The bottom lines are the questions: Many thanks for giving me clear understanding around the differences between the qualitative and quantative research. Thanks a millions time. I was struggling to get an idea of how to approach the definitions. In fact I was even hesitating to answer the questions confidently. Thanks for the distinct comparison between qualitative and quantitative Research, very very helpful. Thank you for making me to understand the difference between qualitative Research and quantitative research.
Thanks a lot for the insightful distinction between Qualitative and Quantitative research. However, the differences as you enumerated did not factor in the advantages and disadvantages of both research tools. My special thanks goes to Camilo Tabinas for suggesting that the difference between quantitative and qualitative research method stems from the roots of quantity and quality.
Quantitative approach stems from the ontological view that objective reality exist independently of human perception Slevitch, Qualitative and quantitative methodologies compared: Ontological and Epistemological Perspectives. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 12, Qualitative research is inductive , descriptive research, how ever some researcher use both inductive and deductive depends on the nature and purpose of the research the hyposis you intend to examine. Where quantitive research is statistical numerical based research empirical.
Keep it up GOOD people! I am grateful about how qualitative and quantitative differences have been defined in the research field.
Thank you very much for the difference of quantitative and qualitative research methods they are well elaborated. I am Wondering to know the difference of how they conduct interview in both Qualitative and Quantitative methods what are the difference in conducting such interviews or Focus groups? What are the methods of analyzing data in quantitative research?
Thanks so much for the answer. Many thanks for giving me clear understanding around the differences between the two approaches. Interesting article and good comparison between both research methods. A toddler curious about a white flower in the backyard will start collecting data. He will approach the flower in question and look at it closely, taking in the color, the soft feel of the petals against his skin, and even the mild scent that emanates from it.
He will then run to his mother and pull her along until they got to where the flower is. And now the little boy even has a name for it. Suddenly, he felt a prickle in his fingers, followed by a sharp pain that made him yelp. When he looked down at his palm, he saw two puncture marks, and they are bleeding. The little boy starts to cry, thinking how roses, no matter how pretty and good-smelling, are dangerous and can hurt you.
The same goes in case of a marketing research, for example. A company wants to learn a few things about the market in order to come up with a marketing plan, or tweak an already existing marketing program. Leaders cannot make decisive strategies without facts to support them. Planners cannot draw up plans and designs without a basis. Entrepreneurs could not possibly come up with a business idea — much less a viable business plan — out of nothing at all. All that decision-makers are left with is their intuition and gut feeling , but even gut feeling and instinct have some basis on facts.
Decision-making processes become smoother, and decisions are definitely better, if there is data driving them. In business, one of the most important decisions that must be made is on resource allocation and usage. If they collect the relevant data, they will be able to make informed decisions on how to use business resources efficiently.
Just as having data will improve decision-making and the quality of the decisions, it will also improve the quality of the results or output expected from any endeavor or activity. For example, a manufacturer will be able to produce high quality products after designing them using reliable data gathered. Consumers will also find the claims of the company about the product to be more reliable because they know it has been developed after conducting significant amount of research.
Through collecting data, monitoring and tracking progress will also be facilitated. This gives a lot of room for flexibility, so response can be made accordingly and promptly.
Adjustments can be made and improvements effected. Now we move to the next question, and that is on the manner of collecting data. Why is there a need to be particular about how data is collected? Why does it have to be systematic, and not just done on the fly, using whatever makes the data gatherer comfortable? Why do you have to pick certain methodologies of data collection when you can simply be random with it? You may notice some methods falling under both categories, which means that they can be used in gathering both types of data.
Exploratory in nature, these methods are mainly concerned at gaining insights and understanding on underlying reasons and motivations, so they tend to dig deeper. Since they cannot be quantified, measurability becomes an issue. This lack of measurability leads to the preference for methods or tools that are largely unstructured or, in some cases, maybe structured but only to a very small, limited extent.
Generally, qualitative methods are time-consuming and expensive to conduct, and so researchers try to lower the costs incurred by decreasing the sample size or number of respondents. This is considered to be the most common data collection instrument for qualitative research, primarily because of its personal approach. The interviewer will collect data directly from the subject the interviewee , on a one-on-one and face-to-face interaction.
