quantified measures (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). These critics charge that quantitative measures omit subjective interpretations from data, impose the researcher's interpretations on the data, and require statistical samples that may not be representative of specific groups, preventing 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 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 interpretivists have criticized for imposing a worldview on subjects rather than describing and understanding those views. Postmodernists have argued that positivist methods imply forms of knowledge that support capitalist structures and inequality. As a result of these criticisms there has been growing interest in qualitative research methods that do not follow the quantitative interpretation of variables and statistical methods, but instead seek to explore the subjective experiences of research participants (Blalock, 1984). Both quantitative and qualitative research methods should be viewed as complementary rather than as opposites.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.