Quantitative research involves collecting data through a variety of means, so that it can be later presented and analysed. The data can be gathered through methods such as postal questionnaires, surveys, and structured interviews; all in order to test a particular hypothesis and analyse facts about society. Advantages of using some of these methods mentioned are that they are quick and easy to administer, and the results can be quickly worked out. From this, they can be easily collated, meaning that trends can be spotted and analysed, and links can often be worked out between groups in society. However, questionnaires and surveys tend to have a poor response rate (usually between 10-15%) and out of those who do respond, the group may not have enough diversity to be representative of the population.
This type of research is very closely linked with the Positivist approach of methodology. In Positivism, the methodology used to research the subject is modelled on natural science, with the topic being approached in the same manner as a scientist would approach an object to be studied. Many sociologists favour this method, as the research gathered is thought to be reliable and replicable.
‘It (science) is not perfect. It is only a tool. But it is the best tool that we have.’ (Sagan, 1980 cited in Dane, 1990).
This methodology was also used by the classic sociologist, Emile Durkheim and it is very much underpinned in his research, whereby his conclusions are gathered after looking at facts, figures, statistics, etc, and then by analysing and drawing correlations within the data. This approach is not favoured by all, though, and some argue that studying human beings in the same manner as scientific objects is an unrealistic approach for finding out information
In contrast to this, qualitative research is carried out in a very different manner. Qualitative studies try to interpret meanings that people give to particular actions, by engaging with those involved in the actions and trying to understand their position. Examples of qualitative methods that may be used are participant observation and case studies. Participant observation is often thought to be the most effective of these, and this can be either overt or covert. This provides a useful means of obtaining a picture of social reality and can provide a clear first hand picture of groups in society. It is a very time consuming and resource extensive method, though, and the researcher involved would have to be highly skilled.
Qualitative research focuses on experiences and meanings and because of the importance that is placed on interpreting behaviour, it is linked with Interpretativism. This type of approach is associated with Max Weber, and just as Durkheims methodology is underpinned in his research, the same can be said for Weber. Weber’s general approach was ‘Verstehen’, and this means the empathetic understanding of the subject. Linked with the Interpretativist approach, is the use of the ‘ideal type’, and Weber spoke of this method in his book ‘The Methodology of Social Science’ (cited in Marsh, 2000). The ideal type method is designed to increase objectivity. The idea of this method is for the researcher to construct a model of the area of study, picking out what they consider to be the most salient features. Then, once the research has been carried out the ideal type model can be brought back out and be used as a comparative method to analyse preconceptions on the subject against the truth.
Another key difference between quantitative and qualitative methods is the scale of the chosen subject. The techniques used in qualitative methods usually involve studying large numbers, whereas with qualitative research the focus is on smaller scale research. And with this, there is less emphasis on making generalizations about society, with more time being spent understanding the actions and motivations of selected groups.
Ultimately, whilst both qualitative and quantitative research methods are used in the study of sociology to produce information on various aspects of society, the forms that this information may take can be very different. Not all methods are suitable to every study, and therefore by selecting the mode, which is most appropriate to the area of study, a more valid and objective conclusion can be drawn. It cannot be said from a mutual position whether one method is better than the other, as despite their differences, the research found by one method can often compliment that found by another.
1125 WORDS
EMMA SMITH SOCIOLOGY – SOCS 101 – SEMESTER A
SEMINAR GROUP C- Thursday 2-3pm
2b) Assess the view that quantitative and qualitative methods are complimentary rather than mutually exclusive ways of pursuing sociological research. (500 words)
When looking at the way that research should proceed in terms of sociology, it is important to realise that a researcher does not have to be confined to one particular method, and many sociologists prefer to not limit themselves to only one approach; thereby enhancing their chances for a fuller and more conclusive insight into the area being studied. The idea of using more than one technique for collecting information is not new, and examples can be seen of many studies where this type of approach has been used. By doing so, the researchers chances of mistakes or inconsistencies in the results are greatly lessened, so that ‘the pitfalls of one methodological approach can be avoided or lessened by the use of another approach as well’ (Marsh, 2000)
The term given to the combining of research methods is triangulation and this covers the use of a variety of different methods, whether it be combining qualitative and quantitative methods with positivist and interpretativist approaches, coupled with the use of official statistics or experiments, to simply using a questionnaire along with an observational method.
‘ Data collection and analysis can be done in both modes and in various combinations during all phases of the research process’ (Strauss and Corbin: 1998)
An example of this could be looked at in terms of a researcher carrying out a study into young peoples involvement in crime. The researcher could first carry out a survey with youngsters to get an overall picture of their general views on crime and their involvement in crime. After seeing some of the recurring themes, it would then give the researcher more of a focus to go on and carry out some more in-depth structured interviews perhaps, or become a participant observer within a group of youngsters who were involved in crime. So we can then see that a combination of methods in this particular example may provide the researcher with more detailed understanding of the subject. This could again be carried out in reverse order; that is beginning with a qualitative method such as looking at a case study, to gain more of an empathetic view before beginning to gather facts and figures on the subject area. This could be a significant reason why researchers use both qualitative and quantitative methods in a complimentary manner.
This topic can be looked at also from a feminine perspective, as it is often assumed that female research favours and only involves qualitative methods. In general, this may be because quantitative research, such as surveys or questionnaires are sometimes though to be gender-biased, as they are often largely based on males and seeing the world from a male-perspective. In 1948, Graham claimed that ‘ survey methods and structured interviews fracture women experiences’. (Graham: 1948 cited in Marsh, 2000) Although not all feminists are against quantitative research, many believe that qualitative methods are more sensitive towards females; so on the whole feminists could be classed as a group who often do not use both methods complimentarily.
The one negative point that is cited as regards the use of both techniques is that whilst it may provide more conclusive information, a lot more work is involved. Corner and Wilson-Barnett reported in 1992 on the use of triangulation in a longitudinal study. This was based on the educational experiences of newly qualified nurses, and they decided to use triangulation to resolve an argument with their funding body - as they required a quantitative design whilst the nurses themselves wished to include a qualitative assessment, so that they could identify their educational needs. The authors concluded that ‘ triangulation contributes to a more detailed understanding of the nurses needs but it was at the expense of a considerably increased workload for the researcher’. (Corner and Wilson-Barnett: 1992 cited in McKenzie, Powell, and Usher: 1997)
So it can be reflected on as to whether this may be a criticism or drawback of using triangulation for research methods.
Fundamentally, it seems using qualitative and quantitative methods complimentarily, rather than exclusively can provide researchers with many advantages. Whilst it may mean more work for those involved, it has been used in many studies. It is believed that using multiple methods in the investigation of a phenomenon provides researchers with the most complete picture, and research seems to be ultimately pluralistic in that it may be necessary to gather information by whatever means possible to give a deeper insight into the subject.
740 WORDS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
* Francis C Dane, Research Methods, Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1990
* G McKenzie, J Powell, R Usher, Understanding Social Research: Perspectives on
Methodology and Practice, Falmer Press, 1997
* A Strauss, J Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Sage Publications, 1998
* I Marsh, Sociology: Making sense of society 2nd edition, Pearson education Limited, 2000