Qualitative v Quantitative Research
The way researchers think about and study the world affects how they decide the research approaches to utilize. According to Boeren (2017), the positivist paradigm prefers quantitative methods, in which the investigator starts from assuming that knowledge derives from facts- and figures-based, objective and value-free ways. Hence, the assumptions and techniques are borrowed from the exact sciences and use quantitative models to test or reject a set of hypotheses. In other words, positivism is the hypothesis-testing research type that targets the presentation of objective facts and figures suitable for measuring percentages and quantities. Meanwhile, the interpretivist framework regards people’s sense-making about the world, thus drawing on the qualitative methodologies (Boeren, 2017). Therefore, the interpretivists start from the perspective where individuals construct and interpret the world. Researchers nowadays tend to adopt the method that best suits their research questions, which helps avoid polarization between the qualitative and quantitative approaches and instead focus on their complementarities.
Advantages of Qualitative Research
Qualitative research approaches provide a detailed description of the feelings, opinions, and experiences of the participants and interpret the meanings of their actions. Rahman (2017) asserts that the method incorporates the multiple realities of the subjects, entailing the analysis of the subjective meaning or social production of phenomena. For instance, qualitative methods collect non-standardized data and analyses images and texts that capture the multiple aspects of people’s lived experiences, actions, lives, emotions, and feelings. The researcher can obtain more in-depth insight into a problem because he or she uses the results to identify the relationships between the observed findings.
Besides, qualitative approaches allow the researchers to develop a holistic understanding of human experiences within specific settings. According to Rahman (2017), interpretivism utilizes a broad range of epistemological perspectives, methods, and interpretive approaches to understand a problem. For example, from a knowledge viewpoint, the researcher cannot separate the subject’s emotions from the context, culture, or values under which they occur (Rahman, 2017). Additionally, qualitative approaches allow the researchers to discover the inner experiences of the participants and to decipher how culture shapes meanings. Since different concepts carry varying connotations, interpretivism helps connect them with the assumptions and relationships they have in culture.
Disadvantages of Qualitative Research
Nonetheless, interpretivism has certain limitations, including the likelihood of leaving out contextual sensitivities and focusing on meanings and experiences. v(2017) illustrates that the phenomenological approach attempts to reveal, interpret, and understand the experience of the participant instead of the crucial issues in the context. The selective and purposive sample of qualitative approaches might focus only on specific participants instead of adopting a representative model. Therefore, there is the disregard for the contextual influence on the experiences, while emphasizing only on the individual factors. The purposiveness and selectiveness ignore the impact of culture on the issue under study, which translates to the inaccuracy of results.
Furthermore, qualitative research often uses a smaller sample size, which raises concerns about the generalizability of the whole research population (Rahman, 2017). Hence, researchers cannot adequately support claims of achieving valid conclusions. The attempt to expand the sample sizes also endangers the deep, naturalistic, and inductive analysis defining qualitative inquiry. Hence, interpretivism faces the limitation of reliability regarding its survey results since there is a higher variability that contributes to bias. The use of small sample sizes might also experience non-responses because of the unwillingness of some subjects to participate, thereby increasing the margin of error and rendering the study meaningless.
Advantages of Quantitative Research
Compared with the qualitative approaches, quantitative research typically utilizes a larger sample size, often randomly selected. Therefore, the positivist findings have higher generalizability to the whole population or subpopulation (Rahman, 2017). A large sample size is more representative because of the comprehensive coverage. The strength of quantitative sampling helps the researcher to produce results among significantly different variables. Thus, there is more credibility in a positivist study because of the closest approximation of the population. The larger sample size also provides a more accurate mean value and permits the identification of outliers capable of skewing data in the smaller samples. There is also replicability in quantitative studies because they rely on testing hypotheses that follow clear guidelines and objectives.
Additionally, quantitative research results are statistically reliable if designed and conducted appropriately. Nykiel (2007) considers the positivist paradigm to be reliably capable of determining whether a concept, idea, or product is better than the alternatives. Importantly, the use of facts and figures enhances the objectivity of quantitative results because they represent an exact science. The use of data analysis tools like SPSS software improves the accuracy of the results and is consumes less time to generate outcomes (Rahman, 2017). Hence, quantitative methodologies are more trustworthy because of their objectivity and scientific nature.
Disadvantages of Quantitative Research
Quantitative research has its limitations, including the likelihood to leave out the ordinary meanings of the social phenomena under study. Accordingly, it is difficult to ascertain the more in-depth underlying explanations and implications of a problem (Rahman, 2017). The positivist paradigm only collects statistical data that yields numerical results without assessing the reasons for meanings and effects in the particular research context. All the collected information requires structuring into numeric forms for analysis, thereby ignoring the contextual factors that influence the participants’ input.
Additionally, the quantitative paradigm fails to account for the way social reality is shaped and maintained. Rahman (2017) observes that the researcher cannot capture how individuals interpret their actions and others because he or she investigates and estimates ideas about experiences. Therefore, quantitative studies leave out some reality, such as the influencing factor or the reason for an occurrence.
Preferred Methodology
Importantly, both qualitative and quantitative methods share in understanding the world through systematic and empirical observation. Nonetheless, they differ regarding the appropriateness, fit, and scope of the produced data that vary based on the issue of interest (Elaine & Van Horn, 2007). They are also both descriptive, evaluative, context-sensitive, and help build theory. However, I would prefer qualitative research because it permits the analysis to ask new questions as he or she seeks clarification on a study issue. Hence, the interpretive paradigm answers diverse types of questions and can readdress an old question (Elaine & Vann Horn, 2007). The approach can yield information that is richer in the description and provides more in-depth insight into the research problem. Therefore, the researcher can understand experiences and actions better than in the closed-ended nature of quantitative measures. The benefit of qualitative research is in its ability to generate a vague but appropriate answer to the right question, compared with the exact response in the positivist approach to the wrong problem. Therefore, the preference for the qualitative methodology regards its strength in discovering pertinent questions, variables, issues, and concepts and generating theories more relevant to the practitioner-researcher.
Conclusion
The researchers’ perspective about the world determines their choice of the study approach to apply. They have a choice between the positivist paradigm that uses quantitative methods and the interpretivist model associated with qualitative techniques. Based on the comparison above, qualitative research provides a detailed description of the research problem and allows the researcher to develop a holistic understanding of the participants’ experiences in context. However, the approach might fail to include contextual sensitivities and is not generalizable due to the small sample size. Comparably, the quantitative methodology uses a larger sample size and can be generalized and presents statistically reliable results. Nevertheless, positivism leaves out common meanings of phenomena because it does not consider the context of occurrence. Thus, the preferred approach is the qualitative paradigm because it permits a deeper understanding of experiences. However, researchers have explored the mixed-methods that apply both measures to eliminate the antagonism.
References
Boeren, E. (2018). The methodological underdog: A review of quantitative research in the key adult education journals. Adult Education Quarterly, 68(1), 63-79.
Monsen, E. R., & Van Horn, L. (2007). Successful approaches. American Dietetic Associati.
Nykiel, R. A. (2007). Handbook of marketing research methodologies for hospitality and tourism. Routledge.
Rahman, M. S. (2017). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language” Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102-112.