Herbert Zirima (PhD)

“Research is best conceived as the process of arriving at dependable solutions to problems through planned and systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of data”, (Mouly, 1978). In carrying out research, there is use of either quantitative or qualitative methods or both. Quantitative research is empirical research where the data are in the form of numbers whilst qualitative research is empirical research dealing with phenomena that cannot be quantified. Quantitative research emerged from the positivist philosophy whilst qualitative research emerged from phenomenological philosophy. Quantitative research is largely objective and filled with realism whilst qualitative research is largely subjective and filled with idealism. Quantitative research is normative whilst qualitative research is interpretive. The main differences highlighted here between the two paradigms lie in their ontological and epistemological assumptions, philosophical backgrounds, nature of their data and in methods for collecting and analysing the data. However, Punch (2004) alludes that, the differences should not obscure the similarities in logic, which makes combining the approaches possible, in short, despite the differences between these two approaches, they are very much related. This piece of writings seeks to unveil the differences and relationship between quantitative and qualitative research.

In the initial analysis, quantitative and qualitative approaches differ on philosophical grounds. Quantitative research is grounded on the principles of positivism whilst qualitative research is phenomenological in nature. According to Cohen and Manion, (1994), positivism entails an acceptance of natural science as the paradigm of human knowledge. Positivism implies a particular stance concerning the social scientist as an observer of social reality. For example, the researcher investigating the effect of an alcohol like drink ‘placebo’ on the behaviour of first time drinkers that is the ‘placebo effect’, the researcher just observes and is not supposed to get involved. The end product of investigations can be formulated in terms parallel to those of natural science, that is expressed in ‘laws’ or ‘law like’, (Cohen and Manion, 1994). On the other hand, qualitative research is based on phenomenology, it deals with phenomena that cannot be quantified (from the participant’s view point).  Qualitative researchers attempt to understand behaviour and institutions by getting to know the persons involved and their values, rituals, symbols, beliefs and emotions, (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1992). Applying such a perspective, one would for example, study prostitution by immersing oneself in the life of the prostitute rather than collect data with a structured interview schedule, acting as an observer.

 So, whereas quantitative research is based on realism, that is to say, the world exist and is knowable as it really is, qualitative research is idealistic assuming that the world exists but different people construe it in very different ways.

The differences highlighted above reveal that the two approaches differ on both their ontological and epistemological assumptions. Ontologically, quantitative research assumes that social reality is of an objective nature whereas the qualitative paradigm holds that it is a result of individual cognition. Epistemologically, quantitative research assumes that knowledge is hard, objective and tangible whereas the qualitative perspective holds that knowledge is personal, subjective and unique.

Quantitative approaches deal with numerical measurement (quantities) whereas qualitative approaches deal with how people understand their experiences (qualities). Quantitative research is typical of mainstream scientific research in psychology, it typically aims to test hypothesis and identify numerical differences between groups. For example, a researcher researching on the effects of rewards on the performance of learners would employ the quantitative technique so as to measure if the number (quantity) of rewards is related to performance. On the other hand, the use of qualitative approaches in psychology is often associated with broader theoretical critique of quantitative approaches. Qualitative approaches in psychology seek to explore meaning, and might well be chosen for investigation of issues which for ethical or epistemological reasons are difficult to ‘measure’, (Silverman, 1993). For example, on the research cited above, qualitative approaches would be used to qualify the value or quality of the rewards that the learners receive and to find out the meaning that they attach to the rewards.

Another significant difference between the two approaches is on the basic units of social reality. Whilst quantitative research considers the collectivity that is the society or organisations, qualitative research focuses on the individuals acting singly or together. This can be clearly illustrated by a quantitative research carried out by Zindi in 1994, on the differences in psychometric performance of black Zimbabwean pupils as compared to white English pupils. In the study, a total of 406 learners participated in the research. On the other hand, in qualitative research, the research can just select one individual or just a few who are related to the phenomena under investigation, a hypothetical example could be a research on the ‘psychological effects of being a Head of state in Zimbabwe’, the researcher might just deal with one case, not only because there is one head of state, but because it enables him to get an in-depth view of the phenomena under study. Therefore, quantitative research samples are typically larger than in qualitative studies. Qualitative research is more interested in case studies whereas quantitative research is more interested in analysing variables and the relationship between them.

