{"id":97,"date":"2019-05-13T13:41:17","date_gmt":"2019-05-13T17:41:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/researchmethods\/?post_type=chapter&p=97"},"modified":"2019-07-23T11:35:27","modified_gmt":"2019-07-23T15:35:27","slug":"quantitative-quantitative-mixed-methods-research-approaches","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/researchmethods\/chapter\/quantitative-quantitative-mixed-methods-research-approaches\/","title":{"raw":"Quantitative, Quantitative, & Mixed Methods Research Approaches","rendered":"Quantitative, Quantitative, & Mixed Methods Research Approaches"},"content":{"raw":"Generally speaking, qualitative and quantitative approaches are the most common methods utilized by researchers. \u00a0While these two approaches are often presented as a dichotomy, in reality it is much more complicated. \u00a0Certainly, there are researchers who fall on the more extreme ends of these two approaches, most recognize the advantages and usefulness of combining both methods (mixed methods). \u00a0In the following sections we look at quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodological approaches to undertaking research. \u00a0Table 2.3 synthesizes the differences between quantitative and qualitative research approaches.\r\n

Quantitative research approaches<\/h1>\r\nA quantitative approach to research is probably the most familiar approach for the typical research student studying at the introductory level. Arising from the natural sciences (e.g. chemistry and biology), the quantitative approach is framed by the belief that there is one reality or truth that simply requires discovering (known as realism). Therefore, asking the \u201cright\u201d questions is key. Further, this perspective\u00a0favours\u00a0observable causes and effects and is therefore outcome oriented. Typically, aggregate data is used to see patterns and \u201ctruth\u201d about the phenomenon under study. True understanding is determined by the ability to predict the phenomenon.\r\n

Qualitative research approaches<\/h1>\r\nOn the other side of research approaches is the qualitative approach. This is generally considered to be the opposite of the quantitative approach. Qualitative researchers are considered\u00a0phenomenologists, or human-centred researchers. Any research must account for the humanness (i.e., that they have thoughts, feelings, and experiences that they interpret) of the subjects. Instead of a realist perspective suggesting one reality or truth, qualitative researchers tend to\u00a0favour\u00a0the constructionist perspective: knowledge is created, not discovered, and there are multiple realities based on someone\u2019s perspective. Specifically, a researcher needs to understand why, how and to whom a phenomenon applies. This is usually unobservable since it is the thoughts and feelings and experiences of the person. Most importantly, it is a function of\u00a0their\u00a0perception of those things rather than what the outside researcher interprets it as being. As a result, there is no such thing as a neutral or objective outsider as there is in the quantitative approach. \u00a0Rather, the approach is generally process oriented. True understanding, rather than being based on prediction, is based on understanding action and on the interpretive meaning of that action.\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Table 3.3 Differences between quantitative and qualitative approaches (from Adjei, n.d.)<\/caption>\r\n
Quantitative research<\/strong><\/th>\r\nQualitative research<\/strong><\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Tests hypotheses that the researcher generates.<\/td>\r\nDiscovers and encapsulates meanings once the researcher becomes immersed in the data<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Concepts are in the form of distinct variables.<\/td>\r\nConcepts tend to be in the form of themes, motifs, generalizations, and taxonomies. However, the objective is still to generate concepts.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Measures are systematically created before data collection and are standardized as far as possible; e.g. measures of job satisfaction.<\/td>\r\nMeasures are more specific and may be specific to the individual setting or researcher; e.g. a specific scheme of values.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Data are in the form of numbers from precise measurement.<\/td>\r\nData are in the form of words from documents, observations, and transcripts. However, quantification is still used in qualitative research.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Theory is largely causal and is deductive.<\/td>\r\nTheory can be causal or non-causal and is often inductive.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Procedures are standard, and replication is assumed.<\/td>\r\nResearch procedures are particular and replication\r\n\r\nis difficult.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Analysis proceeds by using statistics, tables, or charts and discussing how they relate to hypotheses.<\/td>\r\nAnalysis proceeds by extracting themes or generalizations from evidence and organizing data to present a coherent, consistent picture. These generalizations can then be used to generate hypotheses.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n
\r\n\r\nNote:<\/strong> Researchers in emergency and safety professions are increasingly turning toward qualitative methods. Here is an interesting peer paper related to qualitative research in emergency care.\r\n