The Qualitative Report

Volume 17 | Number 20 Article 4

5-14-2012

Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to the

Study of Poverty: Taming the Tensions and
Appreciating the Complementarities
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura
Usmanu Danfodiyo University, sybkura@[Link]

Follow this and additional works at: [Link]

Part of the Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, and
the Social Statistics Commons

Recommended APA Citation

Balarabe Kura, S. Y. (2012). Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Poverty: Taming the Tensions and Appreciating
the Complementarities . The Qualitative Report, 17(20), 1-19. Retrieved from [Link]

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in The
Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact nsuworks@[Link].
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Poverty: Taming
the Tensions and Appreciating the Complementarities
Abstract
There is a germane relationship between qualitative and quantitative approaches to social science research.
The relationship is empirically and theoretically demonstrated by poverty researchers. The study of poverty, as
argued in this article, is a study of both numbers and contextualities. This article provides a general overview
of qualitative and quantitative approaches to poverty studies and argues that only a combination of the two
approaches, where necessary, would provide a robust, rich and reliable data for researching issues of poverty.
Hence, the contemporary drive towards a mixed methods approach in poverty research is not only welcomed
but certainly timely as well. Thus, understanding ontological and epistemological paradigms about social
sciences is imperative in dousing such tensions.

Keywords
Qualitative Research, Quantitative Research, Mixed Method Approach, Philosophical Assumptions

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.

Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Research Training Workshop for Graduate
Students, Damina School on the Theme, Poverty: The Most Challenging of the Millennium Development
Goals in Nigeria, organised by Centre for Research and Documentation, Kano, held at Aminu Kano Centre
for Research and Training, Mambayya House, Gwammaja, Kano, Nigeria, 19th–30th September, 2010. I’m
highly indebted to the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions, which further enriched the
quality of this paper. I’m also particularly grateful to Hauwakulu M. Dantake for her moral support and
encouragement.

This article is available in The Qualitative Report: [Link]

The Qualitative Report 2012 Volume 17, Article 34, 1-19
[Link]

Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of

Poverty: Taming the Tensions and Appreciating the
Complementarities
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura
Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Nigeria

There is a germane relationship between qualitative and quantitative

approaches to social science research. The relationship is empirically and
theoretically demonstrated by poverty researchers. The study of poverty,
as argued in this article, is a study of both numbers and contextualities.
This article provides a general overview of qualitative and quantitative
approaches to poverty studies and argues that only a combination of the
two approaches, where necessary, would provide a robust, rich and
reliable data for researching issues of poverty. Hence, the contemporary
drive towards a mixed methods approach in poverty research is not only
welcomed but certainly timely as well. Thus, understanding ontological
and epistemological paradigms about social sciences is imperative in
dousing such tensions. Key Words: Qualitative Research, Quantitative
Research, Mixed Method Approach, Philosophical Assumptions.

Historically, poverty has always been an issue continuously attracting attention of

citizens and governments. Today, its question has even been an issue of international
concern to both developed and developing states. This is not to argue that poverty levels
among these countries are the same. Of course, huge variations exist. The developed
industrial societies are concerned about the increasing gap being created by the
contradictions of capitalist political economy, the consequence of which is poverty,
frustrations and other attendant repercussions. They are also concerned about global
poverty because of its tendency for spillover effects. Increasing poverty level in Third
World societies will continue to increase the rate of immigration to developed societies.
On the other side of the argument, the developing societies are concerned with poverty
because of its destructive effects on the socio-economic and political conscience of the
state. That is perhaps why so much effort has been put in addressing the scourge of
poverty. These range from seminars, conferences, workshops and introduction courses at
universities and research centres at both local and international levels in order to research
and study poverty in all its ramifications – causes, patterns, natures, consequences,
eradication strategies, policy sustainability, policy formulation, implementation and
evaluation and so on. Within these themes and issues, there are also the questions of the
indices of poverty. The best way, therefore, to study poverty and address all issues
associated with it, as highlighted here, is to research about it totally, effectively, and
comprehensively. That “best ways” of studying poverty are a function of one’s
philosophical orientation(s) about the origin of knowledge.
In any case, studying poverty is an exclusive preserve of social scientists.
Divergent views and opinions concerning the philosophical orientations influence why
and how individual researchers select/choose research approaches and methodologies.
2 The Qualitative Report 2012

Social science researchers and indeed poverty scholars are often confronted with tensions
of choosing the “best ways” based on their individual philosophical orientations to study
social reality. This indisputably informs the differences and disagreements regarding the
conceptions of social reality and how it is researched and reported. The aim of this paper
is not to resolve these controversies but essentially to examine the very tensions
generated by the seemingly dichotomous treatment and application of the two
approaches. In other words, the contention of this paper is that applying the two dominant
methodological approaches to poverty research separately, not only creates problems, it
also relatively undermines data robustness thereof through a critical examination of the
two dominant approaches to social science research – qualitative and quantitative. This is
done through identification of areas of tension. The paper conclusively argues that there
is no “best way” of studying poverty. To demonstrate that one’s approach and
conceptualisation is the “best” is to explain and justify on the basis of philosophical
orientation, conception of social reality and of course, the contextual characteristics of the
phenomenon being researched and studied. Despite their inherent tensions, both
approaches have considerable contributions to make to further understanding of poverty,
help in formulating poverty reduction strategies, policies, interventions, and in evaluating
such policies (Bogue, 2006; Jeanty & Hibel, 2011; Smit, 2003).
To achieve this objective, the paper is structured as follows. Following this
introduction, the next section provides an overview of the philosophical underpinnings
and orientations of social science research. Section three critically examines the generic
tensions and problems associated with employing quantitative and qualitative research
methods separately. Section four modestly suggests the use of a combination of the two
approaches simultaneously to douse these tensions and as a way of improving the quality
of poverty research exercises.

