Main Differences Between Quantitative And Qualitative Research Methods In The Social Sciences
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s name
University
City (State)
Date
Main Differences Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods in the Social Sciences
Introduction
There are two main methods used in the societal domain to conduct a study, quantitative and qualitative. However, an extensive argument emerges regarding a suitable paradigm and method founded on each methodology’s benefits. Though, in most cases, the research methods complement each other in conducting a particular study despite their differences. This paper will begin by defining quantitative research, qualitative research, positivism, and interpretivism. It will discuss positivism and interpretivism paradigms; discuss differences between the qualitative and quantitative research regarding data collection methods and sample sizes. Further, the essay will shed light on qualitative and quantitative case studies illustrating the data collection methods, sample sizes, and paradigms used in each case.
Social scientists utilize either quantitative or qualitative methods to carry out their research. Quantitative research philosophy asserts that human beings gain knowledge through reasoning, therefore accentuating objective measurements and numerical computational techniques (Apuke 2017). To guide quantitative and experimental research, scientists use the positivism paradigm. According to the positivism paradigm, research ought to be free from biasness, objectivity, and independence of the researcher’s beliefs (Cao and Thanh 2015). On the other hand, qualitative views human beings gain knowledge through interaction and past experiences utilizing a naturalistic approach (Hiller 2016). However, to direct qualitative research, researchers employ interpretivism that considers knowledge subjective. Thus, a researcher contributes to how data is gathered, analyzed, and interpreted. According to Rahman (2015), interpretivism is regarded as a qualitative research paradigm. Though a contest exists between the superiority of research methods in social sciences, it is crucial to consider the research question before opting for a specific methodology.
Theoretical Paradigms and Research Method
Various paradigms assume diverse approaches to defining the nature of reality. There are many paradigms research may operate within the social sciences. The most commonly used paradigms in social sciences include positivism and constructivism/ interpretivism (Chowdhury 2019). However, these are just a subset of paradigms that might support a researcher’s objective in conducting research. The application of paradigms to research methods is different but crucial for a researcher. According to Chowdhury (2019), each technique has its place in social science, based on its specific objective, strengths, and weaknesses. However, an appropriate method and paradigm depend on the research questions, context, and possible results from the study. Thus requires careful examination before using it for a specific research query. The underlying principle of social science research is regularly argued through expounding on societal behavior (Chowdhury 2019). A constant contest exists within the social sciences among subjectivists who prefer to deal with whole cases and objectivists who opt to break their material into variables. Social science researchers can be grouped according to their approaches in carrying out research, majorly constructivists / interpretivists, and positivists.
Interpretivism and positivism are the most used paradigms in research. Interpretivism considers qualitative analysis over quantitative analysis to carry out researches and approach reality (Ryan 2018). The qualitative studies allow collaborative, participative, and close interactions with participants, thus gaining a precise understanding of what they do, problems they face, and how they deal with the problems. The critique of positivism led to the development of interpretivism in social sciences. According to Ryan (2018), the constructivist approach is principled on naturalistic data collection methods such as interviews and observations through secondary research are also utilized. The interpretivists search for methods that deeply understand human beings through social constructions such as language, cultures, and contexts. Worthy to note, the subjectivist epistemology recognizes that there is a direct relationship between the researcher and the research subject. Significantly, generalizations in interpretivism are through theoretical abstractions.
Contrary to interpretivism, positivism relies on quantifiable observations that form a basis for statistical analyses. The positivists view the world as observable and calculable facts, supporting the quantitative method to conduct research (Ryan 2018). Furthermore, the positivists consider reality an objective and measurable capable of being converted to dependent and descriptive (independent) variables. According to Ittner (2014), positivist researchers are based on the formulation of hypotheses and deductions for concise and precise decision making. Moreover, the positivistic approaches also seek to reduce units in the study to the simplest terms and evaluate phenomena besides presenting logical decisions about whether to accept or reject a hypothesis. Most importantly, scientific experiential uses quantitative research techniques to set up a prediction and causal relationship regarding social reality. The generalizations in positivism are by statistical probability.
