earlier disputes between qualitative and quantitative researchers, and there are reality and about relationships between ethnography and practice. With Hammersley believes that typical ways of judging ethnographic quality via either . advocacy of randomized controlled trials (Hammersley, ). It should be noted .. The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm. Hammersley, M. (). 'The Relationship between Qualitative and Quantitative Research: Paradigm Loyalty versus Methodological Eclecticism', in J. T. E.
You cannot change that, there's an absolute value for that. It's also very objective. Qualitative method is used only when quantitative method cannot do the job.
As Participant 2 said: My experience, we do qualitative research because we can't get quantitative data If we want to have a deep understanding of our organizations, if this could also be done in quantitative, we would.
Qualitative method must aim for prediction, not just understanding, to be legitimately called a science. The following response of Participant 1 to the speaker's point that the purpose of qualitative research is understanding rather than prediction expresses the sub-theme empathetically: In making that stand, that makes you the qualitative researcher vulnerable to concede that you are not a science.
Sub-theme 1 gives the impression that qualitative description is of a lower standing than quantitative measurement, sub-theme 2 that qualitative data words are of lower value than quantified data numbers and sub-theme 3 that understanding as an aim of science is of lower value than prediction. When the traditional yardsticks of science such as measurement, quantification and prediction are used qualitative research is devalued and in effect deemed inferior to quantitative research.
From our view, we see this construction as an issue that exerts influence on the relationship between quantitative and qualitative approaches and even shapes interactions between qualitative and quantitative researchers.
First, the meaning structure is seen as operating in the immediate and wider milieu of the participants. When one looks at the participants' immediate research milieu that is, in terms of the research undertakings of the university unitthere seems to be a positivistic stance in the use of the qualitative method, its role being defined according to the terms of the quantitative approach, in particular in the form of describing variables of a predetermined conceptual framework.
Probably such stance makes qualitative research appear more objective. Meanwhile, in the wider research milieu that is, in terms of the research in the university at largequalitative research appeared marginalized.
Open Educational Research Assets (OPERA): View as single page
For instance, staff research projects that are qualitative and inductive in nature only made up approximately 10 percent of the reported total staff research projects of the university between There is also a feeling that qualitative types of research, where quantification and measurement are absent, are not attractive to funding sources. Looking first at how research methodologies are taught, there is a dominance of quantitative courses offered in the university.
There is also a paucity of qualitative research materials available in the library. Meanwhile, student researches considered qualitative those that do not employ statistical analysis and those that are more descriptive in nature were labeled field studies and special problems but not as theses. Likewise, in graduate research in particular, proposals opting for a qualitative method had to pass a statistician's evaluation, a guarantee that the proposal would be revised to include quantifiable data and analysis to make the study "scientific".
The relationship between qualitative and quantitative methods has an interrelated and parallel relationship with the relationship between the social and the physical sciences in the university.
The social sciences were treated as second class citizens as revealed in the commission report which was made seventeen years ago but apparently has not changed much since then. Thus, the double marginalization happens because the qualitative approach is subordinated to the quantitative approach at the same time that it is identified with a marginalized branch of science in the university. MELOY observed that "the language, assumptions, practice and products of qualitative research are neither common nor necessarily accepted at our colleges and universities, or between faculty members and graduate students" p.
In KERLIN's study, she noted that the dominant focus of undergraduate programs and general research methods book for the social sciences is on quantitative methodology p. Knowing how they view our construction of the quantitative research may provide us with an additional dimension or context by which to view and understand their construction of qualitative research. We present in this section our quantitative counterparts' view of the construction we qualitative researchers have about quantitative research.
For instance, contrary to qualitative researchers' construction, quantitative research is also a subjective process. This view is exemplified in the following expression of Participant 2: I think that's bothering me, putting quantitative on the side of objective and putting qualitative on the side of subjective We've been doing that all the time, right?
As Participant 2 amplified it: I'll make a comment which might make all of you to jump on. I don't think [quantitative] researchers do research first by setting out a hypothesis. But I think that's the way they publish that because that's the traditional and acceptable way of communicating research [results]. But that's not the real way. It's like you do look at all the variables, if there's something missing or wrong or slightly different then you come up with something that is usable if you're in the social sciences.
And then you decide, is this real, the hypothesis that you are looking at? We do have our prejudices as well.
