- Information
- AI Chat
A NOTE ON Nature OF Qualitative AND Quantitative Research
Research Methodology (CO T 512)
University of Kerala
Recommended for you
Preview text
A NOTE ON NATURE OF
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE
RESEARCH
The method of social investigation known as qualitative research focuses on the ways in which individuals understand and make sense of the world in which they live as well as the experiences that they have had in their lives. In the words of Atkinson et al. (2001), it is a "umbrella term," and within the larger framework of this kind of research, a number of alternative methodologies exist. The majority of these seek to accomplish the same thing, which is to get an understanding of the social reality that individuals, communities, and cultures live in. The behaviours, opinions, feelings, and experiences of individuals, as well as the fundamental aspects of their life, are investigated through the application of qualitative research methods by researchers. To be more specific, ethnographers concentrate on culture and customs, grounded theorists explore social processes and interaction, and phenomenologists think about the meanings of experience and explain the life world. The qualitative research paradigm incorporates all of these different aspects into its overall framework. The interpretative approach to social reality and the portrayal of the lived experience of human beings form the foundation of qualitative research. The fact that qualitative research cannot be neatly pigeonholed and simplified down to a straightforward and prescriptive set of principles is one of its most significant strengths. The foundation of qualitative research is a philosophical perspective that might be described as generically "interpretivist." This position is concerned with how the social reality is interpreted, understood, experienced, generated, or constructed, and it serves as the research method's point of departure. Even though various forms of qualitative research might understand or approach these elements in different ways (for example, focusing on social meanings, or interpretations, or practises, or discourses, or processes, or constructions), they will all recognise at least some of these as meaningful components of a complicated – possibly multi- layered and textured – social environment. Instead of being rigidly
standardised or structured, or entirely abstracted from'real-life' contexts, it is based on methods of data generation that are both flexible and sensitive to the social context in which data are produced. This is in contrast to traditional approaches, which take an entirely different approach. It is predicated on methods of analysis, explanation, and the construction of arguments that require understandings of complication, specificity, and context. The goal of qualitative research is to develop comprehensive and contextualised understandings by drawing on a wealth of subtle, precise, and intricate information. In this context, the practise of recording surface patterns, trends, and correlations takes a back seat to the more prominent practise of "holistic" forms of analysis and explanation. Quantification is frequently employed in qualitative research, but statistical methods of analysis are typically not regarded as being essential to the process.
According to Denzin and Lincoln, the current status of qualitative research might be summarised as follows: "The field of qualitative research is characterised by a succession of tensions, inconsistencies, and hesitations." [Citation needed] This conflict works both ways, moving back and forth between the expansive, uncertain sensibility of postmodernism and the more certain, more orthodox positivist, postpositivist, and naturalistic ideas (1998: 31). The concept that postmodernism is "vague and uncertain" is met with greater scepticism by some (or indeed that postpositivism is always so certain). They suggest that some forms of postmodernism are ironically rather dogmatic in their assertions, for example that the social is constituted of 'discourses of the subject' and 'decentred identities' rather than 'living and breathing, embodied and feeling human beings.' They do this by citing the example that the social is constituted of 'discourses of the subject.' There are a few different types of qualitative research, but they all share a few qualities and methods in common, despite the fact that there are a few key distinctions in data collecting and processing. The following components are included in the majority of qualitative research approaches:
- The data take precedence over the theoretical framework, which does not start off preconceived but rather draws itself immediately from the facts.