Quantitative research is objective whilst qualitative approaches accept subjectivity. According to O’ Reilly-de Bruin (2001), in quantitative research, the researcher tends to remain objectively separated from the subject matter whereas in qualitative research, the researcher tends to become subjectively immersed in the subject matter. Quantitative research claims its objectivity by precise measurement and analysis of target concepts, in that it makes use of surveys, questionnaires and experiments. For example, researching on the effects of a caffeine in increasing alertness in studying, the researcher employing quantitative techniques would have to measure the precise amounts of caffeine that the participant under study takes before engaging in study, and also ensure that no other variable that might increase alertness is present, by so doing the research becomes more objective. On the other hand, qualitative research reveals its subjectivity by relying on individual interpretation of events and in so doing uses methods such as participant observation and in depth interviews. For example when doing research on the effectiveness of HIV and AIDS counselling on HIV positive people, the researcher would need to interview the HIV positive people and find out how they interpret the counselling and how it has helped them. That kind of information can only be acquired from the person concerned, who will subjectively express how they feel about the program.

Another significant difference between quantitative and qualitative methods is in their flexibility. Qualitative research is more flexible than quantitative research, that is, it allows greater spontaneity and adaptation of the interaction between the researcher and the study participant. For example, qualitative methods ask mostly “open ended” questions in which participants are free to respond in their own words. Because of their flexibility, qualitative techniques can be used in a wider range of situations and for wider range of purposes, they can also be more easily modified as a study progresses, (Punch, 2004). Because of their greater flexibility, they are well suited for studying naturally occurring real life situations. According to Punch, 2004, “qualitative methods are the best we have of getting the insider’s perspective, the actor’s definition of the situation’, the meanings people attach to things and events”. For example, when researching a phenomena like attractiveness, that is for example, ‘factors that lead to interpersonal attraction’, the researcher would benefit by getting involved in focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with the people involved in the interpersonal attraction. On the other hand, quantitative methods are fairly inflexible, in quantitative research, the researcher uses methods such as surveys and questionnaires in which he/she asks participants identical questions in the same order. The response categories are largely close ended or fixed. For example, an item could be structured as, ‘Are you usually happy and cheerful?’, the responses in this case could be ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘neutral’. The advantage of this inflexibility is that it allows for meaningful comparisons of responses across participants and study sites. As such, quantitative methodologies are usually high on reliability and validity as compared to qualitative techniques.

Quantitative and qualitative research also differ on their conceptualisation of theory. To the quantitative researcher, theory is an edifice built by scientists to explain human behaviour, (Cohen and Manion, 1994) whereas to the qualitative researcher theory refers to a set of meanings which people use to make sense of their world and behaviour within it. For example, operant conditioning is a theory which scientist built through their study with animals to explain human learning, motivation and effects of punishment. On the other hand, qualitative research strives to derive meaning from human interactions and then use them to come up with a theory. For example, researching on ‘African perspectives on mental illness’ will enable a researcher to come with a theory on how people explain mental illness based on the participants’ subjective interpretations of reality. However, both the quantitative and qualitative research approaches are related in that they give precedence to theory in research.

In qualitative research, relationship between the researcher and the participant is often less formal than in quantitative research. Quantitative research is impersonal and anonymous, questionnaires are sometimes distributed to respondents in envelopes whereas in qualitative research, there is the personal involvement of the researcher. In qualitative research, participants have the opportunity to respond more elaborately and in greater detail than is typically the case with quantitative approaches. For example, the use of focus group discussions in qualitative research allows the researcher to interact with participants informally and get the rich data verbally and non-verbally.

The differences in the quantitative and qualitative approaches highlighted above have an impetus on the way data is analysed, sampling procedure and techniques in each paradigm. For example, quantitative research usually makes use of multivariate statistical procedures and electronic computer techniques, which makes it possible for the researcher to take into account large numbers of variables at one time. On the other hand, qualitative research makes use of content analysis of subjective responses. Quantitative research is more likely to employ sampling techniques such as stratified random sampling because of the large population from which respondents are selected whereas qualitative research approaches are more likely to employ strategies such as purposive sampling and snowball sampling because it is aimed at few individuals with the characteristics required for the research.

It is important to note that in-spite of the differences highlighted above, which have translated in the past to what could be referred as ‘paradigms wars’, the two are approaches are in some way related. In essence, more recently, there has been moves towards a détente, and an increased interest in the combination of the two approaches, (Punch, 2004). Both quantitative and qualitative approaches can be used at the same time and can be used to complement each other.

The relationship between qualitative research and quantitative research can be illustrated in triangulation. The findings from one type of study can be checked against the findings derived from the other type. For example, the results of a quantitative research can be checked against a qualitative study. This is clearly illustrated in the quantitative study carried out by Zindi, 1994, in which quantitative results on intelligence found were recommended to be checked by a follow up qualitative research on ‘the definitions of intelligence’, something that the quantitative research on its own cannot accomplish. In this particular research closed ended test items (quantitative) would then be followed up by in-depth interviews (qualitative).

The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research can also be revealed in that qualitative research facilitates quantitative research. This is so because, qualitative research may help to provide background information on context and subjects; act as a source of hypotheses and aid in scale construction. For example, a researcher who is interested on ‘household coping mechanisms with economic effects of HIV’, would need to do a qualitative study at first to determine the particular types of coping mechanisms. Later on, there would be need for a quantitative research to ascertain the effectiveness of the coping mechanisms, maybe measured by their prevalence or popularity, something that can be done by finding out the number of people using the coping mechanisms. On the other hand, quantitative research facilitates qualitative research, in this case, quantitative research can help with the choice of subjects for qualitative investigation.

Quantitative and Qualitative research are related in that they can both provide a means of bridging the macro-micro gulf. According to Punch, 2004, quantitative research can often tap large-scale, structural features of social life, while qualitative research tends to address small-scale, behavioural aspects. When research seeks to explore both levels, integrating quantitative and qualitative research may be necessary. Punch (2004), cites a study by Rank (1992), ‘The blending of qualitative and quantitative methods in understanding childbearing among welfare recipients’. In this study, quantitative analysis of case record data was longitudinal and designed for statistical modelling of various events, while the in-depth interviews and fieldwork provided greater understanding of these and other events and at a more individual level.

There is a correlation between the approaches, that is quantitative and qualitative and the purpose for example, theory testing or theory generation, but that correlation is neither perfect nor necessary, (Punch, 2004). While quantitative research may be mostly used for testing theory, it can also be used for exploring an area for generating hypotheses and theory. Similarly, qualitative research can certainly be used for testing hypothesis and theories. As Miles and Huberman, 1994, cited in Punch, 2004, say: “Both types of data can be productive for descriptive, reconnoitring, exploratory, inductive, opening up purposes. And both can be productive for explanatory, confirmatory, hypothesis testing purposes”. For example, as a follow up on the Intelligence research cited above, a qualitative study might be done and findings can be used to generate a hypothesis such as that, ‘black Zimbabweans perform significantly better on artistic scales than white English learners’, that hypothesis can then be tested using a quantitative research.

Quantitative methods in behavioural science have pointed towards locating relationships which exist whereas qualitative research has managed to describe the types of relationships. Qualitative research may facilitate the interpretation of relationships between variables. Quantitative research readily allows the researcher to establish relationships among variables, but is often weak when it comes to exploring the reasons for those relationships, (Punch, 2004). For example, the quantitative research on intelligence by Zindi, 1994, revealed that there were significant differences between the IQ scores of black Zimbabweans as compared to white English pupils, however, Zindi’s quantitative research could not explain fully the reasons for the significant differences. Qualitative research would be needed to explain why such differences occur.

In conclusion, quantitative and qualitative research differ in terms of their assumptions, philosophical grounding, design, methods of data collection and type of data collected. Qualitative researchers argue for example that the realism of the natural social world is lost when phenomena are forced into a qualitative mould, whilst the quantitative social scientist might answer by saying that it is the controlled situation such as the laboratory experiment, which provides the best opportunity for getting beneath surface phenomena to the vital factors and processes that are often hidden in natural situations. Quantitative research is grounded on positivism, whilst qualitative research is grounded on phenomenology, quantitative research claims objectivity whilst qualitative research accepts subjectivity. However, despite these differences, the two are approaches are quite related. Quantitative and qualitative research are complementary in several ways, results from quantitative research can be integrated or confirmed by qualitative research. According to Punch, 2004, “The similarity in the two methods logic, their complementary relationship and the overlap in their purposes blurs the sharpness of the quantitative-qualitative distinction, making the contrast between them less stark.”  Schratz and Walker (1995), sums the debate by saying that qualitative methods are adopted within what is still essentially a quantitative (or at least an empiricist) paradigm. The nature of data changes but the research methods remain much the same.

Herbert Zirima (PhD) is a Registered Psychologist in Zimbabwe, a Doctor of Psychology and Senior Lecturer at Great Zimbabwe University in the Department of Psychology

REFERENCES

Cohen L and Manion L, (1994), Research methods in Education, London, Routledge

Hitchcock G and Hughes D, (1992), Research and the Teacher, London, Routledge

Mouly G.J, (1978), Education and Research: The Art and Science of Investigation. Boston, Allyn and Bacon

Nachmias C and Nachmias D, (1992), Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London, Edward Anold

O’ Reilly-de Brun E and O’ Reilly-de Brun K, (2001), Doing your own Research. New York, McMillan Company

Phillips, B.S, (1971).Social Research: Strategy and Tactics. New York, McMillan Company

Punch, K.F, (2004), Introduction to Social Research; Quantitative and Qualitative approaches. London, Sage Publications

Schratz M and Walker R, (1995).Research and Social Change: New opportunities for qualitative research. New York, Routledge

Silverman, D (1993).Interpreting Qualitative data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction.London, Sage

Zindi F, (1994), Differences in Psychometric Performance.The Psychologist, 12(3)549-552