DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Methodological Innovations Online, 2010

We examine the concepts of quantitative research and qualitative research, and argue that this dichotomy has several dimensions which are often, erroneously, assumed to coincide. We analyse two of the important dimensions -statistical versus non-statistical, and hypothesis testing versus induction. The crude quantitative-qualitative dichotomy omits many potentially useful possibilities, such as non-statistical hypothesis testing and statistical induction. We also argue that the first dimension can be extended to include establishing deterministic laws and the consideration of fictional scenarios; and the second to include "normal science" research based on questions defined by an established paradigm. These arguments mean that the possible types of research methods are more diverse than is often assumed, and that the terms "quantitative" and "qualitative" are best avoided, although other, more specific, terms are useful. One important sense in which the term "qualitative" is used is simply to refer to the use of data which yields a deep and detailed picture of the subject matter: we suggest the use of the word "rich" to describe such data.

Qualitative research is a design used to study a particular group of people in order to find out about their beliefs, values, attitudes, behaviours, perceptions, experiences, and how they make meanings in their lives. In short, it is used by the researcher to look deeply inside individuals, to observe the meaning of their lives, and to observe how they create those meanings. For this reason, qualitative research has become very popular among other research methods and it keeps gaining attention from researchers around world in many different fields. Educational organizations have widely employed qualitative research for different purposes.

Indian journal of …, 2000

Quantitative methods have been widely used because of the fact that things that can be measured or counted gain scientific credibility over the unmeasurable. But the extent of biological abnormality, severity, consequences and the impact of illness cannot be satisfactorily captured and answered by the quantitative research alone. In such situations qualitative methods take a holistic perspective preserving the complexities of human behavior by addressing the "why" and "how" questions. In this paper an attempt has been made to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both the methods and also that a balanced mix of both qualitative as well as quantitative methods yield the most valid and reliable results.

Qualitative Health Research, 2005

Qualitative Research Is Not a Modification of Quantitative Research I was dismayed to see when reviewing an undergraduate research text-one of the enlightened ones that give qualitative research equal time in the curriculum-that qualitative inquiry was being taught in parallel to quantitative research. In fact, this text was intended for students learning qualitative and quantitative in the same research class. The text, with an underlying philosophy of equality, presented the student with one chapter on quantitative and then one on the same topic in qualitative. For instance, students were supposed to be taught sampling for quantitative research, then sampling for qualitative, then move on to some other topic in the research process, learning first quantitative conventions, then qualitative. This seems to be rather like learning about several cultures at once in an anthropology class-by discussing first a particular belief, custom, or way of doing something in one culture, then the same in a second culture, with the discussion of each quite removed from the cultural context or from other norms and practices. But it also raises the question of how qualitative inquiry should be taught. It forces us reflect on how we actually learned qualitative inquiry. Most of us were probably first schooled in quantitative inquiry. In North America, even today, quantitative inquiry is considered essential in undergraduate and graduate programs; qualitative inquiry is considered a luxury, something to be added to the curriculum only if there is space and if there is time. In this light, the "equal time" philosophy in the above research text makes it appear enlightened. Some of us had minimal formal training in qualitative work, took a notebook, and headed for the field. Others may have had an extensive number of classes on qualitative inquiry-much theory and little practice-before working on our own. Others, the lucky ones, may have had both, classroom theory and mentoring with a senior researcher on a project, as preparation for their own research. There is no doubt that the resources for those who wish to learn qualitative inquiry have changed. There are now numerous texts available on most topics and methods, of various quality, and differing learning philosophies. There are workshops and short courses available for those who are willing to make the effort to learn. And there is usually support within most departments from at least a few faculty doing qualitative research. In other words, there are ample opportunities for those who wish to become good qualitative researchers, should they desire to do so. We should, therefore, be moving forward in great strides, but there are indicators that we are not out of the woods yet. How, for instance, can such a widely used text introduce such a peculiar approach to teaching qualitative inquiry? Why has