Philosophical Orientations: The Compass of Research Agenda

Social science research is replete with controversies and disagreements over what
may appear to be simple conceptualisations of social and political phenomena. Thus,
making a decision regarding how to study the social world has always raised a number of
fundamental philosophical debates. The debate revolves around the issues of “ontology”
which denotes “beliefs about what is there to know about the world” (Ritchie & Lewis,
2005, p. 11). The main ontological questions, according to Ritchie and Lewis (2005)
include: whether or not social reality exists independently of human conceptions and
interpretation; whether there is a common-shared-social reality or just multiple context-
specific realities; and whether or not social behaviour is governed by “laws” that can be
seen as immutable or generalisable. In similar parlance, Nørgaad (2008) unequivocally
further questioned that is it really possible to establish common standards for good social
science research. Do such decisions about standards not merely become a positioning of
certain perspectives on the philosophy of science, ontology, and epistemologies? Broadly
speaking, all of these and similar questions

[…] relate to the standard debate for and against inductive and deductive
research strategies; for and against quantitative analysis techniques in
relation to qualitative techniques; depth vs. breadth; interpretation vs.
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura 3

explanation; the ideographic ideal vs. the nomothetic idea; for and against
case studies; in other words, the unending and impossible Methodenstreit
in one of its numerous manifestations. (Nørgaad, 2008, p. 1)

Although these methodological and philosophical issues can create tension due to
methodological dilemmas, they can also serve as the basis for addressing such
apprehensions. Importantly, it helps in avoiding being trapped into self-delusion, where

Sometimes the verbal substitutions masquerading as contributions to

knowledge are so inept and gross that it is difficult to believe that the
authors really think that they are revealing new truths (which must be the
case), and that they are not laughing up their sleeves at the gullibility of
their audience. (Andreski, 1974, p. 64)

These are the problems. Every researcher is confronted with this monster. Critical
understanding of one’s ontological and epistemological perspectives is the beginning of a
tactical confrontation with the monster. For example, Marsh and Furlong (2002) argue
that each social scientist’s orientation to his/her research or subject discipline is shaped
by his/her ontological and epistemological position. These positions either implicitly or
explicitly shape approach to theory and the methods employed by his/her students. These
issues “are like a skin not a sweater: they cannot be put on and taken off whenever the
researcher sees fit” (Marsh & Furlong, 2002, p. 17). Thus all poverty and other social
science research students must be able to recognise and acknowledge their own individual
ontological and epistemological positions and must be able to defend these positions
against the critiques of others. This is the simple reason why such students should be able
to conduct a very good research study that provides new insights and contributes to
policy, theory building and/verification.
Ontological positions and questions deal with the nature of being and of its very
existence. The concern is whether there is a “real” world “out there” that is different and
independent of the world of the researcher. For instance, are there any essential
differences between genders, social classes, or races (Marsh & Furlong, 2002)? In
particular, it would enable students researching and studying poverty to ask and
disaggregate questions relating to the concept of poverty, causes and consequences of
poverty, absolute and relative poverty, measuring poverty, policies on poverty
eradications (formulations, implementation and evaluations), and variations in poverty
among genders, household and urban-rural, and so on. For example, Chambers (2006)
argues that any definition(s) of poverty depends on who asks the question, how it is
understood, and who responded to it. In other words, the definition of poverty is to
“reflect our power to make definitions according to our perceptions” (Chambers, 2006, p.
3). This is because understanding of poverty is shaped politically by ideological
orientation, context, and in particular by ontological positions. In addition to the above,
ontological positions concerning poverty issues would help in choosing suitable research
methods and in building theories of poverty. For example, an ontological assumption of a
poverty researcher would help in establishing and appreciating the differences in relative
and absolute poverty between urban and rural dwellers, between developed and
developing societies, between male and female genders, and so on.
4 The Qualitative Report 2012

As ontological positions demonstrate researchers’ view about the nature of social

reality, the epistemological position on the other hand reflects their opinion of what can
be known about the world and how it can be studied. In fact, the main concern of
epistemology is to understand social reality, to take a position, and to identify ways of
studying it. For example, a particular researcher may argue that there is no such thing as
“real” world existing independent of the conception and meaning actors attached to their
actions and inactions. Thus, this kind of view would apparently suggest that no researcher
can be “objective,” because he/she lives in a social world and is affected by the social
construction of reality. The second related epistemological issue is if a researcher can
establish relationships between social phenomena, can it be done through direct
observation or are there some relationships which can be directly observed? Hence,
answers to these questions shape a researcher’s epistemological position concerning the
best methods of studying a “real” relationship existing in a social reality. However, the
best way to understand and to classify epistemological positions vis-à-vis ontology is to
note the dichotomy between positivist and interpretivist positions. The debate about this
disagreeable distinction revolves around the scientific nature of different epistemological
positions. Understanding these varied ontological, epistemological positions and their
accompanied philosophical orientations (positivism, interpretivism and critical social
science) provide the compass for steering the ship of a good research exercise on all
aspects of poverty.
This orientation is disaggregated within the popular debate concerning the
scientificness of social science research (Bassey, 2000). In other words, these
epistemological and philosophical approaches are important compasses of locating one’s
position in the ocean of poverty research activities. The three philosophical views can be
distinguished by different methods that each employ in collecting and interpreting data
and arriving at conclusions. These philosophical views are positivism, interpretivism, and
critical social science.

Positivists’ Approach

Positivism dominated social science research for a long time until the recent
emergence of critical social science. Guba and Lincoln (1994) argue that positivism is
rooted in the ontological assumption of objective reality. Positivism is concerned with
variables, which embrace a number of assumptions about the social world and how it
should be investigated. It assumes that (a) the social world can be studied in the same
way as the natural world; (b) there is complementary unity of method between the natural
and the social world; and (c) the social world can be value-free.
Positivism is logically connected to pure scientific laws and based on facts in
order to satisfy the four requirements of falsifiability, logical consistency, relative
explanatory power, and survival (Lee, 1991). Lee (1991) further describes the theoretical
requirements of positivism: theories must not only conform to empirical observations but
should be falsifiable. For the second requirement, theoretical propositions must be related
to one another. A given theory must also be able to explain or predict competing theory.
Thus, a falsifiable, consistent, and explanatory theory should be able to survive through
empirical tests. Levin (1988) argues that positivists believe in a stable reality that is
observable and objective which others can easily repeat. The positivists believe that a
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura 5

social science researcher is separated from the phenomenon being researched and
research should be value-free. Positivist research is therefore a “systematic and
methodological process” (Koch & Harrington, 1998, as cited in Walker, 2005) that
emphasises “rationality, objectivity, prediction and control” (Streubert & Carpenter,
1999, p. 7). Factors extracted from these ideas of rationality and objectivity, and
prediction and control comprised the methodological or instrumental positivism.
Positivist advocates were concerned with abstracted empiricism based on quantitative
methods, which were mainly numerical and subjected to statistical analysis (Duffy, 1987;
Morgan & Smircich, 1980).
Positivism is rooted in atomism, quantification, and operationalisation. Atomism
implies that a phenomenon exists as an entity separated from the whole world
(experiments) with discrete elements. Quantification refers to the variables that can be
expressed in terms of numbers and frequencies. This also uses mathematical tools to
reveal significance for drawing conclusions. Operationalisation seeks to define social
phenomena as simple behaviours and life experience (Lee, 1991; Salomon, 1991; Walker,
2005). This suggests that the epistemological perspective of any research defines its
instruments of data collection and analysis.
However, it can be argued that the positivists’ idea about atomizing and
quantifying social phenomenon in the society is flawed. Positivists fail to acknowledge
that the world is fragmented with disorganised units that are distinct from each other and
can only critically be understood through interactions. The variables do not have uniform
characteristics. When clarifying the nature and quantity of phenomena, quantification
may be useful in some cases. Social scientists, especially in political science, sociology,
international relations, and so on are today robust with statistical research techniques. The
nature and type of statistical instrument that is employed by a social scientist is informed
by the kind of data to be collected.
Positivism also aims at measuring the variables of a social phenomenon through
quantification. For example, a study could be conducted to measure the degree of success
of a particular government policy on poverty reduction by considering whether the level
of poverty increases or decreases. The quantity differences are employed statistically to
determine variations among variables (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) and why such
variations exist. However, this is not the case with people’s behaviours which are
complicated and dynamic. Lincoln and Guba (1994) argue that positivism has some
limitations, which could be doused with the use of supplementary descriptive methods,
such as the interpretivist methodology.
Positivism strongly maintains that methodological procedures of natural sciences
are adaptable to social sciences. Social science research is value free and takes the form
of causal laws when explaining social regularities and patterns. Their methodologies
range from cross-sectional, experimental, and longitudinal studies and surveys. Logical
positivism is recognised as the most important in the explanation of different phenomena
and forms the basis for scientific evaluation where programmes and policies require
realistic outcomes (Pawson & Tilley, 1997). Positivism produces highly specific and
precise data. It provides interacting links between reality and “knowledge obtained from
the links with independent assumptions underpinning it and methods used to obtain it”
(Oliver, 1992, p. 106).
6 The Qualitative Report 2012

Despite its popularity, positivism has weaknesses that seemingly undermine its
applicability to social science research. It oversimplifies the real world into experimental
situations that is difficult to apply in reality. For instance, there is no organisation or
community that is prepared to be experimented on. Positivism lacks detailed explanation
of causes and processes of a research phenomenon, and their case studies are difficult to
generalise, as they are often restricted to a single unit of analysis. It is important to
emphasise that positivists use case studies in research-but with a difference. The
difference lies in how they employ quantitative techniques and treat the case as a single
unit of analysis detached from other variables of phenomena. It is also impossible to
separate people from their social contexts and they cannot be understood without
grasping their perceptions. Capturing complex phenomena in a single (or a few)
controlled quantifiable variable(s) can be misleading since this imposes certain
constraints on results and may neglect important findings (Weber, 2004; Keiller, 2005).
Cicourel (1964) and Kuhn (1961) argue that the weaknesses of positivism have
paved the way for a new paradigm which suggests that “all knowledge is socially
constructed and a product of particular historical context within which it is located”
(Oliver, 1992, p. 106). Any social science research should endeavour to understand the
meanings of phenomena, causes, effects and values developed within that social
phenomenon. Interpretivism emerged as the new paradigm in response to the demerits of
positivism. It is used for, for example, research on Human Poverty Index, livelihood,
wellbeing, etc. (Chambers, 2006).

Interpretive Approach

Interpretivism is a generic approach to social science research that comprises

phenomenological sociology, philosophical hermeneutics and constructionist
perspectives. They emphasise the examination of text to discover embedded meanings,
how people use language and symbols to define and construct social practices in order to
understand people’s actions and behaviours. It draws on concepts that positivists ignore
such as self “consciousness,” “freedom of choice,” (Checkland & Scholes, 1990; Hussey
& Hussey, 1997; Newman, 1994) and meanings. The world is interpreted through trends
and through the logic of situations, not the laws of social reality. It is easier to understand
people’s perceptions concerning their own behaviours (Hussey & Hussey, 1997) through
a detailed and qualitative manner in pursuit of knowledge (Kaplan & Maxwell, 1994).
This implies that intepretivists seek to understand knowledge based on social reality
through detailed understanding and interpretation of meaning of events and specific life
experiences.
Interpretivism uses research methods such as participant and non-participant
observation to understand details of interaction in their context. They believe that social
reality is based on subjective interpretation of actions. Natural scientists (positivists)
could not depict the interrelationship between the researcher and the researched, since
they deal with objects that are external to the researcher.
Interpretivists are also criticised for not being different from the positivists. They
are criticised in terms of difficulties arising in establishing validity, reliability, and
generalisations in social research. It is difficult to achieve these three aspects of empirical
research. There are also concerns about the researcher’s intrusion in the lives of the
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura 7

participants as the interpretation, which rests within the researcher, could be biased.
Interpretivists, however, argue that interpretations are part of scientific knowledge in
their own right, although interpretation of reality depends upon the researcher. Although
they emphasise meaning and interpretation of reality through understanding of
behaviours and experiences of people, they tend to overlook the influence of natural
environment on their subjects and research.
Interpretive research minimises these weaknesses through methodological
triangulation of data collection. Although the interpretivists may not provide enough data
for generalisations, they are able to establish the existence of a phenomenon through
detailed analysis as required by the research objectives. Thus, a serious research work
ought to be relevant to the research questions and should be applicable to the research
setting. Quantitative research methods criticise interpretivists for being “soft science,”
exploratory and subjective. Nevertheless, these criticisms fail to address essential issues
raised by the interpretivist paradigm.
In view of the seeming shortcomings of interpretivism, it is important for any
researcher to know that no single research methodology is intrinsically better than the
other. Most authors have sought for a middle position (mixed approach) to research
(Kaplan & Duchon, 1988). Benbast, Goldstein, and Mead (1987) argue that it is best to
choose a context-specific methodology suitable for the problem under consideration and
the researcher’s objectives. This means taking into consideration the complexities of the
real world, such as the varied interests and different political settings and economic and
socio-cultural conditions. Some complexities, for example, are critical dichotomies
existing between urban and rural poverties, between factors influencing poverty among
rural and urban areas, and so on.

Critical Social Sciences

In order to understand and explain social phenomena we cannot avoid

evaluating and criticizing societies’ own self-understanding. (Sayer, 1992,
p. 39)

The critical social science (CSS) perspective emerged as an alternative paradigm

to positivist and interpretivist approaches. CSS views the social world in terms of
historical context and is action - and reflexivity-oriented. Reflexivity refers to the
capacity to locate one’s research within a similar and justifiably acceptable framework to
be used in the course of a research exercise (Eakin, Robertson, Poland, Coburn, &
Edwards, 1996). In this context, a researcher should assume an evaluative stance and
critically analyse how social and cultural history shape his research phenomenon. The
critical social science concurs with the interpretivist paradigm that social science is not
value-free although differs from interpretivism in the view that everything is relative and
nothing is absolute (Kaplan & Maxwell, 1994). Intepretivists view reality as determined
by the values of the people concerned, whereas CSS argues that “research is a moral-
political activity that requires the researcher to commit to a value position” (Newman,
1994, p. 7). The issue of values perhaps underlines the consideration of ethics in any
social science research.
8 The Qualitative Report 2012

The CSS approach also agrees with the interpretivist approach on the fact that the
social world has conditions that require interpretation based on meaning, values and
theory. The critique implies that by thinking and acting upon the world, researchers and
practitioners are able to contribute to knowledge that will change both the subjective
interpretations and objective conditions (Eakin et al., 1996). The interpretivists concur
with the critical social science approach on this point, when they argue that the conditions
or facts are determined by created meanings, which people consider as facts. The
positivists in contrast argue that the social world is determined by neutral facts agreed on
by people. However, the question that remains unanswered and CSS does not address is
how one can distinguish one research problem from another if a researcher has to assume
a reflective posture in social research. Hence, Eakin et al. (1996) argue that it is
incumbent upon researchers to identify the theoretical assumptions underlying the
perspectives of their studies.
The CSS approach is less common and is a new methodology that is developing
among researchers and lacks empirical evidence for application as compared to
positivists and interpretivists (Newman, 1994). There are also fewer opportunities to
redefine the research problem or that freedom to critique as academics in CSS as it is
more action-oriented. However, funding organisations and employers prefer CSS, since
they are interested in action-based studies and findings.

The Tensions of Two Separate Worlds: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Before examining the extent of the “false dichotomies” (Read & Marsh, 2002;
White, 2001) between qualitative and quantitative research methods, it is essential to
explain each on its own merit and in relation to its utilities in poverty studies and
research. The imagined and/or “false dichotomies” between qualitative and quantitative
methods lay the foundation of the tensions in poverty research. This tension was
unequivocally indentified by Kanbur (2001a) as follows:

Poverty analysts in the “Qualitative” and in the “Quantitative” traditions

have been highly active in the policy debates of the past decade. While
quantitative approaches have been dominant, especially in policy-making
circles, the use of qualitative approaches has been increasing.… There
have also been increasing attempts at integrating the two approaches. …
While there is a general acceptance, at least at the level of rhetoric, of the
obvious complementarities between the two approaches, the tensions are
more than apparent. The situation has undoubtedly improved compared to
a decade ago, but practitioners in the two traditions still seem to inhabit
unconnected worlds, with their own conferences, their own academic
journals, and separate departments of (the same) aid agencies who sponsor
their work. The main point is that practitioners do not seem to talk to each
other as much as they ought to, given the common objective of helping to
develop sound poverty reduction strategies. (p. 3)

