Its looks as though quantitative methodologies do have strengths for sports fan research. Its strengths are as follows -
- They are also strong in measuring descriptive aspects, (the composition of the sports crowd).
- Quantitative methodologies allow replication and comparison.
- You achieve reliability and validity more objectively than qualitative techniques.
- Quantitative methodologies are suitable to measure overt behaviour.
These strengths are not the sole prerogative of quantitative methods because many of the arguments for the use of quantitative research, especially in an academic climate where resources are limited, have pragmatic origins in terms of allowing large scale data collection and analysis at reasonable cost and effort, as well as providing statistical "proof".
The weaknesses of quantitative research method lie mainly in their failure to ascertain deeper underlying meanings and explanations of sports fandom, even when significant, reliable and valid. The assumption regarding quantitative fandom is that "people can be reduced to a set of variables which are somehow equivalent across persons and across situations" (Reason & Rowan, pg xiv).
The Premier League survey using a quantitative approach may be justified because the research is strong in measuring such variables and if this measurement is the focus of the research. You also have to consider psychological factors, such as affect and cognition, are important to the concept of sports fandom, quantitative methods can be used to measure such factors, but is limited when explaining in more detail. A down side of using qualitative approaches is that they tend to take a "snapshot" of a situation, which measures variables at a specific moment in time. Sports fandom may be affected by temporal changes, such as the team's performance, or the quality of opposition, which cannot always be identified within a single quantitative study.
Qualitative research methods are associated with interpretative approaches, from the informants’ point of view, rather than measuring discrete, observable behaviour. Qualitative methodologies are strong in those areas that have been identified as potential weaknesses within the quantitative approach, e.g. the use of interviews and observations to provide a deep, rather than broad, set of knowledge about a particular phenomenon, and the appropriateness to investigate cognitive and affective aspects of fandom. The Disadvantages and Advantages of interviews are as follows:
The Disadvantages and Advantages of observation are as follows:
The depth of the research allows the researcher to achieve Verstehen, or empathetic understanding. The idea of Verstehen is the basis for a critique of quantitative research methods, and their empiricist emphasis. The argument used is that quantitative methods measure human behaviour from outside, without accessing the meanings that individuals give to their measurable behaviour. Many researchers have suggested that fandom contains sociological and psychological dimensions, and then the emphasis should rather be upon gaining an understanding of how the subjects themselves view their own particular situations. Qualitative research allows these understandings to be investigated from the informant’s point of view. The advantages of a qualitative methodology for sports fan research can be summarised as follows:
- Qualitative methods allow the cognitive and affective components of sports fans to be explored in greater detail than quantitative methods.
- Qualitative methodologies encourage the informant to introduce concepts of importance from there points of view, rather than adhering to subject areas that have been pre-determined by the researcher.
- Qualitative approaches permit the identification of longitudinal changes in sports fans, whereas quantitative approaches tend to take a "snapshot" of behaviour, cognition or affect at the one time the research is conducted.
The main disadvantage against is the concept of validity, in that it is difficult to determine the whole story of findings. The minor amount of sample numbers often encountered may also lead to claims of findings being unrepresentative of the population. This point may be illustrated by an evaluation of the work of Marsh, et al. where he studied ritual violence of sports fans. Whilst full of descriptive data on the violence itself, helping towards an understanding of the underlying explanations to be developed, the findings failed to give an indication to the extent of such violence among fans. Their results don’t show the degree to which ritual violence is an important issue. Thus, even if certain issues are identified by the researcher, the claim that such issues are not unrepresentative of the population as a whole is possible. King's research on one club within the Premier League raises two further interrelated questions.
1 - The use of twenty supporters from a crowd of approximately fifty-five thousand raises the question of the generalise ability of the views of those informants to the general population.
2 - Secondly, the choice of case may lead to criticisms of the case being untypical.
If the sports fan researcher does develop a qualitative research design then certain issues need to be recognised. Maykut and Morehouse recognises the use of qualitative method may lead to hostility. “The objectivity of quantitative research is apparently synonymous with good research and the inherent lack of objectivity within qualitative research is synonymous with sloppy". (Maykut & Morehouse, pg.19).
The conclusion of both research methods is that both single methodology approaches (qualitative and quantitative) have strengths and weaknesses. The combination of methodologies could use both there strengths and combine the two. “The researcher should aim to achieve the situation where blending qualitative and quantitative methods of research can produce a final product which can highlight the significant contributions of both" (Nau, pg 1), where "qualitative data can support and explicate the meaning of quantitative research" (Jayaratne, pg 117). By using both quantitative and Qualitative methods the researcher can achieve possibly a better result.
- Qualitative research especially observation, or unstructured interviews allow the researcher to develop an overall picture of the subject under investigation.
- Quantitative analysis may be more accurate in assessing behavioural or descriptive components of sports fandom.
- The descriptive analysis, such as the socio-demographic profile of the crowd, may allow a representative sample to be drawn for the qualitative analysis. Marsh, et al. who notes that quantitative research may confirm or deny the representation of a sample group for such qualitative research. Thus the mixed methodology will guide the researcher who is carrying out qualitative research, that his or her sample has some representation of the overall population.
- Sports fandom involves cognitive, affective characteristics and overt behavioural aspects. So a qualitative method is appropriate to investigate these aspects, by examining the supporter’s point of view.
- Much sports fan research is still largely exploratory so the use of qualitative methods allows for unexpected developments that may arise as part of such research.
- Quantitative analysis could complement the findings of qualitative methods by indicating their extent within the fan population.
- Quantitative analysis may confirm or disconfirm any apparently significant data that emerge from the study.
- If such a relationship is determined, then quantitative methods are weaker in providing explanation. Qualitative methods may assist the researcher in understanding the underlying explanations of significance.
- The inclusion of quantitative methods and analysis within sports fan research may increase the chances of publication, especially in journals with a strong positivist view.
The combination of the two could obtain more desirable results; both methods have their disadvantages and advantages.
Bibliography
Horna, J. (1994). The study of leisure. Oxford: Oxford University Press
SNCCFR. (1997). F. A. Premier League surveys. Leicester: Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football Research, University of Leicester.
Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (1981). Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Marsh, P., Rosser, E., & Harre, R. (1978). The rules of disorder. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
King, A. (1997). The lads: Masculinity and the new consumption of football. Sociology, 31(2), 329-346.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. London: Falmer Press.
Jayaratne, T. (1993). Quantitative methodology and feminist research. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Social research: Philosophy, politics and practice. London: Sage.
Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. London: Sage Publications.