In social research, researchers are always confronting with a vast majority of options for opting the research methods. Among all of the existing research methods, quantitative and qualitative research paradigms appear to be the most celebrated methods for the majority of the social researchers. However, social researchers (e.g. David and Sutton, 2004; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) have argued for many decades with regards to the differentiated nature and ideologies of the terms ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ within social research. Some researchers (e.g. Ayer, 1959; Schrag, 1992; Maxwell and Delaney, 2004) who advocate quantitative research uphold a ‘positivist philosophy’, that objective social science observation is desirable and that the determined scientific outcomes need to be valid and reliable (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004:14). In this sense, research quantitatively denotes that research intends to quantify the …show more content…
For example, Laud Humphries (1970)’s research on homosexuals male having sex in public toilets was executed without any informed consent to those observed. The query on justification without informed consent here emerged as whether the ends can outweigh the means, as David and Sutton (2004) asserted. They further suggested that it might be probable that research participants might behave discriminately if they aware of the research or recognise they are being researched (David and Sutton, 2004). Prominently, Siobhan (2010)’s ethnographic study within three exotic dance clubs (Temptations, Conquest and Girlielicious) illustrated that Siobhan did altered her depiction for her research purpose (e.g. she told the dancers in the exotic dance clubs that she was researching on the benefits for women) for acquiring trust and obtaining more information from her potential research participants (Siobhan,
Pure qualitative research uses the idea that there are multiple realities that may shift or evolve due to changes in events and situations. In one sense, qualitative researchers might, as Tanya R. Berry reported in “Qualitative researchers as modern day Sophists? Reflections on the qualitative-quantitative divide” (2011), say “there is no reality – just experience.” Thus, qualitative research studies may produce glimpses of the more slippery version of “truth” that quantitative research would never real. However, the more structured and disciplined constructs used by quantitative researchers may also be necessary to nail down the trends, opinions, and ideas revealed through qualitative
Social psychology centres on a subject or person who has universal characteristics which can be studied independently of the social context.
Qualitative research relies on subjective data to provide a deep understanding of the meaning of an event from the point of view of certain individuals (Lobiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014). In contrast, quantitative research uses an objective approach (Lobiondo-Wood
There has been a debate over which tradition of methodology, qualitative or quantitative, can provide a better explanation while conducting social science research. Qualitative research provides in-depth case-by-case studies while quantitative, generates broader arguments accommodating a large number of cases. Many social scientists may be naturally qualitative analysts and their expertise could lie predominantly in such field (Mahoney and Goertz, 2006). Quantitative analysis, on the other hand, is preferred when the researchers want to observe common patterns among several different cases. However, both quantitative and qualitative analyses ask questions differently which may lead to different explanations, although they may be examining
There are debates on why qualitative and quantitative can be combined because the two approaches share the goal of understanding the world in which we live Haase & Myers (1980). However, Reichath &Rallis (1994) argued that the two paradigms are incompatible if the qualitative paradigm assumes that there are no external referents for understanding reality. Howe (1988) suggests that researchers should forge ahead with what works. Quantitative research makes no attempt to have personal relationship with the people being studied and to account of their view. The accounts include feelings, beliefs these being concept of feminist work. Feminism holds on to qualitative method because are interested in how ordinary people observe and describe their Silverman (1993).
Quantitative and qualitative research methods are the two central methods for conducting research. Although there are both advantages and disadvantages to each of these research methods, many researchers decide to merely utilize one of the methods, without exploring the other method at all. This is a problem as these researchers only get to analyze their research from one point of view rather than from differing points of view. In other words, these researchers will solely rely on numbers and statistics or solely rely on interviews and observations. The researchers Bonta and Gendreau are open to utilizing both research methods, however, instead of simply using quantitative research methods. Conversely, the researchers Roberts and Jackson are
There are many elements involved in conducting a proper research. The two general types of research designs are qualitative and quantitative. These types of designs are different in many ways. Quantitative is an objective research typically focused on numerical data. Qualitative research is subjective research focused on narrative data. This paper further elaborates on many elements that separate quantitative research from qualitative research.
Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Beyond the Debate. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 42(3), 266-290. doi:10.1007/s12124-008-9078-3
To properly use the tools, one must adequately comply to the rules. Such as that, are the bindings of sociological research. Sociological research, being a very important topic of study being as it pertains to society of both modern day and the past, requires accuracy as it may be the foundation for many conclusions and further research beyond such conclusion. When it comes to sociological research, regardless of the focused segment of study, there are rules and tools to ensure reliability and credibility. However, much like how a pickaxe cannot properly be used in place of a shovel, the tools of research, more properly known as research methods, have their proper application and can also potentially be used in the wrong ways.
Also an advantage of participant observation is that the participant’s social behaviour is seen in their natural environment so there is higher external validity. However participant observation can be seen as unethical as the sociologist has a risk of possibly misrepresenting themselves gain information if they are using covert observation, nevertheless Barker used an overt approach. However it could be argued that due to the overt experiment that participants and in this case the Moonies have a high risk of the hawthorn effect which happens ‘when subjects’ [are] awareness of their participation in an experiment [so it] affects
It seems extremely urgent to extend the co-operation between social-scientists and policy-makers to improve the role of evidence-based science in decision-making. Social science must be at least as active as natural sciences have been in studying climate change and environmental degradation in the last decades. Fortunately, the development of the interface between the two areas has acquired high priority both at national and supra-national levels.
In this paper, I will define quantitative and qualitative research methods and provide examples in the context of social issues which will hopefully provide insight into how this methods are properly applied.
Traditional research may use quantitative or qualitative research method. According to Hendricks (2009), quantitative research is a general conclusion based on hard data. Hen-dricks describe quantitativ...
Research is an attempt to know new things, facts, information etc. in a scientific manner. L.V Redman and A.V .H Mory have stated “systematised effort to gain knowledge we call re-search.” The main function of research is to collect new facts, information etc and to establish new theories on the basis of these facts.
Primary source data collection relies on structured interviews and questionnaires, which many argue do not offer enough fluidity to relate to everyday lives and therefore are not valid research tools (Bryman 2001, p.77). Critics also continue to associate positivism and quantitative methods failing to see that quantitative researchers do not apply the scientific method to all data and can account for influencing variables (Bryman 2001, p.77; Matthews and Ross 2010, p.29). Quantitative methods in the social sciences were highlighted by the positivist epistemology during the mid 20th century; however, Jones (2010) explains how the principles of positivist epistemology are not fully consistent with modern quantitative methods in the social sciences (Matthews and Ross 2010, p.27). Positivist research parallels that of the natural sciences, where data collection and hypothesis testing is conducted from information that can be observed and recorded by the senses (Matthews and Ross 2010, p.27). Because information can only be observed, positivists look for regularities and explain causation when one event regularly follows another, which is why many will criticize quantitative methods if they associate them with the positivist approach to research (Jones