The term corruption in the simplest and most basic sense refers to the abuse or misuse of the available public resources and amenities by few individuals so as to benefit their private needs and urges. It also refers to a state where the people elected in public places, and offices use their powers and privilege to enrich themselves with the public resources. And powers at the expense of the general public or a whole society. At the face value, major corruption scandals would involve instances and cases where the officers in the positions of authority take bribe and solicit other mutual favors from people in need of the. It is important to note and mention that corruption shakes the social and economic fabric of the nation because it robs off people the chance and opportunity to earn decent livelihoods (Kittel, 252). For instance when there is a process of giving jobs and corruption is involved, there, merit would be thrown out at the expense of favoritism and money. Thus, the honestly qualified persons may be denied the chance in such a situation.
It is against the above backdrop and information that there have been called and requests to fight corruption in its entirety. However, there has been variations and variance in terms of school of thoughts on how to study and tackle corruption. The first school of thought and reasoning supports the use of a qualitative approach while the other fronts a quantitative approach and mode. It is important to note and record that quantitative research or analysis of corruption would rely on numbers and figures either to measure the number of people who support a certain venture or not. The irreducible minimum in this line of approach is that corruption modes would be gauged and analyzed by use of statistical numbers and figures. For instance, a study may be carried out to establish with utmost precision, the number of people who believe that their government is tackling corruption in its entirety.
It is notable that it is easier for people to lie with words than statistical postulations would (Abelson, 69). Words that are presented during case studies and research are at a risk being sugar coated or euphemized so as to strike a public appeal. It is thus easier for a qualitative research on the level of corruption or the whole notion and concept of corruption as a whole to be misinterpreted o misled (Rathbun, 9). However, when accurate quantitative statistics is involved, more precision and accuracy is involved thus the intended results, and outcomes would be achieved.
In a similar line of thought and reasoning, it is difficult for established statistical data, inferences and findings to be misused or be arm twisted to suit a certain quarter of the society. For example, if quantitative analysis is done on the number of people who stand prospects of being overweight or obese due to specified reasons, such findings and results would meet higher threshold of believability. In the aspect and context of corruption, the same argument and line of thought and reasoning would suffice. It is to say that when studying corruption, a quantitative approach ought to be used because it would provide the accurate prevalence rates which are factual (Gerring, 22). For instance, if a quantitative research on corruption stipulates that a certain percentage of people say fifty percent of public officers in a certain ministry or office are corrupt or have misused public funds for their private gains.
It is needless to mention that the mere incorporation of the numbers or the statistical figures shows that the numbers invoked would be factual and absolute. Thus, when drawing inference, a person would be safe to use the available number of officers in that particular and same office to conclusions.
On the other hand, qualitative research focuses on the use of the quality of life or the welfare of people. Therefore, when findings and conclusions are made in this line of thought and respect, the inferences and findings would be subject to different interpretations as would have been understood by the different people. This is because there would no absolute facts that would be established to measure the level of welfare relative to corruption (Ziliak, Stephen T and McCloskey). A practical case and instance are the intuitions where people feel that a particular ministry or officers in the department are corrupt. The statistical variables involved in this case are people and feelings. A rhetoric question would then be asked to establish the level or amount of hate that is physically impossible to gauge precisely (John, 272).
Secondly, is the interpretation of the word how many people were they, where were they drawn from so as to establish the level of biases if need be. It is to say that would prove challenging to highlight the independence and the power of the description. In this case and line of thought, it is difficult and open to contest, when feelings such as hate towards corruption would be used as a variable. Hate by all means and aspects is not universal, or the degree of hate varies from one person to the next and thus, qualitative research of corruption would prove challenging. If the arguments and reasons are valid enough.
It is important to stress the weight that numbers have over and above words or descriptions (Mahoney, James, and Goertz, 231). It stems from the fact that numbers are factual and absolute while words may make sense depending on the interpretation of human beings, and their feelings involved.
In the case and situation of corruption, it goes without saying that the primary aim of the study and research would be so as to ensure that the trends are gauged or outlined. The primary aim is to reduce corruption and seek ways of curtailing it using the existing pool of statistical knowledge to do the same. It is to mention that postulations and possible corruption prevalence are easy to measure only if the statistical data and information is quantitative. It is only when all the statistical findings are precisely stated that a proper postulation or correlation analysis could be done.
