Quantitative and qualitative approaches to research

Why we distinguish between qualitative and quantitative research?

Is this distinction important...?

One thing is evident. Quantitative researchers use numerical values objectively derived from measurements. All their findings depend upon the association of the measurement of an attribute with another. Qualitative researchers also measure, but not using numerical values. Their measurement, or assessment, is about the subjective experiences of individuals. 

Quantitative and qualitative approaches to research differ in their epistemological foundations. In Bryman's opinion, a quantitative approach is a research strategy that entails a deductive approach to the relationship between theory and research. Quantitative research stresses the testing of theories and incorporates the practices and norms of the natural scientific model and positivism. It considers social reality as external and objective. A qualitative approach is another research strategy that emphasizes an inductive approach to the relationship between theory and research. The prime focus is to generate the theories. The approach considers social realities as constructions by individuals. It is incorporated with interpretivistic epistemology.

However, we cannot conclude with these comments. Some researchers argue about the meaninglessness in discriminating one approach to research from another. These approaches help us to study knowledge. Hence they can be considered complementary. We can adopt a quantitative approach to enquire about the generalizable facts. On the other side, there is a qualitative approach to study specific experiences. Likewise, if we have a theory and want to test if it is right, we can use a quantitative approach. If we're going to understand thought, or a concept, or an experience, we can use a qualitative approach.

Now, what do you think? Is the distinction important...?

The story of Epistemology and Ontology

Epistemology and Ontology are two terms that may confuse a lot as a beginner in research. We will try to understand these in simple terms. 

Let us think about the findings of Isaac Newton, what we used to call as gravity. 

Can we see gravity...?

No...!

We can experience it. How did Newton come to the idea that there is gravity? Let us create a philosophical story of how Newton came up with this ides. 

Newton observed, like any others in this world, that any object he had thrown up came down. Unlike others, Newton decided to study the nature of this knowledge. 

What Newton decided here is the epistemology..., to study about the nature of the knowledge. 

Before his attempts, he must have faced a serious doubt regarding the existence of this knowledge..., the existence of gravity. This doubt must have led him to study the nature of gravity. Our doubt supporting the probability of the existence of knowledge is called ontology. Both ontology and epistemology have their roots in philosophy. While conducting research, the researcher searches the reality regarding the existence of knowledge by studying its nature. 

The observations on the nature of reality vary. Some of the philosophers think that reality is singular. In other words, there is only one reality, like earth's gravity. And it is concrete, never changes. In the case of gravity, it is 9.8 m/s. The experience of gravity will never vary from person to person. We can study the nature of this knowledge objectively. If you tend to study the nature of the knowledge objectively, as a singular reality, then you are a positivist.

Positivism highlights the importance of objectivity. It stresses the necessity to study reality, relying on the measurable and observable facts. The foundation of positivism is empiricism. Positivists are realists because they believe in singular and concrete reality. In their opinion, the aim of science is to unravel this singular and concrete reality objectively.

Post-positivism is an epistemological stance that considers the reality as critical, and not concrete. In the opinion of a post-positivist, it is impossible to study any reality as a whole because scientific tools are not capable of assessing anything without errors. In other words, the measurements we may use to understand reality will have mistakes, or they are incomplete. Hence, it is difficult to understand reality as a whole. Whatever we might have understood could be just a part of the reality. Post positivists are not ready to rely on a single method, however objective it may be, in their inquiries. In their opinion, errors can only be avoided with the aid of triangulation (observing the same phenomena through different methods). Moreover, scientists can never be purely objective because they will always be biased due to their cultural influences.

Even though positivists and post-positivists differ in their opinion on the nature of reality, they strive to generalize the truths. They always study what is common in the experience of the majority. Usually, they used to ignore the experience of the marginalized. Both these epistemological stances give importance to quantitative methodology.

If positivists and post positivists consider reality as singular..., there are others who think that reality can never be singular, because the truth is relative. It is subjective. People construct the truth based on their relative experience of reality. In other words, reality will differ from person to person. People interpret reality based on their experience of a phenomenon. This philosophical stance is called interpretivism. 

According to interpretivism, individuals are competent in constructing knowledge by interpreting reality in their way. Hence, the nature of knowledge or reality is constructionistic. The researcher is representative of these individuals. Therefore, s/he cannot be fully objective. Interpretivists are generally interested in specific contextualized issues. Their philosophical outlook is subjective. They used to study the issues of the marginalized or the oppressed. Interpretivists gives importance to qualitative methodology.

The story of the epistemology and ontology cannot be concluded without addressing the scientists who consider reality as contextual, because the components of events are pluralistic. As Buddha once noted, there is nothing static in this world. Life is a flow, and the universe flows. Hence, we have to be pragmatic in epistemology if we are to study reality.  

In the observation of pragmatists, knowledge-seeking is a process. We can try to improve our knowledge using the methods of positivists and interpretivists. The primary objective of a researcher is to make the knowledge splendid. Pragmatists may proceed their research with a mixed methodology.

We can represent the ontology and epistemology in two continuums, as given below

What is scientific method...?

The scientific method is a merger of two historical models of science

1. Empirical method

2. hypothetico-deductive method

The empirical method is rooted in the approaches of Francis Bacon, a 17th-century author, and philosopher (https://www.britannica.com/science/Baconian-method). To realize the empirical method, our knowledge-seeking approach has to be free from prejudices and preconceptions. While studying or investigating, we have to start by describing the facts associated with the truth behind a phenomenon. After that, we have to classify the facts as instances of absence of the truth, presence of truth, and varying degrees of its existence. Finally, we have to reject the facts that are not linked with the phenomenon.

We can identify the facts based on the data we get from the phenomenon. The data has to be gathered directly from the experiences we have through our external senses. We will find the relationships and patterns of the facts using the method of induction.

Induction is a way of reasoning, using which we will come to a conclusion depending upon various facts. The best instance for induction is our anticipations about the climate based on different seasons. Observations of our ancestors on many facts related to seasons ended up with general theories such as blossoms during spring, warmth during summer, cold during winter, and shedding of leaves during autumn. In other words, these facts helped us to develop general principles or theories regarding the seasons. Now, we can check if this is true using the method of deduction. We can predict that in the winter, we will experience a cold climate. And we can develop further theories such as 'we need jackets during winter to overcome the cold.'

The deduction is a way of reasoning when we develop new facts based on an existing theory. So, Isaac Newton did an induction when he concluded that there is gravity, observing the facts that everything is coming down. After establishing evidence for the theory of gravity, he used the method of deduction to conclude different facts, such as potential energy and kinetic energy. 

The hypothetico-deductive method uses the method of deduction for the construction of scientific theories. In the hypothetico-deductive method, we will first consider the already existing theories. These theories will help us to state our hypothesis. Then we will make sure if we have to accept or reject the hypothesis using the method of deduction. For this, we have to collect and analyze the numerical data of the phenomenon. We may be able to predict future events or behavior based on the inferences we make from the analysis. We will use the available literature to find supportive evidence for these inferences.

 

Science, a way of thinking...!

This is the period of social media. Every one of us is the consumers of at least one social media. How do you think the messages that pop up in your smartphone time by time via social media? Will you believe those messages as they are, or will you adopt a triangulation method to assess the reality in the news. If you have a habit of using a triangulation method to confirm the truth of the message, then you are showing the tendency to think scientifically. Triangulation happens when you assess if the information is accurate with the help of other sources before taking it granted. 

Science is a way to search the reality. However, scientific research is not a medium to prove anything to be true. It is a try to make sure about the truth based on the available pieces of evidence. It is far better than a common-sense approach, as we will not get trapped and be fickle to the persuasive information. It will encourage us to search for the right, not to be blind with any belief.

Research is common..., there is nothing new in it!

Seeking knowledge is our survival instinct. As human beings, you or I cannot stop seeking knowledge. We will acquire knowledge through learning, either from the past knowledge seekers or by asking questions and searching for the new. Even though we all like to sit idle..., sitting idle is a kind of deceived perception. Even while sitting idle, we are learning something. We cannot stop learning. We are trapped in this matrix of learning. 

Getting up in the morning, we will first check if everything around is stable, as it was, before we slept off. We will look at the things that may vary and will make sure if there is stability in the variance. Before preparing breakfast, we will hypothesize how breakfast maybe. After the preparation, we will test if the content is as we hypothesized or not. Every attempt by us can be mapped with this process.

Research is common..., there is nothing new in it...! However, the research we do with day-to-day affairs may not be scientific. It may not be documented or published. Hence, we will not realize the research in it...!