This is the tension. This is the problem. Qualitative and quantitative researchers talking to
each other seem the only way to begin to address the problem of dichotomies and
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura 9

appreciating the complementarities thereof. However, to further understand the tensions

and identify areas of arguable complementarities, it is important to examine each
methodological approach on its own merits and limitations. Nevertheless, the discussion
here is by no means aiming to show that one approach is better than the other. This is
because the choice of any method should depend on what a researcher is trying to find
out (Silverman, 2000).
By way of conceptualisation, qualitative method or research, according to
Silverman (2000) is one that downplays statistical techniques and the mechanics of the
types of quantitative methods employed in, for example, survey research. Broadly,
qualitative method is a generic term denoting a range of techniques, such as observation,
participant observation, interviews, focus groups, etc., which seek to understand the
experiences and practices of key informants and to locate them within their settings and
context (Devine, 2002). Qualitative method is more easily described than defined. It is a
research method that deals very little with numbers. Despite countless attempts to define
the term, qualitative method seems to defy a single definition. Any additional attempt
creates conflict. This is because in the words of Ritchie and Lewis (2005), the term
qualitative method is used as an overarching category covering a wide variety of
approaches and methods. Denzin and Lincoln (2000) provide one of the most cited
definitions of qualitative method. According to them:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the

world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that makes the
world visible. These practices … turn the world into a series of
representations including field notes, interviews, conversations,
photographs, recordings and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative
research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This
means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the
meanings people bring to them. (p. 3)

The distinguishing features of qualitative research method is its emphasis on a

naturalistic, interpretive approach as a way of understanding the meanings individuals
attach to phenomena based on their actions, beliefs, values, decisions, etc. within their
social contextualities. It is also distinguished by its emphasis on the use of non-statistical
data and arrival at non-statistical conclusions. Although in general terms qualitative
research methods are applicable across social sciences, their usage is determined largely
by the nature of research phenomena. In other words, technical variations exist in
approach, methods, procedures, etc. amongst students of economics, political science,
sociology, anthropology, development studies etc. in their use of qualitative research
methods.
Thus in developmental terms, students of poverty would define qualitative
research methods differently. For example, Kanbur (2001a) notes qualitative research in
poverty to be a method of data collection and analysis, which is based on:

[…] non-numerical information, which are specific and targeted in their

population coverage, which in their design require active involvement
10 The Qualitative Report 2012

from the population covered, which use inductive methods of inference

and which operate in the broad framework of social sciences other than
economics. (p. 7)

McNabb (2004) similarly stresses that qualitative research is a method of a

nonstatistical form of inquiry, techniques and processes employed to gather data on any
poverty issue. Thus such data are collections of words, symbols, pictures, artefacts, etc.
that are relevant to the social group under study. By this token, qualitative research
methods can be employed in the study, measurement, and analysis of poverty. This is
especially so in participatory poverty studies (Chambers, 2001b). The main instruments
of data collection in qualitative research methods are: (a) observations; (b) in-depth
unstructured interviews; (c) focus group; (d) narratives; and (e) documentary analysis.
The strategies of methodological inquiries are: (a) grounded theory; (b) case study; (c)
phenomenology; and (d) narratives (Creswell, 2009).

In poverty research as indeed in the extended social science family, qualitative research
has the features and strengths of:

a. Providing an in-depth and interpreted understanding of social poverty issues

to researchers by learning about their social and material circumstances, their
experiences, perspectives, and histories of poverty;
b. Samples that are small in scale and purposively selected on the basis of salient
criteria of measuring the causes, consequences and dimensions of poverty;
c. Data collection methods which involve close contact and interactions between
the researcher and the researched and which allow explorations of the policies
and programmes of poverty issues;
d. Data which are very detailed, rich and extensive to allow for more
understanding of the scale, relativity, absolutism, and implication of poverty
reduction policies and strategies;
e. Analysis which is open to emergent concepts and ideas and which produces
detailed descriptions and categorisation, establishes patterns, typologies, and
explanations concerning people’s interpretation of the social world of poverty;
f. Findings which focus on the interpretations of social meanings through
mapping and representing the social world of the researched (see Ritchie &
Lewis, 2005);
g. Exploring new, uncharted territory or new ways of looking at the old territory;
h. In-depth understanding of subtle nuances, or a complex, dynamic
phenomenon;
i. A holistic picture for restoring perspective to the issue under investigation;
j. Getting the emic perspective (insider’s view) – cf. etic perspective (outsider’s
view). This is because emic perspective is likely to be very different from the
external observer’s;
k. Digging into emotions and feelings in order to answer why questions; and
l. Getting a handle on any poverty issues with no obvious starting place –
exploratory.
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura 11

Based on the above, apologists of qualitative research methods would tend to strongly
argue that it offers the best approach and designs for poverty research and studies. This is
because the questions of poverty are issues of contextualities - individual, society,
country, policies, strategies, and programmes which would only be understood through
interpretation. However, quantitativists would criticise this methodological approach as
subjective. In fact, Devine (2002) argues that qualitative research method is affected by
(a) crisis of representation which questions the expert status of the researcher in that
“truth is contingent and nothing should be placed beyond the possibility of revision”
(Williams & May, 1996, as cited in Devine, 2002, p. 202); (b) crisis of legitimation
arising from rethinking the concepts of validity, reliability and generalisability; (c) it is
impressionistic; (d) piecemeal; (e) idiosyncratic; (f) too biased and lacks objectivity in the
collection and interpretation of data.
Comparatively, quantitative research is an empirical research where the data are
in the form of numbers (Punch, 2004). Quantitative research employs the language of
numbers, the syntax of mathematical operations and represents data in numerical values
(Abbas, 2006). Bryman (1988) stresses that:

Quantitative research is ….a genre which uses a special language ….