Qualitative and Quantitative Research Key differences
Social sciences researches may be associated with the positivistic paradigm that supports quantitative research or interpretivistic paradigm research that adapts qualitative research. Qualitative research targets to achieve a deep experience of how individuals perceive the world. Therefore, the approach notes issues left out by positivistic research by considering the consciousness that shapes social reality. Importantly, qualitative uses an inductive approach to conclude the analyses, thus disregarding a method that supports objective information. According to Percy (2015), several designs are used to conduct qualitative research, such as ethnography, narrative research, grounded theory, and phenomenological research. The success of qualitative research depends on the amount of time allocated to conduct the research. Interviews mostly conducted face to face or over a telephone are the most commonly used data collection methods in qualitative research. In addition to interviews, focus groups and observation are employed to collect primary data (Taylor et al. 2015). Secondary sources of data such as videotapes, surveys, and pictures sources are employed in qualitative research. The analysis of data in qualitative analysis majorly uses an iterative process (Kekeya 2016 ). Qualitative and qualitative techniques are regarded as conflicting; however, observations and interviews can be interpreted qualitatively or quantitatively.
In contrast to qualitative research, Quantitative research involves collecting and analyzing numerical data to summarize, make predictions, and test causal relationships. The quantitative analysis employs diverse statistical tools to accept or reject a hypothesis and make valid conclusions (Apuke 2017). The statistical tools employed in the quantitative approach assists in complex analysis and generalizations of patterns. Further, a deductive approach is incorporated in qualitative co relational research to examine causal relationships between variables. Also, quantitative research may incorporate an investigational method or explanatory method to establish relations among variables under analysis. According to Merriam and Grenier (2019), the qualitative analysis uses Inferential to test a hypothesis or descriptive statistics to summarizes and analyze data based on the rationale of the study. The analysis process begins with data collection, analysis, and interpretations (Sheard 2018). The methods used in the qualitative approach to collect data include interviews, questionnaires, observations, and records (Taylor et al. 2015). However, secondary sources of data may be used in qualitative research. The data collection methods allow replication, comparison, and collection of large samples of data within a short duration.
Samples sizes vary between qualitative and quantitative research approaches. The qualitative study examines a small group of individuals through physical interaction with the participants, thus collecting behavioral information on small sample size (Fugard and Potts 2015). In comparison, quantitative research collects many samples by availing questionnaires based on multiple open-end questions in a quantitative questionnaire. The method of data collection in quantitative research is distinct from the analysis. Researchers use qualitative analysis to gain an in-depth experience of a specific participant within a sample. In contrast, a researcher may use quantitative research when they require precise and generalized valid results. Conclusively, quantitative deals with numerical data that can test an abstract hypothesis using mathematical techniques, while qualitative deals with words that describe and develop an understanding of characteristics of the variables such as human and social sciences.
Evaluation of Case Studies on Qualitative and Quantitative
This section scrutinizes case studies based on the theoretical paradigms and further compares data collection methods and sample sizes in each case research.
Qualitative
Article one: Williams, S.N., Armitage, C.J., Tampe, T., and Dienes, K., 2020. Public perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic: A UK-based focus group study. MedRxiv.
The first article explores the UK public’s experiences and perceptions of social distancing and social seclusion measures linked to the COVID-19 epidemic. Further, it examines the impact of social distancing and peoples’ views on the future regarding social distancing. The data was collected using online video conferencing combined with snowball sampling and volunteer advertising sites, and social media advertisements (William et al. 2020). In addition to video conferencing, purposeful sampling was used to gather various ages, gender, and social background information. The data analysis involved an iterative process that incorporated recording and coding under a thematic coding framework (William et al. 2020). The analysis also used the grounded theory approach to organize data into primary and more focused codes. Finally, the data were analyzed using the NVivo (version 11.4.3, QRS) (William et al. 2020). Results, Discussions, and conclusions were made. However, the main limitation was the inability to differentiate whether the higher degree of social conscience expressed was affected by social desirability biasness encountered in the focus groups (William et al. 2020). The exploration to gain a precise understanding of individual experiences and perceptions due to social distancing due to COVID-19 and impacts presents data analysis in values and qualities. This depicts that exploratory research falls under interpretivism.