For instance, if the past records show that the number of people or officers who engaged in corrupt practices are from a certain background where a specific or precise number is given. It would be easier to draw inferences in future cases to postulate or hypothesize the prospects of repetition (Morgan, 10). Qualitative study of corruption, on the other hand, does not provide the benefit of future projections and postulations. It is so because the qualitative data and variable would rely on possibilities and faith of people or belief that a corrupt practice may occur in the future based on experience and happenings (Jackman, 172). A proper combative action or remedial measure may not be possible given the belief of people or possibilities that people may have towards a practice.
For example, if people or the participants in a study or research believe that in the corruption standards in the country or a specific ministry would increase in the future. It becomes a measure of the indication relative to their welfare. However, it would be practically impossible for the policy makers and law enforcement agencies for instance to initiative significant approaches to deal with that situation and circumstance (Resnik, 11).
On the other hand, if quantitative measures and variables are used then the statistical analytical tools would be easier to draw policy actions so as to deal with the menace. It stems from the fact that quantitative variables and analysis uses probability such as the use of p-value. It is important to note and record that probability is based on science while possibility is based on faith (King, Keohane, and Sidney, 11). Comparative the concept of corruption, it implies that when probable reason and facts are involved then inferences and possible future actions will be drawn. It would only occur when the hypothesis would have been proved and established beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus, if a hypothesis would have been proved and confirmed, it would be easy for future policy actions to be taken based on the existing probable circumstances. It goes without saying to highlight that possibility is faith-based and mostly obtained from qualitative approach and studies (Franklin, 241). On the other hand, probability is science-based or the fact-based that is obtained from quantitative research.
Given the fact that the study of corruption is a social phenomenon or study, it would follow that the methods of research ought to be focused towards a common goal. In this case and line of thought, the primary objective and principle line of thought ought to understand corruption in its entirety, its causes, the possible remedial measures ad approaches amongst many other things. Thus, the inference ought to be believable regardless of the approach of study whether qualitative or quantitative. In qualitative research, however, the accumulation of empirical evidence or facts may not be sufficient because of the differences in interpretations and analysis (Hammersley, 120). Thus, the objective of the research that is to draw credible inferences would be erroneous and misleading. Therefore, the possibility of studying corruption may lead to erroneous and misleading findings.
Conclusively, the above essay has established and drawn the comparative analysis in the study of corruption relative to qualitative and quantitative research. It is important to note that the regardless of the method that is used in the research, the procedures ought to be explicit. The conclusions or the inferences must be founded from theory, and the methodology ought to be approved and appreciated as correct. The irreducible minimum is the fact that qualitative research or study on the concept of corruption would strive to look into the welfare levels using descriptive variables and analysis (Devine, 199). It means that the power of description would differ in one person to the next depending on individual understanding and inclinations. On the contrary, the quantitative research would imply that the inferences are factual and based from an existing pool of information. Thus, future postulations and inferences would be informed from the existing body of knowledge.
Works Cited
Abelson, R. P. "Statistics as principal argument." (1995).-2 (2000): 63-188.
Devine, Fiona. "Qualitative methods." Theory and methods in political science 2 (2002): 197-215.
Franklin Mark. Quantitative Analysis. 2004. 240-263
Gerring, John. Social science methodology: A criterial framework. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Hammersley, Martyn. "Recent radical criticism of interview studies: any implications for the sociology of education?." (2003): 119-126.
Hammersley, Martyn. "The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism." (2002): 159-174.
Jackman, Robert W. "Cross-national statistical research and the study of comparative politics." American Journal of Political Science (1985): 161-182.
John, Peter. Quantitative Methods. na, 2010. 267-284
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press, 1994.
Kittel, Bernhard. "A crazy methodology? On the limits of macro-quantitative social science research." International Sociology 21.5 (2006): 647-677.
Mahoney, James, and Gary Goertz. "A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research." Political Analysis 14.3 (2006): 227-249.
Morgan, David L. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. Sage, 2013.
Rathbun, Brian C. "Interviewing and qualitative field methods: pragmatism and practicalities." Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford: OUP (2008).
Resnik, David B. "Statistics, ethics, and research: an agenda for education and reform." Accountability in Research 8.1
Ziliak, Stephen T., and Deirdre N. McCloskey. "The cult of statistical significance." Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 27 (2008).
