Qualitative versus Quantitative: What Might This Distinction Mean
David Collier
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
Qualitative Methods provides a fitting occasion to reflect on this branch of methodology.1 Given that the other APSA organized section concerned with methodology2 is centrally fo-cused on quantitative methods, the additional issue arises of the relationship between the qualitative and quantitative traditions. Adopting a pragmatic approach to choices about concepts (Collier and Adcock 1999), we believe that the task here is not to seek the "true" meaning of the qualitative-quantitative distinction. Rather, the challenge is to use this distinction to focus on similarities and contrasts in research practices that pro
Key takeaways
- In contrast to much qualitative research, quantitative analysis employs formal tests grounded in statistical theory.
- Detailed knowledge associated with thick analysis is likewise a major source of leverage for inference; a characteristic strength of qualitative research.
- Indeed, some scholars consider thick analysis the single most important tool of the qualitative tradition.
- On the qualitative side, such research places central reliance on nominal categories, focuses on relatively few observations, makes little or no use of statistical tests, and places substantial reliance on thick analysis.
- The different components of qualitative and quantitative methods provide distinct forms of analytic leverage, and when they are combined in creative ways, innovative research can result.
Related papers
The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic
The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is abstract, very general and its value is usually taken for granted. In contrast, this article attempts to show that the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is unclear, poor and therefore of limited value and that its popularity risks leading to unfortunate consequences. Various arguments are presented for this conclusion. For example, it is argued that the heterogeneity of different stand-points on important issues among qualitative researchers (for example with respect to the use of quantification and causal analysis) makes the distinction as such unstable. Moreover, the presence of substantial overlap between many features of qualitative and quantitative research often makes it difficult to separate qualitative and quantitative research. It is also shown that three obvious ways of making the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research are unsatisfactory. Use of the distinction may restrict creativity in the development of new research methods and create confusion and unnecessary work. In general, it may be preferable not to conceptualize research approaches at such abstract levels as done in the context of qualitative or quantitative approaches. Instead, it is suggested that it is more fruitful to discuss the pros and cons of specific research methods, preferably in the context of specific research problems.
Introduction: On the Compatibility between Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2001
Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences
Introduction Educational researchers in every discipline need to be cognisant of alternative research traditions to make decisions about which method to use when embarking on a research study. There are two major approaches to research that can be used in the study of the social and the individual world. These are quantitative and qualitative research. Although there are books on research methods that discuss the differences between alternative approaches, it is rare to find an article that examines the design issues at the intersection of the quantitative and qualitative divide based on eminent research literature. The purpose of this article is to explain the major differences between the two research paradigms by comparing them in terms of their epistemological, theoretical, and methodological underpinnings. Since quantitative research has well-established strategies and methods but qualitative research is still growing and becoming more differentiated in methodological approaches, greater consideration will be given to the latter.
Comparative Analysis of Qualitative And Quantitative Research
M.Lib.I.Sc. Project, Panjab University, under guidance of Dr. Shiv Kumar, 2019
There's no hard and fast rule for qualitative versus quantitative research, and it's often taken for granted. It is claimed here that the divide between qualitative and quantitative research is ambiguous, incoherent, and hence of little value, and that its widespread use could have negative implications. This conclusion is supported by a variety of arguments. Qualitative researchers, for example, have varying perspectives on fundamental problems (such as the use of quantification and causal analysis), which makes the difference as such shaky. In addition, many elements of qualitative and quantitative research overlap significantly, making it difficult to distinguish between the two. Practically in the case of field research, the Qualitative and quantitative approach can't be distinguished clearly as the study pointed. The distinction may limit innovation in the development of new research methodologies, as well as cause complication and wasteful activity. As a general rule, it may be desirable not to conceptualise research approaches at such abstract levels as are done in the context of qualitative or quantitative methodologies. Discussions of the benefits and drawbacks of various research methods, rather than general research questions, are recommended.
A comparative essay between quantitative and qualitative research
In this paper, as a practitioner, I describe quantitative and qualitative inquiries. I explain some of their differences and similarities. I emphasize most important differences that researchers should consider when selecting one of the methods or when running a mixed study. I list differences in worldviews, research design, research processes, reliability assurance, and validity assurance. I propose a process flowchart for each type of inquiry. The purpose of the essay is to give researchers and primarily doctorate students a review of differences and similarities between the two methods of inquiry.
What is Qualitative in Research
Qualitative Sociology
In this text we respond and elaborate on the four comments addressing our original article. In that piece we define qualitative research as an “iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied.” In light of the comments, we identify three positions in relation to our contribution: (1) to not define qualitative research; (2) to work with one definition for each study or approach of “qualitative research” which is predominantly left implicit; (3) to systematically define qualitative research. This article elaborates on these positions and argues that a definition is a point of departure for researchers, including those reflecting on, or researching, the fields of qualitative and quantitative research. The proposed definition can be used both as a standard of evaluation as well as a catalyst for discussions on how to evaluate and innovate different sty...
Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: A call for a new partnership
New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1994
Mixing Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Proceedings of the 4th European …, 2005
Wrzesniewski and the slump_management research group. All errors and omissions remain my own.
Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Educational Researcher, 1987
The current debate about quantitative and quahtative methods focuses on whether there is a necessary connection between method-type and research paradigm that makes the &fferent approaches mcompahble. This paper argues that part of the ~i onnection is rhetorical. Quanktatwe methods express the ssumptwns of a posltwlst paradigm whzch holds that behavior /. can be explained through objective facts. Design and mstrumenta-~--kon p_ersuade by shozvmg how bias and error are eliminated. ~Quahtahve~nethods express the assu,~nphons~of a /~henomenol-~ogi-I cal para&gm that there are mulhple realities that are socially '~ defined. Rich descnphon persuades by showing that the researcher was immersed m the setting an~l ~wm~. the reader enoueh detad l~to 'make sense" of the sztuahon. Whde rhetorically_different, ?"the results of---~the tw~dologzes can be"co~Ipleme'~Jary. [Examples are drawn from tzvo studies using different ~, methodologies to study the same problem.
Related papers
The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: a question of method or epistemology?
British Journal of Sociology, 1984
The `Qualitative' Versus `Quantitative' Research Debate: A Question of Metaphorical Assumptions?
International Journal of Value-based Management, 2000
A great deal of criticism has been aimed at empirical-analytic research because of its narrow focus. However, a similar criticism can be leveled at qualitative research. The purpose of this manuscript is not to champion one approach at the expense of the other, but rather to focus on discussing the assumptions of each methodological approach in terms of metaphorical thinking.
Reconcilable differences: the marriage of qualitative and quantitative methods
Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 1996
Qualitative research consists of methods that allow for a more in-depth understanding of phenomena and encompasses techniques such as focus groups, in-depth interviews, and participant observation. The guidelines that pertain to sampling and analysis are different from those which govern quantitative techniques, but they can be applied just as rigorously to ensure the validity of the results. This article introduces these methods and criteria and illustrates how qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined in order to improve what is learned from each.
Qualitative Methods As An Essential Complement To Quantitative Methods
Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, 2007
In this brief essay I will elaborate on some of the points I raised at last year's APSA panel on multi-method work. As always, I emphasize the essential complementarity of different methods. I first briefly discuss why qualitative research and formal models have much to offer each other and why scholars in each methodological tradition can gain much from a better understanding of the other tradition. I then shift to a focus on the overlooked link between qualitative and quantitative research, to argue for a reconsideration of the requirements of the inputs of quantitative research: What constitutes good data? I close with a proposal that calls for collaboration between qualitative and quantitative researchers to set new standards for the collection and use of large-N datasets.
Critically analyse the differences between qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences...
Criminological research is a subjective mission supported by the researcher's normative ideas, which help them to formulate a hypothesis or become interested in an issue.
Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the Research Process
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2005
Qualitative and quantitative research are often presented as two fundamentally different paradigms through which we study the social world. These paradigms act as lightning conductors to which sets of epistemological assumptions, theoretical approaches and methods are attracted. Each is seen to be incompatible with the other. These paradigmatic claims have a tendency to resurface from time to time, manifesting themselves in the effects of different cultural traditions upon intellectual styles of research. There are pressures to view research in terms of this divide but perhaps more pressures to ignore such a divide. In this paper I examine how qualitative and quantitative approaches are in practice woven into the research process. In doing so I discuss the phasing of the research process and the different considerations which apply in different phases. A distinction is made between the context of enquiry or research design phase and the context of justification where data are analysed and interpreted. Part of the research process that is also considered here and is often ignored in the literature concerns contextualization, an important phase particularly in cross-national research. The Case for Separation and the Case for Convergence The case for separate paradigms is that qualitative and quantitative researchers hold different epistemological assumptions, belong to different research cultures and have different researcher biographies that work against convergence (Brannen, 1992). Indeed qualitative researchers are embracing even greater reflexivity, for example
Critical discussion between qualitative and quantitative research approaches
UNICAF University - Zambia, 2021
The Interlinkages between Qualitative and Quantitative Research: A Review
IRJET, 2022
Research design methods, such as qualitative, quantitative as well as mixed methods were introduced and subsequently each method was discussed in detail with the help of literature review as well as some personal and live examples to substantiate the findings of various literature. From various literature as well as from the own experiences, it is concluded that both qualitative research design method and quantitative research design method are equally important. It is not fair to criticize one method as the researcher is inclined towards the other method. It is practically evidenced that usage of both methods in the research, the researcher can substantiate the case better. However, duration part while using mixed methods to be kept in mind as it will take more time compared to the qualitative and quantitative methods. Hurrying and aborting in the middle due to time constraint ultimately result in poor research. It would be better if the world view towards these methods changes from criticizing mode to effective utilization mode, which will help research community in focusing and bring up better research outcomes rather than wasting time in arguing which method is scientifically acceptable and which method is biased. While I agree that the ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological assumptions for qualitative research method and quantitative research method, researchers should know fully about these methods and keep them as effective tools to utilize them in mixed mode, wherever it is appropriate and required to arrive at adequate research findings.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.