Qualitative research is relatively new to nursing research. Despite its being usually underused and undervalued, qualitative research is increasingly contributing to nursing knowledge (Hall, 2006). The purpose of this paper is to compare qualitative and quantitative research in order to examine their differences. The comparison will be done by examining an article using the qualitative method and two articles using the quantitative method. All articles are on the same topic, cystic fibrosis. All articles were published in well-known and reputable journals. The qualitative article is by Carpenter and Narsavage (2004) and the quantitative ones are by De Bias, et al., (2015) and Skolnik, et al. (2015). The comparison between the qualitative and quantitative articles will be accomplished by selecting components of the qualitative process, and reviewing the components are demonstrated by the qualitative article, and how that differs in the quantitative articles. This paper will cover the research elements of philosophical underpinnings, study settings, and objectivity and credibility. Finally, the components of qualitative research will be listed.
1. Philosophical Underpinnings
Traditionally, the purpose of qualitative research is to discover the meaning of concepts, whereas quantitative research seeks to quantify the concept. Quantitative research fits under a positivist perspective. The researcher is the expert and the goal of the research is to uncover laws (Neuman, 2003). The researcher operates from a hypothesis and gathers information to prove or disprove the hypothesis, which is a deductive method. Qualitative research is interpretive and descriptive. The expert is not the researcher, but rather the informants that provide the information are the experts. Typically, qualitative research will start with an open and generalized research. The study starts with the gathering of the data and then establishes the hypothesis, which is an inductive method.
In the qualitative study, Carpenter and Narsavage (2004) start with a purpose, which was to describe the lived experience of families with a child that has cystic fibrosis. The method they use to gather data is focus groups. The units of analysis are the words and phrases that the families use to describe the experience. Themes emerge from words and phrases. Themes are a way of categorizing the experience. The process is inductive in that it moves from the data to a generalization.
The Skolnik, et al. (2015) study does not start with a specific hypothesis, but it does begin with a closed research question: to determine the outcomes associated with Group A Streptococcus infections and to characterize the genotypic or phenotypic features associated with Group A Streptococcus infections among adults with cystic fibrosis. Categories do not emerge from the data, they are determined prior to the study. There is no attempt to explore the kinds of infection among adults with cystic fibrosis; instead the authors focus on one species and its behavior. The behavior is described in pre-set categories. The unit of analysis is described in numbers. In the De Biasi, et al. (2015) study, the hypothesis is clearly deductive and expressed in the purpose of the study—circulating endothelial cells and circulating fibrocytes are altered in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.
2. Setting of the study
Qualitative research takes place in a natural and uncontrolled setting in order to maintain the integrity of the context to the extent possible. Quantitative research relies on the researcher controlling the environment in which the study takes place, and as a result quantitative studies usually take place in a lab (Hall, 2006). In the Carpenter and Narsavage (2004) study, there is no attempt to control factors in the study environment. The researcher guided the discussion with a prepared set of topics, but the group dynamics take over and other topics are brought up and examined. Ideally, the data is being generated synergistically by the study participants.
The setting of the De Biasi, et al. study (2015), is the fluorescence emission used to detect the circulating fibrocytes. The data does not emerge, but rather is counted and characterized. In the Skolnik, et al. study (2015), the study setting is sputum and the data collected is the number of bacteria. In the quantitative studies, the human being has disappeared and the context is minute. The qualitative setting is holistic and examines the data within the context of the human beings.
3. Objectivity and credibility: The Relationship of the researcher to the study entities or participants
In qualitative research, there is an understanding that the world cannot be divided into portions that can then be studied objectively (Neuman, 2003). The researcher is part of the world and does not stand in an objective position with regard to the phenomenon being examined. In fact, the researcher is an integral part of the research. This understanding is exemplified by the Carpenter and Narsavage (2004) study in that the person guiding the focus groups was one of the researchers and therefore needs to be recognized as influencing the study setting. Distinguishing the influence of the researcher was accomplished by a detailed description of the methods. The means of identifying researcher bias was by the iterative process of analysis. Credibility is established by using direct quotes from the participants. Carpenter and Narsavage (2004) also established credibility by having the participants review the description and analysis to ensure that the data truthfully reflected their feelings and ideas and represented the proceedings of the focus groups.
In quantitative research, there is an understanding that the world can be divided into portions and each decontextualized portion can be studied objectively. The researcher not only can stand outside the phenomenon, but must stand outside the phenomenon and examine it objectively. In the De Biasi, et al. (2015) and Skolnik, et al. (2015) studies, the individual who collected the data is not mentioned, but it is assumed to be a research assistant.
4. Components of qualitative process
The components of the qualitative process are: statement of the phenomenon, purpose of the research, research methods, sampling technique, data collection and data analysis, means of establishing credibility, auditability, fittingness, findings, and finally conclusions, implications.
5. The values of the different approaches
Qualitative and quantitative answer different questions and are used for different purposes. If the intent is to explore a topic, an inductive method is the better approach because it reveals what the important questions would be. If the intent is to demonstrate a generalization, then a deductive approach is better. For example, the Carpenter and Narsavage (2004) study results reveal the concerns of the families of cystic fibrosis patients and can be used to formulate educational material and support services. This information is valuable to the nursing profession because it has an impact on the health status of the patient. In the De Biasi, et al. (2015) and Skolnik, et al. (2015) studies, the results are just as valuable as they advance research in the progress of cystic fibrosis disease and in genetic counselling. The increase in qualitative nursing studies attests to the growing recognition that of the value of the approach.
Quantitative research is easier to read and understand because the numbers are presented in tidy tables and concise categories. Reading and understanding qualitative research is more difficult because much the data is filtered through the authors, is untidy, and the results are less clear cut, which reflects the nature of reality. That being said, qualitative researchers deserve respect for the chances they are taking in moving nursing research forward. Qualitative researchers cannot predict what they will find and thus it can be more difficult to convince funding sources of the value of their research. Further, outside the few nursing journals dedicated to qualitative research, most medical journals only accept quantitative research.
References
Carpenter, D. R. & Narsavage, G. L. (2004). One Breath at a Time: Living with Cystic Fibrosis, Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 19(1), 25-32.
De Bias, S. Cerri, S., Bianchini, E., Gibellini, L., Persian, E., Montanar, G., Cossarizza, A. (2015). Levels of circulating endothelial cells are low in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and are further reduced by anti-fibrotic treatments. BMC Medicine, 13, 277-287. DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0515-0
Hall, A. (2006) Qualitative research and its role in nursing knowledge. Nursing Times, 102(20), 32–35.
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Fifth Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Skolnik, K., Nguyen, A., Somayaji, R., Thornton, C. S., Waddell, B., Surette, M. G.,Parkins, M. D. (2015). Clinical implications and characterization of Group A Streptoccoccus infections in adults with cystic fibrosis. BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 15, 161. DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0157-1