This is ideal for when data to be obtained must be highly personalized. The interview may be informal and unstructured — conversational, even — as if taking place between two casual to close friends. The questions asked are mostly unplanned and spontaneous, with the interviewer letting the flow of the interview dictate the next questions to be asked.
However, if the interviewer still wants the data to be standardized to a certain extent for easier analysis, he could conduct a semi-structured interview where he asks the same series of open-ended questions to all the respondents. But if they let the subject choose her answer from a set of options, what just took place is a closed, structured and fixed-response interview.
Focus groups method is basically an interview method, but done in a group discussion setting. When the object of the data is behaviors and attitudes, particularly in social situations, and resources for one-on-one interviews are limited, using the focus group approach is highly recommended.
Ideally, the focus group should have at least 3 people and a moderator to around 10 to 13 people maximum, plus a moderator. Depending on the data being sought, the members of the group should have something in common. For example, a researcher conducting a study on the recovery of married mothers from alcoholism will choose women who are 1 married, 2 have kids, and 3 recovering alcoholics.
Other parameters such as the age, employment status, and income bracketdo not have to be similar across the members of the focus group. The topic that data will be collected about will be presented to the group, and the moderator will open the floor for a debate. This method involves the use of previously existing and reliable documents and other sources of information as a source of data to be used in a new research or investigation. This is likened to how the data collector will go to a library and go over the books and other references for information relevant to what he is currently researching on.
In this method, the researcher takes a participatory stance, immersing himself in the setting where his respondents are, and generally taking a look at everything, while taking down notes.
Aside from note-taking, other documentation methods may be used, such as video and audio recording, photography, and the use of tangible items such as artifacts, mementoes, and other tools. This is a research or data collection method that is performed repeatedly, on the same data sources, over an extended period of time.
It is an observational research method that could even cover a span of years and, in some cases, even decades. The goal is to find correlations through an empirical or observational study of subjects with a common trait or characteristic.
The study aimed to gather data on the characteristics of gifted children — and how they grow and develop — over their lifetime. Terman started in , and it extended over the lifespan of the subjects, more than 1, boys and girls aged 3 to 19 years old, and with IQs higher than However, the strength of a case study as a data collection method is attributed to how it utilizes other data collection methods, and captures more variables than when a single methodology is used. In analyzing the case study, the researcher may employ other methods such as interviewing, floating questionnaires, or conducting group discussions in order to gather data.
Data can be readily quantified and generated into numerical form, which will then be converted and processed into useful information mathematically. The result is often in the form of statistics that is meaningful and, therefore, useful.
Unlike qualitative methods, these quantitative techniques usually make use of larger sample sizes because its measurable nature makes that possible and easier. Unlike the open-ended questions asked in qualitative questionnaires, quantitative paper surveys pose closed questions, with the answer options provided. The respondents will only have to choose their answer among the choices provided on the questionnaire.
Personal one-on-one interviews may also be used for gathering quantitative data. In collecting quantitative data, the interview is more structured than when gathering qualitative data, comprised of a prepared set of standard questions.
collection—quantitative and qualitative—operates within a cultural context and is affected to some extent by the perceptions and beliefs of investigators and data collectors.
Data Collection is an important aspect of any type of research study. Inaccurate data collection can impact the results of a study and ultimately lead to invalid results. Data collection methods for impact evaluation vary along a continuum.
Quantitative Data. This module describes quantitative data and examines common methods of data collection in quantitative studies. Learning Objectives: Define quantitative data and its characteristics. Explain the difference between discrete and continuous data. List examples of quantitative data. Describe common methods of quantitative data collection. This is a research or data collection method that is performed repeatedly, on the same data sources, over an extended period of time. It is an observational research method that could even cover a span of years and, in some cases, even decades.
Quantitative research can be described as ‘entailing the collection of numerical data and exhibiting the view of relationship between theory and research as deductive, a predilection for natural science approach, and as having an objectivist conception of social reality’. In other words, quantitative studies mainly examine relationships. Difference between Qualitative and Quantitative Research in data collection, online surveys, paper surveys, quantifiable research, and quantifiable data. quantifiable research, and quantifiable data. Difference between Qualitative and Quantitative Research in data collection, online surveys, paper surveys, quantifiable research, and.