Article two: Irawan, Andi Wahyu, Dwisona Dwisona, and Mardi Lestari. “Psychological Impacts of Students on Online Learning during the Pandemic COVID-19.”
The second article researches the Psychological effects of Students on Online Learning throughout the epidemic COVID-19. The use of telephone calls to conduct interviews aided in collecting a sample of 30 subject’s data. The data that was collected and recorded was explored using phenomenological study and reduction techniques. Discussions, results, conclusions, and suggestions were made, and the main limitations emerged from purposeful sampling. The approach based on naturalistic data collection methods in the form of values and qualities points out that this research is based on interpretivism.
Article one and article two used different methods of data collection. In article one, online video conferencing was used, while in the article, two telephone calls were used to collect data. The data was collected by employing five focus groups, with 27 participants running between March 28th and April 4th (William et al. 2020). In the second article, interviews were conducted through telephone calls on a sample of 30 subjects (Irawan et al. 2020). However, the researcher used the unstructured interview to collect a variety of data regarding the participant. In article one, online video conferencing was used since it is more engaging than audio conferencing, increases attendance, and ensures first-hand information validity. In contrast, the second article employed telephone calls to uphold interviewee privacy, allow note-taking, and maintain social distancing measures.
Quantitative
Article third: Shah, Neha, et al. “Mental health amongst obstetrics and gynaecology doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of a UK-wide study.”
The third article examines the consequences of the COVID-19 epidemic on obstetricians and gynecologists’ psychological welfare in the United Kingdom. An online cross-section survey was used to collect data to explore the effects of COVID-19 (Shah et al., 2 020). Both inferential and descriptive statistical tools of analyzing data were used in particular chi-squared tests, descriptive statistics, and regression analysis (Shah et al. 2020). The use of a small sample size of doctors operating as gynecologists and obstetricians within the United was the only identifiable limitation to the study (Shah et al. 2020). The employment of statistical tools to analyze and interpret the data illustrates that the research is principled on positivism.
Article four: Chirikov, I., Soria, K.M., Horgos, B., and Jones-White, D., 2020. Undergraduate and Graduate Students’ Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The fourth article reports research conducted on 9 universities to explore the negative effects on undergraduate and graduate students’ psychological health at research universities (Chirkov et al. 2020) due to the COVID-19 epidemic. The research employed two types of questionnaires to collect data. The data collected was analyzed using descriptive summary techniques such as frequencies and comparative bar graphs based on study areas, sciences, languages, art, or social sciences. The discussions and recommendations of the study are presented with no Limitations (Chirkov et al. 2020). The utilization of numerical data to analyze and draw conclusions portrays the study is based on positivism.
Article three uses an online cross-section survey to collect data among 208 doctors’ operating within gynaecology and obstetrics. The surveys were distributed via emails to doctors, social media, and newsletters (Shah, Neha, et al. 2020). Snowball samplings were utilized to aid in moderating selection bias and engage hard to contact subjects. In article four, the data was collected from a sample of 46 071 (undergraduates and graduates) by using two types of questionnaires (Chirkov et al. 2020). Article three is a cross-sectional survey evaluating the burden of COVID-19, usually descriptive; therefore, it illustrates the suitability of employing a cross-sectional survey to collect data. The fourth article used questionnaires to collect data due to the need to collect replicated data for easier comparison besides having a large sample to draw valid conclusions.
Conclusion
A research method supported with appropriate theoretical paradigms and data collection techniques forms the basis of any social research. Each method requires a unique approach to address the research problem and aid in formulating a valid conclusion. The utilization of any method depends on the context, research question, and the resulting consequences. From articles presented on the COVID-19 pandemic, precision eliminates errors in data collection and analysis, leading to unbiased decisions. The divergence existent in qualitative and quantitative research lies in the explanation and rationale of data validation.
Though a contest exists between the superiority of research methods in social sciences, it is crucial to consider the research question before opting for a specific methodology. However, several conclusions can be drawn from quantitative and qualitative research techniques essential for a researcher. The research method used is dependent on the research questions and hypothesis that require to be taken into consideration. The formulation of a research question is linked to the goals and aim of the research.