Quantitative and Qualitative Research Paradigms
Introduction
In the field of social research, it is generally likely, and definitely common, to describe the methodology of a research study as quantitative, qualitative, or as a combination of both which is known as mixed methods. This paper discusses the distinctions between these research paradigms, as well as its uses for social research. Quantitative research largely uses numerical information or data, whereas qualitative research mainly uses content-based, descriptive information. Such straightforward definitions are helpful in the initial research planning, yet they do not provide the complete image of the difference between quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative research implies an entire philosophy, or a methodology, which requires a group of procedures, including numerical data (Punch, 2013). Likewise, qualitative research is a philosophy, or a methodology, which also includes a group of procedures, including qualitative or non-numerical data. Hence, whole descriptions of the terms 'qualitative research' and 'quantitative research' would consist of the following (Leavy, 2014): a frame of mind about the social phenomenon being examined, and how it is studied and conceptualized; the methods and designs carried out to explain this frame of mind, and to gather data; and, the information or data.
Quantitative research aims to generate generalizable, replicable, and objective findings, and, and is generally focused on prediction. It is crucial for the researcher to suppress his/her biases, beliefs, and preconceived notions to guarantee objectivity in the carrying out of the research and the findings that are generated. Quantitative data collection uses surveys, tests, and other instruments, and uses statistical procedures to verify hypotheses (Punch, 2013). On the other hand, the qualitative research paradigm places emphasis on identifying and explaining the way of thinking, worldviews, and experiences of participants. In other words, this paradigm examines and interprets reality and meaning.
Historical Context and Determining When to Use the Quantitative or Qualitative Paradigm
Although the term 'qualitative research' is relatively newer than assumed, the word 'qualitative' has a much earlier origin. Medieval scholars differentiated 'quanta' from 'qualia' centuries ago. However, it was only recently that qualitative research became a popular, independent research paradigm, even though researchers had been using the same methodologies in the past (Leavy, 2014). As explained by Wolcott (2009), “Prior to the past three or four decades, not much had been written about field methods” (as cited in Leavy, 2014, 19). From the beginning conflict emerged between proponents of the quantitative and qualitative paradigm who were supporters of the ideally 'objective' knowledge generated by the natural sciences, and scholars who believed that the human sciences required another paradigm due to their complicatedness and the presence of occurrences unfamiliar in the hard sciences-- consciousness.
Qualitative research is the most appropriate paradigm when the research questions of a study are most suitably answered by gathering and interpreting qualitative information. Likewise, deciding whether to carry out quantitative research is determined correctly when the research questions can be accurately answered through collection and analysis of quantitative data. The main purpose for carrying out quantitative research is to determine how many individuals in a sample share specific features (Bernard, 2012). It is particularly intended to generate precise and decisive instruments that enable statistical measurements. Quantitative research must also be performed when the researcher's objective is to profile a specific population in terms of common features (e.g. socio-demographics). By means of established statistical methods like factor analysis, regression, or correlation (Leavy, 2014), this paradigm can be applied to build models that identify shared characteristics or opinions or predict possible behavior.
Impact of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Paradigms on Social Research
Interpretivism and positivism have been the two paradigms that have been dominating social research from the very beginning. The positivist paradigm-- quantitative-- began to become embedded into the field of social research in the latter part of the 19th century, because of the remarkable achievements made by the natural sciences (Corbetta, 2003). The positivist paradigm used in social research demonstrated that social reality must be examined using the research method and reasoning of the natural sciences, thus the term 'social physics' to refer to the area of analysis of social research-- society (Corbetta, 2003). In contrast, as stated in the interpretivist paradigm-- qualitative-- there is a core 'epistemological' dissimilarity between natural sciences and social sciences (Bernard, 2012). Such point of view claims that social reality cannot merely be subjected to observation, but instead requires interpretation.
As argued by post-positivists and neo-positivists, social theories are now explained or approached in terms of probability, which implies that theories are inherently temporary, are in no way determinately validated and constantly remains subjected to probable rebuttal. Within the natural sciences the area of analysis is comprised of a reality that is outside the observer/researcher and stays that way throughout the study; hence, knowledge becomes a mere description (Bernard, 2012). On the other hand, in the social sciences, there is no separation between the researcher and what is being studied; and knowledge is acquired merely through a completely distinctive mechanism-- interpretation. Such core dissimilarities clearly demand different research methods and approaches (Punch, 2013). Thus, the subjectivist perspective created its own research methods and its own procedures of studying empirical reality.
Strengths and Limitations of the Quantitative and Qualitative Research Paradigms
Each of the research paradigms has its own strengths and limitations. Some of the strengths of quantitative research are as follows: can be used to test and prove already developed theories; findings can be generalized and replicated; can be used to acquire information that facilitate quantitative predictions; collection of data is somewhat fast; generates accurate, numerical, quantitative information; the research findings are objective and detached from the researcher; and, can be used to study huge populations (Leavy, 2014). On the contrary, according to Bernard (2012), quantitative researchers might neglect the observation of a phenomenon due to a lopsided concentration on hypothesis or theory verification; and, knowledge generated might be overly general and hypothetical for actual use in particular individuals, settings, and circumstances.
Qualitative research offers comprehensive, detailed, and thorough information about an individual's beliefs, value system, and perspectives. It can also generate in-depth knowledge about the causes of an occurrence (Corbetta, 2003). However, just like the quantitative research paradigm, qualitative research also has several limitations, such as the likelihood of researcher bias, difficulty of replicating and generalizing findings, and procedural dilemmas due to subjectivity.
Conclusions
The field of social research, which largely concerns the study of society, has often been contested because of the complexity of its methodological paradigm. Both the quantitative and qualitative research paradigms have uses in social research, but their differences make it difficult for the researcher to determine what paradigm is best for a specific situation or problem. Hence, researchers analyze their research questions carefully in order to identify the best research paradigm to use. Consequently, these dissimilarities resulted in distinctive research methods and techniques for the natural sciences and social sciences.
References
Bernard, H. (2012). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research: theory, methods and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Leavy, P. (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Punch, K. (2013). Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