[similar] to the ways in which scientists talk about how they investigate
the natural order – variables, control, measurement, experiment. (p. 12)

In the same vein, quantitative research method employs statistical tools in the collection
and interpretation of data. Quantitative methodologists believed that research can only be
done by statistics and statistical methods. Quantitative research is therefore seen as more
representative and reliable. Its emphasis on systematic statistical analysis helps to ensure
that findings and interpretations are robust (Devine, 2002). It is a research method that is
deeply rooted in positivism and their epistemological orientation. Similarly, quantitative
research denotes collection of observations and measurement of repeated incidences of
social phenomena, such as incidences of crime, household poverty, voting for a political
party, and so on. The idea is that by observing variables over a large number of cases, it
is possible to make inferences about a particular social phenomenon (John, 2002), such as
level of poverty among households in a particular society, who benefits from poverty
intervention programmes, or who benefits from government social welfare policies. The
argument being advanced here is that with large samples social science researchers can
confidently make generalisations about the empirical world. Statistical theory, according
to John (2002) demonstrates that the larger the number of cases or samples, or the greater
the number of samples in relation to the whole population, the better and the surer the
findings. John (2002) further argues that quantitative researchers help their counterparts
to adequately attack them because:

They report complex statistical analysis as though they had run their data
through a “black box.” making knowledge of the technique a necessary
prerequisite to understanding the article. (p. 217)

Often collecting, presenting and analysing data and findings in purely statistical forms
does not help non-statistical specialists understand the logics of quantitative analysis. The
12 The Qualitative Report 2012

implication of this will be summary dismissal of such research by qualitative researchers.

In any case, like qualitative research, quantitative methods have also come to stay and to
continue to shape social science discipline across all its spectrum of knowledge. In this
context, the quantitative approach to poverty measurement and analysis is defined as one
that traditionally employs random sample surveys and structured interviews to collect
mainly quantifiable data and analyse it using statistical techniques (Kanbur, 2001a). The
main features of quantitative research methods are that:

1. It aims to classify features, count them, and construct a statistical model in an

attempt to explain what is observed;
2. A researcher knows exactly what he/she is looking for and where to get it;
3. It is employed during latter stages of research;
4. All stages of the research are carefully designed before data is collected;
5. It employs instruments such as questionnaires, or equipment to collect numerical
data;
6. Data are in the form of numbers and statistics;
7. It seeks precise measurement and analysis of target concepts, such as use of
survey, questionnaires, etc.;
8. Quantitative data is more efficient. It helps to test hypothesis accurately; and
9. It is value-free and objective.

Broadly speaking, quantitative researchers are those who:

1. Believe in ontological and epistemological assumptions of the positivists;

2. View social science as analogous to natural science and aim at establishing causal
explanations and followed scientific laws of establishing relationships between
the social phenomena being investigated;
3. Focus on describing and explaining behaviour rather than describing meanings of
social phenomena;
4. Adopt a deductive approach in using a theory to generate hypotheses and test
them empirically; and
5. Deal with large amount of data which are subjected to statistical techniques of
analysis (Read & Marsh, 2002, pp. 231-248).

In spite of its distinguishing strengths, quantitative research methods are attacked

for their lack of rigour, ignoring the reality of the social world of the researched, lying
with figures and numbers, neglecting socio-cultural contexts of phenomena, employing
ad hoc procedures in defining, counting and analysing variables, as numbers themselves
need qualitative explanations, and so on. For instance, numbers do not provide any
detailed explanation of a research phenomenon. Even where numbers are used, they need
qualitative explanation to adequately flesh them out. While qualitative research tends to
take the socio-cultural settings and orientations of research objects on board, quantitative
research hardly does it this way. Silverman (2000) sharply stresses that quantitative
research suggests a “quick-fix” for the following reasons: it (a) involves virtually no
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura 13

contact with the participants; (b) statistical correlations might be only based on variables
that are arbitrarily defined; (c) it relies on after-the-fact speculation of the meaning of
correlations; (d) unperceived values may creep into the research due to over-dependence
on measurement; and (e) over-reliance on the test of hypotheses can make the
development of hypotheses a trivial matter and consequently fail to help in generating
hypotheses from the data.
Obviously, treating qualitative and quantitative research methods both
theoretically and in application for the study of any social science phenomena as two
separate entities would create serious seemingly irreconcilable tensions. Each of them has
its major strengths and weaknesses. Counting on the strengths of one research method
might not necessarily nor completely negate its weakness, nor would it utilise the
strengths of its counterparts. In other words, no amount of qualitative techniques would
address the utility of quantitative research and vice versa. In fact, based on this
understanding most empirical research today has acknowledged the two methods’
indispensable role in social science and can best be combined to an advantage (Read &
Marsh, 2002). This is highlighted by the fact that that the contemporary debate about the
dichotomy between the two methods is not only shallow but also waning and based on
stereotypes of the research process (John, 2002).

The False Dichotomy: Combining Approaches for Complementarities in Poverty

Research

One of the troubling aspects for most students of social science is the selection of
the most appropriate and suitable methodological approach for their individual
researches. Secondly, the inherently false dichotomy naively publicised by students and
practitioners of qualitative and quantitative approaches would make such a selection by
novice researchers increasingly difficult. Bryman (1988) contends that even though
differences exist between the two approaches, researchers have tended “to create a
somewhat exaggerated picture of their difference and theoretical irreconcilability” (p.
93). Understanding one’s ontological and epistemological position and its empirical
application would suggest that such a dichotomy does not necessarily play to the
advantage. What even further demonstrates the falseness of the so-called dichotomy is in
the nature of social reality. For example, to understand and to capture the diversity and
complexity of poverty within countries, a wide range of data must be collected from
conventional and participatory sources. This is because different indicators would have
different and complementary uses in the identification of poverty and planning. For
instance, objective income or consumption measures could be used to give a picture of
the extent of poverty at a national level and could also be aggregated internationally for
comparative studies. Thus for analysis and detailed planning, more qualitative measures
and participatory approaches would be the most suitable. Importantly, measuring poverty
is never the same as understanding why poverty occurs (Maxwell, 1999). Thus, to
measure and to understand the causes of poverty, evaluate poverty eradication policies,
etc., both qualitative and quantitative approaches are simultaneously suitable and
appropriate.
Poverty issues are complex and therefore need a combination of methods and
instruments for robust measurement and analysis. Given the increasing usage of the
14 The Qualitative Report 2012

combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, today there is a general drive

towards complementarities as a way of dousing the tension created by the false
dichotomy and maximising the utility of the two approaches. Creswell (2009) observes
that today with the development and perceived legitimacy of the two approaches, mixed
methods has now gained wider popularity. He noted:

This popularity is because research methodology continues to evolve and

develop, and mixed methods is (sic) another step forward. Also, the
problems addressed by social and health science researchers are complex,
and the use of either quantitative or qualitative approaches by themselves
is inadequate to address this complexity…. Finally, there is more insight
to be gained from the combination of both qualitative and quantitative
research than either form by itself. Their combined use provides an
expanded understanding of research problems [and help to address them
comprehensively and adequately]. (Creswell, 2009, p. 203)

Although social science research could be conducted using any of the two approaches
separately, in employing mixed method approach the challenge to poverty researchers is
to define and to design their research using a combination of quantitative and qualitative
approaches. The best starting point is to ask the question “to what extent, and in what
contexts, we can have the best of both worlds with these approaches and methods”
(Chambers, 2001b, p. 26). Indeed, the numbers are needed for representativeness and
credibility, and the insight for relevance and realism. Accordingly, the quantitative
approach shall be used in poverty research because of the following:

1. Time series comparisons to identify trends in whatever dimensions are measured,

cross-section comparisons between different individuals, households, groups and
communities, and across regions, countries and continents;
2. Correlations which identify associations which raise questions of causality and
covariant changes;
3. It estimates of prevalence and distributions within populations and areas;
4. Triangulation and linkages with qualitative data;
5. The credibility of numbers in influencing policy-makers;
6. The utility to policy-makers of being able to put numbers on trends and other
comparisons (see Chambers, 2001a);
7. It makes aggregation possible;
8. It provides results whose reliability is measurable; and
9. It allows simulation of different policy options (Kanbur, 2001b).

Similarly, a qualitative approach shall be employed in poverty research as it provides:

1. Richer data for the formulation and implementation of poverty policies and
programmes;
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura 15

2. Clear understanding of the multidimensionality and complexities of poverty

issues;
3. Richer definition of poverty;
4. Insight into how individuals conceive and understand poverty;
5. Understanding the contextual nature of poverty and poverty policies;
6. More insight into causal processes;
7. More accuracy and depth of information on certain questions; and
8. Accurate evaluation of poverty policies.

The above mappings of the areas where and why qualitative and quantitative
approaches could be used separately to study poverty provide insight to novice
researchers. This should also help in understanding why the two approaches should be
combined. Thus, the reasons for combing methodological approaches in poverty
researches include: (a) using one method does not allow the researcher to address all
aspects of the research questions and objectives; and (b) using a variety of methods may
increase the validity of research as one method serves as a check on another (Read &
Marsh, 2002). The major issue in combining is to note that the quantitative approach is
about breadth while the qualitative approach is about depth. Thus, the three ways to
combine the two approaches for complementarities in poverty research are: (a)
integrating the quantitative and qualitative methodologies; (b) examining, explaining,
confirming, refuting and/or enriching information from one approach with that from the
other; and (c) merging the findings from the two approaches into one set of policy
recommendations (Carvalho & White, 1997). In sum, the best way to conduct research on
poverty is to understand and appreciate when, where, and how best to use exclusively
qualitative research, quantitative research, or to combine them.

Concluding Notes

Thus far, this paper highlights and examines the main thrusts of qualitative and
quantitative approaches to the study of poverty. Until recently, the two approaches were
critically opposed to each other, and this created a fundamental lacuna in comprehensive
investigation and understanding of the complexities of social reality (research
phenomena). The implication of these arguable drawbacks has been the creation and
development of a “false dichotomy.” Thus qualitative researchers operated naively in a
world seemingly and imaginatively different from that of the quantitative researchers.
However, the very social phenomena being investigated and studied turned against the
very researchers studying it. Consequently, social phenomena demonstrated that it were
beyond the methodologies and instrumental forces of any one single approach –
qualitative or quantitative alike to study and understand them in total. Social phenomena,
therefore, turned into “monsters,” which only a “combined” research approach (of
quantitative and qualitative methodologies) could be employed to tame the tensions
created by the “false dichotomy.” Today, social science and indeed poverty researchers
have not only come to accept mixed method approach but also appreciate its
complementarities. However, this development does not negate the very utility of using
individual research approaches separately where necessary. To achieve a safer landing,
the choice of any methodological approach – qualitative, quantitative, or a combination
16 The Qualitative Report 2012

of the two (mixed method) by any poverty researcher should be as a matter of necessity
guided by (a) the researcher’s ontological and epistemological perspectives about social
reality; (b) research phenomenon under investigation; (c) aims and objectives the
researcher is seeking to achieve in a particular research exercise; (d) research questions;
(e) hypotheses/assumptions; (f) theoretical framework of analysis; (g) time and resources
disposable to the researcher; and (h) research audiences.

References

Abbas, S. A. (2006). Using quantitative research in the social sciences. In Y. M. Adamu,

H. Mohammed and K. I. Dandago (Eds.), Readings in social science research (pp.
50-58). Kano: Adamu Joji Publishers.
Andreski, S. (1974). Social sciences as sorcery. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Bassey, C. O. (2000). Theory and research process in social sciences in Nigeria: A
synthesis and evaluation of the state of debate in political science. Annals of the
Social Science Academy of Nigeria, 12(4), 17-38.
Benbast, I., Goldstein, D., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of
information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369-386.
Bogue, P. (2006, May). The role of research in effective policy making. Paper presented
at the International Agricultural and Extension Education, AIAEE 22nd Annual
Conference, Clearwater, Florida.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago.
Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Routledge.
Carvalho, S., & White, H. (1997). Combining the quantitative and qualitative approaches
to poverty measurement and analysis. World Bank Technical Paper Series, No.
366.
Chambers, R. (2001a, March). Qualitative approaches: Self criticism and what can be
gained from quantitative approaches. Workshop presented on Qualitative and
Quantitative Poverty Appraisal: Complementarities, Tensions and the Way
Forward sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, presented at Cornell
University, Toronto, Canada.
Chambers, R. (2001b, March). The best of both worlds. Workshop presented on
Qualitative and Quantitative Poverty Appraisal: Complementarities, Tensions and
the Way Forward sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, presented at Cornell
University, Toronto, Canada.
Chambers, R. (2006). What is poverty? Concepts and measures. Poverty in Focus, pp. 3-
4. Retrieved from [Link]
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester:
Wiley.
Cicourel, A. V. (1964). Method and measurement in sociology. New York, NY: Free
Press of Glencoe.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research designs: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura 17

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Devine, F. (2002). Qualitative methods. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and
methods in political science (2nd ed., pp. 197-215). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Duffy, M. E. (1987). Methodological triangulation: A vehicle for merging quantitative
and qualitative research methods. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 19,130-
133.
Eakin, J., Robertson, A., Poland, B., Coburn, D., & Edwards, R. (1996). Towards a
critical social science perspective on health promotion research. Health
Promotion International, 11, 157-165.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485-
499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hussey, J., & Hussey, R. (1997). Business research. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Jeanty, G. C., & Hibel, J. (2011). Mixed methods research of adult family care home
residents and informal caregivers. The Qualitative Report, 16(3), 635-56.
John, P. (2002). Quantitative methods. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and
methods in political science (2nd ed., pp. 184-211). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kanbur, R. (2001a). Q-Squared? A commentary on quantitative and qualitative poverty
appraisal. In R. Kanbur (Ed.), Q–squared: Qualitative and quantitative methods
of poverty appraisal (pp. 1-21). New Delhi: Permanent Black.
Kanbur, R. (2001b). Qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal: The state of play and
some questions. In R. Kanbur (Ed.), Q – squared. Qualitative and quantitative
methods of poverty appraisal (pp. 22-27). New Delhi: Permanent Black.
Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in
information systems research: A case study. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 571-586.
Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. A. (1994). Qualitative research methods for evaluating
computer information systems. In J. G. Anderson, C. E. Aydin, & S. J. Jay (Eds.),
Evaluating health care information systems, methods and applications (pp. 45-
68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualising rigour: The case for reflexivity.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(4), 882–890.
Kuhn, T. S. (1961). The function of measurement in modern physical science. Isis,
52(168), 161-193.
Lee, A. S. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational
research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342-365.
Levin, D. M. (1988). The opening of vision: Nihilism and the postmodern situation.
London: Routledge.
Marsh, D., & Furlong, P. (2002). A skin, not a sweater: Ontology and epistemology in
political science. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political
science (2nd ed., pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maxwell, S. (1999). The meaning and measurement of poverty. ODI Poverty Briefing, 3,
1-4.
18 The Qualitative Report 2012

McNabb, D. E. (2004). Research methods for political science: Quantitative and

qualitative methods. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of
Management Review, 5, 491-500.
Newman, M. (1994). Defining the enemy. Sidney: Victor Stuart.
Nørgaad, A. S. (2008). Political science: Witchcraft or craftsmanship? Standards for good
research. World Political Science Review, 4(1), 1-28.
Oliver, M. (1992). Changing the social relations of research production? Disability,
Handicap and Society, 7(2), 101-115.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Evaluation research. London: Sage.
Punch, K. F. (2004). Developing effective research proposals. London: Sage.
Read, M., & Marsh, D. (2002). Combining quantitative and qualitative methods. In D.
Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and methods in political science (2nd ed., pp.
231-248). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2005). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science
students and researchers. London: Sage.
Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and
systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10-
18.
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.
Smit, B. (2003). Can qualitative research inform policy implementation? Evidence and
arguments from a develping country context. Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, 4(3), 1-5. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/[Link]/fqs/article/view/678
Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (1999). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing
the humanistic imperative (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Walker, W. (2005). The strengths and weaknesses of research designs involving
quantitative measures. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10(5), 571-582.
Weber, R. (2004). The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism: A personal view. MIS
Quarterly, 28(1), 3-12.
White, H. (2001, May). Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in poverty
analysis. Paper presented at the Global Development Network, Washington, DC,
USA.
Williams, M., & May, T. (1996). Introduction to the philosophy of social research.
London: UCL.

Author Note

Sulaiman Balarabe Kura, PhD teaches political science, Usmanu Danfodiyo

University, Sokoto, Nigeria. He was a recent Commonwealth Scholar and obtained his
PhD from the University of Birmingham, UK. His areas of interest are, African politics,
political parties, development studies, research methods and political theory. His articles
among numerous others have recently appeared in African Journal of Elections, African
Journal of Conflict Resolution, Africa Insight, and so on. He is widely published both
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura 19

locally and internationally. Correspondence regarding this article can be addressed to Dr.
Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura, Department of Political Science, Usmanu Danfodiyo
University, PMB 2346, Sokoto, Nigeria; E-mail: sybkura@[Link] and
sybkura@[Link]

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Research Training
Workshop for Graduate Students, Damina School on the Theme, Poverty: The Most
Challenging of the Millennium Development Goals in Nigeria, organised by Centre for
Research and Documentation, Kano, held at Aminu Kano Centre for Research and
Training, Mambayya House, Gwammaja, Kano, Nigeria, 19th–30th September, 2010.
I’m highly indebted to the reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions,
which further enriched the quality of this paper. I’m also particularly grateful to
Hauwakulu M. Dantake for her moral support and encouragement.

Copyright 2012: Sulaiman Y. Balarabe Kura and Nova Southeastern University

Article Citation

Kura, S. Y. B. (2012). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to the study of poverty:

Taming the tensions and appreciating the complementarities. The Qualitative
Report, 17(Art. 34), 1-19. Retrieved from
[Link]