We do keep an open mind It seems that the way in which the qualitative approach is usually presented, that is, in a dichotomous relationship with quantitative research, influences the quantitative people's construction of qualitative research. It is possible that quantitative researchers resist or downplay the qualitative approach not because of a lack of understanding of the method but because dichotomization makes quantitative method into something it is not.
For one thing, dichotomization may narrow the arena for complementarity.
Open Educational Research Assets (OPERA)
The view that quantitative research is always "objective" and on the other side of the coin, that qualitative methods always lead to more meaningful analyses, is open to question when one examines the reality of social research practice in the field.
The steady growth in recent years of methodological texts on the production of statistics which reveal "what really happened" in particular research projects should be sufficient to convince anyone that subjectivism of many kinds intervenes at all stages from the formulation of a problem to final publication of results. With respect to qualitative research it must also be remembered that actor's meaning-systems alone are not necessarily more likely to provide an understanding of how "things really happen" than are responses to questionnaires.
Again the interpretation the researcher puts on such systems is crucial and ultimately subjective. However, we believe that if an attempt is to be made at understanding which is not entirely relativist then some way must be found to accommodate the findings of both quantitative and qualitative research p.
Reconstructing a Research Relationship While the construction of qualitative research and the view on construction of quantitative research were seen in the light of the relationship between qualitative and quantitative approaches, we acknowledge that the status relations in research organizations are not simply a matter of the method one practices.
Plain novelty, or foreignness, of an idea such as a new method may sometimes bring with it resistance. People tend to belittle anything that seemingly excludes them.
Track record or even seniority and intergenerational stratification may also influence status relations, particularly in an Asian context. With this narrow view, people fail to see what qualitative research can actually do, that is, that it can dig into processual and deep aspects of observed phenomena such as people's meaning and perspectives and thus provide a richer understanding of these phenomena.
However, despite the muting of what the qualitative research approach can actually do, some qualitative voices can be heard in the wilderness. For instance, seminars that feature varieties of the qualitative approach an example of which is the roundtable discussion studied are being held in some university departments and special research programs while a postgraduate course in qualitative social research is being offered beginning this academic year at one of the social science departments in the university.Qualitative vs. Quantitative
And lately, there has been some relaxation of the graduate school rule that all graduate proposals must undergo a statistician's evaluation. Hopefully, their qualitative perspective would balance the views expressed in social researches. Thus, the challenge remains to bring the qualitative-quantitative research relationship to the level where the two are equal.
Realities are socially constructed and could therefore be reconstructed through interaction. Operationalism was then coming into dominance, and he attacked it effectively as not offering a solution to closing the gap. The improvement in judgment, in observation, and in concept will be in the future, as His emphasis on the meaning of the theory-data gap and on the requisite need for good qualitative data, we agree with thoroughly.
Blumer's solution to getting better theory, and in close relation to the data, was—again—blunted because he was poised in too sharp a posture against verification operationalism in this instanceand too ready to give up on the problem of how to generate better theory except by the general formula of sticking close to the data being studied.
One of these is quite brief, and not very significant. Much more substantial and important is an earlier reference, in The Discovery of Grounded Theory. In Chapter 5 of their book, these authors explicitly distinguish their conception of "the constant comparative method" from analytic induction, on the grounds that the former is not primarily aimed at testing causal hypotheses.
Some of these properties may be causes, as in analytic induction, but unlike analytic induction others are conditions, consequences, dimensions, types, processes, etc. In both approaches these properties should result in an integrated theory. Further no attempt is made by the constant comparative method to ascertain either the universality or the proof of suggested causes or other properties.
Since no proof is involved, the constant comparative method in contrast to analytic induction requires only saturation of data—not consideration of all available data, nor are the data restricted to one kind of clearly defined case. The constant comparative method, unlike analytic induction, is more likely to be applied in the same study to any kind of qualitative information, including observations, interviews, documents, articles, books, and so forth.
As a consequence, the constant comparisons required by both methods differ in breadth of purpose, extent of comparing, and what data and ideas are compared. As a result, the analyst merely inspects his data for new properties of his theoretical categories, and writes memos on these properties" pp.
Thus, the constant comparative method is designed to use the explicit coding associated with the first method in order to serve the function of the second one: While more systematic than the second approach, this method does not adhere completely to the first, which hinders the development of theory because it is designed for provisional testing, not discovering, of hypotheses.