they can form their opinions about it. Research should be undertaken in a deliberate manner, but it should also be flexible and contextual. This essentially indicates that qualitative researchers should base their decision-making not only on a robust research plan, but also on a sensitivity to the shifting contexts and circumstances within which the study is conducted. Active reflexivity, also known as critical self-examination on the part of the researcher, is an essential component in qualitative research. This implies that researchers should continuously take stock of their activities and their part in the research process, and subject these to the same critical examination as the rest of their 'data.' The idea behind this is that a researcher cannot be impartial, objective, or detached from the information and facts that they are producing. Instead, they ought to focus on figuring out what part they play in that process. In point of fact, one aspect of the activity of reflexivity is the practise of asking oneself challenging questions as part of the research process. Instead than professing to offer nothing more than descriptions, qualitative research should seek to produce explanations or arguments. Explorations and descriptions require a degree of subjectivity in their seeing and interpretation; they cannot be unbiased, objective, or comprehensive. The elements that a researcher chooses to see as relevant for a description or exploration will be based, either implicitly or explicitly, on a way of seeing the social world and on a particular form of explanatory logic. This can be said to be the case whether the researcher is attempting to describe or investigate something. The position that is being taken is that qualitative researchers should acknowledge that they are engaged in the production of arguments and be transparent about the reasoning that underpins these arguments. The results of qualitative research should generate explanations or arguments that can be generalised in some way or that demonstrate some larger resonance. It is not necessary to view it as being in opposed to quantitative research or as being contradictory to it. The gap between qualitative and quantitative approaches is not as black and white as one might imagine, and all researchers should give serious consideration to the ways in which they can integrate any methodologies, be they qualitative, quantitative, or both. In spite of the diversity of methodologies that can be categorised as "qualitative research," they all share a number of fundamental presuppositions and characteristics, including the following:
To begin, it is possible to think of social reality as the end product of the meanings and contexts that are collaboratively produced through social interaction. Both are understood by the participants in concrete situations within the framework of their subjective relevance perspectives. As a result, they represent the basis of common meanings that they ascribe to objects, events, situations, and persons. These meanings, on the other hand, are continually shifting and being "framed" differently depending on the environment and in response to the interpretations of others. In this way, social realities are the outcome of constantly changing as a society. Procedures involved in social construction. The first significance of this for the technique of qualitative research is a concentrate on the forms and contents of such everyday processes of formation rather than reconstructing the subjective viewpoints and meaning patterns of the social actors. Second, the character of the process, as well as the reflexivity and recursivity of social reality, emerges as a result of the premise that people constantly and routinely create a shared world. This is where we are now. The second significance of this for the technique of qualitative research is the examination of communication and interaction sequences using observational approaches and, subsequently, sequential text analyses. This is an important step in the process. Thirdly, human beings live in a range of living conditions that can be "objectively" characterised by indicators such as income, education, career, age, residence, and so on. These indicators can be used to characterise people's lives. They show their physical circumstances meaningfully in a whole, synthesised, and contextualised manner, and it is only this that endows such indicators with an interpretable meaning and so renders them useful. Statements collected from subjects and statements sorted according to methodological norms may, for instance, be described using the concept of a 'life-world,' which stands for life-world. In this context, individual biographical designs, past life histories, and perceived possibilities for future action may be related to subjective or collective meaning patterns (such as 'lay theories,' 'world-views,' shared norms and values, and associated social relationships and incidental life circumstances). Through this process, subjectively relevant personal and local life-attitudes and lifestyles are rendered both recognisable and understandable. This leads to a third implication from a methodological
BRIEF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN QUALITATIVE AND
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH:
Both qualitative and quantitative-standardized research have grown as two separate fields of independent empirical social research in parallel with one another. In cases where the research questions are similar to one another, they can also be employed together. However, in this context, it is important to remember that they are distinct from one another in significant respects. For instance, distinctions between the two study methodologies can be evident in the types of experiences that are thought to be subject to systematic verification and, as a result, admissible as acceptable forms of experience. Because of this, the function of the investigator and the degree of procedural standardisation are both significantly altered as a result (see 4). 1 In quantitative research, the observer's ability to remain impartial to the topic under investigation is considered to be of utmost importance. On the other hand, qualitative research is dependent on the investigator's subjective perception (which is rigorously controlled) as one of the components of the evidence. 2 A high level of consistency in the data collection process is essential for quantitative research because it enables researchers to perform statistical comparisons more accurately. This leads, for example, to a situation in which the sequence of questions and the possible responses are strictly established in advance in a questionnaire, and where – ideally – the conditions under which the questions are answered should be held constant for all participants in the research. In this regard, qualitative interviews are more adaptable and flexible, and they may be tailored more precisely to the specifics of the circumstances surrounding each unique case. Aside from debates in which the two schools of thought in research refute each other's claims to scientific legitimacy, we can ask, in a more serious manner, under what circumstances – that is, for what questions and what objects of research – qualitative or quantitative research, respectively, may be appropriately indicated. When there is an interest in resolving a facet of reality (also known as "field exploration") that has been under-researched for a very long time with the assistance of some "sensitising concepts," qualitative research may always be advised as the method of choice (Blumer 1969). The first batch of information that is necessary for formulating hypotheses in preparation for subsequent standardised and representative data collection can be obtained through the use of "naturalistic" methods like
participant observation, open interviews, or diaries. These methods are examples of what are known as "qualitative" research approaches (for example, on the role of family members in rehabilitation; on the lifeworld of mentally ill people). Research that are qualitative are, if not a precondition, then a logical follow-up to studies that are quantitative. Qualitative research can supplement so-called "hard data" on patients (for example, sociodemographic data, the distribution of diagnoses over a population) with the patients' more subjective views, such as their perceptions of their professional future in the face of illness, or their degree of satisfaction with the results of particular types of treatment. Through differentiation and intensity, as well as the ability to offer explanations that assist in the interpretation of statistical correlations, qualitative (case-)studies have the potential to supplement representative quantitative studies.
A NOTE ON Nature OF Qualitative AND Quantitative Research
Course: Research Methodology (CO T 512)
University: University of Kerala
- Discover more from:
